The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Doctors punished for helping pregnant women > Comments

Doctors punished for helping pregnant women : Comments

By Terri Kelleher, published 22/10/2013

Dr Mark Hobart, a Melbourne GP, is being investigated by the Medical Board of Victoria for allegedly refusing to refer a couple for an abortion of their healthy 19-week unborn baby, simply because she was a girl.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Dr Hobart risks being deregistered by the board and losing his livelihood. Should have stopped there that all thats matter if the good DR has not followed the rules then he should be punished.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 10:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what is it about Victorian doctors wanting to murder babies at a later and later stage of life. What sort of cretins have got such power that those showing a bit of moral courage are demonised. Was the police blind to the feminist/socialist and their violent behaviour at the recent protest against baby killing? Oh that's right the greatest 'moral' dilemma for the godless is burning fossil fuels. How sick our nation has become.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 10:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If that Doctor did not want to deal with that patient, then he/she knows they are obliged to refer them to another medical practitioner. They know this is a requirement from the Health Department.

They know what the consequences of not doing that, so anyone who has a problem with this should tackle the Health Department, surely?

Also, how is it anyone else's business?
I would be extremely upset if a GP told anyone else, other than the referring doctor, about the reason I went to see them.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 12:47:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just who the hell do Terri Kelleher & Dr Mark Hobart think they are, god or something?

When I go to see a tradesman, I expect them to carry out their trade, not try to dictate to me how I should live my life. What a presumptuous clown. What on earth makes an MD think they have any more right to an opinion on morals, than a truck driver or a carpenter.

He most definitely should have his licence cancelled for a considerable period, & a second similar offence should see it canceled foe ever
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 1:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Just who the hell do Terri Kelleher & Dr Mark Hobart think they are, god or something?'

actually people with decency rather than a totally calloused hearts that condones baby murder.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 1:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, whether that is your opinion or not, it remains legal to have an abortion in Australia, so the Doctors are bound by this decision of parliament.
It isn't your business...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 2:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie in case you have not noticed this is not Nazi Germany where the Jews were not considered human and slaugthered (just like we do the unborn). I have as much right to an opinion as you do. How is it your business to comment on this anymore than mine? Even you should be smart enough to know that just because its legal does not make it right. I take it you feel its ok to murder a late term pregnancy baby because its male rather than male.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 2:41:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference Runner is that I am commenting on your comment, as I know it isn't my place to say whether a woman should ask for or have an abortion or not.

It is her body, and her choice.
I doubt I could have an abortion myself, but then I have never been in that situation.

I'm not discussing murder, I'm discussing legal abortion, which is the subject of this thread.

I do agree that not all laws are right, but the right to have access to abortion is a correct law, and one that will never change.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 4:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being born a girl is not a medical condition?
Sadly, parents can use ultra sound to find out the sex of the baby.
Perhaps we should withdraw that facility in every case, but particularly in those cultures, who routinely seriously undervalue girl children.
If these parents don't want their girl child, there are plenty of childless couples who do!
There are doctors with very strong religious scruples, who refuse to supply an abortion on anything except bona fide medical grounds!
The parents in this case had other options, like a less moral doctor?
And we've all heard of one or two, who's practice consists almost entirely of terminations, proscribing powerful painkillers, writing (dodgy) work certificates, imbibing lots of booze, and demanding rather large cash fees (on top of the medicare payment?) for relatively simple medical procedures?
No names no pack drill!
It's about time had an irrevocable bill off rights, one of which is the right to withdraw/withhold your service/skills/employment, if in supplying any of the aforementioned conflicts with your religious beliefs/moral values!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 5:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I do agree that not all laws are right, but the right to have access to abortion is a correct law, and one that will never change. '

Susie

You obviously have not read the end of the book. Your word is very fallible, God's is not. The feminist might be having their little finger wag for a short period of time but it won't last.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 5:15:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't agree that any baby is in any way part of the woman's body. The fact is, it is another person, with its own little mind, personality, life force and within just a few weeks, a beating human heart.
And any termination that stills a beating heart for no good medical reason, I believe, remains murder.
If it is not murder, perhaps we should simply allow reluctant mothers to simply drive a spike into the breast/crush the head of the inconvenient newborn.
Its virtually the same procedure.
The only difference is, one procedure takes place in the womb, and for that reason alone, is somehow sanctioned?
And plenty of courageous single mums without means, are choosing not to go down this path, even though this might well limit their career pathway and options.
Simply put, it takes two and a rather specific act to make a baby, even an unwanted one.
However, non consenting mums, (rape, incest etc!) ought to retain the right to automatically terminate the pregnancy, inside the period, before a human heart starts to beat!
And there are things like the pill, compulsory condoms and even the morning after pill, that prevents ovulation for the time any semen remains viable!
Who knows what potential a child may have?
Albo, was raised by a single mum, and he could conceivably become our next Labor PM?
The girl this couple are trying to ex-terminate, may be the next Einstein, and find a viable pathway/stable wormhole, that leads mankind to the stars?
Who can say with any surety, that this could never ever be just so, or what potential is being routinely snuffed out, by the INCONVENIENT thousands daily?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 5:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, I doubt your invisible god in the sky has ever said anything about abortions to anyone...given he/she has never spoken to any human.
Only humans have said what they feel about abortion.

Rhosty and Runner, why do you think abortion was ever made legal in Australia in the first place? It is because the parliamentarians of the day (all MEN) wisely agreed that it was a woman's right to say what happens to her body.

No -one can say that the baby isn't part of the woman's body until it breaks away from the placenta at birth.
No-one has the right to FORCE any woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.

How, exactly, would you two go about ensuring women did not abort themselves, if there was no legal, safe abortions available?
Would you tie them to a bed until they gave birth? Maybe you would.

You would obviously be happy with women living back in the 'good 'ol days ' , when women dangerously aborted themselves or went to illegal abortionists and died in their droves.

Yes,it isn't good when some people (mum AND dad) would like to choose the sex of their child, for non-medical reasons, but making all abortions illegal won't stop that.

Doctors can already decide not to treat patients if they don't want to, eg refusing to do circumcisions on boys just for religious reasons, as long as they give them a referral to another doctor or clinic.
I don't see any problem with that.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 7:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I can say to some of you is "stay out of other peoples' lives". If you don't like abortion then take on the responsibilities. Many young womens' lives have been ruined by pregnancy & many children had terrible childhood because of unwanted pregnancy. A dilemma made worse by moron do-gooders interfering but not offering support. Are those morons as vocal in supporting young mothers as they are in front of abortion clinics ? Young children living in poverty only got one mention thus far when their plight was predicted to end in 1992 but the only thing this promise achieved was a political victory based on a terrible lie.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 7:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

I seem to remember you are a nurse, so please explain how does a GP "refer for abortion"? I thought every pregnant woman has to have an obstetrician to look after her (well, this is the case here, in Germany). I would think the GP would refer her to the obstetrician of her choice who decides what “treatment” she needs. Or can she be forced to be treated during her pregnancy by an obstetrician she does not like, (for whatever reasons, possibly unrelated to abortion)?

Years ago in Melbourne my GP referred me to a terrible urologist, so I came back, suggested somebody else, and I got the referral. And here in Germany, my GP referred me to an orthopedist because I had complaints, not because he thought I needed a hip replacement. That decision was made by the orthopedist not the GP!

Can you clarify for me, how a GP can refer “for an abortion” and not just to an obstetrician of the woman’s choice, who then (not the GP) decides what could/should be done?
Posted by George, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 7:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much and all as I am fully pro-choice, I believe that conscientious objection is an important democratic right.

I don't see why abortion law cannot be amended to allow doctors the right to follow their conscience. In practice, it wouldn't be any big deal. A doctor really feels strongly about this, they could be allowed to put a sign in the waiting room (next to the no-smoking sign?) or on their brochures and ads to state that they run a 'pro-life' practice or similar wording. And as for patients wanting an abortion, they would have the advantage of knowing upfront where a doctor stands on this.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 9:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney, " and ads to state that they run a 'pro-life' practice or similar wording"

You mean something like, "We don't discriminate against girls"?
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 1:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another, "We don't practise genocide against girls".

Or should that be "gendercide"?

For the helpful abortionist,

"Your designer baby did't turn out? We can help you!"
- Medicare cards a speciality

I am wondering what mum does where she is expecting twins but horror of horrors, one of them seems to lack the little teapot spout.
- would there be a half-price deal?
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 1:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got a question.

Is it lawful for a person to escape out of prison, if they were not guilty of the crime? or Is it appropriate to issue apologies to the stolen generation or similar, if it was the law in the past that they be taken?

I just worry when people have the attitude that the laws today are the right laws and that all the past were wrong, or vice versa.

As far as abortion goes, will we, in 50-200 years time, be expecting our government to apologize for the deaths that occurred? Maybe not, since the people who would receive them never lived in the first place, I suppose.

As for the argument that it is the womans body. She chose to have sex. She must live with the consequences. If I choose to kill someone I have made my choice, I no longer have a choice in what my consequence will be. Don't want a child? Don't have sex.
Posted by RandomGuy, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 9:31:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with rhosty and random guy on this. Those that say that because something is legal it must be right, and therefore no one should complain, would have done well killing Jews in Nazi Germany. I prefer to look at the actual morals involved rather than the law. And those of you who think sex selection abortion is wrong but abortion for the sake of convenience is ok should also check their moral compass. While in the past legal abortion may have been justifiable, these justification no longer hold true in modern Australia. Where once an unmarried mother would have been ostracized and perhaps struggled to raise a child, this is no longer the case. I think we will look back in fifty years with a sense of horror at what we have been doing this past few decades. Just as we look back at slavery, treatment of women, aboriginal policy etc.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 2:35:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, an obstetrician is not needed for abortions.
The GP who did not want to deal with a patient requesting an abortion may not feel comfortable referring them to a gynaecological surgeon for the procedure, but should be able to refer them to another GP who will do this.

It seems to be mainly male posters who are against choice re abortions.
I guess that's fine for them because they will never be in the position of needing an abortion. No-one has the right to FORCE any woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.

Random guy seems to forget the fathers of these potential abortions. Certainly it would ensure there were far less unwanted pregnancies if all these guys wore condoms if they didn't want babies, regardless of the contraception(or not) taken by their sexual partner?

Rhys Jones, how, exactly, would you go about ensuring women did not abort themselves, if there was no legal, safe abortions available?
Would you tie them to a bed until they gave birth?
And if they did try, would we pop them all in jail?
How about the daddies?
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 3:02:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'A dilemma made worse by moron do-gooders interfering but not offering support. '
Individual

the usual garbage by the death culture crowd. Ever heard of adoption. Plenty of people waiting. at least try and be a bit honest.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 4:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, unfortunately adoption requires that the woman wanting an abortion is then forced to go through with a pregnancy and labour to produce a baby ready for adoption.

I am all for adoption if neither of the parents want to keep the baby, but are not willing to have an abortion, but how would you force unwilling women to go through pregnancy and birth?
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 5:43:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

Thanks, but I am still confused

>>George, an obstetrician is not needed for abortions.<<

But pregnancy is needed! Maybe I confused gynecologist with obstetrician, but is it really the case in Australia (I mean cities, not the outback) that a pregnant woman would not normally be in (or referred to) the care of a gynecologist/obstetrician during her pregnancy, irrespective of what she thinks about abortion (many think of it only after health/genetic risks are revealed to them by a specialist).

Somebody here hinted at that, and I was adamant that also in Australia gynecologists/obstetricians, and not GPs, look after a pregnant woman especially if an operation (of whatever kind and for whatever reasons) is involved

>>The GP who did not want … should be able to refer them to another GP who will do this.<<

I don’t understand why would/should a GP have to refer the patient to another GP. When I was in Melbourne I was happy with my GP, but if not I could have freely changed him without needing any referral. Why cannot the woman simply go to another GP if she dislikes the one she has?
Posted by George, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 8:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
You are quite right. The patient if she does not like what the first Dr says, she can walk out and go down the road, or to the next town and in many cases the very same day see another Dr. She can indeed see many many drs until she gets one who's opinion she likes. In many cases this will not cost her a cent.
i think a major point in the article is that the patient did not complain about the dr at all. It was the equivalent of the medical board that took action without any complaint at all. You need to understand the AHPRA ( the medical board) will always take the side against the dr, no matter what the dr says, no matter how much the patient lies. They will often not even question the patients story.
Posted by ozzie, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 9:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, in Australia there are many GP's who have also done some obstetric studies and they can and do look after pregnant women before, during and after labour.
If the abortion is attended in the early stages of pregnancy then any general or Gynae surgeon can do the abortion.

Apparently, GP' s are meant to refer on to others if they are unwilling or unable to help someone. I don't see a problem with that.
They are not meant to judge patients on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion etc.
Even so, they are not made to see any patient they don't want to.

Ozzie, APHRA can and do take away registrations of medical professionals if need be.
They most certainly will also be advocates for the medical professionals if their enquiries show that patients or clients lied or were out for revenge etc.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

Thanks again.

>>in Australia there are many GP's who have also done some obstetrics studies and they can and do look after pregnant women before, during and after labour.<<

What does “some obstetric studies mean”, is the GP also a fully qiualified obstetrician? Then the article should have been about an obstetrician acting rightly or wrongly, not a GP. After all, the “general” in the GP should mean exactly that: they have only a general training in all sorts of medical branches, including obstetrics.

Here in Germany it would be very rare for a GP to be also a fully qualified specialist e.g. obstetrician. When a women is pregnant, she goes to her GP just for a confirmation and a referral to a specialist obstetrician. Also, I have been told, it is normal for a female adult, pregnant or not, to have her gynecologist whom she sees - after referrals from her GP - on a more or less regular basis.

So my suspicion about the Australian situation being different from that in Germany seems to have been right.

Now I also understand why in Australia the question of recommending or not for an abortion (and the psychological, moral and/or legal ramifications associated with it) concerns not only gynecologists/obstetricians but also the much larger number of “general” practitioners.

I agree that the earlier in pregnancy the less “surgical skill” is needed to perform an abortion, although I think not only surgery, but also all sorts of possible psychological side effects are involved that an average GP might not be able to handle. But that is a different question.
Posted by George, Thursday, 24 October 2013 3:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear Susieonline,
You ask how I propose to prevent women from aborting their own fetuses.
I don't really think that is the issue. If abortion was not so readily available, I think people would be more likely to be careful to prevent pregnancy in the first place, or in the case of unplanned pregnancy, to value and raise that child. This requires a change in our attitudes. We should, as a society be valuing our children, not killing them for the sake of avoiding an inconvenience. We do not have enough children to even replace our numbers. There are virtually no children available for adoption. It is not as if these children would not be wanted by someone. While the carrying of the baby to term is certainly an impost on the mother, it is surely less than the impost of a termination on the baby. Is this impost greater than the impost on a man who unintentionally gets a woman pregnant, and finds himself liable for child support for the next 20 years?
You ask where men stand in this. At present, men have all responsibility and no choice at all. If my wife decided to abort my child, I have no say whatsoever in it. If on the other hand, she got pregnant and I didn't want the child, I have no means of having that baby destroyed. Its all very well saying its a woman’s body and no one else has any interest in it, but other people are seriously involved in this. From the perspective of the father, he stands to lose his offspring before it is even born, or in the case he doesn't want the child, the responsibility of caring for it, financially at least for decades into the future.
We all acknowledge that it is traumatic for a woman to lose a wanted pregnancy through miscarriage or through an act of violence perpetrated on her. Why do we completely ignore the interest of men in their unborn offspring?
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 24 October 2013 10:20:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys Jones, I am sorry but it IS an issue, otherwise we wouldn't need to have our current safe, legal abortion laws. How would we police that?

Of course the father is involved in any pregnancy of his sexual partner, but I would suggest that in most cases of abortion the father either doesn't want to know or hasn't been told, so his views may not always count.

Men's rights in the pregnancies of their partners can only go so far obviously, given that they are not the ones with so much physical and hormonal involvement in the actual pregnancy, and that fact is something that many men feel they have no control over and can feel powerless. I understand that.

The rights or not of fathers in this debate, and the resulting financial care of unwanted pregnancies or children is another thread discussion altogether.

I strongly feel we must find other ways to reduce or stop the numbers of abortions in Australia other than making them illegal, such as free contraception, because stopping legal abortions will take us back to the dark ages and severely restrict women's rights.
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 24 October 2013 11:04:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Lord, if you hire a tradesman to do a job they do it...but would that job mean that a life is terminated in the process?

Good on Dr Hobart and all the GP's that deal with this situation on a daily basis and refuse to have blood on their hands. The awful truth is that anyone can have an abortion without GP referral and the internet readily provides you with your nearest slaughter house, without having to involve your GP.

And yes abortion is legal but we live in a free country that upholds freedom of speech and religious rights for all. This law slaps that in the face and makes a mockery of democracy, get rid of it now!
Posted by TheNext, Friday, 25 October 2013 2:05:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Susie has said is misleading
1) GP are in many circumstances made to see patients, they do not always have a choice.
2) AHPRA does not advocate for the medical profession. Patients are able to lie and deceive and AHPRA will often not investigate.

A more important point in this debate is why are we allowing/importing backward cultures that think it is acceptable to want to abort a fetus because it is female. We do not need these stupid immigrants taking advantage of our country.
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 25 October 2013 6:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Folks,
From my understanding this refusal was based on the fact that the couple came from an ethnic background where having girl children was of no use to the family group.
The good doctor was just being Australian.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 26 October 2013 1:47:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do not know the nationality of the couple seeking abortion of a female foetus.

Under Article 14 & 15 of the Indian Constitution, and other laws, tests to determine the sex of a foetus have been banned since 1994. This ban was set in place to stop abortion of any female foetus. In addition no abortion can be performed later that 12 weeks.

Sex Selection & Abortion: India
www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/india.php

The above reference is comprehensive as to India's laws relating to abortion, etc.

If the couple are Indian, it would seem that they have come to Australia for the procedure.

There are many valid reasons for an abortion, but capricious and shallow reasons are not.
If Australians pursue abortions for such reasons, they need to grow up. They certainly are not ready to become parents.
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 28 October 2013 7:03:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are many valid reasons for an abortion."

Danielle,
By implication, you're saying that there are numerous invalid reasons for an abortion.

You'd better be careful. You might start people thinking. What are the valid reasons for the intentional  killing of an innocent, defenceless child?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 2 November 2013 7:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

You ask what are the valid reasons for an abortion.

When the mother's life or mental health is endangered.
In case of rape or incest.
When the baby will die at birth ... eg. unformed lungs.
When the mother is a child herself.

I'm sure others will be able to contribute more reasons.

I would not have considered having an abortion, but then I have never been faced with any of the issues above. In other cases in which abortions are given, until I had walked in the shoes of these women/girls, I can not comment.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 2 November 2013 8:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,
I'm happy to comment, because after all, giving our opinion is what we all do here at OLO. 

Thanks for taking the trouble to answer my question.

What are the valid reasons for the intentional killing of an innocent, defenceless (unborn) child?

"When the mother's life or mental health is endangered."
With the advancement of medical science and technology, the occasions where there is danger to the mother in child birth are next to zero.

"In case of rape ...."
Similarly, the numbers of pregnancies due to rape are minimal because of the trauma associated with rape. 

But I suppose we could make all encompassing laws to ensure that the tail is wagging the dog.

" ... or incest."
Looked at another way, a pregnancy from incest virtually guarantees that the victim will be taken out of the abusive situation. The perpetrators of incest are likely the ones pushing for the abortion so they can hide their guilt. The baby born would likely become an object of affection, a relief to the abuse the victim was previously receiving.

"When the baby will die at birth ... "
We're all going to die sometime. So I'm not sure where this line of thinking is taking us. Probably leads back to the original article. What if the doctors spot that the child has Down Syndrome, or a cleft palate, or is female?

"When the mother is a child herself."
Refer back to the earlier examples.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 2 November 2013 10:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

Current Australian Maternal mortality statistics:
11.1 per 100,000 women who gave birth (called the Maternal Mortality Ratio or MMR)
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women 45.9 deaths per 100,000 who gave birth.

Your argument about pregnancies due to rape echo an old held belief. "Rape does not result in pregnancy", which devolved into condemnation of many innocent women.

Your qualifiers regarding incest .. "virtually guarantees" ... "likely." Do not constitute an argument.

Your statement: "We're all going to die sometime" hardly justifies a new-born suffering, nor the suffering of the mother. There are instances of babies born without a viable brain - what then? Then there are instances of babies born with conditions predicated on short lives of untold pain which medical science cannot alleviate. There are other appalling conditions which deny any quality of life ... No one is talking about cleft-palates ...

As for the last example, who would condemn a child to go through pregnancy, child-birth, and the aftermath. A child getting pregnant is not the result of casual sex, but something far more tragic.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 2 November 2013 10:58:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me on medical advancements or not. 0.01% is pretty close to zero.

You're right to say my comments on incest don't constitute a complete argument, something which is often difficult to achieve in 350 words or less. 

But I was hoping they would provide some food for thought. Our immediate reaction to victims of incest should not be to terminate their progeny. Termination sounds like the voice of the aggressor. Or do you doubt that perpetrators of incest would be keen to encourage abortion, considering it's perfectly legal, and all?

You seem to be a fan of statistics. Perhaps you could tell me, of the tens of thousands of terminations in Australia each year, how many are performed on primary school aged children, or however else you want to define the word 'child'? Or if the number is rather small, are you happy to lead with that example, so that that legal loophole will ensure that the tail will wag the dog?

I can also share some accurate statistics. 100% of us have a condition which at some future point will lead to death. In that sense, we are all terminally ill, irrevocably condemned. 100% of us will endure some type of suffering in our lives.

Our immediate reaction to suffering should not be one of termination. We should be about promoting life. I want to challenge that attitude that has infiltrated our society which answers difficulties and challenges with a culture of violence and killing.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 3 November 2013 2:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

I believe that a child is under sixteen; indeed many sixteen year old girls are not sufficiently mature to cope with pregnancy and childbirth. Girls are maturing much younger now and I would hazard a guess that there are abortions performed on primary school children.

As for being terminally ill, medical ethics debates the issues of when we are prolonging life and when we are prolonging the dying process, particularly in the case of acute suffering.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 3 November 2013 2:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy