[Ash]

Laws often have to draw lines that border on arbitrary.

This indeed is a good point. An attempt to make black and white distinctions about right and wrong in quite a grey area poses a few sociolegal challenges. But such is life, and we have to live by the rules of the land...

[Ratmagiclady]

This indeed is a good point. An attempt to make black and white distinctions about right and wrong in quite a grey area poses a few sociolegal challenges. But such is life, and we have to live by the rules of the land...

Part of the issue there is that absolutist laws are 'lines and definitions' and *life* is *not.* That's why in free societies we also *limit* what *laws themselves* are permitted to do.

Some find the idea of 'grey areas' unsatisfying, as if something's wrong when it's not 'black or white,' and treat 'grey' as some failure that needs to be decided on each dismembered 'issue,' 'Is this to be declared 'white' or 'black?'


Maybe it's *supposed* to be grey. Or....

Fn->OK-> >(Bright/Natural/Portrait/Landscape/Vibrant/Monochrome?) -> OK->->OK.

(punching RAW+ just in case. )


Maybe 'grey' means, *not binary.* Not *actually supposed to be* 'black or white,' ...And maybe that means declaring something 'black' or justifying it as 'white' isn't the bloody *point.* Maybe, the very notion of *freedom* is *not* arrogating to ourselves some 'binary definition' to be imposed on all in all situations: all control over what's back, what's white. Or should we all be doing litho?

Law and order and 'judgment' are no friends of humanity if *they* can't restrain themselves.

[AntY]

The problems are two things. When does a lump of cells become a human and how do we define life? These two questions are quite hard to answer. I personally view the baby, while in the womb, as a parasite on the woman.

"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."
- Wikipedia

The baby can not live without the mother while in the womb and therefore it's the mothers right to her own body that also grants her the right to an abortion. However, if the baby is born, it's no longer a parasite and the mother's right to abortion does not linger exist.

This sounds quite harsh but this way we can get around the hard questions.

[Ash]

This is one way of thinking about it AntY.
Legitimate, though also reductionist.

The parasite that is a foetus is of greater value socially than let's say a malaria protozoan or a dodder.
What I feel is of vital importance beyond the legalities, as Les has stated more than once, is the psychological state, judgement and insight of the woman seeking the abortion. In Australia, pre-abortion counselling is mandatory but hasn't stopped the fairly large numbers of repeat customers. With more non-judgemental education and support for these women (emotionally as well as financially if necessary), there may be positive changes in a pregnant woman's life that reinforce personal responsibility but also give her the confidence and ability to pursue viable alternatives.

[GeneV]

The problems are two things. When does a lump of cells become a human and how do we define life? These two questions are quite hard to answer. I personally view the baby, while in the womb, as a parasite on the woman.

"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."
- Wikipedia

The baby can not live without the mother while in the womb and therefore it's the mothers right to her own body that also grants her the right to an abortion. However, if the baby is born, it's no longer a parasite and the mother's right to abortion does not linger exist.

This sounds quite harsh but this way we can get around the hard questions.

That is similar to the legal approach I suggested on another thread, but I avoided emotionally charged words such as "parasite." In no other circumstances under most legal systems is one person required to give body, blood or physical pain to support another living thing or person. This principle guides the legal but not the moral issues.

[GeneV]

This is one way of thinking about it AntY.
Legitimate, though also reductionist.

The parasite that is a foetus is of greater value socially than let's say a malaria protozoan or a dodder.
What I feel is of vital importance beyond the legalities, as Les has stated more than once, is the psychological state, judgement and insight of the woman seeking the abortion. In Australia, pre-abortion counselling is mandatory but hasn't stopped the fairly large numbers of repeat customers. With more non-judgemental education and support for these women (emotionally as well as financially if necessary), there may be positive changes in a pregnant woman's life that reinforce personal responsibility but also give her the confidence and ability to pursue viable alternatives.

Counseling and assistance would be essential. In this country, the assistance offered after birth is lacking. The suggestion is often made here in a rather cavalier fashion that the baby be born and offered up for adoption. I think the proponents of that option often severely underestimate the difficulty of that option for the mother. Carrying to term and then giving up a born child is not something that many mothers can do easily. The same is true of late-term abortions as well.

[wizofoz]

Ash, I generally agree with you that we are more free of the pestilence of religious fanatics that the US seems to be, but my observation is that, like everything else, we are following the example of our 'great and powerful friends'

I see more and more involvement of the religious right in our politics, our media, our way of life. Yes, we have had a general Anglican/Catholic divide in this country basically since the First Fleet, but the evangelist 'religion as entertainment' style that is exploding across this country worries the bejesus out of me. Even our 'venerable' (and I use that term in jest) Opposition Leader is beholden to the whims of the religious right (and his Archbishop) and their less that logical view of the world.

God help us if the rabid right ever get hold of power....

---

Last edited by wizofoz; 06-03-2011 at 05:13 AM.

[Ash]

God help us if the rabid right ever get hold of power

Don't pay them no heed.
My thinking is that the democratic process will speak for itself, and any right wingers will be quickly weeded out of such significantly influential places of society. Aussies are a lot more agnostic and egalitarian to put up with religious fanaticism anywhere in the public arena. Despite my own worldview, I think this is a good thing. And whilst Aussies have generally assimilated American popular culture, there are many aspects of Aussie lifestyle that remain Aussie.

The Anglians and Catholics will forever be at odds, this is a hiccup of pre-colonial factioning, but this tele-evangelism you're worried about isn't all that big here (perhaps Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn on TV at some wee hour in the morning, and a cable TV channel) - you should see how many US channels have this stuff on 24/7...

All I can say is let your votes at each election day do the talking (from memory, the Australian Sex Party did remarkably well in the last election )

[Nesster]

let me see if I have this right....

Human life is sacred, according to the anti abortion nutters, so they go about trying to take human life to prove their point?

What am I missing here?

Yep. The extra belief here is that INNOCENT life is sacred, and that INNOCENT life is only possible for the unborn and newly born. Somewhere along childhood we become SINNERS, free agents who can SIN and therefore forfeit claim to SACREDNESS of our lives. If you are killed, it's your own fault for being a sinner, at that point.

Of course INNOCENCE vs SIN doesn't apply to the animals, which were put here for our use

[Ash]

Carrying to term and then giving up a born child is not something that many mothers can do easily. The same is true of late-term abortions as well

This very psychology of the peripartum woman is why the support is so needed. Without it the women can be left with unresolved (even unacknowledged) grief of loss that can leave their outlook on pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood marred for life. It becomes society's loss, not just the woman's.

[magkelly]

I'm mostly an adoption proponent myself, but the problem with adoption being used to promote a strictly pro-life agenda alternative is that too many of those women aborting cannot give birth to babies that have any chance of being placed. I know I've said this on here before but it bears repeating, even so.

There are lines of people supposedly lined up to adopt babies, but the reality is most of those couples have pretty stringent ideas of what kind of baby they'd adopt. There are people who go out of their way to adopt less advantaged multi-cultural children, like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt but the vast majority of people who want to adopt are middle or upper class working people who want a baby less than 6 months old, preferably of their race, and characteristics that make the baby look like it might actually belong to them.

When a family goes to adopt only a small percentage of those people will take an infant or slightly older baby of another race. They want to adopt a child that looks enough like them so that when they walk down the street with said child everyone comments on a supposed family resemblance. Some people they even go to the point of selecting a child based on it's bio parents physical makeup and their similarity to theirs. Is the child likely to be very smart? Blond vs dark haired? Will he or she have light eyes like theirs or be tall like most of their family. Some people do check for things like that before they will adopt and even when the family isn't Caucasian they still tend to be picky about genetics. It used to be even higher, but even now the vast majority of formal adoptions is still done by your average middle class WASP couple. Gays are starting to adopt. Minorities are starting to adopt, but still your average couple trying to adopt is usually looking for a Caucasian baby, under six months et all.

Yeah there's a certain % of babies born to white, teenaged girls. But there are far more born to not so desirable parents, multi-racial, AA, Hispanic, Asian children who will see the inside of an orphanage long before they will see the inside of a real home. Most will go to foster care, not real adoption if they are lucky. The rest they will be outsourced to whatever orphanage can accommodate them.

For some abortion is still the only option and don't think they don't know it. Tell some young, poor, AA or Hispanic woman-girl that they can adopt out and they'll likely only look at you like you're crazy. They know their unwanted babies aren't likely going to end up adopted out to some nice couple in the burbs. They've probably seen the inside of the foster care system themselves. They know they've only got two choices. It's raise it themselves, or let it potentially go into living hell.

And people wonder why abortion is so prevalent? Why most of the young people who do get pregnant and who do abort choose to in the first place? It's because they have reality dictating their choice. Life isn't always pretty and adoption isn't possible for everyone. Some of these women, they can barely afford condoms and the abortion if that fails. I mean get real...

[Ash]

I'm mostly an adoption proponent myself, but the problem with adoption being used to promote a strictly pro-life agenda alternative is that too many of those women aborting cannot give birth to babies that have any chance of being placed

Fair enough, however I don't think anyone insinuates adoption alone adequately justifying any anti-abortion argument. It is certainly more complex than this. And of course, I appreciate the US situation is very different to that of Australia. But foster care is indeed a challenge, and usually not ideal for the child in more ways than one. Unfortunately, there are (and I have seen) a number of dubious characters being allowed to foster children. It is far from a perfect scenario, but there are a good proportion of respectable foster parents around in Australia.

And people wonder why abortion is so prevalent?

Again, this is hardly from the lack of adoption places alone. How do unwanted pregnancies occur? Education is paramount. Young girls can be taught courage to not give in to unwanted sexual advances. Young girls can take the responsibility themselves of ensuring safe sex is procured if they are going to engage in sex. Young men are a more difficult group to get through to for a variety of reasons, but in-school sex education is highly advantageous. As utopian as that sounds, it is far better than damage control. Poverty is another argument altogether, which I won't get into.

[AntY]

The parasite that is a foetus is of greater value socially than let's say a malaria protozoan or a dodder.

Why is that? What makes the human more valuable than a cuckoo (which is parasiting at other birds)? That's completely arbitrary. One common and reasonable explanation to why we feel this way is that we are biased towards our own genes. Meaning we are prone to sacrifice a dove for an ape or a stranger for our brother.

By this hypothesis the ones who should love a baby the most are the mother and father. If they are the ones wanting an abortion, who are we to deny it? I can not see that a foetus (a lump of cells with human DNA) can have a greater social value than a tumor or wart.

It may have a potential social value but so does every sperm and egg.

[wizofoz]

AntY, by your very own definition, a human fetous cannot be a parasite of its own mother. You use the definition 'of another species'. Are you seriously arguing that some cells of the Mother are somehow a different species to the other cells?

This is just a silly an argument as the 'abortionists are evil' line.

[AntY]

AntY, by your very own definition, a human fetous cannot be a parasite of its own mother. You use the definition 'of another species'. Are you seriously arguing that some cells of the Mother are somehow a different species to the other cells?

This is just a silly an argument as the 'abortionists are evil' line.

LOL! Lost a word there. Fail@me. Nice catch!

Have to say that the foetus is almost a parasite then. Still, I stand for the mothers right to her own body and then she still should have the right to make an abortion.

I'm sad. Can't say babys are parasites anymore.