David F,

Don't talk to me about imposition of views when you are doing the very same thing to the unborn. Even if I was to accept your argument, the worst for women would be them ‘forced’ to carry a baby to term - and everybody continues to live afterwards! But your end result is forced death to the weaker party. Which is worse, David - even by your own logic?

So your point of view is the height of hypocrisy.

btw, thanks for the name-calling, (ie. "wowsers") I accept your conceding of the argument.

As for your biblical interpretations - perhaps you will first deal with my rebuttal of your first point before you change the subject again. You have effectively conceded that point as well! There is an answer to your red herring, but I'm afraid with your track record you will just ignore the answer and then throw up yet another shallow idea of what the bible teaches about women - or whatever else - with no regard for context. And I fail to see what voting rights or any other historical injustice has to do with the subject at hand. You can be for voting and against abortion, you know. Can you stick to the subject just once and not misrepresent your opponents?

btw, funny how you deny rights to females also - are you not aware that half the unborn are female? Again, you refuse to fully examine your own convoluted and unscientific arguments. The fetus is clearly a distinct human being in its own right and where it resides temporarily has no bearing on that fact. Once you add qualifications to basic human rights, it is sorry road to travel because it always ends with the death of millions.

btw, I love all the smears that I am some 'dominant horrible male'. The women in my family would be thoroughly amused by that. All of them are pro-life, and they would be more likely to influence me on the subject than the other way round. I guess they are 'patriarchal' too, huh?

So Stephen, Should I take this as a "No"?

But seriously, do you really care about fetuses? Are they more important than embryos? Are embryo's more important than fertilized ovum? Are there differences in implanted vs non-implanted fertilized ovum?

If you really believe that all of these are of equal value, then you should be concerned about all of the extra fertilized ovum that are not implanted due to high likelihood of failure. Don't all of these 'humans' deserve a chance to live?

What I'm really asking, is where do you draw the line about what it is to be human, and when is it ok to kill? Keep in mind that all our cells are "alive" and also "human".

Suseonline:
"how they would police a nil-abortion-for-any-reason policy?"

That isn't all that difficult. Primarily, you jail abortionists. There might be a bit more to it, but then there's probably a bit more to jailing bank robbers too.

And anyway, there you are talking about "human rights" whilst you simultaneously advocate for the deprivation of even more fundamental rights to the unborn. Hypocrisy alert!

And Stezza, I provided links for evidence including a very clear testimony from a former clinic operator. If that isn't enough for you, that's your problem, not mine! Anyone can see it doesn't make sense for a business to reduce potential customers. Don't be obtuse. Cheers!

Stephan, you are very naive if you think we could just jail all the abortionits, and the problem would go away. Women will try to abort themselves if they can't have a legal abortion.

So it wouldn't matter to you that many women would die from this practice, along with the fetuses ? No of course it wouldn't.

Jailing abortionists wasn't effective back in the good old days either was it?
Hence the new abortion laws.

In any case, thankfully we will never have to worry about this scenario, because abortion will remain legal in our increasingly secular society.
It would be political suicide for any sane Government to wind back the clock to ancient times.
Isn't it time you got over this fact?

Stephen, you provided links to websites, not peer reviewed data. Therefore you have no evidence to support your made up claims. Health policy should be based on evidence, not ideology, opinion or BS.

How about you explain exactly what you believe, just so we can judge whether you are fit judge others. I would really like to know how you make your value judgements on living things.

Dear Stephan,

I quoted from the Bible to point out that it is not a reasonable guide for law. Australia is not a theocracy, and laws should be made to serve justice not some archaic religious injunction.

I am not imposing my views on either a woman or a fetus. I am saying that the woman carrying a fetus in most cases has the right to decide whether she wants to carry to term. That is her right not mine or yours.

You would deny her the right to decide. I wouldn’t. I would leave the decision up to her. I would not impose my views.

You fail to see what voting rights or any other historical injustice has to do with the subject at hand. That is your blindness. You are deciding for a woman a matter that is no business of yours to decide. It was an injustice when a pregnant woman regardless of her circumstances had to decide among suicide, a backyard butcher or a DIY abortion if she wanted to terminate a pregnancy. After a struggle she now has the alternative of a medical procedure. A historical injustice has been remedied, and you want to restore the injustice.

A fetus is part of a woman’s body until it is born. I guess you would deny a woman the morning after pill by saying the fertilised egg is a distinct human being in its own right. Tony Abbott as Howard’s Health Minister did. However, he has said that he has changed his views. He recognises now that a fertilised egg is not a distinct human being in its own right.

Would you allow a woman any right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy?

I apologise for calling you a wowser. I was attacking you rather than your views. I did not like it when you said referring to me that my view ‘does not reflect well on you.’ That was a personal attack. Rather than objecting to that attack as I should have done I attacked you. Let’s assume we are both acting in good faith.