Hahahaha, so im a right wing evangelical fundamentalist because I disagree with killing babies? No, I just think that killing babies is wrong, especially from the second trimester onwards. 

If a women is unknowingly pregnant and finds out when her contractions begins or water breaks, she can justify an abortion by claiming giving birth will cause her profound mental and financial distress. Then she only needs to find two doctors who sign off and bobs your uncle, one dismembered baby. Most people would find this situation morally egregious, yet this is exactly the kind of murder the state sanctions. Given the laws are fairly new it is not unreasonable to think that late term, third trimester abortions due to personal reasons, change of mind, loss of employment, relationship breakdowns, etc, will become more common in the future, particularly as the current political culture continues to celebrate killing babies as some sort of FU to the patriarchy and embodiment of female supremacy.

Did you know if a woman takes the mini pill there is a 7% chance of conceiving? That's if you do everything right. Higher if you are vomiting or have gastro or something or just happened to take it a few hours too late one day.

Your solution to a woman who gets inadvertently pregnant despite taking precautions?

A few things. The pill is about 99.7% effective when used properly. Some additional things to avoid getting pregnant

- dont have sex while vomiting
- use a condom
- refrain from sex during fertile days
- use an ovulation monitor if irregular periods
- dont sleep around

Doing the above will almost guarantee that you will never fall pregnant. If you are one of the one in one million who does, my response for discovering they were pregnant at six weeks would be the same if discovering they were pregnant at six months; too bad so sad. At six weeks the fetus has a heating heart and brain activity, two of the most reliable indicators of life, therefore until if and when science proves life starts at a different point along the gestational odyssey then at six weeks the fetus should he considered alive and human.

But, ya know, hard pressed to sell something to society which involves exercising any kind of restraint when it comes to anything involving sex. its way easier to kill babies.

She should've shown restraint hey Rusty:

A 10-year-old Ohio girl had to travel out of state to undergo an abortion after she was referred by a child abuse doctor following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade reversal, the Indianapolis Star reports. Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis, told the newspaper she was the one to take the call from a colleague in Ohio seeking urgent help for the girl, who was six weeks and three days pregnant when the state’s six-week abortion ban suddenly took effect. The girl rushed to get the procedure done in Indiana, which is also expected to severely restrict or ban abortions in the next few weeks after the Supreme Court’s ruling. For now, while the procedure is still legal in Indiana, providers say they’ve seen a surge in patients coming from Kentucky and Ohio. “It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard was quoted saying.[/quote]

Holy Farkin Shit!,!!!!!! That's obscene on so  many levels.

They wouldnt let her get it in her state in the end. 

Welcome to America - next they'll be stoning them in the town square. 

This is week one. Imagine how much worse it's going to get. 

this is the republicans response:\

"Bash asked if the girl should have to have a “child.”

Noem replied, “Every single life — every single life is precious."

So they want 10 year old rape victoms to have kids. Despite the fact it could kill the kid. Every life is precious? what? 

From the people who support the death penalty as well.

That's one case in the 900,000 aborted annually in the US. Its an unfortunate edge case that isn't representative of  the issue at large. 

 Many US States would allow that abortion.  The people of that particular State can now vote to change their laws, pretty much the same as it is in Australia.

Solutiions already exist and would depend on the specific circumstances.

The bolded are two different things.

And oppose any form of gun control that would save the lives of innocents.

Selective morality at its best.

The country is awash with guns.  The gun control horse bolted a long time ago

A gun buyback wouldn't work either. The US is a failed state.

The weird thing about regulations in the US and the lack thereof is that they constantly bring up the 2nd amendment where it specifically mentions a 'well regulated' militia.

Surely when they wrote into the amendment 'well regulated' they actual meant 'well regulated'/regulations.

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that citizens could take arms in the defense of the nation, be that against a foreign invader or even their own tyrannical government.  Its the latter that muddies the meaning of "well-regulated": how can the citizens acquire the guns to over-throw a tyrannical government if the same government can enact laws or regulations that restrict or prohibit access to guns for citizens.  On the other hand, it doesn't mean all citizens have an  unfettered entitlement to carry guns either.  The question is where exactly that line is.

One case in less than a week - this will not be isolated, Watch how many tragic stories will unfold. 

But hey cool, let the kid die or have a child at ten. 

Thanks to sky news we have "everything has to be left vs right" morons like rusty now trying to turn abortion into a partisan issue in Australia when it never really has been.

Fuck off honestly.

Well, a few days ago  in Melbourne we had pro-abortion activists marching and behaving as if they were in the US, where it IS a partisan issue.

And  you can't say that it isn't a political issue, because it is.  Unfortunately this issue like others in recent time has been hijacked by far Left feminist nutjobs, when most women are not like that and don't share their extreme views on late term abortion.

 As for "My Body, My Choice",  its not talked about much, but how many women would have kept the baby but didn't because their boyfriend was against it.  Quite a lot I'd say.  "My body my choice"? Well, no, not quite,  for lots of reasons.

Guaranteed if men got pregnant not only would abortion be legal it'd be free.

It is legal.  As for free, depending on the circumstances, it can be.

I mean decades ago. Up until last year you could get an abortion in NSW but it was technically illegal. Easy to circumvent but still illegal.

I find it difficult to believe that women who vote National or Liberal are all carte blanche opposed to abortion. Similarly I doubt many of said voters would not hold feminist ideals about equality.

I have read as many as 1 in 3 women have had an abortion in Australia. Even if were 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 or even 1 in 10 that is still a shitload of woman accessing abortion. It's fairly unlikely they're all Green and Labour party apparatchiks.

For me it comes down to this. You shouldn't be forced to have a baby if you don't want to. 

Totally. Just black or white stance, I swear Rusty must run to Breitbart to see the position he must take on every issue. 

Someone said to Kavanaugh, if he can name any law that is like this over male bodies. He just drowned.

I am not sure why they dont just legislate men must get vasectomies judging by their logic. Seems to be the same outcome, less problems and potential for long term disaster.

Imagine the shit storm.

It could be even higher than 1 in 3 . That number can't be explained by things like the failure rates of contraceptives, life-threatening pregnancies or deformed or dead foetuses, pregnant mothers with cancer, rapes(these are actual examples given during senate hearings to expand abortion rights on demand). 

Its many orders of magnitude different.

I don't think most people, men or women, are opposed to abortion per se.  Likewise I doubt most are in favour of abortion on demand.  Reasonable people recognize that- at some point in the pregnancy-there are two lives whose rights and future is at stake because that's the nature of the condition of pregnancy.

So then the argument moves to *when* do the rights of the baby over-ride the rights of the mother?  The answer is "It depends".  The answer isn't 'Never".

Well that's a loaded question: men can't get pregnant, they can't have another human gestate inside them, there is no other condition whereby the rights of that other human  become relevant so of course there isn't a similar law because its not needed.

No-one is advocating for women to have tubal ligation either.

Yeah I agree with all that.  Emphasis on 'reasonable'. 

It's when unreasonable clowns like Rusty bring up 3rd trimester abortions like they're something that happens 9 times out of ten rather than less than 1 out of 100 where the argument gets silly.

I'm pretty sure it'd be a horrific experience all round having to terminate a baby at 8 months and not something that would happen unless there were very specific circumstances.

What I don't understand is there is so much argument for US conservatives that the Government should stay out of our lives.....but government should also have complete Autonomy over bodies?

Honestly I came into this thread seeing he'd posted and already knew exactly what he'd be arguing before I had read anything. 

Must be nice and easy having all of your opinions prefabricated for you. 

In trying to understand it, it seems once again the extremes have hijacked an issue.  There are circumstances where late term abortions are ethically, morally and medically acceptable.  Most are not.  The issue-as far as I understand it- is that the laws were being broadened and made more vague, and  with that some of the safeguards removed. The loudest proponents were from extreme feminist backgrounds who presented it as a women's rights issue and everyone else should just mind their own business.  The opposing extreme presented it as legalized infanticide.  The truth lies in the middle.  The hard part is writing laws that are broaden enough without being meaningless.