...
Similarly, the sanctity of life argument is ludicrously removed from all practical consideration of sustainability and the implications for the planet, as well as hypocritically indifferent to the low value put on life (and 'choice') in poor countries--not to mention the industrial-scale death that's indiscriminately unleashed by human fecundity. And should the libertarian wish to affect the morality that "far from being indifferent, s/he is lifting the poor out of poverty", s/he should ponder that it's just as loopy to imagine we can all live like kings and queens as it is to think we can go on breeding like good Catholics.
It seems to me you're both trading on spurious universals and emotive catchwords, rather than reasoning and argument. But I keep forgetting, that's not what's at issue here.
I'd love to see articles by you and MTR on the pros and cons and nitty-gritty of abortion and pornography, and not just grand professions of "belief".
In the real world, and not free-market or socialist utopias, I think "separatist" feminism has a hell of a lot going for it and might be the best compromise of left and right feminist ideologies (of which you both appear to be blends) as well as for the planet.
At least separatist feminists are decisive, and are making "radical" rather than predictable and co-optive choices.
It would also compromise the breeding programme!

"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"."

Shadow Minister and others - am I to understand that there is no rational argument, or even single point, to be made against abortion? That's one hell of an arrogant position to hold, don't you think?

I have read many articles by people of different backgrounds who see many problems with abortion as it is currently practised in Australia. These are not Catholics/Christians, etc, just everyday people who have concerns.

Each and every one of them "irrational" are they?

I find that to speak against any aspect of abortion rarely brings a rational response, just name calling or hiding behind "women's rights" and closing the argument. I'm all for a rational debate of the topic but rarely find someone up to the challenge...

RD,

The right to determination over your own body is a basic human right not a "women's right". No one can force you to donate blood, give a kidney or anything else that can save lives. Similarly a woman has the fundamental right to decide what happens with her own body. Whether abortion is immoral, unethical or irrespective of ANY consequences, the fact remains that no one should ever be in the position to strip away that one basic human right.

Folks I realise this looks like a set-up, but it's not. I did not ask/pay/beg Shadow Minister to prove my point so conclusively by yet again slamming the door on ANY discussion of any aspect of abortion.

We live in a world that spends the first 10 minutes of a news bulletin crying over beached whales but will not even discuss alternatives to abortion. A world where the RSPCA (top people - I'm not paying them out )has more credability than someone who dares to suggest that abortion might not be as "fine" as we are told it is.

Just one of the many questions that needs to be discussed:

If a child is born, the father is obliged (as he should be) to provide financial support. Yet the same father has NO rights at all to even enter into discussion as to whether the child is born or not. Explain to me exactly how that is fair?

I could go on but my keyboard will probably not survive the pounding. This issue, and the way any discussion at all is silenced, has me extremely angry.

RD,

I am quite happy for you to talk about abortion until the cows come home. As for alternatives, if anyone wants to provide attractive alternatives for unwanted children and support for single mothers I am all for it. However, banning access to pregnancy termination is a violation of human rights.

Just curious - why are the rights of the adult more important than the rights of the child?

"However, banning access to pregnancy termination is a violation of human rights" is an opinion that carries no more, or less, weight than, "Terminating a viable life is a violation of human rights."

Until people see this debate from two sides, discussions remain futile.

Women absolutely deserve greater care and compassion than has been shown in the past. However, so do their children.

And just in case I'm going to now hear about the unborn foetus not being a child, please don't bother. You will not find one doctor or scientist to agree with you. The status of the child is not opinion but fact.