On a planet that is facing cataclysm by over population of the human species, there must be a world view that says every new member of the species must be a wanted one. Also, that it is socially responsible to want just two. The guilt that women feel is a result of centuries of Christian mores. There needs to be a new narrative that speaks not only of personal choice but also of global responsibility.

Maybe there could be a system where instead of aborting, the baby is adopted to a different family, never know who may or may not develop interplanetary space travel or whatever.

This 'women's right to control their own bodies' is pathetic; they should try contolling their bodies by keeping their legs together, for starters, and stop hawking themselves about, maybe stop drinking and losing natural inhibitions. If they cannot control themselves or their bodies, take more care with contraception. Hell's bells, they can even get the morning after pill. Even if they have the morals of alley cats, they need to be pretty dumb to get pregnant if they don't wish to. Apart from the odd occasions of rape, danger to a woman's life if she continues with a pregnancy or if a scan reveals a hopelessy disabled child, there is no excuse for abortion in modern times. The very idea of abortions of convenience is contemptible. Irresponsible women are also contemptible.

no ttbn you're contemptible. If only you had a brain it would be worth explaining to you the facts.

Priest's and their less committed cousins Ministers should spend their time on useful religious ideas like how many angles can dance on a pin head. Please leave reality to the rest of us. The various churches have made an profitable industry out of peddling guilt.

Heaven? Filled with unwanted boys and girls?

Like those abandoned and left to starve to death in some war ravaged hell hole or in some third world country, where they die of dehydration caused by easily remedied dysentery!

Easy for the better off white male to decide on some stone age antiquated and entirely unprovable belief system, what other folks are allowed to do, after forbidding contraception?

Who gave you a right to decide for others?

Perhaps if they were the ones getting pregnant and having to carry a baby full term, then feed, clothe, house and educate it during the formative years on an income of $2.00 a day?

Then they may be able to remove the blindfold, the earplugs and perceive the real world through very different eyes; and or circumstances, which they are unable to actually comprehend!

LET US SHOUT ABOUT UNHOLY, NEVER ENDING, BLIND TYRANNICAL ZEAL!

About endless injustice and zealots turning indifferent blind eyes to all the above!

Heaven? What, where? That place above that there mountain, way up there among them clouds, where there ain't no fields to plow?
Alan B.

Nice to see someone standing up for the unborn. I would have preferred if he didn't bring religion into it though. It adds nothing to the argument. Abortion is wrong simply because you are robbing someone of the opportunity to live out their life. No different to killing a newborn baby or an adult.
There seems to be a bizarre double standard in this country where it is claimed a woman has the right to control her body even to the extent of killing her unborn child, yet she cannot carry a child for someone else (surrogacy) for money. Likewise a woman can kill her unborn who has not consented, but cannot assist a consenting terminally ill adult to end their life.
If we really value human life, we need to have consistency in our approach to it.

Well said Malcolm, especially "As much as Jane Caro wishes women to wash away their shame for having abortions, many women cannot, and no Pope or priest can achieve that either. But in the person of Jesus Christ we find a God who is willing and able, and who is more merciful and wonderful than any of us can ever imagine. " Though you should not write off what a "Pope or priest can achieve"...One Saturday afternoon I received a call from a highly agitated and distressed woman who had just had an abortion. With only rudimentary counseling skills I grabbed a copy of the late John Paul 11's Encyclical The Gospel of Life and read out his words "to women who have had an abortion "...among which were: Do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. The Father of Mercies is ready to give you His forgiveness and His peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.." etc etc.The calming effect effect was immediate.I know and understand the divergence of belief and opinion on the issue of the Sacrament of Reconciliation between Catholics and our much loved and respected Baptist fellow Christians...but for many like that Saturday afternoon caller, only the Sacrament of Reconciliation will "reconcile" them Malcolm. So, from someone with a life time of experience with aborted women, it is important not to dissuade women from this Sacrament. The "professional counseling" which was subsequently offered to the woman of whom I speak, was declined once she had been reconciled in the Sacrament of Reconciliation..and incidentally, has now become in the words of The Gospel of Life "among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life.

TTBN, you said Apart from the odd occasions of rape, danger to a woman's life if she continues with a pregnancy or if a scan reveals a hopelessy disabled child, there is no excuse for abortion in modern times.

You forgot to mention the circumstances that the child is born (a 14 year old giving birth or termination) or that the parents are drug users/useless people who will abandoned the child or abuse it. Or simply not mentally capable of looking after a child.

We need a licence to have a dog, but any useless human can have a child.
Where do you draw the line? My wife was told to have a termination as it was life threatening to her. years later we have 3 healthy children. The Doctors at the time said a termination was the safest thing to do.

If the mother can't or wont be able to look after a child, then she should have the right to termination, not religious nutters choosing for her.

I would rather have 10000 terminations a year in Australia (in safe hospitals) than 10000 unwanted neglected or abused children and/or 1000's of back yard terminations

You really gotta laugh out loud when people propose that the Bible, particularly the "Old" Testament is a binding guide to sexual morality and moral behavior altogether.

If ALL of it were taken seriously just about everybody in all times and places in the Christian based world would have been summarily executed at a young age - no ifs, buts or maybes.
Google the topics:
76 Things Banned In Leviticus & Their Penalties
The Bible Is Not A Guide to Sexual Behavior.

Who, therefore is going to cast the first self-righteous stone?

@Rhys Jones if you can't see the difference between a adult human and fetus then you've got nothing useful to add to the conversation.

@ Cobber the Hound: If you cannot recognize the humanity shared by the adult and the fetus then you have nothing sensible to add to this conversation.

Ultrasound technology, together with biology, embryology, fetal surgery, and examination of the human remains of an abortion, all tell us that the victim targeted for abortion is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.

True justice requires that elective abortions be recognized and treated not as harmless, idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.

You also have to Laugh Out Loud when someone writes that:

"Heaven is filled with boys and girls,who though unwanted by their earthly parents, have been welcomed by a Father who is committed to their eternal joy and good."

Kirby 483,

I didn't forget. The reasons I listed were the only instances I could countenance abortion. The 14 year old you mention, people unable to raise a child for whatever reason - there are many people who would adopt unwanted children. Think about what it must feel like for a woman longing for a child that she cannot have, when she knows that children are being aborted willy nilly by the thousands for no good reason. And please don't describe religious people as 'nutters'. They have as much right to an opinion as you do. My own opinion on the matter of abortion has nothing to do with religion anyway.

The bottom line is that no one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival. That’s the difference between abortion and killing a child. Whether abortion is “normal” or celebrated by some is irrelevant. This debate is actually a really simple one:

Anti-abortionist: “Killing the unborn is no different to killing a child.”

Pro-choicer: “No one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival. You wouldn’t force a mother to donate a kidney to their child.”

Anti-abortionist: “Well the woman should have thought of that before she fell pregnant. The unborn child didn’t choose to be conceived.”

Pro-choicer: “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”

And that’s where the discussion ends. Next...

By the way, the Abrahamic god is the biggest abortionist in all fiction (and non-fiction), so appealing to their religion will do the followers of the Abrahamic religions no good in this debate.

In am pro retrospective abortion in some cases.

If a woman has 'full control over her body' and the man has no say on the decision whether or not to abort or keep a child - then a question must be asked about fairness if the situation is reversed, and whether the man should be responsible for the upbringing of the child if the woman chooses to keep that child against the mans wishes.

If the woman can kill that unborn child and the man has no say in it, then if the man does not want the child and the woman does, he should not be liable.

yep the regressives dumbed people down enough in the 1970's and 80's to think abortion was all about the poor 14 year old who was raped. Of course those who pointed out it would lead to open killing season on babies were demonised and hounded. Now that they were proven 100% right the feminist don't want to talk about it. Not enough children for adoption because our doctors slaughter them. The dumb and callous country. Thats what happens when the ' compassionate' refressives take power. They are filled with tears for sorry days and white ribbon days and are heartless towards the unborn.

There need not be a debate.

Abortion should be a personal choice of the woman in question and the father if he is still involved in the relationship. No if's or but's. It is a private matter and the religious spruikers should play absolutely no part in the discussion.

It is a medical procedure and also a personal, private issue between The doctor and patient.

Geoff

Geoff of Perth,

How are you about late term abortions?

As late as the knitting needle through the head before it emerges?

Geoff of Perth

Abortion is the only medical procedure that involves two patients that has for its purpose the direct killing of one of the patients.

In every pregnancy there is a second patient to be considered.

Decisions between a woman and her doctor should not extend to commissioning the killing of the second patient, a tiny daughter or son being nurtured and protected in her/his mother's womb..

Privacy cannot be invoked to conceal human right abuse of children, including violations of their rights to prenatal care, survival and development. International human rights law has consistently rejected the right to privacy as a defence against human rights violations by adults in positions of power over children in positions of dependency.

No human being has ownership and killing rights over another human being, no matter how small, or dependent or troublesome or 'unwanted'.

RitaJ,

No one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival. That's another human right, and one that trumps everything you said. You wouldn’t force a mother to donate a kidney to their child, so why do the rights of a child that hasn't even been born yet extend beyond those of a child that has been born?

As I alluded to before, this one simple point trumps any argument the anti-abortionist comes up with. It is the bottom line.

A J Phillips
Adequate nutrition, the protective environment of the mother’s womb, and benign medical care are “basic rights” of every new human being and because of their fundamental necessity to the nurturing of life; they are the unborn child’s minimum and reasonable demands on her/his biological mother.

A mother nurturing her little daughter or son in her womb is exercising her natural duty of care. It is just the ordinary care owed by every mother to her child--nothing extraordinary--just exactly what our reproductive systems are equipped to do. It is just what our mothers did for us and what our grandmothers did for our mothers and what our great-grandmothers did for our grandmothers.

Lethal violence against these tiniest and most defenceless of all children is never 'necessary'. All violence against children is preventable.

Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.

Their mothers' personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

RitaJ,

The “basic rights” you list are trumped by the pregnant woman’s right to not be used as an incubator. Once again, no one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival.

<<A mother nurturing her little daughter or son in her womb is exercising her natural duty of care. It is just the ordinary care owed by every mother to her child--nothing extraordinary--just exactly what our reproductive systems are equipped to do.>>

The difference being, of course, that a child who has been born is not using the body of their mother. They can survive independent of their mother in the care of others.

<<Lethal violence against these tiniest and most defenceless of all children is never 'necessary'.>>

It is when it endangers the life of the mother.

<<All violence against children is preventable.>>

Whether it is preventable is beside the point. No one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival, and consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

<<Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.>>

But according to you, they should receive more. Once again, you wouldn’t force a mother to donate a kidney to their child (or would you?).

<<Their mothers' personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.>>

Correct, and that includes not forcing women to carry through to term against their will.

".... so why do the rights of a child that hasn't even been born yet extend beyond those of a child that has been born?"

We cannot legally kill the born, so the rights of the unborn do not exceed the rights of the born.

This one simple point trumps any argument the abortionist comes up with. It is the bottom line.

At what point does the killing of the child remain legal?

Can it be said to be born until the umbilical cord has been severed and tied?

Perhaps, AJ, you can answer the problem of the late term abortion by knitting needle (or similar) driven into the brain when the head is in sight but has not yet emerged.

A very emotive issue. I am anti-abortion, but I concede a woman's right to choose, in certain instances.

Sometimes it's the right thing to do, and sometimes it isn't.

Abortion as birth control is abominable, I have no sympathy for these women, you feel guilty? Good! Although, in the case of young girls, they do have the right for the adverse affects of a birth at such a young age to be taken into consideration when deciding.

When my son was born the hospital informed us that they no longer tell parents the sex of their child during pre-scanning, we didn't want to know anyway. The reason for this was, mostly South Asians, aborting females. This practice is disgusting, there is no reasonable excuse, they got pregnant deliberately, then abort when the foetus is old enough to show it's sex.

I will just state that I am an atheist, so please don't think my opinions have anything to do with religion.

My preference is that the choice is purely the choice of the mother and father (if he is not already excluded). This is basically already the case in all private consultations and should be the case in all public-funded ones as well. If accused of procuring an abortion, the answer should be that the accuser is charged with breach of medical privacy.

A conceptus is not an enbryo yet, an embryo is not a fetus, and a fetus is not a baby yet. They all have potential, as does a baby, but realising that potential depends on various conditions being met. Many who would force children on others would also decline any responsibility for the costs of meeting the conditions to reach potential, so I see no problem with the *only* people directly liable for the consequences having the *only* significant say in the matter.

Rusty.

Is Mise,

I never claimed that the rights of the unborn exceed those of the born.

<<We cannot legally kill the born, so the rights of the unborn do not exceed the rights of the born.>>

But if one is of the opinion that the unborn have the right to use someone else’s body for their survival against their will, then they believe that the unborn have more rights than the born. (c.f. My point about not forcing mothers to donating a kidneys.)

<<At what point does the killing of the child remain legal?>>

You’ll want to check your state’s laws with regards to that.

<<Can it be said to be born until the umbilical cord has been severed and tied?>>

How about we go by when the foetus, sorry, beautiful unborn human child (emotive terminology makes no difference) is viable outside the mother’s body without too many health complications? That’s what the laws of the various jurisdictions tend to base the limit on.

<<Perhaps, AJ, you can answer the problem of the late term abortion by knitting needle (or similar) driven into the brain when the head is in sight but has not yet emerged.>>

Yes, I can. It’s not much of a problem. As I said earlier, the abortion debate is actually a really easy one. See above. In other words, I personally would disagree with doing that if the unborn human baby, so innocent and sweet, were viable outside the mother’s body.

Here’s a much trickier thought experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Sorry, Is Mise, but anti-abortionists haven’t a leg to stand on. I have provided reasoning as to why the will of the mother trumps the innocent life of the beautiful unborn human child every time, and no one has managed to invalidate it.

the usual callous hearts who know quite well that their are far more people waiting for adoptions than babies available. Their hatred of their Creator is ultimately what leads them to barbaric conclusions. And to think they have the audacity to claim science is on their side. How pathetic.

AJ Philips, you have shown no such thing. You just sit there and boringly spout the same opinion. At what point does the woman accept responsibilities for their actions? What is your view on abortion over 23 weeks, the gestation period of triplets born recently? Or the record for a live birth at 22 weeks? How do you justify 28 week abortions, where the only two ways of removing the foetus is for the woman to give birth, or the abortionist to enter the womb and crush the skull? To say anti-abortionists don't have a leg to stand on is ignorant and arrogant, and it is intended to crush debate.

The usual twits cannot decide how to be confused.

How many abortions really happen runner?
How many wanting babies?

Put both numbers in your next post, for comparison.

Rusty.

AJ,

How about people being sued at law for doing hurt to an unborn child?

Care to comment on a breech birth; would it be OK to stab the partly born child in the stomach whilst the head was still in the canal?

Perhaps a stab under the chin and through to the brain would still be a late term abortion, after all if part of the child has not emerged then it is still dependent on the mother's body.

The greatest piece of tosh that has come up in this discussion is the ridiculous claim that the unborn do not have a right to the protection and sustenance provided by the mother's body.

Billyd,

You mean when should they be forced to carry the beautiful unborn human child, so innocent and sweet, to full term?

<<At what point does the woman accept responsibilities for their actions?>>

Well opinion on that is going to differ from person to person, but I personally agree with what most jurisdictions base their laws on: when an innocent unborn human child is viable outside the womb without too many health complications. This opinion is based on the fact that no one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival - that pesky point you seem to think I’ve been repeating pointlessly.

<<What is your view on abortion over 23 weeks, the gestation period of triplets born recently? Or the record for a live birth at 22 weeks?>>

See above. The same principle applies, in my opinion.

<<How do you justify 28 week abortions, where the only two ways of removing the foetus …>>

Again, see above. I thought I had made this pretty clear in my previous comments. Incidentally, as with emotive terminology, gory descriptions don’t change anything. Emotive language is for those with no rational argument.

<<To say anti-abortionists don't have a leg to stand on is ignorant and arrogant, and it is intended to crush debate.>>

Apparently not.

Is Mise,

We’ve already been through this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7084&page=0. These are not tricky questions.

<<How about people being sued at law for doing hurt to an unborn child?>>

Firstly, the mother may have wanted to keep it. Secondly, reckless/callous actions should be punished.

<<Care to comment on a breech birth; would it be OK to stab the partly born child in the stomach whilst the head was still in the canal?>>

Why would my answer here be any different to what it was with your ‘knitting needle’ question?

<<The greatest piece of tosh that has come up in this discussion is the ridiculous claim that the unborn do not have a right to the protection ...>>

Who says they don't have that right? A mother's right to bodily autonomy just trumps that. That's all.

//No human being has ownership and killing rights over another human being, no matter how small, or dependent or troublesome or 'unwanted'.//

Are you quite sure about that, RitaJ? Children don't get to make their own medical decisions - their legal guardians make them on their behalf. And they can, and do, refuse life saving treatments for their children.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses - those devout Christian evangelists we all know and love so much - believe that blood transfusions are inherently sinful, and that receiving a blood transfusion ensures your place in the bad, fiery, sulphurous sort of afterlife.

There are numerous cases documented in the medical literature where children of Jehovah's Witnesses have died solely because their parents did not give consent for a transfusion - the reasoning being that it is better for the kid to die and go to heaven for eternity than live for a bit longer but go to hell for eternity. I think it's a steaming load of shite, but I don't believe in any sort of afterlife.

So when a parent lets their kid - let's give her a name, Helen, and an age, 8 and 3/4 - when Helen's parents let her die even though her life could easily be saved, what do we call that? Really, really late-term abortion?

I'm sad to say that in Australia, under most circumstances, some human beings really do have ownership and killing rights over their offspring, until said offspring turn 16.

I reckon before we start worrying about protecting the unborn, maybe we should look at strengthening some of the protections for the born-but-not-yet-sixteen, so that their parents can't refuse life-saving medical treatment for bloody stupid reasons.

//How about people being sued at law for doing hurt to an unborn child?//

They're actually being sued at law for the hurt caused to the mother.