Australian Politics Forum - The child's voice

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The child's voice
Reply #45 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 2:33pm

The last thing we want is a bureacracy interfering with each and every decision. A maximum gestational age with allowances for the more extreme circumstances is sufficient.

and life is priceles.

In theory yes, in practice no.

Many couples eagerly wait to adopt babies.

Another couple's desire to adopt is completely irrelevant to this issue. You say you want an advicate for the child, which is understandable, but trying to bring in the interests of other people like this is just wrong.

Abortion - should it be legal?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172285897

ABORTION: 'strings attached' to foreign aid

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179301606/0#0

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:16pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

cautious connie Full Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 215	Re: The child's voice Reply #46 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:09pm Someoen else suggested adoptive parents. I don't know who should advocate for the child in the decision but i think someone should. They can't speak for themselves and a mother who wants to abort them cannot speak for them i don't think, unless perhaps it is an instance of severe disability or some such.
Back to top	IP Logged

Classic Liberal

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 769
sydney
Gender: male

Re: The child's voice
Reply #47 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:17pm

there is an easier way.

blanket no abortion except when the baby is forming outside the whomb where it would have no chance of survival.

when we opperate on syamese twins we dont value one life over the other, we try to save both.

if there are complications for the mother her life should be saved if possible but not at the expense of the mother, and visa versa, no human life is worth more than another.

anyway my point is this, abortion is murder, there is no other way of seeing it. There are babies who have been born at 22 weeks and survived as humans, yet other babies even older and "more human" than this are aborted every day.

every baby killed in an abortion has hands and feet, every baby has a beating heart, these are human beings, dependent on their mother but they are not physically their mother. When a mother chooses to kill her baby she is killing, why is this different to any other type of killing?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The child's voice
Reply #48 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:26pm

There are babies who have been born at 22 weeks and survived as humans

I think some of the reporting on these cases in the mainstream media is misleading. At least, a pediatrician I talked to about it thought so.

when we opperate on syamese twins we dont value one life over the other, we try to save bo

Often it is to kill one I think.

every baby killed in an abortion has hands and feet, every baby has a beating heart

Wrong, unless you are just playing semantics with the definition of a baby.

When a mother chooses to kill her baby she is killing, why is this different to any other type of killing?

It is legal and accepted.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

oceanz

Gold Member

Offline

Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female

Re: The child's voice
Reply #49 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:29pm

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:17pm:

there is an easier way.

blanket no abortion except when the baby is forming outside the whomb where it would have no chance of survival.

when we opperate on syamese twins we dont value one life over the other, we try to save both.

if there are complications for the mother her life should be saved if possible but not at the expense of the mother, and visa versa, no human life is worth more than another.

anyway my point is this, abortion is murder, there is no other way of seeing it. There are babies who have been born at 22 weeks and survived as humans, yet other babies even older and "more human" than this are aborted every day.

every baby killed in an abortion has hands and feet, every baby has a beating heart, these are human beings, dependent on their mother but they are not physically their mother. When a mother chooses to kill her baby she is killing, why is this different to any other type of killing?

pender,

You fortunately will never have to test your convictions and opinions because you are male. Its hard for you to appreciate the complexities of this arguement for that reason. You do not have a womb. You will never be subject to rape. The mans part in a pregnancy is but a fleeting inseminatory process last 10 pleasurable minutes. Its the women whos left with mess of an unwanted pregnancy.

I find it offensive that you and connie are calling women who choose this path cold blooded killers....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:35pm by oceanz »

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"

IP Logged

Classic Liberal

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 769
sydney
Gender: male

Re: The child's voice
Reply #50 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:42pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:26pm:

There are babies who have been born at 22 weeks and survived as humans

I think some of the reporting on these cases in the mainstream media is misleading. At least, a pediatrician I talked to about it thought so.

when we opperate on syamese twins we dont value one life over the other, we try to save bo

Often it is to kill one I think.

every baby killed in an abortion has hands and feet, every baby has a beating heart

Wrong, unless you are just playing semantics with the definition of a baby.

When a mother chooses to kill her baby she is killing, why is this different to any other type of killing?

It is legal and accepted.

baby 22 weeks. name etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774

with the siamese one os often killed if they share heart, lungs or brain.

but if both can be saved or if there is even a reasonable chance both can be saved we always try and save both, it is our duty to try and save both.

every baby killed in an abortion has hands and feet, every baby has a beating heart

Wrong, unless you are just playing semantics with the definition of a baby.

sorry every baby after 7 weeks

It is legal and accepted.

whether it is legal or illegal it is still bringing an end to a human life.

it was not legal a couple of decades ago, does that mean a couple of decades ago it was killing and now its not? it is still teh same practice, and same result.

people change, laws change, but killing is still killing no matter how you dress it up.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 50566 At my desk.	Re: The child's voice Reply #51 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:47pm sorry every baby after 7 weeks every baby?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

cautious connie

Full Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 215

Re: The child's voice
Reply #52 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:54pm

I think women are taught that abortion is acceptable, and the law makes it a woman's right to choose. Therefore I would not call a woman who had an abortion a cold blooded killer. That does not alter the physical fact that aborting is taking a life. The doctor who performs the abortion knows this.

All I am saying is that someone should speak for the child when the decision to abort or not is being made. My own personal view, beyond this, is that an abortion should never occur for convenience, or instead of contraception, or without good reason, such as risk to the mother's life. What constitutes good reason may be different for different people perhaps, but it is quite clear what is nto good reason- such as- i can't afford it and i don't want to give it up for adoption.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 50566 At my desk.	Re: The child's voice Reply #53 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:59pm I think women are taught that abortion is acceptable, and the law makes it a woman's right to choose. There is no institution I know of that teaches women that abortion is 'acceptable'. There are a few that teach that it isn't. The law doesn't make it a woman's right to choose. This right always existed.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

oceanz

Gold Member

Offline

Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female

Re: The child's voice
Reply #54 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 5:59pm

cautious connie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:54pm:

I think women are taught that abortion is acceptable, and the law makes it a woman's right to choose. Therefore I would not call a woman who had an abortion a cold blooded killer. That does not alter the physical fact that aborting is taking a life. The doctor who performs the abortion knows this.

All I am saying is that someone should speak for the child when the decision to abort or not is being made. My own personal view, beyond this, is that an abortion should never occur for convenience, or instead of contraception, or without good reason, such as risk to the mother's life. What constitutes good reason may be different for different people perhaps, but it is quite clear what is nto good reason- such as- i can't afford it and i don't want to give it up for adoption.

mothers decision..again and again. Not for anyone to speculate or place moral judgements..do you have children connie?

I hope one day you are not put in a position where YOU have to choose..

Connie it is not your business what other women do and pender when you start menstruating and suddenly grow a womb...you may get this from a slightly different perspective. I think connie is to attempting to shove her agenda down our throats and marginalise women who chose to make the decision for themselves, when they are within theyre rights to do so,this decision is fraught with anxiety and terrible gulit as it is.. Ill bet your with the church connie..Catholic perhaps?

Back to top

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The child's voice
Reply #55 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:15pm

The only meaningful way to give the child a voice (other than it's mother's) would be to create another barrier to a woman's freedom to control her own body. That is why Connie is always so vague about what she means by giving the child a voice, because it sounds like a benign concept, up until you attach some real meaning to it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

oceanz Gold Member Offline Auzgurl.. Posts: 3531 Gender:	Re: The child's voice Reply #56 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:19pm That is why Connie is always so vague about what she means by giving the child a voice, because it sounds like a benign concept, up until you attach some real meaning to it reads a bit confusing/ and as opposed to a malignant choice? joke.
Back to top	&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins" IP Logged

Classic Liberal

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 769
sydney
Gender: male

Re: The child's voice
Reply #57 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:31pm

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:59pm:

I think women are taught that abortion is acceptable, and the law makes it a woman's right to choose.

There is no institution I know of that teaches women that abortion is 'acceptable'. There are a few that teach that it isn't. The law doesn't make it a woman's right to choose. This right always existed.

incorrect.

as it is legal, the government as an instution makes it ok, further more it fosters the idea that wanting to stop a woman from having and abortion is wrong as you are impeding on her legal right, therefore implying that abortion is good and a ban on it is bad.

we are taught at school about femenism and womens rights, and how women have the right to coose what job etc they want. the pro choice movement just adds the next sentence to what the institution of school teaches.

women have the right to choose what they do wit their own body... which means they can terminate a baby's life because thats part of their body.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50566
At my desk.

Re: The child's voice
Reply #58 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 6:34pm

as it is legal, the government as an instution makes it ok, further more it fosters the idea that wanting to stop a woman from having and abortion is wrong as you are impeding on her legal right, therefore implying that abortion is good and a ban on it is bad.

I seriously doubt many people are unable to see past the legality to whether a law is justified. You could male the same argument about every single law that comes up, and it would hold no water. People oppose the infringement of the right because controlling your own body is a fundamental human right that everyone can empathise with, not because the right is legally protected.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

cautious connie Full Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 215	Re: The child's voice Reply #59 - Jun 24^th, 2007 at 8:41pm I am agnostic. Never been anything else. I am nto tryign to tell other women what to do. I am trying to discuss what we as a society can do to overcome what I see as a problem and injustice- convenience abortions.
Back to top	IP Logged