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 > Respecting women’s voices and choices > Comments

Respecting women’s voices and choices : Comments

By Anne O'Rourke, published 3/3/2005

Anne O'Rourke argues that every woman has the right to choose if she wants an abortion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Yet another article that seems to confuse the issue of abortion.

“The decision to terminate a pregnancy …It is a private matter between women or couples and their medical practitioner.”

Is this fact or myth?. There are abortion clinics that advertise on the internet, and about all those clinics require is for the woman to have a Medicare card and proof that she is pregnant. They require no proof that she has talked the matter through with anyone.

“Second, women pay their taxes just as do other Australians and like other Australians they are entitled to medical services under Medicare including contraception and termination should they arrive at that decision.”

So why do women become unintendedly pregnant when there is so much contraception available?. Some of this contraception (eg injections and implants) is near foolproof and can last up to 5 yrs. Should the taxpayer have to bear the cost of abortions, when cheaper alternatives are possible, such as contraception.

“Would not raising the pension above the poverty line and leaving it in place until the child is 18 as currently happens provide that young single woman with a wider range of choices?”

Has the author ever considered the cost of this, and who will have to pay for it?. Would such subsidising lead to a massive welfare state, where the employed have to work longer hours to pay for those that do not work. Does this type of welfare state provide the workers and the taxpayers with much “choice”.

I think simplified thinking is that the foetus is in the mother’s womb so she owns the baby. However if this thinking extends to when the baby is born, then the mother still owns the child and has total say in how that child is to be raised. I think this type of thinking is now endemic in such things as Family Law, where the father has almost no say in the upbringing of the child, and almost no rights as a parent, other than the payment of child support.

Noticeably, the author never mentioned any of this
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 3 March 2005 11:52:22 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
Anne, can you clarify your views on the role/rights of the father of the child in determining if an abortion should proceed.

The prevaling view amongst the pro womens choice lobby appears to be that the father should have no say in the matter (unless the mother chooses otherwise), but that if she decides to carry the baby to term he should be financially responsible for the child, the impact on the mothers earning capacity etc.

I gather some feminists have challenged the hypocricy of this but the voices have not exactly been loud and clear in the material I have seen.

The issue is about a lot more than money, some men may wish to raise a child a mother chooses to terminate. In 350 words I can't come near that discussion so I will stick to the simpler issue of financial responsibility if the choice is the woman's.

To modify one of your comments
"a lot of men can’t believe that in this day and age there are so many women who think they can determine what men should and should not do with their income and lifes choices.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 3 March 2005 12:42:52 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 just cannot understand why a mother or a mother and father can kill and especially the way the killing is done in an abortion, and then discard a beautiful normal healthy baby, unless it is to save her - the mother's - life. regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Thursday, 3 March 2005 1:15:47 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 would like to make some polite objections to Anne’s article. Firstly, we have become used to human beings being split along gender lines as if women are a different species from men. This gives a warrant to talk as if women, or men, I suppose can make decisions on life and death without regard to the opposite sex, as if they were not a part of common humanity. Of all of the things feminism has produced this attitude is the most dangerous.

Many of the arguments pro abortion are centred on the idea of choice as if that is the end of the question. When we do this we suspend any discussion of right and wrong asserting, as human rights language does, the right to choose. But what about what is chosen! How do we choose anything at all, isolated as we are expected to be, from any tradition that would guide our choices! This is not freedom at all, but decision making in a vacuum.

I would like to point out the logical absurdity of the following statement: “Third, religious views should not dictate public health policy. Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs not fact.” This playing off of belief and fact just will not do. Are we to assume that the choices the people make in their ultimate and isolated freedom are based on fact? A fact may be that the foetus is a being distinct from the mother and thus may not be dealt with as superfluous tissue. A belief may be that having a child is impossible at this time. Our view of the world cannot be simply divided into belief and fact.
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 3 March 2005 1:18:01 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 would agree with most of what you have said Sells.

The arguments currently being put forward by pro-choice groups are almost identical to the arguments that were put forward many decades ago, as if nothing has changed, and of course feminists have been heavily involved in most pro-choice groups.

However a lot has changed, including more access to reliable contraception, more access to counselling, more access to social welfare payments etc, and the early arguments that were put forward by pro-choice groups are no longer valid.

The belief that abortion should be readily available to women breaks down on almost every level, once facts and logic are incorporated, and the belief that abortion is a “right” for women is obviously a type of political power play by many women and feminists.

Their emphasis seems to be that only women can bear children, so women are more significant than men, and women have to be given special privileges accordingly. Women have to prove nothing, other than being female.

Many women and feminists are now trying to exercise their belief in their own “uniqueness”, by saying that women have the right to decide the life or death of a child.

In reality, the child or foetus has actually become irrelevant in this political power game, (and of course so is the father).
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:03:49 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
Thank you very much for this article Anne. It seems that men whose actions have an eternal effect on women, simply won't take responsibility for those actions, but instead want to enhance their own power and control over those women, by forcing them to have abortions, not to have abortions, or refusing to pay child support or whatever. Governments need to put the responsibility for the initial activity firmly where it belongs. These situations do not happen by immaculate conception.
Posted by Jenn, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:21:46 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
Thanks Anne for reaffirming that women's bodies, and their minds and social choices are central to whether women continue a pregnancy to birth. The myth that contraception is easy and fool-proof, expressed by Cadman and some of the comments, reflects many men's lack of experience with responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy. Women have to choose between dosing their bodies with hormones, inserting devices into their vagina and/or uterus or surgical sterilisation - none are foolproof and all carry health and fertility risks.
Men CAN control their fertility by always using condoms, but many men choose for women to manage any pregnancy risk, and some,like Cadman, then feel free to blame and control women who become pregnant.Erk.
Posted by mog, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:47:50 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 have no problem endorsing Anne O'Rourke's comments. If anyone tried to threaten my reproductive choices, well, God help them. As far as I'm concerned whether it's abortion, contraception, adoption or carrying to term and looking after a child, it is the woman's rights and responsibilities first and foremost.

The people I see trying to shutdown women's reproductive choices are the same one's threatening gay human rights. They whinge about taxpayer funded abortions. Well, I'm sick of funding religious fundamentalists in state and Federal Parliaments.

Of course there's no harm in an abortion debate. So long as it remains a debate. But I have a discussion topic of my own in the light of publicity around Tony Abbott's private life in recent times: Are Catholics fit to look after children?

Of course, it is only a debate.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:59:52 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
Jenn, is it reasonable to conclude from your comments that you are one of those who support the idea of the father of the child not having a say in any choice regarding termination but who thinks the father has a responsibility to pay child support if the child is carried to term.

>> It seems that men whose actions have an eternal effect on women,
>> simply won't take responsibility for those actions, but instead
>> want to enhance their own power and control over those women, by
>> forcing them to have abortions, not to have abortions, or refusing
>> to pay child support or whatever. Governments need to put the
>> responsibility for the initial activity firmly where it belongs.
>> These situations do not happen by immaculate conception.

The situation does not happen by immaculate conception but if the sole right to choose regarding the consequences of the initial action lies with the woman then clearly the sole responsibility for those consequences also lies with the woman.

The right to choose carries with it a responsibility. If you want men to accept responsibility, accept their rights in terms of the life of a child which was not conceived by the mother alone. Responsibility and choice must go hand in hand and cannot reasonably be separated in either direction.

**Note I am deliberately avoiding the whole issue about the rights and wrongs of abortion - the original post commented on the evil of men thinking they should have a say in this issue. Whilst I agree the issue of choice should not be argued in a vacuum I think that sometimes useful to discuss aspects of any issue in a partial vacuum.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 3 March 2005 3:14:02 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
'Religious fundamentalists' like myself are not interested in intervening in the affairs of women, and men, when they make private decisions concerning only themselves. What Ann O'Rourke and the ENTIRE pro abortion/anti life movement do is shift the focus entirely onto one party's 'rights'. Indeed, the only debate that really needs to take place over the issue of abortion is: when does life begin?

Once we resolve the issue of when life begins, and science already has, at conception, then abortion ceases to be an 'issue'. You don't kill human life. Even if your wallet will be strained, even if plans go awry, and even if life as you know is going to change: you don't kill a life to preserve a lifestyle. Everything else is secondary, all other questions pale in comparative significance. If a man robs a bank, kills the security guard and explains he did it to buy the family's second car we do not excuse it. We make his act illegal, even before addressing the 'reasons' for his desperation, socioeconomic or otherwise, because life preservation precedes all other debates. So just debate the issue: when does life begin? Forget anyone else exists for a moment. Because a determination of life in the womb precludes any intervention to kill that person, and you can throw all the qualifications and stipulations on it you want. My philosophy is that you shouldn't do to life in the womb what you can't do to the life of an infant/teenager/adult/elderly person.
Posted by mcrwhite, Thursday, 3 March 2005 7:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...there are so many men who think they can determine what women should and should not do with their bodies and life choices".

I don't think men critical of abortion are so much concerned about women's bodies, but more about the little body inside. Sorry to have to educate you on the facts of life but a foetus is absolutely distinguishable from the mother's. The little body inside the mother is made up from genetic material from a man and a women. So from what you say the father's feelings towards abortion, should count for nought.

The life choices you are talking about concerns the life of a little one. A life is a continuum from conception to death. This is not a religious belief but a biological fact. Ros
Posted by Ros, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:31:56 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
Ros is correct in describing the foetus as a life. But so is an embryo, ova and sperm. They are all life forms in themselves but they are also life forms which cannot survive outside the human body for very long. They are qualitatively different life forms to human children who do survive outside their "bodies of origin" and are separate from another body. And in regard to sperm as a life form, should women have a say in what men should do with their sperm? But I digress.

On a different angle, I find it interesting that the more backward and undemocratic a country, the less likely women are to have over their own bodies. I don't just mean the right to abortion. I also mean the right NOT to have an abortion. Here I am referring to China where forced abortion and sterilisation are not uncommon and a one-child policy is in place. China almost systematically violates the rights of women but in a different way to, say, Stalin's Russia or anywhere else where abortion is or was illegal.

And that brings my to the main point in terms of my outlook on this matter: it is a "pro-choice" outlook rather than "pro-abortion". In every situation concerning reproductive rights I focus on what the woman's situation is, what she genuinely whats and respecting that decision - whether it is having an abortion, carrying to term or any other option. That is the pro-choice position.

Everyone else has every right to their views but to make decisions around reproductive issues on behalf of someone else is not only the height of arrogance; it also smacks of the worst authoritarianism.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 4 March 2005 8:32:35 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
"mcrwhite" says "Indeed, the only debate that really needs to take place over the issue of abortion is: when does life begin?".

Well, not quite - the debate is when does the agglomeration of human cells that constitutes a foetus become a person? Clearly, the extreme positions on this are (a) from conception and (b) from parturition. As personhood is a sociocultural rather than a biological construct, the point at which a foetus becomes a person will differ according to the beliefs and values of the observer.

As the extreme positions are entrenched, what we need to do as a society is arrive at a point in pregnancy when, by negotiated agreement, we determine that the foetus has become a person. Clearly, proponents of extreme positions are not going to be happy about that, but that's really their problem - such is the nature of democracy, I'm afraid.

Once a compromise position that is acceptable to the majority of Australian voters is established, then it would be quite easy to limit e.g. Medicare-funded abortions to legally defined foetuses.

When it comes to abortion it seems to me that most correspondents don't come to this debate honestly: rather, they just want to shout down anybody who doesn't agree with their position. I note that in these forums those who take a rigid "pro-life" position tend to do so by reference to Christian dogma or unsupported assertions of what they believe to be true.

Dogma is not debate.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Friday, 4 March 2005 9:00:51 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
Gee fancy that the same old rabid right wingers spewing their dogma trying to make everyone conform to their religious position. While everyone else failing at a impossible task i.e. making the so called “pro-lifers” respect other peoples rights. If the so called pro-lifers are true to form they will go on to tells as the death penalty is not murder.

I say to the so called pro-lifers that if they believe abortion is wrong then don’t have one. That goes for you to Timmy I respect your right not to have a abortion.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 4 March 2005 9:44:20 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
"the only debate that really needs to take place over the issue of abortion is: when does life begin?"

A foetus, at least in its first trimester, is biologically little more than a bunch of cells. Surely a foetus can't be considered a living being until it's heart and lungs are sufficiently developed to enable it to breathe and its heart to beat. A foetus removed from its mother in the first trimester would have no chance of survival. This is not life.

mcrsmith, if you believe file begins at conception thats your belief, and not a fact. Don't impose your anti-choice beliefs onto others. Pro-choice believers don't do that to you. As kenny pointed out, if you disagree with abortion, nobody is going to force you to have one.
Posted by falcon, Friday, 4 March 2005 10:12:37 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
Anyone following these postings will realise which way I view this issue - of course it is the womans' right !

It is a womans issue "only" in that abortion is a procedure never required by men.

More importantly the "underlying issue" is should one person have the right to impose their will on another person in how that other person will treat their own body (regardless of gender), or will individual sovereignty be respected?

It might not sound like much but "individual sovereignty" is at the heart of democracy - it is why we no longer kow-tow to "the divine right of kings" and no longer accept the horror of the "inquisition" as acceptable methods of maintaining social order and the status quo.

Do not turn yout back or wish it away without realising what you are surrendering.


and mcrwhite - "religious fundamentalism" is the cognitive option chosen by a minority of the population.
That you would wish to deny someone elses "cognitive option" to "choose an abortion" would have some merit if you were to accept that they have a right to deny you your choice to find expression through being a "religious fundamentalist"

Now basing the options available to a secular society on
the demands of a minority of religious fundamentalists
lacks both respect and tolerance for the rights of individuals to self determination.
(but we all knew that anyway - "fundamentalist tolerance" is an oxymoron).
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 March 2005 11:22:14 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
Okay Falcon, you propose your layman's 'belief' that life begins when a foetus can support itself. If this is your criteria for 'life', how do you define the status of a crucially injured person needing a machine to take every breath for them? How is your definition consistent?

Let's look at some slightly more expert views:
(Note: These statements are taken from embryology/biology textbooks)
Dr Keith L Moore: "The cell results from fertilization of a oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being"
Doctors J. P. Greenhill and E.A Friedman: "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life"
Doctors E.L Potter and J.M Craig (Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant): "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition".

Of course, I could provide many more of theses statements, but am conscious of the word limit!

Perhaps your pro-choice 'beliefs' should be influenced by a bit of fact
Posted by Em, Friday, 4 March 2005 11:38:34 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
Col, you ask: “Should one person have the right to impose their will on another person in how that other person will treat their own body (regardless of gender), or will individual sovereignty be respected?”

You have fundamentally twisted the issue here. Firstly, it is not just about ‘our own bodies’ and we don’t have total freedom to use our bodies as we wish in any situation. Laws against discrimination limit one’s right to choose to treat others unfairly. We do not advocate a man’s right to choose to rape a woman because ‘hey, it’s his body and he can choose what he wants”. All of these situations involve innocent victims, therefore the law steps in to protect. Secondly, individual sovereignty is thankfully not just about rights, but about our greater responsibilities.

Yes, I’m a woman, but thankfully I can see past the selfish argument we have turned it into: "no one can tell me what I can do with MY body- no matter who gets hurt in the process!" Are we really so “immature and irrational that we cannot stand nine months of inconvenience in order to bring life to another person, or to bring happiness, perhaps, to some other family who might adopt that child?” (Rosemary Bottcher: “Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion”) I hope not.

“Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property, and indeed I am apt to be held responsible if such people injure themselves while on my property. It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from my property when I know that doing so will result in his death” (Mary Anne Warren- Pro Choice philospher)
Posted by Em, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:00:39 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
Of course Em, the combination of oocyte and sperm to form a zygote creates a new form or a 'life' that then begins a new journey of development. Though I could also be talking about fungus here, using the same turn of phrase and then if I were to be extreme, I could highlight 'life' and 'development' and go down the path of defending the rights of mushrooms to grow into their genetically predetermined form. It is easy to argue semantics over what is and isn't a legitimate life when referring to a bunch of cells and you are just being anthropocentric about sexual reproduction. If a zygote with no brain stem, brain, organs,etc has more rights than a fully grown adult woman than we may as well go back to the caves we started out in! Women are not incubators. Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emtionally/financially stable parents! Surely that's more critical than whether a bunch of cells has a right to life. I would consider forcing a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to full term as abhorrent as infanticide.
Posted by Audrey, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:04:46 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
“Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emotionally/financially stable parents!”

True- death for the child is a MUCH better option! What kind of logic is this? Do you have any idea how many families are crying out for children, wanting to provide love, security, and an emotionally/financially stable environment? Your argument is simply a front- we try and convince ourselves that abortion is really the ‘best option’ for the baby and continue on our merry way.

“I would consider forcing a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to full term as abhorrent as infanticide.”

Really? You would consider one fulfilling the natural act of motherhood to be on the same level as the deliberate (and unnatural) act of a mother murdering her own baby? Odd. And disturbing. Surely one’s right to a preferred LIFESTYLE is not more important than another’s right to LIFE?

I also find it interesting that you speak of infanticide with such distaste, yet in the same breath laud abortion as the Holy Grail of choice. How can a mere few months in the span of the baby’s life make such a world of difference to your moral response? You can’t be suggesting that a right to live increases with age and size?
Posted by Tammi, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:48:20 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
Audrey poses the rhetorical question "Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emtionally/financially stable parents!" How does any child have a guarantee of that? I would say that there is a great percentage of children who have to accept something less than that. Should they also have been done away with in vitro?

Most pro-abortion's it would seem conveniently ignore the fact there are many loving financially stable people who would be more than willing to adopt an unwanted child. But of course this debate is about the woman and only the woman. Ros
Posted by Ros, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:56:21 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
It is interesting to carry out objective analysis with this article, so that a summary or abstract can be developed. This can be done by first counting relevant key-words and concepts, and identifying how they are used.

Conception–0 times
Abortion–16 times
Possible reasons for abortion–1 time
Possible negative consequences of abortion–0 times
Contraception-3 times
Abstinence–1 time
Adoption–0 times
Choice–5 times
Responsibility–0 times
Child–2 times (when money is involved)
Parent–1 time (when money is involved for single parent mothers).
Mother–1 time (when money is involved)
Father–0 times
Women–18 times
Men–1 time (when negatively portraying men)
Male–3 times (when negatively portraying male politicians)
Facts–few, and appear selective.
Government funding / welfare etc–21 times.
Love / affection etc–0 times

An objective summary or abstract can now be produced:-
The article does not describe when conception occurs, but strongly advocates abortion. It mentions minimal reasons for abortion, and does not include any possible negative consequences of abortion. It makes less reference to unwanted pregnancy prevention, and does not mention adoption. It advocates choice, but does not describe responsibilities attached to any choices. It portrays women as being victimised, while carrying out generalized vilification of males. It appeals mainly to emotions, with few verifiable facts being incorporated. It is heavily money orientated, and concepts such as love between people are not included. The child or foetus is not regarded as being of any great value, except as a reason why women should receive more government money. Fathers are not mentioned, and likely considered irrelevant.

These characteristics are found in most feminist literature. The article is brainwashing propaganda, whereby certain words or concepts are repeated frequently, while other relevant words or concepts are not mentioned.

Ironically many feminists will claim that they are ardent believers in such things as “love”, “respect”, “choice”, “gender equality”, and of course the ability to carry out their propaganda, (and any objections to this propaganda are normally dismissed as being misogynist, fundamentalist, denying women their rights etc)
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 4 March 2005 1:06:01 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
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
if a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate.

Should we start conferring rights to sperm and ovum too?
Why not each and every one of them has the potential to become a human.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 4 March 2005 1:10:26 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
Kenny... at last... u actually REALIZE the situation you are in !
the 'moral relativism' syndrome. You raise the question "what next..." and that IS your (and Morgans and others) dilemna... u just plain 'don't know' how things should be, and your reference point is always "how things are now" (which of course is usually a temporary social construct based on the efforts of various pressure groups LIKE US if I can ram home the point a bit.)
So, you question actually is a confession of inadequacy in the moral realm. We have answers... definite unchanging ones, because (Morgan, u will love this) the Word gives them. They have divine authority.

Em and Ros, I totally agree with you, the number of people looking for opportunities to adopt is considerable, and they will shower a baby with all the love she/he could ever need.

Morgan, and Kenny, the 'thinking' behind what u are saying is just a very short hippity hop short of Pol Pot, though u may not realize it. I can assure you that in Singapore, they analyse the 'thinking' behind what Journalists say, and I know of 5 people who were jailed not because of what they said, but because of the 'thinking' behind it. (without trial, and indefinite by the way) I'm beginning to understand WHY Singapore takes such a dim view of 'wrong thinking'.
They realize just where it will lead to.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 4 March 2005 2:38:20 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
It always amazes me how the pro-lifers are so easily overcome with emotion and immediately deteriorate into CAPITALS to make their point, as if referring to those in support of Choice as MURDERERS isn't ENOUGH to get their point across. And of course, mention of the Holy Grail!! All I said was that if you don't mind, I'd prefer to consider an hour-old zygote slightly less important than me. That may be deemed selfish to Tammi, but to immediately conclude that I am thereafter amoral! Morality is contextual and I'll respect your version if you respect mine! Odd. And disturbing indeed. And is adoption the solution Ros? I am not an incubator for someone else's desire to have children. That's their issue, their desire and their problem. Why is it that 'choice' suddenly becomes code for un-willingness to be a factory-hen for other "... loving financially stable people who would be more than willing to adopt an unwanted child." Thanks Kenny - I'm reminded of the Python catholic mother who just pops out another child neatly while doing the dishes.
Posted by Audrey, Friday, 4 March 2005 2:42:20 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
Audrey,
you say "If a zygote with no brain stem, brain, organs,etc has more rights than a fully grown adult woman than we may as well go back to the caves we started out in! "

What a scary world it would be if that kind of logic was applied everwhere - the relevance of the impact of an action must come into the equation. A bit like the old joke about the different impact of eggs and ham on hens and pigs.

"An egg is a days work for a hen, ham is a lifetimes work for a pig."

Now will one of you pro-choice writers please attempt to give me a consistent reason why a mother should have choice and a father not have choice after the initial act which lead to conception. I have yet to see anything which attempts to answer that question. The silence is deafening.

Is carrying a child for nine months (the first few where you might not even be aware you are doing so) really more difficult than either being a parent for the rest of your life and or bearing the impact of current C$A formula's for 18+ years.
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 March 2005 2:47:46 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
Well gee whiz David, you're a deconstructionist as well... I would've thought hermeneutics were more up your alley :) Actually, if you can see past your doctrinal blinkers for a sec, you'll note that what I'm advocating is a democratic process that takes into account views of extremists from both the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' camps - and rejects them in favour of something reasonable.

Clearly the extremists won't budge, so it's up to the more reasonable majority to enforce a more moderate view, via democratic means.

And really, just because you believe that your bible is divine doesn't mean that it is. I can accept your beliefs, so long as you don't keep on trying to force them on to everybody else. I like the bible - it's right up there with 'The Sacred Bough' and 'The Lord of the Rings' as a collection of texts that demonstrate the extent of the human imagination. But that's the rub: it's just a collection of stories to the vast majority of people.

Lastly, Kenny has done us the service of invoking St Monty of the Python denomination: to paraphrase, the chappy whom you want the rest of us to believe is the son of your god was not the Jewish messiah, nor the 'saviour' of atheists like me - he was just a naughty boy :)

St Morgan the Heretic
Posted by morganzola, Friday, 4 March 2005 3:03:17 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
Ahhh Audrey, that’s ok, attack the style of my argument rather than the substance. Yes, I put the words ‘much’, ‘life’ and ‘lifestyle’ in capitals- so shoot me. As for my mention of murder, I was merely pointing out that we both agree that infanticide is murder, so why does a few months make such a huge difference in the stakes of moral relativism?

“I am not an incubator for someone else's desire to have children. That's their issue, their desire and their problem.”

Do you realise what you sound like? If you feel so strongly about the issue, then exercise your right of choice in contraception.

You say: “I'd prefer to consider an hour-old zygote slightly less important than me.”
That’s weird- you WERE an hour-old zygote once upon a time. How can you differentiate that life is worth less or more at different stages- I’d really like to hear your justification!

And just a question- why are you trying to depict pregnancy as such a terrible state? A woman who uses the words ‘factory-hen’, ‘incubator’- it would seem that you are encouraging a low self-esteem towards the female body. Feminism takes us forward… only to bring us back to before we began
Posted by Tammi, Friday, 4 March 2005 3:28:27 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
Try as I might I can’t see how feminism has taken anyone forward. Perhaps feminism is something that has reached new levels of indoctrination, propaganda, and brainwashing, if that is a positive or a step forward.

It is not ironic that nearly all the pro-choice people in the various forums on abortion have never mentioned the word “love”, as this seems to have been replaced by the word “choice”, or “me, me, me”, or "welfare, welfare, welfare.

In 1,169 words, the author did not mention any terms such as love, affection, or caring for another, and I have rarely ever seen such words incorporated into feminist literature.

Many of the pro-choice people also carry out the tired old dogma of portraying the female gender as being victimised, while vilifying all and sundry around them at the same time, (also done by the author).

They also turn a blind eye to the fact that cheap and reliable and quite contraception is now available to women, and any negative side affects of that contraception is normally outweighed by positive effects (eg. Lighter periods, less chances of certain cancers etc)

Similarly, like the author, they have not thought twice about the “other half” who is the father, but seem to regard fathers as being irrelevant, or just as someone who may not pay the mother child support money etc.

I think that these people are now a victim of their own propaganda.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 4 March 2005 3:55:04 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
Morgan. "deconstructionist".. me ? no.. I was just referring to a factual event in Singapore which really grabbed me at the time.
But rather than pick the blith out of you, I want to take up Timkins point, and amplify it. The statistical analysis of words used in the article, and the notable absence of care, love, responsibility etc, plus the blatant 'me me me'ism and the 'them/us' ism, and the outright selfishness of it all makes me sick. If our human relations between male and female are reduced to such emotional povity, how will we fare in the long run ?
I think its WELL past the time when we reflected on the real need for a return to pure romance, sweet love, deep affection and on going committment between our selves and the opposite sex. I find that the dilution of all this, thru feminism and the 'choice' crowd, along with the promotion of deviate sexual practices all add up to one very very sick society.
I'm both consoled and worried by an increasing trend I find in 2 anecdotal experiences I encountered just today. The first was that Family First is gaining a VERY serious hearing by the government, I applaude this without reservation. A more worrying trend is found in TRIPLE-M fm today where the dj's were suddenly to my surprise talking about how HUGE is Christian Rock, they then went on to invite callers to ring in and give their 'testimonies' about how they were 'bad' and having been born again, are now 'good'. The worrying bit, was the fact that they noticed how much MONEY can be made through Christian Music, (which in itself tells u about how influential and large 'we' godbotherers are becoming) so now I anticipate 'rice musicians' calling themselves 'Christian' to gain a slice of that spiritual money cake just like some Chinese became 'christians' when some misguided missionaries started to give people rice in the course of their evangelism.
I just hope that as we present Gods values, that issues like that of the article will receive humble re-consideration.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 4 March 2005 8:10:56 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
David, really...

"I anticipate 'rice musicians' calling themselves 'Christian' to gain a slice of that spiritual money cake just like some Chinese became 'christians' when some misguided missionaries started to give people rice in the course of their evangelism."

What on earth are 'rice musicians'? Do I detect a note of the "R" word here? What does this have to do with the price of fish (or women's rights to have abortions), anyway?

Curious indeed.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Saturday, 5 March 2005 9:59:08 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
Respecting womens voices and choices

David_BOAZ – “I'm beginning to understand WHY Singapore takes such a dim view of 'wrong thinking'.
They realize just where it will lead to. “

Do you suggest we should install “thought” police to arrest and punish the “deviant thinkers” ?

Does this explain how you can readily disregard the rights of the individual and support the subordination of freedom of thought to some monolithic authority body –

be it a despotic state, a draconian religious inquisition or a rigid social order in which is the "Lords" simply crush dissent against their “class” underfoot ?

I wonder what your response to my “wrong thinking” might be – but I will continue not only "think" to but "express" too – my moral relativism is simple – I am secure in my views to accept challenge from any quarter and thus - I promote and support values which include -
freedom of thought,
freedom of association,
freedom of speech and
freedom of an individual woman to choose how her body will be used

I find “nobility” in promoting freedoms and none in kowtowing to the “nobility”.
Remember "freedom of choice" and "choice in thought" marks the difference between "living" and "existing".
I will never accept mere existence as a substitute for life.

Timkins – “feminism” – it has nothing to do with “feminism” – I am male – quietly known for being a anti-any-ism (feminism included).
One either acknowledges individuals, presumes them to be equals and respects their right to self determination, particularly in over matters of their own body –
or one does not – of the “isms”the “nots” clearly conforms to a form of "fascism".

I am “pro respect the individual” and "individual right of choice” – therefore I am anti-fascism.

I will further remind you, in Germany, Hitler made abortion illegal for Aryan woman – because “the state” needed their children. What the woman wanted be damned – you can see where this is going and where Pro-Life “fits”, relative to Hitler (just another bunch of fascists)
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 5 March 2005 3:18:47 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
Col,

I too respect the rights of the individual very much. So much in fact, that I do not like to see brainwashing and indoctrination.

I doubt very much whether this article is primarily about abortion. If it is, then it only looks at a very few aspects of abortion. It is more to do with brainwashing, and it has all the characteristics of feminist literature. There are only 350 words to explain this but the article 1/ vilifies and maligns males, 2/ tries to infer that males are the cause of the problem (ie points the finger at males), 3/ calls for more government spending.

These characteristics can be found in almost all feminist literature, regardless of the topic.

The topic can be abortion, family issues, work issues etc. It don't really matter, it is the same style and characteristics used over and over. You can check this by reading volumes of feminist literature (ie you can, but I would not recommend it).

So the article is stock standard feminism. Where such articles lead to is a “Dependency Diva” state of mind, where government must spend, spend and spend to satisfy feminists. But no spending is ever enough, as many problems cannot be solved by government spending. (see http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1081852/posts)

So spending heaps of money will not necessarily bring down the abortion rate, as it can just put people into a welfare cycle, and create many more problems. Personally I think more research is necessary into abortion. Many abortions are carried out, but not much information as to why. Once adequate research is done, then there can be solutions found to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy. Possible solutions (such as better contraception) may not necessarily impinge on anyone’s rights.

Worse case scenario is that this research does not take place, and no problems can be solved.

As far as people and society go, worse case scenario is that feminist brainwashing propaganda continues unabated, as I believe feminism has done no real good for women, men or children. It has done much more harm than good overall.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 5 March 2005 4:04:39 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
Col, dont panic too much about my 'wrong thinking' bit, I was attempting to show to Kenny 'where' his kind of thinking can lead, and how serious some governments regard 'some' thinking because they see it as a political threat. Most thinking per-se doesn't amount to much, and the freedom to think this way or that is precious indeed, but the action taken against those journalists was due to their profession most likely and how that government perceived their influence over masses.
Individual freedoms are wonderful. But in reality there is no such animal, because the moment our individual freedom conflicts with anothers we either have to kowtow to their freedom, or they to ours, am I right here ? I think the 'fascism' jibe was a tad over the top mate. So, in the end, we live by rules, not always ours.

Morgan, my allusion to the 'rice musicians' is just a way of indicating that we godbotherers are being taken more seriously by increasingly bigger slices of the community, and thus our views on the social application of Biblical principle will count for more, giving me consolation that our role of Salt and Light is being fulfilled. But sadly, there will be those who can only see the 'profit' angle rather than the prophetic.
Finally, to tug at some 50s nostalgia "our FATHER in heaven KNOWS BEST" :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 March 2005 5:32:23 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
Yes, David - but I still don't know what 'rice musicians' are. Please elucidate.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Saturday, 5 March 2005 5:36:32 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
It frankly amazes me when I hear some people describing pregnancy as '9 months of discomfort' or contraception (from the female perspective) as 'cheap and easy'. Both are incorrect.

There is an enormous number of pill preparations using slight variations of the hormones and inactive ingredients. It has a number of side effects which are -not- pleasant and which are very common. Migraines, weight gain/loss, sleeping problems, fluid retention, libido changes, mood changes, skin problems, increased allergic reactions, depression risk, cancer risk - yep, that's just some of what can be in store for a woman on the pill. Cheap? Easy? No way. Implants carry the same hormonal risks. The rest are unreliable or not recommended if you haven’t finished your family.

Then we come to pregnancy. This process is the most amazing thing our bodies are capable of, IMHO. In 9 months, we grow an entire support system for an infant, provide everything that infant needs to develop. In 9 months. Wow. On top of that, extreme hormonal changes occur, all designed to make sure that when that baby is born, we -want- to take care of it, are primed to adore it and become it's slave for the next few years. This is not 9 months of discomfort. This is 9 months of our bodies being literally taken over to provide for the potential child. And at the end of that 9 months, to give up that child is totally against every instinct nature has built into the new mother. It’s not love for the child; it’s a primal survival drive.

Personally, I hate the idea of having an abortion. I would rearrange my life to the nth degree to avoid it. But I can understand why others wouldn’t want to go through with a pregnancy – so I support *choice*.

On the subject of men and their choices, there is no easy answer. Except, perhaps, that in having sex, they took a risk – as did their partner. Can’t live with the consequences? Don’t take the risk.
Posted by kaetien, Saturday, 5 March 2005 7:45:19 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
Kaetein,
What you are saying about contraception is extremely important and cannot be taken lightly. You are describing contraception in negative terms, while many other sources of information normally describe female contraception as being “safe”.

Because of this I believe you must reference your descriptions of female contraception to an official or medical source, otherwise it could be regarded as a type of fear mongering or brainwashing that may stop women from taking contraception.

In terms of this article, it only considers a few small aspects of abortion, and is hardly any reason why a woman should consider abortion.

In a count of words in the article at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3090#3564

“Child” was mentioned 1 time
“Fathers” 0 times
Government funding 22 times.

The article is stock standard feminist literature, and I think the above list gives an indication of how feminists think, and what their priorities are.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 5 March 2005 8:59:13 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
Sorry Morg, I thought I addressed that.. I'm too used to the background of what I utter being familiar in my own mind and I tend to assume too much.
Ok.. when some missionaries went to China, they started to give rice to those who converted. Very quickly people were 'converted' but to get rice, not salvation.

Rice musicians are those who are in reality secular, but who get on the 'Chrisitan music' bandwagon just to make money from it. The phrase only has meaning against the background of the previous mentioned thing in China. Now you know why Grace Pettigrew calls me a muddle headed wombat :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 5 March 2005 10:41:25 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
Thanks for the explanation, David. I get it now... interesting concept. Not sure how pertinent it is to the topic though!

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 6 March 2005 10:07:17 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
MOrgan your prophetic call 'back to the topic' is noted and appreciated :) I do tend to just go with the flow of where threads lead.
You suggested an approach which took all views into consideration, a kind of 'middle ground' approach. But while this is commendable if one is dealing with industrial relations, I feel its a different deal about human life and its definition.
Once a child is conceived, I believe it is a child. I can't get beyond that in my head, when I try, I know its for selfish reasons.
Its probably best just to let the various sides fight it out democratically, and last man standing gets his view up :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 6 March 2005 8:14:17 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
Well, Anne O'Rourke seems to have it wrong again. Put simply, she cannot see men (the wood) for the feminist (trees). How unfortunate it is when feminist indoctrination has eliminated the male in the abortion debate. Surely, the father should have a say in the abortion process? After all, 50% of the child's make-up is derived from the sperm.

As others have pointed out, until the father is given a say, and as soon as the rampant feminist rot is put aside from the true issue at stake - a life - then we will have made some, albeit minor, progress.
Posted by Dinhaan, Sunday, 6 March 2005 11:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
British politics aside, here’s an example of why mandatory DNA matching should be standard procedure for each birth certificate - http://smh.com.au/news/World/Blunketts-row-with-exlover-reignited-over-child/2005/03/06/1110044250881.html

And yes, of course fathers should have equal right of choice – if forcing a woman to carry a child to term is deemed inhumane, then surely forcing a man into fatherhood is also wrong.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 6 March 2005 11:36:05 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
kaetien,
given that the discussion is not focussed on pregnancies resulting from rape I suggest the approach you suggest for men is relevant for women as well. If women can't live with the consequences, don't take the risk.

>> On the subject of men and their choices, there is no easy answer.
>> Except, perhaps, that in having sex, they took a risk – as did
>> their partner. Can’t live with the consequences? Don’t take the
>> risk
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 March 2005 9:41:10 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'll just add, that when a woman falls pregnant, it is NOT suddenly 'about women and choices' its about 2 human beings who have come together intimately, and have TOGETHER conceived a child. From that point on, its about THEM !! The two of them. Both their lives are intricately bound up in the conceived life that the woman happens to be carrying. Even a child conceived as a result of rape, would be a good candidate for adoption, he/she didnt ask to be created, but now that he/she is, why punish he/she by killing her ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 7 March 2005 9:53:54 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
A predictably circular debate about abortion. And a very long one. It's strange how fascinating we seem to find abortion and homosexuality on this website. Being gay myself I can tell you that homosexuality isn't actually all that interesting. And yet I encounter opponents who serve me longwinded diatribes based on what they've read (but not experienced). And abortion should not be a point of contention. It should be a routine operation without any guilt attached to it.

I'd like to add to my previous point that countries which restrict women's reproductive choices AND oppress gays tend to be undemocratic overall. Totalitarian regimes love controlling people's sexuality. Fortunately, there seem to be fewer of those regimes than in years gone by. And if there really is a trend towards worldwide democracy, it should follow that there'll be a trend towards greater reproductive choice and freedom of sexuality. Perhaps it's because for capitalism as an economic system these issues are really non-issues.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:50:38 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
Legally speaking equity should apply here, meaning the woman and unborn child have equal rights to the outcome and father have a determinate right. However, legal practice has urshed unborn childs rights allowing termination by woman as only 'right of choice' that matter to situation. However, when one studies the unborn baby in detail anatomical and physiological terms it becomes clear that human features and responses are seen even early as 9 weeks old (this includes responding to stimuli and soon after smiling and sleep patterns.) and so flawed and needing urgent address to upgrading civil status of unborn child.

As to the termination that have occurred to date, well... difficult but eventually needs society resolution.

To individual opinions in particular women who now have the only say needed to terminate or not... I do not fear any adverse response from this hotly polarized area and say put yourself back when you were in the womb, just because you cannot remember does not mean it did not happen Anne but are you not glad you were allowed to have the 'gift of life' by your parents? As a doctor I have refused to terminate and many of my collegues have done the same, thats my choice.
Posted by Sam said, Monday, 7 March 2005 11:55:42 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
doctor of what?
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 7 March 2005 12:28:43 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
Anne O'Rourke, you haven't been paying attention during the 'debate' on abortion. Alan Cadman was possibly the only person to make a public statement denigrating women who have an unintended pregnancy. I don't recall anyone characterising women as "frivolous, promiscuous, post-termination basket-cases" or as "vessels". That might be what you would like to hear people say, so that you can continue to slam anyone who questions abortion.

Hardly anyone has defended or attacked the practice of abortion on religious grounds. In fact I can't recall even one. Although, in our apparently tolerant society, it would be fine for them to do so, right? Where did you get your idea that abortion only upsets religious people? Most people don't like abortion very much. I think it's a "necessary evil" to most Australians. Most people want less abortion because they know that abortion is traumatic for a woman and lethal for a baby.

There was also no talk of determining what women can and can't do with their bodies (I spose you mean banning abortion). Nobody has mentioned that once, at least in public. Are you sure you're not thinking of the debate that was had in the early 1970s?

This piece tended to be a rehash of the same old tired stuff: caricaturing, defensive, angry. It's not very productive to misrepresent your opponents, because then the debate goes nowhere (although I think that is what the most extreme pro-choicers want: no debate because they're happy with one abortion for every four or five pregnancies). You really ought to include quotes in your piece to support your arguments.
Posted by ruby, Monday, 7 March 2005 3:34:41 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
ruby I think you need your head read if you believe that Hardly anyone is calling for abortions to stop on religious grounds.

I can't think of a single org that is not religiously based that is calling for reform in abortion can you.

Also can you tell me which country you were visiting when the issue of late term abortions came up a few months ago. There is a push to banned these for a start and I don't think to many religious groups would defend abortions if the government tried to stop it.
If it walks like a...
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 7 March 2005 4:48:32 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
Kenny, I'm sorry you have such an angry irrational hatred of Christians. It seems that anything coming from the mouth of a Christian, or from a Christian organisation, or from an organisation that has some Christians in it, must be wrong, and is to be dismissed. Therefore it is you who is approaching the issue of abortion on grounds of religion.

You ought to listen to people's arguments and assess them on their merits, rather than running on blind prejudice.

I agree that there was some discussion about late-term abortions, but I don't believe it concerned banning them, and no-one ever proposed to make abortion illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Remember, our community feels very uneasy about late term abortions and they have every right to discuss this. Even an athiest is likely to be filled with horror at the thought of a live baby having her skull caved in and brains sucked out during a late term abortion. Maybe you are so postmodern and enlightened that this doesn't bother you. Anyway, the alternative to a late-term abortion is a late-term live delivery. A woman can end her pregnancy during late term without actually having the baby killed.
Posted by ruby, Monday, 7 March 2005 5:29:40 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
Audrey,

I agree with you. I had a look back through a number of on-line news sites and I could find very little that would equate to what the author has stated. I think the author has made most of it up.

The author only considers a few aspects of abortion, and she seems to want to slam politicians while asking for more government funding. The first may be somewhat acceptable, but the second comes out of the tax-payers pocket (and the average tax-payer also has to afford to pay their bills, as well as pay the expenses of raising their own children).

Pouring more and more money into the problem of unwanted pregnancy may not solve the problem at all, as there can be many factors involved which can't be solved by money alone. The author wanting more government funding is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the problem.

More research and information is necessary on the reasons why there is so much abortion and unwanted pregnancy, but this won’t come about if the whole issue is silenced, which the author seems intent on trying to do.

Hopefully the article is never printed on paper, as it will waste more trees.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 7 March 2005 5:43:27 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 have just read Anne O’Rourke’s article and comments up to last Friday.

Anne wishes to be offended by the many men she claims who desire to determine what women should and should not do with their bodies. This is OK in general but is not OK when we talk about sexual activity between men and women resulting in conception.

I am 100% with Ros when she stated last Fri, "The life choices you are talking about concerns the life of a little one. A life is a continuum from conception to death. This is not a religious belief but a biological fact."

This has got to be correct and 4D ultrasounds and other technologies in the pipeline are only going to reinforce the point in coming years. The issue of abortion is simply not going away; "thank's for having me" resonates deeply.

At this stage pro life people are clearly in a minority and have no way of getting a change in the law, but with the impact of 4D ultrasounds coupled with declining birth-rates for people of Anne’s opinion and conversely the significantly higher birth-rates amongst religious people, in time the balance will change.

The question has to be asked, why the high level of abortion? Answer: people are into casual sex without any commitment to one another. This is the out working of disastrous 960’s sexual revolution.

My wife and I went into marriage as virgins – no sex before marriage. Two things result from this: early marriage and the desire for children. According to their own testimony our parents were virgins on their wedding days. We all remain married, blessed by our respective children. I know not all achieved this ideal but for a large proportion of the population it was an ideal with consequent much lower rates of abortion/adoption.

I would like Anne O’Rourke and everyone else who thinks like her to know that my Christian beliefs do influence what I think and do. So long as Australia remains a democracy I for one intend to give voice to my christian convictions and vote accordingly.
Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 7 March 2005 8:36:11 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
In terms of abortion, I don't think David should have cause for optimism. The concept of individual rights, including reproductive rights, emerged with the onset of capitalism. This is why feminism and gay liberation arose when they did rather than centuries before. The results have included a massive increase in the choices and status of women in the most democratic countries. Whether you agree with unfettered capitalism or not, the tendency is in countries which are the most developed (loaded value-ridden term) to allow women greater freedom as consumers and greater freedom regarding bodily and reproductive autonomy.

This hasn't happened evenly. Post-Stalinist Poland has restricted access to abortion. However, what happens is that women travel to other countries in the EU to have the operation. Like it or not, capitalist markets are amoral. Like it or not, capitalist democracies give women greater freedoms. This combination points to a trend which in all likelihood will ensure the situation re: abortion will not return to the pre-1960s.

Speaking of the 1960s, I wonder how long it will be before people will stop talking about that decade as the major cause of all our woes? Personally, I think the 1940s was much worse but that's just me.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 1:36:45 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
DavidJs
It is true that feminism and abortion are much related, and most ardent feminists also strongly support abortion (even with contraception available etc).

Feminism has been around for a couple of hundred years, but it came more to the fore during the early 1900’s. Feminism is tied to Marxism (and even Nazism has elements of feminism in it), and many early feminists declared themselves Marxist. Eg:-

“The Women's Movement played a major role in the Russian Revolution, the February Revolution being triggered by an International Women's Day demonstration, and there were a number of women revolutionaries on the Bolshevik Central Committee that made the Russian Revolution” at http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/w/o.htm

Now latter on people such as Greer began to write about women’s “liberation”, and also women’s “sexual liberation”. This meant that a woman should not be tied to a single man or husband, but could have many sexual partners. Unfortunately women become pregnant, so to remedy this, they also advocated wide scale abortion. People like Greer lived what they advocated, and she had countless sexual partners, became a groupie, indulged in many orgies, and had several abortions which some believe left her unable to have children. She now has no family, releases books on nude boys, and appears on Big Brother for money. For an account of all this see… http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5435&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary (I personally have read much that verifies what is in that article.)

Now considering early feminists belief in abortion. They rejected marriage, husbands and fathers, and most still do. If the woman wanted to have frequent sex but becomes pregnant, then she had an abortion. This is totally sick and immoral, but that was their philosophy. Read all about it in early feminist literature.

Some things have changed, and now feminist reasons for abortion appear mainly to do with money and politics, as can be seem by this article.

Most still don’t believe in marriage, believe women are “more equal” than men, and they infer that women are so powerful that they can have children, and also abortions, while men can’t (even with much improved contraception now available etc).
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 5:59:13 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 think you'll find feminism is a vast social movement with many different women who accept the label but with very different ideas about what feminism means to them.

Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Blackwell in the late 19th century wanted to reform the political landscape in regard to women's rights. They had no connection to the communist movement. Syliva Pankhurst did but her mother Emmeline was more conservative and supported Britain's intervention in WWI.

Today we see feminists in the ALP, Liberal Party and sometimes even further to the right. Interesting that you should provide a link to Beverley LaHaye. Susan Faludi documents her contradictory views - interesting in that she espouses some traditional feminist viewpoints from a socially conservative perspective.

It should also be mentioned that feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys espouse relationships with other women as positive and fulfilling. This is more than just a rejection of men. Jeffreys in her works (I've read most of them) rarely mentions abortion because she is promoting the positive aspects of lesbian relationships. And, as a gay man, I can see where she's coming from. Definitely, feminism is about more than just abortion.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 8:51:30 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
DavidJs
“I think you'll find feminism is a vast social movement with many different women who accept the label but with very different ideas about what feminism means to them.”

I would agree, because most of the original principles of feminism simply do not work (ie destruction of marriage, removal of fathers from children, gradual removal of men from society etc). So many feminists will use feminism only when it suits, and ignore it when it doesn’t.

Feminism is now so confused and contorted it should be forgotten about, and instead have democracy for all, and concentration on those who are in greatest need, not necessarily almost complete concentration on one gender.

You will notice that in nearly all feminist literature, the male, husband, or father is not included, except as someone to be derided. In this article on abortion, fathers are not mentioned once (although half of a child’s DNA comes from the father). This type of “gender equality” is the essence of modern feminism.

Most feminist doctrine rarely solves social problems. Many feminists will identify a social problem, but to fix that problem they simply call for more government funding. This article mentions government funding 21 times, and such thinking leads to a high taxing government, but still the social problems exist, because many of these problems cannot be solved by money alone

Feminists will say that women should have more “voice” or “choice”. They will then carry out highly biased research studies, and most articles in women magazines and literature are fictional, but made to look as though they are non-fiction.

Feminists have tried to replace marriage with co-habitation, while research into co-habitation constantly shows women are generally worse off in almost every way, from decreased wealth, to increased rates of STD, abortion, domestic violence, child abuse etc.

Feminists say there are now female CEO’s, while ignoring the many thousands of women who are now welfare dependant.

The list can go on, but feminists are best at patting themselves on the back, while ignoring the enormous overall harm they have done to men, children and women.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:55:55 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
In relation to abortion, it is interesting you (and Anne O'Rourke for that matter) didn't mention feminists work around the sex industry. The decision to have a child or not is an occupational hazard for women in prostitution - something women in more comfortable occupations don't have to worry about. Feminists such as Kathleen Barry, Sheila Jeffreys and Evelina Giobbe have worked hard in getting prostitution recognised as a violation of women's rights. Other feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers have ignored the sex industry altogether. Still others have sought "equal access" for women to the industry or even call it a liberating experience for women!

Many feminists do infact work towards achieving social justice. I know this because they are my colleagues in the NSW community sector. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) and similar organisations try to do the same thing internationally.

I would ask why feminism should be about achieving social justice for all? I do work for organisations in order to achieve social justice for gays ie: not heterosexuals. If heterosexuals feel underprivileged in relation to gays then they can set up their own groups and get off their backsides and lobby. Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 2:21:17 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
DavidJS,

>> Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?

Claims of fighting for social justice becomes a lie when we introduce more injustice in the pursuit of our own aims. I agree that fighting to help men suffering injustice is no more the responsibility of a feminist than that of any other member of the community. It is an issue for feminism when feminist groups are involved in the production and use of dishonest studies and reports which villify men to gain advantage for women (DV stats are a good place to start if you don't know what I am talking about). In doing so they move from being innocent bystanders to being an active part of the problem.

Thankfully there are some feminists such as Patricia Pearson (author of "When She was Bad") who see both the harm done to women, feminism and society by that kind of lie.

Fighting for social justice should be about truth and justice, not just a grab for power by one group at the expense of others. Power grabs are tribal warfare not social justice.

And the issue for a man who has been excluded from his kids lives or any of the other consequences of the current mess that is Family Law in action is a bit more than having a "nose out of joint". They are real issues contributing to the suicide of thousands of men a year in this country.

Would you be happy to see harm done to gays described as "having their nickers in a knot"?
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:09:38 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
DavidJS you will learn that Timmy is one of those people who believe that the source of all their trouble is other people. For Timmy women appear to be particularly threatening.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:14:38 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
DavidJs

“Many feminists do in fact work towards achieving social justice.”

“Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?”

I think you have summed up the hypocrisy of feminism very well in these two conflicting sentences

To expand a little:- Feminism is normally highly selective, highly gender-biased and anti-male. It ignores much but wants to be taken seriously, and if anyone is critical of it, then they are normally labelled misogynist or derided in some way.

An example:- Kenny’s remarks which are usually non-specific and without supporting evidence. Undoubtedly he would react if someone did the same to him (EG morgonzolla, who can’t answer simple questions, but likes to make remarks similar to Kenny’s).

It is interesting that the gay community is so aligned with feminism, as the gay community wants to move from co-habitation to marriage. Meanwhile feminists have done all they can to try and replace marriage with co-habitation (which does not work very well as previously mentioned). I think feminists are only interested in lesbians, and will probably turn on gay males at some time in the future.

With regards to lobby groups, a highly democratic and well run society should not need them. The taxpayer is already paying out money to maintain universities and research institutions that “should” be undertaking sufficient quality research to enable government to make informed quality decisions on a whole range of issues.

I say “should” but quite often they don't. For example it is not even clear how many abortions are carried out in Australia, but perhaps that information has been suppressed in some way.

When it comes to social issues, I doubt if our government could make an informed decision regards any social issue at all, (even if it wanted to), based on the highly conflicting data that normally comes out of Social Science.

This article on abortion ignores much, and if you think that there are issues left out, (and there are many), then take the matter up with the author. I have mentioned it a number of times in previous postings.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 7:44:49 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
In regard to the Australian gay community, it used to be the case that male and female separatism was much more common. Lesbian separatism was at the height of its popularity in the late 1970s. In the 1980s there was a tendency for gay men and lesbians to form coalitions. The Gay Rights Lobby became the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. The Gay Mardi Gras became the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. While there are still organisations and commercial venues which cater to either one sex or the other (and we all need our separate space from time to time), the case is that coalitionism has been been pretty much the norm in the gay movement (or GLBTQ movement if you prefer the up-to-date terminology) and hasn't looked back since.

Many lesbians today have no problems working with their male counterparts - and vice versa. Many lesbians also support same-sex marriage recognition. Timkins, your arguments seem to be outdated regarding the gay community today. And to better rephrase my previous point, why should feminists be taking on men's issues? After all, I'm not about to carry the can for straights. Or feminists for that matter. They can sort out their own issues. Why are you asking OTHER people to be inclusive?

With regard to lobby groups, they will always be a feature of a democratic society. As long as someone is interested in getting other people interested in their ideas, there'll be lobby groups. Democracy has always been about more than just voting every few years.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 10 March 2005 3:20:38 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
Are Jews human beings? Who gets to decide?

If Jews are human beings, do human beings have inalienable rights? If so, by virtue of what fact?
Posted by Brazuca, Friday, 11 March 2005 4:55:19 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
well for a starter's how about DNA evidence!
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 11 March 2005 5:03:08 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
Brazuca
no, you have no rights :) just privileges, which I may, if I feel like it, bestow upon you, Or, I may decide that you are a burden and superfluous to my needs and just liquidate you, u see, I've decided to rule the world :)
I rather like the thought of everyone kowtowing to me.

Of course, I'm speaking from cloud cuckoo land here, but many a truth (about presuppositions) can be conveyed in a jestful manner.

Such is the logical extension of Kenny and company's foundations of life. They just don't admit it (Hi Kenny, where's that email addy mate, I think you are ducking and weaving now ?). Also, they are not strong enough or adventurous enough to follow through on their fundamental life presuppositions.

"If any man would be first among you, he must be servant of all" Jesus.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 11 March 2005 8:01:11 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
>>well for a starter's how about DNA evidence!<<

So if Jews have DNA that makes them human? If they have the same DNA as a human that makes them a human also? But what if he's a Jew?

Okay, let's, for argument's sake, assume that Jews really are human, as you suggest. Does that mean they have rights that are inalienable by virtue of their being human beings? If so, why? Or are rights not inalienable and instead granted? But if that's the case, then why complain about certain people not being allowed to enjoy their rights? Because if their rights are granted, then their not being able to enjoy them stems from their not having had them in the first place, since they hadn't been granted to them.

Hey, do carrots have rights? If not, why not? Is it fair that carrots don't have rights while humans (even Jews) apparently do? If rights are granted, should carrots be granted their rights?

Do women have a right to abortion? If so, why? What's a right? Does a foetus have a right to life? Who decides?

Is a Jew a human being? If so, do human beings (including Jews) have a right to life, and is it inalienable? Who says?

Are rights a matter of objective truth or subjective opinion?
Posted by Brazuca, Friday, 11 March 2005 11:46:24 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
Brazuca – why your comparative reference to Jews (I note you have done same on another topic) is wrong is simple

Any reference to differences of treatment between one person and another separate individual person has no basis for comparison when applied to a Woman exercising a decision over something which is developing within her own body – viz – something which is not separate nor individual.

Even when you know the woman’s circumstances, motivation, expectations, desires and sought destiny you still do not have the right to make up her mind for her. She is sovereign of her own body and all that it contains – you are sovereign of your body too – but only yours and not of hers.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 13 March 2005 5:48:25 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
FEMINISM is to blame for the idea of separating the females from males to the degree that with respect to newly conceived human life, the male does not even exist. (by the tone of some posts)
FEMINISM is to blame for 4 murders in the past couple of days. It was beyond stupid to give a woman charge of a man who was up for RAPE (i.e. the overpowering of a woman and forcing her to have sex with him) what drugs were they ON, who instructed one female police officer to escort that guy from the holding cells to the court room in the USA, needless to say, he used his recent practice at overpowering females to over power the understrengthed police woman, took her gun and blew away 4 people.
Girls, perhaps its about time you focused on what you ARE, rather than listening to the tripe served up by feminists about some aspects of equal opportunity in employment, and so as not to stray too far from the topic, to remember that MEN are half the conception equation, and OUR LIFE is inside you when u conceive, its NOT about 'my body' its about 2 people who have created a 3rd.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 13 March 2005 10:46:55 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
And David, don't forget, Feminism is also to blame for 9/11, global warming and continuing violence in Iraq. There is no end of mayhem these evil ball-busters wreak on this planet.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 14 March 2005 8:23:21 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
Davidjs, you missed out the Asian Tsunami, atomic bombs and probably cyclones ;-)
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 14 March 2005 9:28:32 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
Actually, it just gets beyond a joke. To blame feminism for an incident where a criminal overpowered female police is not only ludicrous, it is completely irresponsible. What about the number of male cops who have been overpowered and murdered by criminals? Do you blame feminism then? Who do blame? I'll tell you - the criminal. Nobody else. It's totally the criminal's fault and nothing to do with ideology. Nobody forced this character to be a rapist and murderer. It was his choice wholely and solely.

And as for the idea that women who suffer post-abortion depression well, to blame feminism again is like saying "you poor dears, it was these evil feminists who got you into this mess". Freedom of reproductive choice, which I adhere to, means the right to make choices such as abortion - even though the consequences may not be pleasant. That said, women I know who have had abortions say that the consequences were sheer relief. But the point is it was their decision and they have to live with it.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 14 March 2005 10:33:46 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
WELL said mcrwhite. I am getting sick of those who continually denegrate 'right wing?' Christians and any/all other Christians who hold a belief.They say that we are one-eyed and are fanatical, yet read the letters and see just who are rabid, one-eyed and somewhat abusive. That's right it is the pagans, unbelievers, disbelievers ,athiests ect. This debate is NOT about beliefs yet if one's beliefs are instrumental in their decision then they should be allowed to state them (their beliefs) without being castigated and/or abused and ridiculed.
EVERY embryo is unique, EVERY one is a separate entity EVERY one is a special treasure and if asked I am sure would want to live - even as an adoptee - and feel the sunshine on their faces and do the things you and I can do.I am sure they would not want to be executed in a most painful,callous and brutal manner then dumped in a bucket to be tossed out somewhere as stinking garbage. Yes unwanted pregnancies can be terrible. Yes the male often takes off or disappears BUT?? Why isn't any thought given to a human who did not ask to be born but wants to be born and join us. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Monday, 14 March 2005 1:11:51 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
From DavidJS "... to blame feminism again is like saying "you poor dears, it was these evil feminists who got you into this mess". Freedom of reproductive choice, which I adhere to, means the right to make choices such as abortion - even though the consequences may not be pleasant."

The word "choices" is the choicest word feminists choose to use, perhaps ranking with "misogynist" etc. The word "choice" through over use by feminists and their gay supporters who use feminism as a trojan horse, has acquired an air of moral righteousness which it doesn't deserve
Posted by Ros, Monday, 14 March 2005 6:21:52 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
Brazuca, I’ve never seen so much drivel expressed in so few words. I hope that no poster to OLO feels the need to answer the moronic question as to whether or not Jews are human. To make yourself even more offensive you come here and introduce your anti-semitism under the guise of a discussion on the philosophy of morality. There’s plenty of KKK and neo-nazi sites for you to go and enjoy, maybe someone there will be keen to debate the rights of carrots with you.

Just one question. Have you always been a little hate-filled person, or have you only recently jumped on the anti-semitic bandwagon?
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 14 March 2005 7:16:25 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
Ringtail, consider ur tail BITTEN a few times :)
thanx for the reminder about all the other world events I have to blame on feminism. Actually while I realize I must have come across as a bit rabid, in this particular instance, I do actually blame feminism for the problem. But of course, whoever thought that a 5'2" granny could successfully escort a 6'2in 200 lb rapist defies credulity. Still, no one would have even thought to put such a person in the hands of one against whom the overwhelming odds were clear for anyone to see. What thinking and mentality lies behind such a decision ? It HAS to be 'women can do anything a man can do' right ? or am I missing something here ? Again, that CHOICE word comes to mind, "If I want to CHOOSE to be a Police officer, it should be open to me, my GENDER should not be an issue".. to that I have just one thing to say "HAH" ! My 'blaming' of feminism is quite narrow actually. I mean, only on a small number of issues, such as this one.

Another recurring theme which is cropping up in quite a few posts, is the sense of loss of manhood that some are expressing. This also is of concern and blamable on feminism. Again, the Yir Yiront come to mind, and how loss of male self esteem and cultural bearings resulted in sickness, depression, death and today there are only about 5 people who can speak the language.

So, in my view, I feel we need to attempt to re-capture a sense of community, of love for, and committment to our opposite gender, but unless this is based on unchanging principles from God, it will just go the way of most things, 'the line of least resistance'
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 14 March 2005 9:43:21 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
Now, now kids. Let’s get back to the topic… How about this?

Women can choose when they volunteer to pay for their choices. On their own (“grrrl power”, independent women that they are) - no men, no state.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 14 March 2005 10:30:19 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
You heard it here first ! "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS NOW DEAD" along with Feminism :)
Why ? simple. When the whole world watched the Atlanta DA stand on the steps of the court and DEFEND the choice of a 52 yr old 5 foot Granny to escort a 200 pound 6'2" sex offender to the court from the cells, they also saw the death of political correctness. That lunatic claimed "I believe women can do everything a man can do" etc... meanwhile he is surrounded with 4 body bags. I reckon the world has not yet stopped laughing about the stupidity of that statement.
So, girls, PUH-LEASE dont EVER 'choose' to join the military or police for anything resembling a role which involves physical hand on hand combat or control.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:11:23 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
Be careful BOAZ-David women, with the aid of a funnel can now pee standing up. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:39:16 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
The only men that feel threatened by feminism are ones who need to prop up they own manhood by oppressing women.
The GB's your intolerance, sexism, racist and general hatred for your fellow man knows no bounds and continues to be a source of astonishment for the rest of us.
Your ideas are relics of a bygone era that most people are glad to see the back of, we had this debate in the 50 years ago get over it.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 2:33:09 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
>>Brazuca – why your comparative reference to Jews (I note you have done same on another topic) is wrong is simple

Any reference to differences of treatment between one person and another separate individual person has no basis for comparison when applied to a Woman exercising a decision over something which is developing within her own body – viz – something which is not separate nor individual.

Even when you know the woman’s circumstances, motivation, expectations, desires and sought destiny you still do not have the right to make up her mind for her. She is sovereign of her own body and all that it contains – you are sovereign of your body too – but only yours and not of hers.<<

--------------

You talk of rights above, Col. But as I asked before, are rights (and what constitutes a right and what doesn't) a matter of subjective opinion or objective truth? If the former, how do you know which subjective opinion is the correct one if there's more than one? If the latter, how come this objective truth exists and from where does it derive?

C'mon, Col, I know you can do it. ;-)
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:34:55 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
Kenny,

You sound so sexy when you talk pink. How do you feel about same-sex love?

You’ve caught me in a very strangely tolerant mood this evening, and I’m kinda wondering what you’re wearing. I hope you’re also feeling extra tolerant, because tolerance is key … and shhh, let’s exercise some consensual discretion here – BOAZ would more than likely disapprove. Let’s just forget about the slavery, the nuclear whatever, and especially the hate – for we now have an opportunity, fleeting as it may seem, to turn it all into something more beautiful …

Tentatively,
Seeker
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:59:34 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
Brazuca – “how do you know which subjective opinion is the correct one if there's more than one”

Most of what is used to guide our lives is subjective opinion (I posted to this effect on another thread). You might want to wait until all the “objective truth” is “discovered” to help you determine what is “absolutely right” but I expect to live only around 4 score years or so and do not have a millennia to wait for the result, so I will go with “subject opinion” – like 99.95% (3SD from the mean) of the population and accept legal and moral codes based on subjective opinion.

Some of us call it “faith” – not necessarily “religious faith” (lets face it the behaviour of most religions has been seen to be pretty corrupt and despicable in recent years, I am surprised anyone who can think for themselves can have any “faith” in an organised religion of any sort or flavour these days). I have faith to follow the ethics and reasoning of my own mind.

So I will go where my faith takes me – and it takes me to the conclusion that “abortion is a matter of an individual woman deciding how her body will be used”. It is her decision and no one elses – because – no one else is involved (to any meaningful extent) as that individual woman (not even the father).

Now maybe you will produce the “objective truth” or “subjective opinion” you have which establishes the authority for a state or stranger to enforce a woman to endure a pregnancy against her will – I am waiting - but will not hold my breath - my complexion is better a rosey hue than blue.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:03:33 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
Hi ! My names Kenny, and I just read some comments here, and I'll quickly look up my 'Socialist Protest Handbook' where it says "The truth doesn't matter, just shout long and hard our usual slogans "Racist, Intolerant, Sexist" etc.... some mud must stick in the end blah blah.
KENNY ! *shake* WAKE UP please mate, you are becoming increasingly irrational bro.... resorting to shallow trite slogans instead of critical evaluation ?

Kenny, it seems to me u just don't want to face up to truth, u haven't as yet provided me with an email where I can send you a pic just a week or 2 old of a slave owner with her former slaves, who were given freedom, land and resources because of the 'intolerant/slaving/racist' gospel that you so delight in detesting. Come back to the real world me boy... or I'll only look at your posts for their 'humor' value.

OH.. dont forget, 'relic of 50s' will be at Telstra Dome THIS WEEKEND the son of Evangelist Billy Graham (Franklin) and some extra ordinary artists, including Marina Pryor (who is a Godbotherer) and it gets better, its FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE http://www.festivalvictoria.com.au/


blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 6:56:52 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
Given the intransigence of the godbotherers and misogynists who are over-represented in many of the discussions on this site, I suspect that many of us only read their posts for 'entertainment value'. Personally, I'm quite astonished at the attitudes expressed by some of the more prolific contributors - I really haven't encountered such antediluvian twaddle ever, except for some unfortunate encounters with evangelistic missionaries in developing countries. Why is it that Christians just don't seem to be able to understand that their belief system is on exactly the same level as that of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc - i.e. beliefs in supernatural beings who provide rules and models for behaviour for us mere mortals. Useful and valuable for many, to be sure, but ultimately any religion is a construct of the human imagination.

Sorry godbotherers, but it is supremely arrogant for you to insist upon the primacy of your beliefs over those of everybody else - as you do when you insist that a human embryo is a person and therefore that women's rights to abortion on demand be curtailed. I can't think of any society on Earth where that status is awarded to a bunch of cells - including our own.

As for the handful of very sad men who blame feminism for their unfortunate experiences, may I suggest that the reasons for your failed relationships might lie in your attitudes to the mothers of your children. You may not think you are misogynists, but that is indeed a large part of your problem: your obsessional writings here reveal you as men whose models of relationships with women (and indeed children) are patriarchal and outmoded. Sorry fellas, but the 1950s were half a century ago - you're dinosaurs.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 8:35:46 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
Sorry BOAZ_David I'm washing my hair and I’ve long since only read your post for curiosity sake and humor. As for seeker I'm a happily married man but I sure it would not be hard to find some swingers clubs for you. Perhaps you could attend BOAZ_David big night out I'm sure there will be some swingers and singles there.
The people I would like to hear from on this site is some left wing Christians to counter act the current crop of GB's. Your silence means all Christians get lumped in with the barrel of monkeys we’ve got now
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 9:12:09 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
>> Brazuca – “how do you know which subjective opinion is the correct one if there's more than one”

Most of what is used to guide our lives is subjective opinion (I posted to this effect on another thread). You might want to wait until all the “objective truth” is “discovered” to help you determine what is “absolutely right” but I expect to live only around 4 score years or so and do not have a millennia to wait for the result, so I will go with “subject opinion” – like 99.95% (3SD from the mean) of the population and accept legal and moral codes based on subjective opinion.

Some of us call it “faith” – not necessarily “religious faith” (lets face it the behaviour of most religions has been seen to be pretty corrupt and despicable in recent years, I am surprised anyone who can think for themselves can have any “faith” in an organised religion of any sort or flavour these days). I have faith to follow the ethics and reasoning of my own mind.

So I will go where my faith takes me – and it takes me to the conclusion that “abortion is a matter of an individual woman deciding how her body will be used”. It is her decision and no one elses – because – no one else is involved (to any meaningful extent) as that individual woman (not even the father).

Now maybe you will produce the “objective truth” or “subjective opinion” you have which establishes the authority for a state or stranger to enforce a woman to endure a pregnancy against her will – I am waiting - but will not hold my breath - my complexion is better a rosey hue than blue. <<

-------------------

I take it this is all your subjective opinion, Col. Funny, then, that you should wish to have your subjective opinion codified in law and imposed upon those who dissent.
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 3:35:50 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
Brazuca - I may be wrong, but I interpret Col's argument as being for the maintenance of the status quo with respect to abortions in Australia. It is others - mostly men of the misogynist and/or holy roller variety - who wish to force their subjective views on others.

Col's position - with which I do not entirely agree - seems to be that of the primacy of the rights of the individual in all matters. He would hardly argue from that position for the subjugation of women's rights to abortion on demand.

Brazuca, I find your contributions to these comments threads rather cryptic. Could you try being a little less obtuse? Thanks in advance.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 5:08:52 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
Brazuca “I take it this is all your subjective opinion, Col. Funny, then, that you should wish to have your subjective opinion codified in law and imposed upon those who dissent.”

Well Brazuca –I place paramount authority with the individual. I am pro-choice.

My subjective opinion is “every woman and every man should have sovereignty of choice over matters concerning their own bodies” – in the case of females that means the right to choose to abort.
As far as that may apply to yourself – I respect your right to choose “not to abort”.

Thus the subjective opinion imposes no demand by me upon any “choice” you wish to make in regard to your own body.

I do not presume to force you to abort. If I did, what you suggest would make sense.

Since my subjective opinion endeavours to enshrine “choice” with you, suggesting anything would be imposed upon you by codifying my “subjective opinion” into law – is nonsense!

Morgazola – thanks for the observation and clarification – your analysis was correct,
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 March 2005 1:22:06 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
Kenny, u want to hear from left wing Chrisitans, I've given you a link to Tony Campolo, do a search on that name and you will FIND one.
check out some of his messages, if ur brave enuf.

Morgan, (and Kenny) the sad thing here if any ... is the way you guys can ONLY see things in an 'either or' way. "If ur anti feminism your a mysoginist, you want to oppress women, you have trouble with your relationship" kind of thing. C'mon guys, you can do better than that.

Biblical principle is not about oppressing women, not about mysogony, and it is a wonderful foundation for healthy relationships.

I was in 'rant' mode above, to draw attention to the stupidity of one aspect of feminism which claims 'Anything you (guys) can do, we can do better (or as well)' which is demonstrably false in the case of the Atlanta shootings. I raised this issue to show the flawed foundation of that part of feminism, and to show how its not based on biological reality. But u guys respond "you have a problem with your wife, u want to oppress women" :) I hope everyone else got the same giggle out of THAT one as I did.

MOrgan, I can understand your blank glazed eyed staring off into space look when it comes to the idea of 'superiority of belief' for Christians. I'll admit, its a struggle for each sincere believer. Its not just YOU who feels a tad uncomfortable with such an apparently 'arrogant' idea, we do TOO, but then, thats human nature I guess, and more importantly, we find ourselves faced with the same problem Paul did on the road to Damascus, and for the disciples who once said to Jesus "Lord, this is a HARD saying, who can bear it" where he replied "Will you also fall away"? whereupon they responded, "To whom will we go, you have the words of eternal life".
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 17 March 2005 6:32:21 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
Boaz_David When I said I wanted to hear from the left I meant get some log on not a web link anyway I'd suggest Sister Joan Chittister to you to help you with your issues. As for your quotes from the bible I'll give everyone another on biblical family values.
Matthew 10:34 -37
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

Need I remind everyone that the Christians Saul had a few things to say about women that religious groups have used to oppress women. Peter 1 3:2-6 anyone.

“out some of his messages, if ur brave enuf” BOAZ_David Christianity holds as much relevance to me as astrology.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 17 March 2005 8:58:13 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
"Brazuca - I may be wrong, but I interpret Col's argument as being for the maintenance of the status quo with respect to abortions in Australia. It is others - mostly men of the misogynist and/or holy roller variety - who wish to force their subjective views on others."

Is this your subjective view, i.e., not the objective truth but rather your subjective opinion, open to a multitude of interpretations, none of which can by definition be right? And, moreover, you speak as if what you accuse those with whom you are opposed on this issue are doing the morally "wrong" thing. But is this value-judgement subjective, i.e., not true by definition, or is it objective, i.e., true?

"Col's position - with which I do not entirely agree - seems to be that of the primacy of the rights of the individual in all matters. He would hardly argue from that position for the subjugation of women's rights to abortion on demand."

The "rights of the individual" are precisely what's at issue. Foetuses, you see, are being denied their inalienable, God-given right to life by those who seem to believe that, because they are more powerful than those they afflict, it is their prerogative to deny to the weak their God-given rights simply because they can.

"Brazuca, I find your contributions to these comments threads rather cryptic. Could you try being a little less obtuse? Thanks in advance."

Because the issue of abortion involves some of the most profound of philosophical questions, it is by far easiest, with so little words allowed, to ask questions that will hopefully provoke my interlocuters to realise the futility, irrationality and hopelessness of their worldview. How quickly or slowly we go will depend you your interaction, boys and girls.
Posted by Brazuca, Sunday, 20 March 2005 12:20:28 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
>>"Well Brazuca –I place paramount authority with the individual. I am pro-choice."<<

Why do you place "paramount authority with the individual"? Hitler, as I understand it, was an individual. Same-same with Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc.

>>"My subjective opinion is “every woman and every man should have sovereignty of choice over matters concerning their own bodies” – in the case of females that means the right to choose to abort.
As far as that may apply to yourself – I respect your right to choose “not to abort”."<<

If there's more than one subjective opinion -- another, for example, that contradicts what you've expressed -- how do we know which one's the right one? Do we have available to us an objective standard of measurement by which we can determine the rightness and wrongness of competing views on morality?

>>"Thus the subjective opinion imposes no demand by me upon any “choice” you wish to make in regard to your own body."<<

That's precisely what's at issue. The "little one", or "foetus", has his *body* ripped apart, sucked out and discarded in a garbage bin. You don't seem to be aware of what you're saying.

>>"I do not presume to force you to abort. If I did, what you suggest would make sense."<<

No Nazi presumed to force you to eliminate any Jews. Does that mean it was their prerogative to exercise their "final solution"?

>>"Since my subjective opinion endeavours to enshrine “choice” with you, suggesting anything would be imposed upon you by codifying my “subjective opinion” into law – is nonsense!"<<

It would impose on me the requirement to stand aside and allow a holocaust perpetrated against the most innocent and defenceless of people to be carried out unopposed. It would also implicate me indirectly in mass murder by using my tax dollars to fund this gruesome, murderous industry. It would very much be imposing your depraved and benighted (im)morality on me and so would be raping my conscience.
Posted by Brazuca, Sunday, 20 March 2005 12:29:56 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
Thanks Brazuca for finally coming out of the closet as yet another godbotherer presuming to impose their subjective beliefs on everyone else. At least we now know that we are unlikely to get any sensible debate from you, and we can frame our dialogue with you accordingly - rather than providing answers for your inane questions.

Although there's little point in saying so to someone whose mind is constrained by the straitjacket of religious faith, may I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here - subjectively, you have decided to abdicate your own moral authority to that prescribed by your religion. While you talk about an embryo as if it is a human being (which it isn't - in law, in science or anywhere except in the minds of you and your cohorts) that has "God-given rights" (ignoring the fact that both your god and those rights were devised by people), that is your subjective belief, presumably based on a worldview that you've acquired since you were born. There is absolutely nothing 'objective' about any of that.

Although I accept that objective truth is perhaps an unattainable goal, at least science strives towards it, while adherents to anachronistic religions seek aggressively to drag us back to the Dark Ages, when theocracy ruled and superstition was its henchman.

"Brazuca" is now added to my list of godbothering correspondents to these forums whose contributions will only be read for entertainment value.

Morgan
Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 20 March 2005 1:19:18 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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