A question for the SFFP folks here

[Rabbitz]

Is premise of this article true?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... -selection

I hope not.

[220]

To me it sounds like a politician who has actually looked at what they are voting on and has some real concerns that if passed as is it may lead to outcomes that arent in the intent of the legislation.

[Rabbitz]

To me it sounds like a politician who has actually looked at what they are voting on and has some real concerns that if passed as is it may lead to outcomes that arent in the intent of the legislation.

To me it reads like a play straight out of the US religious hard-right anti-abortion play book.

Pick an non-issue, stir up media fury and obfuscate the issue to simply score points. This has been used many times on this issue with no real basis in fact. Remember you are welcome to your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.

[trevort]

I’m a big supporter of SFFP and I’m also a supporter of the right to choose.

If the members in the lower house voted yes then it makes SFFP like like a disorganised rabble if the upper house member has a contradictory position. Or we have a member whose ego is greater than their teamwork ethos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rabbitz]

According to this:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/cri ... 52is8.html

Mr Borsak has made a Captain's Call and will vote against the rest of 'his' party. He also has decided to not deal with the government for the life of this Parliament.

It seems the party has become 'just another party' supping at the tax-payer funded trough and ignoring the electorate.

FFS this is essentially a procedural change but they want to play politics and go against some 85% of the electorate (if the polls can be believed).

This type of stuff will weigh heavily for me when I am next standing in front of a ballot box.

[kjd]

The bill was subject to a conscience vote within the party, just like Labor, Lib and the Nats.

All 3 of our lower house MPs supported the bill and Robert has said on record that he wanted abortion issues to be removed from the crimes act. He wants the current bill before the upper house not to be rushed through parliament but properly considered and appropriate protections put in place. He does not outright oppose decriminalising abortion but is concerned with some of the contents or lack there of in the current bill.

At the end of the day all of our elected members in both houses vote on this using their conscience and it is not a party mandated vote. Other parties all approached this the same way and had a mix of people supporting and opposing the bill so whilst you can be upset about Borsak’s decision it’s no different to what other elected members in every other party except the Greens did.

This isn’t about the party looking like a mess at all, it is about giving elected members the ability to vote with their conscience and not along party lines. The party doesn’t have a line as it allows a conscience vote on this and other similar issues.

Robert.borsak@parliament.nsw.gov.au is his email address if you would like to email him about it.

[kjd]

I’m a big supporter of SFFP and I’m also a supporter of the right to choose.

If the members in the lower house voted yes then it makes SFFP like like a disorganised rabble if the upper house member has a contradictory position. Or we have a member whose ego is greater than their teamwork ethos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s called a conscience vote mate, most parties gave their members the option to vote with their conscience for this piece of legislation.
With that said it is a NSW issue so it won’t affect you Mexicans!

[trevort]

Keith I stand corrected. Thanks for the detailed response


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[220]

It is a far more complex issue than just decriminalising abortion which I think most people support and where rabbitz 85% came from. As proposed I doubt it would have anywhere near that support, certainly it hasnt got 50% support in parliament or glady wouldnt have postponed the vote.
I am certainly no medical expert and hadnt really given it much thought but given the bill as put up would allow termination post 22 weeks I guess a live baby would be a possibility the later it is performed. What are a doctors obligation under such circumstances. If the termination was to show signs of life outside the womb is it then a baby and is the doctor obligated to try and keep it alive. Is not providing it with medical assistance a crime. Certainly they couldnt euthanizse it despite the mothers wishes. Where does that leave the doctor and mother legally.
Like I said I have no real knowledge of the area but given the fact with modern medical assistance a premature baby born at 29wks has about a 90% survival chance and by 34wks it is the same as full term I think a lot more thought and debate needs to go into the legislation than has happened so far.

[Rabbitz]

Thanks Keith.

[Rabbitz]

It is a far more complex issue than just decriminalising abortion which I think most people support and where rabbitz 85% came from. As proposed I doubt it would have anywhere near that support, certainly it hasnt got 50% support in parliament or glady wouldnt have postponed the vote.
I am certainly no medical expert and hadnt really given it much thought but given the bill as put up would allow termination post 22 weeks I guess a live baby would be a possibility the later it is performed. What are a doctors obligation under such circumstances. If the termination was to show signs of life outside the womb is it then a baby and is the doctor obligated to try and keep it alive. Is not providing it with medical assistance a crime. Certainly they couldnt euthanizse it despite the mothers wishes. Where does that leave the doctor and mother legally.
Like I said I have no real knowledge of the area but given the fact with modern medical assistance a premature baby born at 29wks has about a 90% survival chance and by 34wks it is the same as full term I think a lot more thought and debate needs to go into the legislation than has happened so far.

First up, I gather it won't change anything other than the criminal status of it.

The caveats and rules are drawn from legislation everywhere else in Australia, just not NSW.

Finally, if you disagree with terminations, that's fine - don't have one. They aren't making it compulsory.

[220]

First up, I gather it won't change anything other than the criminal status of it.

The caveats and rules are drawn from legislation everywhere else in Australia, just not NSW.

Finally, if you disagree with terminations, that's fine - don't have one. They aren't making it compulsory.

Why change anything then women have been legally able to access abortions in NSW for 50 years. Despite all the claims I can only find 4 cases where someone has actually been found guilty of any abortion offence in the last 25 years. Most could have accessed abortion legally yet chose not to and none received a penalty harsher than a bond.

If we had women being denied access to abortions or jailed then I could understand all the carry on but the fact is we dont.

From what I can find the last person found guilty was for self administering a abortion drug in later pregnancy. She was denied abortion in NSW and interstate because of the advanced pregnancy. The child was delivered by c section alive when she presented at hospital with complications after taking the drug. The very situation that some of those opposed to the bill in its current form want to see changes to address.

[kjd]

I will say this though, the most I’ve heard weigh in on this subject is men. To me that is a bit strange. Not saying men’s opinions are less valid but it does seem like men have stronger feelings or at least more conflicting feelings about this than women.

Me personally, I just think it should be between the parents and the medical staff as to what happens.

I’m not going to go into it but I’ve got personal experience with abortions (not by choice) and The last thing that we wanted was anyone else but us and our medical team telling us what we should or shouldn’t or can or can’t do. In our situation that didn’t happen. I don’t believe it is my business to decide what people do when considering abortion and am proud that the SFF allowed our elected members a conscience vote.

[kjd]

Keith I stand corrected. Thanks for the detailed response


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All good mate!