I think we can all agree that killing babies is immoral.

But what has the state to do with it? Since when has the, ammoral if not immoral, secular state, become a guardian of morals?

The only legitimate rationale for the existence of the state is for the protection of a group of people who agreed to join their powers to protect themselves in this manner.

Problems and oppression arise when a state attempts to protect those who never sought its protection, or against perceived dangers which those who gave it power never entrusted it to protect them against.

In the case of babies, born or unborn, they may not be counted as citizens, nor even as visitors who arrive into the state under agreement (visa). The only legitimate way for them to come under state-protection, is when either they or their parent(s) as their representatives, approach the state applying to receive its protection - and in the case of abortions, that usually never happened.

No Mc'O'Real

You may address me as Cardinal Icky Poota.

That'll be 66 Hail Mary's on Monday. But leave me the odd Marjorie on Tuesday.

Yours

Seamus O'Paddy's Big One

A quick response to the points raised.

"“If we abandon moral argument all we have left is the brute force of numbers". I don't want to abandon moral argument but I see little prospect of the two sides reaching a consensus, or public opinion going back to a majority supporting a prohibitionist position.

I am agnostic and not at all religious. I get annoyed with people who stereotype me because of my Irish name.

"Why is it that conservatives always think they have the silent majority on their sides"? The survey evidence I quoted related to the views of all Australians. It is clear that the majority (silent or otherwise) support abortions early in pregnancy but are opposed to or have strong reservations about late abortions.

"I would say that late abortions after 20 weeks gestation are very rare except when there are foetal abnormalities or if there are severe mental or physical problems with the mother. Any attempt to prove otherwise are lies from hysterical anti-choice proponents". The issue with late abortions is not the reason or lack of one. The point is that (at a given time late in gestation) a pregnancy could be ended by a live birth (with the unwanted child adopted, if necessary) instead of by an abortion resulting in a lifeless foetus.

"The division of gestation into trimesters is arbitrary and seems to be decreasingly relevant". Anyone who has studied medicine or vet science would know that reference to trimesters is stock standard and has scientific basis.

Venturing into the waters of Abortion with an Irish name guarantees stereotyping - which may have considerable truth.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/labour-party-politician-considers-another-vote-against-government-on-abortion-31206195.html

Firstly I fully support women having the right to choose whether or not they seek an abortion.

Second, what is the issue? Is it religiously wrong or are there anti-abortion secularists. We all know the argument against abortion comes primarily from Christians who believe 'killing' an unborn child is murder, the ultimate sin.

So when a women has an abortion 'her sin' is between her a God. If there is a debt to pay, God should decide, not a bunch of self righteous do-gooders. If these Christians have no faith God will hand down the proper justice, they don't have much faith.

Finally, where are the statistical accounts regarding the lives of children who were never wanted but their mother was forced to have the baby? How have these children turned out? If one, god forbid, turned out to be a serial killer, would it be the mother's fault or those who forced the birth to happen?

Believers generally accept there is a Higher Plan, or God's Plan that is beyond human knowledge or understanding. How can believers question whether or not God intended a particular entity to only live a few months inside its mother's womb?

To me, the religious anti-abortionists show themselves to be hypocrites who are unwilling to accept God's mysterious ways, they are the very ones of little faith.

Well, there are a number of valid grounds for an entirely lawful abortion! The first and probably most important is incompatible DNA and tissue rejection, which if left can kill both the mother and the baby!

And not able to be known by all the religious nut jobs with their anti-clinic pickets! You can't judge a book by its cover!

And no 9-10-11 year old should be forced to carry full term, given she would have had to been literally raped in order to get pregnant in the first place; and she could literally die in child birth.

And early term termination ought to be automatically available to any female who was unable or unwilling to give informed consent, as would likely be the case in date rape!

Again not something the nut jobs can ever possibly know. Ditto most incest and underage sex?

Which if carried full term can quite literally destroy the entire future prospects of the non consulted incubator.

I mean surely it is already enough that these women/girls may be subjected to the trauma of the court procedures, without also being almost raped again by a (lunatic fringe) picket line of (a tail trying to wag the dog) or force a minority (stone age/flat earth) view down our collective throats.

Were it down entirely to me, I'd ask the police to enforce the law or should that read, AVO's, with shotguns loaded with non lethal bean bags!?

Which might give the anti-clinic picketers something real to rave on about!?

That said, termination procedures that still a beating human heart, can never ever be seen as a substitute for (multiple choice)contraception and shouldering personal responsibility for knowable/foreseeable outcomes!
Rhrosty.