The primary cause of abortion is pregnancy. Sex education, availability of contraceptives and protection of women against rape are all effective measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I think of my wonderful cousin who committed suicide during WW2. She said goodbye to her boyfriend who went off to war. Two months later she got word he was killed in action. Not being able to tell her mother that she was pregnant and not having access to an abortion clinic where she could have quietly gone and have the procedure she committed suicide. I wish she had had access to such a clinic and could have gone there without being harassed by followers of the '40 days for life' campaign. If a woman is pregnant and has considered the alternatives she should be able to have her abortion free form harassment.

However, the best option is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

david f is very fortunate that he has been given the privilege of having an opinion. Millions of those murdered before birth have no such right. Thank you Sonja for such a refreshing article that at least gives many unborn a glimmer of hope.

Dear runner,

I have an opinion. My cousin who committed suicide has none because she is dead. Apparently the life of a woman doesn't count at all to you. She should have been able to have an abortion and get on with her life. You don't seem at all interested in the fate of the woman. The life and well-being of a woman is far more important than the fate of an embryo. She was a teenager and in no position to have a baby. The baby might have been welcome if she had been in another situation, but she wasn't. She should not have had to go to term, but you don't seem to care at all what happened to her - only the embryo.

Nobody 'wants' an abortion, just as nobody 'wants' to get a tooth extracted or a melanoma cut out or a cancer removed: but if they are a responsible and rational person who cares for their own welfare and the welfare of those around them, they will take the steps that are necessary to preserve their life and their physical and mental health.

The obvious way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the shame and secrecy surrounding sex, make contraceptives readily available everywhere, and ensure that people are educated about their use -- but I bet runner and his cohorts would have something to say about that too.

Jon J writes

'The obvious way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the shame and secrecy surrounding sex, make contraceptives readily available everywhere, and ensure that people are educated about their us'
we have never had such an educated community. How much more sex do you want thrown in young teenagers faces? The education certainly has not stopped abortions in the 'educated' societies. The usual dogma of more education and more money does not solve a largely moral issue.

davidf

the fact that you cousin could of hidden her shame by being encouraged to kill her baby might not of helped. Huge numbers of woman end up with all sorts of mental issues after having abortions. The best scenario for your cousin would of been to have her child given to a family who had probably waited years to adopt a child. Your assertion that the life of a woman means nothing to me shows how ignorant you are. What is obvious that the life of the unborn means nothing to you.

David F, whilst the story of your cousin is tragic, I don't believe that it is relevant for today.
In the 1940's a pregnancy outside of wedlock was a source of enormous shame to the woman and her family. It spelt the end of a dignified life and so women would go to the extremes of dangerous back yard abortions or even take their own lives to avoid the shame. I believe this was one of the primary justifications for abortion being legalized.
However, there is no shame in having a baby outside of wedlock today. Likewise no woman will be rendered destitute in our welfare state simply because she has a baby.
The main reason for abortions in todays society is the convenience of the mother who doesn't want to disrupt her studies or career. I don't think those are good enough justifications to take a human life.
The reasons that once justified abortion no longer apply. In addition we have a falling birth rate that is not sufficient to replace our numbers. We should, as a society and as individuals be valuing every child born.
That is quite apart form the fact that by performing an abortion you a robbing a person of the opportunity to live out the rest of their life. The fact that the person has no choice or voice does not make it any less serious a matter, in my opinion at least.

Dear runner,

My cousin's shame? She had nothing to be ashamed of. You are just narrow minded and judgmental.

To give up a baby for adoption would mean that she had to go through the whole pregnancy with all the associated mental turmoil.

I am not all ignorant. You simply don't care about the woman's life. The life of the embryo means little compared to the life of the woman who is carrying it.

Dear Rhys Jones,

I don't think we have to worry about replacing our numbers. One of the problems in the world today is an expanding population going beyond the capacity of the world to support it.

I also think a woman has the right to make the choice whether or not to continue a pregnancy. I think going on with her studies is a legitimate reason for abortion. If there is no husband or other man involved who wants to take the responsibility it should be the decision solely of the woman who is pregnant. I don't think anyone else has the right to tell her what to do.

We differ.

Abortion is the greatest human tragedy of all time. 2 million innocent Aussie babies snuffed out of existence since the 1970's; 1.2 BILLION killed worldwide.

Abortion is nothing short of the greatest human holocaust of all time.

Just like Wilberforce and the slavery abolitionists were accused of being religious zealots who should mind their own business, so too are the modern day Wilberforces and abortion abolitionists.

The humanity of babies in the womb is scientifically proven and there for all to see on ultrasounds.

Thank you David Bereit and thank you 40 Days for Life for speaking for those who can not speak for themselves. And thank you for saving mothers from a lifetime of pain and guilt at killing their children to fit into a cold, uncaring un-supportive world.

David F is a champion for those like my niece, who is due to be born in 5 weeks and 4 days.

I would love for him to visit the Brisbane area!

Abortions are hardly cheap, and are more expensive as the pregnancy progresses (and a woman becomes more desperate). It really is literally a million-dollar industry.

How amazing it is that a people power movement is having such an effect on an industry that is hardly short of money. Staff are leaving and clinics are closing. This is genuine social revolution that the mainstream media seem to be clueless to.

My apologies for my last post! My brain is REALLY not working today! I think that the man who created 40 Days for Life should visit Australia, not David F!

My niece is due to be born in 5 weeks and 4 days, and any effort to protects her peers must be implemented!

40 days for life is about offering choices to women who feel they have none. Women who don't know where to turn for help except to an abortion clinic meet people who can offer them options and help remove the barriers to women keeping a baby they want but don't feel able to support.

Why are those who are pro-choice so anti anyone who wants to give women a choice other than abortion? The number of women who decide to keep their babies after being offered real, practical help to remove the crisis shows that these women don't really want an abortion. They just don't know there are other options, they don't know there are people who care enough to give their time and money providing housing, clothing, baby equipment, money etc to those who need it.

Studies have shown that women who have abortion are at a higher risk of depression and suicide than those who carry to term and women who already have depressive tendencies are at an even greater risk of depression and suicide after abortion.

Isn't it about time we started getting rid of the crisis instead of getting rid of the pregnancy?

Fantastic article. This is not about women NOT having a choice to abort. Women have that choice readily available. It is about women NOT having the choice to keep their often much wanted baby. Why should a woman, in this day and age, feel like she has to abort because she feels she can't afford a baby? Or because her boss will sack her if she continues her pregnancy? How do you call that choice?
On another note, contraception fails often, which is why we see so many unplanned pregnancies coming into our centre.

Oh off it broome, 'feel like she has to abort because she feels she can't afford a baby'.

What if a guy 'feels like' he cant afford child support? Cut back on smokes and booze, and your fulfil your responsibilities is the normal, and correct, response to that.

Why is it different for women?

40 Days for life protests are a very clever means of disguising a prolonged campaign of harassment and intimidation as some type of counselling service. I've watched as women and their partners or family members make it clear that they don't want to engage with the protesters, errr.. counsellors, yet they are still followed to the clinic entrance. Since when is pleading for a woman not to kill her baby deemed to be counselling? Since when is displaying large posters of aborted/stillborn 2nd or 3rd trimester fetuses counselling? Especially when the vast majority are only early first trimester.

For these 40-days people to suggest that an unplanned pregnancy somehow reduces women to idiots who are incapable of making rational decisions, is insulting.

Does anyone remember Tony Abbott's free pregnancy counselling service? Despite widespread advertising, why didn't that succeed? Women had the option to receive counselling (from a Catholic organisation) yet they avoided it in their droves. So now, are we to believe that these bible bashing protesters outside abortion clinics know what's best for women?

houellebecq a man usually has a job from which some of his money is expected to go to the care of a child he created. A woman with no man to financially support her and her child has to either rely on the government for income or work while paying for infant childcare and suffering from sleep deprivation. It is hard for a woman to do the majority of the childcare of an infant even with a supportive husband let alone while holding down a job and having no support in caring for her child. It's not just a matter of Mum giving up the booze and the smokes, it's a totally different situation.

What difference does it make? how can young men and women being molded into consumer/careerists actually participate in society if they view human life as intrinsically sacred. Something money and power are compelled to respect? As late capitalism insists then it shall be done. And if humans are only fully human when adult and powerful and only then cannot be killed by the state, then as an amazing coincidence this philosophy of power is our dominant public philosophy. How if motherhood is a profound vocation, sex is intrinsically meaningful, and family as worthy of freedom from attack as Microsoft, Caltex or the state itself, can the philosophy of power prevail? And so the babies and subjected to lethal violence, the parents then parents of a dead baby, grief they carry all their days.

The mum's and dad's will be forced to feel the pressure of 'choice' to submit on late capitalism's terms, feel in excruciating depth that the life of their child really does threaten their own. http://prezi.com/sngywlg5sxt5/i-shop-therefore-i-am/

Our 'society' pits a mother against her innocent defenceless child turns men and women into child killers at an early age.

As the babies go so do we, have no illusions. A child sacrificing society is enslaved and doesn't have much time, all our works are bathed in their blood. Turn off your TV! pray!

Ms Bowen-Courapis and Mr Bereit understand authentic freedom and are leaders in the greatest grass roots mass movement in human history, the pro-human child movement - which keeps growing worldwide while completely lacking any elite media, state-funded intellectual! or political assistance.

Real life savers! not death-workers. Thank you to them both.

Instead of calling anti-lifers "pro-choice" they MUST be addressed as "anti-life", and also, instead of saying they support a "woman's right to choice" they need to be described as being against an unborn baby's right to live.

This issue is an extremely sad reflection on our society, where babies are only valued if they're valued by the mother. If the mother wants the baby, then it's a baby. If the mother doesn't want the baby it's a blob of cells or a product of conception.

In my opinion, the issue centres around the breakdown of marriage and the family unit. Children should be raised in a family with a mother and a father. If the father is able to escape his responsibilities to look after his woman and his son or daughter, then I can understand why women might get financially desperate as a result.

The answer is for sex to be reserved for marriage only, where the product of sex results in a family unit - a mother, a father, and a child. This would have a dramatic impact on the abortion rate, because women would be supported financially, emotionally and materially because the man is doing his job.

Pro-choice should mean being in favour of the baby being allowed to live long enough to make its own choices.

"Pro-choice should mean being in favour of the baby being allowed to live long enough to make its own choices."

Just how long does someone have to live before that choice is respected?
Can I presume that those who support the above view would support the right of people to end their own lives in a manner which has a high degree of certainty and low risk of unnecessary pain?

My gut feel is that most who agreed would not support the right of others to seek an end to their own lives in such a manner.

R0bert

Congrats to 40DFL and especially David B. Thank goodness that an organisation devotes time and resources to support women in need, many who feel pressured and coerced, and who will speak for the unborn child. All of this done peacefully and without harassment, and clearly thousands of women have exercised their choice to take up this offer of help. Pleading for a life to be saved, and offering help and support, is not harassment. As Germaine Greer said, "Where others have decided that a woman's baby should not be born, she will be pressured to carry out the duty to herself, to the fetus, to the health establishment and to the state, by undergoing abortion. Her autonomy is the least important consideration". 40DFL offers women an option, and a dignified life-affirming one at that, that many women did not have available, and they do so out of compassion for her and her child. If you don't believe this, ask them yourself.

I think there are people who care deeply on both sides of the debate. Good people who love people.

I've got a passion to see both lives valued, not either/or. And usually there are really difficult obstacles to overcome in order to value both lives. But I believe it is worth it. Courage is what is needed not compromise.

If abortion does not kill a human being, then those crazy people praying outside an abortion clinic need OUR prayers. If abortion does kill a human being, then EVERYONE should be praying outside of the abortion clinics. So the question is -- does abortion kill a human being?

From the moment of conception, if you did a genetic test on a one celled human zygote, it would show it is a human being. From conception to natural death, it's a human being. Any line that you arbitrarily draw to say when you can or cannot kill it, can be applied to any human being of any age, size, level of development, or location. None of us are safe. Abortion kills this human being; if it does not, the abortion is considered a failure.

So before we complain about what people are saying or wearing, what we like or don't like OUTSIDE the clinic, how people "feel," etc, we must first stop and ask ourselves what exactly is going on INSIDE the clinic. Are they killing human beings?

*The answer is for sex to be reserved for marriage only*

Ho, ho, ho, this is the 21st century sunshine, we have moved on from 100 years ago, fortunately.

There are plenty of married couples who can't afford to just keep feeding more children, the problem is not limited to singles. Go
to the rubbish tips of Manilla, where they keep popping them out,
despite dire poverty, because the Catholic Church won't give them the
snip at the local hospital. If people want less abortions why don't they protest about that?

Children are great if they are loved and wanted. But if all women
followed the authors example and had 5, we would face an ever larger
overpopulation problem than we already face, with the world's population increasing by another 250'000, every time you have your daily breakfast.

Fact is that every woman has about 400 chances to have a baby and you can't keep all the little darlings, as Darwin correctly noted in his
Origin of Species. You will fail, if you try to go against the laws of nature.

Here here David F, how nice would be for mature adults to be able to choose what they want, but there are always those who can't help but change someone else's lives.

In my opinion, if abortion was murder, a child would celebrate their first birthday three month after birth, but they don't. End of story!

@Raison: A fertilised zygote has the potential to BECOME a human being. Many of them don't, of course -- your loving Almighty God, if you believe in him, is the most bloody-handed abortionist of all, causing up to 50% of pregnancies to spontaneously terminate.

But with modern technology we will soon be able to say the same about any cell in the human body. So if having the potential to grow into a human makes you human, then having a mole burnt off will soon be mass murder, since it eliminates any chance of those cells achieving their potential as human beings. Picking your nose will make you equivalent to a serial killer, and having your appendix out will put you up there with Hitler and Stalin on the genocidal scoreboard.

And when a few years after that it becomes possible to convert cells from any mammal into human zygotes, you will no longer be able to get a sick dog put down or cook a pork sausage without bearing the awful guilt for terminating countless millions of potential human lives. It will be interesting to see how the churches cope with this massive influx of ensouled cells, with a billion Last Rites to be carried out every time someone loses a finger or toe...

Or you could take the view that a zygote bears the same relation to a human being that an acorn does to an oak tree, and that it's really not the same thing at all. No, I guess that would be too sensible.

@crumpethead
"I've watched as women and their partners or family members make it clear that they don't want to engage with the protesters, errr.. counsellors, yet they are still followed to the clinic entrance. Since when is pleading for a woman not to kill her baby deemed to be counselling? Since when is displaying large posters of aborted/stillborn 2nd or 3rd trimester fetuses counselling?"

40 Days for Life participants do not engage with passers-by in any way unless approached first. They especially do not engage with clients or staff of the abortion centres outside which they hold their vigils. The idea of 40 Days for Life is exactly what the tag line says: "Pray to end abortion." The operative word there is 'pray'. It's not "Protest to end abortion" or "Harass to end abortion" or "Intimidate to end abortion".

40 Days for Life is a prayer vigil, not a protest. We pray that women will have a change of heart and seek the support that they need to be able to have their baby. If they do and seek our help, we are able to refer them to crisis pregnancy centres or other groups like the Helpers of God's Precious Infants that provide the practical and material help throughout and following the pregnancy.

I think, crumpethead, that you've done the typical pro-abortion thing by seeing 40 Days for Life as being an organisation that is opposed to abortion and have lumped 40 Days in with all other organisations of the same ilk. In future, it would make you look much better educated on the matter to find out more about an organisation before making ill-informed judgements about it.

Yabby, I have to agree. Society has most definitely moved on. Just like a drug addict might move on from tobacco to marijuana to heroin.

Tell me, are you pro-abortion or pro-unmarried-women-having-children or both? Because you're obviously pro-sex-outside-of-marriage, which means you have to be one or the other.

Maybe our grandparents weren't so dumb...

>>Tell me, are you pro-abortion or pro-unmarried-women-having-children or both? Because you're obviously pro-sex-outside-of-marriage, which means you have to be one or the other.<<

Because you can't be pro-contraception? I'm guessing you're a Catholic Mr Anderson.

Cheers,

Tony

*Maybe our grandparents weren't so dumb...*

Many of our grandpartents lived in fear and misery, Mr Anderson.
I've had plenty of old people confess to me, that they wish that
they had their lives over again. They had married the wrong person
for instance, then out of a sense of duty, been miserable for
decades, due to society pressure. etc.

Personally I am for choice, less suffering, more happy people and
for keeping the busybodies of the Vatican out of decisions about
my life and out of the lives of those who don't want them interfering.
Let them stick to preaching to their flocks

@John Forster
"you've done the typical pro-abortion thing by seeing 40 Days for Life as being an organisation that is opposed to abortion and have lumped 40 Days in with all other organisations of the same ilk". So your in favor of abortion then?

A rose by any other name.... I don't care what your website says 40dfl does, I know what I have seen. The usual scene outside Preterm in Sydney consists of a small group of people standing next to a banner, standing around chatting to each other, while others, you may call them "sidewalk counsellors", are scattered up & down the street, covering all approaches to the clinic entrance and positioning their posters outside the clinic's door. Are you saying these people are ring-ins?

And if you are not trying to intimidate women by your mass presence, why are you praying on street corners outside clinics? Why not pray for 40 days in church? Why not spend 40 days outside parliament? You would increase your puplic exposure, if thats really what your after.

>>The idea of 40 Days for Life is exactly what the tag line says: "Pray to end abortion." The operative word there is 'pray'. It's not "Protest to end abortion" or "Harass to end abortion" or "Intimidate to end abortion".<<

Either you rely on a very different definition of prayer than most of us or you're just telling fibs - not a good idea when the marvel that is the interweb facilitates such easy investigation of your claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK2dxclzVtc

I know a lot of Christians - I was raised Catholic myself although I'm reformed these days. In my experience the only time Christians pray aloud are during religious services: usually Mass although there are other occasions like ANZAC Day services. And my parents say grace before dinner. But usually Christians just pray quietly and privately in their own head which is reasonable because God knows what you're thinking even if you don't speak it aloud.

And prayer is a conversation with God and nobody else. So I don't really understand what marching around abortion clinics waving placards and blowing horns has to do with praying. The nice thing about prayer is that you can do it any time any where and God will hear it because He is omniscient - that doesn't guarantee He'll do anything about it because He moves in mysterious ways.

You don't have to stand outside in the elements day in day out to pray to end abortion when prayer can be so easily multi-tasked with other activities. All those good Christians could be at home looking after the foster children they've taken in and the starving orphans they've adopted because they care so much about the children and still pray to end abortion. But I bet they won't do that because it isn't just about prayer is it?

Cheers,

Tony

Jon J. my embryology textbook, “Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects”, by Moore and Persaud, says that a zygote is the beginning of a new human being. There is no mention of “potential human being”. A zygote is a member of the human species: it has the full human genome and is a living organism. What species do you think it belongs to?

A zygote has the potential to become a morula, which has potential to implant and continue as an embryo (up to 8 weeks) and subsequently the potential to become a fetus (human from 8 week stage), which has potential to grow and be born (baby human), which has the potential to grow and become a human adult. This is a continuum that all started at conception. No one worries about sperm or ova or moles or skin cells dying: these cells are part of a living human, not distinct organisms in their own right. Your other examples are ridiculous nonsense, but thanks for the laugh.

If, by cloning, you change a human cell (say a skin cell) into an embryo, then you have created a new human life; that may indeed grow along all stages of human development. The zygote formed is no longer a skin cell from a human, but is transformed into a new human organism that is distinct, self-contained and alive.

Also, a fertilized acorn seed is the start of an oak tree. The seed and the tree are in the same species and have the same genetic structure and DNA. Obviously the seed is not a tree, like a baby or fetus is not an adult. The tree to the fertilized seed is much like an adult to a zygote, but genetically the smaller forms have the same DNA as the bigger forms: thus they are the same type of organism or being, just at different stages of their lives. I’m not sure what you are trying to say with that example, since you scientifically helped the case for the humanity of the zygote.

*and is a living organism*

Indeed RichG, the zygote is an organism with potential. But it is not
a person. A sperm is an organsim with potential. A human egg has
potential. But none of them are people, just beings with potential.

An organism does not think or feel, it has no human brain. Giving
it some kind of magical powers or reverence is nothing but an
invention of the Catholic Church.

Personally I'd prefer to focus on thinking, feeling people already
born and suffering, rather than become hysterical about Catholic
dogma and organisms.

As Charles Darwin noted, far more beings of any species will be created, then can ever survive. He was correct and anything else
is wishful thinking.

>>A zygote is a member of the human species: it has the full human genome and is a living organism.<<

Technically that should read 'a human zygote is a member of the human species'.

I just don't understand why we're all so hung up on species:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13312#230187

If a zygote's right to life is determined by its membership of the human species then it would seem to be acceptable to murder Vulcans: they are not members of the human species. In that sense it is no worse than ending the life of any other animal species. I eat meat which means I'm indirectly responsible for the deaths of cows, pigs, cute fluffy little lambs, goats, kangaroos, rabbits, frogs, chickens, quails, ducks, turkeys, and pigeons. I hope to be responsible for the deaths of more - I'd really like to try venison one of these days. Should I feel no worse about killing a Vulcan? What about Spock?

If murdering Vulcan's doesn't sit well with your conscience then it would seem there is more than just species that comes into consideration. And if as I suggested earlier that it an organism's personhood that counts it is reasonable to ask the question 'is a human always a person?'

Cheers,

Tony

Gee boys, you can argue all you like about embryo's, zygotes, fertilization and unmarried mothers, but at the end of the day, which of you guys are going to actually force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want?

Will you tie the potential abortion woman down on her bed until she gives birth?
Will you also tie down the man that played an equal part in making this unwanted baby?

At the end of the day, the very least likely people that should be allowed to have a say in what women can or can't do with their bodies are unrelated males.

Abortion is currently legal,
and this will never change,
so get over it...

Yabby, +1
Tony, I don't know what planet your on.

It's a sad reflection on 40DFL and other right-to-life groups who aim to reduce the rights of a woman to less than or equal to those of a non-sentient embryo or fetus.

When abortion was first made lawfully available, the RTLers arguments were all based on their argument that "life starts at conception" and that the church forbids abortion. Now, after a couple of decades of their alienating women and driving more and more people away from a hostile and misogynistic church, their aim has shifted towards pretending to protect women from "the harms of abortion". Despite the fact that national medical bodies (in USA, Australia, UK, NZ etc) do not support any of the RTL claims about heath concerns. In fact, the largest risk facing a woman after having a termination, is confiding with a judgemental, right-to-life friend or family member.

If the 40Days people achieve their stated goal and ended abortion, women would have far greater health concerns to worry about but I'm sure that they wouldn't be holding 40 days of praying on street corners then.

Let's look at the emotive language the rtlers use. They refer to the embryo as unborn. Actually that is inaccurate. Embryos may not get born. Even if no surgical procedure is performed there are many cases of spontaneous abortions in which an embryo is disposed of and not born.

For accuracy in language all of us are undead. We know we are going to die some time in the future, but we obviously have not done so yet. Unborn is inaccurate usage. However, undead is accurate usage. Since I would rather dwell in the present I would refer to all the people on this list as alive rather than undead. They are also born. I place the rights of a woman who is born as above the rights of an embryo.

An embryo for most of the gestation period cannot live outside of its mother's body. During that period it is just tissue in the body of a pregnant woman. As far as I am concerned a woman, pregnant or not, has a right to say what goes on in her body. Those who would mess with that right point out the risks of abortion. That is nonsense. In most cases giving birth is a riskier procedure for women than abortion.

When my wife was a young woman the only choices for a woman going to university was being a teacher, a librarian or a nurse. While she was going to uni a new profession opened up, and she became an occupational therapist. She is quite bright, and I think she would have made a terrific mathematician, but that was not a choice for women at that time.

Now a woman is allowed in most professions, but some troglodytes do not want her to control what goes on her body and want to force her to have a baby that she doesn't want to have. Let having a baby be her choice, too.

davidf

Twist language and fact all you like. Any person who looks at a baby of 6 weeks under a mircoscope is under no illusion unlike yourself. The abortion industry certainly stoops to deceit to hide simple truths. The nazis did not see the Jews as human and abortionist use the same logic to kill babies.

THE PRIME MOTIVATION FOR ABORTION?

What??

What women want? - More Credible lies, Power and destruction!

The prime motivation is for pregnancy to GET power in a very competitive society where most of that competition is from women against other women. Blaming men is just a ruse to ease womens guilt that every child born DEMANDS more polluting companies to serve them and fewer protected species and maximum environmental destruction to give them the liebensraum (free space) their double dealing psyches WANT along with the RIGHT to blame other people for so they can feel righteous about themselves.

What women therefore REALLY WANT is a bloody good WAR which their men will fight to get the EQUALITY nee POWER that they LUST after.

This ugly reality is why every civilisation has at some point had to exclude women from the VOTE in order to stem the unsustainability that is the crest and frontespiece of every women's EQUAL RIGHT movement.

But alas War cometh and women will get exactly what they want. But it will be between 2025 and 2030 and 4-5 billion souls will have to perish along with any permanent ideals of equal rights.

The new world post 2030 will be exclusively ruled by men out of necessity ALL because women do not have the brains to understand the consequences of overbreeding and the lies they continue to tell in order to maintain that posture.

If they did have the brains they would take responsibility for their monthly oestrogenic selfishness, regulate their own reproduction to one child per lifetime and fess up to the environmental, biospecies and pollution and climate destructions they are DRIVING in this extant socio political miasma we call a modern world.

Four things remain:

Continuing..

1. It takes two to make a child but only one person WANTS it and HAS it. Men cannot be continued to be blamed.

2. Their are other ways women can get POWER without infecting this planet with progeny. Universities and TAFES are built for that purpose. If women are underrepresented in mental pursuits its only because they have easir easy-streets to getting the good life.

3. The rate of births is currently 73 million live births per year and this rate is increasing despite all the talk of abortion and all the blame cast on poorer nations. Immigrations, baby bonuses, parental leave and a whole mess of lies continues to attempt to distort this truth in ill conceived attempts by world governments to assuage the tears, shorter skirts and low cut dresses of push-cum-shove greed stricken women.

4. Every girl born today will expect 2.3 children to make a life ex brain power and they will care no more for the environment or civilised behaviours than their mothers do right NOW.

This is not misogynism any more than saying men are evil for meeting women's demands because they are sex maniacs is misandroidism.

What it is is the TRUTH about the disgusting lies that CURRENT or extant women are perpetrating on this planet and our species. The ugly consequences cannot continue to be hidden amongst lies, lipstick and blame games while what can only be described as a women's driven armageddon is just around the next GFC corner.

Can't live with them... better learn to live without them and SURVIVE

Yabby, we are all organisms with potential, from conception to natural death, always with the potential to live another day and possibly get to the next stage of development.
A sperm cell is not an organism. It is part of a human male organism, which gets released from his body. It cannot reproduce nor grow. A human ova is also not an organism. I think you need to read some human biology books Yabby.
We humans are organisms and at a certain stage of our lives we do think and feel. No one is giving a zygote magical powers or reverence. I am just pointing out that it is an organism and we were once one. We were never a sperm or ova, though likely one of these type of cells is produced by us.
What is a person (people is plural)? My dictionary says “a human being”, which science has established starts at conception. But of course society makes definitions and these can change. The concept of personhood is an abstract one, in the realm of philosophy. Whether something is a person is not a scientifically measurable quantity. So, to say a zygote is not a person is not accurate, it is a subjective opinion. I have mine, you have yours, whose should win out?
Your last sentence is irrelevant, we all die eventually, but Charles was not talking about humans killing other humans in that statement.

Hey runner, a baby of 6 weeks wouldn't fit under a microscope. They weigh several kilograms. If you have any evidence that clinics are giving false or deceptive information to women, state your case.

Clinics who perform abortions are legally and profesionally bound to provide accurate and truthful information about potential risks. Failure to do so will result in a doctor being struck off and sued by patients. RTL "counselling" services, or RTL lobby groups like 40DFL on the other hand, are under no legal obligation to provide truthful or accurate health information. They can and do deceive women

David f, there are many books I have not read, they are unread by me. I may never read them. Your first point is thus inaccurate. Unborn is not emotive either, it simply refers to their current location.
Saying that an embryo or fetus is just tissue is scientifically ignorant. It is a living organism that self regulates, is growing, has a beating heart by 21 days, a working brain by 40 days from conception, and it responds to touch in the 7th or 8th week of its life. Science is learning more and more about when an unborn child can feel pain, which experts use to believe was at birth, and now put before 20 weeks. Please educate yourself.
Further there is no way to know whether giving birth is riskier than aborting, since most countries do not keep records on deaths from abortion, preferring instead to record these deaths under categories describing the complication that led to the death, like infection. Researchers in that area freely acknowledge that abortion deaths are under-reported and that they have little to no idea by how much. It is clear that the numbers of deaths are very, very small for both pregnancy and abortion these days, thanks to modern medicine, about 10-12 women per 100000 pregnancies in the US, UK and Australia. Of course more than 1 is too many, but many of the deaths are due to physician error, e.g. failing to notice the signs of a heart attack (yes a heart attack during pregnancy is counted as a death from pregnancy! Yes, I’ve seen the official reports). Once again, please educate yourself instead of spreading rumours that you have no evidence for.

*A sperm cell is not an organism*

Not so RichG. It is an individual being that moves about. It is
very much alive. Look it up on Google.

*We were never a sperm or ova*

You certainly were. You are the product of sperm and ova, beings which
you flush down life's toilet every day, without a second thought.

*What is a person*

A person is a being with a human brain. You are going to have to wait until about week 22, until what can be called a human brain is present in a fetus.

No human brain, no person, brain stops and you don't have a person,
you have a corpse

Dear runner,

The Nazis didn't see the Jews as human, and I don't think you see a woman as human. You show no concern for the woman. She is more than a container for an embryo. Apparently the embryo to you is more important than the woman who has the embryo inside her, and you would control what she does with what is inside her.

I don't twist anything. I think an adult woman is far more important than an embryo and has the right to decide what she wants to do with that embryo. Apparently you are concerned with the embryo and don't give a damn about the woman.

davidf

'Apparently you are concerned with the embryo and don't give a damn about the woman.' Rather pathetic way to justify the murder of children. Whether I love or hate woman is not the issue. Again you pervert words in order to justify that which no humane person could do.

Dear runner,

How you feel about women is very much the issue. You distort. Abortion is not murdering children. Abortion is getting rid of an embryo which may eventually become a child but is not a child. You bring in the brutal Nazis. "Kinder, kirche,kuche" was the Nazi slogan for women. Children, church, kitchen. That was her role to them. She is a mere baby-machine. To them it was the future soldier or baby-maker that was important - not the woman who was obligated to bare them whetrher she wznted to or not. My cousin should have been able to get an abortion. That doesn't matter to you. You could only see the embryo not the woman. Yes, you have a contempt for a woman who doesn't want to bwe a baby maker. A living, feeling woman is more important than an embryo but not to you. You might not hate women, but you don't care a bit about their feelings or their needs. To you they are just there to make babies, and they better not want anything else. You regard women like the Nazis. They are as human as you or I. Women are more than baby-makers, and men are more than soldiers. Women are people. Embryos are neither people nor children.

All Runner wants is what's right for his church and nothing else.

Did I mention that some think and others don’t:)

The worlds human numbers simply means more starving people for the church to justify there reason for being here....and you know there unwritten philosophy......"create more hungry people and were still in business"

Women don’t even come into consideration nor do they have any chance with the bent minds of religion. If every unborn child was made in light of the worlds populations problems, Runner and his henchmen would fully reconsider.

Ladies.....if you know your child wont have a chance in this world, you will be doing the unborn a favour and yourself.

7.5 billion people and counting.

Planet

Yabby, a sperm cell is alive, but it is not an organism. Sort of like skin cells or hair. Do you know what an organism is? I suggest you Google it. A sperm cell is part of an organism, as is an ova. They are not a separate organism.
How can you say you were a sperm or an ova? Which were you? Both? Please, you were never something that does not have your own DNA. You do know whose DNA the sperm and whose the ova has don’t you? You do realise that when they fuse a new organism with new and different DNA results right?
The human brain starts emitting brainwaves, detectable by EEG, at about day 40 of its life.
A person is not a well-defined concept. Your definition is arbitrary, and many people would disagree with it, including pro-abortionists. How about I define person as someone who doesn’t understand basic embryology? i.e. my definition of a “brain” is something that can take in basic facts about human development, and then I’ll define a person as a human with that sort of brain, OK? Better study up Yabby, your personhood is in danger

david f

'You might not hate women, but you don't care a bit about their feelings or their needs. '

you are either a fool or very deceitful. My daughter, wife and many other woman I have regular contact with with totally disagree with your distortions (including those who have had abortions). The fact is you dehumanise babies just like the Nazis dehumanised Jews to achieve your wicked ends. The parrellel is very clear and you have no logical response except your childish comments about my uncaring nature. It is those that support murder that are uncaring no matter how much spin you put on it.

It is dangerous for those in power to determine whether the lives of the less powerful, voiceless, or invisible are meaningful. A baby's status should be defined by our centuries-old understanding from science rather than the ideology of a choice generation stemming from the 60s sexual freedom agenda (clearly it served that agenda to call into question a baby's humanity).
The word "fetus" simply means small human, and a woman can only birth a human baby, not a wolf or nonliving thing. Even children understand that abortion is wrong--they still have a functioning conscience. Moreover, those in the abortion business acknowledge that abortion kills a baby--they have to account for all the human body parts, after all.

Dear runner,

I have distorted nothing. You keep accusing me of that. You don't point out where I have distorted anything. You can't because I have distorted nothing. You have done so, and I called you to account for it. I don't doubt that women you are close to agree with you. It is possible that they may be afraid of you.

Let's dispense with calling each other names like wicked. That does no good. I try to do the best I can, and I assume you do likewise. Let's also keep Nazis out of it. That's another kind of name calling.

I think a woman in most cases has the right to decide she wants to have an abortion. I believe that right prevails over any rights an embryo might have. You would deny her that right. That is our difference.

All the other argy-bargy is unnecessary. Name calling is unpleasant.

I don't think you are a bad person. We are not going to agree. I will use my efforts to see that abortion continues to be legal. I assume you will try to see that it is illegal.

We are probably both trying to do what we think is right. However, we don't agree on what we think is right.

*Sort of like skin cells or hair*

Not really, Rich. They are not carbon based lifeforms which are
alive and move about on their own.

Do you actually understand what spermatogenisis is all about?
Those little sperms are not all the same.

Because brainwaves are emitted, does not mean that its already
a human brain. Time for you to do your neuroscience homework and
look up what is different about the human brain to other brains
and when that actually develops. Its like you trying to call
something a car, when it has no engine. Its a chassis, not yet
a car. But do your homework and come back to me when you have
learned the answers. I already know them, but you clearly don't
believe me, so you might as well look them up yourself.

davidf I appreciate your different one however you have gone from

'You might not hate women, but you don't care a bit about their feelings or their needs. '

Someone who cares not or feels about another human being whether man, woman, child or baby in my view is not a nice person and yet you then write

'I don't think you are a bad person. '

The issue was never whether I was a good or bad person. I am very happy to leave that judegment to those who live with me everyday. I am first to admit that along with every other human I have a fallen nature. I see a clear parrelel between the Germans who were brainwashed by the Nazi party that Jews were not human to abortionist who use pseudo science (very pseudo) to rename and deny the obvious fact that a baby is a baby. This demonstrates to me clearly that you to have a flawed nature.

Yabby, yes, sperm can move and they have life. They have the DNA of the man in whom they were manufactured. The definition of an organism (from biology online) is “An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.”. Sperm can’t do the things on that list and so they are not an organism. Some questions for you: if a sperm is an organism, what species does it belong to? Also, do you think white blood cells are organisms too?

I am glad to see you are somewhat educated, at least on neuroscience. Personally I like this site on human brain development: http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ#fullydeveloped not too technical, but plenty of information to surmise what is going on; I’m sure you are fully conversant with what it says. Readers of this blog can check it out for themselves and decide when what I call a human brain becomes enough of a human brain to be classified as such. We will clearly disagree on the point in question though; but again, many pro-aborts and scientists would disagree with your view. Like many, I choose to classify the thing in the head cavity that emits brainwaves, by day 40 or so, as a brain, even though it is not fully constructed when it starts doing so, and even though it will add capabilities as it develops further and becomes what you consider a brain. Regardless, isn’t it amazing that it can work and perform some roles, even when not fully constructed? What organ would you classify it as when it starts emitting brainwaves?

Oh, and humans are not at all like cars (or chairs, or bread, or any of those other illogical examples). Cars cannot construct themselves (from a single cell).

And no, I don’t believe much of what you say: you are at least correct in that statement.

*They have the DNA of the man in whom they were manufactured.*

Ah Rich, but they are not identical and don't carrry identical dna.
It depends on what happened at meiosis. So there is already mass
variation between sperms. So they are indeed individuals, unlike
other cells, which are exact copies. They are alive for days and
they move about on their own accord, unlike blood cells or any other
cells. For every definition that you find from one source, I can
find you another definition which makes my point.

Crocodile brains have a brainstem and send electric impulses, that
does not mean they are human brains. The human brain really evolved
in three stages, ie the brain stem, the limbic system or the emotional
centres and then the thinking bits on top. A brain with just a
functioning brainstem and developing nervous system, is not yet
a human brain, but a potential one. The thinking bits really only
come together at week 22. Potential does not equate to already
existing.

When it comes down to people, it is all about the brain. If I
did surgey and transplanted your brain into the body of a woman of
say 60, who would you be

Why that word is constantly repeated on this thread - "human", "human" and "human" again.

All that is biased speciesism, blindly identifying with the human species, applying double standards in favour of one's own kind.

Yes, a fetus is human - so what's the big deal? why should it be wrong to kill a human for those who daily and without remorse place the corpses of other animals on their table? Generally, those animals being butchered are more evolved - physically, mentally and emotionally than the fetuses under discussion, their pain and loss being significantly greater than the pain and loss of fetuses who have not experienced the world yet, who are yet to have any investment in it.

Humans are the biggest pests on this planet. There are way too many of them, harassing and decimating the rest. But not only the rest are to suffer - in order to sustain such numbers, humans themselves pay the heavy price of having to live further and further away from nature, within their artificial technological hive, that indeed keeps their bodies alive, but sucks away any meaning out of living.

Want to be pro-life? Then be pro all forms of life, not just of your own kind; and consider the quality of life as well, not just the compulsive persistence of certain organic compounds.

>>The definition of an organism (from biology online) is “An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.”.<<

If I were you I'd find a better source than biology online: viruses do not have metabolism and are incapable of growth. They can't maintain homeostasis either. There is considerable debate as to whether or not they can be considered a form of life.

>>Sperm can’t do the things on that list and so they are not an organism.<<

They can do more of the things on that list than viruses: they can react to stimuli, grow and maintain homeostasis. So they're not as much of an organism as an orangutan but they are more of an organism than a virus.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear runner.

My flawed nature? I think seeing that women who feel an abortion is necessary have access to the procedure done by competent practitioners rather than going the old coat hanger route which so often caused great suffering in the past is a most moral position. I also think having sex education and availability of contraceptives so that unwanted pregnancies are minimised and fewer abortions will be necessary is also a most moral position. In other areas my flawed nature might be exhibited, but in those areas my morality is of the highest quality, and my nature is not the least bit flawed.

I really don’t think you’re qualified to judge whether my nature is flawed or not. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge whether your nature is flawed or not.

All we can do is to have our own opinions and try to do our best. I think you’re acting from what you believe is the best course. I know I am. We differ on what is the best course, and we won’t agree.

Yuyutsu wrote: Generally, those animals being butchered are more evolved - physically, mentally and emotionally than the fetuses under discussion, their pain and loss being significantly greater than the pain and loss of fetuses who have not experienced the world yet, who are yet to have any investment in it.

My wife and I agree with the above, and we eat very little meat. There is a great variety of meat substitutes made of soy and other vegetable materials available, and we eat them together with other vegetables for most of our diet.

Using the criteria of sentience and suffering an adult women has a much greater capacity for suffering than the embryo inside her, and her needs should take almost complete precedence over that of an embryo

Thanks for correcting my sloppy error: I'm aware meiosis involves some genetic recombination, and distribution of X and Y chromosomes. However, a sperm is still not an organism. And what species would it belong to again? It is not a human being or an organism by any logical definition.

Where’s the exact line between a human brain and a human potential brain for you? And why? This is not scientific language, Yabby, using "potential" in this context. We’ll have to disagree on this subjective interpretation.

If you took out my brain, I’d be dead. I would not be able to function as an organism without it, at this stage of my life. When a human brain stops receiving oxygen, and hence stops functioning, you cease to be an organism, that’s why being brain dead is one legal definition of being dead: you are not a human organism anymore. Once you develop a brain, even the thing that you call “potential brain”, you can’t function without it. An embryo/fetus will die if you remove its "potential brain" too. The remarkable thing about humans is that before we had this (“potential”) brain, we could function as an organism and not only did we not need it at that stage, but we proceeded to build our own brain! We are amazing creatures aren’t we? This issue, that it is our ability to function as an organism, not just our brain function, that determines whether we are living or dead as a human being, is well discussed by A/Professor Maureen Condic in this article http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24

Who would I be if you removed my brain and put it in another person's body? This is a hypothetical question I believe. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Is this the sort of de-humanizing stuff you are into? If you hang around with the sort of elitists that push this stuff, I recommend that you get away from them while you can. Who knows, you might look like a pretty good body to transplant Stephen Hawking's brain into, for that sort of crowd, so beware.

The transplanted brain question is not as far fetched as it might seem, Rich. There have already been heads transplanted between individuals of other species. There is just the little problem of
the spinal cord and the ethics involved. But thinking about it
might make you click that a person is all about the brain. All
the rest, even the face, can be replaced.

But only part of an undeveloped brain which is still under
construction, is not yet a brain, it will be when constructed.
So it has potential, but without the bits that make it a person,
its not yet a person.

*However, a sperm is still not an organism*

Well that is just your claim and nothing more. Its a being, its
human, its independant, its alive, it moves about all by itself,
it has its own combination of dna, its dna will be replicated
in the next generation. It can live for days and days. It dies
eventually. Yes it is an organism.

*We are amazing creatures aren’t we?*

Well, we are just another creature, there is no shortage of species

>>Who would I be if you removed my brain and put it in another person's body? This is a hypothetical question I believe. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Is this the sort of de-humanizing stuff you are into? If you hang around with the sort of elitists that push this stuff, I recommend that you get away from them while you can. Who knows, you might look like a pretty good body to transplant Stephen Hawking's brain into, for that sort of crowd, so beware.<<

It's called a thought experiment RichG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

They crop up a lot in physics and philosophy. Here are some examples you might be more familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma

And here is one that involves brain removal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat

The brain in a vat and changing brains thought experiments are not intended as suggestions that attempted cerebral transplants would actually be a good idea. The sort of elitists that push this stuff are not - as you seem to think - neurosurgeons trying to think of proposals to upset ethics committees: they are generally philosophy professors. In my experience this means mild-mannered middle-aged men who spend a lot of time thinking and reading books. I can see how you'd want to be wary of that crowd.

Cheers,

Tony

Human organisms have alternate forms in successive life sycles. In one form we are multicelled organisms some female some male. That form has 100% mortality. During the multicelled life cycle each of the two forms produce one celled organisms. The females produce egg cells, and the males produce sperm cells. The one celled organisms have almost 100% mortality but not quite. A very small fraction of the individuals in the form of sperm unite with a very small fraction of the individuals in the form of eggs. From this union the multicelled individuals proceed by cell division. Sperm and egg are human as are male and female. Humans alternate generations in single and multicelled forms.

It is as logical to try to preserve all the one celled forms as to preserve all the multicelled forms and as pointless. The single celled forms consume very few resources. However, the multicelled forms are increasing in menacing numbers and putting a strain on the resources of the planet.

So Yabby, a sperm is human and a being, hence it is a human being? Really? But a zygote is not? Nice logic. The DNA of sperm "will be replicated in the next generation"? Generation of what? Sperm do not reproduce to make other sperm, do they? Thus they are not organisms. Sperm fuse with ova to produce a new human being. I guess you did not read the Condic article? Person has no scientific definition in the context you are using it: you just made one up.

Thanks Tony, sloppy of me to not notice virus incorrectly included in that definition of organism. Yes, sperm are more like an organism than a virus, but neither make it. A zygote does, and is a human being.

Yes, I quit enjoy philosophy myself. Of course there will often be crazies who act on the ideas of often harmless philosophers, won't there? Ideas have consequences. I bet you can think of examples of this yourself. Yabby's answer confirms there are those already interested to try head transplantation. There are also those interested to try out "after-birth abortion". I doubt you are that naive not to know that ideas have consequences Tony. Oh, and how's life on Vulcan?

*So Yabby, a sperm is human and a being, hence it is a human being? Really? But a zygote is not? Nice logic.*

You remain confused Rich, so I will clarify the point. Neither a
sperm nor a zygote is a person.Both are beings with human dna.

*Sperm do not reproduce to make other sperm, do they?*

Ah, but there are a number of ways to pass on dna, some more complex
then others. Every bit of that sperm's dna is in every cell of
its human host. So its dna is reproduced zillions of times.

As Richard Dawkins so cleverly put it, the body is simply
the host used by dna, to replicate itself from generation to
generation.

In the end, the host will produce more sperms, eggs and on it goes.

So sperm do reproduce to make other sperm, they just go the long way
about it. They take a partner, just like you take a partner, to
reproduce yourself

>>Oh, and how's life on Vulcan?<<

Obviously you haven't seen the awesome new Star Trek movie: shame on you. Spoiler alert: Vulcan gets destroyed. There is a very amusing scene just prior to its destruction with Chekov ordering all the inhabitants to 'ewacuate Wulcan!'. Priceless.

>>Of course there will often be crazies who act on the ideas of often harmless philosophers, won't there?<<

My word yes. There was this Jewish ethicist who lived about 2000 years ago who wrote some pretty harmless stuff and you should see some of the things that crazies have gotten up to and keep getting up to in his name.

Cheers,

Tony

david f,
your inability to present a coherent, logical argument atounds me. You start off with a preposterous accusation against runner, accusing him without any justification of not caring about your cousin who committed suicide more than half a century ago, and your posts get progressively more confused and irrational.
You repeatedly assert that an adult woman is worth infinitely more than an embryo, but has it not occurred to you that these are not different tpyes of human being, merely different stages in the same human existence, stages through which all of us have passed? You simply cannot become an adult woman without first becoming a tiny female embryo. Consequently, you cannot logically defend the right to life of the adult, but not the embryo. Has the obvious never even occurred to you?
Given your stated views, it's a fair assumption that, if your cousin had been aborted during the embryonic stage of her existence, that would have been fine with you because you would not have known her and been able to care about her. Yet, from her point of view, she would have lost her entire born existence through abortion, not half of it as a consequence of her equally tragic suicide.
In other words, you wouldn't have given a damn if she had never existed, as her life only had value to you because she earned your affection by being allowed to be born. That's a purely subjective, not rational argument. Who would have defended her right to be born? Runner, not you.
Don't delude yourself that you valued her life if you are not prepared to defend her right to be born. She was the same human being from the moment of conception until her untimely death, yet in your eyes she was worth no more than a disposable nappy until she took her first breath. Take the plank from your own eye.

Peter D

Dear Peter D,

It is evident that you, like runner, can't see the difference between an adult human being and an embryo. An embryo has potential, but potential is not realisation. Yes, we pass through different stages, but when runner talks about murdering children he ignores the simple fact that an embryo is not a child.

You wrote: "She was the same human being from the moment of conception until her untimely death"

The simple fact is that she was not the same human being. You are I are not the same human beings that we were one second ago. You may well talk about deluding yourself.

Dear Peter,

Whence that "right to life" that you mentioned?

The reason we should not kill has nothing to do with so-called "rights" of the person being killed, but because it would turn us into murderers, which is normally very detrimental to our spiritual well-being.

The word "life" is too commonly used in two erroneous ways:
1) the functioning/breathing of a biological organism.
2) one's identification with such biological form.

In Reality, life does not depend on biology - life goes on eternally regardless whether or not we are associated with a worldly proxy/body through which we can sense, act and think in a worldly way.

Being associated with a worldly body is not a privilege, it is a duty.

If one dies as a fetus, then they can be said to be lucky, blessed that they were not required to endure a whole lifetime as a human. The more likely scenario, however, is that nobody yet was associated with that fetal body. Even if one did, then that association was still weak, temporary and fragile, hence nobody suffered a significant loss. OTOH, if one dies as a capable adult, then one loses all s/he learned, which can be painful indeed.

For our own spiritual good, we should do our very best to avoid causing suffering, pain and loss, to others. The pain and loss caused when killing an adult human are generally greater than the pain and loss caused when killing an adult animal, yet generally greater than the pain and loss caused when killing a human fetus, certainly in its early stages.

>>In other words, you wouldn't have given a damn if she had never existed<<

Not if he's of sound mind. When did we start caring about people that don't exist? For heaven's sake man there are billions of people suffering in this world from poverty, malnutrition, lack of sanitation, human rights abuses, war, famine, pestilence etc.

Aren't they just a little bit more important than people that don't exist? I think so. And not just them: even fat rich American wànkers are more important than people that don't exist. Even hippies are more important than people that don't exist. And I think nearly every ethicist in the known universe will agree that real people matter more than the imaginary ones. Imaginary ones like david's hypothetical cousin who was aborted as opposed to real ones like david's cousin.

Cheers,

Tony

A human zygote is a human being from the moment of conception by every scientific definition. A very young, very immature, very small human being but a human being nevertheless.

What is debatable is whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person so can any of you who claim an embryo (most babies are aborted in the embryonic stage not as zygotes) is not a person tell me when personhood begins? What logical rule can we apply to the whole human race that separates the persons (who are worthy of life) from the nonpersons (who may be killed)?

Kyles, we have been though this before in earlier posts. A human
sperm too is a being with human dna. But neither the sperm, zygote or fetus have what can be called a human brain. No human brain equals no person.You will have to wait until about week 22 to achieve that. Given that most abortions take place before 12 weeks, its not an issue.

Dear Kyles,

"personhood" is indeed irrelevant since it's all about performance: one day perhaps, a computer may pass the Turing test and thus be regarded as a person. Will it then become immoral to unplug it? how ridiculous!

There is no solid binary rule that separates those "worthy of life" from those who aren't. As difficult as this may be for the legal professions, "worthiness to live" is a full sliding scale, with some more worthy of life than others. A prerequisite is that some individual soul is attached to the body in question and the level of worthiness varies according to the level of suffering and loss which that soul will incur if its associated body is rendered biologically lifeless.

The biggest loss is the loss of education - both formal and informal. A baby learns so much, so intensively, about his/her body, how to operate it, how to interact with the environment, how to understand the sensory input, etc. Then come years of learning by play, by trial and error before formal education has even begun, then experience is continuously gained throughout life. Losing all this is tragic and painful, hence killing an adult human is such a sin. Animals too learn, though they miss the formal/abstract part of it, hence their life is also to be valued. On this scale, fetuses still have the least amount of studies to lose, hence killing them is a lesser sin than killing an animal (for fun or for food, as opposed to killing in self-defense).

A fetus has a brain, it is not fully developed but it is fully human. A babies brain is not fully developed either and nor is a teenagers brain.

A fetus has a lifetime of potential for learning, and it begins in the womb. I think all human life is of equal value no matter age, skin colour, intelligence, or wealth.

*A fetus has a brain, it is not fully developed but it is fully human*

Kyles, a baby has a brain that has the structures in place to let it
function as a human brain. A fetus brain is still a brain under
construction. It cannot yet function as a human brain, because those
bits that make it a human brain, are not yet there. A brain stem does
not constitute a human brain. Even crocodiles have them.

Dear Kyles,

<<I think all human life is of equal value no matter age, skin colour, intelligence, or wealth.>>

Skin colour and wealth aside as red-herrings, I see no reason why this should be the case. I see no problem with the fact, both natural and intuitive, that the life of certain humans is significantly more valuable than the life of certain others, age and intelligence being legitimate factors (though not the only factors).

Moreover, the life of certain animals can also be more valuable than the life of certain humans. Claiming that the life of humans is more valuable than the life of animals is a form of racism: prejudice on the grounds of species is no different in principle than prejudice on the grounds of skin colour.

This whole "equality" thing is a but a political[ly-correct] construct, defying nature itself.

If a women is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, the resulting embryo has no more right to be protected than any other unwanted growth like a cancerous tumor. If she wants to keep or get rid of it the decision should be hers and hers alone. If she wants to get rid of it adequate facilities should be provided. Making her carry the embryo if she doesn't want to is punishing her for a crime another person committed.

Could not the ready availability of paternity tests also be a cause of abortion? No longer can simple association be the basis of a lifelong financial presumption, if she's not sure of who is the sperm donor then it's "get it out".

This seems all very inequitable.

The female's life, her future, is changed dramatically if she has a baby out of wedlock. But there are two people involved in conceiving a child.

If girls/women do not have abortions - which many believe they shouldn't - then the fathers should contribute to their child/children's care until they reach 18 years. This could mean a 14 yr old boy leaving school as soon as he is legally able and contributing towards the care of his baby. This seems only fair.

As reported many thousands of abortions occur annually. Instead, if these embryos were to come to term, this would be an enormous burden on the public purse.

Let's be fair. Currently, the fathers have no responsibility towards
their child born under these conditions. If they were charged with the same responsibility as the mother, then undoubtedly there would be many less children born to single women.

It would have to be assumed that those so adamant that abortion is wrong would like to see its practice as illegal.

As the anti-abortionists will never convince free thinking women (and religious women) not to abort if considered necessary, it means there will always be abortions whether legal or not. Putting aside for the moment the disastrous results of abortion being illegal, how would the anti-abortionists on this thread answer the following. These are not new questions, just ones that have never been adequately address by anti-abortionists.

Is abortion murder?

If it not murder, what is it?

If it is murder, then should the existing laws relating to murder be the same in application to abortion? That is, should the penalties be the same for actual murder and abortion? If not, why not?

Should those laws regarding murder be aimed at the pregnant woman who aborts, the doctor who does the abortion and the staff who work at an abortion clinic?

If anti-abortionists do not regard an abortion as murder, please define what it is?

If it is not murder, what should the penalties be?

And for those adamant about abortion being murder, should states with the death penalty take the life of women who has an abortion, the doctor who does the abortion and the staff who are present. After all, an abortion fits the description of being premeditated murder in their eyes.

These are all serious questions and need to be answered with some rationality.

David

Is abortion murder?

If it not murder, what is it?

A..Commonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo&feature=related

Some of the smartest people on this site are anything but. See some believe that whats going on all around the planet concerning human life is GOD's plan, starving to death or not and all will arrive in heaven safe and well...lol....you religious women cant be serious?

Right now there's nowhere for your children to go.

Iam not going to on about it, you know my thoughts on the matter.

And the religious types call themselfves intelligent.....don't make me laugh.....the fact is, your anything but.

7.7 billion people and counting.

Planet

Danielle,

I prefer the reverse of your solution. Currently men ARE financially responsible for the children whether they want them or not. I believe men should be able to abort the baby. If a woman vetoes this abortion and decides to continue with the pregnancy, then the man then no longer has any responsibility whatsoever.

This would be equitable, giving the man equal rights to abortion that women have.

Dear Houellebecq,

I see no justification for granting men a right to interfere with a woman's body: men should be able to kill their babies only after they are born, once independent of the woman's body, then it is equal: any of the parents may object to killing the baby, but then they should raise it on their own.

Naturally killing anyone is not a good idea, but lets face it - in a society which kills animals daily to put their corpses on the table, killing a creature less-developed than most other victims on one's plate would not make a big difference.

Houellebecq,

Many males get a female pregnant and just walk away. The females either have to have an abortion, a not inconsiderable procedure, or are left responsible for the child until it reaches 18 yrs. In fact, the tax-payer is to quite a degree.

If all conceptions came to term ... and the numbers are staggering ... should the tax-payer have to foot the bill, or the males involved take responsibility.

Incidentally, I know of two cases where the husbands insisted on their wives having a termination, which the women did not want. But both women had abortions as insisted by their husbands.

It is also reasonable, if a man is in are relationship and does not want a child, then he should take the necessary precautions.

Danielle,

'Many males get a female pregnant and just walk away'.

So men can get women pregnant without any action from the woman? Surely they could close their legs. I think it shows a very irresponsible attitude to say 'someone got me pregnant', as if it's none of your responsibility.

'should the tax-payer have to foot the bill, or the males involved take responsibility.'

The tax payer provides a safety net for the children's benefit. I notice you don't mention the woman footing any of the bill. The law reinforces it with child support legislation, what's your point? Really what world do you live in? The 60s?

'But both women had abortions as insisted by their husbands.'

More fool them. Are they not adults? They have the power of this decision, but refuse to exercise it, then blame their partners.

'It is also reasonable, if a man is in are relationship and does not want a child, then he should take the necessary precautions.'

Of course it is but if contraception fails, it's out of his hands. That's my point, a woman has abortion rights, a man does not. The next best thing is for the man to be able to financially abort his child, as the woman always has the option to physically abort the child.

That would be equitable. Or else let men kill the baby just after birth as the other poster suggested.

Houellebecq,

Caring for a child until it is 18 yrs is a long term commitment, it also means a very different life from that a woman might have chosen. There is considerable sacrifice. The women is in this for the long haul.

And yes, as you say, it takes two to have a baby. I do not know any men whose lives have been changed irrevocably like that of an unwed mother.

'I do not know any men whose lives have been changed irrevocably like that of an unwed mother.'

I suppose any chance of that is nipped in the bud as if the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, she has an abortion regardless of his wishes. I don't know of any women who would have the baby and then hand it over to the man to raise.

You totally discount the many men who struggle to make ends meet paying for the financial needs of the mother and children they rarely get to see. Posters on OLO have often related that inequity of being in a position of funding the upbringing of the children while the mother continues educating herself at the expense of the tax payer and the father, who due to his commitments has no time or money to do the same.

With power comes responsibility. Women have all the power over the life after conception, so are lumped with more caring responsibility (Which BTW also comes hand in hand with preferential bias when it comes to custody decisions). Men have zero power over the decision to abort or not, but still have financial responsibility.

Such is life, but I object to your statement 'This seems all very inequitable. ' Your idea of equitable seems to me to mean women should have all the power and men all the responsibility.

Often those arguing for abortion do speak of the baby as if it were an extension of the female when in reality the baby is not an appendage. Moreover, the mother is not the only parent involved, yet abortion has been treated as her dilemma alone, and indeed sometimes the woman does not inform the father--so he is denied parental rights, The bodily rights argument is wrong because the preborn baby is genetically and physically distinct from the mother. Thus, for instance, a pregnant woman is not allowed to take thalidimide because it would harm the baby (back in the 50s the drug thalidimide was outlawed because it was found to cause birth defects). The baby is a distinct human being and just because it is dependent on the mother does not give her a right to end the child's life. If anything, it increases her responsibility to take care that she does not take anything that might harm the child.

Dear FaithI,

Unfortunately ideology distorts language. You consistently use the word, baby, for the embryo or fetus. An embryo only becomes a baby when a woman gives birth. At that point a the fetus becomes a baby. It would be inaccurate to call a woman a mother who has had a miscarriage but has never given birth. She is not a mother, and the expelled fetus is not a baby. Although the embryo is genetically distinct from the pregnant woman it is still part of her body. In most cases she should have the right to decide whether it is in her interests to continue the pregnancy to term.

Language should always be used carefully. In the English language, fetus simply means: “the developing young in the uterus” [Medical Dictionary].
Fetus is the age-old name (having Indo-European roots)that recognizes the growing human being inside the pregnant woman. It is only in v. recent history, in fact just after Roe v. Wade and the sacred cow of abortion that feminists began calling abortion a reproductive right or an even worse euphemism, "health care", and rhetorical group think took over the word "fetus" in an effort to dehumanize the baby. Ask those with a fully formed conscience and children (who have not yet learned to speak group-think). Children especially immediately know abortion is wrong: they recognize human life has innate value, even at its tiniest stage.

Faithl wrote: "Children especially immediately know abortion is wrong: they recognize human life has innate value, even at its tiniest stage."

Dear FaithI,

I never knew until now that children discuss abortion. What is the evidence for your above statement? It is your value judgment that abortion is wrong. I disagree. I don't think it is wrong. I think in some cases it is the best course of action.

I feel we have made progress in providing women with the opportunity for abortion in a medically secure environment. If we were to make abortion illegal because some people think it is wrong we would regress to illegal abortions and the coathanger which put women's life at risk.

We can minimise the need for abortion by provision of contraceptives, instruction in their use and sex education. I think that is a moral way to reduce the need for abortions, but the procedure should be available when a woman feels it is necessary.

Houellebecq,

I agree 100% with you. If men are supporting a child and wish to be in its life, they should be. Obviously, there are cases where the father would be a risk to the child - but, we are not discussing this scenario.

No man should be denied access to a child just because the mother doesn't like the father. Women who do this, do it out of malice and do not care for the child's welfare; I would go so far to say, that they don't truly love their child. Every child has the right to be loved by both parents, even if the parents are separated.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that there are many women out there, who deprive both the father and the child a mutual loving relationship. This does untold damage to the child, and unforgivable suffering to the father.

Bernard Nathanson, one of the original proponents of abortion and an abortionist admitted later that he and others made up statistics regarding illegal or coathanger abortions. Their numbers were fabricated. When abortion is legalized it becomes normalized and numbers increase and so do complications and resulting injuries and deaths. Many go unreported or given a different cause of death by abortion doctors unwilling to list the abortion as the cause of death. Contraceptives fail and abortionists know this and build that into their marketing plans so that Oops! when the contraception fails, they can come solve all your problems by selling you an abortion. Unfortunately, women are reporting they do not feel their abortions solved anything but only caused a world of grief and pain (their stories are finally starting to come out). Former abortionists or doctors who once performed abortions have admitted that money was their reason for becoming abortion doctors. Currently, women die under legal abortions --about ten times as many (a Canadian source) as dies in 1972, when 39 women died as a result of illegal abortions. Add to the number of complications--such as a perforated uterus--the fact that women often attempt and commit suicide or and are at risk of violent death following abortions. Abortion hurts women and is no solution.

Faithl wrote: "Abortion hurts women and is no solution."

Abortion is the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Giving birth also hurts women. To avoid hurting women by abortion and giving birth we can get rid of pregnancy. Of course the consequences would be the end of the human race. However,there is a bright side to that. Other species in danger of extinction because of loss of habitat due to human activity would have a greater chance of survival.

Abortion is the only solution to an unwanted prgnancy.

We can minimise unwanted pregnancies by sex education along with easy access to contraceptives along with insruction in their use.

David--It looks as though you are trying to express empathy for suffering--yet the pain does not vanish with abortion. Women who abort their babies frequently report that the abortion solved nothing and left them in fact haunted and with lifelong anguish, regret, and suffering. There are always more options than it initially appears, especially when there is an unplanned pregnancy. So many people are waiting to adopt, and the woman can avoid the huge negative mental and physical health impacts of abortion by giving the baby up for adoption, for instance. In an earlier post, You asked what children think about abortion. Here is the comment of an eleven year old not yet indoctrinated in the group think of the mainstream culture: "Another thing about all Pro-aborts is their name disguise. “abortion” is just some fancy way of saying “murdering babies”. They just changed the name so it didn’t seem like they were murdering. And babies are just smaller, cute people who don’t know too much yet. Abortion doctors should remember they were once babies and they could have been aborted. But no! Their mothers chose for them to live! So let unborn babies live!!"

Dear Faithl,

My cousin who was pregnant and committed suicide is unable to feel regret for an abortion because she is dead. Get that! If she had been able to get an abortion she would not have committed suicide. That somehow doesn't seem to mean anything to you, but her memory is part of the reason I support the availability of abortion.

In order to produce a baby for adoption a woman has to continue an unwanted pregnancy. A woman should not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is no solution for an unwanted pregnancy.

You are still using emotive and inaccurate langusge. Abortion is not murdering babies. A fetus is not a baby. You use the phrase 'unborn babies.' A fetus may not become a baby. However, we will all die. You and I are undead people since eventually we will be dead. I prefer not to use such language.

My mother wanted me and was in circumstances where she could have a baby. Not all women are in such circumstances, and those who are not have a right to terminate their pregnancies.

Actually, I would like to see an end to abortion by seeing that there were no unwanted pregnancies. However, there will continue to be unwanted pregnancies whatever we do to prevent them. You are against abortion. If you find yourself pregnant don't get one. However, for those women who are pregnant and don't want to continue the pregnancy it is the only solution. They should not be harassed and should be provided with the means to terminate the pregnancy in a medically appropriate procedure.

Dear David,

I am sorry for your loss. I understand this is a very difficult subject for you. My prayers for you and your family.

You are very certain of abortion as a solution to women's problems--from what I have found in researching abortion are the many documented negative impacts of abortion. Research shows that women who have abortions are much more likely to suffer depression and death than those who carry the pregnancy to natural birth. This is an established fact--abortion is just not the tidy solution you claim. For instance, "A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth."http://afterabortion.org/2012/higher-death-rates-after-abortion-found-in-u-s-finland-and-denmark/ And as to abortion-suicide link: "The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=gissler%20suicide%20bmj

Again, my prayers are with you during your sorrow.

Dear Faithl,

If you want to pray for me then do it, and don’t tell me about it. You may mean well, but I regard it as offensive and disregarding my feelings.

Perhaps you may find it difficult to understand why I find it offensive. You probably would doubt the efficacy of a believer in voodoo who told you he was rattling the bones for you. For one thing I don’t think your prayers will help me any more than rattling bones would help you. For another thing it assumes that I subscribe to the same belief system that you do. I believe in neither the efficacy of prayers to do anything for those who don’t believe in them or the existence of any supernatural entities.

I don’t expect you to concur with my lack of religious belief, and I resent you putting your belief on me. If you think your prayers will do me good you are free to pray, but telling me about it is putting your beliefs on me.

That is the same kind of attitude you have toward abortion. You think it shouldn't be done. Then don’t have one. However, I think women who go to an abortion clinic to have an abortion have thought about the pros and cons of the matter. Abortion can be most stressful, but they have decided it is the best alternative for them. Then respect their choice. Don’t harass them by picketing the clinics and waving bloody photos. They have made their choice. It would not be your choice but please respect their choice.

Please respond to what I write rather than modify what I write and respond to that. You wrote referring to me, “You are very certain of abortion as a solution to women's problems.”

I never maintained anything of the kind. I wrote: “Abortion is the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy.” You have not suggested any other solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Making a woman continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want is not a solution.

Dear Faithl,

You have made a lot of arguments against abortion. I am a man and am never going to get pregnant. However, suppose a pregnant woman after hearing the arguments against abortion decides that it is the best alternative in her situation. Would you deny her access to abortion by a competent practitioner?

I wonder how many of the respondents on this topic are women? It seems that the discussion has been monopolized by men. This is hardly fair.

I would never have had an abortion. But, I would never look unfavorably on a girl/woman who does. This is her decision (and the husband's if married). No-one should impose their 'conscience' on others.

Unless anti-abortionists are each, and every one, prepared to financially, emotionally, and in every other practical way - perhaps even taking them into their home - support each woman (who otherwise would abort) until the child reaches adulthood, then they are not in a position to even suggest to women what they should do.

It is very easy to promulgate something, then walk away smug and self-satisfied. The reality of their decision is quite different for both women who have their babies, and for women who decide to abort.