"The Government has decided that abortion is the best option for unplanned pregnancies"

The Queensland Government has decided no such thing.

One assumes at 18 you knew how women became pregnant? Yet failed to observe something as simple as what I told my own daughters. If it's not on, it's not on.

And if you were aware and gave your informed consent? How dare you try and load your guilt trip on others. Already traumatised enough having to choose between their careers and whether or not they join the ranks of single mums living below the poverty line.

I was raised by a single mum with help from various orphanages and foster homes, Who nearly died in the struggle! And I'm here to tell you all the horror stories you hear About Catholic care are true!

Moreover, its no fun being the poor kid in a classroom full of better off kids. nor attending more schools than years of schooling! Par for the course for kids of single mums.

I don't know where your daughter is now Madeline. but wherever innocents without sin go, she is there and not subject to the endless cruelty and ignorance of a world full of judges and cruelty. And gormless politicians making this choice almost compulsory for folk who want a life.

If the child was the product of incest and came out intellectually challenged? Would the child and society thank the mother, or the adoption agencies, when they found they couldn't place damaged goods?

And if the child is the product of rape? Should the non-consenting female be forced to go full term then live with the trauma of giving her baby away? It's so easy to bleat about what you coulda shoulda done and try and make others share your personal guilt trip.

If you feel so strongly, go adopt an unwanted baby and improve the lives of three people! Rather than spread your propaganda/BS here.

People have rights over their bodies. And nobody ought to be able to force them to become unwilling incubators.

If you didn't still a heartbeat? You took no life! End of story.
Alan B.

Thanks Madelaine for your honesty. Trust you have found forgiveness from the only One who can forgive sin and heals. The lying supporters of this murderss act ignore biology and use emotional blackmail to win over the ignorant. Yeah unborn babies matter but not to much of the swamp as recently shown by the lowlife's trying to destroy a man's life because they see their 'right' to murder under some sort of threat by Kavanaugh. I use and still think that the majority of evil in this world was done by males. The lowlife regressive feminist are right up with the worst of the males.

Few issues have so divided people as has the morality
of abortion.

At the root of the controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus. If the fetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing -
if it is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue,
then abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

However the status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous:
it is neither self-evidently a human being nor self-evidently
just tissue (for if these matters were self-evident, there
would be little disagreement about abortion).

The issue is compounded by a related issue, the right of a
woman to control her own body, then of course we also have
the rights of the father that need consideration.

And so it goes. I don't envy any person having to make the
difficult decisions involved. I can't even begin to imagine
how difficult that would be. However, I do firmly believe
that we are in no position to judge the actions of others.
Nor blame people because of our religious beliefs.

I feel so sorry for the author of this article and she's
very brave to share her experience with us. Thank You. I hope
with time she will be able to heal and move on.

'However the status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous:
it is neither self-evidently a human being nor self-evidently
just tissue (for if these matters were self-evident, there
would be little disagreement about abortion).'

blatant lie.

Your comment about the “ignorance of a world full of judges”, Alan B. applies to you in your unwarranted personal criticism of Madeleine. I admire her for courageously telling her story to warn other women of the heartache that she experienced.

All she is asking for is better support for women with an unwanted pregnancy, so they don’t feel they have only one choice. And proper independent counselling and informed consent requirements so women can know of the risks. What is wrong with that?

You say: “People have rights over their bodies. And nobody ought to be able to force them to become unwilling incubators.” Well, actually, the time for choice is before you engage in sexual intercourse, because in that act you are not only making a commitment (hopefully) to your partner but also to the new human life you are potentially creating. Every act of lovemaking is an act of potential life-making. So people need to accept responsibility for their actions. So except in the rare case of pregnancy from rape (which is not as rare unfortunately), a woman or girl chooses to invite a new life into being.

And she should be supported by her partner, but unfortunately often is not, and abandonment and coercion by irresponsible and selfish men is rife. Hence, abortion has a lot more to do with men’s liberation than with women’s liberation. Coercion of and lack of support for pregnant women is exploitation, not freedom.

You say: “If you didn't still a heartbeat, you took no life! End of story.” Madeleine tells us in her article that she had her abortion at 8 weeks of pregnancy. If you knew anything about foetal development (and most people don’t, which is why this should be part of informed consent provisions), you would know that the heart begins to beat at 5 weeks’ gestation and brain activity can be recorded at 8 weeks.

5 weeks is about the time a woman discovers she is pregnant. So every abortion kills a unique and irreplaceable human being. It stops one heart and breaks another

Foxy, you say that the foetus is not “self-evidently a human being”.

However, as everyone who studies high school biology is taught, the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation – when the father’s sperm with 23 chromosomes joins with the mother’s ovum with 23 chromosomes to form a zygote.

At that point, there is a new human being in his or her first stage of development – not a potential human being, but a human being with potential.

For all that new human being needs to grow and develop into an embryo, foetus and baby is nutrition, oxygen, shelter and time. Nothing else needs to be added.

Each one of us was once a zygote with a unique genetic code which determined our sex, height, the colour of our hair and eyes etc.

Zygote, embryo, foetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult and geriatric are simply names for human beings at different stages of development.

Now what is in a pregnant woman’s womb is clearly human life.

This entity is irrefutably human with 46 chromosomes, and is not animal, mineral or vegetable.

And this new member of the human family is obviously alive because he or she is growing and developing – and therefore is a new human being. Otherwise, there would not be a perceived need in about a fifth of all cases to terminate the pregnancy, which is a euphemism for terminating a human life or killing a pre-born child.

I hope this story serves the purpose it was meant to. I seems that women's 'health' and women's 'choice' really means baby killing these days.

Dear Mr Big,

I wish that you would not assign your interpretation
to what I said - but that you would actually quote
what I did say. The point being made was that at
the root of the abortion controversy is a basic
value judgement about the human fetus. If the fetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing;
if it is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue,
then abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

I was speaking generally. I did not express my personal
opinion on the subject. And I did add that the status of
the fetus is inherently ambiguous; it is neither self
evidently a human being nor self-evidently just tissue -
for if these matters were self evident, there would be little
disagreement about abortion. The fetus develops from a
cluster of cells to an embryo, and then to a fetus. It only
becomes human as it develops. It is not a human being in the
usual sense - as it generally is not viable. Indeed, no society
treats the fetus as human; for example if the mother
accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given a funeral,
but is simply disposed of like any other tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other
tissue, such as discarded nail or hair clippings.
The fetus is potentially a human being
one that may become as alive and unique as you and I.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem from this
fundamental ambiguity in the status of the fetus.
That is why we have the abortion dilemma.

Hi Foxy, my point is that those who are pro-abortion deny the scientific fact that what is growing in a woman’s womb is 1) human; and 2) alive, and therefore a new human life, or human being. The fact that they deny this does not mean that it is not self-evident. What it means is that they are closing their minds to the truth.

There should be no argument about the science. If they were honest, this would be common ground and then we could progress to having a hopefully constructive philosophical discussion or debate on whether the unborn child is a person, who is the bearer of rights. This is why we have the abortion dilemma.

You say that “the foetus is potentially a human being, one that may become as alive and unique as you and I.”
I would say that the unborn baby right from conception, rather than a potential human being, is a unique and irreplaceable human being with potential.

You suggest that the foetus is not a human being until it is viable. I submit that what you mean to say is human person.
It is noteworthy in this regards that Australian states issue birth certificates for any babies born alive or stillborn from 20 weeks of pregnancy. If stillborn or a neonatal death, a death certificate is available. Thus late-term aborted babies killed by feticide (injection of potassium chloride into the heart under ultrasound guidance) or by early inducement of labor before viability at 23 weeks are officially dead Australians.

Why should the moral status of an individual or his/her personhood be dependent on the state of technology? Dr Magna Denes, a pro-abortion author, has said: “To argue for abortion on the basis of viability is as logical as maintaining that drowning a non-swimmer in a bathtub is permitted because he would have drowned anyway if he had fallen into the sea."

There is no logical starting point you can pick for the acquisition of human rights - other than conception - not even birth because that is simply a change of address

Dear Mr Big,

I appreciate your arguments and I certainly
can't argue with your logic.

//Madeleine tells us in her article that she had her abortion at 8 weeks of pregnancy. If you knew anything about foetal development (and most people don’t....//

And if you knew anything about prenatal development you'd know that the foetal stage of development starts at 10 weeks gestation. Before that it's an embryo. No foetuses were harmed in the making of this story.

//However, as everyone who studies high school biology is taught, the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation – when the father’s sperm with 23 chromosomes joins with the mother’s ovum with 23 chromosomes to form a zygote.//

//This entity is irrefutably human with 46 chromosomes//

Yeah, counting chromosomes is remarkably stupid way to define a human. People with Down syndrome usually have 47, and are definitely still human. On the other hand, Sable antelopes have 46 (including their XY sex chromosomes) and are clearly not human.

//and is not animal//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4

Kindly pay cash or furnish good security, Al.

Working backwards, humans are classified like this:

Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Drum roll please.... ANIMALIA!

QED

//There should be no argument about the science.//

No, you'd hope not. But some people just aren't that keen on Science!

//If they were honest, this would be common ground//

I live in hope, but remain a realist: a lot of people just aren't going to be interested enough in biology to bother educating themselves about it.

Foxy is clearly correct..."the status of
the fetus is inherently ambiguous; it is neither self
evidently a human being nor self-evidently just tissue"

If you think its merely a group of cells that may one day be human then abortion would seem ok. If you think its a human life at conception then any abortion is murder.

But its also true that the nature of zygote, embryo etc alters. A mere grouping of cells at 5 weeks becomes clearly identifiably human-like at 20 or so weeks. So each person has to decide when the zygote becomes human and therefore when abortion becomes murder. For some its at conception,or when a heart-beat is found, others at 20 weeks, or when the head crowns.

Each person makes that decision and then a societal consensus is formed. Personally, I've got no problems with the Queensland decision to go with 22 weeks,although I'd prefer 18 weeks.

Where I do see problems is the decision to allow abortion beyond that time if two doctors agree. Finding two such doctors would not be a problem (how many Gosnells are in our midst ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell). So effectively abortion beyond 22 weeks will become easily obtained.

what this article shows is that women, particularly young women, are uninformed about the consequences of the act. I don't see why those who advocate for easy abortion oppose making it possible or even mandatory that they be better informed. I've seen proposals that women be shown pictures of the life their about to end so they are better informed. Or that they are allowed to hear the heart-beat of the being growing in them before stopping the heart. Do women who abort at 22 weeks know that it involves dismemberment after the brain is sucked out? Do women who go down this path know that some of them will suffer as this author has?

I see no attempts in the QLD legislation to improve the level of knowledge and understanding of the women involved. I see clear attempts to sanitise an inherently unsavoury problem eg by creating exclusion zones around clinics.

.

Dear Madeleine,

.

You wrote :

« Choosing abortion is the greatest regret of my life … I decided abortion was my only option … »

That’s strange. You could not possibly have ignored that you also had the option of having the baby. What made you think that an abortion was your “only option” ? Unless you were raped, you should normally have had four options :

1. Abstinence
2. Prevention
3. Have the baby
4. Abortion

It seems that it was only after you discovered you were pregnant that you realised :

« … it was then that I needed a system to protect me from my lack of maturity, wisdom and misinformation »

Presuming you were not raped, I can’t help thinking you “needed a system to protect [yourself] from [your] lack of maturity, wisdom and misinformation” before you even had sex. It may have prevented you from becoming pregnant in the first place.

Unfortunately, you did not abstain. You had sex and either there was no prevention or it did not work. But, apparently, you had no regrets about that. You were then left with the choice of either having the baby or an abortion.

One can only conclude that, for some reason, you did not want the baby. And it was only sometime after the abortion that you regretted it.

Does that mean that you now think it would have been better to give birth to an unwanted and undesired baby ? Would you have been a good mother for that unwanted, undesired baby ? What effect would it have had on your life and on the lives of everybody concerned (the baby, the father, both your families, etc.) ?

.

Dear Mr Big,

.

You indicate that “… the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation …”.

Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life.

Successive fertilisation is simply its continuance.

There is no consensus among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes on when a new individual emerges :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/

.

'Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life.'

drrr! Banjo and you are an American Cherokee. Why do regressives repeatedly make up fairytales.

Ben Carson sums it up nicely

'We have distorted things to a point where people believe that anyone who opposes mother's killing their own babies is waging a war on women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing? One must be able to recognise the depravity to which we have sunken as a society when valuing a baby's life is frowned upon.'

.

Dear Runner,

.

Commenting on my statement : “Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life”, you wrote :

« Why do regressives repeatedly make up fairytales »

I really don’t know, Runner. My guess is that it’s because they like fairy-tales. I used to too when I was a kid, but then I grew up. I still have fond memories of some and think they’re quite charming.

That said, while some of them impressed me, I can’t say I ever believed in them.

If you’re interested, here is the source of my information on the beginning of human life :

http://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html
.

Thanks for that quote from Ben Carson. Naturally, he’s right, but I’m afraid that’s only part of the story. It’s much more complex than that :

« In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).

While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities worldwide, each year. Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide. Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women. The rate of unsafe [illegal] abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.

Countries with restrictive abortion laws have higher rates of unsafe [illegal] abortion and similar overall abortion rates compared to those where abortion is legal and available. For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications, with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%. Similar reductions in maternal mortality have been observed after other countries have liberalized their abortion laws, such as Romania and Nepal » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
.

This is not just philosophy or morality. It is fact and weighs heavily in the balance. It should also be taken into account when considering the pros and cons of legalised abortion.

.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion are
compounded by the right of a woman to control her
own body. Many women feel that a decision about abortion
should be a strictly personal one, and they deeply resent
other people insisting that they should bear a child that
they do not want to have.

But here, too, there are ambiguities. Half the genes in the
fetus were contributed by the father, and although the
woman must bear the child, society may make the father
responsible for the child's support for nearly two decades
thereafter. If the father waves his responsibilities - for
example, by deserting the mother - then of course he has no
further rights in the matter. But if he accepts his
responsibilities and wants the child born, what are his
rights in relation to the mother's right to control her
body?

And for those who believe that the fetus is human, there is
a third party present: the mother is controlling not only
her own body, but somebody else's potential body and life.

Other abortion related issues go beyond the immediate
concerns of the parents. Some see abortion as the thin end
of a wedge leading to euthanasia, or the "mercy killing" of
defective newborns and infirm old people. Some point out that
the global population is soaring uncontrollably at a time
when we cannot adequately feed hundreds of millions of
people already alive. Some argue that because abortion will
occur whether it is legal or not, it is better that it take
place legally and under proper medical supervision.

Others claim that the welfare expenditures and other costs of
raising millions of unwanted and often illegitimate children
must be taken into account in any decisions about abortion.

Some have firm personal opinions about abortion, but are
unwilling to impose their views on others who may have
different views. And as time goes on, the legal, ethical,
and medical complexities have not abated.

Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on the
issue of abortion.

Perhaps Madeleines life has not gone well, & she now glorifies what might have been if she had that baby. Perhaps she suddenly got religion & that changed her attitude. What ever it is unfortunate she is unhappy about past decisions.

On the other hand I knew a number of young ladies/couples who chose abortion. Some found it difficult then, but were later very happy, when they saw other young single mothers struggling.

I also knew a couple of young ladies who planned adoption, had the baby, but then could not let it go. That is probably the most difficult decision of all. It should not happen today, with good contraception, if only youngsters will plan their sex lives.

.

As Foxy soberly observed :

« Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on the issue of abortion »

The Queensland parliament was perfectly aware of this. It took all the time that was necessary to carefully study this highly controversial and delicate issue in-depth before submitting it to the vote.

The question of the legalisation of abortion had been the subject of ongoing debate throughout the State since the 1970’s.

The commission that spearheaded the parliamentary study received 1,445 submissions with divergent views from various medical, scientific, religious, humanitarian, social, legal, etc., organisations, as well as a large number of interested individuals. The committee considered the views expressed in all of the submissions before making it final recommendations.

The law was passed on Wednesday, 17th October 2018 by 50 votes for and 41 against. Three LNP MPs – the former opposition leader Tim Nicholls, Steve Minnikin and Jann Stuckey – broke ranks with their colleagues to support the law.
.

To complete Foxy’s excellent round-up of the complexities involved, allow me to make the following remarks :

Babies are not the object of abortions. Only foetuses are the object of abortions.

Babies cannot be aborted because a baby is not a baby until it is born. Before it is born it is a foetus.

The OED defines a foetus as follows :

« An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception »

The OED defines a baby as follows :

« A very young child »

I consider that legislation authorising abortions of foetuses at no more than 22 weeks pregnancy (as in Queensland) is morally acceptable to society for the following reasons :

1. The foetus cannot survive independently of the woman prior to that limit. It has no life of its own.

2. The stage of development of its biological structure does not allow it to feel pain prior to that limit.

3. It does not acquire consciousness until the third trimester of pregnancy which begins at the 27th or 28th week :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for your kind words.

The great majority of the population would probably support
abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the
mother's health, but support for a mother's right to
abortion on demand fluctuates.

In any event the issue of abortion must be seen in the
context of social changes, premarital, marital and family life -
particularly the climate of sexual permissiveness and the
sense of individualism that leads people to make decisions
primarily in terms of their personal desires rather than of
traditional norms.

To Madeleine Weidemann,

Thank you for sharing, and I'm sorry for your loss.

To everyone else!

What is wrong with you all! Is the issues of abortion so big that any discussion on the finer points gets buried underneath!? Madeleine brought to our attention a choice she was pushed to make. Pressured to give in to.

To those of us who know abortion is wrong, the answer is simple. Don't support abortion. Possibly even to not support a promiscuous life. But to those of you who place abortion as a right, what is your stance of the choice being pushed on people? This is a time sensitive scenario. A woman discovers she is pregnant. And she only has a few weeks after it's discovered to make a decision. Is it right to push her to make the decision to abort? This is what Medeleine reported happened to her. Which I see no reason to doubt her, or think this is uncommon. Is that ok in the fight to support abortion?

How dare you all to ignore the focus of this article because the heart of the matter is about abortion. After all, our views that we support can't be rattled by the reality of how it actually plays out.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Go back to the article and answer these questions:

Is this a common scenario? Are women who are vulnerable after they discover they are pregnant pushed to abort by everyone they are around instead of coming to terms with the situation themselves? And if so, is there anything that can and should be done so it's actually her choice instead of discovering later whether or not they think they made a good choice?

These are part of the situation. How much do you tell a pregnant woman? Do you reassure her? Help her with her choice? Or is the right choice already known regardless what she chooses? (She's young, she'll be a single mother, the father is not a good one, she'll throw her life away...... .......) The reasons why a woman should abort are an added pressure. Not part of her choice but part of the pressure to hurry and choose to abort, it's for your own good.

By the comments of this discussion I don't see the people who say it's a woman's choice stand by that statement by trying to sort through this.

.

Dear Runner,

.

I thought I should mention that, in addition to being a brilliant (and, apparently, “divinely inspired”) neurosurgeon, I find Dr. Ben Carson (whom you quoted in your previous post) not only intelligent but also very sympathetic and full of good sense.

He was, of course, profoundly and indelibly marked by his modest origins and the Seventh-day Adventist religious beliefs he inherited from his mother – both of which have inspired him and illuminated his vision all his life.

Though, I do not, to even the slightest extent, share his hard right (pro-Trump) political ideals nor his biblical literalism (fundamentalism), that does not prevent me from understanding and admiring him as a person.

He strikes me as being a good man.

Nevertheless, it also occurred to me that you might be interested in the following articles which illustrate (with supporting citations) that, "according to the bible, a foetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath" :

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being

http://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/abortion-and-judeo-christian-religion/

.

NNS,

I don't think that anyone on this discussion is
"pushing" for abortion. Merely trying to discuss
all the issues surrounding this very complex
subject - and attempting not to be judgemental.
I imagine that having to make this sort of a
decision would be extremely difficult - and the
person/persons having to make this sort of a
decision certainly deserves support, empathy,
compassion, and understanding.

To Foxy.

Look at the article again. Madeleine felt that she was pushed to choose to abort. It's a central point to the article. I don't mean that people here are pushing for abortion to be chosen, (though for some I suspect that they do). However I'm sure this is a common occurance. Family, and medical staff try to push the option that they think is best for the girl who's pregnant instead of informing her enough to not later regret her decision.

That point is not addressed in the conversation that followed the article. If having the choice really is about leaving it up to the woman, then this should be a bigger issue to those who say that it's the woman's choice.

Does that clear up the confusion?

.

According to Christian doctrine, the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God to such an extent that their writings may be considered the word of God. They are sacred texts which some believe to be infallible and to be taken literally.

Despite that, the Bible’s authors and editors knowledge of nature and natural phenomena was limited to that of their epoch – much of which later became obsolete as new evidence was brought to light and scientific progress was made.

Scientists now estimate that planet earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing around 3.5 billion years ago. Recent research suggests that human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life – which has been relayed from generation to generation ever since.

A number of biblical texts describe life as being given (to individuals) by a “breath of air”. If this were so, a foetus would not be a living person with a soul until it emerged from the womb of its mother as a baby and took its first breath of air. Logically, then, the abortion of a foetus would not be the suppression of a living person.

However, the view that life begins at birth is contested by Pro-Life advocates, e.g., the student Pro-Life organisation of Princeton University in the US” contends that “a human being is the immediate product of fertilisation” :

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

The (Halachic) Jewish interpretation of when human life begins is a little more complex and may be resumed as follows :

« The consensus about the time when human life really begins is still not reached among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes … Current biological perspectives on when human life begins range through fertilization, gastrulation, to birth and even after. The development of a newborn is a smoothly continuous process » :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/
.

It seems to me that the Pro-Lifers’ and Jewish interpretations are more complementary than contradictory – two parts of one truth.

.

NNS,

Medical practitioners (and hospitals) today give
as much information as possible to their clients
so that they can make informed choices.
Ultimately though, the final decision remains with
the patient. As far as I'm aware - no reputable
medical practitioner will push their client towards
any decision. They will give them all the information
on the options available and then leave the final
decision up to them.

'Scientists now estimate that planet earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing around 3.5 billion years ago'

according the scientist who repeat lies often enough that people are to dumb to question. Its gone from a couple of million years from when I was young to 4.5 billion. You really have to be daft to swallow this stupidity and very willing to accept pseudo science.

runner,

Those who arrive at wrong answers - and there are likely
to be many - will not burn at the stake as critics of
religion did in the pre-Englightenment days. Scientists
who start to head down a wrong road will be valued for
closing off an erroneous line of investigation, also
falsification is open to peer review and public scrutiny -
and therefore the process of seeking solutions will and
does continue. Good science does exist and is capable of
doing a great deal of good.

Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of
science. It is not corrupt. Its science is world class.
Of course, we cannot dismiss religious intervention in
science as a thing of the past. On issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic interests
and political interests, censorship still exists today.

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities they
open up for the improvement of the human lot, are still
threats to whose who have become comfortable in their
ideologies (religious of otherwise).

To Foxy. Here are a few points from Madeleine Weidemann in her article. It is from these statements that challenge your view that medical practitioners give all the information. That they do is the hope, I agree. But in reality, here is an article on what really occurred in her life.

"I had to make decisions quickly. I felt so out of control and I made the only decision I thought I had. I booked an abortion."

"No one around me suggested or supported any other options, because, as my counsellor wrote on my admission form, I believed it was "best for me, and my baby, to terminate". And it was my body, and my decision alone."

"My GP assumed I would get an abortion and so we just discussed how I would go about that. My boyfriend and my family didn't know what to say, so didn't say much at all."

"The clinic brushed aside my fears and uncertainties, and then proceeded to placate me with pleasant untruths about the development of the foetus inside me. They lied to my face. I didn't understand what was growing inside me."

"It was with horror that some years later I looked at the development of an unborn baby at 8 weeks. Only then did I understand that the "ball of cells no bigger than my little fingernail" - the description the so-called counsellor had used to reassure me – which I had got scraped out was indeed far more human than I had been led to believe."

"I was not given the dignity of a genuinely informed choice, the freedom to look at all my options, or encouraged to think for myself. Instead, it was essentially decided for me that abortion was the best and simplest, the only choice I had. And it is a dangerous world when only one choice is given."

.

Dear Runner,

.

Commenting on my statement that “scientists now estimate that planet earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago”, you observed :

« It’s gone from a couple of million years from when I was young to 4.5 billion »

I didn’t realise you were that old, Runner. The data available in the 1920s gave a figure close to 2 billion years for the age of the Universe. Previous estimates, prior to the 1920’s – even prior to your birth, perhaps – include the Aztec estimate of 2,500 years and the Chinese estimate of 129,600 years. Indian mythology assumed an even longer time of 4.3 billions of years (about the age of the Earth by present standards).

In the Western world, the pioneering work on the dating of the universe was done by a young Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) who published his first major scientific study on the question of how the universe was formed, in 1927, in “Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles” :

http://www.campbellsville.edu/blog/georges-lemaitre-age-universe/

Philosophers and theologists who were the first in the Western world to hazard a guess as to how and when the universe was formed have very wisely given-up trying to compete with the present-day teams of astro-physicists with their super powerful telescopes and modern scientific methods.

That said, I understand your disarray at the thought of how quickly things have evolved since we were kids. When I was in primary school the population of Australia was only 8 million (it’s now 25 million).

Miss Diplock, taught us that a straight line was the shortest distance between two points. Later, Einstein posited that so-called “straight lines” were curved :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Relativity

When my wife and I got married in Paris, we decided to have a baby. In fact, we had two. Now both kids are seasoned adults (nearly as old as us) and have their own families …

Guess what !

That’s evolution !

As you say, Runner : I really must “be daft to swallow this stupidity …” !

.

NNS,

The author of this article obviously had a bad
experience. We don't know the entire circumstances
of the case - nevertheless that does not change
the fact that today - hospitals, clinics, and GPs are
obligated to provide their clients with information
on all the options available to them so that patients
are able to make informed choices.

Times do change - especially in fields like medicine
and patient care.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

This abridged version of Madeleine’s speech to a Rally for Life meeting in Toowoomba on 26 September 2018 does not provide us with sufficient details in order for us to be able to form a considered opinion.

It is, nevertheless, clear that she mistakenly identifies her decision to abort as the cause of her problem, whereas, in fact, it was not the cause but the solution – which she now deeply regrets.

The cause of her problem was discovering that she was pregnant when she “was just 18, had just finished school and had [her] whole life ahead of [her]. She acknowledges that she “felt so out of control and [she] made the only decision [she] thought [she] had. [She] booked an abortion”.

There we have it in a nutshell.

For the rest of the article, she designates abortion and holds everyone responsible other than herself :

« I was not given the dignity of a genuinely informed choice, the freedom to look at all my options, or encouraged to think for myself. Instead, it was essentially decided for me that abortion was the best and simplest, the only choice I had. And it is a dangerous world when only one choice is given. The recently passed Queensland Labor Government’s Termination of Pregnancy Act utterly ignores my pain and regret and that of the tens of thousands of women like me »

In other words : “everyone is responsible except me”.

According to the latest published statistics, for the whole of Australia in 2004, there were 11,270 teenage abortions compared to 10,779 live births (51% of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion).

Following New South Wales, Queensland (where abortion was illegal up until 17th October 2018) had the second highest state for teenage pregnancies with 2283 abortions and 2860 live births. 44% of teenage pregnancies were the subject of abortions. 56% were live births.
.

I respectfully suggest that Madeleine study the true cause of her decision : all the conditions and circumstances that resulted in her pregnancy and why she did not want the baby.

.

To Foxy and Banjo Peterson.

Based on what's written in the article, I see no reason to doubt Madeleine's testimony regarding her abortion. Perhaps if we had someone else who's had an abortion confirm or challenge Madeleine's story by their own experiences of abortion, then we can qualify her story or your guy's doubt.

As far as I'm concerned though not getting the full picture helps make the decision to abort or not abort easier for a young pregnant teenager. For those who choose to abort, believing that all they are doing is extracting a small bit of tissue instead of ejecting a human in their womb makes it easier to choose to abort. For those who choose to keep the baby, a less then full realization of the responsibilities and difficunties involved help that choice. On that note though, that might help the mother to be hear the reassuring parts that parents say it's difficult but they love their son or daughter and wouldn't trade those hardships for the world.

What Madelene is asking for is for more information for young girls before making the decision to abort or keep the baby. Let them find out how human that tiny bit of tissue really is. Let them know about adoption, and if their parents agree about the support they will have while raising the kid. Let them know what options they have outside of abortion or take the burden on your own. Because as far as I can tell, this story rings true with the debates and conversations that surround abortion. Abortion is given as the only real option, and everything else is made out to sound like a horror story. A blight on a person's life. If that is how society as a whole supports the decision to abort, how much more would a medical practitioner who is doing the abortion ignore any other options and concerns because to them, abortion is the right option.

It's not an unreasonable demand, to say "let the pregnant girls get more informed," before struggling with this hard decision of abortion.

To Banjo Peterson.

The stat you gave regarding teens who aborted and those who gave birth is a frightening figure. If it's true it shows an issue that is not being addressed by abortion. The real cause of pregnancies. A sex driven culture and the issue of unprotected sex among teens and young adults. Then just as frightening is that of those pregnancies, more of them are aborted then are kept. That's not a bragging number of a small figure of people who choose to abort and it's their choice. It's a horrific number of people choosing to kill off the next generation because they can't handle celibacy.

NNS,

Neither myself nor I am sure Banjo Paterson doubts
the author and what she says she went through.
We just don't know the full circumstances of her
particular case. And I'm sure that Both Banjo and myself
agree that young girls should have all the necessary
information and options explained to them so that they
understand the choices they have. Education is the key -
not only regarding abortion - but sex, pregnancy, and all
the issues involved.

To Foxy. Here's a thought to consider.

For a moment let's pretend your in a position to talk to and advise a young girl who is pregnant. What opinions would you suggest. What questions or solutions would you ask to help themselves? Please include any options other then abortion as well.

It's a hypothetical sitution, but play it out for me will you. I'd like to know with abortion what other options you'd give her.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I see with pleasure that you are beginning to know me well. I confirm, if need be, that I endorse everything you have written in your recent post. Perhaps, when I’m old and grey and feel I need a proxy on this forum, you would be kind enough to continue to associate my pseudo with yours whenever you feel appropriate.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

I’m afraid there’s not much we can do for Madeleine. She is actively campaigning for what is generally known as the Pro-Life movement, apparently convinced that women should not have the right to choose if they want to have a baby or not.

It seems to me that as she is unwilling to assume personal responsibility for her own abortion, she is promoting the idea that Pro-Choice means No-choice.

According to Madeleine, either you are Pro-Life and you have the baby or you are Pro-Choice and you have an abortion.

Believe that if you will. I don’t.

That said, I understand the emotional turmoil she must be going through at the thought that the first major decision she made on becoming an adult at the age of eighteen was to have an abortion. Personal responsibility for that must be pretty terrible to admit - especially to herself.

There’s not much more that I can say on that subject, so, if you don’t mind, I’ll now sign off.

But before I do, here is the link to the statistics I mentioned in my previous post :

http://teenagepregnancynatalie.weebly.com/facts-and-statistics.html

.

Banjo

Please don’t make out that there is anything you want to do for Madeleine other than to judge and criticise her. It seems there cannot be a voice that challenges the narrative that abortion is safe for women.

You misrepresent her in claiming she is “convinced that women should not have the right to choose if they want a baby or not”.

All she was doing in her article was courageously telling her personal story as a warning to other women.

She was advocating that women with an unwanted pregnancy should have real choice (i.e., more than one option promoted), be provided with factual information about the development of the unborn child and the risks of the procedure, and be given real support to continue with the pregnancy, should they wish to do so.

This is informed consent, which is the last thing the so-called pro-choice lobby wants.

Evidence of this was a true pro-choice law introduced by a Liberal ACT Government in 1999 which required women seeking an abortion to be given a booklet produced by the ACT Health Department containing information on the development of the unborn child, the risks of the procedure, and contact details of counselling and support agencies. There was a 72 hour cooling-off period before an abortion could be performed.

Practically the first thing Labor did when it won back government in 2002 was to repeal this law, thus unmasking themselves as pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

Madeleine is NOT “actively campaigning for the pro-life movement”. She courageously told of her personal experience at ONE rally against a new Queensland law which contained no protection for women, to warn that abortion is not as safe as pro-abortion advocates make out.

For evidence that abortion can harm the psychological health of women, which is a real risk they should be warned of, see www.realchoices.org.au. Also see an intriguing article entitled Women, Abortion and the Brain, about the experience of many feminists who make a rational decision in line with their values to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy, but who are blindsided with unexpected grief - https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1657/

Also, Banjo, in response to your previous posts, if you think that somehow the unborn child in the womb is not human, and therefore not worthy of protection, you are kidding yourself.

Any thinking person knows that the entity in a pregnant woman’s womb is not animal, mineral or vegetable, that it is in fact a new human being, even before its heart starts beating 21 days after conception. I should say he or she because sex is determined at conception.

Pretending that this is not a unique and irreplaceable human life is a lie that good people have to tell themselves, or believe, in order to justify the killing of their unborn children, their own “flesh and blood” (metaphorically speaking, because the unborn baby has different DNA and perhaps a different blood type to the mother).

Society hides what it does by calling it “termination of pregnancy” as if there was nothing inside the mother’s womb. Nature terminates pregnancies after 9 months. Abortion EX-terminates babies.

Banjo, you claimed in an earlier post that the unborn child in the womb is not technically a baby. But it all depends on whether the child is wanted or not. When a child is wanted, the excited mother describes the entity in her womb as a baby, not as an embryo or foetus.

It seems only wantedness confers value on unborn human life.

For the record, I am pro-life because I am pro-woman. I have met numerous women who have suffered from their abortions, and have read a lot of literature and studies on what is called post-abortion syndrome.

Although I believe that every human life deserves a lifetime, my main concern is the damage abortion does to the health of women, and the fact that there is a cover-up of these risks.

For an expose of this cover-up, watch the award-winning documentary Hush (with a pro-life producer and a pro-choice director), which interviews leading advocates on both sides of the debate, at http://hushfilm.com/

Women have the right to know, and not be coerced or pressured into what is a harmful life-changing decision

//Madeleine is NOT “actively campaigning for the pro-life movement”. She courageously told of her personal experience at ONE rally//

Nope, that's a just a big, fat, lie. A fairly bold ploy in the age of the internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR_s2T4mmX4

You're claiming she only spoke at the 26/9/18 Toowoomba rally for life, but the posting date for that video is 15/8/16 - more than two years prior. So Madeleine has been campaigning on behalf of the pro-life movement for over two years, at least. She's also a member of pro-life organisation Emily's Voice. Given that I get the distinct impression that you're fairly heavily in the pro-life movement yourself, I suspect that you knew damn well it was a lie when you made the statement and were just naively hoping that none of us would twig to that fact.

Gather round, good people, and witness the sort of dirty tactics that the pro-life movement aren't ashamed to stoop to. Behold their dodgy 'ends justify means' ethics. Be appalled at the way they hold their opponents in the debate in such low esteem that they will merrily lie through their teeth to them, with nary a twinge of guilt.

//Any thinking person knows that the entity in a pregnant woman’s womb is not animal//

We've been through this; humans have been considered part of the animal kingdom since at least Linnaeus' time. It makes you look a bit of a goose when you keep clinging to the same erroneous statement like it's some kind of mantra.

//Although I believe that every human life deserves a lifetime, my main concern is the damage abortion does to the health of women//

Yeah, it's a surgical procedure and it has risks. Of course, so does pregnancy. That being said, some of the claims that often get thrown about when it comes to the risks associated with abortions are demonstrably false: abortion does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer, nor does it increase the risk of long-term mental health problems.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/
http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/safetyofabortion

//and the fact that there is a cover-up of these risks.//

Oh here we go... get your tinfoil hats out, folks! We're headin' on over into conspiracy country.

You seem to be rather strident in your tone, Toni.

The fact remains that in the campaign against the recently passed Queensland law, to the best of my knowledge, Madeleine spoke at just one public gathering and confined her remarks to sharing her personal story as a warning to other women that abortion can cause harm, and criticising the proposed law because it contained no safeguards for women to ensure informed consent.

The harm abortion does to women is something that pro-abortion activists deny at all costs.

That Madeleine also shared her personal story at a public forum against the Pyne Bills in 2016 is neither here nor there.

She cannot be described as a pro-life activist if she is merely sharing her personal experience, and she should not be pilloried and condemned for doing so.

NNS,

You asked me what I would advise a young pregnant girl
apart from abortion. There are so many things to consider.
And due to the word limits imposed on our posts - the
best way for me to answer you is by giving you the link
listed below - which gives the - "teen pregnancy options."
I would use that information to help the young girl - and
for the reasons listed.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/teen-pregnancy-options

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for your kind words.

Even when you're old and grey - I have the distinct feeling
that you won't be going quietly into the night.
You rock!

//You seem to be rather strident in your tone, Toni.//

Et tu, Brute.

//to the best of my knowledge, Madeleine spoke at just one public gathering//

Seriously, mate? I just showed you clear evidence that that isn't the case, and you're still persisting with your claim? You must think we all have rocks in our heads or something.

//confined her remarks to sharing her personal story as a warning to other women that abortion can cause harm, and criticising the proposed law because it contained no safeguards for women to ensure informed consent.//

Or as in we say in the vernacular, 'campaigned on behalf of the pro-life movement'. The fact that her various public appearances are based on her personal experience in no way negates the fact that she is campaigning on behalf of the pro-life movement. I'm not sure why you think it does.

//That Madeleine also shared her personal story at a public forum against the Pyne Bills in 2016 is neither here nor there.//

Yes, how convenient that piece of evidence totally destroying your original falsehood that Madeleine had only ever spoken at ONE (your emphasis) public rally just so happens to be 'neither here nor there'. Tell me, do you actually think anyone will buy the notion that evidence can be rendered irrelevant by your personal decree?

Face it, buddy: you got sprung. Trying to wriggle and squirm and play silly buggers with semantics isn't a good look, and in fact will lead to the loss of more face than if you just took it on the chin - you can't fool all the people all the time, and there's no shame in that.

//She cannot be described as a pro-life activist if she is merely sharing her personal experience//

Yes, yes she can. After all, if a woman spoke at a pro-choice rally about her positive personal experience of abortion, you'd definitely count that as pro-abortion campaigning... wouldn't you? Be honest now, wouldn't want that nose to grow any more.

//she should not be pilloried and condemned for doing so.//

No, of course not. Nobody should be condemned for exercising their right to free speech as long as they're not shouting 'Fire!' in the theater. Nobody should be pilloried at all, it's cruel and unusual punishment. But it doesn't follow that her speech should be immune from criticism. The right to criticise the speech of others is essential to free speech.

.

So the cat’s out of the bag ! Thanks to the video posted by Toni Lavis we can see and hear Madeleine on YouTube telling us, in the opening lines of her testimony :

« I accidentally got pregnant at 18, and in the midst of confusion and shock, I chose to have an abortion, but I’m not sure it was choice to be honest, because no other options were really given me. I wasn’t overtly coerced or threatened, but I was certainly not empowered to make an informed decision »

The video was posted on YouTube on the 15th August, 2016 by the Pro-Life organisation, Cherish Life, previously known as Queensland Right to Life.. In addition to that, Madeleine gave a speech to a Rally for Life in Toowoomba on 26 September 2018. The article posted here on OLO on the 18th October is presented as an abridged version of that speech – though, as we can see, the opening lines of the 2016 speech are quite different from those of the OLO article.

So, as far as we know, there are (at least) four different versions of her speech in three different media (2 live rallies, YouTube, and OLO). Naturally, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it is more than just testifying at “one rally” as BigAlOz persistently maintains.

Madeleine’s implication with the Pro-Life movement is obviously far more important than BigAlOz is prepared to admit.

I do not doubt Madeleine’s sincerity but, seen in that light, the picture is completely different from the one we were led to believe initially.

The following passages on YouTube are quite revealing :

« … when mothers don’t feel free to speak openly to their daughters, and professionals cannot be relied upon to speak the truth, vulnerable women like me are … not free to choose »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« … several years later [after the abortion], while studying anatomy and physiology, I was shocked to learn that at 8 weeks pregnant when I aborted, the “baby” [foetus] would have been three centimetres long and every organ not functioning, its heart beating, therefore what I was told was wrong and the discovery horrified me. I’ve heard other women … »

As Madeleine says, she is “vulnerable” and, apparently, also, impressionable as well as influenceable. By putting two and two together, it seems more than likely that at least some if not all of the “other women” she refers to are somehow connected to the Pro-Life movement as well.

It is obvious that Madeleine’s discourse and the discourse of the Pro-Life movement dovetail perfectly. No doubt that is why the movement actively promotes it.

I sincerely feel sorry for Madeleine and hope that she will one day manage to distance herself from all these outside influences and develop sufficient self-confidence in order to be able to make her own, truly independent decisions.

Perhaps psychotherapy might be of some assistance in this endeavour. If it could at least put an end to her suffering that would already be a positive result.

.

To Foxy.

I hope you would give a pregnant teen several options to consider, aside from abortion. Though the article you gave was lengthy it gave only three basic options for what to do, and focused a good deal on how hard it will be to keep the baby, which really means that it's pushing for the option to abort. If it wasn't trying to pressure for abortion but to make the teen aware of the difficulties then there would hopefully be both what the teen needs to prepare for, and some direction on how to prepare for it.

Here's what I'd like to see happen, or something I hope I would do if in the situation to give advise.

1). Have the options available to show the teen. Agency contact numbers for both adoption and abortion organizations. As well as a few questions on the girl's life situation to gauge if she has outside support if she decides to keep the baby and raise him or her. With this the girl can leave with more options and direct access to be able to accomplish the option she chooses.

(Continued)

(Continued)

2). The harsh reality of what it means to raise the baby, abort the baby, or give the baby away. But along with those thing to prepare her with, also give her what she would need to know to make it through those things. For aborting the baby, really let her know what that means. It's not just a collection of cells. This option should not be an easy decision to agree to, but a last option because of what it means she is doing. For holding onto the baby , the reality of what happens while being pregnant should be given, and what she will need to give up (drugs, drinking, anything else) as well as what she should prepare for to do while pregnant. That way if she does keep the child to raise herself or adopt, then she has the path laid out on what to expect and how to accomplish this. Same with giving up the baby or raising the baby, what to expect and how to prepare for it.

3). If it's possible, have a candid conversation on how she became pregnant. A conversation on her current choices and on seeking healthy (and hopefully lasting) relationships. Basically a reality check on giving giving themselves up to some who wants to have sex with them, verses good characteristics to look for in a boyfriend. If there is an issue with drugs or alcohol then address that too. Regardless what she chooses for the baby she is pregnant with, what she does from there different from how she got to this point is important. Having safe sex and how to not get into this same situation is worth mentioning if it's possible to do so.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Those three things aren't what I expect everyone to be able to do for giving advise, but they are what I think the medical practitioners should already be doing for the girl. They should be aware of the options and give out how to deal with each. Instead of explaining what will be the issues with keeping the baby and only laying out the path for abortion.

Banjo, there’s no cat and no bag!

As you know, at the end of Madeleine’s article on On Line Opinion appeared these words: “This is an edited version of Madeleine Weidemann's speech to a Rally for Life in Toowoomba on 26 September 2018.”

That she also told her personal story at a forum in a different campaign against the Pyne abortion Bills two years earlier (which is on YouTube) does not make her a pro-life activist.

There are NOT, as you claim, “four different versions of her speech”. There were two separate speeches two years apart, but very similar as would be expected given they are on the same subject matter.

Her consistent message is a warning that abortion can harm women and is not the quick and easy fix that it is made out to be, as well as a call for legislative safeguards such as informed consent requirements and independent counselling to screen against coercion.

Your attempts, and those of Toni, to discredit her because her message undermines the feminist propaganda that abortion is “safe”, are a disgrace.

I reiterate my challenge to you both to inform yourselves of the health risks of abortion to women, by going to www.realchoices.org.au. Also read this article about the experience of many feminists who make a rational decision in line with their values to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy, but who are blindsided with unexpected grief - see https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1657/

And watch the award-winning documentary Hush (with a pro-life producer and a pro-choice director, who is still pro-choice at the end of the project but firmly in favour of a woman’s right to know). This film interviews leading advocates on both sides of the abortion debate and can be seen at http://hushfilm.com/

Finally, I challenge you to find out what you are supporting by watching this 5 minute video of former US abortion provider Dr Anthony Levatino testifying about the technique for performing a mid-trimester abortion before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Note this is only a verbal description. No animated or real video of an abortion is shown. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU

NNS,

The link I gave is only one of many that are available
on the web - giving options for teen pregnancies.
I gave it merely as an example. Of course I would provide as
many options as I could find. That is part and parcel of
what I do. It's an occupational habit. I am a librarian
by profession and have worked in special, public,
university, national, and parliamentary libraries.

I trust that clarifies things for you.

//Your attempts, and those of Toni, to discredit her//

I haven't attempted to discredit her; I've attempted to discredit you because you seem to have a problem being honest. And that's another fib you've just told just there. You just can't help yourself, can you? Pathological.... I don't think there's much point continuing this discussion.

To Foxy. I hope you do give as much information as you can. And if you do, thank you. But I can't agree with abortion, or agree with the problem that it's used as a solution for. It seems like people don't even try to keep kids from having sex, or holding them to a standard to wait. So we give up. And that's a great loss.

My desire for medical practioners would be to give the three things I posted about. But if Madeline's experience is true, than there's likely a lot of them that don't give any opinion a full scope except abortion. A sad state of affairs, and should be an alarming issue is the cause is really for the girl to choose.

NNS,

Thank You for sharing your thoughts on this very emotive
subject. Few issues in recent years have so divided
people as has the morality of abortion. It is frightening
that in some areas, like New York State, there are almost
as many abortions as live births. In short, abortion is
being used as a means of after-the-fact birth control.
To some people, this is a matter of no particular significance,
to others, it is little short of mass murder.

I really don't have anything else that I can add to this
discussion. For me it's now run it's course.

I look forward to our next discussion.

Have a nice evening.

.

Dear BigAlOz,

.

All that you say may be true, BigAlOz, but, I’m afraid it’s only one side of the story. Before making any judgment, one should always carefully examine both sides of the story. Otherwise, the decision one makes is not equitable, fair and impartial. It is biased.

In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).

There are no Australian statistics but the problematic is similar.

While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities worldwide, each year. Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide. Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women. The rate of unsafe [illegal] abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.

Countries with restrictive abortion laws have higher rates of unsafe [illegal] abortion and similar overall abortion rates compared to those where abortion is legal and available. For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications, with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%. Similar reductions in maternal mortality have been observed after other countries have liberalized their abortion laws, such as Romania and Nepal.

This is not just philosophy or morality. It is fact and weighs heavily in the balance. It should also be taken into account when considering the pros and cons of legalised abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
.

I think you will agree that the real problem is how we raise our children. How we educate them and accompany them in their daily lives from birth to adulthood, remaining at their disposal thereafter.

In my view, there is no such divide as Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. There is just Pro-Whatever is Best for all concerned in each particular case, without any ideological considerations or preconceived ideas.

I already indicated in my previous post what I think would be best for Madelene.

.

Banjo,

Claims that abortion is safer than childbirth are not true. Studies that look at the relative safety of abortion versus childbirth rely on incomplete data as most of the Western world does not collect data on the number of abortions, or abortion-related complications or deaths.

When they do occur, many deaths are attributable to the immediate presenting concern, such as infection or haemorrhage, not the underlying cause of abortion. They also fail to consider the psychological trauma, including the increased risk of suicide and other self-destructive behaviour after an abortion.

See a 2012 presentation by Professor Priscilla Coleman at http://realchoices.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Coleman_Abortion-Related-Mortality.pdf

In fact, there are studies that suggest that women are at a much lower risk of death from many causes after childbirth. For more information, see http://realchoices.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/chidlbirth-abortion.pdf and http://realchoices.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Medical_Science_Monitor_Danish-study_9_12.pdf

Making abortion legal or illegal has never, historically, made the slightest difference to the safety of women. Medicine alone, not the law, has achieved all the gains in maternal safety. See an excellent On Line Opinion article by Dr David van Gend in 2004 explaining this at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2741 .

See also the Appendix of his submission to the Queensland Parliament Health Committee inquiry into the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which you will see was censored by the committee because its members did not want to know the reality of what abortion entailed. The Appendix is on Pages 14 to 18 at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/HCDSDFVPC/2018/TerminationOfPregnancyB18/submissions/461.pdf .

Third world countries need antibiotics and blood transfusion services, not abortion, if they are to reduce mortality from any and all pregnancy-related conditions

.

Dear BigAlOz,

.

Having checked-out the four references you quoted in your recent post for which you provided internet links, I see that the first two refer to articles written by Priscilla K. Coleman, a Pro-Life university professor in Ohio and director of a Pro-Life organisation called “Wecare”.

The second two refer to an OLO article and a Queensland parliamentary submission written by David van Gend, a Toowoomba medical GP and Queensland secretary for the Pro-Life organisation called the “World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life”.
.

When they were submitted to peer review, Priscilla K. Coleman’s statistics and research were severely criticised as scientifically flawed :

« Researchers were unable to reproduce Coleman's results on abortion and mental health despite using the same dataset, and have described her findings as "logically inconsistent" and potentially "substantially inflated" by faulty methodology. The American Psychological Association (APA) and other major medical bodies have concluded that the evidence does not support a link between abortion and mental health problems, and APA panellists charged with reviewing the evidence were similarly critical of the methodology of Coleman's studies.

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA). An APA panel found that studies by Coleman and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately consider "women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_K._Coleman
.

The “World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life”, for which David van Gend is Quensland secretary, is an international Pro-Life medical organization advocating the foetal right to life. The federation also opposes human embryo research and in vitro fertilization.

You draw my attention, in particular, to “… the Appendix of his submission to the Queensland Parliament Health Committee inquiry into the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which you will see was censored by the committee because its members did not want to know the reality of what abortion entailed”. However, I note that it has been far less censored than ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... the main body of his submission. Also, there is nothing to indicate that the four brief passages to which you refer were censored “because its members [the Queensland Parliament Health Committee] did not want to know the reality of what abortion entailed”. Perhaps those particular passages were censored simply because the author was employing offensive language, or for some other reason.

In any event, despite those four brief censored passages, I see that the main body of his argument in the Appendix has not been censored at all. His graphs and all his other data have been published, perfectly intact. Whether they are scientifically valid or not is another matter.
.

I’m afraid none of this is very convincing, BigAlOz. Unfortunately, it is all very obviously biased Pro-Life and can only be considered pseudo-science. Neither Pricilla K. Coleman nor David van Gend are scientifically neutral. Their work has been discredited. They both have an axe-to-grind. Both are clearly Pro-Life.

But please don’t let me discourage you. If you can come up with more reliable statistics, data and research from reputable, independent (unbiased) sources, I should be delighted to hear of it.

.

Banjo Paterson.

If I may, I would suggest to dislodge one of those conditions. To look for an unbiased source. Instead if you want a position to be validated have the condition of it being peer reviewed, or that the results are sampled from another group to confirm the findings.

I say this because in most topics, expecially social topics, the reasurchers are there because they have the strong motivation to seek the answers they are looking for. It essentially means that those who take the time to start a new study are already biased because they believe in it. But if the findings can be peer reviewed, and retested, then who cares if the origional researcher was biased. The truth can be confirmed.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice organisations play a significant role in shaping the debate over abortion. These organisations’ objectives are opposed to each other – the former seeking to restrict abortion laws, the latter seeking to liberalize them.

They are ideological organisations whose purpose is to promote their ideology as broadly as possible within the general public and to influence lawmakers, both directly and indirectly, so that they promulgate legislation in conformity with their particular ideology.

Abortion is a highly polemical subject, heavily charged with emotion. Much of the communication concerning it, emitted by the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice organisations and their activists and supporters, is tainted, either overtly or covertly, with propaganda.

It is naïve and unrealistic to expect either of them to “shoot itself in the foot”, as it were, by providing an objective, fully comprehensive analysis of abortion whose logical conclusions turn out to be contrary to their specific ideology.

Also, as Linda Gordon wrote in her book “Woman's Body, Woman's Right”, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), abortion is by no means a recent phenomenon :

« Over several centuries and in different cultures, there is a rich history of women helping each other to abort. Until the late 1800s, women healers in Western Europe and the U.S. provided abortions and trained other women to do so, without legal prohibitions.

The State didn't prohibit abortion until the 19th century, nor did the Church lead in this new repression. In 1803, Britain first passed antiabortion laws, which then became stricter throughout the century. The U.S. followed as individual states began to outlaw abortion. By 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those ``necessary to save the life of the woman.'' But the tradition of women's right to early abortion was rooted in U.S. society by then; abortionists continued to practice openly with public support, and juries refused to convict them … »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« … Abortion became a crime and a sin for several reasons. A trend of humanitarian reform in the mid-19th century broadened liberal support for criminalization, because at that time abortion was a dangerous procedure done with crude methods, few antiseptics, and high mortality rates. But this alone cannot explain the attack on abortion. For instance, other risky surgical techniques were considered necessary for people's health and welfare and were not prohibited. ``Protecting'' women from the dangers of abortion was actually meant to control them and restrict them to their traditional child-bearing role. Antiabortion legislation was part of an antifeminist backlash to the growing movements for suffrage, voluntary motherhood, and other women's rights in the 19th century »
.

Since then, there have been a number of studies on abortion, most of poor quality and many more or less biased. Here is a fairly recent overview that cites two of the most reputable, comprehensive and objective studies that were carried out by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2008 and the U.K. Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2011 on the subject raised by Madeleine regarding her personal deep regret following her decision to abort :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health

Here is the link to the American study on this subject :

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/amp-64-9-863.pdf

Here is the link to the UK study which confirms the findings of the American study :

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/amp-64-9-863.pdf

.

Thanks for the encouragement, Banjo. Instead of quoting at length from pro-abortion ideologues like Linda Gordon and medical bodies which have been captured by the Left, perhaps you will open your mind to the possibility that not only the authors of many of these studies on abortion are biased, as Not Now Soon reminds us, but so are the peer reviewers.

I concede that group think maintains that abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, because that would not be politically correct in a world which promotes the choice to terminate pregnancy above the right to life of an unborn child.

One study that details these risks and somehow managed to beat this censorship and get published is a gold standard 30 year longitudinal study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2006 by Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, J.H. and Boden J.M.

A self-described pro-choice atheist and rationalist, the late Dr David M. Fergusson, Professor of Psychology at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, undertook his first investigation with the expectation that his cohort data would prove that the apparent link between abortion and mental health problems would be explained by pre-existing factors. Instead, his data revealed that abortion was an independent "risk factor for the onset of mental illness."

The study found abortion increased the risk of suicide ideation by 61%, the risk of major depression by 31%, the risk of anxiety disorder by 131%, the risk of alcohol dependence by 188% and the risk of illicit drug dependence by 185%.

While retaining a pro-choice position, Fergusson's research convinced him that: "Abortion is a traumatic life event; that is, it involves loss, it involves grief, it involves difficulties. And the trauma may, in fact, predispose people to having mental illness."

Continued in next post….

CONTINUED...

Fergusson reported experiencing difficulties getting his study published since the results contradicted the prevailing view that abortion does not have mental health consequences.

Saying that his studies were normally accepted the first time, Fergusson reported that the first of his studies on abortion was rejected by four journals because of the controversial nature of his findings. He was also asked to not publish the results by New Zealand's Abortion Supervisory Committee, the government agency responsible for regulating compliance with the country's abortion laws. He refused to comply with the request because he felt it would be "scientifically irresponsible" to hide the findings.

Unfortunately, he later succumbed to pressure, and following further reviews of other abortion-related research, Fergusson watered down his public position to one that abortion posed a small to moderate increase in risk of some mental health problems.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Fergusson

By the way, in a paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry in April 2013, entitled “Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence”, Fergusson analysed Professor Coleman’s study which you rightly pointed out had been heavily criticised, and concluded that neither her methodology, nor her findings were flawed.

See http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004867413484597

.

Dear BigAlOz,

.

I agree, the late David Fergusson’s research is worth mentioning.

The research he undertook was so vast and complex that even he admitted the study had enough shortcomings to warrant caution in reading too much into the findings. Perhaps, most significantly, Ferguson and his colleagues did not separate out for analysis purposes women whose pregnancies were unintended and women whose pregnancies were wanted, as did the Royal Colleges' researchers. The authors themselves admitted that this was a significant failing.

The Guttmacher Institute commented on the study in the following terms :

« Two studies from New Zealand suggesting that abortion may be associated with or possibly cause later mental health problems employed a more rigorous methodology than many prior studies addressing the issue, but they still have significant shortcomings.

• The principal methodological strength of both studies, which were conducted by David Fergusson and colleagues, is that they followed the same groups of women over an extended period of time.

• Nonetheless, the APA review of the 2006 Fergusson study cautions that “several design features limit conclusions that can be drawn from this study,” among them failing to control for the wantedness or intentionality of pregnancy, not separating women who had multiple abortions from those who had only one, and not accounting for the underreporting of abortion.

• The 2008 Fergusson study likewise did not separate women who had multiple abortions from those who had only one, and it did not account for underreporting of abortion. This study also did not determine that women who had abortions were more likely than women who had unintended births (or other pregnancy outcomes) to have subsequent mental health problems; instead, the authors compared women who experienced each pregnancy outcome (abortion, pregnancy loss, unintended birth, intended birth) with women who had not experienced that particular pregnancy outcome (e.g., women who had an abortion were compared with all women who had not had an abortion, when the appropriate comparison group would have been all other women whose unintended pregnancy did not end in abortion) » :

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

http://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/advisory-abortion-mental-health.pdf

Also, see pp 88-89 of the APA Task Force Report on Mental Health and Abortion :

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf
.

My impression is that Fergusson was an honest person but the task was simply so immense he was unable to control it with all the rigour necessary. The initial results were so obviously controversial it is quite understandable that four professional journals refused to publish them until they had been peer reviewed.

As it turned out, they were right. Fergusson and his co-authors admitted that themselves. It had nothing to do with any “pressure” or ceding to “politically correctness”, as you suggest.

Fergusson does not strike me as being the sort of person to cede to any form of pressure from anybody. In a letter to the New Zealand Abortion Supervisory Committee in June 2004, he said he was fully aware of "the circus" that publication would provoke. But it would be "scientifically irresponsible" not to publish the results just because they were controversial, he wrote in the letter, released under the Official Information Act.

"To provide a parallel to this situation, if we were to find evidence of an adverse reaction to medication, we would be obliged ethically to publish that fact," he told the NZPA.
.

The link you provided does not substantiate your statement that “Fergusson analysed Professor Coleman’s study which you rightly pointed out had been heavily criticised, and concluded that neither her methodology, nor her findings were flawed”. Please re-send.
.

You wrote :

« Instead of quoting at length from pro-abortion ideologues like Linda Gordon and medical bodies which have been captured by the Left … »

Linda Gordon is an American feminist and historian. She is University Professor of the Humanities and Professor of History at New York University.

Western society historically allowed abortion. She defends these historical women’s rights :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Gordon
.

Would you please provide details of those persons involved in what you consider to be “medical bodies which have been captured by the Left”, and why you think they are less competent than the "Right".

.