"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."

So you get all upset because others appear to shut down debate on the points you want to make but use the same tactics when it suit's your case.

Why should debate on that issue be cut off?

R0bert

Fair call, R0bert.

RD and Robert,

Even considering that the fetus is a legal adult, the rights of the fetus cannot detract from the rights of the woman.

If I were dying and could only survive by being hooked up to another person for a couple of months, would my rights override the rights of the other person? of course not. I could not even force that person to give up one pint of blood.

To then say that a woman is forced to bear the child to term with all the consequences that ensue beyond the birth is clearly illogical.

SM I don't think it's all that clear cut. Our country has had military conscription in the past, the law recognises elements of a duty of care, we have mandatory taxation, forced child support which can go well beyond the actual costs involved and a variety of other measures where people are imposed on for what at the time is considered a greater good.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of imposed responsibility I don't see why this should be an absolute where other stuff is not especially where the pregnancy is the result of a consensual act and does not pose an undue risk.

If the foetus was a human life it would significantly alter the balance of rights and responsibilities in my opinion.

R0bert

Our country has also had hanging, forced removal of aboriginal children, etc, none of which makes it right.

Roughly 2/3 unwanted pregnancies today were using contraception which clearly indicates that they had absolutely no intention of creating a child, and while most will continue to bear it, for some the consequences although not fatal are severe. And the responsibility argument implies a punishment far in excess of any carelessness.

Given mankind's inbuilt sexual urges the counter argument of abstinence is absurd.

It's been a few years now, but some time ago my wife completed her thesis about abortion in Australia. We both did an immense amount of research on the topic (as a thesis dictates) and it was this experience that has strongly shaped my views in this area. The statistic that always stood out was the fact that in 99.6% of abortions, there was no medical risk to the mother, the conception was not forced in any way and the reason given (as recorded by the doctors) was "lifestyle."

I realise that is VERY simplistic (and lifestyle covers a huge area) but it's also more than a little scary. I will have to dig out the research but I recall failed contraception being a fairly small number as well. Certainly nothing anywhere near the 2/3 quoted above (reference for this please?) Perhaps a convenient excuse?

Back to my original point, and this will be my last post as I am spending too much time here at the moment. There should be allowed to be an open discussion of abortion. It is not satisfactory to end it with "it's the woman's choice" because that ignores so many other factors.

SM, you say "Even considering that the fetus is a legal adult, the rights of the fetus cannot detract from the rights of the woman." Again I would counter that the opposite must also be true, yet somehow it's not.

Certainly not the best example but one that comes to mind showing the logical fallacy here is smoking. The smoker has the right to smoke, however, I also have the right to exist without having face full of someone else's smoke. Both have rights but how do we balance it and meet both?

I am yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus. In fact, I'm yet to hear anyone seriously try to answer it, other than with "It's the woman's choice." This debate must move past this.

Thank you all for your thoughts and challenges - healthy debate is good!