Given that in order to practise doctors are highly restricted by regulations and registrations I don't regard:

"Providing patients with a list of providers might seem like a reasonable requirement in the scheme of things. However, this is to overlook the fact that it forces medical practitioners to direct their patients to a service which they do not recommend for one reason or another."

as an onerous impost.

However, why shouldn't doctors, who have a conscientious objection, use it as an opportunity to tell their soon to be ex-patients why they so object and to simultaneously provide them with a list of other doctors with whom they also object.

They could also refuse the fee for such a consultation and its list provision as a further demonstration of their conscientious objection.

The fact that the Act seeks to establish precedent for limiting freedom of speech and peaceful protest is the problem. If peaceful protest can become criminal in this context, why not in others?

A High Court challenge based on the implied freedom of political speech seems likely.

Opinion pieces such as this illustrate how out of touch the anti-choice crowd really are. No woman makes the choice to terminate a pregnancy lightly, no matter why they do so. To then be subjected to a bunch of ill-informed fundamentalists is inhumane. If they truly gave a crap about human life they would be offering love and support, not threats, abuse and fear-mongering. Good on Tasmania for banning the protestors.

"No woman makes the choice to terminate a pregnancy lightly, no matter why they do so." What utter rubbish. Carz should get around a bit more. I have known women who have them as regularly as a wax without batting an eyelid.

"To then be subjected to a bunch of ill-informed fundamentalists is inhumane." That's the way Carz, if YOU don't agree with them they are "ill-informed" and their actions "inhumane". You then think it is good that these protestors are banned. Sorry Carz, do you belive that taking the life of an unborn, but none the less living, child is humane?

I think the government should pay for the pregnant woman to have the baby (and she will also have a guarantee to return to her job afterwards) and then the government should pay the parents who adopt the baby til it's 18 years old. No need for abortion, regret or limiting free speech.

...You make the point well "Progressive Pat"....It really is the question; "Who picks up the tab"?

It's a mad, mad, world we live in. On the one hand we are funding abortion clinics and the procedures they offer. On the other, we are funding fertility clinics and the procedures they offer. None of either service comes cheaply nor are without risk. There are few, if any, children available for adoption in Australia.

Progressive pat is thinking along the right lines. My idea is the government supports a woman through a pregnancy, and post pregnancy if required, on the proviso that the child is available for adoption. There may be a fee for the adoption service to the new parents. Thereafter the usual child payments would be made to the new parents, as with any other Australian child.

I realise there are many couples who want their child as their own gene blend. But there are many who would be immensly greatful just to have a child. It would be wonderful if this could be achieved without the huge expense and invasive procedures.

They haven't had their right to protest taken away, they just have to do it 150 metres down the street.

David

Protest against public bodies is and should remain legitimate, but protest against individuals in a way that disturbs their peace and ability to enjoy whatever they are doing on their private premises, is not.

Why? Because public bodies are the domain of everyone whereas what another does on their own premises is none of your business (so long as it doesn't adversely spill over to adjoining premises and/or public spaces).

As for doctors, I strongly agree that they should never be forced to do anything against their conscience.

HOWEVER, if they receive their income from the public purse (eg. Medicare) then they are no longer on their own and are obliged to obey the instructions of the body that feeds them.

WmTrevor wrote: "Given that in order to practise doctors are highly restricted by regulations and registrations" - but one evil does not justify another.

Doctors should not be regulated in the first place or be required to register and it's none of the state's business who calls themselves a 'doctor' and what they do, so long as no fraud is taking place and their patients are aware in advance of the doctor's qualifications, ethics and practices or lack thereof, then freely choose whether to accept that doctor's services or otherwise.

HOWEVER, if a doctor desires to grab money from the public purse and be in receipt of Medicare funds or any other government support, then I see no wrong in requiring him/her to abide by whatever demands the government of the day makes, even demands that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Dear Sparkyq,

Indeed, the state should fund neither pregnancies nor abortions (except in cases of rape). If someone wants to have children (or careless sex), then it is as they say 'their own baby'. If government is to fund theirs, then why is it not to fund all other hobbies?

Adoption is a great choice, but again that should not be the business of government, but of adoptions agencies (for or not-for profit) that make the contact between pregnant women and prospective adopting parents.

Sparkyq I disagree with your point of view. The rhetoric you are preaching shows a complete lack of compassion for the human life already exists independently. It seems that pro-life means only pro-life in the womb before birth.

From the article: “Providing patients with a list of providers might seem like a reasonable requirement in the scheme of things. However, this is to overlook the fact that it forces medical practitioners to direct their patients to a service which they do not recommend for one reason or another.”

No, I don’t think it “overlooks” it at all. It simply recognises that the reasons for NOT recommending the procedure are religious or personal and not medical, and therefore, irrelevant and overridden by a doctor’s duty of care and obligation to at least direct their patient to someone who will assist them. When those who oppose abortion can provide evidence of a god and evidence that this god is against abortion, or when they can demonstrate that their personal convictions have some objective basis by explaining how the world will be a demonstrably better place when we force women to go through with their pregnancies, then their objections can be taken more seriously.

Until then, any doctor who lets their personal convictions override the needs of their patient - when there is a risk of harm to the patient - needs their medical licence revoked. Or do they not understand the risks involved with coat hangers and knitting needles? Patients have the right of access to such information without being forced to experiment with doctors until they find the right one.

I wonder what the author would think if they had to have blood if a group of people hounded her and told what she was doing would make her burn in hell, that she was a evil person? what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?

If only Christ-stains were so vigilant when their priests were touching up the kids.

Christanity has become a religon of hate for many and condeming other people with different beliefs in order to feel superior is what binds them together. Go protest a guy night club see how you go...you'll end up were you deserve.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<...overridden by a doctor’s duty of care and obligation to at least direct their patient to someone who will assist them.>>

This assumes that the doctor in question has a duty of care or undertook such an obligation. If they did (for example in order to receive public funds), then of course they must keep their obligation, but what if they did not?

<<When those who oppose abortion can provide evidence of a god and evidence that this god is against abortion>>

That is completely irrelevant. It only matters that the doctor has such convictions and is immaterial how s/he obtained them or whether these are objective or not - if you don't like these convictions, then don't hire this doctor.

Dear Cobber,

<<I wonder what the author would think if they had to have blood if a group of people hounded her and told what she was doing would make her burn in hell, that she was a evil person?>>

That would be a form of assault - clearly a matter for the police.

<<what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?>>

It is up to the particular hospital to employ or not such a doctor.

It is up to the patient to choose that hospital or another. If the author does not share similar beliefs, then she should not use the services of this hospital.

If people were to protest outside dentists’ with signs like, “Save the Teeth”, “Teeth are people too”, I wonder if laws would be introduced to make that illegal or at least require that such protesters be 150m away from the premises?

I doubt it. We would probably just feel that these protesters were crazy and perhaps in need of sympathy or help. Now while many people don’t like going to the dentist I don’t think anyone would say that these protesters were making it very difficult for people, who are already facing the hardest choice in their life, to go ahead with it.

No, the reason why there is so much emotion over abortion is because we all really do know that there is an enormous difference between removing a tooth and removing the child in the womb. We would just feel sorry for tooth protesters but many feel only fury for abortion protesters and that is because they don’t like being reminded that abortion takes a young human life.

If abortion really doesn’t take the life of a child then why does it matter that someone says that it does? It is no more of a problem than people protesting to try and save teeth. Tooth protesters might be crazy but just ignore them and they’ll probably go away. There would be no need to lock them up in jail for a year. If anti- abortion protesters are completely wrong there is no need to lock them up either.

Why are those in favour of access to abortion so precious that those who disagree with them have to be locked up?

Yuyutsu,

I'm not sure why any of this matters to you if existence is only and illusion.

<<This assumes that the doctor in question has a duty of care or undertook such an obligation. If they did (for example in order to receive public funds), then of course they must keep their obligation, but what if they did not?>>

Then they are an immoral person and they’re endangering lives, so it doesn't really help the author's argument - which is heavily influenced by a desire to preserve life and defend what they believe is moral.

<<That is completely irrelevant. It only matters that the doctor has such convictions and is immaterial how s/he obtained them or whether these are objective or not - if you don't like these convictions, then don't hire this doctor.>>

Wrong. It is absolutely relevant.

Governments (are at least supposed to) legislate to reduce harm overall (the Harm Principal) and spiritual harm is not as (or even based on anything as) measurable, demonstrable or verifiable as the harm done by an unwanted pregnancy forced to full term through inadequate services or haemorrhaging from a coat hanger. So if a doctor’s actions (or decisions not to act) potentially have real (and serious) consequences for real people, then they need to demonstrate that the source of the convictions that lead them to act (or not act) in such a way are demonstrable, measureable and verifiable if they’re to hold any weight. And if a god just isn’t any of those, but is still exists*, then that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t change anything. If it did, then we'd be opening the doors to just any old claim being made for any old reason, no matter how sinister.

I'm sorry, but this is how a rational (and non-solipsistic) world works. A lot of theists would even agree with me there, they’re just under the illusion that they CAN actually demonstrate the existence* of their gods. Our health overrides freedom of religion. This is why harmful religious practices are still outlawed.

*Please don’t start on your unique definition of existence.

You are wrong again in your assumptions carz, I have the utmost compassion for mothers to be and those they carry. It distresses me greatly that the only way they they can see forward is a termination. But you still haven't answered my question. Do you belive that taking the life of an unborn, but none the less living, child is humane?

"Chelsea Pietsch is the Executive Officer of Freedom 4 Faith, an ecumenical religious freedom organisation."

So we can tell in advance what her conclusions about abortion will be; no need to read the article. Interesting that her religious affiliations didn't get a mention, though. Could it be that theists are finally starting to realise that 'because my Sky Daddy says so!' is not actually a credible reason for supporting -- or opposing -- anything at all? So they have a nice try at confabulating feeble non-reasons instead. Like this one.

Dear AJ Philips,

There's a fundamental disagreement between us, which is fine:

Unlike yourself, I believe that spiritual well-being is more important than physical well-being, thus religion is more important than health.

I respect your wishes to not have endless discussions about this subject-matter.

I respect your wish to place health above religion, and have no desire or intention to restrict yourself or your doctors in that matter. I don't even demand in the slightest that you attempt to prove your point-of-view and I wouldn't even dream of doing so even if I had complete governmental powers.

You however, seem to disrespect my choices and values and are willing to use force, even the barrel of a gun if necessary (for that's what legislation and governments do), to try enforcing your values on me.

The issue thus is not about who is right, theists or atheists, nor whether my views are in alignment or not with those of the author. The issue is whether it is acceptable to use violence against people who do not share your views and values. It is my stern view that violence is unacceptable.

sparkyq, yes, sometimes it is.
It is humane if it means that a severely disabled child is not born to suffer only pain.
It is humane if it means a woman's life is saved from certain physical harm or possible death.
It is humane if it means a person is not forced to carry their rapist's child.
It is humane if it means that a child is not forced to have a child.
It is humane if it stops a child being neglected, abused or abandoned by a mother who is mentally, physically or emotionally unable to care for it.
It is humane to the future children the woman may carry if they are not forced to carry a child that are not ready or able to care for.

Now you tell me, is it humane to force a woman to carry a child that has been diagnosed with a severe or catastrophic disability?
Is it humane to force a woman to carry her rapist's baby?
Is it humane to force a child to have a child?
Is forcing any woman to carry a child to term humane? Or is it just another way of telling women that they are not capable of deciding what is best for them?
To be honest your consideration of women considering termination underwhelms me. If you aren't in favour of abortion the solution is simple: DON'T HAVE ONE! You do not have the right to determine what is best for any other person.

Carz,

why don;t you speak about the 98% cases of baby murder instead of using the dishonest emotional arguement of the 1970's where the 1% or less is focussed on. Your consideration of the 99% seems very heartless.

runner, until the baby is able to live outside of the womb it is not a person and it is not murder. And I would be really interested in where you obtain the statistics of 98% or 99% being "baby murder" for which I guess you believe there is no good reason. Preventing harm to the mother IS a good reason. It is none of your business what form that harm might take. Like I said before - if you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

AJ Philips "It simply recognises that the reasons for NOT recommending the procedure are religious or personal and not medical"

And you overlook that the reasons the woman wants the abortion are "personal and not medical" in most cases.
Pregnancy is not an illness.

Should doctors be forced to refer clients in other cases, where there is no actual disease, but simply the personal desire of the client?
Nose jobs? Sex change? Skin lightening? Fetish amputation?

How is referral to technically unnecessary procedures part of a "doctor’s duty of care"?

"Governments (are at least supposed to) legislate to reduce harm overall"

Is that why every government in the world at one time banned abortion?
Isn't an lifeform being *destroyed* being "harmed"?

Cobber the hound "what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?"

You're talking about a *needed* life-SAVING procedure.
Hardly comparable to a "choice" that will destroy life.

Tell me, where is this mythical hospital that only has one doctor on duty?

Carz "Preventing harm to the mother IS a good reason. It is none of your business what form that harm might take."

Yes it is, if the justification for such a law is a "doctor's duty".
Most of the "good reasons" you mention have nothing to do with HEALTH.

"if you don't believe in abortion don't have one."

And if you don't believe the protestors, don't listen to them.
Just keep walking.

I think all the pro-choice advocates here are ignoring the principal issue.
It's not about abortion, but the right to *protest* against it!

And inadvertently, protest *anything else* within 150 metres of a clinic.

What if you want to protest an unethical business, but their premises is right next door to a clinic?
You could be fined over a protest that has nothing to do with abortion!

Some people believe killing animals is "immoral", a personal judgment.
Yet meat is legally available.

Are we to ban anti-meat protests within 150 metres of an abattoir or butcher shop?

Yuyutsu,

I figured this was the case…

<<Unlike yourself, I believe that spiritual well-being is more important than physical well-being, thus religion is more important than health.>>

This is why we only legislate according to that which is demonstrable. Just imagine a country being governed by millions of different religious beliefs (or not governed at all - as you seem to prefer sometimes). Is it any wonder that secularism has delivered us so much wealth and knowledge?

<<I respect your wish to place health above religion, and have no desire or intention to restrict yourself or your doctors in that matter.>>

But of course. You’re intelligent enough to realise that you’re on the philosophical back foot here, so you have to. If you’re religious beliefs were the more evidential and philosophically supported, then I would expect that things should be very different.

<<I don't even demand in the slightest that you attempt to prove your point-of-view>>

Well, you should.

<<You however, seem to disrespect my choices and values and are willing to use force, even the barrel of a gun if necessary (for that's what legislation and governments do), to try enforcing your values on me.>>

Please don’t be so melodramatic. I have alluded to nothing of the sort. You don’t have to have an abortion and I could quite as easily argue that if you don’t like abortion, then don’t be a doctor. Whose argument takes precedence then?

<<The issue thus is not about who is right, theists or atheists…>>

I agree. It’s about that which can be demonstrated and that which cannot. Regardless of who is actually right. Luckily, however, historically, those who have been able to demonstrate the accuracy of their beliefs have always been shown to be right. Funnily enough.

<<…nor whether my views are in alignment or not with those of the author.>>

The authors views were only relevant because that is what I was responding to.

<<The issue is whether it is acceptable to use violence against people who do not share your views and values…>>

No-one has proposed violence.

Shockadelic,

<<…you overlook that the reasons the woman wants the abortion are "personal and not medical" in most cases.>>

No, I don’t. That aspect of the debate was simply never relevant to what I was saying.

<<Pregnancy is not an illness.>>

No, it certainly isn’t, is it. But the potential results of withholding information on how an abortion can be accessed certainly can be.

<<Should doctors be forced to refer clients in other cases, where there is no actual disease, but simply the personal desire of the client?>>

If there is the potential of harm to the patient, or the chance that they will harm themselves due to the denial of the service, then yes. No one has the right to withhold information from a distressed person asking for help. That’s negligence.

<<Nose jobs? Sex change? Skin lightening? Fetish amputation?>>

There is no time limit on any of these, so they're irrelevant to my argument. When I mentioned “inadequate services” and “the right of access to such information without being forced to experiment with doctors until they find the right one”, I was purposefully setting abortion aside from the ridiculous comparisons above.

<<How is referral to technically unnecessary procedures part of a "doctor’s duty of care"?>>

Well, whether or not they’re unnecessary is highly debateable now, isn’t it. How are you gauging necessity? Does a reluctant, suicidal mother, who takes her resentment out on a defenceless child, do nothing to render abortion as 'necessary' to you?

You clearly don’t understand the fact that liberating women and giving them control over their own reproductive organs - so that they’re not chained by their husbands or by village custom to animal-like treatment of continuous pregnancies, early death and disease - is the reason we have such wealthy and socially content societies as we do now. Nor does it sound like you understand the concept of secondary and tertiary victimology.

<<Is that why every government in the world at one time banned abortion?
Isn't an lifeform being *destroyed* being "harmed"?>>

Yes, but we now know better. We learn from our mistakes. See above.

'runner, until the baby is able to live outside of the womb it is not a person

with such ignorance Carz its no wonder you condone murder. Just bury your head in the sand to condone your abhorrent view.

I agree with the new laws in Tasmania, and I hope it spreads to the mainland.

There is something so medieval about chanting religious slogans etc at women who attend abortion clinics.

We should be concentrating on dealing with more effective, and maybe free?, contraceptives for couples who want to have sex, but not make babies.

But somehow I don't think that is what the protesters would want either.

If you don't believe in abortion, Chelsea Pietch, then don't have one. But our democracy is not going to tolerate you and your religious nutcase friends intimidating women who are distressed and who wish to enter an abortion clinic unmolested.

Democratic countries do have wide powers for peaceful protest, but we as a democracy can still say where you may do it and when. Stay 150 yards away and protest all you like. The only reason why you are complaining is because you and your friends do want to intimidate women who want abortions.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<This is why we only legislate according to that which is demonstrable.>>

Whoever those 'we' are which you claim to be among, are brutes, imposing themselves and their values on others by sheer coercion.

You happen to value demonstrability while I happen to value other things, among them non-violence, which seems to not be part of your value-system. It is by-the-way easily demonstrable that myself and other religious people hold certain values dear while you hold others.

<<Just imagine a country being governed by millions of different religious beliefs>>

You know very well that I'm not seeking such nightmare. Religion and coercion are mutually exclusive. I don't for example consider those who try to coerce pregnant women into not having an abortion as truly religious. At the moment, however, it seems that Australia is governed by the 'religion' of demonstrability.

<<(or not governed at all - as you seem to prefer sometimes)>>

Not 'sometimes' - always!

Governing over others without their consent, just because they happen to live in a particular geographical area, is nothing but violence.

It can be forgiven if made in self-defence. But you have not demonstrated that the law in question, forcing doctors to act contrary to their value-systems, is such a case.

(OTOH, the other law, preventing people from demonstrating 150 metres away from an abortion-clinic, can be construed as self-defence, protecting the peace of those who work in the clinic and their clients, hence I do not oppose it)

<<Is it any wonder that secularism has delivered us so much wealth and knowledge?>>

I dispute this, but this thread is about a particularly cruel Tasmanian law, not about wealth and knowledge.

<<Well, you should.>>

My religious beliefs are well-supported, but unlike what you think religion is, I am not proselytising and your point-of-view is no business of mine so long as you don't attempt to impose yourself on me or my religious friends.

<<then don’t be a doctor>>

What's next? wearing a yellow star-of-David patch?

If I'm a doctor and you don't like my practices - simply don't visit my clinic!

I am reminded in this case of an old lawyers’ adage:
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If neither, pound the table.

Fact: you can’t murder, pro-abortionists are at the stage of admitting abortion is murder but that they should just be able to do it anyway.

Law: you can’t excise bits of Australian sovereign territory as “No government criticism zone” or “No free speech zone”. No matter how much the ambitious and powerful chafe, no matter how convinced they are of their perspicuity and sparkly “good conscience”. Which segues wonderfully into the punitive fines for having the wrong conscience according to Ms O’Byrne and her abortion industry financed EMILYS List political action group..

Obviously the law is totalitarian in essence and will be ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Attorneys General will have their time wasted, Senior Counsel looking to be QC’s will jump on board and become famous and Tasmanian taxpayers will be gouged again by the ALPGreens defending this feminist madness.

No one can have any illusions now about what ALPGreens/EMILYS List/NewRulingClass carbon taxing, baby killing, plutocratic regime means for the majority of Australians.

Abortion has no future in a civilised country, the children who survived the womb miss their siblings, can see through 4-D imaging the child killed and are much more pro-human child than Baby Boomers and their silly scions.

Abortion has no future demographically, morally or in any other dimension, and the radicals know it, which is why their response can't be live and let live because their numbers decrease quite quickly - the only thing they know is the same thing their totalitarian relatives knew in C20th.

Poor lost women who think they have to denature themselves and kill their daughters and sons in order to live like men and have meaningful lives. Hatred of normal women is what is left to them, and criminalising the presence of mentally healthy women in public life has now become second nature to them

Martin, it's a pity you aren't a woman, because maybe then you would understand.
Why is it that it is mainly religious middle aged men who rant and rave about women having a choice whether to abort or not?

It should only be their business if they are the father.

It must really be galling to them that they can't control all women and their bodies...

As for the doctors who disagree with abortion, i hope they have this written up somewhere outside their surgery so women don't waste their time and money asking for their help?

@Suseonline, that gets us nowhere even if it were true. "Why is it that middle aged anti-religious feminist minority .. etc"

Whatever inspires us to contribute to our shared public life as Australians is interesting and I'm more than happy to talk about my loves but at present were focused on the argument for killing babies in the womb and the morality and legality of criminalising conscientious objections to this act.

Arguments don't have testicles.

runner not ignorance, law. Check it out sometime.

Dear Martin,

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this one: <<Fact: you can’t murder>>

Most Australians can and do murder as a matter of routine.
The fact that the victims belong to other species doesn't change this gruesome fact.

Yet, the state with its laws is not the right body to enforce morality, including non-murder, because itself is immoral. Nevertheless, you need not worry about it because ultimately nobody can escape facing and reaping the results of their actions, even if no longer in their earthly body.

As for the 150 metres law, I agree that abortion-clinics should not be made a special case. Rather, while everyone should be able to criticise public bodies everywhere and at any time, people should not be allowed to assemble outside private premises for the purpose of harassing and disturbing the peace of the residents or their guests.

Dear Suse,

<<i hope they have this written up somewhere outside their surgery so women don't waste their time and money asking for their help?>>

This hope is reasonable and mutual. Neither do these doctors wish to waste their and their other patient's time on cases they are not willing to take. Similarly, many massage shops have a sign saying: "Strictly no sexual services" (just imagine the government denying them the freedom to practice massage due to their refusal to provide those 'other' services).

I also hope that atheist doctors will display a sign outside their surgery to the effect of: "We do our best to fix your body, but any damages to your soul or spirit are at your own risk and outside the scope of our responsibility".

Yuyitsu "I also hope that atheist doctors will display a sign outside their surgery to the effect of: "We do our best to fix your body, but any damages to your soul or spirit are at your own risk and outside the scope of our responsibility"."

What a strange statement!
Are you suggesting that only Doctors who believe in gods can hope to assist patients with problems other than physical disorders? What rubbish.

Are you suggesting that only atheist Doctors suggest or assist with abortions or euthanasia?
Sorry to burst your naive bubble...but they do.

No one is any less or any more 'moral' or 'good' if they believe in gods than anyone else.

Carz

law also says marriage between man and woman. Good that you agree.

AJ Philips "giving them control over their own reproductive organs"

Abortion laws are giving them control over another body altogether.
An embryo/foetus isn't *her* organs.

If they were genuinely taking "control" they would take every precaution to avoid being pregnant.
There is only one way to get pregnant, and a million ways not to.

"But the potential results of withholding information on how an abortion can be accessed certainly can be [an illness]."

How is information being withheld?

Why go to Joe Blow M.D. when there's an abortion clinic in the Yellow Pages (see Pregnancy Termination Services)?

<<Nose jobs? Sex change? Skin lightening? Fetish amputation?>>

"There is no time limit on any of these, so they're irrelevant to my argument."

Oh, but what if the amputee fetishist is *suicidal*?
Surely a doctor's "duty of care" means he couldn't turn away the sick freak.

"How are you gauging necessity?"

Whether the person is "physically ill" and needs "medical treatment", that's how.
That's what doctors are supposed to figure out.
Either a physical surgery *needs* to be done, or it doesn't.

Your own movement uses the term "choice".
That implies something that's not *necessary*.

Suseonline "It should only be their business if they are the father."

Well Joe Blow M.D. isn't the father either.
Why should it be his business?

And I suppose members of the community should only be concerned about rape if someone they know is raped, or only concerned about theft if their own property is stolen.

What kind of society do you want?
One where people are only concerned about harm to themselves/relatives, but indifferent to harm to strangers?

Girl next door was robbed, raped and murdered?
Yes officer, I saw and heard the whole thing, but it's "not my business", I'm not her father!

Don't be ridiculous Shockadelic, you are getting a bit hysterical there.

Rape and murder are against the law, where abortion is not.
So that analogy does not compute.

Whatever you think, a fetus IS a part of the woman's body because it is attached by the umbilical cord, and cannot exist alone before 20 weeks gestation.
Obviously the Doctor does have a say about the woman's pregnancy, but I thought that was a given?

You all need to get over the fact that you can't force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she doesn't want, no matter how much you may hate not having that control...

@Yuyustu. Animals kill and eat each other. Saprophitic plants devour their hosts, humans aren't supposed to act that way. What your thinking does is release us to forget our duties towards the animals.

@Suseonline, you need to get over the fact that humans grow inside women's bodies. A real woman would advance the idea that society simply has to face this simple fact. Look what we're made to revolve around today. I mean really think what you're told to put at the centre of your life.

I'm completely incredulous that you would side with whoever is telling you that fact your own flesh and blood isn't as important as .... I dunno labouring in some crummy cubicle for some amoral transnational and bigger flat screen Tv? well what? what is worth taking your daughter's life?

Has everyone gone completely mad?

Can you forgive those who say you simply have to turn off your TV? or whatever has turned into a feticidal maniac? Of all the wondeful, goodly things you could be putting intellect in service to - you've chosen the plutocracy? You put your faith in them?

Has everyone gone completely mad?

We're human for goodness' sake. 2013 years after His birth there is still no other way to retain it.

Dear Suse,

I fail to understand your reluctance against professional honesty: What could possibly be wrong with a tradesperson advertising clearly and honestly "I provide service A but I don't provide service B"?

I am not suggesting anything about who should provide this service or another - that should be up to each individual professional to choose and their reason(s) are no business of mine or anyone but themselves. All I say is that I wish all professionals to be honest and upfront about what they do and what they don't.

You don't even have to be a doctor in order to assist others with issues other than physical disorders, but in traditional settings it was common to expect this of doctors. You are not even required to believe in gods in order to provide spiritual assistance, but common sense tells that those doctors who believe are more likely to be motivated and attempt to provide spiritual help to their patients while those who do not, are more likely to concentrate their efforts on the physical body. So why not provide a small sign on the door to prevent the confusion?

Dear Martin,

<<Animals kill and eat each other. Saprophitic plants devour their hosts, humans aren't supposed to act that way.>>

True - yet they do.

And go unpunished by the law.

<<What your thinking does is release us to forget our duties towards the animals.>>

Care to explain how?

Personally, I don't believe that you have a duty towards animals as such or towards humans for that matter: what you have is a moral duty to God and for your own spiritual welfare, to abstain from murder.

Yuyitsu, if someone needs to have their 'spirit' seen to, they should go and see a priest , minister, rabbi or whoever.

Doctors deal with the physical and mental problems that humans face, and thus do not need to disclose whether they believe in gods or not.
It shouldn't make any difference, and is no one else's business what they believe,

Martin, so because I believe women should have a choice about abortion I am not a 'real' woman? How quaint.

Maybe because you are willing to consider forcing women to go through with pregnancies they don't want means you aren't a real man?

Dear Suse,

In many traditional societies, a doctor is considered a holistic one-stop establishment for a rounded treatment of most problems - physical, mental, emotional and spiritual (still, a doctor usually wouldn't fix your car or pay off your mortgage). Few doctors still provide spiritual support even today and have patients that come for that. Other patients who no longer expect a doctor to provide spiritual help, still expect them to at least take into consideration the adverse spiritual side-effects of their treatments.

On the other hand, the Australian government now wants doctors to also provide certain social services as a social-worker would.

So we identify at least three different services, along with a variety of professionals who are able and willing to provide different subsets of these services:

You could have a doctor that treats only the physical body and ignores the spiritual and social side-effects; You could have a priest that treats only the spirit and ignores the physical and social side-effects; You could have a social-worker that treats only social conditions; You could have a Rabbi that also helps with social situations; You could have a doctor who also provides social services; You could have a doctor who also provides spiritual services; and you may be able to find a person who is able and willing to do all three.

You may have a car-mechanic who only does mechanical work; a car-electrician who only does electrical work; or a person who does both.

You may have a masseuse who provides only remedial-massage services; a prostitute who provides only sexual services; or a person who does both.

So all I say is, tick the boxes and let it be known to the public which services you provide and which you don't - no combination is right or wrong, so just be honest about it.

Naturally, you don't need to disclose what you believe in (though you could if you want) - only what services you provide.

Suseonline "Rape and murder are against the law, where abortion is not.
So that analogy does not compute."

Actually, in NSW it's still technically illegal.
It's just that the law isn't enforced.

So why are rape and murder illegal?
Based on your nobody's-business-but-mine ethnical model, there shouldn't be *any* laws.

Rape and murder are illegal because the *community* (i.e. people as a group, not as individuals) want them to be.

"a fetus IS a part of the woman's body because it is attached by the umbilical cord"

It is inside her body.
It is not "part" of it, or her immune system wouldn't try to kill it.
It's "attachment" is temporary.

Conjoined twins are "attached" but often have their own internal organs and may be separated.
They are not "one" body simply because they're "attached".

"and cannot exist alone before 20 weeks gestation."

But it *will* exist alone.
Unlike her arms, legs, brain, lungs or any other "part of her body".

But isn't it was just a "clump of cells" until it's *born*, when it magically becomes a "person" that shouldn't be "murdered"?
So is it a "person" with "human rights" at 20 weeks now?

All sorts of parasites cannot live alone, and depend on your body for nourishment.
That doesn't make them "part of your body" just because they rely on it to survive.

"Obviously the Doctor does have a say about the woman's pregnancy"

But he can't "have a say" about her termination?
He *must* under this new law, if not providing the service himself, refer the woman to a doctor who will.

This is the new law we're discussing.
Where is the medical professional's "choice"?

"You all need to get over the fact that you can't force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she doesn't want"

And you need to get over the fact that you are living in a "community/society", not a sole individual in some imaginary amoral anarcho-liberatarian void.

Shockadelic <"And you need to get over the fact that you are living in a "community/society", not a sole individual in some imaginary amoral anarcho-liberatarian void."

Oh dear me, you are certainly working yourself into a lather now.
I am certainly not a 'sole individual' though am I Shockadelic?

The majority of our society feel the same as I do on choice for women, otherwise wouldn't our Government and law officials be legally ruling abortion out altogether?

I am not an advocate for abortion at all, as I find the idea awful, personally.
However, I would never presume to decide that choice for another woman.

I wonder how, exactly, you would advocate physically stopping women from having abortions anyway?

Suseonline "The majority of our society feel the same as I do on choice for women"

Do they? That depends on the particular question you ask.
In some cases (rape, dangerous conditions) maybe.
But anytime-for-any-or-no-reason? I doubt it.

"otherwise wouldn't our Government and law officials be legally ruling abortion out altogether?"

Since when does the government do what the majority want? Ha!

They already have outlawed it in most places. Or made it supposedly difficult.
But as I said, the laws are not *enforced*.

"I am not an advocate for abortion at all"

Oh please. You never shut up about it.

"I wonder how, exactly, you would advocate physically stopping women from having abortions anyway?"

I wonder how you would stop people raping or murdering?
Obviously legal prohibition doesn't work, or our prisons would be empty.

You can't *stop* people breaking the law.
You can only punish those who do.

Dear Suse,

<<The majority of our society feel the same as I do on choice for women>>

So your position here is very precarious:

Today you happen to be lucky because the majority is on your side, so you and your friends have the freedom to abort your/their baby. Tomorrow the majority may not be on your side, so what then? will you or your friends be forced to carry the baby in your/their body for the whole term and go unwilling through the pains of birth just because society says so, oh dear!

It is time you understand that no society or majority should have power over your body and your life.

However, that requires on your side that you accept just the same that society/majority should also have no power over OTHER people's life, that just as nobody should be allowed to interfere with your choice to abort, nobody should be allowed to interfere with other people's choices, including with their conscientious and religious convictions.

Abortion is now, and always will be, freely available in Australia, so you guys need to come to terms with that fact.

Why not put all your considerable zeal into advocating for more contraception methods that will be easily and freely available so women ( and their men) wouldn't have to make such an awful choice?

It is easy for you guys to damn all women who do choose to consider abortion because you can be certain that will never have to be a choice you have to make about your bodies....
Maybe if we make male masturbation a criminal offence, given that it is a terrible waste of live sperm?

Dear Suse,

<<Abortion is now, and always will be, freely available in Australia, so you guys need to come to terms with that fact.>>

So the sun shall never set on the British Empire.

Oh by-the-way, Suse, did you know that my window is broken?
I was playing ball indoors when over-enthusiastically I hit the glass with a baseball bat. Yes of course, it's the fifth time it happened - so would you kindly send me a cheque or your bank details or your address where I can, as always, send you the repair bill?

<<Maybe if we make male masturbation a criminal offence, given that it is a terrible waste of live sperm?>>

Most men would indeed appreciate a cure, but criminalisation wouldn't work because males will continue to masturbate in jail. Castration is much more effective, or what about adding caustic soda to our water supplies? or just starve and work them hard - Nazi research demonstrated that sperm production was reduced in concentration camps, in some cases even eliminated altogether.

<<It is easy for you guys to damn all women who do choose to consider abortion>>

Yes, damning others is easy, but why should I want to do it?
99% of Australians murder on a regular basis, some even daily, although most of those prefer to do it indirectly by hiring a butcher as their hit-man.
If I wish to damn someone, should I not damn them first?

So although that's easy, I don't damn you or anyone for murdering animals, babies or sperm - kill as much as you please because what you do with your body is none of my business (besides, I understand that you only do it because yourself is a victim, still weak under the influence of your genes who push you to do it).

I only condemn those who try to enforce their will on others by the violence of legislation.

Yuyutsu <"I only condemn those who try to enforce their will on others by the violence of legislation."

I totally agree Yuyutsu.
We certainly should not have legislation to force women to go on with a pregnancy they don't want.

Dear Suse,

<<I totally agree Yuyutsu.
We certainly should not have legislation to force women to go on with a pregnancy they don't want.>>

So it's a happy end - I am glad that most of us here agree.

For those few who don't, presumably on the grounds of religion, may I remind you that goodness, compassion and charity cannot be developed without the option of evil: if the way of sin is artificially blocked, then one is never able to develop and strengthen their character, learning to resist temptation out of one's pure love for God.

Yuyutsu – no it is not a happy end for those that get killed. If you were walking down the street and saw a child being beaten to death, would you just keep walking because you wouldn’t want to artificially block “the way of sin”?

I believe the defenceless should always be helped and not be left to be killed.

Suseonline "Maybe if we make male masturbation a criminal offence, given that it is a terrible waste of live sperm?"

And that analogy does not compute.
Sperm actually *are* "part of a man's body", unlike a foetus/embryo, which is a genetically distinct entity.

"advocating for more contraception methods that will be easily and freely available"

They're already easily available.
But why should they be "free" (I presume you mean no monetary cost?)

Even if they were, you'd still be insisting on abortion being available (*also* funded by the government!), so that's a red herring.

People who object to abortion do so for moral reasons, and will do so whether contraception is available or not, free or not.

"It is easy for you guys to damn all women who do choose to consider abortion because you can be certain that will never have to be a choice you have to make about your bodies...."

It's a choice that still affects many men directly (It's *their* child too! The sperm came from some man.)

You also live in a society/community with men, and their opinions about what is socially acceptable are as valid as womens' on *any* issue.
You just can't seem to grasp that abortion is *not* just a personal act, it's a phenomena that affects society as a whole.

Yuyutsu "presumably on the grounds of religion"

Presumptions indeed.
Like, irreligious people shouldn't care less, right?
They have no moral code!

"goodness, compassion and charity cannot be developed without the option of evil: if the way of sin is artificially blocked..."

Then we shouldn't have laws about anything!

We wouldn't want to "block" the rapists, thieves and murderers.
They need to be tempted, so they can learn to resist.

Dear JP,

The reason we don't murder isn't because we want to prevent deaths (everyone will die anyway), but because we refuse to become murderers, straying away from God.

Generally, religion works not by attempting to fix the world, but by purifying oneself, making oneself God-ready (that's all we can do from our side, the rest comes as divine-grace).

However, while man cannot really fix the world, there are many religious practices, or methods to purify oneself suiting different temperaments and one of those approaches is of TRYING to fix the world (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam). That approach is likely to appeal and suit an active warrior like yourself, so please go ahead and try to help the defenceless. It is much better that you do it and gain religious merit than have it attempted by an atheist government for the wrong reasons.

Note that without villains, warriors like yourself would have no opportunities to develop their skills and courage, as necessary to build their character and make them God-ready.

In truth, how could anyone be defenceless in God's world, under His Providence?

Yet if a child APPEARS defenceless to you and you are a warrior by nature, then indeed you should do your duty without hesitation, risking life and limb to save that child.

Regarding those who get killed before they are born, for them it is in fact a happy-end as they're saved from the duty of falling to this world and its accompanying curses (Genesis 3,16-19). Perhaps their duty was already accomplished within a few months in the womb, so they're exempt from suffering the rest.

Babies usually begin to identify with their body and differentiating it from their environment around the age of one month, a process that lasts until about the age of 3 years. Before that, they feel no grief at the death of the body. Even later, younger children are more accepting and ready to die than adults.

Though never a justification for murder, the suffering incurred by the death of unborn babies, if any, is therefore less than that of adult animals being slaughtered.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Like, irreligious people shouldn't care less, right?
They have no moral code!>>

If you have a moral code, then you are likely to be religious.
Belief in this or that is a poor criterion for religiosity.

<<Then we shouldn't have laws about anything!>>

Ideally so. Ideally you should be willing to turn the other cheek.
But we aren't there yet, are we? We are too afraid!

<<We wouldn't want to "block" the rapists, thieves and murderers.
They need to be tempted, so they can learn to resist.>>

I have not yet seen the government who cares about the spiritual welfare of rapists, thieves and murderers, nor do I even expect it to happen in the next 1000 years.

People are essentially motivated by two things: Love - or Fear.

Governments are not formed out of love, but out of fear. As such, they attempt to protect their citizens from rape, theft and murder, desirous of getting the perpetrators out of the way, no matter how and at what cost. There's no love in there nor care, only fear.

So long as we lack the courage to remove all laws, we should at least keep them to the minimum.

Yuyutsu "If you have a moral code, then you are likely to be religious."

What?!
Moral codes are basically founded on sympathy.
I would feel pain or suffer loss from rape/theft/etc, so I understand another person would too.
No need for stone tablets.

"Ideally so [no laws at all]."

An unrealistic extremist idealist on OLO.
What a surprise!

"Ideally you should be willing to turn the other cheek."

Why isn't "vengeance/justice/punishment" ideal?
No society has ever had moral neutrality.

"I have not yet seen the government who cares about the spiritual welfare of rapists, thieves and murderers"

Why should they? Why should I? Off with their heads!

"People are essentially motivated by two things: Love - or Fear."

And a woman getting an abortion is motivated by?

Does a woman who truly loves herself potentially risk permanent physical damage, that may prevent her ever having children or pleasurable sex again?

Or suffer the psychological torment of guilt/shame, keeping a "dirty secret" and never-knowing-what-if.

Does she love her child?
Any child-murderer could use that excuse ("I was just saving the child from suffering in this cruel world, Your Honour")

No. She fears.

She fears the loss of self-absorption.
The effect on her career.
What others will think of her premarital sex/single motherhood.
Fear of life-long attachment to the father (who may mean nothing to her).
The loss of money she could be spending on more designer handbags instead of nappies.
Fear of the most profound responsibility anyone can have: raising a child.

Perhaps she should be afraid of being found out.
How many famous celebrities have openly admitted having abortions?

The actresses, models, princesses, businesswomen, senators?

They'll admit to anything else: drug addiction, driving drunk, adultery, eating disorders, mental breakdowns.

But abortion? Never.

They'll "tell all" but remain silent about the "silent scream".
They know very well the effect *that* will have on their careers.

"we should at least keep [laws] to the minimum."

Agreed.
And what of funding?
Should the government be keeping that to a minimum, or funding everyone's abortions and contraception?
Get my taxes off your body!

Dear Shockadelic,

If you are able to base your morals on sympathy, well and good. But comes a time of crisis when emotions rage and you are unable to feel sympathy, then you need discipline to keep to your moral code anyway.

It is a good thing to keep the tension. On the one hand maintain the highest ideal without compromise, but at the same time be practical and realise that one is not up to it for the time-being.

Vengeance is far from ideal because it clouds your own mind, takes away your peace and removes you from God. Some people are born warriors and it's part of their duty to fend society against criminals, yet they too should not get angry and upset: even while they stop crime, they should not develop hatred towards the criminal, but keep their head cool and simply do whatever they need to do out of a sense of duty.

The fact that no society is ideal doesn't mean that people should give up their efforts to come as closer to the ideal as they can.

Yes, a woman who aborts usually does it out of fear.
So are people who eat meat, if you get to the bottom of their motives.
Have you no fears in your life?
Do you never act out of fear?
Let the person who is never afraid and always brave, throw the first stone.

As for funding, certainly, it is not the role of government to subsidise our lifestyle choices. Government may only pay for abortions in cases of rape, because it was supposed to prevent it and didn't.

Yuyutsu "But comes a time of crisis when emotions rage and you are unable to feel sympathy, then you need discipline to keep to your moral code anyway."

That's why we have courts with juries and judges and frown upon lynch mobs.
Let the court decide whether the doctor and "patient" involved were justified in each case.

If the court has "sympathy" in a case, they can dismiss the charges or suspend the sentence.

Instead, by arguing for legality, you are presuming justification in *all* cases.

"Have you no fears in your life? Do you never act out of fear?"

I'm not the one who brought up the love/fear dualism.
I don't have anything against either.

Dear Shockadelic,

It seems that we started to confuse two different issues:

Since you referred to the question of the relation between morality and religion, I responded to it, completely as a separate topic and out of context with this discussion about abortions.

While morality and religion are tightly connected, legality has nothing to do with either: many things are legal but immoral (example: gambling, drinking, smoking) while others are illegal but perfectly moral (example: Tasmanian doctors refusing to refer patients to abortion clinics).

Morality is private - it's about what YOU do or refuse to do, rather than about what others must or mustn't do. States/governments are not the custodians of morality, nor can they ever be because as secular entities they have none of the skills or understanding required to handle moral issues.

Also, in order to prevent the corruption of religion, we must maintain separation of state and church: but since morality is so closely connected with religion, we should not allow the state to be involved with moral issues either.

This is why there should be no law against abortions - not because abortions are moral, which they generally aren't.

Yuyutsu - can you provide some examples of laws that have no moral component?

Dear JP,

The state doesn't make laws in order to make people more moral: it makes laws in order to achieve particular external results.

Take even the most basic law of all - the prohibition on murder. It is not motivated by the compassionate desire to make the murderer more moral in order to save their soul, but by the desire to have more safety and live longer with less chances of being randomly killed.

As free choice is a divine gift, no one can ever become more moral by force, by coercion, by being told "don't do this or else". Yes, one may comply out of fear, but it wouldn't make them any better person. More likely it would tend to make them disgruntled, hateful, thus even less moral.

By no means, I am not saying that the desire to be safe and live longer is wrong, only that it is a secular rather than a moral issue.

Yuyutsu, governments are comprised of humans.
They don't need any special metaphysical knowledge to make judgements about what is socially acceptable or not.

Those decisions can be both moral and secular, as with my sympathy-morality.
Sympathy is secular. It has nothing to do with religion or "spirituality".

"many things are legal but immoral (example: gambling, drinking, smoking)"

I don't find any of those immoral.
Unwise perhaps, but where's the "moral" element?

"Morality is private".

Morality can only exist in a community.
All by oneself, morality is meaningless.

Does Robinson Crusoe need morality?
No, but the Lord of the Flies boys do.

Morality only comes into being when there's interaction with another (for some, that is God; for others, it's other people or animals).

Dear Shockadelic,

It may be the case that governments don't need any special metaphysical knowledge to make judgements about what is socially acceptable or not, but that doesn't usually help them to know what is moral or otherwise.

Some decisions can be made on secular grounds, but by blind chance happen to also be moral.

Sympathy is an emotion that usually results from a mix of the secular and the religious: some is genetically programmed while some is due to habits formed by spiritual disciplines and practices.

Gambling for example is immoral because it often prevents the gambler from keeping their duties and obligations towards their family. Drinking and smoking affect others adversely. Making oneself ill, besides the direct burden on others, clouds both mind and body and either way often prevents one from taking the right/moral path when required.

"morality is private" in the sense that it tells you what is right FOR YOU to do and what it wrong, rather than what OTHERS should be told to do or not to do.

Certainly, Robinson Crusoe needs to practice morality in relation to animals, but he should also make efforts to keep his health and sanity, so that if he's found one day by a passing ship, he will not become a burden on society. I don't remember whether in story he had a wife and children - if so, then his moral obligation to remain healthy is even stronger.