Rhys Jones,

Actually it is perfectly legal to inject yourself with heroin. It is not legal to possess more than small amount, nor sell it. In fact I am at a loss to think of what is illegal.

Your comment "In most cases a woman who does not want to have a child will only be inconvenienced by carrying it to birth and adopting it out. " is a more than a little fib.

Given that less than 1% of unplanned pregnancies result in adoption due to the traumatic nature of the separation, to claim that the woman is "inconvenienced" is a deliberate porkie.

A theoretic legal comparison would be:

Suppose a stranger has a terminal disease that can only be cured by being connected to you for say 3 months. You would only be "inconvenienced" for a short while, while he stands to lose his life.

Your position would legally force you to put your life on hold for that period of time. Even if it is the moral thing to do, patently it would seriously infringe on your rights over your body.

The point at which the courts decide that they have the right over your body is the point at which all forms of atrocities become possible. You don't really need both your kidneys do you?

We are struggling for a culture of autonomy. In the culture of autonomy:

1. All human beings have the right to decide upon the manner of their death as far as they are able.

2. The lives and future of pregnant women are considered more valuable than any tissue within them regardless of the potentiality of that tissue. Women have the right to decide whether to retain that tissue or not.

Thankyou Celivia and I agree with that definition, and also with the methodology (which, I believe is standard practice in both countries).

Anyway, I think this thread has quite a bit of information for anyone to refer to now- whether or not the people with a claim against it reply is something else.

Hi Shadow minister,
I am familiar with the argument of being hooked up to someone involuntarily in order to save their life. It is the theory of Judith Jarvis Thomson. I believe it has some serious flaws. For example, I have never met anyone who was involuntarily hooked up to a famous violinist in kidney failure. Also, the imposition is far greater in her scenario. Most women can still live a rich and full life throughout their pregnancy (there are exceptions of course). It also relies on the notion that we do not have obligations to save the lives of strangers (a notion I would agree with). I would argue that the foetus is no stranger, but is in fact the closest relative it is possible to have. When we have sex without contraception, we perform the very act that creates the life which many posters here would so readily extinguish. When we create this life we create with it certain moral obligations.
Celivia, the slippery slope can be seen in the post of Suzeonline. She is advocating for the killing of people with Alzeimers. People who by definition have no ability to consent.
Protagoras - I am not referring to the entire world. Only to Australia. Abortion may be justifiable in some places in some circumstances, as may infanticide and the murder of the elderly who can no longer contribute to society. That is not the case in Australia. It is almost impossible to adopt a child in this country, yet we kill 80,000 per year. We should be valuing our children, not killing them.
And you refer to "thousands of children being drugged, raped bashed and murdered". Aside from the grotesque exaggeration, you would obviously suggest that a child with abusive parents would be better off dead. I disagree, and think that most people who have suffered abusive upbringings would disagree too.

Rhys Jones

>> the slippery slope can be seen in the post of Suzeonline. She is advocating for the killing of people with Alzeimers. <<

No, Suzeonline a RN, described the stages of dementia, whereby sufferer's lose the capacity to make choices for themselves towards the end of the appalling disease.

At no time did she advocate killing people because of their misfortune to succumb to the illness. Celivia has described in detail the steps required to ensure there is no "slippery slope".

That you would rather people died slowly, in agony and against their will is an appalling indictment of your lack of compassion over-riding the right of the individual to decide for themselves whether to choose a 'soft' death or not.

Equally appalling is your regard for women. While still in the womb a female human has more rights than when she is a living, breathing independent being - according to you.

The majority of adults understand that not all foetuses can and should be brought to term for as many reasons are there are people. You are entitled to your opinion. You do not have to have an abortion if you don't want one. Nor do you have the right to force women into bearing children against their will.

Such is your Culture of Control.

Dear Rhys Jones,
your position becomes less tenable or defensible the more you go on, relying on sophistry rather than reason.
I can only denounce your position in the strongest possible terms as myopic, elitist and viciously nationalistic.
I suggest you get a religion as soon as possible, it's the only way I can see that you can rationalise this rubbish.
In the meantime, you're giving atheists a bad name!