Would any of the Pro-life advocates like to respond to my Monday, 8 August 2005 8:59:25 AM post?

I'd like to hear you defend the injustice of making a man pay child support when he has no say in whether the child is kept or not, or that since the unborn has no worth we should be able to experiment, harvest body parts or take it's life up until the birth.

Also if you are using the unborn is not a person defence we should be able to kill and experiment on, born non-persons ie infants, the handicapped and the the severly imparied elderly as they do not have functional personhood.

EM

-With many thanks to Garra :-)-

I live in the 21st century where a woman has control over her body. Unlike the preceding centuries where she was forced to risk her life to the ministrations of back yard abortionists. Barbaric indeed.

I notice from other posters that they wish men would be involved and supportive in the choices they have to make - hardly prehistoric.

You claim to be embarrassed by women holding a different opinion to yours - how peculiar, Kathy Woolf doesn't embarrass me and I don't agree with her.

I really believe that this thread has run its course when sub-human - sorry, I mean neo-human wants to argue about experimentation on disabled and elderly!

What kind of mind thinks up such horrendeous ideas - equating pro-choice with that kind of appalling scenario. Not on topic, not applicable and not worthy of further response.

Xena wrote.
“I really believe that this thread has run its course when sub-human - sorry,”

Ok cheap shot she is now open to my ridicule.

-“ I mean neo-human wants to argue about experimentation on disabled and elderly!”

“What kind of mind thinks up such horrendeous ideas - equating pro-choice with that kind of appalling scenario. Not on topic, not applicable and not worthy of further response.”

Now at least you have an understanding of where the Pro-life people are coming from, they find it equally appalling to use any human life in this way.

Xena it doesn’t surprise me that you lack the intellectual rigor to deal with a ‘thought experiment’ that deals with the fundamental arguments inherent in the pro-choice stance. Up to now you have had an easy time dismissing Bible thumpers and resorting to mantras and superciliousness.

It is along similar lines to along Peter Singer’s rights to sentient animals but that is probably beyond you.
BTW Deuc and I debated this, and while we disagreed at least he had the intellect to participate in a rational debate with arguments to back it up.

If the Pro-lifers like yourself went beyond ‘my body my right’ mantra you would and thought about the implications of your stance you would have some conception of the moral problems it throws up.

If you are relying on the pre-born are not persons argument then it is apparent that we give personhood rights to born humans that don’t have functional personhood. If we experiment, kill, use as body parts un-born human non-persons then to be consistent we should be able to do the same to born non-persons.

So it IS on topic and IS applicable.

Nor did you respond to the unjust situation that men have no choice in the keeping of the child but are forced to take responsibility for their part by paying child support, while a woman doesn’t have to take any responsibility. If we use the ‘my body my right’ with no responsibility for men as well, then men should not pay child support.

Garra,
Re Ambo and “freedom of expression”

The complaints section of the Ambulance Services were contacted and informed that a person was posting to a major forum and portraying themselves as an Ambulance Officer, and also suggesting that if a pregnant woman did not want a child, then that child should be killed. That complaint is being investigated.

As an individual, Ambo could use another forum name that doesn’t directly link him with the Ambulance Services, and say whatever he wants (within the rules of the forum). Directly linking himself with an organisation such as the Ambulance Services is another matter, as the Ambulance Services would have various Rules, Codes, or Agreements that their members must abide by.

I would think the general principle of most health and medical services is to “preserve life whenever possible”. In the case of a pregnant woman, there is the mother and unborn child, as well as the father, extended family and general community. The life of all must be preserved whenever possible. It appears that Ambo has shown minimal concern for the child and the other stakeholders, and hasn’t looked at the issue broadly enough to see that both the mother and child’s life can be preserved by having the pregnancy run to full term, and then the father raising the child, or the child is adopted out.

The mother may think the pregnancy inconvenient, but many people have to do things during their lives that are inconvenient, and killing the child is not “preserving life whenever possible”, as there are alternatives.

It could be that abortion counselling services should be required to rename themselves “Pregnancy Counselling”, and if a woman has an unintended pregnancy, then all alternatives must be talked through, so as to “preserve life whenever possible”.

With the abortion rate at 40% of pregnancies, it does appear that few attempts are being made to “preserve life whenever possible”, and people are now developing a very superficial or even lazy attitude towards abortion, regarding abortion as an easy way to avoid the more difficult task of “preserving life whenever possible”.

Timkins, no doubt you will wish to report me for 'flaming' or 'making comments about [you] when [I] do not know [you]', but I have to say I am utterly appalled that you would 'report' Ambo to the NSW Ambulance Service for his comments in these, or any other, forums. He has not claimed any authority for his comments through his tagname, and if you wish to ascribe such authority, than perhaps YOU should consider why YOU feel it nessecary to do so. Ambo has made reasoned comments without resorting to degrogatory comments (as we are all guilty of occasionally), and the very idea that you should seek to have him professionally reprimanded for sensible discussion in what is for all intents and purposes an anonymous online discussion forum is disgraceful. Had he called himself 'Doc', would you be reporting him to the Medical Practitioners Board? Had a poster called themselves 'Pope' would you be calling the Catholic Church?

*deep breath*

I apologise to the moderators, who are no doubt dealing with this issue anyway, and to the other posters who had to read this little rant of mine!

On topic- I think the original idea of the Senator's, to insist on full advertising disclosure of services offered, is a sensible one, which should be followed, really, in all advertising, no matter what issues a company deals with, be it pregnancy or paper.

Timkins you have just reached the lowest level yet. You deliberately distorted reasonable commentary by a fellow poster and then reported him to an authority. You disgust me. You whinge and whine about people maligning you - have you looked at yourself first?

I am disgusted by this latest piece of vilification from Timkins. I expect forum management to take appropraite action immediately and ban Timkins from further posts.