To Joe.

Sex is a critical element in the problem of abortion. If a man has sex with a woman and doesn't intent to stay if a baby comes from it, that is a great misdeed. But they justify it because they were just fooling around, weren't in a committed relationship, or just looking for some fun. It is this attitude of sex, held by both men and women that is an issue. The topic of sex and restraint should be something as a culture we look at and look at our own philosophies that lead to an over sexed, lust hungry people.

Really look at it. There are changes that people can make. To change how we approach and deal with relationships as a whole, and with sex specifically. However, even with this in mind, a strong ethic is not enough. Individually people are weak, if we have support from even just a few people outside ourselves that can help a lot. I would say if we had a turn to encourage mentorship in our societies then the younger generations would be better off. If we had a culture from church communities or other local communities that get together and help one another, then that can help too. But a mentorship attitude I think would be a great change in society. See someone younger then you and struggling with something you've dealt with, could be just as easily turn into taking that person under your wing, so they can learn how to make it through, avoid some mistakes, and possibly find real solutions that are easy and practical to put into place.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With relationships, a mentor could give the insight of their experiences and observations. As well as hold the person to taking responsibility by a simple, "dude you're doing wrong, take responsibility and fix it."

This is a small change in support that could really help people in the battle over waiting to have sex. (Even just waiting long enough to see if this relationship is worth it would be a start).

Abortion should not be the solution to people not restraining themselves and choosing to have sex. (Both men and women).

Here would be my stance (if I had a choice in the matter). Sex before marriage is wrong, but if it happens it happens. The baby being born should not be punished because of the actions of the parents. Basically the attitude of shame because it is wrong is pushed aside for the practical approach of "ok now what?" This small change can change a parent disappointed in their son or daughter's sex habits from getting in the way of preserving the life of the new baby still in the womb.

Here's my point. There are other solutions. Solutions that are largely not being looked for dealing with surprise pregnancies, because abortion is the pushed solution feeding on the fears, shames, and expectations of society. With this in mind I no longer see abortion as a woman's choice, but as an industry feeding on a society that refuses to deal with sex. But abortion is horribly wrong. There's no other way to see it except to compromise on your values of right and wrong and accept killing an innocent person before their born as a "justified compromise." It isn't justified though. Mit's rationalized away but is still very wrong.

To Saltpetre.

I'm not sure how I'm suppose to react to someone saying they are Christian, but doesn't believe in Jesus coming back. Either way you being Christian or not, is between you and God. If you are Christian I have a reply to something in your last post. You said:

<<those who refuse to accept the very long existence of the Universe and the evolution of everything can only be regarded by any sane educated person as either totally brainwashed or irretrievably stupid.>>

My reply to that comment is 2 bible verses. Mathew 5:22, and 1 John 4:20. (Much of that chapter goes into that point more but that verse draws the point very well). These aren't counterpoints on abortion or on evolution (not part of the discussion so far?) but is are counter points to the attitude shown towards other Christians. It's a point that I hope you can receive, if you are a Christian.

Aside from that, what are the parts that are too difficult, that would stop you from rejecting abortion. What are impossible for us to overcome in the context of abortion?

(Continued)

(Continued)

In previous posts, on Sunday, 26 May 2019 7:59:44 PM and Sunday, 26 May 2019 1:45:56 PM, you said a few things to match my impression of anti-Christian and anti-man rhetoric, or at least a narrative that borrowed much from those kinds of rhetorics. I did not mean to suggest that you are also anti-white, but I used that to further my point against silencing a demographic as part of silencing any descent and counter arguments to an issue.

The point being that you're opinion doesn't matter, and is only cared about if your in agreement. I've seen this attitude on other matters that demoralize other populations because they are either Christian, male, white, or a combination of those. Hence why I included being white in my reply in an earlier post.

I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of those perspectives that say that men have no right to say anything, and then just after that take opinions from men who agree with them as being "real men." This is a big issue I have with many abortion based perspectives.

Moving on. I agree with you on two parts. Priests and ministers should be allowed to marry. The second thing I agree with is to not have a shame and punish standard coming from the church or from anyone towards a woman who's pregnant. In my opinion this is part of the cause for abortions to hide the act of being pregnant and shove it under the rug. That shame is part of the many reasons that feeds into killing too many babies before they are born.

As for the argument of abortion as a means of population control. Here's my thought. If you shouldn't kill off a newborn, for the sake of population control, then it isn't of merit to do it to an innocent still in the womb. The same argument applies also to a baby born with a disability not being killed because of that disability, nor should they be aborted by a test saying there's a risk of one disability or another.

Dr David Van Gend who participated in a public debate at the time of the Vic legislation on abortion stated :

”The truth is that most late abortions, which are 20 weeks of pregnancy, are done to entirely healthy babies of entirely healthy mothers, and by a method so cruel I am reluctant to describe it. “

He further stated : For our generation, late abortion is the test of whether or not our society sinks into savagery, deaf to babies so callously sacrificed to the psycho-social comfort of adults.”

He was reluctant to describe, but allow me to quote from a letter I sent to all State MPs at the time of that debate.

“The methodology of abortion procedures on the living, genetically unique foetus is appalling, especially the late term abortions. Although there has been much debate on the subject, there is no doubt that the foetus experiences pain, some medical research suggests from 8 weeks, but certainly from around 13 weeks. When an induced abortion occurs, depending on what stage of the pregnancy, the unborn child can die a variety of deaths – sucked to pieces, cut to pieces, twisted and dismembered, poisoned, right through to partial birth abortion (just prior to what would be a normal birth, when an induced death would be called infanticide) where after all but head has been delivered, the surgeon jabs the child’s head with scissors and sucks the brain out to collapse the head.”

Altogether a good article Brendan. However some minor points.

“Relying on judicial activism is the wrong approach.”
An odd bit of advice. Judicial activism is per se abusing the power of the judges to institute their preferred laws. To advice the judiciary not to engage in judicial activism is like advising a person not to engage in theft. An honest person wouldn’t steal anyway and a dishonest one would not care about the ethics, or effect upon other people, of stealing.

“The only way to combat judicial activism, would be to [insert] clauses into national constitutions”

Another way might be remove the immunity from prosecution for abuse of power judges currently hold. Not an easy prosecution but still possible. If they were asked in examination on the stand to explain what text in the constitution warranted their decision the dishonest ones might find it harder to explain verbally, after all necessary follow up questions, than simply writing pages of obscure text in their judgement.