*Yet she endorses the slaughter by abortion of 100,000 babies per year in Australia, and millions elsewhere.*

Err Raycom, a foetus is not a baby, a human organism is not a person.
No human brain equals no person.

All the misuse of language by you and others is not going to
change that.

Raycom, are you completely dense? Did you not read the incident involving the critically ill woman hazed by Mitt Romney. If the life of a foetal blob is so concerning, why not the life of a living, breathing woman?
Now, re the comment concerning Abbott and Pyne, if the externals are teased away, Pyne's limiting of comment to late trimester terminations ought to be illuminating- Pyne and Abbott are actually from different ends of the lib.
Abbott is a dour fanatic; true Lyons Forum material. Pyne is more worldly, from the libertarian/city wing, but as a true self reflexive bon vivant, opportunist and urbane cynic, mutes his comments.
I think people ought to wake to the repressive, "sado" mindset and control-freakery from the inside out pathology involved with the Mad Monk and his ilk, to me actually very sick..

Catholics are the predominant protesters in this debate. It is not compulsory if you don't like it don't go near it. Women have a choice, no matter what religion they supposedly use to the letter. Abbott is one of the religious, minority. So it would be advisable to steer clear of that lot.

Tut, Tut, to the atheists!

…# The irrationality of a thing (Christianity) is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it #... Nietzsche.

...Observation proves the truth of that statement. Since abortion is at war with Christian ethics, then an anti-abortion position must/will be defended. I am personally impressed with Abbotts rhetoric on the issue of Christian morality.

What's the brain-or-no-brain argument got to do with it, Yabby?

If you find a burglar inside your house, you should be able to kill him and dump his body in your bin (I am aware that current laws do not allow it, because the country is ruled by a bunch of politically-correct humanists). How much more so when you find someone inside your own body?

Raycom's term "culture of death" does not scare me - we already live in one, and as a Christian he should know that even Jesus drowned a herd of 2000 pigs. If you eat meat, then you, directly or indirectly, slaughter others every day (which also happen to have brains).

That elitist nonsense as if humans have more rights than other species, just because their bodies happen to have similar DNA to ours, holds no water.

Raycom you are wrong.
Something that lives inside of another body and feeds intravenously off the other's bloodstream, it is not an 'individual' warranting rights, but just another part of the host individual's body as much as a kidney or a tumor is, until they separate.
And that individual deserves the right to decide whether they want some other organism using their body as space.

Of course, you never once consider how the unwanted child is to be brought up- most likely once they're born you lose interest in their 'wellbeing' and leave them to fend for themselves (and society to deal with the problems that are left to someone born in an unwilling family).

Now, how do you measure the rights of conjoined twins, fetus-in-fetu, and other cases where one twin is fused to the other's body and dependent on this for survival? Are you equally affronted when a boy whose conjoined twin is nothing but a 2kg tumor dangling from their shoulder wants to cut it off?

The simple fact is anti-abortionism is a kneejerk reaction based on distaste for the woman's lifestyle decisions alone- the alternative is a considered view based on logic and the consequences of the birth.