Well done Col Rouge, Kenny and Ozandy. A practical law. Let's see how many doctor's go to jail for saying. "I won't perform this abortion. If you really want one, you need to go to another doctor."

This law seems designed to ensure that no doctor says "You absolutely cannot have an abortion under any circumstances and you must not go to any other doctor to get another opinion."

Leave the day of our death to God, when I hear statements like this I must ask that person to prove that this so called God exists, I think not.

The article concludes:

"If you accept abortion, you probably don't believe in truth. And, if you don't believe in truth, you won't think conscientious objection is worth the hassle."

The above is a non-sequitur and an unwarranted attack on those who accept abortion as not believing in truth.

I favour the right of a woman to decide to have an abortion. I also oppose the legislation. No one should be forced to provide or assist in a procedure that they think is wrong.

Favouring the right of abortion does not mean restricting the rights of those who oppose it.

The advantage of looking after one's own interests is that it's easy to see why we should do so. Anyone who argues for an absolutist moral stance, on the other hand, is obliged to provide some evidence why we should adopt it. "Because God says so" is not enough. "Because I want you to" is not enough. "Because it provides the best outcome for everyone" is better, but that in turn requires some empirical justification. If it is genuinely better to follow a set of rules than to make your own decisions, then clearly we should be doing it: but the fact is that no two groups of people can agree on what those rules should be. Why should we believe that the Catholics, for instance, have just happened to stumble on the right set of rules when everyone else has got them wrong?

If and when everyone can agree on a set of rules for right behaviour then we can have a serious debate about whether to adopt them. Until then we are better off looking after ourselves and letting others look after themselves too.

I'm pro-choice, but like david f. I am concerned with the rights of doctors who don't wish to be involved with assisting in abortions. Firstly, because they have changed the rules on the doctors. When the current crop of doctors trained, they went into it with no obligation to refer women for abortions. Secondly if we accept this as a legal obligation on doctors, what is then to stop a anti-pro-choice government changing it to doctors being prosecuted for assisting in abortions, a return to the bad old days.

Mostly I oppose this aspect of the legislation because I think we are being sold a lemon. The Victorian government is saying see 'we are helping women's rights, and not being judgemental about women seeking abortions'. But then rather than have a large advertising campaign on TV, radio, and in the press to inform women what their rights are, and where to access a abortion, which would truly be telling women that 'yes' the government supports their right to choose, and have access to free safe abortions and also tipping a lot of money into woman's services, they are trying to take the cheap inefficent option of trying to get the doctors to do their job for them.

Not good enough Mr Hulls! Get to work.

Where are we Going?

At a time where we could turn the page forever, address the human reality of others, as well as ourselves, we find ourselves being dogged by heel-bitting yappers who can see nobody else other, than themselves.

I am tired of the self-serving disaffirming contradictions that fail people in the path of community. It would be different if these 'self-servers' provided the 'buffer zone ' conscientiously to address household-poverty, especially where their research or knowledge experience is based on short-sighted dogma.

Be it the issue of abortion, elections or the problems on Wall St, it seems we are flat certain about continuing the demise of our unlearnt human past.

For example;

During the Roman civilization/s, thousands died in arenas, as slaves, and being tortured because they defied the morals and lifestyle their leaders of choose for them.

During the middle ages, leaders like Robert the Pious (King of France) and Pope Gregory IX created laws allowing the torture and burning of witches, Jews, and freethinkers.

Then there was the Holy Crusades and the Inquisition where thousands more died in war because they chose a different belief than the leaders of that time.

Even Queen Mary the first killed her own fellow citizens, especially Protestants, if they did not convert to Catholicism.

The US was formed partially from people seeking refuge from religious persecution. During 1930 and 1940, millions of humans lost their lives because Adolph Hitler believed the world should be ruled by a superior race that did not include Jews, Africans, and the disabled or mentally ill.

Which way can we go?

To me it feels that greater conscientious 'awareness' is a need to see the bigger picture so as to counterpoise an unbalanced world.

http://www.miacat.com/
.