I dunno, I reckon fluffy bunnies would help too. You shouldn't discount bunnies.

I am currently in Mae Sot on the Thai Burma Border. Over the past 60 years, hundreds of thousands of Karen and other Burmese have fled here to escape Burmese government oppression and war. Hopefully there are signs of change inside Burma, but it will take much improvement before many will feel secure enough to return. On the way here I passed through Cambodia and revisited the notorious S-21 at Tuol Sleng and the associated "Killing Fields" just outside of Phnom Penh. Between 1975 and early 79, the Khmer Rouge tortured and slaughtered nearly 20,000 men, women and children. At the "killing Fields", there is the so called 'Magic tree' which is festooned with small, coloured commemorative rings. This tree is where the KR soldiers took babies from their mothers, and killed them by bashing the babies' brains out against the trunk. The Khmer Rouge are universally condemned for their genocidal behavior.

In Victoria each year some 20,000 babies are aborted, some 80-100,000 in Australia. The methodology of abortion procedures on the living, genetically unique foetus is appalling, especially the late term abortions. Although there has been much debate on the subject, there is no doubt that the foetus experiences pain, some medical research suggests from 8 weeks, but certainly from around 13 weeks. When an induced abortion occurs, depending on what stage of the pregnancy, the unborn child can die a variety of deaths – sucked to pieces, cut to pieces, twisted and dismembered, poisoned, right through to partial birth abortion (just prior to what would be a normal birth, when an induced death would be called infanticide) where after all but head has been delivered, the surgeon jabs the child’s head with scissors and sucks the brain out to collapse the head.

Consistency in respect of human life and human rights at all stages of life is one which any person could philosophically derive through a humanistic approach. and such a philosophy is reflected in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That each human life has value in its uniqueness and potential from the moment that life begins which by its very nature has to be at biological conception
If we deny such a position I believe that we adopt an increasingly utilitarian attitude towards human life, which has the potential to take us down many questionable roads. Ultimately we reach a point where the question has to be asked “Does the end justify the means?
In the case of a Christian humanist and human rights activist, a position which I openly subscribe to, there is the added perspective of every human life as having a spiritual dimension and dignity. Whether conception is the moment of suffusion of a human soul in Christian theology I don’t know, but it is certainly is the beginning of a human life from which it will progress through many stages until old age and death, unless terminated at some earlier stage before and after birth, by natural or human intervention or misadventure.
Seriously, we have to really understand the reality of abortion, and that both male and female should be responsible, not all the onus thrown on the mother

Do I detect just a smidgeon of personal interpretation here, bagsyl?

>>...such a philosophy is reflected in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That each human life has value in its uniqueness and potential from the moment that life begins which by its very nature has to be at biological conception<<

There is, as you would be well aware, no definition in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of where life "begins". You have conveniently added the "at biological conception" part, presumably to try to align the Declaration with your own prejudices.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

You are of course perfectly entitled to make up your own mind. But you can forget about co-opting Human Rights to provide support to it, since it tends to say a heap of stuff that contradicts your position.

Even the USA - that hotbed of Christian rigidity - determined in the case of Roe vs Wade that abortion was a privacy issue, not one of Human Rights.

But it quite possibly should be. In which case, I would support the rights of women to come to their own decision, under the various clauses that are designed to promote the individual's freedom from State interference or intervention - Articles 1 and 2 pretty well spell that out.

The only argument that you could possibly employ for your anti-choice stance under the umbrella of Human Rights is to redefine where life begins, as you attempt to do here. Be assured, though, your definition will never be incorporated into any future Declaration, for exactly the same reasons it has not done so to date. A foetus is not a person.

Hi Pericles
Not a surprising legalistic objection from yourself.
I believe that the framers of the UN Charter would not have even taken the termination of human life in the womb into consideration. At that time psychosocial abortion was not sanctioned in most civilised states. As I indicated in my earlier posts I cannot see how there can be any logical argument against conception as the beginning of the journey of life for each human person. Whether that life is short or long.

UNDHR Article 3 says that every person has the right to life. I know that you will argue the semantics of the definition of 'person', as you already stated that a 'foetus' is not a person, at least in legal terms, although there is a crime of foeticide in some jurisdictions.

From my viewpoint Roe V Wade and similar legal judgements are wrong. Just because they may have being decisions in a democratic society, does not necessarily mean that they are just or right. The same goes for Legislation. Over the centuries there have been many unjust laws enacted, often to be repealed at some later time.

I am not opposed to women's rights in fact I have the greatest respect for human rights of all humanity. But 'rights' have a corrollary in 'responsibilities' and in this sort of case on both genders.

I realise that anything I say is not going to change the opinion of yourself and others with similar world view, but my understanding of humanity is at complete variance with you over this fundamental issue on the right to life

Fair enough, bagsyl.

>>...my understanding of humanity is at complete variance with you over this fundamental issue on the right to life<<

So all we need to do is alter your earlier statement from

"... the moment that life begins which by its very nature has to be at biological conception<<

to

"... the moment that life begins which by in my opinion is at biological conception"

Then we can happily agree to differ.