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.