"Abortion remains unlawful unless it is justified under the (amended) health legislation in that State, which now permits abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy if one of four grounds is satisfied. The first ground essentially allows abortion 'on request,' provided a second, independent medical practitioner has counselled the pregnant woman about any medical risks associated with abortion and has offered to refer her for counselling about other matters associated with the abortion."

Shocka, thats a snip about abortion law in WA, from your URL.

What that basically says is that abortion on demand is legal in
WA. It working fine, no problems. There is no good reason
why the rest of Australia cannot adopt the same laws

Shocka, you obviously put a lot of effort into writing your posts. More effort than I can be bothered with to read all of it.

However, I will pull this gem out of the dross

“All my arguments were based on showing the immorality of elective induced abortion, irrespective of its legality.”

All my arguments are based on showing the immorality of your expectation of demanding women, you have never met, that they are not allowed to exercise their own cognitive skill in deciding if to continue to be pregnant or to terminate the pregnancy. Irrespective of your self-righteousness.

And showing the shallowness of your defensive arguments, based on "Science as God" and corrupted liberalism.”

And showing the shallowness of your indefensible arguments, based on the “Shocka as God” doctrine and your self-righteous despotism.

Gosh guys,

I would have thought you had gone to sleep on this at least a month ago!!

I've got a new article on "Legislating Morality" which I will give to the powers that be in a couple of weeks.

Also been involved in the consultation process with the LRC re Hulls reference to them on decriminalising abortion.

Look forward to engaging with you all again in a few weeks time.

Love, bye for now

David

Yabby: "Abortion *remains unlawful* unless it is *justified*... permits abortion *up to 20 weeks* of pregnancy if *one of four grounds* is satisfied."

Are you correcting me or agreeing with me?
Didn't I just say abortion must be justified according to specific criteria!

Once again, you prove your incapacity to understand quite clear statements.

And your hostility to "superstitious" unscientific perspectives is rather ironic.

The ancients got the details wrong, but they respected natural processes, accepted Nature's capriciousness, and feared and respected its anomalies.

With the arrival of *puritanical monotheism* Man started to think he should *interfere* with nature, control it and perfect it.

You and your lab coated friends' mentality owe more to Christianity than you'd care to admit.

Col Rouge: "Shocka, you obviously put a lot of effort into writing your posts. More effort than I can be *bothered* with to read all of it."

Well, I suggest if you're going to argue with somebody in future, that you *actually read* what they write!
Otherwise you look like a pathetic moron.

"All my arguments are based on showing the immorality of your expectation of *demanding* women, ... they are *not allowed*... Your self-righteous despotism."

Deja vu?

Demanding!
Not Allowed!
Despotism!

Where did I say, in my *own* words (not your presumptions) that I want some Draconian regime?
(Oh that's right, you haven't actually read my posts.)

Stop presuming and *listen*!

Celivia: "Obviously the debate has been 'won' by the people with the best arguments"

Indeed it has.

But not by the people who don't read people's posts before responding.

Not by the people who debase the noble concept of liberalism to justify tearing apart the bodies of inconvenient or "defective" humans.

Not by the people who claim expertise, but don't know monkeys are primates or think that abortion is *already* legal on demand in WA.

Not by people who claim to support democracy, but *only* if it produces the outcome they've decided is *acceptable*.

People who don't know what *they* are saying or what their *opponent* is saying don't tend to win arguments.

"Didn't I just say abortion must be justified according to specific criteria!"

Ah Shocka, what those criteria are, is crucial! Under the new
WA laws, abortion comes under the health act. Abortion
is available on demand, as long as the person undertaking
the abortion is qualified and offers councelling. A bit
like brain surgery really. I doubt if you Shocka, can go
and attempt brain surgery, neither can you get out your
knitting needles to perform abortions. Fair enough.

The point is, its no longer part of the criminal act, but
part of the health act.

There is no good reason that the rest of Australia should
not adopt the same laws.

And yup, we don't want Shocka doing surgery of any kind, thats a wise
criteria :)

Yabby: "What those criteria are, is crucial!"

Well, DUH!
But there *are* criteria, aren't there?
It's not "anything goes", is it?

"Abortion comes under the health act. No longer part of the criminal act."

*All* laws are laws, regardless of which particular "act" they're listed under.
If you do not adhere to the regulations of the Health Act (or any other Act), you are a *criminal*.

Moving the topic from one act to another doesn't stop it being illegal if not done within the defined limits.

"As long as the person undertaking the abortion is qualified and offers councelling. A bit like brain surgery really.
I doubt if you Shocka, can go and attempt brain surgery, neither can you get out your knitting needles to perform abortions."

Well, DUH again!
Why would I want to!?

And *you* couldn't and shouldn't do anything for which you're not qualified either.
What is the point of these bleeding obvious statements?

I definitely couldn't attempt brain surgery on *you*.

"Scalpel. Oh my God!".
"Dr Shocka, what's wrong?"
"I don't believe it. This man has *no brain*!"
"Well, it does say on his chart that he's pro-choice."
"Ohh! ... Okay then, stitch him up. There's nothing we can do now."

"There is no good reason that the rest of Australia should not adopt the same laws."

No good reason?
Um, didn't you guys endorse *democracy* before?

Can't each of our governments "decide for themselves".
Or does that principle only apply to pregnant women, not democratically elected governments.

If an idea can be judged by the *people* who believe it, then "abortion on demand" must be the *stupidest* idea in the history of the world!