Abortion is a deeply contentious issue, balancing personal autonomy and the sanctity of life. This exploration examines how fundamental rights shape or are shaped by abortion laws.
- Born alive but left to die, with no comfort or love. Failing to offer lifesaving or palliative care to babies who survive failed abortions is horrific. (Paywall.)
In my opinion, the cultural promotion of sex without commitment has significantly contributed to the prevalence of unwanted conceptions in first-world countries, despite the widespread availability and acceptance of contraception. As casual attitudes towards sex become more normalized, there seems to be less emphasis on long-term responsibility and planning. The focus on immediate pleasure may lead to inconsistent or ineffective contraceptive use, increasing the risk of unintended pregnancies.
Moreover, casual sexual relationships often involve less communication about contraception, potentially leading to misunderstandings or assumptions about responsibility. The "hookup culture" prevalent among younger people may also contribute, as the emphasis on spontaneity can result in risky behavior, with less attention paid to contraception. Media and cultural influences further shape these attitudes by glamorizing casual sex while often downplaying its potential consequences.
It's important to note that this is just my perception, and I haven't gathered hard evidence to support this view. However, the cultural shift towards casual sex and its potential impact on contraceptive practices seems to be a plausible factor in the ongoing issue of unwanted conceptions, even in highly developed countries.
In today's first-world countries, where contraception is widely available and socially accepted, the cultural promotion of sex without commitment plays a significant role in the prevalence of unwanted conceptions. This shift towards casual attitudes about sex has transformed the way people approach relationships and sexual activity. With a growing emphasis on the spontaneity and pleasure of the moment, there is often less attention paid to long-term planning or responsibility. In many cases, this means that contraception is not prioritized or used consistently.
As society increasingly normalizes casual sex, the potential long-term consequences, such as pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), are often downplayed or overlooked. The focus on immediate gratification can lead individuals to be less vigilant about using contraception effectively, thereby increasing the risk of unintended pregnancies. Media, popular culture, and evolving social norms contribute to this normalization by often portraying risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex or multiple partners, as commonplace or even desirable. In such an environment, there is often a lax attitude towards contraceptive use, with the potential for unintended consequences being pushed to the background.
The promotion of casual sex also affects communication between partners. In relationships that are based more on physical attraction than emotional connection, there is often less open discussion about contraception, sexual health, or future plans. This lack of communication can lead to assumptions or misunderstandings about who is responsible for contraception, further increasing the likelihood of accidental pregnancies. Moreover, when sex is seen as detached from commitment, the sense of responsibility toward potential outcomes diminishes. This can result in behaviors like failing to plan ahead, neglecting to use protection, or relying on less effective methods of contraception.
The influence of the "hookup culture" is particularly pronounced among younger people, where sexual encounters are often brief and devoid of long-term attachments. In such settings, the importance of contraception may be overlooked in favor of the excitement and novelty of the encounter itself. This psychological detachment from the possible consequences of sexual activity can lead to riskier behavior, where the focus is solely on the physical experience rather than the potential outcomes.
The frequent turnover of partners in casual sexual relationships further complicates the issue. With each new relationship, there may be different dynamics, expectations, and levels of responsibility regarding contraception. The variability in these short-term relationships can make it challenging to establish consistent contraceptive practices, increasing the risk of unwanted conceptions.
Cultural and media influences also play a significant role in shaping these attitudes. The entertainment industry often glamorizes casual sex, portraying it as exciting and liberating, while rarely addressing the real-life implications. This portrayal can shape individuals' perceptions and behaviors, encouraging a more cavalier approach to contraception and sexual health. Additionally, social environments where casual sex is the norm can create peer pressure, compelling individuals to engage in behaviors they may not fully be comfortable with. In these situations, contraception might not be properly considered or utilized, further contributing to the incidence of unintended pregnancies.
Overall, the promotion of sex without commitment has fundamentally altered the way people think about and engage in sexual activity. While contraception remains widely available, the cultural shift towards casual sex has introduced new challenges in ensuring its consistent and effective use, leading to a persistent issue of unwanted conceptions in even the most developed countries.
Thanks for your very thoughtful response Gaz, and also Robyn S.
I’m still thinking about these…
And still in shock about Ralph Babet’s “urgency motion in defence of babies who have survived their own abortions and left to die. This happens on average at least once a week in Australia. These babies are often just left to die alone, slowly in a cold metal dish, with no legal right to care.” (Quoting from Ralph Babet’s UAP email.)
See this video with Ralph in the parliament…and see Sarah Hanson-Young’s (WEF Young Global Leader) disgusting and puerile behaviour.
That this motion was voted down, which basically called for palliative care for babies left to die, calls into question the calibre of people in the parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ExBIu6JJg
Yes, I watched that video about it. Not comfortable viewing.
One one hand it IS absolutely horrific that people leave the aborted babies born alive to die, but the women having those abortions DO NOT WANT the baby. The midwife/nurse in the video said that mostly the women don't even look at the baby. And without a loving or caring mother/parent, and a whole pile of NICU work, the recently aborted babies have almost zero chances of survival anyway.
I think the tricky thing we need to accept is that the woman has choice over her body and anything in it or on it, from getting tattoos to having abortions. Now if the woman DIDN'T have an abortion (ie wasn't allowed), then she might try other means to self-abort, leading to a maimed or dead baby anyway. As well as harm to the woman. She might drink lots, smoke; do illicit drugs. Who knows. But that won't turn out well for the baby. The baby might even get to full-term and be adopted, but the whole pregnancy, it's getting negative vibes from its mother. How is that good for its development?
Also, if you're born way too early, and somehow survive the neonatal ward (NICU), you usually have a range of problems for life because of not growing in utero long enough. NICU can be great, but it's not like these babies are accidentally coming just 4-6 weeks early. They're forcibly coming VERY early. And almost all of these babies wouldn't make it anyway, even with NICU support. They're just coming into the world too early.
The least, though, that could be done for aborted babies born alive, is for someone, ANYONE, to hold the baby, caringly, until it dies in their arms. Dying on a cold, metal dish is absolutely not acceptable. Ever. Maybe hospitals could have a volunteer on hand who could cradle the tiny baby until it dies (although at only 1 alive aborted baby each week in the whole of Australia, that's pretty rare, anyway). But anyway, someone cradling the tiny baby until it dies would at least be a step up from the current hideous option.
There is no nice option in these cases. And to ban abortion outright would only lead to other issues. But the little babes should most definitely be better looked after when coming out alive, this is very true, although I wouldn't go so far as to save their lives, because I understand about biology and its limitations at certain stages of development, but I understand your anguish. It is not a nice topic!!! And yes, people in parliament are, for the most part, barely even human these days!
I think the whole 'lack of self-responsibility' theme is at play, here. Nothing new, really! :-D
But people, women especially, since that is where babies grow, MUST be aware of their cycle, where they're at, when it is 'safe' to have sex - and even then, bodies do seemingly weird things and ovulate early, or late! I know people who still to this day do not know how they even got pregnant with one of their kids due to when they had sex during the cycle! Anyway, basically, every time you have sex, you're gambling. But humans love to take risks, so sex is just another one, I guess! Add 'culturally acceptable' to having casual sex on top of that, and relative ease with which one can have an abortion, and why does one need to worry, right? I mean, emotions are optional, right?!
I know quite a number of women who have had abortions. For one, it was easy to do that (she'd had about 4! I think she used abortion as a form of 'delayed contraception' for some years there...) but the others all had emotional issues stemming from their abortion. They didn't like having it, but having a kid at their stage of life would've been worse.
Me? No abortions here, thanks. But I DID use the morning-after pill a few times in my 20s! I guess we don't always think straight when it comes to sexual desire, but at least the morning after I did something about it those times I wasn't sure! To allow myself to get to the point of needing/wanting an abortion would've been, well, too foolish in my books - and too dangerous.
Abortion has been practiced for as long as humans have been aware of pregnancy, I guess, but not without risk of serious harm - and death. If those injured/dead women could go back in time to know what was going to happen from that one act (and I'm assuming these were consensual acts, but I also think abortion should ALWAYS be offered for those who have been raped, because to carry a child created from rape would be horrific IMO), then I do wonder if they might not have followed through! One moment of fun and 'what the hell' leading to death or maiming later on? Not worth it. SO not worth it!!! It's just sex! Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's great, sometimes it's average, sometimes you'd rather read a book! But try telling that to the people who are living dangerously. They won't listen anyway.
And when you're irresponsible, who the hell cares about a potential baby growing, right? And in many ways, it's not got a proper Life until it's born, and well cared for. It may be 'alive' in utero, but until birth and suckling, then weaning and learning occurs, this kid still doesn't really have a 'Life'. Sounds horrible, but babies can't fend for themselves. If they don't have decent enough parents, they're dead already.
I think abortion is a personal choice. And I think it should be available for certain timeframes and situations. BUT I also think there's a lot of loose living going on and people need to be more self-responsible. If they DID get their lives sorted, there'd be so much we didn't need to offer (abortion, drug counselling/rehab places, domestic violence shelters etc).
And you know, Gaz, the promotion of sex without commitment is NOT a good thing. I look back at my boyfriends in my 20s, and all I wanted was a nice guy I got along with really well with who was willing to commit and to have a family! Could l find that? NO! Nice ENOUGH boyfriends, but they wanted their 'freedom' - which I gave them, and so of course being tied down to a wifey and kids was, um, not their cup of tea? So my eggs just sat and waited - and plenty died - and EVENTUALLY I found Mr Right when I was 32! Married @ 33. First kid @ 34. 2nd @ 35, 3rd @ 39. He's a country boy! Forget these city boys. They just want to play. True commitment is NOT their thing for the most part! They wasted my time. And my eggs! My kids should be leaving home now with me in my mid-40s. Instead, my oldest is merely leaving primary school!
Modern society has SO many problems. The main one being that people want to have their cake and eat it, too! :-D
I think people just want 'stuff' and an 'easy' life. Hard work - on all fronts - is too much for most people. People are Soft.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly—I really appreciate your honesty. You've touched on some crucial points about self-responsibility, particularly in relationships and the consequences of casual choices. It's clear that understanding the risks involved in sex and taking responsibility for those choices is something that often gets overlooked in the rush of modern life.
Your reflections on abortion and the emotional impact it can have are powerful. The connection you’ve made between personal choices and broader societal issues really resonates with me. It’s clear that when people take more responsibility for their actions, many of the problems we see today might be lessened.
I also agree with your point about the promotion of sex without commitment being detrimental. It’s becoming harder to find true commitment, which is a loss for both individuals and society as a whole. As a country lad myself (or perhaps old bloke is more accurate), I appreciate the nod to more traditional values—it’s something that still holds weight, though I suspect even that will eventually fade over time.
Your journey of finding Mr. Right after going through the ups and downs of your 20s is relatable and I'm sure inspiring to others experiencing this. It’s a reminder that patience and clarity about what you want can lead to something truly meaningful.
Thank you again for contributing your perspective. Your insights add a valuable layer to the conversation, and I’m grateful to have them as part of the dialogue.
You're "right to life narrative" is incorrect. Bogus, even. Right to quality healthcare and privacy concerning the matter is magnitude greater than your insinuations.
The fast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. A fetus is not a baby. It's a collection of cells. You can put it in the freezer and years later, take it out and it will continue its path of growth. Try that with the baby......The only "Right life" that should matter here, the mothers. This is so ignorant and out of your lane on so many levels.
It is not the governments duty to legislate what the church cannot persuade.
As if the child is somehow only the product of the mother? How about we mandate reversible vasectomies? Far cheaper, safer and more effective.
It is a violation of our own HIPAA laws to allow the government whether it be state or federal do you have any say in the matter.
If nothing else, pragmatism should come into play. Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion. It only stops safe abortions.
Against abortion? Don't have one.
Otherwise, stay in your lane.
A bullshit narrative, on a bullshit topic. Nothing more than a political football which has real world consequences that are terrible. Shame on you!
Your perspective on the right to life, intertwined with the nuances of the abortion debate, raises valid concerns about healthcare, personal autonomy, and the government’s role in private matters. However, it’s crucial to take a step back and consider the broader implications of this issue, which touches on ethical considerations as well as societal values.
The right to life is a fundamental principle that is recognized across various legal and ethical frameworks globally. This right often extends to the unborn, particularly when a fetus reaches the point of viability outside the womb. While the importance of quality healthcare and privacy cannot be overstated, the debate about when life truly begins and whose rights should take precedence is a complex moral issue that society must navigate with great care. Dismissing the right to life as “bogus” oversimplifies what is, in reality, a deeply philosophical and morally intricate debate, one that affects millions of lives.
You argue that a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. While it’s true that life begins with a collection of cells, this cluster rapidly develops into a distinct, genetically unique human organism. The ability to freeze embryos, a practice that speaks to the potential for life, is not synonymous with the current state of development within the womb. The core ethical question isn’t merely whether a fetus is equivalent to a baby but whether it represents a potential life that warrants protection.
The government’s role in matters of life and death has been a subject of contention for centuries. This isn’t merely about enforcing religious beliefs; it’s about protecting vulnerable populations, which, for many, includes the unborn. Suggesting that the government should not legislate what the church cannot persuade conflates two different realms of influence. Secular law operates on a foundation built from ethical, legal, and societal considerations, not solely religious doctrine.
In your argument, the idea of mandating vasectomies highlights the need for shared responsibility in reproduction. This suggestion underscores the importance of recognizing both the mother’s and the father’s roles in these critical decisions. Yet, while reversible vasectomies might seem like a straightforward solution, they, too, raise significant ethical and legal questions regarding bodily autonomy, which cannot be brushed aside.
When considering HIPAA laws, it’s important to remember that while these laws protect personal health information, they do not prevent the government from setting regulations on medical procedures, especially those fraught with ethical and societal implications. This debate extends beyond mere privacy concerns; it touches on the broader issue of balancing individual rights with the values of society.
You rightly point out that banning abortion does not eliminate the practice but rather forces it underground, making it unsafe. This argument highlights the need for careful and thoughtful policy-making. However, it does not fully address the ethical question of whether and when abortion is morally justifiable. It is possible to advocate for the protection of unborn life while simultaneously working to improve healthcare systems to better support women in crisis.
The passionate plea for opponents to “stay in their lane,” and the use of harsh language, likely stems from strong personal feelings about the issue. But it’s important to remember that respectful discourse is key to resolving such complex and sensitive matters. Dismissing opposing views as “bullshit” diminishes the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding.
The debate over abortion involves deeply held beliefs on both sides, and any narrative addressing it must carefully weigh the ethical, legal, and societal implications. The right to life is not merely a belief to be cast aside but a principle that must be balanced with other rights. While these rights may sometimes be in conflict, dismissing one in favor of another overlooks the complexity of the issue. A more nuanced approach would consider all the rights involved and seek solutions that respect the dignity and autonomy of everyone affected.
Midwife's Harrowing Testimony Calls for Protections for Babies Born Alive After Failed Abortions
Date: Thu, Aug 22 2024
Louise Adsett, a clinical midwife with 14 years of experience in Queensland’s maternity and birthing units, gave a poignant testimony at a state parliamentary hearing on the Termination of Pregnancy (Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024. The bill, introduced by Katter's Australia Party, seeks to provide legal protections for babies born alive following failed abortions.
Ms. Adsett, who is a mother of three and a conscientious objector to abortion care, recounted how some babies, born alive after late-term abortions, were left to die without medical intervention. Her testimony highlighted the emotional distress faced by midwives, who were often the only ones to hold these newborns as they passed away.
The following is the testimony of Ms. Adsett, as presented to the parliamentary inquiry, revealing the urgent need for legislative action to protect these vulnerable lives.
Louise: "Good morning, Chair and Committee members. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this public hearing about the critical issue of babies born alive after attempted abortions.
First and foremost, I am a mother of three girls. Secondly, I am a Clinical Midwife with approximately 14 years of experience working in maternity and birth units. Currently, I work in a birth unit where my colleagues and I ensure that women and babies receive safe, effective care to prevent harm and adverse outcomes, including death. We are highly skilled in resuscitation, both of mothers and newborns, and we also provide care to mothers who have lost their babies unexpectedly in utero.
However, in recent years, the midwives within our unit have been required to provide care for women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, often for psychosocial or financial reasons. These terminations involve perfectly healthy babies with no abnormalities. Under the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018, women can access an abortion at any gestation for any reason. The only requirement after 22 weeks and one day is that two medical officers must approve the abortion, and the baby is terminated via feticide and delivered as a stillborn.
I am a conscientious objector when it comes to providing care for women terminating their pregnancies. However, I have provided care for many women who have tragically lost their babies at gestations similar to those now undergoing terminations for any reason at any gestation. I am also willing to hold a baby who is born alive after an abortion.
Sadly, in the birth unit where I work, which is typically a place where every new birth is celebrated and protected, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of social terminations at later gestations. This has now become common.
We have had babies born alive after terminations from 15 to 22 weeks, born alive, gasping for air, moving, and with a palpable heart rate—fighting for their lives, as we humans are designed to do. From what I have directly witnessed or been told by my colleagues who were present at the time, these babies have lived anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 hours.
The parents of these babies, born alive after abortion, do not want to see or hold them. This leaves the only person who could possibly hold them as a midwife or a nurse. If this were a pregnancy loss of a wanted baby, the mother and father would usually comfort their baby while it was alive until it passed. In the case of a termination, where the baby is unwanted, the babies are sometimes born into "witches' hats" or kidney dishes and taken out of the room immediately at the parents' request. If the baby is alive after the abortion, the bereavement midwife, or a regular midwife providing care for the woman, holds the baby until it stops gasping, moving, or until it no longer has a palpable heart rate.
Sometimes, babies born alive after an abortion are placed into witches' hats, covered, and taken out of the room, where they die alone. This is distressing for many of the midwives, as they are unable to provide any medical care for the baby, limited to providing comfort care only—merely wrapping and holding the baby. We are often short-staffed, and sometimes midwives and doctors provide this care for the terminated baby while simultaneously caring for laboring women.
To give you an example, a mother made the decision to abort her baby at 21 weeks gestation. The process began in the morning, with medication given throughout the day. The baby was only delivered during the early hours of a night shift, when skeleton staff was on duty. This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath, and had a palpable heart rate. To be clear, this baby was alive. It weighed over 400 grams, a good weight. The parents of this baby did not wish to see or hold him. Midwives and doctors were left holding this little life while continuing to care for other women who were birthing and welcoming their babies into the world. This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
Just recently, a mother decided to abort her baby at 19 weeks. The same medication regime was started, and this little baby was born alive, again moving, gasping for air, and with a palpable heart rate. This was a busy shift, and the midwife who took over care from the bereavement midwife when this baby was delivered was distressed and shocked to find the baby alive at 19 weeks. Unable to hold the baby, it was taken to the pan room as the mother declined to hold her child, even knowing it was alive. The midwife, who was already caring for another woman who had decided to terminate her baby at a later gestation, was also providing care for this little one. Due to the busyness of the shift and short staffing, it was suggested that the baby be placed in the dirty pan room, covered, and left alone to take its final breaths. As the baby continued breathing longer than anticipated, another midwife was able to hold the baby while performing other duties until it finally passed. This baby lived for almost three hours.
These are just two of many examples that occur not only in the birth suites where I work but across Queensland. These accounts I share with you are based on either my direct experience or the experiences of my colleagues. Many of us are deeply distressed by what we have witnessed and participated in.
These babies deserve better. They deserve the same rights that all human beings have. I hope that the live birth bill will be the first of many steps taken to protect and give rights to babies born alive after an abortion.
Thank you for your time and for listening."
Finally, to suggest this testimony isn't "a credible source", is a bit of a stretch. It is first hand knowledge and was presented at a Queensland Parliamentary Inquiry. You need to deal with these facts. There is no moral or ethical position to stand with regard to this kind of situation. In law, this kind of neglect would be by any measure considered murder.
As far as I'm aware, there are reports of this kind of thing happening in Canada under the Canadain Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation. While it was designed to provide a compassionate option for those suffering from terminal illnesses, there are plenty of cases that are emerging that highlight potential vulnerabilities and controversies within the system.
One such case is that of Alan Nichols, a 61-year-old man from British Columbia who was euthanized under MAID despite having a history of depression and other mental health issues but no terminal illness. Nichols' family contended that he did not suffer from an incurable medical condition, a fundamental requirement for MAID eligibility. They argued that his death exposed significant gaps in the system, particularly concerning informed consent and proper assessment of mental capacity. This case ignited widespread concern about the adequacy of safeguards intended to protect vulnerable individuals, especially those grappling with mental health challenges, from being inappropriately directed toward medically assisted death.
Similarly troubling is the experience of Roger Foley, a 42-year-old man diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological disorder. Foley publicly refused MAID, instead seeking improved home care support to manage his condition. He recorded conversations with hospital staff that appeared to pressure him into considering MAID, allegedly due to the high costs associated with his long-term care. Foley's case shed light on the potential misuse of MAID as a cost-saving measure and raised profound ethical questions about patient autonomy, quality of care, and the societal obligation to support individuals with chronic and disabling conditions. It sparked a debate on whether financial and resource constraints could unduly influence patients' end-of-life decisions.
The case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, further underscores these ethical dilemmas. During a medical consultation, a doctor reportedly suggested MAID as an option for Lewis, despite her not having a terminal illness and expressing a clear desire to live. Her mother, present during the consultation, was horrified by the suggestion, viewing it as an inappropriate and insensitive recommendation. This incident amplified fears within the disability rights community that MAID could be improperly proposed to individuals with disabilities, thereby devaluing their lives and undermining their right to appropriate medical care and support.
In another contentious instance, Jeanette Hall, a 63-year-old woman with a prolonged history of mental illness, accessed MAID despite objections from her family. Hall had previously exhibited suicidal tendencies related to her mental health struggles, leading her family to question her capacity to make an informed and autonomous decision regarding medically assisted death. They argued that approving her request for MAID represented a systemic failure to adequately assess mental capacity and protect those whose judgment may be impaired by mental illness. This case highlighted the intricate challenges of determining consent and capacity in individuals with chronic mental health conditions and raised concerns about the sufficiency of existing safeguards to prevent potential abuses.
The story of Nanci Denny, a 60-year-old woman suffering from a severe, non-terminal chronic pain condition, adds another layer to the ongoing discourse. After years of debilitating pain that resisted effective medical treatment, Denny chose to utilize MAID to end her suffering. While her decision was based on enduring and significant pain, her case provoked debate over the appropriateness of extending MAID eligibility to individuals with chronic but non-life-threatening conditions. Critics argued that expanding access in such a manner could detract from efforts to improve pain management and palliative care services, suggesting that the focus should remain on enhancing quality of life rather than facilitating death in non-terminal cases.
No ....but you have made me rethink eugenics. Out of context bullshit strawman much? Obviously, we should have had a lifeguard in your geme pool generations ago.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this deeply sensitive and complex issue. I acknowledge and respect the passion with which you express your views, as abortion is indeed a topic that invokes strong emotions and diverse opinions.
However, I believe it is important to approach such discussions with respect and a focus on constructive dialogue. While I understand that your response was driven by your conviction, I must point out that the tone and language you employed, particularly in your recent remarks, may detract from the strength of your argument and the opportunity for meaningful exchange.
Regarding the substance of your earlier comments, you mentioned that "the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester" and that "a fetus is not a baby." While it's true that the legal and medical definitions of when life begins can vary, I think it’s essential to recognize that differing perspectives on this issue often stem from deeply held beliefs about human rights and the law. My approach to this topic is rooted in the principle of human rights, specifically the right to life, which I believe is non-derogable. The scientific consensus that human life begins at conception is central to this viewpoint, though I understand and acknowledge that others may interpret the implications of this differently.
Your reference to a "collection of cells" is scientifically accurate in the very early stages of development. However, by around eight weeks, that collection of cells has indeed taken on a distinctly human form, which is why some people, myself included, consider the right to life to be applicable from this stage onward. This is not simply a "narrative" but a fundamental belief in the sanctity of life, which is central to many people's understanding of human rights.
I would also like to address the tone of your closing remarks, which included strong language and personal attacks. Such language can be hurtful and may hinder productive discourse. It’s important that, even in disagreement, we maintain a level of respect that allows for open and honest communication. By focusing on the issues rather than on personal criticisms, we can better understand each other's perspectives and work towards finding common ground, even on contentious topics like abortion.
While I appreciate your engagement with this topic, I encourage us all to uphold the principles of respectful debate. Let’s continue this conversation in a manner that reflects our shared commitment to understanding and addressing the complex ethical, legal, and human rights dimensions of this issue.
Also consider:
- Senate REJECTS motion to help babies left for dead. A motion calling for care for newborns surviving abortions has been shut down in the Senate.
https://www.rebelnews.com/senate_vote_rejects_motion_to_protect_babies_left_for_dead
- Born alive but left to die, with no comfort or love. Failing to offer lifesaving or palliative care to babies who survive failed abortions is horrific. (Paywall.)
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/born-alive-but-left-to-die-with-no-comfort-or-love/news-story/152cdc042d1402fe315102732bf50a94
Something that seems to be overlooked when talking about abortion is questioning why are there so many unwanted conceptions?
How does this happen?
Any ideas?
In my opinion, the cultural promotion of sex without commitment has significantly contributed to the prevalence of unwanted conceptions in first-world countries, despite the widespread availability and acceptance of contraception. As casual attitudes towards sex become more normalized, there seems to be less emphasis on long-term responsibility and planning. The focus on immediate pleasure may lead to inconsistent or ineffective contraceptive use, increasing the risk of unintended pregnancies.
Moreover, casual sexual relationships often involve less communication about contraception, potentially leading to misunderstandings or assumptions about responsibility. The "hookup culture" prevalent among younger people may also contribute, as the emphasis on spontaneity can result in risky behavior, with less attention paid to contraception. Media and cultural influences further shape these attitudes by glamorizing casual sex while often downplaying its potential consequences.
It's important to note that this is just my perception, and I haven't gathered hard evidence to support this view. However, the cultural shift towards casual sex and its potential impact on contraceptive practices seems to be a plausible factor in the ongoing issue of unwanted conceptions, even in highly developed countries.
In today's first-world countries, where contraception is widely available and socially accepted, the cultural promotion of sex without commitment plays a significant role in the prevalence of unwanted conceptions. This shift towards casual attitudes about sex has transformed the way people approach relationships and sexual activity. With a growing emphasis on the spontaneity and pleasure of the moment, there is often less attention paid to long-term planning or responsibility. In many cases, this means that contraception is not prioritized or used consistently.
As society increasingly normalizes casual sex, the potential long-term consequences, such as pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), are often downplayed or overlooked. The focus on immediate gratification can lead individuals to be less vigilant about using contraception effectively, thereby increasing the risk of unintended pregnancies. Media, popular culture, and evolving social norms contribute to this normalization by often portraying risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex or multiple partners, as commonplace or even desirable. In such an environment, there is often a lax attitude towards contraceptive use, with the potential for unintended consequences being pushed to the background.
The promotion of casual sex also affects communication between partners. In relationships that are based more on physical attraction than emotional connection, there is often less open discussion about contraception, sexual health, or future plans. This lack of communication can lead to assumptions or misunderstandings about who is responsible for contraception, further increasing the likelihood of accidental pregnancies. Moreover, when sex is seen as detached from commitment, the sense of responsibility toward potential outcomes diminishes. This can result in behaviors like failing to plan ahead, neglecting to use protection, or relying on less effective methods of contraception.
The influence of the "hookup culture" is particularly pronounced among younger people, where sexual encounters are often brief and devoid of long-term attachments. In such settings, the importance of contraception may be overlooked in favor of the excitement and novelty of the encounter itself. This psychological detachment from the possible consequences of sexual activity can lead to riskier behavior, where the focus is solely on the physical experience rather than the potential outcomes.
The frequent turnover of partners in casual sexual relationships further complicates the issue. With each new relationship, there may be different dynamics, expectations, and levels of responsibility regarding contraception. The variability in these short-term relationships can make it challenging to establish consistent contraceptive practices, increasing the risk of unwanted conceptions.
Cultural and media influences also play a significant role in shaping these attitudes. The entertainment industry often glamorizes casual sex, portraying it as exciting and liberating, while rarely addressing the real-life implications. This portrayal can shape individuals' perceptions and behaviors, encouraging a more cavalier approach to contraception and sexual health. Additionally, social environments where casual sex is the norm can create peer pressure, compelling individuals to engage in behaviors they may not fully be comfortable with. In these situations, contraception might not be properly considered or utilized, further contributing to the incidence of unintended pregnancies.
Overall, the promotion of sex without commitment has fundamentally altered the way people think about and engage in sexual activity. While contraception remains widely available, the cultural shift towards casual sex has introduced new challenges in ensuring its consistent and effective use, leading to a persistent issue of unwanted conceptions in even the most developed countries.
Thanks for your very thoughtful response Gaz, and also Robyn S.
I’m still thinking about these…
And still in shock about Ralph Babet’s “urgency motion in defence of babies who have survived their own abortions and left to die. This happens on average at least once a week in Australia. These babies are often just left to die alone, slowly in a cold metal dish, with no legal right to care.” (Quoting from Ralph Babet’s UAP email.)
See this video with Ralph in the parliament…and see Sarah Hanson-Young’s (WEF Young Global Leader) disgusting and puerile behaviour.
That this motion was voted down, which basically called for palliative care for babies left to die, calls into question the calibre of people in the parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ExBIu6JJg
Leaving babies to die! It’s so shocking…
Yes, I watched that video about it. Not comfortable viewing.
One one hand it IS absolutely horrific that people leave the aborted babies born alive to die, but the women having those abortions DO NOT WANT the baby. The midwife/nurse in the video said that mostly the women don't even look at the baby. And without a loving or caring mother/parent, and a whole pile of NICU work, the recently aborted babies have almost zero chances of survival anyway.
I think the tricky thing we need to accept is that the woman has choice over her body and anything in it or on it, from getting tattoos to having abortions. Now if the woman DIDN'T have an abortion (ie wasn't allowed), then she might try other means to self-abort, leading to a maimed or dead baby anyway. As well as harm to the woman. She might drink lots, smoke; do illicit drugs. Who knows. But that won't turn out well for the baby. The baby might even get to full-term and be adopted, but the whole pregnancy, it's getting negative vibes from its mother. How is that good for its development?
Also, if you're born way too early, and somehow survive the neonatal ward (NICU), you usually have a range of problems for life because of not growing in utero long enough. NICU can be great, but it's not like these babies are accidentally coming just 4-6 weeks early. They're forcibly coming VERY early. And almost all of these babies wouldn't make it anyway, even with NICU support. They're just coming into the world too early.
The least, though, that could be done for aborted babies born alive, is for someone, ANYONE, to hold the baby, caringly, until it dies in their arms. Dying on a cold, metal dish is absolutely not acceptable. Ever. Maybe hospitals could have a volunteer on hand who could cradle the tiny baby until it dies (although at only 1 alive aborted baby each week in the whole of Australia, that's pretty rare, anyway). But anyway, someone cradling the tiny baby until it dies would at least be a step up from the current hideous option.
There is no nice option in these cases. And to ban abortion outright would only lead to other issues. But the little babes should most definitely be better looked after when coming out alive, this is very true, although I wouldn't go so far as to save their lives, because I understand about biology and its limitations at certain stages of development, but I understand your anguish. It is not a nice topic!!! And yes, people in parliament are, for the most part, barely even human these days!
I think the whole 'lack of self-responsibility' theme is at play, here. Nothing new, really! :-D
But people, women especially, since that is where babies grow, MUST be aware of their cycle, where they're at, when it is 'safe' to have sex - and even then, bodies do seemingly weird things and ovulate early, or late! I know people who still to this day do not know how they even got pregnant with one of their kids due to when they had sex during the cycle! Anyway, basically, every time you have sex, you're gambling. But humans love to take risks, so sex is just another one, I guess! Add 'culturally acceptable' to having casual sex on top of that, and relative ease with which one can have an abortion, and why does one need to worry, right? I mean, emotions are optional, right?!
I know quite a number of women who have had abortions. For one, it was easy to do that (she'd had about 4! I think she used abortion as a form of 'delayed contraception' for some years there...) but the others all had emotional issues stemming from their abortion. They didn't like having it, but having a kid at their stage of life would've been worse.
Me? No abortions here, thanks. But I DID use the morning-after pill a few times in my 20s! I guess we don't always think straight when it comes to sexual desire, but at least the morning after I did something about it those times I wasn't sure! To allow myself to get to the point of needing/wanting an abortion would've been, well, too foolish in my books - and too dangerous.
Abortion has been practiced for as long as humans have been aware of pregnancy, I guess, but not without risk of serious harm - and death. If those injured/dead women could go back in time to know what was going to happen from that one act (and I'm assuming these were consensual acts, but I also think abortion should ALWAYS be offered for those who have been raped, because to carry a child created from rape would be horrific IMO), then I do wonder if they might not have followed through! One moment of fun and 'what the hell' leading to death or maiming later on? Not worth it. SO not worth it!!! It's just sex! Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's great, sometimes it's average, sometimes you'd rather read a book! But try telling that to the people who are living dangerously. They won't listen anyway.
And when you're irresponsible, who the hell cares about a potential baby growing, right? And in many ways, it's not got a proper Life until it's born, and well cared for. It may be 'alive' in utero, but until birth and suckling, then weaning and learning occurs, this kid still doesn't really have a 'Life'. Sounds horrible, but babies can't fend for themselves. If they don't have decent enough parents, they're dead already.
I think abortion is a personal choice. And I think it should be available for certain timeframes and situations. BUT I also think there's a lot of loose living going on and people need to be more self-responsible. If they DID get their lives sorted, there'd be so much we didn't need to offer (abortion, drug counselling/rehab places, domestic violence shelters etc).
And you know, Gaz, the promotion of sex without commitment is NOT a good thing. I look back at my boyfriends in my 20s, and all I wanted was a nice guy I got along with really well with who was willing to commit and to have a family! Could l find that? NO! Nice ENOUGH boyfriends, but they wanted their 'freedom' - which I gave them, and so of course being tied down to a wifey and kids was, um, not their cup of tea? So my eggs just sat and waited - and plenty died - and EVENTUALLY I found Mr Right when I was 32! Married @ 33. First kid @ 34. 2nd @ 35, 3rd @ 39. He's a country boy! Forget these city boys. They just want to play. True commitment is NOT their thing for the most part! They wasted my time. And my eggs! My kids should be leaving home now with me in my mid-40s. Instead, my oldest is merely leaving primary school!
Modern society has SO many problems. The main one being that people want to have their cake and eat it, too! :-D
I think people just want 'stuff' and an 'easy' life. Hard work - on all fronts - is too much for most people. People are Soft.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly—I really appreciate your honesty. You've touched on some crucial points about self-responsibility, particularly in relationships and the consequences of casual choices. It's clear that understanding the risks involved in sex and taking responsibility for those choices is something that often gets overlooked in the rush of modern life.
Your reflections on abortion and the emotional impact it can have are powerful. The connection you’ve made between personal choices and broader societal issues really resonates with me. It’s clear that when people take more responsibility for their actions, many of the problems we see today might be lessened.
I also agree with your point about the promotion of sex without commitment being detrimental. It’s becoming harder to find true commitment, which is a loss for both individuals and society as a whole. As a country lad myself (or perhaps old bloke is more accurate), I appreciate the nod to more traditional values—it’s something that still holds weight, though I suspect even that will eventually fade over time.
Your journey of finding Mr. Right after going through the ups and downs of your 20s is relatable and I'm sure inspiring to others experiencing this. It’s a reminder that patience and clarity about what you want can lead to something truly meaningful.
Thank you again for contributing your perspective. Your insights add a valuable layer to the conversation, and I’m grateful to have them as part of the dialogue.
Best regards, Gaz
Also see Mark Neugebauer and Bruce Paix discussing this subject, from 0:45: https://markneugebauer.substack.com/p/episode-22-wake-up-australia-dissecting
You're "right to life narrative" is incorrect. Bogus, even. Right to quality healthcare and privacy concerning the matter is magnitude greater than your insinuations.
The fast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. A fetus is not a baby. It's a collection of cells. You can put it in the freezer and years later, take it out and it will continue its path of growth. Try that with the baby......The only "Right life" that should matter here, the mothers. This is so ignorant and out of your lane on so many levels.
It is not the governments duty to legislate what the church cannot persuade.
As if the child is somehow only the product of the mother? How about we mandate reversible vasectomies? Far cheaper, safer and more effective.
It is a violation of our own HIPAA laws to allow the government whether it be state or federal do you have any say in the matter.
If nothing else, pragmatism should come into play. Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion. It only stops safe abortions.
Against abortion? Don't have one.
Otherwise, stay in your lane.
A bullshit narrative, on a bullshit topic. Nothing more than a political football which has real world consequences that are terrible. Shame on you!
Your perspective on the right to life, intertwined with the nuances of the abortion debate, raises valid concerns about healthcare, personal autonomy, and the government’s role in private matters. However, it’s crucial to take a step back and consider the broader implications of this issue, which touches on ethical considerations as well as societal values.
The right to life is a fundamental principle that is recognized across various legal and ethical frameworks globally. This right often extends to the unborn, particularly when a fetus reaches the point of viability outside the womb. While the importance of quality healthcare and privacy cannot be overstated, the debate about when life truly begins and whose rights should take precedence is a complex moral issue that society must navigate with great care. Dismissing the right to life as “bogus” oversimplifies what is, in reality, a deeply philosophical and morally intricate debate, one that affects millions of lives.
You argue that a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. While it’s true that life begins with a collection of cells, this cluster rapidly develops into a distinct, genetically unique human organism. The ability to freeze embryos, a practice that speaks to the potential for life, is not synonymous with the current state of development within the womb. The core ethical question isn’t merely whether a fetus is equivalent to a baby but whether it represents a potential life that warrants protection.
The government’s role in matters of life and death has been a subject of contention for centuries. This isn’t merely about enforcing religious beliefs; it’s about protecting vulnerable populations, which, for many, includes the unborn. Suggesting that the government should not legislate what the church cannot persuade conflates two different realms of influence. Secular law operates on a foundation built from ethical, legal, and societal considerations, not solely religious doctrine.
In your argument, the idea of mandating vasectomies highlights the need for shared responsibility in reproduction. This suggestion underscores the importance of recognizing both the mother’s and the father’s roles in these critical decisions. Yet, while reversible vasectomies might seem like a straightforward solution, they, too, raise significant ethical and legal questions regarding bodily autonomy, which cannot be brushed aside.
When considering HIPAA laws, it’s important to remember that while these laws protect personal health information, they do not prevent the government from setting regulations on medical procedures, especially those fraught with ethical and societal implications. This debate extends beyond mere privacy concerns; it touches on the broader issue of balancing individual rights with the values of society.
You rightly point out that banning abortion does not eliminate the practice but rather forces it underground, making it unsafe. This argument highlights the need for careful and thoughtful policy-making. However, it does not fully address the ethical question of whether and when abortion is morally justifiable. It is possible to advocate for the protection of unborn life while simultaneously working to improve healthcare systems to better support women in crisis.
The passionate plea for opponents to “stay in their lane,” and the use of harsh language, likely stems from strong personal feelings about the issue. But it’s important to remember that respectful discourse is key to resolving such complex and sensitive matters. Dismissing opposing views as “bullshit” diminishes the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding.
The debate over abortion involves deeply held beliefs on both sides, and any narrative addressing it must carefully weigh the ethical, legal, and societal implications. The right to life is not merely a belief to be cast aside but a principle that must be balanced with other rights. While these rights may sometimes be in conflict, dismissing one in favor of another overlooks the complexity of the issue. A more nuanced approach would consider all the rights involved and seek solutions that respect the dignity and autonomy of everyone affected.
https://x.com/mightyarty2/status/1826147977431281810?s=61
As if that's a credible source? Go away
Midwife's Harrowing Testimony Calls for Protections for Babies Born Alive After Failed Abortions
Date: Thu, Aug 22 2024
Louise Adsett, a clinical midwife with 14 years of experience in Queensland’s maternity and birthing units, gave a poignant testimony at a state parliamentary hearing on the Termination of Pregnancy (Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024. The bill, introduced by Katter's Australia Party, seeks to provide legal protections for babies born alive following failed abortions.
Ms. Adsett, who is a mother of three and a conscientious objector to abortion care, recounted how some babies, born alive after late-term abortions, were left to die without medical intervention. Her testimony highlighted the emotional distress faced by midwives, who were often the only ones to hold these newborns as they passed away.
The following is the testimony of Ms. Adsett, as presented to the parliamentary inquiry, revealing the urgent need for legislative action to protect these vulnerable lives.
Louise: "Good morning, Chair and Committee members. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this public hearing about the critical issue of babies born alive after attempted abortions.
First and foremost, I am a mother of three girls. Secondly, I am a Clinical Midwife with approximately 14 years of experience working in maternity and birth units. Currently, I work in a birth unit where my colleagues and I ensure that women and babies receive safe, effective care to prevent harm and adverse outcomes, including death. We are highly skilled in resuscitation, both of mothers and newborns, and we also provide care to mothers who have lost their babies unexpectedly in utero.
However, in recent years, the midwives within our unit have been required to provide care for women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, often for psychosocial or financial reasons. These terminations involve perfectly healthy babies with no abnormalities. Under the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018, women can access an abortion at any gestation for any reason. The only requirement after 22 weeks and one day is that two medical officers must approve the abortion, and the baby is terminated via feticide and delivered as a stillborn.
I am a conscientious objector when it comes to providing care for women terminating their pregnancies. However, I have provided care for many women who have tragically lost their babies at gestations similar to those now undergoing terminations for any reason at any gestation. I am also willing to hold a baby who is born alive after an abortion.
Sadly, in the birth unit where I work, which is typically a place where every new birth is celebrated and protected, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of social terminations at later gestations. This has now become common.
We have had babies born alive after terminations from 15 to 22 weeks, born alive, gasping for air, moving, and with a palpable heart rate—fighting for their lives, as we humans are designed to do. From what I have directly witnessed or been told by my colleagues who were present at the time, these babies have lived anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 hours.
The parents of these babies, born alive after abortion, do not want to see or hold them. This leaves the only person who could possibly hold them as a midwife or a nurse. If this were a pregnancy loss of a wanted baby, the mother and father would usually comfort their baby while it was alive until it passed. In the case of a termination, where the baby is unwanted, the babies are sometimes born into "witches' hats" or kidney dishes and taken out of the room immediately at the parents' request. If the baby is alive after the abortion, the bereavement midwife, or a regular midwife providing care for the woman, holds the baby until it stops gasping, moving, or until it no longer has a palpable heart rate.
Sometimes, babies born alive after an abortion are placed into witches' hats, covered, and taken out of the room, where they die alone. This is distressing for many of the midwives, as they are unable to provide any medical care for the baby, limited to providing comfort care only—merely wrapping and holding the baby. We are often short-staffed, and sometimes midwives and doctors provide this care for the terminated baby while simultaneously caring for laboring women.
To give you an example, a mother made the decision to abort her baby at 21 weeks gestation. The process began in the morning, with medication given throughout the day. The baby was only delivered during the early hours of a night shift, when skeleton staff was on duty. This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath, and had a palpable heart rate. To be clear, this baby was alive. It weighed over 400 grams, a good weight. The parents of this baby did not wish to see or hold him. Midwives and doctors were left holding this little life while continuing to care for other women who were birthing and welcoming their babies into the world. This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
Just recently, a mother decided to abort her baby at 19 weeks. The same medication regime was started, and this little baby was born alive, again moving, gasping for air, and with a palpable heart rate. This was a busy shift, and the midwife who took over care from the bereavement midwife when this baby was delivered was distressed and shocked to find the baby alive at 19 weeks. Unable to hold the baby, it was taken to the pan room as the mother declined to hold her child, even knowing it was alive. The midwife, who was already caring for another woman who had decided to terminate her baby at a later gestation, was also providing care for this little one. Due to the busyness of the shift and short staffing, it was suggested that the baby be placed in the dirty pan room, covered, and left alone to take its final breaths. As the baby continued breathing longer than anticipated, another midwife was able to hold the baby while performing other duties until it finally passed. This baby lived for almost three hours.
These are just two of many examples that occur not only in the birth suites where I work but across Queensland. These accounts I share with you are based on either my direct experience or the experiences of my colleagues. Many of us are deeply distressed by what we have witnessed and participated in.
These babies deserve better. They deserve the same rights that all human beings have. I hope that the live birth bill will be the first of many steps taken to protect and give rights to babies born alive after an abortion.
Thank you for your time and for listening."
Finally, to suggest this testimony isn't "a credible source", is a bit of a stretch. It is first hand knowledge and was presented at a Queensland Parliamentary Inquiry. You need to deal with these facts. There is no moral or ethical position to stand with regard to this kind of situation. In law, this kind of neglect would be by any measure considered murder.
I guess you would use the same logic to justify killing the elderly and then the handicapped then the poor
As far as I'm aware, there are reports of this kind of thing happening in Canada under the Canadain Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation. While it was designed to provide a compassionate option for those suffering from terminal illnesses, there are plenty of cases that are emerging that highlight potential vulnerabilities and controversies within the system.
One such case is that of Alan Nichols, a 61-year-old man from British Columbia who was euthanized under MAID despite having a history of depression and other mental health issues but no terminal illness. Nichols' family contended that he did not suffer from an incurable medical condition, a fundamental requirement for MAID eligibility. They argued that his death exposed significant gaps in the system, particularly concerning informed consent and proper assessment of mental capacity. This case ignited widespread concern about the adequacy of safeguards intended to protect vulnerable individuals, especially those grappling with mental health challenges, from being inappropriately directed toward medically assisted death.
Similarly troubling is the experience of Roger Foley, a 42-year-old man diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia, a degenerative neurological disorder. Foley publicly refused MAID, instead seeking improved home care support to manage his condition. He recorded conversations with hospital staff that appeared to pressure him into considering MAID, allegedly due to the high costs associated with his long-term care. Foley's case shed light on the potential misuse of MAID as a cost-saving measure and raised profound ethical questions about patient autonomy, quality of care, and the societal obligation to support individuals with chronic and disabling conditions. It sparked a debate on whether financial and resource constraints could unduly influence patients' end-of-life decisions.
The case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, further underscores these ethical dilemmas. During a medical consultation, a doctor reportedly suggested MAID as an option for Lewis, despite her not having a terminal illness and expressing a clear desire to live. Her mother, present during the consultation, was horrified by the suggestion, viewing it as an inappropriate and insensitive recommendation. This incident amplified fears within the disability rights community that MAID could be improperly proposed to individuals with disabilities, thereby devaluing their lives and undermining their right to appropriate medical care and support.
In another contentious instance, Jeanette Hall, a 63-year-old woman with a prolonged history of mental illness, accessed MAID despite objections from her family. Hall had previously exhibited suicidal tendencies related to her mental health struggles, leading her family to question her capacity to make an informed and autonomous decision regarding medically assisted death. They argued that approving her request for MAID represented a systemic failure to adequately assess mental capacity and protect those whose judgment may be impaired by mental illness. This case highlighted the intricate challenges of determining consent and capacity in individuals with chronic mental health conditions and raised concerns about the sufficiency of existing safeguards to prevent potential abuses.
The story of Nanci Denny, a 60-year-old woman suffering from a severe, non-terminal chronic pain condition, adds another layer to the ongoing discourse. After years of debilitating pain that resisted effective medical treatment, Denny chose to utilize MAID to end her suffering. While her decision was based on enduring and significant pain, her case provoked debate over the appropriateness of extending MAID eligibility to individuals with chronic but non-life-threatening conditions. Critics argued that expanding access in such a manner could detract from efforts to improve pain management and palliative care services, suggesting that the focus should remain on enhancing quality of life rather than facilitating death in non-terminal cases.
No ....but you have made me rethink eugenics. Out of context bullshit strawman much? Obviously, we should have had a lifeguard in your geme pool generations ago.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this deeply sensitive and complex issue. I acknowledge and respect the passion with which you express your views, as abortion is indeed a topic that invokes strong emotions and diverse opinions.
However, I believe it is important to approach such discussions with respect and a focus on constructive dialogue. While I understand that your response was driven by your conviction, I must point out that the tone and language you employed, particularly in your recent remarks, may detract from the strength of your argument and the opportunity for meaningful exchange.
Regarding the substance of your earlier comments, you mentioned that "the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester" and that "a fetus is not a baby." While it's true that the legal and medical definitions of when life begins can vary, I think it’s essential to recognize that differing perspectives on this issue often stem from deeply held beliefs about human rights and the law. My approach to this topic is rooted in the principle of human rights, specifically the right to life, which I believe is non-derogable. The scientific consensus that human life begins at conception is central to this viewpoint, though I understand and acknowledge that others may interpret the implications of this differently.
Your reference to a "collection of cells" is scientifically accurate in the very early stages of development. However, by around eight weeks, that collection of cells has indeed taken on a distinctly human form, which is why some people, myself included, consider the right to life to be applicable from this stage onward. This is not simply a "narrative" but a fundamental belief in the sanctity of life, which is central to many people's understanding of human rights.
I would also like to address the tone of your closing remarks, which included strong language and personal attacks. Such language can be hurtful and may hinder productive discourse. It’s important that, even in disagreement, we maintain a level of respect that allows for open and honest communication. By focusing on the issues rather than on personal criticisms, we can better understand each other's perspectives and work towards finding common ground, even on contentious topics like abortion.
While I appreciate your engagement with this topic, I encourage us all to uphold the principles of respectful debate. Let’s continue this conversation in a manner that reflects our shared commitment to understanding and addressing the complex ethical, legal, and human rights dimensions of this issue.