Current Affairs and Politics

Abortion law in Turkey

Reply
Page 3 of 4
  Tools
YossarianIsSane +

Registered User

YossarianIsSane's Avatar
Joined
Nov '05
Times thanked
< 182
Posts
1,404

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Article 6 didj, what does the phrase in article 6 refer to?

A child, which as he and I have both previously explained, is an undefined concept. For me, an early to mid stage fetus is not a child, therefore the whole fucking article is irrelevant.

Am I to take it by your insistence on this particular phrase that you believe an egg becomes a "child" at the moment of fertilisation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de View Post

It's the same as going out on a busy street and looking at the people around you, most of them are fgts.

CircusMidget +

De plane! De plane!

CircusMidget's Avatar
Joined
Jan '09
Times thanked
< 1,378
Posts
4,091

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

I agree completely and I don't mean to suggest that women would take this decision lightly, nor are they incubators, nor would there be exceptions in the law for rape/incest victims (despite how this could be reconciled with their "right to life"). However, of the estimated 85 000 abortions each year I can't imagine how many of these cases would be from rape/incest victims. Though statistics are hard to come by (and the use of RU 486 problematises this further), some stats suggest that abortion is a lifestyle choice articulated as a "mental health" issue for the mother. Though that sounds callous, speak to any mother who has carried a baby to full-term, whether unplanned, unwanted or otherwise and ask about their mental health having had the child. My feeling would be that the fear/emotional rollercoaster that is having children is a part of the process. Speak to mothers who have planned pregnancies and their experience is no different.

are you quoting from Tony Abbott's biography again?
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
"Every child has the inherent right to life" - how else do you interpret this statement Yossarianas?

And Circus Midget, are you macc4 - seriously?
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Article 6 didj, what does the phrase in article 6 refer to?

It says a child has the right to life and as I stated in my previous post I strongly agree with that.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane View Post

A child, which as he and I have both previously explained, is an undefined concept. For me, an early to mid stage fetus is not a child, therefore the whole fucking article is irrelevant.

Am I to take it by your insistence on this particular phrase that you believe an egg becomes a "child" at the moment of fertilisation?

I didn't raise the issue of human rights. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of talking about human rights to explain a "right to have an abortion" when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Which children have the "right to life" didj? If they intended for only children from 26 weeks to have this right, why wouldn't they say it?
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 757
Posts
4,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Rubbish. It has not explicitly given rights to unborn children. It is silent on that. Notwithstanding that, it is open to jurisdictional interpretation. In some countries a child can be above 18 even though the Convention says a child is below 18. Using the convention to argue against abortion is flawed, because it wasn't the intention of the convention to do that, and because jurisdictional laws do not provide unchallengeable ethical frameworks. The convention is based on ethical principles but is not an absolute ethical framework. It is a quasi-normative agreement for common standards amongst UN members.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

I didn't raise the issue of human rights. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of talking about human rights to explain a "right to have an abortion" when the Convention on the Rights of the Child have given those rights to unborn children.

Which children have the "right to life" didj? If they intended for only children from 26 weeks to have this right, why wouldn't they say it?

You started the thread, which means you raised the issue of women's rights versus foetal rights, yet you keep ignoring those issues when pressed for answers but instead refer to a declaration that has nothing to do with the abortion debate.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass View Post

Rubbish. It has not explicitly given rights to unborn children. It is silent on that. Notwithstanding that, it is open to jurisdictional interpretation. In some countries a child can be above 18 even though the Convention says a child is below 18. Using the convention to argue against abortion is flawed, because it wasn't the intention of the convention to do that, and because jurisdictional laws do not provide unchallengeable ethical frameworks. The convention is based on ethical principles but is not an absolute ethical framework. It is a quasi-normative agreement for common standards amongst UN members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

You started the thread, which means you raised the issue of women's rights versus foetal rights, yet you keep ignoring those issues when pressed for answers but instead refer to a declaration that has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

Claude, this is worth a read, particularly if you are to maintain that the purpose of the convention was not to protect the rights of the unborn. The lack of a definitive clause protecting the rights of the unborn is not seen as a toleration of abortion.

http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/briefings/intl_law.pdf

You may question the valididty of human rights by suggesting that it's not binding in Australia given that it's a quasi-normative agreement, but you are wrong to suggest that it wasn't the intention of the Convention to protect the unborn. It was assumed from the outset.

And didj, I've never raised this as an issue of women's rights versus foetal rights. For you to make this point, you've had to re-define what it is to be a "living human-being" in order to assert women's rights over life in general. There is not a definition of human life which is based upon the acquisition of consciousness, this is yours and others' opinion. But, if you want to speak of human rights then you'll see that there's not a convention which provides women the right to an abortion and in fact, that there's a convention which protects the rights of unborn children.
crabman +

I might be a **** but I'm not a fucking ****.

crabman's Avatar
Joined
Oct '07
Times thanked
< 8,299
Posts
14,129

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

I'm not trying to pick flaws in your approaches I'm trying to understand your point of view. I've stated what I think constitutes a living being and I don't know if that's changed at all. See post #21.

Your comments on post #1 bear no answer to the question of at which stage of prenatal development you consider life to commence. A link to a massive Wikipedia page isn't really an answer. Incidentally, that very pages states "Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not". I've never heard of a self-sustaining foetus. You?

What's your stance on emergency contraception (aka morning after pill, etc), given that conception can take place in less than an hour after intercourse? Should this be banned?

edit: ffs, a busy week at work and I see I'm wayyy behind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

How about you people actually learn a little thing called having a fucking conscious and not being heartless sociopath you piece of shit.

الاستماع إلى ... ال التنفس المدينة.

اسم اللعبة هو ضوء يعمل.
crabman +

I might be a **** but I'm not a fucking ****.

crabman's Avatar
Joined
Oct '07
Times thanked
< 8,299
Posts
14,129

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

An ethical position that distinguishes living human beings from living things.

Yet links to Wikipedia page for all living things when asked to define human life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

How about you people actually learn a little thing called having a fucking conscious and not being heartless sociopath you piece of shit.

الاستماع إلى ... ال التنفس المدينة.

اسم اللعبة هو ضوء يعمل.

Last edited by crabman: 08-Jun-12 at 10:59am

austraboy +

I like toast

austraboy's Avatar
Joined
Sep '07
Times thanked
< 146
Posts
911
Fewsion - Do you believe people should be able to undertake IVF?
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 757
Posts
4,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Claude, this is worth a read, particularly if you are to maintain that the purpose of the convention was not to protect the rights of the unborn. The lack of a definitive clause protecting the rights of the unborn is not seen as a toleration of abortion.

http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/briefings/intl_law.pdf

You may question the valididty of human rights by suggesting that it's not binding in Australia given that it's a quasi-normative agreement, but you are wrong to suggest that it wasn't the intention of the Convention to protect the unborn. It was assumed from the outset.

Firstly, I'm talking about ethics not law. There are many laws in this country which are unethical in my view.

Secondly, I'm not questioning the validity of human rights I'm demonstrating that the definition of a child in the declaration is flexible. There is no strong argument that it is intended to include the unborn.

Secondly, The rights of the unborn were not assumed at the outset. Whatever was negotiated or discussed to placate conservative members of the UN, there clearly was not a unanimous agreement to include the unborn as specific intent or it would be in the convention (which was sought by those conservative countries as referenced in the paper you reference but obviously not agreed to, which actually undermines the contention of the author). The absence of a specific reference is a typical UN compromise. Assumptions in international treaties are never tacit. That paper is highly selective in its quoting. For example, it does not refer to the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which clearly refers to the rights of humans who are born. That paper is just a biased argument.
Davomaxi +

The Rock says this....

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 888
Posts
7,107
Abortions will occur whether they are legal or not. If you are in favor of banning abortions, you are also in favor of putting women's lives in danger by forcing them to resort to unsafe measures to abort foetuses they cannot care for. The rest is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
claude glass +

Registered User

claude glass's Avatar
Joined
Jun '10
Times thanked
< 757
Posts
4,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi View Post

Abortions will occur whether they are legal or not. If you are in favor of banning abortions, you are also in favor of putting women's lives in danger by forcing them to resort to unsafe measures to abort foetuses they cannot care for. The rest is irrelevant.

Exactly, if you regard the foetus as not having rights and not exposed to suffering, abortion is ethical.

If you regard the foetus as having rights and that it may suffer, you have an ethical dilemma, because the reality is illegal and unsafe abortions, in which the foetus and the mother are more likely to suffer, will occur. So it becomes clear that the more ethical choice is for society to allow abortions to occur.
dbb618 +

md5sum < /dev/urandom

dbb618's Avatar
Joined
May '06
Times thanked
< 1,739
Posts
14,856
... yep, so we need to ban the Catholic Church, not abortions.
Hopped in the car and torpe'ed to the shack
Of Shaheed, "We gotta go back" when he said
"Why?" I said, "We gotta go
'Cause I left my wallet in El Segundo"

http://twitter.com/derekbradley
http://untappd.com/user/dbb618

https://plus.google.com/117630500124...73/posts?hl=en
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Again Derek, this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If you can't see past that bias then you can't meaningfully contribute.

Claude, given that you think that there is no strong argument in defence of the unborn with respect to human rights, could you explain how you understand article 6 of the CRC?

If you believe that it is ethical to allow abortions on the basis that illegal abortions will increase if abortion is criminalised then you need to revise what limited data is available regarding abortions: http://www.humanrightsforunbornchild.../facts/24.html (Please point me in the direction of other stats you may have access to or found). The absolute majority of abortions are carried out legally to protect the mental-health of the mother; there is no suggestion that women who would have this right taken away would resort to illegal abortions (or that all institutions providing abortions would cease operating despite the criminalisation).

If you present an "ends justifies the means" argument to advocate women's right to an abortion, then you should follow that conclusion to its end. The ends should only justify the means if the former is more desirable than the latter, and so, if criminalising abortion saved more children from being aborted than were illegally aborted, then the ethical dilemma is solved. The greatest good for the greatest number.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,497
Posts
11,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

If you present an "ends justifies the means" argument to advocate women's right to an abortion, then you should follow that conclusion to its end. The ends should only justify the means if the former is more desirable than the latter, and so, if criminalising abortion saved more children from being aborted than were illegally aborted, then the ethical dilemma is solved. The greatest good for the greatest number.

Those are all ifs based on your subjective moral calculation which isn't going to be the same as someone who thinks the opposite. Why should your moral calculation be given more weight than another type of moral calculation?

There is no way to answer that question in an objectively holistic way.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
I'm not suggesting it should. I suppose though that criminalising abortion would not be the sole element of reform and that there would be a range of services provided to support mothers, at a significant cost to the government, but at the same time the benefits of an extra 100 000 children born each year would probably be worth it economically.
Fangoriously +

Fusion Aerodynamical Science

Fangoriously's Avatar
Joined
Jun '07
Times thanked
< 1,141
Posts
3,752
Not really. Those 100,000 unwanted kids would be born to mothers who would be less able to raise them properly.
Aerodynamical Fusion Science Terminal Velocitising Scientician Experimentalising
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Here is that difference of opinion that Geezah mentioned. Your opinion.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,497
Posts
11,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

1. I'm not suggesting it should.

2. I suppose though that criminalising abortion would not be the sole element of reform and that there would be a range of services provided to support mothers, at a significant cost to the government, but at the same time the benefits of an extra 100 000 children born each year would probably be worth it economically.

1. You said before you favour making abortion illegal. I assume you base that on your moral principles, which is your right, but making it illegal is all about making a moral principle a universal law that other people do not subscribe to. As murky a subject as this is, those who favour legalised abortion aren't necessarily pro-death, or anti-life, they are just pro-choice and pro-reality.

That abortion is legal, hence safe, does not mean that society is encouraging women to have abortions: it just means that it is an option that provides a better health outcome for women who really do no want to take a pregnancy to full-term; it also doesn't mean that those who are anti legalised abortion have to ever be part of a process that does not conform to their morals and beliefs.

Making it illegal though, does make those who have a different way of calculating their moral, ethical, and belief frameworks, conform to those, like you, who share a different set of guiding principles (on this issue).

2. You are assuming that making abortion illegal would mean that no abortions would take place and result in an extra 100k of children being born. You are also assuming that of those foetuses which aren't aborted (illegally) will be born into a family structure that would allow them to become economically beneficial in the future. There is no way of knowing that due to too many variations in birth situational outcomes. You are also assuming, that even if all current abortions were converted into an equal number of births, that this would actually mean that there is an extra 100k children. It could conceivably lead to less children being born if women are conceiving at an age which causes greater financial insecurity leading them to have less overall children than they otherwise might if they had their first child at a more financially advantageous stage in their life.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm

Last edited by Geezah: 08-Jun-12 at 04:05pm

Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
Fewsion are you willing to adopt the children women would be forced to have under your system, pay for their medical expenses, pay compensation to the families of any woman who died or received permanent injury as a result of being forced to go through labor, pay for any other expenses associated with pregnancy and the health issues surrounding it?

If not just shut the fuck up. No woman should have to pay for you to be able to practice your religious beliefs.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
CircusMidget +

De plane! De plane!

CircusMidget's Avatar
Joined
Jan '09
Times thanked
< 1,378
Posts
4,091
I agree with Griggle

fewsion should go preach on the christian dubstep forums
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

And didj, I've never raised this as an issue of women's rights versus foetal rights. For you to make this point, you've had to re-define what it is to be a "living human-being" in order to assert women's rights over life in general. There is not a definition of human life which is based upon the acquisition of consciousness, this is yours and others' opinion. But, if you want to speak of human rights then you'll see that there's not a convention which provides women the right to an abortion and in fact, that there's a convention which protects the rights of unborn children.

There is no point in even having this discussion with you. You started a thread about abortion, yet you do not even recognise that women's rights versus fetal rights is at the very core of the debate, and now you are just repeating space cadet delusional garbage over and over again like a broken down record
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

1. You said before you favour making abortion illegal. I assume you base that on your moral principles, which is your right, but making it illegal is all about making a moral principle a universal law that other people do not subscribe to. As murky a subject as this is, those who favour legalised abortion aren't necessarily pro-death, or anti-life, they are just pro-choice and pro-reality.

That abortion is legal, hence safe, does not mean that society is encouraging women to have abortions: it just means that it is an option that provides a better health outcome for women who really do no want to take a pregnancy to full-term; it also doesn't mean that those who are anti legalised abortion have to ever be part of a process that does not conform to their morals and beliefs.

Making it illegal though, does make those who have a different way of calculating their moral, ethical, and belief frameworks, conform to those, like you, who share a different set of guiding principles (on this issue).

2. You are assuming that making abortion illegal would mean that no abortions would take place and result in an extra 100k of children being born. You are also assuming that of those foetuses which aren't aborted (illegally) will be born into a family structure that would allow them to become economically beneficial in the future. There is no way of knowing that due to too many variations in birth situational outcomes. You are also assuming, that even if all current abortions were converted into an equal number of births, that this would actually mean that there is an extra 100k children. It could conceivably lead to less children being born if women are conceiving at an age which causes greater financial insecurity leading them to have less overall children than they otherwise might had they had their first child at a more financially advantageous stage of their life.

1. That's unfair. I've not suggested that people who believe in the right of women to have an abortion are "pro-death" or "anti-life", rather, that you can only justify abortion by re-defining what "human life" is or by prioritising the rights of mothers over their unborn children. Secondly, I have not suggested that the legalisation of abortion encourages women to have abortions; I don't believe that women take the decision lightly or use abortion as a contraceptive, but that abortions for "mental-health" reasons suggest that enough is not being done to offer support to pregnant mothers or to offer them alternative choices to abortion.

2. I accounted for this. I said that I believed criminalisation would not stop all institutions offering abortions despite criminalisation. And I've acknowledged that there's no way of knowing after your post and we moved on right? It all came down to the subjective interpretation.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle View Post

Fewsion are you willing to adopt the children women would be forced to have under your system, pay for their medical expenses, pay compensation to the families of any woman who died or received permanent injury as a result of being forced to go through labor, pay for any other expenses associated with pregnancy and the health issues surrounding it?

If not just shut the fuck up. No woman should have to pay for you to be able to practice your religious beliefs.

Yes Griggle, thanks for your insight once more.
Griggle +

If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."

Griggle's Avatar
Joined
May '02
Times thanked
< 1,726
Posts
8,726
So that's a no then?

You don't think the Church should pay for religious observances that you form lobby groups to force on the general public even if they aren't followers of your religion?

Seriously, either you guys can start footing the bills for your social policies, start actually paying taxes or just fuck off. As your religion doesn't pay tax, they should have no say in how our society is run.
Broadband speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government.
Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,497
Posts
11,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

1. That's unfair. I've not suggested that people who believe in the right of women to have an abortion are "pro-death" or "anti-life", rather, that you can only justify abortion by re-defining what "human life" is or by prioritising the rights of mothers over their unborn children. Secondly, I have not suggested that the legalisation of abortion encourages women to have abortions; I don't believe that women take the decision lightly or use abortion as a contraceptive, but that abortions for "mental-health" reasons suggest that enough is not being done to offer support to pregnant mothers or to offer them alternative choices to abortion.

2. I accounted for this. I said that I believed criminalisation would not stop all institutions offering abortions despite criminalisation. And I've acknowledged that there's no way of knowing after your post and we moved on right? It all came down to the subjective interpretation.

1. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you personally were saying that, it was more about clarification of the opposing position.

You have avoided though the concept that you, and those people like you who want to make abortion illegal, would like to impose your moral principles on those who have a contradistinctive way of reasonaing what isn't a black and white issue. Even if we all agreed the definition of human life means from conception until death, and I suspect most people would agree with this to varying degrees, you will not resolve the issue of a woman's right to choose over the foetus's right to continue to exist.

2. And do you agree that you can't automatically assume that converting all current abortions into births will necessarily mean that there is going to be a a net gain overall of 100k? Nor that those who will be born will necessarily be an economic benefit to society.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

1. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you personally were saying that, it was more about clarification of the opposing position.

You have avoided though the concept that you, and those people like you who want to make abortion illegal, would like to impose your moral principles on those who have a contradistinctive way of reasonaing what isn't a black and white issue. Even if we all agreed the definition of human life means from conception until death, and I suspect most people would agree with this to varying degrees, you will not resolve the issue of a woman's right to choose over the foetus's right to continue to exist.

2. And do you agree that you can't automatically assume that converting all current abortions into births will necessarily mean that there is going to be a a net gain overall of 100k? Nor that those who will be born will necessarily be an economic benefit to society.

1. That's precisely the point of contention though; that right for a woman to choose to terminate a life. The question then divides into two camps then doesn't it, whether to believe that an embryo is a life, or if it is undoubtedly, that a woman has the right to make that choice.

2. Completely, it was a crude and exaggerated hypothetical; it wasn't meant to be taken as what I think would actually happen.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424
Actually geezah, a few pages back fewsion said that it doesn't matter what you believe because "law is not a unanimous decision". So according to him, as long as it's the law, it's ok to violate someone else's human rights. Following this logic, we could introduce a law say for example, that would allow torture as a form of capital punishment. It wouldn't matter if you opposed that law on moral/ethical grounds however, because he says its not a human rights issue, its a legal one.

Poor fewsion, can't comprehend that the introduction of a law which impinges on the human rights of women, is actually a human rights issue.
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

Actually geezah, a few pages back fewsion said that it doesn't matter what you believe because "law is not a unanimous decision". So according to him, as long as it's the law, it's ok to violate someone else's human rights. Following this logic, we could introduce a law say for example, that would allow torture as a form of capital punishment. It wouldn't matter if you opposed that law on moral/ethical grounds however, because he says its not a human rights issue, its a legal one.

Poor fewsion, can't comprehend that the introduction of a law which impinges on the human rights of women, is actually a human rights issue.

Didj I thought you said you wouldn't bother discussing it? If you think I'm repeating "space cadet delusional garbage" by asking you to explain your views on the human rights of the unborn as defined by several UN conventions, then I agree, you don't have anything to discuss. Just don't blame it on me.
didjeridude +

Random Rhythm Generator

didjeridude's Avatar
Joined
Jan '02
Times thanked
< 482
Posts
4,424
Tonight on SBS there was an interesting doco on Alan Turing. He was chemically castrated and subsequently killed himself all because he was gay and that was outlawed in Britain at the time. Hey who cares about human rights when you can just make a law? Perhaps we should go back to the 50s and re-introduce all kinds of laws which violate people's human rights and civil liberties. Oh even better, we could go back to the dark ages and introduce a law which makes it illegal to practice religions which we don't like. We could bring back the death penalty and burn people at the stake. It doesn't matter what you believe, because after all, the law is the law!
Reality: To be or not to be? The Adventures of Dr Shroom (and Captain Jones)
smorchika +

Registered User

smorchika's Avatar
Joined
May '07
Times thanked
< 483
Posts
5,140
Have you cracked it Didje?

This is a stupid argument that completely and totally denies the reality of the situation, women will have abortions regardless of whether they are legal or not, women should not EVER be made to carry a child to term against their will. The best way to ensure the best possible outcome for the mother is to make abortion legal and as safe as possible.
Laws are in place in regard to how an abortion can be obtained and up to what date it is acceptable to do so, these laws are around protecting the childs right to life/live etc etc as you mentioned earlier Fewsion.

I dont believe that undertaking an abortion is a lifestyle choice, nor a choice that anyone would ever, happily or friviously make.

Why would you think it ethical/moral or acceptable in ANYWAY to force a woman to carry a child to term Fewsion?

Last edited by smorchika: 09-Jun-12 at 04:50am

Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude View Post

Tonight on SBS there was an interesting doco on Alan Turing. He was chemically castrated and subsequently killed himself all because he was gay and that was outlawed in Britain at the time. Hey who cares about human rights when you can just make a law? Perhaps we should go back to the 50s and re-introduce all kinds of laws which violate people's human rights and civil liberties. Oh even better, we could go back to the dark ages and introduce a law which makes it illegal to practice religions which we don't like. We could bring back the death penalty and burn people at the stake. It doesn't matter what you believe, because after all, the law is the law!

Great story. You've stopped making sense several posts ago given that you're unable to explain how human rights apply to the unborn.

Smorchika, if evidence were to come to light that abortion of an early term pregnancy causes the embryo significant distress, or that embryos were conscious do you suppose that such rights would remain?
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 361
Posts
5,336
hello hello hello
discussing anything with fewsion is pointless because he will ignore your good points and reiterate his long discredited points ad nauseum.
I'll give this thread a rest for a couple of days because I can see irritability setting in.
Davomaxi +

The Rock says this....

Davomaxi's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 888
Posts
7,107

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Smorchika, if evidence were to come to light that abortion of an early term pregnancy causes the embryo significant distress, or that embryos were conscious do you suppose that such rights would remain?

As ridiculous as the idea of embryos experiencing consciousness or distress on a human level is, if that were the case I'm sure the wonder of medical science could put them to sleep before they are scraped out.

Besides it's part of the woman's body, she gets to decide what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianwil1976 View Post

I killed all my family because they wouldn't suck my dick.

Medium Rurrrr!

See my blog http://ecentreofexcellence.blogspot.com.au/
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Fred Nile has introduced a Bill seeking to protect unborn children by criminalising acts of violence. Fairfax opens with a controversial point of its own:

"A controversial bill giving legal rights to an unborn child will be..."

Having examined the Bill here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Pro...-d19-House.pdf

So, we're led to believe that the controversy is about recognising the rights of the unborn child as separate from her mother, even if the purpose of this recognition is to be able to prosecute offenders who recklessly or wilfully injure or kill unborn babies? The Bill expressly states that is is not to apply to medical procedures or harm caused to the unborn in conduct consented to by the mother (as strange as a clarification like that may sound, I know).

Where do the pro-abortion people sit on this one?
CheelWinston +

6 month suspension for peptides

CheelWinston's Avatar
Joined
May '01
Times thanked
< 1,836
Posts
13,194
So what's Nile's angle then, if not anti-abortion?

he's just trying to get a foothold on the mountain right?
Listen to your friend Cheely Zane
He is a cool guy...
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Assume that he is, it's a fairly good assumption I'd say. Do you think the Parliament will block the legislation based on the Pandora's Box it may open? To me that doesn't sound like it's a very moral or ethical decision in light of the fact that the legislation, (despite its potential long-term objectives to be achieved with subsequent Bills) as it stands, is designed to protect unborn children from deliberate or reckless acts of harm caused to them.

It is especially important, as I see it, from a community standpoint, to ensure that a family who intended to have a child could not have their injured/killed unborn child recognised as a "person" if they were the victim of such an act.
jdoodle +

is back by dope demand

jdoodle's Avatar
Joined
Nov '01
Times thanked
< 1,963
Posts
16,408
pro-abortion people? troll much?
its called pro-choice for a reason, its a choice

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh View Post

Dont bother arguing with Big Eddie Deepchild.

He doesnt grasp the logic behind helping people less fortunate than himself.

Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Call it what you want, just answer the question or leave it be.
CircusMidget +

De plane! De plane!

CircusMidget's Avatar
Joined
Jan '09
Times thanked
< 1,378
Posts
4,091
so he wants abortion and dangerous driving covered under the same law?

the guy is a moron
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
Poor trolling circusmidget or macc4. Same shit different thread.
Derelict +

Derpcore gets the derpy dollars

Derelict's Avatar
Joined
Oct '08
Times thanked
< 4,780
Posts
25,299
"Unborn babies"

Well, they aren't babies if they're unborn now are they?


A friend of mine recently got his girlfriend pregnant by accident. She's allergic to latex condoms, and he didn't have any of the required type, a few drinks and the rest is history. Now neither of them is in any position to raise a child. They got an abortion. Simple, really. It was their decision to not go through with it.

Choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningWithScissors View Post

PM derelict for manual labour shit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarrardscott View Post

I think you obviously dont understand what i'm trying to say.

CircusMidget +

De plane! De plane!

CircusMidget's Avatar
Joined
Jan '09
Times thanked
< 1,378
Posts
4,091

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Poor trolling circusmidget or macc4. Same shit different thread.

They are the 2 main points of the pdf you posted. Have you not read it?

Quote:

The object of this Bill is to amend the
Crimes Act 1900
:
(a)
to establish a separate offence for conduct causing serious harm to or the destruction of a child in utero, and
(b)
to extend the offence of dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm to dangerous driving causing the destruction of, or serious harm to, a child in utero.

jdoodle +

is back by dope demand

jdoodle's Avatar
Joined
Nov '01
Times thanked
< 1,963
Posts
16,408

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Call it what you want, just answer the question or leave it be.

no, its pro choice, that is what its called, otherwise you are trolling
do you support the rights of women to control their body or not

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh View Post

Dont bother arguing with Big Eddie Deepchild.

He doesnt grasp the logic behind helping people less fortunate than himself.

Geezah +

Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrghh

Geezah's Avatar
Joined
Sep '03
Times thanked
< 1,497
Posts
11,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Fred Nile has introduced a Bill seeking to protect unborn children by criminalising acts of violence. Fairfax opens with a controversial point of its own:

"A controversial bill giving legal rights to an unborn child will be..."

Having examined the Bill here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Pro...-d19-House.pdf

So, we're led to believe that the controversy is about recognising the rights of the unborn child as separate from her mother, even if the purpose of this recognition is to be able to prosecute offenders who recklessly or wilfully injure or kill unborn babies? The Bill expressly states that is is not to apply to medical procedures or harm caused to the unborn in conduct consented to by the mother (as strange as a clarification like that may sound, I know).

Where do the pro-abortion people sit on this one?

The problem is that to recklessly or wilfully injure a fetus the offender surely needs to know that the woman they have injured is actually pregnant. Surely this is impossible. This is all because some knacker hit that woman on the central coast (I think) and drove off. The poor woman miscarried as a result of the injury. She herself was ok. I think this is thin edge of the wedge stuff. As much of an asshole that guy was it is pretty unsubstantiated that he knew she was pregnant from memory.

It is notable that the woman who miscarried because of what happened is actually against this law (not that this should be a consideration).

I'm sure that tougher penalties should apply to blokes who deliberately punch their wives or girlfriends in the stomach while they are pregnant but even then the law doesn't seem to define at what stage of the pregnancy this would apply. Any scumbag who beats women needs to go to jail but what if he punches the woman when she is 1/2/3 months pregnant when even the woman may not know she is? He is still a scumbag who shouldn't be punching women but unfortunately in the above example it is impossible for him to know that she was pregnant.

And would wilful inury include a woman perhaps drinking in the first few months of pregnancy if for whatever reason she is unaware that she is pregnant? What if she is a smoker who smokes the first couple of months of an unknown pregnancy but quits as soon as she finds out? Both are less violent but could possible lead to miscarriages given certain circumstances.

And Jdoodle is right, you saying pro-abortion is being deliberately emotive: it suggests those who think a woman has the right to choose are sort of saying we expect they should have an abortion if they have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. I am pro-life and pro-choice, they aren't mutually exclusive as much as some would have us believe. I am also against abortion from about the 5/6 month stage onwards - I reckon most people are - unless carrying the pregnancy to term will have serious consequences for the woman.

5/6 months is not just an arbitrary distinction: it is roughly at this point where a fetus can survive exuterine, though with medical equipment, to live to what would be considered full-term and beyond.

If you are against abortion you should be for far more sex education for children/teenagers, for far greater knowledge of the efficacy of different types of contraception, for young men being told that they should be insisting on condoms or avoiding sex if a woman is blithe about contraception i.e. it isn't just a woman who can say no to unprotected sex etc. etc.

You should also be for safe, legalised abortion from qualified medical practitioners. Because being anti-abortion will never stop them from happening. Ever. You will be consistently and fundamentally disappointed for the rest of your life if you have an idealised vision that can never hope to be met in any practical or real sense.
Avatar artist: Dain Fagerholm
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict View Post

"Unborn babies"

Well, they aren't babies if they're unborn now are they?


A friend of mine recently got his girlfriend pregnant by accident. She's allergic to latex condoms, and he didn't have any of the required type, a few drinks and the rest is history. Now neither of them is in any position to raise a child. They got an abortion. Simple, really. It was their decision to not go through with it.

Choice.

Fair enough. Not talking about abortion though are we. Read my post from a few back. Discussing the legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircusMidget View Post

They are the 2 main points of the pdf you posted. Have you not read it?

Yes, I did. You, like your avatar, are a muppet. Not getting into it further. Troll away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle View Post

no, its pro choice, that is what its called, otherwise you are trolling
do you support the rights of women to control their body or not

Do you like red herrings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah View Post

1. The problem is that to recklessly or wilfully injure a fetus the offender surely needs to know that the woman they have injured is actually pregnant. Surely this is impossible. This is all because some knacker hit that woman on the central coast (I think) and drove off. The poor woman miscarried as a result of the injury. She herself was ok. I think this is thin edge of the wedge stuff. As much of an asshole that guy was it is pretty unsubstantiated that he knew she was pregnant from memory.

2. It is notable that the woman who miscarried because of what happened is actually against this law (not that this should be a consideration).

3. I'm sure that tougher penalties should apply to blokes who deliberately punch their wives or girlfriends in the stomach while they are pregnant but even then the law doesn't seem to define at what stage of the pregnancy this would apply. Any scumbag who beats women needs to go to jail but what if he punches the woman when she is 1/2/3 months pregnant when even the woman may not know she is? He is still a scumbag who shouldn't be punching women but unfortunately in the above example it is impossible for him to know that she was pregnant.

4. And would wilful inury include a woman perhaps drinking in the first few months of pregnancy if for whatever reason she is unaware that she is pregnant? What if she is a smoker who smokes the first couple of months of an unknown pregnancy but quits as soon as she finds out? Both are less violent but could possible lead to miscarriages given certain circumstances.

5. And Jdoodle is right, you saying pro-abortion is being deliberately emotive: it suggests those who think a woman has the right to choose are sort of saying we expect they should have an abortion if they have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. I am pro-life and pro-choice, they aren't mutually exclusive as much as some would have us believe. I am also against abortion from about the 5/6 month stage onwards - I reckon most people are - unless carrying the pregnancy to term will have serious consequences for the woman.

5/6 months is not just an arbitrary distinction: it is roughly at this point where a fetus can survive exuterine, though with medical equipment, to live to what would be considered full-term and beyond.

6. If you are against abortion you should be for far more sex education for children/teenagers, for far greater knowledge of the efficacy of different types of contraception, for young men being told that they should be insisting on condoms or avoiding sex if a woman is blithe about contraception i.e. it isn't just a woman who can say no to unprotected sex etc. etc.

7. You should also be for safe, legalised abortion from qualified medical practitioners. Because being anti-abortion will never stop them from happening. Ever. You will be consistently and fundamentally disappointed for the rest of your life if you have an idealised vision that can never hope to be met in any practical or real sense.

1. I think a greater tragedy would be for a woman (heck, her family) to lose a child if someone had committed a crime, be it dangerous driving, reckless driving, grievous bodily harm etc. and I would certainly have no problem in siding with a mother over the criminal in this instance.

2. It is notable, it was noted in the article, but all the same, if she said that she supported the Bill would that change anything? No, that case is a catalyst for legislation which Nile thinks is important, and I believe many others would find it important as well. Her opinion on what should happen is largely irrelevant. Perhaps not calling it "Zoe's Law" would be preferred though.

3. I think if a woman knows that she is pregnant that should suffice. For proof of the pregnancy though some hospital record, such as a dating scan would probably be required. That can be obtained at 12 weeks.

4. Of course they can, though alcohol has been shown to be tolerable in small amounts anyhow, but the obvious distinction between your hypothetical and this proposed amendment is that either drinking or smoking is not illegal, whereas GBH, dangerous driving etc. is. Added to that, if the mother had no knowledge of pregnancy it's hardly the same kettle of fish.

5. It wasn't deliberately emotive. Yes, it could have been construed otherwise and I should have said "pro-choice" (it makes little difference to the outcome). I didn't want to start a debate about terminology. I wanted to discuss the Bill before Parliament.

6. They're not mutually exclusive of course. Evidence suggests that the 25-30 age groups have higher rates of abortions though.

7. If they were made harder to get and more support was given. Heck, what if the father had to contribute more financially to raising the child, or were given extra incentives to stay in the relationship and raise the child (in addition to baby bonus) wouldn't that discourage abortion as a first choice? Yes, they should be safe, but I also don't buy the argument about backyard abortions and the like (sounds like the War on Drugs propaganda to me).
CircusMidget +

De plane! De plane!

CircusMidget's Avatar
Joined
Jan '09
Times thanked
< 1,378
Posts
4,091

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Fair enough. Not talking about abortion though are we. Read my post from a few back. Discussing the legislation.

Have you not read the thread title? It clearly states abortion



Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Yes, I did. You, like your avatar, are a muppet. Not getting into it further. Troll away.

Researching turkey abortion has left you with egg on your face



Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Do you like red herrings?

I prefer caviar
Fewsion +

Registered troll

Fewsion's Avatar
Joined
Oct '03
Times thanked
< 96
Posts
3,572
I gave you a "like" for attempted humour.
horst +

Registered User

horst's Avatar
Joined
Sep '02
Times thanked
< 361
Posts
5,336
As was pointed out a couple of weeks ago when Gillard tried to make it an issue, the debate about abortion in Australia was done and dusted 30 years ago, it's a non issue. Nile trying to make it one has no bearing on the fact that the rest of Australia, bar you, have moved on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion View Post

Yes, they should be safe, but I also don't buy the argument about backyard abortions and the like .

wow, and just like that you wipe away 200 years of abortion history, you never fail to amaze by your profound level of ignorance.




PS: and jesus christ don't throw around 'red herring', it's perfectly clear that you don't know what it means
Page 3 of 4
Reply

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Posting Rules

+
    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts