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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Where did the love go? Violinists are not babies > Comments

Where did the love go? Violinists are not babies : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 28/2/2005

Bill Muehlenberg analyses Jarvis's "violinst" justification for abortion on demand.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Well, sure. Let's have a law that says if you use contraception and it fails, then you can have an abortion. If you don't then too bad. You must live with an unwanted pregnancy as punishment for your lack of judgement.

Come ON! The pill can fail for a variety of reasons to do with illness / forgetfulness, condoms can break. Things go wrong. People need options. Safe, legal options. Doesn't mean you have to take those options just 'cause they're there.
Posted by Amanda, Monday, 28 February 2005 7:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda, you speak about women having options. I believe at this time women have very few options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. The vast majority of people would view this type of pregnancy as the woman's problem and expect her to deal with it. ie. "get an abortion and get on with your life."
The women I have spoken with are emotionally torn between their own life desires and the emotion that comes with being an expectant mother. They know that their choices are limited because apart from making the abortion choice there will be no support for them in any other sphere.
To make abortion a crime would be ludicrous but to leave woman in the place they are in at this present time with no real choice, is an even great travesty in our so call enlightened society!
Posted by 2into1, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 8:29:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Bill Muehlenberg.
Recent Medical Technology, like 3D & 4D ultrasounds, has indeed proved that the unborn child is indeed that - an unborn child. The question really at hand is - Are we as a society prepared to suffer the consequences of our actions - if all does not go as planned?
Why must an innocent baby suffer - when the time of choice (to abstain or not to abstain?) took place some months earlier?
Posted by Gayle, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:14:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the missing dimensions here is "when does life begin". If you say "at the moment of conception", then it is pretty straightforward; everything from that point on is transacted on a living being, with all the consequences that proposition entails.

On the other hand, if you believe that some other time is more realistic - say, for example, at a point when survival outside the womb is viable - then you would necessarily have an entirely different slant on the question.

I can't see this argument moving more than an inch or two away from this fundamental question, which ultimately is a question of belief.

What is clear however is that one side of the argument wishes to impose its beliefs on the other side of the argument, using the force of law to do so. The other side of the argument meanwhile says that this is a matter for individual conscience, having weighed up the moral, physical and social consequences.

In situations like this, I'm on the side that treats individuals as intelligent human beings, rather than as simpletons who need to be told every last thing about how to run their life.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:15:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,
It is true that the Pill and condoms are not greatly reliable, and pregnancy can occur if only these forms of contraception are being used.

This would be standard practice reason no 1. that is used by pro-choice people and feminists to justify the large rate of abortion in this country (ie over 20% of pregnancies), and they attempt to brainwash people into believing what they are saying. But considering the nature of abortion, then maybe we need more reliable forms of contraception.

But wait ON, there already is. In the list already provided for you at http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open) you can see that there are many forms of contraception that can be used, and some of it is much more reliable than the Pill or condoms. It is also quite cheap, and subsidised by the taxpayer.

But if you research abortion in Australia, you will find that there are many women who make minimal use of contraception, and will routinely use abortion as a form of contraception. They are often from certain ethnic groups, where abortion has been traditionally used.

So there is a “choice” regards abortion.
A/ Educate people to use more reliable methods of contraception, or
B/ use abortion as a form of contraception.

As a taxpayer (and I hope a person who does try to be somewhat rational and moral), I would much prefer to see my money going towards subsidising more reliable forms of contraception, rather than subsidising those people operating abortion clinics
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Bill,

Pericles is RIGHT & WRONG.

RIGHT: that morality of abortion depends on when life begins. So, since the baby is scientifically fully identifiable as completely human at conception, then killing a baby is killing a baby - just plain WRONG.

Pericles is WRONG in applying selectively myopia to claim "one side of the argument wishes to impose its beliefs on the other side of the argument". What about the defining player, the BABY! There is no doubt that the baby wants to live so why should the abortionist or mother be permitted to impose their beliefs or fears on the innocent baby by killing it?

So if we allow both sides of the argument (abortionist-or-mother v baby) to argue that this is a matter for individual conscience, having weighed up the moral, physical and social consequences, then no way should the law sanction the abortionist or mother to over-ride the rights of the baby. Anything less than protecting the baby is a gross injustice - killing an innocent for convenience.

Rewording Pericles, "I'm on the side that treats [both mother and baby] as intelligent human beings, rather than [denying the intelligence and humanity of the baby]"
Posted by Percy, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 4:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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