I agree with Melinda.
These women in parliament who think that the answer to unplanned pregnancies comes in the form of an unpredictable chemical, rather than addressing the needs of both mother and child, do not speak for me. These women cannot call themselves prochoice when the only choice they are concerned with advancing is abortion.

But you'll notice that women still have the right NOT to abort. That's where the choice lies.

And what's wrong with celebrating a positive development in human rights? I'll pop the champagne when euthanasia gets the nod.

A victory for the silent holocaust to continue, the law forbids suicide, refusal to submit to medical treatment, or the mistreatment of children, the sick, the helpless. The law forbids the abandonment of children by Parents. is there a greater"abandonment than abortion.
Abortion is not a matter of private morality. The rights and life of a weak and voiceless human being are at stake. the pro life struggle is not to impose ones concience on another but to preserve the right to life that is violated in every abortion. in the great tides of public opinionand propaganda, the average person justs floats along, he or she doesn't have to do all the work of rationalizing, making wrong seem and sound as if it were right, This is already done by society, "Everybodys doing it" if your not doing it, your not "with it" it is a lot easier to kill a baby if you call it "terminating a pregnancy. the real truth is we have greedy selfish "dont wanabe mothers" who will make the exuse that having a abortion is better than having a unwanted child, if the baby is not wanted it should be killed, children who missed out on being a abortion statistic, grow up with the knowledge that they managed to escape the knife of the executioner/doctor, just imagine if the person that was to discover the cure for cancer, has already been aborted/executed because he or she may have become a burden on the mother, a mother who has been programmed to be selfish and greedy, she now has permission from the system of permission/justice to murder her own child, if you dont want children , "Dont have Sex"

"The law forbids...refusal to submit to medical treatment"

No it doesn't. In fact, laws like that would be a perfect fit with the hysterical doomsday scenarios put forward in opposition to euthanasia and abortion.

You seem to be claiming that medical treatment should be compulsory, but no-one should have pregnancy termination forced upon them.

Here's some cake. You can eat it, too.

What a disgraceful article.

The central premise of this article is that those who were working towards the availability of RU486 are blind to or don't care about the myriad of problems facing abused, impoverished or disempowered pregnant women.
This is patently nonsense.
This article attacks the very people who would see an end to the problems the article mentions. It makes no mention of the senseless diversion of human assets into a fight that should not have had to have been fought. It lays the blame at the feet of those who deserve it least, not at those who would deny women choice.

Yes, tragically sometimes women aren't free to choose to keep the child.
Attack the underlying factors that bring about these terrible situations. This already happens without RU486, and won't be affected by denying women who are free to choose an alternative method.
Attack the true causes - domestic violence, lack of counselling, insufficient mental and financial support networks.
Don't attack the very people who also work to address these issues.

Though I am pro-choice, I do agree with some sentiments in this article.

It was a step in the right direction in granting access to the drug. Women (and their partners if involved) need the choice for themselves.

However, I do find it somewhat distasteful that people are celebrating. In my mind, it is still a sad, sombre fact that abortion may be a necessity rather than avoided. If we put as much effort into support and social assistance, there would probably be fewer abortions. Not none at all – I do not think that is realistic or even reasonable. But I’d bet a fair amount that with the perception (and reality) of social support for some prospective mothers, there would be fewer.

So, I say, ‘thanks be’ that the right decision was made. But let’s not forget that the greater problem – a cold, unfair and greed obsessed society is the cause for some of this fight. I do not think there is yet reason to celebrate.

Yes, I too have seen the sign, “RU486 Drinks” on the Family First website.

But is it not illegal to take a video camera into the Parliament?

Did Steve put up that sign , and then video it himself ?

Hmmmmmmm?

Abortions happen - surgically, induced by a pill or from a kick to the guts by an irate violent partner.

and if some politicians are sooooo in favour of children, lets see more funding spent on pre-school and childcare centres !

Abortion for convenience is rife in Australia and the disaster is degrading the law but much worse our ethics and shared humanity and its spells the end of faith.

The argument that we should be looking at the reasons behind the number of unwanted pregnancies is a sound one and the article made many intelligent observations in that regard.

However the author's tendency to discuss abortion itself in the emotive terms of the anti-choice movement cast doubt on the true intentions behind it.

Seems to me to be an example of using the enemy's own tactics against them, in which case the point is not to make women's lives better, but to keep the abortion debate alive.

Alpal “What a disgraceful article.”

Yep you are right, Alpal. An article as sour as sour grapes can be.

Melinda Tankard Reist has declared what her choice would be. Yet she cannot abide the idea that other women, who she does not know, with rights, feelings, expectations, desires, emotions and circumstances which she does know about or have responsibility for, should be allowed to exercise their choice

By any reasonable standard, her sour grapes have be fermented and turned into a “whine” full of hypocrisy.

Robert Garvey Solicitor “degrading the law but much worse our ethics”

The law is expected to reflect the values and ethics of the society which it serves. That these values change over time does not mean they are being “degraded”, merely that they are changing.

We have had abortion as a legal option for the past 30 years and we had abortion as a “illegal” option for about 150 years(during which time as many abortions occurred as when it has been legal (per annum / capita). Before that it was not “illegal” as any part of the criminal code.

Exercise of freewill is not unethical. My personal view is people only develop and grow toward their full potential by exercising their own freewill and being responsible for the outcome. I have no doubt every woman who exercises choice to abort carries a burden for that decision with her through the rest of her life.

Conversely, your decision, to deny her freewill and subordinate it to your own value of “No Choice on abortion” would carry no responsibility for you from the outcome of your decision.

Exercise of choice without accountability or responsibility is what you are requesting and to be honest, I have “ethical” and “moral” issues in not opposing such a view

"Yep you are right, Alpal. An article as sour as sour grapes can be.

Melinda Tankard Reist has declared what her choice would be. Yet she cannot abide the idea that other women, who she does not know, with rights, feelings, expectations, desires, emotions and circumstances which she does know about or have responsibility for, should be allowed to exercise their choice"

How is this sour grapes exactly? Melinda has always maintained that women deserve better than abortion. This is even more apparent now that the "Reproductive Choice" we should be so joyful about comes in the form of a pill that could kill. Anyone who hasn't read her book - Giving Sorrow Words - should do so, if they want to get an idea about the "rights, feelings, expectations, desires emotions and circumstances" women are facing, as told by the women themselves.

I suggest reading it with a box of tissues nearby, these women's stories are truly heartbreaking.

Being male with a world outside Australia that is over populating itself to the brink of extinction'I'll not pass judgement but just share a few anicdotes.

I know of people who have adopted children whereby all has not worked out.Apparently it is common for adopted children to feel rejected by their natural parents and indulge in self harm or become mal-adjusted adults.From what I can gather,there are no studies done on the outcomes in terms of the eventual happiness of adopted children.This couple we not warned of the possible mental problems of feeling rejected adopted children can suffer,however after several suicide attempts of their adopted daughter,they were told that it was quite common.

Recently I've learnt of a very affluent family who put their pregnant 15 yr old in a unit and didn't tell the rest of the family of her plight.The rest of the family was naturally furious.The shame was too much to bear.This teen mother wants now to keep the baby,but the parents are vehmently against it.

In the light of what I've learnt about adopted children,I'm thinking that parents of young pregnant teenagers should seriously consider a co-operative child rearing situations with their daughters.These are the problems faced when abortion is just too late.We have to put the ethics aside and look at the reality.

What do you women think?

Appalling emotive article which just shows how unintelligent and insulting this debate has been. The pro lifers are not providing any real insight or understanding into the high rates of abortion and resort to cheap magazine sensationalism. Playing dictator over women's ovaries is not going to advance their cause at all.

Non of the pro lifers to my knowledge have addressed issues such as:

1. Why are women choosing abortion over adoption when there is such a great demand.
2. The overpopulation of the world, especially in the 3rd world, and its strain on world resources, and the fact that these days many educated women take this fact into consideration when planning their lives and whether to have a family.
3. The lack of support for educated career women who would be thinking of having children but find the costs of child care and child raising etc too much and too stressful.
4. Why the contraceptive pill isn't working well enough to prevent pregnancies in the first place
5. Why more women are choosing a single life, or a life of several relationships over the traditional get married and stay with one person only scenario, and why this isn't being respected as a valid option those who want us to have more children.

The pro life point of view assumes that human life has higher value than any other form of life. This arrogant viewpoint is not helping the world to advance in anyway whatsoever.

I too will celebrate with a drink. The only issue with me is the safety of this drug. We all know there are risks with drugs so sensationalizing a couple of bad experiences is also not going to help the debate.

Give an inch and you will lose a mile. I am not handing over one inch of my rights as a woman. Women worldwide need all the inches they can get.

“Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire.” Pope Benedict XVI

You can make it work Minuet.

Pat Rafter is one of eight children. His family all work together, maybe because there was a critical mass. All the siblings provided really valuable support. Imagine if you were to put a dollar value on the things a large close family provides for each other. Children make us wealthy truly they do.

I think we suffer from a lack of imagination.

Escape from Affluenza – a doco about the millions who are opting out of materialism and discovering the happiness of living according to their highest values.

Savings hints – a website that helps families save thousands a year without pain.

Minuet it needn’t be children or quality of life it can be both.

We should listen to Melinda who has done the empirical research, spoken with hundreds of these women and listened to their stories.

Her article reminded me of this. The Meaning of Sex

http://www.godspy.com/life/The-Meaning-of-Sex-Fertility-Contraception-and-the-Reshaping-of-Sexuality-By-Juli-Loesch-Wiley.cfm

I wonder what you think?

Martin,

I'm sorry I can't relate to that article at all.
I'm happy with my life, my sex life, and my ability to have choices.
I'm not interested in having a big family either, but thats fine for Pat Rafter's family.
I would be happy to have a baby and offer it up to adoption but with all the horrible stories, and lack of support by the community, I feel like I would be seen as an awful person who rejected her child. I would not be able to go through a pregnancy without everyone saying how crazy I would be to give up my baby. How stressful and victimizing!
In the meantime, abortion where contraceptive fails is an effective, convenient and confidential method of stopping an embryo the size of a speck of sand or rice from forcing me into a situation that for me personally could bring on great stress.

I persoanlly feel that nature has intended women to be able to have tonnes of children in the likelihood that some will probably die. Mankind however has developed the technology to improve conditions for survival, and now has the ability to monitor all life on the planet to the extent where we can address where things are out of balance.

Once again a person is equating the issue of who decides whether Ru486 should be made available, is turned into an argument about abortion.

We live in a democratic society and this society has decided to legalise abortion. Ru486 is a drug that performs a medical purpose that is legal in Australia, it should be judged on scientific grounds only.

A celebration for the current political sucess, is not a celebration of abortions, it is a celebration of proper processes being upheld, of democracy working. A democratic process was followed to legalise abortion and while you may disagree with this policy you should respect the processes involved in making and changing them. To try to change this policy by interfering with who decides the availability of RU486 is cheating the process, it is cheating democracy.

Melinda is pointing to this celebration, which is a celebration of the current law not being distilled by inappropriate means. A law that was decided democratically. A law that many women fought vehermently for and is therefore considered one of the battles for women issues. She is then equating it to a celebration of abortion, which is an emotional and illogical conclusion.

If you wish to win this fight, then do it on a case by case basis. Allow each woman to make her own choice and remember that no woman finds this an easy decision. Allow each person to make their vote and eventually the policies will change. If the ethics are so obvious it should be an easy argument to win.

If you are truely serious about taking this 'problem' back to the 'cause' then you would advocate for a MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILL.

At least women have some real sort of choice in this area. The only real birth control for men is vasectomy, which is generally out of the question for youngish men without kids.

Why dont you advocate for a MALE PILL?

Do you have a fundamental problem with giving men some real power over their own reproductive choices? To free us from being at the mercy of a woman's reproductive choice?

l reckon if a male pill were on the market feminists would fight it tooth and nail as an example of the patriarchal oppression of women by denying them our seed to give them choice.

Its a relief that common sense has prevailed and women have retained a very important tool over the control of their own destinies, notwithstanding the ideological and moral projections of the self righteously sanctimonious.

This article is a steaming pile of emotive anti-choice effluent. A quick scan of the author's other articles make it clear that it isn't a one off.

She claims to be really all about offering more support (and thus a better "choice") for all those women who really want to have the baby - but what has that got to do with RU486? Offer the support, then those who don't really want to have an abortion wont. Thats great, I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees with that, but this is just a smokescreen. If the author really believes what she says, why doesn't she make some concrete suggestions for empowering disadvantaged women and giving them more choice rather than blaming abortion?

Why don't you be honest Melinda, abortion makes you sick and you want to stop everyone from doing it. It's not about womens rights, its about your beliefs. And people who are stupid enough or unlucky enough to get pregnant when they don't want to be, well thats just tough they shouldn't go round having sex, should they. Tough luck on the vote, but I know you and Tony Abbott will keep trying.. you'll never win though, even if you do somehow manage to make abortion illegal it won't stop people doing it, you'll just manage to kill a few more women with unsafe abortions.

‘If we put as much effort into support and social assistance, there would probably be fewer abortions.’ Reason …’let’s not forget that the greater problem – a cold, unfair and greed obsessed society is the cause for some of this fight. I do not think there is yet reason to celebrate.’

Well said…Melinda agrees too…

Coyote, movie cameras are not permitted in the chamber or for use to take pictures of members, without their permission. This picture does not breach either rule.

Chainsmoker-‘an example of using the enemy's own tactics against them.’
The ‘enemy’s’ use of ‘tactics’, indicates that the point of the anti-life movement is not to help women, but implement a tactical plan to paint the abortion industry as acceptable and accepted…with no attempt at support for alternative choices.

With drug companies refusing to import RU 486 because of its controversy and its ‘limited potential for commercial use’ – it’s clear that abortionists are profiteers whose interest is in the almighty dollar, not the women or children involved.

‘people only develop and grow toward their full potential by exercising their own freewill and being responsible for the outcome.’…Col, you’re at it again, perpetual contradiction - killing the child is hardly ‘being responsible for the outcome’…is it?

Arjay, your comment could represent any group in society, biological children can also feel rejected and suicidal…I have adopted relatives in my extended family and none of these comments apply. Like any other situation, parents (biological or adoptive) have difficulties to address, if those concerns include tracing adoptive parents, my advice to friends in that circumstance has always been to support the child’s decision to find their parents, whatever the joy or sadness of the result…and be there for them afterwards to share either. You also mention that the ‘affluent’ parents removed family support from the child…that’s the really sad part…the child didn’t want abortion, she wanted to keep and rear her baby.

(Cont.)

Minuet these issues basically beg the question: shouldn’t ‘educated career women’ know what makes babies?…at some point you need to consider others (including the unborn) as more than an inconvenience and learn more about how your body works and treat it with respect. You can’t run from consequences forever.

Javaira, cheating democracy for who? There’s no democracy in RU 486 for the unborn and abortion is not legalized in Australia for convenience.

Robert Garvey Solicitor makes valid arguments but faith will not end as a result, trials and persecutions (including of the unborn) will turn the wheel full circle and society will be forced to see the evil that killing of the unborn is.

A statement by the father of the pregnant driver, killed in Tasmania on the weekend says it all…he commented that his daughter had just found she was pregnant with her first CHILD and that her husband had now lost ‘his family’.

No question of the humanity of the child in the eyes of either the father or the son-in-law…and the grief and sense of loss is evident in his words.

…so too the tragic loss of the 100,000 unborn deliberately killed each year in Australia.

RE: trade215 - some of your effluent could be recycled and sadly it often is - what a cop out for males...really, it isn't even a good argument. Please you women, don't make males take responsibility for anything and PLEEEASEEE don't refuse sex, just dispose of the results, whatever the consequences. That's empowering? You deal with it... Feminists would refuse to let men take the 'choice' away from them...those fairies are waiting at the bottom of your garden to pour your tea too.

Hellothere - RU 486 will not save ONE woman's life, that's undisputed...it will, however, kill some women and almost all the babies involved. Some babies will survive and be killed surgically later. Try to deal in facts, not fantasy...

Arjay – and what would our Catholic colleagues, who so oppose abortion be doing to curb the population explosion – nothing they are actually encouraging – which ranks as gross irresponsibility!.

Trade215 – you are perfectly right about vasectomy. After the birth of my second daughter I took the cut. One of the best decisions I have ever made.

Sex without expectation is a lot less stressful than worrying about whether one “hit the back of the net”.

hellothere – yes some people seem hell bent upon imposing their religious intolerance on the rest of us, I guess it is up to us to resist their interfering efforts.

Meg1 “killing the child is hardly ‘being responsible for the outcome’…is it?”

Only when you know the circumstances should you attempt to make such a “judgemental statement” and even then, it is still none of your business and not your responsibility to bear.

Simply declaring all abortion bad because of YOUR PERSONAL ignorance to other peoples circumstances is not a good basis for those other people to have to decide important matters in their lives.

I would further note, you are not offering to accept any responsibility, what so ever, for the outcome of the decision (no abortion) you would force on other people. In mine and most other people’s book, that is rank hypocrisy and the vain attempt of an interfering busybody to control things which are none of the busybody’s business.

Abortion 'debates' tend to expose the personal issue laden malice of both sides. Doesnt take much for personal attacks to fly. A sure way to drag things into the gutter.

Thanks to those contributors who stay on topic, not derailing behind personal invective.

There is no need to take responsibility for others if we first take PE-EMPTIVE responsibility for OURSELVES and thus avoid IMPOSING upon ANOTHER.

The idea that a MALE PILL is some how an irresponsible copout doesnt make sense, logically speaking. Its a great emotive ploy tho.

Not sure what all the follow on projection of a woman's response has to do with it or how a MALE PILL would compel women to be available for sex on demand. In a word... consent.

Taking a MALE PILL could shift the responsibility for birth control to men, which from my experience and some of the comments here, is a major lament of women.

Yet, the redressing of that responsibility, giving men a taste of that burden is met with claims of it being a 'copout by men'. That claim made by a woman. Which more or less stands as proof positive of the contention that SOME women will find a way to denigrate the MALE PILL, flip the script and turn it into an example of that favoured crusade of MANY women... its all about me, my suffering is greater than yours, its all mens' fault, men are irresponsible copouts and women always suffer at our hand. At the same time proclaiming equality, independence and empowerment. Its just so typical. And people wounder why gender relations are so fundamentally skewed.

Women expect, often demanding, UNILATERAL control of reproductive choice. Its HER body after all. It represents MASSIVE POWER. Essentially the only tangible PERSONAL power that women have OVER men and one of the few, if only, ways that SOME women can get the shoe onto the other foot... at least for those that think in terms of us and them, who keep a running score card of gender defined contribution and perpetual grievance.

What a drag its all becoming.

I disagree Trade, as to why the male pill has not been developed as effectively as the female pill.

Firstly, various research has shown that the 'cyclic' nature of female reproduction is easier to regulate than the 'constant' of male reproduction.

Secondly, both men and women have been reluctant to embrace the concept - men from a lack of desire to change what is often seen as the "women's problem" of contraception, and women from an underlying fear that "but if HE forgets to take HIS pill I AM STILL THE ONE who becomes pregnant and has to deal with that". Women I know tend to feel that they are more likely to remember their pill as not doing so can have immediate consequences.

That said, research has been done into long-term male contraception, implanted hormones etc, and been found reasonably successful. If you are so keen, why not find out more and sign yourself up for a clinical trial? Advance the cause of the male pill a little?

As a person living in Australia, I have free choice on many matters. I can choose not to be a Catholic and not be bound by the dictates of the Catholic Church, as propounded by the Pope and his agents. I appreciate this very much. Similarly, I'm sure that Catholics in Australia are very grateful that they are not forced to go against the tenets of their faith and comply with the dictates of a religion not of their choice.

I believe in freedom of choice in just about any respect which does not unreasonably affect the freedom of others. Some will say that if something [or even just the thought of something] "offends" them, then they are unreasonably affected. This is nonsense, none of us can go through life without being offended. What offends me may be irrelevant to you and vice versa. That's human nature and something most of learn to accept.

I believe that the "possibility" of human life starts with conception and that is all. As Yabby has repeatedly pointed out, a woman can have about 400 "possibilities" in her lifetime, but only a relative handful can reasonably be expected to come to maturity. I accept that different species have widely variable numbers of "possibilities", according to the chances of a sufficient proportion maturing in order to support the continuation of that particular species.

Anyone who thinks differently has a right to feel that way, but has no right to try and browbeat me into submission. And quoting religious sources in order to convince me is futile.

There are a number of posters on this kind of topic who I find logical and reasonable. Those who post from a position of anti choice, particularly when they become abusive and insulting, I find anything but logical and reasonable.

I would not want any woman to be forced to be "counselled" by an anti choice person, because I don't believe that the advice would be impartial. In fact it could have the deliberate effect of creating psychological trauma for the woman supposedly being helped.

“The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous."

I agree with Meg about consequences.

“Cinderella received a coach out of Wonderland and a coachman out of nowhere, but she received a command that she should be back by twelve. Also, she had a glass slipper; and it cannot be a coincidence that glass is so common a substance in folk-lore. This princess lives in a glass castle, that princess on a glass hill; this one sees all things in a mirror; they may all live in glass houses if they will not throw stones. For this thin glitter of glass everywhere is the expression of the fact that the happiness is bright but brittle, like the substance most easily smashed by a housemaid or a cat. And this fairy-tale sentiment also sank into me and became my sentiment towards the whole world. I felt and feel that life itself is as bright as the diamond, but as brittle as the window-pane.

Remember, however, that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable. Strike a glass, and it will not endure an instant; simply do not strike it, and it will endure a thousand years. Such, it seemed, was the joy of man, either in elfland or on earth; the happiness depended on NOT doing something which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do. Now, the point here is that to me this did not seem unjust. If the miller's third son said to the fairy, "Explain why I must not stand on my head in the fairy palace," the other might fairly reply, "Well, if it comes to that, explain the fairy palace." If Cinderella says, "How is it that I must leave the ball at twelve?" her godmother might answer, "How is it that you are going there till twelve?"

And it seemed to me that existence was itself so very eccentric a legacy that I could not complain of not understanding the limitations of the vision when I did not understand the vision they limited. The frame was no stranger than the picture.

[For this reason] I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself. To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion's) a vulgar anti-climax. Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind.”

GK Chesterton

Col says: 'I would further note, you are not offering to accept any responsibility, what so ever, for the outcome of the decision (no abortion) you would force on other people. In mine and most other people’s book, that is rank hypocrisy and the vain attempt of an interfering busybody to control things which are none of the busybody’s business.'

Contrary to your assertions, I have indeed 'offered to accept...responsibility, etc' and do so regularly, in order to offer what help I can to support women and children in situations of need - and therefore LIVE my beliefs.

-'rank hypocrisy'and the 'busybody' bit, would be one who talks about 'choice' and offers only the price to take a life, but not the means to support that tiny life or the mother.

Trade215 - 'Its a relief that common sense has prevailed and women have retained a very important tool over the control of their own destinies' You are relieved that women have 'retained a very important tool, etc.' That's the 'cop out' that I referred to NOT the MALE pill, which I suspect meets with resistance from women because of the very reasons that Laurie makes. You argue for the male pill then say that you are relieved that 'women' haven't given you that responsibility and have decided to go with a new 'women's only' drug, RU 486 instead. Now that's a 'cop out' by anyone's standard.

Comments by Rex and MIW that followed contained relevant, positive and interesting comments.

Trade 215 the “ideal” male pill would mix an appropriate contraceptive with a reasonable dose of Viagra.

The result – firing blank rounds like a machine gun.

Although I would tend to support Laurie’s post on the practicalities of the matter.

Rex, it was good to read your post. I would concur with all you say, so it is refreshing to read the output of a like mind. Please continue with your inspirational contributions.

The simple question to ask any Catholic is – would you submit to Muslim Sharia law?

If they say Yes - then sort of faith do they have in their creed?
If they say No – then why do they expect Non-Catholics to conform to Papal Law?

Religious extremism is a strange thing. Muslims display it overtly, Catholics, with view to their political history, prefer covertly.


Martin Ibn Warriq – most of your post seems to be about fairies, I hope you are happy with your source of “inspiration”. It makes interesting reading, as far as fairy stories go but I thought we were talking about “real life” here and not a fairy tale to amuse infants with.

Brothers Grimm had another take on fairy stories which are often too ghastly to recount.

You should meet up with Lady, then you could have fairy concerts and fairy tea parties. She is certainly reading off a similar page as yourself.

What people do within the context of a “consensual relationship” is an entirely private matter.

Whilst it might be a concern / interest / source of vicarious experience to you, it is in reality, none of your business.


Meg1 “Contrary to your assertions, I have indeed 'offered to accept...responsibility, etc’”

Well good for you Meg1, I bet that makes you feel “special” and “needed”.

I bet a day does not go by when you do not take opportunity to remind someone else of how you are martyring yourself for their good and how much they must owe you for being so “giving”.

Keep it up and I will want to throw up.

Col Rouge's paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be getting in the way of rational thinking......as if Catholics are the only ones anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive etc etc. Col, before you go to bed tonight don't forget to check under the bed for any Catholics, that's if they haven't chased the Commies off of course!

Col, a “consensual relationship” requires the agreement of all parties…I hear no agreement from the unborn whose life will end or the survivors of abortion…

Your continuing verbal ‘slagging off’ typically indicates your poor arguments and lack of factual knowledge of the subjects you attempt to discuss…

If you throw up it may just rid your body of some of that unhealthy bile that you so readily spew on any argument you don’t have an answer for…that’s pretty well all of them, isn’t it?

As for martyrdom, well I guess your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution, but so far I've lived through it so I couldn't really claim to be a martyr. I have indicated previously that there are blessings for all those involved, not just those seeking help...we can all gain through empathy for one another, try it Col. You may find that those dreaded Catholics aren't as 'covert' and fearful as your paranoia has painted them.

Francis sums up the situation nicely...you should check under the bed, you'll probably find little more than dust bunnies to feed your obsessions with.

Meg1 “I hear no agreement from the unborn whose life will end or the survivors of abortion…”

Ah, I see, not only do you expect to consult with the non-cognitive embryo, you expect to consult and obtain permission even from the yet-to-be fertilised egg.

I see you believe you should never let reason get in the way of your religious fanaticism.

“Agreement” from “the unborn” is neither possible, viable or logical. Asking for the impossible is not “reasonable”.

The “unborn” does not have a right of voice in the matter (to say nothing of being incapable of speech).
Any rights anyone can claim for the “unborn” are subordinate to the rights of the already born occupant of the body which is to supply resources for the development of the unborn.

Re francis “paranoid anti-Catholicism”

oh no francis, plenty of abuses by the priesthood of plenty other religions too. My critical observation(not paranoia) is against all organised religions who use the name of God to empower a priest-class and elevate them above the congregants from which they have exercised all manner of abuse and from which the clerical hierarchy have protected them from discovery and denied the abused the support and care they were due.

I guess, that RCC has been around longer and thus has had more time to produce a litany of horrors of social abuse, as well as private abuse and is one of the major protagonists in trying to deny women their sovereign rights.


“your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution,”

So you agree, you are a natural when it comes to a “martyr complex”

Now back to the thread.

Meg1 and francis have a choice, to do what they want with their bodies, which I guess would be that they would never have an abortion, even if they found someone to impregnant them.

My only expectation is they extend to others the same “right of choice” which they demand for themselves.

Col claims: 'So you agree, you are a natural when it comes to a “martyr complex”'.

Meg1 ‘As for martyrdom, well I guess your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution, but so far I've lived through it SO I COULDN’T REALLY CLAIM TO BE A MARTYR. I have indicated previously that there are blessings for all those involved, not just those seeking help...we can all gain through empathy for one another, try it Col. You may find that those dreaded Catholics aren't as 'covert' and fearful as your paranoia has painted them.’

Col, your arrogant assumption that others will accept your effort to discredit or lie without checking for themselves, only proves how weak your arguments really are…

Col: ‘Any rights anyone can claim for the “unborn” are subordinate to the rights of the already born occupant of the body which is to supply resources for the development of the unborn.’

This pitiful argument also applies to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a quadriplegic, many aged…they also depend on others to supply resources…who are they subordinate to when pleading for their lives, Col? You’re sounding more like a little Hitler every time you post…he was a contradiction in most things too.

Francis is male (Frances is the female version), it would be a good start if you weren't ignorant of the basics before hurling your invective…and I already have children, so spew all the bile you want, Col…sticks and stones and all that, etc.

Whenever you’re ready, it might be a good time to start to discuss the actual topic – just tuck your bigotry into your own collar first…

Meg1 from in your tirade of vitriolic twaddle I will make one observation to a particular fact on which your argument fails.

(I have just answered this for Meg on another thread so hopefully, repetition will help it sink in)

“This pitiful argument also applies to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a quadriplegic, many aged…. they also depend on others to supply resources”

Now the perpetual LIE which Meg1 keeps dragging out to embarrass herself with and for which her deficiency in reasoning and cognitive skills is shown like a black hole, full of nothing, is this

Yes, everyone of those people rely on someone to supply resources.

However, the someone(s) they rely on are non-specific. It could be any one of thousands or millions of people upon whom they may rely.

Here is the DIFFERENCE

The embryo / foetus does not “rely” on “any one” it relies on one specific individual who is not able to be substituted by anyone else.

It relies exclusively and totally upon the woman in whose body it is developing.

She cannot be substituted by another carer at the end of her work shift or when she is feeling sick.

That is the “difference”

A “non-specific carer” versus a “specific carer”.

Hence, the law recognises the different relationship in pregnancy of the “specific carer” and respects that persons right to first call on her own body.

Now, having explained that I suggest you, Meg1, come up with some reasoned argument instead of just floating nonsense and pretend logic.

I am happy to challenge ever lie and misrepresentation you and your ilk spew out.

I will refute every pitiful excuse you make to justify your demand to interfere in the private lives of people, who really could not care if you were hit by a truck.

Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.

‘I will refute every pitiful excuse you make to justify your demand to interfere in the private lives of people, who really could not care if you were hit by a truck.’

Col, I really could care if you were hit by a truck…apart from the mess that someone would have to clean up and the distress to the truckie…you see I really am pro-life, even with your life!

But seriously, I’m waiting for just one example where you actually refute rather than demolish your own argument…on every thread…and here it is again.

‘Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.’

You’re a classic, Col…you’ve just argued against having a say yourself…you really are a man, aren’t you?

Does that mean you won't post on any subject that does NOT directly affect YOUR BODY, Col? We should be so lucky...lucky, lucky, lucky - you've got me singing.

And again…

‘The embryo / foetus does not “rely” on “any one” it relies on one specific individual who is not able to be substituted by anyone else.’

You support killing by abortion to term…which means you are…

Wrong again…even humidicribs,etc replace the womb to enable survival of babies…and as I will respond on the ‘other’ thread…the born still rely on a specific individual at any one time…no difference really in that context. If that individual does not exercise their duty of care (as is required of the pregnant mother), the baby won’t survive either.

The mother certainly holds a position of power and the responsibility that goes with it…the hope is, she won’t resort to the bully-boy tactics that you employ on these threads, Col.

As I have suggested before Col, I don’t bully easily. Stick to the facts and make a valid point. Only the weakest of minds resort to threats and bullying to cover the inadequacies in their argument.

Meg1 “Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.’

You’re a classic, Col…you’ve just argued against having a say yourself…you really are a man, aren’t you?”

My support of choice is to allow others to decide for themselves, without deference to my opinion or will.

That is not “arguing against myself.”

Oh I am securely a man. But may I ask, from your pitiful attempts to grasp logic,– am I to assume you are blonde?

So what “even humidicribs,etc replace the womb to enable survival of babies”

If a woman were to want to go to term se would not need a humidicrib.

It is completely “illogical” to assume a late term abortion will be for any reason other than the most severe.

No woman would carry almost to term and then abort at the last stages. If she wanted to abort it would have been at an earlier stage and if she needs to abort at a later stage it would only be for the most compelling of reasons.

I would point out at this time, in Holland any premature baby born under 25 weeks is not seen as “viable” in the context that a high certainty of early death or extreme and permanent disability including severe brain damage occurring. Doctors have decided the quality and expectation of life is so remote that the better option is not to attempt to pretend there is possibility of “life”.

That is a paediatric medical experts collected opinion. “Humidicribs” per se, are not the universal panacea which you claim.

“I don’t bully easily. Stick to the facts and make a valid point. Only the weakest of minds resort to threats and bullying to cover the inadequacies in their argument.”

I will hold you to that but you even saying it is crass and hypocritical, yet lacking the sarcasm which you have started to deploy..

Col: “Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.’

You say you’re male - cannot become pregnant, therefore aren’t able to have an abortion…your advice should apply to yourself FIRST…

‘am I to assume you are blonde?’ No, Col, are you? Am I to assume you are intolerant of blondes?

I didn’t claim humidicribs were the ‘universal panacea’…re-read.

Humidicribs do enable survival of pre-term babies, which doesn’t suggest 6 week foetus’ will survive in a humidicrib…are you truly that obtuse?

Col: ‘No woman would carry almost to term and then abort at the last stages...’

Yes, there are women who will because of: 1. Sex of the child. 2. A discovered disability, 3. The end of a relationship, etc...Yes, some doctors will kill full-term babies…

The child is partly delivered, given a lethal injection through the ‘soft spot’ in the head and delivered later.

Other viable babies are dropped into buckets of water on delivery, removing ‘risk’ of survival.

Full-term babies delivered by at-risk mothers are normally viable - aborted or live, baby is still delivered. Procuring baby's death is irrelevant to saving mother. I’ve been there more than once and many times in a support role. The choice to deliver from an at-risk mother is to save her AND the baby, not to kill the baby … like abortion does.

Me: “I don’t bully easily. Stick to the facts and make a valid point. Only the weakest of minds resort to threats and bullying to cover the inadequacies in their argument.”

Col: ‘I will hold you to that but you even saying it is crass and hypocritical, yet lacking the sarcasm which you have started to deploy..’

I guess you would rather I ‘deploy’ such logical and civilized ‘debating skills’ as –

Col: ‘‘I will refute every pitiful excuse you make to justify your demand to interfere in the private lives of people, who really could not care if you were hit by a truck.’

If you dish it out, what goes ‘round, comes ‘round…

Meg1 “Full-term babies delivered by at-risk mothers are normally viable - aborted or live, baby is still delivered. Procuring baby's death is irrelevant to saving mother.”

“Other viable babies are dropped into buckets of water on delivery, removing ‘risk’ of survival.”

Those are emotive, hysterical and unsubstantiated claims made in desperation and with absence of reference to reason or where the true “reason” or circumstances have been purposely avoided, (like the ruse deployed by Philo on another thread, in the name of Pro-Life).

I am a father and I know the mother of my children. There was nothing unique or special about how she carried our children to term and then delivered them.

I know, from my experience as a father, that any woman who went through 7 -8 months and then sought an abortion would not do so lightly. You claim the babies are “normally viable”. I suggest you are lying to make a point.

The babies might be sub-viable and seriously defective.

“Viability” is a subjective measure Meg1.

From the historic content of your posts, you might consider those in a permanent vegetative state, existing because of a feeding tube and in need of 24/7 care (like Karen Ann Quinlan or Terri Schiavo) as “viable” but I do not.

Before you use the word, I would like you to qualify exactly what you mean by “viable”, to check if it is what I mean by “viable” too.

As for “If you dish it out, what goes ‘round, comes ‘round… “

Yep, whilst we are at it, anyone else for tennis ?

You need to improve your game plan in bigoted self-righteousness Meg1.

Your extensive use of repetition, mimicry and call-back are not the things an original mind needs to descend to. Unfortunately repetition, mimicry and call-back are the best you seem to be able to muster.

It is becoming boring to hear your same old diatribe of the banal but I guess, this is a free forum. Better we endure you than we all be censored by a power like, say the RCC

Col,

However ‘emotive’ you feel these facts are, they are facts. If you are unaware of that, I suggest you research your topic before you post any more spurious invective.

“Full-term babies delivered by AT-RISK mothers are normally viable - aborted or live, baby is still delivered. Procuring baby's death is irrelevant to saving mother...The choice to deliver from an at-risk mother is to save her AND the baby, not to kill the baby …like abortion does.”

Again, you are either deliberately mischievious with the truth, or really obtuse. Bcause a near-term mother is ill or at-risk for whatever reason, does not mean that the baby is not viable.

At-risk, near or full-term mothers mostly deliver viable and normal infants…if the mother is at-risk from excessive blood pressure or its complications (one of the most common near-term complications of pregnancy), there is no reason to expect the baby to be disabled or unhealthy.

You need to understand the whole topic, Col, not just rely on what may have happened to your wife 20-30 years ago.

Your comments about your wife, her pregnancy and your children previously, confirm what I have previously stated on one thread or another to you…when you regard human life as ‘of lesser value’ at any stage, you lessen the value of life at every stage…the results show clearly in your remarks.

I suggest that you use a dictionary more often if you are unsure of words, some of us don’t change the meanings to suit ourselves.

A viable unborn is medically regarded as a baby who is able to survive outside of the womb, with or without medical intervention as required. If the baby is born with terminal complications, i.e., irreparable heart damage, etc. then they are not viable…they will not survive.

Pretty obvious really…

’Your extensive use of repetition, mimicry and call-back are not the things an original mind needs to descend to. Unfortunately repetition, mimicry and call-back are the best you seem to be able to muster.’

Col, you can’t get through one sentence without falling victim to your own accusations…

Meg1 You still have not declared or qualified why a lady would endure 8 ½ months of pregnancy to abort without sound medical reasons or circumstances of the most severe kind. How about some real statistics, instead of just emotive claims.

The idea that someone would undergo 8 ½ months pregnancy only to abort for a whim is a deluded nonsense.

It is devoid of sense or reason.

Keep up your petty judgements of me. I did suggest elsewhere you go find a life instead of trying to live vicariously through others, I suggest it still.

You are busily attacking other people on other threads, I guess anyone with a brain and a desire to exercise independent will is at risk of attack from the religious narcissist.

I note your observation of “viable” made no reference to life-quality.

“when you regard human life as ‘of lesser value’ at any stage, you lessen the value of life at every stage…”

You confuse “existence” with “life” - I don't.

What point “existence” when it is bereft of “life”?
What point “existence” when freedom to exercise personal choice is not an option?

I will not accept “mere existence”, where my potential is held in check by someone else’s religious edicts.

I will fight for the sort of life which is only ever experienced by treating the individual as the pinnacle of the social order and not the equivalent of a drone worker in some human social ant colony (with the Pope at the top).

I will do everything I can to ensure that everyone else gets to make choices for themselves, to live with the consequences and to grow as far as they can toward being fulfilled humanbeings in the process.
Rather that being left as empty husks on a pew, looking for something to justify their "existence".


Oh btw I believe in the death penalty too and would pursue it against repeat drug dealing offenders.as well as the usual lowlifes who we indulge for the term of their natural life in cosy prison cells (TV included).

Col: ‘The idea that someone would undergo 8 ½ months pregnancy only to abort for a whim is a deluded nonsense.’

’It is devoid of sense or reason.’

Thread: 4167 COL: ’No woman would seek to endure 9 months of pregnancy only to abort on a murderous whim at the last moment. No one, in control of their senses (ie without diminished capacity or a howling loony), would seek to do it. Therefore, it is a complete and utter red herring, lacking in any credibility and devoid of all reason. No woman and her doctor would undertake such a course of action unless the circumstances were considered “extremely prejudicial” to her ongoing safety and as the only option.’

Col, you are sadly mistaken…there are women who will because of: 1. Sex of the child. 2. A discovered disability, 3. End of a relationship. Yes, some doctors will kill full-term babies…

The child is partly delivered, given a lethal injection through the ‘soft spot’ in the head and delivered normally…

Other viable babies are dropped into buckets of water on delivery, removing ‘risk’ of survival.

I've responded on other threads…which you like to use for ‘busily attacking other people’. Does that make you an anti-life narcissist?

RE: ‘trying to live vicariously through others’…

You'll never abort, so you’ve just argued against having a say yourself…what hypocrisy! Whose life are you trying to live? You repeatedly fall victim to your own accusations…again and again…

‘I note your observation of “viable” made no reference to life-quality.’

No, I’d hate to have anyone judge the quality of your life and find it wanting…you might see the consequences differently on a personal level.

RE: Existence and life – see above…is yours an existence then?…posting relentlessly on numerous threads, seemingly with little other purpose than to impose your views on others…

‘I will do everything I can to ensure that everyone else gets to make choices for themselves(EXCEPT CATHOLICS), to live with the consequences (EXCEPT YOU AND ANTI-LIFERS)and to grow as far as they can toward being fulfilled humanbeings(EXCEPT THE UNBORN) in the process.’

Meg1 “Col, you are sadly mistaken”

If I am “sadly mistaken”, then present the evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Until you can present some authoritive source and reliable statement regarding numbers of late term abortions ranked by reason, you are merely “pretending”.

“You'll never abort, so you’ve just argued against having a say yourself”

Being male I will never abort, true but I have said, maybe not on this particular thread, that the abortion issue is a flashpoint and “test” of how the state respects the individual and places individuals, who the state is elected to serve, above the authority of that State.

“No, I’d hate to have anyone judge the quality of your life and find it wanting”

That actually misses the point.
God is the only one whose judgement anyone should care about, unless they are in to gratuitously giving power over ourselves to other mere mortals.

The point is, without “Choice”, our lives are mere existence.

Life is about making decisions, not following the rest of the herd like one of the sheep (an analogy which another Pro-Lifer brought into these threads).

Our personal growth and development is stunted when someone else exercises control over us and makes decisions for us.

Sure we will make bad decisions or the wrong decision (I can think of some notable ones I have made in my life) but we only “grow” by dealing with the outcome of those decisions.

I have used counsellors and mentors during my life. I have found the best of them have been the ones who have asked the questions and unlike priests, not preached the answers. Those who place the onus on me to find the answer and then take responsibility for the decision and action, rather than try to decide the course is right and instruct me on how to follow it.

“EXCEPT CATHOLICS”. You are free to be as gullible as you want.
However, expect me to resist, with every fibre of my being, when you try to apply such manipulative control over the freewill of others

Meg1 in Australia all pregnancies that end over 20 weeks must be issued with a death certificate. No doctor in Australia has terminated a 9 month pregnancy when the baby is healthy and viable. You are not debating this question reasonably when you bring in stories from China where there are/were strict population control policies in place.

The tenacity and gusto with which you have argued this question is more commonly found amongst men than women.

Col, I’d welcome you substantiating ANY of your claims-generalizations.

If you removed anti-Catholic vitriol from your posts, there’d be nothing left.

‘the abortion issue is a… “test” of how the state respects the individual and places individuals, who the state is elected to serve, above the authority of that State.’

If the state disrespects the most vulnerable and innocent, there’s little hope of it respecting the rest of us…

Individual's can't ignore other's welfare.

‘God is the only one whose judgement anyone should care about’

Then why do you pass life-death judgments on the unborn, or Catholics having a say, indeed on anyone? Your hypocrisy is only superseded by your gargantuan ego.

RE: finding your quality of life wanting. Is facing your own mortality too difficult? You can decide the quality of life and fate of another, but don’t like the prospect of the state or another deciding your fate based on their assessment of your ‘quality of life’…hmmmm.

‘…who place the onus on me to find the answer and then take responsibility for the decision and action...’

That’s what you have been constantly challenged to do by the pro-life posters on these threads. Taking responsibility for your decisions and actions would NOT include killing off your ‘mistakes’ when you make a bad decision.

Your constant carping about ‘choice’ ignores your subservience to the law of the land, your ‘footie club’ and its combined membership, etc. You DO what the law says if you are a responsible citizen; you don’t traffic in illegal drugs or weapons and you don’t kill other members of society for the same reason.

Billie your male-female remark is so absurd as to be undeserving of response.

You demand equality and choice for women but are the LAST to allow it yourself.

RE: ‘No doctor in Australia…full-term baby’

Check your statistics and your absurd comments BEFORE you post.

China is not alone is harbouring doctors who will kill a full-term baby.

Careful, you’ll upset Col if you’re suggesting a mother hasn’t the right to kill her full-term baby if it’s inconvenient for her or her ‘partner’.

Meg1 “If the state disrespects the most vulnerable and innocent, there’s little hope of it respecting the rest of us…

Individual's can't ignore other's welfare.”

The individuals who are “vulnerable and innocent” are protected by the State and are not ignored by other individuals.

What you seem unable to accept is embryos and foeti are not “individuals”.

Embryos and foeti are part of a duality with the woman in whose body they develop.

The State and reasonable minded folk recognise the lack of “individuality” of embryos and foeti. The welfare of embryos and foeti is delivered first by attention to the pregnant womans welfare.

If, for her own “welfare” she decides abortion is to be, then the State and reasonable minded individuals, in supporting her “welfare” support and respect her right of choice.

Denying her that right to determine what is for her own welfare treats her as having the same level of cognitive skill as an imbecile.

“why do you pass life-death judgments on the unborn, or Catholics having a say”

Supporting other peoples sovereign right to choice is not passing judgement on anyone. Challenging the manic ravings of Catholics in the matter of abortion is not placing a life and death judgement on their right to have a say.
Nor is it “Ego”.
Respecting and publicly supporting other peoples right to self determination is, in fact, an act of “humility”, something which Catholics seem to have trouble with.

“NOT include killing off your ‘mistakes’ when you make a bad decision.”

What I might do is irrelevant. I do not seek to impose my will over others. That it might be the wrong is for God and not for me to decide. I am morally bound to support their choice. If it be a poor choice, then they will doubtless experience some negative influences in the future (eg guilt).

Re Killing other members of society – we are back to recognising “individuality” again

Comment to Billie.

Meg1 you are a BRAZENED LIAR.

I have never suggested a woman’s partner has any right of decision over her abortion choices.

Col, when it comes to ego, manipulated statistics and brazen lies - you have it on your own - you're the clear 'winner'.

From your first post to your last, you continue to contradict your self and make no more contribution to the threads than to use up the word allocation with your vitriol and bile...go ahead, putting it in print obviously makes you feel you can justify your own existence and point of view.

A pity you can't back up that point of view with more than contradictions and hypocrisy.

Good luck with your life, you'll need it.

So Meg1, apart from self-righteous hissing fits and a diatribe of religious humbug,

Since you claim I “manipulated statistics and brazen lies”

YOU prove the statistics which you introduced originally. PROVE the incidence and reasoning for late term abortions which you claim.

Show me which statistics I have manipulated – evidence your statement with substance or be seen as a brazen liar.

Then you can show me where I ever claimed a woman’s partner should have any say on the decision to abort.

In your post of Thursday 16 March you stated

“Careful, you’ll upset Col if you’re suggesting a mother hasn’t the right to kill her full-term baby if it’s inconvenient for her or her ‘partner’.”

I demand you either withdraw and apologise for your brazen lie that I have, anywhere ever suggested a woman do anything for the convenience of her ‘partner’ (let alone abort her pregnancy).

The alternative displays you as a judgemental hypocrite with no respect for other peoples right of expression.

I have consistently expressed a single view, that view is

Every person holds sovereignty over their own body. I have also identified the moment of birth as being a significant moment when “individuality” is acknowledged.

This view means the state or anyone else cannot tell any one of us how we should use our own body.

That applies to pregnant women as much as it does anyone else.

It is a view which contradicts the manipulators of RCC (YOU), who believe they have a right to inflict their personal values and beliefs on other people who do not share those values and beliefs.

I am merely one individual (among millions) who believes the RCC is corrupt and evil. I will do all I can to ensure that such an organisation, built on vile corruption, never ever holds sway over the life of anyone whose cognitive reasoning skills determine that they can think for themselves.

As for “A pity you can't back up that point of view with more than contradictions and hypocrisy”

Just more of your pathetic hissing fit.

“Careful, you’ll upset Col if you’re suggesting a mother hasn’t the right to kill her full-term baby if it’s inconvenient for her or her ‘partner’.”

Note the 'if you're suggesting'...etc. i.e., the suggestion was clearly NOT YOURS, Col...

I have not said that Col said it's inconvenient, etc...

Re-read Col, if you can stop huffing and puffing for long enough...

I did not suggest that you would be upset at both scenarios - your own 'hissing fit' is therefore as inappropriate as your many others.

My emphasis was regarding your persistent argument that killing the baby is OK TO TERM, in your eyes...and that "Careful, you’ll upset Col..." at ANY contrary suggestion...

Get the point Col or are you really so obtuse?

Apology? You ought to be the one apologising for each and every one of your bile-filled posts and your selective use of the contents of others, as evidenced here.

Meg1 “Careful, you’ll upset Col if you’re suggesting a mother hasn’t the right to kill her full-term baby if it’s inconvenient for her or her ‘partner’.”

Your pitiful abuse of the English language, asserts on its reading that I have suggested the partner has a right of decision in the matter of a woman’s right to abort.

I will repeat my view so even a drongo will understand

A womans right to decide on abortion is her right and her right alone.

No other person nor institution has any right to expect to make the decision for her or against her.

No other person or institution means

Not a parent (except in the case of minors who are deemed not to have developed the cognitive skills to make decisions in their own best interest)
Not another family member
Not a church or religion
Not government or agency of government

In the normal course of events not the partner – by which I mean, if the woman is aware of her surroundings and cognitive, then she but if she is unconscious, comatose with no anticipated date for awakening or chronically deranged, then her partner should speak for her and in the absence of her partner, only then her parents. In the absence of partner and parents, her doctor should decide what is in his patients best medical interest.
Never ever the state and never ever some bunch of religious zealots masquerading as “concerned citizens “.

That is my view which
I am happy to debate with anyone.

As for apology - none due and none will be given.

Col, I will ignore your usual self-contradictions in the posted response and simply suggest that I would be the last to EXPECT a rational or reasonable response from you, let alone one that would include any due apologies...don't fret, your responses are entirely predictable and unsurprising.

I wish you the enlightenment of an open mind and the good sense to educate your conscience with the truth so that you can overcome whatever poor choices or disappointments your life has encompassed to date.

Your displayed bitterness and bigotry is as sad as it is self-destructive, it will continue to be so as long as both these traits cause you to maintain your narrow-minded view of the world and so many of its inhabitants.

Perhaps a good start to your re-habilitation may be to use some of your self-proclaimed importance to assist those poor souls in the Far North of Queensland to pick up the pieces of their lives after the recent category 5 cyclone, or some other endeavour which will bring you into contact with peoples of varying races, creeds, etc...and show you real humanity in action, irrespective of race, religion or income level.

Yes, thanks Meg. It's pretty bloody horrible up here in NQ. I appreciate you bringing this matter to attention and I urge people to help out where possible.

...our thoughts are with you tubley...our local school and women's church group are fundraising and collecting what household goods, etc. we can.

A local trucking company, an old school friend, has agreed to transport the goods free.

I have lots of friends in Far North Qld and was in contact with them throughout the cyclone...having been through two category 4 cyclones many years ago, I can only imagine what a category 5 was like to live through.

I understand that the media reports have largely understated the situation, your local Federal member and General Peter Cosgrove seem to be determined to see the area fairly dealt with, I trust they will be successful.

The devastation - material and psychological, will take many years to repair.

I hope the real Aussie spirit and mateship continues to shine through locally and from the rest of us who can help.

You are all in our thoughts and prayers.

Warmest Wishes,

Meg

Thankyou Meg, for your support. Your fundraising is very much appreciated. And yes, there has been plenty of Aussie spirit. It's great to be reminded that we can rely on it in times like this.
All the best,
Tubs.

You're welcome tubley, wish there was more we could do to make the necessary difference to those who still haven't got adequate housing and/or shelter, let alone jobs and crops, etc.

It is unfortunate that some (i.e., Minister Schwarten yesterday - State Parliament and a few notable journos)are playing the party politics game already, I've had contact with many up there...stories would break the heart of an ox, they've been very grateful to local member, Bob Katter and General Cosgrove and all the volunteers, army personel and others on the ground who are offering what support they can. Thankfully most of the media are trying to portray the real story, devoid of politics.

A friend in insurance told me of his reaction to the damage - he is assessing for claims, he's still reeling and in shock. His figures are horrendous...multiply that by the other insurers and assessors, a disaster of mammoth proportions.

Let's hope and trust that the governments remember to still take care of our own when the photo opportunities are over.