Maximus

I am pleased you wrote that because I feel the same way about Helen Pringle. She is a straight shooter with commendable ethics.

More articles are very welcome.

50-60 000 years of abortion and now we are to decide whether we are immoral,murderers? 50-60 000 years of war and fighting yet we dont sit and legislate this as murder? A person enters a drinking establishment with his/her car keys knowing full well that they will be intoxicated when driving home, why is this not premeditated murder when they kill another human in an accident?

The answer is politics and always will be

cardine, consider the concept of intent. Once having this basic understanding of jurisprudence you won't be so confused.

Intent? Of course.

Please believe me I read your short note with intense intention. I am sure you intended it be brief and to the point of your intent on the issue. My intent was to intend that the intention of people is always intentional unless they have conditions that hinder their intentions eg:sociopathic and the medically insane who have no intentions other then to be insane.

My intention to all intents and purposes was clear. Yours was not.
Instead of being obscure say what you mean without using such a generalised word and it will be taken more seriously.

I was referring to the first letter not to the talk in between if that helps you understand with better intentiveness.

I am enjoying word of the day. Let me think of one for you.
Chill.

Dear David/VK3AUU: Justice Menhennitt did not make the law(s), he interpreted the law in line with precedent. That’s what judges do. A law that covered every possible contingency and circumstance would be enormous (and actually in principle, impossible!).

Dear runner: my article is simply about what the law is, given that it is so often misstated.

Dear Kanga, You ask me a question that is not covered by my article, which is fine – however, I have not seen a detailed draft of the proposed reform and so would be very wary of saying where I “stand on the proposed new laws”.
You note that, “It seems to me pretty awkward, time wasting and cruel to expect doctors and nurses and patients to operate under laws which could form the basis of nasty legal attacks on their jobs and reputations.” You need to add the word “unjustifiably” here eg “laws which could UNJUSTIFIABLY form the basis of nasty legal attacks on their jobs and reputations.” I do not see why medical operations of any sort should be exempt from law. You note that any laws “can always be reinterpreted by a State…”, but the Menhennitt ruling has stood for nearly 40 years now, and has not been reinterpreted so as to find most abortions illegal. Anything can happen…. but in this case it hasn’t.
You also note that “Australians are currently ruled by increasingly religious and authoritarian governments, with pronatalist tendencies.” What is an example of this? I don’t see it myself. At the commonwealth level, the RU486 debate of 2006 would not seem to support your contention neither the debate nor the outcome of the vote.

ran out of words....

HP

and....

Dear crumpethead, you ask why I am against change. I wouldn’t exactly say that, but I would say that I think the present system provides a workable resolution to the question of abortion, and provides some common ground in the debate. I realise it doesn’t satisfy everyone, on either side of the debate.

Dear maximus, it is as you note extremely important to get it right here. I have made mistakes in my work, and am mortified by having done so. I like to think that I welcome people who tell me of my mistakes and help me to get it right (even though it is often painful!). However, I am not interested in shooting Leslie Cannold, or anyone else, down in flames.

thank you for the comments!

Helen