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

No, reasoning by others in other forums, such as parliament, occurs independent of many people with opinions.

*You* stated it was cells, until other things happen/progress.

"What if the child is born a month premmie? Would it still be infacticide or would it be acceptable to sacrifice the child?"

There are defined points in foetal development, as I alluded to in a previous post, which coincide with viability as an individual, which before-hand the foetus is not.

Michael, your points are somewhat black & white, and simplistic.

You might want to consider the particulars of the case, e.g.

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/10/14/130601_local-news.html

Despite the openness of the defendants to police about their use of RU486, and the plea to jurors by the prosecutor that their job was not to moralise but to uphold the law, a not guilty verdict was delivered, and delivered after little deliberation. How the hell is this a workable law if it cant even get a guilty verdict under such circumstances? And with all the publicity the case has received, do you think that the police will get similar confessions in future?

Given the verdict of the jury, it borders on delusional to think that Queensland's abortion law has public support.

"I think not. At what point does it become infanticide?"
-Michael B

When the human becomes a person. Bugger me, this isn't rocket surgery...

"I am expressing them, though, which I am perfectly entitled to do in a democracy."
-Michael B

Yes, but you're not entitled to force them on others.

"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."
-Michael B

More lies, eh? I'm quite happy for you to have a different opinion, and I'm quite happy for you to share them. The problem is that most of the pro-life camp don't want to share them, they want to enforce them. If they were to succeed in re-criminalising abortion, everybody - pro-life or pro-choice - would be forced to behave in accordance with the opinions of the pro-lifers. This is radically different to the current situation, where pro-lifers can behave in accordance with their consciences and not have abortions, and pro-choicers can beahve in accordance with theirs and have abortions.

See, Michael, that's the important difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers: pro-choicers aren't trying to make abortion compulsory, they're trying to ensure people have a choice. It's the pro-life camp who are oppressive and illiberal, and that's why I take issue with them - oppression and illiberality piss me right off.

"BTW, Riz, you need to get a spell checker."
-Michael B

BTW, Michael, you need to stop being such an anally retentive pedant. It's not a good look. Usually my spelling is excellent, but even I make the occasional typo (only yesterday I misspelt genetic with 3 e's). If you're going to jump down people's throats for the odd typo, you're not going to win many friends around here.

As it happens, arcehole was not a typo - I deliberately misspelt it 'coz I know from personal experience that the site moderators are hyper-vigiliant when it comes to profanity, and I didn't think I'd be able to slip arsehole by the censors. Seems I was wrong.

Excellent argument Riz!

Michael B. still hasn't answered my question about how he thinks we would enforce an abortion ban?

At the end of the day though, abortion is legal in Australia, so the anti-choice brigade need to move on and accept that fact.

suzieonline

'At the end of the day though, abortion is legal in Australia, so the anti-choice brigade need to move on and accept that fact.'

At the end of the day gay marriage is not legal so the supporters need to accept that fact and move on. Your logic is hard to understand.

runner, it is not logical to align or conflate abortion legality with gay marriage illegality.

Moreover, abortion will be practised whether legal or not.