Abortion debate (1 Viewer)

Abortion debate

  • Abortion illegalised

    Votes: 51 19.8%
  • Tougher laws

    Votes: 35 13.6%
  • Keep current laws

    Votes: 155 60.1%
  • don't care

    Votes: 17 6.6%

  • Total voters
    258
Status
Not open for further replies.

ariande

The Don
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
201
Location
Neutral Bay
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
erawamai said:
A very small number. The nature of the abortion procedure is not a nice experience. I doubt women would use it as a contraceptive unless of course you listen to old men who make suggest the procedure is easy and painless. It's not as easy or painless as taking a panadol.



Just making some inferences for you. Or at least to show you the implications of your words. I was aware that you said 'I' however I was challenging you on your view that women who are raped should be allowed to abort. Which seems to be in contradiction with your personal views.
Well some people have found it hard to understand why I don't want to make abortion illegal, given how strongly I oppose it for myself. I just believe that you cannot stop people, if abortion was illegal, then the number of backyard abortions would increase which is highly dangerous... and also, I still hold that people should be free to choose something like that. I would like it if it was not a necessity in the world, but I cannot change the minds of everyone.
 

ariande

The Don
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
201
Location
Neutral Bay
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
A question I pose to those that are anti abortion, how do you feel about the Morning After Pill? Do you hold it in the same league?
 

james_chappo

Neurotic To The Bone
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
375
Location
Castle Hill, Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
She said she can understand why women who are raped would want to have abortions - she never specified that she agreed with it!
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp01.htm#unlaw

Abortion Law in this country. I won't bother taking out segments to support my argument...oh except this one.

In New South Wales, an important District Court ruling in 1971 ('the Levine ruling') established that an abortion would be lawful in that State if there was 'any economic, social or medical ground or reason' upon which a doctor could base an honest and reasonable belief that an abortion was required to avoid a 'serious danger to the pregnant woman's life or to her physical or mental health.' That danger might arise at any time during the pregnancy. The Levine ruling was based on the statement of the law in Victoria in the Menhennitt ruling, but was in the result somewhat more liberal. Like the Menhennitt ruling, the Levine ruling apparently permit an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Unlike the Menhennitt ruling, however, the Levine ruling seems to impose a requirement that an abortion be performed by a medical practitioner in order to be lawful.
Oh but Katie, economic distress isn't a good enough excuse to murder a child.

The question of when, if ever, performing an abortion will be morally justified is one that endlessly consumes many philosophers, theologians, feminists, social scientists and legal commentators. It is also a question that a large number of Australian women address every day in a more applied sense: when they are making an actual decision about whether to continue an unplanned pregnancy. Like many other medical and moral decisions that people make, each woman's abortion decision is made in the context of complex-and sometimes conflicting-personal and societal values. These values influence and inform the decisions that individual women make about abortion, and these values are in turn influenced and informed by those decisions.
You mean...I can't just rock up and have an abortion because I don't feel like having a kid that day? Damnit. :rolleyes:

Statutory provisions in every State and Territory-except now Western Australia-make it a crime 'unlawfully' to administer any poison or noxious thing, or use any instrument or other means, with intent to procure miscarriage. The wording of these statutory provisions is based directly on legislation enacted in England in the nineteenth century. The crime of 'unlawful abortion' may be committed by the pregnant woman herself (except in the Northern Territory), by the person performing the abortion, or by anyone else who assists.

In Western Australia, the recent changes to the law repealed the old statutory provisions establishing the crime of 'unlawful abortion' and replaced them with a differently worded provision. This new provision makes it unlawful to perform an abortion unless it is justified under Western Australia's health legislation. This new offence of 'unlawful abortion' may only be committed by the person(s) involved in performing the abortion.

In any State and Territory, the statutory provisions that prohibit 'unlawful abortion' can apply to an abortion performed at any stage of pregnancy. The legal test for when an abortion is not unlawful-and therefore permitted-is different in each State and Territory of Australia
Basically monkeys, it already is illegal to have an abortion unless you provide reasons why the pregnancy will impact harmfully on your physically, social, economic and mental well being.

Two Australian States, Victoria and South Australia, have legislation that make it a crime to act with intent to destroy 'a child capable of being born alive' before it has an existence independent of its mother, unless the act is done in good faith solely to preserve the mother's life.(172) Evidence that the woman in question had been pregnant for 28 weeks or more is considered to be prima facie proof that she was carrying 'a child capable of being born alive'. The penalty for committing child destruction is ten years' imprisonment in Victoria and life imprisonment in South Australia.
Etcetera, etcetera.

The Australian equivalents of the English child destruction offence therefore might protect foetuses as early in pregnancy as 22-23 weeks. This is the very earliest point at which foetal lung development could sustain breathing, with the aid of a ventilator. This boundary is unlikely to be pushed back by medicine in the foreseeable future
Requiring the mothers well being for the health of the potential child. Oh but you cannot give the mothers well being precedence over the well being of a foetus that depends on the mother for life!

Under Australian law a foetus in utero cannot be the victim of any kind of homicide, regardless of the stage of pregnancy at which it is killed.(189) A foetus can only be the victim of murder or manslaughter if it is born in a living state. For these purposes, a child is born in a living state when it-but not necessarily the umbilical cord, placental tissue or afterbirth-is completely extruded from the pregnant woman's body.(190) Except in the Australian Capital Territory, and in New South Wales for murder prosecutions, a child need not have breathed to be considered born alive. Nor is it necessary that the child be viable in the sense that it has the capacity to stay alive.(191) A functioning heart is probably sufficient.(192) Birth includes surgical removal of the child from its mother, as in the case of birth by Caesarean section, as well as vaginal delivery.

Thus where a foetus is killed in utero in the course of an abortion there can be no prosecution for homicide.(193) The legal situation is different, however, where an abortion does not produce a dead foetus. The law of homicide may apply if the foetus is born alive according to the above definitions, but then dies as a result of its prematurity.(194) Authorities for this under English common law are the old cases R v. West (195) (which involved a murder prosecution) and R v. Senior (196) (which involved a manslaughter prosecution). A similar result was reached in a more recent case involving a manslaughter prosecution under the Queensland Criminal Code, R v. Castles.(197) In that case, the accused, who lacked medical qualifications, had attempted to abort a pregnancy of between 20 and 24 weeks by injecting warm water into her uterus. Two days later the pregnant woman gave birth to a child who apparently had breathed before dying two hours later. At the commencement of the trial, Lucas J of the Supreme Court of Queensland stated that although this was a 'most unusual indictment for manslaughter,' it was nonetheless one in which a verdict of guilty would have been open on the evidence given at the committal proceedings. The evidence subsequently presented to the court, however, introduced a reasonable doubt as to whether the child had in fact been born alive. Accordingly, Lucas J stated that the case should not go to the jury. He also expressed the view that it would have been more appropriate to have charged the accused with the crime of unlawful abortion, under section 224 of the Queensland Criminal Code.
You mean to say that before 20 weeks you're not actually murdering a child?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K

katie_tully

Guest
Serius said:
you are the second thickest, most stuborn person i have ever come into contact with. Read back what you have previously posted you foolish woman.



You are defining a human as something that can breath, walk and think independantly. I warned you to be careful what you say and yet you fail to either realise your mistake or see what is wrong with your post! You have made a clearly descriminatory definition of life! Wholy fuck you self obsorbed bitch did you not realise that one can live without walking by themselves? Do you realise some people need assitance breathing? How about i dub thee disability-hater - slayer of all those who cannot walk or breathe on their own!
i can see it now! Killing someone who is disabled is not murder, it is merely abortion!


Perhaps you should look up the definition of life yourself and see what it is , because you are way off the mark.
i felt it apropriate to put in an example so you atleast have the chance of connecting your mind back with reality. Fuck you are almost as thick as a brain dead hobo in the gutter! YES I REALISED THAT A MINORITY OF MEDICAL-ONLY ABORTIONS OCCUR AFTER 14 WEEKS! i would have thought my previous post made it quite clear. You are obviously diluded in your own little world, Yeah guess what dumbass? you made a mistake and i picked up on it. You then tried to dumb down the fact that abortions occur when the baby is a fetus and NOT ONLY JUST FOR MEDICAL REASONS.

WHOLLY LIVING SHIT YOU ARE ONE MENTALLY ILL, DESCRIMINATING, OBTUSE FOOL

seek help before you harm yourself- or more importantly -others
Hold on. What?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
WHOLY fuck that's a snap and a half.

Edit: The more I look at that the funnier it gets. Here's you being lectured on discriminating Katie, and Jesus himself is putting shit on the homeless, and using braindead as an insult :(
 
Last edited:
K

katie_tully

Guest
There is a hole in my head where I scratch everytime I read his posts. Perhaps he is infering I am braindead from the hole.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Serius said:
You are defining a human as something that can breath, walk and think independantly. I warned you to be careful what you say and yet you fail to either realise your mistake or see what is wrong with your post! You have made a clearly descriminatory definition of life! Wholy fuck you self obsorbed bitch did you not realise that one can live without walking by themselves? Do you realise some people need assitance breathing? How about i dub thee disability-hater - slayer of all those who cannot walk or breathe on their own!
i can see it now! Killing someone who is disabled is not murder, it is merely abortion!
Awesome quality of life. :rolleyes:
 

Spirits

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
119
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
ariande said:
The only thing that I would actively oppose is women who use abortion as a form of contraception, as I believe this to be morally and ethically wrong.
I agree with Ariande.

Some people do use contraception but still fall pregnant because the condom breaks etc. However, everyone knows that condoms have a 5% - 7% failure rate which means that on average the condom will break once every 20 times you have sex. So its no excuse to not use two or three forms of contraception simultaneously. People shouldn't be getting abortions simply because they used a condom only and it broke.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Spirits said:
Some people do use contraception but still fall pregnant because the condom breaks etc. However, everyone knows that condoms have a 5% - 7% failure rate which means that on average the condom will break once every 20 times you have sex. So its no excuse to not use two or three forms of contraception simultaneously. People shouldn't be getting abortions simply because they used a condom only and it broke.
What?

2-3 forms of contraception simultaneously? Like what?
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
the condom and correct use of the pill aught to do it.

i would be calling it destiny if you managed to get pregnant whilst on the pill as it is[assuming you use it correctly] it doesnt have a 100% effective rating because it is rated on "average use" which is how often an average person would make mistakes hence get pregnant. "Perfect use" Which is unrealistic to expect, but easy to do if you are of decent inteligience has a near perfect rating, not 100% i assume so that it takes into account freak accidents.
 

erawamai

Retired. Gone fishing.
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,456
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
ogmzergrush said:
male condom, floam and ABSTINENCE!

If you manage to get pregnant with that combination, we'll call it destiny :)

ah this thread is becoming light comedy.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
erawamai said:
ah this thread is becoming light comedy.
I've made my serious contribution, and I haven't noticed anyone bring anything new to the table for a bit, so I decided it was time :)

On a serious note though, if anyone wants to give us something new to talk about, I'll go back to being sensible.
 

erawamai

Retired. Gone fishing.
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,456
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
I think a number of people have contributed quite seriously. It's just that serius's posts can be a bit comedic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top