Sirona

Are you attempting to draw attention to my age to make me less credible? Does me being young make my stance less important? I suppose you have more experience in being a woman and therefore you can judge me. Go and read my posts again without the cloud of judgement. I was making a comment on the legality of the issue and the need for it to be consistent. In the past, men have had complete monopoly of most matters concerning women; we couldn't vote, own property or work after marriage less than 150 years ago. Suddenly we want the right to make decisions concerning our body and we're unreasonable? That seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

I couldn't agree more, Charon. What inherently perturbs me about the responses to this topic is, as you put it so eloquently, that is negatively judging the morality of women. Earlier I mentioned my reluctance to delve into this topic because from my experience, arguments involving women's rights to their body become about controlling her sexuality through the judgement of her scruples. A few of you were alarmed by my stance that I do not see the relevance of having one or five abortions. As far as I am concerned, a woman either has the rights to her body, or she doesn't; saying that a woman is entitled to one abortion but not three or five just means that her rights are not absolute and as Charon pointed out, can be taken away. I also feel saddened that the 'loose morals' of women seeking multiple abortions (how dare she be so unlucky?) has drawn more attention than the inability to support a child. Do I have the right to accuse those of you in return for needing to 'get more empathy' because you have ignored the plight of the child who is born into the world disadvantaged? The impact it will have not just on the child but on society if that child were to become youth at-risk? Women seeking equal rights does not mean men will have less rights; this is not a gender war but a firm stance for equal opportunities and moral standing within the same society. You know what else I find exhausting of late? The term 'feminist' used in a derisive manner. I hardly think that wanting the freedom over my own body and the ability to make choices without negative judgement on what will affect me socially, mentally, emotionally and economically makes me a militant feminist. I think this should be our basic right since it is a right men have without interference of the public sphere.

Then you grossly misinterpreted. What about the psychological impact of having a child you cannot provide or care for? One that you did not? I am not denying that a woman will not feel guilt and a range of other emotions, but that does not necessarily mean she made the wrong choice. It is not a choice you have to make. Whether you believe a woman is unethical for carrying it out or not is irrelevant because the status quo here is that it is not. My participation in this thread is done, because I have stated what I truly believe and I am quite frankly deeply hurt with the misogyny I see on this forum. I will admit that it's not as blatant as I have seen on other conversation boards and the majority of men truly do treat women with equal moral standing, but the reality is that the inequality exists, subconscious or not.

Perhaps so, but it does not change the fact that there is nothing which suggests that a woman has the right to x amount of early term terminations. Your emotional stance on it is not relevant in terms of the legality. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am satisfied with the law in my state. Whether you can visualise the scenario whereby a woman may need multiple terminations is irrelevant to my point.

I stand by my original post; if a woman wants an early term termination then it's because she does not want to be a mother and cannot. I would consider a psychological impact on her health as a valid reason and so does the state of NSW. Obviously it is going to be an emotional decision and impact the individual, but that does not mean they made the wrong choice or that they should only be able to make that choice once. If a woman is unlucky enough to fall pregnant five times, despite not wanting children, then according to the law (not just my opinion) she has the right to seek an early term termination. My point was, if a woman has a valid reason which will impact her health as well as social and economic reasons, then in my state this is perfectly legal; there are no clauses about how many times you can have the procedure performed.

Something I absolutely abhor is when society (not just men) make negative assumptions on a woman's character because she is open about sex. Why does a woman's pleasure need to make her somewhat irresponsible, reckless, self destructive or immoral? Why even use that as your example? It seems to me, at least, that all you were trying to do is draw a connection between 'loose moraled' women and abortion. Perhaps you didn't do it intentionally, but that would alarm me even further because it would mean that it is subconscious. Does it matter? Both are very valid reasons.

I do not understand how not liking condoms is correlated with abortion. There are many forms of contraception available for women and I very much doubt a large proportion of women opt for an abortion because it was 'inconvenient' to use protection. Also, from what I understand, condoms are less pleasurable for men than women, so if this is in fact true and not a ploy to portray women who seek abortion as immoral, it seems fairly odd. Contraception is very effective if used correctly, however, it is not a hundred percent accurate and certainly easier emotionally and financially than just 'getting abortions' as you seem to be suggesting. I cannot fathom that many women at all would opt for abortion because they find contraception inconvenient; it is much more likely that the contraception failed, which happens, although not likely. Furthermore, let's just assume that the reason was true; it does not change my stance. I believe a woman either has the right to an abortion or not. I know in some countries it is circumstancial, but I do not see it as immoral or wrong, therefore, I do not see the difference between having none, one or five. Although, I would be concerned if she was having unprotected intercourse with men she did not know well due to the risk of STDs. Surely potentially spreading STDs has a greater impact on society and health than abortions in a country where it is legal and the practices are safe. If you knowingly spread STDs, then you're harming another person, however, a fetus is not a human person. Edit: Get out of my head, iNOW. You beat me to it.

I have an enormous amount of respect for you because from what I have observed, it is more important for you to speak your mind than to be accepted and at the risk of becoming unpopular. I can understand the fear of being ostracised from a group where you feel comfortable, however, I don't believe it should override one's ability to be sincere. I'm not innocent of it myself, but I recognise the importance of conflicting perspectives to learning and understanding. People get offended too easily and this is a fundamental flaw of mine too and perhaps this is partially influenced by increasing political correctness (I do not actually know, I am merely speculating). However, I do believe that militant political correctness inhibits one's freedom to a certain degree and encourages a culture of holding back our true opinions in fear of being cast out socially or made to feel ignorant and/or insensitive. I do believe personal inference is needed because there are times that speaking your mind can be factless and rude. There certainly is a medium ground.

If women are to be socially, politically and economically equal to men then they need to have the right over their own body and since the foetus is apart of the woman's body, this includes the right to decide whether she wants to be a mother or not. If they do not have this choice, then they cannot have the same moral standing as men.

If you're the only person there and you do not know how to perform CPR, then it's much better to just try rather than do nothing because they will die otherwise. Someone who has just had a cardiac arrest for example has the best chance of survival if you perform CPR immediately, rather than waiting for someone qualified. Obviously you would not perform compressions if they are breathing, but if they're not, you can't do much more damage. However, unless you have a Duty of Care or you're a doctor, you are not obligated (In Australia anyway) to help someone. These days CPR training is actually extremely basic and you do not even have to perform mouth-to-mouth; just press down fast and deep in the middle of the chest. Consent is needed in Australia to administer first aid, however, if the person is unconscious then the law will imply consent and it's very unlikely you will be sued if you do what is reasonable to save their life. I am sure the law would be similar in your country.

Exactly. I take CPR training and First Aid each year as a requirement of my job and in all first aid situations, you need to assess the risk to your personal safety first and foremost. Even when you take a flight, the emergency procedure requires you to put your own mask on first before assisting others.

Although I like the concept of the Golden Mean and appreciate Aristotle's great contribution to of virtue ethics, I believe his teachings are too simplistic on their own to form a 'world view'. The most important of Aristotle's teachings, I believe, is that virtues are learned by practice, but I interpret this in the modern world as meaning: societies perception of what is virtuous evolves over time, rather than individual practice. However, what is the 'mean'? How do we define it (more importantly, is it universal?) We know in the modern world that one's personality depends largely on genetics and environment (in the early stages), therefore, the idea that the rule of averages can always guide us is not consistent. The Golden Mean cannot guide us in specific situations; it's one thing to say that being too generous or too greedy is unvirtuous, but how can you apply this to a specific situation?

Careful now, you don't want to start a gender war.

So you are suggesting that a woman's rights should be temporarily suspended then?