Your study was still wrong and it is only an hours flight from NSW to Vic if that. NSW and even QLD there is abortion on demand because of the " life and health" section of the code. And this is where the study was a red herring. Lots of countries have laws on abortion but mqny of those same countries have a life and health clause that makes abortion on demand
You're right, the mis-named Pro-"life" people are only pro-life for the fetus from conception to birth and then screw it, it's on it's own...
It seems his position on abortion has 'evolved', much like Hillary Clinton and BHO on Gay Marriage. Given that abortion is literally a life or death situation then perhaps many other opinions have 'evolved' as well.
Why are conservatives so completely dead set against considering other nations' laws, except when it helps their cause?
Of course it evolved. Right before he decided he wanted to be the alt-right candidate for President. Because, after all, everyone's strong opinions that they hold dear and spout for decades evolve when they turn 66 years old. Happens all the time.
Obama is a year older than I am. He's 56. He "evolved" when he was in his 40s. I wouldn't know about Clinton. I never followed her opinions one way or another. I wonder what else Trump will "evolve" on in his senior years. Maybe he'll "evolve" back to being the partial birth abortion supporter he always was.
Non sequitur. But most thoughtful people would say there is nothing wrong with considering what other countries do and looking at their experience. In fact it could be argued that it is foolhardy not to do so.
An abortion kills a human being. So other than a human fetus, what is it? Ugh. I bet slave owners once used that defense when they killed their African-American possessions - they did not kill a person with rights. I believe the expectation is that the man and woman who brought that fetus to life and birth will fulfill their responsibility to take care of and provide for it, but I get your point. It's for the very same reason that the mis-named "pro-choice" people should be called pro-abortion.
Shrug, call it what you like , it is a fetus. It is not a person with rights. I said already it is a human fetus.... why does it have to be anything else ? WTF are you talking about?? Oh, the old "slave thing.....did you think you were clever? It's been talked to death. See, slaves were BORN (LOOK UP BORN) that means they were persons with rights . A fetus is not a person and has no rights. Whose expectation? Yours? What business is it of yours? It isn't up to you to determine someone else's life for them... No, you don't get the point. ...and don't understand that Pro-Choice means exactly that FOR CHOICE....no Pro-Choice wants to force women to have an abortion like Anti-Choicers want to FORCE women to give birth . Force is their thing, Pro-Choice is about women having the same rights as everyone else. Why are you advocating that fetuses have more rights than anyone else?
show me in any recognized official document that says you have to be a born human to be allotted human right your just making crap up
That's a fair point. In truth, we don't feel a need to emulate other nations, but in the sense of defining normalcy as the Left often defines it, our current legal structure on abortion is out of balance with the mainstream of Western thought. And there are good reasons for why the balance of the West protects the unborn to a greater extent than America. These children are a national resource and they deserve protection under law and the right to experience life outside the womb, to grow, live and develop their full human potential and independence.
Well , the Constitution... Now, IF the fetus is a person with rights, like ALL persons with rights it has restrictions like ALL persons. One of those restrictions is that one person cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. If I needed a new kidney to live I could not force someone to give me theirs. They could consent and donate one to me. So, IF a fetus is a person then it cannot use the body of the woman it's in to sustain it's life without consent. If the woman doesn't consent, out it goes....
The restrictions being contemplated to provide reasonable abortion restrictions during the second half of gestation are more onerous than New South Wales and Norfolk Island? This is simply untrue. The Northern Territory is more onerous as well, the unlimited period is the first 14 weeks. The legislation under consideration in the US extends that by 50. And Queensland? You seem reluctant to address those reasonable restrictions as well. Oh Bower, you left some very important things out: Even South Australia is restricted, even during the first 28 weeks, abortion is only allowed if two doctors agree that a woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. The legislation we are considering is completely unrestricted access to abortion for the first 20 weeks. The approval of even ONE doctor is not required.
Well, under this standard if you don't get around to it in 20 weeks and you wait until the unborn is likely able to experience pain, You're in for another 20 weeks and then you give your baby up for adoption, if you do not wish to have a dependent. Even today once the baby is born you don't have the right to say "I don't want to be burdened with this dependent baby" and then neglect it and leave it to die.
No, I think the limit now is 23 weeks....and most abortions are done between 8-12 weeks. But Anti-Choicers like to etch away at the rights of 51% of the population so they should be stopped before 20 weeks is instituted. Why didn't you address the post of mine you quoted??? Now, IF the fetus is a person with rights, like ALL persons with rights it has restrictions like ALL persons. One of those restrictions is that one person cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. If I needed a new kidney to live I could not force someone to give me theirs. They could consent and donate one to me. So, IF a fetus is a person then it cannot use the body of the woman it's in to sustain it's life without consent. If the woman doesn't consent, out it goes....
person 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; salesperson. See Usage Note at chairman. 2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance. 3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self. 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/person show me in the definition of a person that being born is a requirement like I said you are just making crap up
What crap? your cute little definitions mean nothing in science or law....couldn't you read: Now, IF the fetus is a person with rights, like ALL persons with rights it has restrictions like ALL persons. One of those restrictions is that one person cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. If I needed a new kidney to live I could not force someone to give me theirs. They could consent and donate one to me. So, IF a fetus is a person then it cannot use the body of the woman it's in to sustain it's life without consent. If the woman doesn't consent, out it goes.... SO YOU want the fetus to have the rights of a born person....so what! That gives the woman the right to eliminate it from her body since NO one is forced to use their body to sustain another's life...either way, no matter what you call it, you LOSE
they can if they were given consent and a women gave the possible unborn that consent when she gave consent for sex when you give consent for an action you also give consent of the possible consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences I cant give another a kidney and then afterwards withdraw that consent and demand that kidney back
NOPERS....consent to one action is NOT consent to any other action. Having sex is one act, getting pregnant is a separate act....sorry , you can't trap women that way No, consent may be withdrawn at any time. A boxer may consent to fight but he may also withdraw that consent if the consequences are too great. He doesn't have to allow himself to be beaten senseless. No, you can't (shrug)
So this will not affect them. Every infant and child relies on someone to sustain their life. If that is the mother's choice, then under this legislation she needs to get her abortion completed by the 20th week, or she will be on the hook for another 20 weeks.
