[Stripe]

In Australia it is against the law to refuse to endorse or to refuse to participate in an abortion.

[Aimiel]

Far worse than the Church of England in the 1700's making demands of every British subject, or taxing the American colonists without representation, they want every Australian doctor or nurse to consent to and / or participate in the murder of innocent lives.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Stripe

In Australia it is against the law to refuse to endorse or to refuse to participate in an abortion.

I don't even know where to begin with how disturbing that is.

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Stripe

In Australia it is against the law to refuse to endorse or to refuse to participate in an abortion.

What do you think "endorsing" means?

From the article

The Abortion Law Reform bill decriminalises abortion and forces doctors with a conscientious objection to refer a woman to a doctor who will do an abortion. In the event of a "emergency" abortion -– whatever that is -- regardless of their moral qualms, doctors must do it themselves. Victorian nurses will be in an even worse predicament. They must participate in an abortion if ordered by their boss.

The penalty for non-compliance is not specified, but there is no mistaking what will happen. Conscientious objectors will be hauled before a registration board and stripped of their right to practice. They won’t go to jail, but they will lose their jobs. Dissenters will be squeezed out of the Victorian health system in a workplace version of ethnic cleansing.

Now, the piece is quite biased, but let's ignore that for now. From here, it is clear the only case in which doctors are forced to participate is in the case of "emergency abortions". I don't know what that means either (maybe sudden complications that endanger the life of the mother? No idea). But it is pretty bad form for a journalist to admit in an opinion piece that he didn't do the research either, even as he complains about the bill.

In more general cases, doctors are not forced to participate, they're required to refer the woman to another doctor that will. This is not the same as endorsing. It is, in fact, the opposite of endorsing it. It is making it clear that they do not approve.

The nurses do have it bad, in not having a choice. Though in view of the legislation, they are free to look for a boss that doesn't practice abortions. Such a boss would probably be more sympathetic if forced to do an abortion himself, and not force the nurse to participate as well.

Personally, I don't like the "emergency abortion" bit in the law, or the nurses being forced by their bosses to participate. But again, the doctor is free to inquire of their patients if they would ever be likely to consider an abortion, and if so, refer them to someone else in advance so they don't have to handle the issue themselves later.

Also, the second paragraph in the text I quoted is pure fabrication from the part of the journalist. He doesn't know what would happen, so he makes stuff up. Not really a good basis to guide oneself by.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Kian

What do you think "endorsing" means?

Does it matter? The murder of the unborn is no longer even a debate in Australia. The law not only allows it, but prescribes it.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Kian

Now, the piece is quite biased, but let's ignore that for now.

And you are quite biased. Let's not ignore that.

Originally Posted by Kian

From here, it is clear the only case in which doctors are forced to participate is in the case of "emergency abortions". I don't know what that means either (maybe sudden complications that endanger the life of the mother? No idea). But it is pretty bad form for a journalist to admit in an opinion piece that he didn't do the research either, even as he complains about the bill.

You tell us then. What is an "emergency abortion"? Is that like one where the mother realises she cannot attend school and be pregnant at the same time?

Originally Posted by Kian

In more general cases, doctors are not forced to participate, they're required to refer the woman to another doctor that will. This is not the same as endorsing. It is, in fact, the opposite of endorsing it. It is making it clear that they do not approve.

So what would you feel about a law where a prostitute was approached by a known rapist and refused service, but was required by law to refer.

Originally Posted by Kian

The nurses do have it bad, in not having a choice. Though in view of the legislation, they are free to look for a boss that doesn't practice abortions. Such a boss would probably be more sympathetic if forced to do an abortion himself, and not force the nurse to participate as well.

You're an idiot. Why should good people have to cede way for murderers?

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Does it matter? The murder of the unborn is no longer even a debate in Australia. The law not only allows it, but prescribes it.

It does matter. If you don't know the meaning, then as I said, you misused it and characterized as "endorsing" what is in fact the opposite of it. If you know the meaning of the word, you either misunderstood the article, or you were lying. I doubt you meant to lie, so I'm wondering if you misunderstood the article or your use of the word.

Also, the same thing with prescribe. Do you understand the usage of that word? The law that was passed does not say that children have to be aborted. It says that when the mother wishes to abort, the doctor has to either do it himself or refer her to someone who will. This seems more like allowing than prescribing, again the opposite of what you wrote.

And you are quite biased. Let's not ignore that.

Aren't we all? But I'm not writing in a journal, I'm in a forum that encourages people to post their opinions. Your point being?

I'll point out that in their "about us" page, Mercatornet states that "the arguments advanced in MercatorNet are based on universally accepted moral principles, common sense and evidence, not faith." They obviously only consider part of their universe to be the people that agree with them, otherwise the article would have been written in a fundamentally different manner. Obviously the people who elected enough representatives in Victoria to pass this law felt differently. That should be a sizable portion of the population.

You tell us then. What is an "emergency abortion"? Is that like one where the mother realises she cannot attend school and be pregnant at the same time?

Didn't you read were I said "I don't know what that means either (maybe sudden complications that endanger the life of the mother? No idea)"? The point being, I'm not the one getting bent out of shape by the law without doing the research. You are choosing to get upset by the words of someone who by his own admission didn't research the law he is complaining about. I'm sure there is a legal definition that the Victorian lawmakers use for "emergency abortion". Why don't you ask Michael Cook what it means?

So what would you feel about a law where a prostitute was approached by a known rapist and refused service, but was required by law to refer.

Well, I find the situation silly. But as the law isn't forcing her to have sex with him, I don't see the problem. She was approached by a man whose morals she did not approve of, refused service, and told him where to get what he wanted. The horror. It's also ironic that the guy is being denied sex for forcing sex on someone before.

You're an idiot. Why should good people have to cede way for murderers?

Why the agression? Can't we disagree without getting violent? You can call me evil, tell me I'll burn in hell for eternity, and such, but calling me stupid is mean. Also, a breach of the TOL rules.

And to answer your question, because not doing so is against the law in Australia now. In any case, I do not think of abortion as murder, nor, obviously, do the legislators in Victoria.

I think you misread the intent of my post, however. I never claimed the law was good. As I said, I don't like the part about forcing doctors, but I don't know what an "emergency abortion" is. My point was that the article itself, beyond the opinion it pushes, was ****. From a journalistic standpoint. Even for an opinion piece.

As further evidence of how ****** the article was, check this bit:

Nowhere else in the world does such a draconian law exist, not in New Zealand, not in the United Kingdom, not in Canada, not in the United States. The Victorian Law Reform Commission devoted only seven skimpy paragraphs to conscientious objection in its backgrounder supporting the legislation. It failed to note that nearly every American state explicitly allows some health care professionals to refuse to participate in abortion and even to refuse to refer. In states without explicit refusal statutes, a doctor is protected by laws which prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.

First, it appears that to this journalist, "the world" consists of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. Either that, or he feels these are the countries with the worst track record for draconian laws. Otherwise, the enumeration doesn't make sense and adds nothing to the article.

Second, the journalist apparently believes that an Australian legislature has to for some reason look at the United States for guidance in making law, as noted in the boldened portion of the quote.

There are a few more bits of evidence of what a complete joke the author is. Not saying he might not be bringing light to something that one ought to keep an eye on, but I wouldn't base my opinion on what he writes. If you are going to get some righteous indignation, do a bit more research than just this article. If you have, good for you.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Stripe

You're an idiot. Why should good people have to cede way for murderers?

'Cause they are not "murderers". Use of that language is only a method to make yourself feel superior.

Feel free to ignore your own bias.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by Jukia

'Cause they are not "murderers".

Yes, they are.

Use of that language is only a method to make yourself feel superior.

Your denial of it only serves to whitewash your conscience.

Feel free to ignore your own bias.

Same to you.

[Aimiel]

Abortionists are murderers, whether anyone on this earth recognizes that simple fact or not. Denial doesn't make black into white.

[Kian]

Originally Posted by Aimiel

Abortionists are murderers, whether anyone on this earth recognizes that simple fact or not. Denial doesn't make black into white.

A murderer is someone that in killing someone brakes the law. In Victoria, abortionists are not murderers because they're not breaking the law. Those are the facts.

From a religious perspective, perhaps, they may be murderers (for breaking religious law). But then, you can't expect to hold people who don't share your beliefs to the standards of those beliefs. Or rather, they won't care to let you do it, and without the backing of a government, you can't.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by Kian

A murderer is someone that in killing someone brakes the law. In Victoria, abortionists are not murderers because they're not breaking the law. Those are the facts.

A Murderer is someone who Murders.....that is the fact. Murder is the killing of an Innocent Human Being...that is the fact. Your or my Governments white-washing of it doesn't make it any less murder....that is the fact.

From a religious perspective, perhaps, they may be murderers (for breaking religious law). But then, you can't expect to hold people who don't share your beliefs to the standards of those beliefs. Or rather, they won't care to let you do it, and without the backing of a government, you can't.

The fact that you consider this a Religious argument only shows how shallow and vacuous your view of the matter is. This issue goes to the very heart of what defines "Person-hood" it is a societal matter and it is not something which is defined or bound by Religion. If I wasn't a Christian I would still be against abortion like the many Atheists and Agnostics who are against it. One can argue the point but no-one yet has been able to define exactly beyond a doubt when "person-hood" begins and on what grounds.

Enter the abortion argument around here if you wish but do yourself a favor; Lurk Moar.

If you learn something you might be less irritating.

[Kian]

Originally Posted by TomO

A Murderer is someone who Murders.....that is the fact. Murder is the killing of an Innocent Human Being...that is the fact. Your or my Governments white-washing of it doesn't make it any less murder....that is the fact.

When the definition of Innocent Human Being is a matter of opinion, Murder as the killing of such becomes a matter of opinion as well, not a Fact. A "fact" is not a fact if it depends on your point of view. It is an opinion.

Murder as defined by laws is a fact. An act of killing is murder if it breaks the law. It doesn't matter how you feel about it, if you are found to have broken the law you are a murderer. Stripe brought up murder as fact, so I argue the facts.

The fact that you consider this a Religious argument only shows how shallow and vacuous your view of the matter is. This issue goes to the very heart of what defines "Person-hood" it is a societal matter and it is not something which is defined or bound by Religion. If I wasn't a Christian I would still be against abortion like the many Atheists and Agnostics who are against it. One can argue the point but no-one yet has been able to define exactly beyond a doubt when "person-hood" begins and on what grounds.

The abortion debate, as you well put it, is a moral and ethical one. But having people call each other murderers on the basis of their opinions isn't a discussion of facts. As I said, one can call murder a fact on the base of laws, and there are no moral laws anywhere. I brought up religion not because that is the only argument against abortion, but because that is the only place from where an alternative set of laws might come.

One can be a murderer by religious law, and innocent in the eyes of the law, and both be facts. Unless there's a codified set of laws you're pointing to, any discussion of what murder is is a matter of personal perspective, not facts.

Note that at no point am I saying that the law is good or bad. I'm pointing out that the facts are that abortion is not murder in Victoria. You can call it murder all you want, and as you said there is a huge debate, but the facts are that right now it isn't. That something is a fact does not make it good, it just makes it the way it is.

Originally Posted by Stripe

So are you going to keep arguing about what we both already understand or are you going to make some valid points?

My question was if you understood the meaning of the words. If you need to quote me the dictionary, you clearly don't. So I'll drop the matter then.

Uh .. so it is only you that is allowed an opinion?
[...]
Or you could get over yourself.

No, the point isn't that I'm the only one allowed to have an opinion. My point was that the writer was misrepresenting his opinion as something else. MercatorNet has posted the rules it will follow for anyone to see, and has then allowed an article that goes against those very same self imposed rules. I was pointing this out. I make no secret that my posts reflect only my opinion and my (limited, I admit) understanding of the world. But you see, I'm upfront about that.

MercatorNet set a standard to establish credibility, and then fell short of it.

A democratically elected government does not need a majority of support on every issue in order to pass law. In New Zealand 71% oppose the recently passed law that protects the identities of children who want to get an abortion.

I didn't say majority, I said sizable portion. A 29% of a population is a sizable portion of the population.

Quit shoving your inadequacies upon others. The fact that you know nothing about which you speak is only evidence that you're an ignorant loudmouth whose opinion of others is a handy guide to what they're not.

Thank you for a wonderful insight and well reasoned point. The eloquence of your posts sets a high standard that I can only hope more people would reach on such a consistent basis.

Dude, it was sarcasm. There is no such thing as an "emergency abortion". And you're a hypocrite for accusing others of being upset over choosing words you don't like. I have a good prescription for hypocrisy. It's called a big jar of Shut Up.

I'm not going to bother asking you if you understand the meaning and applicability of hypocrite. In any case, it was most definetely not "sarcasm". The article wrote (I paraphrase) "Doctors who do not wish to perform the procedure will be required to refer the woman to another doctor. Except in the case of emergency abortions, whatever that means, in which case they have to do the procedure themselves." The article is clearly making the point that only in what the law terms an "emergency abortion" will the doctors be bound to perform the procedure themselves, and stating in the very same sentence that the writer doesn't know what that term means, but he objects to the idea anyway.

I'll agree that perhaps "bent out of shape" is not the best description, but any condemnation of something you don't understand is not the mark of someone who has thought about the subject at length. You claim there is no such things as an "emergency abortion"? Can you tell me your credentials to make such a claim? The lawmakers in Victoria felt differently, and strongly enough about it to warrant making the exception in the law.

The correct answer, you idiot, is that prostitution shouldn't be legal

That's not what you asked. It doesn't make for good debate if when presented with a situation where you are asked to accept a premise, you choose to attack the premise rather than the argument.

I was under the impression that we were discussing how wrong it is that doctors lost their right to not refer to other practitioners. If your argument is that they shouldn't have made abortion legal in the first place, focus on that. Don't argue one thing, only to point out to replies that they're arguing the wrong point.

Leaders in a lot of countries do not regard abortion as murder. The point of this thread and the article is that this is an extreme abortion law. It forces compliance with a practice that is held by a vast number to be repugnant and evil. Do you have any respect for popular opinion or is that only when it agrees with you?

Funny. So I'm the one who doesn't respect popular opinion, despite the fact that you are the one railing against a law passed by a democratically elected parliament?

Also, regarding the boldened part, didn't you just tell me in the prostitution example how the matter of whether or not the doctors are forced to comply is moot, because of how wrong abortion is in the first place? Why don't you make up your mind on what the point of the thread is, rather than switch back an forth?

Instead of being a troll you can feel free to not post.

I'm a troll for pointing out how flawed your source was now?

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Kian

When the definition of Innocent Human Being is a matter of opinion, Murder as the killing of such becomes a matter of opinion as well, not a Fact. A "fact" is not a fact if it depends on your point of view. It is an opinion. Murder as defined by laws is a fact. An act of killing is murder if it breaks the law. It doesn't matter how you feel about it, if you are found to have broken the law you are a murderer. Stripe brought up murder as fact, so I argue the facts. The abortion debate, as you well put it, is a moral and ethical one. But having people call each other murderers on the basis of their opinions isn't a discussion of facts. As I said, one can call murder a fact on the base of laws, and there are no moral laws anywhere. I brought up religion not because that is the only argument against abortion, but because that is the only place from where an alternative set of laws might come. One can be a murderer by religious law, and innocent in the eyes of the law, and both be facts. Unless there's a codified set of laws you're pointing to, any discussion of what murder is is a matter of personal perspective, not facts. Note that at no point am I saying that the law is good or bad. I'm pointing out that the facts are that abortion is not murder in Victoria. You can call it murder all you want, and as you said there is a huge debate, but the facts are that right now it isn't. That something is a fact does not make it good, it just makes it the way it is. My question was if you understood the meaning of the words. If you need to quote me the dictionary, you clearly don't. So I'll drop the matter then. No, the point isn't that I'm the only one allowed to have an opinion. My point was that the writer was misrepresenting his opinion as something else. MercatorNet has posted the rules it will follow for anyone to see, and has then allowed an article that goes against those very same self imposed rules. I was pointing this out. I make no secret that my posts reflect only my opinion and my (limited, I admit) understanding of the world. But you see, I'm upfront about that. MercatorNet set a standard to establish credibility, and then fell short of it. I didn't say majority, I said sizable portion. A 29% of a population is a sizable portion of the population. Thank you for a wonderful insight and well reasoned point. The eloquence of your posts sets a high standard that I can only hope more people would reach on such a consistent basis. I'm not going to bother asking you if you understand the meaning and applicability of hypocrite. In any case, it was most definetely not "sarcasm". The article wrote (I paraphrase) "Doctors who do not wish to perform the procedure will be required to refer the woman to another doctor. Except in the case of emergency abortions, whatever that means, in which case they have to do the procedure themselves." The article is clearly making the point that only in what the law terms an "emergency abortion" will the doctors be bound to perform the procedure themselves, and stating in the very same sentence that the writer doesn't know what that term means, but he objects to the idea anyway. I'll agree that perhaps "bent out of shape" is not the best description, but any condemnation of something you don't understand is not the mark of someone who has thought about the subject at length. You claim there is no such things as an "emergency abortion"? Can you tell me your credentials to make such a claim? The lawmakers in Victoria felt differently, and strongly enough about it to warrant making the exception in the law. That's not what you asked. It doesn't make for good debate if when presented with a situation where you are asked to accept a premise, you choose to attack the premise rather than the argument. I was under the impression that we were discussing how wrong it is that doctors lost their right to not refer to other practitioners. If your argument is that they shouldn't have made abortion legal in the first place, focus on that. Don't argue one thing, only to point out to replies that they're arguing the wrong point. Funny. So I'm the one who doesn't respect popular opinion, despite the fact that you are the one railing against a law passed by a democratically elected parliament? Also, regarding the boldened part, didn't you just tell me in the prostitution example how the matter of whether or not the doctors are forced to comply is moot, because of how wrong abortion is in the first place? Why don't you make up your mind on what the point of the thread is, rather than switch back an forth? I'm a troll for pointing out how flawed your source was now?

So, , is this all you're ever going to bring to a discussion? Lots of words with no content?

Try this: A law that says a person must refer for abortion is a clear abrogation of the inalienable right to refuse association with such practices. Such a law is a clear example of the fact that for perversion to survive it must expel all opposition. It is not "pro-choice" to require by law that people do not have a choice.

[Mr Jack]

I know. It's shocking. People required to do their job and sacked if they won't. I can't think of anything worse.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Mr Jack

I know. It's shocking. People required to do their job and sacked if they won't. I can't think of anything worse.

Really? I'd say doctors being required to violate their Hippocratic Oath is worse...especially given that the practioners went through their education and the investment of (time, money, etc.) setting up practice without this restriction as part of the compact.