Abortion

[AndSmithMustScore]

Does anybody else feel uncomfortable that this issue, which predominantly affects women, is being debated & decided by a majority of men?

When they showed on the news a room full of people(100-150) who were medical proffesionals who were agaisnt the anti-abortion bill, 90% were women.

 

[mantis]

When they showed on the news a room full of people(100-150) who were medical proffesionals who were agaisnt the anti-abortion bill, 90% were women.

So? No one is forcing them to have abortions, yet you anti's want to force women into having unwanted pregnancies. Double standards much.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

So? No one is forcing them to have abortions, yet you anti's want to force women into having unwanted pregnancies. Double standards much.

I have to laugh at the term 'unwanted pregnancy'.

Are these people such morons they don't know sexual intercourse is how you make babies?

 

[Chief]

There's a thread discussing the Victorian law change: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=480535

 

[linga_is_no1]

Once again the bloke who is opposing abortion and is thus more right wing than the majority of mods is banned. Why am I not surprised? When will this bizarre censorship finish?

 

[BomberGal]

Once again the bloke who is opposing abortion and is thus more right wing than the majority of mods is banned. Why am I not surprised? When will this bizarre censorship finish?

Who was 'banned'?

Oh, and censorship...coming from someone who wants to impose his views on other women's bodies?

 

[Dry Rot]

Once again the bloke who is opposing abortion and is thus more right wing than the majority of mods is banned. Why am I not surprised? When will this bizarre censorship finish?

How do you know he got banned because of this thread?

Could have been what happened on another board.

 

[SlainteO'Hailpin]

Once again the bloke who is opposing abortion and is thus more right wing than the majority of mods is banned. Why am I not surprised? When will this bizarre censorship finish?

In fairness to Chief I wasn't banned for that.

I have no complaints over why I was banned.

 

[FIGJAM]

Oh, and censorship...coming from someone who wants to impose his views on other women's bodies?

Isn't imposing views on someone else's body what abortion is all about?

 

[linga_is_no1]

In fairness to Chief I wasn't banned for that.

I have no complaints over why I was banned.

I was referring to SmithMustScore and my own banning for saying:

"If every person who has aids was abstinent and chaste we could wipe out AIDS in a generation."

Its remarkable how people advocate the murder of 3 years old (Dry Rot) and are free to do so, but yet people proposing saving the world from AIDS are banned.

When will the censorship finish!!

BTW I'll probably be banned for saying this.

 

[BomberGal]

I have to laugh at the term 'unwanted pregnancy'.

Are these people such morons they don't know sexual intercourse is how you make babies?

Oh yeah. So you think the only reason people have sex is because they want to make a baby?

Or that's the only reason they should?

 

[linga_is_no1]

Who was 'banned'?

Oh, and censorship...coming from someone who wants to impose his views on other women's bodies?

Interesting comment, because isn't the women imposing her views upon the child? I think your caught up on the women's rights but what about the baby's rights? Doesn't the child deserve the most fundamental right which is the right to life? This is a child here, this isn't a bunch of cells, if you were that kid in that womb I'm sure you would want your mother to give you a chance. But sometimes murder is a better option,ey.

Perhaps you should think before you post, it might help you in the future.

 

[dardy_7]

When will the censorship finish!!

When there is no bs to be censored

 

[BomberGal]

Interesting comment, because isn't the women imposing her views upon the child?

Well done on stealing what FIGJAM just said.

I think your caught up on the women's rights but what about the baby's rights? Doesn't the child deserve the most fundamental right which is the right to life?

An already existing person is always far more important than that of an unborn child.

This is a child here, this isn't a bunch of cells, if you were that kid in that womb I'm sure you would want your mother to give you a chance.

Except that the kid has no conscience or feelings.

If you don't understand developmental biology, don't go around spouting bullshit as if you do.

Perhaps you should think before you post, it might help you in the future.

Perhaps you shouldn't post.

 

[Chief]

I was referring to AndSmithMustScore

Who was banned for abusing other users. On top of all that, his rubbish is getting tiresome. We get it. He thinks women who fall pregnant and don't want the baby are stupid or drug-****ed whores. Time for him to take a break and let the adults talk.

 

[Chief]

As if you had any credibility left, there it goes.

Honestly, that is the stupidest thing I have read on this site. Ever.

You missed the one where he said all currencies in the world are gold-backed.

 

[fairdinkum]

It is the only sense in which ethics exist. There is no such thing as valid ethics, there's my ethics, there's your ethics, there's ethics we agree on, none more valid than the other.

There is such a thing as validity in regards to philosophical positions. We may be debating 'ethics', but that does not mean that arguments need not be logical and sound.

That's a bit simplistic, it's not a case of a woman going to a doctor and requesting an abortion then upon being told that she is more than 24 weeks into the pregnancy she just says "I'll kill myself if you don't" and the doc goes "oh ok sure no problem then" She would undergo psychiatric analysis to determine if she actually has mental problems or is just saying it.

The main circumstance allowing post 24 week abortions is when the life of the mother is in danger. Yes her life is more valued up until birth but that does not equal a right to an abortion for the full 9 months.

You are still missing my point, which is that any rights that the fetus may have post-24 weeks are still dependent on and subordinate to the rights of the mother - that is, those 'rights' are hardly strong, and so we have the untenable situation where some think that the baby has a right to life after 24 weeks, but this 'right' may be null and void in 'extenuating circumstances'.

If the child was due any day soon and the woman threatened suicide they would not terminate it.

If you have any links to any stories which back up this position, I would like to see them. I would be interested to know at what point this new line is drawn.

 

[fairdinkum]

You missed the one where he said all currencies in the world are gold-backed.

LOL. I forgot that was him!

 

[SlainteO'Hailpin]

The adults?

That must be those who are given a carte blanche to vilify anyone of religious beliefs by calling them whatever names they like.


They seem to keep on keeping on without any repurcusions.

 

[skilts]

The adults?

That must be those who are given a carte blanche to vilify anyone of religious beliefs by calling them whatever names they like.


They seem to keep on keeping on without any repurcusions.

You're a man after my own heart. One purcusion is never enough. It should always be repeated, even to the extent of ad nauseum.

 

[SlainteO'Hailpin]

You're a man after my own heart. One purcusion is never enough. It should always be repeated, even to the extent of ad nauseum.

You look good in yellow.

It goes well with your eyes.

 

[Dry Rot]

You look good in yellow.

It goes well with your eyes.

Ewww! Has he got hepatitis?

That's the last time I exchange PMs with him!

 

[SlainteO'Hailpin]

Ewww! Has he got hepatitis?

That's the last time I exchange PMs with him!

No no, not a sickly yellow.

More of a Donovan mellow kinda yellow.

 

[skilts]

Ewww! Has he got hepatitis?

That's the last time I exchange PMs with him!

Hepatitis? Not sure about that. Have often been accused of being a hippy tightarse though. If only they knew me.

 

[Niximus]

You are still missing my point, which is that any rights that the fetus may have post-24 weeks are still dependent on and subordinate to the rights of the mother - that is, those 'rights' are hardly strong, and so we have the untenable situation where some think that the baby has a right to life after 24 weeks, but this 'right' may be null and void in 'extenuating circumstances'.

Once again they aren't subordinate to all the mother's rights. As I have had to repeatedly repeat the foetus gains rights through it's development. Some of them do trump the mothers. (i.e. after 24 weeks she can't just decide to terminate. As you yourself said she may only terminate in - 'extenuating circumstances'

If you have any links to any stories which back up this position, I would like to see them. I would be interested to know at what point this new line is drawn.

At that point the child is fully formed. The only cause for termination left is if her life is in immediate danger.