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.