tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post7261363499961708992..comments2024-03-06T04:31:53.093+11:00Comments on Just in CASE: New Abortion Laws in Victoria: Where does this leave us?Trevor Cairneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-9541327205996922872008-11-10T17:37:00.000+11:002008-11-10T17:37:00.000+11:00As with all laws, particularly legislative it is u...As with all laws, particularly legislative it is up to the people to protest. The rights of an unborn child need to be addressed.Yes there maybe some circumstances in which it maybe in the best interest of the family to terminate an unborne child but these cases should be rare.Not the norm. In my opinion abortion is offensive the rights of woman.Because it is not celebrating the importance of producing life.It is not valuing an important aspect of being a woman.Many people blame womans rights for these legislations passing and use the words pro-choice, however isn't it quite interesting that it was a man that invented the suction machine and the slogan.From personal experience,I once had to do a survey for the government wanting to know public opinion on the matter, for two weeks I spoke to different people. It was mainly men that favored abortion. Is this womans rights or are we being conned.Maybe its time woman did start taking an activist role and actually stand up for our rights and our value and the value of our children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-91347761842022503992008-10-16T05:51:00.000+11:002008-10-16T05:51:00.000+11:00Sad to hear this. Tis a good sign that the judgme...Sad to hear this. Tis a good sign that the judgment of God is near for this Continent.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-56326132873137670542008-10-15T07:56:00.000+11:002008-10-15T07:56:00.000+11:00Thanks for your comments Marion and Greg. Both of ...Thanks for your comments Marion and Greg. Both of you pick up on the fact that "pro-choice" ignores the rights of the unborn, something that I comment on in the post. Thanks for the other points you raise Greg. Yes, reform is hardly the right word when the result is that more children will be terminated. You may have read the excellent Carson article on this blog because it was a sidebar link until recently. I've added it back to the sidebar and might put a link in this post to it (nice reminder!). Obviously I agree with you about life beginning at conception. Believing this (as I do) also raises serious issues for us in relation to IVF and some methods of contraception. Your point about the many instances where people have chosen not to abort and have given birth to a disabled child (or in some cases not disabled contrary to tests), who has brought great joy to their lives, is a common experience. Tracey Spicer's comments (I gave a link in the post to this) are relevant to this point. Thanks for your comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-40990105498124235902008-10-13T17:29:00.000+11:002008-10-13T17:29:00.000+11:00Hi Trevor,It is difficult not to be very disappoin...Hi Trevor,<BR/><BR/>It is difficult not to be very disappointed at developments such as this; and also, as you point out, at the reaction of groups and individuals who one would expect to be strongly opposed to this kind of legislation.<BR/>Just to air a few points:<BR/>• I always find it curious that legislative amendments of this kind are referred to as “abortion law reform”. “Degradation” or “dilution” would probably be more appropriate!<BR/>• It is often interesting to note some of the other views of people who are pro abortion on demand. They often take a strong social justice position on a range of issues (this frequently reflects a left-leaning political position generally, of course). Frequently this does not, however, extend to seeking to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our human family i.e. the unborn. Ah, but then I’m forgetting: restricting abortion would amount to restricting individual freedom, which is almost the ultimate anathema in societies like ours.<BR/>• Don Carson made an interesting point in an article on the abortion issue I read recently (I think it might have been from a link in this blog, actually). He suggested that it is unwise to frame abortion laws on the basis of what he calls “hard cases”. The arguments that are used by the “pro” lobby frequently use examples such as women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or cases where there is a high likelihood of mental and/or physical abnormality. Carson’s point, from memory, was that such cases constitute a very small percentage of all unwanted pregnancies, and therefore should not represent a basis on which to consider changes to the relevant laws. In a heavy majority of cases, the reason for seeking an abortion has nothing to do with such factors. <BR/>• The issues you raise about the point at which life is sustainable outside the womb, and also the inconsistency of the law as regards the unborn child being killed at the mother’s request, as against by someone else against her will, ought to provoke a good deal more soul searching than they apparently do in some quarters. Re the first point: my view has long been that human life begins at the moment of conception. From then on (regardless of the child’s ability to survive outside the womb, or any other factors), it makes sense to assume that we are dealing with a human being, who should enjoy, up to a considerable point, the full protection of the law. I don’t see how we can view the unborn in any other way. If it is not a human being…then what is it? Why should a mother have the right, therefore, to have that life destroyed (in most cases mainly because it is inconvenient) as if it were merely an aspect or extension of her own body? <BR/><BR/>We watched an Australian film last night: “The Black Balloon”. While not a brilliant film, it was relevant in that it portrayed a family in which the mother (in her 40s) is pregnant with her third child (an “accident”), with one of the other children being profoundly retarded, and requiring what must be (in such situations in real life) a huge expenditure of physical and emotional energy. The temptation to a) place the retarded child in an institution, and/or b) abort the unplanned child must be extraordinarily strong in such cases. Here was a family, however, who had obviously decided that neither was an option. It’s not an easy film to watch in parts, but is encouraging in that it demonstrates that avoiding adversity is not necessarily the best way to act (let alone the only option).<BR/>For all the sympathy we should feel for women and girls who are in what must be a terribly difficult situation, perhaps we need to see that changing the law to make abortions easier to attain is not necessarily the right direction in which to proceed.<BR/><BR/>Some of this has been a little emotional, I’m afraid; but I find it difficult to respond to this issue any other way.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Greg TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-10906532555312796972008-10-13T17:05:00.000+11:002008-10-13T17:05:00.000+11:00About 20 years ago Dr Bernard Nathanson (inventor ...About 20 years ago Dr Bernard Nathanson (inventor of the suction apparatus used in abortions & originator of the slogan Pro-choice) spoke in Hobart & showed the Silent Scream video. At the time he was on a journey of faith, first back to his Jewish roots & now a Catholic. I was stunned as were many in the audience. <BR/><BR/>Frankly I find it obscene to use the term Pro-Choice. Did my daughter-in-law's family have any "choice" when they went to the Nazi death camps in 1939?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com