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 > The abortion debate: what a fizzer! > Comments

The abortion debate: what a fizzer! : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 11/3/2005

Helen Pringle argues that on the basis of recent history the abortion debate won't result in any change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 24
  15. 25
  16. 26
  17. All
Helen, you titled your piece "The abortion debate: what a fizzer!".

It has now generated over a hundred Forum contributions.

Some fizzer!

Keep up the good work. It is probably worth reminding ourselves of the broader context of Wendell Phillips speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in 1853:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity."
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 March 2005 6:22:29 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 a question: Legal foetal viability is determined by the ability of the foetus to survive outside the womb – usually at 28 weeks. So, how does this cut-off date and its partial-legal status affects the foetus’ status as human being?

If ‘pro-choice’ proponents commonly argue that a foetus is just ‘a clump of cells’, when does that ‘clump of cells’ become a human? If an abortion is performed at 28+ weeks, is that then murder? What about 20 weeks? 12 weeks? What is the significant foetal milestone turning a ‘clump of cells’ into a human being, if not legal viability? Is it their size? Resemblance to a human being? Birth?

Recently, I had someone tell me that “‘pro-life’ women don’t exist”. Do they? How do women feel who have had a completed pregnancy, and then an abortion? Or the other way around? Of the many friends I have who have had abortions, the ones who have ‘psychologically survived’ the abortion were up-front about taking another’s life (“I know this is wrong, but it’s the only option I have.”) The ones who have been unable to disconnect from their bodies have been haunted by their decision. This is only my experience.

As a woman who has been through pregnancy, birth and beyond, and who has engaged with their baby’s development in utero, I know how I was thrilled to engage with how my baby’s organs were developing, that it was already kicking although I couldn’t feel it yet, my baby was smiling or frowning (all while it was legally ‘non-viable’).

This is not meant to be an accusatory spiel. I really want to know how people find their moral position on this.

Do we accept some forms of murder to protect individual liberty? Whose individual rights are paramount and why? Does a human being’s ‘viability’ all depend on whether someone wants it or not? Whether its life is convenient for someone else? When is that distinction drawn? What implications could that have on human rights in the future/in the present? Why are these aspects of the debate seldom addressed?
Posted by Tracy A, Saturday, 19 March 2005 12:25:06 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
Pericles – your comments regarding the number of posts exactly mirror my thoughts before I got to this article –will the comments exceed 100?

Helen title was deliberately provocative. Is the abortion Issue a fizzer? – No - it is a barometer of social tolerance and "societies" ability to respect and defer to the right of individual to exercise personal choice.

As you quote “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few”.
It is too easy for “the few” of Pro-Life to demand to have their “choice” be universally inflicted upon the “many” of society in general.
Let Pro-lifers exercise a personal non-abortion policy for themselves – and may they develop to find the tolerance needed to respect Non-Pro-Life women in exercising what might be a non-pro-life choice for themselves too.

Tracy – that you had a fulfilling time in pregnancy is wonderful. You made your choice.
Now please respect the rights of other women to make their choice.
Whatever their choice may be, it will not effect you, your children or your family’s rights.
However, denying them their choice (and imposing your choice) places a responsibility back on you.
I want to know how you will live up to your responsibilities to finance and support those women through their pregnancies and then the children through to age 18? How many of your own children will you not be able to afford because you are looking after someone elses?
What price are you prepared to pay for the right of having your choice the only one allowed
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 19 March 2005 9:03:56 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
Author again. Col Rouge, I laughed (very good naturedly of course!) when I read your comment about my choice of title. Over the years, I have never written anything that has gone out with the title I used. In fact, I have yet to meet ANY writer whose title has not been changed by editors. My own title for this piece as sent to the editors was "Mr Lusher's Amendment" (rather dull, I'm afraid...). I'd suggest not spending any time on the title of your opinion pieces; the editor(s) will always choose another, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
Posted by isabelberners, Saturday, 19 March 2005 10:28:55 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
Ringtail,
“Basically - if you are going to have sex be responsible for your actions.”

I tend to agree somewhat, in that there are women around that definitely should be avoided.

Basically there are two people about to become involved in a sexual relationship. A MM (Mere Male, regarded as neanderthaloid, non-emotional, inarticulate etc) and a GP (Grrrl Power, regarded as all knowing, emotional, articulate etc). Now there is a tendency for GPs not to answer questions asked by MMs, so a GP would have to tell the MM about how she expects the relationship to be.

Looking at some statistics, then on average, GP would have to inform MM that she wants the relationship to be temporary or throw-away, and she is mainly interested in MM for money and sex. She would have to say that either she doesn’t use contraception, or any contraception she is using is not greatly reliable, and if she does become pregnant, then she will most likely have an abortion, but not necessarily talk to MM about it first.

If GP does decide to keep the child, then she will expect MM (and the government) to provide her with money, although MM will have minimal say in how the child is being raised, and in 76% of cases, MM will only see the child every second weekend or less. This will occur until the child is 18.

Now after MM has been told this by GP, then there should be a cooling off period for MM to consider the matter, and maybe discuss it within his circle of friends next time they come around to watch the footy.

This would be fair and reasonable, particularly for the child.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 19 March 2005 1:52:39 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
mscobina, if I've misunderstood you sorry :(.

Deuc, clearly 2,3 & 4 ignore the views of the pro-life group.
I disagree with the view put by some that the debate is about tolerance etc. Our society has a long history of people protesting and seeking change to prevent harm to entities other than themselves where some believe an action is harming that entity (environment/animal protection etc). The same argument could also be used to suggest that non-indiginous people should butt out in relation to racism issues where indiginous people suffer - eg OK for them not to be racist but don't try and force it on others. Sometimes I agree with such groups, sometimes not but I do believe the right to seek change is fundamental to the overall health of our society.

My main reason for concern about proposal 4 is that it ignores the needs of a father who on discovering he has contributed to a collection of cells decides he really likes that idea and would like that to continue.

I suspect that not all pro-choice women upon discovering that they are having an unplanned pregnancy decide to terminate - some might say Wow, I'm, going to be a mum. I also suspect that there are reasons women would object to forced abortions other than that it is happening to their bodies. Sometimes the mere knowledge of conception changes our plans and priorities etc. Some of those reasons are equally valid for men. I may not have stated that clearly, it's the best way of putting it that I can think of at the moment.

As you pointed out in an eatlier post it may not be possible to get that balance (artificial wombs maybe in the future). I do like to differentiate between core stuff and practical necessities.
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 19 March 2005 2:35:45 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 24
  15. 25
  16. 26
  17. All

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