<To argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is old or allegedly draconian is a complete furphy.>

Who is arguing for the law being repealed because it is old, MB? No mention of that line of argument in this thread that I can find. Maybe you were thinking of another thread? As for the law being draconian, I agree with you that opinions differ, but I think that you have missed the main reasons for objection to the antiabortion law. A law that allows ideological persecution is bad in my opinion.

I would like to see a CMC investigation of the trial as there is a possibility that the trial was pursued on an idealogical basis rather than a legal basis.

Let's face it - virtually all laws are formulated on an ideological basis. It just depends what your ideology is. In western society it has been the norm until recently that human life was not to be taken lightly (if you'll pardon the pun). We have the ludicrous situation where someone can be imprisoned for murder - provided the victim has been born! If the victim is still in the womb then it is apparently okay to terminate that life despite what the law says.

In practical terms, what is the difference between the ancients who sacrificed children to their idols and modern society which sacrifices unborn children to convenience, career, and the quest for the perfect child. And when I say "convenience" I am also meaning those men who cajole, coerce and force their partner/spouse/one-night-stand to have an abortion because they (the men) do not wish to be saddled with the responsibility for a child.

No matter what the modern ideologues say, an unborn child is a child. Women give birth to kids, not koalas, kangaroos or cabbages. That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells". Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop the same as the pro-abortionists did when they were at a simiar stage of development.

"virtually all laws are formulated on an ideological basis. It just depends what your ideology is."

No, it does not depend on one persons ideology, or even an oligarchy. They are mostly formed on the basis of reasoning and practicality of that reasoning, as well as precedent, and occasionally a bit of party or factional politics.

"Women give birth to kids, not koalas, kangaroos or cabbages." - Wow! How perceptive.

"That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells". Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop ... " Notice *your* qualification - time ...

Michael B.<"In actual fact, enforcing abortion laws is not that difficult. It just takes an act of political will and an honest legal system.."

Ok then M.B., please do enlighten us all on how you would enforce abortion laws, in the unlikely event they would ever be totally banned?

"In practical terms, what is the difference between the ancients who sacrificed children to their idols and modern society which sacrifices unborn children to convenience, career, and the quest for the perfect child."
-Michael B

The ancients were practising infanticide - a whole different kettle of fish to abortion. It is highly disingenous to conflate one with the other. Nice red herring, though.

"If the victim is still in the womb then it is apparently okay to terminate that life despite what the law says."
-Michael B

I think you'll find that the law says that it is okay to terminate that life.

"No matter what the modern ideologues say, an unborn child is a child."
-Michael B

I concur. An unborn child is a child. And an unborn non-child is not a child. The pertinent question is when the unborn not-child becomes an unborn child.

"That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells"."
-Michael B

In your opinion.

"Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop the same as the pro-abortionists did when they were at a simiar stage of development."
-Michael B

Yes, and given time, pressure and heat, graphite will become diamond. Strangely enough, nobody has ever been able to make a profit selling graphite engagement rings. That's because graphite isn't diamond, even if it has the potential to become diamond. By the same token, a blastocyst is not a person, even if it has the potential to become a person.

Opinions are like arceholes, Michael. Everybody's got one, and they all stink. If you believe abortion is immoral, that's fine - don't have one. But you need to recognise that not everybody is going to share your opinions, and that while you have every right to get up on soapbox and shout your opinions to the world, you have no right to have your opinions forced on others by means of statute. That's not how secular democracy works. Don't like it? Move to Iran.

"They are mostly formed on the basis of reasoning and practicality of that reasoning..."
-- McReal

How do you define "reasoning"? Is it just what YOU agree with? Is everything else therefore unreasonable?

" Notice *your* qualification - time ..."
-- McReal

My qualification? It is a fact. Ask any obstetrician. Everything takes time. Some things take more, others take less. Is something invalid simply because time is involved? An unborn baby is a human being. If it was simply a clump of cells no one would care and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"The ancients were practising infanticide - a whole different kettle of fish to abortion"
-- Riz

I think not. At what point does it become infanticide? Once the child is born? What if the child is born a month premmie? Would it still be infacticide or would it be acceptable to sacrifice the child?

"while you have every right to get up on soapbox and shout your opinions to the world, you have no right to have your opinions forced on others by means of statute"
-- Riz

But I am not shouting my opinions. I am expressing them, though, which I am perfectly entitled to do in a democracy. What people forget is that until about the last 40 years of last century, abortion was considered gravely wrong which is why we have the laws we have. So really it is the pro-abortion camp who are shouting their opinions from the soapbox at every opportunity. While they call on all those with a different opinion to theirs to accept the fact and live with it, they will not return the courtesy.

BTW, Riz, you need to get a spell checker. It is arsehole or (asshole if you are American).