Monday, January 23, 2012

A Woman's Right To Choose....Sometimes

A PHAGE reader is outraged:

What about baby?
LAST WEEK my wife saw a pregnant woman smoking outside the Royal Women's Hospital. If it is illegal to inflict cigarette smoke on people in bars and restaurants, then surely it should be illegal for a pregnant woman to inflict cigarette smoke on her unborn baby
David Wood, North Melbourne
No doubt Mr Wood's heart is in the right place, but one cannot help wondering if he was similarly peeved by the venerable Anne Summers' column on Sunday, the one in which she insisted no woman could be considered a feminist if she opposed abortion on demand.

According to a reader, the unborn need to be protected from irresponsible mothers. According to the columnist, the unborn are worth less than a mother's inconvenience.

The liberal mind really is a thing of wonder.

15 comments:

  1. Always have to laugh when a man who can never become pregnant airily makes a comment like,"the unborn are worth less than a mother's inconvenience.'

    Inconvenience? Thats what you call the process of bearing and raising a child? From personal experience,bearing and raising children thoughtfully and well has been one of the most arduous,timeconsuming experiences of my life entailing deep personal sacrifice to put them first.
    Anyone who suggests that the choice not to have children is a thing of 'convenience' obviously has not had much hands on experience with raising them.
    Raising a child with the care they deserve is a 24/7 lifetime commitment for the first 18 years.
    Nothing sadder than a child whose parents didnt want them...not a lot of love there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about birth control? Is it worth a woman's inconvenience to use birth control, if she's going to have sex yet doesn't want a baby?

      Why do you completely discount a father's role in raising his child, or even deciding whether his child is going to have a chance to live or to die? Should a father be excused from paying child support if he never wanted the child in the first place, should he be allowed to decide to kill the child if he doesn't want the next 18 years of his life "inconvenienced" by having to support a child he never wanted in the first place?

      Why do you completely discount the child being placed for adoption, if neither parent feel capable of raising him or her, instead pretending like the only option is to put him or her to death?

      The issues here are much more involved and complicated than you pretend they are.

      Delete
    2. Erik, of course the issues around abortion are involved and complicated.

      They deserve a deep and frank debate which cannot take place on a blog like this.

      You're attacking me over presumptions you have made.

      You have no idea of my position on those issues and yet you are arrogant and deceitful enough to make them up for yourself and then judge me on them.

      Judge, jury and executioner with an axe to grind on any available target.

      No wonder there is no honest public debate on these issues that you raise.

      In coming from my perspective on the issue I did not completely discount a fathers role in raising his child or all the other things you accuse me of....this is a strawman attack.

      In trying to prove your point you deliberately misrepresented mine.Several times, in fact, over the course of your post.

      I will not be drawn into a flame war by a man who is so angry over some aspects of this issue that he is willing to make false accusations in order to spew righteous vitriol.

      Delete
    3. Erik has NOT attacked you, nor is he arrogant, deceitful or angry. Keep your shaming tactics to yourself. In fact, you have attacked him in your response without even analysing his arguments. It's because each time a man says something that does not fit your feminist agenda that you lot rush to mount an attack on him in order to shut down the debate.

      Delete
  2. "Always have to laugh when a man who can never become pregnant airily makes a comment"

    But I think we can at least agree on the Bunyip's right to get pregnant.

    His not having a womb is no one's fault, not even Tony Abbott's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AR...I fully endorse Bunyip's right to get pregnant...or any man for that matter....soon as they have to deal with monthly periods,childbirth, breastfeeding and childraising,the issue of reproductive rights will get a whole lot more interesting.
    Bet the gst would come off tampons and pads fer starters.
    Poor Tony....surely he can't be blamed for that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sure Brodie Donegan and Nick Ball thought their unborn child was more than an inconvenience when Justine Hampson, in a drugged state and driving dangerously, snuffed out its life.

    http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/mother-welcomes-support-for-new-unborn-baby-law/

    Summers probaly had no problem with the law in NSW, when Hampson was not charged with murder or manslaughter, because the unborn child was not a life. Nothing more than the property of the mother to be aborted for her convenience.

    The resulting Campbell Report didn't recommend that murder or manslaughter charges should arise from such a death in future, merely compensation for the loss.

    Brodie Donegan is reported in the article linked below as saying “We are a bit disappointed that no separate charge has been proposed but we understand that it would make the law quite complicated,”

    She and her partner must have suffered so badly from this loss and, no doubt, will suffer until the day they die. Yet the law only offers compensation.

    I suppose it's logical to believe that no charges should be forthcoming in this type of case; if you believe that a foetus or an 8 month term baby are only tissue.

    The photograph of Brodie Donegan and Nick Ball in the article says it all. Grief etched on their faces from the loss of a loved child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You've nailed it. I personally experience no cognitive dissonance on this issue. As a libertarian I support a mothers right to smoke, as well as her freedom to have an abortion. I also support the use of copious health warnings for both, so she cannot subsequently claim ignorance as a defense. The same logic applies for gambling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course, the elephant in the room when it comes to abortion issues is: When is an unborn child considered to be a life with rights?
    First we have to have consensus on that. Then the many labyrinthine legal ramifications of that consensus.
    See why no one wants to go there?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Abortion - the great moral dilemma of our era.

    Here's a question for you all - what is the legal status of an unborn child?

    To one woman, her unborn child is the most precious thing on the face of the planet. She will do EVERYTHING she can to ensure the child is born - regardless of how ill the child may be, even before birth.

    And the Government will fund her quest without question - it's amazing what science, medicine and technology can do to save a really weak, ill and premature baby.

    To the other woman, her unborn child is nothing but a completely unwanted intrusion in her life. The last thing she needs right now is this flipping lump that is going to ruin her life and all her plans. She will do EVERYTHING she can to get rid of it, either as quickly as possible or even at the very last moment when birth is imminent (the advantage of the latter course of action is that, after the late-term abortion, she may receive some aspect of Parenting Payment).

    And the Government will fund her quest without question - it's amazing what science, medicine and technology can do to get rid of an unwanted organic lump that some others might call a baby.

    Both can't be right, folks. Either it's a human being and entitled to all the rights that everyone here is entitled to, or it's just an organic lump with as many rights as any other pimple or pustule (i.e. none).

    It can't be both.

    Which is it to be?

    Because Government funding for both cannot continue simultaneously – it is simply illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PhillipGeorge(c)2012January 24, 2012 at 2:53 AM

    Anonymous at 4.06, et al

    I'm all for perspective. The missing words are "honour, privilege and labour of love".

    It is true some some children abandoned to orphanages or foster homes may turn out to hate life and some may suicide. But more of them choose to love life, forgive their negligent parents and make the most of what opportunities they get to breath air, smell roses, surf, fly fish, smile, laugh run and jump in the air.

    I'm sad for all of you. It seems you all missed that train.

    I've known bearly any greater joy than laying my life down for my children. I thank God for every second of it. and

    I am a Man.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sure, a pregnant woman can smoke. But apart from obvious horrific technical botches by the obstetrician or midwife, she should then have no recourse to the ambulance chasers if something goes wrong with the pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do so love how for women like Ann Summers, the notion of a woman's control over her own body does not extend to her legs, whereas her control over another's body - that of a child's - is tyrranical and absolute.

    C.C.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes,abortion is one of the great moral issues of our time (great shades of krudd!)

    We must eliminate the cause at its root with the help of legislation.

    The cause of all abortions is fertile male sperm which is splashed around so generously in this country.

    Lets legislate to make all sex illegal unless for procreational purposes between consenting adults.

    Oh...I think thats been tried before to little effect.

    So how about a recreational sex licence with all those rules,instructions and attendant punishments for infractions.

    The nanny state: coming to a bedroom near you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. eh. abortion should of course be legal what the hell are you even thinking if you dont think it should be legal. men shouldnt have as big of a say as they do on abortion. i hate to be the one to tell yall the big secret but women NATION and world wide dont give two shits what any man thinks they should do with their bodies unless youre our man. why would you even want a say on this issue if you are a man? thats like saying that men shouldnt masterbate because it destroys potential life, what the fuck has that got to do with women... FUCK ALL. i dont give two fucks if guys jack off constantly but what i do care about it the same guys turning around and saying that every woman who ever gets pregnant reguardless of what SHE WANTS should have a child. because it SOMEHOW effects them apparently. unless its your missus who gives a shit go find some other taboo issue to pretend to give a fuck about

    ReplyDelete