Abortion debate (3 Viewers)

[Serius]

I think I'll add Serius to my ignore list. His every post angers me, but what angers me more is his self righteous attitude. After his initial post I have lost any respect I may have had for him as a forum poster, but I definately have no respect for him as a person.
Maybe I'll take some deep breaths before I deconstruct your argument...again.

once again a worthless post by katie which adds nothing to the conversation.

erawamai: yeah i understand your consern about that logic... the truth is i am really not sure about the whole rape issue morally. I also hold your ideals in that the child is part of the mother aswell so she would be aborting her own child. The other side is that an illegal activity took place to produce this child.... it would need alot of thought to make an ideal system where everything is as morally right as it can be.

Xayma: yeah it might just be wa group of cells, but it does have the potential to grow into a folly developed person.... one of the main flaws in this debate is we havent talked about what a human is. Katie brushed past the topic which gave me the impression she thought that it was ok to kill an embryo but not ok to kill a fetus... she then said a fetus is after 12 weeks.... but her facts said that normally abortions happen up to 14 weeks and only a small number happen after 14 weeks.

Phantical: i think you have hit the nail on the said truth. that is that ideally an abortion should only happen as an exception [ e.g rape, medical reason] but in practise abortions are a necessary evil surrounding the issue of the quality of life the child would have.

Phanatical, you normally are a big advocate of males rights, how do you feel about giving males an equal say in the choice to abort a baby? I outlined what i thought should happen in my previous post, how do you feel the situation should be handled?

 

[katie_tully]

You normally are a big advocate of males rights, how do you feel about giving males an equal say in the choice to abort a baby? I outlined what i thought should happen in my previous post, how do you feel the situation should be handled?

When you develop a womb, carry a baby for 9 months and actually have a child, then, and maybe only then can you debate what rights women have to in relation to their bodies.

 

[katie_tully]

yeah theres alot of problems in the world that need solving. Its not a good thing for the mother to resent having a child and being emotionally unstable about it... but from the fathers prespective it is not fair that he has no say in regards to a consequence that they are both legally responable for. Thie system i have come up with is far from perfectr. In fact it is pretty shit, but it does have some stengths that our current system does not have and i think it would be a step in the right direction.
iam not exactly the kind of person who makes up new laws and systems and things but i tried to lay out an idea previously which i think would work better than what we currently have

So what happens when the woman wants to have a child but the male doesn't, therefore she ends up being a single mother raising a child whose father didn't want it?

Oh the double standards!

 

[loquasagacious]

I agree, whilst I believe that it is better (for the relationship - assuming there is one) if the matter is discussed ultimately the decision is the womens alone. It is afterall her who will be affected more than any other.

 

[Serius]

When you develop a womb, carry a baby for 9 months and actually have a child, then, and maybe only then can you debate what rights women have to in relation to their bodies.

oh my the ever powerful "you cant do it so you have no say" argument... how can i come back against that one?

how about we start a new debate. it can be called black women aborting. Now you katie better stay out of this arguement as you are not black. When you have lived your whole life as a minority, suffered riddicule and descrimination then and only then can you partisipate in the arguement

seriously though why exclude people from the arguement just because they are not male? the thing is it isnt about the womans body its about the baby inside it. You still havent addressed the issues i raised with your own post. the supposed "facts" by your own definition, abortion is killing a human. You said yourself that at 12 weeks an embryo is developing into a fetus. Your data said that a vast proportion of of abortions took place before 14 weeks.

interesting that. You define a fetus as after 12 weeks and abortions happen up to 14 weeks? that means there is a 2 week window in which by your own definition a child is being killed. Now alot of us dont agree with your definition so for many of us we beleive that babies lives are being taken well before your 14 week deadline.\, not just masses of tissue being exstracted by lives taken.

So what happens when the woman wants to have a child but the male doesn't, therefore she ends up being a single mother raising a child whose father didn't want it?

Oh the double standards!

yeah thats pretty much the deal, if the mother wants a child and the father doesnt, then she can raise it by itself without any help from the father. It isnt double standards because if you had read my posts, the same deal happens if the male wants the baby and the female wants to abort.

If anything it would favour the females as when they dont want the baby they get a healthy compensation of like $20 000 where as if the female wants the baby and the male doesnt, the male doesnt get paid anything

 

[katie_tully]

If you had bothered not being such a fucking moron, you would have read that statistically more abortions happen between 8-12 weeks, and rarely do they go up until 14 weeks.
Oh lardy dar, a 2 week window. Geez, we're killing a human! That must mean the embryo managed to develop motor neurone skills, breathing, walking, thinking, living without reliance on its mother....ALL IN TWO WEEKS! Holy crap, I dub thee super embryo.

 

[musik_junky]

Serius, give it up man, you are getting owned.

NO to the contrary he is actually winning the argument. Isn't it just illogical to put the financial status of the mother (money) above the LIFE of the child? Money over Life? This is just ridiculous!

 

[erawamai]

NO to the contrary he is actually winning the argument. Isn't it just illogical to put the financial status of the mother (money) above the LIFE of the child? Money over Life? This is just ridiculous!

I'm sorry I'm just going to have to say it again.

You support the women getting comepensation for a wrongful birth. But you do not think economic factors are valid for an abortion.

How is it that economic factors are not relevant before birth but relevant after? How can if be consistent to not allow economic factors to be relevant to whether a person should be allowed to terminate BUT relevant after the birth of the child when the court determines the economic cost of raising the child.

In both situations we are measuring the cost of raising the child. It seems very illogical to say it is not relevant beforehand but relevant afterwards.

 

[Generator]

NO to the contrary he is actually winning the argument. Isn't it just illogical to put the financial status of the mother (money) above the LIFE of the child? Money over Life? This is just ridiculous!

He dismisses the central tenet (that it's an issue regarding a woman's reproductive rights) and his language leaves much to be desired (I refer you to his initial post and his blatant disrepect for all women). He's hardly winning the argument, rather he's just off in la la land and posting under the assumption that his twisted rationalisations are in some way furthering his stance.

 

[azzie]

i think a woman's body is her own thing to do with as she wishes. i'm pro abortion up to the middle of second trimester, i dont believe things like crowning and such should be legal.
that being said, if you've had sex, the condom broke or you've been raped etc you'd have to be a bit silly not to have taken the morning after pill as a precaution. i know that in hospitals, rape victims are given the choice by a doctor if they want to take the morning after pill, and you can get them from pharmacies and such.
the only other real reason that that i'd see as a reason for abortion would be if the child's or mother's lives would be endagered, which can usually be seen though ultrasound within the second trimester.
as for things such as down syndrome, and having worked with such children, i would seriously consider abortion in that situation for the quality of life for the child- i'd feel so sorry and helpless for that child- if detected early (which it can be) i could understand why a woman would want to terminate the pregnancy.
with all this, if you've just changed your mind and now dont want to have a baby, i'd seriously question why the woman hasnt thought through the decision of having a child and the consequences of it.

 

[erawamai]

I think most abortions are early. Not many occur late.

 

[musik_junky]

Why is it illogical to put the financial status of the mother (money) above the life of the child?

umm...is this even a question?

By that definition a cancer is life, therefore it should be illegal to have them removed from people.

Damage, you are only embarrassing yourself by comparing a potential human life to cancer. You quite clearly take life for granted.

Think about it you retard.

Only a person who is losing the argument would resort to such tactics as personally insulting her/his opponent.

You're one of those fucking pro life people aren't you.

No, for the record I am NOT. I don't believe that life is a gift from God, infact I dont even believe in God. I am just using common sense. You don't have to be a Christian or a Jew - u just have to be a normal human being. Everyone wants to live, infact i'm sure you and Erawamai want to live too. How would you like your life to be sacrificied for someone else's financial status?

 

[musik_junky]

You support the women getting comepensation for a wrongful birth. But you do not think economic factors are valid for an abortion.

Erawamai, think about it. You are NOT giving an appropriate analogy. You are saying that a woman should be able to get an abortion for economic reasons. This will result in the death of the foetus. How is this related to a doctor compensating a mother? One will result in the death of the child, the other will result in money to the mother. A more appropriate suggestion would be for the government to give the first mother money to raise her child. This will result in a living foetus and money to the mother...just like the doctor giving compensation. Your example, however, will result in a dead foetus and no compensation to the mother.

 

[Serius]

i guess the strongest way to describe my position is pro-choice but anti-abortion. i recognise that abortions are necessary in some cases but iam anti-aboriton in that i dont think they should occur when there is not a medical emergency or some sort of ethical issue. Iam pro-choice in that i think the father should also have a decission in the fate of his child. This would result in less abortions and overall infringe on peoples rights less

I think most abortions are early. Not many occur late.

it depends on your definition of early and late. These facts so thoughtfully provided by katie_tully should help.

The medical definition of ‘abortion’ is the expulsion or removal of a fetus from the uterus.5 Abortion can be spontaneous, or it may be induced. The former is more commonly referred to as ‘miscarriage’, and it is the latter—that is, medically induced abortion—and the circumstances in which it takes place, which is the focus of public debate (and of this brief). Medically induced abortion is also referred to as ‘termination of pregnancy’. The terms ‘abortion’ and ‘termination of pregnancy’ will be used interchangeably throughout this brief.
The most common type of induced abortion is a surgical procedure known as a suction curette. This procedure—which usually takes about 15 minutes—involves the removal of the lining and the contents of the uterus (the fetus and placental tissue) by applying suction to the inside of the uterus with a small plastic tube.6 Abortions performed later in pregnancy involve different kinds of procedures, depending on the stage of gestation and the reason for which the abortion is being performed.7
As with all surgical procedures, pregnancy termination is not without risk. However, suction curettage is a simple and low risk procedure for women to undergo when performed between 7 and 12 weeks of pregnancy.8 The available data suggest that it is also overwhelmingly safe: in South Australia—which, as we discuss below, is the only Australian jurisdiction where comprehensive data on abortions are published—over the last decade, on average less than 1 per cent of women who had abortions experienced complications (and in fact, the proportion of reported complications has decreased steadily: from 1 per cent in 1994, to 0.4 per cent in 2002).

The total numbers of Medicare claims processed for the two MBS items which may result in an abortive outcome in each year over the last decade (1995–2004) are shown in Figure 1. The average number of Medicare-funded abortive procedures in the years 1995 to 2004 was approximately 75 700. As Figure 1 shows, in six out of the last ten years, the number of Medicare claims processed for procedures which may have resulted in an abortive outcome has decreased.

The South Australian data is sometimes used to calculate estimates of national abortion rates. For example, in 2002 there were 5417 abortions notified in South Australia, which equals approximately 17.2 pregnancy terminations for every 1000 women aged between 15 and 44 years.42 If this rate were replicated in the total Australian population of women aged 15–44 years (the so-called ‘fertile age range’) for the same time period, there would have been approximately 73 300 abortions in Australia in 2002.

In the light of current debate on ‘late-term’ abortions,47 the South Australian data on the gestational age at which pregnancies are terminated is particularly useful. It shows that in the years 1994–2002, the vast majority of abortions performed in South Australia took place before 14 weeks gestation, and that only a very small proportion (less than 2 per cent) took place at or after 20 weeks.

Now Katie thoughtfully provided the definition of a fetus for us:

At 12 weeks the embyro becomes a foetus

Now if your definition of an EARLY abortion is before 12 weeks, and a late abortion being after 12 weeks [ when the embryo has developed into a fetus] than a large proportion of abortions occur late. Many people feel that aborting a fetus is wrong as it at that stage develops many human characteristics. If by late abortions you mean after 14 weeks, very few abortions occur then. Abortions have been known to occur well into the second tri-mester however. My neighbourgh was recently asked if she would like an abortion, however she went through with the pregnancy and gave birth to a healthy downe syndrome child.

I agree, whilst I believe that it is better (for the relationship - assuming there is one) if the matter is discussed ultimately the decision is the womens alone. It is afterall her who will be affected more than any other.

now this is an example of a decent arguement. I agree that men should be given infuence in the process. I dissagree that you beleive it is ultimately the womans decision, but i cannot argue against you when you are simply stating what you beleive.]

If you had bothered not being such a fucking moron, you would have read that statistically more abortions happen between 8-12 weeks, and rarely do they go up until 14 weeks. Oh lardy dar, a 2 week window. Geez, we're killing a human! That must mean the embryo managed to develop motor neurone skills, breathing, walking, thinking, living without reliance on its mother....ALL IN TWO WEEKS! Holy crap, I dub thee super embryo.

err no, it only said that the easyer suction form of abortion is used then. It actually said the majority of abortions occur up to 14 weeks. Only a minority occur after 14 weeks.
Katie i warn you not to put your own definition of life onto the beleifs of others. My elderly grandmother has difficulty walking and you are suggesting people with these sorts of disabilities are not living human beings. be very careful what you say.

I'm sorry I'm just going to have to say it again.

You support the women getting comepensation for a wrongful birth. But you do not think economic factors are valid for an abortion.

How is it that economic factors are not relevant before birth but relevant after? How can if be consistent to not allow economic factors to be relevant to whether a person should be allowed to terminate BUT relevant after the birth of the child when the court determines the economic cost of raising the child.

In both situations we are measuring the cost of raising the child. It seems very illogical to say it is not relevant beforehand but relevant afterwards.

ecconomic factors are relevant but they should not have as much influence as they do today. It is a joke to suggest that people living in australia would not have the ecconomic ability to support a child. The idea of compensating for pregnancy is not to do with the child but because the woman will have difficulty working whilst pregnant and should be compensated for being out of work to carry a child she doesnt want. the other issue is to try and disscourage backyard abortions that went on before abortions were legal.

Azzie i think we have similar thought processes but have arrived at different conclusions. overal i agree with you in that in some cases abortions should be allowed. I dont like aboritons being used as emergency contraceptive as i agree that they must be daft not to have the morning after pill. i dont have an opinion on aborting disabled children yet because it is a tough issue to deal with. You may think it is the womans decission because you are a woman? do you not think that the man should have some sort of imput into thr decission? You would probably be the type to talk it over regardless but for the girls who dont i think legistlation needs to ensure the male has an imput into the process or atleast knows whats going on

 

[Kittycat]

We're all aware of Australia's scungier peoples- supre whores, westies and such.

It is for these sorts of people that abortion exists, for not only are they most susceptible to unwanted pregnancy, they would spawn only another supre whore, westie etc.

Abolishing abortion would see our great country overrun by the less-desirable people our society has to offer.

excuse me but what is wrong with westies? Can some one explain to me why 'westies' are so 'undesirable'? Why do people think that they are scroungier?

 

[Kittycat]

The stereotypical single-mother living in a housing commission, with an indescribably ugly face that looks about 100 years older than it is.

Abortion is not used by these people, they just keep adding to the ammount of kids that they have.

How do you know that the don't use abortion?
ah, love the stereotypes, despite how far off from reality they are.

 

[Generator]

excuse me but what is wrong with westies? Can some one explain to me why 'westies' are so 'undesirable'? Why do people think that they are scroungier?

---

ah, love the stereotypes, despite how far off from reality they are.

You're quite thick, aren't you? They were both referring to the stereotype, not all who happen to live in the west. This may surprise you, but even though onew may refer to a stereotype, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are of the belief that it actually exists, even though there is always some element of truth in each stereotype. Surely you are aware of argumentative embellishments (or hyperbole), or would that be hoping for too much?

 

[erawamai]

The stereotypical single-mother living in a housing commission, with an indescribably ugly face that looks about 100 years older than it is.

Abortion is not used by these people, they just keep adding to the ammount of kids that they have.

...and thats why they live out there. Lotsa babies keep you poor.

Hence abortion most often used by the elite or majority aspirationals. John Howard's demographic heartland.

 

[erawamai]

You're quite thick, aren't you? They were both referring to the stereotype, not all who happen to live in the west. This may surprise you, but even though onew may refer to a stereotype, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are of the belief that it actually exists, even though there is always some element of truth in each stereotype. Surely you are aware of argumentative embellishments (or hyperbole), or would that be hoping for too much?

I don't think he is. His views on race perhaps serve to illustrate.

 

[Generator]

I don't think he is. His views on race perhaps serve to illustrate.

I'm not so sure. To me, his statements have always seemed inflammatory rather than impassioned, but maybe that's because I have just been hoping for the best and ignoring what is actually on offer.

Leetom, though, has aways been one for grand statements and confronting imagery.