Abortion and politics (WARNING-may be offensive, gross, NSFW)

[fireheart17]

So I'm putting it here instead of in social woes as it's actually the campaign website for someone running for the senate in my state. This guy's webpage however, seems to focus on only one thing-he is VERY, VERY, VERY pro-life.
This is his website (NSFW for content, may be disturbing and/or offensive)

www.abortsa.com

(Also folks, please note I DID ask Raps's permission before I posted this)

What do you folks think? I should add as well as the guy's campaign posters (they're fairly common on various light and electric poles around the state until the election is over) are fairly disturbing. Makes me wish that the law in our state was that your face had to appear on them as well (I don't believe it is)....

[Nyoibo]

All the signs are giving me the shits at the moment, there's about 5 times as many of theirs than anyone else

[Vagabond]

Is he one of those people running just so he can get his pro-life message out?
If not, then I would think that you need more of a political platform than just "I'm pro-life".

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's one step above 'the other guy's anti-life' and a dozen steps below acceptable.

Most elections end up boiling down to one hot-button issue, but it's not an excuse to start there. Makes me wish that we could have video ad signs with wireless opt-in/opt-out audio in which the recordings of debates between the two candidates are played back, edited for length without sacrificing brevity or sabotaging either side...

I'm gonna put in a call to google and sharper image, let's get on this :D

[Vagabond]

Mmmm... Vdeo Ad Signs, reminds me of movie 'Imposter' with Gary Sinise. The advertisements targeted towards the person, by examining their retinas.

[fireheart17]

Yes, his campaign seems to be centred around one issue. He's an independent, meaning that he's not aligned with any particular party. I'll provide a quick explanation of how the government system works in my state (it's identical at both state and federal level)

-There are electoral districts, which are represented by their Member of Parliament. Electoral districts are not the same as suburbs, some suburbs can have more than one electoral district.
-This MP in turn belongs to either a major political party (Liberal or Labor), a minor political party (Nationals, Greens or Gamers4Croydon-there are others) or an independent. They hold a seat in parliament.
-Come election time, people end up voting who their MP for their district will be.
-The winning party is the one who has the most "seats" in Parliament, that is, that when you eliminate the actual person you're electing, the party themselves hold that seat.

The actual voting system itself is VERY complicated. Best way I can explain it is that the person with the least votes is struck out and his/her votes are distributed among the other candidates (I don't know the system there). Then the number 2's are counted and so forth...something like that.

Getting back to the candidate in my original post, he is not the first person to have a single-view in politics. Nick Xenophon's original platform when he was elected in 1997 was centred around the abolishment of pokie machines. The big difference however was that the preferences from the microparties went to him after they themselves were struck from the race.

It sounds to me like this guy is leeching off of Family First's votes and hoping that somehow he'll be able to get through to Parliament through that. (Family First has similar views to his, however while they don't support abortion, they're not nearly as upfront about it)

[Nyoibo]

Not yet their not, but FF is starting to make more noise.

I'm thinking of going on a midnight raid and removing all the Abort.sa signs that are up, but I'm not sure how illegal it is to deface or remove the signs.

[elsporko]

One issue politicians are a dime a dozen. The only reason you are upset is because you disagree with him.


Going around ripping down his signs would be a pretty immature reaction. Basically its saying "I disagree with you so I'm going to make sure nobody else can hear your message"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

One issue politicians are a dime a dozen. The only reason you are upset is because you disagree with him.


Going around ripping down his signs would be a pretty immature reaction. Basically its saying "I disagree with you so I'm going to make sure nobody else can hear your message"

I'm pretty sure that we're annoyed with him because of his single-dimensionality AND the disagreement. That the second is present doesn't negate the validity of the first.

[Hobbs]

Not yet their not, but FF is starting to make more noise.

I'm thinking of going on a midnight raid and removing all the Abort.sa signs that are up, but I'm not sure how illegal it is to deface or remove the signs.
Technically it's private property and vandalism, not to mention a grave violation of civil rights and a blatant disruption of the democratic process.

That said, the statistical information is skewed. The largest category is 'mental health' which I assume means people with mental disorders. Apparently, they lump in economic and social circumstances. I don't get how the two mix.

[Nyoibo]

Actually all the signs are on public property, in fact these guys are the first and only people who have taken to stapling their posters to trees, that's never been done before..

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If it's a paid-for billboard or sign, it's private property that's been rented or bought, and therefore any alteration is vandalism. If it's been taped or stapled on public property then they have exactly as much right to put them there as anyone has of removing them. If they don't like it, they can post 'em again.

[elsporko]

Regardless of if its legal or not taking down a sign for a politican you disagree with is low. Its basically saying that you think your way of thinking is the only way that deserves to be heard. Even when I was in elementry school the kids running against each other for class officer had enough integrity to not pull down signs of their opponets.

[fireheart17]

Regardless of if its legal or not taking down a sign for a politican you disagree with is low. Its basically saying that you think your way of thinking is the only way that deserves to be heard. Even when I was in elementry school the kids running against each other for class officer had enough integrity to not pull down signs of their opponets.

Put it this way elsporko...

Having opinions is fine. I'm pro-choice.

If someone says to me "I believe abortion is murder" then I won't tell them that they're wrong. It's up to them. If a friend of mine was pregnant, I'd at least ask her to first consider if she can raise the child. If she thinks she can, then I won't stop her. That's her choice if she believes that abortion is murder.

In my case, I do have a friend that is pro-life, but she's said to me that if I do get an abortion, I won't lose her as a friend. We've both agreed that rape fetuses, fetuses with mothers who have legitimate medical problems and fetuses who themselves have legitimate medical problems are fine.

On the other hand, people who enter a field such as politics, simply for the purposes of pushing their intolerant agenda onto others, pisses me off. I'm aware that this can swing both ways, but I'm referring to basically racist, sexist or homophobic agendas.

[Boozy]

In my case, I do have a friend that is pro-life, but she's said to me that if I do get an abortion, I won't lose her as a friend. We've both agreed that rape fetuses, fetuses with mothers who have legitimate medical problems and fetuses who themselves have legitimate medical problems are fine.

Here's the problem with the pro-life movement in a nutshell.

If your friend truly believed that abortion was murder, she would not remain friends with you if you had one. Would you remain friends with a murderer?

And why would she make an exception for rape? If a woman delivers a baby that is the product of rape, is it okay in your friend's books for her to kill the baby at a later point? If one fetus = one baby, and abortion = murder, then what's the difference?

I am certain that your friend has other reasons for being anti-abortion, and it almost certainly has to do with controlling and punishing women for their sexual choices.

[Nyoibo]

So on the drive down to town today on Glen Osmond Rd out of 41 signs split between at least 6 parties, I counted 19 for AbortSA, this is getting ridiculous.

[Kimmik]

Here's the problem with the pro-life movement in a nutshell.

If your friend truly believed that abortion was murder, she would not remain friends with you if you had one. Would you remain friends with a murderer?

And why would she make an exception for rape? If a woman delivers a baby that is the product of rape, is it okay in your friend's books for her to kill the baby at a later point? If one fetus = one baby, and abortion = murder, then what's the difference?

I am certain that your friend has other reasons for being anti-abortion, and it almost certainly has to do with controlling and punishing women for their sexual choices.

I am pro-life.. I think that it is the worst thing a person could do... However I still talk to relatives and friends who have had them.. While I am saddened by their choice, it is not my place to condemn them or judge them. They have to deal with their choice not I. And it has nothing to do with wanting to punish them, I just believe that you should be responsible for the choices that you make.

Personally I think that any politician that makes any topic their sole focus is a dumbass especially when there is so much to fix in any nation, such as poor children, abused children, homeless, education etc... *I speak based on an American out look since I dont know the state of the upside down countries.. gooooo timtams*

Personally I would start a campaign asking how many abandon children has this candidate taken in?

[elsporko]

Considering he is a busy politician he probably doesn't have time to take in any children.

[Fryk]

I had a roommate in college who was a radical pro-lifer. He would put his anti-abortion posters up in our dorm room, and most of them were disgusting. And I would take em down the first chance I got. I'm sorry, political views aside, whether you think it's low or not, I am not going to abide having to star at a picture of an aborted fetus's severed head when I am trying to sleep or study.

[elsporko]

I would consider that different since its a personal living space. I doubt many people were going to be swayed by your bedroom. If its a public space however you wouldn't have the right to remove the poster.

[Sarah Valentine]

I personally think the only times abortion should be alowed are in cases of rape, incest, and severe medical problem, otherwise you could always give the child up for adoption to a person that actually want's it. If you have an abortion because you just don't feel like having a kid or because it's not your boyfriends, I seriously frown on that but as much as I hate it I keep my mouth shut.

[elsporko]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

[Greenday]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

So you just said all women who get abortions should have their tubes forcibly tied?

I guess what you are saying is that it's impossible to get pregnant if you are on birth control or use condoms. I'd read up on contraception if I were you. You seem to be lacking some understanding that birth control can fail.

[fireheart17]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

The two abortion clinics I know of in my state (I think there are more, but I'm not 100% sure) both talk a lot about contraception and while the abortion is being done, they can insert Implanon if they need it. (on a health care card, the Implanon is about $5, for everyone else it's $30)

Yes, contraception can fail. That's actually the main reason why I went on the Implanon in the first place-the failure rate is something like .05% (roughly), it isn't affected by me vomiting (the pill is), if I forget it, I won't be too worried...and it lasts for 3 years. (the failure rate of having your tubes tied is 0.5%, the failure rate of a vasectomy is about 0.1%) Back that up with condoms and you're good to go. Unfortunately, the AOC (age of consent) in my state is 17, so women I believe are a bit more reluctant to visit the clinics if they're underage.

Also, the sex ed program provided by the state (through SHine SA) makes it very clear that abortion is not to be used as a contraceptive.

[Nyoibo]

They still have sex ed in schools?

[fireheart17]

They still have sex ed in schools?

Well the schools I went to for middle school (in Australia, middle school is classified as years 6-10) all had it (all three of them).

In fact, in the first lesson we had for all of them, the teacher/s had us write down as many slang terms for various genitalia, as well as slang terms for intercourse (yes, we even added fuck). Then we had to tear them up and from then on out we had to use the correct terms in class.

[crashhelmet]

So you just said all women who get abortions should have their tubes forcibly tied?

I guess what you are saying is that it's impossible to get pregnant if you are on birth control or use condoms. I'd read up on contraception if I were you. You seem to be lacking some understanding that birth control can fail.

I wouldn't go as far as to say all women who have them should be, but I think there should be some sort of stipulation.

A girl I knew in high school had several abortions before she graduated. 4 or 5 if I remember right. She "whored" herself out in an act of rebellion to her parents and had the attitude of "I'll just abort it if I get pregnant." Gawd, I'd hate to think of the diseases she's had/has. The problem with abortions is that to some (many?) people, they become just another form of birth control.

I know that contraceptive methods don't always work. Some friends of mine have 2 kids from using various methods. After a total 5 kids, my friend had to get a vasectomy to stop it all.

I, personally, am Pro-Life. My opinion is if it has a heart beat and brain activity, it's a life and you're killing it. However, I can agree with the argument of allowing an abortion in the events of rape or when carrying the child will be too great a risk to the health of the mother.

In the instance of rape, the "daily reminder" can be too much of a psychological impact on the mother. It's not something that can be predicted. If it's too much for the mother during pregnancy, she should be allowed up until a certain point. Third trimester maybe? After that I'd say adoption if she doesn't think she could handle it.

I don't remember why she brought it up, but my American History teacher in high school told us one day that her mother died as a result of a miscarriage that her body didn't expel. She said that the dead fetus poisoned her body, but she couldn't have it removed because that was considered an abortion, which was illegal at the time. In a case like that, especially since the fetus was already dead, I'd support the "abortion." Situations where doctors can confirm it's either going to be the mother's life or the child's? That's a decision for the family to make. I wouldn't want that on my shoulders.

I'm amused by the political standpoint in this though. Especially the hypocrisy involved in it all. Pro-Choicers argue "It's my body, I can do what I want with it." Most Pro-Lifers are Conservative and Republican. A group that demands less government control/interaction/involvement, yet here they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot do. Sounds like government control/interaction/involvement to me.

CH

[elsporko]

The two abortion clinics I know of in my state (I think there are more, but I'm not 100% sure) both talk a lot about contraception and while the abortion is being done, they can insert Implanon if they need it. (on a health care card, the Implanon is about $5, for everyone else it's $30)

Yes, contraception can fail. That's actually the main reason why I went on the Implanon in the first place-the failure rate is something like .05% (roughly), it isn't affected by me vomiting (the pill is), if I forget it, I won't be too worried...and it lasts for 3 years. (the failure rate of having your tubes tied is 0.5%, the failure rate of a vasectomy is about 0.1%) Back that up with condoms and you're good to go. Unfortunately, the AOC (age of consent) in my state is 17, so women I believe are a bit more reluctant to visit the clinics if they're underage.

Also, the sex ed program provided by the state (through SHine SA) makes it very clear that abortion is not to be used as a contraceptive.


If you can't live with the consequences of an action then don't do it. Thats the way life should work.

[Fryk]

Actually, Elsporko, you may have a point there. But the world doesn't work that way. And if these promiscuous mothers you're talking about are forced to carry their child to term, who pays for the upkeep? If the mothers are as irresponsible as you claim, I doubt it's them. It's the society at large that gets stuck with the bill whther they like it or not. And the tube-tying operations? Also forced on the society at large. I'm not really drawing clear conclusions here, I'm just saying that the problem is far more far-reaching than you're making it out to be.

The only thing I will say personally is that if you're getting public funding to either get an abortion or raise your children, then the "my body, my choice" argument doesn't hold as much water as you think. If I am paying through taxes to subsidize your behavior, then why shouldn't I get a say in how my money is spent?

[AdminAssistant]

The only thing I will say personally is that if you're getting public funding to either get an abortion or raise your children, then the "my body, my choice" argument doesn't hold as much water as you think. If I am paying through taxes to subsidize your behavior, then why shouldn't I get a say in how my money is spent?

Okay, does that mean you should force a Catholic mother on welfare to take birth control (against her religion) so she can't have any more children? Or force her to have an abortion? Impose a child limit? After all, I'm paying taxes to subsidize YOUR behavior, so why shouldn't I get a say? Spin that argument around a few times and see where it gets you.

Birth control can fail and women can become pregnant through no fault of their own, whether they were raped by a stranger or a significant other, since there are husbands who rape their wives to keep them pregnant and submissive. There are times when a choice has to be made between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. What pro-lifer's can't seem to understand is that banning abortions won't stop abortions. Desperate women will take matters (and a coat hanger) into their own hands. All it will stop is access to a safe, legal medical procedure. Also, then do they ban the morning-after pill? Birth control? The emphasis needs to be on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first damn place. Ironically, these are usually the same people who get their knickers in a twist over schools teaching proper sexual education and not just "If you have sex before marriage then God will HATE YOU. Ignore those hormones and just pray your horny boyfriend will understand." Yeah, that always works.

[elsporko]

The last time I checked theres nothing in the bible requiring a Catholic to have sex. If she won't take birth control and can't afford to have kids she should stop having sex. If she won't then the government needs to step in because she is being negligent.

I think proper sex education is great, but people need to be willing to live with the risks. Speeding is great to but if I get a ticket I'm not going to whine that I shouldn't have to pay for it. I took a risk and lost.

I think a good idea for sex education would be to emphasize kinds of sex that have lower chances of pregnancy such as oral or anal sex.

[Greenday]

I think a good idea for sex education would be to emphasize kinds of sex that have lower chances of pregnancy such as oral or anal sex.

Actually, planned parenthood just started promoting anal sex.

WARNING NSFW

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/ImageDatabase/PostImages/5935/Large/Hilarious_Ad_from_Planned_Parenthood.jpg

[AdminAssistant]

Actually, I believe that I've read that teens who take virginity pledges are more likely to get an STD because they will engage in non-vaginal sex (oral or anal) and because it's not 'real sex' they won't use protection. While anal sex has a lower risk of pregnancy, there's still a risk of disease, so you still need to use protection.

[Fryk]

I didn't mean that I should be given total control, Admin. But if I am being forced essentially against my will to pay for someone else's children or medical procedure, I don't see why I (or more correctly, the public at large) don't get some say. Am I supposed to be happy to pay for fake stereotype's 9 children and addiction to scratch-off tickets?

Hmmmm.... I'm spinning it around, like you said... ok. I agree that I don't get to tell someone to get their tubes tied against their will. But, I also agre that I shouldn't have to pay for someone's 14th child when it's clear that they just can't keep their Mister Happy Puppet in their pants. The fairest thing to do there would be to.... not make me pay. My money, my choice.

But--But--how will we decide things like that. The answer... a little more of what we already do, I think. If you're on the public dole for child care, expect the social worker to get a little more personal than you like about your behaviors. Don't lke it? Then stop putting out. And keep that 21st phlange tucked away.

[HYHYBT]

While anal sex has a lower risk of pregnancy...I should hope so! Better be darn close to 0! But it's foolish to think it doesn't count as sex, and moreso to think you can't catch anything that way.

[Nyoibo]

But it's foolish to think it doesn't count as sex, and moreso to think you can't catch anything that way.


Keep in mind these are the same people who have to ask if you can get pregnant if you swallow.

[fireheart17]

The last time I checked theres nothing in the bible requiring a Catholic to have sex. If she won't take birth control and can't afford to have kids she should stop having sex. If she won't then the government needs to step in because she is being negligent.


I don't think it's "sex" per se, I think it's more the fact that they want to bring someone else into the world to love as God loves them...or something like that (can anyone here back me up?)

Keep in mind these are the same people who have to ask if you can get pregnant if you swallow.

Not to mention if you have sex standing up, or with the women on top. Or if you're on your period, haven't had your period YET....

[HYHYBT]

Keep in mind these are the same people who have to ask if you can get pregnant if you swallow.Trick question. Of course you can get pregnant if you swallow (assuming you are a fertile woman, of course.) You just can't get pregnant from what you swallowed.:D Next sample, please!

[Nyoibo]

This is the part where I slap you with a fish yes?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Only if they're incapable of cutting down the mightiest tree in the forest, with:

A HERRING!

[crashhelmet]

I don't think it's "sex" per se, I think it's more the fact that they want to bring someone else into the world to love as God loves them...or something like that (can anyone here back me up?)

There are a couple of verses that are escaping me right now. There's a verse that says something about one of the responsibilities of a married couple is to procreate, but I can't remember it off the top of my head. Too damn tired. But if I remember right, in 1Corinthians Chapter 7, Jesus says that married couples should have sex regularly to keep the devil from tempting them with sexual desires. However, he says it's a recommendation and not a command.

I'd have to look these up when I'm more cognitive than I am now.

CH

[Fryk]

Actually, in 1Cor, Jesus says NOTHING, because he was already dead (and risen if you're christian). Paul wrote Corinthians.

[HYHYBT]

Adding to that, Paul doesn't say anything about how often married couples should have sex. That chapter does, though, contain his not-exactly-resounding endorsement that "it is better to marry than to burn." Basically, the idea was that the world was going to end just any day now, so behave yourselves but don't worry about having children because there's not time to raise them anyway.

[crashhelmet]

Actually, in 1Cor, Jesus says NOTHING, because he was already dead (and risen if you're christian). Paul wrote Corinthians.

I stand corrected.

[KnitShoni]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

This, I can't agree with. I'm pro-life, with certain exceptions. However, many of the people I know who had abortions did so because, at that time in their lives, they felt they weren't ready for motherhood. Did I agree with it? Not a bit. Thing is, just because I disagree with the choice they made then doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be able to have a child later on.

[elsporko]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

[Greenday]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

And continue to A.) Overload the system with kids and B.) Continue to increase the demands on Earth's resources? Nah.

[fireheart17]

If they aren't ready to be a mother then they should put the kid up for adoption.

Pregnancy can change a woman's body permanently. A major issue should the woman have subsequent pregnancies, is Rhesus factor. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but what I AM aware of is that in subsequent pregnancies, it can cause problems at birth, resulting in the need for blood transfusions. I'm not 100% sure if it's an issue for women who've aborted an embryo (that's what it's known as until about 3-4 months) and then successfully gone on to have a child later on in life.

In fact, I'm a little curious regarding the "purity/virginity/celibacy" groups. We don't have many of them down here (that I'm aware of) but I'm just wondering...out of those groups, how many lost their virginity before they were married?

The point I'm trying to make elsporko, is that why should young people be punished by being forced to give birth? Should we make it a legal requirement that everybody wears a chastity belt until they are married? Should we introduce severe forms of female genital cutting to prevent young women from doing anything? You tell me what the response is. Because here are the short facts:

1) Condoms can and will break if used incorrectly or if they're repeatedly exposed to sunlight.
2) The Pill is ineffective if the user is taking certain other medications, if they have diahorea or vomit within a certain period of time after taking the Pill, and can also cause DVT in some patients.
3) Implanon (what I'm on at the moment) is ineffective if it's inserted by an unqualified professional, if it's inserted at the wrong time in a woman's menstrual cycle, or if the implant itself is broken or damaged.
4) IUD's run the risk of uterine preforation and in most cases, actually cause HEAVIER menstrual cycles, which can result in low iron levels for women.
5) Diaphragms can cause problems if it isn't inserted correctly, also they need to be refitted when there's weight gain or loss.

So what is the option then?

[AdminAssistant]

In fact, I'm a little curious regarding the "purity/virginity/celibacy" groups. We don't have many of them down here (that I'm aware of) but I'm just wondering...out of those groups, how many lost their virginity before they were married?

The figure I've always seen thrown around is that about 3% of the total population actually saves it for their wedding night.

[Amanita]

I don't mean to get into TMI here, but I am a voluntary celibate. Not for religious reasons, as Paganism is generally sex-positive. I'm just not interested in the entanglements of a sexual relationship. That said, I don't believe that everybody out there needs to step in line behind me and renounce sex unless they want a child.

It's not realistic. Most people have urges and drives, and feelings. If somebody wants to have sex, it's not my business. Even if they do everything right, using protection and all, things can go wrong. And if something goes wrong, I would sooner see them having an abortion than giving birth to the child and abusing it. Or leaving the kid in a trashcan, or giving the kid up, only to have said kid lanquish in foster care.

[fireheart17]

And a few fun facts I discovered regarding said website, in addition to the campaign overall.

-The website I posted in my OP apparaently isn't considered to fall under Australian advertising standards because guess what? It's not on an Australian server. There's talks of a new law that states ALL campaigning politicians need to have their websites based in Australia.
-His campaign posters (which in Australia only consist of the person's name, their political party if they have one, Vote [1] in some of them and in most cases, their face) may be coming under fire by the advertising standards due to the images they're showing. I've only seen one innocent one-that is, of a newborn baby reaching out with sparkles.
-He's been placed last to near last for ALL the minor poiltical party preferences, which leads me into my short spiel on voting:

Basically, in SA, we vote for both the Lower House and the Upper House (known as the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council) in entirely different ways.

The HoR is fairly straightforward. Every person voting is given a green slip that has four or five names on it-these are the candidates standing for their political district. You're required to fill out ALL the boxes-that is, mark 1-5 on them in the order you want.

When they count them, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is struck out and his/her preferences are redistributed among the other candidates, according to the wishes of the candidate and/or party. They then count the number 2 preferences and do the same thing, until the candidate with the majority vote wins.

The LC works in a similar manner. They use a slightly different method of distributing them, but in general, the concept is still the same.

There were a heck of a lot of minor parties running for the election when I went down today-my personal favourite? Gamers4Croydon.

[Nyoibo]

Yeah, Gamers4croydon got my no.1, looks like Labour won the election, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that said if you have an abortion you also have to have your tubes tied. That would prevent these people who are too dumb to use birth control from using abortions as an alternative while still keeping it available to those who need it.

Getting your tubes tied is major, invasive surgery. A first-trimester abortion (the vast majority) is not. Someone who feels that an abortion is necessary because of their current circumstances should be forced to undergo major surgery and never be able to have kids in the future, when they are ready for them, because some people want to punish women for daring to have sex?

No.
-----
I just believe that you should be responsible for the choices that you make.

Sometimes having an abortion is the most responsible choice you can make.

The problem with abortions is that to some (many?) people, they become just another form of birth control.

I think it's probably far fewer than the pro-life camp would have us believe. And there are many, many women who are married, in long-term relationships, already have kids, etc. and still end up having an abortion. The portrayal of all women who have abortions as promiscuous and irresponsible is wrong and does nothing to help the issue. And saying "well, then, don't have sex" doesn't help either. Does anyone seriously expect that married people won't have sex if they don't want kids?

n the instance of rape, the "daily reminder" can be too much of a psychological impact on the mother.

Rape is not the only thing that can cause serious psychological implications for the mother. For some women, the pregnancy itself and the accompanying hormones, regardless of the circumstances of conception, can do that.

I recently came across a blog post from a guy whose wife had had 3 difficult pregnancies, all resulting in c-sections, and was terrified of the possibility of getting pregnant again and what it might do to her health. The guy was asking for opinions on the concept of birth control being sin and should he give in and use it or get a vasectomy because he was afraid he would go to hell for it. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thought of his wife getting her tubes tied, though. The reason she didn't have it done with the last c-section was because it was done at a Catholic hospital, so they wouldn't do it. Meanwhile the physical part of their marriage was non-existent because she didn't want to so much as cuddle with him for fear it would lead to sex and another pregnancy.

A group that demands less government control/interaction/involvement, yet here they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot do. Sounds like government control/interaction/involvement to me.CH

They want less government control as long as the government is promoting their point of view.

The only thing I will say personally is that if you're getting public funding to either get an abortion or raise your children, then the "my body, my choice" argument doesn't hold as much water as you think. If I am paying through taxes to subsidize your behavior, then why shouldn't I get a say in how my money is spent?

Getting public assistance means that the government owns your body? I think not. And if it's all about the money, it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than 18 years of providing for a child.

[fireheart17]

Yeah, Gamers4croydon got my no.1, looks like Labour won the election, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Ditto. In both counts :p (I voted G4C in Upper House, Greens/Liberal/Labor/Family First in lower)

Also, according to the last count I heard...Trevor Grace only received .3% of the votes.

[Fryk]

Getting public assistance means that the government owns your body? I think not. And if it's all about the money, it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than 18 years of providing for a child.

I didn't say the government owned their ass. Having a say is NOT the same thing as having total control.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I didn't say the government owned their ass. Having a say is NOT the same thing as having total control.

So how would that work, exactly? They have to what? Apply for an abortion? Get permission? Or are you saying they should lose their benefits if they do get one? I'm asking, seriously.

Ultimately, the decision has to be the woman's. Unless you're going to outlaw it completely, which will cause more problems than it solves, the ultimate decision has to be hers. It is still her body. It is still her choice.

[Fryk]

If they're on public assistance, then yes. Maybe some sort of permit would be a good thing. Although I don't see why they wouldn't get one, seeing as how an abortion is far less expensive than a full term pregnancy and a delivery. I guess when it comes down to it, I'm arguing on the other side, although I might not have worded it as such. Someone who's on welfare who wants to keep their baby at mine and everyone else's expense SHOULD ask for permission.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Someone who's on welfare who wants to keep their baby at mine and everyone else's expense SHOULD ask for permission.

And if the answer is no? They can't force you to have an abortion, either. Or to give a kid up for adoption (unless they can prove you are unfit to be a parent; simply being on welfare is not enough).

If they need permission before they get pregnant, well, the whole point of the abortion debate is that the majority of people seeking them did not plan to get pregnant. If there were no unplanned pregnancies, there would be no abortions except for dire medical reasons. So you could say the people on welfare must use birth control; then how do you police that? No method is foolproof, some people can't use certain methods (such as hormonal BC)...and how would you prove that a pregnancy resulted from failure of birth control vs. failure to use birth control?

Aside from the ethical qualms I would have about such a system in the first place, I really don't see how it could be implemented in a fair (or efficient - I mean, we are talking about the government, here) manner.

[Fryk]

I'll admit, my idea as it is now doesn't seem fair. That's probably why I'm not making public policy. But I also know that the current system isn't fair, either, and it's unfair to a larger number of people.