Abortion debate (2 Viewers)

[frog12986]

The current law in relation to abortion in NSW is contained within statute and common law. Section 82 of the Crimes Act NSW makes it an offence for a woman to unlawfully administer herself with a drug or use any instrument or other means with intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 10 years gaol. Section 83 makes it an offence for any other person to unlawfully administer a drug or cause a pregnant woman to take a drug or use any instrument with the intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 5 years gaol. In 1971 District Court Judge Levine in the case of Wald found that there was no wrongdoing if the miscarriage was procured on the basis that there was an honest and reasonable belief that the termination of the pregnancy was needed in order to protect the pregnant women from serious danger to her mental or physical health. This danger presented by the procedure must not be out of proportion to the danger which is intended to be averted. In the case of CES v Superclinics President Kirby (as he was then) expanded the scope of the danger to the pregnant women’s health to after the birth of the child as well as allowing the consideration of economic and social circumstances affecting the health of the pregnant woman.

I don't purport to be any legal expert so I presumed that there would be some form of common law authority to obviously justify the use of abortion..But the problem oviously lies within this interpretation of the justifiability of the abortion in relation to the health of the pregnant female. The problem is that abortion has almost become an additional contraceptive option as oppose to a medical procedure necessary for either the preservation of health or quality of life. Many abortions are carried out due to the females rejecting the responsibilty or burden of child within their lives, at which time mental health or similar would obviously become a defence. The RU486 drug and its accessibility will merely reduce the need to obviously provide this reasoning..I

 

[katie_tully]

I disagree that it has become an additional contraceptive. People keep disregarding the statistics.
Married women with children make up the majority of abortions. If they are already supporting a family and cannot support another child, it's hardly a contraceptive device. It's a way of safe guarding the already existing family from any future difficulties that another child would expose them to, both financially, pyschologically and etcetera. Just recently they said that teenage births are UP.
If the government and pro life groups are so adamant that we should be keeping our babies, then why don't they make it easier for young families to raise children?
We're already in the middle of a child care disaster, the cost of living in NSW is astronomical, even for a couple without children.
The government needs to look at the factors that drive people to have an abortion, because believe it or not, it's not always about just getting rid of an unwanted kid coz it'll clash with saturday night.

 

[erawamai]

Many abortions are carried out due to the females rejecting the responsibilty or burden of child within their lives, at which time mental health or similar would obviously become a defence. The RU486 drug and its accessibility will merely reduce the need to obviously provide this reasoning..I

The signifcant part of this is that because they reject the responsibility now doesn't mean they will reject it later.

As noted by Ms Tully people just don't abort because it clashes with staturday night. The cost of living in Australia is high. The cost of raising a child is also very high (another mortgage). The average 20 to 25 year old who is in a stable and loving relationship cannot afford to buy a house anywhere in system unless they are both full time professionals earning high incomes...let alone afford a child and the additional costs of time and money to raise this young child. I think it is silly to suggest, like phanatical does all the time, that these people just not have sex until they are ready for a child. The average person, barring accident, cannot afford a child until their late 20s to mid 30s. Do you expect people to not have sex? It's probably unhealthy.

In any case liberal economics pushed so hard by the current government only acts as an incentive to abort.

 

[GemmaHavok]

It's a series of pills and it fucks with your hormones.

think of it as a heavy duty morning after pill. Yeah. Yeah.

Perhaps, but it's still not someone sticking tools in your vagina.

 

[katie_tully]

I don't see why I should have to pay for a lot of things, but I do so get over it.

 

[katie_tully]

this is turning into a lot like the vsu/usu debate. although i still stand by my stance on that crap.

 

[katie_tully]

May I suggest that you move to Monacco then?

 

[katie_tully]

Pro Lifers make me laugh, coz they liken abortion to murder but I wonder what they'd do if I reversed my SVU over the top of some babies. Deliberately. Babies with a conciousness! Like the 10 week old feotus that they claim is concious.

 

[Spirits]

A judgement that suggests that two lives were being murdered would have been jumped on by tye pro life lobby as legal recongition that the foetus should be given the same rights as a life in being and that abortion is murder.

Hi Erawmai,

Check out Watt v Rama and Lynch v Lynch.

They in effect give legal rights to an unborn child.

Hope this helps.

 

[katie_tully]

There is a big shade of grey here. The feotus was given legal rights because the mother intended to carry it full term. The father, and I remember not long ago this happened, intentionally brought harm to the mother with intent to kill or harm the foetus. I think the case of abortion and these cases are completely different and pro lifers would simply extort the case to try and prove that a feotus can be given legal rights. I doubt they'd advertise the events surrounding the legal decision.

 

[brynjamin]

but wouldnt it be resonable to assume that by concieving the baby that that act is giving the child the right to be in its own mothers body. Its because of the mother and father that it is there at all.

charging a feotus for tresspassing would be like taking someone by kidnapping them, hiding them at your house then charging them for tresspassing, even thought the so called 'tresspasser' was forced onto the property.

 

[davin]

related question: if the mother is the only one who gets to make decisions on this.... should child support be gotten rid of? since its the woman's choice, its her body, the guy shouldn't be responsible for said choices.

 

[ogmzergrush]

related question: if the mother is the only one who gets to make decisions on this.... should child support be gotten rid of? since its the woman's choice, its her body, the guy shouldn't be responsible for said choices.

Yeah but umn, it's his wang. Women having babies (Including conceiving) on their own should be allowed to make the decision on their own and all that shit, but until such a time I don't really see the case for leaving the male out of the process entirely.

 

[davin]

yeah, but, if he has no say in the decision-making process, why is he responsible for outcomes of her decisions? its her body, so why should he be responsible for it?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think what davin is saying is that because guys are forced to contribute to this babies life, it seems unfair that all decisions are made by the woman.... considering that women usually don't have abortions for biological reasons.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I think what davin is saying is that because guys are forced to contribute to this babies life, it seems unfair that all decisions are made by the woman.... considering that women usually don't have abortions for biological reasons.

Which is why I feel that he should have a say in the matter as well, which was what I thought davin said too, but (s)/he's arguing with me, or looks like it, so I've really got no idea.

 

[davin]

ok, wait, to check....were you saying that men should be left out of the decision making process, or the process of being responsible for the pregnancy, or both? i interpretted your comment as just the second.

sorry if i misinterpretted that.

 

[katie_tully]

I think men can contest child support if they have strong enough grounds on which to base their case.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

mandatory paternity testing to qualify for it.. . if the alleged father fails to submit to a govt lab.... then he is slapped with the bill too ..

I think that would be a good fair way...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think however the problem that arises is that the reasoning behind not making abortions illegal (that they're a part of the mother essentially, can't live without her) would make it quite hard to justify then giving men a saying in it... although I do believe it is unfair for the male - hard issue to resolve tho.