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.