Hi all

Dizem (post 11:21:57 PM 9/2/06)

Sadly, both mother & foetus are the users of the drug when it's administered. RU-486 may help the woman? But it doesn't benefit the foetus.

If we buy a car which we later don't like, then we oughtn't to blame the salesman, the car manufacturer, or the car. We made the choice/purchase. So it is with indulgent sex: it isn't the fault of the created consequence.

Certainly the use of RU-486 or a Medicare funded abortion is preferable to a "backyard abortion". But that's tantamount to the same logic as condoning non-violent burglary. The reality is that theft &/or murder are not a preferred option - in any format.

".. abortion is about the mother .."? Maybe that's our problem in this whole debate? ".. skewed priorities .."? Who said it's about the woman? The aborted foetus certainly didn't!

I agree that society disgracefully mis-spends funds, & tries to justify it. Very little is ever broadcast about the suffering of the disenfranchised. But that is no different to the politicians spending $1-million on furniture etc, rather than say the oncology section of a major hospital. Abortion & mis-spending are both about inappropriate priorities to satisfy ego or comfort - to the detriment of the weaker individual.
(10/2/06)

jkenno (posted 8:27:28 AM 10/2/06)

Again I comment: abortion is still illegal in many states within Australia - check the legislation(s).

Until 1981 it was still illegal to drive across the Sydney Harbour Bridge at greater than 10mph. Vehicles were also required to have a person running in front of the vehicle with "a red flag". [I should know, because I fought a case of injustice involving the Ice Cream Vendors' Association, using Justice TOOMEY QC to litigate against the NSW Government & win the case for the ICVA.] The legislation was only changed subsequently. But, technically, every vehicle which has not previously complied with the outdated legislation had the driver in legal breach. Was anyone ever prosecuted? Certainly not! They still broke the law though.
(25/2/06)

Cheers all

Disagreeablelittlebuddy, I beg to differ.

>>Who said it's about the woman? The aborted foetus certainly didn't!<<

If you lined up every aborted foetus in Australia, there wouldn't be a single voice amongst them. They do not have voices, you see, on account of not having a separate existence.

Giving them a "say" in their future is a form of anthropomorphism, providing them with a simulacrum of human characteristics. You are using the pretence that they are capable of feelings separate from their host, to push your control-freak agenda.

I note that you don't suggest we give a "say" to the millions of animals slaughtered every day in order to feed us, even though it is far clearer that they actually do have a separate, definable and measurable existence.

Only in Hollywood ("Look Who's Talking) or in cartoons - forms of virtual reality - will a foetus have a voice. To pretend otherwise is a form of arrogance.

>>Very little is ever broadcast about the suffering of the disenfranchised<<

To be enfranchised, you need to be a clearly definable entity - like a woman, or an aborigine. It is not possible to enfranchise a foetus, except by proxy, on account of the fact that it is a bunch of cells that hasn't any reasoning power of its own.

Ergo, they cannot be disenfranchised either.

Your argument is therefore that you should be enfranchised on their behalf, but you give no justification for this at all, except the fact that they cannot themselves be enfranchised.

The goldfish in my garden pond are not enfranchised either. Should I perhaps insist that I vote on their behalf in the next general election, simply on the basis that otherwise their voices would not be heard?

That would seem to be as logical as your position.

"I thought your view was that people should have any type of sex their subjective morality decides and Catholics need to have extra-marital sex. Please clarify."

MJ, clearly you are confused and missed my points. The first being
considering the history of the sex lives of popes, why should I turn to them for divine guidance? Secondly where did I suggest that anyone "needs" to have extra marital sex?

"The pressure seems to be for believers to refrain from pointing out the evils of abortion and being true to their beliefs not from stopping non-believers from expressing their views."

You again miss the point. You want to try to force us, using political means, to live by your moral code, which apparently floated down from the heavens somewhere. We don't try and force you to live by ours. Nobody forces you to have an abortion, swallow an anti baby pill, use a condom, or even bans your religion. Why don't you respect our right to live by our moral code? Why do you want to enforce yours on us through political means?

"Many in modern society are victims of a lack of religion to help them cope. It is tough to try to cope without God. Perhaps that explains your unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church."

Anyone is free to believe what your church teaches. Perhaps to most, apart from those brainwashed as children, the whole shebang just does not sound very credible. My point against the Catholic Church is simple. Nobody lobbies more around the world in political
terms, to enforce their agenda on millions, then the Vatican.
As a highly political organisation, they are therefore open to criticism of their claims and beliefs, like any other political party. Note I never say a word about Buddhists or even the Hare Krishna, for they don't try to rule my life with any political agenda.

mjpb “Catholics legitimately can have as much sex as they want with adults of the opposite sex in a marriage”

A lady I had a long relationship with who happened to be catholic was told by her priest if she continued to have a relationship with me he would not allow her to participate in mass. She told him to shove his mass up his fundamental orifice (oh those Maltese certainly know how to swear when they are fired up). She continued to go the church every week, as she had always done but never took mass again.

My point – it is none of the pope or his bishops or priests business what a private individual does within a consensual relationship and denying those individuals participation in their faith is a cruel manipulation and abuse of theological power.

Just as attempting to deny both congregants and non-congegants the choice on the matter of abortion is another malicious, inappropriate and self-righteous attempt at manipulating the secular Australian society to comply with the edicts of Rome.

LittleAgreeableBuddy, “But that's tantamount to the same logic as condoning non-violent burglary”

No it is not.

The twisting of logic is this

“Non-violent burglary” still involves depriving a separate entity of their property and rights.

An abortion does not remove rights from a separate entity. It might remove supposed “rights” from a non-entity, a non-person, at best a co-habitant of someone else’s body and the point is, it is the other occupant of the body who is deciding not to allow the co-habitation to continue.

dovif (posted 9:15:57 AM 10/2/06)

".. I also disagree that the choice is solely a women's ..". Thank you for a partial acknowledgement. But what about the foetus? Oh, he/she can't speak?! Maybe the answer ought to be to instead preserve that life? The foetus can answer when it can speak.

As to Iraq: there will be dire consequences to the world over the decision to invade Iraq. Did none of the world-leaders learn from what occurred in Iran? [I know that it wasn't an invasion there, but a 'revolution'.] Excluding possibly Turkey & Israel, plus maybe Egypt, there is no democracy within the Middle East. The Iraqis will reject democracy longer term. However, let's focus on abortion.
(25/2/06)

akendrick (posted 1:29:26 PM 10/2/06)

A good response! Few if any of the postees have probably ever witnessed an abortion. The sensation is mind-boggling, & unless one is completely callous, could almost never be condoned once seen.
(25/2/06)

the all seeing omnipotent voice of reason (post 10:51:40 PM 21/2/06)

You really had me 100% on your side until your last statement. I'd agree that protesting & upsetting distressed women isn't a preferred option. But neither is killing a 10-week-plus foetus.

I am not Catholic. However, I am aware of several women who have subsequently gone on to thank those who did provide a protest outside the "abortion clinics", & also gave information & counselling assistance which benefited the distressed woman to make another choice.

A close friend of mine's wife - prior to her marriage - adopted-out her daughter. That child now is a teenager & is so thankful that she's alive & has 2 loving families. They aren't Catholic either.
(26/2/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

KRS 1 (post 1:44:44 PM 10/2/06)

"Leaving aside your odd comment ..": the former assumption is the correct one - 1973. The memories still haunt me, yet I was 'authorised' by "a government sanction".

I believe in more appropriate "sex education". The confusing & questionable determinant is: "What is appropriate?".

On contraception vs abstinence:
(1) much of what we are told is contraception is actually abortifacient methodology. Confirmation? Examine the meanings of the words & the facts of what so-called 'contraceptives' actually do;
(2) abstinence doesn't harm either party. A husband may be 'forced' to abstain if his wife is unwell, during certain stages of pregnancy, or when separated. I never found that a problem. The passions always were heightened after a few days of non-sexual activity. Moreover, I showed respect to my wife.

Ned Kelly ought never to have been held in high esteem - he was a criminal.

Abortionists? We 'tolerate' them or praise them because they 'satisfy' a woman's needs. Whatsmore, they are very well-paid medical practitioners, getting more wealthy due to an unwanted conception. That doesn't obliterate the fact that those same doctors are killing another life - the foetus - in contravention to their charter. Go through the medical procedures & you'll know what I mean.

These days, in a misguided attempt to increase our population we pay women $3000 per child to give birth. $3000 will do little to help a family. But it is a great incentive to those with low socio-economic credentials - especially single mothers who are welfare recipients. Thus we create another dilemma & a further burden upon society.
(26/2/06)

Te (post 10:56:35 PM & 11:02:19 PM 26/2/06)

Hear, hear!
(27/2/06)

Cheers all