Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

[GreyWind]

I'd say the issue is more about some religious kook trying to enforce her opinion, over that of medically trained doctors.

The fact 2 doctors need to sign off on a late stage abortion should be enough of a safe guard anyway. Plus the doctors would only agree if there were health risks to either mother or baby. So glad this was defeated.

 

[Procrastinator35]

"

I'd say the issue is more about some religious kook trying to enforce her opinion, over that of medically trained doctors.

The article was more swaying towards the moral concerns, that an unborn baby, beyond that period of time, is essentially almost a fully fledged human baby.....Pre-mature babies are born & manage to survive from that time forward.

If you haven't made up your mind by 6 months, then maybe adoption is a more ethical choice from that time onward?....Food for thought....Seems like a waste to me.

The fact 2 doctors need to sign off on a late stage abortion should be enough of a safe guard anyway. Plus the doctors would only agree if there were health risks to either mother or baby. So glad this was defeated.

Agree with the sentiment. but health risks to the baby a concern?....They are going to kill it ffs.

 

[GreyWind]

Agree with the sentiment. but health risks to the baby a concern?....They are going to kill it ffs.

Well considering a foetus can develop problems after the 24 week period then yes. The pregnancy might have been going smoothly up till that point in time.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Well considering a foetus can develop problems after the 24 week period then yes. The pregnancy might have been going smoothly up till that point in time.

I see what you mean now....All good.

 

[cartwright]

The fact 2 doctors need to sign off on a late stage abortion should be enough of a safe guard anyway. Plus the doctors would only agree if there were health risks to either mother or baby. So glad this was defeated.

That is correct. Seriously, do people actually think TWO doctors are just going to end a pregnancy post 24 weeks, because the woman changed her mind ...jeeezus.

 

[Boston tiger]

So after 24 weeks it is no longer a women's choice" thing and all abortions would be on purely medical reasons concerning the safety and well being of the mother.
Or could a mother still choose to have an abortion on the grounds that the child would be severely disabled and it wasn't found out till after 24 weeks?

Has there ever been many late abortions any way. Seems like you would need a pretty good reason.

 

[Boston tiger]

Found my own answer. Looks like doctors really don't like going any where near late term abortions.


"A suicidal mother of two who says her life is in a "diabolical" state is pleading with the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne to terminate her 26-week-old fetus even though it is healthy.

The woman, a 41-year-old who does not want to be named, said a range of factors had eroded her ability to cope with having the baby, who has been tested for and has no abnormalities."

 

[MWPP]

Despite being fundamentally pro-choice, I'm also pro-life on a personal level (ie I personally wouldn't ever perform or get an abortion , but am glad that it's legal and believe that we should have a choice).
Great article http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ade-unborn-children-women-feminism-march-life

 

[Procrastinator35]

Found my own answer. Looks like doctors really don't like going any where near late term abortions.
"A suicidal mother of two who says her life is in a "diabolical" state is pleading with the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne to terminate her 26-week-old fetus even though it is healthy.

The woman, a 41-year-old who does not want to be named, said a range of factors had eroded her ability to cope with having the baby, who has been tested for and has no abnormalities."

An excellent example of where adoption is a perfectly feasible alternative.

 

[MWPP]

An excellent example of where adoption is a perfectly feasible alternative.

Definitely, especially since
-a termination so late would involve delivering (either vaginally or via c-section) anyway
-Australia has more couples wanting to adopt, than children up for adoption (many kids in the foster care system though...)

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So after 24 weeks it is no longer a women's choice" thing and all abortions would be on purely medical reasons concerning the safety and well being of the mother.
Or could a mother still choose to have an abortion on the grounds that the child would be severely disabled and it wasn't found out till after 24 weeks?

Has there ever been many late abortions any way. Seems like you would need a pretty good reason.

late term abortions are all about medical reasons, they are only granted if there's a risk to mother or child, this includes post birth.
So yes if the child would have a major disability whereby the child might not survive after birth or live a severely ****ed up life they can be granted. But we're talking about pretty serious defects and illnesses. Things like Trisomy 18 and muscular dystrophy.

sadly most people who are against late term abortions are ill informed of what the restrictions are the 2008 act in victoria merely changed the laws to reflect reality.

the restrictions on authorising an abortion in victoria are as follows:

The amended act allows for abortions after 24 weeks, but only if the medical practitioner:

• reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances, and
• has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who also reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.

In determining whether the circumstances warrant an abortion after 24 weeks, the registered medical practitioner must have regard to:

• all relevant medical circumstances, and
• the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances.

Medical practitioners who perform abortions after 24 weeks can still face criminal penalties if it is deemed that they have incorrectly determined the "appropriateness" of the abortion.

Only pharmacists employed by a hospital may administer or supply a drug or drugs for an abortion after 24 weeks, and then only at the "written direction of a registered medical practitioner"

Now compare that to NSW where abortion late term or not is illegal, of course even way back at federation people were aware that doctors may need to perform an abortion when it's "necessary".

Now things become ****ed because what is deemed necessary is literally not defined by the legislation, Because conservatives refuse to put in place proper abortion laws, Because that would be "legalising" abortion.

So "necessary" in NSW is a hazy exemption to when the law does and doesn't apply. Which is absolutely needed, because if there wasn't any exceptions doctors would not legally be allowed to perform an abortion even when it's a life and death situation.

Now as anyone with a brain could see what was to come from this . It ended up being tested in the NSW supreme court time and time again and it evolved over time. Until we ended up with a bunch of rulings, which found that if the woman’s doctor believes on "reasonable grounds" that it is necessary to avoid a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health then an abortion can be granted, the court also found that a doctor can take into account economic and social factors in addition to medical factors, when deciding whether an abortion was necessary, this includes taking into account any period of the mother's life even post pregnancy.

Now as you can probably tell just from reading a summary of various rulings, it is pretty much the same as the victoria law, but actually a bit weaker and way less clearly defined. Right so what's the issue? Well because it's not actual legislation, But an interpretation on how the legislation is to be viewed by judges ruling on cases, it's not applied on a consistent basis by health practitioners.

a rather extreme example of this was where a chinese woman asked for an abortion because her child had some sort of ****ed up hand. Now on the surface this is open and shut, your kids hands ******ed so what? no abortion for you, because it's not a serious problem.

but this woman was born and raised in china where because of that whole 1 child policy thing they had when she grew up there, there was a huge stigma surrounding parents who didn't abort children with disabilities, it was viewed as selfish or some shit.

long story short, the doctor was not upto date on his court rulings, So he wasn't aware that social factors could be taken into consideration and so he rejected her application for an abortion, Because as far as he was aware, had he performed one. He would be knowingly breaking the law and facing something like 20 years in prison or that the very least the loss of his medical licence.

Well the result of this lovely mess was that the mother went into depression, suffered some sort of dissociative episode, stopped eating and wound up in the psychiatric ward of westmead hospital, where they decided she could have an abortion based on mental health reasons.

the abortion was carried out at 28 weeks, in a state where there is no legislation legalising late term abortion and all abortion is on the surface illegal unless you meet poorly defined loopholes which have been created out of necessity in court rulings which have taken place over the past 115 years.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Well done on adding nothing to the conversation, other than hyperbole.

step up from adding tiresome bullshit, from yourself.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Historically speaking of course ‘ey Georgie boi?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Historically speaking of course ‘ey Georgie boi?View attachment 459645

If you take the view, as many do, that human life begins in the womb then it is beyond question that abortion is a greater moral scandal than sexual abuse. Even our secular courts recognise this.

 

[chelseacarlton]

If you take the view, as many do, that human life begins in the womb then it is beyond question that abortion is a greater moral scandal than sexual abuse. Even our secular courts recognise this.

lol
Ok Einstein!

 

[skilts]

lol
Ok Einstein!

As far as I remember, human life begins in the penis, and then outside it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

If you take the view, as many do, that human life begins in the womb then it is beyond question that abortion is a greater moral scandal than sexual abuse. Even our secular courts recognize this.

Really?....Abortion is legal, last I checked....Pedophilia, not so much.

Like to try again?

 

[HairyO]

Really?....Abortion is legal, last I checked....Pedophilia, not so much.

Like to try again?

All laws are moral?

 

[chelseacarlton]

All laws are moral?

A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body and the parasitical nature of pregnancy is not a moral argument!

 

[ShanDog]

A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body and the parasitical nature of pregnancy is not a moral argument!

Abortion is not a womens issue. The discussion on what constitutes life is far bigger and more important than feminism and women's rights.

 

[Procrastinator35]

All laws are moral?

Have a read of the post I was replying to.....This bloke is attempting to both obfuscate, water-down & equivocate for the disgraceful actions of a Catholic priest, by the attempt to requisition in & hide behind the concept of abortion.....Talk about what-aboutism.

And contrary to his oblique & contradictory claims, no Secular Law court in the land recognizes one as 'a greater moral scandal' than pedophilia.....That would be the Catholic Church....The Lad has his 'Secular' mixed up for his 'religious' institutions....Not to mention talking out of his back-side.

Messing up a kid for the rest of their life is one thing.....Whether or not abortion should be legal & is wrong is quite another subject entirely.

I've seen some attempts at sleight-of-hands before....But this fella aint fooling anyone with this bullshize.

 

[HairyO]

Have a read of the post I was replying to.....This bloke is attempting to both obfuscate, water-down & equivocate for the disgraceful actions of a Catholic priest, by the attempt to requisition in & hide behind the concept of abortion.....Talk about what-aboutism.

And contrary to his oblique & contradictory claims, no Secular Law court in the land recognizes one as 'a greater moral scandal' than pedophilia.....That would be the Catholic Church....The Lad has his 'Secular' mixed up for his 'religious' institutions....Not to mention talking out of his back-side.

Messing up a kid for the rest of their life is one thing.....Whether or not abortion should be legal & is wrong is quite another subject entirely.

I've seen some attempts at sleight-of-hands before....But this fella aint fooling anyone with this bullshize.

I read it. Questioning whether killing an unborn child is morally worse than harming a born child seems reasonable to me.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I read it. Questioning whether killing an unborn child is morally worse than harming a born child seems reasonable to me.

That's not what this thread is about & you know it.

You want to conflate issues as a means to deflect away from the gravity & seriousness of pedophilia.

This thread is about the abuse of children by the RCC.....Try to stay on topic.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That's not what this thread is about & you know it.

You want to conflate issues as a means to deflect away from the gravity & seriousness of pedophilia.

This thread is about the abuse of children by the RCC.....Try to stay on topic.

Did you see what I was responding to or did you choose to ignore that?

 

[Lebbo73]

A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body and the parasitical nature of pregnancy is not a moral argument!

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t murder!