Pro-choice but anti-flippancy

Fergus Hunter says:

07:29am | 04/03/10

Eric, that is a spectacularly stupid thing to say.

Males are not the vessels through which children are born.

The way males can avoid fatherhood is by wearing a condom or getting a vasectomy.

If the pregnancy is unwanted by both partners, then the abortion is mutual. If the pregnancy is only unwanted by the male, then he can either deal with it or leave. He’d be a bit of a tosser to do the latter but he has that right. He is not discriminated against.

DG says:

08:11am | 04/03/10

Men do have reproductive rights - we can say “No” to sex.

Out of all of the positions on abortion - the suggestion that one person should be able to force another to have an abortion is, in my mind, the most abhorrent. It’s right up their with kidnapping a pregnant woman, slicing her open to take the ‘organs’ you want, then dropping her off at a hospital.

As for the inequality, both have chance of avoiding parenthood after they have had sex. A female can have an abortion, the male can flee to another country or top himself. Males, such as myself, always have a choice. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - just because you don’t like the options doesn’t mean that you don’t have a choice - you put yourself in a bad situation taking risks, now you have more choices to make.

You could even go around and hit her with an iron bar, she wont have the baby and you will have avoid parenthood. You will, rightly in my mind, be going to gaol, but it is your choice. 

No person should have the right to decide the medical procedures for someone else without their consent. However, we each do have a choice about your own behaviour. If a male doesn’t want to run the risk, keep it in your pants, get the chop or flee to another country. Simple.

Summarily, when you have sex you run the risk of causing pregnancy. As a male you know that you have no control over whether the other person has the baby or not, but you choose to do it anyway. It’s a calculated risk.

Men, let’s accept responsibility for the risk we take when having sex and show that we have a little bit of maturity about ourselves..

Von says:

08:38am | 04/03/10

It does, sometimes, one of them is a rapist.When men are fully involved in fathering perhaps they’ll have rights ensconced in law.

Salec says:

09:25am | 04/03/10

How about equal reproductive rights then. Or at least a semblence of them.  All things in life are abotu a choice. Women, when they decide to keep a baby against the wishes of the father, need to be aware that that choice carries with it consequences, and responsibilities. I think it’s time that a mother that has a baby against the father wishes takes on more of the financial responsibility of caring for the child, and makes the decision on whether to have the baby based on that. That would even up the reprodictive rights considerably

Seano says:

10:19am | 04/03/10

Wear a condom or don’t have sex; but once there’s a child involved tough luck pal.

Eleanor says:

11:46am | 04/03/10

By that logic, the onus for contraception is equally on men. If only people adhered to this logic, then perhaps people would stop slagging off on women who get abortions as ‘whores’.

Mel says:

12:40pm | 04/03/10

You can renounce fatherhood, it’s called signing away your parental rights to the child for the span of your life, it’s a legal document that I full intend to get a signature on if I fall pregnant and the guy wants nothing to do with it, great don’t pay me child support but I want you to give up any parental rights which means later down the track if he wants to have some invilvement, guess what he can’t.

DG says:

01:25pm | 04/03/10

Mel - what document is this?

I’ve never heard of such a document outside of adoption and, while not an expert on Family law, I am fairly confident that the Court is unlikely to decide that absolving the father from responsibility for child support is in the best interests of the child.

Miles says:

02:28pm | 04/03/10

Fergus Hunter, your response is spectacularly stupid.

‘If the pregnancy is only unwanted by the male, then he can either deal with it or leave’

Yes well , he may leave but he is still obliged legally to pay for an unwanted child for 18 years.  You have basically re-inforced Eric’s point in that the male has no say.  What if the male wanted the child and the female didn’t?  Again, he would have no say.

As for you people saying ‘wear a condom’ etc. NO contraceptive is 100% effective and accidents do happen.

Eric doesn’t say that the female has no right to have the baby, he is saying it is not fair for them to soley make the decision, irrespective of the man’s opinion AND then force the male to pay for it.  That is not fair, no matter how much you spin it.

DG says:

03:31pm | 04/03/10

Miles - do you propose that it is “fair” that the woman has to carry it around inside her uterus for 9 months - that everything that she eats and drinks will affect the baby while the father can go out and hit the turps every night without consequence?

Do you think it suddenly becomes more fair if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn’t? Is the “unfair” treatment of a human as an incubator against their will more palatable to you than the choice of woman to allow a baby to grow inside her without the consent of the person that put it there?

Do you think it’s fair that the mother has to go through the pain of child birth for a child while the father sits in the waiting room watching TV?

Do you think it is fair that the mother has to provide the baby with sustenance and immunisation, and all of the stresses on her body?

You are talking about fair, where is life fair?  I’m not suggesting that life is fair, or that it should be. Life just is. Part of life , in my humble opinion, is the right to some degree of control over the biological processes that are happening inside the person concerned. If you don’t want to be responsible for the processes in another person, don’t contribute to the commencement of those processes.

Ricky says:

04:18pm | 04/03/10

You know what, i actually agree with Eric on this.It takes two to make a baby, so both partys should have equal rights in parenthood or any further legal & monetary obligations if they dont agree on whether to follow through with an accidental pregnancy.

Vicki PS says:

08:38am | 04/03/10

That’s the crux, all right.  The abortion ‘debate’ is no debate because there is no common discourse.  The only area really open to debate is the ethics of how each side promotes their particular point of view.

Jeff says:

08:41am | 04/03/10

It’s an argument of we ‘we like the rights’ but don’t like the awful reality of actually happens to the baby. Babies are precious and should have the right to live out their lives.

Vicki PS says:

12:59pm | 04/03/10

@Jeff:  See, this is where the problem starts.  If you think that women having abortions don’t know, and haven’t confronted, the reality of what happens to their foetus, then you are a fool.  You would be an even greater fool if you thought that all the babies born to women who were denied abortions went on to live happy lives.

How about you grant the pro-choicers the respect of believing that they, too, have consciences and moral imperatives—or would you rather that they start plastering up posters of battered and neglected children (dead and living) and blaming it on you?

Dean says:

02:04pm | 04/03/10

Yes some men are idiots. Get the snip at 18 freeze your boys for your convenience and the world is your oyster.

Eric says:

03:46pm | 04/03/10

No, a man doesn’t have to carry the child for just 9 months. A man has to support the child, and the mother for 18 years. This is a far greater burden.

If a woman has the right to choose, a man should have the right to choose too.

Cuppa says:

04:51pm | 04/03/10

I disagree oldgirl.Eric was saying that in the case of a woman choosing to have a baby against the fathers wishes he is still fianancially obligated for eighteen years.this is wrong.I have to say i agree with him.Women have every right to decide what is best for their bodies, but a man does deserve some say when it comes to liability about an accidental pregnancy.After all, the decision to have the baby is completly the mothers whether he agrees or not.

Jeff says:

08:42am | 04/03/10

The figure is wrong and is quoted to make people feel like ‘everyone’s doing it’, so it’s ok.

Sandra says:

05:24pm | 08/03/10

It sums up what it is wrong with contraception and contraception education.

CA says:

09:23pm | 04/03/10

There is a great difference between a life that has commenced and contraception.

Ajent says:

12:43pm | 04/03/10

I think the point is that men need to accept THEIR responsibility and take care of their own contraception. Dont rely on the pill, or whatever form of contraception a woman is using.

Its simple. Stick a rubber on it. There are still risks, but a lot of men ignore that they have a measure of control and demand that women do the work on contraception. If you dont make any attempt to protect yourself, then you dont have much comeback if it all goes pearshaped.
If an accident happens, then negotiate.

I would also say though, that should the man NOT want an abortion and mum doesn’t want the kid, it should count. If dad is prepared to step up and take responsibility for raising the child, then mothers should have to live with that too. They can renounce their rights as easily as a man can.

woman says:

03:16pm | 04/03/10

“Why should men accept responsibility when women don’t have to? “
That is - quite simply - the most idiotic thing you have ever said Eric.

Women don’t have to accept responsibility for unwanted pregnancy? um.. yeah.. ok…

Eric says:

03:49pm | 04/03/10

Ajent, you make my argument for me.

If men are responsible for their own contraception, then so are women.

If women need a right to abort their responsibilities, then so do men.

It’s all about equality.

Eric says:

08:43am | 06/03/10

“woman”: No, women do not have to accept responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy.

Women can choose to renounce their responsibility either by abortion or by putting the child up for adoption.

Men have no legal choice and are obliged to accept responsibility - unlike women.

You seem to feel threatened by the idea of equality.

6clegs says:

10:55am | 04/03/10

If you don’t want to have an abortion, Then don’t have one!

I know, you’re a fella, so your’e not likely to anyway. But I find it hard to believe someone as educated as you, Zeta, fails to see that ‘it’ is about Choice ?!

Eric says:

03:50pm | 04/03/10

“If you don’t want to have an abortion,  Then don’t have one!”

If you don’t like murder, don’t kill! If you don’t like rape, don’t rape!

What a silly slogan.

Eleanor says:

11:36am | 04/03/10

Go for it. If I go to have an abortion, and you try to stop me, would you step up to the plate and take personal responsibility for my child, that you seem to care so much about?

formersnag, not leftard or rightard but centerist. says:

03:07pm | 04/03/10

Eleanor, Problem solvered. Put it up for adoption. See how easy it is when you let a man, with his 15% bigger brain, solve your problems for you.

DG says:

03:38pm | 04/03/10

Formersnag:

How does your solution deal with the health implications for the mother. Even a “healthy pregnancy” puts the body of the mother under serious strain, and there is no such thing as a “100% safe pregnancy” there are always risks. I appreciate that there are risks associated with the termination of a pregnancy but, shouldn’t it be up to each individual to decide which risky medical procedures they are willing to undertake.

A ‘solution’ as you put it would hardly require the mother to look after the thing for the better part of a year. That’s a pretty average solution, and doesn’t actually absolve the mother of any responsibility for that period.

It is interesting to note that all of the risks are risks to the health of the mother and not to the father. I can see how adoption is a good plan for the father.

Eleanor says:

06:15pm | 04/03/10

Really, Formersnag? That’s the best trolling you can come up with? I have to admit, I’m a little bit embarrassed for you. Head to 4chan and come back when you’ve learned a thing or two.

N says:

10:21am | 04/03/10

Those childless women are working and paying their taxes. You know the taxes that go towards pensions, nursing home beds etc.  If you want to euthanase someone why don’t we start with the aging population. After all they have had their time annd they wouldn’t be making any contribution sitting around in nursing homes and sucking up resources. Or how about we euthanase all the deadbeat mums and dads who don’t work, live off benefits and squeeze out babies left, right and centre. Those kids would not make a contribution to society seeing as they have never been set a good example. See, that argument doesn’t sit very well does it? <sarc>

formersnag, not leftard or rightard but centerist. says:

02:21pm | 04/03/10

N, absolutely correct that argument does not sit well. That’s the hypocrisy of the radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi, baby-killer’s position. They would be, the first, to rant about a right winger, like Adolf Hitler, being an “evil monster”, for saving taxpayers money by euthanizing “useless eaters”. Which is exactly what the history books tell us, happened.

Then use Hitler & Goebels, identical propaganda methods to tell everybody that its OK to murder healthy baby foetus, for shear convenience.

Eleanor says:

06:23pm | 04/03/10

N, please don’t feed the troll.

Sandra says:

05:30pm | 08/03/10

“like Adolf Hitler”

Well, that Godwinised that discussion.

ED says:

10:15am | 04/03/10

Edward, you are completely entitled to that belief, as you are to your choice not to have an abortion.
I have plenty of friends who would never have an abortion, but they would be the same friends supporting me if I made a choice that clashed with what they believed in, that is how choice works.

Jane says:

11:49am | 04/03/10

“I see no difference between a one week old foetus and a newly born infant” - Um yes there is. A 1 week old foetus can not exist outside of the womb, where as a newly born infant obviously can. Where I lose respect for so called “pro-lifers” in this debate is in making these completely biased and emotionally charged comparisons.

Life does not begin at conception. It begins after the child is born.

disgusted says:

12:06pm | 04/03/10

Jane, using your argument that life begins when the child is born, it’s OK to abort a 39 week feotus is it?  Just because you can’t see the feutus grimacing and writhing in pain whilst it’s being aborted does not mean everything’s peachy in there you know.  I am sure you would know the feotus has a heartbeat, unique DNA, fingerprints and all the major organs within weeks of conception??

DG says:

12:51pm | 04/03/10

I won’t go as far as Jane and suggest that life begins when the baby is born, I would suggest that life begins when the “entity” is viable outside of the womb.

I would propose that:

A woman has sovereign rights in respect of the medical procedures that she will undergo in respect of any biological process occurring within the bounds, generally, of her epidermis.

From the time that the entity is viable outside of the womb (and so long as the entity remains in the womb) that entity has rights but, and this is the important bit, not rights over the mothers right to have medical procedures carried on in respect of biological processes occurring within her body. After birth that entity becomes a child and has the associated rights.

Merry says:

02:55am | 05/03/10

I think a lot of the problem stems from the assumption that pro-choice = pro-abortion.

I identify myself as pro-choice. However, I would never have an abortion myself unless my life is in danger. I’m a great advocate for adoption or whatnot - the other alternatives.
Why I’m pro-choice: I’m not going to force my beliefs on anyone else. Pro-lifers, from what I’ve seen, force their “every zygot is sacred” onto other people and condemn those that choose to have an abortion, and try to make situations come about that would make everyone follow their own beliefs and ideals.

What I choose to do with my body and/or baby is the business only of me and the man who made me pregnant. If we both decided that we didn’t want the child, then it’s our decision only to abort it.
It’s the same as if I decided to take up smoking, or if I decided to buy that house on the lake, or if I decided that yes, I will eat an entire pack of TimTams. It has always been MY (and I’m talking a collective MY because I would take into account the other participant) decision.
I’m nto going to tell someone how to live their life. I make suggestions and give advice, but I don’t order.
Why can’t pro-lifers accept that? Would they like it if I told them that eating wheat products causes cancer, and I show graphic images of the stools of wheat-eaters, and I “debate” by shouting the loudest? Whether you eat wheat, or smoke cigarettes, or take copious amounts of prescription drugs, is none of my business unless it affects me directly.
So, women choosing to abort zygots/fetuses should be allowed to make their own decision. IMO.

Merry says:

03:00am | 05/03/10

Well, given that murder is the ILLEGAL killing of someone, I doubt abortion (which isn’t illegal) would qualify as murder.

On the same thread, cigarettes are linked to various health problems, so why do people still smoke? Going through a divorce has also been linked to depression, so why do people get divorced? Or even get married to begin with?
Doesn’t having a baby also give the woman a risk of depression as well? So, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t?

Eleanor says:

11:34am | 04/03/10

I sort of agree with you, Bitten. I do believe that sex education is completely understated in terms of importance. Sex education in Australia should be introduced from primary school. When I was in year 12, I still had friends of mine who didn’t know how to use condoms, or the ins and outs (har!) of sex. At 18 :/

However, I disagree with you when it comes to your statement about “pro-choice advocates would stop suggesting that adults are just poor little innocent ones with no guidance, f*ing away without any idea of the consequences”. No contraceptive, aside from perhaps a hysterectomy/vasectomy has a 100 per cent effectiveness rate. As we saw with the woman posting her abortion on Youtube, she was using an IUD. She didn’t want another pregnancy, as it was likely it would be dangerous to her and the baby.

I’m willing to say that she is but a fraction of the vast majority of women who have abortions for the same reasons. When you think about how many people are having sex around the world each day, how many are using contraception, and the effectiveness of said contraception, we’re talking that, world-wide, there would be literally thousands of people at any given moment with their contraception failing. It isn’t so black and white as you make it out to be.

Bitten says:

12:35pm | 04/03/10

Eleanor, your position that ‘well, a woman had an abortion but she was using an IUD so she’s been let down by the system’ exactly echoes the catch-cries of every other pro-abortion advocate.

Condoms are barrier protection - they act to prevent pregnancy AND to prevent transmission of sexual infections. They are not 100% effective (largely due to user-error), as all pro-abortionists cry at every opportunity. So true. OCP is hormonal contraceptive - it regulates your menstrual cycle and can assist with your gynaecologic health generally however: OCP does not do anything to prevent STIs. It is also not 100% effective (largely due to user-error) It is the same with an IUD - no protection against STIs and variable protection against pregnancy.

Condoms AND OCP are my personal choice. Why? Because the idea that one method of contraception is all you need is a complete falsehood. They act in different ways and have different pros and cons. People having sex need to grow up, consider what they are doing when they have sex, what actually happens when you have sex and what the exact consequences are.

My question Eleanor is this: if no single contraceptive device is 100% effective, then what the f. are any adults doing using just one? Seriously, would you please tell me? Why on earth aren’t all adults behaving like adults and taking the actual, necessary steps to properly protect themselves and safeguard their sexual health and their partner’s sexual health? Could it be because adults are choosing not to behave like adults? That they are choosing to behave like immature and lazy fools who don’t want to accept the consequences of their actions?

Women can have an abortion. I think it absolutely needs to be available. But don’t come to me with the lies and the bull sh*t that every woman is being a mature adult and taking the appropriate steps to protect her sexual health and SOMEHOW getting pregnant. Because it’s complete and utter crap. People don’t get STIs from sitting on the bus. They get them from f*ing without protection - in other words, they get them from being lazy and immature.  Similarly, people don’t get pregnant from looking at each other.

So no single method of contraception is 100% effective? All pro-abortion advocates mouth this statement in triumph. Ok then. So why the f. aren’t you all using two?

Anna says:

03:06pm | 04/03/10

Agree. I use a hormonal implant and condoms. I think back to how I was stupid at 16 just relying on OCP. I also get me and the partner tested for STIs before starting a new sexual relationship but still use condoms. Paranoid? Maybe. But I have no STIs or ‘accidental’ pregnancies.
Two women I know had ‘accidental’ pregnancies, which I don’t believe for a second. One of them has Hepatitis C (before pregnancy). If that isn’t a reason to use more than one method of contraception, I don’t now what is.

Eleanor says:

06:20pm | 04/03/10

I don’t understand, why are you lecturing me on contraception? I’m well aware of how it works, and for what it’s worth, yes, I do use both hormonal (which, by the way, is playing bloody havoc with my body but nevermind) and condoms when I have sex. I’m aware of the risks inherent, and also how various forms of contraception work.

But even still, if you double both of them up, it will not give you a 100 per cent protection rate. As I mentioned before, the only ways that will are sterilisation and abstinence. So where does this leave us? For contraception’s sake, a hysterectomy/vasectomy is a costly procedure. Would you have every Australian of child-bearing age who doesn’t want a child do that? Would you, as a taxpayer, be prepared to pay for the Federal subsidy that would be required for the surgery?

Bitten says:

09:59am | 05/03/10

My problem Eleanor, is that you like all other pro-abortion advocates, make statements like ‘No single form of contraception is 100% effective’ as though that fact alone absolves all women from all responsibility when they get pregnant. It doesn’t. Grow up. I’m sick of people attempting to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. I say again: Grow up. And again, if no single form of contraception is 100% effective, as you call chant triumphantly like it gives you a free pass from maturity, why aren’t you all advocating the use of two? Why?

As I said before (which you seem to have missed) all I ask is honesty. That I can respect. This slinking around and the earnest head-nodding that ‘Oh, I was on contraception but it, like, didn’t work’ just really p*sses me off. I don’t like people lying to me. I thought we were all adults, why are we not all then behaving like adults?

And actually, when you double your methods of contraception, the odds of you falling pregnant or contracting a sexual infection are so small, you might find yourself the subject of religious praise. Come on Eleanor, go and find me a person who fell pregnant while on two appropriately used forms of contraception. No? Can’t find one? I wonder why that is…?

Eleanor says:

12:35pm | 05/03/10

Um, does my mum count? I’m proof of that.

And no, it doesn’t absolve them of all responsibility. I never said that. These are the risks you take when you have sex. There is always a chance of falling pregnant, no matter how many precautions you take.

Me? If I fell pregnant, I’d be pretty pissed off and writing a strongly-worded letter to Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Ansell. But I’d follow through with it. These are the cards I played, so be it.

However, let us use Angie Jackson’s case as an example. She tried to prevent pregnancy, because she knew there were many risks to both her potential child and herself. ‘Immaturity’ or not, in this situation an abortion was the right thing to do.

You seem to have an attitude that each and every woman has to justify herself to you about their pregnancies and possible choice of abortion. To me, you’re the one that needs to do some growing up.

Also, interestingly, you never answered my question. Would you be happy to foot the bill for government subsidised 100 per cent effective sterilisation?

Bitten says:

02:08pm | 05/03/10

Oh Eleanor, I’m sorry, I didn’t address your question. I was probably distracted by the fact that not one of your posts actually addresses the statements I’ve made in mine. Not once do you come clean and admit that yes, probably quite a number of women who have abortions aren’t taking the mature, intelligent or adult steps to protect themselves and their partners. You cling to the story that all women use contraception properly, all women take responsibility for themselves and yet, the innocent little lambkins just somehow keep falling pregnant. I won’t hold it against you - it’s what pro-abortion advocates truly believe. Even in the face of overwhelming logic to suggest otherwise. I point to the rate of STI infections in this country. They aren’t getting those by using condoms.

For your satisfaction: yes, I would support tax-payer funded hysterectomies and vasectomies. And I believe Medicare does fund some hysterectomy procedures however this is probably more toward older women with longstanding gynae complications.  I would certainly support making it available for contraceptive purposes.

Donna says:

04:59pm | 06/03/10

‘So no single method of contraception is 100% effective? All pro-abortion advocates mouth this statement in triumph. Ok then. So why the f. aren’t you all using two?’

Umm, maybe because I’m married (therefore not at risk of STI’s providing my husband and I remain faithful to each other) and because the OCP and other hormonal contraceptives are designed SOLELY to PREVENT pregnancy. I don’t use them for any other reason. No, they’re not 100% bloody effective but if they fail, that’s not my fault. I use them according to the manufacturer’s instructions, I put up with the weight gain, the hormonal acne and other side effects associated with the use of such medications/devices, and if I get knocked up while using them, chances are I’d abort. Yep - I’d ‘act like an adult’, ‘take responsibility for my stupid, selfish, childish behaviour’ and terminate. I’ve already got two kids (who were both planned) and I love them more than I could ever have imagined - but I have no plans for any more children, so I use what contraceptive methods I can in order to prevent it from happening. Hey, I don’t WANT to be in the position where I have to terminate a pregnancy - nobody does. It’s not a decision made lightly by anybody, ever - but it is a decision that in some cases is best for all involved - mother, father, foetus - and it is a decision that should be available to me so I can make my own decisions regarding my body.

I think it’s total bulls*** that contraception, with the exception of condoms, is entirely a woman’s responsibility. Why haven’t the big drug companies managed to create a daily pill for men that prevents their sperm from developing properly? Why can’t men go and get an injection that lasts 3 months and takes care of the possibility of them getting a woman pregnant? Where’s the little implant getting placed in men’s upper arms rendering them infertile for 3 years? Why do us women have to suffer the nasty side-effects of hormonal contraception, then get blasted as ‘sluts’ if we find ourselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy despite being happily married/in a long-term relationship?

And please don’t talk to me about ‘permanent’ options like vasectomy or tubal ligation - the tubes CAN and DO (in a small percentage of cases) grow back and the only indicator is finding oneself with an unwanted pregnancy, and a hysterectomy can cause what is essentially menopause and all the awful symptoms that go with it. I’m 24 years old, I do not particularly wish to spend the next five years of my life suffering and using more synthetic hormones to treat such a condition.

Henry says:

11:27am | 04/03/10

Agree.  People need to reserve vaginal sex for purposes of planned children.  There are other and better options!

N says:

11:46am | 04/03/10

I think the figure is high because D & C’s (I think that is what they are called) after miscarriages are also included in that.

Bob says:

12:06pm | 04/03/10

Here’s my hand up. (And a finger for good measure.)

My mother never wanted kids and had them because she was pressured into it by family. She made this quite clear during our affectionless upbringing. We were regularly reminded of what she gave up and how we owed our existence to her. In my teenage years when I responded that I had never asked to be born I would get a good ear bashing for hours sprinkled with comments about regretting not getting an abortion.

I shouldn’t be here.

Davy says:

02:13pm | 04/03/10

Bob its really very easy for you to rectify were you to so choose. The fact that you have not made such a choice indicates that your hand is not really up, just your anger at your mother.
If you were to take stock of your existence I would imagine that there is some small light at the end of this gloomy tunnel you have wrapped around yourself (although this may only be a train.)

Anna says:

03:16pm | 04/03/10

“Why is it that so many pro choice adherents want to shy away from the graphic images of death. What is it they fear from the showing of such images.”
I don’t want to look at people defecating, but I understand it’s something that needs to happen sometimes. Same with a removed appendix. It’s not heart-wrenching like you seem to think people see it as, it’s just not something we’d like to see.
I wouldn’t have an abortion, but that’s my choice. If you don’t want aborted babies, you should spend more time on preventing unwanted foetuses.

Bob says:

03:20pm | 04/03/10

Davey, I am not wrapped in gloom. The challenge was, “Put up your hand all those out there who are remotely concerned about whether their existance “wrecked their mothers life”.”

It was not, “Who is suicidal about it?”

I was, and still am, “remotely concerned”, because my existence was a result of social interference by others that wrecked the life of the woman who bore me (by her own account). My concern is, then, that people (and the State, in particular), should keep their noses out of others important life decisions because they have no clue what the long term repercussions might be despite their moral certainty.

COF says:

12:55pm | 04/03/10

You are not the only one H, but it certainly is rare. People are heavily motivated by their need for approval and self worth from others. They will adjust their attitudes and actions to suit their peers or the people they love.
Look at all the sons and daughters out there that carry the same opinions as their parents.

DG says:

01:08pm | 04/03/10

If it were “supposed” to work that way, there needs to be a being that determined how things were “supposed” to be.

Who is that entity? From where do they derive their authority? Or is this a self-appointed position, a dictatorship perhaps?

James1 says:

01:34pm | 04/03/10

Abortion has been around forever.  It has always been an issue, and it always will be.

anon. says:

02:03pm | 04/03/10

not terribly enamoured with God DG? (or at least the concept of God in your perception)
Your observations on God (or - and forgive me for putting words into your mouth but i thought it a fair guess - lack thereof in your opinion) aren’t correct btw…

anon. says:

02:25pm | 04/03/10

James1, in other words: we’ve been stuffing this up as long as we can remember (?).

James1 says:

03:41pm | 04/03/10

I didn’t put that very well - got distracted half way through.  What I meant is that is has also been done by couples in committed marriages, right throughout the ages.  There is really no way that it is “supposed to work”, as every way has the same pitfalls and triumphs.

In any case, I am sure that people have been stuffing things up for far longer than anyone can remember, or than the history books record.

DG says:

04:00pm | 04/03/10

I didn’t mention God (presumably you men the christian deity rather than any of the hundreds of other gods worshiped during human existence) or any other deity, prophet or spiritual guide.

I had no idea which entity you believe determines what is “supposed” to be. For all I know you could be a worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But, since you bring it up. No. I don’t think much of that mythical sky daddy that the christian faith credits with the creation of heaven and hell, earth and life. I do think we can learn much from Christian philosophy (as opposed to the religion and associated dogma), and equally some should be discarded.

My perception of the Christian god comes from a variety of sources including the Bible, discussions with preachers, religious leaders and followers, reading books on Christian faith (both for and against). Essentially I feel about the Christian god the same way that Christians feel about Zeus, the rainbow serpent or mermaids.

I would be intrigued to know which “observation” was wrong given that I asked a series of questions. I appreciate that my first sentence was an observation (as a matter of logical if something is supposed, there must be an entity making that supposition)  but aside from that I made no observation nor comment on any faith or religion.

anon. says:

07:24am | 05/03/10

James1. You say that you are sure we have been stuffing it up for as long as we can remember - and yet you also state that there is no way it’s ‘supposed to be’. Which side do you take? there needs to be a right way of doing things for people to be able to stuff up…

anon. says:

07:45am | 05/03/10

DG, I didn’t accuse you of ‘mentioning God’, I accused you of mentioning your undefined concept of a god. You said:
“there needs to be a being that determined how things were “supposed” to be. I think you acknowledge and clarify this in your last para. so we’re on the same page (?).

Your comments on God as a ‘mythical sky daddy’ and subsequent comments on the Christian faith tell me that you don’t really have an understanding of Christianity.
So you kind of respect some of the results of the God of the Christian Scriptures, but think it’s nonsense and don’t acknowledge Him as existing? (just attempting clarification). Picking and choosing bits and peices off the smorgasboard of Christianity as it were?

When I stated that your observations are wrong, what I meant ties in with my comments in this post on your limited understanding of God Himself - that being the fact that you talk of, or challenged (not observed, as you helpfully clarified )  the possibility of the concept of God as a self-appointed, un-knowable, dicatatorial entity (what is to your eyes a possible concept - and to my eyes is the Almighty God). If you knew God, you would realise that these observations (which you posed as questions - granted you weren’t necessarily asserting anything) are inconsistent with God - and thereby ‘wrong’.

DG says:

08:45am | 05/03/10

I didn’t actually intend to limit it to deities or the likes. The actual thought that I had in mind was dictatorships such as that in China, where the Government tells you how things are supposed to be, and then went back and changed the reference to “beings” when religion popped into my head.

Anyway, I consider myself fairly well versed in Christianity, so I will continue on that point.

To begin with, I didn’t suggest that you should not believe in this entity, nor did I suggest that such an entity is necessarily bad (although I will admit that I originally had written something far less flattering about the Christian deity). I have no problem with any person believing in whatever they want. A person can choose to believe that the world is flat and go looking for the edge if that it what they like to do.

The difference we seem to be discussing is the line between literal Christianity, fundamental Christianity, liberal Christianity and secular Christianity. Your presumption that, because I don’t share your belief,I don’t understand “Christianity” is a rather unhelpful assumption. Christian is such an unhelpful term when it comes to defining ones religion because It says little more than “I believe that Jesus was the son of God”. How can I possibly share your understanding of your “personal relationship with God” when there is no uniformity within the Christian faith. We go from Fred Phelps at one end, far more liberal members of the community such as Kevin Rudd.

To clarify, I don’t think that “God” is possible any more than Zeus or mermaids are possible. They are on the same page as Russell’s Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I think that the ‘philosophy’ of Christianity (that is some of the ideals of Christianity) are worthwhile. The 10 commandments are, for example, a pretty good guide if we take out all of the narcissism (see Commandments 1-4).

The Dogma (as distinct from the philosophy), being the immaculate conception, walking on water and so forth requires a person to set aside their capacity for independent thought and to accept something on faith because it’s written in an old book.

I do not think that god is necessary. There are hundred of fairy tales and myths out there with moral lessons for the reader. The Bible, to my mind has more in common with Grimm’s Fairy Tales than a reputable source of fact. That’s not to detract in any way from Grimm’s Fairy Tales in so far as they relate to teaching about the world and teaching about morality. 

How is “self-appointed” as the decider of what is supposed to be an inaccurate description or “God”? Was that entity appointed by someone else?

anon says:

10:11am | 05/03/10

Fair enough with your clarifying your original thought as a general challenge (as opposed to explicitly religious) to the authority behind my original supposition of how its ‘supposed’ to be.

I think a couple of your observations hone in on the central issues in this discussion:

“The difference we seem to be discussing is the line between literal Christianity, fundamental Christianity, liberal Christianity and secular Christianity. Your presumption that, because I don’t share your belief,I don’t understand “Christianity” is a rather unhelpful assumption.”
“How can I possibly share your understanding of your “personal relationship with God” when there is no uniformity within the Christian faith.”

My opinion that you don’t have an understanding of true Christianity is linked in with your comments. Whereas you state that there is no conformity within the Christian faith (thus demonstrating your misapprehension of Christianity), I could not disagree more. My comments on your misapprehension of Christianity stem from my perception that there is absolute unity, and a standard whereby our beliefs/observations can be measured. Here’s the why:
Whatever pursausion or profession of ‘Christian’ one may be (fundamental, liberal etc.) – all Christianity has as its foundations the Christian Scriptures of the Bible. You can’t have Christianity without Jesus, and you can’t find Jesus without the Scripture.
The Bible itself presents an absolutely unified understanding of who God is and what His relationship is with His creation. God reveals who He is in the Scriptures, He reveals His purpose for His creation, and Christianity is unified in that vision.

However, I can appreciate your comment on a lack of uniformity in the Christian faith inasmuch as that there are many professing Christians who don’t deserve to claim the title. There is, disappointingly, much disarray within the Christian profession. My observation on this is that Christianity (wherever it manifests) needs to be consistent with God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible – and any profession which is inconsistent (and thereby un-unified) is not true Christianity at all.

To get this back to my point on your being wrong, I was merely expressing that I perceived your comments on Christianity and God to be inconsistent with Biblically defined Christianity.

Your comment “I do not think that god is necessary.” Is a powerful example. According to the consistent revelation of God in Scripture, He is not an option for us to explore, or assess, or accept on our terms. He is the Creator of all things, and because He has established all things, we as rational, responsible beings were created to move in terms of our relationship to Him (and if you were doing that, you could not possibly make such comments as inferring Him as a dictator – which as you clarified, you did not necessarily do). This we (the human race) consistently do not do, and rebel against Him.
Along these lines you asked:
“How is “self-appointed” as the decider of what is supposed to be an inaccurate description or “God”? Was that entity appointed by someone else?”
It is inaccurate in that it is an entirely insufficient description of who God is in relation to His creation according to the standard of the Bible. And no, He was not appointed by somebody else.
I hope that gives you further insight into my comments

Mel says:

10:26am | 05/03/10

ok seriously can we leave God out of the equation? I am anti religion but I do believe in a higher power call it what you will, but the greatest gift that human beings were given was FREE WILL, the freedom to choose what they want to do and even if they want to believe in Him/Her.

No one has the right to tell anyone what to do about their own body. period.

anon. says:

11:44am | 05/03/10

Mel, as you may have guessed, my worldview doesn’t have the option of leaving God out of the equation – and I’m gonna use my free-will to express my view too. You don’t have to listen to me.
I think we were given the gift of free-will by our Creator (and the responsibility to use it in a morally right way), but we mis-use it consistently. Abortion is (simplistically put) tied in with the many ways that we mis-use our free-will. We might be free to choose what we do, but we are still responsible for our choices – including the wrong choices.
Your position posits that we have the right to do with our own bodies what we want. My problem with that is that we are not our own ‘The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it’ (Psalm 24). He created us, and it follows that He has the ‘right’ – as you put it – to tell us what do about our bodies (He also tells us that He has our best interests at heart as well, so it’s actually in our best interests to do things His way anyway…). We can reject the ways He has outlined for us to do things (exercising your free-will from your perspective), but there are consequences for our actions. We are still accountable for the way we live our lives. Your position rejects accountability to anyone but you.
In fairness, the article was filed under ‘religion’ as well. The anti-theist on you-tube (in the article) is pretty direct about her assertions on God in relation to this matter, why shouldn’t I be? I’m certainly not going to shut up just cause people don’t like what i’m saying.

Agnostic says:

12:11pm | 05/03/10

Anon, and who decides in life what is a misuse of our own free will? I doubt he had tattoos and piercings in mind either but they are an evolution of our time, not to mention that the word of god was interpreted by humans who are not infallible.

seeing as how I have never read the bible I will have to take your word for it that’s what it says, but as you say he/she will judge us, so let us live how we want and let us get punished in afterlife.

who is the judge in this life as to what is morally right for each individual? our morals are ours alone and what we can live with if it is our decision?

yes you have the right to be against it, but you do not have the right to try get us to change our minds, just like the god botheres don’t have the right to try to convert us all to religion when religion has been at the base of most of the most brutal times throughout history.

DG says:

01:30pm | 05/03/10

Anon.

I can say, without a shadow of doubt, that our dialogue proves that it is possible for rational people with differing view to discuss their world view without sinking to ad hominem arguments about the morality of those opposite (or lack there of),

I agree that there are certain fundamental elements of Christianity, but people pick and choose which parts they like, which parts they apply, to what extent the new testament replaces the old and so on.

One of the problems in this regard is the idea of self-reporting. There are plenty of people that do not live, nor do they have any intention of living up to the ‘Christian values’, yet they insist on calling themselves Christian. I don’t understand that situation. How could you believe on things and then do something in direct contravention with what you believe in with out chaning your belief?
I suppose the next step is whether the “law” in any particular jurisdiction should be based on the Bible. By that I mean, aside from a democratic decision to base our laws on a particular interpretation if the Bible, should the community be bound by the rules of a god that they don’t believe in?

I would suggest that the answer is no. As I have indicated elsewhere, there are certain things that I would never do, but they are not illegal but neither do I think that they should be. I don’t proposed that my morality should displace a persons right to self-determination. Having said that, where the law of the land has been determined, a persons right to self-determination is, and should be, limited in accordance with that law.

I personally, don’t think that it matters why a person thinks that the law should change. They have a right to express their opinion about legislative reform and should be free to do so in that context.

I appreciate that you believe in God, that you believe your relationship with god is the key to your existence in gods creation. I would go so far as to say that I respect your right to be guided by the deity of your choice.

Now I ask you - are you willing to recognise my choice to live my life as I see fit, in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which I live? Do you believe I have a right to live otherwise that in accordance with the rules of your god?

This is actually leading up to something. I don’t understand what you mean when you say that my belief that God is not necessary. I simply do not think that god is “necessary” for a person to decide that they wish to follow the moral lessons they get from the bible (hence my reference to the moral lessons from Grimm’s Fairy Tales).

The lessons of the Bible can be taken in the form of philosophy without being bound up in the Christian religion/Dogma. Those elements that are reported as “facts” of Jesus life, the creation story and so on can be set aside and the reader can still take relevant messages. I appreciate that these messages, while part of Christianity, are not actually Christianity.

anon says:

01:51pm | 05/03/10

Agnostic, I would have thought that my comments already made that clear. God sets the standard of right or wrong. We know there are a lot of things we do which He regards as wrong, thus my points above on responsibility for doing what’s right and us as being responsible creatures etc.
But yes, your point on the fallibility of people interpreting an infallible word is granted. Which is why the Bible itself tells us to search the Scriptures and test what people try to tell us about it to see if it is true. Careful study of the infallible word will give you a sound (not infallible) understanding of what it says. The Bible itself likens itself to a ‘lamp for our feet’.
You misunderstand me, I’m not at all trying to change your mind. That’s not in my capability, and it’s not my responsibility. You’re responsible for your decisions. I am responsible for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ however, and he told men everywhere to repent. I hope you can understand the importance of this – at least from my perspective. Would you stand by and let someone walk in front of a bus if they were oblivious to their predicament? That’s what it’s like for me. I care about people too much not to speak.
You’re right – some of the brutalities of history lay at the feet of people claiming religion (not only Christian). But if you knew what true religion was, you would also know that they weren’t even close to religious. They were claiming it, but they certainly weren’t living consistently with what God defines as true religion. They have a lot to answer for, and they will.
Your comment on punishment in the afterlife raises an interesting point too:  Punishment for doing the wrong thing is not only eternal, but we experience it in this life too. E.g. I do the wrong thing, I suffer for it. If I cheat on my wife, I suffer the consequences. Suffering everywhere is all one form of judgment for our consistent digression of what is right.
I would commend the Bible to your reading too. Jesus claims (and those of God in the Bible) don’t leave room for agnosticism. He was either an absolutely looney, or He was the Son of God – and what He says about life and existence is too important to simply ignore.

anon. says:

09:04pm | 07/03/10

Pt II:
you said:
“Now I ask you - are you willing to recognise my choice to live my life as I see fit, in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which I live? Do you believe I have a right to live otherwise that in accordance with the rules of your god?

Well, yes of course I am willing to acknowledge that in the sense that you are a self-determining and responsible being. I probably don’t think you have the ‘right’ per se (in the sense of: from my worldview, you are disobeying God Himself), but you certainly have the capacity and capability to live in accordance with your proposition, and I certainly don’t have the right or responsibility to tell you to change your conduct.
I believe God created us as responsible beings and that you have the right to live otherwise than in accordance with the rules of ‘my God’ (although, Biblically speaking, He is everyone’s God acknowledged or not). You are responsible for your life, and I’ve got no interest in taking over or forcing you to do or think anything. However, I must say that it breaks my heart to see a world full of people who know nothing of God, know nothing of His wonderful and amazing grace and love, and who are happy to reject Him (which is just what your statement quoted above does).
On your next point: Sure, I agree that people can take and apply some Christian (or more accurately, Godly) principles and derive immense benefit. Doing things God’s way is the way it’s supposed to work. But to do so at the cost of overlooking and setting aside the essence of Christianity itself (which I think you agree is what is happening in that situation) - the very gospel of Jesus Christ - is kind of like diving off a diving board but refusing to acknowledge that there is a platform that it’s built on.  It’s a false understanding.
I think if you’re picking and choosing bits and pieces from the Bible, you’re ultimately saying that you’ll accept what you like, and reject what you don’t. I don’t think that that’s a good idea, given that the Bible itself makes universal claims as the revelation of the one and only Creator God that don’t allow for such action. It’s either God’s revelation (as it claims), and must be totally understood as such – or it should be rejected in its entirety. Jesus doesn’t leave any space for a comfortable halfway position!

DG says:

09:32am | 08/03/10

I agree that there are plenty of self-reporting Christians out there that are Christians only by virtue of the fact that they claim to be. Personally, I reject all of it.

I am of the opinionthat they are all based on a false premise (the existence of god), and as such the “support” for the dividing board (to use your analogy) doesn’t exist.

However, I happen to have developed my own world view which has some things in common with Christianity. Similarly I have aspects in common with Islam, Judaism and various othre religions.

Like Grimm’s fairy Tales I can acknowledge wise messages from such texts without needing to believe that any of the characters are real. While the text of the Bible claims to be true and asserts that something exists it’s no more meaningful that if I write a book about leprechauns and have the grand high leprechaun say “We exist”. 

That book of leprechauns could have a story about the Grand High Leprechaun telling the occupants of Big Village that they should be nice to their parents. I can appreciate that philosophy without having to believe in Leprechauns.

There are many out there that apply the same rule to Christianity. They take the lifestyle advice from the bible, without believing in God.  Personally I think the belief in god is an essential element of Christianity. But there you have it. All it really takes to be a Christian is to self-report as such.

anon. says:

02:51pm | 08/03/10

DG: you can’t have a diving board without a support, much less dive off it… what are the underlying assumptions of your view on ethics? are there foundations? (a rhetorical question for your ponderance)
But I certainly see your perspective, although to my eyes it is certainly a diving board without a support (to overuse and perhaps overextend our analogy). Unfortunately, I think you will proven terribly wrong one day.
On your leprechaun illustration, I think the Bible is somewhat more sophisticated, unified, and divinely deep than the magical leprechauns and Grimm’s tales, and I think you’ll find that it has far more historical credibility (given that much of it is penned as an unequivocally historical document) than all other ancient manuscripts. I think reducing the God to the likeness of a fairy tale is an entirely unsatisfactory comparison of the Biblical understanding of God as well.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I wish you all the best.
ps. i said in pt 1 of the above post a few other things - including my appreciation of your comments on the civil nature of our exchange. Unfortunately, it appears that my comment was moderated. I hope they won’t moderate this one too.

anon. says:

02:04pm | 04/03/10

gay marriage - no. adoptions - not ideal, but in the right circumstances.

Luke says:

01:21pm | 04/03/10

You don’t need to apologise for anything, Mel. You embody the theory of “Pro-choice”; being allowed to have your own opinions and acting upon them.

DG says:

03:21pm | 04/03/10

I’m intrigued by the “rape” exemption. And this is not directed at you specifically Mel (as indicated previously, I am pro-choice. More accurately, don’t think that it should be my choice what someone else does with their uterus).

If this is about the rights of the child - surely the child has the same rights regardless of how they were conceived? This has the same stench of the “bastard children don’t have the same rights as children born in wedlock” situation of years past.

Mel says:

10:08am | 05/03/10

DG - Big difference being with the ‘bastards’ and legitimate children is both have been born and have taken their first breath which is legally when they are alive, since that 8 month pregnant woman that was hit by the car and lost the baby found out you can’t get the guy convicted, it is also about the mothers emotional and mental stability, I am assuming you haven’t been raped so will let you know that no woman will want to have a child that could look like the person that raped her, now I am only speculating as I haven’t been raped and haven’t been pregnant I don’t know what I would do but I hope I would not blame the child for it’s origins as it wasn’t their fault, all I am saying is that I understand the motive behind it and that is a pretty strong argument to abort not just because some people got careless and whoops lets use abortion as a form of contraceptive, which I don’t condone. if the pregnancy wont endanger the mother’s life then if they don’t want it put it up for adoption.

a fetus has no rights, and I am amused by people who think they have some say.  Until the government changes the law that defines when a child is ‘alive’ then it is the mother’s discretion.

now again I am not saying that I condone abortion, the only way I would abort a child is if my life was in danger or the child would be special needs which I wouldn’t be able to handle.

DG says:

01:42pm | 05/03/10

“no woman will want to have a child that could look like the person that raped her”

I know at least one person who was raped and chose to have the child, but that’s beside the point that I was trying to make, or rather the question I was seeking to have answered.

I was wondering why those people who think that abortion is “killing a baby” (i.e that the baby has rights), think that it is OK to kill the baby (by their own logic) just because the baby was conceived by rape.

Surely the rights of that baby (if you believe that the foetus is a baby) are not dependent on the consent of the mother.

That is to say:

If an abortion is murder, how can that society justify the murder of a person conceived by rape?

It seems to be a case of “You can have an abortion if I understand the motive behind it”, where we take “understand” to mean “approve of”.

Davy says:

03:20pm | 04/03/10

I guess you would also advocate suicide as an acceptable thing to do. It is after all the potential suicides body.

Most abortions require the participation of an entire medical team to carry out the killing safely. (Safely here does not include the safety of the unborn life).

DG says:

08:54am | 05/03/10

Davy -

Yes.

If a person wants to end their own biological processes they should be entitled to do so (and committing suicide is not illegal, for obvious reasons), further a person should be entitled to consent to a person assisting them in committing suicide (preferably in a statement witnessed by a JP, Lawyer or medical practitioner).

Why shouldn’t they?

And before you begin with the “they might find a cure” reasoning. Even if they do find a cure, the person is entitled to refuse treatment. So either it is a hollow victory that forces a person to die slowly from the disease or take the treatment that they don’t want. The true irony is that if they were “healthy” they could go and throw themselves off the Harbour bridge, or hang themselves, with relative ease.

Concerned says:

02:33pm | 07/03/10

6clegs, it’s not what you do with “your body” that concerns the anti abortinists but rather what you do to your unborn childs body.

DG says:

04:12pm | 04/03/10

I generally consider the first trimester acceptable. After that point I consider that the host has had time to make the decision and, by inaction, has made it. From that point the host should choose an alternative method of absolving themselves from responsibility for the child (such as adoption).

But having said that, it is my personal view. I see no need to dictate to another person what they may or may not do to the biological processes occurring within their own body. I certainly would not suggest that my ethical views should be more ‘worthy’ than another person’s in the way they treat themselves.

There are plenty of things that I wouldn’t do on ethical grounds but they aren’t illegal, nor do I think that they should be. Things such as affairs or drinking to intoxication  

In that light I can see no reason for legislating a persons behaviour towards their own body, even though that would mean people doing things that I don’t agree with on an ethical level.

Mel says:

10:21am | 05/03/10

I agree with DG, first trimester, after that it becomes too dangerous to abort the fetus.

Mel says:

10:29am | 05/03/10

doesn’t matter what we think it should be, the law states it is only assault, the same can happen to a woman at 36 weeks and it is still not murder, not until it takes it’s first breath.

and this isn’t about assault it’s about a person’s right to choose, if the father wants the baby but the mother doesn’t he can go to court and fight to have the baby born, he does not have the right to make it happen.

basically if no one is willing to deal with the consequences of sex don’t have it, nothing is 100% effective except keeping your legs closed.

Jezebel says:

12:52pm | 05/03/10

Melinda Tankard-Reist is from a fundamentalist Catholic think tank. 

She is not exactly unbiased and has questionable crediblity.

She also promotes that nonsense that abortions are likned to breast cancer. This confected quasi-medical obeservation is attributed to the completely baseless suggestion that a termination brings an unatural halt to changes in the breast that occur after conception. If such a thing were true, then all fertile women would be suffering from breast cancer.  This is because, in normally fertile women, the majority of conceptions fail to progress and are often assumed to be a normal menses. Causes of breast cancer are complex and propogandists like Tankard-Reist cause people unnecessary alarm.

The reality is, behind all the ersatz hand-wringing about widdle babbeez and dem poor wimmins, the abortion debate is really about sex; in particular, it is about women having sex. It is really about punishing sexually active women with compulsory pregnancy and childbirth for having sex.

Deliberately Barren Jezebel says:

05:55pm | 08/03/10

Prove me wrong. Tankard-Reist and her fellow travellers are scare-mongering liars, plain and simple.

I stand by my assertion that the debate on abortion often shelters behind a paternalistic concern over the potential of human life, while at the same time ignoring any respect for human dignity and female sexuality. Although this principle (of respect for life) is justified, it is often exploited by those who want to control and punish women. I recall reading the anti-choice submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Committee on the RU486 discussion. I frequently observed a high number were asserting that RU486 (and abortions in general) permitted “irresponsible” sexual behaviour from women and men and this was their reason for opposing the availability of the drug. That is, the threat of pregnancy should deter non-procreative sex and control or restrict sexual behaviour. In this way, pregnancy is definitely being treated like punishment not unlike fines or jail are a punishment designed to alter people’s behavior.

Some of these people felt that this would impact on men and women alike but seemed to conveniently overlook the biological reality that even if he paying child support or not, a man can still walk away from a pregnancy and the pain of childbirth. Ergo, pregancy is to punish women—and only women—for *enjoying* sex.

This is, of course, from the same people that extoll the virtues of the miracle of creation, the joy of children and the usual predictable platitudes. If having a baby is so great, then why do they seek to have pregnancy serve as a tool of fear?

Forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term against her will violates her rights, deprives her of her liberty, and subjects her to degradation. While being pregnant with a wanted child may indeed be a rewarding experience, for most women to carry an unwanted child to term would be the epitome of degradation and punishment. There is the physical distortion of the body; the sickness; the thought of a half-formed foetus-parasite inhabiting one’s womb; the excruciating hours of labour involved at the end and potentially lifetime injuries to the genital tract. Furthermore, there is the sensation of having the control of one’s own body forcibly wrenched from one’s hands, and being unable to revolt against the an external decision to thus comandeer one’s body and life.

The anti-choicers clearly they KNOW that abortion and birth control allows women to behave like men; to shag with impunity and for their own gratification. Horror of horrors they may even be able to compare mens’ performances and have the audacity to demand sexual satisfaction. Taking away women’s access to controlling their reproductive destiny takes away women’s independence.

disgusted says:

08:15am | 07/03/10

Helen, what I asked was at what gestational stage?  I never used the word ‘late term’.  Some may say the first trimester, as noted above, however seeing you’re so informed about this issue, you would note Victoria has different laws allowing late term abortions where there is no immediate health issues to mother nor baby.  All the woman must do is seek doctors’ opinions, which isn’t hard when you’re all teary saying you will be suicidal if you continue on another day with the pregnancy…  It’s also interesting to note the high number of abortions because the pro choice lobby rant on about rape, health issues with the mother and baby and disabilities being their main reasons.  They also continue on to say it’s the mother’s choice.  Well I don’t buy it because there is another life at stake here, not just the mothers.  I honestly wish people would take permanent steps to finalise (or close out) their fertility if they never intend having a baby, or take multiple precautions.  I am disgusted, as are others.  There are 3 camps here, those that abort, those that would never abort and those that would never abort but believe in pro choice for others.  I think if you re-read the comments above you will note Australians are by and large against abortion.

DG says:

09:38am | 08/03/10

Disgusted,

This is hardly a balanced sample from which to determine the public opinion on abortion. I could point to the fact that it’s not illegal to suggest that the majority want it to be legal - After all this is a democracy, if people wanted change they would vote for it.

Of course the alternate theory is that most people really don’t care about abortions at all (which is why they aren’t an election issue). People are more interested in education, policing, housing and so forth. Whether Jane do decides to terminate a pregnancy is just so far off the radar that we just get on with life.

Eleanor says:

11:04pm | 08/03/10

I don’t personally know anyone, Helen. I think you’ll find a lot of people wouldn’t know any women who have had a late term abortion, since they are actually quite rare.

However, if you’d have cared to use Google, you’ll discover that the overwhelming majority of women who undergo late term abortions didn’t do so because they ‘changed their minds’, as you so eloquently put it. The majority of them did so because ultrasounds had revealed their baby to be severely deformed.

Don’t believe me? Here http://www.dr-tiller.com/cheryl.htm

They are the testimonials of women who had late term abortions with the late Dr Tiller in the US, who was shot dead at a church service by a fanatical pro-lifer (or anti-choicer, depending on your view). Most of these women were pro-life until they discovered their baby’s conditions. Most of these women were prepared to love and cherish these babies.

There, I hope that “cuts it” for you.