<link>

CANBERRA - Australia’s parliament scrapped an effective ban on an abortion drug on Thursday after a passionate debate that saw lawmakers draw on personal experiences before a vote.

All I can say is damn straight. Most of the ministers who were voting against the ban don't support abortion, but they respect the right to have that option.

First thing I've been proud of our government for doing in a while.

You're proud of a government that's an accessory to murder.

Goober5000 wrote:You're proud of a government that's an accessory to murder.

He's proud of a government that (in this case) has respected personal freedom, the responsibility of doctors to evaluate the best form of treatment for their patients, and which refused to legislate upon the basis of a religious belief with no rational proof.

If a woman belives that an abortion is murder, then she need not get an abortion. It's down to personal choice in my opinion.

Flipside wrote:If a woman belives that an abortion is murder, then she need not get an abortion. It's down to personal choice in my opinion.

Zigackly.

Aye. I'm glad they stepped in and just did it too.

The Catholic Health Minister obviously had biased views on the matter. =/

I take it your against abortion Goob?

You could just as easily say that those who don't believe in slavery don't have to own slaves. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is independent of whether a person has one.

In any case you don't need religion to prove that the baby is human or alive; logic or science is more than sufficient. You may need religion to decide whether it's morally justified.

EDIT: Grug - everyone has biased views on abortion. If you have a position on it, you're biased.

Goober5000 wrote:You could just as easily say that those who don't believe in slavery don't have to own slaves. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is independent of whether a person has one.

In any case you don't need religion to prove that the baby is human or alive; logic or science is more than sufficient. You may need religion to decide whether it's morally justified.

EDIT: Grug - everyone has biased views on abortion. If you have a position on it, you're biased.

Science is the reason why there are certain time limits on abortion. It's only a belief in a soul or some supernatural quantity defining life that would ban abortion outright.

The issue of abortion in relation to, for example, slavery is the issue of actual harm to a living being; if you extend the 'rights' of a human as per a slave (in when we define slavery as wrong) to a developing embryo, you are (from a standpoint of biological complexity, etc) applying them to an entity not all that dissimilar from a plant.

The definition of (the beginning of human) life, as per science (a beliefs neutral evaluation) sets a limit upon this, before which a developing embryo is no more human than the contents of a petri-dish; the neurological view is life begins with brain activity at 24-27 weeks. (EDIT; note, the cessation of brain waves in EEG scans is the methodology used to confirm death, hence why I'm citing it here as the method to determine the beginning of life)

Regardless of the development into a living definably human foetus, of course, because we cannot fairly make presumptions about future events. To follow that standpoint isn't all that far along the same road as forbidding safe sex (because condoms prevent sperm getting into an egg and hence fertilizing, etc), or egg/sperm donation for IVF (as they're no guarentee that genetic material will be used).

I'd also note that bias implies a prejudging which alters the perception of known facts; such as a religious belief upon the existence of a soul at conception. Implying bias is an inherent part of holding a view is like saying 1>0 is biased because it also states something; bias only applies in how you interpret evidence, and whether you choose to add or remove meaning to it as the result of an external, non neutral factor or view. There are numerous historical examples of religious and cultural views changing the definition of when life begins.

EDIT; worth noting; the supossed 'pro-abortion' standpoint isn't about the morality of abortion upon a religious, cultural or individual level, but rather giving people the right to determine that choice rather than have it foisted upon them.

i'm pro-choice, but a work friend's twins were born prematurly and pulled through. They worn at a time when they could still have been aborted, which is kinda scary.

Goober5000 wrote: EDIT: Grug - everyone has biased views on abortion. If you have a position on it, you're biased.

I should of phrased it differently perhaps. I meant to say that the Minister was using his own religous viewpoints as a basis for his vote. That to me, is wrong, and brakes some of the very fundamentals of freedom.

But you are right in assuming I have some biased views as well. I have been in a situation where abortion was discussed and it was an option that was clearly valid.

On an unrelated hypothesis; if a woman was raped and fell pregnant, does she not have a right to terminate that life if she so chooses, and to do so in a safe and medically approved environment?

EDIT: May I just add, that I don't like the idea of abortion in any sense in reality. I don't go racing around convincing people to kill potential little human beings. I honestly wish it wasn't necessary.
Yet I strongly believe that in extreme circumstances, the option should still be there to mothers and / or couples to decide upon themselves.

Indeed, it is possible for a Foetus that young to survive, though extremely rare, you're friend is lucky.

I don't think it's about a life/death thing though. It's not as easy a choice, I know that from experience, it's something you have to be 110% certain of, and using it as some kind of contraceptive is still extremely suspect, let alone dangerous.

But particuarly churches are quick to say that Abortion is Murder, quick to say King Herod was a murderer, and yet skip really really quickly over several Mass Murders/Genocides from the old testament, which included pregnant women and children.

My main gripe about it all though is, and always will be, that these laws are ALWAYS decided by men, who will never be pregnant and women who are rich enough to be able to easily raise a family.

What about this: do you believe that abortion is murder, but what about capital punishment?
Is that not murder?

I find it quite the oxymoron, that the american government seems to frown upon abortion yet reverently support capital punishment.

Don't mess with texas. >..>

Grug wrote:What about this: do you believe that abortion is murder, but what about capital punishment?
Is that not murder?

Faulty analogy.

Capital punishment is applied to only those who have grossly violated both the law and the moral strictures of society.

Abortion is applied to those who by definition have not yet done anything.

Goober5000 wrote:You could just as easily say that those who don't believe in slavery don't have to own slaves. The rightness or wrongness of abortion is independent of whether a person has one.

In any case you don't need religion to prove that the baby is human or alive; logic or science is more than sufficient. You may need religion to decide whether it's morally justified.

EDIT: Grug - everyone has biased views on abortion. If you have a position on it, you're biased.

Damn straight. I always love hearing that position: "If you think abortions are wrong, then don't get one." Talk about missing the damn point completely! Let me put it this way: if you truly believed, with all your heart, that millions of innocent people were being brutally murdered every day under the guise of some legal "procedure," would you just sit idly by and say to yourself, "Oh, I think it's wrong, but it's their right to do it if they so choose. I can't interfere with their own choice." Of course not! You'd do everything in your power to stop it, to end the taking of innocent lives. Saying that pro-lifers should just "not get abortions" is exactly like saying that those in WWII Germany opposed to the Nazi regime should just "not gas people."

As for the whole sperm and egg argument, come on. That's about as big of a fallacy as there is. Let me put it this way: go ahead and put a bunch of sperm cells in a petri dish. Sit around and wait for a while. Then do the same with a group of egg cells. What will happen? Absolutely nothing. Now, what if you were to do the same thing with a fertilized egg? Well now, that's a different story. It'll start dividing. The cells will start differentiating. It'll grow. It'll move inexorably down the path toward its sole purpose: the development of a fully viable baby, able to survive on its own. This has absolutely nothing to do with condoms.

As for the whole "not a human" argument, don't make me laugh. Any high school biology student could tell you that, when the egg and sperm cells meet, a unique genetic code is created, a full human DNA blueprint. Neither of the germ cells is fully human; they only contain half of a human's genetic material. But after they combine, a unique genetic code is formed, completely different from that of either parent. From the moment of conception, that little cell is a fully human life, and the scientific community has admitted just as much. Saying that, just because this little cell doesn't exhibit complex neurological activity yet, it's perfectly fine to destroy it, is exactly like saying it's fine to go up to a brain-dead person on a ventilator and rip their arms and legs from their body, while their heart is still beating. I'm a scientist, and nothing annoys me more than people trying to make claims like that.

Are most of you here taking the side of the abortion industry? Do you really think that Planned Parenthood has the best interests of women in mind? Ha! Is their lying to women about abortion and its risks considered fine by you? Are their despicable medical practices, such as letting untrained doctors perform abortions and putting women's lives in serious risk due to their lack of proper procedure, supposed to be justified somehow? Is their utter unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of post-abortion depression, which drives thousands of women into despair and guilt, somehow excusable? Hell no. The only thing the abortion industry is concerned about is their bottom line, yet they try to put on the face of "caring for women and their rights." Abortion is the worst thing to ever happen to women; it harms them almost as much as their unborn children. It makes me laugh whenever some feminazi spouts off a line like, "If abortion is outlawed, women will have to resort to back-alley abortions." How about this: if abortion is outlawed, no woman will ever have an abortion. Period. For all their talk of "choice," they seem to conveniently forget the whole concept of putting up one's child for adoption. I consider that to be one of the most noble things that anyone can do; for someone in that situation to decide to give their unborn child a chance at a good life shows supreme love.

I, for one, will keep speaking out against abortion until the day that no more innocent children are slaughtered in the name of some nonexistent "right" produced by judicial activism. Roe v. Wade represents one of the worst cases of law in Supreme Court history, and yet it's still allowed to stand. Hopefully, the day will come when this country will finally be able to put this time behind us, when all children will be valued as the miracles they truly are. I only hope that it comes soon.