I agree with Bernard. I regard abortion as a fundamental human rights abuse. Our own society needs to examine its collective conscience at the legally and socially sanctioned brutality in our own midst. Each year some 80,000 unborn children in our country die from the legally sanctioned killing of the unborn by abortion.
I acknowledge I am opposed to abortion except where it is the unintentional consequence of trying to save a mother’s life. I am morally opposed to the deliberate taking of innocent life based on my understanding of human life and including from a human rights perspective.

In respect of late term abortions, Dr Van Gend at the time of the vote on the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria said “The truth is that most late abortions, which are 20 weeks of pregnancy, are done to entirely healthy babies of entirely healthy mothers, and by a method so cruel I am reluctant to describe it. “
He further stated : “For our generation, late abortion is the test of whether or not our society sinks into savagery, deaf to babies so callously sacrificed to the psychosocial comfort of adults.”

He was reluctant to describe, but allow me to quote from a letter I sent to all State MPs at the time of that debate.
“The methodology of abortion procedures on the living, genetically unique foetus is appalling, especially the late term abortions. Although there has been much debate on the subject, there is no doubt that the foetus experiences pain, some medical research suggests from 8 weeks, but certainly from around 13 weeks. When an induced abortion occurs, depending on what stage of the pregnancy, the unborn child can die a variety of deaths – sucked to pieces, cut to pieces, twisted and dismembered, poisoned, right through to partial birth abortion (just prior to what would be a normal birth, when an induced death would be called infanticide) where after all but head has been delivered, the surgeon jabs the child’s head with scissors and sucks the brain out to collapse the head.”

Part 2
Or as more clinically described on the Web : “Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements. First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.”
Consistency in respect of human life and human rights at all stages of life is one which any person could philosophically derive through a humanistic approach. and such a philosophy is reflected in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That each human life has value in its uniqueness and potential from the moment that life begins which by its very nature has to be at biological conception
If we deny such a position I believe that we adopt an increasingly utilitarian attitude towards human life, which has the potential to take us down many questionable roads. Ultimately we reach a point where the question has to be asked “Does the end justify the means?”

In the case of a Christian humanist and human rights activist, a position which I openly subscribe to, there is the added perspective of every human life as having a spiritual dimension and dignity. Conception is the beginning of a human life from which it will progress through many stages until old age and death, unless terminated at some earlier stage before and after birth, by natural or human intervention or misadventure.

Bagsyl : You try to present a rational argument in favour of abortion that everyone should accept simply because it is reasonable and logical. Then you resort to telling us that we should refrain from killing ‘unborn children’ because it is the Christian humanist view that we all have a spiritual side. Why do you need to stress this fact? Surely if your argument is valid then it should stand on its own two feet. It is totally irrelevant whether or not any of us has a spiritual side. Abortion is wrong because it is a crime against human rights is it not?

It sounds like you are unconvinced by your own arguments. You do not truly believe that they are strong enough to stand on their merits and so you resort to some kind of teaching that is backed by Christian authorities to promote your position. This is the argument from authority which is not really an argument at all. No authority has the answers to all questions and so it could well be that the authority you defer to has no answers about this issue of abortion. If you are convinced that it is enough to defer to this authority then it is totally unnecessary to present a logical argument in the first place. You should rather be trying to convince us all to defer to such an authority as you do.

The graphic nature of your descriptions seem like the tactic of a desperate person. It is totally unnecessary. If the foetus is a human being then it is wrong to do anything violent against it. It is not a question of the level of violence. Every human being knows that violence causes pain we do not need to hear or see images of violence to be convinced of this. Resorting to such emotional depictions is also the refuge of someone not convinced of their own arguments.

Dear Bagsyl,

On the one hand you start by stating, "I agree with Bernard.", then you proceed to comment about things which Bernard, the author, never mentioned.

This whole article never mentioned the words: 'baby', 'foetus' (or 'fetus'), 'child', 'human', 'right(s)' or 'abuse'. It is not about abortion but about "The politics of abortion" - all about politics.

While there is little controversy about your claim that killing babies is wrong - which surely it is, that provides no explanation as to what gives the state a right to forbid it.

Murder is wrong, including the murder of animals - the product of which you find in every supermarket, but the state does not prohibit this disgusting practice, nor should it - what then allows it to prohibit the murder of human babies who are often less developed and less conscious than the adult animals in question?

You seem to answer this with:

<<In the case of a Christian humanist and human rights activist, a position which I openly subscribe to, there is the added perspective of every human life as having a spiritual dimension and dignity.>>

In other words, pain and loss don't matter, consciousness doesn't matter: all that matters is the granting of special rights for your elite group - humans, which you want government to violently enforce, supported by the arrogant claims as if humans and only humans have a spiritual dimension and as if they and only they deserve dignity. Try substituting 'human' with 'Aryan'.

Dear Yuyutsu
You are right that the article of Bernard Gaynor concentrates on the politics of abortion, and I do agree with him, the Libs are wimping on this issue.
Yes I did primarily concentrate on the actual issue of life, abortion, especially late term abortion that was ushered in in the law changes a few years ago. This was the issue I believe was underlying Gaynor's article's criticism of the LNP.
In terms of animal life and human life - I respect animal life but I do see a difference in purpose. As Phanto complains I make no bones about seeing the nature of human life through a Christian perspective. I realise that you may see things differently but you do go over the top in your last sentence. Cheers.

"I respect animal life but I do see a difference in purpose. As Phanto complains, "I make no bones about seeing the nature of human life through a Christian perspective"....lion food:)

Abortion is here to stay....so keep waving your arms about:)

KAT