RU486 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kostya · 02-17-2006, 10:07 PM

Well RU for it or not?

aKula · 02-18-2006, 04:30 AM

I don't think the health minister should be able to veto the decision of the expert committee. Abbot said that he should be able to because he represents the Australian people, which isn't true, he only represents the people of his electorate. The decision about RU486 should be based on wether the risk of taking it is acceptable not about abortion. Opponents to abortion should only be able to affect change through the legislative process. The problem is when you have a member of parliament who only represents a small fraction of Australian citizens deciding on the drug because of what it's designed to do, which the legislative branch as a whole has decided should be legal, rather than any dangers. The experts should be aloud to do what they do with every other drug and decide on allowing or disallowing its use on the risk of using it.

dlish · 02-18-2006, 08:33 PM

i dont think abbott should have that power... thats too much power for a small man who represnts such a small cluster of people.

spindles · 02-18-2006, 09:12 PM

I agree with What aKula said.

Kostya · 02-18-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

I don't think the health minister should be able to veto the decision of the expert committee. Abbot said that he should be able to because he represents the Australian people, which isn't true, he only represents the people of his electorate. The decision about RU486 should be based on wether the risk of taking it is acceptable not about abortion. Opponents to abortion should only be able to affect change through the legislative process. The problem is when you have a member of parliament who only represents a small fraction of Australian citizens deciding on the drug because of what it's designed to do, which the legislative branch as a whole has decided should be legal, rather than any dangers. The experts should be aloud to do what they do with every other drug and decide on allowing or disallowing its use on the risk of using it.

First let me offer the disclaimer that I am not at all familiar with the finer points of the Westminster system in general or Australian Parliamentary Goverment in particular.

I do however think it is not quite so simple as you suggest here. To say that Abbot does not represent the Australian people is true enough, but so too may we make the very same objection against the 'expert panel' also do you not agree. Moreover, I don't think its quite fair to say that Abbot represents only his electorate, since nobody would say the very same of John Howard, though he was technically only elected by a tiny portion of the nation, we consider him the leader of our nation.
I agree that when voting on legislation, all members of Parliament, be they Howard, Beasley or Abbot do represent their electorate, since all their votes are equal. This being said, we all concur that in general, Federal MP's do not vote as if they were looking out for their electorate, but rather they vote according to a specific party stance, prescribed from the upper echelons.
Separate from this, we also agree that some MP's are endowed with certain executive powers which they inherit by occupying various portfolios or positions. For instance, John Howard, in addition to his function as a voter in Parliamentary proceedings, also has far reaching powers conferred upon him by virtue of his being the Prime Minister also. Likewise, Abbot also happened, until recently to possess the veto power, by virtue of being a health minister, which, unfortunately is a position to which he was appointed, not elected.
Abbot's claim to representing the Australian people is tenuous at best, being, as far as I can see, merely that he is the Health Minister in the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party was elected to more seats than any other, and hence, his wishes, which are Liberal policy therefore represent, at least more Australian people than not.
This being said, I see no reason for the health minister to be endowed with these kinds of powers, and I am glad that this unnecessary concentration of power has been duly discarded. I do not however, particularly approve of merely shifting similar powers to another agent, be it a panel of experts or anyone else.

This being said, I do not see how you can delineate the RU486 controversy from the abortion controversy. I agree that dangers in use are of significant concern, but so too ought we consider what a drug is designed to do in determining whether it ought to be legal or not.
I agree with you that opponents of abortion should only be able to affect change through the legislative process, but this doesn't mean that RU486 has nothing to do with abortion, nor that it ought not enter into our consideration of its legality or not.
I imagine for instance, that if someone wanted to release a perfectly safe drug that simply put people to sleep and erased their memory of the last 48 hours, it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that despite the lack of dangers in usage, the significant dangers, moral or otherwise in releasing what is essentially a tailor made date rape drug is indeed a major and central consideration in the decision.

RU486 has been passed through the legislature, this makes it legal. But nobody has thus far answered my question, which was not about the legality of it, but are you for it?

aKula · 02-19-2006, 03:32 AM

The way I see the issue you are either for abortion or not. If you are for abortion it shouldn't really matter to you which way the abortion is performed either the standard method or through the use of a drug. The only exception would be if for example the drug killed 5% of the people who took it.

So to me when you ask if I am for RU486 it's the same as if I am asked am I for abortion (as I have no medical expertise as to the merits of either method of abortion).

I have to admit that on the issue of abortion I am largely undecided. This is due to the ambigious nature of the dilema, that is when does aborting an unborn baby become infanticide rather that the mother ridding herself of unwanted cell growth (I apologise for my crude terminology). Recognizing this question as one that is largley ambigious I cannot oppose any measure to allow people to decide on their own. This becomes even more confused in my mind when my Christian beliefs are taken into account. The Church is opposed to abortion. It is difficult for me to put myself in the position of a woman who is pregnant but does not want to be. If I were to follow the teachings of my Church I would not have the abortion. Yet our society is a secular one in which the views of religion should not be applied to society at large.

Kostya · 02-19-2006, 05:03 AM

Well...

First of all, let me commend you on having one of the greatest film moments of all time as your signature, I cannot express how incredible I think that Der Zorn Gottes is. but let us leave that aside for the moment.

Secondly thanks for your answer, I hope some more people will throw in on this so we can maybe get some varied stances on the situation.

spindles · 02-20-2006, 02:29 AM

Abortion is a bit of a touchy issue. I *do* have some reservations about this drug being available and they are largely not medical at all.

1. By having abortion as a medical procedure, it makes it inherently bigger in the mind of the mother. This has an affect of (I hope) making people thinking about abortion, think pretty hard. If introducing this drug makes abortions easier it may be an undesirable side affect.

2. I would guess that there is a lot of counselling involved with going through this procedure. There is probably already a lot in place to make sure this counselling is offered/easily available at whichever clinic at whixh this procedure is performed. I hope that if this drug is introduced, that the counselling options are also easily accessible from an alternative source (i.e. the GP that fills in the prescription).

I am not anti-abortion at all and I think we need to recognise that there are legitimate reasons to abort a baby. This does not mean that we need to make it as simple as "popping a pill", as I think there are wider ramifications.

In terms of politicans versus experts - I really think this should be treated just like any other drugs - we have a team of experts whose job is to make a decision about whether we can use it. We *also* have duly elected representatives who oversee this process. What we saw occur this week was this in action (a representative trying to block a particular thing, and democaracy at work to remove that block). Unfortunately, I think our pollies got tied up in an abortion vs anti-abortion debate on this drug, as if the minute this drug reaches the street a million babies will be aborted - this is just a ridiculous situation.

Meridae'n · 02-20-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kostya

Abbot's claim to representing the Australian people is tenuous at best, being, as far as I can see, merely that he is the Health Minister in the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party was elected to more seats than any other, and hence, his wishes, which are Liberal policy therefore represent, at least more Australian people than not.

I believe this fact becomes even less relevant when the politician in question has extremely strong christian values, as Abbott does, thus skewing his opinions into an even smaller percentage of the population than he did initially. I am not a christian, but I have alot of respect for those who are unless they force their beliefs onto everyone else, which is the case far too often.

I must admit that have been all for RU486 until reading these posts and having a bit more of a think about it. Spindles makes a good point that perhaps it may not be wise to make abortion such an easy proceedure for fear of making it a relatively simple decision for pregnant women. I'll take this opportunity to state that I am all for abortion and believe that the child's life starts at the moment of birth, therefore my only problem with the drug is it's effect on the level of responsibility a subject must endure throughout the process.

I'm sure that it will be more than just 'popping a pill', but who's to say that whatever guidelines are put in place now for obtaining the drug aren't softened in the future? It will be interesting to see how this all pans out, and more importantly how mush emphasis they put on education, especially for teenage gilrs who I'm thinking will be a large proportion of the people who will be looking to use the drug.

snowy · 02-20-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridae'n

I must admit that have been all for RU486 until reading these posts and having a bit more of a think about it. Spindles makes a good point that perhaps it may not be wise to make abortion such an easy proceedure for fear of making it a relatively simple decision for pregnant women. I'll take this opportunity to state that I am all for abortion and believe that the child's life starts at the moment of birth, therefore my only problem with the drug is it's effect on the level of responsibility a subject must endure throughout the process.

A few years ago, a magazine here in the United States published a first-hand account of a woman who was given mifepristone (our name for RU486) for her abortion procedure. It was VERY hard to read. Basically, when a woman takes RU486, she induces a spontaneous abortion (though inhibition of progesterone production). This is VERY painful physically, and it isn't something that's instantaneous. It may take a couple days to expel the contents of the uterus. Bleeding and spotting may continue for up to THIRTY days after the bleeding begins.

It's not as easy as everyone seems to think. It is supposed to be easier emotionally, though, because a woman is allowed to do her grieving at home. However, choosing to end a pregnancy is never easy, regardless of the method, and anyone who would choose to use abortion as a birth control method has other issues entirely.

Meridae'n · 02-20-2006, 07:10 PM

Very well put. I guess it's a hell of alot easier for us males to distance ourselves from the act and talk about it like it's merely a simple emotionless proceedure.

spindles · 02-20-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

It is supposed to be easier emotionally, though, because a woman is allowed to do her grieving at home. However, choosing to end a pregnancy is never easy, regardless of the method, and anyone who would choose to use abortion as a birth control method has other issues entirely.

My concern - is it actually better to be doing this in private? Emotionally, maybe, but imagine you are a single girl who gets pregnant and decides to abort and you don't want anyone to know. From first glance, this drug might be right up your alley! But when you take into account 2% of patients have an overly heavy (bleeding) reaction to it, that actually required medical attention, this drugs becomes a damn sight uglier in my estimation. The idea of allowing someone to have a DIY abortion at home seems a little crazy to me.

With good (maybe family) support, this problem is minimised *but* there really needs to be checks in place to make sure that the patient is not going home to "abort alone".

spindles · 02-20-2006, 08:33 PM

On a side note to this - what did people think of the line taken by Dana Vale?

link

Quote:

LIBERAL MP Danna Vale has raised the prospect of Australia becoming a Muslim nation, warning "we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence".

As five conservative Coalition women promoted a compromise amendment to keep the fate of abortion drug RU486 in politicians' hands, Mrs Vale said she had read that the Imam at Sydney's Lakemba mosque had predicted Australia would be Muslim in half a century.

"I didn't believe him at the time. But … when you actually look at the birthrate, when you look at the fact that we are … aborting ourselves almost out of existence by 100,000 a year — a guesstimate," Mrs Vale said.

"You multiply that by 50 years — that's 5 million potential Australians we won't have here."

She said the RU486 issue involved accountability, ethics, morality and economics.

Two amendments are being considered to the private members' bill that would strip the Health Minister of power over the drug and give that power to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

One from NSW Liberal Jackie Kelly would retain ministerial power but give Parliament the right to disallow a decision.

This amendment is also supported by Mrs Vale, Louise Markus, De-Anne Kelly and Trish Draper.

The other, from Queensland Liberal Andrew Laming, would give the power to the TGA with Parliament having the power to disallow.

Liberal MP Mal Washer, one of the chief proponents of the bill who will lead off the debate that starts today, said last night the amendments had now made the numbers very close.

He said the Laming amendment in particular had done "more harm than anything" to the cause of the bill.

While it would give power to the TGA, it retained political interference, he said.

Ms Jackie Kelly said the lack of babies for adoption in Australia was leading to "a trade in babies" from overseas.

She said the West was "plundering" the developing world for children. This led to social problems in the countries from which the children were removed.

"You create a trade in babies which leads to some tragic decisions for a woman overseas," Ms Kelly said.

"You've got an option of selling a kid sort of on the sly to support your own children".

The West had to look to itself to solve its problems, she said. "Adoption is not an option for Australian women. Why?"

The amendment provides for Parliament to have before it both the advice of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the minister's reasons for his decision.

Meridae'n · 02-20-2006, 09:03 PM

She should've been a headjob.

Nimetic · 02-20-2006, 09:04 PM

I suppose... I've been happy to let others debate this one. As a guy, I've seen men raise voices on many a topic, only to be dumped on because of their gender. Abortion seems to be one of the issues where this occurs. And yeah... since there seem enough women on either side to ensure a thorough debate, I essentially choose (or chose) to let them figure it out.

Seeing as it has been raised though... I'm agnostic on this issue. Perhaps though, I'm slightly "for" legalizing the drug. The way I see it, abortion is currently allowed in specific circumstances. This "just" adds a new mechanism.

Ultimately too - I figure that if a pregnant woman was desperate enough, she'd find a way to abort without assistance anyhow. And if somebody did that, it's better that they use a well understood method, have access to a doctor and/or counselling (both before re options, and after).

Sheesh. This is such a multi-dimensional issue really. It's hard to do it justice in a few lines. The only thing I believe strongly is that the answer, on abortion, is not clear.

Nimetic · 02-20-2006, 09:26 PM

Absolute rubbish (the key phrase about birthrate) take a guess, extrapolate 50 years into the future.... That gives a meaningless result.

And... as I mentioned on another forum, culture and religion differ from race, in that they are not hereditary.

But I feel a little sorry for Dana. I don't think that she meant to offend anyone. She came up with a bad phrase and it spread. She apologized, so no worries (on the reported phrase). Of course, I still reserve the right to criticize her official policies....

Kostya · 02-21-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

I'll take this opportunity to state that I am all for abortion and believe that the child's life starts at the moment of birth

I hear your statement Meri, but I have to ask, what is the difference between a baby one second before and one second after the 'moment of birth'? I for one can only think of one thing, namely that the child is receiving oxygen in a slightly different way, namely by breathing.

Quote:

I am not anti-abortion at all and I think we need to recognise that there are legitimate reasons to abort a baby.

Such as?

Quote:

As a guy, I've seen men raise voices on many a topic, only to be dumped on because of their gender. Abortion seems to be one of the issues where this occurs.

I've seen similar things myself. I for one think its ridiculous.

aKula · 02-21-2006, 03:30 AM

I once read a letter to the editor in a newspaper saying "why won't men simply leave women to decide what they want to do with their own bodies?". This is not an effective way of convincing anybody againts abortion because these opponents equate it as murder. They will not drop their opposition simply because only one group in society is capable of commiting what they see as (a subset of) murder.

Slightly off topic but simply an observation I made which I wanted to share.

As for Dana Vale, I do not take her seriously. She previously called for a Gallipoli theme park to be built. As for Australia's birth rate it is still high enough to not be in crisis. Giving more incentives for women to have children (e.g paid maternity leave and easier access to child care) is an all round better method of raising the birth rate.

Kostya · 02-21-2006, 04:32 AM

Quote:

I once read a letter to the editor in a newspaper saying "why won't men simply leave women to decide what they want to do with their own bodies?". This is not an effective way of convincing anybody againts abortion because these opponents equate it as murder. They will not drop their opposition simply because only one group in society is capable of commiting what they see as (a subset of) murder.

Well my reply would be firstly that theirs is not the only body involved here, unless we merely consider a fetus to be part of a woman's body, which I don't see any reason for.

Secondly, this business about men not being able to comment because we cannot be pregnant simply doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite alright with women talking about prostrate cancer, even though they can't possibly get it. Likewise, while I totally concede that I have never been or will be pregnant, I don't see why I can't make judgements upon something simply due to the fact that I lack direct experience regarding that thing. I have all sorts of opinions of this kind, such as I oppose prejudice against Aboriginals, even though I am not of Aboriginal extraction, I oppose wife beating even though I've never been a woman married to an abusive husband.

spindles · 02-21-2006, 02:36 PM

I said there are legititmate reasons for abortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kostya

Such as?

Firstly, there are medical reasons (and as I am not a doctor these might be completely wrong); somehow the baby is endangering the mother, the baby is already dead in utero.

Secondly, babies created via rape - if I was a woman and this happened to me, I wouldn't want to keep it...

Thirdly, I was going to mention financial/situation reasons, but even I don't think they are that strong a reason (ironically, the weakest reason I can list is probably the one used the most).

spindles · 02-21-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kostya

Likewise, while I totally concede that I have never been or will be pregnant

you could keep the foetus in a box

Meridae'n · 02-21-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kostya

I hear your statement Meri, but I have to ask, what is the difference between a baby one second before and one second after the 'moment of birth'? I for one can only think of one thing, namely that the child is receiving oxygen in a slightly different way, namely by breathing.

The difference is that one is a human being and one is a foetus. I must admit I'm not 100% comfortable with this but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Saying that the human life begins anytime before birth leads us down a path which ends in a moralistic ban on all abortions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindles

Thirdly, I was going to mention financial/situation reasons, but even I don't think they are that strong a reason (ironically, the weakest reason I can list is probably the one used the most).

Spindles, I fear you tried to disguise your support for this last point because you felt others would look down upon this. I think this is a valid reason for wanting to abort a foetus. I myself have been in this sitution in second year at uni. The girl in question done everything right, but still became pregnant when on the contraceptive pill. There's no way on god's green earth we could have financially supported this child, and I am completely comfortable with the decision we made and the reasons for making it.

Kostya · 02-21-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

The difference is that one is a human being and one is a foetus. I must admit I'm not 100% comfortable with this but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Saying that the human life begins anytime before birth leads us down a path which ends in a moralistic ban on all abortions.

Meri, this is a difference in name only, not a qualitative difference at all. Do you not agree that calling something by a different name, does not in the slightest change whatever qualities we might assign to that thing?
If so, the 'difference' you have noted is nothing of the sort, and hence, if there is no difference in the qualities of these two things, we have no reason for such a marked difference in treatment or evaluation of these two things.

Spindles

Quote:

Firstly, there are medical reasons (and as I am not a doctor these might be completely wrong); somehow the baby is endangering the mother, the baby is already dead in utero.

I wholly agree.

Quote:

Secondly, babies created via rape - if I was a woman and this happened to me, I wouldn't want to keep it...

Isn't adoption a solution to this problem?

Quote:

Thirdly, I was going to mention financial/situation reasons, but even I don't think they are that strong a reason (ironically, the weakest reason I can list is probably the one used the most).

Along with this one also?

Quote:

Spindles, I fear you tried to disguise your support for this last point because you felt others would look down upon this. I think this is a valid reason for wanting to abort a foetus. I myself have been in this sitution in second year at uni. The girl in question done everything right, but still became pregnant when on the contraceptive pill. There's no way on god's green earth we could have financially supported this child, and I am completely comfortable with the decision we made and the reasons for making it.

Which leads me to ask Meri, why did you not consider adoption in this situation?

Ella · 02-21-2006, 07:24 PM

I'm pro-choice, and always have been. I had an abortion late 1989, three months after I met a man who would later become my husband and the father of my two children. I wanted to keep the child and he didn't. That child would be 16 this year, and I regret my decison to abort that child almost every day - in my case, the guilt has been compounded over time. Having said that, if I did have that child, would I have the two gorgeous children I have today, and be as financially secure as I am now? Was I ready to have a child? I didn't believe so at the time, and still don't really know. That was my decision and I have to accept it.

Abortion is not pleasant, whatever way you look at it, however, the handling and admistration of this drug should be closely monitored and counselling mandatory in all cases.

In terms of the "aborting ourselves out of existence" comment, it's complete hogwash. Thanks to the Federal Government, new mothers now have over 3k bonus for giving birth in terms of the Maternity Payment, creating somewhat of a baby boom over the last couple of years.

spindles · 02-21-2006, 07:45 PM

Obviously others have been in these situations and I haven't, so any argument I make here is theoretical only.

RE the finance option - I can see a time in my life, when I had just left home, where an unlooked for pregnancy would've changed the course of my life. When you make just enough money to feed yourself and have a roof over your head, having another mouth to feed would be a terrible burden. Having said that - having a baby when you I was very young would've been life changing. I am happy to say that, had I asked for support from family, it would've been forthcoming, so perhaps this is part of the reason why the financial burden is one that I see as less compelling. I am probably in a fortunate situation in this regards - my parents are not wealthy by any means, but would've, I'm sure, placed some of this financial burden on themselves.

As an aside, my parents got married because of an unexpected pregnancy - my eldest brother is extremely happy they chose the course they did

Kostya - again from a purely speculative POV, I would find giving up my child for adoption almost as hard as aborting it.

There is a legal line drawn in the sand (20 weeks through a pregnancy), prior to which is considered a miscarriage and after which it is considered a human life. My soon-to-be second child is just before that line at the moment.

I also thought of a fourth reason - not one that I would use, but... - people specifically get ultrasounds done around the 10-12 week mark looking for indicators of down syndrome and other abnormalities. We skipped this scan altogether because we would not abort in any case, but obviously people do.

Ella · 02-21-2006, 09:33 PM

But not all abnormalities are picked up during the 12 week scan. A good friend of mine had to make the choice to abort at 21 weeks after the 20 week scan as her unborn did not have any hip joints, and therefore nothing for his legs to join onto. The choice was agonising, but the quality of life for the child was not looking to be good.

Kostya · 02-22-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Kostya - again from a purely speculative POV, I would find giving up my child for adoption almost as hard as aborting it.

I imagine it would be, but would you agree that it would be a marginally better option?

Meridae'n · 02-22-2006, 05:34 PM

Depends on the circumstance I guess. In my situation I really didn't have too much input into R's decision to terminate, although it was what I want her to do. I'm not a woman so I can't say this for sure, but the guilt that my ex has felt over the years would be a tiny percentage of the guilt she would've felt had she have gone through and had the child then gave it away.

For the record Kostya, when do you feel the life of a child begins? I guess in my opinion it starts, as you put it, when the child begins breathing oxygen (an explaination that still has me scratching my head a bit), but where is your line in the sand? Bit of a tough one...

Kostya · 02-22-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Depends on the circumstance I guess. In my situation I really didn't have too much input into R's decision to terminate, although it was what I want her to do. I'm not a woman so I can't say this for sure, but the guilt that my ex has felt over the years would be a tiny percentage of the guilt she would've felt had she have gone through and had the child then gave it away.

Well for starters let me say that I am wholly opposed to the current convention of excluding fathers from all and any input in the process. Secondly I have to ask why she would have felt guilty when her child was living as opposed to not? Thirdly I have to ask why this guilt would outweigh whatever guilt she might have after an abortion? Lastly I have to ask why we must consider this guilt to be the principle imperative involved in the decision?

Quote:

For the record Kostya, when do you feel the life of a child begins? I guess in my opinion it starts, as you put it, when the child begins breathing oxygen (an explaination that still has me scratching my head a bit), but where is your line in the sand? Bit of a tough one...

For the record, I do not believe at all in the somewhat curious business of drawing lines where none ought to be. The fact of the matter is that our concepts regarding these things are vague. While I think that there is a qualitative difference between a seven cell zygote and a 20 week foetus, I don't think there is any point during the interceding time where it makes sense to simply draw a line. If indeed you are going to draw a line, and we need to in order to legislate apparently, I think it ought to be drawn well well back, so that we may be sure that in spite of the vagueness, our line is on the right side of the two concepts we wish to delineate.

This being said, I don't think our decisions on such matters rest solely on what is and is not a baby, a foetus, a human etc.

For instance, we agree that a newborn baby has intellectual abilities less impressive than those we might assign to a dolphin or a chimp, and yet if faced with a choice between killing one or the other, almost all folk would choose Flipper to die and preserve the baby in spite of the fact that at the time, the dolphin is actually endowed with the intellect of a 4 year old (I find these kinds of claims dubious, but even if they could be verified, I would prefer the dolphin to bite the dust.)
Consequently, our decisions around these sorts of issues, are not, though we oftwise seem to forget it, informed merely by what things are at the time. The fact that the dolphin is smarter than the baby at that particular time is not the long and short of our assessment, for we all know the baby has the potential to become a fully grown human being, fulfilling all our expectations of what is to be valued about human life, while the dolphin shall never be anything more than it is. This potential is quite compelling in our decision about babies, so too it ought to be in our decisions about cell clusters at any stage since the gradual qualitative change between a seven cell zygote to a 20 week foetus to a newborn infant in no way changes the potential of that being, which is constant.
Therefore, because I believe that the controversy lies in the potential, and because the potential remains the same between these vague concepts of zygote, foetus, baby I am not too concerned to delineate between them when in order to make decisions about it.

On the other hand, I am deeply puzzled, disturbed even, by your assertion that there is some kind of moral difference between a breathing thing and a non-breathing thing...

Kostya · 02-23-2006, 12:55 AM

If I may respond to myself here.

In retrospect, my claim "I for one can only think of one thing, namely that the child is receiving oxygen in a slightly different way, namely by breathing."

Is not quite exhaustive. There is one other difference that warrants consideration and it is this: That a baby after birth no longer imposes certain conditions and responsibilities on its biological mother.
This is certainly not to be completely ignored, but I don't know if it is enough to suggest that prior to this we may suggest that foetuses are as different as Meri seems to think.
At any rate, my bad, didn't think of that until just then.

spindles · 02-23-2006, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kostya

I imagine it would be, but would you agree that it would be a marginally better option?

I think it would be a close call. The kind of guilt associated with killing your unborn child is different from that assocaited with handing the same child over to complete strangers to raise as their own. I feel fortunate that I was never faced with the decision either way.

Kostya · 02-23-2006, 03:35 AM

Well whatever this 'difference' may be, you must surely agree that, in so far as the adoptive parents are responsible folk, from the point of view of the child it is infinitely better?

Meridae'n · 02-23-2006, 10:02 AM

That is a very large assumption. It would be safe to assume that in many many cases the adoptive parents certainly were not 'responsible folk'. But that is getting away from the point of the thread. I will respond to you later mate... it's 4.30am and I just got home from a 12 hour shift :rooted:

Kostya · 02-26-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

That is a very large assumption. It would be safe to assume that in many many cases the adoptive parents certainly were not 'responsible folk'.

I agree that it is a big assumption, hence why I preceded it with the clause 'in so far as', I am more than familiar with the less than acceptable situation regarding adoption, in Queensland at least, but that is a whole different issue.

What I am saying is if they are reponsible folk, than it is better for the child.

Meridae'n · 02-27-2006, 10:10 AM

...and if they are not, your child will have a childhood both you and I could not even imagine. Talk to someone who has been in this sort of situation and you will see why I, and many others, would never consider it.

spindles · 02-27-2006, 04:20 PM

yep, IF is a great word in a discussion. "If I had better locks my house wouldn't have been broken in to". Being ready and willing to adopt a child does not automatically make anybody responsible.

Kostya · 02-27-2006, 08:10 PM

Gentlemen,

I don't quite see why you are so forcibly making a point that I have freely conceded, namely, that adoptive parents can be horrible parents. I said it quite clearly here:

Quote:

I am more than familiar with the less than acceptable situation regarding adoption, in Queensland at least

I am in no way making a claim that all adoptive parents are responsible. My claim is, and always has been merely this:

If the adoptive parents are responsible folk, then it is better for the child than abortion.

I completely agree with Spindle's assessment here:

Quote:

yep, IF is a great word in a discussion.

In fact I think it is one of the most important words in a discussion about ethics. Because, in ethics, we are not so concerned with what is, but with what ought to be. If statement do not tell us very much about the state of affairs in the world very often, but they do illuminate very well the relations between those things. For instance, take my example of the choice between an infant and a dolphin's life, it's clear that such a scenario is incredibly unlikely, but we are not called upon to consider its likelihood or its actual occurence, merely to imagine what if we were placed in that position. Our answer tells us a great deal about how and why we value human life.

So for instance, Spindle's example:

Quote:

"If I had better locks my house wouldn't have been broken in to"

Tells us what ought to be, namely, that Spindle's ought to have bought better locks for his house. Of course, since it is phrased in the past tense, it is of no value. But imagine that it was three days prior to te robbery and asked Spindles 'What if your house was going to be broken into in three days?' and we determined after some dicussion the following conclusion: "If Spindles buys better locks for his house it will not be broken into three days from now or in fact any time in the conceivable future." Now we know what Spindle's ought to do if he does not want his house to be susceptible to breakins.

This is why I do not shirk from utilising 'if' propositions a great deal in our current discussion, because I wish to determine what it is we ought to do with regard to abortion.

For instance, Meri, supposing I were to take up you offer and go and discuss the horrible details of people's lives who had been adopted by terrible people. Do you agree that I would be in remiss to suggest to those people that they would be better off to have been aborted rather than lived?

The arguments you have presented here seem to me eminently persuasive to anyone that we need to impose strict and stringent checks and restrictions on who can adopt children in order to prevent the wrong people being entrusted with children's lives. I for one completely agree with this measure, and fail to see how this negates the conclusion that you have both agreed to that adoption is better if the parents are responsible people.

Moreover, are we permitted to suggest that a bad life is reason enough to abort someone? I mean to say, should I be able to say to someone that they would have been better off being aborted rather than lived if they suffered as children under their parents, be they biological, adoptive or otherwise?
I for one don't think so, or else I would have to suggest to both of my parents that they ought to have been aborted.

ryfo · 02-28-2006, 02:07 AM

i asked my SO for her opinion (because it would affect her directly) and she said although
she has never had one and never likely to need one, she hopes that she would have the choice to make her own dicision and the ability to have an abortion without sugery but with doctors supervision would make a hard decision a lot easier to cope with.

spindles · 03-01-2006, 05:16 PM

To answer the hypothetical question - I would neither abort nor put up for adoption, though I can respect people's choices to do either.

Meridae'n · 03-02-2006, 08:42 AM

Well well well, the government has unvieled a $51 million dollar hotline for pregnant women to try and fight Australia's increasing abortion rates. A win for the good guys you might say? Lets not give each other hand-jobs just yet.

I'm a Liberal voter and love everything Johnny has done for this country. I am however, ever sceptical of christians who have power. Howard and Abbott lost round one when they were out-voted on RU486, I'm now worried that a week later they come out with this new hotline to compliment the availability of the drug. My worry? These guys have sought to specifically exclude those trained professionals already in the (inherently pro-choice) system... who just happen to be working in abortion clinics. Why? Take out the guys who are pro-choice, replace them with government controlled shrinks who have to abide by the politician's agenda. Counselling or advocacy... this could become a very hazy line in the wrong hands.

02-17-2006, 10:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	RU486 Well RU for it or not?

02-18-2006, 04:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	I don't think the health minister should be able to veto the decision of the expert committee. Abbot said that he should be able to because he represents the Australian people, which isn't true, he only represents the people of his electorate. The decision about RU486 should be based on wether the risk of taking it is acceptable not about abortion. Opponents to abortion should only be able to affect change through the legislative process. The problem is when you have a member of parliament who only represents a small fraction of Australian citizens deciding on the drug because of what it's designed to do, which the legislative branch as a whole has decided should be legal, rather than any dangers. The experts should be aloud to do what they do with every other drug and decide on allowing or disallowing its use on the risk of using it. __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

02-18-2006, 08:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i dont think abbott should have that power... thats too much power for a small man who represnts such a small cluster of people. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-18-2006, 09:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	I agree with What aKula said. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-19-2006, 03:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	The way I see the issue you are either for abortion or not. If you are for abortion it shouldn't really matter to you which way the abortion is performed either the standard method or through the use of a drug. The only exception would be if for example the drug killed 5% of the people who took it. So to me when you ask if I am for RU486 it's the same as if I am asked am I for abortion (as I have no medical expertise as to the merits of either method of abortion). I have to admit that on the issue of abortion I am largely undecided. This is due to the ambigious nature of the dilema, that is when does aborting an unborn baby become infanticide rather that the mother ridding herself of unwanted cell growth (I apologise for my crude terminology). Recognizing this question as one that is largley ambigious I cannot oppose any measure to allow people to decide on their own. This becomes even more confused in my mind when my Christian beliefs are taken into account. The Church is opposed to abortion. It is difficult for me to put myself in the position of a woman who is pregnant but does not want to be. If I were to follow the teachings of my Church I would not have the abortion. Yet our society is a secular one in which the views of religion should not be applied to society at large. __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

02-19-2006, 05:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Well... First of all, let me commend you on having one of the greatest film moments of all time as your signature, I cannot express how incredible I think that Der Zorn Gottes is. but let us leave that aside for the moment. Secondly thanks for your answer, I hope some more people will throw in on this so we can maybe get some varied stances on the situation.

02-20-2006, 02:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Abortion is a bit of a touchy issue. I do have some reservations about this drug being available and they are largely not medical at all. 1. By having abortion as a medical procedure, it makes it inherently bigger in the mind of the mother. This has an affect of (I hope) making people thinking about abortion, think pretty hard. If introducing this drug makes abortions easier it may be an undesirable side affect. 2. I would guess that there is a lot of counselling involved with going through this procedure. There is probably already a lot in place to make sure this counselling is offered/easily available at whichever clinic at whixh this procedure is performed. I hope that if this drug is introduced, that the counselling options are also easily accessible from an alternative source (i.e. the GP that fills in the prescription). I am not anti-abortion at all and I think we need to recognise that there are legitimate reasons to abort a baby. This does not mean that we need to make it as simple as "popping a pill", as I think there are wider ramifications. In terms of politicans versus experts - I really think this should be treated just like any other drugs - we have a team of experts whose job is to make a decision about whether we can use it. We also have duly elected representatives who oversee this process. What we saw occur this week was this in action (a representative trying to block a particular thing, and democaracy at work to remove that block). Unfortunately, I think our pollies got tied up in an abortion vs anti-abortion debate on this drug, as if the minute this drug reaches the street a million babies will be aborted - this is just a ridiculous situation. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-20-2006, 07:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	Very well put. I guess it's a hell of alot easier for us males to distance ourselves from the act and talk about it like it's merely a simple emotionless proceedure. __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

02-20-2006, 09:03 PM	#14 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	She should've been a headjob. __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

02-20-2006, 09:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I suppose... I've been happy to let others debate this one. As a guy, I've seen men raise voices on many a topic, only to be dumped on because of their gender. Abortion seems to be one of the issues where this occurs. And yeah... since there seem enough women on either side to ensure a thorough debate, I essentially choose (or chose) to let them figure it out. Seeing as it has been raised though... I'm agnostic on this issue. Perhaps though, I'm slightly "for" legalizing the drug. The way I see it, abortion is currently allowed in specific circumstances. This "just" adds a new mechanism. Ultimately too - I figure that if a pregnant woman was desperate enough, she'd find a way to abort without assistance anyhow. And if somebody did that, it's better that they use a well understood method, have access to a doctor and/or counselling (both before re options, and after). Sheesh. This is such a multi-dimensional issue really. It's hard to do it justice in a few lines. The only thing I believe strongly is that the answer, on abortion, is not clear.

02-20-2006, 09:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Absolute rubbish (the key phrase about birthrate) take a guess, extrapolate 50 years into the future.... That gives a meaningless result. And... as I mentioned on another forum, culture and religion differ from race, in that they are not hereditary. But I feel a little sorry for Dana. I don't think that she meant to offend anyone. She came up with a bad phrase and it spread. She apologized, so no worries (on the reported phrase). Of course, I still reserve the right to criticize her official policies....

02-21-2006, 03:30 AM	#18 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	I once read a letter to the editor in a newspaper saying "why won't men simply leave women to decide what they want to do with their own bodies?". This is not an effective way of convincing anybody againts abortion because these opponents equate it as murder. They will not drop their opposition simply because only one group in society is capable of commiting what they see as (a subset of) murder. Slightly off topic but simply an observation I made which I wanted to share. As for Dana Vale, I do not take her seriously. She previously called for a Gallipoli theme park to be built. As for Australia's birth rate it is still high enough to not be in crisis. Giving more incentives for women to have children (e.g paid maternity leave and easier access to child care) is an all round better method of raising the birth rate. __________________ "I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

02-21-2006, 07:24 PM	#24 (permalink)
Ella Ella Bo Bella Location: Australia	I'm pro-choice, and always have been. I had an abortion late 1989, three months after I met a man who would later become my husband and the father of my two children. I wanted to keep the child and he didn't. That child would be 16 this year, and I regret my decison to abort that child almost every day - in my case, the guilt has been compounded over time. Having said that, if I did have that child, would I have the two gorgeous children I have today, and be as financially secure as I am now? Was I ready to have a child? I didn't believe so at the time, and still don't really know. That was my decision and I have to accept it. Abortion is not pleasant, whatever way you look at it, however, the handling and admistration of this drug should be closely monitored and counselling mandatory in all cases. In terms of the "aborting ourselves out of existence" comment, it's complete hogwash. Thanks to the Federal Government, new mothers now have over 3k bonus for giving birth in terms of the Maternity Payment, creating somewhat of a baby boom over the last couple of years. __________________ "Afterwards, the universe will explode for your pleasure."

02-21-2006, 07:45 PM	#25 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Obviously others have been in these situations and I haven't, so any argument I make here is theoretical only. RE the finance option - I can see a time in my life, when I had just left home, where an unlooked for pregnancy would've changed the course of my life. When you make just enough money to feed yourself and have a roof over your head, having another mouth to feed would be a terrible burden. Having said that - having a baby when you I was very young would've been life changing. I am happy to say that, had I asked for support from family, it would've been forthcoming, so perhaps this is part of the reason why the financial burden is one that I see as less compelling. I am probably in a fortunate situation in this regards - my parents are not wealthy by any means, but would've, I'm sure, placed some of this financial burden on themselves. As an aside, my parents got married because of an unexpected pregnancy - my eldest brother is extremely happy they chose the course they did Kostya - again from a purely speculative POV, I would find giving up my child for adoption almost as hard as aborting it. There is a legal line drawn in the sand (20 weeks through a pregnancy), prior to which is considered a miscarriage and after which it is considered a human life. My soon-to-be second child is just before that line at the moment. I also thought of a fourth reason - not one that I would use, but... - people specifically get ultrasounds done around the 10-12 week mark looking for indicators of down syndrome and other abnormalities. We skipped this scan altogether because we would not abort in any case, but obviously people do. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-21-2006, 09:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
Ella Ella Bo Bella Location: Australia	But not all abnormalities are picked up during the 12 week scan. A good friend of mine had to make the choice to abort at 21 weeks after the 20 week scan as her unborn did not have any hip joints, and therefore nothing for his legs to join onto. The choice was agonising, but the quality of life for the child was not looking to be good. __________________ "Afterwards, the universe will explode for your pleasure."

02-22-2006, 05:34 PM	#28 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	Depends on the circumstance I guess. In my situation I really didn't have too much input into R's decision to terminate, although it was what I want her to do. I'm not a woman so I can't say this for sure, but the guilt that my ex has felt over the years would be a tiny percentage of the guilt she would've felt had she have gone through and had the child then gave it away. For the record Kostya, when do you feel the life of a child begins? I guess in my opinion it starts, as you put it, when the child begins breathing oxygen (an explaination that still has me scratching my head a bit), but where is your line in the sand? Bit of a tough one... __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

02-23-2006, 12:55 AM	#30 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	If I may respond to myself here. In retrospect, my claim "I for one can only think of one thing, namely that the child is receiving oxygen in a slightly different way, namely by breathing." Is not quite exhaustive. There is one other difference that warrants consideration and it is this: That a baby after birth no longer imposes certain conditions and responsibilities on its biological mother. This is certainly not to be completely ignored, but I don't know if it is enough to suggest that prior to this we may suggest that foetuses are as different as Meri seems to think. At any rate, my bad, didn't think of that until just then.

02-23-2006, 03:35 AM	#32 (permalink)
Kostya Little known... Location: Brisbane, Australia	Well whatever this 'difference' may be, you must surely agree that, in so far as the adoptive parents are responsible folk, from the point of view of the child it is infinitely better?

02-23-2006, 10:02 AM	#33 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	That is a very large assumption. It would be safe to assume that in many many cases the adoptive parents certainly were not 'responsible folk'. But that is getting away from the point of the thread. I will respond to you later mate... it's 4.30am and I just got home from a 12 hour shift :rooted: __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

02-27-2006, 10:10 AM	#35 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	...and if they are not, your child will have a childhood both you and I could not even imagine. Talk to someone who has been in this sort of situation and you will see why I, and many others, would never consider it. __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

02-27-2006, 04:20 PM	#36 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	yep, IF is a great word in a discussion. "If I had better locks my house wouldn't have been broken in to". Being ready and willing to adopt a child does not automatically make anybody responsible. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-28-2006, 02:07 AM	#38 (permalink)
ryfo Psycho Location: melbourne australia	i asked my SO for her opinion (because it would affect her directly) and she said although she has never had one and never likely to need one, she hopes that she would have the choice to make her own dicision and the ability to have an abortion without sugery but with doctors supervision would make a hard decision a lot easier to cope with.

03-01-2006, 05:16 PM	#39 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	To answer the hypothetical question - I would neither abort nor put up for adoption, though I can respect people's choices to do either. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

03-02-2006, 08:42 AM	#40 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	Well well well, the government has unvieled a $51 million dollar hotline for pregnant women to try and fight Australia's increasing abortion rates. A win for the good guys you might say? Lets not give each other hand-jobs just yet. I'm a Liberal voter and love everything Johnny has done for this country. I am however, ever sceptical of christians who have power. Howard and Abbott lost round one when they were out-voted on RU486, I'm now worried that a week later they come out with this new hotline to compliment the availability of the drug. My worry? These guys have sought to specifically exclude those trained professionals already in the (inherently pro-choice) system... who just happen to be working in abortion clinics. Why? Take out the guys who are pro-choice, replace them with government controlled shrinks who have to abide by the politician's agenda. Counselling or advocacy... this could become a very hazy line in the wrong hands. __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?