Hi Alan

It's good to get another article exposing the inaccuracies of the pro-abortion lobby, but also to affirm my suspicions that many of the politicians voted for falsely-believed political expediency.

I do not understand the distorted logic of the Federal Treasurer, who as a Christian, ought to be pro-life. I am even more confused when my own Local Member, Bruce BAIRD, supports the freer distribution of RU-486. It isn't a legitimate contraceptive, but rather a clear abortifacient - just like many 'claimed' contraceptives.

Arguments which are in opposition to mine often involve the proposition of the WHO & the tragedies of Africa with its over-population & famine. But Australia isn't Africa. We can afford to make choices which don't involve abortion.

Thank you for your post. I hope that it attracts as many responses from readers as has the writings of Helen RANSOM.

May we in Australia learn to respect our women, whilst at the same time recognising the sanctity of human life from its foetal inception.

Many thanks

Cheers all

The right to abortion is about the rights of women to choose......Get it through your head...It's not about christianity and the rights of the unborn....Deal with the rights of the born who are dying of starvation on this planet and having the life bombed out of them by christian world leaders first before you go grasping for yet to be born 'souls'.

Thankyou Alan for your article and Maracas for defining your position in such a narrow-minded way. It seems that those of us who think it's not as simple as the myth of choice would have us believe are not even allowed to speak without rude "get it into your head" one- liners.
As a GP who cares for women who have been forced into abortion by the lack of support of the men who conceived the child with them or their parents, I see no truth in the mantra of choice you speak about. If it was anyboby's choice it was the man's - to have sex with no consequences...These women live silent lives of regret and are not able to speak into this political polarised deabte. Please at least allow for some of their unsaid pains and the complexity of all 'choices' to be acknowledged rather than making caricatures of us all.

Its really quite simple. If you believe that abortion is murder, then find a partner who agrees with your view and don't abort. If you believe that aborting a small clump of cells is something like "a stitch in time saves nine", i.e. suffering now to prevent larger problems later, then find a partner who agrees with your views, and if a mistake occurs, abort.

You stay out of my uterus, and I'll stay out of yours. It is an issue between the woman and man and their lives together or apart. It has nothing to do with people who feel it nessecary to stand outside clinics and harrass people. Go and make childcare cheaper, parenting benefits higher and society more child-friendly and less single-parent-judgemental, THEN we MAY get a reduction in abortion.

Thank you Laurie - agree w/U 100%.

What I find truly sad and appalling is that the debate continues. The fact is women will find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy, no matter what contraception they use, and as a result will seek an abortion. If we have any pretensions as a cvilised society then we will ensure that abortion is safe and effective. The recent 'conscience vote' has supported that view.

To all who oppose abortion - don't have one. But please let the rest of us live in peace from your dogma.

When is a democracy not a democracy?

When you are a "right-to-lifer' like Alan Baker - sour grapes indeed!

If the 'conscience vote' had gone the other way, Alan would've been extolling the virtues of our parliament.

Alan concludes his petulant article with the words:

"Women deserve better than abortion."

Alan apparently fails to understand (like many) that abortion is the LAST RESORT for women.

As for what we deserve - we deserve respect for our abilities to make the right choices for our circumstances.

Alan Baker claims ‘…MP after MP asserted that the Bill to clear the way for the abortion pill RU486 to be introduced in Australia had nothing to do with the abortion issue...’ Yet, ‘Many MPs who voted for the Bill proclaimed they were personally opposed to abortion…’ says Baker, but they …’obviously did not want to consider the social and ethical implications of condoning the 90,000 abortions performed each year in Australia for financial or social reasons.’ The report he cites says there are 90,000 abortions in total for all reasons (p.33)

Baker claims that ‘…a number of MPs voted to support the Bill against their consciences…’ Who coerced them? Fear of public opinion as shown in polls, says Baker. Later, Baker returns to MPs’ motives and draws a different conclusion (at least for female MPs): ‘No doubt the reason only 2 female Labor MPs courageously voted against their party policy is that the other 31 who supported the abortion pill are members of Emily’s List, to which they pledged support for pro-abortion legislation in return for election campaign funding.’

What, no bribes for male MPs? Or for Coalition women MPs?

Meanwhile back to the polls: Baker tells us that ‘This apparent support for the status quo is a result of…asking questions based on slogans such as “Do you support free, safe legal abortion on demand?” or “Do you support a women’s right to choose?”’

Baker brings on the Right to Life’s poll which uses better slogans - but Baker calls them ‘objectively-worded questions’. These questions are prefaced by values statements designed to send signals to the respondent (pp.33ff)

It’s no surprise to find that ‘…a majority of Australians are actually opposed to 98 per cent of all abortions performed in this country’. Or any surprise to find Baker omits to tell us the results when respondents were asked, ‘Do you support abortion for any reason whatsoever, that is abortion on demand? Just under 60% said ‘Yes’ and just under 32% said ‘No’ (page 28).

Get with the program you lost and no amount of hand ringing will change that. Nor will trotting out foolish conclusions for a opinion poll of 1200 people, than fact is every opinion poll produced by secular means produces similar results. Your own poll shows to 60% of Aussies believe abortion on demand should be available and only 32% said no further more 52 % of resonance said that Medicare should pay for it. The responses that you pull out are for situations that are not allowed here. In no state that I know of can you simply have a abortion because you want a kitchen extension instead of a baby.
If your opposed to abortion move to Ireland.

Kenny, abortion is allowed in the ACT for any reason at any time. In NSW the Levine ruling allowed for abortions for social or financial reasons... Even in Victoria, where abortion is allowed as a defence under the Crimes if the abortion is to save the life or health of the mother, it is still possible to get an abortion for other reasons.
I agree with INDOGIRL that we have to face some of the big issues - support from men and families - if we are to reduce the number of abortions. This needs to be remedied.
As to the comment in Alan's article about the wording of the question in surveys on abortion... the following is a classic example.
The latest Morgan poll on abortion was taken during the RU 486 debate.
In their report they say "On the issue of whether abortion laws should be changed, 45% of Australians believe that they should be changed to make it easier to obtain an abortion, 39% believe the law should remain as it is, only 10% believe they should be changed to make it harder to obtain an abortion and 6% are unable to say."
Really, you say….
But the question itself was very different... it put a whole emphasis into the start of the question that was misleading. [it wasn’t stated in the introduction to their report.]
“Currently in most Australian States abortions are illegal unless the mother’s life is in danger. In your opinion, do you think the law on abortion should be changed to make it easier to obtain an abortion, harder to obtain an abortion or do you think the law should remain as it is?”
Well, if you thought that the ONLY reason for being able to obtain an abortion was that the ‘mother’s life was in danger’, many people might be inclined to say the laws should make it easier.
The wording of the question and the surrounding questions is important in analysing the effectiveness of a survey.
See the Morgan poll at http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/3978

Most people I know intimately have had an abortion or their partners' have had an abortion, none has expressed regret at their decision.

In fact often they express profound relief that the product of their 17 year old loins was aborted because they wonder how their stunted lives would have been otherwise.

I am opposed to watching children starve to death, I do not want to see children working in slavery or work house conditions, I deplore the conditions that children in orphanages endured in Australia up until the 1970s.

In short I don't think every fertilised egg that embeds in the lining of the uterus is sacred, or a potential life so I am more concerned about maternal welfare and the welfare of her existing children.

Jenny Stokes is quite right when she says that the way a question is framed and the surrounding questions will influence people's answers to polls.

Questions 10 and 11 on the Right to Life questionnaire were prefaced by this statement which was read out to all respondents: 'Over the past 35 years, Australian taxpayers have paid for more than 2 million abortions through Medicare and the public hospital system. As approximately 98% of abortions are performed for financial or social reasons, it has been said that abortion is the only elective surgery Medicare covers'.
Question 10 followed: 'Do you support Medicare funding for abortions for any reason whatsoever, that is, abortion on demand?' Then came Question 11: 'Do you support Medicare funding for abortions for non-medical, that is, for financial or social reasons?'

Smart, if you want the 'right' answers; but it's hardly objective and could hardly be regarded as hard evidence of 'What Australians Really Think About Abortion' (the title of the Right to Life Report).

INDOGIRL, what country are you in?

Here in Australia we have financlail support systems for women who choose to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy. If the father is earning an income he has no choice but to provide financial support to the mother of the child if she chooses to carry through with the pregancy and seeks child support. No opting out for dads from an unplanned pregnancy unless they stay permanently unemployed, move to a third world country or get very good at working in the cash economy.

We have (so called) child support payments, we have family tax benefits (parts A and B), we have cash payments following the birth of the child, we have single parent pensions, we have rent assistance, we have discounts on a variety of products and services. Some parents with a little bit of creativity are able to live quite comfortably off their kid or kids.

Life for a single parent can be tough if you don't have support but in many cases it is the mothers unwillingness to share control of "her child" which is a significant factor in that lack of support. The father is treated as a checkbook rather than as someone who can and should have a meaningful role in their kids lives (and not just the role defined by the mother).

I think a lot of men are much more enthusastic about parenting when they don't have someone else believing themselves to be the sole controller of how that parenting is done. Support dads being treated fairly and reasonably and more men might be willing to take on the role.

R0bert

The problem is that the people making the choice for personal, economic, environmental or any number of other reasons are white Europeans. The ones who should be making the same choice are not doing so: people of the Third World, largely Muslim, who will happily replace the 90,000 Australian aborted annually as well as all those aborted in Europe and America, and then multiply the numbers many, many times.

Abortion on its current scale would appear to be just another nail in the coffin of Western civilization.

Other questions you might ask in your next survey:

Should women considering abortion be forced to attend pro-life counselling?

Should women who choose to abort have their names and addresses widely published?

Should women entering abortion clinics be verbally abused and pelted with food?

Should women pregnant to aliens be allowed to claim abortions on Medicare?

Do you like my hat?

Another observation on the figures: No stats are kept on what number of abortions are sought for what reasons. If you plan to publish your findings anywhere peer-reviewed I suggest you consider some editing.

As so many others have said, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

I would like to see the need for abortions reduced in Australia.
I believe that every woman considering abortion, for whatever reason, should have access to IMPARTIAL counseling and be given every encouragement to take advantage of this counseling.
And I believe that her wishes should ultimately be the determining factor.

I see anything else as either a deliberate red herring, or an overt attempt to force someone else's opinion on morality onto those who feel differently.

An apt old saying is "The forces of evil never sleep". I'm not suggesting that all right-to-lifers are evil, far from it. But their basic objective to force others to be ruled by their tenets, and some of the methods they use to try and attain this objective, are certainly evil.

Hi all

maracas (post 11:28:53 AM 6/3/06)

I am astounded at how often when people have an anti-abortion stance that it is automatically assumed that that person is a "conservative Christian".

For those who read my posts: I was anti-abortion when I was an Atheist. It's called consistency in my anti-murder beliefs.

As to the starving & oppressed: that ought not to tolerated by the majority of caring, empathetic humans - Christian or not. Christian-based organisations are in fact the majority of those doing aid work in that area - without public recognition.

There is also the assumption that just because GWB is leading "an action against terrorism" that all/most Christians support him. That is simply not true. Moreover, with his background in the Masonic Lodge & by "the fruits" that he shows it could be questioned as to what sort of Christian he is. But that is not the purpose of this post - to debate the war &/or famine.
(6/3/06)

INDOGIRL (post 12:11:57 PM 6/3/06)

Great to hear from a woman with an empathetic ear which comes from her understanding of the situation via her profession as a Doctor of Medicine.

It is indeed a major responsibility for the male. Females ought to be able to say "yes" or "no". But equally, it is the responsibility of the male to ensure that the female is unlikely to be fertile if neither of them wish to create an implanted, fertilised egg. The foetus has no say in the matter, so should not be penalised for the failure of the lovers.
(6/3/06)

Cheers all

Australia appears to be going down a path in which abortion becomes an issue disputed (and disputed hysterically) along secular/sectarian lines, with the “pro-lifers” – perhaps the most ridiculously counter-productive, and simply ridiculous, euphemism ever conceived – seemingly wanting to return to a situation in which pregnancy terminations are not readily available.

I am not going to bother commenting on the phraseology of the survey questions described in the article. Suffice to say, even given the seriousness of the issue, they manage to be quite funny.

On the subject of the RU486 conscience vote, despite the wailing of the article’s author, the issue really was not abortion. It is simply beyond the authority of federal parliament to restrict abortion and, at the very least, it was beyond the scope of the bill in question. By restricting the methods available to patients who, in practically every case would already have decided to terminate, the no voters among our federal MPs were not being anti-abortion: they were, for want of a better description, being anti-women.

A consistend and well defined article. We need to impress the value of a human life and no amount of opposition will change that truth. Life is sacred and is the most valuable thing that exists.

Laurie, there has never been an abortion performed on "a small clump of cells". By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, and can have an abortion, the fetus has a heartbeat and brainwaves. But presenting the facts makes abortion less palatable, doesn't it?

Scout, you claim abortion is the "LAST RESORT" for women. I think most people would agree that the last resort means the last option looked at, the choice taken only after all others have been seriously considered because it is less desirable. Let's look at some data:

In 2004, there were 254,200 registered births in Australia (see http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/3C467E74C23239FFCA256E8A0077ADD9?OpenDocument). In the same year there were around 90,000 abortions. As for the total number of unwanted pregnancies, I don't know that there is any data available. Certainly the 90,000 aborted pregnancies were unwanted, and for argument's sake, let's assume that half of the 254,200 births came from unwanted pregnancies (I'd argue the share is far, far lower, but let's be generous to the pro-choice lobby).

So that would be a total of 127,100 unwanted pregnancies. Of the total, around 70% ended in abortion. Is it just me, or does that seem awfully high for something that's supposed to be a last resort? If abortion is indeed a last resort, the other options are extraordinarily unpopular. Adoption certainly is - only 65 Australian babies were adopted in 2004/05 (see http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/aa04-05/aa04-05.pdf).

If abortion really is the last resort, shouldn't we be doing something to make the other options are bit more attractive? Or is it the case that abortions are increasingly the first option in the event of an unwanted pregnancy?

No-one really knows, but what is clear is that a very high proportion of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion. Since most people on both sides (eg. Lyn Allison) agree that abortion is often a traumatic experience, the fact that unwanted pregnancies so very often lead to abortion should be of concern to all Australians, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.

Tim B

It's been said, but there's some thick skulls out there, so here we go again:

Don't like abortions, don't have em. Your belief, your choice, go for your life, leave the rest of us alone and stop publishing misleading nonsense like this article. Go suck on your sour grapes and make up some more dodgy statistics somewhere private.

And as for the 50 million Tony Abbot counselling consolation prize, does anyone else think that the smarter way to prevent abortions would be to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Radical idea, hey? Maybe a bit more education for people, more use of virtually failsafe contraceptives like the implantable ones, and men, get used to using condoms, even if she's on the pill? Is it really that hard?

Well, at least Alan Baker has proven that opinion polls can be manipulated by asking questions with different slants.

I wonder if we could find out the "true" attitide to the majority of Australians, if pro abortion people like me played word games too?

How about something like this?

"Would you prefer to see poor Australian girls dying in backyard abortions, and have their dead bodies dumped at sea like what used to happen, rather than legalise abortion and have the surgery performed by a doctor?"

"If your daughter became pregnant to a recently incarcerated professional car thief, who had the social skills to manipulate your daughters emotional vulnerabilities, would you rather see your daughter have an abortion than have this parasitical man linked forever to your family?"

"If you got your secratary pregnant, would you rather she had an abortion, or would you rather tell your wife that you are going to have a couple of new dependents."

The mind boggles.

Laurie
"Its really quite simple. If you believe that abortion is murder, then find a partner who agrees with your view and don't abort. If you believe that aborting a small clump of cells is something like "a stitch in time saves nine", i.e. suffering now to prevent larger problems later, then find a partner who agrees with your views, and if a mistake occurs, abort."

I'm sorry. But this is an incredibly moronic position. By the same logic, you could tell people not to outlaw ANY crime. Rape, murder, assault, theft. If abortion on demand is murder, then it should be stopped. It is that simple.

And it aint just your uterus Laurie. It is a seperate human life. It is not your property, to be disposed of if you find it inconvenient.

I am sorry you feel that way Alan, but until around the 3-4 month mark, I simply do not regard a pregnancy as a "child", I see it as a "potential" and a "collection of cells". And until such time as that potential becomes something which could exist outside of my body, then I do not regard it as having rights equal or greater than me. From around six months, when that potential is kicking and could easily survive outside the womb with the available medical care, then yes, I see it as something with its own rights. But not until such time as it could survive without using my body.

I understand these shades of grey are difficult for people who see any abortion, be it at two days or two weeks or two months as murder, but that is how I see it. And I'm sorry for people who see it that way, but it IS my body, and I shall not ever accept anyone so wholly uninvolved in the situation (i.e. not myself or my partner) trying to influence decisions which could affect my entire life.

FrankGol and Rex

May I express my support to your both for your reasoning.

FrankGol, as you accurately and persuasively point out,

Ask anyone if they support the idea of the taxes they pay supporting anyone else and you will get the loaded reply to a loaded question.

“Loaded questions” are a form of the very hypocrisy the author of the article is "hypocritically" whining about.

Ask them if you think other people should have a right of choice and the overwhelming majority will agree.

I would point out, the Vote was a “conscience vote”.

I would further point out that a MP in the “House of Representatives”, is there to “represent” his or her constituents and their views. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to hold a personal view yet vote differently when they know the overwhelming majority view of the people they are elected to “represent”.

The only way of expecting a reduction in abortion is to improve the delivery and reliability of contraceptives. One step in the right direction would be for “anti-contraceptive agencies” to stop promoting ineffective alternatives to effective contraception.

As one who had a vasectomy many years ago, I found it a painless experience with no side effects and would recommend it to any man who thinks he has “sired” enough children.

Laurie,
You are of course, free to make up your own mind. But using nonsensical logic does nothing to help the issue.

That you regard human life as only worthy of protection once it fulfills criteria conveniently assigned by you does indeed speak volumes about your opinion.

"Kenny" is a convincing argument for abortion.

Laurie says that while the developing baby is totally dependant on her, she is entitled to terminate its life. When this developing baby could survive without her, she concedes her body is no longer hers to do as she pleases.

Accordingly and by extension, the better a child can survive without its mother, the more its mother feels responsibility. This is the same warped logic that deprives their fathers or prospective adoptive parents from those children – or fathers of their children post divorce. These too, could all survive without their mother, but we instead subvert any other rights to those of the woman, even if only to save her from embarrassment.

Our society affords significant concessions to women. Abortions are thus a way of keeping our women looking beautiful and feeling empowered, at what the state perceives as reasonable costs

Hi all

Laurie (post 12:14:53 PM 6/3/06)

Your logic under democracy sounds very plausible. However, it doesn't withstand the scrutiny of extrapolated examination. May I give you an example?

Imagine that I marry a Satanist who believes in sacrifices. The sacrifices are new-born males. That's our choice. To meet the demands we have many children. We're not hurting you by killing our children. Under your logic we should be able do as we see fit.

Society might, however, see it otherwise. Society would be appalled because it would be murder.

Opportunistic abortions are similar, only this time the "god" is that of convenience. The child, if born, might have prevented the enjoyment of 'luxuries'.

Pregnancy under circumstances of rape or incest may be a different consideration?

Once couples used to adjust their lifestyle around their children. Today we adjust our children - if we have any at all - around "the pleasures of life".

Is it any wonder that families within the Western-world are often seen as bickering, dysfunctional non-entities? The children aren't focal, because they aren't planned. They're 'accidents'.
(6/3/06)

Scout (post 12:43:33 PM 6/3/06)

I do enjoy your posts - even though we disagree on this issue.

Democracy is a weird word to call our political system - the people rarely vote on any issue themselves. Maybe politicians would be honest if referendums were more frequent?

For many women it is a frustrated "last resort". For some it is a first resort. Often it is an ill-informed option - the counselling is done by pro-abortionists, & more tragically, by those who benefit financially.

It's amazing how frequently, women, when all the facts are known, seek an alternative. Those opportunities are all too frequent.

As to RU-486: it will take the death of a prominent citizen before opinions might begin to change. The death of someone unknown will go unnoticed. However, if it were say Peter COSTELLO's daughter or daughter-in-law, then publicity would be substantial.

Time will tell. Here we go: another Thalidamide.
(6/3/06)

Cheers all

For a very good IMPARTIAL overview of the RU-486 issue [prior to the recent vote], have a look at http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn19.htm

This is an extract on risk:

"Risk management and the TGA

The TGA’s risk management role means that it is specifically charged with identifying, assessing and evaluating the risks posed by therapeutic goods, applying any measures necessary for treating the risks posed, and monitoring and reviewing the risks over time.(32)

The key point here is that the TGA is regarded by the government as being qualified to manage the risks associated with any therapeutic good that is used (or proposed for use) in Australia. From this, one could reasonably assume that it is also qualified to manage the risks associated with abortifacients such as RU486."

As we all know, there are no guarantees in life. Merely being alive is a health risk. But we have come to rely more and more on medical intervention in order to have a long and satisfactory life. And, despite all the scientific checks and balances, sometimes something does not go according to plan.

Yes, the thalidomide situation was a disaster, which hopefully, we've learned something from. But we can't allow an occasional mistake, no matter how horrendous, to prevent new drugs from being researched, trialed and brought into use. None of us would be happy if medical research just stopped, in case something went wrong.

I'm sure that many prominent people have already died as a result of various medical procedures, but that does not translate to a public demand for those treatments to be discontinued, just as long as the risks are considered manageable in relation to the benefits.

Some will continue to say that, in almost all cases, abortion is not medically necessary. But I would suggest that a woman's peace of mind is part of a healthy lifestyle and can reasonably be given priority.

Hi all

Jenny Stokes (post 2:04:09 PM 6/3/06)

Thanks for your input. I just hope that your dissenters read what you wrote.
(6/3/06)

billie (post 2:17:18 PM 6/3/06)

".. the product of their 17 year old loins ..". Surely that's part of the 'problem' of "modern society" - we're too anxious to become adults without taking on the adult responsibilities that sex can & does lead to, pregnancy. Pregnancy has imbedded in its reality a responsibility to care for the creation - the foetus.

".. I don't think every fertilised egg .. is sacred ..". Oh, really?! Well, which ones are important & sacred? The too young? The too ugly? The diseased? The wrong sex? The unwanted? The inconvenient?

Don't you see that this logic is paralleled to the same lack of respect afforded to the starving children in Third World countries. Whatsmore, in famine-ridden lands, the mother may have little choice (but to under-nourish her child). With abortion, there is a cognitive decision made to not only under-nourish, but to kill.
(6/3/06)

R0bert (post 2:37:14 PM 6/3/06)

Society made the decision to lessen the values of a (supposed) stable married life between two loving committed humans who had as one of their principal life-goals the raising of a family.

Often, our 2 'casual' "partners" live together with little thought of permanency, & with no/little planning to pro-create. Society has become self-centred & irresponsibly "pleasure-seeking".

With easy divorce laws & a disposability thinking, is it any wonder that at best (on average) 2 people create 1.7 offspring.

Any divorce, driven by greedy lawyers, can become a battle over assets - the children thereafter suffer.

Our solution to a diminishing birth-rate? Give $3000 as an incentive to each child born. That's very little assistance to a family, but hugely helpful to the under-privileged who are often less-stable.

To the 'modern' ladder-climbing, career-couple, an unwanted pregnancy is an inconvenience. Heaven forbid that they might have actually planned their life apart from their income-flow & their social life!
(6/3/06)

Cheers all

Littel[dis]AgreeabbleBuddy,

How many high school kids are you regularly in contact with? Have you read Dolly magazine lately? About 66% of 18 years have had sexual intercourse, and only those girls whose parents have their heads firmly in the sand are not on contraception. Just becuase daghter is a ugly or a dorky, nerd that's no guarantee that she isn't going to be very active when a fella notices her.

if the woman miscarries that's not abortion and doesn't entail a death certificate or funeral. The death of an person under 12 months is infanticide and that's dealt with differently to murder.

Meg1 I have only heard of doctors giving lethal injections to full term babies in China under the one-child policy. It doesn't happen in Australia.

I have seen children who were born at 24 weeks gestation and they look like there's a kangaroo lose in the top paddock, but no responsible health professional in Australia wants to perform abortions after 12 weeks.

So fellas and Meg1 if you do not like abortion then do not have sexual intercourse.

Meg1 and LAB - I just found this "CELL LEADER, INTERN TRAINING" manual on the tram and I wondered which stage you were stuck in?
exploration - no
transition - no
communnity - no
outreach - encourage members to make interaction with unbelievers as way of life - yes

Laurie,

You already made the 'decision' when you had sexual intercourse. Becoming pregnant is a natural consequence of having sex. Sorry love, but it isn't your body there's a human being inside of you and it is just as alive at the 3-4 month mark than it is at the 6 month mark. Here's some advice, treat other people the way you would like to be treated and that includes the UNBORN, because they are alive even if they are inside of you.

Hi all

Rex (post 3:25:33 PM 8/3/06)

Thanks for a good posting - free of emotive, mud-slinging abuse. I'm nonetheless opposed to abortion because it destroys the foetus - murder.

Recent medical research suggests that:
(1) "electrical activity in the brain of a foetus can be detected at 5 weeks";
(2) the heart beats before 10-weeks;
(3) "fingerprints are there at 7 weeks";
(4) at 10-weeks the foetuss blood-group is distinct - separate from the mother's;
(5) "pain receptors are operating at 9 weeks";
(6) et alii.

In several countries they have apparently recently passed a law(s) making it mandatory to anaesthesise the unborn prior to aborting it. Why, if the foetus isn't a feeling/thinking entity?

In NSW, if the foetus of a woman injured in a motor vehicle accident is killed, the culpable driver may be charged with manslaughter. Why is abortion any different?

The link which you gave is indeed a balanced text - provided one accepts that abortion is not murder.

I am concerned about the unmonitored risks & likely deaths of RU-486. Risk impacts when one's own loved-one dies.
(9/3/06)

billie (post 11:42:26 AM 9/3/06)

I could probably try to insult you, by distorting your name, too. But I won't lower to your standard.

Teenagers are part of my life. Dolly Magazine shouldn't dictate the thinking of Australian youth. Whatsmore, the editorial staff aren't teenagers.

A high proportion of 15-year olds are sexually active. That doesn't make it right - nor does it signify maturity. To the contrary. [The memoirs of my sexually-active 13-year old niece are disturbing. Permissive parents. Dysfunctional child.]

You wrongly assume (from your inference) that I'm almost a "sheltered individual". My background as a relatively well-known musician would dispell that thought.

Who said that infanticide isn't murder? Look up the definition of murder. The law is reflected by the surrounding culture. The law isn't necessarily right.

10-week old foetuses are pretty clearly human. A kangaroo at 24-weeks? Do you use hallucinogens?
(10/3/06)

maker (post 7:17:38 PM 9/3/06)

Good, simple, honest, factual comments.

The reality is: the foetus IS living.
(10/3/06)

Cheers all

I'm sorry maker but I disagree. I believe there are shades of grey, that life has shades of grey where something may be live and have potentiality but is not yet 'human'.

I agree Laurie.

If only life was just so simple, so black and white.....

Unfortunately life means making decisions, often very difficult ones. There are many instances where we must be cruel to be kind. I attended the euthanasia of my elderly cat not so long ago when he suddenly developed throat cancer. It was inoperable, the best I could do was rest his head in my hand as the vet administered that final sleep. This was a more peaceful death than choking to death which was the alternative.

We all see things differently and there are those who believe that foetuses are more important than the well being of women and more important than the environment into which they may be born. I find this view difficult to understand. The simple fact is sometimes a choice has to be made and it is best that that choice be available, safe and timely.

As a species, humans are already overpopulating the environment while exterminating other plants and animals, yet the anti-abortionists care not about any of this. Very strange. Very sad.

Laurie, an unborn child is not a potential human being, but a human being with potential - just as we all are. Embryo, foetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult and geriatric are just names we give to human life at different stages of development. There are no shades of grey in this, whatever you may prefer to think. The unborn child does not suddenly become human at say 6 months when you concede it may have some rights. If that were so, what was he or she beforehand - animal, mineral or vegetable? No, the scientific fact is that from the time of conception the unborn child has 46 chromosomes and is therefore human - needing only time, nutrition, oxygen and shelter to develop into a unique and precious individual such as you or me.

Maracas, abortion is not a religious issue, as it is not a matter of faith or doctrine. Just because churches have policies on social issues such as abortion or Aboriginal affairs does not make these religious issues. Abortion is a human rights and women's health issue.

Billie, you say that of the people you know who have had an abortion, none has expressed regret. You should read the moving book "Giving Sorrow Words" by Melinda Tankard Reist, containing the stories in their own words of 14 Australian women who had abortions. There is a psychological price to be paid by every women who has an abortion. Although the initial reaction of many post-abortive women is relief, remorse often follows - sometimes years later.

With every abortion, the toll is one dead, one wounded. This is why pro-life pregnancy counselling services also offer post-abortion counselling.

To be pro-woman is to be pro-life

"abortion is not a religious issue, as it is not a matter of faith or doctrine. Just because churches have policies on social issues such as abortion or Aboriginal affairs does not make these religious issues. Abortion is a human rights and women's health issue."

--- I wish people would accept that about Islam and Muslims too!

Big Al, presuming you are, as you say, 'pro-woman', would you/do you support abortion when the continuation of the pregnancy threatens the woman's life? Such as if she has a weak heart and the extra strain of pregnancy will damage her heart beyond repair?

Scout,
I support current NSW law:- abortions justified on the grounds of threatened health to the mother or baby. However the majority of abortions 20/1 are for matters of conveinence to abort perfectly healthy babies from healthy mothers.

Quote, "We all see things differently and there are those who believe that foetuses are more important than the well being of women..."

Big Al,
Good post! There are those that believe the prenatal baby is not human in an endeavour to salve their conscience from guilt after destroying a human life.
_______________________

It's surprising how many women joining the Church in their fifties +, who've had an abortion, come desiring a confession of feelings of guilt they have carried for that traumatic decision of their youth and want comfort and assurance of forgivness by God. They confess they have never forgiven themselves for that decision, as the child would now be 20 - 30 years old and part of their lives.

One Church my friends attend had one woman give her testimony how she found peace from years of carrying guilt. During those years she was antagonistic to the Church, had no contact with the church and did not want to either. Recently she joined that Church and that abortion experience was one thing she felt she had to confess to God as it had subconsciously worried her ever since.

Upon sharing her experience of finding reconciliation and peace 8 other women in that small congreation identified they had been carrying the same feelings of guilt but were not able to share. After shedding tears together they then asked for forgivness from God and through this shared experience was able to support each other and find peace.

Abortion is not a decision taken lightly that has no side effects on the self esteem of a woman. It is not the same as killing a cocaroach that we can easily forget. No! It's part of ourselves we are destroying, a part at the time we hated about ourselves. The result of our foolish decision or lack of judgment at the time.

Scout,

Just in case you didn't notice we are talking about abortion here, not about what damage humans do to the envrionment. That is a totally separate issue. No-one has the right to kill a baby just because there are too many humans around.

Here we are back on abortions.

People deciding what is and what is not human.

So lets cut the hyperbole and talk facts

Fact 1 an unfertilised egg and sperm are both of “human” origin and thus product resulting from the fusion of these two is likewise “human” but that does not make it a “baby”.

Fact 2 the unfertilised egg and sperm are not “dead”. They do not possess ”life” as such but they are active healthy cells capable of developing into a life form.

Fact 3 whilst it might be “human” and whilst it might be “healthy and capable of developing into a life form”, an egg unfertilised or a sperm, whilst being human, are not “independent life forms”.

When an egg is fertilised it is still not a “baby”.
It might be “works-in-progress” but not a "human baby".

Now an abortion debate based on the biology is not going to achieve anything.

Abortion is a conscious decision of human will intervening to override “biology”.

The question is at what point and who might have right to make that decision to intervene, or not.

We have a whole group of people who believe no one should have the right to make the decision. Unfortunately, these people are not held accountable for that opinion.

Then we have the majority of people who are supported by the law and believe

The decision is a private one, not a matter for public debate or inquisition.
The maker of the decision is accountable for the outcome of that decision.
Only those who are accountable should be involved in making any decision.

I don’t persecute anyone for their faith or view. However, I do not tolerate the idea that their faith or view should place expectations on me.

Supporting “choice” places individuals where they belong, at the pinnacle of the “social order” and not subordinate to someone else’s socio / political / religious view.


Philo “…result of our foolish decision...”

only through making decisions (good or bad and facing / living with the consequences) does anyone grow toward their potential.

hellothere

how is alan baker's article misleading??

Laurie

Yes, of course I would support any medically essential abortions where, in the opinion of competent doctors, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life - although this would be extremely rare.

Let me give you three examples, although as they are operations designed to save the life of the mother, it could be argued that they are not abortions, as abortion is an operation whose primary purpose is to kill the unborn child.

TUBAL PREGNANCY - As there is only a very small chance that an embryo lodged in the fallopian tube would survive attached to the abdomen when the tube bursts, and there is huge risk that if nothing is done the mother will die or be seriously harmed, no reasonable person would be opposed to medical intervention to remove the embryo (which has the secondary effect of causing his or her death).

CANCER OF THE WOMB DURING PREGNANCY - If a hysterectomy is not performed, the chances are both mother and baby will die. In this case, if the baby is past the age of viability (20 to 23 weeks), he or she will be put in a humidicrib; whereas if a premmie baby was born alive in a late-term abortion, he or she would be left to die.

PRE-ECLAMPSIA - If this unusual condition occurs (generally in the latter stages of pregnancy), the birth needs to be induced or an emergency caesarian section done to save both the mother's life and the baby's (if he or she is past the age of viability, all reasonable efforts are made to save him or her.

More than 20 years ago, the world's most foremost fetologist, NZ doctor Sir William Liley, said: "The only thing medical about abortions is that doctors do them and must handle the complications afterwards. No matter how bad mother's heart disease, renal complaint, diabetes or mental illness, no one would be suggesting an abortion was essential IF mother wanted the baby."

In the vast majority of cases, abortion creates more problems for the woman than it solves.

Big Al “In the vast majority of cases, abortion creates more problems for the woman than it solves.”

That might well be so but

Those women are not human incubators nor are they vassals of a social order or hierarchy.

They are sovereign individuals who have a right to decide how their bodies will be used.

Should they find the abortion creates more problems than it solves, then that is their lot to deal with and grow from the experience.

Denying them the right to choose abortion excludes them from the opportunity to develop as individuals and provides them with an excuse to blame society for their ensuing circumstances.

I have no doubt the psychological effects of abortion are, in the long term, serious and significant but reducing women to the level of breeding stock by placing the rights of an embryo above their individual right to choose is a far more debilitating burden and shows contempt for their individual rights.

Hi all

Col Rouge (post 5:25:17 AM 11/3/06)

"Here we are back on abortions ... People deciding what is and what is not human." Uhhh? When did this post by Alan BAKER ever claim to be anything but a discussion about abortion?

Determining when life begins is foundational to any abortion argument. The discussion isn't, & shouldn't be, only about women. Anti-prolifers try to qualify the life of the foetus beyond conception. Well, is it at:
a) 10-weeks;
b) 20-weeks;
c) 24-weeks;
d) 36-weeks;
e) 52-weeks;
f) or, some other predetermined stage which suits another argument?

If it's 9-weeks, 5-days & 23-hours, how would one prove it? My wife's gynaecologist was more than 3-weeks in error for our first-born - we never considered abortion. When Troy "didn't arrive on time", my wife was induced. The specialist (an 'expert') was still wrong - he admitted it.
(12/3/06)

maker (post 12:21:14 AM 12/3/06)

Exactly!
(13/3/06)

Big Al (post 9:40:01 AM 12/3/06)

I would struggle with the scenarios you presented, because the foetus will be destroyed. However, my priority would remain, my wife - even in preference to my children.

Sir William sounds like a moral pragmatician.

I concur with your final comment. But the 'problem' for the foetus is always understated, & the joint-culpability of the parents is often ignored. Abortion merely eradicates the 'problem'.
(13/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 5:47:56 PM 13/3/06)

".. women are not human incubators ..". Fortunately, they were made to partially be just that. But in the process, they shouldn't be treated as a chattel.

Nor was womankind meant to become "a sex-machine" to subdue man's lusts. Women have a right to say "No!", & a responsibility to say it when they're fertile & don't want a child.

It is the man's responsibility to be a co-planner in that process. He has a voice. Why is his brain so often 'placed' in his genitals?

Mankind constantly blames everyone else for his errors . It isn't the foetus' fault that 2-humans couldn't abstain or take precautions. Why should it become the "scapegoat"?
(14/3/06)

Cheers all

Col,
Your attitudes are contemtuous toward woman who choose to have children, especially noticable by this comment: Quote, ".. but reducing women to the level of breeding stock".

This is contemtous of the fact that women do actually carry all pregnancies. It is time you learned the facts of life and told the truth with respect. I suggest you consider this when talking to your mother [breeding stock] about your gestation in her womb.

In our society women can have a right to choose not to have children. There is a simple word. NO! If she is forced into sex against her will and a child is conceived then; that is not her choice. So subsequently it is not her choice that she follows by having an abortion. This is not the life she choose? Her resulting choices are not her will for her life. There were other events preceeding where she had real choices.

There is no law in NSW that gives the absolute right to a woman to choose an abortion as a means of contraception - The legal grounds are on the clinical advise of her Doctor who feels she or the childs life is in danger if the pregnancy continues. The choice is not merely based in the decision of the mother- "I want this child aborted" no clinical reason. Which then places you in contempt and incitment to break the law. A Doctor who has taken an oath to protect life cannot in all good conscience destroy a healthy child.

LAB “Nor was womankind meant to become "a sex-machine" to subdue man's lusts. Women have a right to say "No!", & a responsibility to say it when they're fertile & don't want a child.”

Where have you ever seen me suggest they should be “sex-machines to subdue mans lust”. I have known a few who have been “sex-machines” intent on satiating their own lust, does that count?

Have I suggested women are not allowed to say “No”, not-with-standing my personal experience, plenty have been eager to say “Yes”.

“Determining when life begins is foundational to any abortion argument.”

“Life” began for the pregnant woman a lot sooner than the life of the embryo/foetus.
I respect the woman’s right of priority over her own body before I recognise any right you might seek to ascribe to the embryo / foetus.

However, I would disagree with your assumption that determining when life begins is the foundation to any abortion debate.

Determining when “independent life” begins possibly and that is at moment of birth. Prior to that event, the embryo / foetus is a subordinate user of the woman’s bodily resources and being subordinate (the woman herself being the primary user), takes second place to the woman.

“Mankind constantly blames everyone else for his errors.”

Speak for yourself. I don't!
To get anyone people to accept responsibility for their actions (including erroneous ones) can only be done by giving them authority to make choices. Otherwise you are merely providing people with an excuse for poor parenting by forcing them into a decision against their will.

Choice imposes the responsibility which you seem to want people to accept yet you fear the implication of them exercising it.

I suggest you sort yourself out before handing down edicts for others to follow.

Philo “Your attitudes are contemtuous toward woman”

Rubbish !

I have said nothing against women having children.

We are all individuals. It is a woman’s choice to have or not to have children. I always respect their choice.

You, contemptuously, want to subvert them to you own personal will by denying them choice.

Philo

Col Rouge and I are from opposite sides of the universe politically, however in all our exchanges, whether we have been in disagreement or not, I have never ever felt any misogyny on Col's part. He has certainly been rude, arrogant and insulting, but not ever at my expense as a female.

If anything his posts reveal a lot of respect for women, ooops, except maybe for Meg1. (Col, I am blonde!).

You claim you have counselled abused women. Given your condescension towards me I would never turn towards you for counsel, but I would consider Col. I know that I would receive an honest POV, whether I liked it or not.

You are really clutching at straws trying to make out that Col has no respect for women.

Scout “You are really clutching at straws trying to make out that Col has no respect for women.”

Thankyou for your statement Scout.

I would endeavour to be as honest as possible should I ever need to counsel anyone.

I would put them first and not any religious or moral values of my own, which they might not share.

I believe in treating individuals as individuals and all as equals and worthy of equal respect.

Hence, matters of gender, race, etc. do not figure in my “valuation” of people, merely the qualities they present as individuals(hence, matters of affirmative action I find morally offensive because the very nature of affirmative action is to treat people not as equals).

I even accept people will find God in their own way. Hence I accept some people will think they will find it through organised religion.

Just as some here carry on about women who abort making “bad choices”, I see those who believe the rubbish spewed out by “organised religions” are merely making their own bad choices, for which, one day they will realise the truth and live with the consequences of a life wasted in pursuit of that religious bad choice.

Scout and Col rouge,

You make me sick. We don't care how much you love each other. This isnt a chat room to find a companion. So leave the crap out of your posts and get a life!!

Maker “You make me sick. We don't care how much you love each other. This isnt a chat room to find a companion. So leave the crap out of your posts and get a life!!”

I see you are all for declaring your position and making valid comment to the topic at hand.

I for one could not care less how “sick” you feel.

I could go on ad-nauseum about the nausea which I associate with troll’s who think anyone else cares about the delicacy of their temperament.

As for the abortion debate. I see it as all about individual women deciding, for themselves and free of duress from any other person exactly how their body will be used. It is not about biology. It is not about foetal development. It is about Choice.

I support every individuals right to determine, for themselves exactly how their body will be used. I do that for one reason.

Whatever they choose will affect, first and foremost themselves. It will have no influence over me, my life and what I do. It will have no impact on you, your life and what you will do.

Since it will not affect my life and I will bear no responsibility for their decision, I should not hold any sway over their choice. Likewise, you should hold no sway or have any say either.

Oh the matter of the embryo/foetus. Prior to the moment of birth it is and always has been deemed a part of the woman and as an “attachment” to her body. Moan and wail all you want, it is not a separate person. It has no identity as an “individual” and thus, can make no claim to protection from the cohabitant of the woman’s body in which it is developing, under the laws which we apply when dealing with separate individuals.

Now I suggest you too “get a life” and stop trying to live vicariously by interfering in the lives of pregnant women who do not know you and could not give a stuff about you or our personal beliefs.

Col rouge,

I thought id give you the benefit of the doubt before but you clearly are ignorant. "Prior to the moment of birth it is and always has been deemed a part of the woman and as an “attachment” to her body." You're not even talking facts and as you said about me you are stating your personal belief. Who has it been deemed by anyway. This issue is not something you can "deem". It's about facts. you can't deem when a child is alive. it's black and white, there is no grey area. The report by Market Facts implies that the majority of Australians think that the unborn baby is alive and a separate individual otherwise 51% of Aussies wouldn't be against abortion for non medical reasons. You're talking about the minority when you say it is and always has been deemed........

Maker ” but you clearly are ignorant.”

Prior to the mid 19th century, abortion was not a criminal offence. Criminalisation existed for little more than 100 years. Legal interpretation deems it has been “illegal” for a lot less time than is has been legal

Fact is maker, it is not your body involved and you, therefore do not have the right to interfere in the decisions of the person whose body it is.

That is what matters, the right to exercise freewill. We all have it and it is our prerogative to exercise it.

As for surveys

“Almost two-thirds of Australians support the idea of abortion being legally available”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/Australians-ambivalent-about-abortion-survey/2005/05/02/1114886298279.html?oneclick=true

“"The group has previously refused to provide a copy of the questions used in the research," Senator Allison said.”
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/?press_id=4671

“…doubt on the credibility of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute survey on attitudes to abortion at the same time as it emerged that the 'independent, non-sectarian and autonomous' Institute is essentially controlled by the conservative Catholic Knights of the Southern Cross.”

http://www.onlinecatholics.com.au/issue51/print.php?page=all

Before you yawn on about surveys, I suggest you come up with an honest one.

Until you do, my research tells me that most people believe that individuals know best for themselves and their decisions invariably produce better outcomes than decisions which are forced up on them by un-involved, meddling and interfering busybodies.

As for me being "ignorant", think what you want, a review of your posts is hardly a scintillating experience.

"maker" indeed, I doubt you could make your mind up without "dogma" to direct you in your every action

I think that Australians, as a whole, tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves and act with whatever emotion they are feeling. This, combined with whatever we've been swallowing lately in the media tends to give, I think, an inaccurate depiction of what Australians really think.

There was so much public outrage at the last legal execution in Australia that we were forced to abolish capital punishment. Now, apparently most of us support it. A yes or no vote on what Australians think is insufficient because it fails to address the sociological reasons behind our choices.

I think we should be wary of statistics formed from quantitative research and realise that 1 + 1 may not always equal 2.

Finally, I think there's a reason why important decisions aren't placed in the hands of the general public. We could put it to the people that we should have twenty more public holidays a year and I dare say most people would answer "yes", in the heat of the moment. Not so sure how good it would be for the country through.

In summary, emotions are strong yet fleeting, and usually irrational; statistics can be very misleading since numbers have no names or faces, and there are procedures in place for determining what "should" and "should not" be and, while they aren't perfect, are certainly safer than the notion of letting the mobs decide.

I am pro abortion and pro abortion pill, however, I think that much more should be done to prevent conception. Why not hand out contraception freely, without costs, to anyone from say the age of 15?
Countries (e.g. The Netherlands) with the most liberal abortion and contraception laws have the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies, as well as the lowest abortion rates in the world!
Having strict anti-abortion laws does not prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I'd be interested to look further into such statistics, Celivia. Do you know of any reliable sources?