subscribe btndonate btn

Monday, 27 June 2016 04:47

Right to Choose

Written by
                           What would abortion on demand apologists do without rape victims?
Of course, if major, massive health problems emerge during a pregnancy a Doctor has a clear duty to try and save the lives of both. However such a medical situation is extremely rare. Failure of contraception is a different matter. Mothers then have to choose between killing a child or having some minor inconvenience for a few months. The baby can be adopted out at birth if mothers don't feel able or willing to raise it.
Very few women actually conceive after being raped due to the effect of hormones released due to trauma. The numbers of those pregnancies are actually quite low. Many women who do fall pregnant as a result of rape keep their babies with no regrets even though the trauma of the rape may always be with them. And they still love and care for their child. It wasn't the child's fault and two wrongs never make a right.
A sub-percentage of rape / incest pregnancies (2%) does not justify uncontrolled legalized abortion.
Unlike years ago, women in Australia no longer have the terrible problem of being forced to produce children they can't feed. These days the Australia government provides a pension which is much higher than the dole until the child turns eight. Nor is there much stigma about unmarried pregnancy today as in the past.
Bringing up the old claim about back yard abortions shows how little people know. Those abortions in Victoria ceased about 70 years ago to be replaced by doctors who performed abortions illegally and paying off the police at the same time. The Kaye Inquiry into Victorian Police corruption elaborates. Why bring up old myths?
So the usual reasons for abortion have mostly disappeared for most women.
Human beings in the west have a "throw away" mentality so ingrained in their minds that we believe that even life can be thrown in the trash heap.
It doesn't matter which way you try and spin it, abortion is murder of a viable human being. It should not the first choice. I support 'freedom of choice'. In fact I would extend it so that the child gets a choice to live or die. Women's bodies were designed to give birth. Any unwanted baby would have an immediate home with adoptive parents who are desperate for a child.
Why should the baby have to die just because mothers views her child it as a temporary inconvenience?
I do understand the concept of bodily autonomy but do others? Even in the US Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade the Court rejected the argument of bodily sovereignty as a reason for abortion. It said "It is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has a unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Courts decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past". Virtually no other rights that society recognizes are unlimited like the so-called right to bodily autonomy. Freedom of speech does not allow someone to falsely shout "FIRE!" in a crowded building.
Many mothers have an abortion as an alternative to failed contraception and as a perceived way of giving them power. It doesn't give you power at all. All it does or mean is that you are being vacuumed out ready for the next man and your power is over a defenseless baby. Some power!
Abortion is not just one person making modifications to her own body (e.g. plastic surgery) but is a mother using her body to kill her child who lives inside her body. We (male and female) don't have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. There are a massive number of laws that prevent this from having to wear a seat belt or only taking approved drugs. If pregnant women had an untrammeled right to do anything with their bodies it would lead to all kinds of absurd situations. It would mean that doctors could not deny mothers drugs like thalidomide, which, while effective at reducing nausea in pregnancy, can also cause babies to be born without arms or legs.
The unborn are human beings that have the same natural law rights as you and I. Unborn children also have a right to "control their own bodies". Logically it follows that they have a right not to have their bodies torn apart, limb by limb, by abortion and therefore abortion on demand should be illegal.
Marcus L'Estrange

Commentator, Writer, Whistleblower

Marcus’ major papers are on (1) the dodgy monthly unemployment figures and their deadly effects and (2) Saving Working Class Education from the Educational Left (the Joan Kirnerites). Both are available via Other, short papers are on The Bubble Zone and Abortion on Demand. His two guiding principles and golden rules are: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ hopefully and, the golden rule of life? The people who have the gold, rule.

Marcus spent most of his working life in the old Commonwealth Employment Service before having to get out because he spoke about the REAL unemployment effects and their deadly effects. Additionally, he was also forced out of the Education Department for being a whistleblower. The above paper elaborates.