(cont.)
I would also question the rationality of comparing the deliberate killing of offspring to the deaths of children by malnutrition etc. which we do, in our inadequate but nevertheless commendable way, try to prevent. Thousands of adults die in similar circumstances all over the world, but we do not suggest that we kill off various adults in our society to reduce the population (not that it would help anyway). Reducing the population in the western world has virtually no effect in alleviating overpopulation in the third world. If anything, increasing our population would create more of a tax and charity base with which to combat the problems of the third world. In my experience, pro-lifers are no less concerned about children dying overseas, it’s just that they don’t believe in ignoring injustices at home, and I would suggest that you should ask yourself how numbing ourselves to the plight of our own children assists dying children on the other side of the world. The more we ignore injustice in our own sphere, the less we will be able to recognise it anywhere. If we can remain unmoved by a 32-week-old baby being killed outside of the womb, why should we care about a newborn baby in Africa whose mother is too malnourished to produce sufficient breastmilk for its survival?

imajulianutter, I am fascinated that you have managed to deduce so much from my mere objection to an Israeli group being singled out on account of its perceived Jewishness. I would point out that I am neither Jewish nor Israeli and that I merely oppose anti-Semitism when I observe it, but that given the nature of your rant I will take it as a compliment that you find my views so offensive and remind you that you are somewhat off-topic in your remarks.

Thank you Mishka Gora for your respectful and inoffensive correction when you said, "GlenC, you may wish to inform yourself a little better. Most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur when the child is still an embryo. It would be very unusual for a woman to miscarry a foetus and not know she was pregnant."
Having informed myself a little better, I now know that in humans the embryo becomes a foetus at about 8 weeks. May I respond, though, that you did not distinguish between embryo and foetus in that you referred to "the child" in each stage. So I think my point stands, namely that the way we regard the loss of a "child" through abortion needs to be weighed against the fact that nature (God?) "kills" many more "children" than humans do when they sanction abortions. I'm not saying that this realisation must mitigate against the seriousness of "death" by abortion, but I am suggesting that it might, and that people who adopt a black and white position — "abortion is murder, end of question" — should not, perhaps, be so sure of themselves.
I should also say that I find Foyle's comments on this matter reassuring, convincing and wise. It is sobering to realise that we humans could be complicit in the deaths of thousands of sentient children every day in countries that cannot support them, probably many than are "killed" by aborters, but many fewer than are "killed" by God for good natural reasons while they are still in embryo

GlenC, as a lover of words, I would like to point out that child can mean "son or daughter". It refers to the relationship of the foetus to the mother and Mishka Gora's usage is therefore quite correct, whether it is for an embryo, foetus, or infant. It is the child of the mother and father, regardless of its development.

Mishka Gora,

Since we're talking ethics....

Our "charity base" really serves as some some alleviation to our conscience. Many third world countries are victims of IMF and World Bank intervention which enables corrupt regimes to thrive and Western corporate interests to line their pockets at the expense of the general populations of those countries so affected.

We are numb to their plight - and then we congratulate ourselves for "charity" after pillaging their resources and livelihoods.

Combating the problems of the third world should include an examination of Western corporate profiteering at their expense.

*Abortions are of embryos and foetuses, not zygotes, and most occur at 10-12 weeks when the child is a foetus, which means it is fully-formed – it even has fingerprints.*

It might have fingerprints Mishka, but it does not have a fully
formed human brain. No human brain = no person.

You'll have to wait until around week 23 for what can be called
a human brain to develop.

It's unfortunate that so many people feel unable to disagree with somebody without insulting them. I'm grateful to the Mishka Gora for being prepared to interact civilly with those of us who disagree with her, and particularly grateful for her ability to remain measured in the face of some outrageously over-the-top sprays.
I question her statement: "Without moral principles, rational thinking and ethical judgement have no starting point." I think this is the kind of starting point relied upon by, for example, those who argue for the retention of scripture classes in NSW primary schools to the exclusion of the finally approved, but already under renewed threat, ethics classes. Their argument is that we have to have handed down behavioural rules to start with and that the only inerrant source of such rules is God. I think is it at least as credible to argue that the best starting point for humans is consideration of what behaviours best advance the well being of the human species. I'd further suggest that all of the ethical rules developed by our ancestors in almost all societies were derived from such considerations and that they gave rise to what evolved into religious rules rather than the other way around. We know, for example, that the Christian claim to have developed the golden rule — do unto others — is denied by the historical evidence of its observance in societies that pre-dated Jesus by thousands of years.