Abortion debate (3 Viewers)

[Generator]

Well, it's about time that Fielding came to the table!

Senate fight looms over abortions

Senate fight looms over abortions
By Misha Schubert and David Wroe
October 4, 2005


WOMEN may be made to wait three days after deciding to have an abortion before they can have the operation, if the Family First party has its way.

In its formal policy platform, the social-conservative party declares itself opposed to abortion but stops short of calling for an end to public funding for it.

Instead it demands a greater level of "informed consent" before an abortion, arguing women should have a chance (but no compulsion) to see an ultrasound of the foetus before making a decision.

Family First's call comes as Democrats leader Lyn Allison warned women's reproductive rights were being quietly eroded and could be diminished further if the Government horse-traded with pro-life Nationals senators to get other legislation through the knife-edge Senate.

The Democrats will introduce an amendment to overturn the ban on mifepristone, the medical abortion drug previously known as RU486.

Although the amendment faces likely defeat in the Government-controlled upper house, Senator Allison said she wanted to force abortion into the public debate because "I've seen so much erosion of women's reproductive rights it scares me. "I think it's a very dangerous environment, but not a lot of people are aware it's going on. We need to defend our ground". She cited Government funding for pro-life family planning groups and the refusal by some pharmacists to sell the morning-after pill to younger women as examples of this erosion.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Family First, whose Victorian senator Steve Fielding could hold the balance of power if just one Government senator crosses the floor, also argued women should be given even more comprehensive information on any physical and psychological risks in proceeding with abortion.

"Women should be advised of the high risk of long-term psychological impact of the abortion, including profound and sometimes lasting post-abortion grief and depression," his new party policy states.

"Family First supports the view that women seeking information on abortion be given adequate time in which to consider the advice and information before making a decision to proceed to termination (this could take the form of a 72-hour cooling-off period)."

Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, who is a pro-lifer, said he was encouraged by Family First's position but said the issue was above party politics. He reiterated his vow that he would not horse-trade on abortion, which he said would "diminish the issue".

Senator Allison said most women already waited several days and there was no need to legislate a waiting period. "You don't just walk in off the street and they say, 'Lie down here'."

She said women in France, New Zealand, Sweden, the United States and Britain had access to mifepristone, yet Australian women were denied the choice.

"Abortion in this country is legal, and there is no reason why there should not be another avenue for non-surgical abortion made available to women," she said.

Mifepristone, which can be used to induce abortion up to the second trimester, was banned by the Federal Government to secure the vote of former Tasmanian senator Brian Harradine on the original sale of Telstra in 1996.

Go the Dems.

 

[paper cup]

this, again?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Go the Dems.

Hear hear

...let's hope they pick themselves up again at the next election =/

 

[erawamai]

Hear hear

...let's hope they pick themselves up again at the next election =/

Their leader was in Melbourne yesterday protesting against anti terror laws at the trail of a man on trial for such offences.

I tend to agree with Gerald Henderson.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/gerard-h...ence-is-telling/2005/09/12/1126377253680.html The electorate doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the terror laws. Politically, the democrats stand to loose popularity by seeming 'out of touch' with the mainstream. The mainstream is seriously concerned with domestic terrorism. I believe that the majority of people believe the laws will not apply to them. Tacitly they believe that the laws will only apply to muslims.

Much of this is underlined with racism and the concept of 'the other'...this also feeds back into the notion that muslim people are not suited to liberal democracy.

I believe people are more suspicious of muslim people than any other minority group in Australian history.

 

[katie_tully]

What in the hell has happened to this debate.

 

[erawamai]

What in the hell has happened to this debate.

Kangaroo posted.

 

[mzkitkat]

anyone know if parental consent is required for abortions if ur under 18? (in NSW)

 

[erawamai]

anyone know if parental consent is required for abortions if ur under 18? (in NSW)

no....................if u are over 14...i think

 

[Rafy]

there are no statutes regarding abortion in NSW are there? Its all based on case law?

 

[erawamai]

there are no statutes regarding abortion in NSW are there? Its all based on case law?

The current law in relation to abortion in NSW is contained within statute and common law. Section 82 of the Crimes Act NSW makes it an offence for a woman to unlawfully administer herself with a drug or use any instrument or other means with intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 10 years gaol. Section 83 makes it an offence for any other person to unlawfully administer a drug or cause a pregnant woman to take a drug or use any instrument with the intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 5 years gaol. In 1971 District Court Judge Levine in the case of Wald found that there was no wrongdoing if the miscarriage was procured on the basis that there was an honest and reasonable belief that the termination of the pregnancy was needed in order to protect the pregnant women from serious danger to her mental or physical health. This danger presented by the procedure must not be out of proportion to the danger which is intended to be averted. In the case of CES v Superclinics President Kirby (as he was then) expanded the scope of the danger to the pregnant women’s health to after the birth of the child as well as allowing the consideration of economic and social circumstances affecting the health of the pregnant woman.

-------------

 

[Generator]

Cash offer as Abbott moves to reduce abortions

*shakes head*

Costs associated with pregnancy aside, this isn't the best suggestion for Abbott, a minister largely unable to separate himself from his religion when performing his ministerial duties, to be considering. That it has surfaced now, when the drug RU486 is being discussed in an informal sense, is also quite interesting, not to mention that it almost heralds a renewal of the abortion debate at a time of great political concern for the federal government given its IR reforms (as important as the terrorism bill may be, most people would be more concerned for their job or their small business than their rights given that they aren't associated with those dirty terrorists and as such have nothing to worry about).

Edit: A long sentence. Cool.

 

[katie_tully]

post.economics.harvard.edu/ faculty/barro/bw/bw99_09_27.pdf

I'll see if I can locate the paper's written by the two doctors.
Interesting.

 

[CoffeeBeans]

Seriously, it is beyond my comprehension how people percieve abortion.
It bewilders me even more that people put it down to irresponsible women not having protected sex, considering women with their tubes tied have often become pregnant.
It's further beyond my grasp as to why people have the audacity to say who is right and who is wrong when it comes to their own body, and their own life.
What really confuses me is that some people are under the impression their views are more correct than others, on a topic that, unless faced with this particular situation, does not concern them.

You don't believe in abortion? Good. Don't have one.
Don't dare criticise those who do, or feel that it is any of your business as to why people choose to have an abortion.
Definately do not feel you have the right to assume people who have an abortion are doing it lightly, and do not consider all the consequences.

well said.!

 

[Phanatical]

But it's not Just their own body anymore. For all intents and purposes, abortion deals with three lives. The father, the mother, and (most importantly) the child. Pro-lifers don't encourage the right to life because they want to "oppress" women or something like that. They encourage the right to life because they believe that the unborn child Is a life that deserves the right to reach its potential as a living being.

Personally, I look at the issue from two standpoints - Sanctity of Life, and Quality of Life. I sincerely believe in the right for the unborn child to achieve his or her potential. But I also believe that we must measure quality of life issues against this. If there are health risks involved in the pregnancy, then the child should be terminated as early as possible. If the child is to be born as a product of rape or such, then the mother should have the option to abort the Child, lest he or she carry the stigma of being the product of rape (and the physical reminder of that rape to the mother). These sorts of issues are also important to consider, because I'll be damned if I'm gonna tell a rape victim that sorry, we love you and all, but you're carrying this child to term or else.

If we (society + parents) cannot guarantee a reasonable quality of life, then we have no right to be even conceiving children, much less raising them. That's why we should be focusing on avoiding the pregnancies altogether, and specifically ensuring that people are not engaging in any activity that can result in pregnancy. The fact that there are so many abortions in our society is not symptomatic of women's rights, as much as it is symptomatic of a society of people who do not take responsibility for their own actions. In many of these abortion cases, we shouldn't be asking "Should women be allowed to have an abortion", but rather "Why the hell did we allow these women to get pregnant in the first place".

 

[ogmzergrush]

But it's not Just their own body anymore. For all intents and purposes, abortion deals with three lives. The father, the mother, and (most importantly) the child. Pro-lifers don't encourage the right to life because they want to "oppress" women or something like that. They encourage the right to life because they believe that the unborn child Is a life that deserves the right to reach its potential as a living being.

Man, I thought pro-life was a stretch already encompassing a soon-to-be baby, but now the father gets in on the act too?

Personally, I look at the issue from two standpoints - Sanctity of Life, and Quality of Life. I sincerely believe in the right for the unborn child to achieve his or her potential. But I also believe that we must measure quality of life issues against this. If there are health risks involved in the pregnancy, then the child should be terminated as early as possible. If the child is to be born as a product of rape or such, then the mother should have the option to abort the Child, lest he or she carry the stigma of being the product of rape (and the physical reminder of that rape to the mother). These sorts of issues are also important to consider, because I'll be damned if I'm gonna tell a rape victim that sorry, we love you and all, but you're carrying this child to term or else.

If we (society + parents) cannot guarantee a reasonable quality of life, then we have no right to be even conceiving children, much less raising them. That's why we should be focusing on avoiding the pregnancies altogether, and specifically ensuring that people are not engaging in any activity that can result in pregnancy. The fact that there are so many abortions in our society is not symptomatic of women's rights, as much as it is symptomatic of a society of people who do not take responsibility for their own actions. In many of these abortion cases, we shouldn't be asking "Should women be allowed to have an abortion", but rather "Why the hell did we allow these women to get pregnant in the first place".

I wonder if there's some way to (safely) remove penises and keep them on ice. Then, when a man has found someone he feels is an appropriate partner for sexual relations, they go to the doctor and fill out some forms. The forms are processed and, if the results indicate that they are likely to copulate responsibly, the penis is reattached! I think I solved it, and it sounds much more humane than all this murder talk!

 

[loquasagacious]

Everyone (except Katie) seems to be missing something here, pro-choice is the middle-ground (in which people individually weigh up issues like those Phanatical raises). The extremist positions are pro-life (no abortions) and pro-abort every foetus.

 

[katie_tully]

Oh. my. god.

 

[erawamai]

RU486 likely to get up

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...r-abortion-pill/2005/11/17/1132016927182.html

 

[katie_tully]

It would be so awesome if they actually legalised that. So long as it wasn't abused...

But I remember the furore caused when they made the pill available over the counter at pharmacies.

Deary me, are we going back to the dark ages of oppressive religious rule

 

[gerhard]

it blows my mind that they actually legislated against it

a woman is allowed to have an abortion, but a drug that would make abortions safer for women is banned?