Boy when he gets on a roll Carlin made a lot of sense. Wish we had people like him in congress. Hugs. Scottie
George Carlin on Abortion
Boy when he gets on a roll Carlin made a lot of sense. Wish we had people like him in congress. Hugs. Scottie
Scottie's Playtime 
SIGH No closed caption.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Nan. It is a really old video. I wish you could have heard it, he really said all the things I have heard you say, and hammered them home. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t understand what the fuss is really about. If a woman doesn’t want an abortion she doesn’t need to have one, so why not the same if she does want an abortion? I feel we have a reasonable compromise that should (with the emphasis on should) be acceptable to most people, even if it’s not everyone’s ideal solution.
The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 entirely eliminated the criminal status of abortion and allows termination on request during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
After 20 weeks, abortion is permitted only if a health practitioner deems it “clinically appropriate” and consults at least one other health practitioner. However, the law does not specify what the conditions are which constitute “clinically appropriate”, and there are no criminal penalties.
(technically that could allow abortion right up to the moment of birth, but without very good cause, I think very late terminations that were primarily for “social reasons” would likely see the practitioner facing censure or worse from the Medical Council ethics committee.)
The law also ensures that women have the right to decide whether to have an abortion, without having to tell their partner, whānau or friends, or having to undergo mandatory counselling.
*The law also requires health practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion to inform the woman at the earliest opportunity and refer her to another provider who can offer the service.
The law also introduces safe access zones around abortion providers and/or hospitals, where it is illegal to harass, intimidate or interfere with people accessing or providing abortion services.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is NO DOUBT your country is far more advanced in their thinking/laws that the U.S. — especially when it comes to this subject.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Nan. I agree with you. So I have a question. How do we change our laws, the way the people in the country feel about this issue. Clearly the majority of people disagree with the republican religious minority who feel they should have the right to rule as a minority over the majority. I ask you as someone I do respect … How do we change this? How do we not only enforce public wishes, but to change the minds of the people who do not understand that women are not breed mares to be used and then replaced? Thanks. Scottie
LikeLike
IMO, the ONLY way it will be changed is if/when the justices of the Supreme Court are replaced with individuals who respect the rights of ALL people — not just those that correspond to their personal prejudices.
As for changing minds? That can ONLY be done by the individual who has been faced with a situation that affects them personally. And this goes even beyond the abortion discussion.
I’m sure you remember ragnarsbhut, the opinionated Republican? He’s been arguing this issue over at The Truth Seeking Atheist’s blog for the past two days (of course this isn’t his first time) — and he simply can’t stand that I’m able to offer solid reasoning why the FINAL decision should be the woman’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Nan. Yes I remember ragnarsbhut. Now that I am feeling better I sort of miss him and his … view on life. But maybe part of the reason he can not stand you telling him something and can not accept anything being a woman’s choice is he clearly is a misogynist. He said he was young but he sure sounded like he came from the 1940s to me. He just couldn’t accept modern thinking at all. His Covid views were so stunningly stupid, it seemed almost like he was trolling. Or maybe he is so deeply indoctrinated religious he can not accept critical thinking.
I know that it seems that republicans only used to accept gay kids when one of theirs came out as gay. But that is not the same as abortion. How many times have we found out that “family values” preaching republicans not only had a mistress but both the wife and mistress had abortions, and I even heard one republican member of congress who voted against all abortions rights who got her teenage daughter an abortion and she claimed it was OK because a baby would have ruined her daughters future life. WTF, other people’s daughters needed to be forced to carry a fetus to term but not hers?
As to the person who has the right to decide I want to copy a bit of what I wrote to Barry here.
Barry I am a cis gay male. Now an old one at that. I won’t ever have to face those choices. I don’t think that I have the right to make that decision for a pregnant person. How can I who will not be in that position demand another person live through it? So again I feel that the right to have an abortion really rests with the pregnant person. I think it has to. And yes there will be those that abuse that, but what is the saying about justice, “better a 100 people go free than 1 person be wrongly imprisoned”?
Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Barry. That law is very good in my opinion. See until viability, the zygote / then fetus is a parasite drawing its life needs from the female. In the US the republican males see women as breed mares for children. They don’t see them as humans with their own health needs. If a man had a tumor drawing off his body, they feel no problem with having it removed. The real issue is how they see women in society. For centuries women had no autonomy to their bodies, they were property of men. Recently it came out how “hyper religious right wing hero Steven Crowder” was shown abusing his very pregnant wife like it was his right. Denying her the right to use their car to do his demanded errands, ordering her to what what what she said to him and mind her tone. This is the way a lot of the religious right think men should treat their wives. A side note, the young person we took into our home came from such an abusive environment. They were catholic, and the wife had to submit to the man even as he abused the boy.
These republicans use religion as their tool to subjugate women, but they don’t understand their own holy book. The bible never said a fetus was a child, in fact it says until the child took it first breath it had no soul. The bible doesn’t accord personhood until the child is three months old. But the point is not what is inside the woman but the role of the woman. It is why these same people scream about trans people and gay people, it upsets their view of their male superiority.
That women die in childbirth and are denied healthcare men get don’t concern them. They simply do not see women as human people equal to them.
Barry, no woman goes through nine months of the agony of carrying a pregnancy to term to at the last minute say fuck it, abort the damn thing. Late-term abortions happen to save the life of the mother. Doesn’t the mother deserve to live? I think so. But not republicans. It is god’s will they say.
I wish I lived in a country ruled by reason and decency to others, But in my country one party wants to govern by a book written over centuries and mistranslated so many times as to obscure the original meaning. I live in a country where a driven religious minority think their god, their belief, gives them the right to rule over the majority that rejects them. Best wishes. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Late term abortions for non-medical reasons are rare but they do happen. Even under our old legislation where all abortions were illegal, but there was an ever widening range of circumstances where exemptions were granted, among which was the “mental wellbeing” of the prospective mother. And please note my objections are on ethical grounds that are important to me personally, and not on moral grounds that should be forced on everyone by law.
One of my concerns is abortion being used as a form of eugenics. We already see that with Downs Syndrome, and during china’s one child policy female fetuses were aborted at a much higher rate than male fetuses.
There is research currently being undertaken to detect autism before birth. The only grounds for doing such research is to allow a woman to abort the fetus. As there is no single genetic marker to predict autism, one possible solution is brain scans. Collectively, the brain scans of autistics are different from non-autistics, but the technology is not sufficiently advanced to confirm whether or not any single individual is autistic. Artificial intelligence might be an answer to reading brain scans. The brain patterns of a late term fetus are not thought to be significantly different from a new born infant, in which case it might be possible to detect autism in late term fetuses.
Given society’s current attitude to autism, I can assure you that many women would choose to have a late term abortion in preference to the “horrors” of raising an autistic child. Browse any “autism moms” or similar forum for glaring evidence of this.
You only need to read articles where a parent (usually the mother) has murdered their autistic child to see where public opinion lies. And it’s sympathy for the parent, not any concern for the life of the autistic child. Too often you’ll even see comments such as “it is better off dead than suffering from autism”. It’s also reflected in the charges and sentences handed down to parents who kill their autistic child. It’s less likely to be first degree homicide, and convictions are less harsh, sometime amounting to little more than “a slap across the knuckles with a wet bus ticket”. So yes, I have real concerns.
Let me ask you this: if a test could be devised that predicted if fetus would develop into a gay adult, would it be ethical to offer such as test to a fundamentalist Christian? Given that they believe gays are dead in the eyes of their God, do you think their objection to abortions would hold for a fetus that “tested positive for gayness”?
I think it’s unwise, even dangerous to make abortion a criminal matter no matter at what stage the pregnancy, and I support her right to decide, but that doesn’t negate how I personally feel about the abortion for non-medical reasons of viable fetuses which currently stands at about 25 weeks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Barry. That was a well thought out comment and I appreciate it. My answer is long, and I hope you will find the time to read it. I put a lot of thought into my reply, but I may have missed a few things. Simple answer is aborting a viable fetus for non-major life changing health issues shouldn’t be allowed, but for major life changing deformities or incapacity to live / thrive eventually as an independent person, then that has to be allowed. I will explain below.
I was asked quite a few years ago the question you asked about aborting gay fetuses if they could be determined to be gay. My response was the same as I feel about it now. Before viability the zygote, then blastocyst, then fetus is nothing but a parasite that is living off the woman. It is not a baby human. It has potential, but only that. So before viability a woman has the right to remove anything from her body she doesn’t want. It’s her body.
When the fetus has viability then the issue becomes more murky. That is when I feel it is allowed to have some regulations or controls, just as we have for a lot of medical procedures to insure both the health of the pregnant person and the future possible human baby. At this point the rules have to be on why a woman wants it out of her body, and if it is taken out can it survive a premature removal. If it is a medical issue such as the health of the woman is in danger or the health of the fetus is compromised, then again it is the woman’s right to control her body. In the US no one can be required to give another person anything from their body against their will, including even blood. That right is supreme in the US for men it seems, but only a pregnant person is required to submit their body for the use of another against their will.
But we are talking selective abortion not for the health / well-being of the mother or the same for a fetus, but for the characteristics of the viable future baby. Here the issue takes serious thought and consideration. A blanket rule of just no or yes won’t work. If the fetus is viable and healthy, the pregnant person’s health not in danger, then the burden shifts to favor the fetus. Do I think that selective abortion for sex, sexual orientation, possible autism, or other things that really are not deformities or defects should be allowed? No, I don’t. I think when we talk serious deformities or defects, then the issue is not so clear. A child born with major life health harming issues is something a lot of people can not deal with. In the US healthcare costs alone are crushing, as is simply trying to raise such a child. No one can be demanded to do that. So in that case I would say that unless the state wants to step in, raise or pay for all costs including supporting the family financially so they have the time to properly raise the child and have a life, then the right to abort is again something that must be allowed.
I know a family who had a lot of children. One of their children was born severely mentally handicapped. She is nearly 50 with the abilities of a 3 to 5-year-old. The parents loved their child as they did all their children. But the needs of the brain-damaged child / adult crushed the family, took all their resources, and caused a lot of hardships. The parents lost almost everything trying to keep their daughter in their home. At the time of her birth assistance for children like her was not available. Lucky for them, they did live in a progressive state that as time passed did offer them help with her care and even their own housing as their own health failed. In the end, the parents no longer could care for her and the now middle-aged adult woman with the mind of up to nearly a 5-year-old went into state care.
It was the parent’s choice to keep the child, as the brain damage happened just during birth, it was the parent’s choice to keep their daughter with them as long as possible. In this case the option of abortion was not on the table again as the damage was due to lack of oxygen during the birth process due to the umbilical cord being around the babies neck and the delivery person did not notice this.
But had the damage to the baby happened earlier, the question is should the parents have had the right to abort the severely damaged viable baby? Again remember at the time there were no state programs to help them. And if they gave the baby up for adoption the chances of her being adopted were not a real possibility. Who does the responsibility fall on there? Now the state they live in has one of the best care systems for people like her including homes from birth to death, along with complete assistance in all things for the parents. But should a pregnant person be forced to bring a child into the world they don’t want and has such limited chance of quality life, and who handles that burden?
Barry I am a cis gay male. Now an old one at that. I won’t ever have to face those choices. I don’t think that I have the right to make that decision for a pregnant person. How can I who will not be in that position demand another person live through it? So again I feel that the right to have an abortion really rests with the pregnant person. I think it has to. And yes there will be those that abuse that, but what is the saying about justice, “better a 100 people go free than 1 person be wrongly imprisoned”?
Best wishes. Scottie
LikeLike
Scottie, I got your email on this … and responded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just seen it and responded. But basically I don’t understand why men think this involves them if they are not the woman’s doctor. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike
I think we are on the same page. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and to reply.
🙇♀️
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Barry. I love to do so and I thank you for reading my replies. Some people don’t and I can get long-winded. Thanks for the discussion. I think we are on the same page. Best wishes. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person