It doesn’t matter if abortion drugs become legal or not, as a doctor prescribing such drugs to a woman will still have to abide by the abortion legislation of that state.

As discussed in another forum, many doctors do not understand legislation relating to abortion, and the legalisation of abortion drugs may not necessarily improve their understanding of abortion legalities ( See http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html)

The issue of Senator Barnaby Joyce is interesting in the context of the OLO iParliament article in which Senator Andrew Bartlet has condemned Senator Joyce’s desire for secret ballot in the Senate. http://www.iparliament.com.au/media.asp?id=274.

However one has to look at the Senate as it operates now. Few Senators will even respond to letters from the public, and for the most part, most Senators are completely unknown to most members of the public.

Secret ballot in the Senate could help to make the Senate into a true house of review, instead of just being a faceless but expensive rubber stamp for the House of Representatives.

At present all attention is on Barnaby Joyce, but with secret ballot, much more attention will be given to every senator (and maybe they will have to stay awake more often in parliament, and properly earn their keep)

Could be intruding,

but see the chance as an old countryman, to show anger over the way Barnaby Joyce voiced what was a dinkum old Country Party grizzle, but quickly succumbed to a Federal National Party group who might as well now be known as members of the Liberal Party.

Such would no doubt have had Black Jack McKewan turning in his grave especially as our new farmer's rep' in the Federal Government, Mark Vaille is a former real estate agent.

Looking at the situation historically it is believed that farmers should return to their real historical roots, as the French would say, agrarian socialism, which interestingly can be either right or left, as were Hitler's Volk as right wing, and Stalin's Kulaks as left wing, but whom Stalin largely destroyed because though they agreed a single authority was needed to sell their produce, they refused to give away their rights to farm ownership, Stalin sending most of them to Siberia.

In modern terms, this means that farmers should not give away their special historical rights in regard to terms such as economic rationalism and the free-market, terms really more related to neo-colonianism, and corporatism, meaning the big takeovers of the little by the big, as we are seeing with George W's Americans, and with the Howard government right now.

Politicians both like Barnaby Joyce and Mark Vaille, could learn much from certain old retired cockies, but maybe better to go back to university for a while, if indeed they've ever been there?

Abortion is one of the greatest crimes of our time, where irresponsible people use abortion as an equivalent to contraception. Go for it Barnaby! The heading to this article regarding a pound of flesh is soo tastless and dehumanising it should be removed. It identifies the case of murder of the pound of flesh of the innocent.

I am anti-the anti-choice movement.

Though I wouldn't be too concerned. The extremists who promote federal restrictions on abortion (which would have to be quite limited anyway) clearly do not have the balls (or the ovaries) to actually effect any changes.

When one considers the Coalition's industrial relations cop-out, one cannot help but be reassured that there is no way whatsoever that the government would go anywhere near any radical reform in the abortion rights area.

When a government with an overwhelming mandate can't even stomach a genuine, positive, progressive reform, it is hard to see them pulling off a retrograde one.

BotanyWhig,
The use of wording by the author (eg “demanding a pound of flesh for his support” etc) would indicate that she would be “progressive”, and I can tell by the language in your post, (eg “do not have the balls (or the ovaries)” etc), that you would be “progressive” also. And the latest abortion technology also seems “progressive”.

Instead of the child being stabbed to death, dissected, poisoned, or sucked out through vacuum tubes, the latest technology involves giving the mother a drug which induces contractions, but up to 8 months prematurely. The birth can often occur in the toilet.

But abortion drugs such as mifepristone, do not absolve the doctors from following abortion legislation, and words such as “choice”, and even “progressive”, are not included in that legislation. They are propaganda words only.

This is from another forum, but would be relevant here.

“Much emotional language is contained in [this] article also, but few verifiable facts, and of course fathers, reducing unwanted pregnancy, and adoption are never mentioned in the article. It appears almost universal, that feminists believe fathers are irrelevant, and find the thought of abortion highly attractive.”

No, I’m not at all “progressive”. A friend of mine once described me as a “conservative fascist” (note, not a “progressive conservative fascist”) and I am quite capable of gabbing on for ages about such important topics as how the “ist” appears to have been excised from the adjective “socialist” (see “social justice”, “social housing” and “social welfare” for example).

However, I digress. Yes, abortion is already regulated by the states. I believe that in Victoria, for example, it is still possible to be criminally charged for performing an abortion on a willing patient. I oppose these and any other restrictions on women’s reproductive freedoms. Though this does mean that there is a limit to what the Feds can do about abortion.

As for the emotive language allegation: sure, we all have our words that we choose for emotional effect. Like “progressive”, which is normally deployed as a positive-sounding euphemism for “left wing”. We’re all guilty of this. In the abortion debate, for example, the word baby often seems to be used instead of foetus.

I think it is important for those who are in favour of greater restrictions on abortion to remember that even the pro-choice brigade don’t actually like the idea of abortion. We’d all prefer it if unintentional conceptions were averted in the first place through effective use of contraception and even (gasp!) abstinence. I told you I’m not progressive.

Nonetheless, unwanted pregnancy happens. And the right to access an abortion, even constrained as it is at present, is something to be protected

Botanywhig
Disregarding all the propaganda and emotional type terms, then abortion is presently a surgical procedure, and like any other surgical procedure, it has to be properly managed (or situations develop similar to those in Bunderberg).

The laws pertaining to abortion in Australia are totally confused, and many doctors don’t even understand those laws, and Australia would be keeping some of the worst statistics of any country in the world on abortion. Even New Zealand keeps much better statistics than Australia, but combining highly confused legislation with minimal statistics being kept, then there is minimal management of abortion.

Incorporating abortion drugs such as mifepristone into all this, and there would be even less management of abortion. Those drugs aren’t like disprin. They kill the foetus, but if they aren’t administrated properly, they can readily kill or hospitalise the mother as well.

So it would appear highly necessary to properly define and then police legislation regarding abortion, and to keep better statistics, such that abortion can be properly reviewed and managed.

If Australia is like the US, then about 40% of abortions are repeat abortions, and that becomes a serious issue, as it means that insufficient or no contraception is being used.The MJA journal estimates that up to 100,000 abortions are being performed in Australia each year, but only about 250,000 children are being born. One therefore has to ask, how much abortion is too much?

The author has written a number of articles on abortion, and they typically use much emotive type language, have minimal verifiable facts, leave out the father, don’t mentioning alternatives to abortion such as adoption, don’t mention contraception or abstinence etc, but the author has never stated if our abortion rate is too high or not.

But it is now a highly important issue. We have a fertility rate only 1.75, with serious signs that it could follow other countries and decline even further. However we also have high tax rates, so increased taxes may not increase the birth rate. Other things will have to be done, at both state and federal level.

Why are we so worried about people having less children and population decline? I was under the impression there was a touch too many people in the world, not the other way round.

If your concern is the decline in just Australia, how about letting a few of those people from over-populated countries set up camp for a bit? Helps their country, which has too many, and our country, which has too few - and no need for more babies! It's win-win-win!

Oh, and Philo: an 'equivalent' to contraception?! Joke, right? ...I'm gonna assume that it was, and that actually you understand that abortion is an unfortunate but necessary procedure in our society. Phew, good joke, Philo, had me going there for a second!

Timkins your objection to mifepristone is that it stops embryos embedding on the lining of the uterus if taken within a few days after sexual intercourse.

Your repeated concern for father’s rights is tedious – if you are in a committed viable long term relationship with a woman – then she can consider your views.

Should a woman who had unprotected casual sexual intercourse be forced to have the baby when she doesn’t know the sperm donor’s name, dad looks like shaping up to be a dud provider, or he is controlling and abusive, or in the cold light of day she just plain hates him. Or do you have a problem with sex as a recreational activity?

Your objection to RU486 makes women wait 6 weeks until the foetus is large enough to scrape out, leading to unnecessary exposure to the health risks of pregnancy including potential growth of tumours. Of course now we know that a teaspoon of lemon juice used shortly after intercourse kills sperm also.

There are serious arguments that Australia’s population is large enough already.

Adoption: Why should infertile couples take other people's leftovers. Why can't infertile couples order a baby from the mother of their choice impregnated with the sperm of their choice. After all when hetrosexuals select their partners they are selecting their sperm/egg donor.

And your objection to mifepristone stops patients battling with breast cancer, prostate cancer, inoperable meningiomas and Cushing’s Syndrome having access to proven effective treatment, all because you want to reduce abortion rates.

Shame on you, have you no empathy for the horrible plight of patients faced with life threatening disease whose alternate treatment options may include such massive disfigurement that they must re-evaluate their self-image? All cancer patients look mortality in the eye and must review their life and they don’t need people like you meddling in their very personal battles.

People with views like yours limited the treatment options for my partner who adored me. The treatment options offered were much more expensive and invasive and ultimately ineffective.

sand between my toes,

You are tedious
You don’t consider other’s views.
You have a problem with sex as a recreational activity.
You are shameful.
You have no empathy
Cancer patients don’t need people like you meddling in their very personal battles.
You have limited the treatment options.

There are now questions being raised that many cancer treatments may not be greatly reducing the cancer in the patient, as those treatments can be spreading that cancer elsewhere throughout the body, and the patient’s overall comfort and even life expectancy is not being greatly improved.

“You want to reduce abortion rates.” Does anyone?

The present surgical procedures for abortion are inhumane.
See http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/silentscream.htm for a video of an actual abortion.
(NB. The doctor who performed the abortion in that video never carried out another abortion after watching the video, when previously he had carried out 10,000)

To control population through surgical abortion is inhumane and quite barbaric. To use abortion type drugs is not much better, particularly when there is so much cheap and highly reliable contraception available to women. Reliance upon abortion and not contraception to control population would be a backward step for society one would think.

Some people call abortion drugs “safe”. They will say that about surgical abortions too, but from memory, articles by this author on abortion have never mentioned ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and typically such articles will rarely say is if the present abortion rate, (or even the rate of unwanted pregnancy) is too high or not.

But regardless of whether it is a surgical abortion or a drug abortion, that abortion still has to abide by abortion legislation.

You may also think it fine to tell a childless couple wanting to adopt a child that they are going to receive “other people's leftovers”, but I think not.

Timkins, viewing any type of surgery will make the average non medical person's stomache turn over, and even worse, imagine viewing the types of surgical abortions that were used before medical abortions were legally introduced, let alone imagining the ones that were born and left to die after birth. If you ban abortions they will go underground and the sort of medical research towards less harmful, more safe methods such as this latest drug will be halted. We are trying to go forward, Timkins, not backwards.

As to the argument of adoption, it seems that in Australia it is actually harder to have your child adopted out than it is to have an abortion. You can keep abortion a secret but with adoption, you are scrutinized and judged by the entire community, your family, your friends, everyone. You'll never be able to escape the judgement that you abandoned your own child.

Minuet,
The idea that if abortion industry is policed it will lead to “underground abortions”, could very well be a myth. People are very easily swayed by propaganda.

The narrator of the video on abortion mentioned previously (NB. You don’t have to watch the video, but can read about it at http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/silentscream.htm) was a Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He managed one of the largest abortion clinics in the US, before he became highly anti-abortion.

In “CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST” he recounts some of the propaganda methods used by the abortion industry.

“We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000”
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

From accounts by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, “money”, not morality or ethics, is the principle factor driving the abortion industry.

But even if abortion drugs are used, will morality and ethics be the main factor in abortion? Doubtful, but if those abortion drugs are not properly administered, there will be many causalities, as they are powerful drugs.

The present state of adoption in this country should not be a reason for continuing the abortion industry. Maybe the state of the adoption should be fixed before continuing or extending the abortion industry.

The IVF industry could also collapse in the future due to lack of donors, and it would be a tragic that so many babies are being disposed of by abortion clinics, or being flushed down the toilet after the woman has taken abortion drugs, when so many childless couples want to be parents.

Overall, I have not known the author to advocate less abortion, (either surgical abortion or drug abortion), and I would think that even more abortions would be backward step for society, because in many ways abortion leads to a devaluing of life.

You information about RU486 is not correct.

"More than 360,000 women in the United States have used mifepristone since its FDA approval;
481 mifepristone adverse drug events have been reported to the FDA. The adverse drug event rate for mifepristone is therefore just 0.137 percent. Therefore, 99.863 percent of women using mifepristone have not reported an adverse drug reaction. Because relatively minor events such as headache and nausea are included within that 0.137 percent reaction rate, the incidence of serious complications is even lower.

Danco, the drug’s manufacturer, has confirmed just three deaths following the use of mifepristone in North America, two of which occurred in the United States:
? one woman acquired a rare clostridium infection during a clinical trial in Canada;
? one women had a ruptured ectopic pregnancy; and
? one woman died of septic shock due to endomyometritis.
The FDA has not established a causal relationship to mifepristone in any of the three cases."

You wonder why some muslims in Indonesia want to blow up other Indonesian muslims, well I have an idea why.

You want to force your views on Austalian social behaviour thus endanger the health of Australian women and people suffering from cancer. I am not catholic and I don't see why the rantings of a very conservative celibate old man should impact my health.

Australia's track record on looking after children placed for adoption is so woeful that the catholic church has been forced to pay compensation to some of the children subjected to the sadism and paedophile attention of the clergy who were charged with their care.

As you love referring to wonderful western australia I remind you that one of the state's tourist attractions - New Norcia was built by children as young as 8 who were in WA orphanages.

Timkins you are very welcome to lock up your wife and your daughters - if they are silly enough to let you - but keep out of my life.

Sand between your toes,
Your post is rather indistinct, but it is objectionable when a poster infers that another poster locks up their wives and daughters.

If you have that much knowledge of myself, you are quite free to nominate where I live. Failure to be able to do that would indicate that you have no idea of who I am, and are not interested in debate, but more interested in making unsubstantiated maligning remarks about other posters who may disagree with you.

[NB. I can't remember ever making a post about Catholics, or Muslims and only one previous post about WA.]

Minuet,
I have close contact with Wesley Mission in Sydney and they are one of the largest adoption agents in Australia. The number of couples wanting to adopt is far greater than the number of children available. There is no shortage of adoptive parents. Most of them are supportive of casual contact with the birth mother unless she has drug or criminal record.

In answer to your quote, "As to the argument of adoption, it seems that in Australia it is actually harder to have your child adopted out than it is to have an abortion."

Philo,

If I accidentally got pregnant and gave birth, I would not have one person in either my family, circle of friends or community that would support my idea of having he or she adopted. Most would be trying to talk me out of it telling me I'm crazy and that I will feel unbearable guilt and shame for the rest of my life . Imagine turning up to work and telling workmates that I didn't want my child, that I wasn't ready to become a mother, this after having wandered around the workplace in a state of pregnancy for 9 months?

Thats what I mean when I say how hard it is to have your child adopted out in Australia.
It is judged and looked down apon. How much easier to have a private abortion that no-one has to know about.

Sorry to hear that you had to abort your baby because of family and workmates distain for thinking you would adopt your child. From my experience abortion brings great feelings of guilt and depression and many women in later life are coming to confession to remove the guilt suppressed in their minds. They never get over the fact that they took the life of their child. Surgical abortion leaves potential for all types of damage including higher incidence of breast cancer, etc.

Read about the ‘abortion pill’ in a different light ie. other medical applications for this medication which has been denied to people due to abortion politics. People with tumours and cancers have a ‘Right to Life’ too and this is a viable treatment option for a range of debilitating and life-threatening medical conditions:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/cancer/submissions/sub103.pdf

How many people have died needlessly since this medication has been tied up in ‘abortion politics - when it’s more than that:

A rather poignant snapshot on the history of Mifepristone (RU 486) otherwise called the ‘abortion pill’ and the one that is currently the subject of considerable debate. This stems back from the early 1980s. Work out how many people have died since:

ABORTION PILL, OR SOMETHING MORE? THE FIRESTORM OVER THE ABORTION DRUG RU-486 HAS HAMPERED U.S. SCIENTISTS WHO WOULD TEST IT TO FIGHT CANCER AND OTHER CONDITIONS. NORFOLK SCIENTIST GARY D. HODGEN HOPES TO SEE MAJOR STUDIES ON RU-486 ONCE THE FDA APPROVES IT.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960811/08110065.htm

…….and the “Oh so Moral” have created this situation. They are responsible for the deaths that have needlessly resulted. Bush and his Sherriff John Howard!

They are a greater threat to lives than terrorism.

Meanwhile back at the ranch….

We’re forever reading about “advances” in cancer drugs, and Big Pharma grows fat on the profits, yet cancer mortality rates have changed little over time.

The Age, Pg 24 15 Oct 2005
http://www.rehame.com/printclips/2005-10-15/VICTHEAGE/P7926206.pdf

Sydney Morning Herald, Pg 24 15 Oct 2005
http://www.rehame.com/printclips/2005-10-15/NSWSYDMOR/P7926570.pdf

Interesting. Especially the "pound of flesh" by which I think was originally intended to mean a specific male body part.

With adoption, some parents lose 6-9 pounds of flesh - that is, their own child. Those who lose are the mothers who have been forced into an adoption or abortion "choice" (no real options) and even facing this horrendous "Sophie's choice" bravely continue their pregancy. The adopted person, the father, grandparents and siblings lose out as well. The mothers are terrorized (shamed) to force them to surrender (especially if their infant son or daughter is healthy and "adoptable"). Many are led to believe they have "chosen" adoption before their baby is born - before they have any idea what it is they are giving up.

http://www.originscanada.org/thewall/

What a sick society we live in, where families who have never been proven to be "unfit" in any way are separated and babies used to supply the market.

http://www.opednews.com/webber022704_adoption.htm

Here is one mom's story of how she adopted her daughter - BACK.

http://www.adoptingback.com/

Barnaby is a phantom, a man who never was what he thought and said he was after the finger was placed on his chest he caved in .
He from time to time may grandstand but he is only a shadow of the person he claimed to be.