This is a decision that goes to the heart of a woman’s right to control her own body. These are issues which aren’t the subject of partisan political debate in Australia. And that’s a good thing.”
Prime Minister of Overseas, Anthony Albanese, supports the killing of the unwanted unborn.
How fortunate we are.
But he will have to lift his game to best the Kanadian KK bloke.
ABC news radio this morning was hastening to reassure its listeners that, despite RvW being overturned, abortions are still freely available in Australia. No, seriously.
The next two ‘news’ items after that were about pill-testing being rolled out at music festivals, and the results of a new ‘study’ about the gender pay gap. I suppose it must have been like this when listening to radio in the Soviet Union.
cuckoo should do as I do and simply turn off the ABC.
But I would suggest CL think about the AA point: governments and courts should not be deciding what people do with their bodies.
The debate is not about what people should do with their bodies. It’s about whether a person in utero has a right to life and at what time in the gestation should that be declared. Even the original Roe v Wade decision acknowledged that.
Constant repetition of democrat talking points led the US to the untenable and unpopular position of terminating children up to the point of birth and in the case of Kermit Gosnell post delivery.
We are seeing now how unreasonable they are, perpetuating insurrection because they now might have to debate and do their job in parliament rather than abrogate the supreme court to get a result.
Australian courts rubber-stamped vaccine mandates – and the ABC, the ALP and the sisterhood cheered. Compulsory breath tests, compulsory drug tests, airport security, dry Aboriginal townships… the idea that there is a settled consensus on absolute sovereignty over the body is plainly nonsense.
More importantly, an unborn child is somebody else’s body.
Interesting how Maximum Absent Leader Albanese prefers topics where debate is not allowed. The climate and abortion wars are over, he thinks. Kind of rhymes also with his nobbling of the crossbench.
What for the legals around the abortionist who wields the butchers knife, vaccum and metal brain spike against someone elses body?
The “right to choose” isn’t just about a womans body it’s equally about giving a man the right to kill.
Now you have to engage in the old abortionist two step and say that a fully delivered 9 month term baby one with millimetre of its big toe still in the birth canal isn’t human, so the abortionist isn’t killing as he (and it’s always a he) violently butchers it to death on the table. (In Australia without anesthetic even).
“There’s no debate allowed over a central plank of my party’s political platform….and that’s a good thing”.
Reports the lickspittle australian state media.
With which the Liberal Party agrees.
And I noticed a few Sky commentators rushing to declare that Dobbs will ‘only’ lead to more European stage-limits on abortion and is therefore OK.
Remember when Pauline Hanson wore a burqa into the Senate to protest against the control of women’s bodies and the unctuous George Brandis was praised from the left for reproaching her?
Classic Liberal Party moment.
In Australia, and I guess the whole european world one of the various drivers of the “elite” love for abortion is simply as a class differentiator, loyalty test and power flex. If the prolish classes loved and cherished the ideology of killing babies as much as the cocktail party attendees say they do it’d be banned. They hate us and anything we don’t like they ram down our throats as the highest possible virtue to flex their power and set themselves apart. They “nuance” themselves into supporting insanity and declare themselves intellectual superiors because they are able nuance themselves into supporting what is repulsive to basic normies.
Not a hot take I know but it’s too obvious and banal to not say it a few times.
Falsies
But I would suggest CL think about the AA point: governments and courts should not be deciding what people do with their bodies.
There are two bodies involved, the question is who should speak for the baby. If women are willing to use contraception, and avoid intercourse with men who refuse to do so, the issue would arise only rarely.
Governments have already decided (in the manner of totalitarians) that they can virtually blackmail you into being vaccinated against your will.
In any case, as C.L. and John have pointed out, with abortion we are dealing with two bodies, not one, one of whom has no rights at all.
The baby-speaking people here do not mention at all the rights of the mother. Not once. And it is she who would make the painful decision.
So now the court of a US State “speaks for the baby”? How will it do that?
To enforce the preferences of those in favour these laws US State police will need to examine every instance. Every case, from miscarriage to clinical intervention will need to investigated. That is, a person whose pregnancy resulted in a complication that threatened her life may in some States (not all) abort the pregnancy. That person may be at risk of prosecution.
Will States ban pills? How? Will post be intercepted?
Falsies, I have had the misfortune to have seen the extremely graphic and harrowing result of an abortion, which far too few pro-abortionists have, or they wouldn’t be in favour of it.
To paraphrase the gay marriage lobby, “murder is murder.”
Whether you disagree with Paul Joseph Watson or not, just before the four minute mark here is an animated example of how an abortion is carried out:
https://summit.news/2022/06/26/hoes-mad/
I don’t know how a doctor or medical professional who does this for a living can sleep at night.
How? How? How will the unlimited mega-state possibly investigate crimes??
I think they’ll manage.
This happened immediately. There wasn’t even a day of unqualified joy before conservative commentators where busy foreclosing any sort of movement beyond the ‘returning it to the states’ with fingers crossed legislatures deciding to allow abortion up to 15 or so weeks, etc.
I love the “how will it be enforced?” narrative of Cope that’s now shaping up.
These people just imprisoned the entire world in our homes and ordered us all to live like livestock in a feedlot for two years using unlimited power of their state apparatus to enforce it. They regulate your light bulbs and toilet size.
“But it’s all how, How? How will we find the resources to investigate a few hundred allegations of dismemberment, assault and murder a year?!”
Because sensible conservative commentators recognise the value of compromise on this issue.
No one freaks out when a very early pregnancy – a pregnancy just discovered, for example – ends shortly after discovery in a miscarriage. People are naturally more upset when a well advanced pregnancy ends in miscarriage.
What might the reason for that be? Because you don’t have to fully sign onto Peter Singer to see that people do see “personhood” as a developing thing. And that is not unreasonable.
As to unwanted pregnancy survivors:
You Can’t Kill Me Anymore (26 Jun)
I’ve linked Lucianne where I saw the story today, but RTWT at the original Townhall link.
Interesting how many people here seem to think this issue is about ideology. Or which “side” one is on. Automatically anyone with a concern for liberty and personal privacy is suddenly a leftist on the matter of abortion.
Another pointed assumption is the idea that women requiring abortion are inevitably doing so out of convenience. Whereas in my experience the choice of abortion is associated with incredible anxiety and despair.
People who claim to rights of the unborn should answer this: do you intend that births occur even when the mother will die? And how will you justify that?
It seems to me that even sensible ground the decision clearly is rightly that if the woman concerned.
Someone choosing to kill their baby should experience anxiety and despair. Generally.
However the picture you’re trying to paint is not reality in 2022, a fraction are for medical reasons.
Why do pro abortionists relentlessly pretend and present 1950’s era arguments instead of 2022 realities? 90% of abortions are for pure convenience, tens of thousands are done after 20 weeks every year. It’s a literally industrial scale system of killing. Yet not once, ever anywhere will you ever see a pro abortionist defending or arguing for the current state of abortion laws: up to full term, under any circumstances the mother feels like on any given day.
It’s always, always 100% of the time “rape incest coat hangers at lump of cells stage”.
Nor (and this is the big tell) will you ever, ever hear them talk about the other party in the killing and the legality and morals surrounding him taking to a baby with instruments and violence: the abortionist.
Harem of Caractacus
People who claim to rights of the unborn should answer this: do you intend that births occur even when the mother will die? And how will you justify that?
It seems to me that even sensible ground the decision clearly is rightly that if the woman concerned.
Your first point has already been answered multiple times on other threads.
Do you reject, in your second point, any paternal involvement? Why?
Pro-abortionists often trot out the reason (excuse, actually) that “the mother could/will die” for abortions generally, but I notice that always when asked would they be in favour of abortion only on medical or rape grounds they always prevaricate, get very flustered, or try to avoid answering the question.
As far as I’m concerned, if I smile nicely and wink at an attractive fertile woman, then she turns away and pretends I don’t even exist … that’s cold blooded murder. I look forward to at least one state in Australia recognizing my reproductive rights.
You jest. This, probably, never happens to such a handsome guy like you.
Boambee: there’s only one if the parents who actually gives birth.
Various: the fact that someone opposes state intervention in wholly personal matters is not at all an indication that they are pro abortion.
Harem of Caractacus
Boambee: there’s only one if the parents who actually gives birth.
Are you suggesting that only the mother has responsibility for children? Gutsy call.
Boambee: I’m stating that the mother is the one who should decide on abortion.
Hahaha, no. ‘Sensible’ conservatives do not side with mother in the Judgement of Solomon that accepts the decision to cleave the baby in two so that neither mother could have it. What a sensible conservative does is accept Dobbs as a move towards the good but not its end point.
No, people experience the loss deeply both early and later. If they feel it more intensely later it is largely because their anticipation has been growing, and because early on, there is still the fear that it could be lost.
Not at all. See above. Personhood is not a quality arises because of the feelings of the parent.
This isn’t ‘wholly’ personally. It’s not even partially personal. This isn’t a choice that only affects one person. It’s not a choice between eating, yourself, vanilla or chocolate ice cream. It involves the destruction of a individuated human being.
I take it you want all IVF treatment shut down too, given it routinely destroys “individuated human beings”. If the conservative states are not going to shut that down as part of their new freedom to “protect life from conception” (it will be a very unpopular thing if they do), how are they going to sell the differentiation?
Falsies
Boambee: I’m stating that the mother is the one who should decide on abortion.
So maternal responsibility, in your opinion, doesn’t extend beyond the abortion decision. Very convenient.