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. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. Page 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. All
Perhaps all can be simplified into an equation:-

Mother + Fathers + Children...[Femisism]...= Abortion + Family Law

In this case Feminism acts as a type of catalyst in the reaction.
Minimal research has been undertaken into abortion or unwanted pregnancy.
The laws relating to abortion are superficial in that they are based on almost no research.
Recent research into the affects of Family Law now shows it has devastating consequences on family.
The child has a grim future in nearly all circumstances.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 2:16:18 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
No Col, I didn’t expect an answer because there is no way your silly “rights of the individual rule over all” philosophy can be reconciled with the absolute trampling of the rights of viable, unborn children. I’ll answer your question again for the third time. The decision to murder an unborn child is not a private matter or an individual choice! Just follow your warped logic through to its logical conclusion.

In relation to your charge of pro-lifers spewing bile to silence opposition – I thought pro-lifers were the opposition! Doesn't our enlightened society decree it's OK to have late term abortions?

Col, you might have a right to your point of view, but that doesn’t mean your points are anything other than cold and shallow. In as far as you being a sycophant – anyone who runs around saying that a seven month old fetus has no right to live if it inconveniences the mother, and that fathers have absolutely no right to an opinion about whether their child lives or dies, that sounds pretty sycophantic to feminism to me. Nothing wrong with being a feminist Col, just don’t make any claims to being a humanist.

Now Red, your turn. Don’t dance around the subject any further, no spruiking off on different tangents, no changing the subject, no turning the question back onto me, no more ducking and weaving. Would you have supported your wife if she had come to you and said she was going to abort your 7 month old unborn child? And can you confirm that a seven month old unborn child has absolutely no right to life if the mother so decrees?
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 4:40:39 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 Rouge, a redneck with intellect ... tinged with oxymoron, devoid of a sense for irony, who pays inordinate amount of attention to his own arguments (and learns from them) … but always, ALWAYS ready to pounce on those of lesser intellect, including 7 month old foeti.

The paradox that is your “life experience” Col, may well require your women to make YOUR choices. For the rest of us - well frankly, we are not blinded by your intellectual brilliance, and may have valid opinions of our own. This is not just about you Col. OK?

Now if you could just admit you suffer from a yet to be diagnosed psychological condition of uterus awe (forgive my ignorance if your condition is already in DSM-IV), we can all focus on more worthwhile endeavours, like maybe saving a few foeti that don’t really have to die.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 10:59:20 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
Bozzie – a woman’s body, an embryo/fetus might use it to develop in but only one entity can be paramount and that should always be the permanent resident, never the one who is simply “passing through”. To give an embryo / fetus a priority of right above that of the mother, debases the mother to second place and as second place, she is a slave to the embryo / fetus. You might be happy with that as a standard but I am not and will never be.

As for "sycophant". I would rather be called “sycophant” than a “self appointed zealot and control freak demanding to interfere in the private decisions of strangers”. I will always be pro-individual choice because, without choice, life is debased to mere existence.

Seeker - I can see my last comment hit a nerve.
If you stop making your posts about me I will stop responding in same. Keep up the sarcasm and I will be happy to shred whatever you say.

Oh “uterus awe” too feeble.
I personally see people as “equal individuals”, male, female, black, white, Christian or atheist, to me it does not matter, the “common element” is their “individuality and uniqueness”. I will always defend my opinion and the right of all individuals to exercise sovereignty over their own body.

Regarding yourself and “uterus awe”. It sounds like the opposite of “misogynist” and since we seem to hold opposing views I suggest I have found the name for you.

Misogynist – “a misanthrope who dislikes women in particular”

It does fit with what I said earlier, about you seeming to be high on inferiority complex and low in character, typical misogynistic deficiencies, hate what you cannot control, maybe “misanthrope” would be more appropriate.

Oh and the “redneck” just remember it is my original little joke. You are now overplaying your hand to keep mentioning it but you probably have so few successes in life, you cannot help wallowing in the little ones when they do so rarely happen.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 March 2005 7:53:06 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
Col,

You must be drawing these conclusions about me from your own posts – they are only convincing to you.

I have been arguing for fathers to have equal choice not only on reproductive choices like abortion, but on wider family issues, particularly those after divorce. I believe in equality, but am disappointed by the seemingly wide gaps in what people say they believe in, and practical implementations of these concepts in our society.

Now get over it. I am comfortable with who I am. For your benefit Col, misanthrope is a more apt label for people promoting abortion in narrow-minded ways such as yourself. You are no defender of women, or anyone else for that matter.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 24 March 2005 9:11:26 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,

It is indeed true, the greatest enemies of men are other men.

You are living proof.

Have you looked up Dr Farrell's books yet?

There is little point in asking you anything more, since you ignore the "bigger picture", which evidently demolishes your argument; an argument which seems to repeat the same thing over and over, with little grounding in anything other than your own opinion.

In the abortion issue, the surrounding interested persons (including the mother) are also affected by abortion decisions, whether pro or non, and they are affected for many years or decades.

Abortion is not just about pregnancy, it is also about the short- and long-term consequences: for the mother, the father, the child and the community. Giving one interested party the sole, unassailable legal right to determine whether or not abortion should take place, to the detriment of all others, and in all circumstances, is appalling.

Col, have you ever asked how many women did get abortions, and then so deeply regretted it that they required psychiatric counselling?

Have you ever asked how many men have deeply despised the fact that they were trapped into the consequences of having a child by the simple act of a woman lying about contraception, or the fact that their partner unilaterally decided to abort the child?

Have you ever asked about the women who were, tragically, abused... even killed... by their partners, because the partner was so disenfranchised from the decision to have or abort the baby, or the repercussions thereof?

No, Col, I doubt that you have, because you will "always" remain of the same opinion, which is sad because it indicates that you will never learn anything new.

Do you want to protect women? Then protect men. And make women responsible for the consequences of their actions. Anything else contributes, ultimately and inevitably, to discrimination against women.
Posted by Andyman, Friday, 25 March 2005 8:58:01 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. Page 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. All

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