Otokonoko, Saturday, 18 February 2012 3:30:27 PM

It depends on context and fullness of information around which an argument is being put. For example, with respect to abortion, there is the outcomes for the mother and any child that might arise out of a pregnancy for which an abortion is being considered; as well the father,and as for other people that mother might care or be responsible for. The battle-cry of "think of the foetus" is a narrow, in that respect.

And specifically who is countering eg. with respect to countering Abbott, someone in direct discussion with him - in Parliament or in a meeting - won't be calling him 'the Mad Monk'; that is a term used by a third party who/that is largely irrelevant to the primary discussion.
...................................

"It does seem too many immigrants are using abortion as a system of contraception"
vanna, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:31:04 PM

That is a pretty bigoted statement, vanna.

As is - "the ghastly practice of abortion is central to feminism"

Ensuring the 'right to have an abortion' might be central, but so is the moral responsibility of trying very hard to avoid the need for one.

Thanks Poirot,
It's interesting that MTR invokes the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", a secular/humanist document, to protect her Christian parochialism. I might take pause for a moment too to pick on the word "universal". Not only are our grandiose human rights not universally agreed-upon in the cosmos (so far as we know), they're specifically flouted here on Earth! What is universally respected on Earth is "an award of compensation"; ie, "money". That brings one down to Earth!
Good to see MTR's not to caught-up in religious coils.

Suseonline, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:34:25 PM

Melinda Tankard-Reist does Not seek to deny abortion to women who want them, so does not seek to force a woman to go to term. She seems to be willing to help some women to go to term. If she has "books, web-sites, tweets and blogs out there in the public sphere extolling the same moral views and values as Christians on subjects such as abortion, cloning, surrogacy, euthanasia and sexuality", then those views and values can be addressed for each of those scenarios.
................................................

"no amount of contraception will stop all unwanted pregnancies."

Posted by David, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:55:59 PM

Well, perhaps a condom and spermicidal cream, in conjunction with a women using an IUD, a diaphragm, and the pill, might considerably lessen the chances. But, of course, that is stretching a point.

McReal & Squeers, I did NOT say that if someone thinks they're right then we have to respect that. Freedom of conscience is about not forcing anyone to do something they believe wrong. It does not give them the right to do anything they think right. Just as Hitler did not have the moral right to force Jews into concentration camps, etc., those who disagreed with him had the moral right (of their conscience) to not be forced to participate in the persecution of Jews (even though it was technically legal and their resistance was technically illegal). Freedom of conscience protects people from being forced to participate in evil or immorality. It is a negative protection not a positive mandate. It doesn't give anyone a right to act, it merely gives a protection from being coerced. There are exceptions - there are almost always exceptions to rules - such as if someone uses conscience as an excuse to not do their moral duty to save someone's life, but the general principle stands.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
I think there are a number of reasons why abortion rates in this country are high, (and for a country with relatively cheap contraception, the abortion rate is high), but abortion rates are unlikely to decline if there is an attitude that abortion is somehow natural or acceptable.

Abortion is central to feminism, similar to the cross being central to Christianity.

Abortion is like a symbol or motif to feminists, so that is why they hold onto abortion despite there being possibilities of reducing it.

So MTR represents a threat to feminist’s core symbol or base so to speak.

To a feminist, opposing abortion is a direct threat to their entire ideology or base, even though abortion could be significantly reduced.

The closed and narrow mind of a feminist does not allow innovation to find ways of reducing abortion.

I think the MTR Christianity thing is a secondary issue. The real issue is the threat that MTR represents to feminist’s pride and joy, which is abortion.

It is a fundamental human right to be able to make one's own decision about what one does with one's own body. Why abortion is a feminist issue is because it isn't a problem that applies to men's bodies.

The "pro choice" lobby is at its heart fundamentally Christian, and this is seen by most as an attempt to impose their religious values on others.

MTR is perfectly aware that as a committed Catholic, her attempts to fight the right to choice is immediately perceived as a religious crusade against a fundamental human right. By trying to avoid discussing her deep belief, she is trying to portray her crusade as based on "rationality".

Unfortunately for MTR, most of us are not that stupid