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.