Abortion

[Gus Poyet]

Napthine went to the same school as me.

 

[Run n Spread]

A very warped attitude we have in place. You can see it filtering all the way through to the family courts. No matter how responsible the man, we still think that an irresponsible womans judgement should be put before it.

How do you come to that conclusion. Why is a woman who seeks an abortion irresponsible? If anything they acknowledge they haven't the financial, physical, emotional or mental resources to cope with the responsibility of parenthood I'd say they are making a difficult yet responsible choice.

 

[telsor]

A very warped attitude we have in place. You can see it filtering all the way through to the family courts. No matter how responsible the man, we still think that an irresponsible womans judgement should be put before it.

If we have abortion, then someone needs to make the decision.

Sure, in a perfect world, everyone with a stake in it would get a vote, the size of which varies with their personal involvement, adjusted for the individual involved, but that would be ridiculously difficult to impliment and unfair on the mother if she was outvoted (do we then force her to eat the perfect baby diet, and live the 'right' lifestyle?).

But in the real world, it's simplified down to the person who usually has the biggest stake makes the call, and that's the mother.

 

[Gus Poyet]

How do you come to that conclusion. Why is a woman who seeks an abortion irresponsible?

Maybe because if you *, you can get pregnant. I thought we all knew that? Imagine wanting to kill something because you got pissed and knocked up(yes, that does happen a lot in our society).

If anything they acknowledge they haven't the financial, physical, emotional or mental resources to cope with the responsibility of parenthood I'd say they are making a difficult yet responsible choice.

It's actually quite easy not to get knocked up. Are we dealing with a lot of halfwits then?

 

[Gus Poyet]

If we have abortion, then someone needs to make the decision.

Agreed. Two people are responsible for the creation of life. If both agree it's not for them, then no issues with it.

Sure, in a perfect world, everyone with a stake in it would get a vote, the size of which varies with their personal involvement, adjusted for the individual involved, but that would be ridiculously difficult to impliment and unfair on the mother if she was outvoted (do we then force her to eat the perfect baby diet, and live the 'right' lifestyle?).

But in the real world, it's simplified down to the person who usually has the biggest stake makes the call, and that's the mother.

The biggest at stake in the affair is the foetus. It would be unfair to terminate it if there was one parent who was happy for it to brought into the world and cared for.

 

[Run n Spread]

Maybe because if you ****, you can get pregnant. I thought we all knew that? Imagine wanting to kill something because you got pissed and knocked up(yes, that does happen a lot in our society).
It's actually quite easy not to get knocked up. Are we dealing with a lot of halfwits then?

Men and women will always f&*& no matter what is preached. It is one of if not the most powerful drives we have. Also there are a great many more functions and reasons for sex then procreation. 99.999999% of encounters would not have procreation in mind. The vast majority of society acknowledges that widespread celibacy is impractical. Only a tiny minority of individuals would deem it suitable. (Major organisations who have preached it have institutional problems related to their conduct and are frankly the last source of advice with credibility).

Yes it is easy not to get knocked up. Yet contraception fails sometimes so what then? As for your comment about wanting to kill something. I don't consider abortion murder. So what is the alternative, force an unwanted pregnancy and child on someone who doesn't want it and is ill equipped for it.

 

[Gough]

Yes it is easy not to get knocked up. Yet contraception fails sometimes so what then? As for your comment about wanting to kill something. I don't consider abortion murder. So what is the alternative, force an unwanted pregnancy and child on someone who doesn't want it and is ill equipped for it.

You can send it to one of those nice church run child brothel for priests orphanages. They seem like a cheerful place to grow up.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Yes it is easy not to get knocked up. Yet contraception fails sometimes so what then? As for your comment about wanting to kill something. I don't consider abortion murder. So what is the alternative, force an unwanted pregnancy and child on someone who doesn't want it and is ill equipped for it.

If both people involved do not want the child then no issues with an abortion.

It's different when one person is willing to care and provide for the child and another wants to terminate it.

 

[Gus Poyet]

You can send it to one of those nice church run child brothel for priests orphanages. They seem like a cheerful place to grow up.

Better than growing up around you I guess

 

[telsor]

Agreed. Two people are responsible for the creation of life. If both agree it's not for them, then no issues with it.

So, woman walks into a clinic and says "The father was one of the bunch of guys I shagged that week, don't remember their names."

Sure, it's probably a lie, but what do you do then?

The biggest at stake in the affair is the foetus. It would be unfair to terminate it if there was one parent who was happy for it to brought into the world and cared for.

Having abortion allowed means the foetuses rights are deemed inconsequential.

 

[Gus Poyet]

So, woman walks into a clinic and says "The father was one of the bunch of guys I shagged that week, don't remember their names."

Sure, it's probably a lie, but what do you do then?

Spey her.

Having abortion allowed means the foetuses rights are deemed inconsequential.

True enough, that's the kinds of campaigners mindset that we live among our society these days though.

 

[telsor]

Spey her.

Yeah, I really can't see that law getting through.

True enough, that's the kinds of Syds mindset that we live among our society these days though.

Not sure what a "Syds mindset" is, but it's the mindset of a significant majority of the population, and ina democracy, that matters more than what you or I might feel.

 

[Run n Spread]

If both people involved do not want the child then no issues with an abortion.

It's different when one person is willing to care and provide for the child and another wants to terminate it.

Agree. Yet that is one part of biology that is unequal. Simply put men can't get pregnant. So 2 situations to your point:

1) Woman gets pregnant-Man doesn't want she does. Courts will enforce child support. No real way out. Also men have fewer avenues of contraception. Either a condom or the snip (which is not without risks of itself). Really is nothing else. Now while a man may be obligated to provide support he is not obligated to see the child. Some woman are also happy to go it alone. Either way it is an unfair legal position for men (and as others have alluded to perhaps the law is in need of amendment) but a woman would have ultimate say.

2) Woman gets pregnant- She doesn't want man does. A man's best bet is to negotiate an outcome where he takes full custody and/or waives financial support and brings the child up. Yet given the fact that through biology a woman has to go through the trauma of pregnancy and child birth and be responsible for growing the child so to speak she has ultimate say still. No other way, you can't force someone to continue a pregnancy they do not want.

 

[Maggie5]

What a load of feminist bullshit. Like a father doesn't feel as much pain at the loss of a child be it born or unborn. Imagine being the kind of Syd who spins the "oh you're not a female so you wouldn't understand line".

Thanks for the "label" but you are wrong! I worked with females in the 80" and 90's and saw the anguish, pain, humiliation and depression that many went through. I also saw many females that carried the pregnancy to full term and finally give the child up (some aged 14/15) because they were forced to carry the pregnancy. I saw the affect to this as well.

I also believe that most females are well informed and would not make a decision to terminate lightly.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Thanks for the "label" but you are wrong! I worked with females in the 80" and 90's and saw the anguish, pain, humiliation and depression that many went through. I also saw many females that carried the pregnancy to full term and finally give the child up (some aged 14/15) because they were forced to carry the pregnancy. I saw the affect to this as well.

I also believe that most females are well informed and would not make a decision to terminate lightly.

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the male feels. Funny how men can't have an opinion on what women feel but women are always quick to dismiss what a man feels as if they know.

 

[Maggie5]

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the male feels. Funny how men can't have an opinion on what women feel but women are always quick to dismiss what a man feels as if they know.

Finding it difficult to continue with you, bye.

 

[Footy Smarts]

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the male feels. Funny how men can't have an opinion on what women feel but women are always quick to dismiss what a man feels as if they know.

Agreed. Women will never understand how traumatic not being pregnant is.

 

[telsor]

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the male feels. Funny how men can't have an opinion on what women feel but women are always quick to dismiss what a man feels as if they know.

While I agree with the underlying point of a lot of what you've said, the extreme manner you present/argue with it means I can't agree with you.

 

[MrCharisma]

Gotta love how passionate Gus is about people... before they're born.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Gus Poyet hates women.

 

[Bosun]

Gus Poyet hates women.

That's not overly constructive to the discussion. While he might use emotive/aggressive language he raises pertinent points.

 

[Pie eyed]

I can't handle the concept of doctors arguing for a conscience vote of whether they want to do parts their job. They are either doctors or not.



"Frankston MP Geoff Shaw says overhauling Victoria's abortion laws has nothing to do with women's reproductive rights and is about doctors being able to follow their consciences."

​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/abortion-reform-would-give-power-back-to-doctors-shaw-20131202-2ylpz.html#ixzz2mIgKSUO2​

​

​

​

Thoughts? Are doctors there to do their job or to discriminate against people in their hour of need?​

I believe the individual Doctor is completely within his/her rights to refuse to perform and abortion.
No issue with it whatsoever.
On the other hand they have absolutely no right to advocate against any other doctor making a different decision.

 

[Pie eyed]

I would argue that a great many hospitals do indeed have the right to impose their moral beliefs upon their employees conduct.

Do you really think private Catholic hospitals will want their staff encouraging abortions let alone forcing their own staff to support them if they do not morally agree with the practice?

A Dr from St Vincents and Mercy hospital should have every right to refuse any action to do with an abortion.

In Canberra we have a Private Catholic Hospital which contract Public Hospital Services.
As such that section of the hospital represents the community and has no right to pick and choose which procedures they undertake.
It's fine for the Private wing to make moral decisions based on the belief systems of the proprietors, but if they are not happy to provide the same services as any public hospital in the Public wing then they should hand in their contract and hand back the massive amount of money they have gouged from the public purse over the last 20 years.
Really it's just lazy Government. No private organization should ever have control of a Government institution.
I ave no issue with as many privately funded hospitals being built as the private sector can muster and they can run them any way they like....with not a single cent of public money, no land grants or tax breaks.

 

[Pie eyed]

If both people involved do not want the child then no issues with an abortion.

It's different when one person is willing to care and provide for the child and another wants to terminate it.

While I agree in principal there is the reality that only one of the parents. takes the risks of carrying and delivering the prospective baby.
There is also the very real likelihood that a father willing to take on the responsibility at a point in time when the prospective child is for all intents and purposes an unknown "novelty" hidden away deep in a womb, in someone else will walk away after the reality of the decision comes to bear.
It is no easy issue.

 

[Gus Poyet]

While I agree in principal there is the reality that only one of the parents. takes the risks of carrying and delivering the prospective baby.
There is also the very real likelihood that a father willing to take on the responsibility at a point in time when the prospective child is for all intents and purposes an unknown "novelty" hidden away deep in a womb, in someone else will walk away after the reality of the decision comes to bear.
It is no easy issue.

Why is there a likelihood?

That almost sounds like some femi-nazi myth that a man wouldnt take responsibility for a child nor be able to raise one as a single parent.