Ok, quick debunk:

It's not so much deciding that one is better off dead alone than deciding that letting parents abort their own unborn children is better than the combined wrongdoing of forcing two people to ruin their lives because of a contraceptive malfunction (yes, some of these people DID use contraception), bring a child into the world as an unwanted mistake, most likely- statistically- to live in a negative family that is unable to raise it properly, orphanage, or on the street (with a statistically high probability of turning to crime), than the reverse, based solely on a VERY remote possibility that it might turn out all happy.
It would be like banning euthanasia because a terminally ill person might kill themselves a few days before a miracle cure is discovered and that person can make a complete recovery.

The adoptive parents also implies that abortion rights must take second presedence to supply-and-demand.

"Why don't they use contraception, why don't they adopt?" is pure naievity (deliberate or otherwise). These people DO ANYWAY- unless you have a solution to actually STOP it (which ironically would make banning abortion unnecessary as nobody would ever need one), you are again throwing up silly excuses to the fact that the problem EXISTS.

We already explained the protocols of Euthanasia- you again ignored (big surprise).

"If despite all precautions a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, then she should adopt it out to people who would dearly love to have one.”

“People who would dearly love one,” Rys Jones? Only in your state of delusion because there are very few who want one! As Celivia pointed out and I reiterated, there are more abandoned babies than there are people needing to adopt. The fewer the abortions, the more abandoned babies potentially being raised in orphanages or languishing in refugee camps. Get it? And must we continue this vacuous argument?

In 2008, 73% of adoptions in Australia were ‘intercountry’ adoptions (children from overseas countries, which is generally arranged by the relevant state government agency) and there remains many thousands more on the list who cannot be placed. Perhaps you’re a racist and believe that babies born in Australia are ‘superior?’

Furthermore, I do not require a lesson in birth control having raised children of both sexes where by the age of sixteen, my son always carried condoms. There was no need for him to embarrassingly ask a girl whether she was practising birth control or if she was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease, since he used a condom anyway. The only external influence for his decision, was a dire threat from his parent, that if he didn’t, he would have to pay child maintenance for the rest of his life and if he defaulted, he would no longer have a mother.

As of December 2009, deadbeat dads in Australia, deserting their children, had run up a $1 billion debt with child support agencies. Of course these deadbeats can go armed with grog, fags, drugs and sexually transmissible diseases while they’re on the prowl but a packet of condoms for $2 bucks? Not likely!

And in consideration of your naiveté, the brainwashing of the masses by religious fanatics, and a burgeoning global population of 6.7 billion humans, I offer you two words of advice, Rys Jones: "Grow up!"

Dear davidf,
thanks for the reply and, btw, I'm not a committed Marxist, far from it.
But to your point about the levelling off of population growth in developed countries. The fact is, capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme that relies on growth, which can't be derived from innovation in commodities alone. The most reliable fuel is population growth. Levelling off or decline of population in developed countries is not evidence for some equilibrium stage. The engine of growth has simply moved offshore. The stabilising, in population if nothing else, can only be temporary as the balance of power shifts. Unless we can lead, big-time, in terms of technological development, we can't keep up with the sheer manpower of production of wealth (power) oversees. Ultimately, fundamentally, it comes down to growth, and the most reliable fuel is demand for base commodities, ie population growth. This was the tragic flaw in Rudd's ideological delusion--it's all in his essay on the GFC, a sublimation of his political entrapment --which led to his capitulation to realist politics: stock-standard economic stimulous and population growth.
It will be fascinating to see what Gillard will propose instead of population growth to keep Australia a first world country; digging ever bigger bloody great holes in the ground isn't enough. She's about winning elections of course, and what better platform to gull us with than a "long-term" vision of sustainable development!
But apologies for being way off topic.

Hi Celivia,

Sorry, it's been a busy day. You asked for a scenario of a situation some way down the slippery slope ? No problem: any situation in which a person has made no inference that they want to be put down, and they have reached a condition in life where they are insensate, incontinent and unable to recognise anybody.

It's not anybody else's call but theirs, and when they can't make it, that's it, baby.

But (of course !) this sort of situation has never crossed anybody's mind.

Joe

Celivia

Both organ donation and euthanasia involve a decision being made by a person to apply to himself at a time when he can no longer make decisions. The directive of the person is carried out according to legal guidelines by a medical team and with the approval of the person's family. So it isn't an autonomous decision. As it happens I am an organ donor (not for a while, I hope), and I am sure you are aware of the difficulty in getting Australians to donate their organs. I think that euthanasia would gain even less acceptance than organ donation and would attract a band of hostile opponents as has happened with legalised abortion. And for all that effort and extra bureaucracy required, I suspect that it would be more expensive to euthanase people than to keep them alive.

I could be wrong of course, but I see legalised euthanasia creating more problems than it solves.

Fester you have clearly missed the point entirely- AGAIN.

We have already explained in simple terms that the way the whole thing ACTUALLY works is that a person must ASK to be euthanized before any attempt is made.
The doctor is not allowed to just stroll in one day wheeling in some death machine into the patient's room with an offer he can't refuse, and eagerly assumes he heard a "yes" somewhere in the indecipherable ramblings of a person who really doesn't want to die and eagerly sticks the device into them and turns it on.

And I don't quite get where the "price" bit comes into play, as none of the doctors and hospital staff are paying to keep the person alive- and the person in the bed sure doesn't care about the costs.
But then again, "choice" doesn't compute it seems.

You're in as much a fantasy land as Rhys. Or you're trolling.

Speaking of which, I just realized something shocking. This thread has come to the point where we have simply RUN OUT of possible silly hypothesis for BOTH subjects and repeated a few at least 6 times between all detractors not reading past answers.
It's come to the point where there actually is little left to say except to find inventive ways to summarize our existing statements and make witty remarks.