-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc
- Thread starter Osho
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I often wonder what a United States with compulsory voting would look like. But then again, I think of the fact that we've had Little Johnny, the Tones and Turnbull Show, and then ScoMo. So maybe compulsory voting doesn't always turn up the diamonds amongst the slag either.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,341
"The Supreme Court needs to overturn Roe v Wade because abortion laws should be decided by the state,"
Barely a few months later and here's a proposal for a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
www.foxnews.com
We all knew that first line was bullshit.
Barely a few months later and here's a proposal for a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
Graham introducing 15-week abortion ban, says bill may help GOP in midterms
Sen. Lindsey Graham is introducing a bill to ban certain abortions, the most high-profile national GOP effort to do so since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
We all knew that first line was bullshit.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #2,679
How does he think this will HELP them?"The Supreme Court needs to overturn Roe v Wade because abortion laws should be decided by the state,"
Barely a few months later and here's a proposal for a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
Graham introducing 15-week abortion ban, says bill may help GOP in midterms
Sen. Lindsey Graham is introducing a bill to ban certain abortions, the most high-profile national GOP effort to do so since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
We all knew that first line was bullshit.
View attachment 1508066
Record voter turnouts against these state laws.
Lets hope the fascists keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Unfortunately the masses are easily swayed by sound bites.
Sorry that was the thing back in my early days of voting. Nowadays, its FB scrolls, propaganda cable channels, Twitts or whatever the trendy SM is, YT content producers, and insular net forums.
I can work both ways I guess. Around here, the youngest generation of voters unceremoniously tossed out pro-China party because they mostly got information from modern sources. They weren't swayed by TV or print media, which is still mostly in the hands of the former single party rulers.
Yeah, this is Graham is PoS's version of trying to walk back the extreme anti-abortion rhetoric with something HE thinks is statesman-like.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 2,182
- 1,206
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Idiot.
I thought we were dealing with clumps of cells, pro choice posters? Clarko was just encouraging young guys to use birth control /s
Being pro-choice means that people have the right, if they so choose, to end an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice does not mean pressuring and/or forcing termination upon others. It doesn't mean forced sterilisation.
It means the choice is there, that's all.
It means the choice is there, that's all.
Falls hopelessly short when it comes to the “is it a life?” dilemma, though.
The only person who has the right to terminate a pregnancy is the pregnant mother / woman. I’m guessing if the father/ man wanted a termination due to his circumstances eg too poor then it’s too bad and he will still have to contribute financially to that child’s upbringing? Is that the case ?
Do doctors still have a choice ? Will pro choice force doctors to carry out the termination procedure?
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
The law in Australia is clear in that doctors can object but need to refer to a service that does. Not sure what shitshow the yanks are cooking up
I think in areas with a a larger staff of doctors or a choice in hospitals such as in cities there's room for a doctor to let their conscience be their guide. In regional areas though, say with one base hospital serving a far larger area I should think that a smaller staff would need to accomodate a larger range of medical needs, including abortions.
This is where the law sat, at least in Queensland in 1983. I've bolded the important bit.
The paternal injunction cases
...the first case, K v. T, came before a single judge of the Queensland Supreme Court in 1983. The applicant in this case was a man who was neither married to nor in a de facto relationship with the respondent. They had had sexual intercourse on only one occasion, and the respondent had become pregnant as a result. She had informed him of her intention to have an abortion, on the basis that it would be 'best for everyone.' The applicant sought to prevent this because he was strongly opposed to abortion. He wanted her to continue with the pregnancy, with his financial support, and then surrender the child for adoption. In the Supreme Court, Williams J refused his application for an injunction to restrain the respondent from causing or permitting the pregnancy to be terminated.
Williams J gave three reasons for refusing the application. The first reason was that the court's inherent parens patriae jurisdiction, which enabled it to intervene to protect vulnerable subjects of the Crown, including infants, did not extend to a foetus. This was because a foetus lacks legal personality, unless and until it is born alive...
It's a long article, but here's the legal definition of 'parens patriae' in Australin courts
Decisions on behalf of your Children: The doctrine of 'Parens Patriae' in Australia
Parens Patriae means ‘parent of the country’ in Latin, and refers to the common law doctrine by which the Sovereign has an obligation to protect the interests of those unable to protect themselves, such as children and mentally incapacitated adults. For example, the State has a duty to protect...
www.familylawexpress.com.au
As I understand it, in Australia the unborn have no legal personality, and will have no legal personality until born alive. That means life begins at birth in a secular legal sense.
Of course late-term abortions are extremely restricted in this country
Abortion
There are many reasons someone might choose to terminate a pregnancy. Counselling can help you understand your options. Learn about the process.www.healthdirect.gov.au
so, even if they aren't legally recognised as 'life', protections do exist for the later stages of human gestation under most circumstances.
That's a really good question that I don't have an answer for.
So the law suggests (unwritten message) that it’s not a life until about 22 weeks, at which point it’s probably a life and you’d better have a good reason to end it.This is where the law sat, at least in Queensland in 1983. I've bolded the important bit.
It's a long article, but here's the legal definition of 'parens patriae' in Australin courts
Decisions on behalf of your Children: The doctrine of 'Parens Patriae' in Australia
Parens Patriae means ‘parent of the country’ in Latin, and refers to the common law doctrine by which the Sovereign has an obligation to protect the interests of those unable to protect themselves, such as children and mentally incapacitated adults. For example, the State has a duty to protect...www.familylawexpress.com.au
As I understand it, in Australia the unborn have no legal personality, and will have no legal personality until born alive. That means life begins at birth in a secular legal sense.
Of course late-term abortions are extremely restricted in this country
so, even if they aren't legally recognised as 'life', protections do exist for the later stages of human gestation under most circumstances.
I don’t know how long you’ve been lurking this particular thread. I think the now banned poster was getting at something else with this Hawthorn thing. In this thread we have dozens of pages of pro-choice commenters aggressively arguing that an unborn fetus is a “cluster of cells”, “biological soup”, or “a creampie” - not my words. If they said these things to someone who is grieving what they consider to be their lost child after a coerced abortion, they would simply be taunting them and calling their dead baby a “semen stain” (again not my words).
When presented with a woman in this situation they’re suddenly all “no we’re pro-choice. Don’t you get it?” as if they haven’t been making specific scientific claims while being extremely dismissive and crass about their grief.
So the ethical and scientific question “when is it a life?” remains despite the law. And if the answer is that it’s a life when they mother says so, I understand the utility of this answer, but it is still perfectly superstitious.
Yeah, alot of what is said is absolutely cringe-worthy. There's points to be argued from BOTH sides, and they can both be made in a civil and a diplomatic way.
I won't tag her in here as I'm unsure how she'd react to my words, but a poster in this thread suffered a very personal loss, a miscarriage. This of course helped inform her opposition to abortion and, though I'm firmly pro-choice I one hundred precent understand the notion that a valued life begins at conception.
You find out you or your partner are pregnant. You want that child and you start planning for it. Names. Clothes. Toys. Cribs. Prams. A whole imagined future. No matter what gender that life has been assigned value by the parents and it will be grieved for if lost.
Unwanted pregnancies, well I see that as life-potential that is lost as well. But the life form, the proto-life really, itself knows nothing. Has experienced nothing. It has no measure of life to be weighed against and if unwanted by the parent/s will not be missed when gone. It's a cold and unemotional point to argue I realise but yes. At that point it really is a collection of cells depending on how far along in development it is.
But I'd never say that to anyone who wanted and lost a child. The parent/s assigned value of and to that potential life is what matters most, in my opinion. The cold, unemotional consideration of an unwanted proto-life has no place in the argument at that stage.
Goes back to people still having to realise that when engaging in the sex act that you are dabbling in the creation of life and great responsibility can come from it .
Oh, most definitely. If you want to avoid pregnancy the absolute best method is contraception. Some might say total abstinence... but not me!
Understand what you're saying. You don't say hate which I appreciate, but most have.
Only thing I would say is that you're narrowing the issue purely down to homosexuality. I feel that in 95% (admittedly a guess) of cases, abortion would be a lifestyle choice. And there are a range of other lifestyle choices Christians and other faiths would disagree with. Doesn't mean they hate those people...
Last edited:
nobbyiscool
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,813
- 24,227
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- TasTigers, JJs, MV, CRaiders, PhEagles
Even somewhere in between - ie. "I got drunk, I had sex, it doesn't have to cost me my education and my employment future" - is not reasonably described as a "lifestyle choice"... unless you're the type that wants to preach to others about how they live their lives.
The second.
If having a baby leads to "I have no money and a baby would crush all hopes of getting out of poverty for the foreseeable future", I wouldn't choose the lifestyle of sleeping around, as that is the natural consequence.
Similar threads
