I did explain my position, abortion legal and im ok with that
I asked a question it was answered.. sort of, that's it

What wasn't explained was why is it anyone else's business who isn't involved in such decisions. and thats ok as well, sort of... thats why i said crackpot because the comparison was to me ludicrous.

No hit and run at all, sorry that you feel that, that was not my intention

This is and all will always be a difficult discussion, especially when people here dont have a vagina.

No, you stated your position. You did not explain it.

You had your question answered in two ways - one by @Carnot referring to a hit man. One by me saying that human life begins before birth.  They both meant the same thing.

There’s another human life involved - the baby. The baby is voiceless and powerless. The baby is in that position (in the vast majority of cases ) because of the voluntary actions of the mother and father, the baby had no choice. That’s not a moral condemnation of their actions, it’s a statement of fact.

I think that’s a pretty good explanation of why it’s not just the mother’s businesss.  It’s society’s business in the same way that it’s society’s business to protect children from parental abuse after they’ve born.

You have completely glossed over that point.

You say abortion should simply be up to the mother, and abortion is totally different from murder. I gave you an example where the difference between an act of abortion and an act of murder is a minor difference in process - a mere technicality, especially if abortion is legal until birth. Should abortion be legal right up to birth?  Well, you assiduously avoid explaining your position.

So according to you, @Carnot is a crackpot for wanting  to protect the defenceless?

I also note that @RTT_Rules, @Aaron and @Valvegear appear to have left you “holding the baby”, as it were.

@Aaron in particular knows he’s embarrassed himself.  At least you don’t have his misplaced sense of superiority and aarogance. I think he knows that if he continued, that embarrassment would turn into humiliation. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Just acknowledging that you’re far from the worst offender here.

@WimbledonW

If you want to have a discussion about the policy issues you raised, I’m more than happy to.  

What do you think should be done?

@Sonofagunzel

Amongst other things start a new thread "Abortion v Endowment".

Child  endowment at the rate of IIRC 50c per child per week was introduced in Australia in 1941 during WWII.

See Abortion v Endowment (Page 1) / The Political Soapbox / Forums / Railpage

From the San Francisco Chronicle, 20 May 2022

San Francisco archbishop says Pelosi will be denied Communion over abortion rights

WASHINGTON — The San Francisco archbishop issued a notice Friday that he would no longer allow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion, an escalation of his feud with the Catholic Democrat over abortion politics.

In a public notification to Pelosi, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone wrote that he had warned Pelosi in April that she must either repudiate her support of abortion rights or not refer to her Catholicism in justifying them, and that Pelosi declined to meet with him.

‘Bout time.

How very Christian of the Archbishop. The person who is the basis for his religion is said to have sat down with publicans and sinners, but not our boy in San Francisco. I wonder if he ever read, ".. . judge not, lest ye be judged of the Lord"?

He reminds me of other professed Christians - very practical - they just ignore the teachings that don't suit them and you can't get more practical than that.

I’m noticing a strong correlation between a pro-abortion stance and illiteracy.

The Archbishop would be fine with Pelosi’s pro-abortion stance if she didn’t claim Catholicism supported it.

It is Pelosi who, to use you words, is one of those “professed Christians - very practical - they just ignore the teachings that don't suit them and you can't get more practical than that”. In fact she’s worse.  Pelosi is using her religion to promote herself, and then misrepresenting that religion to millions when her self promotion calls for it.  Most important of all, she is unrepentant.

She’s not just sinning, she’s not just promoting the sin. She’s not just getting personal benefits from that promotion. She’s not just actively facilitating the sin for millions of others. She is also actively misleading people about Catholic teaching in the process.

Whether you believe in Catholic principles  or not, the Archbishop is the one who is acting in accordance with, and standing up for, Catholic principles in this instance.

So @Valvegear, you didn’t like my previous hypothetical. Will you answer this one? I’m only asking about this particular circumstance at this stage, we can discuss different circumstances  after you’ve answered this one. You can qualify or explain your answer as much as you like.

A doctor is just about to deliver a baby. The would-be mother, nine months pregnant, suddenly gets cold feet and asks the doctor to kill the baby.

Situation A: The doctor extracts the live baby from the mother, and then kills the baby.  

Situation B: The doctor kills the baby while still inside the mother, then extracts the dead baby.

Which situation should be legally acceptable?

1. Both A and B
2. Neither A nor B
3. A only
4. B only

Nice of you to allow me to answer in accordance with the permissions you laid down. I didn't realise that you were the moderator of the debate.

Answer: Neither A nor B.

Despite being hypothetical, I will give you the obvious answer. The doctor delivers the baby which is capable of life on it's own two feet so to speak. The mother doesn't want the baby, it becomes a ward of the state and, hopefully is adopted. Quite obvious really.

Now, you answer my point. Why do you object to my definition of an embryo/foetus as a parasite? Do you understand the scientific definition of a parasite?

To make my stance clear, I am pro abortion, provided it is done before a foetus has developed to the point where it could be delivered with a realistic chance of surviving. Once past that point, my scenario described above applies.

Finally, I might become most annoyed at your implication that I am/may be  illiterate. You are "noticing" a strong correlation. This is normal behaviour when you are looking to support your own bias, and fortunately is recognisable as such. Just don't say it again on any post directed to me.

Enough of the hypotheticals; now let's stick to reality.

Nice of you to allow me to answer in accordance with the permissions you laid down. I didn't realise that you were the moderator of the debate.

Yes, it was nice of me. You will note that my so called “permissions” were making it clear you could answer in any way you please - a “privilege” not afforded to me by RTT_Rules.  Did you feel constrained in any way by my “permissions”?

Answer: Neither A nor B.

Thank you for answering!  No one else has.  This is also my answer.

Despite being hypothetical, I will give you the obvious answer. The doctor delivers the baby which is capable of life on it's own two feet so to speak. The mother doesn't want the baby, it becomes a ward of the state and, hopefully is adopted. Quite obvious really.

Now, you answer my point. Why do you object to my definition of an embryo/foetus as a parasite? Do you understand the scientific definition of a parasite?

No problem.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a parasite is “an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense”. A parasite is not created by the natural operation of the host’s own biology and physiology.

I can find any number of other authoritative definitions along those lines.

A foetus may have some things in common with a parasite, but it is not a parasite.

There is also the small matter of it being a human. And a baby.

I think you already know this. Your answer to my hypothetical confirms it. I can explain why if you need me to.

To make my stance clear, I am pro abortion, provided it is done before a foetus has developed to the point where it could be delivered with a realistic chance of surviving. Once past that point, my scenario described above applies.

The practical difference between our views is a bit like the difference between calling a glass half empty and calling a glass half full.  

I am anti abortion if it occurs after the foetus can feel pain an certainly if it occurs after the foetus is capable of surviving outside the mother.

How we get there is perhaps different.

Our biggest disagreement seems to be whether men should be excluded from having a say/opinion/vote in relation to abortion laws.

Finally, I might become most annoyed at your implication that I am/may be  illiterate. You are "noticing" a strong correlation. This is normal behaviour when you are looking to support your own bias, and fortunately is recognisable as such. Just don't say it again on any post directed to me.

I will gladly lay off on the vitriol if you do too. I’ve been called a lot worse than “illiterate” in this thread.

Enough of the hypotheticals; now let's stick to reality.

Im not sure how we can usefully discuss the topic without hypotheticals. What I think you’re saying is you’d prefer hypotheticals that stay literally on topic. Fine, let’s see how that goes.

Thanks for answering reasonably and rationally.

a “privilege” not afforded to me by RTT_Rules.
Hardly, you waffled on for two pages of thread skirting around the issues and never giving a straight forward reply to the question asked despite you saying so many times.

Simple answer to your questions above is, if the fetus has the capabilty of self sustaining life (with medical aid) then its future is now controlled by the state and deemed a human and termination at 9mths is murder.

If the said fetus is not capable is sustaining its life outside the mother, then its not controlled by the state, rather the mother as its effectively an extension of her own body despite it parasitic properties and its worth noting how much a human fetus will suck from his host to stay alive. Hence termination is not murder.

Looking after elderly people is respect for their longterm contribution to society. Assisted suicide should be available for those who physical and/or mental state have deterioted beyond a reasonable and comfortable existance. However the choice is made by the person involved in advance.

At what point does life start? Is it not the point of which the male proceeds to do his "thing", after which any intention to stop conception is effectively a early stage termination. Therefore the pill or contraception is effectively a day 0 abortion. Or the morning after pill a day 1 abortion?

Should a woman pregnant due to rape/incest be forced to continue with her unwanted and violence induced pregnancy?

Most abortions are commited between Day 0 and the end of the 4th month by which time the mother is aware of her status and made the decision to terminate. I'm not a fan of abortion used as contraception and why there should be both a mental and physical assessment provided with a 48h cooling off period. But its her decision and the one thing we learnt from the past was banning abortion did not stop abortion. Talk women in their 80 and 90's about what used to happen, they all know and my 75 year old mother said it was far from rare. Its only dumb males who couldn't handle the truth and usually the abortion was to stop the young unmarried woman being kicked out of the house by her father more concerned about what others would think and/or bashing the bible.

The point is there are over 60,000 abortions per year in Australia, (how many are due to problems, risk to mother, rape I don't know, wasn't in the states I looked up, but lets say half) My question is would Australia be better off with these extra humans. How many would simply add to the welfare pool? We do not have the systems in place to look after the unwanted children born today, these extra's won't imporve the situation.

Likewise there are 10's millions of abortions in the world each year, do I believe India, Bangaladesh, Africa etc would be better off with these extra humans. Certainly not. The world has a population problem, the number one cause for climate change is keeping the already  overpopulated planet fed, transport, warm, cool etc. We do not need unwanted extras adding to these problems, many of which would die in early childhood etc. Spend 10min walking the streets of India and not the tourist areas and you have no soul if you think these woman should not have the option of safe volunatry terminations.

Being an anti-abortionist sounds all warm and humble and may help you sleep at night, but these people do not own the problem once they have closed an abortion clinic or convinced a mother to change her mind and then gone home to their nice middle class house with food in the fridge. There is no follow up, no funding, no education. What sounds good in a developed country with the never ending welfare system spending other peoples money to solve your social agenda is a complete disasater in a 3rd world nation.

I hope one day in the future there is no need for non-medical or non-rape induced abortion, but right now, banning abortion is as dumb as banning contraception, both of which achieve the same goal.

Disclaimer : I am personally the product of pre-martial late 1960's sex. My young parents choose to continue, others would not. How would I feel if my parents choose another path? Simple, I would never have been here to feel anything.

As for do fetus feel pain? Probably, but who remembers the pain of their first vaccinations or falling over trying to walk?

@RTT_Rules

What “issue” did I “skirt”, exactly?

Have I answered your question yet?

• If yes, in what post?
• If no, what is it you want me to say?

Will return to the rest of your post later.

@RTT_Rules

What “issue” did I “skirt”, exactly?

Have I answered your question yet?

• If yes, in what post?
• If no, what is it you want me to say?

Will return to the rest of your post later.

You know exactly what I'm refering too.

You took how many posts before you finally caved and actually answered the question asked.

Why bother, we all know where you stand.

And the number of times you’ve referred to my answer (and you admit I answered it) is exactly zero.

That’s how relevant your question was.

Abortion happens whether it is illegal or not. It is a totally pointless debate: ban it and it will still happen underground just as it always has.


Religious men who are scared of sex, women and anything they don't understand have no place telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Let women do what they want if if god and hell is real they will pay for their sins in the fullness of time. Of course it isn't really about that is it...

Abortion happens whether it is illegal or not. It is a totally pointless debate: ban it and it will still happen underground just as it always has.

Littering happens whether it is it is illegal or not …
Animal neglect happens …
Child abuse happens …
Rape …
Murder …

Your argument only works (if at all) for victimless crimes.

Religious men who are scared of sex, women and anything they don't understand

You don’t have to be any of those things to be anti-abortion. You can be female, atheist, have no interest in controlling other people’s bedrooms, and still not be pro-abortion.

Sure there are some male religious nutters who fit your description. The vast majority who want the same restrictions as I do are not male religious nutters.

Do you even know what my position is?

have no place telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Let women do what they want

Do you think late term abortions, even at nine months, should be legal and freely available, no questions asked?  

If not, aren’t you also telling women what to do with their bodies?  

if god and hell is real they will pay for their sins in the fullness of time. Of course it isn't really about that is it...

I agree. What do you think the objections are really about?

Abortion happens whether it is illegal or not. It is a totally pointless debate: ban it and it will still happen underground just as it always has.

Littering happens whether it is it is illegal or not …
Animal neglect happens …
Child abuse happens …
Rape …
Murder …

Your argument only works (if at all) for victimless crimes.

Religious men who are scared of sex, women and anything they don't understand

You don’t have to be any of those things to be anti-abortion. You can be female, atheist, have no interest in controlling other people’s bedrooms, and still not be pro-abortion.

Sure there are some male religious nutters who fit your description. The vast majority who want the same restrictions as I do are not male religious nutters.

Do you even know what my position is?

have no place telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Let women do what they want

Do you think late term abortions, even at nine months, should be legal and freely available, no questions asked?  

If not, aren’t you also telling women what to do with their bodies?  

if god and hell is real they will pay for their sins in the fullness of time. Of course it isn't really about that is it...

I agree. What do you think the objections are really about?

• Abortion is victimless if it is conducted early enough. See later point.
• I never said that women or atheists couldn't be anti-abortion, of course they can be. I said religious men shouldn't be telling women what to do with their own bodies but I will extend this to all men generally.
• In terms of late term abortions, let women decide. Have a national plebiscite amongst women and let them carry any moral burden for their decision.
• Men opposing women's rights over their own bodies is about trying to subjugate and control the ~53% of the population that are women. It is no different than other religions forcing women to dress in a certain way or deny them education.

If you believe in the freedom of women and you are not afraid of giving women full rights to their freedom then as a man you will accept women's agency over their own bodies.

Abortion happens whether it is illegal or not. It is a totally pointless debate: ban it and it will still happen underground just as it always has.

Littering happens whether it is it is illegal or not …
Animal neglect happens …
Child abuse happens …
Rape …
Murder …

Your argument only works (if at all) for victimless crimes.

Religious men who are scared of sex, women and anything they don't understand

You don’t have to be any of those things to be anti-abortion. You can be female, atheist, have no interest in controlling other people’s bedrooms, and still not be pro-abortion.

Sure there are some male religious nutters who fit your description. The vast majority who want the same restrictions as I do are not male religious nutters.

Do you even know what my position is?

have no place telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Let women do what they want

Do you think late term abortions, even at nine months, should be legal and freely available, no questions asked?  

If not, aren’t you also telling women what to do with their bodies?  

if god and hell is real they will pay for their sins in the fullness of time. Of course it isn't really about that is it...

I agree. What do you think the objections are really about?

• Abortion is victimless if it is conducted early enough. See later point.

So you acknowledge that there is a victim in a late term abortion, at least. In that light, your later point is … interesting.

I never said that women or atheists couldn't be anti-abortion, of course they can be. I said religious men shouldn't be telling women what to do with their own bodies but I will extend this to all men generally.

Making laws for people - including laws that won't affect the politicians themselves - is what governments do.  Why do you think this issue should be treated differently?

If the issue is about a woman's right to control their own body, what gives one group of women the right to dictate what another woman does with her body?   Why is it ok for female parliamentarians to tell other women what to do with their bodies?

Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it?

Can female religious nutters also participate in that vote?

Can white women vote on what black women what to do with their bodies, and vice versa?

Do the female MPS have to have a uterus to vote on the law? Do they have to be of child-bearing age?  Do they have to have children?  Do they have to have had, or not have had, an abortion?  

Can female MPs pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?  

Can men ban other men from performing abortions?  

What if women voters elected men to represent them?  

Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?  

If you genuinely try to answer the above questions, and justify why those situations are different from your stance that only women should vote on abortion, you will find that there are no good answers. You will see that your argument is incoherent and illogical.

In terms of late term abortions, let women decide. Have a national plebiscite amongst women and let them carry any moral burden for their decision.

Earlier in your post you acknowledged that there is a victim in a late term abortion.

But even though you acknowledge this, you blithely decide that because the victims are defenceless and voiceless, and you yourself are not affected, there’s no need or moral obligation on you to act to protect them - even if you were a parliamentarian with responsibility for the law. In fact, you go further and somehow conclude that it would be wrong for you to do so!

You acknowledge that there are victims, but you think the only people who can vote on protections are those in a position to be the potential victimisers. On your logic, only men should be entitled to vote on laws banning men from sexually assaulting women.

You are quite prepared to live with a situation where dogs and cats have greater protection from abuse and neglect under the law than human babies about to be born.

All because you don’t want to carry the moral burden of the decision as to whether those babies deserve protection.

Men opposing women's rights over their own bodies is about trying to subjugate and control the ~53% of the population that are women. It is no different than other religions forcing women to dress in a certain way or deny them education.

If you believe in the freedom of women and you are not afraid of giving women full rights to their freedom then as a man you will accept women's agency over their own bodies.

Women do not have full freedom to do as they please. Neither do men.

You think it would be ok for women to have the unfettered right to kill their unborn child at nine months, even if they have unfettered access to early term abortion.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

As is always the case with people who oppose abortion you have co-opted a bunch of unrelated strawman arguments.

If the issue is about a woman's right to control their own body, what gives one group of women the right to dictate what another woman does with her body?

Fair argument, but at least women have skin in the game in this debate, which men totally do not. Moreso than ANY issue, abortion wholly affects one sex exclusively. That is the crux of my argument here...that MEN have no right to dictate what women should be able to do with their bodies because the issue 100% does not effect men and 100% does affect women.

Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it?

Hypothetically (because an all women vote would never vote against abortion in Australia) I wouldn't like it personally because I know women who have had abortions, both legal and illegal and I think they should have access to them. I don't believe the government should be able to tell someone what they can do with their own bodies. If they did vote to ban, however, I would consider it a matter for women to work out between themselves.

Can female religious nutters also participate in that vote?

Well I would argue that anyone with religious beliefs isn't fit to vote, but that is a separate issue. As we are not debating that, then yes they should be able to. Again, my point is that MEN have no skin in the game here and should keep out of it.

Can white women vote on what black women what to do with their bodies, and vice versa?

I don't see any relevance whatsoever to race. If women have choices, a white woman can choose to abort and a black woman can choose not to and vice versa.

Do the female MPS have to have a uterus to vote on the law? Do they have to be of child-bearing age? Do they have to have children? Do they have to have had, or not have had, an abortion?

• No
• No
• No...why on earth would that even remotely be a factor?
• No...again, what does that even matter?

I am not sure the point of nit picking and subdividing all of these categories or women? As long as they are not men...

Can female MPs pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?

Does this even need an answer?

Can men ban other men from performing abortions?

Eh, no. If the procedure is legal, why shouldn't men be able to perform it? I totally don't get your angle here at all.

What if women voters elected men to represent them?

Now this is more interesting. I would say that it should be up to women to be informed about the policy position of the MPs they are electing male OR female. You get the MPs you vote for. I would, however, argue that male MPs should abstain on the floor of the house on this issue.

Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?

I don't get why this even a thought in your head at all. Why would the foetus being male somehow give men a right to vote on the abortion procedure? Why should a man care more about a male foetus vs female? This is about women bodies, not the gender of the foetus.

you will find that there are no good answers. You will see that your argument is incoherent and illogical.

Except I provided logical and coherent answers to what were mostly irrelevant questions.

Earlier in your post you acknowledged that there is a victim in a late term abortion.

But even though you acknowledge this, you blithely decide that because the victims are defenceless and voiceless, and you yourself are not affected, there’s no need or moral obligation on you to act to protect them - even if you were a parliamentarian with responsibility for the law. In fact, you go further and somehow conclude that it would be wrong for you to do so!

You acknowledge that there are victims, but you think the only people who can vote on protections are those in a position to be the potential victimisers. On your logic, only men should be entitled to vote on laws banning men from sexually assaulting women.

You are quite prepared to live with a situation where dogs and cats have greater protection from abuse and neglect under the law than human babies about to be born.

All because you don’t want to carry the moral burden of the decision as to whether those babies deserve protection.

I acknowledge that the issue is a complex one with no perfect answers in all cases.

I also acknowledge that the issue is not one that affects me personally and never will, yet unwanted pregnancies have enormous life consequences for women who have them and not just financial consequences. Therefore I take what I believe is the morally correct position and leave the issue for women to debate and decide for themselves and as I believe women are quite capable of coming to sensible, practical and morally sound conclusions, I leave the decision to them.

You want to impose your personal beliefs on others even when such an imposition will never affect you negatively. It is easy for you to moralise and lecture when you will never have to deal with the negative outcomes of what you are calling for.

And you are not carrying any moral burden either. You don't even get to choose if if you want an abortion.

Women do not have full freedom to do as they please. Neither do men. You think it would be ok for women to have the unfettered right to kill their unborn child at nine months, even if they have unfettered access to early term abortion.

Men do have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. So should women.

If late term abortions were banned but early term abortions were allowed, would you be OK with it?

Will do as you did and start at the end.

If late term abortions were banned but early term abortions were allowed, would you be OK with it?

Yes. I have said so many times in this thread, from the very beginning.

I don’t have a firm view as to where the cut off should be. But in broad terms I think abortion should be:

• reasonably available until the foetus is capable of feeling pain, or if earlier, when the  foetus can survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care
• only available after that point in exceptional cases where the life of the mother is at significant and unusual risk, and then only if reasonable attempts are made to also save the baby if possible.

That’s an arbitrary compromise. If society were to insist on a completely logical and coherent cut off, it would be either birth (which I find totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint) or conception (which I would be more comfortable with from a moral standpoint than birth, but is probably too “pure” or “fundamentalist” given that the foetus has no consciousness, no independence, and is not even physically capable of feeling pain).

In my opinion it’s not a question of womens rights alone. The woman’s rights must be balanced against those of her unborn baby.  That baby’s life is at stake. There are other considerations too.  Any cut off between conception and birth is a compromise because it’s an arbitrary line in the sand as to when the baby becomes a human and entitled to its natural and legal right to life. But it is a compromise that recognises not only the impact on the mother, but also the impact of the child in being brought into the world unwanted.

A woman’s right to do as she wants with her body extends only as far as she doesn’t affect others’ rights - the same as for men. Just because biology imposes on women an additional circumstance where this can occur does not change that fundamental principle. The baby is there due to the natural consequences of the (usually) voluntary actions of the mother and father - the baby had no choice.

The unborn baby has no choice, no voice, and no other protection whatsoever.

Abortion also involves questions about the limits of everyone’s right to life. Any compromise about the sanctity of life has implications for everyone including the disabled, the elderly, and the terminally ill.

For these and other reasons, the idea that only women are entitled to a view or vote on this issue borders on ludicrous.

And the number of times you’ve referred to my answer (and you admit I answered it) is exactly zero.

That’s how relevant your question was.

My question was fairly straight to the point and basically do you support women's right of choice? You dodged it like a bullet before finally conceeding and you are still crapping on about it! Why?

Your questions were completely unrelated, harping on about old age when we are talking about unborn!

You don’t have to be any of those things to be anti-abortion. You can be female, atheist, have no interest in controlling other people’s bedrooms, and still not be pro-abortion.

Yeah, but nah. Lets look at some stats from USA as I couldn't find from Australia

• Men: 49 percent (Legal) -47 percent
• Women: 59 percent (Legal) -38 percent

So first point, left to men only abortion would maybe illegal. Left to women only abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.

• Evangelicals: 26 percent (legal) -70 percent
• Non-evangelicals: 65 percent (Legal) -32 percent

Left to the religious sector, abortion would be illegal. Left to the non religious sector, abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.

• 18-34: 65 percent (legal), 32 percent illegal
• 34-44: 60 percent-37 percent
• 65+: 48 percent-49 percent

Left to the oldies sector, abortion would likely illegal. Left to the breeding age group sector, abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.

• Whites: 51 percent-46 percent
• Blacks: 55 percent-39 percent
• Latinos: 63 percent-35 percent
• Left to the whites sector, abortion would only just be legal. Left to the non-whites sector, abortion would easily be legal.

Ok so we killed that argument.

• Whites with college: 60 percent (legal) -37 percent
• Whites without college: 46 percent (legal) -50 percent

Left to the uneducated sector, abortion would likely illegal. Left to the educated sector, abortion would easily be legal.
(ironic since in USA whites are more likely to have college degree, yet it appears to take a degree to become pro-choice, so speaks volumes on the background of non educated)
Ok so we killed that argument.


So all up, yes the anti-abortion brigade sterotype is -> Older, White, Male, Religious, uneducated and yes other pro abortion groups are rural based.

How well do you fit in with this profile Sonofagunzel?

Anyway we are back to old, uneducated, white, religious males telling women what they should do with their bodies.

Why is it ok for female parliamentarians to tell other women what to do with their bodies?

Simple, they have a Uterus, you do not!

Don't get involved in something that doesn't apply to you.

All for robust discussion however, finding this a rather obscure topic for mostly? male train nerds.(me included)
We all have our opinions and nothing will alter those.

Will do as you did and start at the end.

If late term abortions were banned but early term abortions were allowed, would you be OK with it?

Yes. I have said so many times in this thread, from the very beginning.

I don’t have a firm view as to where the cut off should be. But in broad terms I think abortion should be:

• reasonably available until the foetus is capable of feeling pain, or if earlier, when the  foetus can survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care
• only available after that point in exceptional cases where the life of the mother is at significant and unusual risk, and then only if reasonable attempts are made to also save the baby if possible.

That’s an arbitrary compromise. If society were to insist on a completely logical and coherent cut off, it would be either birth (which I find totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint) or conception (which I would be more comfortable with from a moral standpoint than birth, but is probably too “pure” or “fundamentalist” given that the foetus has no consciousness, no independence, and is not even physically capable of feeling pain).

NSW Act
Under the new law, abortions are made available on request during the first 22 weeks of gestation. After that time, two doctors must agree that it is appropriate, based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. This is similar to laws in other states and territories. However, the medical practitioner performing the abortion has obligation to give appropriate medical care if the abortion results in a live baby being born.

Most of the states are very similar,
- Varying between 16 and 24 weeks on request.
- Beyond what ever the weekly limit requires 2 x Dr's approval.
- Abortion centres have an exclusion zone for nut jobs.

The data I looked up show the chances of a fetus surviving a miscarriage below 23 weeks without major health complications is near zero.  You say when a fetus can feel pain, yeah well this should make no difference. I think the point is very clear by most. When the fetus can not be sustained on its own with medical aid.

You keep harping about 9mth termination, but when you look up the gestational age profile for abortions, but lets look at the actual data.

Australia: As of 2015, South Australia is the only Australian state or territory to keep reliable abortion statistics. During 2012, 92% of abortions were performed before 14 weeks' gestation, 6% between 14 and 20 weeks, and 2% (n=96) at a later stage. Of the 96 abortions carried out beyond 20 weeks, 53 were due to actual or probable fetal abnormality

So for SA where abortion is legal on request up to 23 weeks, less than 2% of abortions are beyond > 20 weeks and over half were due to known medical issues with the fetus, nothing about the health of the mother or if the fetus had a significant health issue not life threating.

Comparing to other countries, about 0.5% of abortions > 20 weeks, again no reasons given.  

So the 9mth termination is really another pointless example.