100,000 murdered babies last year.

The Romans, before they died out as the West is now dying out, had no qualms about putting infants out into the elements to die after birth.

I have no skin in the game. No emotions about it. Just the old fashioned idea that abortion - and worse, a tiny human left to die in a tray after birth - is wrong: inhumane apart from cases where the mother's life is at risk, or the child is defective.

What awful people we have become.

Are there not one but two John Mikkelsens?

Author(s) bio http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=7289 stating:

"John Mikkelsen is John Mikkelsen is a long term journalist, former regional newspaper editor, now freelance writer formerly of Gladstone in CQ, but now in Noosa. He is also the author of Amazon Books memoir Don't Call Me Nev. a long term journalist, former regional newspaper editor, now freelance writer formerly of Gladstone in CQ, but now in Noosa."

John Mikkelsen employs emotionally charged language, selective reporting, and distorts the reality of abortion practices to push a sensationalist anti-abortion narrative.

Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument illustrates why the issue of personhood is irrelevant to the debate, and exposes the desire of anti-abortionists to provide the unborn with more rights than the rest of us.

The claim that foetuses are just "left to die" is untrue. In the event of a failed abortion, medical staff in Australia are required to transfer viable foetuses to a NICU to sustain its life. Non-viable foetuses receive palliative care.

The Senate’s motion was based on a large set of complex ethical considerations, including that of bodily autonomy. Mikkelsen, however, has framed it as indicative of a widespread moral failure without addressing any of those considerations.

In the absence of any solid argument, the article is worded to evoke strong emotions.

--

ttbn,

The Romans had plenty of qualms about infanticide, particularly with the widespread influence of Christianity towards the end. Your post hoc logic could be used to argue that it was in fact Christianity that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire.

John Daysh is totally wrong. The issue is not mainly about abortion but live births following late term abortions and it is a fact that what the article depicts is actually happening too often, as exposed by clinical midwife Louise Ansett and Dr Joanna Howe. The babies are just left to die without any palliative care or potential life saving measures, particularly in Queensland, Victoria and the NT.
Anybody with any moral compass would realise how horrific this is. If Daysh can't believe it, he should take it up with those giving evidence at the Queensland parliamentary hearing initiated by Robbie Katter.

Late term abortions are an abomination and contrary to our Christian values. It’s an area of great shame. As Paul Keating said over the weekend in a national newspaper interview “The West has lost its moral mandate. It is bored with its own culture—it is culturally exhausted. Nihilism and an attendant loss of faith characterise modern life. There is no guiding light.” I can’t be sure that he intended his comments to relate to matters like late term abortions but his comments seem very apt to me, in this context. We are going down the drain as civilised humans.

That article is spot on in my opinion.
It is a fact that babies aborted in late term – over three months – and remain breathing and alive have been left to die without any cuddling or comforting. Just imagine this living miracle human being placed on a cold stainless steel tray to slowly take its last breath!!
Anyone leaving a baby forming for five months or longer and then deciding to have an abortion are playing with fire IMO. Why leave it so long? Maybe I have not thought enough about that to know why.
The growth of a foetus moves fast once conceived - Six weeks after conception this is what is already formed: “Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby's lower limb buds take on the shape of paddles. Fingers have begun to form. Small swellings outlining the future shell-shaped parts of your baby's ears develop and the eyes become obvious. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk and neck begin to straighten. By the end of this week, your baby might be about 1/2 inch (11 to 14 millimeters) long from crown to rump — about half the diameter of a U.S. quarter.”
In my opinion, aborting a baby that is more than five months formed is nothing short of MURDER.
If the mother has a life threatening reason for the abortion, then that is different and would be decided by the doctors concerned who have to sign for the abortion to go ahead.
I am disgusted that our Queensland Government - under the Palaszcsuk/Miles Premier and Deputy Premiership chose to make late term abortions legal. This is a huge blight on this state.

Too true Farnortherner and any ignoramus who calls a tiny human baby "a fetus" after it is born alive and kicking, no longer a part of its mother, wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. Harking back to my earlier comment, the clinical midwife who gave emotional evidence to the Queensland parliamentary hearing is Louise Adsett (not Ansett courtesy of spellcheck).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13759397/Aussie-midwife-louise-adsett-abortion-claim-queensland-parliamentary-inquiry-brisbane.html

Mikko2,

Fair enough. Could you answer the following questions for me then?

1. What were the specific methodologies used in the sources cited for the data on infants born alive after failed abortions?

2. How do the numbers of infants born alive after failed abortions compare to the total number of abortions performed during the same period?

3. Are data from other countries, with similar legal frameworks on abortion, accounted for to provide a comparison?

4. What proportion of the cases, where infants were born alive, involved severe congenital abnormalities or other medical conditions that made survival unlikely?

5. How does the legal definition of "live birth" used in the cited data compare across different Australian states and territories?

6. What are the long-term outcomes for infants who are born alive after failed abortions and receive life-sustaining treatment?

I read the fact sheet on Dr Howe’s webpage, but she doesn’t go into any of this. Thanks.

Do your own research John D before you shoot the messenger. BTW, the same article has been published in half a dozen forums and there have also been excellent articles by other writers making similar points in the mainstream media last weekend. I'll leave you to it.

Mikko2,

My questions are foundational to the strength of your case. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to find answers to them first?

Johh Daysh - I didn't read all your questions as I think you have a cheek - I wonder who you think you are to be so questioning of someone who wrote an opinion piece?
Why don't you do your own research?
I have read mainly about Australian aborted babies.
I know about Queensland and the disgusting treatment these little miracles get when still alive after failed abortion.
I think it is absolutely unbelievable that this is allowed to go on when other matters are treated with much more respect.
It was under the Palazczuk/Miles Labor government that this was passed in Queensland to be allowed.

Abortion should be legal but most definitely not an operation of convenience for selfishness !
The Pill has done more damage to society than most wars ! However, the pill is more moral than abortion. There are numerous reasons where abortion is totally right but social life isn't one of them !

Farnortherner,

If I say John Mikkelsen is wrong and he disputes that, then I get to ask follow-up questions that would settle the matter. This is a debating forum. Telling me to go and find the answers to questions Mikkelsen should have answered himself is unreasonable.

You say you are well read on this issue, but your three statements immediately following that claim suggest that your reading has been very shallow indeed.

Haha that coming from John D who called a baby born alive a foetus! Maybe he should write his own opinion piece for a change Farnortherner and answer his own questions which are irrelevant to the basic inhumane issue of live babies not receiving palliative care after failed abortions.

Mikko2,

It doesn’t matter what you call them. They could be writing poetry for all I care. My points remain regardless.

As for my questions, you’ve now shifted the goalposts somewhat. Earlier, you also said:

“The issue is not mainly about abortion but live births following late term abortions and it is a fact that what the article depicts is actually happening too often.”

Now it’s just:

“... the basic inhumane issue of live babies not receiving palliative care after failed abortions.”

In response to your shifting of the goalposts, here’s another set of questions you haven’t answered that will help provide context to, and gauge the accuracy of, your suggestion that this practice is widespread and legal:

1. To what extent does the issue of live-born infants not receiving palliative care reflect a broader, systemic problem across Australia, or are these cases more isolated and possibly sensationalised?

2. What ethical guidelines are in place to guide healthcare providers in deciding whether to provide or withhold palliative care for infants born alive after failed abortions?

3. What are the TYPICAL actions taken by healthcare providers in Australia when they encounter a live birth after a failed abortion?

I take it from your shifting of the goalposts that you don’t have answers to any of the questions I’ve posed?

Same goals, same goal posts for me, Same own goals from you John D.
To quote a Fleetwood Mac hit, You Can Go Your Own Way.

John Daysh, could you please advise your qualifications in whatever subject (s). It would be interesting to know.
I have noted that you have Mikko2 in your headspace. Maybe you comment on all opinion pieces though.
I find it amusing but this subject of LATE TERM ABORTION is not amusing at all.
These are well formed babies which are being aborted and it is nothing more than murder in my opinion.
Abortions for medical reasons used to have to be carried out no later than three months or during the first trimester.
It was always deemed that the birth must be carried out if more than 12 weeks but then if the mother still did not want the baby, it could be adopted out.
Lord knows there are heaps of people wanting children who cannot carry a pregnancy full term for whatever reason.
This late term abortion should have much more stringent laws. I feel those who passed this are less than humane.
Seems Queensland (and other states) are hellbent on getting rid of both ends of humanity with abortion for unwanted babies and euthanasia for the elderly.

Frankly John Dayesh you are becoming a pain in the rear end.
You leap onto everyone with long studies of criticism and expect them
to similarly engage with you.

On this subject the solution is clear, if any other staff such as a
nurse is upset enough then ring the police and report a murder taking
place in the hospital. That it is an ongoing matter they will arrive
with all twos and blues.
I doubt the nurse would lose her job as the hospital's reputation
is at stake.

That such a situation is considered normal is horrifying.
What happened to the Hippocratic Oath ?

Mikko2,

If you haven’t shifted (or “narrowed”, I should say) the goalposts, then my first set of questions remains fundamentally relevant to your claims.

--

Farnortherner,

You’re only asking what my qualifications are to commit an ad hominem in the event that they’re not relevant. Unfortunately for you, one of my qualifications is a bachelor of laws.

Mikkelsen only made a passing mention of late-term abortions and I haven’t mentioned them. Now that you have, however, it should be noted that late-term abortions are exceptionally rare and are only done for medical reasons. No one decides that they’re going to abort two weeks out from the due date because they’ve decided they’d rather go on a holiday.

As for forcing women to carry out their unwanted pregnancies to full term, this can have life-long physical, emotional and psychological effects on a person, which is just one of the many factors lawmakers take into consideration when legislating on this issue.

--

Bezz,

I don’t expect people to engage with me. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

I do know where your perception that I “leap onto everyone” comes from, though. Psychologists refer to it as cognitive dissonance. God knows it didn’t come from the way I engage with the few here that I do bother to engage with.

John Daysh sounds suspiciously like Paul1405. Same git, cousins ?

No, John Daysh - I want to know who you think you are to lay down your opinions and believe that everyone else should take your word as gospel.
If I thought you had some standing of any sort in the MEDICAL FIELD, I may understand.
That is the only very uninteresting reason why I would like to know more about your opinions. You give the opinion of being contrarian about most things.
I do not think Law has much to do with medical terminations as the approvals have to be signed by two medical officers plus the concerned patient with no lawyers involved at all.

Farnortherner,

Where do you get the idea that I think everyone should take my word as gospel? It sounds like you’re being a bit precious there. If I’m wrong about something, then just tell me so and explain why.

//If I thought you had some standing of any sort in the MEDICAL FIELD, I may understand.//

If you believed what I said based on the fact that I was in the medical field, or rejected it only because I wasn’t, then that’s a fallacy known as the ‘argument from authority’. My claims stand or fall on their own merit.

John Mikkelsen spent about a quarter of his article discussing a motion in the Senate, and you don’t see the relevance of the law here?

forcing women to carry out their unwanted pregnancies to full term
John Daysh,
Forcing ? You have a rather strange perception of the term forcing. There's nothing more natural than a healthy human female to become pregnant after sex with a male, particularly voluntary sex. Most agree that a pregnancy from involuntary sex qualifies for abortion. Cranks everywhere do object to that.
Don't want children, take the pill or stay home !

Indyvidual,

Yes, forcing. When a person is legally compelled to carry a pregnancy to term against their will, that is a form of coercion. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a simple or risk-free condition, either.

You have assumed that contraception is 100% effective and that people should just abstain
from sex if they want to avoid pregnancy. No form of contraception is fully effective, however, and forbidding abortion based on the act being voluntary elides the complex reality of human relationships, contraception failures, and the right to bodily autonomy.

It's not just about not avoiding pregnancy; It's about having the right to determine what happens with one's own body. Personal autonomy is a basic in any free society.

John Daysh,
So, what you're saying it's ok for some but not for others ?

Indyvidual,

No, the fundamental rule applies to all: no one is entitled to utilise another person's body without their explicit consent.

Some more reading for anyone with a moral compass who can see the evil in this barbaric practice where the "autonomous bodily rights" of newborn live babies, no longer part of their mother's body, are frequently totally overlooked as they are left to die without any treatment.

Vikki Campion in The Telegraph : https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/campion-inhumane-deaths-aborted-babies-born-alive-are-being-left-to-die/news-story/0e7cdbbdf245a8020674b669e9505174

Gemma Tognini in The West Australian (also in The Australian): https://thewest.com.au/opinion/gemma-tognini/law-is-wrong-when-unborn-lives-are-lost-ng-b88999761z

Rowan Dean in The Spectator: https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/dead-babies/?

the majority of Islamic jurists throughout history, because of Islam's respect for life, do not allow abortion except for strong medical reasons.
John Daysh,
Are you in agreement with this tactic to out-breed the West ? Are you in agreement with the rights of that religion's women in Australia in that ?

Indyvidual,

The issue of bodily autonomy is a universal human right that applies regardless of the cultural or religious context.

Are you suggesting that we force all Western women with healthy pregnancies to carry to full term so Muslims don't out-breed us?

John Daysh,
I asked you that but you replied with a very cheap evasion. So, why not answer that question of women in Australia being forced to have children simply because they belong to a certain religion. Are you sympathising with the religion-based forced pregnancies in Australia or termination of the unwanted ones of women of other faith

Indyvidual,

I didn't evade your question. I answered it.

Or are you suggesting that Australian laws allow Muslim women to be forced to carry to full term? Because that's not the case.

Australian law does not permit Muslim men to force Muslim women to carry to full term, if that's what you're suggesting.

John Daysh,
Yeah right !

Indyvidual,

It turns out you're right. I had overlooked the Muslims Can Do Whatever They Want Act 2001 (Cth).

It also permits them to throw acid on women's faces and carry out honour killings.

My apologies.