Shocka said, “I haven't *once* suggested banning abortion outright.”

So what? You’re just using weasel words to wriggle yourself out of answering the question.
You still want other people to decide in what kind of situation a woman should or should not be allowed to have an abortion.
Oppressive? Much!

So a good reason you say you would approve of abortion is when the woman's life is in danger.

What if a woman feels suicidal because she is forced to give birth? Is her life in danger then?
Will she get approval then?

ANd would she have to just threaten to kill herself or would she actually have to have survived an attempted suicide before she could get approval for abortion?

We already learnt from history that women DID and HAVE risked their lives by having unsafe, illegal abortions rather than give birth. It’s still happening in countries where abortion is illegal.
What does it tell you if women rather die than give birth?

So tell us, should the abortions that don’t pass your so-called high moral standards be illegal and criminalised or not?

If you think abortion should be decriminalised then what are we arguing about? You then support decriminalisation of abortion like we all do. Join the club!

If you think abortion should be illegal and criminalised unless they fall within your so-called high moral standards, then go back to my previous post and answer that question.
What kind of punishments should be attached to abortion?
Because criminalizing something won’t have a point if there is no piunishment attached, is there?

So tell me, shocka, what should happen to all the other women who have abortions for other reasons than those which you approve of?
Go back to my previous post and answer the question if you are able.
Answer it and make our day :P

Shocka ”By your argument, a sadistic woman can torture, deform or maim her unborn, whilst it remains within her own body.”

Such a desperate act (sadistic woman etc) would parallel the desperation of your posts and as such does not merit comment - other than

your question

“By your own argument, Little Miss Psycho can do all of this and more, because its in her body, and her "rights" prevail at all times.”

Pursuit of such depravity would be no different to insisting she be subjugated to your whim.

The difference between "life" and "mere existence" is the right to exercise ones cognitive ability when it comes to decision making, especially in matters private and intimate.

You demqand to deny a woman the right of decission over her own body. YOu demand a pregnant woman’s “life” reduced to a "mere existence" and all to assuage your sense of moral righteousness.

That would hold her victim to the “sadistic whimsy” of your perverse sense of self-righteousness and opinion.

I would not seek to inflict such a burden on anyone.

I would see every woman decide for herself and live with the consequences of her decision, secure in the knowledge that, whatever the outcome, she, the woman, will grow spiritually through accepting the sole responsibility for her action and avoid being forced into subordination to the likes of you.

Margaret Thatcher was no anarchist. That you seem to confuse her (and my) anti-socialist sentiment with anarchy demonstrates why further explanation would be wasted on the likes of you.

Cevilia “Answer it and make our day :P”

Have you not witnessed enough of Shocka’s self-righteous hysteria, hyperbole and crass ignorance?

"You're just using weasel words to wriggle out of answering the question."

I was always discussing the *morality* of abortion, not the legality.

Wasn't this clear enough: "Criticising something, even on moral grounds, doesn't automatically imply supporting criminalisation."

Celivia, what is your IQ?

"Should abortions that don't pass your standards be illegal and criminalised?"

They already are.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp01.htm

Though you claim expertise, you're apparently unaware that abortion is already unlawful, without certain *exceptional circumstances* to "justify" it.

Without these laws, people could punch or stab pregnant women to kill their foetuses and they'll have commited *no crime* besides assault!

Abortions are permissible on "reasonable grounds":
physical and mental health; sometimes socioeconomic, fetal defects and rape.

"If you think abortion should be decriminalised...
You then support decriminalisation..."

No I don't.
I think the laws are fine as they are.

They punish psychos who want to kill babies, by punching and stabbing pregnant women on the street.

What if a doctor performed abortions *without* his patients' consent?
Without "unlawful" abortion on the books, Dr Psycho could do as he pleased, without punishment.

"What kind of punishments?"

The ones that already exist.

Which would result in a prison sentence for Dr Psycho, who perfoms random abortions on unsuspecting patients, and roaming gangs of belly punchers.

Is is all clear to you now?

Col Rouge: "Such a desperate act (sadistic woman) does not merit comment"

Not even to *condemn* her behaviour?
That says it all.

"You demand to deny a woman...
You demand a pregnant woman's "life"....." blah blah blah.

I don't *demand* anything.

This is all your own *presumptions*.

Because you have a simplistic approach (legal on demand) to a highly controversial subject, you presume anybody voicing criticism must, like you, have an equally simplistic dogmatic alternative.

This is all in your head (plenty of room in there).

"With our thoughts, we make the World".
And with your presumptions, you make my "agenda".

"You confuse my anti-socialist sentiment with anarchy".

You support individualism without "society".
Yet you also support *democracy*, which could produce very anti-individualist laws based on "false" societal standards.

Please explain.

Celivia: "We already learnt from history that women DID and HAVE risked their lives by having unsafe, illegal abortions rather than give birth."

Because of the shame of premarital sex, a shame that largely no longer exists.

Let's say it's 1953.
Susie and Billy get hot and heavy in the Chevy.

If Susie went to the family doctor, *everyone in town* would know she was a "slut" and a "whore", and would look at her sideways for the rest of her life!

Best to keep it quiet.
Then the neighbours won't talk.

Theoretically, if she went to the doctor, she and her doctor could have been prosecuted.

But nobody has ever gone to prison for abortion in Australia, as far as I know, even *before* the late sixties/early seventies cases that established the "reasonable grounds" defence.

If you know of such an imprisonment, please share.

Shocka “Because you have a simplistic approach “

I see the abortion issue as a simple issue.

An embryo develops within the pregnant woman’s body, entirely dependent upon the woman for nutients, oxygen etc.
That makes the embryo a subordinate dependent to the woman.

However, every person has sovereignty over their own body

That makes any expectations it, you or anyone else might have for the embryo subordinate to the woman’s own choices.

Of course, the moment of birth is the point at which the absolute dependency on the mother’s resources ceases and the "newborn" is recognized as being an independent entity (regardless that he/she still needs caring for).

“Yet you also support *democracy*, which could produce very anti-individualist laws based on "false" societal standards.”

“Real people” deal with “what actually happens”; not what might happen as a consequence of the myriad of “hypotheticals” which might be based on “false societal standards”

I would suggest, if you feel compelled to make such statements, that you need to spend more time mixing with “real people”.

Col Rouge "what actually happens" in democratic governments (elected by "real people") is they spend lots of time considering "what might happen as a consequence of the myriad of hypotheticals" when formulating laws.

Yet, you who supposedly supports democracy want to change the laws so created.
Hypocrite.

I want the law the way it is: abortion must be justified on reasonable grounds.
You can't just kill willy nilly.
There must be a *justifiable* reason.

The soldier kills the enemy to protect his nation.
The doctor provides euthanasia to relieve the insufferable pain of incurable illness.
The state executes the serious criminal.

All these could be said to be "reasonable grounds" to take a life.
But without "reasonable grounds", you can't kill.

The soldier who massacres civilians is a *war criminal*.
The doctor who kills *any* patient he feels like is a murderer.
The state would be unjustified in executing somebody for a *minor* offence like littering.

As you see, the morality of killing is *relative* to the situation.

"On demand" removes this relative judgement, as says it's *always* okay to terminate pregnancies.

There's no absolute "Right to Life".
Life is just our default setting.
We're here, we're queer.

There is however a "Right to Kill, But Only in Certain *Extremely Limited* Circumstances".

Without those circumstances, then no "Right to Kill".
Whether you're a soldier, doctor, state or pregnant woman.

If "on demand" existed, Little Miss Psycho could get pregnant, just to torture the poor creature for a few months, then have it aborted "on demand".
*No justification required*.
Then repeat the process over and over again.

This is why I have no interest in liberalising abortion law.
The *potential* abuses.

All my arguments were based on showing the immorality of elective induced abortion, irrespective of its legality.
And showing the shallowness of your defensive arguments, based on "Science as God" and corrupted liberalism.

If I can convince women by argument that it's wrong, they won't have abortions even if they're legal.
To do this I must be able to freely speak my mind.
That's my "agenda".