Pro-lifers: we’re self-funded and we don’t discriminate

sproket says:

08:08am | 27/06/11

Also in the vein of Christopher Hitchens: maybe the author can name one charity that is provided by a religion, that is not provided also by a non-religious charity.

Secular charities - same service, no proselytizing!

acotrel says:

08:09am | 27/06/11

@Jessica
‘It’s the oldest trick in the book - when Catholics have nothing to fall back on, they revert to the ‘...but just look at our charities!’

After the good work of Mr B.A>Santamaria and Doc Mannix with their commie phobia, many catholics turned away from their traditional support of the ALP.  They started voting for the conservatives who believe that social security should not be government supported.  Their ideology dictates that he ‘safety net’ should be based in charity!  It’s the cult of the individual, which means that the plight of the poor depends on the conscience of the wealthy for it’s improvement!

sproket says:

08:09am | 27/06/11

Interestingly as well, Christopher Hitchens is also pro-life to an extent - but does not need to fall back on a religious dogma to be so

bec says:

08:21am | 27/06/11

All the money she took from Ceausescu doesn’t paint a positive picture either.

Frances says:

08:36am | 27/06/11

You knew Mother Teresa? You have one quote…I wonder how many quotes exist that support the opposite of Hitchens’ view?

Thomas Anderson says:

08:55am | 27/06/11

@ Jessica

Well, it’s not a trick if it’s true. Catholics do help a lot of people out in their time of need. In fact, I am willing to bet that the Catholic Church has spent more funds on charity than all the atheists combined have. Following that, Catholics have done this world a lot more good than atheists. This means what? Catholics >>>> atheists. Atheists fail etc. etc.

PS: I am not Catholic.

Al says:

08:56am | 27/06/11

Frances: Look into the historical evidence and what ‘Mother Teresa’s “Missionaries of Charity”’ actualy provided to those they were ‘helping’.

Tiny, inadequate, filthy sleeping quaters, little to no food, no medical treatment, forbidden contact with their families and friends….......In other words the ‘Missionaries of Charity’ simply provided somewhere for people to DIE.
They provided no support, no assistance, no care and no charity.
This has been PROVEN by research into the actual running of the ‘charity’ (including investigations of where the funds donated went, guess what, it wasn’t to the needy/poor!) and Mother Teresa also claimed that the ‘suffering of the poor was her reason for living’.
Note that she NEVER stated that the ‘reliveing of the suffering of the poor was her reason for living’.
Mother Theresa - Another name for a Sado-masochistic Bitch who had no respect for the local inhabbitants or their rights or beliefs.

And why is she treated as such a ‘great’ figure by the majority, simple really, great PR.

Thomas Anderson says:

09:36am | 27/06/11

“Tiny, inadequate, filthy sleeping quaters, little to no food”

The nerve! How dare they not provide king size beds and black caviar!? What is this, a charity for the poor or something!?

Tchom says:

09:39am | 27/06/11

Mother Theresa: Pro-life, anti-moisturising cream

acotrel says:

10:00am | 27/06/11

@Thomas Anderson
’ I am willing to bet that the Catholic Church has spent more funds on charity than all the atheists combined have.’

Atheists pay taxes and intend that the government provide a safety net for the disadvantaged.  Unfortunately a lot of that money has been wasted fighting wars against communists, caused by the paranoia and hatred emanating from the catholic church.

Zaf says:

10:24am | 27/06/11

Mother Teresa provided a place for destitute people to die.  On the whole, that was a good thing, whose benefit was measured only, and solely, in terms of the comfort it offered the dying.

It was not a development program.  And to repeat: it catered to the destitute - which in Calcutta (where it started) means literally on the street with nothing, and likely abandoned by family. 

You may dislike Mother Theresa for her nuttier religious views, but it’s silly to misrepresent her actions or the situation in which she worked.

Thomas Anderson says:

10:31am | 27/06/11

@ acotrel

Tax money paid to the government definitely does NOT count as charity.

EM says:

12:28pm | 27/06/11

Yes it’s always confused me that line too, does doing some good counter all the evil you do?  So it’s ok for them to rape your kids and cause so much pain in the world as Iong as they give you $50; that makes it all better.

Like most things fundies say, it just makes no logical sense.

Al says:

01:02pm | 27/06/11

Thomas Anderson:
“Tiny, inadequate, filthy sleeping quaters, little to no food”

Such as - concrete cells with no plumbing, no sewrage, no floor covering, no lights, barred windows, a piece of cardboard to sleep on.

Not realy a Kig sized bed in a hotel is it?
Sounds more like a REALY dodgy prison.

Thomas Anderson says:

01:18pm | 27/06/11

I don’t think the Catholic Church ever encouraged child abuse… If a builder molests a child, does that make the building profession just a bunch of pedophiles?

Bob says:

02:01pm | 27/06/11

Covering it up and helping child abusers avoid the law isn’t encouragement of it? At the very least though, it condoned it. Even if they weren’t actively insisting that priests abuse children.

Luce says:

02:14pm | 27/06/11

Thomas Anderson (in response to your first comment), that’s somewhat misleading because when a catholic does something good they do it specifically under the banner of Catholicism (maybe because they know their church has some serious ills to make up for, hence the fanfare..?), where as an atheist/secularist makes little to no mention of the fact that they’re an atheist/secularist, because it simply shouldn’t matter.

Bilby says:

02:16pm | 27/06/11

Thomas - Do builders hold themselves up as a moral authority? Do builders go around telling people how to behave? Do they threaten them with everlasting hell fire if they don’t do as they’re told? No… they don’t (just thought I’d help you out there as you are clearly confused).

Thomas Anderson says:

02:32pm | 27/06/11

@ Bilby

I’m sorry, if you can’t draw the parallels yourself, I’ll help you, as you’re clearly not a thinking person.

1. There would be a handful of cops and politicians who have abused children.
2. All cops and pollies are pedophiles.
3. PROFIT

Bilby says:

03:03pm | 27/06/11

Thomas - So long as the police force protects the officers that molest children, and the pollies are not held accountable, then I have no problem with the general slur and would willingly join in in their condemnation. Respect is earned by your actions, not your words.

Markus says:

03:14pm | 27/06/11

“where as an atheist/secularist makes little to no mention of the fact that they’re an atheist/secularist, because it simply shouldn’t matter.”

You must know some very different atheists to the ones I’ve known through my life, who are more in line with the old gem:
Q: How do you know if a person is an atheist?
A: They just told you

LC says:

04:30pm | 27/06/11

“I don’t think the Catholic Church ever encouraged child abuse… If a builder molests a child, does that make the building profession just a bunch of pedophiles?”

Mr. Anderson, if the building industry pays to have the whole thing covered up, and moves the offender overseas, they wouldn’t quite be encouraging child abuse, but they are definitely condoning it. And who would condone child abuse other than a pedophile?

And that’s exactly what the church is doing. If any other organization tired this, they’d be banned from our shores, the member(s) responsible for covering it up would be hauled in front of a judge and the AFP would start an international manhunt for the perpetrator.

What makes it worse, is that not only do these people preach on and on about how people should behave and what’ll happen to them if they don’t do exactly as they say, but pedophilia is one of the most serious offenses under the laws of their holy text. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.

Luce says:

04:42pm | 27/06/11

Markus, I wasn’t referring to when people are debating about religion etc. I’m talking about when people set up charities or embark on philanthropic projects. How many charities are there that make a point of telling you they’re secular, even though they are, compared to charities make a point of telling you they’re christian or catholic etc?

Geoff - Brisbane says:

04:54pm | 27/06/11

Who is this Christopher Hitchens and what makes his opinion so important?

Claude de la Monte says:

05:35pm | 27/06/11

Wow, what stunning hate we have on show here from so-called ‘secularists’.
No, wait, I have to be wrong. Because you types are all about compassion. You are for the killing of babies, but it’s really about compassion. It’s ‘choice’ you care about. What compassionate people you are.
And you know full well that your types are currently the worst at shoving your religion down other’s throats. You insist that evolution- an untestable, full-of-holes, barking-mad crazy belief system- be the only religion to be pushed onto the kids in our schools. What compassionate people you are.
You would be nazis in nazi Germany, commos in Stalin’s Russia, and if the status quo were to be in a cult that advocates picking your nose while standing by the highway, that’s what you would do, as well as demanding that everyone else do it with you. But that doesn’t matter. This is about love and compassion, and you types are just full of it.

LC says:

09:40pm | 27/06/11

I must say, it took a while for Godwin’s law to be invoked.

You should have rised to the occasion earlier

John the Zombie says:

01:07am | 28/06/11

Jessica have you been to India, I guess by your comment no. Did you know when Mother Terresa passed away millions of Indians cried for her and spoke about the good she did. These Indians were not even Catholics they were from all backgrounds from hindus, muslims, sikhs, jains etc etc.

I can bet you that the handful of non religous groups out there dont offer or do as much as religous groups. Its funny the continuous attacks on religions from ppl like you Jessica yet you get offended when ppl have a go at athiest.

Also i find it interesting most these attacks are on Christians and Catholics. What are the other religions to scarey for you or are you more worried about been a racist if you attack another religion.

Yes religions have their problems but so do athiest. Wasnt chairman Mao and athiest and look how many ppl died under his rule. How about Stalin, Che, Castro and many others.

Just read Christopher HItchens and no were could I find him travellin to India. Hmm maybe Im wrong but shouldnt he talk to ppl in India first before running his mouth. Also note he supports the war in Iraq (nice)

John the Zombie says:

01:17am | 28/06/11

From woman, man is born;
within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.
So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.

With out googling guess who said this. This comment was made over 600 years ago and was the first to establish the rights of women.

Tedd says:

08:01am | 27/06/11

apart form the holier-than-thou generalisations like “the abortionists who don’t want to know you once they have your money. ”

Vaunted says:

12:21pm | 27/06/11

@ Tedd, in what way was that statement invalid? It’s perfectly true. No one seems interested in counting the psychological effects of terminating an inconvenient pregnancy. My former wife had one of her embryos killed and her ensuing depression and guilt not only wrecked her life but turned our former marriage into a living hell. I can’t remember the abortionist’s fee now, it might have been 2% of the price of a shiny Italian sports car, but one thing’s for sure, we sure as hell never heard from him/her again.

Tedd says:

01:05pm | 27/06/11

Vaunted,
Yes, there is a psychological effect for some. I am sorry for the distress and consequences a termination had on your wife, and consequently your marriage and you.

However, It seems very unfair to blame individual abortion-providers for lack of follow-up counselling and psychological services those individuals are not generally trained to provide.

Luce says:

02:30pm | 27/06/11

Vaunted, if you’re talking about the doctor who performed the procedure: that’s not their job. They’re trained to perform a medical procedure, not provide counselling. Would you really want an untrained person giving you counselling at a time like that? If you want psychological help, see a psychologist, who will then provide the service THEY are trained for. There is help out there, people just need to reach for it.

Bev says:

02:31pm | 27/06/11

Tedd says:01:05pm | 27/06/11

Vaunted,
Yes, there is a psychological effect for some. I am sorry for the distress and consequences a termination had on your wife, and consequently your marriage and you.

However, It seems very unfair to blame individual abortion-providers for lack of follow-up counselling and psychological services those individuals are not generally trained to provide.

If doctors did not provide follow-up or refer you to somebody who could for after other types of medical treatment/operation you would have a very good case to complain wouldn’t you. Why different here?

Vaunted says:

03:02pm | 27/06/11

You must live smugly in your perfect world Tedd and Luce. In retrospect we should never have gone through with it. What’s a councillor trained or otherwise going to say; there there, not to worry? The death wasn’t an accident. It was deliberate. We facilitated it. Our circumstances changed, between us we have five wonderful living children but will always grieve for the one we killed – with the clinic’s active encouragement as I recall.

Luce says:

04:29pm | 27/06/11

Before you make too many assumptions about the world I live in, I’ll have you know I have terminated a pregnancy of my own, so I know exactly what it feels like. And to amplify the emotions I was already feeling over the experience, I came down with an infection that could have made me infertile, and resulted in having to go into hospital to have the whole procedure repeated, and essentially reliving the experience. This while I was trying to finish a masters degree, battle depression and save my relationship from falling apart even more than it already was. Believe me, I know what it feels like to grieve.

Even so, I feel nothing regarding the clinic and the people in it. The doctors and nurses, while not particularly warm and friendly, were trained to provide that particular service, which I consented to without any undue influence from anyone. As for therapists, their job isn’t to tell you not to worry. Their job is to provide ways for you to deal with the grief you experience and then learn to move on with life.

I’m very sorry to hear about your situation. Its not something anyone should have to go through, but that doesn’t mean you should blame the clinic for the grief caused by a decision that was essentially your and your wife’s. I made my own decision, and I understand that it’s my grief to face, not the doctor who performed the procedure’s.

Seanr says:

08:12am | 27/06/11

With the rebuttal being…it’s not ‘her body’ someone getting an abortion would be terminating

Carz says:

08:19am | 27/06/11

If you had done your homework you would know that childcare and family tax benefits are not automatically paid to the mother. They are paid to the parent in whose name the claim is made.

MissionMan says:

09:16am | 27/06/11

The “Her body, her choice” argument is a dangerous one, without even looking at the pro/anti abortion idea. Do a search for pictures of children with FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome) and you’ll be utterly appalled at the outcome of kids where their mothers drink excessively during pregnancy. There is a responsibility that comes with pregnancy which is exactly the same as those who have already given birth, to protect the life they are carrying. Those who drink or take drugs during pregnancy are no better than those who give alcohol or drugs to young children and need to be treated the same.

Mahhrat says:

10:06am | 27/06/11

Uh, guys, I’m not supporting the pro-choice argument, I’m simply telling the OP, who claims in the photo caption “Fighting for middle ground”, that the definition of middle ground includes something called “compromise”.

Essentially, this idealogical war is being waged by two extreme camps - “No abortions ever” and “Abortion for any reason the mother wants”.

@Carz, I know that mate, the OP made reference to “mothers” being paid entitlements, not me, but I wonder if she inadvertently shed some light on her otherwise feminist ideals in that little slip of the tongue.

@MissionMan, I agree, which is why I take a balanced (if very uninformed) view currently that abortion should be allowed in cases where the baby will be born with significant health issues, or if the mother will experience similar in attempting to bring a baby to term.  That said, if you make a bad choice, that isn’t your baby’s fault.

Seanr says:

10:42am | 27/06/11

“..balanced (if very uninformed) view currently that abortion should be allowed in cases where the baby will be born with significant health issues, or if the mother will experience similar in attempting to bring a baby to term.”

Agree completely Mahhrat, also with your comment about the two extremes arguing it out.

BobS says:

09:29am | 28/06/11

The unborn child in a mothers womb is an individual in its own right within days of conception. Amazingly, the embryo generates an enzyme known as IDO on day 6 after conception. trhis is in preparation for day 7 when the embryo attaches itself to its mothers womb and the mothers body would quickly reject it if not for the special defence enzyme this embryo produces. So we see that the embryo is foreign to the mothers body and that from day 6 it is already defending its “right to life”.

James1 says:

10:24am | 27/06/11

From the article:

“Moreover, pro-lifers don’t ignore the sad cases of women traumatised by their abortions - counseling and help is available for them also.”

rb says:

07:33pm | 27/06/11

So the same people that hurl abuse as someone walks into a clinic suddenly welcomes them with open arms on the way out.

Jane says:

08:40am | 27/06/11

I agree! And you certainly don’t find prochoice people killing those in the medical profession that perform terminations. How many times has this happenedin the US?

Many years ago I accompanied a friend to and abortion clinic - she was not in the financial or emotional position to have a baby so made the best decision she could in the circumstances (a decision she stands by to this day). Out the front were a bunch of people yelling at my friend and I that we were killers and that we were going to hell. I suspect nothing much has changed.

And I reckon the reason why the ‘Right to Life’ pregnancy counselling service doesn’t get govt support, is that they do not give the full options available pregnant women.

The author, and others in her organisation have the right to their opinion. They do not have the right to force it upon vulnerable women.

Thomas Anderson says:

09:02am | 27/06/11

The problem is, if you are the only one who gets a say about your body, you completely disregard the opinion and feelings of the man whose future child you are about to kill.

SydSteve says:

09:29am | 27/06/11

“Try it for yourself, Tanja, go outside an abortion clinic and see the kindness and assistance on offer by The Helpers, unlike the abortionists who don’t want to know you once they have your money.”

Didn’t you know? Those screaming heckling lunatics were the Helpers. Casting moral judgement on people who are alreading having a hard time. Spreading their religious cheer to the general populace. I’m a male and will never be in the situation that some of these women find themselves in. Yet when I see these religious clowns it just makes my blood boil that people could be so heartless.

SydSteve says:

09:29am | 27/06/11

“Try it for yourself, Tanja, go outside an abortion clinic and see the kindness and assistance on offer by The Helpers, unlike the abortionists who don’t want to know you once they have your money.”

Didn’t you know? Those screaming heckling lunatics were the Helpers. Casting moral judgement on people who are alreading having a hard time. Spreading their religious cheer to the general populace. I’m a male and will never be in the situation that some of these women find themselves in. Yet when I see these religious clowns it just makes my blood boil that people could be so heartless.

Carz says:

09:38am | 27/06/11

@ Thomas Anderson do you really believe that in most cases the woman makes the choice alone, without considering the man involved?  What about rapists? Should they get a say in what happens to a baby conceived through their crime? Or how about the man who, when told by a woman he has been sleeping with that she is pregnant, just walks away? Do they deserve a say?

And to turn it back on you, what say does a woman have about what her male partner does to his body? Do you let your partner tell you not to masturbate because you are killing hundreds of little sperm that may have become a future life? After all, women have no choice about ovulation and the passing from the body of unfertilised ova but men have a choice not to let their sperm out of their body outside of intercourse.

Markus says:

10:52am | 27/06/11

@Carz, what happens in ‘most cases’ is irrelevant. The woman has no legal obligation to listen to anything the potential father has to say on the matter.
And the man is legally obligated to pay child support, regardless of whether he wanted her to keep the child or not.

“Or how about the man who, when told by a woman he has been sleeping with that she is pregnant, just walks away? Do they deserve a say?”
Yes. See above.

Until women are obligated by law to pay some sort of ‘semen support’ every time their guy goes to batting practice, then your counter example is moot.

“After all, women have no choice about ovulation and the passing from the body of unfertilised ova”
Hysterectomy.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:06am | 27/06/11

@ Carz

I contrast the two examples with the fact that in one, the sperm has already successfully fertilised the egg, and the human is in the making, while in the other, the sperm is just floating around somewhere. I mean, sperm by itself is either ejaculated, intentionally or not, or is released back into the body (in case of a vasectomy), it will be wasted no matter what. A fertilised egg, on the other hand, is not ejected from the body until it is time, in fact the body adapts to protect and nurture it.

All fair points, and I agree. In my hypothetical, I just meant a normal, good man, who had consensual sex, with the woman agreeing to risk the pregnancy. To spice things up, what if it’s a man who was told he was sterile by doctors, and he miraculously got a woman pregnant, and this is probably the only chance for him to have a child. Should his opinion be considered, or should he be ignored because it’s not his body?

Bev says:

11:10am | 27/06/11

Carz says:09:38am | 27/06/11
You know full well that a man cannot walk away so why say it. He is obligated to support that child until it is 18, longer if they are studying,
less if they take up full time work.  92% do meet their obligations.
Rape. Lets look at the shoe on the other foot.  A woman in the US was convicted of raping a 14 year old boy.  She fell pregnant and carried the baby to term, she later claimed child care. Family court decreed he has to pay child support which meant he had to give up college and get a job or he would be sent to jail for non payment. Fair????

Rover of North Cooma says:

12:58pm | 27/06/11

@Markus - you seem to think that financial support is all an unplanned child needs from its father, or that a pregnant woman needs from her partner.
What a sad world that would be.

Markus says:

02:13pm | 27/06/11

“you seem to think that financial support is all an unplanned child needs from its father, or that a pregnant woman needs from her partner.”
It is the line that has been peddled by feminists for decades.
I agree, Rover. That a lot of women in this country clearly believe such tripe is indeed a sad state of affairs.

Kathy says:

05:51pm | 27/06/11

I agree with Thomas, I have never understood the “her body,her choice” argument.  Part of that body is not “hers” and there is no way the male partner should be left out of the equation if making the decision to have an abortion.

Lisa H. says:

06:58pm | 27/06/11

All of this discussion is juvenile in its detail.

Deep-thinking people recognise that much of the connection and meaning in sex is the possibility - however remote - that pregnancy could result.

However, our culture reviles and rejects genuine monogamy.
We are told that serial monogamy is ‘heatlhy’, anything else is repressive, and a series of lovers is the best we can expect for ourselves.

Marriage is maligned or at best not even recognised. How often will a survey ask if you are ‘married or living with a partner’, as if the legal vows of marriage meant nothing?

It’s an environment where a great deal of ‘confused’ and well-intentioned young women would feel that abortion was their only answer.

acotrel says:

07:43pm | 27/06/11

@Carz
‘Do you let your partner tell you not to masturbate because you are killing hundreds of little sperm that may have become a future life? ‘

Now you’re hitting below the belt!  Perhaps those sperm should be harvested, and all put to good use making more clerics?

Fiona says:

09:17pm | 27/06/11

Bev, I don’t recall hearing that a mans responsibilities extend beyond 18, do you have links?
Markus, clearly you don’t know that a hysterectomy alone won’t prevent a woman ovulating. That just removes her uterus. It was just as silly a comment as carz comment.

Carz says:

08:18am | 27/06/11

I think you mean anti-choicer.

TChong says:

08:34am | 27/06/11

The lady is , to put it nicely , very keen on her god telling everyone how they should live ,so an objective debate is probaly not her style.

sir ronald bradnam says:

08:46am | 27/06/11

@carz your right sorry I meant pro lifers. Note to self , spell check, grammer check, meaning check.

Annie says:

11:45am | 27/06/11

If your mother had felt that way…“A foetus is not a baby” and decided to discard you, you wouldn’t have had the “choice” to murder your own child. Saying a foetus is a child is not “dishonest psychological tactics” but fact. Saying something isn’t human till fully grown is ludicrous.
You say if you don’t approve of abortions don’t have on, I say if you don’t approve of life use a condom, or abstain.

CJ Morgan says:

01:44pm | 27/06/11

More to the point, Annie, my mother conceived me deliberately and was in a situation where she could care for me properly.  Accidents happen, and women have the choice whether or not to carry accidental foetuses to term.

if foetuses were children, we’d call them that instead of ‘foetus’.  It doesn’t become a person until it’s born.  Sure it’s human, but so’s an appendix or a gall bladder, both of which people can live without perfectly happily.

My point is that people like you who torment women at abortion clinics actually go out of your way to make sure they suffer psychological harm.  Shame on you, and mind your own business.

shelly says:

02:09pm | 27/06/11

CJ Morgan are you implying a baby born prematurely at 28 weeks, crying and breathing is a baby, but a baby aborted at 28 weeks is not a baby, just because it wasn’t wanted.  Likening a baby to a gall bladder is pathetic.  I sure hope your gall bladder isn’t growing with it’s own heartbeat.  Quick better ring 60 minutes and tell them you have an alien gall bladder.

Adam Diver says:

02:41pm | 27/06/11

The argument needs to be seperated,

1. When is a foetus a baby

and then you can argue

2. Can you abort a foetus

By arguing both simultaneosly you will never reach a consensus with another person, whilst you both disagree on point 1. Whilst taking no sides on this debate, I do sympathise for the “pro lifers” who get smeared constantly and unfairly.

Assuming thier differences are derived from point 1, can you not understand the torment these people must feel, when people are legally rocking up to get a baby killed. There actions are mild in comparison to the atrocities being committed (in thier mind).

CJ Morgan says:

03:07pm | 27/06/11

@ shelly:

Any baby born prematurely at 28 weeks would be very unlikely to survive without intensive medical intervention.  That’s why they’re called “premature”, because they’re haven’t developed to the point where they’re able to live outside the womb, whether it’s natural or artificial.  Yes, people grieve for miscarried foetuses, but generally not as much as when a person dies.

The point at which a foetus becomes human is indeed an arbitrary jufgement call.  According to custom and law in virtually all societies foetuses aren’t typically accorded the status of a person until birth at the earliest, and often much later - think of christening and naming ceremonies, for example.

I’d prefer that the call remains with the mother, until the point of parturition.  You presume to know better, based on your own criteria - which is fair enough as far as your own body is concerned, but you have no business trying to impose what are, after all, personal values on others.

I say butt out of other people’s business.  They have enough to deal with, without having to deal with the likes of you.

LC says:

03:38pm | 27/06/11

If his mother got him aborted, he wouldn’t be around to care…

And condoms aren’t the holy grail. The only way is a vasectomy, which (last I checked) is not covered by medicare and very expensive to reverse should the man or his partner actually want a child.

shelly says:

03:58pm | 27/06/11

CJ Morgan

I find your comment that a feutus does not become a baby until birth ludicrous.  I am sure all those people who had premature babies didn’t receive congratulatory cards saying ‘just welcoming your little feutus into the world’.  Honestly CJ Morgan you are clutching at straws.  At least pick a random gestastional period, example 34 weeks, when 90% of babies can and do live without medical assistance.

Fi says:

04:44pm | 27/06/11

Uh, Shelly, premature babies have been born.

shelly says:

05:31pm | 27/06/11

Fi that is my whole point.  CJ Morgan was stating they are merely feutus but they are more than that, they are viable human beings that do go on to live fulfilling lives.  They certainly don’t have to wait for some silling naming ceremony to realise their human being status.

CJ Morgan says:

10:28pm | 27/06/11

No shelly, but they do have to be actually born in order to be accorded the status of ‘human being’.  Before that time, they are only potential human beings.

I think the light of reason has hit the obtuse brick wall of blind faith.  We won’t change each other’s beliefs - but the difference is that you want to impose yours on others.  From where I stand, it is hardly likely that anybody’s ever going to force you or anybody else to have an abortion.

You simply have no right in a free society to impose your personal view on others.  If someone else chooses to have an abortion it won’t affect you and is none of your business.  Butt out.

shelly says:

08:09am | 28/06/11

CJ Morgan I understand I don’t have a right to impose my view, regardless of how logical it is.  Thanks for the time to debate this issue.

Interloper says:

06:42pm | 28/06/11

@CJ Morgan
Sorry, I’m coming late to this debate.
Does your philosophy extend to infanticide? If I decide that, say, a baby becomes a person only when they’ve reached the age of reason, does that mean you should butt out of my decision to kill them at the age of 6 months?
I suspect that your light of reason is dimming a bit. You can’t accuse an opposing viewpoint of merely being ‘blind faith’ just because you don’t like it. To be anti-abortion is, in fact, an easy logical conclusion to draw. It’s difficult to find a purely rational argument for abortion on demand.

Barry says:

09:05am | 27/06/11

Yeah, go hang with all those 18th century citizens filming women with their cameras outside abortion clinics.  I hate those people.

Bkrsdzn+1 says:

02:28pm | 28/06/11

Laugh all you want! Next week I will be attending a baby shower for a woman who received such assistance outside an abortion clinic. She has, and will continue to, receive as much help and assistance, both physical and emotional that she needs from the very people you are ridiculing. Where was that support when she felt she had no choice other than abortion. ‘pro choicers’ like you are not about choice at all. The majority of women aborting their children are doing so because they feel that they have NO CHOICE!! not because they are exrcising any freedom of choice!  You claim that prolifers are all about the baby, I disagree and counter that with pro choicers are all about abortion, because if it was really choice you were on about you would be ensuring that every woman who has an abortion is doing so, not because she has to but because she wants to!

AdamC says:

09:55am | 27/06/11

“Being born to parents who want you and are happy to have you is incredibly important for a child’s wellbeing.”

Wellbeing which becomes largely academic if the kid never gets an opportunity to be born. Abortion is not an altruistic act, it is a very selfish one.

Bev says:

02:25pm | 27/06/11

Yes I thing people are confusing pro-life groups with anti-abortion groups though there is some overlap.  The former do do good work the latter well what can you say except they are nutters.

bec says:

02:53pm | 27/06/11

Actually, their very existence is even more academic so why do we care about their feelings? To be perfectly frank, I don’t give two shits about people who don’t exist and didn’t come into being. They’re not here, they don’t give two shits either. For every Jesus Christ who was an unborn child, there was an Adolf Hitler.

What I am more interested in is the large number of people who are already in existence who are suffering legitimately. I’m not going to trot out the “abortions are great, the world is populated” meme because it’s beside the point. I think it’s more pro-life to care about people who are already here than it is to wank on about people who might exist (and given that between a quarter and a third of pregnancies naturally spontaneously abort anyway, I don’t think God, if he exists, cares either).

AdamC says:

04:16pm | 27/06/11

Bec, the existence of unborn children or foetuses is not ‘academic’ and you know it. And I don’t care about said foetuses feelings so much as their ability to have the opportunity to be born and live as on of those people ‘already in existence’ whom you claim to care about. After all, we were all unborn once. What magically makes it not OK to kills us once we have enjoyed some of the life denied to a ‘terminated pregnancy’?

bec says:

05:57pm | 27/06/11

I’m an equal opportunity hater, Adam. I believe in retroactive abortion too; give a person 25 years to establish if they’re a fuckwit or not, then pull out the Delorean with the Flux Capacitor.

Fiona says:

09:27pm | 27/06/11

Adam c, who ever claimed abortion was altruistic? Of course it’s selfish. The thing is women have been doing it for centuries for lots of different reasons, some legitimate and some not so. Most of us do not want to go back to the illegal abortion situation again and will fight to keep it legal.  Both sides will probably never agree over this.

KH says:

08:45am | 27/06/11

I don’t give a rats if they are religious or not - they are still wrong.  Terminations have occurred for as long as time - its just now they are done safely instead of a huge chance of dying.  Sure, you could make it illegal - and the backyard operators will simply open up shop again.  I love how you are so keen to keep a bunch of insentiate cells, but don’t care about the woman at all.  Its this hypocrisy that makes you a joke.

acotrel says:

08:48am | 27/06/11

@Andrew As a scientist you’d know our planet has a disastrous human population problem.  When ‘pro-life’ means lack of birth control, it should be stamped out!

Thomas Anderson says:

09:31am | 27/06/11

@ acotrel

That a boy! Thinking of the utility of the many, the greater good. I like that. I am sure you wish your mother was more pro choice so the world population could be smaller by 1 today. In fact, you know, it is never too late to perform an abortion, you can abort yourself right now if you wish. Come on mate, do your part to fix this “disastrous human population problem”. Small step for a man, giant leap for man kind.

Michael says:

11:33am | 27/06/11

Must not have been the same science I studied then. Life only wants to live long enough to pass its genese on

Luce says:

02:54pm | 27/06/11

Thomas Anderson, what a immensely unuseful contribution to the debate. Condescension really doesn’t put you in a very good light.

Pro-life people argue from of perspective increased quantity of life. Pro-choice people argue from the perspective of increased quality of life. Both sides have both strengths and moral weaknesses.

However, when the populations of poverty stricken countries are such that 25,000 people die from hunger or hunger related diseases every day because they do not have access any food, let alone safe food, it’s hard to argue that this instance of quantity over quality is really worth it.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:03pm | 27/06/11

@ Luce

Is being pro life really a major reason for poverty in the third world?

Luce says:

11:38pm | 27/06/11

My point was that quantity is not always better than quality, not what are the causes of poverty. But thank you for trying to derail my argument, while not addressing what I said.

Barry says:

10:33am | 27/06/11

Bahahaha specifically?! Are you sure that is the right word?  Ah well, whether there are raging religious extremists, or rabid leftists involved in a debate on the Punch you can always be sure that P. Darvio will win the award for the the most illogical comment.

P. Darvio says:

12:00pm | 27/06/11

From a Christian perspective how is quoting Bible Scripture an “..Illogical comment” and how is it not specific?

Christians are required, as a matter of faith, to believe in GOD and HIS (or HER?) Bible as the “authorative word of GOD” and, as a consequence, accept that Abortion is OK, as written in their Bible, and that Abortions performed in a Christian Church are OK, as written in their Bible, and that a Christian Priest can perform these Abortions, as written in their Bible, with what can be described as “dirty holy water” and that its approved by their Christian GOD.

As for the tax payer financing of Religion in Australia that is a simple fact.

Seems Barry is the one with the illogical and rabid thinking.

Reggieman says:

05:01pm | 28/06/11

Another ignorant comment from an ignorant Atheist. Obviously you have copied and pasted this “proof” of the bible supposedly condoning abortion from some pro-murder website and not read the remainder of the passage yourself, or indeed sought to find out what the passage is really saying. Instead your obviously irrational hatred of Christianity has blinded you to applying any real thought to your argument. Let me explain to you what this passage is about.

If a woman had been engaging in adultery and she were to fall pregnant, her husband was to bring her before the priests who would ask her to drink a potion of bitter herbs.
Here is the passage in the New King James : “When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she shall be free and may conceive children.”

The word “swell” means to fight, specifically to array an army against, and “bitter” means to become angry. This is basically saying that, figuratively, the woman’s body will fight against anything trying to prevent the death of the child. That word “rot” in the Hebrew has several different meanings, as do all Hebrew words, and one of the meanings of that word is “judgement”. This meaning fits in with the context of the rest of the passage that talks of the woman in adultery being judged, therefore it is more than conceivable (no pun intended) that this is what the word means.
Notice also that the passage says that a woman who is innocent of adultery will still give birth, even after drinking the potion. That means that it is not the potion that kills the baby, otherwise both the innocent woman and the guilty woman would lose their child.
It’s called research Darvio. You should try it sometime.

Brendan says:

09:39am | 27/06/11

Kate,

We have to take the fight to these prolifers.  I make it a point to confront them every time I see them harrassing some poor girl on the way into a clinic. 

Its a civic duty to stand up to the primatives.

Bev says:

11:40am | 27/06/11

Funny though feminists loudly proclaim “my body my choice” while some have an entirely different view when it comes to men’s choices.

“So, how do we control men’s fertility? Mandatory
contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule
relaxed only for procreation under the right
circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing partner)
and for the right reasons (determined by a panel of
experts, and with the permission of his designated female partner).”

“...controlling men’s fertility would not be a
hard restriction to enforce. The fertility
authorities could use a combination of punishments
for men who failed to get the implants and for
doctors who removed them without proper authorization.
The men could be required to adopt one orphan per
infraction and rear her or him until adulthood.
The doctors, could lose their licenses or, in extreme
cases, go to prison.”

Martha Burk feminist pro-abortion advocate
Taken from:

November/December 1997 issue of Ms. Magazine.

Turnabout says:

11:53am | 27/06/11

If you are against rape, don’t rape anyone.

Cloud Strife says:

02:34pm | 27/06/11

@Bev

Just like all pro-lifers have the same views, pro-choicers don’t either.

I respectfully submit that Martha Burk is a raving loony.

Bev says:

03:33pm | 27/06/11

Cloud Strife says:02:34pm | 27/06/11

@Bev

I respectfully submit that Martha Burk is a raving loony.

I agree however Ms Magazine is pretty central to feminists thinking and carries a lot of weight. As does the thinking of Cathrine Mckinnon, Andra(spelling?) Dworkins, Betty Friedan or our very own Dr Elspeth McInnes to name a few. Many of these women and others have had a very big influence on the thinking and dogma of feminism much of it many people would consider totalistic or wacho.

LC says:

04:56pm | 27/06/11

So Bev, so by your logic, ALL pro-lifers happily:
- Physically assault pregnant woman going into clinics which offer abortions regardless of whether they’re seeking one or not.
- Firebomb centers which offer abortions.
- Publicly display pictures of aborted fetuses. You mentioned the psychological damage abortions do to the mother earlier, imagine how much worse crap like that will make it.
- Mail death threats to doctors who perform abortions and their families.
- Gun down doctors who perform abortions.

The actions/opinions of one person does not accurately reflect the actions/opinions of the group of people he/she shares a common political or social belief with. Get a grip.

For the record she is a fringe whack-job who should be incarcerated.

Bev says:

06:17pm | 27/06/11

LC says:04:56pm | 27/06/11
If you check my written comments you will find at no time have I supported anti-abortionists. You will also see that I support abortion.

The actions/opinions of one person does not accurately reflect the actions/opinions of the group of people he/she shares a common political or social belief with. Get a grip.

For the record she is a fringe whack-job who should be incarcerated.
No that can be true group versus individual thoughts. However hers and other extreme views are not counted by other feminists because 1. deep down they sort of agree or 2. they are frightned to speak up being aware of how the sisterhood can turn like a pack of rabid dogs on anyone who speaks to far out of group think.  Livelyhoods and reputations have been ruined and lives threatened. 
Similar in some respects to moderate muslims.
Just a thought.  Would you be prepared to repeat that assessment at a gathering of the sisterhood?

LC says:

10:59pm | 27/06/11

You may not pro-choice, but after leaving a comment like that in reply to what Cloud said distorts things a bit, particularly when you open it with. “Funny though feminists loudly proclaim “my body my choice” “

Feel free to copy-paste that wherever you see an anti-choicer (I try to avoid using “pro-life”, because lets face it, both sides are pro life) generalizing against a pro-choicer.

Tim says:

01:51pm | 27/06/11

That crime rate hypothesis was disproven years ago. It was mostly career oriented professional women who got the abortions, not the ghetto dwelling smackhead. It’s far more likely that the zero tolerance attitude adopted by the police dropped the crime rate, as no one got the chance to reoffend.

Barry says:

10:39am | 27/06/11

@PNDB That fact that you put “rare” in there(I’m funny) is implying something that a lot of pro-abortion people may not agree with.  If abortion is completely ethically sound, then there is no reason for it to be rare.  It’s just the termination of a parasitic organism, which holds no intrinsic value. In fact, some may state that it should be more common to control our spiraling population growth which the Earth no longer can cope with.  The need for rarity implies that there is either negative effects or some sort of moral implication which has to be taken into account.  I think you’ll find yourself on the end of the hitting stick with a lot of pro-abortionists, if you are implying either of these things.

Carz says:

11:01am | 27/06/11

@ Barry, I don’t have a problem with the word “rare” being in there and I am pro-choice. I don’t think that there is anybody who is pro-choice that doesn’t believe that there are negative impacts arising from abortion. It is just that sometimes the negative impacts from carrying the child are greater.

Bev says:

11:13am | 27/06/11

@Carz My sentiments

Barry says:

11:39am | 27/06/11

@Carz What are the negative effects, and what are the greater negative effects from carrying the child?

bella starkey says:

11:56am | 27/06/11

I think most people who believe in the right to choose will agree that it should be rare, not because it should be restrictive but more that people have the tools and education to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

The sad fact is that pro-lifers do not want young people to recieve proper sex education, they want to believe that if you tell a teenager “don’t have sex mmmkay” that will work at stopping teenage girls getting pregnant.

Carz says:

11:58am | 27/06/11

@ Barry, let’s see….

Potential negative effects of carrying the child:
Death
Psychological and/or physical trauma resulting in some type of incapacity or disability
Having to stop potential life saving medical treatment such as chemotherapy
Having to stop taking medication essential to mental well being, resulting in reactivation or worsening of symptoms of illnesses such as schizophrenia
Knowing that you could be or are passing on fatal illnesses to the child such as HIV, or any number of genetic conditions

And those are without looking at the possibility of infection or any number of pregnancy related conditions.

Negative effects from abortion:
Death from complications
Infection
Grief over aborting the child.

I am sure there are a lot more for the second section but I am just typing this quickly.

Roget Veritas says:

01:25pm | 27/06/11

Sorry to dissappoint you, but D) is what you will find Tony Abbott said to Four Corners Elizabeth Jackson when she threw the “gotcha Captain Catholic on abortion” question at him for the 2009 program post his election as Opposition Leader. Sadly, we have more moral outrage and handwringing from our progressive left over recent images of live cattle cruelty in Indonesia, yet not a sound over the 100,000 plus abortions conducted in Australia every year. Make you wonder where our moral compass is pointing. Every living thing needs respect.

Up the Ante says:

02:06pm | 27/06/11

@PNDB
i wish it was rare, one in four pregnancies in WA ended in termination that makes ahh lets see -  25%, not good chances for a baby in WA

Barry says:

02:31pm | 27/06/11

@Carz
Yes, these are most of the reasons I would have stated, and are good reasons.  These reasons though account for a very small amount of abortions.  Not only that, but much of the latest research indicates that mental health does not suffer due to the process of going through an abortion.  The fact remains the vast majority of women have an abortion, because they aren’t ready to have a child, or don’t believe they possess the resources to a fund a child.  Do you think that women shouldn’t have an abortion, even if they feel they aren’t ready for a child yet?  The only way abortion could ever be considered rare is for these women to birth their children despite feeling they aren’t ready for the child nor do they want it.  Would you believe then that these women should in fact birth their children?  It appears from statistics that the negative effects of abortion occur rarely, and abortions occur rarely due to negative effects on the individual or the baby.  The motto is “My body, my choice”, and as we know most abortions occur for personal reasons not related to health, and the negative effects of abortion aren’t widespread apart from 3rd world countries.  So why should abortion be rare?

Carz says:

03:56pm | 27/06/11

@ Barry, no I don’t believe that at all. I am pro-choice. I would like to see surgical abortions, which is what this article is talking about, become rare because it would expose less women to the risks involved. To help with that I would like to see better education about contraceptives and easier access to the morning after pill and the abortion drug (RU-...whatever the numbers are). Frankly it is none of my business if or why a person is seeking abortion and I fully support their choice to do so.

James1 says:

10:32am | 27/06/11

My understanding is that she is a Catholic, and the Catholic Church has been against capital punishment (except in cases of legitimate self defence against an aggressor) for a long time.

AdamC says:

12:54pm | 27/06/11

Yeah, Paulybro, society has suffered the murderous depredations of those unborn foetuses for far too long!

Timmy says:

09:19pm | 29/06/11

Technically not living? Not only are they unborn, but undead?

Carz says:

09:51am | 27/06/11

Blazes says:  09:31am | 27/06/11

Furthermore, it is so hypocritcial of people who are “pro-choice” to be so anti-choice when it comes to us having to pay for it. If you are so fanatically libertarian that you think people have rights to destory unborn children, then surely you should respect my right not to pay for it.

Don’t think of it as paying for an abortion. Think of it as not paying the baby bonus, paid parental leave scheme payments and family tax benefit. Not to mention publicly funded education, childcare, health care, etc etc etc. Economically, tell me which is the greater drain on your taxes.

Blazes says:

11:28am | 27/06/11

Carz, it’s the principle.

Carz says:

12:40pm | 27/06/11

@ Blazes, and there are plenty of people who disagree, in principle, with paying the things I mentioned. Personally I disagree with funding of religious organisations and the funding of religious schools.

Rhino says:

01:50pm | 27/06/11

@Blaze
Allow me to rephrase this for you:
“Furthermore, it is so hypocritcial of people who “have faith” to be so anti-choice when it comes to the rights of those who lack faith, yet have to pay for it through taxes. If you are so fanatically libertarian that you think people have rights to believe wacky shit, then surely you should respect my right not to pay for it. “

So Blaze: I will pay for my next abortion IN FULL when your church starts paying taxes, council rates and stops taking money from the government for providing services at “lower cost” (BTW ripping your staff off to deliver the same service as government at a lower cost, is not doing things at a lower cost).

When we level this field, then maybe we can have a rational discussion on the matter.

Blazes says:

02:47pm | 27/06/11

Rhino, I completely agree - the taxpayer should only fund the bare necessities (basic eduction, infrastructure, etc.), not religion, abortion etc.

And I find it funny that pro-abortionists can only defend the utterly indefensible act of aboriton by attacking religion - many atheists oppose abortion as well.

Rhino says:

03:16pm | 27/06/11

@Blaze, we agree then, I don’t like abortion, but I dislike religious hypocrisy more so and this article oozes it. Therefore I attack this message and I oppose pro lifers (please note hypocrisy is not the only reason I oppose pro lifers).

BTW, as other people have pointed out here, abortion is a definsible act (risk to the mother, inbreeding, sexual assault and so on).

Carz says:

09:58am | 27/06/11

I am a parent and I have considered abortion. My second child was diagnosed, in utero, with having a potential marker to an always fatal genetic condition. For four weeks I wrestled with the possibility that I was carrying a child who would die in my arms shortly after birth. I made the decision that if further tests did reveal the genetic condition I would terminate the pregnancy. Luckily they didn’t and I also have a happy, healthy ten year old, one who is much loved by myself, her father and her older brother. But I stand by my decision. It would have been the right one for us. Who are you to take the right to make that decision away from anybody?

PNDB says:

10:11am | 27/06/11

I guess I just want you to clarify something for me, if you would be so kind.

My girlfriend was on the pill and we always used a condom.

She fell pregnant.

In this case, can you reasonably agree that we did everything possible to not fall pregnant?

We were both studying to provide better lives for ourselves and any future children we wished to have, so we chose to have an abortion.

We, together, chose.

If either of us had had felt otherwise we would have proceeded with carrying the baby to term.

Given that we used contraception, given that we made an informed decision on how to best manage our lives, given everything I’ve told you, would you still be opposed to us having an abortion?

If so, you’re a typical hypocritical zealot.

You know, it’s nice for some people to just fall pregnant and say “It’s the way of it.” and have the child and be happy, but not everyone is the same, and not everyone derives happiness from completing the biological imperative to procreate.

Get your opinions out of other people’s lives and you’ll find another type of happiness.

shelly says:

10:18am | 27/06/11

Carz, you may have chosen not to terminate your pregnancy but thousands of others would terminate if there was a slight chance of deformity.  Oh, how we’ve become a selfish society who wants everything to be perfect and are willing to dispose of anything that does not fit our ideal world, including our own children.

shelly says:

10:29am | 27/06/11

PNDB - I propose your comment is a hypothetical, not fact at all.  I stand by my comment, get yourselves steralised or give the baby up for adoption.  But I can see you think you’ve made a better choice.  Don’t bother calling me a zealot.  I just believe your choices were wrong and you didn’t give your baby a chance at life.

Carz says:

10:37am | 27/06/11

Shelly, you misunderstand. I made the decision to terminate. I simply set the criteria to that decision, which was that the child would have a definitive diagnosis of the genetic condition. She didn’t so I didn’t. I am and always will be thankful that we have a system that allows that choice. And I can and do support that system completely.

James1 says:

10:46am | 27/06/11

PNDB,

I found myself in the same position at the age of 19.  We had the child.  Our daughter is now 8.  Sure, we struggled a bit, and were poor for a while as I was finishing my studies.  But now things are going well, we have a vibrant, healthy, happy young person, and the three of us are happy we didn’t go down that road.

When we made the decision, we had no idea of the direction things would take - for all we knew, it could have ruined everyone’s career.  But we took it anyway, because we figured the little life we made deserved a chance.

As such, I oppose abortion except in very extreme cases (rape, threats to the mother’s life etc), and I would hope that does not make me a “typical hypocritical zealot”.

shelly says:

11:01am | 27/06/11

James1 - terrific post and telling it like it is.  I am not religious in the slightest.  I just respect all forms of life.  Funny the same pro abortion lobby would be the ones at the beach saving the whale or complaining about animal cruelty.  I love all life forms, especially the very young and very old, ie the ones who need our utmost care and attention.

PNDB says:

11:54am | 27/06/11

@shelly - So your response to me telling you about my life is :
“I reject your reality and substitute my own.” ?  Way to completely avoid a reasonable question from someone trying to more clearly understand your position.

@james1 - I took the trouble to explain that it’s nice that some people can have a baby and be happy, but not everyone is like that, and then you hold up your example of having a baby and being happy as proof that abortion is wrong. Are you really that stupid? (This is clearly a rhetorical question by now.)

shelly says:

12:22pm | 27/06/11

PNDB with all due respect I believe the probability of falling pregnant whilst on the pill and using a condom is so insignificant it’s irrelevant.  Did you check the quality of the condom prior to use, did your partner fall ill whilst on the pill, did she take it at the same time every day?  It may be a case of complacancy or it tmay be the less likely chance of more than 1 in a million.  Nevertheless, it purportedly happened to you, but why did you not put your child up for adoption?  That would have been, although not perfect, a far better option than destroying your own child’s chance at life.  I am not trying to be rude but merely trying to understand how you can justify the taking of your own child’s life. 

I believe in years to come people will view the unacceptably high numbers of abortions being performed today as a terrible act of genocide. 

On one last note I would hope anyone in circumstances such as you and your partner would consider depo provera, in addition to the use of condoms as this is more fool proof than the pill (success rate 99.7%).

Direct says:

12:25pm | 27/06/11

Don’t worry about PNDB, he’s just upset that’s missus shagged someone else without protection and he had to pay for another man’s child to be aborted.

James1 says:

12:33pm | 27/06/11

PNDB, 

I did not hold anything up as proof of abortion being wrong - I outlined the basis on which I derive my opinion on these matters, with special reference to the fact that despite our positions being very similar, the outcomes are almost completely opposite.  Are you really so stupid as to think this then applies to everyone?  All I was trying to get across is that not everyone who opposes abortion does so out of “hypocritical zealotry” - that some of us derive our position based on our experiences, as do you.

Furthermore, despite your assertions, you will never know what having that baby would have done to your life, and thus the central thrust of your argument - that it would have made you unhappy - is absolute bunkum.  The real basis of your argument is that you and your partner didn’t find having a child convenient.  And some of us find that a little disturbing.

AdamC says:

12:45pm | 27/06/11

James1, I don’t have anything to add to your comment, except to say that I agree wholeheartedly. Many people are very reluctant to engage with the fact that abortion is the denial of life to a child. We all take for granted that we had the opportunity to be born and live, so I am reluctant to concede that the denial of that opportunity to others should be a simple and absolute matter of choice.

Bev says:

11:31am | 27/06/11

“so what you’re actually advocating for is for mothers to be paid for being mothers. That is not the state’s job, and it is not the church’s job”.

Feminists and you seem to think though that it is the taxpayers job to support working mothers.  Bias???? The point being made was feminists wanted stay at home mothers to be paid less or no child minding. Its part of the feminist agenda.

Simone de Beauvoir
Modern feminist. 
 
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Bilby says:

12:13pm | 27/06/11

Bev - Where did I say that working mothers should get support from the state? I don’t believe that anyone should get payed by the state to look after their own family whether they work or not.

I think you’re blaming the wrong people. People like Simone are merely useful idiots to the capitalist complex that wants as many people working and paying tax as possible. That’s the bottom line. There is no great ideology other than that.

Bev says:

12:51pm | 27/06/11

Bilby says:12:13pm | 27/06/11

Bev - Where did I say that working mothers should get support from the state? I don’t believe that anyone should get payed by the state to look after their own family whether they work or not.

Sorry I read something in. I agree with your remark that nobody should be paid.

I think you’re blaming the wrong people. People like Simone are merely useful idiots to the capitalist complex that wants as many people working and paying tax as possible. That’s the bottom line. There is no great ideology other than that.

Don’t agree Feminists have borrowed a great deal from marxism
of which one of the tenants was to destroy the family.  The reasoning being that the more you split people apart and remove support systems the easier it was to contol people.  It is true however that governments and corporations like the idea as it supplies more tax paying factory fodder.

Fi says:

12:53pm | 27/06/11

Simone has been dead for twenty five years, how is she a modern feminist?

Bev says:

01:15pm | 27/06/11

Fi says:12:53pm | 27/06/11

Simone has been dead for twenty five years, how is she a modern feminist?
Many feminists have died but their philosophy is still the central core of feminism belief and gender studies.  They just got cleverer at dressing it up so it isn’t so blunt. Doesn’t change core belief though.

Bilby says:

02:04pm | 27/06/11

Bev - No worries… I often get into trouble for only stating half my position I do agree that feminism has drawn a great deal from Marxism, but I would have thought that by now people would have realised that it’s all well and good to tear down a system that you believe is inequitable, but then you have to build something to replace it which had better be better after all the trouble caused. Creativity is much harder than destruction. Ask any 5 year old.

Rover of North Cooma says:

03:07pm | 27/06/11

Bev - ideologies have tenets, not tenants.

Bev says:

04:15pm | 27/06/11

Rover of North Cooma says:03:07pm | 27/06/11

Bev - ideologies have tenets, not tenants.

Nobody is perfect we don’t always proof read as well as we could but we try.

Tim says:

08:56pm | 28/06/11

Alan, I know the people you are talking about. I find it nigh on impossible that they could have mounted a “virulent attack” on you and your partner. It’s just not what they do. Ever.

Fiona says:

09:46pm | 27/06/11

Good idea, it’s close to bed time.

James1 says:

10:49am | 27/06/11

It is entirely possible to oppose both abortion and the killing of abortion clinic staff.  Just because you share one view with another group does not mean you share them all.  As such, you will not find the Catholic Church supporting the killing of adults any more than you will find it supporting the killing of a fetus.

Rhino says:

01:53pm | 27/06/11

@James1

Please look up the concept of “no true scotsman”.

James1 says:

02:23pm | 27/06/11

I know the no true Scotsman logical fallacy, and I was not making it.  The Catholic Church has a thing called the Catechism.  This sets out its teachings on most subjects in which the church displays an interest.  As such, it is entirely possible to set out the views of the Catholic Church on matters like the death penalty, and further it is possible to say that the views of a person do not accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Details can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

On another note, wow - look at me getting all defensive about the Catholic Church.  Must be the Irish in me.

Nil by mouth says:

05:30pm | 27/06/11

@ natalie racalcitrant -
You said inter alia, “Parenthood should be a choice”.  - Ahhh, I don’t really know a sensitive way to say this natalie, but ummm, yes, actually, parenthood is a choice. Honey, if you don’t know what makes babies happen, then you mustn’t be very bright. And judging by the trollop in the rest of your comment, my worst suspicions about your intellectual abilities are obviously true.

Bev says:

12:35pm | 27/06/11

So in your eyes a married woman who chooses to stay at home with her children is entitled to less/no money while a mother who works is?
Then I guess you agree with feminists who sneer at stay at home mothers and call them “breeders” “rabbits” because they are not advancing their working career.

Kassandra says:

03:56pm | 27/06/11

“unwaged” wtf? What an idiotic term. I suppose self-employed and salaried people are “unwaged” also. A lot of working mothers of my acquaintance would rather stay at home with their children but can’t because they can’t afford to, and most have professional careers but work part-time. It’s not about choice at all but about financial necessity for them.

Paid parental leave does not give working mothers extra money it allows them to take a short time off work and still receive some income. The two things are not equivalent. Also getting infections in child care from other children is good for the development of their immune system and peer group play is essential for social and emotional development, both things that in days gone by would have occurred via siblings at home but is rare these days with small nuclear families being the norm.

Liam says:

12:31pm | 27/06/11

You’re dead right it’s invalid. If your girlfriend or wife had an abortion then your opinion would count. And they regret it from the outset clown not as they age. It’s not due to wisdom it’s due to shame, guilt and an infinite sadness

Bev says:

01:01pm | 27/06/11

Liam says:12:31pm | 27/06/11

You’re dead right it’s invalid. If your girlfriend or wife had an abortion then your opinion would count.

Bottom line, no it does not count.  She may listen to what you say but it is her decision and hers alone.  You have no say in the matter. Any thing else is fairyfloss.

Liam says:

05:19pm | 28/06/11

Bev, he could then have an opinion on the issue - as i do. I was not saying he could make the decision to abort or not. I’m on your side of the argument

James1 says:

12:55pm | 27/06/11

“If you are pro-life I don’t understand why it is OK for enemy soldiers to be killed - what makes them different to an unborn baby?”

Unborn babies do not carry guns.

Unborn babies are not trying to kill people.

Unborn babies are not the tools of aggression used by foreign leaders.

Pregnant mothers are only very rarely put in a situation where it is kill or be killed in relation to their unborn child.

Is that enough, or should I keep going?

Bobster says:

01:28pm | 27/06/11

@ James1

Oh now that’s an intolerable load of rubbish. Unborn babies most certainly are tools of aggression and Babette here has proven it in spades.

- “the abortionists who don’t want to know you once they have your money”.
You don’t need to read far between the lines to see the aggression there.

Pro-lifers have been using abortion as the number one weapon in their rear-guard defence of an ancient belief structure for years.

Don’t tell me a mob who are prepared to murder doctors are actually just white knights in disguise.

George Carlin said it best:
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re f***ed.

James1 says:

02:01pm | 27/06/11

Bobster, I would never defend someone who murders anyone.  Unless they were receiving the death penalty for it, in which case I would oppose their being put to death.  As is said above, just because I oppose abortion except in a few extreme circumstances, and hold this in common with the evangelicals, does not mean I agree with everything else they say or do.  Your generalisations on this basis are entirely invalid.

I am not sure what you are responding to, but I would like you to note that I am talking about the spurious comparison of unborn children with enemy soldiers during wartime.  Further, I was pointing out a few moral distinctions between killing a fetus and killing an armed enemy soldier intent on doing you harm.  Your analogy takes this discussion in an entirely different direction.

Bobster says:

02:18pm | 27/06/11

I would suggest that my criticism was just as valid as yours.

In fact, that was the point.

I think Carlin’s quote, though, better explains the point Greypower was making.

You can’t have the group that advocates all of the killing (for one reason or another) picking out one special group that should be protected at all costs - assuming for one second that that position doesn’t have a billion ethical holes from the get go.

James1 says:

02:26pm | 27/06/11

“You can’t have the group that advocates all of the killing (for one reason or another) picking out one special group that should be protected at all costs - assuming for one second that that position doesn’t have a billion ethical holes from the get go.”

I agree entirely.  Those people are hypocrites.  So what was your problem with my argument against equivalence between fetuses and enemy soldiers during wartime?  That they are the same because some people choose to misuse them, thereby negating any moral distinction between an unarmed, unborn child and a grown, armed adult seeking to actively do others harm?

Bobster says:

02:45pm | 27/06/11

Because to compare a sentient being to a zygote is patently dishonest to begin with, and to then claim it is morally acceptable to kill sentient beings in some circumstances really speaks for itself.

AdamC says:

02:59pm | 27/06/11

James1, I have a feeling you are talking to a brick wall. What a farcicle exchange.

James1 says:

03:37pm | 27/06/11

So you are arguing there is direct moral equivalence between an abortion and the killing of another person even when, if you don’t, they will kill you?

Interesting thought, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on it.  I think there is a very strong moral distinction, except in cases where a direct threat to the mother’s life is posed by allowing pregnancy to continue.

As for the sentient being vs zygote thing, we are delving into the argument about when “life” begins that often plagues these debates.  I actually agree with Hitchens on this - that it is largely irrelevant.  Every zygote has the potential to become an independent life, and saying that it can’t live without the mother is a semantic argument at best, active self-delusion at worst.  But then I would, being biased in favour of allowing the zygote the opportunity to develop into something which can be sentient.  After all, the “patent dishonesty” tends to dissipate when one remembers that all sentient beings began as zygotes.

James1 says:

04:26pm | 27/06/11

Indeed Adam - I think he is disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

In any case, if a person can’t see the moral distinction between killing to save your life, and killing because the object of your killing would inconvenience you in some measure, are they really worth arguing with?

Bobster says:

05:02pm | 27/06/11

I am disagreeing with your idea that a glob of brainless cells is equivilent to a grown human being. I further disagree with your idea that the glob of cells is somehow more deserving of life than a grown human being.

I know this doesn’t make any sense to you, but that’s kind of the point.

You are engaging from a farcical position.

Bobster says:

05:09pm | 27/06/11

Cont…

The point is, killing is killing and you are making a distinction as to who can be killed and who can’t. Interestingly, you draw the line at something inhuman and insist it holds some moral virtue than an enemy soldier does not.

Well, what do you know about the enemy soldier’s motivations? You have no foundation whatsoever, for all you know, in fact, the most moral course of action would be to let the other guy kill you. You’re not privy to all the facts. How can you make a judgement?

You make a judgement based on what is rational and reasonable at the time, of course.

Who could argue with you? Blow that bastard’s head off. No one, including me, will think any less of you.

Unless of course you presume to be the moral umpire and start making grand announcements as to the morality (or lack of) of other people’s actions.

Ah, there’s a though. Perhaps the answer is to but the hell out and think, “you know what, it doesn’t matter a shit to me what someone does with their glob of cells.”

James1 says:

07:16pm | 27/06/11

In that regard, you are correct Bobster - their choices do not affect me.  Which is why I am anti-abortion personally, but I would still not rob others of the opportunity to reason for themselves and come to the appropriate (to them) decision.  I characterise this as anti-abortion, pro-choice.

However, people need to be realistic and accurate about their choices and what they entail.  Abortion is not just doing away with a glob of cells that wouldn’t become anything.  It is destroying a glob of cells that, left alone, will turn into a person one day.  As such, it is not a whole lot different to killing a person.  At best, it is the killing of a potential person.

James1 says:

07:20pm | 27/06/11

Also, I did not say that a fetus is more deserving of life than a full grown human.  Just that, as you say, there is moral justification for killing an enemy soldier in war, and no moral justification for killing a fetus that poses no threat to the mother’s life or is the result of consensual sex.

AdamC says:

09:35pm | 27/06/11

Bobster, perhaps you could broaden your horizons a little to consider that abortion is not merely destroying a ‘glob’ of ‘brainless cells’ but also denying said glob the opportunity to become a human being like you or I? A human being replete with brains, along with lots of other happening organs. Of course, as I suggested earlier, that is probably a big ask from an inanimate object. Again, I’m with James1 - why bother?

Bobster says:

09:45am | 28/06/11

I always find it interesting to think that blokes hold such strong views on what other people do with their bodies.

Your opinion on this matter is beyond irrelevant. It is a glob of cells. It is not a human. It has no life and chances are it won’t live past the next menstraul cycle anyway.

Yet, you’ve up and declared it human and declared the actions of thousands of women akin to murder because you drew an arbitrary line.

But whatever, guys. People just disagree with you for the sake of it.

You’re not pro-life. You’re anti-woman and that’s the end of it. No one cares what you think and your thoughts on this matter have absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

And the debate, while we’re at it, should not exist in the first place.

Bobster says:

02:54pm | 27/06/11

But what about the chemtrails, Anne?

Tell us about the chemtrails. Surely, flouridated water has something to do with this too? Where does the moonlanding factor in?

Regardless, that’s way too wordy. There term you were looking for was “passive eugenics”, which is, usually, and quite rightly, used to poke fun at certain folk.

Rhino says:

02:15pm | 27/06/11

@MissionMan
I challenge you to live your life without the belief in an all loving god. An all loving god that doesn’t mind a bit of burnt animal sacrifice and celebrates “bashing babies against a rocks (thank you Psalms 137:9) and sending bears to kill 42 children for taunting a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-25).

Take the bronze age blinkers off an enjoy the life you have now and leave those who make an exceptionally difficult choice alone to make that choice in peace.

James1 says:

02:40pm | 27/06/11

“I doubt anyone who went through with the baby regrets the decision of bringing a life into this world.”

I know people who do.  But it is telling that the main reason they regret it is due to the effect it had on them.  In this conception, the child is incidental.

MissionMan says:

03:31pm | 27/06/11

Rhino, I challenge you to read where I said in post that this had anything to do with religion.

This has to do with the right of a foetus and we’re not even saying the right of a foetus vs the right of an adult because I don’t think anyone has an issue with aborting a baby for safety reasons - this has to do with aborting a baby for convenience reasons. At what point do you decide that a life exists and at what point does one life constitute more importance than another’s convenience? Its my belief that the moment that life exists, it has just as much a right to life as any other human life. If you want to talk science vs religion, this is purely science. The foetus exists, its existence is real, not something which some people may believe in and other don’t.

Rhino says:

02:03pm | 28/06/11

In answer to your belief Missonman, you presume the right of a few undifferentiated cells that might develop into a human being trumps the rights of a living breathing human?
The medical science is: The foetus generally (and I mean almost universially) cannot survive independent of the the mother before 24 weeks from conception, it is not viable, it is wholly dependent on the mother. Therefore the mother is in control of the foetus and her body. As such, she has as far as I am concerned, control and rights over the foetus and all the hand wringing in the world for you to give the baby rights cannot give the baby independence of the mother.

Now, if you think any invasive procedure done under a general anaesthetic is “convinient” then you are deluded. It is painful, traumatic, bloody and real. By suggesting it is “convinient” you are insulting and belittling every women who has had an abortion (and every partner who supported that person), medically required abortions or otherwise.

Bilby says:

01:55pm | 27/06/11

I don’t really see the point in changing your name when your “fist” is *so* recognisable

Carz says:

04:09pm | 27/06/11

Catholics aren’t just anti-condom, they are completely opposed to artificial means of presenting conception. Meaning that all methods of contraception are out.

Carz says:

04:47pm | 27/06/11

Preventing conception even.

Step away from the keyboard says:

05:12pm | 28/06/11

Anne, mate, no one cares

Anne Stocks says:

08:30am | 29/06/11

Step away from the keyboard Anne, mate, no one cares

Yes God does and so do those like Him who Love me and of course my Brothers and Sisters in the Lord who also Love me and I also care.
But yes I agree those who are self-centred and have no compassion for others no doubt couldn’t care less.

Take some time to read some of the others posts and on other Topics also and you will see many do care for others and express it and regardless of whether they are Christian or not I appreciate that they care even if their posts are not in reference to me.

But Step away from the keyboard,  it is your choice to continue as you are but please do not label everyone else with your negative focus.

Kind regards Anne

James1 says:

02:42pm | 27/06/11

This generalises too much.  It assumes that those opposing abortion on demand do so due to religious conviction.  It further assumes that every opponent of abortion on demand is a hypocrite in relation to other stages of life.  These are not solid assumptions on which to base an argument.

Rhino says:

02:06pm | 28/06/11

People committing or attempting to commit suicide usually do so due to a mental illness such as depression and this can usually be treated.

Elphaba says:

03:44pm | 27/06/11

Agreed.  The term ‘pro abortionist’ is just a skew the pro-lifers are applying in order to demonise personal choice.

Just because someone is pro choice doesn’t mean they would necessarily choose abortion for themselves.  They just believe in more options, not less.

Sylvie says:

03:55pm | 27/06/11

@Ann It’s no surprise that the term pro-abortion doesn’t sit well.  We must have nice comfy words like “choice” to describe the terminating of life.  Could be worse - feel relieved an abortionist isn’t called a terminator.

Elphaba says:

04:10pm | 27/06/11

@Sylvie, thank you for proving my point.  I don’t call you a rabid religious nutter, how about extending me the same courtesy?

Bilby says:

04:19pm | 27/06/11

Come on now. Abortion is the point of differentiation so it’s really the only choice being discussed. As such, if you are pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion, as I am. It doesn’t sit well with me at all, but knowing the alternative, knowing what happened before terminations were (semi) legally available, well it’s not much of a choice at all.

Anne Stocks says:

05:28pm | 27/06/11

Hi Tod,  I respect your stand as a Christian, we are to have Godly pride in our unity with the Lord, and I’m also encouraged that you do not agree with Abortion.  God tells us we are known to Him in the flesh from the time we are conceived and eternally in His Spirit. But perhaps you have never thought of it this way before Tod .... but do you think God did not know the Baby conceived by rape or a Child with a disability like mine…we all have a right to live ...Let God be the Judge, our times are in His hands… He is not the author of sickness, suffering, pain or cold blooded Murder.

As I shared before Tod with the invention of the ultrasound which was used at first to help save lives but is today sometimes used to take life,  if this had been the situation when my birth Mother was pregnant, I would have been terminated because of having a genetic defect. My life has been hard but it was also touched by great happiness and I also have deep Joy now that I would not have wanted to miss out on and for which I thank God for, I also give thanks that I was not Aborted. 

Sadly when life has little value which is the real face of Abortion then where does it end

Kind regards Anne.

Tod says:

06:28pm | 27/06/11

@Anne.
When i mention medical reasons, i didnt mean just a disability, i meant that if it was an issue of saving the life of a mother or a similar situation. Although i can UNDERSTAND abortion in these situations. It’s still not something which i would happily support.

Anne Stocks says:

11:00am | 28/06/11

Hi Tod,  I really appreciate your concern for the Mother but as we know it is God who allots the time we have on this earth,  yes He can intervene and prolong life or shorten it as the Scriptures tell us and as I experienced and many others have also but it is not His will that we murder or suicide.  God does not condone these sins as He doesn’t all sin but He does understand the confusion of Mental illness and also what motivates us to do the things we do but those who deliberately cold bloodily take life or agree to it will be answerable unless they come to heart repentance.

People may say…. but I don’t believe in God,  but God knows them and everything they say and do is recorded in The Book of Life.

In Childbirth I was dying they could not save me I was on the verge of a Cerebral haemorrhage and they couldn’t get my blood pressure down, I had server Toxaemia. They wanted to save the baby by doing a Caesarean section but it would have definitely killed me but they felt I would not live anyway, but my Husband would not let them hoping I would live, so sadly my baby died, she was very weak and could not survive a natural birth, as with my other babies she had not progressed normally. I was in a deep coma and the Doctors had given up on me, they could not help me and told my Husband and Mother I only had a short time left to live and then suddenly everything started to return to normal and so I lived…you may have noticed…but sadly being an unbeliever at the time I never thanked God. 

Since becoming a Christian although I have been disabled genetically from birth and continue to be but thankfully it has progressed slowly,  I have been Miraculously healed 5 times of illnesses some of them would have been fatal if they had progressed… God knows what we can endure and strengthens us… all of them are documented, the Doctors over the years could not explain how these Healings have happened, I have also had signs and wonders that could only have come by God’s hand so they are not counterfeit, God has indeed intervened but not just in my life many Christians can say the same,  and of course like me at the time,  in unbelievers lives but I believe He also heals through Medicine when not abused.
.
My turning point as a Christian in understanding God’s Truth came as I read in Scripture about the man who although he believed he still had some unbelief and so he asked Jesus to help him to fully believe and this is what I did, I also asked for God’s wisdom and believed I received it.

Although it does not concern when others don’t believe me, I’m secure in God’s Truth but I do pray for them that they may also come to know our God who is Love and Loves them as He Loves me and you and all of His other Children who believe in Him and even those who don’t believe in Him.

Christian Love Anne.

Anne Stocks says:

06:41pm | 27/06/11

Thank you Nil by mouth,  I respect your stand and I liked the way you used logic to get your point across,  although it would be very hard if all the boys were Aborted, who would we blame when everything doesn’t go as we planned.

When we look at what has happened in China it should be a warning,  there is now a big imbalance in the population because they Aborted many girl babies, and so there are too many men. When you play God your suffer the consequences.

By the way I’m a Christian but others put downs don’t concern me I know I’m a person of worth regardless of what they say besides they are looking at their own reflection sad but True.

Thanks again - Kind regards Anne

Anne Stocks says:

05:25am | 28/06/11

Dark Horse,  why do these woman die or suffer from damage after Abortion and I was one of them and my baby was aborted by a Macquarie street Specialist. It was my choice to take the life of my baby even if I was very confused at the time, and this was not only against nature but God’s will for me and my Baby and I have suffered greatly because of it both physically and emotionally, as I shared in my story below.

It seems you do not know the number of woman who are still damaged by legal Abortion today and not just physically,  some never get over it and what about the rights of a Child to live is that of no importance to you.

Perhaps it would help you Dark Horse to do a little more research with an open mind as you seem not to have much understanding about Abortion and what happens to many of these babies while they are being aborted or the ones that are Aborted alive and left to die or killed sometimes almost full term,  are you aware they suffer, you don’t have to take my word for it do some research so you have more knowledge of what Abortion is really all about,  I think you will be shocked as many others have been who have feelings and compassion.

Abortion is not about woman’s rights and never has been it’s about Murder. 

Take Care Kind regards Anne.

Liam says:

05:07pm | 28/06/11

Anne Stocks i hope you are very, very old.

Anne Stocks says:

07:38am | 29/06/11

Well Liam it all depends how you look at age but I suppose as a teenager I would say someone who is my age is very old and a person my age would say I was not so old and as you no doubt know, they say your as old as you feel,  so sometimes I would say I’m 108 but on the whole I feel very young and find it hard to believe I’m almost 60 years old but perhaps you would like me to be older ?

Teaching Sunday School one day, quiet a while ago now, a little boy said to me your nearly as old as my Granny,  when I asked him how old she was he said a 100 and she had just gotten a telegram from the Queen,  which was his big news and what he really wanted to share. I then asked if I’m not as old as your Granny how old do you think I am,  and he replied,  only 99… it is indeed your perception,  some claim I look much younger then 60 years old,  others don’t comment .

To me age like beauty is within and life wisdom comes with age as Godly wisdom comes from the Lord.

How old are you Liam and why did you claim I must be very, very old?  don’t be concerned about sharing your feelings,  anyone who can handle being told they are 99 when they are only in their early 50’s can handle anything.

Kind regards Anne