Ralph Bennett, lookup Rebecca Kiessling.
"Walk in other people's shoes."
Just what I would say to you.

Stezza, great! I have decided that until you can define what an 'argument' is, we can't have a debate.
Actually, forget that, I have just decided that you are not a person.
Why?
Does it matter?

Foyle, of course, there is excellent and abundantly relevant logic in bringing up Galileo.
You know what? I think I will decide you do not have a "conscious personality".
You might protest this, which I might find a tad hypocritical.

estelles, yeah, I agree, why should 50 or 60 year old people be continued to allowed to live when they're obviously just a burden and useless eaters. Just kill 'em now and call it post-birth abortion, eh?

Jon J, I believe you are being hysterical as I decide that you are a non-person. Tough.

Houellebecq, yeah why should fusion of the chromosomes of the mother and father at conception be considered a scientific moment, eh? I mean, that's certainly a 'religious' definition isn't it?

Yabby, oh well, I guess we can just ignore that brainwaves are measurable at about 7 weeks, can't we? I'm so glad you have endorsed killing the innocent to save them "misery in this world". And as for that BRILLIANT connect with Africa and laptop computers, I am forever now for abortion due to the scything logic there. Yabby, why O why did I ever go pro-life when you cast such a massive shadow with the impenetrability of THAT argument? :-D

Houellebecq, yes, because abortions are EXACTLY like turning off life-support on a child that cannot live. I mean, who wouldn't think that cutting the unborn into pieces might be the same as being unable to save a child? Makes perfect sense to me.

Etc. etc.
_____________

I really don't need to add anything. All of you who defend this condemn yourselves as you demonstrate in a public forum having a twisted conscience similar to the sickest mass murderers that ever walked the earth. You walk in utter darkness.

Hmmm where did part 2 of 2 go?

@Jon J - you're right, and medical science has proven that we each all came to be at the moment of conception. Pretty conclusive as to when life begins huh... The article Bill's referring to clearly states that the ethicists in question are uncomfortable with the term baby-killing or murder, they prefer after-birth abortion. Why would that be uncomfortable? Why change the language if there's 'nothing wrong with it'?

@Houellebecq - how do you know we won't miss them? Perhaps we already do? Perhaps the person who was to cure cancer has been aborted? How about your family....if one of your parents had been aborted, then you wouldn't be here. Perhaps one of their parents? Then a whole branch of your family tree wouldn't be here. People seem to forget that abortion does not simply affect that one baby, and that one mother. It affects the father, the current and future siblings, the future children and grandchildren. It affects generations, and can have a significant effect on how the world 'could' have been. And again, how is the 'wantedness' of a baby the deciding factor of whether or not they are a person permissible to be aborted? THAT is what's ridiculous, not Pete in Brisbane's situation. Switching someone's life support off, when they are not going to survive is completely different than abortion, and not even close to what would be considered unacceptable to 'that religious lot'.

@Yabby - the human brain is the first organ to appear in foetal development, and it happens at 2 weeks 4 days post conception, not 23 weeks. I'll be happy to refer you to my source. How about when a heart is present? Well, that starts beating at 21 days post conception. Both dates at which an abortion clinic will tell you is too 'early' to terminate in case the 'pregnancy' is missed. Believe me, we're all very well developed at the age from which abortions occur. Not to mention it is legal in Victoria to have an abortion up until the day of birth...

Hello darkness...

jcgirl1979, Thurs 1 March, 2:21pm - a few comments on a blog-thread, so you say -

" .. the Australian people are malignant narcissists and pompous, arrogantly self-serving... [willing] to collaborate with killing children overseas."??

Puhlease! Besides, note how Bill Muehlenberg argues for capital punishment -

" .. No one argues that those warranting the death penalty have somehow become non-persons. It is exactly because they are persons, and have committed heinous crimes against other persons (such as murder), that the state takes these issues so seriously."

It occurred to me the author did not give links to the articles he referred to, but simply his interpretation of what was stated, and I wonder why?

It would be good to get access to the mentioned articles to see exactly what these academics are advocating.

Iran has shown the world that population can be reduced by state and religous sponsored education in birth control. Just google birth control Iran and you will see theey lowered the birth rate from about 6.5 per woman to about 1.8 by education and providing the means.

Meanwhile of course Bill is a fully paid up promoter of the never ending so called war on terror. Pure Orwellian double-speak. He was most probably an enthusiastic supporter of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

This reference describes and pictures the toxic legacy of the invasion via the use of depleted uranium.
A legacy which will last for generations both in the Middle East, in the children of USA soldiers, and maybe even the entire world as the toxic dust spreads all over the planet.

http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html