Extremely good article Amanda. Of all the articles on abortion I have seen on OLO, this is by far the best, as it incorporates so many of the issues. An extremely well presented and well thought out article. An excellent article.

It seems that few statistics are being routinely collected on abortion in Australia, but there is evidence that Australia’s abortion rate is much higher than in some other comparable countries, and a serious question should be why?

The rate of usage of highly reliable contraception drugs such as Implanon is lower than in other countries, and the rate of adoption in Australia is almost 0.

The rate of male sterilization in Australia is now about 5 times that of female sterilization, and the rate of female sterilization is now well below that of comparable countries.

There is evidence that some ethnic groups are using abortion as a routine type of contraception.

The abortion laws are confusing, and many doctors (who legally are the only persons who can give a referral for an abortion) seem to have minimal understanding of those laws, and in the mean time, abortion clinics freely advertise on the internet, and state that the woman does not need to have a referral from a doctor anyway.

So when such factors are incorporated, then why should the public have to continue to subsides so much abortion.

If those dreadful male politicians had not said anything, then the amount of abortion could continue indefinitely, and ways to reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy would not even be thought about.

A well-balanced article – well done!

There's been recent discussion on a couple of other threads here and I think all have come to the conclusion that prevention is far better than cure.
The major problem I see is that contraception – while widely available – is not really as effective (from the amount of abortion) as it should be.
I think there are a number of factors (including human error) which contribute to this but one important one is that people think they are ‘safe’ when in actual fact they are far from it.

Take the pill (everyday at the same time….ha ha – pun intended!) for example – it is often touted as having a 99% protection rate against pg, but we are not robots and are subject to the inconsistencies of human life.
People DON’T take a medication at exactly the same time, they don’t necessarily make a connection between last nights curry turning your bowel to liquid and being unprotected as far as contraception is concerned, they haven’t all been told that a myriad of medications or even a high temperature, can render the pill ineffective. That’s how easy it is to slip one by. After a decent bout of the runs, there goes your protection for the next three weeks….

I think too – and you’ve said it with your language – there is too much onus on the female to ensure she will not fall pregnant as opposed to the male. Not that I think it should MORE be on the male – just equal. He has as much opportunity to protect himself from impregnating her as she has of protecting herself against impregnation.
This all goes back to the myth of the perpetual virgin. A female who falls pregnant out of wedlock or unintentionally with an unwanted baby is ‘bad’ ‘irresponsible’ etc but the man who impregnated her more or less slips by without social judgement. Perhaps this is why medical science has really only worked on female contraception methods and the Mythical Male Pill still remains in a lab somewhere, untested.

I support the idea in this article that abortion is not a simply a yes or no choice. I think the decision on the legality of abortion is a classical dilemma.

If you consider it from the viewpoint of the woman, it is obviously her body and her womb and the state should have no say as to what she does with it. In Sydney, the state has control of the water, the trains and the roads and has totally mismanaged all of these entities and now we want to consider giving them the control over a woman’s womb. It’s not possible, they are simply too incompetent.

If you consider the viewpoint of the foetus, it is obviously alive, the heart is beating and the cells are multiplying. It doesn’t have any choice about its domicile. It has to live in the womb because humans have a mammalian ancestry and we have to assume that it has the will to live. Perhaps if we evolved from dinosaurs and we grew up in an egg the choices would be much easier.

Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that there is no absolute answer to the abortion question. I think we will have to live with it but we should also support those women who choose to have their babies at inappropriate times. For those woman that choose an abortion, we should encourage very early rather than late term abortions because it is not a pleasant experience and becomes less pleasant as the foetus becomes more developed.

Good article, balanced and compassionate.
There is never anything wrong with debating anything. But, in the end, women will decide whether they continue a pregnancy or not, whether we like it or not. They will do it either legally or illegally, either safely or unsafely, either calmly or in blind desperation.
We are not actually discussing stopping abortion (contraception and sex education have probably lowered the rate considerably already and hopefully that will improve) but about banning it, which rarely stops anything.
Women always have decided whether or not to continue pregnancy, often at terrible risk to themselves,and they always will, because, damn them, just like men, they make decisions about their own lives and then live with the consequences. Women are no more noble or more self sacrificing than anyone else and if they don't want to have a child, well, they'll find a way not to.

Good article Amanda, it clearly articulates some of the issues and debates around abortion. Perhaps some of the reasoning around attempts to suppress discussion around abortion is the fear that the debate will be dominated by the conservative agenda. Given the bias toward conservative values emanating from our leaders and the media, pro-choice supporters may feel they prefer to maintain the status quo, rather than open up the debate and lose hard fought for rights.

I am surprised you even read this article Timkins, given your comments from 10 October in response to Vicki Dunne’s article.

Newsroo, interesting points regarding the problems will the pill. I'm not real convinced that the options available to men are as viable yet as those available to women.

My understanding of the current options for men are
- abstinence: safe but not much fun
- condoms: they can come off in the heat of the moment or potentially leak.
- getting the cut: not regarded as reversable and it is expensive(ignoring the bit about letting someone put a knife there).

All are also available to women (what gets cut is different etc) plus some other options. Bring on the male pill/patch or whatever.

In the end we all have to take responsibility for our own actions and there are other reasons for condoms(or abstinence) than the risk of unwanted pregnancy which can impact on both parties.

Agreed that the debate needs to be out there and open. I'm undecided about the time when a fetus is no longer a bit of tissue.

If abortion is an option then
- the mother should have the following information available to her when she makes the decision
: Is the father of the child willing to parent the child?
: Is the father of the child willing to meet half of the financial responsibility for raising the child?
: Are the taxpayers willing to assist meeting the costs of raising the child?

- The father should have the opportunity to make the relevant decisions other than the bit about the mother carrying the child.

If we assume that the mother should have the right to choose about her own life then the father should likewise get to choose about the bits that impact most directly on him.

R0bert

Yes, the article gives mention to the pros and cons in a thinly veiled attempt to ressurect the debate.
It's the pro-lifers who are using every opportunity to generate enough interest to turn the clock back and make it more difficult for women to have access to terminations.
I am in favour of women having access to unbiassed information such as that contained in the article so they can make an informed decision but then having support and access to proceed to terminate if that is their decision.
It is not the business of anybody other than the woman and her Doctor

Robert - the only thing I disagree with is that all the speculating on whether the father would be willing to either parent 100% himself or pay half the costs is that simply having the child means a lot of the damage is already done. If pg didn't do any damage, by all means! But the permanent physical damage done by carrying a child to term is too great to ask someone to relinquish all rights to her body for a prescribed period of time.
Also - when does that stop? It is generally agreed that breast milk is best for babies - does forced pregnancy include forced lactation? And if so - for how long? Sure there is formula, but how long til using the bottle is considered cruelty to an innocent?

No - I have to say that males had their chance to decide on a baby when they decided to leave contraception up to the female of the species. Of course a broken condom could be either way, there are always going to be exceptions....but if he was wearing one and it broke you could argue that the intention was no baby so if she decides to abort, it really shouldn't bother him.

As well as the very good point raised about keeping the status quo and pro-choice people being afraid to lose these rights, I think women desperately try to keep men out of the abortion debate because regardless of her personal views, every woman knows she would never want to be subjected to pregnancy against her will.

I don’t think that side of the argument comes into it when men debate the issue – it is purely ‘is it alive?’ which really isn’t the major factor in women deciding whether to have an abortion (IMO).

Timkins
I am confused. You have indicated elsewhere that you don't believe anything written by a female but you support Amanda who I believe is a female. Could it be that you happen to agree with her views so that means she must be telling the truth.

Amanda
What is the source of the "estimate" (other than the Right to Life) for the reasons why women have abortions? Is it based on a properly conducted survey or research project. If so who did it and where are the results published. In any case it is up to the woman concerned to make the decision to have an abortion and is no business of any one else.

One further issue Australia should revisit is the immigration policy of deporting asylum seekers back to China when they have a legitimate fear of forced sterilisation and abortion.

Thank you Amanda

A frank, open, thoughtful, balanced and well written article. It must be really good because Timkins liked it!

Cheers
Kay

Amanda's article is well written, I will pick up on 2 points.
One, that 84% of women abort because they can't afford to go to term or having a baby would effect their career or study.
Two, that Australia's population is in decline.

Timkins points out that usage of Organen (hormone implants) is very low. I have heard of it used in mining towns but the side effects were considered pretty dire. No periods for 18 months. Woohoo!
Leslie Cannold pointed out that RU486, the morning after pill is also not avaialble in Australia.

I would like to see Australian women given better contraceptive choices like access to Organen and RU486.

Having read stories about the abuse of children in orphanages, I am convinced that rearing children in institutions does not equip children to become effective adults in modern Australian society. A rough calculation of the numbers of abortions vs the potential number of adopted parents indicates there would be many children placed in orphanages.

Every pregnant woman makes plans for her child's future and when the woman realises that she will be unable to rear the child properly then abortion ought to be an available option.

Who benefits from a woman stopping work to go on the single parent's pension to raise a child in poverty?

The government needs to introduce policies to counter the falling Australian population. At the moment young people are about 30 before they get a permanent job where they can pay back their HECS debt, leave mum and dad and look for a life partner. I sincerely hope they are policies that promote/support the well being and stability of family units [however they are configured] but I fear the policies may be banning abortion and forcing women and children into miserable lives.

Thank you for this article. I have to admit I am unashamedly pro-life (I have even begun a University of Tasmania student society to promote pro-life views!). My main motivation for making my views known is to let people know that women who advocate abortion do not speak for me. When I was 20 I saw women protesting in favour of abortion for any and all circumstances. Since then I have felt that I must speak.

I do not think contraception can solve abortion. After looking at this issue from many angle in the past four years, I do not think abortion will be reduced unless people going into a relationship are at least a bit prepared to have a child. When they are completely unprepared they can only be devestated - confidence in contraception only compounds the shock and dismay of discovering a pregnancy. If contraception was going to solve abortion, it would already have done so. We are swamped in it. I am not saying this because I am a Catholic (I am a Protestant), but because I believe evidence supports it!

The argument for abortion I most dislike is that "children will suffer if they are not aborted". I do not think the majority of people born into underprivileged circumstances wish that they had been eliminated earlier.

I also think that some people need a biology lesson before deciding to comment on abortion, because they make a lot of uninformed comments about the fetus.

I passionately believe that women and children should not be pitted against one another, as they have been in the abortion debate for many years. We should all be looking for ways to help them both. It is a sign of something deeply wrong with society when a woman feels her unborn child is her enemy. Women deserve better than abortion, and so do children.

I could go on all day, so I'll stop and go now!

Rossco
You are confused.

“You have indicated elsewhere that you don't believe anything written by a female”

Is that true is it, or are you just making that up?

Basically I have made many links to other articles on the net, and about 50% would be by female authors. But in overall terms, female authors do not generally write good non-fiction. Female authors write considerable amounts of literature, but only a few have ever received major awards for non-fiction (and mixed gender committees normally decide those awards). All that is a verifiable fact, whether people like that fact or not.

But if there is an award for non-fiction articles of this length, then I would nominate this one.

The article covers most important aspects of the topic. It does not use unreliable anecdote or hearsay, or use propaganda type techniques. It is well thought out, and is unbiased. Most of the technical type data contained in the article would be verifiable (and I have previously read of similar data in various other sites), and I believe it does not try and intentionally hide data.

It is essentially honest, and so far as abortion goes, it is in direct contrast to many other articles written on the topic of abortion, and it would be a good place to start a proper debate on abortion.

How do you convince a Nazi that a Jew is a human being?

How do you convince a pro-abortionist that a foetus is a human being?

Pretty tough things to do, huh?

Oh, well, I guess it's up to the Nazi (and woman) to choose for himself.

Dear Brazzuca,
When you take the life of a Jew you kill a sentient human being who knows they are alive and wants to stay that way.
When you take the life of a foetus you kill a potential human being who knows nothing of life and has no conscious feelings about it one way or the other, particularly prior to 12 weeks. I believe the vast majority (over 90% of abortions) occur before 12 weeks.

“When you take the life of a foetus you kill a potential human being who knows nothing of life and has no conscious feelings about it one way or the other, particularly prior to 12 weeks.”

Hmmm ... does not exactly sound like a compelling argument from an ardent pro-choice supporter

Excellent article. The justifications for the two positions are more developed than most and in the case of the anti-abortion reasoning more secular, so it is both generous to those positions and capable of producing reasoned inquiry. But it is not wise to trust statistics from a site that, among many other things, states a definite link between abortion and breast cancer.

Men can empathise but not completely and the same is true for women who have never been in a situation where abortion was considered. Abortion is a philosophical issue, and while the emotions and feelings of people are relevant considerations, rational arguments should prevail over appeals to emotion (many of which are covered by other matters or cannot be reasoned with) which rely on subjective views. The credibility of subjective things will depend on the experience of the person making the claim. The best course of action is to eliminate subjective issues so far as possible, which the cognitive pro-choice position does.

Positions based on religious views, especially conservative religious views, rely on assumptions that cannot be objectively demonstrated, are not universal and have little place as justifications for criminal sanctions in a secular society. They should not be censored, but their positions should not be used to override the views of others unless they can be supported without reference to those religious views.

"It would seem that this would be an important issue to discuss, yet many wish to suppress it."
I don't think people want the issue suppressed, but there is acceptance of the status quo and a realisation that the issue cannot be resolved. Additionally, both major parties would be brough into differing degrees of turmoil over the issue, with no clear beneficiary.

It would be nice if this article brought about some well argued justifications for the anti-abortion position, including both the issue of abortion being morally wrong and the basis for imposing that view on those that disagree. But I have yet to encounter any that could sensibly explain the basis for placing such high value on something without mental abilities.

I wonder how many respondents to this article who are bleeding hearts for the unborn Foetus spare a thought for the carnage that is being perpetrated on innocent Iraqi human beings at the behest of a megalomaniac President who asserts that he was told by God to invade Iraq. If you must espouse a cause raise your voice against the crimes being perpetrated in your name against the Iraqi people.

How do you get a Jew to see a Palestinian as a human being ?
You cant whilst the USA continues to support the occupation and refuses to rein in the excesses of Ariel Sharon

Sometimes, when someone is deeply asleep, they are'nt aware that they're human. They are'nt aware of anything at all for that matter.
That must be the acceptible time to kill them- SORRY I should'nt be so dramatic- it would be the acceptible time to terminate the Earth-usage.
What a silly argument- the fact is, no you can't kill them because they're alive.
Is a foetus alive?
Only if it is self-moving
When the human egg is fertalised by the sperm, the result is a self-moving organism with human DNA.

While I agree that this is a good article, I disagree with Fairweather's ultimate assertion that we need to interminably debate the rights and wrongs of abortion. As others have implied, those who wish to reignite the debate about abortion are almost invariably those who wish to restrict legal access to abortion, or prohibit abortions altogether, typically on religious grounds.

As Fairweather says, the point at which a foetus can be considered to be a 'human life' will always be subject to interpretation, regardless of objective scientific criteria by which such a status might be conferred. If one adds this perspective to the overwhelming approval by the Australian electorate, in successive Australian Electoral Studies, of legal access to abortion, then it seems to most of us to be a waste of time and energy to have to perpetually pander to the demands for justification from the 'pro-life' mob.

Indeed, the only time it becomes an issue is when some 'pro-lifer' or another wants to turn back the clock under some pretext in the guise of a 'debate', which then becomes a soapbox - typically for disaffected men and/or religious extremists.

It seems to me that there will always be situations where women find themselves pregnant, but unable or unwilling to bear a child. Like it or not, the right to safe and legal abortions for women in that unfortunate situation was won decades ago, yet there are quite powerful forces at work in our society that want to remove that hard-won right from women.

That is the only reason I engage in such a pointless debate. Unless we resist them, creeps like Tony Abbott will remove that right by underhand means, like classifying abortions as 'elective surgery'. To demand an interminable moral debate is either naive or disingenuous - in Fairweather's case one would tend to look at her youth and attribute the former motive, but since she is so obviously intelligent it's quite possible that the latter is the case.

Timkins
Your posts here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=188
indicate that you have a problem with women writers

Newsroo, you may have misunderstood what I was suggesting (or I may be misunderstanding your post). I am personally undecided about the right/wrong issue of abortion and am trying to stay out of that particular part of the debate.

We currently have a status quo where abortions are allowed in practice even if that is not the way the law is generally framed.

My comments about the things which could and should be determined up front in the context of abortions being allowed and the decision about the abortion being one made between the mother and her doctor. Like it or not that is what we have in Australia.

The things the mother needs to consider include
- Am I willing to carry this child to term (and through the subsequent birth)?
- Am I willing to have an abortion?
- Am I willing to be a parent to this child? If not am I willing to give it up for adoption?
- Am I willing to accept the financial and lifestyle consequences of having a child?
- Is the father willing to accept the financial and lifestyle consequences of having a child?
- What other support can I rely on?

I'll be missing some items, not intended to be exhaustive.

If we accept that it is legitimate for the mother to opt out of the foreseeable consequences of poorly or unprotected protected sex then it is fair to suggest that the father also should have that opportunity as far is practical.

At this point in time mothers can effectively opt out prior to birth or following birth (by giving the child up for adoption) and yet the fathers have no such options. In some cases fathers have not found out about the existance of their child until years after the childs birth when they are hit with a large bill for child support (or demands that they take part in paternity testing). Nothing fair about that.

R0bert

Sorry - yes I kind of did misunderstand you.
I thought you were saying that if the father was willing to raise the child, the mother must carry it whether she wants it or not. (in short).
I guess unless you're talking about forced pg, it's pretty hard for the mans opinion to count for anything in the situation because if he wanted it and she didn't there's nothing can really be done.
I don't think there are many women around saying "Sure! You can grow your baby in here for 9 mths!" and the ones that do (surrogate mothers) charge like a wounded bull.

Perhaps this is why some daddies don't know they (are or were) daddies - if she didn't want the child then asking him if he does (and let's say he does...) only confuses the issue.

Yes there is something niggly there about the male role in the decision to have/not have the baby. Technically I do think his involvement should be 50/50 but I can't help coming back to just how horrible pg is (not just during - the aftermath as well)and how no-one should have to do that unless they have chosen to themselves.

On the other side of it (she's chosen to have a baby he didn't want) then I do concede if he is willing to sign away ANY contact, he shouldn't have to pay. That would be a good time for society to step in.

I am not a doctor.

I am not a psychologist.

Therefore I am asking a relevant qualified person is the following possible?

Cant we have the best of both worlds? Give parents the choice to abort and if they decide to, cant we save the embrio/child etc and grow it either artificially or naturally with a carrier until conception? We must have the technology.

Perhaps we are killing a future Nobel prize winner or the person who finds a cure AIDS, and i am sure many adoptive parents would jump at the chance to 'sponsor' a baby.

This would assist prospective adoptive parents, mean the parents have the right to terminate or 'handover', yet most importantly, the child has the right to live.

I have been involved with abortions with family members and unless alleviating circumstances, either way you look you are deciding that for your own reasons you want to take out what is inside of you, and you are not prepared to carry through a child you do not wish to have.

The miracle of life is not just about the baby, the world works in mysterious ways, if something has been created by accident, many people (including myself) feel it was meant to happen.

I was an accident, I was not convenient for my parents, they were not in a loving relationship and my mother would of aborted me if she was able to.

Ask her now if everything in life happens for a reason, ask her now if she wished she had her wishes granted. That is life, it has its many roads, but i would not be here if that decision was made.

Everyone is special, so i thank the circumstances in 1980 that enabled me to make a contribution to life, and to have one.

Just dont throw people away. if you want to abort, it should be us as a society that does not let that baby down, and provides it with its right, once concieved, to grow and live. Science can give us that chance and this debate can therefore be solved.

Realist,
you spoke about embryo not being conceived yet. "Conception" is Scientifically defined as a sperm cell fertilising a human egg. So an embro <is> conceived.
That is why condoms and things like that are called contraceptive- because they work against(contra) conception (ception). Which is also why using a condom is not sexual union but simultaneous masturbation.

I am always amazed that it is the secular humanists and atheists who try to bring religion into the debate on abortion.

From a strictly materialistic/scientific point of view, the fertilized egg is a distinct human life. Any talk of 'personhood' or when it becomes a 'human being' is metaphysical.

All such metaphysical requirements must be seen as simply subjective opinion, especially coming from atheists. As such, there can be no way to judge between the the different opinions, even amongst the pro-abortion crowd.

Whilst Amanda has appeared to be balanced, she misses this important point and the simple scientific fact that it MUST be a human life after conception. There is no need for human interpretation.

As with any right to life issues, there is only 1 issue that realy needs addressing. Do we value all human life equally or do we discriminate against a powerless minority.

I think what you're saying has *some* merit, Realist, but you are not living up to your name in other ways.

It certainly solves the problem of forcing women to carry a foetus they don't want, however doesn't really solve the problem of having to raise children no-one wants (if you're talking about 0 abortion). Some would be wanted, for adoption etc, but there would be a lot of left-overs.
It would be good for the (hypothetical because in reality I don't think it would happen) fathers who didn't wish the pregnancy to be terminated and wished to raise the child as a single father.

Although, I do feel the same way about the serendipity angle in a sense - I have often thought that as much as I am against having children for myself, should my tubal ligation fail I would feel that against those odds I should really keep the baby.
Conversely - isn't it fate either way? Like, whether it's in the negative or the positive, what ever happens was (self evidently) meant to be?

As much as those products of conception *could* be the next Einstein, they *could* be the next Hitler too... works both ways.

There is now evidence that brain activity begins in the foetus from as early as 4 weeks, and of course the foetus is deemed a human foetus (and not some other type of growth), and that is why that human foetus is removed.

However any discussion on whether or not the foetus is human, basically overlooks the fact that the abortion is like a form of contraception that is being carried out.

Statistics on abortion in Australia are often difficult to find, but there is evidence that the rate of abortion is much higher in Australia than in other countries such as Germany. This could very well mean that less contraception (or inadequate contraception) is being used in Australia, and the taxpayer is subsidising much abortion (through Medicare), instead of contraception.

There would also be questions regards many of the abortions that are being carried out. In most states the mother has to be in serious danger (either mentally or physically) before the abortion can be legally carried out by a doctor. This means that the mother would have to be assessed to determine if she is in serious danger, and that assessment would have to be undertaken by trained and qualified persons. This would basically mean a doctor or a psychiatrist. Few other people would have the qualification for such an assessment.

However there are abortion clinics that advertise, and state that they do not need a referral from a doctor, which means that they themselves must be carrying out the assessment. Such an assessment would take hours or days, and therefore, it is highly improbable that proper assessments are being carried out by abortion clinics, and therefore, it is likely that they are operating illegally.

The taxpayer is now subsidising an illegal activity.

Of course the persons who have always gained from this to date, have been the owners of abortion clinics. They have gained monetarily, no matter what has happened.

"The taxpayer is now subsidising an illegal activity."

I didn't think you had noticed Timkins
Yes we have been doing that for a few years now. We are spending taxpayers money propping up George Bush's illegal war in Iraq which has brought about mass killings of innocent human beings that rival the tally of Saddam Hussein. Just imagine the drop in abortions that would occur if that sort of money(Billions of dollars)was expended in Health and Education.
Just how genuine is your concern for the preservation of human life.
I vaguely recall that when parliamentary discussions were taking place to establish a womans right to have a termination, one parliamentary wit suggested that in the oppositions case Abortion should be made retrospective....There is a lot of merit in that proposal.........

maracas,
"Just imagine the drop in abortions that would occur if that sort of money(Billions of dollars)was expended in Health and Education."
Well I think that'd be great. Maybe Timkins would think so too.
But, this is off the topic. The fact that this is off the topic is the reason Timkins isn't raving about it here. Does anyone need to rave about Iraq to prove that they value human life? Maybe if Iraq was the topic. But it isn't here.

Amanda’s article is position neutral. She proclaims neither support not criticism of abortion.

Being pro-choice across almost all aspects of life, abortion included, I decided to wait
and see what some others had written before adding my penny-worth

Brazuca,

“How do you convince a Nazi that a Jew is a human being?
How do you convince a pro-abortionist that a foetus is a human being?
Pretty tough things to do, huh?

Oh, well, I guess it's up to the Nazi (and woman) to choose for himself”

Weak arguments rely on dramatic hyperbole and the invariable reference to Nazi’s.

So lets put this into context.

Nazi Germany
Pro Abortion Posture -
Policy of abortion and worse of Jews, the enfeebled, slavs, gypsies etc.

Anti Abortion Posture –

Women of Aryan stock who attempted abortion were considered enemies of the state by denying the state the right to the resources of their womb (their children) – penalty – initially imprisonment later escalated to the death penalty.

What is different – being considered “subhuman” by the state or being considered the “property” of the state (for the purpose of child production)?

So the hyperbole of this argument, like most pro-life arguments is rubbish. It can only be supported if we look at the demands of pro-life and observe, they parallel the demands of Hitler’s 3rd Reich where Aryan women were denied the right of choice supposedly for the “greater good”.

The decision to abort is a personal one. It effects “significantly” one person and one embryo. It might effect the father to some comparatively minor extent but it does not effect greater society to any extent. The inidividual decision does not effect pro-life promoters to any degree more than it effected Hitler, so does that presume pro-life hold the same values as Hitler? – I think not, anymore than pro-choice values are sensibly compared to nazi values.

"...the demands of pro-life... parallel the demands of Hitler’s 3rd Reich where Aryan women were denied the right of choice supposedly for the “greater good”."

NOW who's using hyperbole?

It is NOT for the "greater good" that pro-life "demands" that abortion be discontinued. It is because once a human is conceived, it has human rights (including the right to life).

An embro is human because of two things: 1- human DNA; 2- self moving (alive)

Pro-choice stance <can> be compared to Nazi values in that it fails to recognise the humanity of certain kinds of peopple. (This is not hyperbole but a negation of a false declaration by the Colonel.) Where the Nazi's have their untermenschen the pro-choice have their non-human human embryos.

For those who would force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy, please consider what you are demanding.

Pregnancy involves morning sickness (a neat euphamism for what often involves nausea and vomiting at any time of day for months), heartburn, changes in skeletal structure, feet spreading (you'll never wear those cute shoes again- feet often spread, and remain, a size or two larger), hands swollen, outbreaks of pimples (hormone changes)(and nevermind the moodswings and cravings), sometimes such lovely things as piles, nevermind general bloating, skin stretching so far that it puckers and leaves lovely purple marks, which, yes, fade in time, but never completely. To say nothing of the difficulties sleeping, the sore breasts, and the social difficulties: even looking at a glass of wine will have strangers glaring at you, random people try and rub your stomach, and often diet changes are needed (no more brie or camembert!).

And then there is the birth. Whether you deliver traditionally or via caesarean, there is blood and mess and gore, and pain. Significant amounts of pain. To use the immortal words of Kirstie Alley in "Look Who's Talking": You see how hot you look after pushing something the size of a watermelon out of something the size of a lemon!

Yes, many women have a lovely pregnancy 'glow', and it is the happiest time of their lives.

But, if you don't want the end product, why would any sane person want to go through with it?

Preganacy and birth is not a nine-month cakewalk. Denying people the option of choosing wheather or not to go through with it is not considering the very real rights of the whole person who is here; in favour of the 'potentiality' of the fetus.

Jose
What 'rights' an embryo might have are secondary to the rights of the woman. The embryo does not get a vote. The decision to terminate rests with the woman and her doctor.
Pro-lifers should lobby for ready access to the 'morning after pill'
which would most likely reduce the need for later terminations.

Jose – regarding your hissing fit

“NOW who's using hyperbole?”

I would restate my position regarding pro life in the paragraphs below that which you selective quoted –

“so does that presume pro-life hold the same values as Hitler? – I THINK NOT, anymore than pro-choice values are sensibly compared to nazi values.”

There for you to read and consider. The “hyperbole” was all from the pro-life proponents, not me.

“An embro is human because of two things: 1- human DNA; 2- self moving (alive)”

However, their can be no claim to independence or individuality (important characteristic for a functioning human being), since the embryo, prior generally to birth, in inseparable to the woman’s body and it shares the resources of that woman’s body.

If you insist on comparing a pro-choice perspective to Hitler, I am at liberty to make similar comparisons between “pro-life” and Hitler, viz –
In that both pro life and Hitler assume the right to impose their view over what should be the private and personal decision of an individual.

Where

Nazis had their edicts to pursue the purity of the race and the numbers of the race and criminalize abortion for pure aryan women (June 1943 from mere imprisonment to a capital offence), something which was previously a free choice by individuals,
Pro-life have their edicts to deny abortion to individuals and criminalize what currently are the free choices of individuals.
In that respect – prolife are nazi’s

(This is not hyperbole but a negation of a false declaration by Jose.)

PS Jose, “Col” is not an abbreviation of “Colonel” – I will not bore you with its meaning, the subtlety of which would simply fly over your head.

"Sans" the attitude, I find myself in general agreement with the "sunburnt Pom" here ;)

“does that presume pro-life hold the same values as Hitler? – I THINK NOT”
…then
“In that respect – prolife are nazi’s”

These two “that”s in the quotes refer to different things. I recognise that.
I recognise these two quotes do not contradict . You made a distinction between the different respects in which “pro-lifers are Nazis”.

In the same way, I am comparing pro-choice to Nazis in the respect that they deny justice to those whom they fail to recognise as human.

You must be reminded that what I am saying is…
The pro-life argument is not a group of people who “assume the right to impose their view over what should be the private and personal decision of an individual.” In fact, we do not want to impose a “view”. We actually want to create awareness of the injustice of abortion.
“Injustice”? Why injustice? Isn’t that a view? No. It is not a personal view because science proves embryos are human beings.
“An embryo is human because of two things: 1- human DNA; 2- self moving (alive)” I am trying to create awareness of this fact.
You have argued against this:
-No claim to independence
-No claim to individuality

No claim to independence? Agreed.

No claim to individuality? Your reason, “the embryo… is inseparable to woman’s body and shares resources of woman’s body.”
Firstly, sharing of resources is to do with “dependence” and I have already agreed with you on this.
Secondly, the fact that it is inseparable from the woman’s body would only negate the individuality of the embryo if the embryo functioned in response to signals from the mother organism. This is not so, as I and Science have pointed out- the embryo is self-moving- proving individuality.

Are we trying to criminalise “what currently are the free choices of individuals”?
What we are trying to do is to show that an already criminalized act (terminating the life of a human being) encompasses something (abortion) which people have failed to recognise as falling into that category. It is science that proves that embryos are human individuals.

"This is not so, as I and Science have pointed out- the embryo is self-moving- proving individuality."

Unassailable logic, Jose - under which every sperm can be regarded as an individual human life! Brings to mind the gospel according to Michael Palin:

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

MD,
Sperm cells are not self-moving.
You think I meant motion (which is a form of energy) but I actually mean movement (or action, which is NOT a FORM of energy BUT a CAUSE of energy).
In sperm cells, chemical potential energy converts into kinetic energy (motion).

This is similar to some lizards’ tails which, when detached from the body, convert chemical potential energy into kinetic energy, so the predator will possibly go after the wriggling tail rather than the escaping lizard. The detached tail is not alive.

A sperm cell is not a lizard’s tail, in case you think that’s what I’m saying. The sperm cell does not self-move but the chemical potential energy is converted into kinetic energy (motion).
When a sperm cell fertilises the egg, the result is a self-moving organism. Remember, movement is not motion but action (the cause of motion).

PS. I apologise for any use of capitals as it may have upset some readers, but these are necessary to stress the right words (in lieu of italics).

Mahatma (sorry if i've mispelt your moniker) but your poem - was hardly Leonard Cohen! Get it? If not, "The Future" should be on your listening list. The whole thing about abortion is about life/death and who is in control. It's not god, it's not husbands, or society, it's about what the hell you do at the time when you find out you are pregnant. All morals aside, if i slept with 50 men I would not have 50 babies. So who is putting their hands up to be dad? Life is cheap - up to a point. There are (too) many people on this planet. It's not yet to the point where we'll abort because of cosmetic reasons. It's still for the same reasons it was since time. Economic - just can't do it by myself and scatching.
All good reasons when you're living the life.
I don't want to get into another argument on this forum with all the pro-lifers and TIMKINS especially, channelling stats so it becomes a nonsense. Women don't nonchalently get pregnant and decide to abort, like a handbag choice in their life. But if they happen to be pregnant, they have the right to have a choice. I have absolutely no desire to be pregnant again. And i have the luxury in this day and age to have sex sans worry and society. I have the best of both worlds finally and abortion should always be as an option.

Jose, old son - I have to tell you: spermatozoa absloutely move independently, by virtue of their rotating flagella that propel them. What's more, if they didn't move we wouldn't be rehashing this tedious 'debate', because no ova would become impregnated.

Di - I agree that Leonard Cohen is a superior poet to Michael Palin. As you've correctly surmised, a bit of a fan too... ;)

Di,

“All morals aside, if i slept with 50 men I would not have 50 babies. So who is putting their hands up to be dad?”

Simple - you should pay for the 50 DNA tests, and the matching male should be given the same choice as you claim. If he chooses against parenthood, the remaining participants should then be given a second chance in their original chronological lineup. The cycle should be repeated until both agree to be parents. Any new participants collected in the next cycle should retain their chronological order for the next round.

If you prefer a non-structured random approach, then each participant of the previous round should be given $20. If after sex you ascertain that a particular participant has no chance of making it to the next round, this payment should be immediate. It’s only fair.

Although you can opt in or out of either process, the key rule for either, is that BOTH must agree to be PARENTS – otherwise the chosen process continues.

I'm with you Di,I understand the arguments with pro-lifers are continuous tedium but you need to keep repeating and furthering the rights of women to make the choice about terminations because the ardent male politicians opposing abortion seem determined to do their damndest to put obstacles in the way.

Di
You don't want to get into another argument
You channel stats so it becomes a nonsense.
You nonchalently get pregnant and decide to abort.
You are like a handbag in the choice of life.
You happen to become pregnant.
You have no desire to be pregnant again.
You want sex
You have abortion
You have option.

You malign people, but I have often wondered why Australia has over double the abortion rate of some other comparable countries, and by some accounts, up to 50% of women are using no contraception at all, or relying solely on the male condom, and I have wondered why abortion clinics don’t require a referral from a doctor, and I have wondered why abortion clinics don’t call for reductions in the abortion rate, and I have wondered why “best interests of the child” is rarely mentioned by women when it comes to abortion etc, etc, etc.

Timkins, Australia's abortion rate is similar to other english speaking countries but about double the aborton rate of Germany, Denmark.
Could it be that European women have easier access to RU486 so they terminate potential pregnancies within days of conception. That is to say that use of RU486 after conception eliminates the need for a surgical procedure at 6-12 weeks thus lowering the abortion rate

Sand Between My Toes.
There could be a correlation between the number of surgical abortions and the use of abortion drugs, but whatever way abortion is carried out, it has to abide by abortion legislation, and at present, I cannot believe that very many abortions are being carried out according to much legislation.

Most of the abortion industry is being funded by the taxpayer, and in other countries, people have now found connections between various abortion clinics and organised crime, because there is such easy money to be made.

However countries such as Germany have low birth rates, and it could be because so many babies are being aborted (through some means or another). This is creating a worldwide dilemma, as various countries are relying on immigration to maintain population numbers. However finding skilled workers to immigrate into a country is becoming difficult, as one country begins to steal another country’s skilled workers, and the other country can justifiably complain about it.

If you look closely at the problem, I think you will find a correlation between birth rates and abortion, and a correlation between the number of de facto relationships or cohabitation, and the rate of abortion. That may give some clues on how to decrease the abortion rate, or decrease the rate of unwanted pregnancy, if that is what abortion advocates really want (but I somehow doubt it).

The best interests of the child and the abortion debate. Okay, try this one for size. In the recent book Freakenomics (I forget the authors name, sorry) the authors discuss the fact that the crime rate in the US has dropped like a stone since 1991 (from memory) which happens to be 18 years after the Roe v Wade decision, which gave American women -particularly poorer women - access to safe, legal abortions. Apparently the authors admit to their surprise at this relationship and searched for another explanation. They eventually had to accept that there is a relationship because, amongst other things, they found that US States that had liberalised their abortion laws earlier than Roe v Wade (a few did it 2 years earlier) had exactly the same drop in crime 2 years earlier.
Perhaps the old chant of "every child a wanted child" was right on the money. This phenomenon would seem to indicate that children born to poor, often single mothers who did not want them and could not cope with parenting, is often a disaster for all concerned. There are worse fates than to never be born, you know.

For some time, Timmy, I've been noticing your tactic of listing "killer points" (eg "You are a handbag", with increasing irritation and contempt, and now feel compelled to pick you up on it. You add nothing to rational discussion by this. I assume your intention is to annoy other forum participants so much they give up and let you "win", but you add nothing to constructive discussion. It takes me back to the schoolyard, which you've clearly never left. Let's talk again when your emotional age is roughly voting age. Oh, and sorry: I'm male.

Hi again,
Revisiting my point on why embryos are human just as we are...

1) They are an organism with human DNA
2) They are self-moving (meaning that they are alive)

PS. I realise I left out "organism" before, so the confusion about sperms is understandable. However, with the revision, this confusion is removed (as a sperm is not an organism).

Enaj,
The 1973 Roe vs Wade case was important regards abortion legislation in the US, (and indirectly other countries), but “Jane Roe”, (the lead plaintiff), was actually a pseudonym being used by a “Norma McCorvey”, who has since became an ardent anti-abortion campaigner.

Eg :-
Once an abortion-rights supporter, the 50-year-old McCorvey has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist. She has started a ministry called Roe No More to fight against abortion rights with the aim of creating a mobile counseling center for pregnant women in Dallas.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/

The idea that crime in the US has dropped because of abortion, I’m rather sceptical about, as I think it would be difficult to tell exactly what the crime rate is in the US. There are now more people in jail in the US than in any other country in the world, (although this does seem to be for racial and gender reasons, and also those jails have become like slave labour camps for industry. See http://www.prisonsucks.com/ and http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/octubre/juev13/42carceles.html)

However it does not overcome the fact that contraception or adoption could have been used instead abortion. Also abortion in the US is a very big industry, and with so many people and so much money involved, many would obviously have a desire to maintain that industry functioning as it is.

Veryself,
You use killer points.
You have irritation and contempt.
You add nothing to rational discussion.
You add nothing to constructive discussion.
You have clearly never left the school yard.
Your emotional age is roughly voting age.
You are a male.

About 99% of your post had nothing to do with the topic, just maligning another poster. Report the comments you made about the poster called “Timkins” to the forum moderator. In the mean time, if you make such comments about someone, they can equally make them about you.

Jose,
I would agree embryo's are human, but that does not lead me to oppose a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
I guess I see the whole dilemma fairly simply. Once a baby is born its life is to be protected as vigilantly as any other life. Prior to the baby being born, its right to life must be weighed against the rights of its mother. And, I prefer to have that decision made by the woman whose life will be most affected by either abortion or birth, than to allow others to make that decision for her.
As I have pointed out before, but no-one takes it up, society already responds to babies like this. I have had a miscarriage and a baby who very nearly died at 13 days. The response of the world to my miscarriage was mild, at best, most people were sorry, but saw it as just one of those things. When my daughter was at deaths door as a newborn, the world rallied round. Everyone saw it for what it was; a devastating event. My own emotional response to the two events was similar. I grieved over my miscarriage, but the impact was nothing like the fear and dread I experienced wondering whether my newborn would live or die.

enaj,
We agree that embryos are human.
You spoke about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. The reason I oppose abortion is because I see it as infanticide.
I do not oppose a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, because I believe that that right does not exist.

Some may argue the classic, "That's just your opinion" approach, but it is important to realise that opinions are irrelevant because it is substantive (there are no grey areas).
This means that my opinion is either right or wrong- not in between.
The reason I believe it is right is because the criminal act murder encompasses the terminating of the life of any human being. If we agree on the fact that embryos are human then we disagree on my statement that the criminal act murder encompasses the terminating of the life of any human being.

Jose
You have obviously convinced yourself that you are right and women dont have rights to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You wont convince many who are not blinded by religious zeal and the rest of the Ratbag Right.
You dont seem to understand that in this enlightened age, people actually have sex for pleasure and largely due to the obfuscation of the fanatical pro-lifers, safe contraception and morning after preparations are being witheld from women who do not wish to conceive and then go through the termination process. It is time for you to get off your circular argument of the moment when an egg becomes a life and take up an active role in stopping world poverty and war...Get a life Jose

My argumant is not circular.
A circular argument has a premise dependent upon the conclusion.

Premise: Embryos are human beings (proven above)
Premise: Killing a human is murder

Conclusion: Abortion falls under the criminal act of murder.

If you call that circular, you have some revision to do.

Now, 3 things.
1) You have failed to disprove my argument.
2) You have made a groundless supposition that I am doing nothing towards "stopping world poverty and war" (a drowning man will clutch at a straw).
3) You have made a groundless supposition that I don't have a life (another thing that you cannot prove).

Jose,
Embryos are human, yes.
Killing a human is murder, not always.

A few simple examples; war ( sanctioned by churches and religions for millennia), capital punishment, also often sanctioned by churches, though not by me. Self defence and, of course, euthanasia or mercy killings. Sometimes killing a human happens by accident, in car crashes for example and we don't judge that as murder, and, in my view, abortion. What if, Jose, the mother will die bearing the child? If that happens is the child guilty of murder?

Your argument may or may not be circular, but it is very black and white. In my world, jose, and I suspect, most peoples, we struggle with many more shades of grey. No-one likes the idea of abortion, but sometimes, some of us see it as the lesser of two evils.

An interesting question for you. If a woman dies from the result of a backyard abortion, is that murder too? Or has only the embryo been murdered? What if she stuck the knitting needle into her own uterus in desperation, did she murder herself? Or did we murder her by giving her no safe alternative? Saying that killing another human being is always murder is far too simplistic, it seems to me.

Enaj,
about war and issues like that which you raised,
The Object of war is not killing. However, in war, murder does happen. An hostile enemy with a loaded gun can be shot justifiably (because the threat is proportional). If the enemy is coming at you with bare fists, you cannot shoot him dead. The threat is not proportional.

Accidentals, like car crashes, if truly accidental, no worries.

Mother dies in childbirth, doctor did best effort, baby not guilty of murder because the baby did not perform an action. Murder is an action.

My argument you say is black and white. What I mean is this,
This is meta-ethical. This refers to how we determine what actions are murder, manslaughter, etc.
If the Object of an action is to end the life of a human being then it's murder.
You raised self-defence. Is the object of self-defence ending a human life? No.
The Object of self-defence is exactly that, self-defence.

"If a woman dies from the result of a backyard abortion, is that murder too? Or has only the embryo been murdered?"
No it's not murder, it's a combination of bad luck and stupidity. Only the embryo has been murdered because that death was the only death which was the Object of an action.

"What if she stuck the knitting needle into her own uterus in desperation, did she murder herself? Or did we murder her by giving her no safe alternative?"
No, she was just being over-dramatic. The object of her action was to kill her unborn child, not herself. There are always safer options for the 2 of them.

"Saying that killing another human being is always murder is far too simplistic, it seems to me".
-You are right. It is in fact like this:
When the Object of an action is to kill a human, it's murder.

enaj, I'm broadly in agreement with the comments in your last post but would like to put forward some observations/viewpoints from my "shades of grey" world.

- It seems to me that most people who support abortion oppose capital punishment and that most opposed to abortion support capital punishment. I understand the viewpoint of someone who wants to protect the innocent and punish the guilty and also from the idea of a foetus not being human but don't get the bit where an innocent human is less worthy of protection than a proven murderer.
- I'd regard the choice to use the knitting needle or a backyard operator as either risk taking behaviour or suicide not murder on the part of society. I'm having trouble putting together a brief justification for this view other than idea of personal choice and responsibility. There are other choices even if they may not be good ones.
- There are times when a lot of us regard some "accidents" as no better than murder. Those times when a person persues a course of action which had a clear risk of killing someone else. The habitual drink driver etc. There is a difference between manslaugher and murder but sometimes the line is very thin.

R0bert

Okay, so we're clear that killing a human is not always murder.

How you can quite claim that the object of war is not to kill people is a bit lost on me. When soldiers line up their sites to shoot someone in the head, seems pretty purposeful to me, same with dropping explosives from the sky on cities or laying, what are they called; "anti-personnel mines". I think anti-personnel is military speak for killing people.

As to your point Robert about capital punishment versus abortion, the difference for me is not guilt or innocence, the difference for me is being sentient, in other words conscious of what is being taken from you. A convicted criminal still knows and fears death, an embryo does not.

That's the trouble with black and white positions, most human beings have contradictory beliefs. Many right to lifers also support some wars (perhaps Jose does), and some support capital punishment. Many pro-choicers, like me, are opposed to capital punishment. I do agree, however, that just like abortion, going to war can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. Even though its object, like abortion, is to kill people. The difference is war kills people who do not want to die, abortion kills embryos who have no concept of life or death.

enaj, thanks for the answer. As I've previously mentioned I'm sitting on the fence to some extent on this issue.

I share the concerns of some that "choice" may be being treated too lightly. The suggested rates of abortion are much higher than I suspect reflect genuine need. In the end I agree that the woman needs to be the one to make the choice. At the same time the right to make the choice carries with it a responsibility. The issues around the foetus are not well enough understood for any foetus to be terminated casually (can an abortion ever be a casual decision?).

Not sure how we get that balance and I am hoping that discussions such as this help us find a way forward.

Cheers
R0bert

It could be argued that an objective of capital punishment is to send a loud and clear message to other potential perpetrators - the abortion message seems best served fuddled and muffled.

Jose “What we are trying to do is to show that an already criminalized act (terminating the life of a human being) encompasses something (abortion) which people have failed to recognise as falling into that category. It is science that proves that embryos are human individuals.”

“Death” is not necessarily an act of murder.

Police actions involving the death of violent and dangerous people who threaten the community is not murder.
Soldiers involved in military actions are not deemed murderers.
Robert Ryan was not the last man murdered by the state.

The above involve, to some an action perpetrated by one autonomous and separate individual against another.

Even when it does not involve another, the social classification of the act is not deemed “murder”.
Thus, someone who attempts suicide is not then charged with the attempted murder of themselves.

Similarly, abortion does not involve an action against a separate and autonomous individual.

It involves an individual exercising a decision regarding the deployment of their own body.

Jose, we are not “governed” by science. “Humanity” has evolved to recognise that reason and ethics exist to which the rules of science are subordinate.
Stem cell research has moved beyond scientific rules of possibility. It has become an ethical debate.
Likewise the main thrust of the abortion debate is an ethical issue, not a scientific issue.
Therefore, the “scientific evidence of human personage” is subordinate and irrelevant to the “ethical consideration of abortion.

Dealing with this superior ethical issue I observe-

Someone who is free is free to determine the disposition of their body and all its functions.
Those who are denied such freedom are, (in the matter of human gestation), a mere life-support system for the unborn. They are reduced to the level of a chattel or a slave.

I believe men and women are equal and as a man would never accept slavery as an option. Hence I will support every woman’s right to abortion and right to reject slavery to the will of prolife among their lifestyle option

Enaj,
Regarding war,
Firstly, we can distinguish that war is generally an action of a <state>. The Object of this action is not killing but usually economic.
Looking at Hitler’s invasion of the East, the Object was the acquisition of lebensraum. His movement West- the Object was the elimination of a threat. His decision to exterminate the Jews was an action with the object being killing, yes. This action was part of his big scheme (I do not stand for any of it, in case anyone is thinking that), of which there were many parts- the movement to war and the extermination of the Jews being related but separate actions.
In war, as we agree, the object of the actions of <individuals> can sometimes be murder- like shooting an unarmed man.
I don’t support wars, but sometimes it is necessary to get involved and I support necessary involvement- for example, the Second World War was, I believe, necessary to get involved in.

Col Rouge,
““Death” is not necessarily an act of murder.”
Read the discussion I have been having with enaj and you will see that this has already been explained.

Abortion is the direct killing of an individual. The fact that the unborn child is dependant upon the mother’s body does not mean that it is not an individual. This also has been dealt with.
Abortion is not- I emphasise, not- a decision regarding the deployment of an individual’s own body. The unborn child is not one in essence with the mother organism. There are two organisms- mother and child. Being connected does not make them one organism. They are two.
This is all science. You have argued a scientific argument- that an abortion is regarding the deployment of the mother’s body. I then refuted your flawed, science-based argument. You then went on to say that science is irrelevant in this debate. You have begun to hang yourself with your own rope.

Jose “This is all science. You have argued a scientific argument- that an abortion is regarding the deployment of the mother’s body. I then refuted your flawed, science-based argument. You then went on to say that science is irrelevant in this debate.”

I have put forward the notion that the embryo and mother share the resources of the mothers body I suggest you show us how an “individual embryo" can grow and develop beyond the confines of the mothers uterus. When you can you will have established the – science fact. – which you claim my post lacks. So show me the flaw in what I have posted.

I have promoted the view that the pregnant woman has first and foremost right, above and before the right of any embryo and any third person to decide how the resources of her own body will be deployed – further that the woman denied such right of decision is reduced to the status of a slave. - philosophical opinion.

I have suggested that “science” is subordinate to “ethical” or “philosophical” opinion. So what I am expressing derives not from scientific fact but from "philosophical opinion". This displays that you yourself are more given to misinterpretation of other peoples statements and have a tendency to rely of such misinterpretations and lies to support your own flawed opinions and claims (above).

As for “You have begun to hang yourself with your own rope.”

Hardly, Jose. Maybe you can illustrate to us all where you were given you the right to interfere in the private choices and decisions of people you do not know. I further suggest you read the dictionary (try dictionary.com) “abortion” and “murder” are two separate words. The definitions of each neither relies nor refers to the other.

Robert – I believe exercising the “choice” to have an abortion carries a huge personal responsibility and emotional burden. The point is, it is the woman’s own “choice” and own “burden” to decide and carry. “Society” is incapable of personal responsibility, except through the individuals who populate it

Although I often disagree with Col's ideas and the manner in which he expresses them, in this case I find myself in almost complete agreement with him. The decision to have an abortion or not will always ultimately rest with the pregnant woman, who will base her decision primarily upon her own assessment and understanding of her ability and willingness to give birth to a child. Ultimately this decision is based on her personal ethics and morality - which she has of course constructed on the basis of her education and experience.

I think it was enaj above who raised the very interesting example of the way that we regard miscarriages very differently from neonatal deaths, but it seems the 'right-to-lifers' have sidestepped her point, which was that a miscarriage, while undoubtedly grievous to the potential parents, is considered by others to be a misfortune of a much lesser order than is the death of a child that has been born.

This simply underlines the point, in social praxis and in law, that abortion cannot be murder, since no person has been born.

The pseudo-scientific waffling of some contributors to this tedious debate serves only to emphasise their ignorance of biology, rather than to add credence to the anti-abortion position. However, I suppose they are achieving some part of their tiresome agenda by perpetually drawing more enlightened people into reprising a debate that they lost in the 1970s.

You have said it yourself.
“…the embryo and mother share the resources of the mother’s body.”
Notice, that you have separated the embryo and the mother. You have referred to the embryo and the mother "sharing the same resources".
I have already explained that there are two organisms. Scientifically proven. Even your statement supports this. On top of this, (you can quote me on this one) "the fact that the embryo is a separate organism is what makes the mother a mother.”
What you are saying is, because the embryo is dependent upon the mother for life, this negates the individuality of the embryo.

Know this:
-Individuality does not mean Independence.
-Dependence does not negate Individuality.

Know this:
-Ethics is a Science.
-Ethics is a branch of Philosophy.
-Philosophy is a Science.
-Just as you cannot separate energy from matter, you cannot separate Science from Philosophy.

You misinterpret my posts. ie: you think I presume to have the right to interfere with private choices.
I do not have this right and neither do you. I have not even attempted this.
What I do have the right and responsibility to do is to create awareness of relevant issues, drawing solely from science and universally accepted laws (such as that against murder).

Col, mostly agreed.

Society does have a role to play in the issue though. The manner in which abortion is portrayed impacts on peoples perceptions of the seriousness of the issue. Yours and my tax dollars (and the tax dollars of people strongly opposed to abortion as well) are going to fund abortions. Might be better to fund condoms and research into the male pill.

My main concern in this debate is the lack of choice given to prospective fathers. In a society which allows abortion the father should have choice (during the period that abortion is allowed) as to their willingness to take responsibility for a share of the childs upbringing (personal and financial). Failure to give them that choice absolves them of any moral responsibility for the child - it is then an issue of what the law can get away with. At the moment that can be quite a lot.

R0bert

Jose
“Know this:
-Ethics is a Science.
-Ethics is a branch of Philosophy.
-Philosophy is a Science.
-Just as you cannot separate energy from matter, you cannot separate Science from Philosophy. “

Know this

“Subjective judgement” divides “science” from “art”.

Science is defined in terms of absolutes – laws, elements etc

Ethics, philosophy (and for that matter Law and Accounting) all represent “Arts” not “Sciences”.

I am an accountant by professional training, I am continually arguing this point with my peers and colleagues – as soon as subjective judgement enters the equation (eg the value of a provision for future product obsolescence, the science disappears and we are left with “accounting” as an art form).

Ethics and philosophy are both subjective studies which arrive at outcomes which are not supported by absolute proven facts or physical laws but are influenced to some degree by “subjective opinion”.

Now
“You misinterpret my posts.”

Would you like to argue how I have “misinterpreted” the above?

”What I do have the right and responsibility to do is to create awareness of relevant issues, drawing solely from science and universally accepted laws (such as that against murder).”

Ah – I like that “drawing solely from science and universally accepted laws”

Confusion abounds, a “law” which prohibits abortion presently does not exist.

You confuse physical and scientific “laws” with the art of “Law” – the Laws of men, which wax and wane with social values and belief.
I recall, at one time, the witches and heretics were burnt at the stake. That is one “Law” which no longer applies. Similarly, nowadays we respect the individual and have repealed the “laws” (which were not “enacted” until around the 2nd quarter of the nineteenth century) to “outlaw” abortion.

Before accusing me of misinterpreting your posts, I suggest you stop doing it to yourself.

Robert as a father – I understand what you mean – however, pregnancy is an intensely personal experience and one which, as a father, I never endured. The mother of my children experienced and risked far more from the pregnancy than I ever did.

When I said you misenterpret my posts, I also added an "i.e" afterwards to explain my accusation. This was not a universal accusation of your responses, but that was explained when I put the ie afterwards(but you chose to take out of the context).
This is how you have misinterpreted my posts:
Upon reading my posts, you have reached a conclusion sparked from misinterpretation;
"Maybe you can illustrate to us all where you were given you the right to interfere in the private choices and decisions of people you do not know."
I then said that I do not presume to interfere with private choices but I have the right and responsibility to create awareness about relevant issues drawing solely from science and universally accepted laws (such as that against murder).
I know about laws concerning abortion. I know about laws concerning murder. If you were to read my posts again, you will realise that I have been trying to create awareness of the fact that abortion falls under the category of murder. Again, I know about the laws concernig abortion and murder, and how these laws differ (this is why I am creating awareness).
Ethics and Philosophy are not, by there nature, influenced by subjective thought, but rather, subjective thought can affect people's philosophical and ethical opinions.

By the way, you still haven't managed to disprove my argument (regarding the right of the embryo to live) put across in my posts. Read them, they're reasonably close together.

Col, I don't want to be a distraction from your main area of discussion but I'm going to duck back in anyway (poor self control).

I'd agree that the obvious risks are more with the mother. I'm not suggesting that the father be able to force her to carry a child to term, rather that as far as practical there be some equity in the ability to choose regarding taking on the responsibility of a child.

Likewise I get very nervous when society decides one persons (or group of peoples) needs or priorities are more important than those of another at the expense of the other. Please excuse the clumsy phrasing on that. Who is to say that the risks physical and emotional of carrying a child for 9 months are greater or lesser than those of supporting that child (and mother) for 18+ years with no viable say in the matter.

I have not been in the situation of paying for an unwanted child (just sponsoring an ex who does not like working) but I have seen enough of the impact on guys who are there to know that this is not a trivial issue.

Given the wrong set of circumstances it can rob someone of 18+ years of a significant part of their income. It involves the lack of privacy that comes with dealing with C$A where your financial details are passed on to someone you may have come to loath. It may come with the ongoing conflict between a sense of parental responsibility and other life choices.

If one has a choice following the act that lead to conception then both should have a choice about their ongoing responsibility.

R0bert

Jose “If you were to read my posts again, you will realise that I have been trying to create awareness of the fact that abortion falls under the category of murder. Again, I know about the laws concerning abortion and murder, and how these laws differ (this is why I am creating awareness).”

I deny your claim - abortion is not, never has been and (likely) never will be considered murder.

”Ethics and Philosophy are not, by there nature, influenced by subjective thought, but rather, subjective thought can affect people's philosophical and ethical opinions.”

That is plain “doublespeak” you have descended from misrepresentation into gibberish – your statement is so duplicitous and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless.

I believe my view is sustained

As for “By the way, you still haven't managed to disprove my argument (regarding the right of the embryo to live) put across in my posts. Read them, they're reasonably close together.”

I am under no obligation to disprove your subjective opinions, indeed you are under an obligation to prove or substantiate them.

Robert – I understand your view and being a divorced father, appreciate where you are coming from.
Despite issues of finance and what is a gross imbalance of treatment by the courts (which I treat as an entirely separate issue), in matters biological during gestation, the woman’s involvement, risk and position are significant whilst the fathers is incidental.

Subsequent to birth, the involvement of both parents reverts to “equals” rearing their progeny in the manner they have both (as equals) formulated and agree with.

Ethics and Philosophy are not dependant upon subjective thought.
In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided.

At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?

When it would be likely to survive outside the womb- this is getting earlier all the time, but I understand that few babies born before five months gestation survive. Even then, before seven months, things are very dicey.

If it cannot, even with all our sophisticated neonatal care, survive outside of the womb, then I do not consider it to be a 'real' person yet.

So rather than granting reproductive concessions to men, women’s right to choose could simply be revoked the moment someone develops an artificial womb.

Ignoring the last irrelevant response, I'm struck by the silliness of this:

"In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided."

I may be missing something here, but isn't all thought subjective?

"At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?"

When s/he is born. It ain't rocket science or theology. It's in the actual process of being born and thus being recognised as a person.

That's why abortion of a foetus is both moral and legal in this society. Because it hasn't been born.

And that is an objective standard that I find acceptable according to my admittedly subjective 'ethics and philosophy', thank you very much. Further, according to successive ABS Australian Family Studies the great majority of Australian voters agree with me.

Those who wish to try and impose their extreme religious-based views on us, with respect to the availability of safe and legal abortions to women who need them, are (IMHO) about as welcome as any other religious extremists who wish to impose their extreme minority views on the rest of us.

Sorry, I meant Australian Election Studies.

This correction means that I can't respond for 24 hours :(

Jose
“Ethics and Philosophy are not dependant upon subjective thought.
In Ethics and Philosophy, subjective thought can and should be avoided.”

My Personal Ethics and Personal Philosophy are determined by my subjective perspective as I view the world and all the events which influence me. You likewise perceive the world through some similar rose (or other) coloured subjective lense wear.

As Mahatma duck wrote “I may be missing something here, but isn't all thought subjective?”

I tend to agree MD – science reflects external influences defined in absolute terms like laws of physics, the elemental table and observations of biological fact.
Such observations are absolute and unchanging. So “scientific thought” may be “objective”.

However, whilst ethics, morality and philosophy may embrace aspects of scientific absolutes but they also contain subjective aspects. These subjective aspects change with fashion and social expectation. A philosophic / moral value which once proclaimed the “Divine Right of Kings” and was enshrined in Law no longer holds any value in contemporary society, illustrating the “subjective nature” of morality and philosophy and from that – the laws of the land.

At what stage in a human being's life do you think he/she first has the right to live?

AS MDuck observed – from point of birth there is a change in state and from that moment a foetus is recognised has being “an individual” or a person with human rights.

I agree with the Duck!

The only changes during birth are environmental.
Becoming separate from the mother's body is environmental.

It is irrational to claim the right to life on the basis of your environment.

The right to live cannot come from environment. The right to live belongs to those who are alive. (This is why dead people, who have been born just like you have, don't have the right to live - because they aren't alive).

Ethics and Philosophy are not pure sciences for goodness sake. The are Codes of Ethical Conduct based on ethical principles - but these are not scientific principles.

Philosophy in its simplest interpretation means a way of thinking - and every human being has a different set of neurones and ways of thinking (cognition). We can share ideas or concepts with others. But we all have individual cognitions.

Ethics and Philosophies are largely subjective - due to people's personal experiences, values, attitudes, and behavioural repetoires.

Cheers
Kay

Jose “The only changes during birth are environmental.
Becoming separate from the mother's body is environmental.
It is irrational to claim the right to life on the basis of your environment.”

The changes that accompany “birth” represent more than a change of “environment”.

The changes represent “independence” from the resources, protection and comfort of the mothers body.

The moment of birth means what was once a few cells that “changed” into an embryo and then “developed “(changed) into a fetus aspired to a life capability independent of the mother – eg. all the children who have survived a childbirth in which the mother died are proof of same.

It should be noted that until recently in western society and still, in less well advances societies, regardless of the “changes” which accompany the embryo/fetus along its journey to sovereign individuality, marked by the moment of “birth”, changes and serious risks accompany the mother.

Child birth can be one of the major influences of mortality risks.

The mother’s life is at greater risk during the processes of gestation and child birth than it is at other times.

Acceptance of those risk is the sovereign choice of the mother – they are not yours to impose upon her against her individual will.

The right to live belongs to those who are alive and the mother is “alive” and she also has the “choice”

As for what you said regarding dead people -
Your opinion lacks sufficient lucid reasoning to warrant any sensible comment

– beyond
"I “post”, therefore I must be "alive""!

Kalweb – agree completely everything you said

Col,
"The changes represent “independence” from the resources, protection and comfort of the mothers body."

I agree, that the child achieves greater independence from the mother.
But the fact that the child was not independent from the mother prior to birth, does not negate Individuality.
Again, independence is environmental. -(see my previous post for context)

"The moment of birth means what was once a few cells that “changed” into an embryo and then “developed “(changed) into a fetus aspired to a life capability independent of the mother."

It is important to recognise that we are talking about an "organism". It is not *merely* "a few cells" but is a living, human organism (Objective).

"...individuality,[is] marked by the moment of “birth”"
Again, Independence does not determine Individuality. Individuality comes from it being a living organism.

"...serious risks accompany the mother."
I completely agree. This amoung other reasons is why the decision to begin a pregnancy should be taken seriously.

"Acceptance of those risk is the sovereign choice of the mother – they are not yours to impose upon her against her individual will."
This is one amoung many reasons why I do not tolerate rape.
The acceptance of these risks is indeed up to the mother, which is why beginning a pregnancy is a serious decision. The woman has time to consider these serious risks before conception.

Jose “I agree, that the child achieves greater independence from the mother.”

You might, however my point is, prior to birth the embryo / fetus has “no” independence. Thus it cannot aspire to “greater” independence.

Prior to birth the embryo / fetus is completely and entirely “dependent” upon the mother.
In the last trimester some degree of “independence” starts to manifest. Prior to 25 weeks gestation the survival rate of premature deliveries does not exist evidencing a lack of inherent or developed “independence”.

“It is important to recognise that we are talking about an "organism". It is not *merely* "a few cells" but is a living, human organism (Objective).”

We ALL know what we are talking about, so what is your point? – Ultimately we combine consciousness and other higher abilities in a synergy with what is merely “a very large bunch of cells” to become “a living human organism”. However it all starts from just “a bunch of cells” – “consciousness etc” comes later and continues to develop for years after "birth".

“Again, Independence does not determine Individuality. Individuality comes from it being a living organism.”

Again the notion of “individuality” is a nonsense without “independence”.
Further, Individuality is a concept which develops and is not created at moment of conception. I could cite any number of non-abortion scenarios where “opportunity to express independence and individuality” being denied results in the complete repression of the individual – I suggest a brief visit on 20th century political studies will satisfy you on that score.

“This is one among many reasons why I do not tolerate rape.”

I would suggest your “intolerance to rape” will not prevent a single rapist from his bestial course.

Unfortunately the victim of such acts does not have the same opportunity. She has to make a decision, post trauma. My support is wholly and completely for her – it is her (violated) body. We should not add insult to her injury. She did not choose rape – but she can choose to remain pregnant or not – her choice.

One thing we directly disagree on:

You say Individuality HAS Independence as a pre-requisite.
I say Individuality DOES NOT HAVE Independence as a pre-requisite.
(Upper case used in lieu of italics)

The reason I say that Independence is not a pre-requisite of Individuality is because Individuality is biologically determined. The child is a distinct organism.

About consciousness etc,
Plants are individual organisms. Plants do not ever have consciousness etc.
The reason I brought up plants (before you think I'm green) was to make the point that Individuality is determined by being a distinct organism, and that cognitive faculties are secondary.

About the issue of rape,
Indeed the pregnancy has been forced upon the woman. This is why the rapist, if caught, must be made to pay sufficient compensation. If this cannot be met, the government should provide for the woman.

My point in emphasising that we are talking not merely about a few cells but about an organism is to emphasise the fact that it is an individual human organism.

Let us focus on our direct disagreement, that of Independence being or not being a pre-requisite of Individuality.

Jose
Your definition of life is misleading. A corpse possesses human DNA & can move by itself [as has happened in front of a friend of mine & scared the wits out of her] but a corpse is not alive. It follows that self-movement & human DNA are insufficient to establish human life.
Now I have a problem for those who are against the right to abortion. Let's say that a woman is kidnapped by a man she goes out with. He takes her back to his home & keeps her there for 9 months to supply a source of blood for his child, otherwise the child will die.
NOTE: The woman did NOT volunteer for this kidnapping nor did she volunteer to supply the blood but is now forced against her will to do this. Just like a woman is who finds herself pregnant against her will.
Does the kidnapped woman have the right to escape - even at the expence of the child's life? I would argue yes as I would imagine most here would. What has all this got to do with abortion? Simple.
1) The woman was kinapped aginst her will [just as a woman can find herself pregnant against her will].
2) She is being kept to supply blood to a man's child [Just as a pregnant woman supplies blood & nutrients to a foetus].
3) If she esvcapes the child will die yet she has the RIGHT to escape if she wishes. [just as a pregnant woman has the right to abortion if she wishes].
4) The right in both cases exists regardless of the status of the foetus [ie child or not].
Conclusion: The right to an abortion MUST be maintained. To do otherwise is to treat the woman as a mere tool for incubation.

I think Jose should be commended for singlehandedly creating a new branch of pseudoscience - that I shall dub 'creation biology'. It would fit well in a curriculum that also includes ID, palmistry and the Tarot.

I think that this whole discussion is very boring and repetitive. Jose's "arguments" are indeed boring.

Jose, I was raped by two men. You have a weird notion aboot rape and its consequences.

Bosk,
Relevant point about the corpse, although it is not a functioning organism.
MD,
I haven't brought Creation into this

Jose “The reason I say that Independence is not a pre-requisite of Individuality is because Individuality is biologically determined. The child is a distinct organism.”

When “independence” is not achieved, “dependency” exists. That “dependency” is for the bodily resources of the mother.

As for focusing on a point of difference – because the difference is not about the biology of an organism but is really about the right of a person (the mother) to make decisions for herself.

I extend all right to deployment of those resources to the mother.
I extend to her the right of choice whether to continue to remain pregnant.
I recognise her right of choice.
I place any demand or expectation the embryo/fetus might make or have for those resources as secondary to the demands and expectations of the mother.

If the mother’s determination on deployment of her own bodily resources were to be placed second, after the embryo / fetus demands, she is reduced to the status the a life-support system for a uterus. You might be happy with that status but I am not and never will be.

Demand the removal from the mother of the right of decision and you are demanding the same thing as Hitler enacted upon "Aryan" women in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

"[The] “dependency” is for the bodily resources of the mother."
I completely agree.

I believe that if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother then a choice may be made, however, everything scientifically possible should be done to ensure the survival of both of them. If only one can be saved, then only one can be chosen (by the mother).
If there is no direct threat to the mother's life then the life of the child should be allowed to continue. This does not impede the rights of the mother, who freely chose to conceive, however if she was raped then the rapist should compensate for the damages rather than the child.

Jose having a prolifer acknowledge the mother has some rights is a big move forward.

However your statement “who freely chose to conceive, however if she was raped then the rapist should compensate for the damages rather than the child.”

How do you know she freely chose to conceive?

That is a presumption on your part.

She may have intended simply to enjoy a “congress of the flesh” with no intention to conceive.

Her diaphragm or the condom might have split.

She may have forgotten to take her “pill” or her IUD may have malfunctioned.

Either way suggesting she “freely chose to conceive” is an assumption of her “intent” by you.

A woman who is endeavouring to obtain an abortion, clearly does not intend to pursue the pregnancy, regardless of the “intent” which prevailed when she conceived.
The woman still has the most significant involvement, above and beyond the involvement of everyone else with the process of the gestation of her own offspring.
That you seek to interfere in the options available and enforce your will for her to remain pregnant for 9 months is your issue to deal with.
I assume you were not actually there to know or testify how “freely she chose to conceive”! Well she was but is not accountable to you or any other prolifer for her choices.

As for rape – the process of gestation is a long and solitary one. You do not have the right to demand a woman divert the course of her life to pursue the birth of a child which was not conceived by her own free will. You do not have the right to suggest she stop, put her life on hold and drop what she was doing to entertain your notions of righteous action. You just do not have a right to interfere in her life or her life choices.

Oh and you are in out with the fairies if you think you stand any chance of ever forcing any rapist to ever be able to compensate his victim.

Although humour us all, how would you?

Thanks Col

Good post, you're on the mark.

Cheers
Kay

Free choice to have sex. The natural function of sex is reproduction. So it was a free choice of an action, the natural function of which is reproduction.

People commit rape because their use of their sexual faculty is behaviourally disordered.
Would you think that attempting to separate sex from its natural function is behaviourally disordered?
Why do you think people commit rape?

Jose

Rape is not a sexual act perse. One of the most predominant myths and misconceptions about rape is that is perpetrated to gain sexual gratification. Not so. I have read numerous books and research articles on the subject and I have spoken to numerous sexual assault counsellors. They will all tell you what I am asserting. I have counselled numerous rape victims.

Sexual organs are merely the vehicle for henous crime. The goal of rape is to take control away from a woman (in this case)and to violate her. It is primarily power and control issue. It has nothing to do with sexual gratification. It is meant to degrade a person in the worst possible way. It is meant to humiliate.

Why do you think so many elderly woman are brutally bashed and raped?

Many rapists never penetrate a woman with their penis. They use sticks and brooms and the like. Many woman are not vaginally raped, but anally raped.

The two males who raped me told the police that they had planned to go out and find a woman to bash and rape.

About two years after I recovered (if one ever does), I specialised in teaching sexual assault and rape at university nursing level.

I hope this post clears up some issues for you.

Cheers
Kay

Jose “Free choice to have sex. The natural function of sex is reproduction. So it was a free choice of an action, the natural function of which is reproduction.”

”Free choice” sure but the “intention” may well not be to have a child – unless of course one is a devout catholic and since I am a protestant (of sorts) the Pope & Co hold no sway in my views.

“Would you think that attempting to separate sex from its natural function is behaviourally disordered?”

Only a deluded virgin or the religiously obsessed would perceive separation of the desire for sex and the desire to procreate would indicate a “behavioural disorder”.

I would further suggest, since psychology (and the assessment of disorders or abnormal behaviour) is based on statistics where in “norms” represent usually 2 SD from the mean, such “separation” is the “norm” – and not a disorder of any sort .

“Why do you think people commit rape?”

Studies indicate rape is less about “sex” and more about power, anger , abuse and control. Rape is generally pursued by men who perceive themselves to be inadequate and who vent anger at their inadequacies by abusing and controlling their victims and denying their victims “choice”.
Oh look – yet another opportunity for those with a sense of inadequacy to deny “choice” to someone else.

Now three for you –

Why do you think people commit rape?

And I asked you before and which you have failed to respond to – “how are you going to make a rapist compensate his victim?”

Are you a devout catholic or possibly even a priest and are you in a physical relationship with someone else of the opposite sex?

Kalweb,
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Regarding the reasons people do these acts (part in reply to Col) I believe they have a disordered view of women (sexually as well as non-sexually) and of human dignity. Basically Col, I agree with you on why people rape.

Col,
"Only a deluded virgin or the religiously obsessed would perceive separation of the desire for sex and the desire to procreate would indicate a “behavioural disorder”."
The reason humans have a desire for sex in the first place comes from the tendency to procreate (in-built in their nature). They are not separate.

Yes I am Catholic, as you have deduced by reading my posts in the Intelligent Design thread.
Not a priest.
Not married.

Now that you have brought religion into the air, out of interest, being Protestant, do you believe the Lutheran doctrine of the enslavement of the Will?

Jose I could not give a stuff about Lutheran Doctrine, any more than I care about Catholic dictates.

As far as I am concerned, the catholic church lost it when it pursued its long standing policy to protect the perverts and turn its back on the victims.
Not that they had much going for them before that - the Inquisition was "the Catholic Church at its most powerful". It was an absolute disgrace and the paramount example of the old saying

"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely".

However, your reply explains alot (about your posts).

Yet still no suggestions as to how to make a rapist pay compensation to his victim!

As for sex and procreation - darn it - I had a vasectomy to enable me to have sex without concern for impregnation - a whole lot of us make choices like that and have no bad or other feelings about being "behaviourally disordered" -

You could just ask my daughters (I have 2 of them) and they love their Daddy like they should - as he loves them - with all his heart, unconditionally.

Jose, quoting "the natural function of" is a risky call. It is so open to context. Certainly the original biological function of sex appears to be based on reproduction but plenty of sex occurs which does not lead to reproduction. Most sexually active adults have a lot more sex than kids (although teenager sex apparently generally leads to conception as it was always "the first time").

Concepts such as monogamy are very rare in the natural world and are definitely not normal. Adult humans not in sexual sexually active are unlikely to be the norm - do you consider that there is something wrong with such individuals? In the human race concepts such as democracy and peace have been such rarities that they can hardly be considered the norm.

My understand of the bibles teaching on sex is that a role much greater than procreation is suggested. The pleasure of the act bears some weight as well.

I noticed that you sidestepped Cols question about your involvement in a physical relationship. Fair enough if you consider it to be none of his business but just in case you think you ansered the question you didn't. Tony Abbot was one among many dedicated and practicing catholics who was unmarried and involved in a physical relationship.

Cheers
R0bert

Church teachings say "xyz"
Event Q takes place
Post event Q, Col doesnt give a stuff about "xyz"

R0bert,
yes, there is a second part to it. This second part is disordered however, if the first is abused (Neither is primary to the other but they are equal).
I am not in a physical relationship.

Hi Col

I thought your response to Jose's question "Why do people commit rape?" was spot on.

Jose: Why do you think people commit rape?

Cheers
Kay

kalweb,
refer to my post of Wednesday, 2 November 2005 1:51:50 PM

Jose
This thread is not about XYZ or Q.

It is about AB(ortion) and an individuals right to determine how their own body will be used.

Jose, You chose to introduce xyz and asked me what I thought

I replied honestly.
Using my “right to listen or not”, the words of Martin Luther do not resonate within my mind.
I find great reward in involving my mind in many things of interest to me in this world, I follow closely and distantly many topics, subjects and interests including the lives of my friends, the development of my chosen profession, the creative works of Mozart, Canaletto, Cellini, etc. to name but a few.

Just as I find delight in some aspects of human endeavour, other aspects leave my cold.

Organised Religion is one of them.

So much harm has been done in the name of God by the worst of men, the false priests and manipulators who gain power through organised religion, be they the evangelist Bakers and Swaggarts of US TV, the faithful who burnt the Salem witches or the misogynists and torturers of the Church of Rome.

Jose I answered you – for me, organised religion is a cesspool of corruption and lies which has systematically used its power to repress generations of people with its manipulative texts and empty values. If you could see me, read my lips I do not give a stuff about organised religion of any denomination.

I do care about abortion because it represents a focal point of difference between me and the meddlers.

A womans right to abort is where civilised and compassionate people acknowledge that other individual people have a free right to make choices in their lives.
Regardless of how right or wrong I may feel a decision is, I do not have the right to interfere.
Regardless of how a decision may offend, it is one which I must accept because it is not mine to make, just as my sense of compassion forbids me to turn my back on the issue.

Kalweb - thankyou

To anyone concerned, (there is no agression in this question)

Why would the "mother's right to choose" prevail over the "child's right to live"?

Why would the "mother's right to choose" prevail over the "child's right to live"?

- there is no aggression in this response -

Because
It is the mothers body which is put at risk through child bearing.
It is the mothers personal plans and expectations which are deferred/destroyed by child bearing.

The mother has priority of use and rights over her own body, above and before any claim an embryo / fetus might make or any third party might claim on behalf of an embryo /fetus.

In the matter of personal choice, only one person can exercise personal choice, the person involved. In the matter of pregnancy it is the mother, not the father and not the wider society (including the church).

kalweb, what are your thoughts?

Jose wrote:

"Why would the "mother's right to choose" prevail over the "child's right to live"?"

Quite simply because it isn't a child until it's born - before that it's a foetus, embryo or zygote - as defined in Australian law, practice and custom. If it hasn't been born it doesn't have any right to live.

Unless of course such right is attributed by people - notably, in this case the Catholic church (and unless I'm mistaken, in this instance by a prolific and intransigent Opus Dei member).

How often do you flog yourself, Jose?

Col, loved the statement "I do care about abortion because it represents a focal point of difference between me and the meddlers."

This is probably heading off into another thread but I'm guessing the relevance is that religion plays such a strong role in this debate. I'm pretty much in agreement with your comments about organised religion but at the same time not wanting government meddling in peoples freedoms (not suggesting you would support more meddling either). It is about time the human race outgrew the childish imaginings of it's youth, yet some cling desperately to a superior being who can take responsibility from them for their choices. Yet another issue with no easy answers. Keep up the thoughtful posts, some of us are reading and gaining new insights and understanding.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert thank you.

Yes, religion plays a strong part, not only in this debate but has played an inappropriate role in social development. The power and authority of the churches should have died with notions of the Divine Right of Kings, yet they (the religious) still demand the right to interfere in the decisions of non-denominants and play party to government without being universally elected. I view surrendering to the demands of the Church of Rome or the Anglican Church, as no different to surrendering to the demands of Shari law and I am in no mood to acquiesce to anyone simply because they bash a book, like getting dressed up in robes, wear funny hats or swing incense around the place.

Let the “religiously minded” follow their creeds and ways all they want but I will not allow them to force their views on me or inhibit the choices I would make nor the relationship I have with God.

Thus, following that logically, I will always defend and support another person, in this case a woman who might seek abortion, in pursuing personal choices and decisions against the might and demands of an unelected theocracy (or any unelected secular body of meddlers for that matter) and will lobby for government to act to defend and protect “individuals” who are capable of making their own determination and reasoning from such meddlesome attitudes (be the meddlers the religious, the anti-abortionists, government bureaucrats or union power brokers for that matter). Basically, I believe the “common good” etc. is merely a collection of “individual goods”, “social development” is the collective “individual development” and not things with any common identity or tangibility in themselves.

"Regarding St Josemaria and Opus Dei, in order to make an informed judgment, I recommend you meet some members. I know about half of the members who live in Sydney, and it would be no trouble to give you an address or phone number..." Posted by Jose, Thursday, 27 October 2005 1:42:38 PM (Thread: "Is the Pope Catholic?")
Jumping to conclusions; (I am a uni student living at home with my parents and brother and sister).

R0bert,
"some cling desperately to a superior being who can take responsibility from them for their choices."
I feel pity for these people more than you do.

A question for anyone,
Is the notion that <a child acquires the right to live at birth> subjective opinion?

I have been away for a while and have not read this entire thread. I apologise therefore if my comments have been covered elsewhere.

Hopefully it would be correct to say that, regardless of one's views on abortion, the fewer [that are considered necessary] the better. We often hear that unwanted pregnancies are less common in countries with more relaxed attitudes to sexuality and nudity. I have searched around and found the following:
http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html

I realise that there are exceptions, but I am inclined to think that many of those who [on religious grounds] are opposed to abortion, are also opposed to such things as being open about sexuality information and having easy access to legal clothes optional swimming areas, things which are more openly accepted in many European countries.

In other words, they are opposed to abortion but are also opposed to what could be likely ways to lessen the demand for abortion.

Jose - A question for anyone,
Is the notion that <a child acquires the right to live at birth> subjective opinion?

Abortion does not apply to those born, so this question has no real significance here. A child born is beyond the point at which abortion can be performed, by definition of what abortion is.

Changing the topic to what was possibly intended.

Does an embryo / fetus acquire an automatic right to develop to the point where birth occurs?

Answer

No more than a child acquires the right to be born to Rich Parents or be born "normal" with all their faculties.

The process of gestation and birth are natural processes, with some incidence of abnormality (imperfection); the creation / development of a new life is not a perfect process.
Random chance results in a range of defects and abnormalities. The degree of abnormality will determine the life quality and the dependency on others of that new life through its life.

Accepting responsibility for the dependency of the abnormal is a huge burden to place on anyone. Should a pregnancy go wrong and development turn abnormal, it is reaasonable to allow the mother carrying the "abnormal" to decide whether she is up to carrying the likely burden of the childs dependency for the rest of her life (and possibly beyond).

Living or not is a bit like a lottery - we all deserve to win - but not all do.

Answer these questions:

I refer to this article:

Pro-life groups given pregnancy counselling funds
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1498231.htm

Question 1: As there is 27 times more chance of a woman dying during pregnancy and/or childbirth than that of either surgical abortion or taking an abortion pill (RU486), will the Commonwealth accept liability and provide compensation to a family in the event of death during pregnancy and/or childbirth in the event that counselling being funded by the Commonwealth, designed to discourage women from having abortions, results in a woman deciding to continue with the pregnancy and finding herself among the following statistics:

Report on Maternal Deaths in Australia, 1994-96
http://www.npsu.unsw.edu.au/mda9496preface.htm

“There were 90 maternal deaths in the triennium 1997-99, and there were 758,030 confinements, indicating one maternal death per 8,423 confinements.

Question 2: Will the Commonwealth accept liability and provide compensation in the event a woman regrets her decision to continue with the pregnancy and suffers hardships or depression in life as a result of counselling which may have deterred her from going ahead with an abortion? I refer to this report and expect that the women in Australia would be affected the same way:

Abortion cuts risk of later blues
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17070446%255E23289,00.html
“PROCEEDING with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is more likely to cause depression than having an abortion, a controversial new study has found. Researchers in the US questioned 1247 women who aborted or delivered an unwanted first pregnancy between 1970 and 1992. The women were interviewed over several years. The study, published in the British Medical Journal, found that going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy was more likely to lead to depression. “

Felix

This issue stems back from the early 1980s and continues today:

ABORTION PILL, OR SOMETHING MORE? THE FIRESTORM OVER THE ABORTION DRUG RU-486 HAS HAMPERED U.S. SCIENTISTS WHO WOULD TEST IT TO FIGHT CANCER AND OTHER CONDITIONS. NORFOLK SCIENTIST GARY D. HODGEN HOPES TO SEE MAJOR STUDIES ON RU-486 ONCE THE FDA APPROVES IT.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960811/08110065.htm

RU-486 Explained
by Heather Guidone
http://www.insiderreports.com/storypage.asp_Q_ChanID_E_HQ_A_StoryID_E_20001536

Comments?

Wow, great posts everyone, life and a computer virus has left me off line, but great to finally read commentary that's relevant to the current debate and open and honest re a very important issue. Amazing what one can achieve without the timkins who, may have finally got the message that the particular horse he is flogging may not be Makybe Diva. And bad Leonard Cohen to boot.

Di,
You are off line,
You are not relevant
You are not honest
You are not timkins
You are not Makybe Diva
You are bad Leonard Cohen

So how would you go about reduceing the abortion rate, or do you think it even necessary.

Timkins, how does stupidity regarding Di's post contribute anything to the debate: "you are not Makybe Diva"- Well I'm sure Di is fairly sure she (he? we are all anon in this online world) is not a Cup-winning horse. I suspect hooves are rather difficult to type with. For the record, I too, am not Makybe Diva.

Laurie,
You are stupid
You do not contribute anything to the debate:
You are not fairly sure
You are not a Cup-winning horse.
You suspect
You have a record
You are not Makybe Diva.

Now Di has called the poster “timkins” many names in the past, but rarely substantiated anything, and it becomes apparent that Di made her last post so as to continue to malign and call “timkins” various names. Di’s post had little to do with the topic of abortion, so other posters can simply call Di names and say whatever they want about DI also.

Now Laurie has called the poster “timkins” many names in the past, but rarely substantiated anything, and it becomes apparent that Laurie made her last post so as to continue to malign and call “timkins” various names. Laurie’s post had little to do with the topic of abortion, so other posters can simply call Laurie names and say whatever they want about Laurie also.

Do you like to see lots of maligning things said about “timkins”, but don’t like to see “timkins” returning the same?

In so much of this “debate” concerning abortion, there are people who say that they have a right to have an abortion etc, and that right should not be taken away etc.

I have a right to spend hours in the sun without sunburn protection.
I have a right to eat lots of junk food.
I have a right to smoke cigarettes.
I have a right to drink lots of beer untill drunk every day.
I have a right to do many things that are not that recommendable or agreeable to other people. Some may accept or agree with what I do, but many wouldn’t (particularly if they have to indirectly fund my activities through such things as medicare costs)

It would seem that abortion is not that recommendable or agreeable to many people, so how to reduce it is the question?

[NB. Calling “timkins” various names is not the answer to this question]

How to reduce abortion is to prevent conception. To prevent conception I think several things need to happen:
1) Better sex education. I dont know about everyone else's experiences, but my schooling involved a talk to the girls in grade five/six about scary periods and using the teacher's toilets if we were unfortunate enough to have them early, a similar discussion (boys and girls separate) in year eight, and a 'health' class in year ten. This health class was taught by a teacher who seemed embarrassed about the whole thing, the boys in the class kept making jokes, and I'm sure that most of my classmates (remembering year ten kids are around 15-16yrs) already knew much more than what was being 'taught'.
b) Doctors remembering to remind women when they prescribe antibiotics that this will make their pill null and void for awhile.
c) Greater availability of 'youth' health services. No-one wants to talk to their doctor who they have known since they were two about contraception.
d) Availability of mail-order condoms for rural/remote people. Who wants to have to go to the supermarket or chemist where you know every single person?

[off topic] Timkins, please go back and read your comments regarding Di, and my comments on that. Can you not see that your repeating of utterly tangental statements in Di's post just makes YOU seem irritating? Even though Di made an unneeded comment about you? You do yourself and your arguments great disservice, as people are much more inclined to skip over your posts when they are full of lists of 'insults' people have used against you.

Laurie,
You are off topic.
You can not see.
You repeat utterly tangential statements.
You make unneeded comments.
You do yourself and your arguments great disservice.
Your posts are full of 'insults'.

If you believe that “Di’s” remarks regard “Timkins” are “insults”, then you can recommend her posts for deletion. There are many such posts from “Di” and a number of others.

“Timkins” put up with such insults and abuse for many months, but now just returns the same. It is noticed that you have criticised “Timkins” for returning such insults, but never before have you criticised the person who made the insults originally (possibly because you make such insults so often yourself). As a feminist you may believe it your right to "insult" or "dump" on males, but I just see this as a primary characteristic of feminism.

You seem to place great emphasise on “education” as a means to reduce the current rate of abortion. However the most typical profile of a woman having an abortion appears to be an educated, employed, single women between the ages of 20 – 30.

I wonder how many of those women have previously received sex education. I would think the vast majority, so there would have to be other things besides education programs, or those education programs would have to be reviewed for effectiveness

*sigh* why do I bother? Its like writing to a brick wall.

Laurie,
You sigh
You write
You are a brick wall

Judging by your posts, it could be best that you did not bother posting onto forums about abortion either, as you seem to know very little about abortion. The author is young, but has definitely made an attempt to investigate abortion in Australia, and learn about it.

You seem to know very little about it, but want to insult, abuse and malign others, which is really not much more than standard, basic feminism.

Perhaps if you did some research into abortion, you might be able to post onto forums about abortion.

Due to family illness, I have been away since last Saturday. Wow! The tone of the debate seems to be getting nasty again. What a shame.

Di, can we try an experiment please? You say sorry to the timkins who you made a comment about in a recent post and then everybody since who has chosen to make personal comments about other posters follows on in turn. Then we return to the topic.

That does not mean that anybody has to change their personal views about other posters, rather an acknowledgement that the battle of name calling damages the overall debate.

My concern - I was finding the debate educational. I was learning a bit more about the various view points on this topic and right now I'm losing that in the exchange of insults the thread has become.

Not picking on you with this Di, I would prefer not to have seen the comment about timkins but acknowledge that it wasn't the first negative comment to be posted in the thread. Your comment does seem to be the comment that triggered this skirmish.

If I come across as being unfair to you please accept my apology upfront - no offence intended.

Cheers
R0bert

Timkins don't you think most of the women posting on this forum have done research on abortion. Nothing concentrates the mind like being pregnant and having to work through your options one by one and then act upon your decision.

That decision can be the monthly visits to the gynaecologist to have your expanding girth measured with a tape measure culminating in the pain of labour or the disappointment of caesarian section but hopefully the ensuing bundle of joy more than makes you forget the momentary pains of its delivery and will grow into a healthy, happy adult able to fulfill its potential.

Or the decision can be that the time is not right to commit the next 21 years to rearing a child. Then you run the gauntlet or the screaming bigotted right-to-lifers photographing you, invading your privacy, as you make your way to the abortion clinic. All prayer but no responsibility.

The truly unlucky women are those that give birth to an obviously disabled baby, that the [often divorced] social workers tell the mothers to rear despite the fact that 80% disabled children end up living in single parent families. That is, the strain of rearing disabled children in Australian society today will cause marriage breakdown.

And yes, Timkins, I fought for the Menhenet ruling.

By your posts, Timkins, I thought you were at least 35, involved in a bitter custody dispute in the Family Court [deleted for defamation]. But if you are young, get some experience of life before you tell others how to live.

Abortion cuts risk of later blues

PROCEEDING with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is more likely to cause depression than having an abortion, a controversial new study has found.

Researchers in the US questioned 1247 women who aborted or delivered an unwanted first pregnancy between 1970 and 1992. The women were interviewed over several years.
The study, published in the British Medical Journal, found that going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy was more likely to lead to depression.
"We conclude that, under present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy," said Nancy Russo and Sarah Schmiege from Arizona State University's department of psychology. They said pre-existing mental health problems were a better predictor of depression, regardless of how the pregnancy was resolved.
Cait Calcutt, the co-ordinator of Queensland-based counselling service Children by Choice, agreed. "Whether women are likely to suffer depression depends on if they've had depression previously," Ms Calcutt said. "Also, there is a greater risk of a woman not coping well if it is a wanted pregnancy that is terminated on the basis of fetal abnormalities.
"However, evidence over the past 30 years shows terminating a pregnancy does not increase the risk of depression and this study confirms that."
The researchers also found that the women in the study who had an abortion had a significantly higher level of education, higher income and lower total family size, all of which were associated with a lower risk of depression

Sand Between My Toes

You fought for the Menhenet ruling.
You would be at least 35.
You are involved in a bitter custody dispute in the Family Court.
[Deleted for defamation]
You should get some experience of life before you tell others how to live.
[Deleted for defamation]

If you object to such statements being made about yourself, then refer the matter to the forum moderators.

I have found it almost universal, that if pro-abortion supporters are questioned about abortion in some way, they will normally do the following:-

a) Immediately launch into abortion propaganda terms (eg “Abortion is safe”, “Abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor”, “Abortion is a woman’s choice” etc)

and/or

b) Use feminist type techniques (ie. use anecdotal evidence, try and blame it on males, use emotional manipulation, use much name-calling and personal abuse, make up malicious gossip about other people etc).

As well as the above, they will rarely put forward any suggestions on how to reduce the rate of abortion or unwanted pregnancy.

Now why would this be?

Timkins

When you begin your posts with a list of diatribe such as your previous post, I don't bother reading it any further. If you wish people to consider your opinions on this forum, then please desist from prefacing your posts with this irrelevant rant. Thank you.

Back to topic

Abortion is always last resort.
It takes two to get pregnant - but only one who has the final responsibilty.
Abortions need to be safe and legal or we risk the death or sterility of our young women.
Abstinence doesn't work, nor are contraceptives 100% effective.

The above are facts - the rest of the debate is whether you choose to have an abortion or not. If you believe in the sanctity of the foetus from the moment of conception then don't have an abortion

Scout

Thank you. Your first paragraph is spot on.

Cheers
Kay

Timkins, as a pro-choice advocate I do not do as you have suggested pile on the abortion propaganda or open up with a diatribe of feminist techniques.

But to answer your question “why would that be”

From the perspective of this individuals philosophy and values, I observe one powerful and over riding point.

Woman are individuals, just like men.

Women have the right to determine how their bodies will be used, without recourse to or sanction from third party meddlers who seem to see the matter of human sovereignty as an affront to their own values and religious systems.

No one, not you, not the Pope or any religious leader of any denomination or creed has right to interfere or intervene in a woman’s sovereignty over her own body.

The history of humanity is littered with unwanted pregnancy which have, naturally, resulted in either abortion or unwanted children. The outcome of pregnancy in “fetal” terms, is secondary to right of the individual whose body is host to the process of gestation.

So – people who are individuals do not have to kowtow to your view of what is right or your expectations of them. They have every right to ignore you in the decisions which affect their daily lives. If a woman wants an abortion it is a matter of her body therefore her choice.

As for your attempt to “slag off” at pro-choice, let me advise you of what I have observed

It is the anti-abortion lobby who

produce the most emotive propaganda and lies to support their right to interfere.

shoot and bomb doctors, clinics and kill security guards hired to protect legally licenced medical facilities.

see their view as omnipotent and would see women reduced to the status of a piece of property in pursuit of their cause.

represent the real challenge to both democracy and individual freedoms and needs to be resisted in every confrontation and opportunity.

Col

Very insightful post. Thank you.

Kay

I'm a bit on the fence about abortion - but a bit leaning towards pro-life (where does life begin?). i've read some pretty sound points. Some less sound than others.
Col Rouge, you said Women have the right to determine how their bodies will be used. you obviously mean something more fine tuned, but please, that statement seems to allow too much- like this: some woman declares that since she has the right to determine how her body is used, she can use it to kill me or you. obvously you dont mean that women have the right to determine how their bodies are to be used in order to kill someone- i know you dont mean that- because killing someone involves harming someone elses body rather than her own. But then i see a problem- abortion is doing this.
i also read a post-sorry i forgot whose it was- where they had lots of support from people when her already born child was very sick, and theres a difference between that and what people do when the child is very sick but not born yet. I reckon its all 'out of sight out of mind' stuff- as in, people grow more emotionally attatched to the child when its born and they can see it and hold it etc.

Hello Robert, and a good gauntlet you threw down. I do apologise to my seemingly irrelevent comments on this important issue, but it's all been done to death. All the women that have posted on any forum re abortion has been honest and open and mainly spoken from the mouth of experience. There have been some male posters that have recognised this, and given great insights to their own experience, and then we've had the posters spewing stats and seemingly relevant bible bits, along with bad poetry, to justify exactly what? You all know who you are. It's like a blowfly in a jar. And don't go the Leonard Cohen again Timkins, it's so not you! Try spice girls instead.

Daniel – “you said Women have the right to determine how their bodies will be used;….,
she can use it to kill me or you. obvously you dont mean that women have the right to determine how their bodies are to be used in order to kill someone…
But then i see a problem- abortion is doing this.”

You are correct Daniel. This is the dilemma we all are faced with and what is really at the heart of the abortion debate.

I view it as a matter of priority,
the woman has the right to decide the deployment of her body with regard first to her own needs, the embryo / fetus taking second place to that woman’s needs and expectations.
If we were to insist on the woman continuing with the pregnancy against her own will or judgement, we are relegating her to the level of “a life support system for a uterus”. That is an obscene denigration of a thinking and competent individual.

In “social terms” the woman has the priority of choice to the deployment of her own body over everyone else opinion, because, it is her body, not their body at risk or the topic of the pregnancy.

In this we see the distinction between abortion and murder – abortion applies to a process a women wills upon the functions of her own body, murder involves a separate individual. The embryo / fetus is not separate. Separation and the recognition of a separate entity / person occurs at birth, not before.

I hope that helps

Col,
For the sake of this discussion, I request that you put forward two examples; the first example of where a woman's personal expectations do not justify an abortion, and the second example of where the woman's personal expectations do justify an abortion.
Daniel,
you asked the question, "where does life begein?"
I may be presumptiuous but I think we all agree that life begins with conception- but where there are disagreements is in the question, 'When does life merit protection?' or something along those lines.
I'm sure that by reading the above posts you will be able to learn of the different opinions posted in this thread.

Jose “Col,For the sake of this discussion, I request that you put forward two examples;”

I will decline.

I will decline for two reasons

First

Why on earth should I provide you with the bullets for you to shoot down any argument I might present?

That is what you are asking for.
If you want to make up hypotheticals then do so and I will be happy to use reason and logic to shoot your claims down (in flames).

The second, more important, reason is this

Just like a pregnant women, who might be seeking an abortion, I have my own free will. I do not have to fall in with your wishes, instructions or demands.

We are all free make our own choices. We do not live in servitude to the will or whims of any Church or religious zealot.

Whilst I could comply with your request, I will decline as an object lesson for you to learn from – my “free will” and I am exercising it.
I have on this earth need to answer to no one else. Beyond this earth I answer to God but I will never include any mere mortal or self proclaimed religious potentate within that authority.

As I am here answering I will respond to the second part of your post to Daniel

When does a “life” become individual and separate – the moment of birth. Until that moment the embryo / fetus is adjoined and inseparable from the mother.
In this society we respect the mother as having priority of access to the resources of her body and choice over how that body will be deployed.
You would demand the mother, by forcing her to endure a pregnancy against her own will, to take second place to the embryo / fetus and your own demands for the resources of her body and thereby relegate her to the status of a life-support system for a uterus.

Such denigration of her (the pregnant woman’s) human worth, individuality and sovereignty is contemptible, malignant and should be resisted by all reasonable and balanced persons.

Jose, although i'm not christian (i dont have a religion) some of my friends are catholics and i have alot of admiration for them.
i think both you and Col Rouge are arguing about different ways of prioritising. Maybe that's what the whole abortion debate is centered on. So how can society decide on its way of prioritising? Maybe it should be made official, like a Geneva Convention about the method of prioritisng.

OK Daniel

So it should be decided who/what has more rights - a foetus or a living breathing independent human being who just happens to be a woman?

Answer should be obvious - totally strange that it is even an issue.

Clearly a foetus has dominion over a woman's autonomy. Foetus's rock. Foetus' rool.

Right?

Col,

“Why on earth should I provide you with the bullets for you to shoot down any argument I might present?”

If you really thought you had the truth on your side, why would you worry about someone in error shooting down your arguments? If I were in error and attempted to shoot down your allegedly truthful arguments, you would be able to defend them with simple truth and expose the errors in my attempts to disprove you.
It is childish to fear what you think is false.
The only reason you would have to fear my shooting down your arguments is if truth was not your weapon but you were the one in error. It is even more childish to fear the truth.

“If you want to make up hypotheticals then do so and I will be happy to use reason and logic to shoot your claims down (in flames).”

I will point out that Reason is the <Formal object (quo)> of Philosophy
I will also point out that Logic is a branch of Philosophy

Division of Philosophy:
-Metaphysics
-Philosophy of Nature
-Philosophy of living beings
-Ethics
-Logic
-History of Philosophy

Philosophically is exactly how you, I and everyone else are going to debate this issue.
Hold on- I thought you said before that Philosophy is a subjective study which arrives at outcomes not supported by absolute proven facts and is influenced by subjective opinion?
And now you want to use Reason and Logic to shoot down my arguments?
...

Will you present the two examples, or do you still need me to do it?

Jose “ I will point out that Reason is the <Formal object (quo)> of Philosophy
I will also point out that Logic is a branch of Philosophy”

And I say “So What “

Previous comments refer to where YOU were confusing “science” with “subjective opinion” and were clearly seen to be lacking in “reasoned logic”.

Logic is not “science” nor within the ambit of science. Logic might be the interpretation of some fact but it can equally be influenced by subjective assessment and values.

Example –
Good old dull “accounting provisions and principles for depreciation” will result in an absolute value of depreciation being expensed within a given trading period.
The basis of that provision is entirely logical. HOWEVER, the logic of determination is “subjective” and dependent upon how the accountants and other operating officers view the foreseeable useful life of the assets being depreciated. Two officers might both have completely “logical and reasoned” perceptions of the useful asset life and might both have completely different views on how much should be depreciated in any given trading period.

Whilst dealing with "logical processes" it is entirely possible, as I have illustrated, for two differing logical opinions, of equal merit, to result in entirely different outcomes. That is because whilst they might be "logical" they are not “science”.

As for “examples” – you have my response –

You are most welcome to present as many different targets for me as you wish –
But I can assure you, they will all end up in the same sorry state of rejection.

I remember stating the scientific fact that an embryo is an <individual human organism>.
This is not confusing science with subjective opinion.
I remember saying that Philosophy is a science.
Philosophy is a science.
Philosophy is more sublime than other sciences, as we can see when considering the 2 principal meanings of the term ‘science’.

1) In so far as science is a “certain knowledge through causes”, philosophy is a science. Besides, since it studies the deepest causes of reality, it is the first and most eminent of the sciences; the other sciences only deal with the more immediate or proximate causes of reality.
2) In so far as science is knowledge attained by way of demonstration, starting from some principles, philosophy is truly a science since it attains knowledge in this manner. Philosophy also studies the first or most basic principles of all knowledge, which other sciences do not do.

Diversity of opinions is due to the shortcomings of those who do not study issues with the required rigor or precision, and who try to explain reality by reducing it to some of its partial aspects.

Art:
The rationality of actions through which some objects are produced.

The ‘objects’ produced, as fitting your example, is the “absolute value of depreciation being expensed within a given trading period”. The ‘rationality of actions through which’ “the accountants and other operating officers” produce the result is their technique, which may differ from man to man, although some have more experience and are more successful than others. Also, using the example you provided, this financial game is a bit of a “gamble” as I’m sure you have learned in your time (some aspects of the finance game are out of the officers’ control and some cannot be pre-determined, only guessed at through professional ‘wisdom’ coming from experience and knowledge).

In my next post I will put forward the two examples I requested from you. I will put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.

Your earlier diatribe about philosophy being a science was destroyed by myself and other posters.

Now again “Philosophy is a science.”
Simply because you say it, just like demanding the right to interfere in someone else’s life decisions, does not make it right or fact.

To repeat here, philosophy IS NOT A SCIENCE – that is why Universities teach “philosophy” as part of “humanities” and philosophy degrees, along with other “humanities” degrees, like Law and Accounting are “Arts” degrees, not science degrees.

As for “some aspects of the finance game are out of the officers’ control and some cannot be pre-determined, only guessed at through professional ‘wisdom’ coming from experience and knowledge).”

I am pleased you got the drift of the accounting example, I have been a qualified accountant for 30 years and worked at CFO level before diverting into the arena of financial and systems consultancy.

The “wisdom” derived from experience and knowledge describes perfectly “wisdom” supported by “subjective judgement” and not scientific fact.

The example was to illustrate the philosophical and subjective nature of what many would erroneously assume to be a mechanical/predictable/scientific calculation and thus supports the fact that “philosophy” is a subjective and non-scientific pursuit.

As for “In my next post I will put forward the two examples I requested from you. I will put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.”

I am not sure if that is a threat or invitation – either way the bit about

“put this off further only if you waste time by provoking argument about philosophy.” sounds almost threatening

So you can present now or put off for all time, for all I care.
You are free to post as you see fit and I will do the same.
However, I will not be intimidated or subjegated by simpleton threats of any sort.

Your example in no way supports the claim that philosophy is un-scientific.
We agree that there are factors (in the finance game) which cannot be known with certainty.
You believe philosophy is the same; where knowledge (with ceratainty) is made impossible by the nature of philosophy.
This is not so.
Philosophy, as a science, reaches certain knowledge through causes.
Philosophy, like science, reaches knowledge by way of demonstration, starting from principles.

Stay tuned for my next post where I will put forward the two examples.

Jose

Give up on the philosophy is a science. Col R and I took you to task on this ages ago - and then you seemed to believe us.

Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world. It has nothing to do with pure sciences. The pure sciences are objective. Philosophical stances are subjective. People who use philosophical theories and/or assumptions rely on pure sciences to support arguments.

You seem to rely on pure sciences to validate your abortion arguments, but then return to spurious phisophical ideas to skew scientific facts.

Cheers
Kay

We are talking about two different things. You are using a colloquiallism; "This is my philosophy on the world", says Bob. Bob's 'philosophy' (world view) will be to some degree in conformity with the truth. This truth can be studied through philosophy (which I have been refering to, although you've been talking about something else).

Try this:
Taking a philosophical stance, let us examine the human person.
We must be objective, otherwise the procedure is flawed by 'reductionism', which is poison to philosophical investigation (something that you both think is inherent in the nature of philosophy).
The individual can perform abstractions. (eg: 2+2=4). This is an operation of the Intellect.
The individual can actively direct his Intellect. (eg: to heed or diregard spontaneous knowledge- to heed or disregard another poster's posts for example). This is an operation of the Will.

By way of demonstration, starting from some principles (ie: scientifically), we reach the certain knowledge of the soul as a constituent of human nature (the body being the other constituent).

Now tell me that the metaphysical investigation I just related is unscientific.

Stay tuned