McReal

You also make little sense. You say

'Moreover, abortion will be practised whether legal or not.'

Murder will also be practiced along with bestiality whether legal or not.' Should we change the law just because someone does it?

Runner, what I meant to say is that the fight for women to have the choice about what happens to their bodies, and whether to have abortions or not, is over. Women won this 'law' that should never have been outlawed in the first place.

Homosexuals are usually not 'forced' to do anything to their bodies they don't want to do - so that particular fight is in no way equal to that of women's rights to have an abortion or not.

However, I don't see how their right to marry or not is anyone else's business, just as abortion is no one else's business except the parents and their doctor.

runner, nothing is more clear than "abortion will be practised (i.e. performed) whether [it] is legal or not."

i.e. backyard abortions would be practised if it were no legal.

......................

Support for legal abortion is a principle in

* natural law ( law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. ... natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behaviour).

It is more moral to avoid backyard abortions.

or
* natural justice (with a backgrownd in Roman law where certain basic legal principles are required by nature)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice

They have precedence as a special sense known as *Wednesbury reasonableness* (from an English law case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial review).

(I don't expect you to agree)

McREal

There is nothing natural at all about murdering an unborn baby no matter how sanitized you or anyone else makes it. Your arguement is non sensical.

runner,

correction - "backyard abortions would be practised [even] if abortion were "not" legal" i.e they have occurred frequently, anyway, where abortion is illegal.

" natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature ..

"Natural law theories have .. exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law .. [= the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation].

"Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it [natural law] has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

"There is nothing natural at all about murdering an unborn baby " - putting aside the deliberately loaded wording of runner's comment it might be useful as a test of "naturalness" to look at the rates of pregnancies which don't go through to birth without deliberate termination.

Not a clear topic as early stage miscarriages are not always easy to identify and under-reporting is a significant factor at all stages.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/miscarriage-rates-revealed-20090116-7j77.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/miscarriage-rates-in-pregnancy-may-be-as-high-as-50-experts-say-a239265

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679161

I don't personally get all that excited about the "natural" criteria but for those who it's important it's clear that nature (or whatever god's people choose to believe in) does not place a very high value on pregnancies running through to the birth of a live child.

For those wanting the pregnancy to complete it can be a very emotionally painfull process.

R0bert