Whatever abortion is the trashing of a fellow human being, it is stealing his/her life - it could be seen as infanticide and, of course, it is infanticide.
The doctors, nurses, mother, father all have an input but the poor innocent, blameless, totally helpless human baby that's butchered has no voice at all - sad eh! numbat

Lyn,
You have put your points simply and eloquently and I look forward to the TGA deliberating on the availability of RU 486 to give women that choice of either surgical or medical abortions.
There are still individuals posting comments who seemingly cannot comprehend that the legality of abortions is an issue which has been debated and resolved. However I note that they consistently post anti-abortion comment whenever an opportunity presents regardless of the subject in discussion...

maracas,

It's legal. It's amoral.

Do you really think people with strong morals are just going to pack it in and go away?

The debate is over? I'm not debating, I'm stating.

RU486 is an excuse to be decadent, however it should be made legal because in today's society there are unfortunately people without any moral fibre who will abort at the drop of a hat anyway.

Capital punishment and abortion. What's the difference? NONE!!

The probem with commentators on this issue is that I suspect most of them have never been faced with such a choice. Until one has, I dont believe one has the right to condemn the action or the person.

Friedrich,

I think you should try and put yourself in the position of someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and try for a second to imagine how hard that would be.

You write that RU486 is an "excuse to be decadent". You really think a woman would deliberatedly behave "decadently" and get pregnant, safe in the knowledge she can just go pop a couple of RU486s tablets and be done with it, so she can happily go out and be "decadent" again? Abort "at the drop of the hat"? Clearly you have no idea how serious and disruptive having an unwanted pregnancy, and then having an abortion, can be to a woman's life. Most women could not take such a decision lightly.

You're not Tony Abbott are you? I knew he'd be hiding around here somewhere.

As for your shaky moralism, I for example am a strongly moral person, and ALSO a supporter of choice. Too complex for you?

Surely there could be few unwanted - really unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about a new life, there will never be another quite the same.
Should a mother's life be in danger and a decision made of which of the two should live. Then whatever decision is made it would be the correct one.
But to cause a unique fellow human to die just because it is inconvenient is not good- to say the least.
Actually we are a pack of twits as we pay for children to be slain and at the same time pay lots for IVF so women can conceive.
Be nice if these, for whatever reason, terminations were allowed to go to full term and the child put out for adoption.
We would be doing the fine thing and as well be saving millions of dollars. numbat

Numbat get used to the laws of nature. Most women shed around 400
eggs in their lifetimes, all potentially cute babies. Darwin
was right, they can't all survive and there is no room on the planet
for all of them. 6 billion humans is already more then enough,
what we are doing now is not sustainable, so even more humans will make things even worse.

All emotion and no reason is dangerous, even for numbats...

Kaspa,

Your reasoning is not complex it is bizarre.

None the less you remain my hero Kaspa. I honestly think you are a genius.

As far as I'm concerned RU486 should be made available. If people want to live like that they have my blessing. As for side effects the more the merrier.

Yabby

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous reasoning if you ask me. Along the same lines of thought you have proposed, we might as well take a whole group of people (take a few million, maybe a country) and gas them in their sleep.

They will feel no pain, and we will be assisting the human race in preventing it from overpopulation. I mean, like you said, we don't need more people on the planet?? All they really are is a bunch of DNA, and as Darwin says survival of the fittest! The fact that they are too weak to stop it obviously means that they are victims of plain natural selection.

And as Yabby said, don't want to hear any of this emotional "human rights" nonsense. Reason not emotion!

Frogmouth
How can we apply that reasoning?

Say a thief robs a gentlemen's house clean. Then the gentlemen gets infuriated, finds out who it is, and kills them. If the gentlemen said in court "Well you don't know what a difficult position I was put in, so unless you experience it how can you judge me?", the judge would say it's irrelevant.

This is because we hold human life as sacred, a human isn't just a bunch of cells to do with as we desire.

Justin, your imagination goes well beyond your ability to reason it seems. A bunch of dividing cells is not a person. No functioning brain etc. Now you talk of gassing people, sheesh...

If you understand a little about biology, you will understand that without biodiversity there is no humanity. Ecosystems need to be
sustainable, wall to wall humans is not sustainable. We need to live on this planet sustainably, or there won't be a humanity to be concerned about. Its as simple as that. 80 million per year increase in the human population is not sustainable either.

But lets look at it another way. You go on about the sanctity of
human life, so does the Vatican. The Vatican is worth billions, yet would prefer to let babies starve, rather then give up that wealth.
You would prefer to argue with me on OLO, then sell your computer and save another 3 starving babies in Africa. Thats why I see your comments and those of the Vatican about the sanctity of human life as mere rhetoric and trying to tell others how to live their lives.
So why should I take notice of a hyprocrite?

yabby: You are a smug, abusive, intolerant person.
Anyone who has an opinion different from yours you see as a twerp.
If, as you say, this earth will not hold more people then maybe you and your family could do the decent thing :-)?
By the way I know we lose all those INFERTILE ovum, would you believe? The other ones that have been fertilsed are on their way to becoming breathing, thinking human beings. Forget the thinking bit and they would be just like you. numbat

It's sad that this topic seemingly cannot be discussed without some posters resorting to personal abuse. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but without doing an actual count, it appears to me that most of the abuse comes, at least initially, from the right-to-lifers.

Perhaps understandably, their strong religious/philosophical beliefs cause them to become upset at the mere thought of abortion. But, although they do not personally approve, abortion is legal in Australia and this stance is supported by the vast majority of Australians.

The attempts continually made to deny Australian women the right to choose for themselves on this issue are an outrageous affront to any country which claims to be democratic. For example, there is no valid reason why a health minister should have the final word on any medical procedure. This is the realm of medical and health scientists and experts.

Attempts to sway public and political opinion against abortion procedures are customarily found to be scientifically flawed, with the general assumption of thinking persons that this is a deliberate attempt at deception.

Add to that the fact that many [if not all] of the pro-lifers appear to base their beliefs on a whole range of issues on ancient verbal traditions and the subjective interpretation of unprovable writings thousands of years old. This is OK, we supposedly can believe what we want in this country, but it's hardly a basis for a controlling legal system which is binding on all Australians.

Now now Numbat, I'm glad that you got all that off your chest and now perhaps feel better :) Problem is it doesent strengthen your argument and simply shows your frustration at being outreasoned...

A fertilised ovum is simply that, not a person. Nature aborts them on a regular basis. No magic about it at all.

I am not sure if you are Catholic or highly emotional, you havent
mentioned too much philosophical thought behind your thinking.
Perhaps you are just another indoctrinated Catholic :)

I find it amusing to be called intolerant by you, when I believe in a woman's right to choose, you want to deny her that choice.
Perhaps these days I am simply intolerant of the intolerant

Yabby,

Would it be ok with you if I was to call you professor. You know everything about everything. Professor Yabby at your service.

You and Kaspa truly have fantastic minds.

Do you read Gertrude Stein too?

TO ALL POSTERS

As a female I have often pondered about the notion of abortion. I don't think that I could do it, but there are so many extraneous variables.

For instance, my niece is about to turn 14 years. She is no longer a virgin. She has departed from all of the morals and ethics that she has been taught. We are desperately concerned about her behaviour and her welfare. If we allow her to have the pill, we will be condoning her behaviour. If we do not, she may become pregnant. A child having a baby is an horrendous thought. A child having an abortion is equally horrendous.

I despair
Cheers
Kay

Kay, giving a child access to the pill is not condoning the sex act (provided what you are doing is spelt out). Rather it is an attempt to minimise the potential consequences of choices that parents and families throughout history have failed to stop. There is no lawful way you can be sure of stopping a kid that wants to engage in sexual activity from finding the opportunity (maybe move to a deserted island for the next couple of years but then does that help the underlying issue when she gets back).

Be there for her, try and help her make safer choices about who she experiments with and make sure she knows about sexual disease, pregnancy and all the rest. Talk to her about sexual predators and whatever else you can but remember that kids don't do this stuff rationally. Let her know you think that sexual activity is dangerous at her age and may have consequences she doesn't want but try and get her parents to help her through this rather than build the fight.

Maybe a bit like wearing a seat belt is not condoning car accidents (not a perfect analogy).

Good luck with it.

R0bert

Dear RObert

Thank you for the above post. I found it very helpful. I do not have any children, so it's really hard for me to know if I am doing and saying the right thing.

My brother is a widow. His wife killed herself when the girls were 18 months and 5 months respectively. He has a tough life trying to be both parents. Grandma tries really hard, but she is quite debiliated at 78 years.

I have spoken to my brother about getting the girls to sexual health counselling, especially in relation to STDs. Even though I am a nurse, it's very difficult for me to provide face to face help - since I live in another state.

Even so, you have given me a few good thinking points. I will write to my niece and try and guide her in the ways that you have suggested.

Many thanks
Hope you and family had a peaceful Christmas and that you have a great New Year celebration
Kay

A difficult situation, Kay, but hopefully your caring nature is a comfort to your brother. Probably no good trying to reason with your niece. In my opinion the most important thing is to minimise the harmful effects of becoming pregnant and/or getting a STD.

The sooner she is on the pill the better and she needs to understand that the pill does nothing to protect her from possible infections, so the boy needs to use a condom as well. This in no way "encourages" anything, it merely accepts the way things currently are.

She may be mature enough to understand that sex [at any age] is much more satisfactory with a person who is caring enough to want it to be good [and safe] for her too. And much better also if that person likes her for herself and doesn't just see her as a convenient means to satisfy himself.

Yabby
In regards to your comments about my giving, I give 10% of my income (similar to how people of the christian religion tithe) + $50 to overseas aid agencies. As a student its a substantial amount of my income. I also volunteer regularly for an organisation called Awareness Cambodia that takes in orphaned children who have AIDS, or whose parents have died of AIDS (http://www.awarecam.org.au if anyone else wants to get involved, it is highly rewarding).
As for your Vatican comments, I know I got my 10% principle from the christian faith, and they give alot more money, time, and effort to helping under-privilidged children than any group I know.
I'm choosing not to be offended by your comments of calling me a hippocrite, but at least ask some questions before you start throwing labels around :P.

Anyway back to the actual discussion. I don't think you addressed what I said, rather than restated your position? Let me elaborate.

"If you understand a little about biology, you will understand that without biodiversity there is no humanity."
This statement is really totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm assuming that the point you're trying to make here is that you don't consider embryo's as human beings, but you made no proof backing this statement. However I read two points of arguement elsewhere you made:

- "No functioning brain etc."
1. I'd ask you what your definition of a brain is, and how much development is required to achieve it.The neural system begins developing around "1-2 weeks", and doesn't finish its development until the child reaches its early 20's!
2. What is your definition of function? Even by birth, the brain is only carrying out basic sensorimotor functions until 1 1/2 years of age! This doesn't justify infanticide.
3. How is this a valid definition of what a human is?

- "Nature aborts them on a regular basis"
Yes, people die all the time too. Is it now acceptable to kill your neighbour because you don't like them or they're inconviniencing you? Because their life is really "just 1 more"?

Next sentence.

"Ecosystems need to be sustainable, wall to wall humans is not sustainable. We need to live on this planet sustainably, or there won't be a humanity to be concerned about. Its as simple as that. 80 million per year increase in the human population is not sustainable either."
Who are we to determine that lifes are taken so can lower the world population. Oh how truly noble. In ridiculing my original argument, you missed what I was saying. We could take this argument and apply it to whole groups of people who are 20+ yrs old. This is because the underlying assumption if this comment is that all we really are is just molecules of DNA etc., and that individual human lifes aren't important, rather just the survival of the species. I personally believe in the sanctity of basic human rights for every human life, and that everyone deserves a fair go.

In other words, we need to figure out other ways to solve the population crisis. Speaking of which, Australia is not experiencing a population crisis. You'll see that the problems are mainly found in the developing world, hence this introduction of the "baby bonus" as an incentive for Australian's to breed!

TO ALL
I appreciate this is an emotional subject of issue. This is because it really cuts to the core of our humanity, what rights an individual has. Therefore I think there will never be an emotion-free abortion debate, purely because of the highly emotive content of the subject. However I agree with Rex and co. that we should try to refrain from personal attacks and debate points so we can come to an understanding of where each of us are coming from.

Friedrich no I don't read Getrude Stein.

Justin you raise many points, which I can't answer in 350 words. So I'll reply to the rest when I am allowed another post.

The so called sanctity of human life has been a great concept to try to prevent humans from killing one another, as they have in intertribal warfare since time immermorial. It sounds impressive when people repeat it, so I check to see how seriously they take it.
Usually people make it, as long as its not at their own cost, but at the cost of others.

Don't take this personally Justin, its the point that I am making that matters. It is laudable of you to do lots for charity etc.
The point remains, you have a choice of saving say another three babies in Africa by selling your computer, or keeping it and arguing on OLO. You clearly choose to keep your computer over the three babies. Similarly the Vatican prefers to keep its billions, rather then save starving babies. Thats the reality of it, which cannot be denied. Thats why my point that alot of claims about the sanctity of human life are rhetoric, for people put their own self interest before anything else, no matter what they claim.

A being can be an organism, that does not make it a person. If say an ovum met up with a sperm down in a sewer where most are flushed, would it be murder if it died? That would be ridiculous.

A fetus does not have a brain, and its brains which makes us people.
Brain cells begin to develop and multiply, but only in week 20 does the brain organise itself into various systems. Only in the 6th month are nearly all the neurones needed for life present.

Professor Yabby,

Why are you debating? To change someones mind. Surely not.

I repeat, keep sordid behaviour in the dark corners it belongs in.

Abortion pride. The latest craze.

I don't believe in the religious dogma about the holy sperm and ovum, considering that most are simply flushed down toilets. I do believe that we have a responsibility for future generations, to live sustainably. That does not mean killing people, it means giving all women the right to family planning worldwide, despite the religious dogma from Rome.

Yes ecosystems eventually collapse if they are overtaxed. Here is a bit about it http://dieoff.org/page14.htm

Already Indonesia is telling us we should share our fish with them, as too many people have overtaxed theirs to make it collapse. So do we give them all our fish and ruin ours? Population is a global issue. If we wished, we could double Australia's population to 40 million tomorrow, thats only 3 months worth of human population increase.

At the end of the day, I have shown that both you and the Vatican act out of your own self interest and wellbeing, despite your claims of sanctity of the holy embryo. I think that women should have the same right as you claim for yourself, the right to make choices about their lives. Religious dogma remains religious dogma, irrelevant to most of us. The future of the planet is far more important, as its the only one we have right now

Yabby,

Thank you. In the middle of all this angst and insult hurling your comment brought to mind the Monty Python scene with a family of millions singing Every Little Sperm is Sacred.

I know you made your comment seriously, as is everyone here, but I needed a bit of light relief.

It is ironic that the abortion lobby in Australia is pushing for the availability of the abortion drug RU 486 just when a Congressonal Committee in the US has a major investigation into the safety of the dangerous drug.

The RU 486 regimen has killed four women in California from lethal bacterial infections and caused sometimes severe complications for more than 675 other women. The committee sent a letter on December 21 to acting Federal Drug Aadministration commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach asking questions about the agency's own look into medical problems associated with the abortion drug.

The committee wants to know why it took so long for the drug's maker, Danco Laboratories, to add the risk of bacterial infection to the drug's warning label. The letter, authored by Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, seeks physician, autopsy, and other records so that the subcommittee can conduct its own review, and asks about the off-label regimens often used with mifepristone.

Souder's interest in the off label use of the abortion drug comes after Planned Parenthood came under criticism for instructing women to disregard the FDA recommendation to use the second part of the abortion drug orally. The abortion business often instructs women to use the abortion drug vaginally, and that deviation from FDA protocols likely contributed to the four women developing the lethal infections.

Women's groups should be out front in calling for the suspension of RU-486 sales. Killing unborn children is bad enough without killing their mothers at the same time. I doubt the vast majority of feminists, pro-abortion activists, and liberal politicians will ever so much as cast a doubt on RU-486. Anyone who favors partial-birth abortion has gone beyond the reach of moral thinking.
The promotion of RU-486 is another step toward the easy, casual, and entirely unfettered use of abortion. How extraordinary to live in times in which killing nascent human life without any restrictions of any kind is the paramount concern of so many powerful people. Their mantra is: Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!

It always amuses me when members of the godsquad, preaching the mantra of the holy ovum and sperm, try to use US statistics to attack
RU 486, for they have clearly not done their homework.

Firstly the US has a population of about 280 million, so in those terms the figures are still pretty good. Secondly it has been made clear time and time again that RU 486 should be used in Australia in conjuction with advice and guidance from a doctor. If infection should happen, he/she will be there. In the US however, there is no Medicare. About 50 million people have no health insurance.

American doctors don't work cheap. So a good percentage of the population, rather then pay an arm and a leg, only go to the doctor in real life threatening emergencies. Under those circumstances, if RU 486 were to fail anywhere, it would be in the US. Compare that to the relatively problem free situation in Europe, where people have access to healthcare, as they do in Australia.

Perhaps the advice to the American Congress should be that its about time they introduced a 1st world healthcare system as most of the Western world has, so that all Americans can afford to see a doctor, as Australians can.

gbyrneg50,

Great post. Thanks for the information.

Yabby,

I don't know if it's true or not but iv'e been told that in Africa some tribes actually "cull" children that are not up to scratch. Do you think that is the next step. Firstly abortion then "culling". If you're going to play God anyway why not?

Friederich I know your fascination with God, but us agnostics will believe you when there is some substantiated evidence. The old boy is free to post his rules on the moon for all to see and leave us all in no doubt.

Meantime there have been countless humans claiming direct contact with the Almighty, countless religions, countless holy books, countless different gods. IMHO they are no more then snakeoil salesmen, taking advantage of the gullible.

Fact is that about 95% of people stick to the religion that was brainwashed into them as kids. So had you been born in say Iraq, you would most likely be reading your Koran, if you had been born in India, you most likely would be a devout Hindu

Yabby,

I understand where you're coming from. I've been there myself.

Cheers

Friedrich

Sure, RU486 will give women the right to choose. Condoms, the pill, diaphragms, spermicidal jelly....et cetera. The also give women the right to choose. Abortion and RU486 ( a rose by any other name) give women the right to be irresponsible. If you don't want a child then either don't have unprotected sex, or be prepared for the consequence. Sure none of these contraceptive (i.e. working against conception, the thinking persons choice) measures are 100% effective. And if they fail, then abortion will be an option. HOWEVER, there are to many people today having abotions for lifestyle reasons (can't be bothered with contraceptives/ I thought he loved me but then he left, so now I don't want his baby)
RU486 should be available for women who are victims of rape and incest, and as such should be held by ambulances and police rape units, or, like non-chemical abortions, available from a restricted number of practitioners.
I have a gorgeous daughter. When we discovered my wife was pregnant, we considered abortion because of my wifes health. As it happened, my wifes health improved with the pregnany.
Before we came to the decision (either way) we spent several weeks in councelling to help us come to that decision. and with the recent story about mental health issues correlated with terminations, this is an important step. An abortion drug is likely to sidestep the counceling issue.

AdrianGD

Lyn is one hundred percent right.We are pleased to have a lady leader especially on such important issues that only another lady could possibly understand. So to all you blokes out there either but out or put out the kids if you want them so much but dont tell us women we have no right to choose. By the way they make contraceptions for men also so why put it back onto the ladies.
Who is going back to the dark ages. You have a right to make up your own mind with your own wife but not tell others what to do. Get a life. Thank God we have a sensible leader in Lyn and i might add a very fair one.. I personally dont beleive in people having kids who cant afford them. I dont support the unmarried single mothers P after one child it should stop. If i were running this country THAT would be illegal so nobody would have to bother about this debate. Given its the singles that exculate the breeding in this Country thanks to Howards irresponsible idea to pay singles to have a kid that we all get to pay for.

Everyone im adopted and if my mother at 14 had an abortion than i wouldnt be here so yall please try to learn your facts about abortion.

babbling_girl, no-one has been saying that people should HAVE to abort rather than adopt out, or keep the child, but that some people simply cannot/do not wish to go through with their pregnancy. I am sure you are aware that pregnancy brings many health risks and body changes, and many of these are undesirable (your entire heart moves to the side, and your spine bends to a weird angle, among other joys).

While it is true that had your mother aborted, you would not be here, it is also true that she would then not have had to go through the trauma of giving you up.

It is equally true of all of us that had we been aborted we would not be here. It is also true that had our mothers fallen down the stairs while pregnant we may not have been here. Or any number of other reasons. Life is tenuous at best. We should be glad that some people do carry unwanted pregancies to term and adopt out- it gives great joy to some childless people- but we should not force pregnacy on people who do not want it. Its just too big a change to have to go through against your will

laura. You are 100 percent correct. I had a girlfriend years ago who was forced by others to give birth. They ruined her life. She had a difficult nine months and lost her job. In those days you were not allowed to work like that. She was ill and it twisted her spine. She almost died in birth and could not walk for 9 weeks after a block was given incorrectly. Then she had pain the whole time and became hooked on pain killers. Years later she met a guy and was very happy until this child turned up knocking on the door. He left . After that we lost contact. I hope she has found peace and i will never forget what they did to her. Nobody has the right to force somebody to have kids. There are many women who were not put here for just breeding machines.Good for u Laura

Its about time that there is a leader who makes good sense and doesnt put their emotions or religious beliefs before the issue.

The issue here is a womans right to choose and the woman should reserve this right without male politicians interfering!

Males dont know anything about what a woman goes through when she is faced with a decision on abortion.

like it or not WOWSERS abortion is legalised in this state of nsw providing that the foteus is less than four months i should know as my friend had one!

The only thing that is going to change is the method! Some religious people dont like it as this means that women have the power to sleep around if they want to and not have to suffer the consequences.The child doesnt have to suffer by being born into a financially impaired family or an abusive one thats dysfunctional and anyone who brings a baby into the above details is not considerate for any child!

The ru486 is a miracle drug as this means that women dont have to go to the doctors or the surgery to get an abortion they can just pop the pill and its all sweet no fuss no appointments!
Yeah, yeah there are sideaffects but what drug doesnt honestly....

Its all about choice and if you dont wanna get an abortion then dont get one! simple