Fear of prosecution denies Australian women rights

[Galloism]

'Unnecessary abortion' means the mother's life is not endangered by the presence of the fetus.

All pregnancy endangers the mothers life to some degree. And people are not obligated to support another entity using their body.

You're right, it does. And no, they aren't.

I took it when you meant "unnecessary" to mean "medically unnecessary", as in, there's no immediate threat.

[Triniteras]

You're right, it does. And no, they aren't.

Then you should stop stating otherwise, unless you are tying to make people who do think in such a way appear larger.

[Barfobulville]

I took it when you meant "unnecessary" to mean "medically unnecessary", as in, there's no immediate threat.

I did mean 'medically unnecessary' as in, the doctor and the woman don't have to decide between her life and the baby's right now. Like, if the baby isn't out ASAP, the mother will die.

You're right, it does. And no, they aren't.

Then you should stop stating otherwise, unless you are tying to make people who do think in such a way appear larger.

Excuse me for being open-minded and capable of shifting my views based on new information. I know that's completely unheard of around here.

[Triniteras]

Excuse me for being open-minded and capable of shifting my views based on new information. I know that's completely unheard of around here.

That's alright, your future from this point on will redeem you in terms of your effect on the world. I had thought you were implying you were just acting.

[Stovania]

truely pitiful, that even in this day and age a women can be denied the right to her own body by some religious wackjobs that somehow hold a seat in a country's government. point of this whole situation: religion and politics are two things that should never be in the same sentence. That and when will people learn to keep damn evangelicals out of our governments

[Triniteras]

When will people learn to keep damn evangelicals out of our governments?

When they learn to keep tight control of their governments.

[Barfobulville]

truely pitiful, that even in this day and age a women can be denied the right to her own body by some religious wackjobs that somehow hold a seat in a countries government. point of this whole situation: religion and politics are two things that should never be in the same sentence. That and when will people learn to keep damn evangelicals out of our governments

Well, technically, the whackjobs as you call them are placed into seats of power because people vote for them. People tend to try to vote for people they agree with. That would suggest that the people of Australia may be mostly whackjobs. The politicians are just representing the people who elected them, which is their job. (forgive me if Australian government doesn't work that way, I'm just guessing)

[Triniteras]

That would suggest that the people of Australia may be mostly whackjobs.

A country consisting mostly of whackjobs. Are you afraid?

[Barfobulville]

A country consisting mostly of whackjobs. Are you afraid?

Not particularly. I take comfort in the fact that I am a regular civilian that is rarely truly affected by the workings of whackjobs in the seats of power around the world.

[Galloism]

That would suggest that the people of Australia may be mostly whackjobs.

A country consisting mostly of whackjobs. Are you afraid?

I live in the United States of America.

[Maximus Corporation]

And in Australia your Constitution doesn't apply.

Any constitution is irrelevant we are bantering about what we think should be the law.

I don't think people with dark skin should have special rights, I don't think that men or women should have them either.

Since this would give women special rights, I believe it to be unfair and thus I am against it.

If men don't want a baby, maybe believing the woman that she is on the pill is not the best option. Men can still wear a condom. Or engage in the many sex acts that don't result in potential pregnancy.

Condoms break, and women could have done the same to avoid pregnancy. You make an excellent point on why abortions should be illegal.

Consent to having sex is not consenting to have a child. Don't use babies as a club to beat "loose" women over the head with. It really shows how much you value human life.

Did I get everything guys?

You seem to value human life so much that you believe in making it so that women can go get a buy 5 get one free abortion punch card. Technically it's not a baby, but technically it's human life.

[Maximus Corporation]

And people are not obligated to support another entity using their body.

So you are saying that child support should be illegal?

[Tmutarakhan]

Technically it's not a baby, but technically it's human life.

Technically, so is a blood stain. The cells are human (not canine, not elephantine...) and alive: not for long, but they could be preserved indefinitely on a Petri dish; are we obligated to do so, rather than deliberately killing "innocent human life" by mopping it up and throwing the paper towel in the toilet bowl?

[Barfobulville]

As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it should be outlawed, because that would infringe on a person's freedom. People shouldn't get them, but they can't be forced. I believe abortion should be strongly discouraged, and better alternatives supplied.

[Maximus Corporation]

Technically it's not a baby, but technically it's human life.

Technically, so is a blood stain. The cells are human (not canine, not elephantine...) and alive: not for long, but they could be preserved indefinitely on a Petri dish; are we obligated to do so, rather than deliberately killing "innocent human life" by mopping it up and throwing the paper towel in the toilet bowl?

Blood cells can form into a sentient being?

[Triniteras]

Not particularly. I take comfort in the fact that I am a regular civilian that is rarely truly affected by the workings of whackjobs in the seats of power around the world.

At the moment maybe. So what? You pay taxes and engage in purchasing products which leads to trade that supports countries, "seats of power around the world", and their actions.

You seem to value human life so much that you believe in making it so that women can go get a buy 5 get one free abortion punch card. Technically it's not a baby, but technically it's human life.

No it's not, it's a bunch of cells.

So you are saying that child support should be illegal?

I am saying that it should be collective.

[Saint Jade IV]

Technically it's not a baby, but technically it's human life.

Technically, so is a blood stain. The cells are human (not canine, not elephantine...) and alive: not for long, but they could be preserved indefinitely on a Petri dish; are we obligated to do so, rather than deliberately killing "innocent human life" by mopping it up and throwing the paper towel in the toilet bowl?

Blood cells can form into a sentient being?

Not all embryos or blastocysts or foetuses do that either. In fact, most are spontaneously aborted prior to the woman even knowing she is pregnant.

[Hamilay]

And people are not obligated to support another entity using their body.

So you are saying that child support should be illegal?

... since when have children been part of one's body?

[Maximus Corporation]

No it's not, it's a bunch of cells.

You are flat wrong here. Human life is divided into stages by science, and one of those stages is a zygote.

I am saying that it should be collective.

I agree with you completely...however most people who advocate for abortion rights deny that it should be and I enjoy poking holes in their reasoning.

[Dempublicents1]

Since this would give women special rights, I believe it to be unfair and thus I am against it.

The right to control the use of one's own body is a "special right"? Seriously?

[Saint Jade IV]

And people are not obligated to support another entity using their body.

So you are saying that child support should be illegal?

Child support is completely different to using someone's body without their consent, living off their tissue, using them as life support for 9 months.

[Dempublicents1]

No it's not, it's a bunch of cells.

You are flat wrong here. Human life is divided into stages by science, and one of those stages is a zygote.

The life cycle is divided up into stages, but science doesn't really comment on the more philosophical question of when one should consider a developing embryo/fetus to be a human being.

Of course, it really doesn't matter in the end. It could be a full and complete human being from the moment the sperm hits the egg and it still wouldn't have the right to use the woman's body against her will.

[Galloism]

Since this would give women special rights, I believe it to be unfair and thus I am against it.

The right to control the use of one's own body is a "special right"? Seriously?

Demp, how long have we been on NSG?

Really, it shouldn't surprise you anymore.

[Maximus Corporation]

The right to control the use of one's own body is a "special right"? Seriously?

My argument, if you are keeping up, is that child support should not be enforced (as it requires someone to use their labor to support another life) so long as abortions are available on demand. Basically if one is given an 'opt-out' beyond condoms, pill, etc. then the other should as well.

[Barfobulville]

Not particularly. I take comfort in the fact that I am a regular civilian that is rarely truly affected by the workings of whackjobs in the seats of power around the world.

At the moment maybe. So what? You pay taxes and engage in purchasing products which leads to trade that supports countries, "seats of power around the world", and their actions.

Even the whackjobs in my own government rarely affect me. And frankly, I don't live in a very strategic target area of the USA.