“And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing.”
“(abortionists)…you are heroes…you are saints…you’re engaged in holy work”
Katherine Hancock Ragsdale,
Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts
http://metrowomenscenter.blogspot.com/2009/04/abortion-is-blessing-and-our-work-is.html
Progressives will be pleased to note that the church in the USA is moving with the times.
Some among the rest of us fear that the lunatics are now running the asylum.
It's certainly a challenge to be more radically pro-abortion than Obama but this woman seems be taking him on.

Do we really need yet another venue for the godbotherers to rant on about abortion again at OLO?

When was the last time we had a discussion about abortion?

GrahamY

Haven't you noticed? The aptly named Runner has a running commentary on abortion on just about everything he posts.

All this thread will achieve is:
1. Bring out the godbotherers as CJ noted.
and
2. Bring out any of the walking wounded with a grudge against women.

Also the opening post is not in the least engaging, sort of AndrewBoltesque: Ooooh, Aaah a woman dares to want to end a pregnancy while in a solid relationship - how naughty of her. Give me a break!

Are you kidding, Graham? How about

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2589

(last comment a week ago)?

Do we want one?
It's a mine-field, with seriously entrenched positions on both sides, and little chance of changing anyone's outlook. Still, this IS a Forum, so I suppose it's open to debate, the same as almost anything else.
I'm Pro.

This post has a contemporary hook which is not just about abortion but about people filling leadership and teaching positions in Christian churches. I think it deserves a run on that basis.

Approving a post on abortion once a month doesn't seem to me to be disproportionate. And I have no control over posters who like to talk about abortion as long as they are not off-topic. The fact that they exist shouldn't be a reason for stopping other people discussing the same issue.

The price you pay for free speech, which is what this site is about, is that you have to support the right of people to say things which you not only disagree with, but find distasteful. As long as what they say stays on the right side of the law, I'm prepared to approve posts.

No-one is forced to contribute to or read a thread with which they disagree.

Having said that, I think we could have more varied threads, and the solution to that is in all of our hands.

I'm with CJ and Fractelle on this one. These threads never seem to achieve much. Anyone posting a considered view on the reasons why women should have access to safe abortion will be pounced on by the ranters who can't move beyond simplistic condemnation. There's never a meeting of minds and rarely much in the way of real discussion.

This particular thread is just made for Runner. Where is he? Abortion and saintliness, his two favourite topics rolled into one and he's not even taking a nibble. Come in, Runner! Don't let us down.

Having said all that, I will against my better judgement ask KMB a simple question. How on earth could we accommodate all those babies your anti-abortion website claims are being killed as we speak? Tell me what do you think the population would be? How many trillions of people would there be on the planet? Do you think for a moment you'd be enjoying the lifestyle you do now?

No-one likes abortion. Any woman who goes down that path is haunted by her decision to a greater or lesser degree for the rest of her life. The last thing these women need is the pointing finger from people who've usually never had to confront these life and death decisions for themselves.

Sorry, CJ and Fractelle, I know I've waved the red flag. If nothing else, you can at least tell me you told me so. :)

CJ, Fractelle,

I agree that a thread about abortion on this forum is about as interesting as watching paint dry. While a specific thread dedicated to this purpose may not happen too often it permeates other threads so often that one could almost write the posts for some contributors as we've all heard their views so many times.

Of course Graham is right in what he says too and no-one is taken by the scruff and forced to contribute.

What I think would be really interesting, given the hyperbole on this subject though, is if one could possibly get a thread going limited only to women. Of childbearing age.

There seems to be more men than women who get shrill about this topic and, given that the majority of the most emphatic posters seem to be people of "a certain age", I wonder if we would get different points of view if we did this? After all, when we look at the amount of people who are registered but who don't post, its possible there is a completely different demographic out there.

Unfotunately, we'll never know as the double-edged sword of Freedom of Speech ensures that its impossible to so limit respondants. Remember what has happened in the past when certain topic concerning only women and addressed only to women, and about women's experiences have been posted?

Bronwyn I hear you and understand. In fact I'm about to take a bite on the "hook".

Which is that women obtaining positions of leadership AND being pro-abortion is something contemporary and worthy of debate.

I suppose there were similar debates in times past whether women could walk and chew gum.

That women have been seeking equality of opportunity and control over their fertility is as old as when women first discovered munching a particular herb produced convulsions which resulted in miscarriage. As for the struggle for equality, well I posit this occurred the first time a woman was raped.

But, hey, sometimes some of us are a little slow and need time to catch up. With notable exceptions of course.

Hey Romany, snap.

I have no doubt this debate will end up with much discussion about whether Hitler was a Christian, that drug addicts are caused by single mums and that women are murderers for wanting to decide when and if to have children. There, I've save some posters a lot of trouble, maybe the rest of us could actually have a discussion about the topic instead of the same old rant.

Abordt! Abordt! Abordt!

The phlaigme proximity alarm computer-generated voice, speaking strijdently in Norsk, jolted Forrest fully awake. Instinctively Forrest hauled back on the stick and simultaneously rammed the throttles through to the gate in order to gain the advantage of altitude as quickly as possible. This could rapidly become a dogfight! Or a catfight. Forrest could not affjiord to become involved in either, piloting the gigantic Hotairbus A-390 at such a low altitude as he had been to give the passenger opinionators the best views of the fjiord landscape.

As the Hotairbus fought for height Forrest observed through the mist a road winding across the steep mountainous landscape, far too close for comfort. He was still below the surrounding peaks as he flew along the fjiord. Briefly, as the scenery fled past, Forrest glimpsed an old stone bridge, its cavernous arches concealing who knows what in the darkness beneath. Then three billygoats. Just as suddenly they were all gone again.

A village came into view. A quick glance at the NavMan, then the chart, identified it.

Trolldhaugen!

The view suddenly went pale grey everywhere. They were flying in cloud. Just as suddenly the Hotairbus A-390 burst out of the cloud into brilliant sunshine, a sea of cloud stretching to the horizon in all directions, but not a mountain peak in sight to hit. Forrest eased the throttles, and the Hotairbus levelled out.

Light dawned on Forrest as to the origins of Linux. The three billygoats had been the three billygoats Groff. Linux had had its origins in Norway, not Finland! That big building Forrest had seen in the village was the Troll Tech!

By all the KMBs of Ultima Thule! OLO userID jpw2040 had been right, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2573#57732 . If you doubt this judgement, assess the response here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2533 . "Jump down, turnaround, pick a bale of cotton. Jump down turnaround, pick a bale a day. Jump ....."

Norway hohsjey was Forrest going to do any egriegious posting on this topic!

Forrest

"Trolldhaugen!"

I grip my sides from great mirth, and disappear in a burst of flatulence.

I think the pro-life crusaders could learn something from hyper-conservative propagandist P.J. O'Rourke:

"Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them.

...

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. ...The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani."

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp

Brownwyn

My views on abortion are well known as you have pointed out. Contrary to what many may think, my intention is never to make those who have had abortions worse than what they must feel. Hopefully woman and those who have had abortions will find forgiveness in the only One who can forgive sin. My harsh comments are towards those who promote abortion as some sort of human or womens rights issue. The unborn baby has no rights. The same people who promote promiscuity then want to kill the fruit of their actions. It is sick.

What makes me even sicker than abortion itself is the 'progressives in the church'. I know that secularist often misrepresent God in order to hide their self righteousness but when people do it in the name of Christ it defies belief. They are nothing more than snakes who have no idea about God or His Son. They make Christ in their own image and will receive greater condemnation than most.

No-one is less qualified than you to accuse people of making Christ in their own image, runner. You're a living embodiment of Suzan B. Anthony's statement, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

CJMorgan
You falsely assume all pro-lifers are “godbotherers”. I am not.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html (Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League)

Fractelle
You falsely assume pro-lifers are “walking wounded with a grudge against women.” Does this include women who are against abortion? If so, how so?

Bronwyn,
You say “How on earth could we accommodate all those babies your anti-abortion website claims are being killed as we speak? Tell me what do you think the population would be? How many trillions of people would there be on the planet?” Why not use the same argument against medical interventions which save or prolong life?
You say “Do you think for a moment you'd be enjoying the lifestyle you do now?” Your comments reflect the reality that abortion is largely a lifestyle choice. Is it valid to put greater value on one’s own lifestyle than on another’s life?
You say “The last thing these women need is the pointing finger from people who've usually never had to confront these life and death decisions for themselves.” Pointing the finger must by definition come after the fact. Pro-lifers seek to prevent abortion, thereby sparing the woman from being “haunted by her decision for the rest of her life”. Who could object to that?
You assume that pro-lifers have never been “confront(ed by) these life and death decisions for themselves”. What of those who have confronted the decision, chosen life and later realised the magnitude of their decision in the context of the love for their child?
With the benefit of this sort of hindsight it is difficult for some to trivialise the abortion issue as do those who seem to be arguing that those against abortion have no right to express their opinions on this forum.
I have more respect for those pro-abortionists such as Camille Paglia who “have always frankly admitted abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html

Ah Forrest, LOL, you had me gripping my sides as well.

Yes, we might be silly billygoats and too quick to clamber aboard the Hotairbus at times, but at least we can still have a laugh at our own expense.

Runner, you should try it sometime.

There's no question that the morality
of abortion is an issue that will divide people.

Whether a person is prochoice or prolife,
it's a private matter - that should remain private.
I imagine that the decision, one way or the other
is one of the most difficult
that any one has to make.

However I agree with CJ and Fractelle,
that this thread is a provocation -
an attempt to get people to react

Graham's right of course. Abortion is a very salient issue to a significant minority, and those who are obsessed by its availability to others have every right to raise it as an issue in a free speech forum on a monthly basis - around full moon might be an appropriate time, IMHO.

He's right also in identifying the OP as an essentially intra-Christian issue. Quite so, and I look forward to reading some Christian defences of women's choice.

Which makes it all the more interesting is that KMB professes not to be a Christian, yet s/he posts on what is essentially an internal ethical issue of a Christian church. Incidentally, I didn't suggest that KMB is a godbotherer - rather that his/her OP is troll bait for them.

Bronwyn, Romany, Fractelle, Sancho, Foxy, Maxi - same old same old... I won't be returning to this thread unless somebody posts a new idea that hasn't already been done to death here.

Forrest - what can I say? You're a delight to read :)

Foxy,
What's private about abortion?
Victoria recently legalised abortion effectively up to term.
The law is partially a response to the abortion at 32 weeks (8 months) of a child (my child was born perfectly healthy at 33 weeks) at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital in (circa) 2000.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s218675.htm
The fact that infanticide occurs in Australia and is, furthermore, publicly funded is a private matter?
Or are we to engage in some form of sophistry which denies that this is infanticide?
It's interesting to note that pro-choice compassion extends only towards the one who has to make such a difficult decision to terminate their 8 month old child and never to the child itself.

So,CJM, in your opinion,.."Do we want one?
It's a mine-field, with seriously entrenched positions on both sides, and little chance of changing anyone's outlook. Still, this IS a Forum, so I suppose it's open to debate, the same as almost anything else.
I'm Pro."....is "same old/same old".?
Glad to see your so special we need to worry whether you deign to speak to us. Oh Great Panjandrum, please grant us your wisdom, I won't dare speak, honest!
Gimme a break!

Maximillion - I was only speaking for myself. If you want to go over the same tired old ground that's been done to death on OLO for years, go for it.

There's about a squillion anti-abortionists and/or godbotherers here who'll be only too delighted to accommodate you.

Personally, I'm with Graham on this - we need some new, interesting topics rather than kicking around the same old crap that doesn't alter anybody's perspective.

How dare anyone speak to the Rord Dymo, Thlead Laberrer in Chief of ORO rike that thought Fyolestt-san. Not porite!

In one indistiguishable combination of fruidities, the body-ranguage of the Samurai barery gave warning of what was about to occur. The katana emerged into the night air from its scabbard with a barery distinguishable fricker on the backstloke, and in one refrexive forward movement bisected the body of Mexico's Rex, Lux, Dux, Maximillion, light at the neck.

"You missed me" quoth MexiMaximirrion, feeling nothing with the passage of the brade.

"Leckon?" asked the Samurai, pelemptorily. "Shake your head if you think so!"

MexiMaximirrion did as charrenged. After a brief pecuriar quiver, his head teetered for an instant, then ferr with a thud to the ground.

Tenchu!

Orr that was reft to terr of the incident was the hiss of brud from the now headress torso, which srowry rost its barance and ferr to the glound.

You wirr be porite on ORO or errse!

CJM, Why did you assume that,s what I wanted to do?
I offered an opinion on discussing the subject saying almost the same things you did, then allowed that this was an open forum however, and finished by stating my position on abortion, as an act of honesty.
I did not discuss abortion in any fashion.
I hope in future you'll pay a little more attention to what others actually say, before you launch any further hobby-horses at them.
You want new subjects? So raise them, post them. Put your fingers where your mouth is.

Dear KMB,

Abortion is a private matter, between people and their
health care professionals. - and should remain
so. It's not a decision that's entered into lightly, nor is
it that easy to obtain. A medical assessment needs to take
place.

It's a health-related issue like so many
others - that affects people's lives. For example,
when to turn off machines that are keeping family
members alive? These sorts of painful, personal,
decisions are for the families concerned to make.

There are many health related issues that are publicly
funded - that's why there are such long waiting lists
for public hospitals.

The right of a woman to have an abortion according to the
law - is also not absolute. No medical professional will
perform an abortion in the final months of pregnancy -
unless there is a health risk involved. In the third trimester,
which is the one you speak of - all abortions are barred, unless
health or life of the mother is in danger.

At the root of this controversy is the basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus. At the beginning of the
pregnancy and - by medical standards the fetus is considered a mere
collection of cells and tissue and abortion is perceived to be
a morally neutral surgical procedure. For example if a
mother miscarries, the fetus is not given a funeral, but is
simply disposed of like any other tissue.

I believe that the greater majority of the population (according
to opinion polls) supports abortion in cases of rape, incest,
or a threat to the mother's health. But support for a mother's
right to abortion on demand - fluctuates depending on a person's
beliefs - traditional norms.

I would never pass judgement on another's health-related
decision. Would I have an abortion? I honestly don't know.
It depends on the circumstances at the time.

It is for that reason that I said the ultimate decision is a
private matter. We have no right to inflict our views on others,
when we don't know the full facts involved.

*Personally, I'm with Graham on this - we need some new, interesting topics rather than kicking around the same old crap that doesn't alter anybody's perspective.*

Ah CJ, in that case perhaps we could debate if all those so called
warm, fuzzy feelings called "love", are actually based on self
interest!

Yup, abortion has been done to death. What we can show is that
runner, the Catholic Church and others, rave on about the sanctity
of every human life, until it costs them money, so much of it
is empty rhetoric. Their personal creature comforts clearly matter
more, then those starving babies.

As Darwin pointed out, far more of any species will be created, then
can ever survive.

Yabby: << ...perhaps we could debate if all those so called
warm, fuzzy feelings called "love", are actually based on self
interest! >>

Now there's an interesting topic that I'm sure could attract a diverse range of opinions - and I can't recall "love" itself being specifically a subject of debate at OLO.

If you - or anybody else - would care to compose an intelligent post on the subject, I for one would would be happy to participate :)

@ Max: I'm only speaking for myself here ;)

Yabby,

Yes, do please go ahead and post that topic. I think it could lead to some interesting opinions.

From a purely personal POV too, I would be interested in reading the opinions of some of the regular OLO netizens. Especially some of those whose opinions on abortions have been aired ad nauseum.

Perhaps we could start a new thread on possible topics. This one seems to have been well and truly hijacked by people who don't want to talk about abortion!

Which is the way these things often go, so I'm not threatening discipline for things being off-topic, just suggesting it might be polite to convene another thread. I'll do it if no-one else does, but I'll wait a day or so to see what happens.

Romany, what say that I play the diplomat for once and pass that
topic on for you to create, for good reasons.

Yes, it would be an interesting topic, my personal interest is
in the neuroscience behind it, but that is another story.

Given that we'd want the Fractelles and other Yabby haters of
this world to contribute, which they might not do if I start
a topic, your expertise is required here.

Peace and love to all :)

Yabby,

"Fractelle and all the other Yabby haters"? Oh come, come. That made me feel desperately sad. I'm sure that no-one is a Yabby-hater.

I think, that if people consistantly disagree with one, it shows that one is merely coming at life from a different angle to most. Also, on these threads, because we all appear pretty one-dimensional, different people "read" us all differently.

But as to introducing the topic? Yeah, sure, I'll do it. Just as long as you are going to contribute as well?

Looks like the discussion has substantially aborted.

One could say "c'est la guerre", but that would leave a little unfinished business arising out of the thread. So sorry if I set a bad example in proclaiming any unwillingness to post, but I had unknowingly been practising what Maximillion, who is new to the Forum, recommended to CJMorgan: I had been putting my fingers where my mouth is, but I didn't realise they were forcing my tongue into my cheek so much. Most legletable.

It should be acknowledged that Maximillion made a good point in his post of Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 9:03:05 PM. There are others on OLO who have had issues with the Thread-Labeller-in-Chief being perceived to be shutting down discussion in the past, myself included, but on this one I think he deserves a little latitude. After all, others could (and did) still post to the topic. It is only the absence of continuing posts at the rate one might, from experience on this general topic, expect, that is surprising. Unless there exists a conspiracy of silence, of course.

With GrahamY having posted three times to this topic I infer that it is one he would dearly like to see discussed, but short of submitting and approving a topic himself, and subsequently being both player and referee simultaneously on his own thread, he finds himself a bit stymied. I agree with him that the topic has a current hook; I visited KMB's linked site thinking it might be a hoax, surfed on to one of Ragdale's recent sermons, and found no fault in her.

So with Maximillion having effectively received Graham's imprimatur, we all know that this new Forum identity is not just a 'talking head'.

Pax Max?

I very much like GrahamY's idea of a thread for stimulating new topic suggestions. One title I could suggest is:

'Trolling in the Topics: fishing for comments on OLO'.

Another:

'The Wizard Morgan has a Bitch' (would daggett diggitt?)

There! Quantity over quality any day: 350 steaming words!

Yabby, don't be so shy.

Given that you perceive disagreement as a personal hatred for you, I'm just hanging out to know what your views on 'lerve' would be. I promise to participate - but... I will express MY point of view - suggest you shouldn't take it so personally.

As for the parched remains of this topic - here's my final two cents: Religious woman is appointed a leadership role in her church and supports freedom of choice for women seeking abortion. Next there'll be women pilots endorsing freedom of travel for women, female doctors sympathetic to PMS and holy moly female politicians making legislation. Where will it end?

I don't have any particular interest in this matter being discussed. I was keeping an eye on it to ensure it didn't go overboard, and then found that my decision to approve was being challenged. So you shouldn't be surprised that I've now posted 4 times. My interest is free speech, not abortion.

Having said that, I must say I was shocked at the quote and lokked it up myself. That is not because I can't see a theologian approving of abortion, but because the enthusiasm didn't seem to sit right. It's one of those issues that I find morally ambiguous and the triumphalism in the quote just didn't seem Christian.

Catholics only recently became absolutely opposed to abortion, with work by Thomas Aquinas, for example, suggesting (from memory) that life didn't start until 60 days. I understand Jews have no problem with abortion, and Christianity is just an heretical form of Judaism. So Ragdale's position on abortion is well within the tradition in substance, but I don't think in form.

And this is an effort to bring the thread back to where it was. I think the poster deserves that for having gone to the trouble to post in the first place.

BTW, I haven't deleted any comments from this thread either, so the comments you see are all there have been.

Yes, Graham's right: I do apologise to the poster who is probably unaware of how often this topic comes up - and hijacks threads itself.

Please do not be discouraged from proposing topics simply because this one wobbled off the way it did.

As to addressing the topic? I also believe this is a private matter and any woman I know who finds herself in the position of having to consider it for herself, has my heartfelt support and empathy, no matter what her views or final decision.

Ultimately abortion is a private matter - if a woman wants to do it badly enough she will, because there's no changing human will.

However, there is another dimension to the issue that is at odds with 'personal choice' that isn't so easy to untangle. That is, once pro-abortionists go public, if they are not challenged in a like manner, their philosophy becomes mainstream and eventually starts infecting everyone. The big danger here is that people who wouldn't otherwise engage in the practice do so in much the same way that teenagers take drugs and booze as they go through that period where they drift around looking to 'find themselves'.

Now, I think people can turn a blind eye to abortion where it is quarantined to those who really want to do it. But, will this still be the case if the practice starts spreading further? Hopefully, the better survival instincts of mainstream society will kick in at that time and mobilise against its intrusion.

I believe a 100% pro-life stance (or zero tolerance to abortion) cannot go wrong. There will always be degrees to the issue (eg the later the abortion, the worse the outcome), but the best policy would be to not have it, apart from a few extenuating circumstances which would be need to be acted on on their merits.

Dear RobP,

I'm not sure if you're aware that the
Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 that was
passed in Victoria 22 Oct. 2008 quite
clearly states that:

(Quoting from the Minister for Women's Affairs
office):

"Under the Bill, terminations of pregnancy will
be regulated like any other medical procedure
up to 24 weeks gestation. After 24 weeks gestation,
a registered medical practitioner may perform an
abortion on a woman ONLY if the medical practitioner -
a) Reasonably believes that the termination of pregnancy
is appropriate in all the circumstances;
b) Has consulted at least one other medical practitioner who
also reasonably believes that the termination is appropriate
in all the circumstances.

In considering all the circumstances the registered medical
practitioners must have regard to all relevant medical
circumstances and the woman's current and future physical,
psychological, and social circumstances..."

Foxy,
You naively assume some sort of ethical self-regulation among abortionists, similar in substance perhaps to that of Hollywood plastic surgeons.
The practical effect of the abortion restrictions you quote is that if two abortionists back each other up then the law has been fulfilled.
How much money does an abortionist stand to lose for each abortion they knock back?
How easy would it be for abortionists to establish quid pro quo arrangements?
What's the difference between a viable 24 week only foetus and a viable 25 week old foetus anyway?
Who cares?
Not the Victorian government it seems.
It's just another lump of tissue in the biohazard bag.

Dear KMB,

The legislation that has been modernised in Victoria
is a fundamental change in the way abortions will
be regulated in the state. It's an excellent move
by the State Government - and complies with the
demands of the broader community. Whether you like
it or not - abortions are going to be (and are) performed.
However - the State Government decided to modernise the
legislation and bring it up to date with current clinical
practice.

The Legislation is basically :-

A clarification of the law relating to terminations
of pregnancy. And it does set limits - as explained
in my earlier post.

The bill was passed after extensive consultation with
individuals and organisations. You compared "abortionists"
with - "Hollywood plastic surgeons." That comparison
has no validity, and you know it. For a start, they are
not "abortionists," they are reputable physicians. And there are
many reputable plastic surgeons to be found globally,
not only in Hollywood. If you consider me being naive.
I consider you being - contentious.

There is no need for health professionals to misuse
the law - it's no longer a criminal offence to
perform an abortion in Victoria. The law merely
reflects broad community views and current clinical
practice. That's the whole purpose behind the legislation.
By modernising the law the misuse that occurred with
"backstreet" abortions by private physicians or even
untrained practitioners (fairly common in the past) has
been removed out of the equation - as have the serious
risks involved for women.

The Bill that was passed was subject to a conscience
vote by Government MPs. You may not agree with the
legislation, but naivety doesn't enter into the
argument. You're contentiousness does. You obviously
are against this legislation - and that's fine. That's
your opinion. However, it's only your opinion - and
whether you like it or not - it actually doesn't count
for very much - in the general scheme of things - in
the state of Victoria!

The fairness of the legislation, to the broader community
is self-evident.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

All the legislation you refer to does is solve the Government's political and legal problems. It doesn't solve the underlying problem which is the immediate effect on the foetus and the future effect on the woman involved.

In my view, the 24 weeks threshold is way, way too much. The foetus is already well down the formation and developmental path at this stage, and an abortion is permanently and abruptly killing that development. There is no nice way to put it.

Where the legislation says "and future physical, psychological, and social circumstances..", this is meaningless as how can a medical practitioner know or even guess what the future effects are going to be on the woman having the abortion? This phrase is feelgood codswallop, basically. What will happen is that the practitioner doing the assessment will go with the flow of majority opinion at the time.

My argument effectively boils down to prevention is better than cure. All the legislation does is attempt to contain the damage and even then it is slipping backwards all the time.

Dear RobP,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree
on this topic. At the root of this
controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus.
Is it a baby or a mere collection of
cells and tissue... The conflicting
value judgements stem from this ambiguity.

The question is further compounded by a related
issue - the right of a woman to control her own
body.

We all have our own opinions about abortion.
I for one am unwilling to impose my views
on others. I feel that as time goes on, the legal,
ethical, and medical complexities won't abate.
People will continue to make decisions primarily in
terms of their personal desires rather than what
anyone else tells them to do.

And, as Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand stated,

"The Government has committed to the development of
legislation that provides clarity for women,
health practitioners and the community about the
circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy
can be performed."

Thanks for your views on the topic.
But I have nothing more to add on this subject.

See you on another thread.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

"At the root of this controversy is a basic value judgement about the human status of the fetus. Is it a baby or a mere collection of cells and tissue... The conflicting value judgements stem from this ambiguity."

I agree on this point entirely. Whether or not people believe that abortion is an acceptable practice goes to their upbringing and the cultural environment in which they developed, normally from a young age.

Without trying to make this a contentious issue, I'll try to put my reasons, from first principles, why abortion is not a good practice.

First, let's look at what we know for sure. The foetus starts off as a clump of cells that goes through an evolutionary, but predictable, process of development ... there are distinct timings when the foetus can be said to have reached another stage in its development. We also know that after 9 months, at the end of the process of pregnancy, a baby comes out that has distinct human characteristics. I think all mothers would say their baby has its own individual identity.

The real question of import to the debate on abortion is what are the hitherto invisible processes that cause a clump of biological cells to develop to a human with "all the bells and whistles" including having a spiritual core. [What a complex development in just 9 months!]

Logic suggests there can be no way the process is purely a one-dimensional biological one. Mothers have said that the baby first starts kicking at about 4 and half months. It has also been posited that this is when the spiritual part of the baby enters its body. This seems to be perfectly logical. In light of that, there is no doubt in my mind that having an abortion after this date is murder just like any other that occurs in the physical world.

TBC

(Cont.)

On top of that, there are other connections made during the baby's development. The 4 and a half month milestone is when the baby's development has MATURED to the point where the spiritual part can enter the body. But, as in any physical development, there is an earlier period when the development is immature and still growing. How do we know there aren't many other connections being made in a synchronous order along a prescribed time line all the way through the 9 months of pregnancy? [Think of the Star Wars movies where the reversed time order of the three “prequels” (viz the original trilogy) dramatically showed there were previous episodes to the story that existed in a whole different setting but whose individual strands evolved seamlessly into the final trilogy.]

So, I’d suggest that even having an abortion after a short time after conception is likely to be shutting down or deadening connections that have already opened, are opening up or are about to open. I know from my job that to get a computer program to work requires the programmer to precisely open ports, via a layered series of parallel shells, that connect as needed to external files, sockets and processes. Why shouldn’t similar physical processes also occur in human pregnancy?

Is it right to abort these processes? I definitely believe not

If we agree to disagree about the rights and wrongs or potential life denied, then we must be realistic about one other important fact.
That is, that women, for whatever reason, have always, and presumably WILL always, seek abortions.
If we accept that, we must ask, is it preferable to ban them, and suffer all the death and misery that inevitably follows, or provide them in safety, despite the wide variety of opinions and religious stances in the population?
Seems a no-brainer in this modern world, to me anyway.

Dear RobP,

Thank you for going to so much trouble to explain
your stance on this subject to me. I fully
understand your position.

As I stated in an earlier post - would I have an
abortion? I honestly don't know. It would depend
on the circumstances involved. It took me five
years to get pregnant after I was married. Then
I had two boys, one after another. We were told
we couldn't have children - so to me, my babies
were 'miracles.'

However, as Max pointed out - women will continue
to have abortions - regardless of what any of us
think. And I have to agree that making it safe
for them to do so - is a wiser option than
the nightmare of "backstreet abortions," that
existed in the past.

No true a word has been spoken.

Personally, I'm with Graham on this - we need some new, interesting topics rather than kicking around the same old crap that doesn't alter anybody's perspective.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 4 April 2009 8:35:14 PM

EVO

So its pretty obvious the planet is getting very small, especially in the world of interesting topics. Here is a little idea. "space the final frontier". And in reality we also need something to boost the worlds economy, and a new world project is the only answer because we have all ran out of goals here on earth. Again its pretty obvious that the worlds problems cannot be fixed and like I've said and many are feeling it, that we are all going around and around in circles and there is no way anyone is going to take any notice cause quite simply, humans do not listen. You would have to make a global law and enforce it with jail penalties to stop the worlds reproduction wows. I and many others see the big picture so clearly and what resources we have left should be put in above and beyond this planet before the entire planetary system fails.

Basically the youth of the planet need a new direction, something to go for, something exciting and dangerous and we can all imagine how great the feeling was for our great explorers like Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus and so on. All the worlds industries would be making parts for space exploration in building habitats and other space technologies and within 50 years we could be mining the moon, using it for tourism and most of importantly of all a second base in case something here on earth goes catastrophically wrong. All dangerous experiments can be conducted in safety without jeopardizing the fragile flora and fauna of this planet and don't say we don't have the technology or nohow, because we have! and those in the know know it.

And to keep on topic about abortions, once mankind gets off this depleted rock there wont be any need for threads like this to be discussed ever again.

Wishful thinking? Not at all. Then mars, here we come. Under-ground at first, then who knows.

In all reality, staying here is certain death and all realist know it.

Just a thought.

EVO