Bartlett's Blog

Advertisement

1. Cathy

   I’ve just been reading up about abortion laws in Vic and Qld, and came across the following statement: “one cannot “unlawfully cause (a) child (capable of being born alive) to die by any wilful act”, that is “with intent to destroy the life of (the) child”.” this is the ‘old law’ in Qld, and this law has been overturned in Vic. (ie. one can lawfully detroy the life of a viable child)

   Do you belief it should be illegal in any case to end the life of a viable pre-term baby? If so, what circumstance? Will completely legalizing abortion suggest that as a society we all agree that the ‘thing’ that is growing inside of a woman’s uterus is not of any intrinsic value? Do you see that in the final weeks of a pregnancy – when a baby is viable – that terminating its life could be ‘wrong’?… and that the law should possibly protect ‘it’. Should a doctor (s) judgement be given such power that he/she can judge that a pre-term baby should be terminated?

   Those fighting for law reform don’t seem to wrestle with this stuff. In Qld there are about 80 late term abortion each year. Only 1/2 are for fetal abnormalities, the rest are completely healthy viable babies. I am very concerned that law reform will gloss over this reality. I want viable pre-term babies to be protected under the law… even if a mother won’t. If a mother killed her baby seconds after birth it would be unlawful, but under new laws, if she had a termination, the baby would attract no protection under the law.

   Any thoughts.?

   Aug 25th, 2009

2. Tony

   Cathy:

   I applaud you. Only a few years ago infant adoption in Australia was around 25,000 now it has dropped to 155 annually. The medicare number for abortion now coincides with miscarraige to hide the figures.

   Its seems that the Pro-Choice movement is nothing more than Pro-Death.
   There is no choice in Victoria. Doctors must make and effective referral to a doctor who will perform the procedure.
   If a Doctor refuses they can be struck off and removed from futher duties in public hospitals. Some have already had to undergo “retraining”.

   If a young woman wants to adopt there is virtually no service available to them. It seems the only choice in Victoria is abortion.(death of her child).
   Young women in some states can be prescribed a drug to be taken when they are at home. Many have had to deal with severe depression after the event and some have committed suicide.

   The extreme feminist movement “emily’s list” is very strong in Australia and boats members like Anna Bligh. Their belief is the (even though the UN recognises that a child at 18weeks should have all the rights of a child) is to promote abortion up to full term.

   Rape and life issues amount to less than 2% of all abortions in this country. So the age old arguments are flawed.

   Many of the worlds best known people would not have been alive today if they had been conceived in Victoria.

   Everyone should study those laws and make a stand. This is not a womans health issue, as has cleary been shown by the increasing suicide rate and mental health of young women in this country continues to rise.
   Lets support them and give them a real choice……

   Tony

   Aug 26th, 2009

3. Greg

   So how do you propose a debate be conducted Andrew? So many social issues are not debated in parliament for three reasons-

   1. An intellectually weak opposition incapable of deciding what it stands for
   2. An intellectually weak government that gags anything that remotely smells of controversy because it fears losing government more than its desire to govern.
   3. A frustrated and silenced public who feels that its unable to change both of the above.(waiting for the next election is a not an option)

   Can member’s bills be introduced into Qld parliament?

   Aug 26th, 2009

4. Michel Webb

   Blue collar Labor electorates recoil with justified horror ar Emily’s Listers
   who tray dn push through abortion laws.
   The DLP will target all blue collar Labor as well as electorates that require anywhere fro a o.1% swing up to a 15 to 20% swing to unseat either ALP or Coalition sittign members or new candidates who are pro abortion.
   It costs less than $1,000 to leaflet drop and talk to voters in each electorate. In fact with our hundreds of new DLP members ready and willing, along with NCC and AFA members and parishioners from all the various churches, blue collar and yoru average office working class mums and dads will vote against pro abortion ists and feminists.
   Informed consent and women’s health is NOT paramount to pro-abortion politicians.
   Bonnie Barry’s demise will be repeated in all pro abort electorates.
   This is what the Emily’s Listers and general pro abort politicians deserve.
   Australian mena dn women are turnign mroe and more to reason on issues of health and of having children. This is no longer the feral 1970s.
   Fraternally

   Michael Webb
   DLP President- NSW Branch

   Aug 26th, 2009

5. philip travers

   What is this conceit about the 1970s! Webb isn’t talking satistically,he is claiming a better attitude to abortion exists today.And references to worker attitudes suggest nothing,because if people are more reasonable about morality or abortion,because there seems to be an unstated ty-in, then whose to know the low full time employment rates,women’s incarceration rates,alcoholism amongst young women,suicide amongst men, drug dependency etc. today is a superior sense of reasoning and care than the 1970.s!? Whatever the moral problems some may have with abortion,a lot of women are ,and have been destroying their health to be good in a physiological sense as mothers to have the energy and state of mind to mother effectively.Economic conditions,I suspect for possible mothers to be,are far worse than the 1970.s.This “raised nose carry on” since abortion started to happen in Australia doesn’t make the anti-abortion line of thought better in analysis ,morality or rescue then the 1970.s In fact, Webb airing his stuff here like he has,is more in the 70.s than he may want to not assume. I am attempting to make Webb think,rather than to punish by abuse or scorn.

   Aug 26th, 2009

6. Kate Marsh, Children by Choice

   Cathy, Tony:

   The facts:

   - 80% of Queensland wants abortion decriminalised.

   - Abortion does not harm women, nor does it cause ongoing psychological problems, in situations where women make the choice to abort freely and without coercion. This was the finding of the American Psychologists Association who last year published a review of 20 years worth of literature on the subject.

   - Those of us who are pro-choice feel as strongly about people forcing women to have abortions as those forcing women to bear children they do not want or cannot look after. It is completely despicable and would never ever be acceptable.

   - Post 20-week terminations make up less than 1% of all terminations performed across the country. Contrary to claims by anti-choice lobbyists, women do not change their minds about a pregnancy at 24 weeks, or 30 weeks, or 38 weeks, and demand an abortion. Post 20-week terminations are very sadly carried out on pregnancies which are very much wanted but are not viable, or pose a serious threat to the health or life of a woman. These are not decisions made by fickle women who are having a bad day, and perpetuating that myth is disrespectful in the extreme.

   - It is widely accepted that criminal penalties should never be imposed on women seeking abortion. This was part of the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in their investigation into Vic laws in 2008.

   - The issue is choice. Pro Choice advocates are not about forcing women into abortions, they are about giving women the right to freely choose abortion. We promote supporting women through these choices, which is why services like Children by Choice, who provide free counselling and are independent of any health services therefore providing fully non-directional advice, exist. We have nothing to gain by ‘promoting’ abortion. We simply want women to have the choice.

   Aug 26th, 2009

7. Ramon del Gallego

   The legalization of abortion hurts workers and businessmen just as equally as these fetuses who have been denied their right to life. Whenever you kill an unborn fetus in society, you are killing a potential consumer in society just as well. This means that workers will find it harder to get jobs and businessmen will find the market depressed because the market will become constricted as more fetuses cannot be consumers in the long run.

   The controversy on abortion can be solved by giving the woman who wants to have an abortion the right to give up her unwanted child for adoption for anybody who is willing to take care of her unwanted child. If a willing foster parent cannot be found, then the state has to ultimately care of her child. Hence the right to abortion could be changed to the right of a woman to give up her unwanted child to the custody of the state.

   It is dangerous to force a woman who does not like to take care of her unwanted child to take care of him or her. She may hurt the child physically or emotionally. Hence the violation of a woman’s right would end up as a violation also of the right of the child. Therefore the state must be made to volunteer to take care of the unwanted child until willing foster parents could be found for them.

   With the worsening economic situation the world over, it is high time that legislators find ways and means to stimulate the market. The natural increase in the market occurs as more babies are born into the economy. But since industrial nations are throwing these babies away through abortion, workers and businessmen will find it harder to look for jobs.

   The Supreme Court cannot legalize abortion because it means the denial of the right of the state to maximize its resources for the benefit of its subject. The state has a duty to insure a stable increase in the market and therefore the state has the right to prohibit abortion since this will constrict the future market for jobs and business opportunity. When the state legislature legalizes abortion, it decrees also unemployment for its people. Hence there are costs to abortion and that is depressed markets and job conditions for their workers. To deny fetuses their right to life is also to deny the workers their right to work and businessmen their right to have favorable business opportunities for expansion and growth. Hence abortion is closely connected with the workings of the economy.

   The issue of abortion can be easily solved if the state takes the trouble of taking care of all growing children in society. Children who are born into families who do not like them are entitled to be taken cared of by the state. It is a right both of parents with unwanted children and unwanted children themselves.

   Aug 26th, 2009

8. paul walter

   Wow…Straight away the social conservatives bombard the web with emotive claptrap about “killing babies.”
   No.
   If a young unmarried couple employ RU486 as a form of retrospective contraception, in an emergency, its not a case of “she hates her baby, she killed her baby”. This is a despicable button-pushing, guilt-tripping manipulation of someone young and inexperienced already in a difficult situation
   It is not a “baby” at this early stage of pregnancy, a baby does not sit full-formed for ninemonths in a womb. A means for an act of common sense for people at a certain stage in life, not yet able to proceed with such a big life project as parenthood, is now available that was available to previous generations. So parenthood is postponed, not rejected, in the termination of an as yet merely potential, life.
   An embryo may indeed be “viable”, but the young couple also are not necessarily here solely to produce babies like machines, at the first possible opportunity. Later might be more appropriate, given circumstances for the actually living, so the use of RU 486 also becomes “viable”.
   Why so obsessesed with the so-called “rights of the foetus”, to the extent that these precede even those of the also human parents, particularly the girl?
   I’d reiterate, it is not a “baby”, at this stage. What’s occurring is a realistic contraceptive decison, NOT the premeditated murder of a human being.
   Why not rather consider how life destroying seven years in jail might be for two living people (whose prime purpose in life might actually not be just as conveniences for those seeking to adopt later) and allow people in difficult times the right to choose when to bring kids into the world when they have the right conditions eventually then, to fulfil the obligations of parenthood?

   Aug 26th, 2009

9. Tony

   Kate Marsh:

   Kate says: Those of us who are pro-choice feel as strongly about people forcing women to have abortions as those forcing women to bear children they do not want or cannot look after. It is completely despicable and would never ever be acceptable.

   Have you spoken to women who have tried to adopt in Victoria ? I have and its not that easy…. Not much of a choice as they say.

   Is it not true that doctors must make an effective referral even if its against their will ?
   Once again I have spoken to many doctors who feel intiminated for being forced into referring …..or face Retraining

   If late term abortion is less then 1% and rape and health issues are covered (less than 2%) why would we want to risk bringing in laws similar to the horrific legislation passed in Victoria.

   If we allow termination of healthy children at 18 weeks and above shouldnt we be liable to be prosecuted for UN human rights violations.

   Lets face the most common reason is either Not ready yet 36% or 18% lifestyle or work reasons. If we allow the termination for these reasons, how long before extreme groups like Emilys list or the greens start terminating the aged for sustainability reasons ?

   Pro choice should be just that – Not Pro Death as these organisations campaign for. Pro Life groups on the other hand actually do provide and support an array of support for women in these circumstances. Perhaps pressure should be brought to bear on our government agencies that should be promoting adoption ?

   Tony

   Aug 26th, 2009

10. Lorikeet

    To my knowledge, there is no doubt that we already have anti-abortion legislation in place, which the government has allowed to be consistently flouted for about 30 years.

    If a woman is unable to raise her own baby, she has the option of giving him/her to one of many thousands of infertile couples.

    I knew a couple who adopted a baby boy from Gladstone in 1995 after a 10 year wait. At that time, couples trying to put their names on the adoption list were rejected as there were no babies to adopt at all, and the wait had increased to 15 years.

    I think “Victoria – The Garden State” should be renamed “The Recidivist State” since any sense of moral fibre seems to have gone out the door.

    I know a gynaecologist who is totally against abortion. It is against his personal beliefs. Why should he be forced to, when it is a criminal offence and flies in the face of his religious faith?

    “Thou shalt not kill,” is one of The Ten Commandments.

    Added to this, it is a breach of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take in which they promise to preserve life (not end it).

    The doctor who opened the Greenslopes abortion clinic many years ago was immediately struck off as a part-time tutor by the university. The university academics I worked with were completely disgusted with this child-murdering hypocrite.

    Paul Walter:

    A contraceptive decision is not made after a baby is growing in the womb. That’s something you do before having sex.

    If the morning-after pill is taken within hours of sexual intercourse, no pregnancy would even be in place for anyone to concern themselves with.

    In Victoria, terminations can take place up to 24 weeks, and if the baby is born alive and crying, nobody gives a stuff!

    I also heard recently that researchers are paying people to give them their aborted foetuses. How amoral is that?

    Aug 26th, 2009

11. Ryan

    TONY,

    It is understood that abortion is a difficult issue, one which is not approached lightly. Abortions have many implications upon fundamental ethical issues i.e. rights.

    Tony you point out that “Everyone should study those laws and make a stand”. (if you don’t mind me asking what formal qualifications do you have in Health or Law)

    Future more, if you understood what the intentions behind the 2008 law reform within Victoria was all about, you would realise that it is not a “horrific legislation” that you claim it to be. It fact the reform was designed to decrimilise abortion and by its objective to modernise the law so that it is “clear”, widely understood, and reflective of current community standards (which to put it simply are pro choice, if you want some references just email, ryanj.moore@hotmail.com). Reform that does not result in restricting current access to services. Reform of the law (that at the same time) should not lead to an increase in the rate of abortion.

    Meanwhile, you also seem to rant about adoption “Hello” we live in the 21th century we there is alternatives for couples who can’t have child naturally i.e. IVF

    BTW I would like to see “no bias” data that suggests “Only a few years ago infant adoption in Australia was around 25,000 now it has dropped to 155 annually”. (please send to ryanj.moore@hotmail.com)

    Aug 26th, 2009

12. John McMahon

    To: Kate Marsh

    As Ultra-Sound scans now demostrate, the “thing”, the “bundle of cells”, the “bundle of tissue” is in fact a developing baby who has a beating heart, a brain, a working urinary tract, who swallows, who sucks its thumb (yes, the hands and fingers are well defined), who shifts position and kicks and who is well truly a living Human Being.

    Aug 27th, 2009

13. Lorikeet

    Ryan:

    Lots of people undergo IVF treatment and still can’t have any children naturally. Some women have congenital defects, Polycystic Ovarian Disease or Endometriosis. Some couples may be genetically incompatible and then there are those with completely unexplainable infertility.

    IVF treatment is also extremely expensive and beyond the reach of some couples.

    I suggest you contact DOCS&H for current information about adoption lists.

    Aug 27th, 2009

14. philip travers

    I think making a connection between abortions and some latent loss of consumers is somewhat despicable.Certainly it may have the advantage of some truth to it,but lacks merit,in other ways,in that ,the proposition can be reversed and said that Business and Worker organizations alone should be responsible for unwanted babies.I don’t expect business people to more responsible for the unemployed than their capacity to do so,which is also a personal matter,than I expect workers to feel completely responsible for the unemployed.Which includes expectant mothers.There is the Alternative economy with heaps of part-time volunteers,and it is pretty hard to shake off that this work has a ratio of value higher than the measured taxable commercially driven type.

    Aug 27th, 2009

15. Tony

    Lorikeet:

    Lorikeet Says:think “Victoria – The Garden State” should be renamed “The Recidivist State” since any sense of moral fibre seems to have gone out the door.
    I agree those politicians are not fit to hold their positions. They should be publicly named and shamed.
    But there are some good doctors trying down there:
    Dr Janet Gross

    Ryan says: Reform of the law (that at the same time) should not lead to an increase in the rate of abortion.

    But it does Ryan Its legal its okay

    Rudd wants to export it Pro death overseas

    Only 6% of Australians agree with abortions to 20 Weeks.
    51% are against abortions for non medical or financial reasons
    85% of Australian Women say the abortion rate in Australia is too high

    Maybe someone should have informed the Victorian Paliament or perhaps even our current Prime Minister.

    Tony

    Aug 27th, 2009

16. paul walter

    Lorikeet,
    my whole point is that if RU 486 is recognised as a form of retrospective contraception at the first trimester or embryonic stage, as occurred in the case of the young people in Cairns, we have an intervention that in no way involves murder (at least in the emotive and slanderous way employed by some right to lifers). At this embryonic through to early foetal stage , there is indeed only a “collection of cells”, rather than a conscious human being.
    I presume Bartlett is coming from roughly the same position, evidenced by his subsequent discussion concerning political processes hijacked by people unwilling to accept that others do not accept their theologically based interpretation of what constitutes “the human”.
    He points to Bligh’s reluctance to reform the old laws on the basis that that the conservative right, across party lines, would exploit parliament to actually harshen the laws and impose their personal views by legislative force, denying a legitimate choice, in the eyes of many others, for people like the Cairns couple, who obviously reject the likely fallacy that full conscious humanity is present from the point of conception.

    Aug 28th, 2009

17. Lorikeet

    Paul Walter:

    If RU486 is used beyond the morning after, it can certainly be considered an abortion pill.

    I think it’s important to remember that WE were once only collections of cells.

    Ryan:

    I think it all works on the following tenet: What is legalised is encouraged … or in practice, more heavily encouraged, by those who have already turned a blind eye to the law for 30+ years.

    I think we should also consider the effects on the Age Pyramid. We already have a serious shortage of people in the younger generations, brought about by the misuse of the contraceptive pill and abortion. Baby preventing/aborting practices can lead to much worse legislative ideas. Give it some thought.

    If you think about it a bit more, these things have really screwed the society over both financially and morally.

    If you are a schoolgirl and you become pregnant, it is a very simple matter to just have an abortion. Screw everyone … abort babies … that’s what our kids are now being taught.

    What kind of morality is that???

    Think about this one. When couples had bigger families and only one household income, and the unions had more power, the opportunity to screw the population over by banks, employers, burglars, insurance companies, drug addicts and people pushing free trade agreements was comparatively tiny.

    The best way to screw the entire society over is to keep teaching the people to do the wrong things using Population Control.

    Aug 28th, 2009

18. Tony

    Paul Walters:

    Paul Walter says: my whole point is that if RU 486 is recognised as a form of retrospective contraception

    Retrospective contraception ?
    The absolute nonsense that some people come up with to defend their position never fails to amaze me.

    I think Lorikeet’s position is more realistic.

    A contraceptive decision is not made after a baby is growing in the womb. That’s something you do before having sex

    Tony

    Aug 28th, 2009

19. togret

    Would Tony and Lorikeet like to state their theory as to when life begins? Are there any circumstances under which you’d support abortion?

    Tony: I don’t know the exact circumstances of the people at the centre of the case, but there is a use for RU 486 that could be called “retrospective contraception” – it can also be used in smaller doses as an emergency contraceptive; if taken after sex but before ovulation, it can prevent ovulation and so prevent pregnancy. The one medication can be used for different purposes.

    I would consider that if there has been no joining of ovum and sperm then the conditions of life might not be met .. do you dispute this, Tony, or do you consider that the sperm and ovum, separately, are also ‘life”? That’s one buddhist view, but didn’t think it was a conventional christian one, which I think may be your view.

    Aug 28th, 2009

20. paul walter

    Thanks, Togret.
    They are just bloody-minded obstructionist- any/everyone must conform to their arbitrarydefinitions, or it’s they who are automaticallly the ones who are totally in the wrong.
    Well, no medieval authoritarianism for this little black duck.
    Tony, you go back to your conversations with the embryo and comeback later to me, when its offered its considered opinion on everything from high fiscal policy to the”buddy-bump”.
    Bet I’ll be waiting a long time.

    Aug 28th, 2009

21. philip travers

    Lorikeet forgets there are people like me around,who have lived alone like Catholic monks for decades,and,if there is an over supply of schoolgirls,suicideing young males, then there is a need for me to lower my cholesterol,do Yoga, ride around on a pushbike, work in a job that using the abs is an everyday event,be interested in sciences and applications,live frugally,care about the young and old etc.Which was me thirty years ago,and, hardly a government person,Church person knew that, except the people who did know me.I think you are over doing the criticism Lorikeet,no young person today should think that they have to live for me into the future,because it can easily proven that no adults much older than me lived for the sake of me,they lived.My parents stayed alive and were responsible for me,because they didn’t want to die suicidally.

    Aug 29th, 2009

22. Lorikeet

    Togret:

    That’s easy. Life begins at conception, which any scientist will tell you. This is not a theory but a fact.

    Tony has his opinions. I have mine.

    I support abortion under the following circumstances:

    When the woman has been raped, but only if she wants an abortion.

    When a continuation of the pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the mother’s life e.g. renal failure.

    When the baby has a serious deformity or genetic condition which would greatly affect its quality of life or that of its parents.

    I think “retrospective contraception” is a complete contradiction in terms. When RU486 is used the morning after, it is being used as a contraceptive. If it is used after a pregnancy has been established, it is an abortion pill.

    BTW my opinion is not a religious view. I don’t support any legislation which I think is detrimental to the society, whether individually or as a whole.

    Aug 29th, 2009

23. Ryan

    In my personal opinion, abortion is an issue between a woman, partner and doctor.

    Lorikeet,

    I am on the same boat when you say “If you think about it a bit more, these things have really screwed the society over both financially and morall.” But when has your society been this perfect delusion that humans has aspired to achieve since the History of Human kind.

    John Harris (author) has pointed out “we all of us have the potential to be corpses. But this in no way justifies treating or valuing each other as though we already were corpses”. Hence, John Harris has just pointed out, the same reason why young healthy students don’t receive fortnightly senior pensions and that is, we award rights and obligations on what the current status of others are rather than their potential.

    I consider myself to have liberal values. Values that, in my opinion, are accompanied with a high stranded of morals. I don’t drink (alcohol), swear, smoke, I respect my peers and; I always get to work and university early and have not called up sick for the past five years. (I most poeples eyes i would be an good citizen)

    But according to the Bible I am going to hell, because unlike the Roman Catholics on some of history’s pages, I havn’t killed anyone that disagrees with my religious views. I am not anti-religion. I just support the division between religion and state. The state should not promote nor discourage any religious reviews on particular matter i.e. abortion.

    Meanwhile, I do understand the ethical bases that religion has established within it. However these ethics are form pervious centuries i.e. abortion in ancient Roman was deemed unlawful because it was considered that the women was depriving the biological father of his right to his own children.

    Aug 29th, 2009

24. Ryan

    Law reform regarding abortion should and will happen, it has all ready happen in Victoria, SA, WA and Tasmina. Nonetheless that is not to say that abortion in some ways should not have restrictions with will allow a suitable balance between preserving a woman’s reproductive rights and respecting the sanctity of life.

    Aug 29th, 2009

25. Lorikeet

    Ryan:

    Then how do you propose to respect the sanctity of life if you are going to kill the little inmate?

    I’d call that not only increasing its potential to become a tiny little corpse, but deliberately hastening the process.

    And how does that fit in with a Euthanasia Bill in Victoria?

    I don’t care what religion or the state think is okay. I don’t believe in child murder.

    I also think the ancient Romans had the right idea. I wonder how many men have had their babies aborted against their will?

    And then I wonder again how many women have been deserted by the father after he has filled the honey pot?

    Aug 29th, 2009

26. Andrew Bartlett

    Greg asked “Can member’s bills be introduced into Qld parliament?”

    The simple answer is yes – any MP can introduce legislation into Parliament. However, the catch is that it can’t be debated or voted on unless a majority agrees, which in practice means unless the government of the day permits it.

    For whatever reason, it appears the small amendment to the Criminal Code which the Qld Premier/government is planning – to make it legal for medical practitioners to perform abortion by medical (i.e. drugs) as well as surgical means – is not being treated as a conscience vote, even though it obviously relates to abortion. So all government MPs will presumably be bound to vote for it, and to vote against any other amendments moved.

    I understand it is a divisive and controversial topic, but I think the Victorian example shows that such debates can occur in Parliament without major social or political dislocation.

    And the amendment the government is planning clearly would be of no benefit for the woman and her partner in Cairns who are currently facing charges, so it doesn’t seem like it will really resolve the situation in terms of removing legal uncertainty.

    Aug 29th, 2009

27. Tony

    Togret

    Togret Says: would consider that if there has been no joining of ovum and sperm then the conditions of life might not be met .. do you dispute this, Tony, or do you consider that the sperm and ovum, separately, are also ‘life

    Are you serious ?

    Togret Says: Would Tony and Lorikeet like to state their theory as to when life begins

    Theory. Its no theory life begins at conception.
    The sanctity of life is and should be our foremost concern. Not whether it would be inconvenient in this “its all about me” very greedy world. The child does not ask to be conceived but once conception has occured it is up to any civilised community to do all it can for its offspring.

    Ryan Says: In my personal opinion, abortion is an issue between a woman, partner and doctor.

    I would hope that our society has not fallen this low as to believe that statement. From the time the child is conceived it has separate DNA from its mother and its father. A completely different human being that should expect support at its most vunerable time. If we fail to respect life here where does it end.

    Tony

    Aug 30th, 2009

28. paul walter

    Lorikeet (to Togret):
    “life begins at conception, which any scientist will tell you”.
    I have battled against a retort to above for nearly a day, knowing Bartlett wants the thread not to deteriorate to further divisiveness.
    As the burden has become to onerous,so for the sake of my own equilibrium will hold forth nonetheless, belatedly, forthwith.
    Feathered friend, a couple of points,if you could just clarify.
    “Life begins at conception…”.
    Since you are obviously a great scientist yourself, perhaps you could give us the definitive say as regards which form of life you mean, specifically, animal, or vegetable. From there human, if so in conscious form (conscious at conception itself, that is )?
    “…which any scientist will tell you”.
    All scientists? All simultaneously?
    There must be millions of scientists currently about the planet, so I “doffs me lid” at your telepathic powers and prescience, which appear almost godlike.
    I await in eager anticipation the fruits of such a hero(in)ic accomplishment in the form the score of semi trailors full of signatures, theses and detailed explanations expounding on this universal collusion of thought; this monumental intellectual singularity, no doubt including those of scientists whose fields are not remotely concerned with biology.
    But a kombi van full of declarations from the obstretricians gyneacologists, physiologists and physicians involved in termination of unwanted or unsustainable pregnancies, alone, might do for a start.
    Oh, these will include explanations of why they are prescribing RU486, etc when they know that conscious “life begins at conception”, just to put these readings into context.
    They must be very wicked people, indeed, unless you have made an unlikely mistake as to the scientific beleifs they hold that determine their actions; that they do indeed beleive that what they do is malicious murder , rather than the mere dispensation in good faith, of appropriate medical care for their patients

    Aug 30th, 2009

29. Lorikeet

    Paul Walter:

    No one needs to be a great scientist to know that life begins at conception. You know very well I’m talking about a human being, but the same would apply to an animal.

    No one said that a human being is conscious at conception, but it is still a human being anyway. If not, it would not grow bigger and then come out screaming. If not, callous people would not even be considering aborting it, would they? It would simply be a “nothing” in the scheme of things.

    If you fell over and knocked yourself out, perhaps you might think unconsciousness would be sufficient justification for doctors to terminate YOU, but I would not.

    Yes, there are plenty of people around with no moral conscience, having been encouraged in that direction for at least 3 decades by the purveyors of “Me Syndrome”. This includes doctors looking to make a buck, and also being put under pressure by amoral people.

    BTW I had a child on an IVF/GIFT program. I read all of their material. When eggs are fertilised in a petridish, they commence dividing and the resultant embryo growing in a matter of hours. However, don’t believe me, will you?

    If you absolutely need clarification of what is alive and what is dead, I guess you could give a fertility clinic a ring.

    Aug 30th, 2009

30. togret

    A sperm is a potential life (according to some) once it joins with an egg according to some) and is implanted in the uterus (according to some) and receives a soul (according to some) ..until it becomes separately viable (according to some.

    There is no consesnsus – religous, or scientific … and donation, genetic testing, and use in research of embryos .. where does that fall on your moral line?

    Not as black and white an issue as some seem to think? Or maybe only because they are not involved … ???

    Aug 30th, 2009

31. Tony

    Togret:

    Togret Says: A sperm is a potential life (according to some)

    According to no one. Except some wanker.

    Life begins at conception. According to all.

    Togret Says: There is no consesnsus – religous, or scientific … and donation, genetic testing, and use in research of embryos .. where does that fall on your moral line?

    Embryonic research is still frowned upon by a large portion of the community. The creation of life for the sole purpose of destruction is probably more immoral than killing ones child for convenience and then trying to justify it, with its not really a child yet when in fact a separate human being with separate DNA is depending on us to help it into the world.

    Paul Walter Says: “…which any scientist will tell you”.
    All scientists? All simultaneously?
    There must be millions of scientists currently about the planet

    Yes Paul and if you look hard enough I’m sure you’ll find one that disagrees with the fact that life begins at conception.
    Its amazing what scientists will say to gain funding these days.
    Lets face it. Both the drug Industry and the Abortion industry are big money these days.

    Tony

    Aug 30th, 2009

32. Naomi Cartledge

    TONY – “Rape and life issues amount to less than 2% of all abortions in this country. So the age old arguments are flawed.”
    This is not so. Less than 10% of rapes are reported; less than 10% of them go to court, and too few have an outcome in favour of the female(overwhelmingly) victim. There is also rape in marriage, permanent relationships etc. Also, up to 10% of women experience domestic violence for the first time during their first pregnancy.

    Women who feel strongly about anti-abortion aren’t and never will be forced to have one. Women who are determined to have a termination will either have one or die in the attempt. Proven, sadly! That’s why the Laws were changed. The highest pro-catholic countries believe in a woman having access to medically supervised terminations, Italy and Ireland for instance.I support a woman’s right to make her own decision, with her doctor, with or without her partner.

    The overwhelming number of late term abortions are due to some gross foetal abnormality, not the figure you mentioned. The Medicare number also includes those women who have a D&C for other reasons – to aid conception(as I did for my 3rd child) – so the figures are difficult to ascertain by medicare service numbers.

    As for adoption?How gross to use women as ‘baby machines’ to make other couples ‘happy’. We all know of the trauma of too many adoptees in the past; women(some very young)harrassed, sedated, abused etc to relinquish their babies – let’s not go back there?I don’t believe that life begins at conception, but when a foetus can live independently of its mother’s body!

    I had a miscarriage at 14 weeks. Traumatic, horribly painful and sad as it was; there was no similarity to a human life? If I hadn’t lost that baby I wouldn’t have my son, born a year after.Nature has its reasons, which I eventually realized. We don’t have funeral services for miscarriages, in fact, people don’t like to talk about it much! What about men’s responsibilities?Not mentioned here

    Aug 31st, 2009

33. togret

    Tony, Tony, Tony .. just when I’m tempted to get involved in a discussion, your well-reasoned arguments stop me in my tracks.

    I said : A sperm is a potential life (according to some) and, devastatingly, you replied: According to no one. Except some wanker. Life begins at conception. According to all.

    Well, how clearly you put your case. Hundreds, not just one, of religious philosophers have devoted much thought to this topic, and many different answers have been tentatively proposed; many legal jurisdictions have struggled with it too, and come to different conclusions.

    Had they only asked you, Tony, think of the time and worry that could have been saved.

    Not a spark of curiosity there, Tony? Not a slight interest in how others come to think as they do?

    See, that’s why I come to forums like this, to find out what others think. We all tend to have peple around us who think the same way, or who have given up trying to get us to listen, in some cases. Where will we find out what others whom we don’t even know think, and why, unless we listen, qustion and consider … if our opinions are formed from anything ohter than gut reactions or childhood indoctrination, or the wholesale buying of a ready-made set of ideas, then surely we have nothing to lose by a discussion?

    You have disappointed me, Tony. “wankers”? Was that an sly joke? or a gut-reaction?

    Aug 31st, 2009

34. Lorikeet

    Togret:

    To my knowledge, unwanted spare embryos are donated to other couples where possible. Some used to get flushed down the gurgler, but now I think they are used for stem cell research, which is okay with me. Waste not, if you can use them to benefit humankind.

    I suppose various people can philosophise all they like, but a new life is formed with the joining of sperm and egg. Then the conceptus goes on a perilous journey down one fallopian tube to implant in the uterine lining. Once it is stuck there, leave it alone!

    Don’t pick on Tony. He might know quite a lot about wankers. He was probably talking about the sperm/wanker paradigm which produces no conception at all.

    I think Tony and I agree on most things, except for when he wants to squeeze the life blood out of our public schools to give to the rich – sort of a financial abortion.

    Will you marry me, Tony?

    Aug 31st, 2009

35. Lorikeet

    Togret:

    I think it could be said that a sperm is living on borrowed time, once it leaves the man’s body, or even if it stays within it.

    If it sits in a petri dish without any company, it will quickly die of a broken heart, since there is nothing it can try to get inside.

    Sep 1st, 2009

36. paul walter

    Lorikeet, are you being wilfully perverse?
    The question,as to “life”, is not down to cell divison, but consciousness.
    Anyone who honestly beleives that an embryo in particular, is likely to sit back and converse with you on philosophy etc, must truly be aflicted of that self same problem involving self-abuse that you and your confrateres are currently so preoccupied with.

    Sep 1st, 2009

37. Tony

    PAUL Walter

    Paul says: Lorikeet, are you being wilfully perverse?
    As I said before the Victorian legislation is horrific. It treats humans in a manner less then you would an animal. By denying the use of pain killers, the Victorian Parliament has shown clearly they are incapable of showing compassion.
    Read this in todays courier mail

    let them die

    To think this is happening in a State were Abortions are illegal.
    We all know the horrific consequences that happen in Victoria. How can we support a government that would allow this to happen up here.

    Read and try to learn where this is heading Togret.

    Tony

    Sep 1st, 2009

38. Tony

    Paul Walter

    Paul Says: Lorikeet, are you being wilfully perverse?
    The question,as to “life”, is not down to cell divison, but consciousness.
    Anyone who honestly beleives that an embryo in particular, is likely to sit back and converse with you on philosophy etc, must truly be aflicted of that self same problem involving self-abuse that you and your confrateres are currently so preoccupied with

    If that’s your logic then you are the one that is perverse.
    An infant cant as you say:
    sit back and converse with you on philosophy etc
    Nor can people with speach impediments.People who have mental defects. Along with a host of other disadvantaged groups.

    With your logic they are all unsustainable and are okay to terminate.
    Let them die with dignity were the famous words of Adolf Hitler.

    With that sort of logic you might very well be a member of the greens.
    Its a very sick world indeed when people who respect life are ridiculed by people who obviously have no more respect for human life then they would for say a dog or a cat.

    Tony

    Sep 2nd, 2009

39. paul walter

    And here was me thinking Lorikeet had themarket cornered on wilful perversity.
    No Tony. Re read my posts. No one is suggesting we should institute a thrird reich style purge of the disabled already-living, even the most miserable of them. Although we do abhor attempts by fundamentalists in the US and elsewhere, who have tried to physically restrain terminally ill people in profound pain, who sort to choose to end their lives with a modicum of dignity.

    Sep 2nd, 2009

40. SL

    “A contraceptive decision is not made after a baby is growing in the womb. That’s something you do before having sex”

    “Rape and life issues amount to less than 2% of all abortions in this country. So the age old arguments are flawed.”

    So in other words, if a woman does not have a genuine reason for having an abortion — that is, she has had the termerity to have sex for pleasure — then pregnancy and childbirth are mandatory for that jezebel.

    The abortion debate should not be framed around life or “murder”. If all lofe is sacred, then that sacredness would apply consistantly to ALL life.

    That so-called pro-lifers fail to chanell their energies into other lives and life-saving is telling.The foetal-centric are obessed with forcing women to face pregnancy and childbirth as punishment for having consenusal sex.

    That is what this debate is really about. It is about sex. It is really about WOMEN having sex. Because compulory pregnancy and childbirth does not impact physically on a man who has had sexual intercourse.

    The compulsory-birthists want sex back in the domain of an era gone by where it was something enojoyed only by men and was something that women feared. Removing women’s access to the means to control if and when they become a parent — if at all — is to remove the keystone of their liberty. It removes the means for them to behave like men.

    Sep 2nd, 2009

41. Lorikeet

    Paul Walter:

    Well, I don’t know anyone who has tried to talk with an embryo. Maybe a bored scientist? Most of us would wait a bit longer.

    It sounds to me as if you are giving someone permission to terminate you after a coconut has landed on your head and you have become unconscious.

    Self-abuse? Now there’s an old-fashioned term coming at us from the Dark Ages. I think I heard that one 40 years ago in a church sermon.

    Naomi:

    I had a miscarriage of twins at 6.5 weeks. Those were my babies. I saw them.

    Around Christmas 2008, you were trying to give men 100% of the blame for domestic violence. Now you want to give men 0% choice in whether or not women can murder unborn babies, which some men might be willing to raise on their own.

    Tony:

    Trust me, there are plenty of people around who have more respect for a dog or a cat than they have for a human being.

    This sad state of affairs is yet another product of “Me Syndrome” and the way in which people treat one another.

    Sep 2nd, 2009

42. togret

    Tony, my query was about your reasoning .. in fact I’m possibly more against needless abortions that you, since I believe it may have harmful consequences on the karma attached to the unborn foetus as well as on a heedless mother, and nobody deies that such people exist.

    The problem I see in your reasoning is that you seem to be reasoning that ALL cases are the same: all post conception foetuses are equal to you, while that is simply not the case. Some unwittingly pose a threat to the physical or mental health of the mother, and others are doomed to a short existence filled with suffering,and guaranteed to cause suffering to the parents.

    Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, doctors and nurses are daily faced with the necessity to judge the ‘worth’ of life everyday to people gravely ill, people suffering every moment, and people for whom medical science knows know hope for.

    We pay for test tube babies as a society, we pay for unwanted children, we pay for the effects of the grief of those whose children must be born dead becuase of the archaic laws passed when it was not posisble to diagnose well before birth that a baby has no hope .. life for many is filed with sorrow, and you want to impose one law for all?

    Before you ask, I’m not a greens voter — where do you get these fantasies?

    Sep 2nd, 2009

43. Lorikeet

    Togret:

    “We pay for test tube babies as a society.”

    Does this mean that you think infertile couples should not have access to medical help to have children? If so, I think this is both selfish and wrong.

    I agree that doctors face difficult issues when it comes to people who are gravely ill and in pain. I think the worst of these could be lawyers chasing hearses on behalf of greedy relatives, and hospitals being sued.

    My mother had a baby which died at 8 months’ gestation. Her doctor (who was the Minister for Health at the time) didn’t induce it until full term, but this may have been because he wanted to avoid some of the physical damage to the mother which can coincide with earlier delivery.

    Both the doctor and society could do nothing to prevent the grief that followed. If you lose your baby for any reason, grief follows.

    If you have an abortion, you know that you have deliberately killed your own flesh and blood. If your child has serious abnormalities, I think grief would be ameliorated by the fact it would have had a terrible life.

    SL:

    I’m afraid someone has given you a false perception of abortion in this country. If you don’t want the inconvenience of raising a child, getting an abortion is too easy.

    You cite only 2% of abortions as being due to rape or life issues. That certainly wouldn’t surprise me.

    Your argument supports the “Me Syndrome Mother” and possibly the father of the child shedding responsibility. It doesn’t support morality at all.

    Having a baby isn’t a punishment for having sex. It ought to be the culmination or product of the love between 2 people.

    The whole argument goes much further than women’s rights. I object to the term “foetal-centric”, especially when used by women who are “egocentric” about this matter.

    I also don’t see why a doctor who is totally opposed to abortion should have to refer the woman on to a person who might support it. That isn’t a whole lot different from doing the abortion himself.

    Sep 3rd, 2009

44. red crab

    after reading all the comments and someone who has had personal experiance that would usualy avoid the subject alltogather
    .i would say this its the womans choice
    no male could posibly understand and it would seem that the ppl who comment most on this subject are males who have no understanding of what the think they know .
    i will not comment more on this subject other than to say to the ppl who think they know
    spend a few days in the real world it will do you good .

    Sep 3rd, 2009

45. Tony

    TOGRET

    Togret Says: The problem I see in your reasoning is that you seem to be reasoning that ALL cases are the same: all post conception foetuses are equal to you, while that is simply not the case. Some unwittingly pose a threat to the physical or mental health of the mother,
    I think we’ve covered that. I am not saying that on the very rare occasion that the child does threaten the mothers life, it should not be the decision of the parents.
    The problem is that is rarely the case and the more common occurance is that women terminate thier child from pressure from family or partners. “The me syndrome” which is shown in the numbers.

    This article on monday brings to light how cruel this is an how as a society we have to really have a good look at ourselves.
    19 left to Die
    Bearing in mind this has occured in Queensland where abortion is still illegal except where it threatens a mothers life. The Figures in Victoria are much higher.
    The greens and other extremes claim it is not societies fault, it is the womens right to terminate. (and other ridiculous claims like what would men know etc etc… we’ve all heard the sick rantings)

    In Victoria the answer has been simple. Terminate and all costs and any doctor not making an effective referral will need to be re-trained. The Pro- Death Stand. Terminate at all costs.

    The problems is though that it is societies fault and we have to look to help and provide better choices. Speak to some the medical staff that are effected for life after viewing these acts of total inhumanity.

    Sep 3rd, 2009

46. SL

    “Now you want to give men 0% choice in whether or not women can murder unborn babies, which some men might be willing to raise on their own.”

    This is not about an unwanted child. It is an unwanted pregnancy.

    Until a man experiences the anatomical equivilent of a fourth degree tear in his genitals, until a man experiences nine months of nausea, until a man experiences sore breasts for months on end, until a man experiences permament and sometimes debilitating changes to his body….until this becomes the complusory consequence of an intercourse-induced ejaculation then I fail to see how a man has any right to demand that a woman undergo the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth at his behest.

    While being pregnant with a wanted child mayindeed 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 which has permanent scars;the sickness; the thought of a half-formed foetus-parasite inhabiting one’s womb; and the excruciating hours of labour involved at the end. 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 Government’s or some bloke’s decision to thus comandeer one’s body and life.

    Sep 3rd, 2009

47. paul walter

    Lorikeet, now you are being silly!
    Of course I can’t give someone the right to terminate me if I’m unconcious after being hit on the head with a coconut.
    As to “plenty of people having more respect for a dog or a cat”; its certainly true for me now, after comparing my animals to people responsible for some of the sly, emotive claptrap I’ve read in this thread.

    Sep 3rd, 2009

48. Lorikeet

    When I was 17 years old, my boyfriend wanted to put an engagement ring on my finger in order to have sex. Fortunately I had already checked out how his best mate had treated other females.

    So I asked him what he would do if I became pregnant. He said he would send me to Sydney for an abortion. End of story!

    That was in 1972, when Brisbane was thankfully free of ‘blind eye” abortion clinics. I think women should follow my lead and refuse to have sex with men with a purely selfish agenda who would want to murder their babies.

    I have no idea why the young man and woman in Cairns would want to terminate their own flesh and blood.

    We have excellent access to contraception in this country, but I think it has been the main cause of rampant immorality, selfishness, greed and excessive child-spoiling, to say nothing of disruption of the Age Pyramid.

    I don’t think it is any wonder that we now have more than 30,000 people with HIV/AIDS in this country, or that 1 in 10 people have herpes.

    The idea of a Bill of Responsible Citizenship is really starting to grow on me. If you create a new life, you should have to look after it, or pass it on to a childless couple who will. I think that is pretty fair.

    SL:

    It saddened me to read what you said about an unwanted child being a parasite on your body. How could anyone with any maternal instinct think of another human being in that way?

    Men and women were meant to have children together.

    Paul Walter:

    The only sly emotive claptrap I’ve read here is coming from pro-abortionists.

    I’m sorry you failed to appreciate my little joke about the lonely sperm lying in the petri dish.

    Sep 4th, 2009

49. Lorikeet

    Tony:

    I have some questions about your link.

    Question 1:

    To my knowledge, a scan is done at 19 weeks to thoroughly check the foetus for abnormalities.

    If you agree that severely deformed or disabled babies could be terminated, how are we to avoid mid-term abortions at 20 weeks or later?

    Last night I spoke with the Chaplain I know who used to be a biological scientist. He said he didn’t like mid-term abortions, but supported abortion of foetuses with severe abnormalities.

    Perhaps someone has more up-to-date information than I do, but to my knowledge, you can have chorionic villi sampling at 8 weeks, but it is a risk to the pregnancy that most people wouldn’t want to take. I’m not sure that doctors in the public sector would do it anyway.

    I am trying to add 2+2 here, but I seem to be unable to get 4.

    Question 2:

    What do you propose that doctors do when a mid-term abortion of 20-24 weeks is performed and deemed to be a “failed abortion”, when the baby is born alive and crying?

    I cannot imagine that a 20 week foetus would be born dead in any case, but it might not survive for long. Do you want it given a lethal injection so that it doesn’t suffer? This may sound bad, but I think it would be kinder than just leaving it to die of asphyxiation when it’s lungs are too immature.

    If it only has club feet or a cleft palate, I think the abortion should have been refused.

    Sep 4th, 2009

50. Tony

    LORIKEET:

    One of the amendments put forward by our member in Victoria was that pain killer injections be provided to the child but that was voted down. They offer more to an animal than they would to a child.

    Lorikeet says: If it only has club feet or a cleft palate, I think the abortion should have been refused. I think thats when Doctors should be prosecuted.
    SL Says: This is not about an unwanted child. It is an unwanted pregnancy
    Arent they the same ?

    SL Says: While being pregnant with a wanted child mayindeed be a rewarding experience, for most women to carry an unwanted child to term would be the epitome of degradation and punishment

    The debate here is not about the pros and cons of being a male or female. Men may think that having to pay child maintenance without a say is also a form of degradation and punishment.

    Whatever our sex we have to take responsibilty for our actions and refusing ones responsibility it seems is the catch cry of todays generation. As lorikeet says…its the “all about me age”

    Tony

    Sep 4th, 2009

51. Anne

    Abortions should be legal.
    There are many people that cannot afford to raise children, or are too young.
    Why bring a child into the world if you cannot look after it?
    Abortions are not killing the child, as long as it is done in the earlier stages of pregnancy.

    Sep 4th, 2009

52. Tony

    Anne

    Anne Says: Abortions should be legal

    Anne also says: (obviously hasn’t been reading the thread) Abortions are not killing the child, as long as it is done in the earlier stages of pregnancy.

    So its okay to kill them if you cant afford it, or your too young.
    Then Justify it by saying its not really killing as long as you terminate early.

    How early would that be Anne ?

    Isn’t it sad that the first option is always……Lets kill the child.
    Then they attempt to justify it by whatever means. When really it’s just the “me society” they’ve been brought up in.

    Where are we leading our youth?

    Sep 4th, 2009

53. ken

    tony – it was ever thus and will ever be thus. Your angst is the same angst as our parents had and will be the same angst as our children will have.

    There is no inherent wisdom in only one point of reference

    Sep 4th, 2009

54. SL

    “Men may think that having to pay child maintenance without a say is also a form of degradation and punishment”

    Tony, there’s a way for a man to avoid paying child maintenance. Don’t have intercourse with women. Learn to perform cunniligus (a challenging concept for some men, granted) or become gay.

    I would venture that paying child maintenance is a long way below the “humiliation scale” from what child birth does to a women’s body. The anatomical equivilent of a forth degree tear on a set of male genitals is something that, if it were the outcome of conception for men, would result in abortion clinics springing up on every street corner. And that is just one minor example of the myriad of physical impacts that pregnancy and birth do to a woman. Child maintenance can — and often is — avoidable for men. Urinary incontinence and varicose veins from childbearing are not.

    The reality is that behind the faux tears for widdle unborn babeez, the real reason for the opposition to abortion is about sex. And it is about women having sex. Compulsory birth is punishment for women who have sex. It is about slut-shaming and returning to the good old days when women feared sex — even in marriage. The good old days when sex’s primary purpose was to make babies and please men. The good old days when a woman did not know any better because she could not compare different men’s performances. I suspect that the driver behind calls to remove womens reproductive control is to ensure an insurance policy for sexually insecure men, embarrassed by their sexual ineptitude.

    Sep 5th, 2009

55. SL

    ” I think women should follow my lead and refuse to have sex with men with a purely selfish agenda who would want to murder their babies.”

    Lorikeet, you (somewhat smugly) go on ahead and refuse men sex if that makes you feel good about yourself. I will not stop you. Of course, you are cognisant that there are plenty of women like me who are willing to take your place and share in some quick pleasure with such men.

    Tony — an unwanted pregnancy is very different to an unwanted child. Pregnancy and birth are not akin to having a tooth extraction. If you are more than willing to inflict the anatomical equivelent of the bodily distortion of pregnancy and childbirth injuries on yourself for every conception, you may then be able to have some empathy in determining women’s reproductive rights.

    Like I said, this is really about sex. It is about people’s sexual insecurities and people projecting their insecurities..

    The truth is, women like me – the ones you want to call the “me” generation – quite rightly are demanding our lifetime’s allotment of orgasms without the inconvenience of sore and distended breasts, a bulging belly, a mutilated front passage and a screaming child at the end of it. I just wanna shag for fun. There, I have said it.

    And I know that people like you hate that. If that bothers you, then feel free to burn up about it. You are enraged that someone is having all the fun and dodging the bullet. You want affirmation that the restrictive decisions you have made for yourselves regarding your sexual conduct are valid. You see others’ refusal to behave in the same way as some kind of affront to you.

    And deep, deep down inside you, a little voice is saying “that is not fair. I am missing out. Where’s my fun?”

    Sep 5th, 2009

56. Lorikeet

    Ken:

    I think you are wrong.

    My grandmothers had 10 and 12 children respectively. My mother had 6 children when she only wanted 2. Despite personal hardship, none of these women would ever have considered killing their unborn children to suit their own convenience or financial situation.

    Anne:

    I had 2 children when I was 20. Neither was a planned pregnancy. While it was a terrible struggle in the first few years, neither my husband nor I would have killed the products of our love for purely selfish reasons. Life struggles are character building and, in most instances, hold a family together.

    There is quite a difference between “cannot” and “will not”.

    There is also a choice of allowing others in better circumstances to raise the child you do not want yourself.

    Tony:

    I don’t consider a pain-killing injection to be much of an option unless it is a lethal one. Otherwise the baby would still die an uncomfortable death from asphyxiation as its lungs dried out.

    According to tonight’s news, doctors can now legally use medical and surgical terminations of pregnancies in specified circumstances.

    Too bad no one is willing to crack down on illegal abortions which are much too easily procured by selfish people.

    Too bad no one is willing to teach a reasonable standard of morality that should be part of Family Planning classes.

    Sep 5th, 2009

57. paul walter

    The famous American wit HL Mencken, with the following aphorism.
    “Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, maybe happy”.
    Although I do have a sense that we in the rich West do overdo things, a bit.
    I do have sympathy with the conservative idea that we need to value things and take “others” less for granted and that we are encouraged by consumerism to “self” and its illusory choices a little more than is needed, particularly when scarce (including health) resources we overuse are often in short supply in the third world.
    But ultimately, people are not robots. We are created through our choices and the effort exerted in making them; good or bad. In the end I and I alone must live with the consequences of my decisions
    Like SL, I resent others attempting to impose their wills on me over my head, for no better than the advancement of their own agendas, prejudices and illusions.
    Especially without even an attempt, at thinking through what impact that might have on me. Too much like buying a used car merely on the say so of a used car salesman?
    I shudder at the despicable humiliation of the young Cairns couple, for no better than the satisfaction of the blood-lust of unthinking control-freaks with little understanding of the nature of their own biases.
    Otherwise, they would have applied the mental effort required to acquire Socrates’ insight that “an unconsidered life is hardly worth living”, for that is what happens when people attempt impose values brainwashed into them , therefore unexamined prejudices, on others.
    Most of all when these people would bitterly resent others doing the same to them.
    That they do not realise that, demonstrates how little actual mental effort some have put into formulating unconsidered totalitarian positions, before seeking to impose them on others.

    Sep 5th, 2009

58. ockerguy

    sl, like you i also want to have sex and enjoy orgasm and sex whenever I want it. It is what most people want from puberty on.
    Fortunately I like most people take responsibility for my actions, and refrain from sex unless it is within a committed relationship.
    I also recognise that a child is likely to be conceived as a result of my sexual act. I recognise that if a child is conceived as part of that sex act, it has the same right to a life as I have.
    Therefore i refrain from sex unless I am sure any child who may be conceived is ensured of the same right to life as I am.
    I have ensured the right to life of each child i have, and taking responsibility for their health and education untill they were productive citicizens of this great country

    Sep 5th, 2009

59. Andrew Bartlett

    I’ve wrriten a short new post with a few links to developments in the week since I first wrote this one. It also includes a link to an interview I did with Qld Labor Senator Claire Moore.

    So I’ll close comments on this thread now. I’ll leave to readers to decide for themselves whether or not this thread managed the ‘respectful debate’ I suggested at the end of this post.

    Sep 6th, 2009

1. Twitter Trackbacks for Abortion laws in Queensland [andrewbartlett.com] on Topsy.com - Aug 26th, 2009
2. Updates on Qld abortion law debate - Sep 6th, 2009