Funny how it's almost always a guy writing this sort of stuff.

It is always amusing to see a man describe an unwanted pregnancy as inconvenient.

Other inconveniences include cancer, paraplegia, death, etc.

If the religious right wing wishes not to procure abortions, then that is their decisions, but to go as far as to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their bodies is unacceptable.

This essay is a typical example of how anti-abortionists love to be hysterical drama queens.

But that is an inevitable extension of their fire-and-brimstone guilt laden and guilt inducing religion. A religion that is full of double-minded messages re the body and sexuality. A religion which effectively equates sexual activity, and even the fact of human genitals, and even the having of bodily pleasure, with sin.

Unmarried people living together were stigmatized as "living in sin".
"Illegitimate" children were stigmatized as bastards.

How could any child be "illegitimate"?

Abortion has always been a fact of life in this fear-saturated world. It always will be.

My sister, assisted by my mother, who are both as normal as they come, had an abortion in the early 70's. My mother went to church every Sunday.
They traveled from Adelaide to Sydney where I knew someone who provided the necessary information and contacts. It was a sad sobering occasion but there was no big drama or guilt-inducing "moralizing".

As far as I know she never suffered any negative consequences. She later got happily married with three essentially happy and sane children.

I lived with an energetic passionate woman for ten years. She was systematically beaten by her father, raped three times and had two abortions. Despite it all she is still an energetic passionate woman who has a very strong Spiritual practice.

the hatred vented towards this doctor and others just shows why it is so easy for babies to be murdered in this country.

It is a bit sick to see people using their position to try to justify their ideology..

However it is disgusting when they do it to try to force that ideology on others.

Runner, I often sympathise with your posts, however I can not sympathise with using emotive crap, to try to force your opinions on others.

As with this doctor, I can hate the attitude, that you & he display, without hating you, or him. I can not understand what you believe gives you any right to dictate your ideas on everyone, but can understand that your very strong belief may cause you to assume superiority. Just remember that superiority is something that you have bestowed upon yourself, & has no justification.

However, once any of you start trying to force your ideas on others, you are no better than any petty African dictator.

The headline of the article showed little resemblance to the content.
I'd expected to see some statistical discussion about the claim often put by those opposing abortion regarding issues faced by the woman after the event, not there rather a generalised and very subjective claim about women harming their hearts.

If the level of regret is as high as some claim (and other dispute) then I'd be interested to see some serious research on other factors at play, the role of the church in promoting that guilt being one such factor.

The author does not state it but some of the wording suggests a "spiritual" factor in his views. I'd like to see some serious debate by christains regarding the biblical treatment of fetuses (and very young infants). My research on the topic suggests that the bible really does not treat fetus's and very young infants in the same way that others are treated. Much of the christain view of abortion seem's to be at odd's with the bible's treatment of the topic.

Doctor's and nurses should not be forced to take an active role in abortions but neither should they use their positions to hinder others from getting access to appropriate resources.

Like most other pro-choice people I'm not keep to see abortion used friviously and doubt that it often is but I'm even keener not to see the religious impose their dogma's on others (the fact that this dogma is either in conflict with their scriptures or poorly supported by those scriptures is another factor).

R0bert

Godwin's Law proposes that in any internet discussion, a participant who mentions Hitler or the Nazi Party is automatically ruled out of the game. I suggest that in the abortion debate any participant who uses the word 'baby' or 'child' when they mean 'blastocyst' or 'early term foetus' is ruled out of the discussion in the same way.

A three-month foetus is not a baby, just as an orange pip is not an orange tree. When anti-abortion writers have demonstrated that they are able to grasp the distinction, then we can start having a serious debate.

The science now exists, theoretically at least, to transplant an embryo. Not just from one womans womb to another but even into a mans abdominal cavity.

So as many with anti-abortion opinions want to save children even those who are born from rape and even if it may risk the mothers survival why not ask for the baby to be put into your own body?

If every man who thought women should risk their own lives to carry a baby to term were to do the same would we see a substantial saving of the lives of babies?

So every anti-abortion proponent demonstrate the courage of your convictions and step forward to volunteer for experiments on your own bodies which could give these babies a way to survive while allowing the mothers a right to choose what happens to their own bodies.

Now if people still feel that people shouldn't have a right to choose? Well we could always create a list of those people and force them against their will to carry an unwanted transplanted baby. If you'd disagree with that then you cannot be in favour of forcing women to carry babies to term.

But for those whose sole concern is the right of the unborn baby, then adopt those babies and have them transplanted into your own body. Sure it may be experimental and dangerous and may kill you but then people die from natural pregnancy too and if you really care about those babies why not put yourself in these womens positions by your own choice?

I'm looking forward to seeing Tony Abbott pregnant with a transplanted baby. Or the run of hypocrit men swiftly backing down from their opinions when they realise the moral and ethical arguments can apply to them too!

There is/was a very funny play titled The Vagina Monologues.

I am sure that if anyone tried to stage this play in Toowoomba the author would be furiously writing letters and organizing protests against it.
As would Runner of course.

Meanwhile I do like the work of both Annie Sprinkle and the various writers who are criticizing the pornification of our entire "culture".

Jon J, help me out

When does an orange pip become an orange tree?

This article relies on appeals to emotion (the “tiny beating heart” of “children who would have loved you”), abuse (the “narcissism” of pro-choice activists) and circular argument.

The circular argument is most striking.

- Of course adults are responsible for their children, but is an 8-week old fetus a “child.”

- Of course no-one should take a life that’s not “theirs to take”, but does this apply to a fetus?

- Of course violence offspring is wrong, but has a foetus really sprung off, so to speak.

This reasoning is circular because the author assumes his conclusion in these arguments, leaving unaddressed the real, difficult points of contention – at what point do we become human persons, with the rights of a human being.

The most irritating part of the article is its dismissal of women’s responsibilities for the choices they make. Because women may be pressured into abortions they don’t want, and have been “brainwashed” into thinking their foetus is “just a ‘clump of cells’”, penalties for abortion should be directed at the doctor who “knows he is extinguishing a human life.” I find this argument sexist and patronising.

RObert, I’m intrigued by your points on the biblical treatment of foetuses – can you give some examples?

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and forcing one's opinions onto others. If you are personally attacking others, you are attempting to force your own opinion onto others and have no right to complain about Christians or others doing the same.

If you want to value the right of women to have an abortion, then you need to value the right of doctors and others to decline to participate in abortion on personal choice grounds. These rarely enforced Queensland laws achieve that and pose no real threat to the right of Queensland women to have an abortion.

The case in question involved some people who got raided for other reasons. When police could not find the evidence they expected, they tried their luck with this charge. There is no widespread pattern of enforcing these laws.

Rhian I don't have the link to the best resource I've seen but there is some good material on the web - not stuff I ever heard in church though.

To be fair though some christians were strongly involved in moves to stop slavery whereas the bible mostly supports slavery.

There is dispute over the interpretation of one of the key verses about the compensation to be paid when a pregnant woman is struck and looses the fetus but overall it's fairly clear that fetus's and very young infants were not counted as human's. A woman subject to capital punishment did not get the sentence deferred until after the birth, young infants were not counted when doing a census. There is a passage that describes the process to be undertaken when a woman was pregnant and it was suspected that her husband was not the father and it read's a lot like an abortion is part of it.

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

Quite a bit of material at http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/overview.html

There are a variety of christian resources which argue the contrary point but none that I've seen do so convincingly. They tend to all rely on the assumption that the fetus is human and then use verses not about fetus's to argue their case. They make a lot of the idea of a couple of very significant characters supposedly being aware in the womb but there is no indication that is supposed to be the case for others.

I think a lot of christians have been taught that the bible is anti-abortion and believe that's the case without really taking the effort to check it thoroughly for themselves. The view that abortion is wrong is so pervasive in a lot of churches that's it's not something that really questioned.

R0bert

Hasbeen you write

'However, once any of you start trying to force your ideas on others, you are no better than any petty African dictator.'

You are blinded if you don't think the abortionist have not done this for the last 50 years.

runner, it is not just "the abortionist" - a service-provider - it is society as a whole that engages. Unfortunately, that includes the religious nut-jobs that protest and murder.

LOL. I just love runners little rants. Trust me! He really thinks...............well........lol.

I have to give him my best wishes.

See 3000 years ago, The man would be one of gods greats for sure.

God bless him, and I mean it.

Now where did I see that part about child sacrifice? or......OH! Sorry Runner! wrong book.

Please dismiss this post. I may need new glasses.

Now wheres that new book on reality? Oh there it is.

MMMMMMMMMMM. Not much there either!

You know? If we needed more people..........I think I could write one!

NO! WHO Iam I kidding.

Everything will be fine.

I mean, Its the woman's body, if Iam not mistaken. I think she knows whats best.........Dont you think?

She is the only one that can make a baby, and yes,lol. part fool as well.

Now Remember blokes! Keep the snake in your pants! Your part of the problem as well if not the main cause its self.

Smile.



TTM

Dear R0bert,
You said you were looking for some Christian or Biblical input.

Two issues to consider:
1. Is the unborn child (“foetus”) a human being?
2. If so, is it ever acceptable to kill the unborn?

1) Genesis 25:21–22 states: ‘and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; …’ Note that Rebekah’s unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, are referred to as ‘children’ (the Hebrew word used, banim (plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning ‘sons’. The New Testament uses the usual Greek word for baby, brephos, to refer to the unborn John the Baptist, who ‘leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb’ because of the presence of the unborn Christ (Luke 1:41–44).

Unborn babies are not disposable clumps of tissue, despite the claims of many pro-abortionists. And they are always human right from fertilization, because all the DNA coding needed to build each individual’s physical features is there in the fertilized egg. It is absolutely false that the developing human goes through any fish or reptile stage, despite some blatantly fraudulent evolutionary claims.

The Bible, supported by science, teaches that the unborn baby is a human child (see also Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5).

2) Right throughout Scripture, murder — that is the intentional killing of innocent humans — is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9). Since abortion kills an innocent human being, it is nothing less than murder. So all the usual ‘hard cases’ pushed by pro-abortionists, e.g. ‘What if the woman was raped?’, ‘What if the child is deformed?’, are completely irrelevant. Besides, these are rare cases — the vast majority of abortions are not for these reasons.

We see in the New Testament that the main function of government is to protect the good and punish the guilty (Romans 13). Since abortion is a type of murder, it should be prohibited by governments.

J. Sarfati (abbreviated)

Further to some of the passages of Scripture you’ve mentioned in your post, you might find this article interesting:
http://tektonics.org/af/abortion01.html

Read what the Bible says about God's love for children:

According to God's law, children are not persons but the property of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7).

God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him, he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53).

God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all of the people in the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34; etc.).

If you do not obey God, he will punish your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; etc.).

God says, "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling..." (1 Samuel 15:3).

God says, "Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes..." (Isaiah 13:6).

God says, "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9).

Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6 & 7).

Does God really love children? The Bible says NO!

This comes from:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/bibleeducation/nielsentracts.shtml

Hi Dan,

Who peer-reviewed the Bible?

Jon,
I take it that it wasn't you. Didn't you burn your copy?

Ok so we have established that the bible is contradictory on this subject thus shouldn't be used as a guide on abortion.

"all the DNA coding needed to build each individual’s physical features is there in the fertilized egg" - as is in every cell in every body... your point?

"It is absolutely false that the developing human goes through any fish or reptile stage, despite some blatantly fraudulent evolutionary claims" Please reference these claims if you state they are false, and perhaps you could expand on how the data is flawed.

Perhaps we could also consider the next moral debate we will face, the ability to take a simple skin cell and turn it into a functional human is possible in the near future. Are these cells given the same protected status as a normally fertilized egg, seeing that it also has the same potential 'life'?

What an utter disgrace to subject a young couple and their families to the torment and substantial cost of a prosecution which arguably had no chance of success. And what hypocrisy to tell a jury not to make no judgement on a law based entirely on a particular moral slant.

What evidence is there of pain and suffering inflicted on the aborted foetus? The only pain and suffering inflicted on rational beings that I witnessed was by the police and prosecution in pursuing a law that should have no existence in an advanced civilisation.

I don't believe in god, I also think abortion is a bad thing. Bad for the child, after all it's killed. I also believe in the right of the mother/doctor to murder the unborn child. Yes, I think it's bad, but I also think they have the personal right to do it. Therefore people on both sides of the argument hate my guts.

But let's call it what it IS, a "killing". This has got nothing to do with a person's right to determine what's done with their own body, because we are not talking about a mother's body. We are talking about a human being INSIDE the mother's body. I believe the mother/doctor has the natural right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason they choose.

But don't call it "abortion". Call it what it is, a fetal "killing". The terminology around abortion is the biggest taboo of modern times.

As far as I'm concerned a foetus - namely an unborn child no matter at what stage of pregnancy, becomes an entity the moment it emerges LIVE from its mother.

Abortions - natural or induced and stillbirths do not count.

While references may be made to 'babes in the womb' and processes of gestation, the only laws refer to a penalty of a fine for causing a 'miscarriage' (Exodus 21 22 - 23)

Those of us familiar with the Bible know that there was a law for virtually everything in the Old Testament along with prescribed penalties. Quite frankly causing the death of your neighbours ox carried far greater penalty.

Look to the welfare of the children already born into this world. That will earn you more brownie points in the hereafter.

QUESTION TO ALL THOSE WHO FAVOUR ABORTION ON DEMAND:

divine_msn wrote:

>>As far as I'm concerned a foetus - namely an unborn child no matter at what stage of pregnancy, becomes an entity the moment it emerges LIVE from its mother.>>

Consider the case of a healthy foetus in a healthy mother where the overwhelming likelihood is that the pregnancy will end in the birth of a healthy child.

Consider a continuum of development from the moment of conception up to age 18 years.

Up to what point along that continuum do you think it should be solely the mother's choice whether or not the life continues?

I'm not asking what is. I'm asking what you think SHOULD be.

Justify your choice on SCIENTIFIC grounds.

Remember, we are not talking about the "hard" cases. We are considering only cases where there is no indication that there is anything wrong with the baby and there are no contra-indications for pregnancy for the mother.

Where should the cut-off point be where we say to a pregnant woman "No, you've PASSED THE POINT OF NO RETURN. Too late for an abortion. Now you have the baby"?

How about up to (say) one week before birth as a reasonable cut-off point?

Or how about up to birth as divine_msn suggests?

See also LOLFetus:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978592147

The way I see it Steven, is this:

A being is not a person. You have a person, when you have a
being, with a human brain. The first time you have the structures
in place, for what can be called a human brain, are around
week 24.

Steven, this definition is really at the heart of the issue. The concept of 'life starts at conception' is flawed, the egg and sperm are both alive, and the argument that the combination of genes at conception makes a potential new life must now take into consideration that ordinary skin cells can be programmed to form a potential human.

If I had to decide the time-point on scientific grounds I would (conservatively) choose 12 weeks post-conception. At the 12th week of gestation, nerve fibers appear. One could argue at this point (most likely some time after) the fetus could feel pain or become self conscious. I would support this argument by stating that I wouldn't consider an adult human with no brain/nerve function as having life. Even a deceased persons cells are still 'alive' for a period of time.

Stezza et al, the nerve fibres of the "periphery" of the fetus do not transmit nerve impulses to or from the brain until the spinal cord joins to the brain at about 6 months of gestation - the barrier up to that point is a structure called the sub-cortical plate.

This means the movements of the fetus up to this point are uncontrolled and meaningless.

Sorry but this is outright disgusting:

"“Children”, as writer Bob Ellis put it, “who would have loved you”."
This is total garbage and the most lowly attempt to place guilt on people, but would it even play out this way?

So, we have a mother, father or couple who, for whatever reason, want to have an abortion, be it a conception they did not want, or cannot afford, but ultimately cannot fit into their lives. And the anti-abortionists insist that said child is to be RAISED, by force, by people who simply can't or don't want to even have him/her, or left to wait for someone else to adopt (and hope that person is ok)?

People should have children for only ONE reason- because they WANTED to have children, and more importantly made a place in their LIVES for the child.

Anything less is simply wrong.

Stezza. said...

"The concept of 'life starts at conception' is flawed, the egg and sperm are both alive,"

Um.....Technically' The egg is just what it is. Just an egg. I mean, a small batch sits in the ovaries per 30 day cycle, and in fact, its the sperm that's the living moving new entity.

Basically, women are contaminated with already live micro-organisms. so yes! technically its men that make life and the reason why its so emotional, is the fact that they carry and bond with the growing new human. But once you have brain and connecting nerves systems, findings show that pain responses are recorded so before this takes place, its just a bunch of cells with not really much of any-thing going on, but the cell division processes.

If you wish to argue that the sperm is the soul/life form, I guess you could say once the cell separating starts, its murder for the word go.

See religious views puts the automatic guilt trip on all concerned.

I think it will be never settled. I believe that all life takes its chances and understanding evolution was mans first attempt to understand god. But if god gave man the abilities to change his works itself, who are we not to exercise his gifts that he gave "as the believers say" and its fair to say all men are guilty of this, by following what god gave us.

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.


Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Cont>>>>

We have divine_msn who thinks abortions are OK right up to the point of birth.

Yabby says his cut-off point is 24 weeks based on brain development.

Stezza puts it at shortly after 12 weeks based on nerve development.

McReal says that fetal movements prior to 6 months are "meaningless". I'm assuming that would be your cut-off McReal?

Time for me to declare.

I have little problem with abortion up to the end of the first trimester. It seems to me an abortion up to that point is a bit like putting down an unwanted puppy dog. It's distasteful and I wish you wouldn't but it does not have any great moral significance.

After the first trimester I become increasingly uncertain. McReal, I have read a report by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh that a foetus is capable of voluntary movements as early as 18 weeks. If true I would regard that as a reasonable MAXIMUM cut-off point.

Note that many of a newborn infant's movements are also involuntary so I'm not sure the capacity to control movement should in and of itself be a criterion.

Putting it all together and wishing to err on the side of conservatism I would regard the end of the first trimester as a cut-off point for all but the most extraordinary reasons.

Obviously we are discussing straightforward cases here where no complications are anticipated and the sex leading up to the conception was consensual.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

See! It all comes down to what sits with you on this issue.

If its murder! Then it hypocritical all the way down the line of whats human.

Rape!
Young too bare child!
Overpopulation!
Family planning!
300 hundred million starving people world wide!
Aids or detected mental or physical illness ETC!
And the list goes on.

Its because we are human and a lot can affect what and how we live on
this planet.

Its not an open and shut case.

Bad points to have abortions.

1. I don't feel like a Kidd this year.

2. I don't worry about protection love! I'll just dump it.

3. I made love to a person that's not my colour.

4. My Husband or boyfriend is forcing me too.

See! Doesn't matter what way one looks at it, someone will always find something wrong.

Now I've got a headache.

Most people will line up with one or more these above.

So? What sits with you?

TTM

Stevenlmeyers holds his views, and each all are comfortable with their minds on the matter.

Steve. I believe its still the womens final say on the matter. If she is fine with it,( again, Some-one will find what I believe wrong ) then I'll support her for the simple reason, Its not in me. and the two in involved in making it, have the reasons very humanly all talked out or what ever the case may be.

The greatest moral problem that only humans can have.

Kangaroo,s abort the joey in times of stress and or drought.ETC

And many more EG,S in nature, which we are a part of..again depending on what people sits with... and so on...

Its no wonder you hear people say! IN MY NEXT LIFE, I THINK I"LL BE A CAT OR DOG OR SOMETHING. now that I understand.lol.

See its hard at the top of the food chain. smile

TTM>

Human life begins at the instant of conception. Because a fetus is not fully formed doesn't make it any lesser a human life.

Denying that a fetus is human life is akin to living in the Dark Ages with all the superstitions and beliefs of that era.

It helps to ease the conscience of those involved in the abortion by "believing" a fetus is not a human being. What sane person is happy killing a child? Nobody. Therefore the no human being "belief" is a firmly entrenched belief system.

*It helps to ease the conscience of those involved in the abortion by "believing" a fetus is not a human being.*

You are all confused there, Rudy.

Its a being, it is human, but its not a person. Big difference.

No human brain means no person, its all quite simple really.
Dead person, no functioning brain, its a corpse.

Do you eat meat, TTM? Lambs have teeth and eyelids too -- and far more developed brains than 12-week foetuses. So do chickens and pigs and calves. Yet most of us have no problem with killing them off in their millions simply to add a bit of variety to our diet. Do you object to that? And if not, why not?

Scratch a 'pro-lifer' and you nearly always find irrational religious views sitting behind it all driving the passion. Killing a human is bad! But it's not a human! Oh well, then killing something with teeth and eyelids is bad! But what about the lamb chops you had for lunch? Oh, well, then killing something with a soul is bad! And there argument stops because we have left the real world and moved into fantasy-land.

But those with religiously-inspired views might want to consider this: God is the greatest abortionist of all.

"Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant."

http://www.estronaut.com/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

Call it even 25% and that adds up to nearly twenty million abortions a year, all carried out by God Almighty without prior consultation with the mother or anyone else. Twenty million 'babies' killed every year -- as you believe -- by your God, runner and the rest of you. Under those circumstances I would be very hesitant to condemn abortion by anyone else, wouldn't you?

Okay, before anyone else get in, chickens don't have teeth (but newborn chicks do). Otherwise I stand by my case.

Jon.J

You wont get any argument from me in what you said. You will see me at Macca's with the rest of the carnivores and at mum,s for that Sunday lamb roast. smile.

I look at things like most, if the circumstances fit with-in the human cause, and as you know, abortion has nearly always got a connecting high range of some sort of valid reasons concerning what effect the birth or the one,s have it will have, hence why we are at the top of the food chain and we just can change our environment at any time we like.

This is why humans a the biggest hypocrites. If you put some of these so-called morally high people in lets say, a have to survive situation...... I'll bet that 99.9% of them will eat the arse out of a low flying duck.

There was a plane crash, where all were trapped on a mountain in freezing conditions and most were religious in some way or form, and you what! after two weeks or so, see their dead fellow passengers, Yum.........anyone for a Hindu burger?

Thats right. all morals went right out the window when the had..had it be done.

We highly evolved humans keep the balance with the planet reasonably well, its just the greedy side of our complex self-righteousness that somehow conveniently gets in the way of our balanced and commonsensical individualistic self appointed circumstances when it benefits our situation when the need arises.

One day its NO-WAY and the next.........Well you get the picture.

OH trust me, I do the same. smile.

Thats the living my friend.

Enjoy it.

TT

As humans we are able to reason, giving us the ability to justify any stand we choose to take in life.

Do not JUDGE unless you are willing to walk a mile in my shoes.

Once upon a time I was against abortion - until I reached an age where I considered the consequences of having a child at that time of life. I COULD not have coped with another child, nor could I have coped having the child and giving it away.

My views then began to change.

A young women came to me and told me she was going to have an abortion. She asked me not to judge, but to be a support for her in her decision. She had the abortion - she KNEW it was the best decision for the child and herself.

I ask all those people who line up outside abortion clinics and shout abuse -

Would you be willing to be a LIFE TIME support to those young women finding themselves pregnant and unable to cope?

Would you be there when the young womens partner is telling her to SHUT THAT CRYING KID UP?

Would you be there when a new partner abuses the child because its in the way of his relationship with the mother?

Would you be there when the mother has no job and no income to provide properly for that child?

I recently went with my son and daughter-in-law to see the 19 week baby scan - absolutely amazing - that tiny bundle - its heart beating and body forming. The difference is, this child IS WANTED and WILL be cared for.

Do not judge unless you are willing to change the circumstances of the young women who face these huge decisions in their lives.

How many of you are willing to put your money where your mouth is?

think than move, I basically agree with you, however...

"Technically the egg is just what it is. Just an egg... its the sperm that's the living moving new entity..women are contaminated with already live micro-organisms. so yes! technically its men that make life and the reason why its so emotional"

I'd suggest that you do a bit of research before making claims such as this. The haploid female reproductive cell (ova) is just as much a living thing as the male variety (sperm). In fact the ova actually contributes more to the fetus in the form of mitochondrial DNA and well as intracellular machinery (ribosomes etc.). The ova is as much part of the female as the sperm is to male. Ova are definitely not contaminating micro-organisms and saying that it is men that make life is plain wrong. I'm happy to discuss any 'technicalities' further if required.

Dan I've read the pieces you suggested and looked at the referenced verses and nothing in there in my view makes a credible case for a fetus being regarded as a human being. I think I'd previously read the piece at http://tektonics.org/af/abortion01.html (or very similar) and the verses in Psalms and Jeremiah don't make the case for a fetus being a human to any greater degree than a potential pre-conception possibility being a human.

Eg In Psalm Psalm 139:15-16 we see reference to "When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." which given the rate's of natural miscarriages and infant mortality throughout human history hardly makes a compelling case against abortion.

If the unformed person being women together in the depths of the earth (seemingly before the body is put together in the mothers womb) is a person then it makes for a whole other debate.

None of the referenced link touched on what appears to be induced abortions where the fetus is considered to be the outcome of infidelity.

The original piece did not touch on the number of references to the deliberate cutting open of pregnant woman in conquered towns but did refer to another piece which I read some of but not all at http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html. Some interesting points about suicide vs lingering and painful deaths although the author denies a relevance to the euthanasia debate.

The discussion regarding the accidental nature of a miscarriage caused by men fighting and striking a pregnant women seems to assume that striking the fetus is accidental but striking a women is not which does not seem to fit well with the way the passage read's - it's a convenient take on the verse but not a credible one.

R0bert

searching,
There are times when I believe an abortion is between a woman and her god, or conscience, and I also believe that if an abortion is done it should be done safely for the mother - backyard abortions should never be considered.

You ask if anyone is willing to support the mother keeping a baby, or if anyone is prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

I believe there are many. When I was far to young to be a mother, and had german measles in or around the first trimester, I had a lot of pressure to abort - legally and safely in a govt hospital. Because of faith, ignorance, or stupidity, I resisted. I started as a single mother, with ad hoc family support.

My daughter is now in her thirties, married, and has worked fulltime since leaving High school. Sure she has a few health problems like a heart murmur, a cataract and slight deafness, but she is a wonderful person. I know how lucky I was, but once I made the decision to continue with the pregnancy I was surprised how supportive the drs were.

In my life I have definiteley demonstrated that I 'put my money where my mouth is' and I do not support abortion.

It is interesting to note that many of the comments here are by men. There is no mention that some blokes say that an abortion is cheaper than maintainance!

I suspect that many of these pregnant women aren't terribly happy about the idea of an abortion, but aren't in a position to raise a child either. Perhaps if we changed adoption laws to allow birth parents to see the child on a regular basis, many would be happy to consider adoption. This might be an option that would please both sides of this polarised debate.

I supported my son and his sort-of-partner when they recieved an unexpected addition to their lives. She thought about abortion, as a professional she was concerned about her career - while he stated his distates for abortion. She decided to have the baby, probably in an attempt to hang on to my son, but until the end of the pregnancy she kept threatening to abort.

3 months after the baby was born the parents broke up. My son took on 50-50 care while maintaining a fulltime job on the mines. Of course it was hard, the child's mother was not maternal - thankfully she was supported by her mother. My son was supported by his sisters and myself and his father. Now the child is a happy and loved 5 year old and my son's life is much easier even though his sisters still help with childcare. The mother has become closer to her child.

Just because it is hard does not mean it cannot be done.

I am disappointed that other alternatives are not presented or supported when people are faced with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps open adption, sponsored adoptions, better parental support should be discussed and supported as alternatives to abortion.

stevenlmeyer - I take the Biblical stance that "Life" begins at birth. Once a child is born alive than not only parents but society has responsibility for its welfare.
Your attempt to suggest that somehow my comments raise the question at what if any point between birth and 18yrs the mother may terminate a childs life is ridiculous.

As for "abortion up to full term" - if that were to be 'demanded' in this country for a healthy pregnancy, I doubt any Dr would be willing to perform. In any case the whole point of termination is lost if not performed before about 24 weeks unless severe defects are detected.

God (or Nature depending on your viewpoint) is one very busy abortionist given the number of foetuses which die and are expelled 'naturally' - especially in the first trimester of pregnancy. He also reaps more than a few children - which most of us find truly distressing - but that's the way it's always been and will be.

I don't "support" abortion on demand, I find the idea of terminating a potentially - given that there may still be a 10 - 20% chance of spontaneous abortion, healthy pregnancy rather sad. However since it is not my body nor am I going to be taking on the task of raising a child for the next 16 - 20 years my conviction is to let those in that position make their own choice.

Ditto the mother/parents of a foetus which is diagnosed with serious defects. While I believe in these cases an induced abortion is the wisest decision for many reasons - not least being quality of life of the unfortunate individual born with severe disabilities and the cost in human and financial terms of their care, it is not my choice!

So all you "Foetus Warriors" - put your energies into making this a better world for the children already born. God knows there are too many of them now who don't have much of a life without adding more unwanted babies to the mix.

Aka, your family has been blessed to have such a careing person as yourself. I am sure there are plenty of families who take up the rope when needed in many different family crises.

The people I was predominately referring to are the "do gooders" who stand outside abortion clinics calling young women "murderers" etc. They are willing to accuse and judge - I was asking if those who do this, would also help the young women, if they changed their minds.

I do not wish to be judged by outsiders for the choices I make in life.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" as they say.

Someone here wrote, "I also believe that if an abortion is done it should be done safely for the mother".

I agree. It's a real pity though that it's not particularly safe for the fetus, as the abortion mortality rate in this regard is 100%.

A scientific fact, life begins at conception. People who "believe" it doesn't are following a belief system.

*life begins at conception*

Life continues at conception. The eggs and sperms that you
normally flush down the toilet, are very much alive at
the time. You land up killing the lot.

Rudy,
just because I believe that if a woman has an abortion it should be done safely does not mean that I support freely available abortion.

I do not.

I have 4 children and I firmly believe that life begins at conception, and I and my family has been prepared to follow through with this.

I feel sorry for women who feel they have no other choice as there should be alternatives available. Even though there are times when an abortion is between a woman and her god or conscience and that of the dr.

searching, I don't support the hassling of people going into these clinics but I do think that given the opportunity there would be many people who would be prepared to take on children who would have been aborted.

My great sorrow is that there is no process to provide open adoption (perhaps there could be sponsorship for ante-natal and post-natal care of the birth mother) or even linking of vulnerable mothers with supportive honorary aunts.

Sadly abortion is easy and clinics make big dollars, fathers don't have to pay maintenance but the woman is left to deal with any negative impact.

I wonder how liberating abortion really is for women.

Dear Shadow Minister,
This is a clear cut case of someone breaking the law.
You appear to be in favor of lawlessness, which is why the world is in the mess it is in. If you obey the law you are not subject to the law but in a lawless society anarchy rules.
Richie 10

Someone wrote "life 'continues' at conception", in response to the scientific fact that at conception a human being is formed. While the ingredients for human life exist and are "living", sperm and egg, they have not formed a specific human life until conception happens. That's a medical fact. A fetus at one second is no less a human being than a fetus at 10 days. A fetus at 10 days is no less a human being than a fetus at 2 months. A fetus at 2 months is no less a human being than a fetus at 5 months. A fetus at 5 months is no less a human being than a fetus at 9 months. Unless you're a fascist style ideologue who thinks certain fully formed, perfect human beings have a greater human worth and a greater right to exist than other less formed,imperfect human beings, then there's no reason to argue that a developing fetus has less human worth than a developed fetus.

Having a 'belief' system that a fetus is not really a human being is just that, a 'BELIEF' system. Why do the pro abortionists have this ancient and archaic belief system and all encompassing taboo over the terminology used? The taboo means that abortion is never called what it really is, fetal killing. These rabid pro abortionists are just as stuck in the middle ages as many of the rabid anti abortionists.

Rudy, conception results in a zygote, which develops in 4 days to a blastocyst (of about 70-100 cells) - that blastocyst contains an embryoblast which, in turn, develops into an embryo (the outer part develops into the placenta).

Nine weeks after conception, the embryo becomes a fetus.

So, there is no fetus at day 1.

While life is to be cherished, especially human life desired by loving parents-to-be, life need not be be cherished absolutely or as vehemently as stated by some. Particularly when there is a social and other human cost to life not cherished or looked after in an increasingly over-populated world. Peace.

Richie 10, I am trying to find Shadow Minister's endorsement for "lawlessness" to which you have tried to pin on him but no avail- all I could find was his insistence that people not force their belief onto others; If you are referring to those who go to a place where abortions are legal, they are not committing any crime at all.
Also, I would presume that were abortion to be legalized you would throw your full support towards abortion as a basic human right?

Rudy
Actually Rudy a fetus of one second is substantially different than a human at birth and beyond- and that excludes lacking consciousness, nervous system, or any single autonomous function or appendage, but also on a cellular level as not one of the cells within a second-old 'baby' can be found within a post-birth human at all- as they are all construction cells, not organ cells which they develop into (or feed) later.

Another question, and I know I will not get a single answer from anyone, what if the fetus were a fetus in fetu (conjoined fetus twin). They do exist, and they are often surgically removed from their siblings (and thus killed because they are separated from their life source). They are as much a living, breathing human as a fetus is, in fact, they are often even closer to a grown human.
Should the sibling they are living off be allowed to kill them or must they carry them around for their whole lives?

Stezza, and yes, your quite right. Thanks. Now look at carl has to say here.......Very interesting.

In 1990, the late American astronomer, Carl Sagan, made a philosophical defense of abortion in an article he wrote with his third wife, Ann Druyan, for Parade magazine. One of their key arguments hinges on the belief that there is no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a sperm or egg cell. In their own words:

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg--despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby--why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

Contin>>>>>

And Carl goes on to say>>>

Sagan goes on to suggest that if abortion is murder, then masturbation must be "mass murder". The main problem with this conclusion is that it ignores the fundamental difference between a sperm and an egg prior to fertilization, and the zygote which results through fertilization. The difference is genetic. Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth.

So in fact, when male masturbates, technically its mass murder. Now I don't feel so good. smile.

But there you go! its in black and white.

TTM

Here is both sides of the fence, and IMO its still the woman choice.

And no charges on this issue ever! and This makes a lot of sence.

While life is to be cherished, especially human life desired by loving parents-to-be, life need not be be cherished absolutely or as vehemently as stated by some. Particularly when there is a social and other human cost to life not cherished or looked after in an increasingly over-populated world. Peace.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 18 October 2010 1:16:24 PM

Quality life should be more important as in all after the child lets say ends up in poverty or its all screwed up my being adopted................ and my favorite........ look at the 300 million starving around the world.

You tell me if they had a choice?

What do think they would say to you goody too shoes...HEY.....yeah! they would be tell you lot too........well you get the picture.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45712&rct=j&sa=X&ei=jsS7TNCwAY_EvQPS2M3gDQ&ved=0CDsQpwIwAw&q=abortion+laws+in+australia&usg=AFQjCNGNluOS2Ml9DrwssI862viV9Z32Rg&cad=rja

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAbortion_in_Australia&rct=j&q=abortion%20laws%20in%20australia&ei=jsS7TNCwAY_EvQPS2M3gDQ&usg=AFQjCNE6uHiNbhF6cXE2c3cK-zPvKbesig&cad=rja

The greens win the moral commonsense every time.

Love the way we think.

And that's right all the time.

Smile

TTM>

think than move, a defense of sperm has been mounted on OLO in other threads. Apparently god gets all bothered when they are deliberately wasted.

I did some very rough maths on that some years ago, the figures escape me but no matter how prolific a father someone is the proportion of waste is overwelming. Even for someone with 100 children 100 used sperm out of hundreds of millions over a lifetime does not make a good stewardship of sperm. Very wastefull indeed.

I also found it rather odd that a god's who's own son was supposedly celebate, who's longest running church is headed by suposedly celebate men should be concerned about sperm being wasted.

Almost as odd as the idea that a god who designed human reproduction so that a large number of conceptions don't make it through to birth regardless of the choices of the mother should be really upset by something like abortion.

R0bert

Indeed Think than Move, Robert also beat me in saying that even in a successful fertilization a mass murder (or even suicide) occurs every time.

Dig into any anti-Euthanasia motion and you will most often find some social conservative whose judgment stems out of distaste for promiscuity and eagerness to punish it whenever possible.

Also, I'm going to do an experiment- watch any following anti users- there is a high chance they will try to make 'secularized' excuse as to single out a fertilized egg (eg try to find a similar analogy to a 'soul'), but they will ever so carefully avoid the Fetus in Fetu analogy- and likely make excuses as to why they will not attempt to weigh it up.

By the way I'm not Stezza- that's another user.

A zygote is simply the initial cell formed after conception. I've been using the tern "fetus" for the sake of simplicity to describe every stage of development till birth. It's pointless using terms like blastocyst, embryoblast, zygote etc etc (there's many of these terms to describe many stages of development) on a layman's forum. The layman's term for it all is "fetus".

My points remains 100% intact:
1)The life of an "individual" person begins at conception, Not before, Not after.
2)Using various types of terminology doesn't change that fact
3)The fact that the individual at conception is not more fully formed than he/she is does not make him/her any lesser an individual than a fetus that's been 9 months in the womb
4)There's an almighty, pervasive TABOO against calling abortion what it really is, the killing of an individual life. It's a killing, and calling it an "abortion" is a nice way to get around the unpleasant facts regarding the act.
5)The belief that an individual life does not begin at conception is just that, a BELIEF. Just like a religious belief.

I support abortion, or whatever one wishes to call it. But let's be honest about it. We are killing an individual, existing human being. The pro abortionists need to come out of the Dark Age mentality they're in and wake up to reality and stop pretending that abortion doesn't kill an individual.

Rudy, I disagree abortion is killing an individual, even late term abortions for fetuses that would not survive outside the womb. Sure it is killing live tissue, but it is not a distinct entity capable of life as an individual on its own.

Appropriate-term Abortion is preferable to bringing an individual child into the world that is not properly wanted.

*My points remains 100% intact:
1)The life of an "individual" person begins at conception, Not before, Not after.*

Your point does not remain intact, it is flawed.

The life of a "potential" person begins at conception.
No human brain - no person.

The zygote is a human organism, not a person.

As I have correctly and accurately said, an individual life "begins" at conception. That's a medical fact. Because it is not fully formed, does NOT mean an individual life has not "begun".

You have a belief, and you're entitled to your belief. And that's what it is, a "belief". Just like religious people are entitled to their belief.

Read what I previously wrote about the great TABOO of our time.

Perhaps a fetus can be said to begin to be an individual when the love and desire of a its parents for it (to go full term) matches its normal biological development.

Ah Rudy, but you are chopping and changing your wording, then
still claiming to be correct on all, which is clearly wrong.

Forget the taboos, forget the decorations, either your claims
are valid or they are not. I keep pointing out where
your claims are flawed, as a matter of record.

You could of course just admit, that you got it wrong and
stand corrected

Rudy is trying to get that point acknowledged so that the emotional loading which goes with the term murder can be incorrectly applied to a clump of cells which may be alive but clearly is not a functional human being as most of us understand the term.

R0bert

McReal,
By your own words, 18 month old babies as well as many of the more feeble and frail in our society are not ‘capable of life as an individual on its own.’

It’s this kind of ‘slippery slope’ morality that many find quite disconcerting, even scary.

Robert Hi.

"I also found it rather odd that a god's who's own son was supposedly celebate, who's longest running church is headed by suposedly celebate men should be concerned about sperm being wasted."

It makes you wonder why they stick their heads in many things.

Also, Carl was wrong about No female human being able to fertilize its self. I beg the differ, the virgin Mary seems to have pulled that one off with a little magicjuchjubvfec I mean miracle. She may have been the first transitional human female ever recorded.

Huzzy. "By the way I'm not Stezza- that's another user." How did you ever think that I would mistake you for her?

"Dig into any anti-Euthanasia motion and you will most often find some social conservative whose judgment stems out of distaste for promiscuity and eagerness to punish it whenever possible."

What good for the goose, must be good for the gander. I for one, do not want to go back to dark-ages.

Time changes, and what was good one day, the same thing will get altered by someone some where and because where human, the next new thing is just round the corner and it never stops.

50 years from now! What you and I think is right, by when, some new religion or change in once that we believed in, we too will be shocked at a change from a generation we haven't even meet.

And its coming down through the sands of time as we speak, our human history is full of what Iam talking about, and man nor women or anything can stop it.

Thats the human condition.

Here one day and gone the next.

This is all our destiny.

One time, everyone thought the earth was flat, then everyone knew that the earth was the centre of the universe, and just five minuets ago, a new law had been won by the only people that have been fighting for such a long time.

Times change my friends, and as we can clearly see, some change have taken too long.



All the best

TT

Dan S de Merengue, in no way do I want my specific views about an early term fetus to be extrapolated to post-partum situations. To do so is invoking slippery slope fallacy, and the composition fallacy.

(Separately, I think the voluntary euthanasia debate should be limited to debate about decisions by persons (or their powers of attorney or guardians) when they will be in the terminal stages of a terminal disease, not "the more feeble and frail in our society" or 18 month babies).

McReal,
You talk about early term fetuses, whereas before you were talking about late term fetuses. I’m only taking you at your word and following through to a logical conclusion.

Have a listen to yourself. You speak about children in this world who are ‘not properly wanted.’

Once the little ones are in the womb they are difficult to see and touch, but after a few weeks we can see and hear them with ultrasound. They have already come ‘into this world’.

I guess we'll just have to put Yabby and Robert into the "believers" basket. They "believe" a fetus, or "zygote" if ya wanna be adamant about the medical terminology, is NOT the beginning of an individual's life. That's their belief system. I put them in the same basket as the climate change deniers.

Of course the fact is an individual's life begins with the formation of that initial cell at conception. That's a simple medical and scientific fact. But the deniers are welcome to their belief systems.

The pro and anti abortion people are usually firmly stuck in the middle ages. The anti abortionists use their religious "beliefs" to form their views. And the pro abortionists use their own "beliefs" about when an individual's life begins in order to adopt the moral high ground by saying "well we're not "really" killing anything, after all it's not human, it's just a lump of yukky cells".

Any woman has the right to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. But let's ditch the terminology TABOO and stop trying to pretend that we're destroying a thing that's NOT in it's initial stages of fertilised human life. Pro abortionists should drop their stupid and obviously inaccurate "belief" systems regarding abortion.

*They "believe" a fetus, or "zygote" if ya wanna be adamant about the medical terminology, is NOT the beginning of an individual's life.*

Rudy, you are free of course, either through stupidity or dishonesty,
to create all the strawman arguments that you wish. I shall stick
to what I actually claimed.

If you want to become emotional about a human organism, as distinct
from a person, that is your right too.

Darwin was correct on all this. Individuals of any species can
be created in far greater numbers, then can ever survive. The
limits are not in creating new organisms, but in the resources to
provide for them.

In our species, a woman has around 400 chances to have another
cute baby. Fact is, she cannot keep and provide for them all.

So what are our religious zealots up to? With the Catholic church
right in the forefront, they try to make women feel guilty about
abortion, with their placard waving, emotive language etc. Next
they claim that women are traumatised by guilt. Its a bit
like they do with religion. Brainwash the kiddies that their
story is true, make them feel guilty, then sell them a ticket to
heaven, which only they can seemingly provide.

Its extremely clever marketing, but it does keep the Vatican
coffers overflowing, as they live it up in Rome.

The posts attacking Dr Van Gend do not address the issue of abortion. Rather than attack him for enunciating his assessment of the situation, think about what he is saying and give your reasons for supporting abortion - if it is possible to justify the deliberate killing of another human being.

I would be interested to know whether those in favour of abortion would support the reintroduction of the death penalty. If not, you are being inconsistent and illogical. Why should it be acceptable to kill someone based on age? After all that is what abortion is - the killing of the very young. And, no, it is not just a clump of cells or part of the women's body it is an entirely separate person with its own consciousness.

What a sad country Australia has become. We have moved from defending the young, infirm and defenceless to becoming a society which wants to "disencumber" itself of these "burdens". All because of convenience.

Finally, a man has just as much right to express an opinion on abortion. It is not just a women's issue. It is a human issue. It affects everyone.

Yabby, I see you're now reduced to name calling. That's an admission you've lost the debate.

You're quite welcome to your "belief" systems regarding human life. I prefer to follow science and medical fact.

Michael B

To my mind, the central issue in the argument about abortion is whether a foetus is a fully human person with the rights and protections that personhood entails. You, and the author, and posters such as Rudy, simply beg this question, because you assume your conclusion – that a foetus is fully human - in your argument. But this is precisely the point on which other posters disagree. Stezza and McReal, for example, argue that personhood emerges with the development of self-consciousness and the capacity to feel pain.

So you ask, rhetorically, whether it is possible to justify the deliberate killing of another human being. I’d reply to this that while a foetus is both alive and human, it is not a fully developed human person. It certainly does not have its “own consciousness” until it has developed for several months.

So in answer to your question – no, I do not support the death penalty, because the killing of a fully self-aware person who can feel love and pain and fear, and knows what the loss of a potential future means, is indeed the deliberate killing of another human being. But in certain limited circumstances I would support assisted suicide or even euthanasia for someone who through illness, age, or accident has an irredeemably unbearable existence, or who is permanently unable to be any of those things than make us human persons.

Rhian 
I would say this has been a pretty good discussion so far. Though I would agree with Rudy that name calling ('stupid', 'dishonest') doesn't add to it.
 
I believe those taking side with Rudy have given their reasoning. Maybe you just haven't read the whole thread.

The belief that human life begins at conception is incompatible with other moral positions that are uncontroversial in our society, although it is more likely that people compartmentalise or just follow trusted religious leaders, rather than deliberately being hypocritical.

The Bible has nothing to say about abortion. The majority position among early Christians was that ensoulment (personhood) did not occur until the fetus was formed enough to have human faculties. They still believed that early abortion was wrong, but not for reasons that would make sense to an outsider. We know this from the writings of Church Fathers such as St. Augustine and from early manuals for priests, which recommended much more severe penances for late abortions.

Problems with the moment of conception position include the fact that there is no one to one correspondence between surviving embryos and people until Day 14. Embryos can split to form identical twins, and two embryos, formed from different sperm and egg cells, and sometimes of different sexes, can fuse together and cooperate to form a single individual. There is also King Hazzard's fetus in fetu example, which the anti-abortion people here are evading.

The vast majority of zygotes never end up as live babies, even without any deliberate interference. Secular people and early Christians could shrug their shoulders over how Nature works, but Rudy believes that the embryos are people. If they really are all people, why do we feel no obligation to save them, but only to refrain from killing them? If something were killing half of all puppies or kittens, there would be a huge research program to do something about it. Why do anti-abortion people evade addressing the ethics problem of having to choose between saving 5 four year olds and 500 "snowflake babies"?

Given the right conditions, an embryo may be able to grow into a thinking, feeling human being, but so could countless millions of Rudy's cells, given that cloning works in many other mammals. Scientists have even cloned mice from induced pluripotent stem cells made from reprogrammed adult skin cells, with no egg cell required.

(Cont'd)

Cont'd

In other areas of life, the view that no mind = no person is uncontroversial. Very few people object to the concept of brain death, allowing hospitals to shut down life support systems and even take organs to save other lives, with the donor family's permission (no functioning brain = no person).

A murder would not be regarded as less serious because the victim's DNA lives on in a surviving identical twin. ET or Commander Data would almost certainly be granted full human rights if they actually existed. (It is mind that determines personhood, not DNA.)

Late abortion is more controversial, even among secular people, but the moment of conception position is a help to those who have concerns about demographic competition or keeping women in their place and would like to impose their beliefs on others. It is significant here that pro-life people picket abortion clinics, but not hospitals that give the morning after pill to rape victims or factories that make IUDs, even though one IUD can destroy several "innocent human lives" a year. The focus is definitely on the guilt of the woman and not the life of the embryo or fetus.

Rudy,

Considering that you spend much of your time on this forum calling people names, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The debate on right to an abortion centres around whether society has the right to determine what a woman does with her body. If she chooses not to be an incubator for a human being that will then be dependent on her for decades, no one can force her. The issue of whether the clump of cells is human is therefore secondary, and really only raised by the anti abortion lobby.

These scientific and medical "facts" you bandy around are merely your opinion. The foetus is a genetically complete clump of cells, but then so is a finger. As and when the foetus is sufficiently developed to be considered human is still a point of debate.

Dan

I accept that some anti-abortion posters have engaged with this issue, but the author and Michael B did not, and Rudy appears to me to simply repeat ever more stridently his assertion that a foetus is a fully human person from conception.

Rudy’s distaste for name calling didn’t deter him from engaging in it pretty vigorously himself. He used the term “stupid” before Yabby, and gave us the abusive but incoherent argument “Unless you're a fascist style ideologue who thinks certain fully formed, perfect human beings have a greater human worth and a greater right to exist than other less formed, imperfect human beings, then there's no reason to argue that a developing fetus has less human worth than a developed fetus.” Not what I call “pretty good discussion”

There are a few pots calling kettles black here.

*And, no, it is not just a clump of cells or part of the women's body it is an entirely separate person with its own consciousness.*

Not so Michael B. A cell is not a person, no matter how you and Rudy try
to distort the language. Show me a dictionary which claims that
it is.

No human brain = no person. The distinctive part of the human
brain, compared to other species, is a larger neocortex. That
is in place and able to function at around week 24.

Yes its a human organism, no its not a person.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D1DSAf1BITAQ&rct=j&sa=X&ei=CzO9TMPZBIa3cNaUwfsN&ved=0CCYQuAIwAw&q=+Overpopluation+and+abortion+youtube&usg=AFQjCNFCx0WEhljKslbrKYmypWMbNrL2Mw&cad=rja

See This is one of the very good reasons for abortion, and yes! Religion strikes again.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DqUGkiDoz7-E&rct=j&sa=X&ei=CzO9TMPZBIa3cNaUwfsN&ved=0CCMQuAIwAg&q=+Overpopluation+and+abortion+youtube&usg=AFQjCNGimOvJ_3hLbZkW_WrCogsjPwbCCw&cad=rja

Listen you silly people! Your world will jam up! The child you love, will have nothing! 21 century religion logic, does not work in this day and age.

And I love this bloke. These words are smart. Listen.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D-77W-1umZd0&rct=j&sa=X&ei=rzW9TO2UGcKdcbfa8NkN&ved=0CEcQuAIwAw&q=Overpopulation+and+abortion+youtube&usg=AFQjCNHKvyac47SE9-7idq_F65Nf7ys5iQ&cad=rja

You religious people are the worst thing this planet will ever see, and guess what! Your history is full of the most worst atrocities humanity has ever seen and their making a other one.

Follow you? lol.... Dont make us laugh.

Let Richy tell how is really is, shall we.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DeYph7aZf4Nw&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Lzm9TK6uB8G3cMjnqcEN&ved=0CEsQuAIwBDgK&q=science+++and+abortion+youtube&usg=AFQjCNGgY4UhYXpeVqnE3Dy67oSf-easnQ&cad=rja

Please! Its the woman's choice. and you religion! keep your ridiculous nonsecular no brained deluded non-thinking, away for the real world.

In this next 100 hundred years that's coming, don't say you were not warned.

TTM

People! let me tell you whats their little trap, shall I!

Religion makes misery so they can fix it!

Dont believe me? what better way of keeping your self in a job.

Its the perfect trap/con!

And you cant see it?

Good luck.

Coz your going to need it.

Facts are Facts! and nothing else will do.

All the best.

TTM

Shadow Minister, you don't seem to realise my debate is about the terminology TABOO. I support abortion. A woman has the right to abort for any reason she chooses. An abortion is the killing of a fetus. A separate, individual life is formed at CONCEPTION; and your analogy of a finger and a fetus or zygote is utterly ridiculous; a 'finger' doesn't grow into a fully formed person DUH!. A zygote DOES, DUH!

It's a scientific and medical fact that an individual human life begins at conception. If anyone disagrees with that, then what they have is a "belief" system. Just like the religious nutters "believe" their god is against abortion.

Let's get rid of the stupid terminology of "abortion". Call it what it really is , a "fetus killing". People, STOP trying to pretend that a fetus is not human. Step into the 21st century. Abortion is a woman's right. By NOT calling it what it really is, we're setting back the abortion cause hundreds of years, right back to the Dark Age.

Rudy. Do me a favour! Can you tell the world that Iam not very educated.

I thank people like you.

And thank you once again.

TTM.

SMILE.

Let the programing continue.

All the best.

Rudy, is IVF 'fetus killing'?

If we say that individual human life begins at conception, then do we confer individual human rights to that individual life immediately post-conception?

If not, then how do we describe the difference between the stages at which we do or do not allow the mother to kill the immature human?

*People, STOP trying to pretend that a fetus is not human.*

Rudy, you continue to create your own strawman arguments, then
land up arguing with yourself.

I have seen no poster claim that a fetus or a zygote does not
contain human dna. So indeed a zygote is a human organism.

But it is not a person!

Abortion is an accurate and descriptive term about what happens.
Killing is a far more general term and could imply lots of
things. The very idea of language is to use the most appropriate
term. So that is what people use. Just ask your English teacher
at school, he/she will explain it to you.

Rhian,
By definition, one cannot say that the author is not engaging the issue. The author sets the issue, and others post comments in response to what he has written.

You say this is not what you call a pretty good discussion, but you are willing to take part yourself. So it can't be too bad. I think that it's been pretty good for an open forum on a controversial topic. There has been a few loose canons firing, but not too many; most people are trying to be constructive. (I notice Rudy has been censured for abuse a couple of times recently on a concurrent thread.)

The author gave his opinion from the angle of what he thinks is important. You say that he doesn't adequately establish the status or otherwise of the fetus. I would suspect he would claim much of that is obvious to all. 

However, he is not totally silent even here. He refers to the fetus' beating heart. He also speaks of what would happen in normal circumstances if nature was allowed to proceed unhindered (if the baby was left alive): namely, a healthy growing child. 

Here a distinction can be made between those born brain dead and would not survive without life support, and the one whose brain is about to about to grow and develop normally given that we allow nature to proceed without interference.     

So what are our religious zealots up to? With the Catholic church
right in the forefront, they try to make women feel guilty about
abortion, with their placard waving, emotive language etc. Next
they claim that women are traumatised by guilt. Its a bit
like they do with religion. Brainwash the kiddies that their
story is true, make them feel guilty, then sell them a ticket to
heaven, which only they can seemingly provide.

Its extremely clever marketing, but it does keep the Vatican
coffers overflowing, as they live it up in Rome.

Not all 'Religious Zealots' or 'Catholic Church' participants are 'anti-abortion' and/or 'try to make women feel guilty about abortion, with their placards waving using emotive language' Yabby.

Q: Guess who is exhibiting 'emotive behaviour' on this thread, using, surprise surprise, yet again, the Catholic Church [generalising] and 'religious zealots' [generalising] to emotionally respond to another's post? The 'very' point you have accused Rudy of, yet hypocritically exhibited yourself Yabby.

I guess the questions you should ask yourself are the following: why am I overly emotional regarding 'religious zealots' and the Catholic Church, re-introducing them into many threads you post, along with, (b) why do I generalise about both religious people and Catholic Church people?

A question from myself to yourself: why not target another Church such as the Anglican or Baptist Churches? Why always the Catholic Church Yabby?

Totally brainwashed by the media?

Take a look around, there are many more 'religions and churches'expanding within Australia that will, in time, make the Catholic Church goers' look like Saints!

Heal your brainwashed mind and heart.

In relation to abortion directly: there are Catholics [whom I know personally] that are not 'anti-abortionists' nor are they 'religious zealots' blindly following every commandment in the Bible. Therefore, one cannot generalise about the 'Catholic Church' and all of its participants attending Mass and following the basic Commandments.

Many catholic church goers have experienced an abortion or had a member of their family endure an abortion for personal reasons.

Are you in touch with the real world? Or do you just believe all of the media hype and literature blogs on the net? Do you know many catholics personally Yabby?

No religion is 'right', no religious zealot is 'right', in their beliefs, nor is a person who blindly generalises about people with their own faiths or faith systems.

Every person, regardless of a religious belief or not, should not be placed into one basket and have aspersions and generalisations caste upon them.

Dan

I accuse the author of circular reasoning, which is a perfectly legitimate criticism of anyone’s argument, whether they’re initiating the discussion or not.

Indeed, when you say that the author “would claim much of [his opinion of the status of the foetus] … is obvious to all” you’re pretty much making the same point. It is precisely this assumption of what is “obvious to all” which I say is NOT obvious to all, and is why his argument is circular. He assumes away the main point of contention.

My comments on argument being not a “pretty good discussion” were quoting your own words back at you and addressed specifically at Rudy’s contribution, in particular his contention that advocates of choice are “fascist style ideologues”. This is not what I hold to be “pretty good discussion.” I agree that the rest of the forum has not been too bad for the subject matter.

I’m intrigued by your argument about brain death. This puts you in a somewhat different space from others who have argued here that anything that is alive and genetically human has the rights and status of a person. You seem to be arguing here not from what something is, but what it has the potential to be. Interesting, but again here do you draw the line – especially in these days of cloning when many types of cells are potentially the basis for new life.

Stezza,
Earlier (16/10), were you supporting the contention that the fetus does in fact go through a fish stage and reptile stage before becoming totally human? If so, how would you support that idea?

Rudy certainly uses emotive language (he's not Robinson Crusoe here), but his srgument was not incoherent. He seemed to be saying that all humans are of similar worth, whose value shouldn't be assessed on their relative stage of development.

The life of the unique individual begins at conception. You started life as a one cell organism. The day previous to this there was no one like you with your characteristics. 

We could discuss potentiality or we could discuss reality. The reality is that when the fetus is terminated, then that life is ended. So much is obvious. 

One day when cloning is a reality, or when humans reproduce asexually as a matter of course, then we could discuss that.

As to whether this is a 'good discussion', I think that OLO is perhaps one of the few places where one could have any type of meaningful discussion approacing this one. Most of the mainstream media is quite biased on this issue. For example, would The Age or SMH ever in a month of Sundays carry an article similar to this one on their opinion pages?    

*Not all 'Religious Zealots' or 'Catholic Church' participants are 'anti-abortion' and/or 'try to make women feel guilty about abortion, with their placards waving using emotive language' Yabby.*

Unique, you are quite correct. I never claimed that they were.
Many Catholics take the pill, have abortions etc. You are confusing
some followers of the church with the official position of the
Vatican, which is where the problem occurs. The Vatican does in fact
speak for the church, like it or lump it. It is not a democracy.

I have every right to criticise the church, for a number of reasons.
The Vatican is highly political and involves itself in politics
on a global basis. As any political player, they are therefore
open to criticism. Claiming to speak on behalf of the Almighty,
does not give them any kind of immunity in the political debate.

Secondly I was sadly born a Catholic and those nuns tried their
fear and brainwashing tactics on me too, when I was an innocent
5 year old. Grown adults, should be more responsible.

No organisation on the planet, has done more to stop women around
the world, especially in the third world, from having access to
family planning. From the snip, to the pill to the condom, its
all evil in their eyes. Their lobbying and influence on this one,
go right up to their seat and office at the UN.

No organisation on the planet, is more actively involved in lobbying
against abortion, then the Vatican and its lobbyists. Globally.

Perhaps its just a coincidance that they often sing their "Ave Marias"
as they wave their placards down at the abortion clinics.

A major spear head of the anti choice campaign has been trying to define the terminology of the debate, having lost the debate on whether a woman has the right to decide her own fate.

The agenda is to try and define the foetus as a human with equal rights to the mother, and on that basis to put road blocks in place to her right to access the termination. For example, the requirement for counselling, funding issues, etc, all to make an already difficult choice more difficult and traumatic.

The attempt to define human life as beginning at fertilization would imply an inquest after a miscarriage.

A human life is only recognised legally as such at birth, and as the foetus cannot support itself outside the womb in the first half of the pregnancy, it cannot be assigned any rights as an individual.

Rudy is disingenuously pretending to be agnostic, and supporting women's rights, but spouts all the anti abortions slogans and propaganda, that is used to white ant women's rights.

I think that rudy bloke is disgusting. He's not pretending anything. He's happy to realise that human life begins in the womb, as it does. But he's also happy to have that new life in the womb purposely destroyed. He knows it's a human life, at least he admits it. I know of several people who think the same way, they know it's human life but they still support the abortion. At least they're honest, unlike others who are so disingenuous they make all sorts of ideological excuses as to why a fetus is not human and should have lesser rights than a dog.

I think in future centuries when we're more developed and knowledgeable, we'll look back at the abortionists and their supporters in much the same way that these days we look back at witch burners. They'll be looked upon as primitive and uncivilised.

I understand Yabby. My apologies. Had misinterpreted that you were including all catholics in your term 'Catholic Church'.