Abortion Laws

[GoodAttention]

Well if you want a law overturned it usually helps to explain using a rational reason why you think 22 weeks is far too late in my view.

Who said I wanted it overturned?

Personal opinions are just that, hence why the vote for the Queensland legislation in 2018 was based on conscience after rigorous debate in parliament.

I think MP Ros Bates has a point, and she is allowed to raise it and have it discussed.

Merely saying that you agree with some extreme minority opinion is unlikely to sway anyone the way I see it.

Given I still don't understand the way you see it makes it difficult for me to respond.

I will say that I disagree with your opinion that medical practitioners should be "consulted" as I discussed in comment #10.

I believe the Queensland parliament's approach to the matter after such a long time was highly appropriate and a reflection of how democracies should function. A social justification should always be the foundation of access to abortion, meaning the rights of women are put first and backed by legislation, which the current act does so.

The role of medical practitioners should be minimized to "technical" and protected, and whilst the current legislation considers the "line in the sand" to be 22 weeks before "technical" becomes professional, my opinion is that this should be debated.

Given the LNP appear to be the future government of Queensland, those who are opposed to what MP Ros Bates is saying need to pull their finger out and start talking about this.

 

[danieldemol]

those who are opposed to what MP Ros Bates is saying need to pull their finger out and start talking about this.

What do you think we are doing here?! ROFL.

Also there is no guarantee of a LNP win in my view;

New polling shows Labor closing the gap on LNP ahead of Queensland election

www.9news.com.au

Besides even if they do win the LNP leader has vowed not to change QLD law to reflect the views of MP Bates according to my understanding, making her personal views largely a non issue as I see it

 

[GoodAttention]

What do you think we are doing here?! ROFL.

Hopefully being as clear as mud!

Also there is no guarantee of a LNP win in my view;

New polling shows Labor closing the gap on LNP ahead of Queensland election

www.9news.com.au

Besides even if they do win the LNP leader has vowed not to change QLD law to reflect the views of MP Bates according to my understanding, making her personal views largely a non issue as I see it

The LNP leader is basically saying he isn't going to ram through parliament any potentially pre-written piece of legislation MP Bates could have hidden away in her mother's teapot.

But this doesn't stop Robbie "The Showboat" Khittar from pushing his agenda on parliament either. I think his 16 week limit has overshot and 18 weeks makes more sense. Why? That is a good question, but I *think* women who are accessing termination services "late" are more likely to be socially disadvantaged, and having a medical practitioner or nurse involved in their care from more than just a technical POV should lead to better outcomes, when using health or social metrics to evaluate.

Let me reiterate, the only way I would be advocating for reducing the 22 weeks to 18 weeks is if it would lead to better social outcomes. As I said MP Ros Bates has a point, but the second she points to the bible to make it I will be throwing eggs at her head!

 

[danieldemol]

Hopefully being as clear as mud!

Check

The LNP leader is basically saying he isn't going to ram through parliament any potentially pre-written piece of legislation MP Bates could have hidden away in her mother's teapot.

He flatly rejected that there would be any change to existing abortion protection in my view;

'
At the leaders debate on Wednesday, Mr Crisafulli was asked whether he would stake his leadership on there being no changes to abortion laws if the LNP was elected.

"It's not part of our plan and there won't be changes. That is very definitive and the reason why I can be that definitive is I have got a team that backs that position," he said.

"I want to be really, really clear those protections will remain in place — no change."'
OP source: LNP health spokeswoman preferences party that is anti-abortion second on how-to-vote card

But this doesn't stop Robbie "The Showboat" Khittar from pushing his agenda on parliament either.

Are you suggesting that the Katter party will secure enough seats to overturn the LNP's party position?

I think his 16 week limit has overshot and 18 weeks makes more sense. Why? That is a good question, but I *think* women who are accessing termination services "late" are more likely to be socially disadvantaged, and having a medical practitioner or nurse involved in their care from more than just a technical POV should lead to better outcomes, when using health or social metrics to evaluate.

What health and social metrics do you specifically propose these changes you seem to think are likely to happen should be measured by?

Let me reiterate, the only way I would be advocating for reducing the 22 weeks to 18 weeks is if it would lead to better social outcomes. As I said MP Ros Bates has a point, but the second she points to the bible to make it I will be throwing eggs at her head!

"Social outcomes" is not very explanatory to me, like you suggested earlier - clear as mud

 

[GoodAttention]

Check

He flatly rejected that there would be any change to existing abortion protection in my view;

'
At the leaders debate on Wednesday, Mr Crisafulli was asked whether he would stake his leadership on there being no changes to abortion laws if the LNP was elected.

"It's not part of our plan and there won't be changes. That is very definitive and the reason why I can be that definitive is I have got a team that backs that position," he said.

"I want to be really, really clear those protections will remain in place — no change."'
OP source: LNP health spokeswoman preferences party that is anti-abortion second on how-to-vote card

Are you suggesting that the Katter party will secure enough seats to overturn the LNP's party position?

I am saying I wouldn't trust an LNP Premier as far as I could throw him, and adding the KAP to the mix just makes the waters muddier.

From your own source Labor is closing the gap, and the LNP could end up in minority parliament with the support of the KAP.

God forbid.

What health and social metrics do you specifically propose these changes you seem to think are likely to happen should be measured by?

"Social outcomes" is not very explanatory to me, like you suggested earlier - clear as mud

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare bring out reports on the performance of the health care system. I would presume state governments would have similar approaches to assess their own performance, and that any debate on changing the 22 week line in the sane would include such metrics as reasonable arguments for and against.

Australia's health performance framework - Australia's health performance framework

The Australian Health Performance Framework (AHPF) provides a navigation tool to support reporting on Australia’s health and health care performance.

www.aihw.gov.au

Again the point to make is, if the 2018 Termination of Pregnancy legislation gets debated, then the strongest argument for adjusting it should be some form of improvement in "social outcomes".

I don't know exactly what that is, but I will know it when I see/hear it.

 

[danieldemol]

Again the point to make is, if the 2018 Termination of Pregnancy legislation gets debated, then the strongest argument for adjusting it should be some form of improvement in "social outcomes".

I don't know exactly what that is, but I will know it when I see/hear it.

It appears to me you are attracted to a buzzword and want to change a law on the basis of this buzzword without having any real idea of what you hope to achieve in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

It appears to me you are attracted to a buzzword and want to change a law on the basis of this buzzword without having any real idea of what you hope to achieve in my view.

Yeah, I understand completely why you would think that way.

Unless you are familiar with “leaning into the bull****” it will be difficult to understand politics.

 

[Valjean]

Do you seriously want people performing backyard abortions? If not how do you propose they obtain one without the help of a relevant medical professional?

I'm talking about the required pre-abortion "medical justification", to determine medical need, that you seemed to advocate.

 

[Valjean]

In 2023 there were an estimated 1,037,000 abortions that were provided by clinicians in states without total bans. That's an increase of 11% from 2020.

So 1,037,000 x 1% = 10,370.

Do you find over 10,000 an acceptable number?

What determines acceptability?
Do you consider forcing a woman to abandon her dreams, quit school, and spend her life in poverty on public assistance, to raise a kid who'll likely end up on assistance herself or in jail acceptable?

 

[We Never Know]

Your statistics seem to be rather suspicious. In fact when I checked out your claim the most recent years that we have numbers for abortions in the US are from 2021 and 2020 according to PEW and yes, this is a recent article:

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

www.pewresearch.org

Did you get your numbers from an anti-abortion source? It appears that whatever source that you used that it was lying to you.

Your source is from March 2024 and says "The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020"

Well then came June 2024 from Guttmacher which is where my info in post #12 was from.

Here it is. Enjoy.

Abortion in the United States

The Guttmacher Institute recently published new data on abortion in the United States. As we work to update our fact sheets with the latest data, please be aware that some of the information below is out of date. In the meantime, please refer to the following resources for the most current facts...

www.guttmacher.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your source is from March 2024 and says "The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020"

Well then came June 2024.

Enjoy.

Abortion in the United States

The Guttmacher Institute recently published new data on abortion in the United States. As we work to update our fact sheets with the latest data, please be aware that some of the information below is out of date. In the meantime, please refer to the following resources for the most current facts...

www.guttmacher.org

You are a bit slow. I already went over that. I provided sources and links as well. It appears that ironically that the increase may be due to antiabortion laws. And your post was already refuted by @Revoltingest as well.

 

[We Never Know]

In the US there was and still is a myth about abortions after the 22nd week. Some states banned it unless medically necessary, but there was no need for it. Of all abortions performed once one gets to the 22 week over 99% of them have already occurred. A less than 1% of all abortions being medically needed abortions does not sound all that unreasonable to me. In the US the cost of abortions that are that late are going to be on the person receiving them unless they are medically necessary. And the number of doctors able to do such abortions is very small and most would likely reject an elective abortion that late. The specialize in people that need those abortions and many of them would take it as an insult if someone wanted to use their hard earned talents for an abortion of convenience.

In other words there is the barrier of very high costs and an inability to find doctors willing to do such abortions unless needed for elective abortions to occur that late in a pregnancy.

Btw, since you rarely give sources....

"1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing surgical abortion after this gestational age sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly.[55][56][57] The periviable period is considered to be between 20 and 25 weeks gestation.[58] Long-term survival is possible after 22 weeks.[59] However, odds of long-term survival between 22 and 23 weeks are 2–3 percent and odds of survival between 23 and 24 weeks are 20 percent.[60] "Intact survival", which means survival of a neonate without subsequent damage to organs such as the brain or bowel is 1% at 22 weeks and 13% at 23 weeks.[60] Survival odds increase with increasing gestational age."

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[We Never Know]

You are a bit slow. I already went over that. I provided sources and links as well. It appears that ironically that the increase may be due to antiabortion laws. And your post was already refuted by @Revoltingest as well.

Lol. Your first link uses Guttmacher from 2020 and is dated March 2024..

My link is Guttmacher from June 2024.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Btw, since you rarely give sources....

"1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing surgical abortion after this gestational age sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly.[55][56][57] The periviable period is considered to be between 20 and 25 weeks gestation.[58] Long-term survival is possible after 22 weeks.[59] However, odds of long-term survival between 22 and 23 weeks are 2–3 percent and odds of survival between 23 and 24 weeks are 20 percent.[60] "Intact survival", which means survival of a neonate without subsequent damage to organs such as the brain or bowel is 1% at 22 weeks and 13% at 23 weeks.[60] Survival odds increase with increasing gestational age."

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

ny

More falsehoods. I have supported that claim so many times that I didn't think that there was any need to do so again. And as usual the point went over your head.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. Your first link uses Guttmacher from 2020 and is dated March 2024..

My link is Guttmacher from June 2024.

Wow! You really are having trouble paying attention again.

 

[We Never Know]

Wow! You really are having trouble paying attention again.

Yes you are. Both of your links are dated March 2024 and use Guttmacher from 2020.

My link is from June 2024 and is from Guttmacher. Meaning neither of your links used the updated June 2024 Guttmacher.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you are. Both of your links are dated March 2024 and use Guttmacher from 2020.

My link is from June 2024 and is from Guttmacher. Meaning neither of your links used the updated June 2024 Guttmacher.

You later link does not refute what was in my second one. It is just another article on the same info. It was an estimate and my second article goes over why it may have increased. But you do not want to understand. You just have poor arguments.

 

[wellwisher]

Looks like imitation of US nonsense in my view, the fewer Australians that fall for this nonsense the better.

From your article, 'Ms Bates said she supported removing abortion from the criminal code, but did not support late-term terminations "without the need for explanation, justification or medical need".'

OP Source: LNP health spokeswoman preferences party that is anti-abortion second on how-to-vote card

Who better to decide an abortion is medically justified than a doctor or two, where is the need to bring ignorant politicians into the picture in my opinion.

If doctors could only perform abortions for free, and not make any money off it, would you get the same outcome? Abortion is big business and business models will try to maximize profit by increasing demand. If there is no profit, the approach is different.

Liberalism in the 1960's worked to disrupt the nuclear family and replace it with alternate life styles. That sounded good on paper, but it led to many negative side effects, like increased disease and unwanted pregnancies. Abortion was needed to fix a new problem they created. By 1973 the problem had gotten out of control. They did not fix the original source of the problem, but applied a Roe v Way, band-aid.

Abortions has a government tell. They screwed things up, and then use that as an excuse to grow government to fix the screw up they created, making even more problems, to grow the government, even more. Illegal immigration is another Liberal boneheads money pit. Now we will need more government to fix those problems. It is best to get this issue away from Big Government; back to the states, and then to the private sector. Private sector medical information is protected; protected citizen privacy.

Big government spies and Lefty politicians capitalize, which is why they want to give it back to big Government. Harris is able to scam most women with this one issue. Too many women are very linear. We need Government and politicians out of the equation. I would put abortion under plastic surgery, and take it off government handouts and off insurance.

We have the right to bear arms or own guns, but guns are not provided by government or insurance. You need to be an adult, to use this adult right, and buy your own. This gives you the right of a private citizen.

Guns were more about the needs of men in colonial times, and men never expected a free ride. They supported families. The modern babes, say they can do anything men can do, but still want a free ride. Affirmation action is dead.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm talking about the required pre-abortion "medical justification", to determine medical need, that you seemed to advocate.

Well I don't know what you have in mind by "social justification", but I would desire that a woman had a medical consultation post 22 weeks so as to ensure for example that she wasn't suffering from treatable mental dysfunction. It would seem undesirable to me if she could be treated and happy to continue her pregnancy to simply have killed a sentient fetus for nothing, and since you have her there consulting a trained medical professional anyway may as well have their professional opinion on whether there are any treatable issues in my view.

 

[Revoltingest]

If doctors could only perform abortions for free, and not make any money off it, would you get the same outcome? Abortion is big business and business models will try to maximize profit by increasing demand.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, ie, abortion providers
are doing something to increase demand. Let's see
some evidence.
Your argument also sounds like something our socialist
brethren & sistern would way, ie, that you oppose
capitalism because all businesses corrupt society
to increase profit. I hope you haven't joined them.