The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abortion back on the agenda in Victoria > Comments

Abortion back on the agenda in Victoria : Comments

By David Palmer, published 13/8/2007

Abortion is bad and there are far too many of them. What are our politicians doing to reduce the numbers?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 55
  7. 56
  8. 57
  9. Page 58
  10. 59
  11. 60
  12. 61
  13. ...
  14. 64
  15. 65
  16. 66
  17. All
"It's not "anything goes", is it?"

You miss the point. Abortion in WA, is available
on demand.

"If you do not adhere to the regulations of the Health Act (or any other Act), you are a *criminal*."

There is a difference. Abortion is now mainly a health issue.
A "criminal" caught speeding, is different to one comitting much
more serious crimes.

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

Its to make sure that you can't use knitting needles. Its against
the law, as backyard abortions are dangerous to womens lives.

"What is the point of these bleeding obvious statements?"

Your ridiculous attempts at wordplay. The criteria state that
you need to be qualified. Read the legislation.

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

Yes, it was extensively debated in WA at the time. Something
like 90% of the public were for the new laws, a few fanatics
were agains them. The usual story.

You on this issue, are clearly in the small minority.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 4 November 2007 12:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernard Nathanson is a qualified medical doctor, board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

He was one of the *founding members* of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, known as NARAL Pro-Choice America.

He worked for the legalisation of abortion.

He was the *director* of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's *largest* abortion clinic, personally responsible for over 75,000 abortions.

Does this man qualify as an expert on the subject, Yabby?

He is now a *pro-life* activist.
He has publicly stated that the NARAL *faked* their statistics of deaths from illegal abortions to gain public support for law reform.

http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html

Quote: "We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by *fabricating* the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S.
The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was *1,000,000*.
Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.
The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually.
The figure we constantly fed to the media was *10,000*."

If one of the architects of the pro-choice movement, a doctor who performed 75000 abortions, admits they *fabricated statistics* and is now pro-life, what does that tell you?

The plaintiffs in the landmark "Roe v. Wade" and "Doe v. Bolton" cases, now seek to *overturn* the decisions and claim that they were *pawns*, lied to and manipulated.

And, of course, these "landmark" cases occurred *before* the development of ultrasound.

These American cases, in turn, influenced Australia's perception of the issue.

Your movement is based on *lies*.
One day *everybody* will know this.

You won't get 90% approval then.
You will get disgust.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 4 November 2007 3:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually."

Is that all Shocka? Who cares about a few hundred women? Have
you ever thought of obtaining some global figures, from more
unbiased sources, such as WHO or the Gutmacher Institute?
It seems not.

Instead, you rely on a person who has converted to becoming
a Catholic and clearly now wants his ticket to heaven.

Religious nuts role out this same example over and over.
Its been done to death, don't you have any new ideas?

You are as fanatical as they are Shocka.

"You won't get 90% approval then."

Dream on Shocka. BTW, next time you eat an egg and it happens
to be fertilised, tell me if its a chicken or an egg.

Reality does not go away, when you close your eyes and wish
it would.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 4 November 2007 3:42:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘He (Bernard Nathanson) has publicly stated that the NARAL *faked* their statistics of deaths from illegal abortions to gain public support for law reform.”

Hardly a reliable source for you to now seek reference material from.

I would note, no argument of mine relied on the statistics or findings of this person. I find it a reflection of desperation for you to now seek to introduce a fraudster are reference presumably to support your view.

It would seem to me, using statements like “Your movement is based on *lies*.” Is to pretend moral superiority whilst relying on the author of the “lies” to now be telling the truth.

I recall an old saying, “a Leopard does not change its spots”.

You may claim

“He is now a *pro-life* activist.”

The only thing to say about your reliance on this leopard, is that he is still as “spotty” he was when he was supposedly faking statistics.

As for “You will get disgust.”

The disgust is in the control freaks and manipulators who believe they have some divine right to direct people they do not know into conforming to their religious dogma.

The Church of Rome, despite what the Church of Rome believes it should be, is not the voice of God on earth.

The Pope is not infallible, any more than the Pope is chaste or virtuous, based on the corruption which has debased the role of Pope over the past or Roman Catholic priests were allowed to abuse children whilst the bishops covered up such perversions.

The anti-abortion movement is significantly financed and supported by the religious bigots of the papal empire. The same bigots whose predecessors castrated of young boys to sing for them and tortured and burnt to death anyone who dared stand up against them. The same bigots who claim that given a child of 5, within a few years they will have a devout Jesuit for life.

Illustrating that, like the anti-abortionists, the dumb/blind obedience (of sheep) to the will of papist dogma, matters more than the personal growth, sovereignty and free choice of individuals.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 5 November 2007 12:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby: "Who cares about a few hundred women?"

A few hundred people die every year from bee stings.
From peanut allergies.
From slipping on soap in the shower.

Are these urgent grave matters that must be addressed with legislation *immediately*!

No more bees! No more peanuts! No more soap, dammit!

Women who died from illegal abortions *knew* the risks and took them.
Kinda like getting in your car and driving on the freeway.
You know you *could* die. But you do it anyway.

"Its been done to death"
Nathanson hadn't been mentioned *once* in this thread until *I* mentioned him.

"Tell me if its a chicken or an egg."
I eat both chickens *and* eggs.
But I don't rip other humans to pieces and throw them in the garbage.

Col Rouge: "Hardly a reliable source"

Why? He's a qualified doctor, who performed 75000 abortions, ran New York's primary abortion clinic, and helped pioneer the pro-choice movement.
More qualified to speak than you, I imagine.

"A fraudster"?
Your movement still uses the "cynical" (Nathanson's own words) slogans dreamed up by the "fraudster".

"A Leopard does not change its spots".
Now you're using *aphorism* as argument!
Desperate!

"Control freaks who believe they have some divine right to direct people into conforming to their religious dogma."
"The Church of Rome is not the voice of God on earth."

Who the fudge cares?!!

If the whole world went agnostic tomorrow, we'd *still* have to decide what rights the unborn have or don't have.

And that decision could just as easily be based on "emotional sentiment" as on religion.
You could still fail to convince people.

"The anti-abortion movement is significantly financed by the religious bigots of the papal empire."

I'm not.

Your anti-Church diatribes aren't enough to convince me and all the other non-religious anti-abortionists.
You'll have to come up with a better argument than "The Church Sucks".

"The dumb/blind obedience of sheep"
Oh, and you're not a dumb sheep, still chanting the slogans cynically devised by a "fraudster".

You people just get dumber the longer this goes on.
Give up while you're behind!
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 12:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic “Your movement”

I am a member of several professional bodies.
I am not a member of any pro-choice body, group or organisation.

I speak as a private individual, a solitary voice, singing the same song as millions of other private individuals.

That song goes
“I am not the property of any state or religious hierarchy.
What I do with my body, is and always be my choice”.

As for “If the whole world went agnostic tomorrow, we'd *still* have to decide what rights the unborn have or don't have.”

They have the rights which the woman, in whose body they are developing, chooses to allow them.
If it were your body, it would be your choice. When it is not your body, you do not get to decide.

“Give up while you're behind!”

Behind? Hardly, you are the one, by your own words, who has disenfranchised yourself from the majority of the anti-abortion movement.

You lost the debate a month ago, yet here you are, crying in your beer, complaining how some of us value individual rights above your demands to be heard
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 7:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 55
  7. 56
  8. 57
  9. Page 58
  10. 59
  11. 60
  12. 61
  13. ...
  14. 64
  15. 65
  16. 66
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy