Gerrit.... maaaaate

I guess being christian means never having to be honest or accountable or even responsible.

Your last post as a prime example of christian 'values', apart from holding women solely responsible for pregnancy - you also managed to cheat the word limit by your final paragraph as follows:

"I am glad that at least I have been able to assist those young women to understand that their child has as much a right to be born as any other person had when they were born. Had-it-not-been-those-young-women-would-have-been-dead-as-much-as-their-(then)-unborn-babies-and-this-is-the-dire-consequences-those-freaks-do-not-realise-can-result-from-all-their-egoistic-conduct."

Hyphenating words to trick the word limit rule is cheating and not playing by the OLO rules, maaaate.

Blaming women for pregancy; last time I checked it still took two - not counting virgin pregnancies of course ;-)and then forcing these same women to bring their babies to term is dictatorial, controlling AND judgemental, Mr Gerrit, maaaate. Are you so free of sin that you can tell others how to live?

And calling people freaks is just plain rude.

If you want to lead people into your faith, how about living by example? I know this may be a little radical for you to contemplate, but telling others how to live and cheating your way to do so is simply sick, sad and pathetic.

You are an embarrassment to your faith, maaaate!

Schorel-Hlavka “all taxpayers are paying”

All tax payers pay for single parent pensions.

I do not defend my position by qualifying how government should spend my tax dollars but I will match every example of such inane debating practice which you can muster.

“100,000 a year abortions hardly can be deemed to be just mistakes.”

"mistakes" made by 100,000 individuals.

A better result than a small lobby of opinionated fascists who insist on forcing those 100,000 women to go “underground” to use unsafe abortion practices.

“how it was cheaper to have an abortion then to spend their money on protective items”

So too, parents who spend their dole cheques on drugs and booze instead of feeding their children.

I am not responsible for the poor moral standards of some cognitive individuals and would not expect all people to qualify to be so judged with them.

“The fathers obligation having to pay also gives him a right to have the child, and not that suddenly the baby is aborted.”

As a male and a father, I would disagree with you. It was not my body which was tested in gestating my daughters into this world but my ex-wife’s. The risks the mother faces in pregnancy are far more serious than any the father faces, which gives her an overwhelming precedence in any decision on abortion.

David Palmer “foetus like it is a piece of garbage.”

I have never referred to a foetus as such. That such rhetoric is within your vocabulary says more about you than it does about me.

My position, regarding abortion, is simple,

We all have sovereignty over our bodies and their functions.

If, to suit your demands, a woman is denied the right to make her own sovereign choices over her own body, it means her place and stature in society, for the term of her pregnancy, is reduced to being the life support system for a uterus and the foetus which it contains.

You might be happy with disrespecting all womens’ individual sovereign rights in such a way but I certainly am not.

Here's how its all hanging in Victoria.

Premier Brumby is looking towards decriminalising abortion - finally.

A giant step for women's autonomy. Despite Gerrit's spurious assumptions, women can and do think for themselves. here's a little excerpt from an Age article from Liberty Victoria.

"Liberty Victoria's position on this issue starts from a number of basic premises. First, that women have the intellectual and moral capacity to make decisions about their own fertility"..............and
Third, Liberty Victoria supports freedom of religion and a person's right to make free decisions in their choice of religious faith.

However, Liberty does not believe that personal religious belief should govern public policy. Ministers do not have a right to impose their religious views on the public nor should Parliament allow them to do so.

Coercion has no place in fertility and reproduction decisions.

In a free and democratic society it is not the proper role of government to intervene in the most personal decisions of families or individuals about their consensual sexual activity. Neither should government interfere in decisions on how many children couples wish to have or how often they should have children. Such interventions are more commonly found in the family policies of totalitarian regimes and have no place in a democratic society that respects the human rights of all its citizens."

For the full article click on link below:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/abortion-give-women-the-power-to-decide/2007/08/20/1187462164340.html

Cheers

Dears

Johnny Rotten, first of all I do not practice any religion and as such my views are not based whatsoever on religious doctrines.
.
Also, while it is unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to make any religious laws it is another thing for the states. They are permitted to outlaw any religion if that is what they desire to do so. They can outlaw any religious practice if they desire to do so. That was specifically left as legislative powers to the States. Thereby any cruelty customs by any religion could be prohibited by a State!
.
A simplified example;

If you own a car then you can decide to use the car as you like. No one can force you to drive the car outside your property. In side your property you can use it as you like, however the moment you drive it of your property there are different set of rules. You become liable to road rules,. Liable for passengers, liable for pedestrians, animals, etc. by taking the car outside your personal domain you by this decided to be willing to submit yourself to the rights and obligations of others also. Likewise so with a woman, when she takes her body outside and use it with another person to conceive she has bound herself to his rights and so any child conceived.
.
Aborting children because of being of a gender different then wanted, because the child might have some disabilities, etc, is going the path of HITLER to seek to build a superior race!
.
Too many unborn babies were already aborted only to discover that they were after all not suffering as what was assumed, and so wrongly for this also aborted!
.
Children (including unborn babies) should not be judged upon their abilities, etc, as many parents can say that no matter what problem such a child has they are no less a child and loved then other children.

Col Rouge says “My position, regarding abortion, is simple, we all have sovereignty over our bodies and their functions….. You might be happy with disrespecting all women’s’ individual sovereign rights in such a way but I certainly am not.”

But it is not really as simple as this, is it?

Question: Why does a woman wish for abortion?

Answer: Because she was impregnated by a man.

So you are saying her sovereignty includes an action and a consequence she regrets so much she seeks an abortion? This doesn't make sense to me. We aren’t just that sovereign, as demonstrated by her "sovereign action" having led to an unintended consequence.

The thing you miss and to me it is perversely so, is that if anyone wants to claim rights then they must accept responsibility, ie the consequence of their action – in this case a most wondrous thing, a developing human being in that most perfect of (temporary) homes, the womb.

Where I sympathise with the woman is in the failure of men to accept their responsibility which means making a commitment to a woman before expecting to share her bed and make a baby. Amoral modern day men by and large are either barbarians or wimps. Take your pick. Barbarians take what they can get with the woman as a victim, whilst the wimp seems to support the woman, “talks the feminist talk”, but is no better because when a pregnancy results he wimps out.

I notice that you object to my expression, “foetus - like it is a piece of garbage.” – but of course that is exactly how the unborn child is treated after his/her removal from the womb.

Celivia,

Thank you for your response. I’ve had a busy day and will get back tomorrow to your post which I would like to interact with.

"Likewise so with a woman, when she takes her body outside and use it with another person to conceive she has bound herself to his rights and so any child conceived."

Hang on whoah. If a woman agrees to have sex with a guy, thats
all she has agreed on. Having children is another story.

Stop trying to turn women into your broodmares with no rights.
The world has moved on a little, thankfully.