Below is a link to a post on Whirlpool, an Australian discussion site devoted to internet issues. xFOADx, the poster, sent a link to an anti-abortion site to the ACMA. The site contains pictures of aborted foetuses, making its point in using graphic pictures. Don't click on the link in the Whirlpool post if you have a weak stomach.

The ACMA is the public body that decides how films, books and other media are rated (G, MA15+, R and so on). They are also the body that maintains the list of prohibited internet sites. As required by current law, the ACMA examined the site submitted by xFOADx, and decided the site contained prohibited content. Consequently Australian "Family Friendly" ISP's have been notified and will now prevent subscribers from seeing the site.

The rest of us who did not decide to use a "family friendly" ISP can continue to see the anti-abortion site, for now. However should the mandatory filtering proposal come into force it will be filtered for all Australians.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1123716&p=35#r685

Using graphic images of aborted fetus is an emotional cheap trick and really says alot about the depths anti-abortionists are prepared to stoop to blackmail people into following their personal dogma.

If someone held a negative view of heart-bypass surgery and promoted that view with images of someone undergoing that procedure, it might dissuade a few folk from undergoing it too.

To the disadvantage of those of us who believe it is exclusively the personal of the pregnant woman, it is very difficult to find dramatic and graphic images of someone exercising such choice, it just does not have the emotional impact.

I suppose the nearest we could get is someone being burnt as a heretic, that’s what used to happen to anyone who dared go against the commands of the Pope.

As to the issue of censorship and filtering. Whilst I consider the approach of anti-abortionists immoral and playing to the lowest common denominator of reasoning, I will always support their right to freely publish what they want and join them in any protest to the unwarranted interference by ACMA.

I did not become a heretic with the intention of replacing the Pope and the College of Cardinals with St Kevin and the ACMA.

So many religious anti abortionists are also anti contraception.
With overpopulation now threatening the Earth I wonder why God does not
make human fertility switchable (off/on) by simple choice.
Looks to me like evolution is in charge.

Like Col Rouge, I consider this shock-and-awe approach by anti-choice advocates immoral and misleading, but it should be permitted in a society that values free speech.

It's very interesting, however, that the factions that would force these images on women are the same ones which ruthlessly suppress photos of the coffins of dead soldiers returning from Iraq, even pressuring employers to sack people who dare to publicise the fact that their compatriots are dying in a war (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4807865).

The message is clear: pregnant women should see pictures of mangled foetuses in order to make an informed choice on abortion, but the public should never see pictures of dead soldiers in case they make an informed decision on their country's wars. In a way it's better if AbortionTV remains available because it serves as a stark reminder of the religious Right's hypocrisy.

Also, to my understanding, the foetus images aren't from elective abortions but from near-term stillbirths and breech births which killed the neonate and had to be dissected for removal without killing the mother. But that would be another of those inconvenient truths.

I'm with Col and Sancho.

If these pictures of the murdered and mutilated unborn prevent one more killing then it is worth pasting everywhere. Col Rouges analogy with heart surgery is nothing short of pathetic.

I agree with Col and Sancho too, people have a right to show them

There's plenty of overlap between the anti-choice and pro-filtering mobs. For the pro-filtering mob to have one of their own blacklisted must be quite annoying for them.

It will only get worse for them if they get their way with filtering and have to watch their language if they want to remain accessible.

Pro-filtering people at the Australian Women's Forum and their friends need to take note. If the rest of us can't access this stuff, neither can they.

And Conroy says filtering is not political. Rubbish.

I agree with Col, et al.

runner displays another post lacking understanding for any views that aren't his own.
Col's comparison with heart surgery was quite apt.
Of course, you never actually explain yourself do you runner? You just state cheap shots and hysterics about murder, without addressing the complexities of the matter. I don't know whether it's because you're so emotionally invested, just plain incompetent or contemptuous of your debating opponents.
Don't be surprised however, when such evident contempt is returned to you or when people consider your constant displays of hatred and disrespect for other opinions, to be very different to what we're told peaceful ideals of Christianity are.
Before you respond, realise that I respect some anti-abortion posters who show a degree of respect and understanding for different opinions - a prerequisite for posting on an 'opinion' site.
You however, don't.

-

I fear Senator Conroy isn't up to this task.
In a November interview, it was startling to see how inept his responses were. I felt both embarrassed for him, and horrified.

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s2433493.htm

To summarise -

Interviewer: You've been told that 12mbps for 4.7 billion is impossible. Are you still holding on to that?

Conroy: It's an election commitment. The panel will look at the proposals.

Interviewer: But you're not going to get that. Will you compromise?

Conroy: Election commitment. 98 per cent coverage to homes and businesses. Election commitment.

Interviewer: Telstra is saying their bid isn't a bid, it's a proposal. Are you considering it as a bid?

Conroy: The expert panel's role.

Interviewer: Are you accepting it as a bid?

Conroy: It's been received by the panel.

Effectively, Conroy wouldn't admit that it was a bid even though it looked like a bid, smelled like a bid and basically was a bid. (It was later rejected because of politics, but it's idiocy to ask another provider to do this because Telstra holds all the infrastructure so of course, expect more costs).
He also could only parrot the line 'election commitment' in the face of technical impossibilities.

All in all, a very poor performance.

TRTL

It is nice to know that you show some respect to posters who are happy to sanitize the killing of the unborn. I am sure it makes you feel a lot more inclusive. It does not change the simple fact that abortion is legalized murder. Your assertion that I 'hate' is very presumptuous. I actually prefer people to be straight then to beat around the bush pretending to accommodate a range of views. The view that killing the unborn is okay is abhorrent to me just as my view is abhorrent to those who believe it is the woman's choice to murder her baby or not.

It's not that simple, runner.

Can you tell me the precise point it becomes a 'baby' that is being murdered? Is it indeed conception?
Is that point in time so very different to half a second before, when we were dealing with sperm and egg?
Can you understand that others see this differently?

Is it then, the split second when the sperm touches the egg? A second later, when the sperm is inside the egg?

Is the morning after pill also an evil?

Why does this egg, incapable of anything yet, qualify to you as a human being?

Especially considering the issues of rape, or further still, the difficulties such policies create for the already living in the overpopulated third world?

Nobody's suggesting killing already living people - the issue is, and always has been, at what point it becomes a human life. Here is the fundamental disagreement.

Thus, your emotive howls about murder fall on deaf ears, because others don't regard conception as the point that life begins.

Do you have the same complex about masturbation? Do you regard that as murder too?

Until you give non-religious reasons for your decision that conception is where we're dealing with a human life, then you're just being an ass, because you're not engaging the topic at all, you're just howling. You never discuss it intelligently, you just dismiss things without consideration.

On an opinion site, that's one of the cardinal sins. I can admit I don't have all the answers as to precisely when life begins, but I'm willing to discuss them with people like a rational adult, and I can see the outcomes of anti-abortion policy.

The only difference is runner, some people are able to discuss this like adults. You evidently, can't. So yes, I am able to satisfy myself that I'm willing to discuss the issues like an adult.

Grow up.

I believe it is murder too, I just accept that people need to abort at times, I don't think you can pin a moment down like that you know..

The Australian Communications and Media Authority,
ACMA, deemed the Anti-Abortion site as "prohibited
online content," according to the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992.

The question we need to ask - is should things be
censored? Or is it a case of - allow everything?
That covers quite a variety of explicit and graphic
material. How do we decide what to censor?

Apparently we don't - it's up to bodies like the ACMA
to decide, right? They've been appointed for a reason,
I presume.

Do I object to the Anti-Abortion site? Yes I do.
To me it falls under the heading of inappropriate
material. I object to sites that feel compelled
to play the role of social worker

Perhaps I was too subtle. My excuse it is it was late when I wrote the post, and possibly after a glass or two as well.

The web page concerned is a political statement. A forceful, in your face statement certainly, but nonetheless an honest one. It says "we dislike abortion, and this is why". If you find the images deeply disturbing but nonetheless support abortion, then perhaps it is time to rethink your position as the images are an accurate portrayal of the consequences of supporting it.

The question I was asking was not about abortion. It was about the prospect of the Australian government censoring web sites that make strong statements on abortion. If it isn't obvious the question was specifically aimed at the runners, the Gibo's and Bronwyn's of this world - those that have taken an absolute position on censorship and are outspoken in their support of the current filtering proposal. I mean absolute support in that sense that we should absolutely protect the children from all harm, regardless of the cost.

Well here is a cost you may not of considered. So far, with your unstinting support of the government filtering proposal, you have been arguing for the right of the majority to gag the minority. Well, this time _you_ are clearly the minority, and so you have been unwittingly arguing against your right to speak strongly in defence of the unborn child against their murder (to borrow runners words).

So, runner et al, is the cost worth the benefits?

rstuart

I doubt whether these graphic pictures would change a calloused heart. In some ways it would make the humanist more rebellious.

I can't see a correlation between blocking pervert sights that lead to rape, unwanted pregnancies and degradtion however I would not be concerned if the anti abortion sight was blocked.

We already have had Governments limit the freedom of speech among Christians for decades in this country. Blocking a few anti abortion sights would mean little to me especially if it meant less degradation, depression, hatred, destroyed families etc that result from pornography. No doubt our mate Bill Henson will receive an exemption and still be allowed to photograph young girls nude and call it art.

RStuart,

Nothing should be banned really but for snuff and rape and that obvious kinda stuff.

This actually leads to the "kids seeing stuff on the net" and the censorship question, it is a hard one, but I believe the parents need to monitor it not the government.

I am not saying I think it is great for us to overload on heavy info and images but loss of free speech is worse.

Foxy “Apparently we don't - it's up to bodies like the ACMA
to decide, right? They've been appointed for a reason,
I presume.”

That assumes I am incapable of making the decision for myself.

Yet our democratic system assumes I am capable of electing those who appoint the people who act in the role as censor for ACMA.

I find that completely contradictory….

If there is any line to be drawn, in terms of censorship, it should be based on some legislated for legal limit.

Viz… if we are to have any "censorship", not that I am in favour of Censorship by the State, I find such notions dangerous in the extreme, through their concentration of Power into the hands of what we know are the seriously flawed creatures we call politicians (the late Bob Collins coming to mind),

it should be limited only to actions which are illegal

That covers terrorist sites amd sites affiliated with terrorist organizations, like Hamas,
It would cover pedophilia sites and sites which illustrate how to perform a bank robbery or criminal fraud but
It would not cover legal Pornography or the sites of anti-abortionists who express a view, which I happen to disagree with, but are not pursuing something illegal…
However, I suppose if they showed how to blow up an abortion clinic, then they should be blocked.

Simply because someone feels the need for a nanny does not mean we should all suffer the inconvenience and tax expense of such pointless exercises in the futile.

I wonder if the church groups are now in two minds about the proposed internet filter. What a dilemma this must be for them. They want our internet access to be filtered against our wishes in a vain attempt to protect children, but this very same filter could prevent them from showing their graphic images.

That aside, I can’t help but wonder if all Christians are technological illiterates. Surely some church group out there has someone with the knowledge to say: “This won’t work, so there’s no point in supporting it”. Or is the zealotry of the pro-filter Christians so extreme that they don’t care that it won’t work?

I can imagine that many of these “protected” children will be quite annoyed, when they’re adults, to learn that their internet had been screwed-up, and their freedom of speech had been affected, all in the name of protecting them (I know I would be). Or will they feel that they were "used" in a cynical attempt for the current government to impose censorship for other more underhanded reasons?

>>That assumes I am incapable of making the decision for myself.

Yet our democratic system assumes I am capable of electing those who appoint the people who act in the role as censor for ACMA.

I find that completely contradictory<<

Hear, hear.

Another contradictory point - this is supposedly being done as part of a package of child protection measures, yet the emphasis has been on pornography. We are told we need the ACMA to apply the logic of their ratings guidelines, which deems child safe content G for general exhibition.

There are children under the PG age rating using the internet, so shouldn't all content rated anything over PG be backlisted?

Otherwise we would be protecting some children but not others. Aren't all children equally sacred?

I have been raised in a catholic family but i believe in abortion (ONLY) when a woman is raped not a slip up in the bedroom and if there is a risk of death to the mother .David.

Col,

There are laws currently in place.

You may be interested in the Electronic Frontiers
Australia, website:

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html#aust

It covers policy and/or laws regarding Internet
censorship in various countries around the world,
including Australia. It gives you an overview,
and what's currently being regulated and why.

Cheers.

Interesting thread rstuart. Although I'm most definitely pro-choice with respect to abortion, I think that the anti-abortion propaganda should be accessible to anybody, including children. Indeed, on this issue at least, my views are closest to those expressed above by my old mate Col Rouge.

Clearly, the pro-censorship crew haven't really thought through the political implications of proposals to censor the Internet. My opposition to censorship in general is precisely because of those implications, and I retain my opinion that access should only be restricted to material that is otherwise illegal. Adults should 'censor' themselves - and indeed their children - if they deem material legally available on the Internet (or anywhere else for that matter) harmful or inappropriate.

I posted that on whirlpool, I did not send that site to the
ACMA because those images offended me, I sent it because
under ACMA guidelines they would be banned, and if ever we get the
compulsory internet filter they would be unviewable. People do not understand that legal material will be blocked under the filter.

If you believe that the internet should be filtered then
all offensive images etc will be banned, you can't pick and choose, that is up to the government of the day. If you are pro-life but anti-porn, bad luck it will all go.

Snuff, rape, child abuse is illegal. If the government has
the URL's of sites that are illegal then prosecute the people who
host those sites (with the help of interpol, fbi etc) and prosecute those who view and download those files

Runner “Col Rouges analogy with heart surgery is”….
“ nothing short of pathetic. “

Those last 4 words sound like what I would use to describe your entire existence.

Foxy the thrust of the Australian sites is the phrase

“These laws enable prosecution of Internet users who make available material that is deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors".”

Who decides what is “deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors”
Similarly xFOADx “all offensive images etc will be banned,”

(I note the previous liberal government had the morality and good sense to not enact it.)

Once such institutions are in place, what happens if some corrupt politician or faceless bureaucrat then decides that a particular political opinion is “offensive”, “objectionable” or “unsuitable for minors”, such as KKK, Black Panthers, or the ravings of various Muslim clerics?

And if someone decides the KKK is offensive, how soon after that is it that less strident and more generally acceptable critics of government become “offensive”, “objectionable” or “unsuitable for minors”?

I might seem a little dramatic but I would remind you all, Hitler did not just happen, he was elected into power and then he used censorship to manipulate public opinion to support even greater repression of his opponents and eventually establish the horror, which was censored from the newsworthy diet of ordinary Germans.

One of the first actions is to silence opposition.

Such silencing requires censorship.

And whilst benign in terms of the damage it appears to do and whilst “sold” as being for the “common good” and to curtail what is ““offensive”, “objectionable” or “unsuitable for minors” (and other such fables) , censorship is the first step on a path which ends in an entirely different place…

I got a letter from Conroy because I objected to his censorship agenda. So I assume I am now on a government mailing list, somewhere.

“And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Col

'nothing short of pathetic. “

Those last 4 words sound like what I would use to describe your entire existence.

Thankfully I really don't need your endorsement. You just ain't that important.

runeer "Thankfully I really don't need your endorsement. You just ain't that important."

I never consider myself to be "important"

and it was not an endorsement, merely a confirmation to the obvious

Col is right about the vague wording which is a problem with both the existing and proposed censorship regimes. Words like 'objectionable' and 'unsuitable' revolve around the subjective, rather than the specific. They just create giant loopholes.

There's no way to resolve the contradictions around internet censorship. The government is trying to treat it as just another content provider, like a cinema or dvd store. It's relatively easy to rate content and control access in those situations.

When it comes to the internet you can't control who gets access to what, so the challenge is to make all content suitable for the lowest common denominator.

The whole proposal begins with the assumption that the internet is a cesspit and everyone on it is a violent, perverted, terrorist, child-abusing copyright infringer. That would include the likes of pro-lifers like runner.

Put the issue of abortion aside and we're all in this together. I lose access to Tarantino trailers on YouTube and runner loses access to pictures of dead babies

Chainsmoker

'I lose access to Tarantino trailers on YouTube and runner loses access to pictures of dead babies'

Until this post commenced I had never seen pictures of murdered babies on the internet before. Your assumption is wrong.

Chainsmoker “Col is right about the vague wording which is a problem with both the existing and proposed censorship regimes. Words like 'objectionable' and 'unsuitable' revolve around the subjective, rather than the specific. They just create giant loopholes.”

Thanks for your input, you have identified exactly what I was trying to get my head around.

My original suggestion was if there were to be any censorship, it should be formulated around what is illegal and what is “legal” is there fore, excluded from consideration by the government appointed censors

and my point with using those parameters is because they do, by definition, make the process

less subjective and more specific/objective

and the definitions being predetermined by elected representatives in through their enactment of legislation to guide the censor, rather than leaving the censor with any discretionary authority whatsoever.

Of course the whole internet censorship exercise is a complete hoax.

No one can go on the internet these days and stay active for more than an hour without using anti-virus and firewall software and those application packages come with childproofing functions which can be implemented by parents when children are using the PC or not-implemented when a PC is used by adults, who should not be the subjects of censorship.

When a government feels entitled to censor the reading and viewing sources of its electorate, it reflects seriously upon the very morals and motivations of that government.

Firstly we see how Power corrupts…

And we also know how absolute power corrupts too

>>My original suggestion was if there were to be any censorship, it should be formulated around what is illegal and what is “legal” is there fore, excluded from consideration by the government appointed censors<<

- which leads to yet another problem for the government's justification for the whole package. It is justified on the grounds that illegal material is banned in meatworld and should be banned online as well.

This would be all well and good had the ACMA not cut Conroy and Rudd off mid-sentence by blacklisting a site for a photo, the likes of which are routinely distributed by pro-lifers. I have yet to see them dragged off in a paddy wagon for it.

>>No one can go on the internet these days and stay active for more than an hour without...

True. Another truth is that the sort of violence, porn and combos of those thought to leap from the screen upon pressing the On button are actually hard to find and difficult to access.

So when you say "it reflects seriously upon the very morals and motivations of that government", I'd argue that it suggests something less than complementary about that government's opinion of the people who elected it.

Contemporary governments are all morally and motivationally shonky. For the record, I wouldn't expect a government with Tony Abbott in it to behave any differently.

More worrying, this is being contemplated by an Australian government. You'd hardly call Australians a nation of trouble makers. What we are though, is a nation without any constitutional protection from this sort of thing.

Censorship is just wrong.

But for killing stealing and raping, Life all choice.

Another thing with banning extreme content is that we don't get to see where extreme people stand on things, I like to be able to see for myself, who hates who and why...

It's a scary world, so full of misinformation, I'd at least like to be able to judge for myself and not rely on SBS or A Current Affair both bias in their own directions.

If things are censored I won't see a true reflection of the abortions people or the terrorists or the left wing right wing.

There is always the x button if it is to much.

Do we know if these pictures were put up with consent.

Or has some high handed persons violated these women’s right to privacy?

Chainsmoker “For the record, I wouldn't expect a government with Tony Abbott in it to behave any differently.”

But a government with Tony Abbott in it DID Behave Differently, by not implementing the process back when it was first presented.

“Contemporary governments are all morally and motivationally shonky. For the record, I wouldn't expect a government with Tony Abbott in it to behave any differently.”

That is why I support smaller5 government with less power, rather than the socialist model which erroneously believes you can manage a nation centrally, without seriously curtailing the natural opportunity of all its independent and interdependent variables of tyhe electorate which it is supposed to serve.

“More worrying, this is being contemplated by an Australian government. You'd hardly call Australians a nation of trouble makers. What we are though, is a nation without any constitutional protection from this sort of thing.”

That mirrors my continuing concerns to the real motives of anyone who claims to be “socialist”. Socialism is used to mask some darker intents and in this exercise in censorship, the very vehicle to pursue those darker intents is launched.

Ultimately, Meredith says it well “Censorship is just wrong.”

I stopped listening to anything pro-lifers had to say when they started killing people.

stG writes

'I stopped listening to anything pro-lifers had to say when they started killing people'

Yea and their are dozens of those here in Australia aren't there? Makes a lot of sense to listen to the pro deathers or murderers

StG “I stopped listening to anything pro-lifers had to say when they started killing people.”
And runner “Yea and their are dozens of those here in Australia aren't there? Makes a lot of sense to listen to the pro deathers or murderers”

That is your choice. I have found ignorance becomes those from the anti-abortion brigade.

Listen or ignore, your choice, just as it is my choice to support every womans right of choice in the matter of abortion.

The difference between us:

I have an open mind, which is able to listen to both sides of the debate and reach my own conclusions.

I understand that if I were female, you would deny me the right to reach my own conclusions in the matter of abortion.

Hence, I vocally and politically stand square against those who would use censorship and those who would deny abortions.

IF you would like to turn this into a debate based on logic, I am ready to challenge all and every faux-justification you are prepared to promote with reason.

But if you prefer to keep the issue churned up with "emotionalism", that is OK I am happy to address that debate too.

Col Rouge

You write
'But if you prefer to keep the issue churned up with "emotionalism", that is OK I am happy to address that debate too.'

Emotionalism was the vehicle used to legalise abortions. The arguement in the 70's was always about the young girl who was raped and did not want to carry her rapist baby. We now know how dishonest this emotionalism by pro abortionist was. Well over 95% per cent of abortions have nothing to do with rape. Often it is about convenience. At least you are honest enough to say that you support abortion on the basis that you believe its the woman's choice but don't give me the crap about only anti abortionist using emotionalism. That is downright dishonest as is stg implication that anti abortionist are somehow the criminals in this whole debate.

Runner “We now know how dishonest this emotionalism by pro abortionist was. Well over 95% per cent of abortions have nothing to do with rape.”

So when you can quote back to me where I have made ‘rape’ a principle justification for an abortion you might be justified in your posturing, until then you are merely creating a straw-man argument to deflect the issue away from the absence of reasoning in your own argument.

“That is downright dishonest as is stg implication that anti abortionist are somehow the criminals in this whole debate”

At least we agree on that point..

Abortion is no longer a criminal offense.

In fact it was only ever a criminal offense for about 150 years.

Prior to the second quarter of the nineteenth century it was not illegal. The principle reason for legislation was not to preserve the fetus but to protect women from charlatan surgeons and the high death rate from primitive surgical procedures.

Nowadays the clinical/surgical procedures have much improved and we have reverted the legal status of abortion back to what it was preceding the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Their appears to be no absence of reasoning that killing the unborn generally for convenience is morally decadent. You seem to think that if you can put up an intellectually better argument (which no doubt you can) that this somehow vindicates such a callous cruel selfish action. I am sure if you wanted to defend the Nazis you would also win the 'debate' however killing the innocent who have no voice so women can continue their careers and often living promiscuous lives is obscene.

You also fail to acknowledge that the arguments about legalising abortion was about the young girl who was raped. This was the emotive lies used by pro abortionist to get their way. It has nothing to do with a straw man argument as you suggest.

You write

'Nowadays the clinical/surgical procedures have much improved and we have reverted the legal status of abortion back to what it was preceding the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.'

What we have today is built special clinics and made it clear that we the tax payer is willing to pay for anyone who wants an abortion. I doubt very much whether this was the case in the period you mention. Your whole argument that it is the woman's right to choose to let her baby live or not no doubt makes her choice a lot easier and her behaviour less responsible.

Runner

rstuart, opened this thread to ask if the pictures should have been taken off as far as I can see.
Which is what promoted me to ask the question that nobody has bothered to answer (If they know) were these pics put up with the consent of the ladies?
It’s a simply yes or no, but its makes all the difference in the world has to how we should view it both legally and emotionally.

Without this information none of us can really pass comment in fairness.

Haven’t you noticed the world is overpopulated and millions die from starvation?

I seem to recall you said on another thread it was utter stupidly to discuss animal cruelty to what YOU claim are Gods! Creatures.

How typically hypictical.

I get you think life starts before your born.

I get it that you think everybody is a year older almost- strange people.

What you don’t get is that some woman do not agree with you.

Now considering its their body their life and their belief who are YOU to try to force your ideas onto them.

Do try to respect other people do not think like you.

That simply means -mind your own business

runner,

Could you come to terms with abortion being legal but not available as a casual form of birth control, rather it is something a woman does with a heavy heart and at times necessary?

I to think it is murder but accept that sometimes things have to die... I think like this to animals too, keep it at the minimum we can. War as well.

All sadly necessary.

runner, Sunday, 25 January 2009 1:47:54 PM

"Yea and their are dozens of those here in Australia aren't there? Makes a lot of sense to listen to the pro deathers or murderers"

For me it's too easy to be a hypocrite if I was anti-abortion. Let's be honest, that's what it is, it isn't 'Pro-Life'.

In some instances I'm 'pro-war'. In some instances I'd not protest the murder of child rapists. I think euthanasia has a place in society. Some children probably would have been better off aborted rather than born into the horrific circumstances they were. I think you'll find a percentage of those kids would feel the same way - what's the suicide rate on the chronically abused again?.

Having said that, I'm not 'pro-choice' if it's a life style abortion. I lost a potential child due to that reason. Being the male in the circumstance there never was an issue of anti-abortion, or pro-choice. I had no-choice. That is something that will sit in my subconsciousness like a corn kernel in the teeth.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming you ask

'Were these pics put up with the consent of the ladies?'

I have no idea. Since when did the media get a conscience anyway? They are the first to film murdered bodies with or without consent. Why would a mother care, if she is callous enough to allow the butchers to do this to her child. She has probably been told and chosen to believe that its not a human being anyway despite clear evidence of hands, legs, eyes, face etc. But don't let facts get in the way of emotion, just ask Col.

meredith you ask

'Could you come to terms with abortion being legal but not available as a casual form of birth control, rather it is something a woman does with a heavy heart and at times necessary?'

I have come to terms with the fact that killing children is legal. It still does not make it right. In some cultures it is legal to belt your wife. This does not make it right. I appreciate that some woman do choose abortions with a heavy heart. If I was about to take a life my heart would also weigh very heavy. I am also sure many woman later regret their decision. Maybe if they saw the images on the website brought to our attention in this blog they would change their heart or at least think a bit more clearly.

stg writes

'Some children probably would have been better off aborted rather than born into the horrific circumstances they were.'

I would imagine at the time one of Obamas parents decided they did not want him that many would of argued your point. Thankfully he was at least given an opportunity unlike million of others. You yourself might not even have an opinion if your parents thought that way

Runner.

Ah ok, you live in la la land with unicorns and oompah loompahs.

You TOTALLY didn't get what I was saying....or maybe you did and you're just a twat. I didn't say random kids deserve to die. Especially ones that have caring hard working parents who'd do anything to better the lives of their children so as to get the greatest chance in life and the possibility to be anything they like.

Wouldn't THAT be a nice world if you're parental population were ALL like that?...

Note to self. Strike runner off the talk to list.

Runner

• *I have no idea*

*Why would a mother care, if she is callous enough to allow the butchers to do this to her child.*

Drs are not butchers. Years ago women were forced to do just that- go to butchers. Apart from anything else police corruption flourished as the butchers paid them off. Many women died.

Also without consent it would be illegal. Should those ladies seel legal advise+ action it might be a very costly stunt and very embarrassing.

If established it was done illegally and ‘ if ‘ any Church groups were behind such an utter invasion of people’s privacy they would need to have deep pockets along with the clinic.

Oh that is ‘if’ the clinic gave consent.

Otherwise, I guess it would be more charges of break enter tress pass damages TO the Clinic.

In fact if we take your words into consideration in your post reply to Meredith (*I appreciate that some woman do choose abortions with a heavy heart*.)=

Then it would be reasonable for police to charge the offenders and those behind it with callous disregard also...

Either way it certainly requires a police investigation to establish the facts because it’s very possible a ‘crime’ has been committed.

Let’s see if there were twenty women in the clinic on the day and they were taken and posted without legal consent( there by breaking patient confidentiality) then it would be hard to narrow it down to just a few victims and damage claims.

That would mean the whole twenty could seek compensation .

Well in my view a child is not a child until such time as the mother has given birth and the umbilicle cord has been cut. Until then it remains a growth inside of the mother. I know this is a cruel way to discribe it but it is the correct way.

Lets face it, if an unborn child were in fact a child it would be 9 months old when born and celebrate its 1st birthday some 3 month later (this is assumming all went to plan)

If anyone can present an argument to my theory(bassed on fact, not emotional beliefs)then I am all ears.

As for censorship, nothing should be censored as it is up to the individual to seek out what is available to see, read, here or enjoy.

If you don't like it, don't go there, close the book or change the channel.

Nobody should be able to tell anyone what they can or can't do providing they are not breaking the law

Runner,

Provided you would stand against people that murder abortion Drs you most certainly have every right to your opinion. I can see it comes from a concern for life.

rectub you write

'If anyone can present an argument to my theory(bassed on fact, not emotional beliefs)then I am all ears.'

Given that your position now is based as far from fact as possible I doubt that very much.

meredith you write

.Provided you would stand against people that murder abortion' I agree 100% with your summary. Thank you for at least being open to some sort of logic.

Stg you write
'Note to self. Strike runner off the talk to list.'

A very childish response but not surprising.

Same goes, junior. Intentionally ignoring someone's opinion by taking out what you will from the total opinion to create a misrepresentation of what one says is the work of an unintelligent troll.

StG,
Its interesting the same person runner with all this compassion recently stated that it was 'utter stupidly' to discuss animal cruelty.

I was impressed once by Andrew Bartlett’s comment in a similar topic being discussed on his forum. His reply to this man was - With repect- I put it to you 'it would be difficult if not impossible to inflict the same amount of suffering on the termination you are speaking of- because it would be at that stage less than a grain of rice as inflicted on these aimals being exported alive.
I thought it a very sensible response.

Ps I note runner
I also note he didn’t say of course I would feel the same if someone killed a Drs performing legal operations.

yes runner does seem to practice some double standards,

possibly one set for each face.