The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

So you're saying if you're not prepared to raise a child, be celibate? Sorry, but that's just not realistic. If that was realistic, there would be a hell of a lot less sex. Accidents aren't anyone's fault- that's why they're accidents. Condoms break, pills fail. Even in the case where a pregnancy is due to "negligence" e.g. not using a condom, the woman should still have the right to have an abortion, and not have to be forced to deal with "the consequences" by raising a child.

People who go to have abortions don't simply do so because they don't "feel like" having a baby, as you've implied. An abortion is a serious, irreversable decision that no one makes flippantly. I don't think anyone would be able to make such a decision flippantly, and if someone was able to, they certainly shouldn't be responsible for raising a child.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm more able to understand your point of having safe, legal abortions, but enforcing some further requirements. However, the reality is that there are already serious requirements. In reality, the only reason women in NSW are able to have abortions are due to a technicality in the law, which states that abortion is illegal except in the case of "any economic, social or medical ground or reason upon which a doctor could base an honest and reasonable belief that an abortion was required to avoid a serious danger to the pregnant woman's life or to her physical or mental health."

The following is an outline of abortion laws in NSW:

http://www.fpahealth.org.au/sex-matters/factsheets/63.html

i will tell you whats realistic - having sex is the for purpose of reproduction. Now thats being realistic. I cant understand that you willing to take a risk but your not willing to suffer the consequences? You will be surprise - if you make a decision to have sex on the spot -you will be surprised how women will make the decision on the spot to have anabortion.

My main worry here is - I dont want women having abortion because they can. They should only under extreme circumstances. I dont believe they have the full rights to have an abortion - they 50% right and their partner has the other 50% - u might think the baby is in the women's womb - buts it partners sperm that contributed to that. Its bit like investing in shares 50% each and then the women gets it all just because she manages it? - she might get a little more - but not much.

 

[ur_inner_child]

i will tell you whats realistic - having sex is the for purpose of reproduction.

Do you feel this is the main social attitude? If not, then what would you suggest it to change? Enforce it?

You see, we don't have sex for the purpose of reproduction just because the result can lead to it. As a social and natural attitude, we do so for pleasure, and there is very little we can do about this attitude/drive besides being wise about it. You statement that sex is only for reproduction is false. Sexual urges are pleasure based. I bet when you look at a woman, you want to feel good against her body, not to consciously want to have her babies.

My main worry here is - I dont want women having abortion because they can. They should only under extreme circumstances.

Many pro-choicers feel that abortion should not be taken too lightly either. It seems like a common misconception that those that have an abortion do it as easily as deciding to get a facial. I'm not sure that anyone, within the situation would ever take it lightly.

Do you feel that the current basis for abortion in NSW is sufficient? -

abortion to be legal if a doctor found 'any economic, social or medical ground or reason' that an abortion was required to avoid a 'serious danger to the pregnant woman's life or to her physical or mental health' at any point during pregnancy

Why or why not?

 

[dagwoman]

i will tell you whats realistic - having sex is the for purpose of reproduction. Now thats being realistic. I cant understand that you willing to take a risk but your not willing to suffer the consequences? You will be surprise - if you make a decision to have sex on the spot -you will be surprised how women will make the decision on the spot to have anabortion.

My main worry here is - I dont want women having abortion because they can. They should only under extreme circumstances. I dont believe they have the full rights to have an abortion - they 50% right and their partner has the other 50% - u might think the baby is in the women's womb - buts it partners sperm that contributed to that. Its bit like investing in shares 50% each and then the women gets it all just because she manages it? - she might get a little more - but not much.

So you're telling me you won't have sex until you're trying to have a child? People who choose to have sex without "suffering the consequences", or getting pregnant, use birth control. However, as we've discussed, birth control can fail.

Why should a woman have only 50% of the rights to an abortion?!?! It's HER body. SHE has to endure 9 months of pregnancy, with the emotional and physical trauma during and after this time. In today's society, she will be the one expected to give up her job to stay at home, especially when the baby is young. She will be the one expected to give the most emotional support to the child.

As for your comment:

you will be surprised how women will make the decision on the spot to have anabortion.

Not only is it stupid, but it's not backed up by any evidence. I doubt you have the experience to comment on anything like this, nor do you most likely know of anyone who has been in the position of having to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Not only this, but women in NSW who choose to have an abortion must have a doctor's permission and be counselled before the abortion to ensure they are sure. They cannot make a decision "on the spot". If you can find any evidence that shows otherwise, please share. Otherwise, keep false claims to yourself.

 

[HotShot]

Remember that, when you are fucking for pleasure.

Oh and while we are here. If its for reproduction, why are condoms so widely used? And why do one night stands exist?

The purpose of sex is for reproduction, you might have sex for pleasure or for whatever reasons. But he purpose is for sex. People know of the consequence - u know that the pills and the condoms are not 100% effective - so why take the risk if you are not prepared for the consequences?

Not only is it stupid, but it's not backed up by any evidence. I doubt you have the experience to comment on anything like this, nor do you most likely know of anyone who has been in the position of having to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Not only this, but women in NSW who choose to have an abortion must have a doctor's permission and be counselled before the abortion to ensure they are sure. They cannot make a decision "on the spot". If you can find any evidence that shows otherwise, please share. Otherwise, keep false claims to yourself.

What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? How many women have had multiple abortions? How many women have had abortions?

Can you prove 'how they cannot make a decision on the spot?'? Or how long they take to make decision? If so prove it? Stop asking stupid questions - on put position are you to question my experience - I have not questioned urs.

Why should a woman have only 50% of the rights to an abortion?!?! It's HER body. SHE has to endure 9 months of pregnancy, with the emotional and physical trauma during and after this time. In today's society, she will be the one expected to give up her job to stay at home, especially when the baby is young. She will be the one expected to give the most emotional support to the child.

Tell me how many women have had more than one children? Surely they have been pregnant and 'suffered from physical and mental trauma' - more than once.
Stop trying to make pregnancy into an miraculous feat - there are millions of mothers out there. These are simple excuses for an abortion and this is what I fear if you allow abortions to happen too easily.

Its the dude's sperm that created baby - and thus he has equal rights to it. Otherwise why would he had sex with her? If it wasnt for him there would be no baby in the first place!.

Noone expects anything from a pregnant lady apart from delivering the baby and if she wants to bring it up. She doesnt need to give up her job. There are many possibilities especially in Australia. Think of the women in the poorer nations how do you think they manage? They dont even have a welfare system in place!

So you're telling me you won't have sex until you're trying to have a child? People who choose to have sex without "suffering the consequences", or getting pregnant, use birth control. However, as we've discussed, birth control can fail.

I am not saying anything about my personal sex life -lol. But I will have sex knowing the consequences and being prepared for the consequences and if she falls pregnant and onus is on me to get that baby delivered as safe as possible and bring it up. Whether she supports that or not its up to her - But I have every right to the baby. If she wants to be the mother or not -thats her choice - but 9 months is nothing compared to how long you live for - 60-80yrs? on average?.

 

[dagwoman]

Just because you're pregnant for 9 months does not mean that the impacts of the pregnancy and the birth of the child won't affet you for much longer, in most cases, for life.

As for your comment: "Can you prove 'how they cannot make a decision on the spot?'? Or how long they take to make decision? If so prove it?" Not only have I included the laws that enable abortion, but the condition that a doctor must support the abortion, indicating such a decision cannot be made on the spot. Furthermore, I will quote the Politics and Argument guide:

In many cases, appeals to ignorance can be made by people on either side of a dispute. For example:

There is no evidence that aliens are living amongst us. Therefore, aliens are not living amongst us.
There is no evidence that super-disguised aliens are not living amongst us. Therefore, super-disguised aliens are living amongst us.

Which one of these arguments will win out? That depends on where we think the burden of proof lies. The person who argues for the more surprising, counter-intuitive claim carries the burden of proof. It is up to him/her to show that she has evidence for p being true.

Someone who produces a new medicine similarly bears the burden of proof, i.e. that person is obliged to show that the medicine is effective. It is not the case that we ought to believe that the new medicine is effective unless we have found evidence that it is ineffective.

You bear the burden of proof.

And your comment on other women being pregnant, I'm talking about the "physical and mental trauma" of having an unwanted pregnancy, not a planned one, just to clarify.

And you said "Its the dude's sperm that created baby - and thus he has equal rights to it." Well, it's the woman's body- thus she has ALL rights to what happens to her body.

 

[kami]

My main worry here is - I dont want women having abortion because they can. They should only under extreme circumstances. I dont believe they have the full rights to have an abortion - they 50% right and their partner has the other 50% - u might think the baby is in the women's womb - buts it partners sperm that contributed to that. Its bit like investing in shares 50% each and then the women gets it all just because she manages it? - she might get a little more - but not much.

I'm not sure many people would look at abortion as an easy choice - many people wrestle with the decision to undergo surgeries regardless of the oft positive effects. With the uncertainty regarding whether a child is a person or not, I imagine the decision to get an abortion would be even more momentous.

I also think the 'half ownership' argument is a rather poor one as it renders the foetus as little better than genetic property which is jointly owned but disregards the uterus which is not jointly owned. In which case the woman has the right to withdraw the service of her uterus and it is not her fault if the 'co-owner' is unable to maintain the foetus.

Tell me how many women have had more than one children? Surely they have been pregnant and 'suffered from physical and mental trauma' - more than once.
Stop trying to make pregnancy into an miraculous feat - there are millions of mothers out there. These are simple excuses for an abortion and this is what I fear if you allow abortions to happen too easily.

Just because something has been done by many others does not make it any less arduous or disastrous for an individual.

Noone expects anything from a pregnant lady apart from delivering the baby and if she wants to bring it up. She doesnt need to give up her job. There are many possibilities especially in Australia. Think of the women in the poorer nations how do you think they manage? They dont even have a welfare system in place!

I don't think that what many women in poorer nations do could be called 'managing'. I also don't think you realise what those nine months do to a woman - they're put out of work (and income) for most of their pregnancy and if the job requires a certain level of fitness then they are put out of commission for a while after that. Further, if they're students then they lose a year and depending on the course may not be able to gain readmittance - which can severely affect their future occupations.

There are also direct consequences on someone's life - temporary restriction of mobility (to the point where it can be difficult to use the car or walk far), back ache, bladder problems, C-section stitches, mood swings, calcium deficiencies, anemia, vomiting - and these are all relatively normal symptoms with no consideration to medical complications.

 

[KFunk]

...fact is they know sex has the purpose of reproduction.

The biological function of sex is reproduction. Sex also has numerous distinct social functions e.g. communication, and attachment & bonding. It's often worth keeping in mind that biological utility does not equal ethical weight.

 

[HotShot]

I also think the 'half ownership' argument is a rather poor one as it renders the foetus as little better than genetic property which is jointly owned but disregards the uterus which is not jointly owned. In which case the woman has the right to withdraw the service of her uterus and it is not her fault if the 'co-owner' is unable to maintain the foetus.

But males dont have the oppurtinity to have a utereus or have baby inside them its only the genetic traits that they can share. Its not like the baby can be placed inside a male? or under development through other means. That is males dont have oppurtinity to have the baby within themselves - so I find arguing on the bases 'its in my body' - as insufficient. If males had the oppurtinity for the foetus to be inside them, such an argument would be suitable but in this case it is not.

The responsiblity is shared among the parents. The minute they have sex and the foetus is development - the foetus is owned 50% by the female and 50% by the male. Where it is is irrelevant?

Just because something has been done by many others does not make it any less arduous or disastrous for an individual.

It doesnt make it anymore or less 'disastrous' for an individual, but it does show that it is possible to develop a baby and if it is possible in such conditions - then why cant it be done here in AUstralia?

I don't think that what many women in poorer nations do could be called 'managing'. I also don't think you realise what those nine months do to a woman - they're put out of work (and income) for most of their pregnancy and if the job requires a certain level of fitness then they are put out of commission for a while after that. Further, if they're students then they lose a year and depending on the course may not be able to gain readmittance - which can severely affect their future occupations.

As I said those 9 months make up little time in your lifetime of what 60+ years? You can earn that money back easily by working overtime at later stage of your life. Are you then negating the effects of having a baby? In those 9 months of pregnancy- is once a lifetime experience? (unless ur having ur second baby).
Money, education etc, can be caught up on quite easily. ITs not everyday thing to be pregnant nor is everyday thing to have and care for a baby.

There are also direct consequences on someone's life - temporary restriction of mobility (to the point where it can be difficult to use the car or walk far), back ache, bladder problems, C-section stitches, mood swings, calcium deficiencies, anemia, vomiting - and these are all relatively normal symptoms with no consideration to medical complications.

Generally most women suffer from the same symptoms - as humans our race has existed for thousands of years - again its a natural process - its not in most cases life-threatening! How many babies will a women in a lifetime ? 1-6? max, thats only about 6 years of 60+ year lifetime.

Having child enables you to have support when you are older, it enables you to have someone close, and gives some value to life. Its a golden oppurtinity essentially.

Not only have I included the laws that enable abortion, but the condition that a doctor must support the abortion, indicating such a decision cannot be made on the spot. Furthermore, I will quote the Politics and Argument guide:

Those laws - are laws lol - they dont explain anything in terms how fast decisions are made by women. If you proof how decision making times by women I will try and find it for you? But you have not given any proof to suggests decisions about abortion take a long time.

The biological function of sex is reproduction. Sex also has numerous distinct social functions e.g. communication, and attachment & bonding. It's often worth keeping in mind that biological utility does not equal ethical weight.

Yes mate, I am not really arguing whether abortion is ethically or not. I understand why women would have to abortions - thats what I arguing - why would they have abortions?. Especially if you know that if something goes wrong - you will be pregnant. You can sex for a whole lot of reasons and in AUstralia most of us are educated on safe sex - so essentially you know of the consequences, naturally you would have sex under circumstances where you are comfortable and prepared for the consequences. This is the problem - I dont want to see a whole bunch of women having abortions - because they are sluts that dont want have babies but just want to have sex. You cant change the biological function, but you change everything else/=.

 

[dagwoman]

Your whole argument about "men don't have uteruses..." is just stupid. There aren't any "ifs" about this. Men can't have babies. Full stop. It's a woman's body, and should be her choice.

Yes, children can be a wonderful thing. When they are wanted and the parents are financially, physically, emotionally prepared to have one. In this case, abortion usually isn't pursued, because it's not wanted or needed. Money and education cannot just be caught up on "quite easily" by women who give up an unwanted baby for adoption, and your flippancy on such a subject shows you really aren't able to put yourself in the shoes of people who may need an abortion.

And as I've said, just because a pregnancy lasts only 9 months doesn't mean its impacts last only this long. If a woman gives a baby up for adoption, this will stay with her for the rest of her life. And for those parents who didn't want a child but kept it, we hear daily in the news the horrors of neglectful parenting, from physical and sexual abuse to death.

And as for your comment:

This is the problem - I dont want to see a whole bunch of women having abortions - because they are sluts that dont want have babies but just want to have sex.

That is so grossly offensive and removed from reality it's not funny. As we've said before- THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. People don't use abortion as birth control- they use it when their birth control fails, as a last resort. Do you actually think someone would repeatedly endure the cost and emotional and physical pain associated with abortion when they could just use a condom?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The responsiblity is shared among the parents.

I would argue that under our current system that it should be possible for males to waver their responsibilities in the spirit of fairness - However I feel allowing such a thing to occur leaves you with two options:

• Increased Social Welfare, or
• Declined Standard of Living for New borns / Mothers.

I can't accept a declined standard of living for new borns / mothers nor can I see why society should have to pay when the man is more responsible - Therefore, they can't waver their responsibility.

 

[kami]

But males dont have the oppurtinity to have a utereus or have baby inside them its only the genetic traits that they can share. Its not like the baby can be placed inside a male? or under development through other means. That is males dont have oppurtinity to have the baby within themselves - so I find arguing on the bases 'its in my body' - as insufficient. If males had the oppurtinity for the foetus to be inside them, such an argument would be suitable but in this case it is not.

It isn't a woman's fault that you lack a uterus though, so whether or not males have the opportunity to bear a foetus to term is irelevant. What is relevant is they do not own the uterus and cannot decide when it will and will not be used.

It doesnt make it anymore or less 'disastrous' for an individual, but it does show that it is possible to develop a baby and if it is possible in such conditions - then why cant it be done here in AUstralia?

Simply because a thing is possible does not make it explicitly advisable.

As I said those 9 months make up little time in your lifetime of what 60+ years? You can earn that money back easily by working overtime at later stage of your life. Are you then negating the effects of having a baby? In those 9 months of pregnancy- is once a lifetime experience? (unless ur having ur second baby).
Money, education etc, can be caught up on quite easily. ITs not everyday thing to be pregnant nor is everyday thing to have and care for a baby.

Thats a slippery slope argument, it doesn't matter whether its 9 minutes, 9 months or 9 years as you don't have a right to force someone to disrupt their lives at all.

Its similar to saying theft is not theft so long as you keep it under 10% of the person's wealth - they could make that money back by working overtime, purchase what they want later on, perhaps put their education off for a while... etc.

And it seemed you earlier were making the argument that it is an everyday thing for women to fall pregnant?

Generally most women suffer from the same symptoms - as humans our race has existed for thousands of years - again its a natural process - its not in most cases life-threatening! How many babies will a women in a lifetime ? 1-6? max, thats only about 6 years of 60+ year lifetime.

1. Yes, most women generally suffer the same symptoms - the ones I'd previously described.
2. Our race has existed for millions of years actually, but I'm not exactly sure of your point.
3. Natural processes are not always advisable or pleasant and as a species we have put millions (possibly billions or more) of dollars into staving these processes off.
4. I never made the argument that it was always life threatening, however I would say it is almost always unpleasant and disruptive with the possibility that it may become far worse if other factors further complicated things.
5. Slippery slope argument - discussed above.

Having child enables you to have support when you are older, it enables you to have someone close, and gives some value to life. Its a golden oppurtinity essentially.

These are all subjective qualities that presume your child will:

• geographically/financially be capable of supporting you when you are older;
• that they'd feel sufficient care or duty to do so (and if you view them purely as financial commodities then I'm not sure they would...) and;
• the 'value to life' is subjective, not every individual wants or cares to have a child.

Those laws - are laws lol - they dont explain anything in terms how fast decisions are made by women. If you proof how decision making times by women I will try and find it for you? But you have not given any proof to suggests decisions about abortion take a long time.

Those laws do demonstrate the kind of barriers that exist to the process of abortion though, which would likely require more than a mere whimsy to bypass.

 

[banco55]

.
Thats a slippery slope argument, it doesn't matter whether its 9 minutes, 9 months or 9 years as you don't have a right to force someone to disrupt their lives at all.

Its similar to saying theft is not theft so long as you keep it under 10% of the person's wealth - they could make that money back by working overtime, purchase what they want later on, perhaps put their education off for a while... etc.

The law coerces people into disrupting their lives in all sorts of ways. For example if you have a kid and decide you want to move overseas the Father can apply to get an order that says you can't move overseas with the kid.

In any case whether someone agrees with your argument or not it's surely open to people to draw certain conclusions about a woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to disrupt her budding career.

 

[HotShot]

It isn't a woman's fault that you lack a uterus though, so whether or not males have the opportunity to bear a foetus to term is irelevant. What is relevant is they do not own the uterus and cannot decide when it will and will not be used.

No its not the women's fault, but I was just saying that men dont have oppurtinity to lets say have the foetus in their body. I understand that its in the women's body - unless there is possibility that it could be removed and developed externally - I dont think its her right to have abortion with lets say a discussion with the partner. Partner could value the baby very highly, and he does have the right to have some say whether to have an abortion or not. The foetus is itself is partially owned by him. The women might be supplying all nutrients etc, but she is only one who can do that and I guess its responsiblity of the partner to support her.

On the other hand their could be mutual agreement to have abortion- in this case I suppose it is ok. But if no mutual agreement is reached - and one of the them is willing to keep baby then that is action to be taken i,e no abortion. Simply you are losing a potential life.

Thats a slippery slope argument, it doesn't matter whether its 9 minutes, 9 months or 9 years as you don't have a right to force someone to disrupt their lives at all.

I would argue that none forced her to be pregnant - it were her and her partners action alone that result in her getting pregnant. Clearly you know the biological purpose of sex is reproduction - you know that condoms are only 99% effective, you know that 1% chance you will be pregnant - if it has such a 'devastating' effect on your life why take that chance?
Its similar to saying theft is not theft so long as you keep it under 10% of the person's wealth - they could make that money back by working overtime, purchase what they want later on, perhaps put their education off for a while... etc.

And it seemed you earlier were making the argument that it is an everyday thing for women to fall pregnant?

The opposite actually, you will only fall pregnant - one, two - 9 times for period of 9months each - about between 1 - 9 years depending on how fertile u r.

These are all subjective qualities that presume your child will:

• geographically/financially be capable of supporting you when you are older;
• that they'd feel sufficient care or duty to do so (and if you view them purely as financial commodities then I'm not sure they would...) and;
• the 'value to life' is subjective, not every individual wants or cares to have a child.

NO simply the possiblity of that occuring, which when you have abortion is dismissed unless you adopt.

Those laws do demonstrate the kind of barriers that exist to the process of abortion though, which would likely require more than a mere whimsy to bypass.

I havent read the the laws yet - I am not arguing on the laws itself - rather why do women have an abortion?

If an abortion does cause misery, pain etC? why go through it? When you have 9 months - which many many women have experienced (unlike abortion) where you in this community (and country) have plenty of support, you have a good medical institution, and oppurtinities to work and take maternity leave - in other countries such benefits are non-existant. At the end of 9 months - you have the reward of a baby.

I am particulary interested that a lot of you have put forward for an abortion:

-she has right to because of its in her body - well i dont think she has full rights, but even you have right to do lot of things - which doesnt necessarily mean you should do it and its the best course of action.
-financial problems - well in country like Australia, with a solid welfare system - i find it hard to believe that you will be not be able to raise a child properly - its possible to raise in countrys such Africa
-loss of work, - take a year or two of work. - many mums are working now, and many are working at top-levels - i dont see how having baby in any effects your chances of suceeding in your career - if you really want to do something it can be achieved.

 

[ur_inner_child]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20999564-23289,00.html

Catholic church to advise on abortion
Dennis Shanahan
January 02, 2007

THE Catholic Church's health and welfare arm, Centacare, has been awarded part of the Howard Government's $51 million pregnancy counselling contract aimed at reducing the number of abortions in Australia.Health Minister Tony Abbott is expected to announce the details of the pregnancy counselling service today, with healthcare and counselling group McKessons named as the prime contractor.
McKessons, which supplies counselling and online services for the Veterans Affairs Department and a mental health line in Western Australia, will sub-contract to Centacare and the Caroline Chisholm Society, which will provide professional counsellors.

The announcement that an arm of the Catholic Church, which is opposed to abortion, will be involved in the scheme is likely to upset critics who argue that church or religious groups should not be allowed in abortion counselling.

All counsellors will have to be professionally qualified and complete a course to be included in the new program.

During the national debate last year on the abortion rate, John Howard announced a four-year scheme to offer pregnancy support counselling through a new Medicare payment, and a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week telephone help-line for women, their partners and families.

Mr Abbott kicked off the first abortion debate when he said 100,000 abortions a year in Australia was too many and should be reduced.

During the later RU486 debate, which resulted in the Health Minister losing control of the use of the abortion-inducing drug, surveys showed there was a clear consensus that the abortion rate was too high, although most people still supported access to abortion and did not back any moves to curtail women's right to choose.

But there was overwhelming support, more than 90 per cent, for women to have access to independent advice and counselling not connected to abortion providers. Mr Abbott said he did not believe it was a radical position to hold that the abortion rate was too high and people wanted it reduced.

When pre-termination counselling was introduced at the Royal Women's Hospital in Adelaide, there was a 25 per cent drop in abortion numbers.

Critics of the Government's plan to fund abortion counselling have argued that the involvement of church or religious groups should not be allowed in abortion counselling.

Centacare already provides counselling services for federal and state governments on family relationships.

At the end of 2004, Cardinal George Pell called on Centacare to establish a pregnancy support program, saying women facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy should be given "life-affirming options".

The Caroline Chisholm Society already provides a range of counselling services.

Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja said last year she feared the new measures would be biased towards the anti-abortion groups.

"This Government does not fund directly any pro-choice pregnancy counselling services," she said. "Our concern is that the Government has sought to specifically exclude those trained professionals ... who just happen to be working in abortion clinics."

In March last year, the Prime Minister said the hotline call centre would provide "professional, non-directive" advice and would be tendered out to a non-government organisation.

He said organisations with religious affiliations were entitled to tender, but insisted the hotline would not be set up to provide a specific viewpoint on pregnancy or terminations. But he said he hoped the number of abortions would drop.

Religious chaplins and now this?

Should religion mix into this?

 

[kami]

Australia is not a catholic nation and not everyone can be supported by counselling derived from a catholic moral system. It either forces those to who are not catholic to seek (what would be for them) limited guidance, or to not seek it at all, which is counter-productive.

He said organisations with religious affiliations were entitled to tender, but insisted the hotline would not be set up to provide a specific viewpoint on pregnancy or terminations. But he said he hoped the number of abortions would drop.

If you utilise an organisation with a specific ideological viewpoint on the issue to advise on that issue, then one cannot expect that there will not be a specific viewpoint provided. Just a psychologist would not tell their patient to murder someone on the street, thus you cannot expect a counsellor to provide emotional support to a woman's choice to abort when they will see it as nothing short of murder.

I'm also concerned by the government's statements that this is aimed at reducing abortions - this seems to suggest that the service is designed to sway decisions rather than providing emotional support for women. Is this not contradictory to the statement 'the hotline would not be set up to provide specific a viewpoint on pregnancy or terminations'?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Why do we need religious advice in a counselling service such as this? If people want advice from a religious leader they can just go to church/synagogue/mosque/temple etc. or contact their local religious leader in some way.

I see no need for the Catholic Church, who have a set stance on abortion, to be involved in giving "non-directive advice" in any way.

 

[glitterfairy]

This is ridiculous. Why have abortion counselling at all? We may as well just call it "No, you're not allowed to have an abortion. Call this number and we'll tell you why."

Maybe the government thinks that if Australia's abortion rate is too high, it means fewer taxpayer's money in the future. *rolls eyes*

 

[dieburndie]

It seems as if the decision has been made with the idea that abortion can never be a logical, correct decision. That abortion is always something rushed into by women acting on inadequate information, and when properly informed the women in question should always opt to have the child.
I wonder how often the catholic influence will suggest that it is in the women's best interests to have an abortion?
If each of the 100,000 abortions were well informed, instead of many of them being based on pressure from outside influences, then I don't think there is any reason why a given figure (even if the figure is 100 000) is "too many".
A Catholic would say that 1 abortion is too many, wouldn't they?

 

[glitterfairy]

Of course they would. And similarly, the reason for not allowing the abortion pill into Australia is because "women shouldn't have abortions".

 

[Captain Gh3y]

It's too many because Australia's fertility rate is 1.7. Hopefully this will help reduce the abortion rate somewhat.