Abortion drugs are dangerous, just think about it

David says:

08:49am | 28/09/09

You talk about side effects ! What about asprin , paracetamol ,alcohol , nicotine , transfats etc etc etc .
Abortion of a foetus is the choice of the mother and the father [ if known ] It should not be a legal issue at all . It must be a medical issue and kept out of the realms of the government of the day .
As usual , all the know alls , stick there uneducated and narrow minds into a discussion of which they are completely ignorant .
This bullshit discussion of when human rights can be applied to a foetus is a smokescreen for the ‘’ controllers ‘’ of our lives .
This continuing topic will just drive the procedure further underground .

Voxpop says:

09:07am | 28/09/09

You talk a lot about human rights but what about the woman’s rights.  Leave it to the individual to make the right choice for their circumstances and mind your own business.  It horrifies me that religious nutters want control over women’s bodies - forceful subjugation.

Bron says:

09:18am | 28/09/09

Tom, the day you get stuck with carrying a unwanted pregnancy to term is the day your opinion on abortion will really carry some weight with me. I think it is very easy for you to pass comment on a choice you will never have to make.

Joe says:

09:28am | 28/09/09

I believe there have also been reports of death in the US from RU486. Is this the kind of drug we want to wish on our vulnerable pregnant mothers?

I agree we need to do much more to make abortions rare.

i.h.m.n says:

09:33am | 28/09/09

Article 3 says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.“

This is the problem. Who do you apply article 3 to?
You choose to apply it to the foetus, but how can the same rights not be afforded to the woman carrying it?

Also,
“Advocates for abortion often say: “abortion should be safe, legal and rare”. I think it’s time we started working on the “rare” part. How can we make it easier for women to have their babies?”

Advocates for abortion? Pro-choice is a more realistic term. And education on pregnancy prevention to make the cases rarer, seems preferable to making a woman who does not want a baby carry it for nine months and give birth. I don’t know if you are aware, but I hear birth is painful, just for starters.

From my perspective it seems that many advocates of abortion often see an abortion as the only option. Often they seem unwilling to discuss other options such as having the child or adopting it out.”

I don’t think it is fair to admonish a pro choice organisation for not offering options, when you are advocating to take an option away entirely.

Gibbot says:

09:52am | 28/09/09

Abortion drugs are nowhere as dangerous to society as the unchecked breeding of indoctrinated children by hypocritical religious crusaders.

How about you devote your energy to the rights of existing humans? It’s not like there’s a shortage of children suffering disease and malnutrition as a direct result of the inhumanity of Christian ‘charity’.

Stephen Pickells says:

09:55am | 28/09/09

I agree that individual life begins at the point of conception. This has nothing to do with my feelings on abortion, it’s just my opinion and I believe it to be a no-brainer. Of course the living organism needs to go through various stages of development, both ante and post-natal, before it can truly function on its own. A mature foetus has the ability to act independently of the mother. It can kick and roll over but may not be conscious of what it is doing. A new born baby can choose to put its hand up, but this may not be an informed decision. As the person develops, they learn what they are capable of and they learn why some choices are better than others. A minor cannot legally enter into a contract or consent to a sexual act because they are not deemed to understand the implications. The point at which somebody has total free will happens in an instant. A synapse clicks in the brain and the individual goes “Yes, now I understand”.
But back to the first point. I don’t know about the law in other parts of the world, but in NYC a baby is not legally human until it draws breath. This was demonstrated in one of those US cop shows where a man assaults a pregnant woman, cuts out the foetus and throws it away. He isn’t initially charged with murder until an autopsy finds air in the baby’s lungs. The female detective is apalled that there is even a question there. Her male partner says “Well it’s just like abortion, isn’t it?” and she says “No, that’s about a woman’s right to choice.” She didn’t get it. You can’t have it both ways.

Eric says:

10:04am | 28/09/09

Men can be forced to pay for the upbringing of an unwanted child by a man, while having no choice in the matter. Women have a “right to choose”, but men don’t have similar rights.

Abortion law and family law is yet another example of women having more rights than men in this sexist society.

Jan Ziska says:

10:12am | 28/09/09

Congrats Tom for having the guts to speak out. Don’t let them get you down.

I notice none of the ‘pro-choice’ commenters so far have had the intellectual honesty to state where they believe life begins. If you think abortions are ethical, at least have the honesty to admit that in most situations you are deliberately placing the short-term interests (ie, financial or social situation) of the mother over the long-term interests (ie, life itself) of the child.

It’s heartbreaking, and I don’t pretend to think that it’s ever easy. But if we, as a society, refuse to afford protections to people because they are easy to ignore, what next?

K says:

10:14am | 28/09/09

I am a mother of 3 kids, and I believe that women should be given the opportunity to make a informed choice.  Being informed means that the pregnant woman should have a ultra-sound and watch the video the “The silent scream” before they have an abortion.  I also believe that the idea of adoption should be promotoed more to women with an unwanted pregnancy.  I have a friend who has a adopted son. He was one of 5 babies to be adopted out in NSW that year.  My friend was born without a uterous so is unable to have children.  She tried to adopt another baby 3 years ago. Not only did she have to undergo police checks and fingerprinting, I also had a write a reference letter about her and her husbands as parents.  There were only 3 babies adopted out that year so they missed out.  Her son has a open adoption arrangement so they can both have contact.  As a mother, I could not imagine giving up my child through either abortion or adoption.  At least with adoption someone has the opportunity to fulfil a lifelong dream to become a parent.

Grant says:

10:26am | 28/09/09

tsk tsk Tom Kenyon,

I do believe I detect the scent of the catholic church and the state you represent becoming a little closer.

Answer me this, if a woman is in mortal danger from a pregnancy.  Does the right to life of the child take precedence or is it legitimate to choose in favour of the mother?

Little Miss SciFi says:

10:27am | 28/09/09

Here we go, another man preaching about the evils of abortion.  If men detest abortion so much, then maybe they shouldn’t carry on like children when their partner suggests they wear a condom.

Helen says:

10:41am | 28/09/09

Ectopic pregnancy isn’t a side effect of a drug!! Please learn something about pregnancy and conception before you presume to write about the topic!

Among the numerous other logical and factual flaws in this article, you fail to acknowlege (or realise) that there are some quite severe risks in carrying a pregnancy to term, so you are not comparing the limited risks of supervised use of RU-486 with nothing.

Of course, unsupervised use would be higher risk, and that is much more likely to happen if people like you drive abortion underground, isn’t it.

Jen says:

10:52am | 28/09/09

I think you sound exactly like you’re trying to tell us what to with our bodies. Quite frankly, even if you do decide that the little thing growing inside a woman’s body is human from the word go, why should it be regarded as any more important than she is?

And I guess you think the possible side effects of RU 486 are no worse than thing like sepsis and gangrene, the EXTREMELY LIKELY side effects of a backyard abortion. But hey, it’s just a loose woman who dies, not an unborn baby, so who cares, right? How about this: you people stay the hell away from my uterus and I’ll stay the hell away from your church.

i.h.m.n says:

10:53am | 28/09/09

@Eric
Sure he does, don’t have sex with a pro-lifer.

In any case I feel like the constantly overlooked point is that you are not giving money to support the woman, but to support the child who was the unwitting recipient of life. SO perhaps the system should be changed so it is not so biased to children, I mean surely they have enough rights already?

Eric says:

10:58am | 28/09/09

ihmn, don’t talk about the “rights of the child” if you support abortion. Not paying for a child is hardly the same as killing it.

Little Miss Sci Fi, I’ll support men butting out of the issue of abortion just as soon as women butt out of any and all men’s affairs.

Little Miss Sci Fi says:

11:09am | 28/09/09

@Eric Your views are extremely flawed.  If you don’t want to be forced to pay for the upbringing of an unwanted child, then maybe you should take some responsibility to ensure that you don’t impregnate a woman.

AFR says:

11:12am | 28/09/09

What the comments show is that abortion is a polarising issue generally. I’m generally against it - for my own reasons, but I have leanred to respect the opinions of others, as there is simply no right or wrong.

bella starkey says:

11:21am | 28/09/09

@Stephen Pickells. TV is not real life. For a test case on murdering an un-born foetus see scott and lacy peterson

Dani says:

11:37am | 28/09/09

Great article.
To those who are emphasising the rights of the mother - I agree, but only to an extent. Your rights should not impinge on others rights. Your right to life and right to choice does not give you the right to make that decision for others.

While I personally am against abortion, I am not going to let that dictate to others, but I think it’s extremely important that women are properly informed about it - about the side effects, possible emotional effects, and the size and development of the baby at the time.

i.h.m.n says:

11:38am | 28/09/09

Eric, but I do believe in the rights of a child, once it is a child and I support the choice of abortion. No one goes round saying abortion is awesome.

And not paying for a child can easily be the same as killing it, is your food, shelter or clothing free? NO.
Do these things keep you alive? YES.

Joe of Brisbane says:

11:52am | 28/09/09

@Little Miss Sci Fi says: “If you don’t want to be forced to pay for the upbringing of an unwanted child, then maybe you should take some responsibility to ensure that you don’t impregnate a woman.”

Likewise for those females having an abortion. If you don’t want a baby don’t get impregnated.

M says:

12:00pm | 28/09/09

@stephen pickell - It’s truly scary that people like you exist in the world. Really.

KL says:

12:24pm | 28/09/09

What men’s affairs are you referring to Eric? I’m intrigued? What would you like women to butt out of? This should really reveal the extent of your chauvinism here…

Teresa of A Caring Place says:

12:40pm | 28/09/09

At long last - some common sense written in the media!  Good on you Tom!

It is ironic that there is ‘discussion’ as to when life begins.  When a male and a female get into bed together and engage in sexual intercourse, the normal natural way to procreate, if the child is unexpected, we banter about a ‘clump of cells’.  However, if the child is created artificially in a test tube with IVF, we proclaim loudly that we are having a baby!  Seems “what” is created in these two instances differs on one fact only - whether that child is perceived as “wanted” or “unwanted”.

Another symptom of a society totally lost in its values - a baby is a baby is a baby whether wanted or unwanted in the eyes of the pregnant woman. 

An “unwanted” baby for one woman can be a very much wanted baby for another.  Give adoption a chance.

lantana says:

12:44pm | 28/09/09

It it wasn’t so serious, it would be mildly amusing that the godbotherers get so worked up against information on sex education and contraception being provided in schools.

The people who piously recite “abstinence” as the answer to abortion seem to invariably be those who have little or no experience of real relationships.  It shouldn’t need saying, but it does - the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to ensure that everybody from puberty on knows how to control their fertility.

Rob says:

12:57pm | 28/09/09

From you earlier posts I presume you wouln’t be happy with lesbian or gay couples adopting any extra children available for adoption.

All you are capable of is running out your church’s line.  You do not represent your broader constituency.

Becca says:

01:38pm | 28/09/09

Pro-choice means no-choice for babies

Kel says:

01:38pm | 28/09/09

Spot on Lantana.
Tom Kenyon, this sentence shows you have the wrong approach to women here;
“How can we make it easier for women to have their babies?”
Why aren’t you addressing the reasons they are pregnant in the first place? Which should be an equal responsibility of the man & woman involved?
Making the pregnancy etc easier isn’t the issue here.
Preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place should be the number one solution. As lantana mentioned, I don’t know why this is so hard for some to fathom?!?! It seems a no brainer.

Metey says:

01:42pm | 28/09/09

So RU486 causes ‘stomach cramps’? Why yes, yes it does. This is when the uterus expels the foetus and, while undoubtedly painful in the first trimester, is screaming agony at the end of 9 months.

Dave says:

01:51pm | 28/09/09

i think pointing to the UN human rights charter weakens your argument rather than strengthens it.  I mean if the charter had been written a few hundred years back it would have no doubt included the right of a man to own as many women as he could support and slaves he could control.  This whole universal human rights doctrine is a nonsense whether used by a liberal hippie or a pro lifer.

As for when does life start? When it is independently sustainable outside the womb.  Does this mean that premature babies and the elderly and infirm who can’t survive without life support don’t count as alive?  Damn straight.  There’s just a waste of CO2 emissions.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

01:59pm | 28/09/09

Why can’t we be anti-abortion personally, but still accept that our beliefs are not necessarily shared by others?

I think life begins at conception. I think abortion is terrible. But I also understand that not everyone else agrees.

We need to move past this obsession with legislating our morality on others.

Bottom line: if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.

Thomasr says:

02:16pm | 28/09/09

“A quick flick through some of the side effects of RU-486 makes for sober reading. These range from stomach cramps, through nausea, vomiting to ectopic pregnancies and severe internal bleeding.”

Substitute “Sex” for RU-486 and you get:
“A quick flick through some of the side effects of Sex makes for sober reading. These range from stomach cramps, through nausea, vomiting to ectopic pregnancies and severe internal bleeding.”

Add: STDs, depression, abuse and crime and BAM it’s time to ban sex.

Your rhetoric is beneath us.

Tom

Joe says:

02:16pm | 28/09/09

@Cameron Price-Austin - but who will speak up for the unborn? They have no voice. That is why it is difficult to just say “do what ever you want with your body” as there are more than two people involved here and one doesn’t yet have a voice.

Kelly says:

02:32pm | 28/09/09

How on earth can we still be asking the question “when do we become human?”  We are always human, from the beginning of our lives until the end. A zygote is a human, an embryo is a human, a fetus is a human, a baby is a human, a primary school age child is a human and so on. It is only when we are talking about abortion that we suddenly start to get uncomfortable about admitting what is so very obvious.

kelly says:

02:35pm | 28/09/09

maybe if we talk less about “rights” and more about “responsibilities” we might come up with some positive solutions for unplanned pregnancy.
How about instead of “my body, my choice” we work on “my body, my baby, *our* responsibility.” It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child, its a shame that our village is only too willing to kill them.

Cameron Price-Austin says:

02:40pm | 28/09/09

@Joe, I understand what you’re saying, but I’d argue that the parent of that child is best positioned to represent their interests. Certainly much more so than politicians or the church.

To me, the attitude of “I’ll defend the rights of children everywhere because I know best and to hell with the wishes of their parents!” smacks or arrogance. It’s exactly the same attitude we condemn our 1950s government for implementing against the stolen generation.

Gibbot says:

02:46pm | 28/09/09

@Joe 1:16 - Are you speaking up for all the kids born with HIV in Africa because their parents were denied access to birth control by caring Christian missionaries? Or are you content with them being born into a lifetime of suffering?

@Kelly 1:32 The body regularly aborts healthy foetus’ , so if your argument is based on religion it would appear that you are at odds with your God, who is obviously quite OK with abortion.

Jimbobby says:

02:59pm | 28/09/09

I believe life does not start till a being is able to live outside of its mother. There’s simply no good reason abortion should be in the criminal code at all. Re: comments on how its all so unfair for men - bollocks, the reason a man doesnt get the final say in whether an abortion takes place is because its not his body! The reason a man has to pay child support is because he had half a hand in creating the baby (but not i repeat in being pregnant) and therefore has half the responsibility of caring for it.

Joe says:

03:03pm | 28/09/09

@Gibbot do you have something against religion by bringing it into this debate? This is about life not religion.

Suzie says:

03:07pm | 28/09/09

I wonder what public opion would be if it were found that a “clinic” was offering pills to parents who wanted to get rid of their products of conception. The only difference being that the cells had continued to multiply and they were now toddlers. Still inconvenient at times, still take money & time to look after, but after all hasn’t the mother got herself to consider????
Are the next generations of people going to be as appauled at us killing our own children as we are now with the Holocaust or slavery???
This is a very serious issue and obviously needs to be given due attention. I also believe life starts at conception when all the necessary chromosones are in place, and the baby just has to grow, this is something that continues throughout our life.
Education is a very vital to inform people about how to avoid unplanned pregnacies. Prevention is always better than cure.
I agree with Joe, pregnant women need good councel, giving them ALL the choices that are available and ALL possible side effecrts. Some of the well known side effects of abortion include depression, emotional breakdown, lowered self esteem, eating disorders, postnatal depression, sexual dysfunction, replacement pregnancies, parenting problems marrieage & family breakdown, child neglect & abuse, domestic violence drug & alcohol abuse suicidal behaviour, anxiety attacks, compulsive disorders and other nental helath problems. Many of these issues may stay with the women and often their family for many years unless delt with properly. Most people do not consciously connect the problems they are experiencing with the abortion.
Abortion, in any form is life and death, so it is everyones buisness, and it should not be thought of lightly.

RW says:

03:09pm | 28/09/09

thank you Jimbobby. Seems there are decent, fair minded people out there after all :o)

Bern says:

03:11pm | 28/09/09

AS a society we don’t need to have the discussion about when life begins. All the scientific evidence points to life begins at conception when all the DNA material is there to define the new human life. There is no life to terminate without the beginning that is conception.

As a society we need to debate what support we are going to women who find themselves with an unwanted baby. We need to give our full love and support to these women not just encourage them to get someone to dump the consequences of their own actions. Carnal knowledge equals the possibility of having conceiving new human life, a baby.

Fro says:

03:14pm | 28/09/09

Tom - running out the old ‘lets demonise the abortion pill” chestnut again. Why is it that you and your ilk always refer to it as RU 486. The actual name for this drug is mifepristone, obviously sounds more scarey if its just numbers huh? We don’t call paracetamol RX 557 (or whatever it’s number is) or refer to any other drug by their number - so what gives? and by the way - all those symptoms - apply them to most prescription drugs or even apply them as “side effects” to menstruation as a lot of women I know experience them. keep your religion out of politics and if you can’t remain objective (Mr fielding take note) then walk away.

Mick says:

03:27pm | 28/09/09

Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question. Its quite clear Tom that you are a man driven by values, you aren’t blinded by ideology.
I wonder how many “pro-choice” advocates also advocate for no government intrusion in economic matters. At least liberal’s are true to their word in their advocacy for abortion.

The government has every right to make certain decisons about how people live their lives, just like government has every right to tax the rich.
20+ week abortions are a disgrace and no spiritual connection with conception is needed to ascertain that fact. You dont need to be a devout Christian to recognise this.
To suggest that its a woman’s body and therefore it is their right to choose is in my opinion an extremely closed off and selfish view. I think society would have every right to question the happiest of fat people and direct them to change their diet.
As soon as we realise in society that we all rely on each other the better. The millionaire only made his millions because he had customers, a young woman considering abortion has a family and a male partner who are also affected for a life time by “her” decision. Just because its in “her” body doesnt mean its just “her” decision. Whether you like it or not whether we agree that life starts at conception or some time after, the “thing” will become a baby. That fact can never be changed.

Lou says:

03:30pm | 28/09/09

Have any of you commenters HAD an abortion? I have, and I have to tell you that Tom’s not that far off the mark. All of you with your self-righteous anger (on both sides of the argument) really need to stop presuming and assuming you know what you’re talking about, because unless you’ve been in the situation your strong protests on my behalf are purely your opinion/prejudices and not helpful to the discussion.

Abortion is more than just a medical procedure. While women’s reasons for opting for one are varied (mine was as the result of rape), the psychological effects are real and life long. At the time, I wasn’t counselled on the pregnancy, only on the rape. In hindsight I wish just one person had taken the time to talk to me about the options I had, and the support that was available to me.

I recently gave birth to a beautiful boy, and am in a loving and committed relationship - and every day I think about the life I chose to end. Until YOU have had to make this decision, please have a little compassion. Each circumstance is different, and even if the pregnancy was not my choice, I have to accept responsibility for the abortion that was.

If I met someone in my circumstances tomorrow, I couldn’t tell them not to have the abortion. I COULD however talk to them about what I went through, and how long it has taken me to accept it.

Lou says:

03:32pm | 28/09/09

Have any of you commenters HAD an abortion? I have, and I have to tell you that Tom’s not that far off the mark. All of you with your self-righteous anger (on both sides of the argument) really need to stop presuming and assuming you know what you’re talking about, because unless you’ve been in the situation your strong protests on my behalf are purely your opinion/prejudices and not helpful to the discussion.

Abortion is more than just a medical procedure. While women’s reasons for opting for one are varied (mine was as the result of rape), the psychological effects are real and life long. At the time, I wasn’t counselled on the pregnancy, only on the rape. In hindsight I wish just one person had taken the time to talk to me about the options I had, and the support that was available to me.

I recently gave birth to a beautiful boy, and am in a loving and committed relationship - and every day I think about the life I chose to end. Until YOU have had to make this decision, please have a little compassion. Each circumstance is different, and even if the pregnancy was not my choice, I have to accept responsibility for the abortion that was.

If I met someone in my circumstances tomorrow, I couldn’t tell them not to have the abortion. I COULD however talk to them about what I went through, and how long it has taken me to accept it.

Liz says:

03:33pm | 28/09/09

i.h.m. , yes childbirth hurts but haven’t you heard that women can get a full epidural to block all pain of childbirth. I have had two of these, one when I delivered by own naturally aborted baby as a stillborn and my 4th child.  But when you give birth to a live baby, you get to see the work of 9 months gestation, a beautiful, gorgeous, baby that looks like the mother and father. Sure it is inconvenient.

When you have an a medically induced abortion, you have no baby, no body to bury but much pain or grieving. Yes you get rid of the responsibility of a baby, a new human life but you take on a whole new set of problems.  And no women or mother or father know how they will react to the aftermarth of the decision to get someone to dispose of their baby.

The woman and father could experience grief straight after to many years later. Once you start the termination there is no reversal on the decision and the baby’s life is gone. Women, just think long and hard before you get yourself in the situation before you want someone to rid your body of a new life, your baby. It will always be your baby.

Gibbot says:

04:10pm | 28/09/09

@Joe - from my experience it is only the religious who have the audacity to attempt to interfere with an individual’s choice on a matter as personal as this.

Gopi says:

04:17pm | 28/09/09

Amazing how pro-choice commenters are banging on about religion.  I didn’t see a single line in the article stating that this was a religious view.  Instead, it seems the assumption of the pro-choice crowd to place any anti-abortionist into the realms of the far religious right.

You don’t have to believe in Allah, Jesus, God, Krishna, Buddha, Govinda etc to belive that killing is just not right.

Grant says:

04:31pm | 28/09/09

@ Gopi, Its what Tom Kenyon doesn’t write in this article about his religious beliefs that says it all.

He is well aware that if he writes with even a hint of his religious fervour that his argument quickly loses all legitimacy and people will instantly relegate him to being a nutter.

I think if you look back over a lot of the articles posted on the punch by people with strong religious beliefs write in a secular form, its easier and more effective to promote a theocratic message wrapped in a secular argument.

Liz says:

04:35pm | 28/09/09

Gopi you are so correct, religion has nothing to do with this. If you are in a murder trial in court, they don’t call in a minister of religion for his opinion. They make a decisions based on the violations of the right to life of another human being destroyed by someone who killed them.

Yet when it comes to abortion people in this debate don’t want to accept that life begins at conception and that we are talking about killing another human life except that it is enclosed in the warmth of the womb of a women.

What makes it different that you are unable to see this wonderful developing human bieng. A mother can certainly feel the movement from about 15 weeks on , the heart beat from 8 weeks on an ultra sound and feel the side effects of pregnancy from about 2 weeks after conception, tiredness, cravings and at about 6 weeks the morning sicks kicks in. A woman certainly suspects she is pregnant untill she confirms it.

Suzie says:

04:41pm | 28/09/09

That’s right Gopi, If we believe murder is wrong in our society, killing an inocent child before it gets out of the safety of it’s mothers womb is even more wrong!! Listen to those who have had the awful experience of an abortion like Lou. I now many, many women who also made what they say were uninformed and presured decisions to take the life of their unborn child and now live to regret it. Sometimes just knowing it is illegal is the only thing women have to grasp on to to give them strength to say No, I didn’t plan this child, but I’m not going to punish it because of what it’s Dad did, or because we weren’t careful. Statistically, very few abortions are caried out for rape. One women stated after having an abortion that it was like being raped again. Do women need this otion pushed in their faces as the only choice?

Gary says:

04:45pm | 28/09/09

Goodonya Tom, with clear thinking like that you would certainly have my vote if i lived in South Australia.

Keep up the good work!

SR says:

05:11pm | 28/09/09

Point 1 – A Female and a Male engage in sexual activity, or female engages a fertility service.
 
Point 2 – a foetus(s) is created; or a foetus(s) is not created ( the most common result);

Point 2A – Point 2 has no relevance as to whether there was a prior agreement between a Male and Female, or others (with the exception of the fertility service) that an attempt to create a foetus was ever an intention.

Point 3 – the Female makes a choice whether to keep the foetus, or to abort the foetus;

Point 2A – if Female chooses to continue the pregnancy then the foetus becomes classified as Human (or a child);

Point 2B – if Female chooses to abort the pregnancy the foetus is never classified Human (or a child).

Point 4 – regardless of Point 1, 2 or 3 (with the exception of a Female wilfully engaging with a fertility service) it is irrelevant as to whether any foetus was created with the free agreement, consent and choice of both contributors of DNA that resulted in the creation of the foetus(s).

General Point – Investment in a surgically guaranteed temporary and reversible Male infertility procedure should be of a high priority. The number of pregnancies continued and not aborted due to the wishes and wants of the Female and Female alone result in too many social problems. The result of a child being born into a world where only one of two parents actually and agreeably want the child does not create a stable child (especially when both Parents – Female and Male – are expected to be parents).

Laura McDonald says:

05:12pm | 28/09/09

As someone who was born 4 and a 1/2 monts premmie back in 1987, I have to say I feel touchy on the subject of abortion, because as medical advances in tech continue, we know a baby can survive if born before 29 weeks. But I’ve heard of medical abortions, still born’s and I’ve come to the conclusion that every abortion that does take place, always takes place for a reason and ideally that reason concerns the individual pregnancy alone.
So please don’t judge as you may not always know the full details, but maybe in an ideal world there should be clearer lines in terms of the law and abortion in Australia, alas we don’t live in an ideal world and that is for the lawmakers of the commonwelath to decided as to whether the laws need changing.

old enough says:

05:51pm | 28/09/09

Abortion is the decision of the person carrying the child. Not the people waving placards at the clinics or thumping their bibles. I’ve had one, won’t do it again - but it was an unplanned (contraception failed), badly timed pregnancy and with the father telling me that he had bigger problems in his life than me. Let’s move on to looking after the girls who do have them and ensuring they aren’t made to feel like pariahs.

Jack says:

06:09pm | 28/09/09

Great article Tom. Tony Abbott was lambasted at the time of RU486 because of his Catholicism when the spotlight should have been on the potential dangers of a drug none of us knew much about.
As for Cameron Price-Austin, I have to say yours is one of the weakest and most dangerous statements I have read.
“I think life begins at conception. I think abortion is terrible. But I also understand that not everyone else agrees. We need to move past this obsession with legislating our morality on others.”
That’s such a moral relativist position. It basically goes like this: if someone else does something that is wrong and I know it’s wrong, who am I to judge them or even seek justice? Imagine if the Allies had taken that view: We think killing Jews is wrong but obviously the Nazis don’t agree with us so we should just accept their position and actions.
The denial of applying moral truths to all people and situations is the first step on the slippery slope to barbarism.

Stephen Pickells says:

06:11pm | 28/09/09

To “M”
Yeah, the reason why people like you find me scary is that I have the capacity for original thought and I cannot be muzzled. Plus I don’t hide behind a pseudonym.

jen says:

06:37pm | 28/09/09

And what about the side effects of an unwanted pregnancy?

GeeJay says:

07:09pm | 28/09/09

dear me Tom,you would,nt be a brainwashed catholic would you?

Mary Tanner says:

07:29pm | 28/09/09

Hey Jen - the side effects of an unwanted pregnancy is .... a baby!

That abortion has become essentially a “contraceptive” is sick.  If you cannot care for the baby then put it up for adoption so someone else can.  And if you feel that you could never give up your baby after it was born - then keep it.  It will be the most wonderful blessing in your life!

Gibbot says:

08:50pm | 28/09/09

<q>“The denial of applying moral truths to all people and situations is the first step on the slippery slope to barbarism.”</q>

Whereas the belief that one is the custodian of a great ‘moral truth’  that must be forced upon others is many, many steps down the path of self delusion.

brooke says:

09:07pm | 28/09/09

side effects? “stomach cramps, through nausea, vomiting to ectopic pregnancies and severe internal bleeding.”

all but ectopic pregnancies are typical side effects experienced by a woman every month - no offense, but during research (which I have done), about 90% of anti-abortion campaigners are men. abortion should be entirely up to the woman - baby or not, there is a growth inside her body she should be allowed to remove. Aside from not being christian, I’ve got pretty traditional morals, along the lines of not living with my partner before marriage as well as wanting children young, etc… but abortion is one thing that I feel very passionately anti-religion.

most women getting abortions aren’t those who are married, in a good financial position and able to care for a child - the ideal environment for a child. why bring children into an environment that isn’t ideal, and why do that to the parents? likely, the unwanted pregnancy will split the parents, leaving the child in an awful situation, and sadly, statistically, are more likely to end up divorced themselves later in life, as well as other consequences such as higher substance abuse. And all this can be stopped when this child is only a few weeks old and no bigger than a fingernail. why put it through that life?

to the die-hard “pro-life” campaigners, what about the 14 year old girl i know who was raped and became pregnant? should she have had to keep that baby, destroy her life even more, and look in the eyes of a child every day whose father did something unspeakable to her? Not allowing her to have an abortion would be abuse.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:48pm | 28/09/09

This article is crap. The first three paragraphs are about the abortion drug RU 486, the rest is an anti abortion diatribe. They are two different issues- the first is whether the pill is safe to use for the effect intended, the second is whether the effect is desirable or not. A little intellectual rigor or honesty please….. (after all you would expect an article with the headline “Abortion drugs are dangerous, just think about it”, to focus on abortion drugs.)

colleen mcbride says:

10:37pm | 28/09/09

This is a great article. I agree with the comment in the comments section that women who have had abortions should not be made to feel like pariahs -of course they shouldnt and many many of them do need care because they suffer much after having an abortion.Project Rachael is a wonderful organistion that provides care and support to post abortive women.
I believe abortion is always wrong and many many women make an impetuous decision at a time of crisis.The baby is not the only victim -so is the woman. As a society our challenge is to help women have their babies -adoption is a very sound option.So many women do not feel supported to have their babies- others feel they cant cope.If women do not feel they can cope with bringing up the child themself there are many people who would love to adopt.

MJ says:

11:39pm | 28/09/09

To say the rights of a woman are more important than the rights of a human, is not a belief I share. I value the life of a human, which includes males and females from conception. People, who believe this, are not belittling women, but acknowledging life. Life starts from conception, which is a fact for me, and to see a life valued over another is unthinkable from my perspective. Sometimes in life we do not have a choice, at any moment factors in the environment can change our lives, because things change, it doesn’t give the right for a person commit unlawful/inhumane acts. Others will argue that I am valuing a life over another, but abortion is not an answer, because the two lives are not protected, but one. From birth a choice can be made whether to adopt or keep the child, and a no-brainer decision will be made to love and care for the child, or for another loving couple to love and care for this child. In saying this, women should not be felt to be left alone in a situation like this, and much needs to change on the stigmatism of a woman being pregnant in circumstances of ‘unplanned’ pregnancy.

I also want to add that how can people say, because a person is catholic their opinions are blinded or brainwashed??? People who say that are the ones who are narrow minded, and add nothing to the debate. Are Christians not human, because they do not think for themselves and thus should not be entitled to their rights???

Well written Tom, it is a discussion which should not be avoided.

Peaches says:

01:37am | 29/09/09

I abhor pro-lifers. And I detest this whole argument. My body. My choice. End of story.

Voxpop says:

08:53am | 29/09/09

MJ - I went through Catholic schools and I can tell you first hand that YES they are definitely brainwashed
Only 20% of Australia’s population identify with catholic/christian beliefs and you can take a few % off that figure as I know of others like myself who filled in the census that they were catholic because of upbringing only yet do not follow the religion in any way.  I urge everyone in that situation to fill out the census correctly next time and give a true reflection of the dwindling number of people involved.
Yep christians are human and they have their rights (they certainly won’t be forced to have an abortion) however I object strongly to a minority such as this forcing their outdated views on our secular society.

Stephen Pickells says:

09:02am | 29/09/09

Yes, as somebody on another website was asking yesterday: “Why is it that so many so-called pro-lifers (in the US, at least) are supportive of capital punishment?” It does seem to be an oxymoron.

joe says:

11:56am | 29/09/09

Someone on another website was asking why don’t abortion clinics let the mothers see the ultrasound or give them a cooling off period to decide?

Nathan H says:

12:26pm | 29/09/09

So Tom, to summarise: You’re against gay marriage and abortion. What you should do is put your cards on the table by starting each post with “Jesus teaches that…” and end with “.. and therefore, I think what Jesus thinks”.

There’s this tide of crypto-christianity all over our politics, where the god-botherers all seek to expand the dominion of christ through preseclection in safe seats (See Tony Abbot, Tom Keyon, Stephen Conroy, Steve Fielding and KRudd). They don’t do the honest thing and put their ‘god-squad’ agenda on the table, but rather politic around the other issues. Once they win government however, they’re all about legislating Jesus’ teachings through banning gay marriage, abortion, R18+ Video Games, the internet, sex, swear-words and short skirts. If pollies are going to push a churchie agenda, they should have the guts to say so at the outset, and not pretend they have some kind of independent conscience that leads them to completely agree with Jesus. What a co-incidence!

Nicky says:

12:59pm | 29/09/09

“A quick flick through some of the side effects of RU-486 makes for sober reading. These range from stomach cramps, through nausea, vomiting to ectopic pregnancies and severe internal bleeding.”

I am on 3 different prescription drugs in order to simply function in everyday life. All 3 cause stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting and one can cause internal bleeding. I still take them. Why? Because it’s better than the alternative of being bedridden and unable to go to work and uni.

The day you can get pregnant and have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, then I will listen to your pro-life point of view. Until then, you have absolutely no right to comment and tell women to simply ‘adopt their unwanted child out’. Right, because that would be SUCH an emotionally easy thing to do.

The pro-CHOICE lobby is not pro-abortion. It is about allowing women to have the choice to do what’s best for them, rather than the pro-life lobby, which is about dictation what women should do.

If men could get pregnant, there would be no argument.

Nomes says:

01:35pm | 29/09/09

Why is it that people honestly think that because a person developing in a mother’s womb is not “fully developed” that it does not necessarily have the right to live and become an adult? I congratulate Tom for saying something on the life side of things for a change.  As a woman I’m fully aware that there are dangers of carrying a child to full term – but isn’t our technology so advanced to help that? Even though I have not yet had children I’m extremely afraid of how much it will hurt to have a child. But where would we all be if the continuance of child birth had ceased to exist a long time ago? Look at the ancient civilisations that are no longer around? Why are they not around any more?
Also in terms of a woman dying for the life of the child look up a woman called Gianna Molla – she died because she refused to have an abortion with her forth child.  She chose the life of her child Laura Molla rather than her own life. Yes that is a scary thought for some but at least Laura was given a chance to live.

So what is society doing about this? Has no one heard women’s testimoney’s? Those who chose to abort their child and then lived to regret the decision – wounded in so many ways? Read “Giving Sorrow Words” by Melinda Trankard Reist and then tell me that the society that we live in with the availability of getting an abortion should instead perhaps help those women through the pregnancy giving them the options of perhaps adoption or help in raising the child – proper counselling etc.  Perhaps our society should be trying to do something for both the mother and the child (who will one day be an adult too) rather than kill off the child.  As one great man once said “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without a future.” Think about it.

David D says:

01:53pm | 29/09/09

Hey there Labor,

Get your religion out of other people’s lives. If YOU don’t support abortion, DON’T have one.

If, on the other hand, you recognise that people have the cognitive ability to determine whether or not they want to raise a child at whatever stage of their lives, you might be allowed to discuss the matter with the rest of us adults.

This all boils down to the “well, if you’re going to have sex, you have to deal with the consequences” argument, which is entirely erroneous. Let’s be clear, no-one explicitly gets pregnant for the express purpose of having an abortion. Progressives who support legalising abortion also want to see the numbers of abortions reduced, so your “abortion rates will skyrocket” argument is piss-weak too.

Congratulations to Labor on losing my vote for eternity for having puerile, disingenuous fundamentalists like Tom Kenyon in your party.

Tash says:

04:38pm | 29/09/09

That’s right, Tom.  When a human life is “viable” on it’s own - without any assistance from medical technology.  This point will always remain the same at any time in human history and is a perfectly logical stage to define when a foetus becomes a human being.  You’ve simply chosen to misrepresent that concept in your article.

More to the point, your entire argument against this definition is that the “clump of cells” has it’s own unique DNA, ergo, it is life.  That is simply naive.  An embryo is only the potential for life.  Why not storm the bedrooms of young couples in your electorate and insist they stop using any form of contraception lest they be “murdering” a potential life?

Lastly, it is deeply concerning how flippantly you discuss “other options”, as though carrying a pregnancy to term is a matter to be taken lightly.  Do you honestly suggest that deciding to be responsible for another person’s life for the rest of yours is just as easy and comfortable as the decision to undergo a ten minute pregnancy termination?

Thankfully, this type of thinking is rare, particularly among younger generations, and will hopefully be bred out as times goes by.

LeanneK says:

06:38pm | 29/09/09

Geez, keep on topic. We are talking about the dangers of an abortion drug. Not about rights or abortions in general or whether a foetus is human on not. The drug is illegal in Australia and quite rightly so. It annoys me that everyone goes right off topic beating whatever drum they have. Anyone got anything to say about the drug?

Laura says:

06:52pm | 29/09/09

Disgusting. To think you would put a woman through all that, something that plagues them for life. Never the same ever again, physically and mentally. A woman is the one who has the rights to control their body, not some ultra conservative nuts.

Voxpop says:

09:00pm | 29/09/09

LeanneK - the drug IS LEGAL in Australia (no thanks to that religious control freak Tony Abbott) as long as it’s administered by a doctor, and no more dangerous than many other prescription drugs.  This couple bypassed that and got it sent from overseas.  So now it is about abortion rights because those with a pro-life agenda have made it that way - they are not seeking to prosecute on unlawful importation of drugs they are trying to send this couple to prison because they sought their own abortion.

Zac B says:

11:11pm | 29/09/09

This has to be one of the better more balanced articles I’ve read. Thank you. I do think we need to discuss abortion in an open forum. The thing that gets me is abortion is destroying life. I cant imagine how a woman must feel with such pressures, but is it worth destroying life? There are other options available. Surely the preservation of life should be a priority, both the mothers and her unborn.

SimonH says:

01:36am | 30/09/09

This article is like a ‘best of’ anti-abortion talking points, furphys and Catholic dogma. If this is the best the anti-abortion lobby have got intellectually, then the pro-choicers can rest pretty easy.

“We should never get to the point where we do not question the existence of abortion in our society.” The existence? As in, it should cease to exist (shyeah right, like there’s any society in the world where abortion ceases to exist, whether acknowledged or repressed by the powers that be)? You seriously suggesting that all women whose personal safety will be endangered by continuing their pregnancy be obliged to have the baby at gunpoint?

“Do we believe our humanity is defined by science?” Gee, I dunno. All of that talk of sperm and eggs, cells, gestation ages, viability that you write about. Did you just make all that stuff up yourself, Tom? Or did you rely on a little help from a thing called medical science? How dare you suggest our humanity could be defined by such things?

“I believe we are human from the moment of conception.” Well, bully for you. There are others who believe something else, and have a well-reasoned basis for doing so; and who are never going to agree with you on the topic. What the debate is really about is whether you, and the ideologically-driven minority you belong to, will be able to force—through raids, arrests and gaol—your views on the rest of us.

“At that point a unique DNA is present and you are only ever going to be one thing – a human being.” Gee, what was that about those morally-spineless people try to define our humanity by science? Oh, and identical twins, and anyone else whose DNA coincides with someone else’s, don’t measure up in your definition.

“It is not possible to be human without passing through this stage.” Ah, the old ‘necessary precedent to, therefore equivalent to’ furphy. Every building starts life as a pile of bricks; doesn’t mean that I can try to register a couple of bricks lying out the back of my shed, in the National Trust.

“Some people suggest that a fetus is “just a collection of cells”. So are you. How many cells do you need to be human?” All night brain-buster, that one. Let me guess the Catholic Church’s mandated answer: One?

Sadly for those with narrow minds, both real life and the process by which new life comes into being, is complex. Much of the medical terminology used in the article wasn’t understood 100 years ago. When you try to impose reactionary religious dogma over the top of the evolving and changing medical world and our diverse social world, you get intellectually dishonest exercises like this article: ‘gee, I got me to wondering the other day whether Jesus wants us to start locking up women who have abortions [but my party wouldn’t be happy if I put it like that so I’ll have to use a whole lot of euphemisms]’.

Melissah says:

02:03am | 01/10/09

Nice to see that what was potentially an interesting and informative essay on abortion aids became right-wing Christian propaganda.