Laurie simply no abortion unless it threatens the life of the mother, also I wouldn’t change the current laws unless funding was made available for extra services and incentives were given to support the unwanted children. But I would insist that under the current system men are no longer forced to pay child support and the community must pick up the bill.

Any Pro-life please feel free to argue otherwise.

I also no one from Pro-Choice have stepped up to the plate as far as your inconsistency on non-person humans.

Confused while the conservative Christians do weaken their own case by promoting abstinence as the only alternative or for Catholics the erroneous doctrine against contraception, your point on sperm is flawed. A sperm is a constituent cell of a unique individual on par with skin cells whereas even a zygote is a genetically unique individual who belongs in an individual human’s life cycle.

How about an analogy- a lactating woman goes to an island knowing there is a chance that she may become the only care giver of a infant. The childs mother is sick and it just so happens that she dies and the woman must choose whether she wants to feed it for a time until help can arrive to take care of the baby. She really hates breast feeding and decides that rather than feed it or wait a few months til help arrives she drowns the infant.

It is not a human being as it is yet to develop personhood and since the milk comes from her body and she owns her body she is under no moral obligation using the logic of Pro-Choice to feed the child and by drowning the infant has done nothing wrong.

The logic and morality of Pro-Choice.

Timkins she even if she considers the foetus as human she probably used the my body argument but like most Pro-choice will then degenerate in denigrating pro-lifers for merely raising the issue rather than arguing her case

Hi Neo.
Nice to see you again. I will respond to your nonperson argument soon. Just a bit down by the rampant stupidity going on in the race related articles. Sometimes I feel like ignoring issues and pretending I live alone in the world… but I will get to you soon. I think I have some valid points to make against your nonperson experiment (but in a respectful way – there doesn’t seem to be too much of that about this site lately..)

Neohuman,
I would agree regards the brainwashing, propaganda terms such as “my body”, “my choice” etc. They are used extensively within the abortion industry, but those terms also exclude the father. If the woman has the baby, then it becomes “a woman and her children”, and the father is again excluded.

Ironic that without the father, many women cannot afford the child, and the majority of abortions are also carried out on single, unmarried women. If Australia is similar to the US, then about 40% of abortions are repeat abortions, which means that any previous counselling has been ineffective in that woman using better contraception, changing lifestyle etc.

The senator’s web-site does not contain the word “father” at all, and also contains the word “abortion” more often than the word “children”.

Her text is similar to nearly all feminist text, and males are regarded as sperm donors and pay packets only. Her feelings towards children would be basically zero, because it is well known that the human foetus senses it’s body being torn apart through the abortion procedure, and that procedure involves no anaesthetic. It is one of the most inhuman acts being carried out, and that baby in the womb has no ”choice”.

Timkins Pro-choice has become as socialized cultural meme that is rationalized rather than reasoned. Just as past sincere moral people rationalized slavery or some women who thought they shouldn’t get the vote. I think it is a carryover from the suffrage movement that saw new political power for women and for many women they see it as a step back on this power if their abortion rights were taken away. This also carried onto the prohibition movement in the US but whereas this effected adults who could protest pre-natals have no such voice or political power to fight back.

This amply seen by the extrapolation of the core reasons justifying abortion, it’s inconsistency on non-persons, it’s sidelining of a fundamental moral precept that you don’t take human life unless in self defence and that you take responsibility for your actions. Further evidence is the emotive vindictive hysterics used that won’t even allow this topic to be debated in the first place.

The reasons such as poverty and social stigma that often forced women to have back street abortions have now gone. In a country where childless couples who do invitro these children could be easily be found homes locally or internationally.

Also the red herring of having to promote abstinence or sterilizing males is easily countered in that there are many ways two consenting adults can have a fulfilling sexual relationship without vaginal sex. If a man is encouraged to have enough restraint to put on a condom he has enough restraint to seek the pleasure else where.

The fact that they won’t even get to examining adoption really stands out as does their ethical rationale when the psychological pain of giving up the child for adoption outweighs the value of a human life.

As far as rape it then goes to do you visit the sin of the father on the innocent & punish them; like the woman on the island analogy wouldn’t it be better she was given counselling to overcome her hatred of breastfeeding until someone else could look after the child rather than her drowning it?

"There are few details in your scenarios, but you seem to infer that if a mother doesn’t want the child, then the child has no value, and should be destroyed."

No, Timkins, that is clearly what you read into them.

If you, or anyone else around here, believes a women should NEVER have an abortion, as you believe in the personhood of a fetus, and that abortion is therefore murder, then fine. That is, if nothing else, a easily defendable position.

But I have always felt there were shades of grey.

What I was trying to draw out was where people stood- do they believe in abortion simply if the fetus is unwanted? Or only in cases of rape and/or incest? Or, and I did forget to include this scenario, only if the mother would not be able to carry the pregnancy- what if she is undergoing cancer treatments, and continuing with the pregancy would only reduce her ability to withstand the treatment?

As I mentioned, I struggled the most with the senarioes of where the woman was in her prime childbearing years, and in a serious relationship- but even so, I did not say that in these scenarios people 'should' abort. Only that should be able to consider it to be an option. Amongst many.

Laurie,
Minimal statistics on abortion are being routinely collected and made known in Australia, and this allows for a lot of myths to develop. Maybe that is why the author rarely mentions statistics when talking about abortion. Either she is unaware of those statistics, or knows of those statistics but does not want to state them.

However she uses the term “choice” quite a lot, but the term “choice” actually means “abortion”, (and the killing of unborn children), like “collateral damage“ actually means “civilians killed”. She could say that up to 100,000 “choices” are being carried out annually in Australia.

To understand the nature of abortion, there are these statistics compiled by the US CDC.
Of women in the US who had abortions in 2001:-
-44% had no other children.
-82% were un-married.
-44% had at least one previous abortion.
-52% were less than 25 years old.
-1% of abortions were attributed to rape or incest.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/surv_abort.htm

From whatever statistics there are in Australia, the situation appears similar, with evidence that many women are not using sufficient contraception, or none at all.

In regards to the scenarios you have previously outlined:-
The laws vary between states, but in general, the mother has to be in serious danger, (either physically or mentally), before an abortion can be carried out by a doctor.

But with the vast majority of abortions, an adoption could have occurred, or the unwanted pregnancy could have been avoided through using more reliable forms of contraception, changes to lifestyle etc. That part is being overlooked, but it would become very important to incorporate into pregnancy counselling, (to be carried out either before or after an abortion), so as to limit the rate of repeat abortions.

Abortion is like capital punishment being carried out on the unborn child. In fact, it is far worse, as the child is innocent of any wrong doing, and it is known that the unborn child can feel the considerable pain of the abortion procedure. Most of this is know to feminists and abortion advocates also, but appears to make minimal difference to them.