As the law recognises the victims of abortion as humans, abortion must be referred to as infanticide, and abortionists and their procurers named 'murderers'. I don't know what that makes the politicians who legalised the savagery: probably just 'dupes' who have handed over their responsibilities and powers to un-elected lunatics

Highly charged emotive question! So who is killing babies small humans with beating hearts! No heartbeat, no life to snuff out!

Does it matter if going full term will surely kill both the mother and child? Does it matter if the child is the product of incest or rape that effectively denies the mother her career and higher education and any promise of a quality life of her own?

Does it matter even in any of the foregoing circumstance the mother is massively and brutally traumatised by a decision she just didn't want to ever make!

Nonetheless, had no other real choice to then have to run the gauntlet of fanatical religious intolerance outside a medical facility where the attendees presume to know the mind and medical circumstances of the mother!?

I say the control freak religious fanatics have absolutely no right to picket medical clinics and try with highly emotive assumptions to force their aberrant views on others.

The perimeter of a medical facility is no place for nut case vigilante control freaks!

I would give them some bean bags in the bread basket, discharged from a twelve gauge, to end what is actually riotous behaviour! Ditto activists invading private property without any respect of the rights of bought and paid for, ownership!

LISTEN, MORONS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KILL SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A BEATING HEART TO STILL!

SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE SAID FOR EUTHANASIA!
Alan B.

Alan B - This is from the British Heart Foundation:

"Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at 8 days after conception in mice or around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

Now, a team funded by the BHF at the University of Oxford has demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception."

See the full article at https://blog.bhf.org.uk/when-does-our-heart-first-start-to-beat-36bcbac072c1

Graham Preston

Does it matter if abortion kills babies?

The foetus doesn't know any better because it's still uncorrupted !

'If a person were to stand outside Dr Portman’s abortion clinic with a sign saying, “Abortion kills babies” they would be arrested and potentially fined $10 000 and/ or jailed for up to 12 months for having done so. Yet Dr Portman can openly say that it is true that abortion really does kill babies and she can then go ahead, on those premises, and do the killing.'

thanks Graham. What more can be said. Now that biology is conclusive, the murderous industry and ideologist don't want their barbaric crimes exposed. Yep the Jews were not human just like the unborn aren't human. Secularism certainly promotes some putried dogmas and outcomes.

individual,

<<Does it matter if abortion kills babies? The foetus doesn't know any better because it's still uncorrupted!>>

Does it matter if Nazis killed Jews? "To the anti-Semitic Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Jews were an inferior race, an alien threat to German racial purity and community", http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust.

If babies are seen as 'uncorrupted' by you, are they innocent? If so, why should that be a reason for murdering them?

Alan B,

<<LISTEN, MORONS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KILL SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A BEATING HEART TO STILL!>>

Using an ad hominem logical fallacy, 'listen morons', denigrates your reasoning ability. It's fallacious reasoning.

When does the heart-beat of a foetus begin?

In Qld, it is now legal to abort a baby in the womb at 22 weeks. Is the heart beating at that stage? If so, is abortion killing a baby?

I think being mother's day this Sunday we should all thank our mums for not taking our lives.

I note the deep anger of Alan B's comment and his description of people who stand outside abortion clinics as religious nut cases.Due to family obligations I have never been able to participate in the "Mother and baby" rescues attempted by these people but there is nothing crazy, aggressive or hard about them.They are often older citizens and driven by compassion to trying to save women from the trauma of abortion.
There needs to be Law Reform to remove from the statute books legislation that allows the legal execution of a member of the human family who has committed no crime against anyone.There have been children born out of incest, rape or domestic violence who have gone on to lead productive worthwhile lives. In such awful cases the child has committed no crime so why do we allow them to be killed? Any civilisation that removes the protection of the child in the womb will inevitably wither and die because it has allowed corruption to grow at the very heart of its existence. I hope both child and mother will be protected with no criminal proceedings against any woman but charges against those who carry out this barbaric procedure.

Thank you Graham.

Life begins at Conception. Personhood begins with Life.

All the genetic information for growth and development is available from Conception.

The only legitimate grounds for an abortion, is to save the physical life of the mother, if she is in imminent danger.

If it is expected that the child would have health problems, it should be allowed to be born and given the necessary palliative care and support - with parental support.

Rape or Incest is not sufficient grounds to kill the child. The abused woman should be supported.

If a woman is having mental health issues because of a pregnancy, she should be supported as would a non-pregnant woman. Abortion does not solve mental health issues - it can compound them.

Adoption with support and palliative care of those in need are underused.

Well sorry to tell you assorted religious nutters who oppose abortion it really is none of your business.
If the religious Ayatollahs want to impose their opinion on us stand for Parliament get a majority & do it
But otherwise mind your own bloody business if your silly enough to break the law you deserve what you get

The question regarding the morality or otherwise of abortion is extremely complex, so complex that I hesitate to get into it. Indeed, many books can be written about it and years of contemplation are necessary to grasp it.

In comparison, the question whether or not a killing took place is a simple one, it is binary, cold, clinical, medical. On its own, however, it says little about morality.

We, well most of us, intuitively sense that killing is wrong. But WHY is it wrong? Stepping in a bit deeper we can answer that killing another is doing unto them something which we would have hated being done unto ourselves - counter to Hillel's Golden Rule (and Jesus' rephrasing of it). Taking this one step further, ANY selfish act is wrong/sinful - not because the act itself is necessarily bad but because it increases our selfishness, thus takes us further away from God.

Thus clearly, aborting for selfish reasons is wrong.

Yet if we are able to separate the selfish motive (which is always bad, even if we receive everyone's approval and medals for what we do) from the act itself, then the full complexity of the question is exposed.

I will not dare to present all my raw thoughts in this matter here and now, just two points for today:

1) Whether killing took place is not a useful question - in order to use Hillel's Golden Rule, better ask whether or not anyone was harmed!

2) Even when a human body is killed, it is only the body which is killed: the in-dweller within that body can never be killed.

"The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once existed, does it ever cease to be. The soul is without birth, eternal, immortal, and ageless. It is not destroyed when the body is destroyed."
[Bhagavad-Gita 2:20]

"Weapons cannot shred the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind dry it."
[Bhagavad-Gita 2:23]

Abortion does NOT kill babies, teenagers or old people. To be any of those things you have to be born. Abortion terminates pregnancy, and kills a fetus. A woman who has decided to have an abortion knows what the consequences of having an abortion are. She also knows what the consequences of not having an abortion are.

During WW2 my cousin said goodbye to her boyfriend who was going overseas. Two months later she got word he was killed in action, and she found herself pregnant. She had no access to a medical abortion by a competent practitioner. Faced with that fact, she killed herself. I think of her when people like you, Graham Preston, want the right to harass women going to an abortion clinic with an lying, emotive sign. The women have thought it out. They know what they are doing. If legal abortion had been available at that time my cousin could have had one and got on with her life.

Maybe you could have a little compassion for a pregnant woman who has a good reason for wanting an abortion.

If you succeed in making abortion illegal you will bring back the backyard butcher, the coat hanger attempted abortion and suicide.
To prevent unwanted pregnancies adequate contraceptives should be available along with instructions and training on how to use them when engaging in sex. That will eliminate the necessity for most abortions. Quite possibly, you are against that, too.

'Abortion does NOT kill babies, teenagers or old people.'

dear oh dear davidf saying lies often enough never makes it truth. At least try being a little honest.

Does it matter if Nazis killed Jews? If babies are seen as 'uncorrupted' by you, are they innocent? If so, why should that be a reason for murdering them?

OzSpen,
Two utterly irrelevant arguments. The Nazis killed many innocent already born people !
No-one aborts or rather kills babies after birth !
Abortion is performed before a foetus becomes a born baby !
Prevention must surely be morally better than the prospect of a miserable existence.
The immorality is when people have abortions for convenience.
Many young expecting mothers more often than not do not have the luxury of support especially from those who condemn them.

Dear runner,

You just call me dishonest. My post is entirely honest. Apparently dishonesty is disagreement with you. Safe and legal abortion is a hard fought right for women. You just call names with no justification and seem to have no regard for women.

david f

you have previously claimed to be a man of reason ands truth. Denying the humanity of the unborn is outright lying. Biology and reason and morality are all against you and many other deniers.

Dear runner,

No mate it is you who is lying.

A fetus is a potential child, teenager, grandparent. So is an egg in a test tube which has been fertilised by sperm. That joining of DNA is not a baby nor any of the above.

davidf's point is completely valid and just because it doesn't fit in with your warped pseudo-religious misogynist viewpoint it doesn't reduced that validity, not by a single jot.

John Ryan,

<<Well sorry to tell you assorted religious nutters who oppose abortion it really is none of your business. If the religious Ayatollahs want to impose their opinion on us stand for Parliament get a majority & do it. But otherwise mind your own bloody business if your (sic) silly enough to break the law you deserve what you get>>

I extend Christian love to you John. You seem to have some deep animosity against Christians who express their views on this forum.

Really, this is being intolerant towards those of a different faith to yours.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged by the Nazis near the end of World War 2 because of his resistance to the anti-Semitism of the Nazis.

He wrote: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

He agreed with Scripture: "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice' (Proverbs 31:8-9).

I will continue to speak up for the human life in the womb and against murder by abortion. I choose not to be silent when the unborn cannot speak for themselves.

individual,

<<No-one aborts or rather kills babies after birth! Abortion is performed before a foetus becomes a born baby!>>

That's a red herring. Abortion, by definition, murders babies in the womb (yes, human life and biology demonstrate that).

Your philosophy of a "baby" being only outside of the womb when it is born cannot be supported by human biology. Do you want me to provide quotes from paediatricians who demonstrate medically that human life begins at conception?

Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota): “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

I have documented further evidence in my article: Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective at: http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2011/11/01/abortion-and-life-a-christian-perspective/

The fetus is alive, and the woman who carries the fetus is alive. Somehow I feel the life of an adult thinking human woman is worth more than the life of an embryo. From those who are against abortion I hear no concern for the pregnant woman. She is just a vessel, and it's all hail the embryo. Do you embryo-worshippers who would harass a woman going to an abortion clinic give a stuff about her at all?

Abortion is not a choice as much as it's an industry. Wake up to the numbers everyone. The amount of people who feel like they have no choice except to abort. This isn't a choice, with all the options laid out. It's fear giving a monopoly to abortion to being the only choice out of the situation the mothers are in.

If this is really the mother's choice, and nothing more, then give her the foundations of making the choice will all the options available. Let her talk to mothers who didn't abort, but we're in the same shoes the women considering it is in and they either raised the child or adopted him or her to someone else. Let this kind of situation be a crossroads so that women don't have to feel like they are alone when making these decisions and to gain the stories of those who have gone through it with heart ache or with joy.

Look at the truth, this industry is making money and using women at a vulnerable point in their lives to justify killing. And the numbers prove my point.

.

Dear Graham (the author),

.

The remarks of the medical personnel and abortion practitioners you quoted in your article were exaggeratedly candid – no doubt for strong effect, i.e., in order to impress – because they are far from exact.

A baby is “a very young child” (OED) from the moment of birth. Before that, it is not a baby. It is a fetus, i.e., “an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception” (OED).

Nor can abortion be described in Australia, where it is legal, as “killing babies” or “murder”. It is simply “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy” (OED).

It is eminently clear that the representatives of the medical profession deliberately employed shockingly repulsive language in order to dissuade all those who participated in the meeting (including yourself) from having anything to do with abortion.

That said, abortion is a very serious matter, not to be taken lightly. Like every operation, it involves risk and is a difficult decision to make. The circumstances leading up to the decision to abort are usually sad, painful and unpleasant, to say the least.

They can sometimes be quite dramatic, e.g., in the case of rape, incest, danger to the mother, malformation of the embryo, etc.

Raising and accompanying children is a lifetime commitment. Giving birth to an unwanted child is irresponsible, immoral and a contemptible act of cowardice. In my opinion, it is no better than having an abortion. It is even worse.

Provided the embryo or the fetus does not suffer and has no life of its own (incapable of living independently of its mother), I consider that abortion is an acceptable solution.

Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensations become operative at an age between 8 to 13.5 weeks after conception, i.e., 10 to 15.5 weeks’ gestational age. Physicians should inform women seeking abortions later than that, that the fetus feels pain and offer anaesthesia administered directly to the fetus.

The earliest known fetus survivors were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization (22 weeks' gestation).

Beyond that limit, an abortion becomes questionable.

.

.

The U.S. has the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world, and 60 percent are preventable. The death of Lauren Bloomstein, a neonatal nurse, in the hospital where she worked illustrates a profound disparity: The health care system focuses on babies but often ignores their mothers.

Maternal mortality is rising in the U.S. It is currently stable in Australia …

http://www.propublica.org/article/die-in-childbirth-maternal-death-rate-health-care-system

.

Dear NNS,

You want to limit or eliminate abortions. One way to cut down on abortions is to make contraceptives freely available and to instruct people in their use. If there are fewer unwanted pregnancies there will be fewer abortions. Do you favor making contraceptives freely available and instructing people in their use? If not, why not?

This thread was started to comment on an article by a man who wanted the right to harass women who were going to an abortion clinic. Do you think it is right to harass women going to an abortion clinic? I don't think it is right. This entire discussion is dominated by those who don't appear to give a stuff about the pregnant women.

Graham Preston is an anti-abortion activist.
He's been fined $3,000 and has been found to have been
within the no protest zone and faced 3 charges for his
protests in Hobart in 2014 and 2015.

The High Court upheld the laws in Victoria and Tasmania
to prohibit protests near clinics.

The Human Rights Law Centre welcomed the High Courts
decision saying that this decision acknowledged -
"the importance of privacy, safety, and equality,
in access to healthcare."

Women need not worry about being forced to run the
gauntlet of abuse to access medical care.

It is now against the law to attacking women and staff
outside of clinics.

Women and staff are no longer allowed
to be a target when they walk up to a clinic and they no longer need to carry the
heavy burden of being publicly attacked for seeking
medical care.

Mr Preston can continue to protest as much as he likes.
He will end up paying the consequences for his actions.
Rightly so!

David,

You are talking Third World stuff. There is no excuse for women in the West to be committing infanticide because contraception is not readily available.

I've never heard of Graham Preston; but it's interesting to learn that he is a victim of the feminazi, neo-Marxist hoodlums who deny freedom of speech and action to anyone except themselves. I respect him for his beliefs and his persistence in the face of the viciousness of the baby-killers and corrupt judiciary.

It's a very bad society that legislates for infanticide and legislates against objectors.

The High Court and the Human Rights Law Centre
feminazis?

Wow.

Just cause we get the monkey off our backs -
doesn't mean the circus has left town.

David f., Steele Redux and Banjo Patterson, Thank you for adding some sanity to this debate and allowing the others to see the individual rights of women are now front and centre of this alleged non-abusive debate, as is informed consent!

Only those with a Nazi mindset would judge it Ok for a woman to be brutally and forcibly impregnated by a knuckle-dragging neanderthal! The only kind of alleged human being who would consider that to be both ok and that the right of the unwanted fetus has superior rights than the unwilling incubator.

In case you hadn't noticed runner and cohort, Women are not only our superior fellow human beings with rights that include a right to education, religious freedom and when to become pregnant with a wanted child!

I had a Sister who was routinely raped in marriage, put up with that and a last pregnancy that nearly killed her. Due to her and bubs having incompatible tissue.

The baby was born barely alive and died of natural causes within hours of the birth! The end result has been an essential hysterectomy and a lifetime of heartfelt regret!

She finally left this Nazi nut case, when the animal started in on the kids!

Children born from incest or rape may go to a life, where they just want it ended ASAP!

Heard on one case not too long ago, where a baby was basically bashed to death in the living years, with as the coroner testified, virtually every bone in his sad little body broken!

Simply put, it would have been far kinder to have terminated this pregnancy before it became a human with a fully functioning heart and brain.

Ditto every other unwanted child condemned to a life of untenable violence, abuse and serial neglect!

Who among you would accept that for your son or daughter?

Well?
Alan B.

Dear Alan B,

It is very sobering what is occurring in the USA at the moment where the conservative religious ultra right have managed to outlaw abortion in Georgia where women face prison terms of 30 years for getting an abortion.

This is with fulsome support from the rightwing commentators like Ben Shapiro. Here he is getting called out by a BBC interviewer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUP4uJto99w

In the end he spits the dummy and halts the interview, something he tends to do when he is challenged properly. He took exception to the interviewer calling the law a return to the dark ages which it clearly is.

Can we please clarify this issue ?

Is a fertilised ovum, a full human being ? If so, then morning-after pills should in the view of some, be banned.

Come to think of it, is every sperm sacred, and therefore contraception should be banned in toto ? Yeah, that might serve some of those wantons right.

Is an embryo already a human being ? Or does this condition apply only to foetuses, with beating hearts ? Up to the end of the second trimester ? The third trimester ?

Once some of the 'self-appointed judges' here clarify these issues, we can know what the hell we're arguing about.

Joe

Before a hunter shoots it is required of them that they establish that they are about to shoot a deer rather than another hunter.

If they do inadvertently shoot another hunter it is not good enough for them to say, oh I thought it might have been a deer.

If they are not certain that it is a deer that they are about to shoot then they must hold fire until they are certain.

Just like the hunter, abortionists have the responsibility to show that abortion is not the killing of a fellow human being. They are the ones who want to carry out the act so the responsibility lies with them.

In the article I pointed out that I asked abortionist Carol Portman: When was it conclusively established that abortion does not destroy the life of a child?

Far from giving evidence that abortion does not destroy the life of a child she freely conceded that abortion does kill babies. I then cited a number of other abortionists and abortion advocates who say the same thing.

Indeed, the Queensland Criminal Code, the Queensland Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018, and the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019 all refer to the entity carried by a pregnant woman as a "child".

These are not crazy pro-lifers saying this but abortionists and abortion advocates themselves admitting that every abortion kills a child.
Graham Preston

yep the baby killers show they have the same spirit as the Nazis. Pseudo science and denials and lies.

Laws now exist regarding the termination of
pregnancies. Exclusion zones also exist around
clinics to protect women , doctors, and staff
from abuse.

Abortions are legal and they vary from 14 weeks
in the Northern Territory to 24 weeks in Victoria.
They are not taken lightly and often the approval
of two doctors is required.

The mother's health and the various circumstances
involved are taken into account.

Laws have been put in place to ensure fairness
and equity under the difficult circumstances
that having an abortion entails.
To call it child murder is a very narrow- and
ignorant point of view - based on religious beliefs.

So, that's . ...... what ? From conception ? (So the morning-after pill is an abortifacent and should be banned ?)

Within, say, a week ? Once an embryo is formed ?

Once a foetus is formed ?

At the beginning of the second trimester ? The third ? At birth ?

I look forward to the day when men can get pregnant - you know, by slutting around. All whores. Tarts. Wantons.

Then we can have a self-appointed panel of women issuing judgements.

Joe

Whatever you want to call it: egg, embryo, foetus, it's how humans all start out. Destroy it, and you've cut short a life. Anything else is BS. Nothing will change the facts, specially whacko opinions from the ignorant and murderous.

Then keep your opinions to yourself.

Do us all a favour.

"Then keep your opinions to yourself.

Do us all a favour".

Not sure who this instruction applies to, but if it's me, you know what you can do. You are really over the top telling people to keep their opinions to themselves on a site that exists purely for people to express their opinions. Bizarre! You really should get help as suggested previously.

Problem: domestic abuse and repeated rape. Solution? Not abortion! Leave the abuser before it continues and gets worse. That abortion is an easier solution then leaving an abusive relationship says how much is wrong in the world.

Problem: Girl gets pregnant. Boyfriend leaves from military. Boy dies. Girl from the loss or the pregnancy kills herself. Solutions? Abortion apparently wasn't available, and in hindsight it is called for as the solution that could have saved the girl's life. Reality is that suicide needs better attention and solutions then abortion. Another sad state of affairs if abortion is called the solution.

Problem: child gets into an accident at a young age. Has to go through surgery and years of physical therapy. Solution? Deals with it, parents fight insurance agents to help pay for therapy, and the child grows up to be an adult. Same situation before the child is born? Doctor informs the parents the baby might be born with a disability. Recommends abortion. The solution given for the sake of the unborn baby is an unthinkable solution to give to the young child with a severe injury.

Problem: The parents don't want the baby. Solution? Why did they have the baby to begin with? Contraception is available to almost anyone. So having sex and getting a surprise should result in an adoption, not an abortion.

Every problem that abortion is the solution to is either the easy way out that requires killing; or worse, is the easy way out and does nothing for the unresolved issues leading up to the decision to abort. Abortion should not be the first solution to problems that have kids involved in them. It shows we have no capacity to deal with life's issues, or with trying to get out of them.

To David f. I don't want women harassed, but I also don't buy that every time there's a protest on abortion that it counts as harassment. Regardless of the potential of harassment or not, abortion needs to go. (I don't see much value in protests now a days. They seem too prone to an escalated situation leading to vandalism or to violence. Nonetheless, any other solution to the issues of life is met with resistance. I don't blame people from protesting because there is no other path to address the issue of abortion).

Abortion feeds on a woman in a vulnerable part of their life. They make money by comforting a women to let them kill her child before it's born. Look at the numbers for how many abortions take place every year. There are issues that are not being dealt with .... Because killing your baby before it's born is easier!

Here's a thought for any woman ether pregnant or considering an abortion. Be there for the woman. Be a support so that she doesn't have to be afraid and think abortion is the only way out, and that she is alone with no support. How many abortions will be saved by this small action towards just teenagers. How many more if family said "you're not alone, don't be afraid." Regardless of the age of the woman.

Only the State has authority on behalf of its citizens, to justify killing.
There are no moral arguments in law.

There are injustices in law though, and in my opinion, legal abortion fits here.

Although it may fit neatly into that square, it's a shaky argument to ban abortion when it's not mandatorily applied to women, against their wishes. There is a choice.

Unfortunately, to use the argument of the killing a living foetus as murder, can also be equally be applied to a ban on war. It's a moral argument.

The argument for State authority to hold judicial rights over abortion, is one of pure practicality. That's evidence of the sad world we live in.

We can argue easily for abortion to be kept from view, as consideration to those citizens that oppose abortion on moral grounds: But this is a world now more than ever, where personal freedom dominates over moral argument against it.

To extrapolate a future for the abolishinists from my argument, legal abortions weak point arises in its inability to treat all citizens equally.

This weakness has to be seen as the Achilles heel of legal abortion. From this point it should be driven out of sight.
High profile abortion clinics are an affront to citizens with a moral objection to abortion,

When prostitution was legalised, in retrospect, high profiling was its biggest win.

If activists wish to gain ground against abortion, then abortion clinics need to be relegated to the back blocks without signage, and with a ban on advertising, as its main goal for the initial short term.

It's a position sure to achieve increased public sympathy over campaigning for an outright ban on abortion, and consequently a greater chance to incrementally force an outright ban on abortion sometime in the future, as a second strategic aim.

Dear NNS,

When I was working in the Netherlands one of my colleagues was a Dutchman named van Klinkken. He was part of a group that opposed abortion. However, if they persuaded a woman not to have an abortion they took it on themselves to provide for the woman and the child until the child became an adult. As far as I know, Graham Preston who wrote the article we are commenting on takes no such responsibility. He wants the right to harass woman going an abortion clinic. If he persuades her to reverse her decision it is her lookout.

There is some evidence that abortion is a solution. About 15 years after Roe vs. Wade which made abortion legal, the US crime went down and has stayed down. Apparently women who wanted an abortion knew what they were doing. In their wisdom they did not give birth to children they could not care for adequately who were likely to become criminals.

In the case of my cousin she made the best solution for her. In the milieu in which she was living she judged life would be not worth living with a continuation of her pregnancy. I think she was right. An abortion, if it had been available, would have been a solution for her. It would have been better than suicide.

Certainly, every time there is a protest against abortion it is not harassment. In the case of Graham Preston it was harassment and decided as such by a court of law.

You still have not answered my question. One way to cut down on abortions is to make contraceptives freely available and to instruct people in their use. If there are fewer unwanted pregnancies there will be fewer abortions. Do you favor making contraceptives freely available and instructing people in their use? If not, why not?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«The solution given for the sake of the unborn baby is an unthinkable solution to give to the young child with a severe injury.»

Why unthinkable? Here you just thought of it!

The situation is complex with many layers to consider and think over, but think we must and as a case of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", in most likelihood I would have preferred my body to be killed over a life of severe disability and would have thanked my mother if she aborted my body as early as she could.

Not everything is as it seems, not always do we know everything, not always is abortion selfish, not always is life on earth of benefit, sometimes it is a curse and sometimes this curse can be expiated in a matter of days, weeks or months rather than years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MFtuoNPlIc

It would have been better had I been aborted. My mother and father were an ill-matched pair. My childhood was miserable with the almost constant wrangling of my parents. As my mother often informed me they stayed together because of me. Had I been aborted they could have separated instead of making each other and me miserable. It would have improved their lives, and I would not be here to argue.

Dear David,

I am sad to hear your story.

Just one correction: your parents were never actually able to abort you - all they could have possibly chose to do was to kill your body.

Would you then still be here to argue? who knows, but if your desire to argue was already latent in you at the time of conception (as opposed to being acquired during your current lifetime), then you would not find rest until you obtained another body with an adequate argumentative brain to satisfy this desire. It could have been here on OLO, or somewhere else, perhaps in another country and another language, perhaps at another time, but killing your body could not make such a desire disappear.

The problem with Western thought, regardless of faith in God or the lack thereof, is that it bases its morals on the false assumption as if our life amounts to the life of our current body alone, thus the sanctity of life ridiculously translates into the "sanctity" of a mortal physical body.

To Yuyutsu.

You ask why killing a young child is unthinkable. Death is tragic at any age, but it is especially tragic for children and babies. To choose to kill a baby or a young child is a horrific choice. There is no complications to this. No rationalizations. The rationalization you gave about a hard life due to an injury does not fit the examples that I've seen in my life. Those who had an accident as a child and grew up to be adults found ways to make it work and become an adult. Killing a child is never a solution. There is no rationalization of that solution. It is an evil choice if it is ever acted on.

To David f.

What is the point of your question? As far as I can tell contraception is widely available. I don't think any nation that has legalized abortion has a difficult time with getting contraception at cheep prices (condoms) or more creative products and expensive prices. For example there's a plastic device I've seen advertised a few years ago that says it stops the chances of a pregnancy for those who don't want to settle down yet. Just a small procedure to put it in place, and later when the woman is ready to consider children it can be removed. Later I heard a commercial for a lawsuit if anyone had complications when they received this device, and the lawyers advertising are ready to take on the case. Not a good sign for the product, but the point is that contraceptives are readily available in the world, and even more are creatively bring made.

SteeleRedux,

<<A fetus is a potential child, teenager, grandparent. So is an egg in a test tube which has been fertilised by sperm. That joining of DNA is not a baby nor any of the above>>.

That is false!

You provided ZERO evidence to support your claims. Therefore, they are your opinions and not scientifically verified.

See the biological and medical evidence of human life beginning at conception, provided by medical professionals.

I provided a few details in Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 10 May 2019 10:21:13 PM.

Dear NNS,

Contraception is available, but many people are untrained in its use. If all girls were fitted up with contraceptive devices as a matter of course and given training in their reproductive functions there would be almost no unplanned pregnancies. In our past teenagers would get married, but most will not in the present day. Our sick society has all sorts of sexual excitements but much of our society forbids sex when a person is at their sexual peak. Teenagers are not prepared to make a living when they are at their sexual peak so it would not be good for thdm to have a family at that time. I favor allowing and encouraging teenagers to have as much sex as they want but to prevent pregnancy. I had my first sex at 22, and I mourn those lost years.

'As my mother often informed me they stayed together because of me. Had I been aborted they could have separated instead of making each other and me miserable. It would have improved their lives, and I would not be here to argue.'

big assumption david f . I know numerous divorcees who re marry or hook up after marriage and end up in far more unhappy situations. Your sad childhood though explains much of your godless worldview.

You heard it here folks: the first person (David f) to say that he should have been aborted.

Dear runner,

My intelligence explains more of my godless worldview than my sad childhood. There simply is no evidence for the existence of a god. All deities are merely creations of the human imagination. I don't need any religious crutch to get through life. Eventually, my life will be over, and that will be it for me. ttbn, what evidence do you have to show that I was the first person to say he or she should have been aborted?

David f, casting pearls before swine is admonished in the bible!

So why do it, it is a waste of your valuable time and emotional well being.

They clearly see their partners and female offspring as no more than meat to be used as personal property as they please! to be able to argue completely fallacious case!

And straight out of the dark ages where women were mere bagatelle or personal property without any genuine rights.

That said, we should thank them and the assured effect on the upcoming election as they remind us of the SSM result, all those elected officials that stood against it and now stand again expecting to be returned!

And, IF THE CAP FITS?
Alan B.

The anti-abortion lobby have been losing this argument because people see sentience as defining human status, not DNA, as is clear from various moral decisions that are uncontroversial in our society, including among people who are against abortion. Hospitals switch off a patient's life support system once he or she has been declared brain-dead. (The pro-choice side would say that brain death logically implies brain birth.) We would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, even if the victim's DNA lives on in the twin. We would extend human rights to E.T., Commander Data, or the Queen of the Fairies if they actually existed. Third-trimester abortions are uncontroversially illegal.

It is true that Christian tradition is against abortion, except possibly to save the woman's life, but that is irrelevant to people outside. They see the anti-abortion lobby as being much the same as the Hindu cow protection vigilantes in India, nutters who want to ram their religion down your throat. It might be possible, though, to persuade them that the upper time limit for abortion on demand is too late in some states.

David f is right about contraception. Colorado in the US made an all out effort to reduce teenage pregnancies by offering free contraceptive implants and IUDs. They managed to cut teenage pregnancies by 40% and abortions by 42%. They also cut unwanted pregnancies and abortions among older poor women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

"The methods are effective because, unlike the pill, a diaphragm or condoms, they do not require a woman to take action to work."

Alan B,

<<Does it matter if going full term will surely kill both the mother and child? Does it matter if the child is the product of incest or rape that effectively denies the mother her career and higher education and any promise of a quality life of her own?>>

I consider your view is short-sighted with that kind of comment. There is no need for a mother made pregnant through incest or rape to be denied any of the situations you suggested.

There are many families in Australia trying to adopt children but without success. According to the government, 'There were 330 adoptions finalised in Australia in 2017–18—80% of these were adoptions of Australian children'.

As for adoptions from overseas, "For intercountry adoption, the median length of time from when an adoptive parent became an official client of an Australian state or territory department responsible for adoption to when a child was placed for adoption had been increasing since 2007–08 (when data were first reported). It peaked at 5 years and 4 months in 2014–15, but then fell to less than 3 years in 2016–17. The median time in 2017–18 was 2 years and 11 months": http://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adoptions/adoptions-australia-2017-18/contents/table-of-contents

"From 2016–17 to 2017–18, the number of finalised adoptions fell in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. An increase occurred in New South Wales and the Northern Territory, while adoption numbers in Victoria and Tasmania remained stable", http://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/6d9374b3-974c-4ba3-8134-d59979733c87/aihw-cws-66.pdf.aspx?inline=true.

I found it difficult to obtain stats for the number of Australians waiting for an adoption as the process can take about 3 years and before then, some have sought inter-country adoptions. Children by Choice claimed that 'adoption rates in Queensland are very low; generally between 8 and 12 infants born to Queensland mothers are adopted each year'.

In addition, there has been government support for single and defacto relationships. This article stated: 'It is estimated that around 150,000 babies were adopted between the early 1950s and 1975; many of them born to unwed single mothers and forcibly removed at birth, http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/adoptionfactsheet

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Any "solution" calls for a problem and the notion of "problem" usually smells of selfishness. I think we can agree that selfish "solutions" are sinful, this applies not only to killing (and not just to killing humans), but even to walking, talking, sleeping, eating, drinking, merrying and marrying.

That many handicapped children survive into adulthood tells nothing about their subjective attitude or personal wishes.
In Job chapter 3, Job speaks just like David f:

3. “May the day of my birth perish, and the night that said, ‘A boy is conceived!’
4. That day—may it turn to darkness; may God above not care about it; may no light shine on it.
5. May gloom and utter darkness claim it once more; may a cloud settle over it; may blackness overwhelm it.
6. That night—may thick darkness seize it; may it not be included among the days of the year nor be entered in any of the months.
7. May that night be barren; may no shout of joy be heard in it.
8. May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.
9. May its morning stars become dark; may it wait for daylight in vain and not see the first rays of dawn,
10. for it did not shut the doors of the womb on me to hide trouble from my eyes.
11. Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb?
12. Why were there knees to receive me and breasts that I might be nursed?
13. For now I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest
...
16. Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day?
17. There the wicked cease from turmoil, and there the weary are at rest.
18. Captives also enjoy their ease; they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout.
19. The small and the great are there, and the slaves are freed from their owners."

[continued...]

[...continued]

(so Ttbn, David was not the first!)

Was Job sinful in feeling and talking this way? Not according to Job 42.

«Death is tragic at any age, but it is especially tragic for children and babies.»

The notion of "tragic" is Western/Greek/humanistic, based on human preferences rather than on religion. While the family of the deceased often perceives his/her death as tragic, never so the deceased him/herself. True, all religions state "thou shalt not kill", but the reason is that killing brings ruin on the killer, rather than on the killed.

What does the bible say on life/death preferences?
A clue is given in Deuteronomy 20:

5. "The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it.
6. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it.
7. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.”

Thus the problem around death is of UNREALISED INVESTMENT.

What greater investment is there but in education?
Not only formal education, but even learning to walk, talk, recognise faces, toilet-training, maintaining hygiene, etc.

The more education a child attained (before fulfilling its purpose), the greater the loss if this education goes down the drain.

This topic is very complex and I don't expect a magic formula. Most abortions are probably on selfish grounds, thus sinful, but to what extent? are they more sinful then say, killing and eating a mature cow? or kitchen-insects, compared with a foetus that is still less even developed than an insect?
At times, however, abortion is carried out on altruistic grounds (have you seen the clip I referred you to?). Is it then right? Is it wrong? It is very difficult to answer, perhaps even impossible without the gift of the Holy Spirit.

David f,

I meant the first person on OLO.

To David f.

If I'm honest there are a few contraceptives that I'm not comfortable with. However, if their uses remove abortion from the picture I can better live with them.

My issue is that contraceptives are already readily available. It's not that they are complicated, expensive, or hard to get. It's that they aren't used and abortion is. Having them available isn't enough if they already are available.

I'm sorry for your cousin. I really am. If she wasn't pregnant when she commited suicide, would you look at the issues of sucide on their own, without abortion being called a solution?

As for your childhood and the strain between your parents and you, I can't relate to that as much as I do with your cousin. But look at yourself. You have kids of your own don't you? Do you wish they were not born as a result of you not being born?

Believe it or not I get suicide and depression. I understand quite a bit of it. But in the end I'm glad for too many things I've had in my life or have in my life now. Enough to be glad to not have been aborted, and later at young age, given a second chance at life also.

david f,

<<My intelligence explains more of my godless worldview than my sad childhood. There simply is no evidence for the existence of a god>>

That's a world and life view straight out of your godless mind.

I could provide stacks of evidence for the existence of God but you're not listening and it would be like casting pearls, as Jesus said according to Matthew 7:6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+7%3A6&version=NLT

Jesus used the example of pigs and pearls to represent people who ridicule God, Jesus and the Good News (Gospel) shared with them. Jesus' view was that Christians should not continue to present the Gospel to those who trample on it and go their own godless, sinful ways. To continue presenting the Good News to people who scoff at God and ridicule Jesus is like casting pearls before pigs.

You seem to fit into this category with your regular rebuffs like: <<All deities are merely creations of the human imagination. I don't need any religious crutch to get through life>>

Loudmouth,

<<Is an embryo already a human being? Or does this condition apply only to foetuses, with beating hearts ? Up to the end of the second trimester ? The third trimester?

Once some of the 'self-appointed judges' here clarify these issues, we can know what the hell we're arguing about.>>

Are you a 'self-appointed judge' of those who make statements about the human being starting at conception/implantation?

What's the medical evidence?

'The Official [USA] Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

'Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings' (Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7), available at: http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

See also '41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception' at: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

Dear NNS,

We need more than contraceptives being available. We need people trained to use them. Some sects of various religions promote virginity. If a girl belonging to those sects gets carried away by emotion she is more likely to have sex without contraceptives than a girl who is trained in their use.

You wrote: “I'm sorry for your cousin. I really am. If she wasn't pregnant when she commited suicide, would you look at the issues of sucide on their own, without abortion being called a solution?”

If she had not been pregnant she would not have had the motive for committing suicide. Suicide would not have been an issue. If she had had the option of abortion she could have got on with her life.

You also wrote: As for your childhood and the strain between your parents and you, I can't relate to that as much as I do with your cousin. But look at yourself. You have kids of your own don't you? Do you wish they were not born as a result of you not being born?

Certainly, if I had not born they would not have been born. There are too many people on earth already. I feel guilty about my nine descendants. Does it matter if there is one fewer ant in the anthill? Had I been as aware of the consequences of uncontrolled population growth earlier I might not have had any children. My oldest son who I love dearly has macular degeneration and glaucoma. It is possible he will go blind. He is alive, but I grieve for him.

So far none of my six grandchildren has produced young, but they are all still capable of it so the danger has not yet passed.

Actually, I have had a fairly happy life. If I hadn’t been born I couldn’t miss it. Considering some of our more acrimonious exchanges it might have been more peaceful for you if I didn’t exist.

I will now retire to the tenth century with Paul Collins’ ‘The Birth of the West’.

.

Dear ttbn, runner and nns,

.

You obviously do not accept the OED definitions of what the words “abortion”, “embryo”, “fetus” and “baby” signify in the English language which, unfortunately makes any meaningful discussion on the subject under discussion impossible.

Your rejection of the commonly accepted meaning of these words is, I suppose, based on your understanding of Christian doctrine regarding the interpretation of biblical texts.

If you don’t mind my saying so, I think it should be possible to oppose abortion without having to resort to perverting the English language.

I do not object to your religious beliefs, but I do think we should try to find a common ground of understanding on the meaning of the words we employ.

As Nelson Mandela is quoted as having said :

« If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart »
.

Here are some words of advice from the bible :
.

Ephesians 4:29 :

« Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers »
.

Matthew 12:36-37 :

« But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned »
.

Proverbs 13:3 :

« He who guards his mouth preserves his life, But he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction »
.

Proverbs 18:21 :

« Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit »
.

Luke 6:45 :

« The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks »

.

Dear OzSpen,

I sympathise with your distress in dealing with someone who wants no part of your silly superstition. However, I would suggest that your citing of casting 'pearls before swine' is ill-chosen. If you want somebody to pay attention to you, it is not wise to compare them to swine. Although I have no respect for your superstition with its man-good, a deity in three parts, a virgin mother and other silliness I would not compare you to a swine. You are an extremely deluded human being, but you are a human being. It would be very wrong of me to call you names even though I have no regard for your silly superstition.

To David f.

How much training does it take to use a condom? It's not complicated. At best all a person would need is some written instructions in the box if there was concern over how to use it. No training is needed. The only complication is whether it'll be used, not whether it's understood how to use it.

That said abstance works better for two reasons. There's no chance for getting pregnant, and no chance of spreading or receiving an STD. Having the access to contraceptives should be enough, even if the person strives to not have sex, they still can with little expense without resulting in a pregnancy. The numbers for how many abortions happen a year show that contraceptives aren't being used.

If you mean something more in your suggestion then people knowing how to use the contraceptives, then please say what you're suggesting. As far as I can tell people already know how to use them, they just don't.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I didn't know your cousin, so maybe she said in a note or previously about ending her life due to being pregnant. But from what you've written, the situation was more then just being pregnant. It was also losing someone. If her boyfriend died, I'm sure she was in a vulnerable state of mind. For your children, I can no more agree with your view that it'd be better if they weren't born, then I can agree with Yuyutsu's view that children dying are not a tragic event. Neither perspective is approachable in my opinion. No rationale of population control, religious views, or anything else are enough. Especially if you love your children. Take comfort in the love you have for your family. There's no reason to feel guilty about them being here. Especially don't feel guilty because of the ideas of over population. It's not a good enough reason to feel guilty about having a family and hopefully through them having a lasting influence in the world that is positive in it.

In my opinion the guilt regarding overpopulation is unreasonable and unjustified. It creates a "what if" world to compare to (one that has a smaller population) and assumes that world would be better. The problem with that world is that it doesn't exist, and there's no way to tell if it would be better, roughly the same, or worse because it's missing the influence of some of the people we have today. Any world that doesn't have my wife in it is not the same or better, then the one we have today. It's not just because I love her, but also because of how she is and who she is to everyone she meets. I hope you have similar understanding when looking at your children and grandchildren. That they are adding a positive influence to the world not a negative influence. Either way I hope that helps.

david f,

<<I sympathise with your distress in dealing with someone who wants no part of your silly superstition.... no respect for your superstition>>.

There you go again with your fallacious reasoning, 'your silly superstition', Ad Hominem (Guild by Association). Here you regard my Christian beliefs by association with another group or practitioner - negatively.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this erroneous reasoning, instead of dealing with the issues at stake: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

<<Although I have no respect for your superstition with its man-good, a deity in three parts, a virgin mother and other silliness I would not compare you to a swine>>

This is a Strawman Fallacy in which you substitute the actual teachings of the God-man (is this what you meant by man-good?), the Trinity, the virgin birth, etc. Your self-generated view is 'a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument'. You have ignorantly or deliberately misinterpreted core teachings of the Christian faith: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

<<I would suggest that your citing of casting 'pearls before swine' is ill-chosen. If you want somebody to pay attention to you, it is not wise to compare them to swine.... I would not compare you to a swine>>

You misrepresented me again. What did I state in my comment to you?

"…. as Jesus said according to Matthew 7:6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+7%3A6&version=NLT

“Jesus used the example of pigs and pearls to represent people who ridicule God, Jesus and the Good News (Gospel) shared with them. Jesus' view was that Christians should not continue to present the Gospel to those who trample on it and go their own godless, sinful ways. To continue presenting the Good News to people who scoff at God and ridicule Jesus is like casting pearls before pigs". Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 12 May 2019 8:24:34 PM

Casting pearls before swine came from Jesus.

I'm happy to side with Him rather than with the one who calls my Christian faith a 'silly superstition'.

Dear OzSpen,

You chose to address me. I answered you, You wanted to persuade me to abandon reason for your silly superstition. That is an accurate description of your particular Christian faith as more and more people are coming to realise. Some Christians such as Bishop Spock have a somewhat more enlightened view. It is rather pointless to quote to me from the Bible as that is not a well-researched, peer-reviewed document but in large part merely a compendium of ancient legends which reinforce your silly superstition. I have read it and can also justify nonsense by quoting from it. I leave you to your silly superstition. I hope you will leave me to my reason.

Dear NNS,

I am preparing a thoughtful reply to your posts as I think I would like to continue our conversation.

david f,

<<Bishop Spock>>

Don't you know the difference between Star Trek's Benjamin Spock and the heretical teachings of the former Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, John Shelby Spong?

You're barking up the wrong tree!

You continue to resist acknowledging you engage in fallacious reasoning with your Ad Hominem and Straw man fallacies.

Dear OzSpen,

Of course, I meant Bishop Spong. Possibly you should look up what ad hominem attacks and fallacious reasoning mean before you accuse somebody of it. There is no fallacious reasoning when I call your Christian faith silly superstition. That is my opinion of it. There is no ad hominem attack when I call when I call your Christian faith silly superstition. Ad hominem means to attack the person rather then the person's ideas. You might be a perfectly decent person, but, in my opinion, you have nutty ideas. In my opinion, your Christian faith is a nutty idea.

Thanks for correcting my reference to the bishop. You, of course, are free to believe any silly superstition you want to believe. You can believe that human virgins become mothers, that there is a god and he is in three parts and that a man-god can take other people's sins upon him. In my opinion these are silly superstitions, but they are part of standard Christian doctrine. To accept them to me means to reject reason. You are free to reject reason. However it might be worth your while to learn what fallacious reasoning and ad hominem mean. Bishop Spong apparently takes these beliefs as metaphors rather than as literal truth. I see no need for these beliefs at all, but I appreciate his attempt to make some sense out of a silly superstition.

I don't expect you to adopt reason rather than superstition, but you could learn about the meanings of the words you use.

david f,

<<Ad hominem means to attack the person rather then the person's ideas. You might be a perfectly decent person, but, in my opinion, you have nutty ideas. In my opinion, your Christian faith is a nutty idea.>>

You are false again in limiting Ad Hominem only to attacking the person. I suggest you become better informed about OTHER types of Ad Hominem fallacies. You have given only ONE type.

Ad Hominem logical fallacies include:

1. Ad Hominem (Abusive): "Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making". This is the only one you seem to know about. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

2. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) which is " suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid". See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

3. Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) which is "when the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively". This is what you have done to me in calling my Christian faith "a nutty idea", thus associating me with the mentally ill. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

4. Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) where the one "claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument". See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

However, you claim that <<possibly you should look up what ad hominem attacks and fallacious reasoning mean before you accuse somebody of it. There is no fallacious reasoning when I call your Christian faith silly superstition>>

The facts are that you are deficient in your understanding of Ad Hominem fallacies. When you attack my faith by calling it <<silly superstition>> and <<a nutty idea>>, you commit the Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) logical fallacy.

It is you, David, who needs to come up to speed with your knowledge of Ad Hominem fallacies.

Dear OzSpen,

Your faith, in my opinion, is a silly superstition. If you are secure in it my opinion shouldn't bother you. There are many religious faiths in this world. Faith is not decided on by reason. Usually people have the same faith as their parents. That may be your case. It seems reasonable to me to reject all religious faiths, and to go through life without any. It seems reasonable to try to be kind as being kind makes one feel better and can encourage others to be kind in return. It seems reasonable to question authority as the voices of authority generally say what they think is most likely to help them keep power. I don't see any point in further dialog with you. However, if you wish to say more to me I will take note and may answer.

david f,

You continue to ignore the fact that there are 4 different types of Ad Hominem logical fallacies and you only acknowledged 1. See my response, Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 14 May 2019 8:37:17 AM, for an explanation of all 4.

When will your narrative coincide with the facts of what you write?

Please own up to it David. You got it wrong with knowing only one Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Back to the topic: Does it matter if abortion kills babies?

Yes it does. Actions have consequences. Infanticide in the womb is an example of gross slaughter of human beings.

Why should people condemn ISIS with its slaughter of adults around the world when we sanction killing human beings in Australia?

Thank you, Graham Preston, for standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

Hi Ttbn,

Earlier, you wrote that (among other forms of life) an egg (you mean woman's ovum ?) came within the definition of a child. Did you mean an unfertilised ovum ?

I'm just trying to establish parameters on what constitutes a living human being. To include an unfertilised ovum seems a rather broad definition.

Joe

Loudmouth,

According to the Cleveland Clinic,

"On average, fertilization occurs about two weeks after your last menstrual period. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex.

"If a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy; if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl", http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth.

The medical/biological evidence points to fertilisation/conception as the beginning of baby boy or girl life.

Joe wants to play dumb while unborn babies with 2 arms, 2 legs, a heart and every other organ is torn to pieces in abortions. Come on Joe no one is that stupid.

good to see Hollywood deviants calling for a ban on sex. Certainly would cut down on the murder rate however I suspect they will preach one thing and do another as usual.

Dear OzSpen,

I have not associated you with the mentally ill by calling your Christian belief a nutty idea. Many sane people have nutty ideas. I appreciate your educating me as to the varieties of ad hominem. However, it is still my opinion that your Christian belief is silly superstition. My opinion is neither fallacious reasoning nor ad hominem. I am happy to live in a civilised country where I am not liable to be burned at the stake for stating the opinion that Christian belief is a silly superstition. You refer to Bishop Spong as a heretic. Are you an authority that can define another Christian as a heretic? Bishop Spong realises as I do that the beliefs if taken literally are silly superstitions. To preserve Christianity in the light of reason he considers the beliefs as metaphors and symbolic. I see no need to preserve Christianity and think the world will be better for its disappearance. Let it go the way of Manichaeism, the Greek and Roman pantheon and other religions that no longer exist.

' I am happy to live in a civilised country where I am not liable to be burned at the stake for stating the opinion that Christian belief is a silly superstition.'

these days you would be lucky not be sliced in the womb by secular bigots and heartless souls.

.

Dear Runner,

.

I often wonder, when I see your pithy little snippets on abortion, whether you eat eggs – fried, boiled, poached, scrambled, scribbled, as omelette, or, perhaps, simply raw.

But, naturally, I don’t expect any response from you on that. It’s none of my business what you eat. I just thought I’d let you know, that’s all.

That said, you must be having a whale of a time on this thread. It really was tailored for you. Abortion seems to be your principal preoccupation. I suppose there is a good reason for that – but that’s none of my business either.

It would have been fitting for Graham Preston to dedicate his article to you, personally. You really do deserve it. You’ve earned it, day after day, during all these years.

I am sure I am not the only one here on OLO who admires your dedication to the cause.

.

To Banjo Paterson.

You addressed me, Ttbn, and Runner when you said:

<<You obviously do not accept the OED definitions of what the words “abortion”, “embryo”, “fetus” and “baby” signify in the English language which, unfortunately makes any meaningful discussion on the subject under discussion impossible.>>
...
<<I do think we should try to find a common ground of understanding on the meaning of the words we employ.>>

I do not see any rejection of these words by myself or by Ttbn or a Runner. The position we take, that life starts in the womb, not at birth is the difference, not whether we accept or reject the words.

That said, I see no reason to hide behind language. The term fetus is a term on the development of a child while in their mother's womb. Talk to a pregnant woman and I assure you she will not talk about her fetus kicking, or anything of that nature. She will refer to the fetus as her baby kicking, her child, or if they've decided on a name already, the mother will call the child by their name. Even while in their womb. A second way to look at it is by a woman who has a miscarriage. She doesn't say she lost her fetus. She says she lost her baby, her child, or even the name she gave to the baby unborn that was in her womb.

When I see the discussion about abortion go towards defining fetus, the truth is that this is their position that a fetus is not worth protecting, and they would like to control the discussion by having language that mirrors their position. I do not accept that position nor do I accept the attempt to control and over rule a topic because of how words are defined.

If this make the conversation impossible, I assure you that it isn't impossible. You just have to try.

To David f.

If you want the conversation to continue then I'll wait for your reply on what I've said so far to you.

To David f. and OzSpen.

Regarding ad hominem in this discussion, here is my observation.

A few pages back the point of Christian belief was inserted into this discussion. Though it was not placed there origionally by either of you, once it was there the topic of the conversation shifted away from abortion to be about religous belief. In that aspect neither of you are committing a red harring or ad hominem by continuing into that part of the conversation; however the breach in topic in of itself is an ad hominem to change the topic to a different issue entirely.

I've seen this before on OLO. And after a few days I look back and think "wait weren't we talking about ________? How did it turn into a battle over my faith?" The truth is that it was a successful swap into the topic of religion. Which is a topic with a bullseye on it when on any topic a non beliver has that disagree with a believer's stance. The reasoning as
I've seen it goes like this: "This is because your Christian, not because of what you've argued or presented in your arguments." Which then (usually quite successfully) turn the topic away from whatever it was before to only be about defending and opposing a Christian's religious stance.

(Continued)

(Continued)

OzSpen, I don't know how to advise you in these occurrences, because in ignoring it, sometimes the other person will just focus on your faith anyways, regardless if you actively ignore their statements. And on the other hand even if you do ignore the statement, the opportunity to share your faith with the other person might be worth the tangent away from the topic. (Consider the point previously said about casting pearls before swine, against a counter point of always being ready to speak about your faith).

David f. A Christian's faith does affect many of their perspectives and views. However, even if the religion is silly to you, is that a reason to not discuss the topic that isn't their religion? Abortion is set aside, possibly for the remainder of this conversation, because you reject OzSpen's Christian Faith, and OzSpen rejects your position on his faith. Is that a reasonable position to a Christian when the topic isn't Christianity?

Dear NNS:

You wrote: David f. A Christian's faith does affect many of their perspectives and views. However, even if the religion is silly to you, is that a reason to not discuss the topic that isn't their religion? Abortion is set aside, possibly for the remainder of this conversation, because you reject OzSpen's Christian Faith, and OzSpen rejects your position on his faith. Is that a reasonable position to a Christian when the topic isn't Christianity?

I called OzSpen’s faith a silly superstition. I do not consider all versions of Christianity a silly superstition. It is a silly superstition to take the words of the Bible literally as OzSpen apparently does. Some Christians believe there is a deeper meaning, and the stories can be used as metaphors or symbolic truths which can point out facts about the human condition. OzSpen called Bishop Spong a heretic. Spong does not believe literally but thinks there is a basic truth in Christianity. I believe the world would be better off without Christianity but do not deny that that Christianity has made great contributions to our society. I also think the stories embodied in the pagan myths were a great contribution to our humanity and they point out facts about the human condition. However, the time for the religions of the classical world of the Greeks, Romans and Norse has passed, and their religions have disappeared. I believe the time for Christianity as a useful faith has also passed.

There is not one Christian viewpoint. Many Christians support our present laws which provide for a legal abortion by a medical practitioner. Many Christians would repeal those laws. In the Civil War the abolitionist societies were mainly Christian. The South which would retain slavery appealed to their Christian faith in pointing out that the Bible does not condemn slavery, and St. Paul advised slaves to be obedient to their masters. On many social questions there is not one Christian view, but a number of different views which Christians may defend as ‘the Christian view’.

david f,

<<There is not one Christian viewpoint. Many Christians support our present laws which provide for a legal abortion by a medical practitioner. Many Christians would repeal those laws.>>

Please define what you mean by Christian in those 2 sentences.

Dear OzSpen,

A Christian is any one who identifies as a Christian whatever their belief or opinion is. There is no authority in Christendom which determines what all Christians should believe or how they should behave. There are something like 24,000 different Christian sects with various beliefs and many other people who call themselves Christian and belong to no church. People of some Christian sects believe their version of Christianity should be what all Christians follow. One of the good things about Christianity is that there is not one size that fits all. Some Christians call other Christians who do not believe what they believe heretics. That is narrow and intolerant. I am not a Christian, and I am not going to differentiate among Christians and say that some Christians are true Christians and others are not. However, I think if anyone takes literally all the stories of miracles, God in three parts, virgin birth and all the other doctrines found in Christendom their religion becomes a silly superstition. However, even if they follow a silly superstition they are still Christians. I think most Christians are broader than that.

.

Dear Not Now Soon,

.

You wrote :

« I do not see any rejection of these words [“abortion”, “embryo”, “fetus” and “baby”] by myself or by Ttbn or a Runner »

Here are the instances where you refer to an embryo or a fetus as a baby or a child. I could do a similar list for ttbn and runner but it’s a bit laborious :

« Because killing your baby before it's born is easier! » (Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 11 May 2019 7:18:55 PM)

Before it’s born, a baby is a fetus.
.

Yuyutsu wrote to you :

« … I would have preferred my body to be killed over a life of severe disability and would have thanked my mother if she aborted my body as early as she could »

You replied :

« To choose to kill a baby or a young child is a horrific choice … Killing a child is never a solution » (Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 12 May 2019 2:39:57 AM)

A fetus is killed, not a baby/child.
.

Yuyutsu wrote to you :

« The notion of "tragic" is Western/Greek/humanistic, based on human preferences rather than on religion. While the family of the deceased often perceives his/her death as tragic, never so the deceased him/herself … Most abortions are probably on selfish grounds, thus sinful, but to what extent? are they more sinful then say, killing and eating a mature cow? or kitchen-insects, compared with a foetus that is still less even developed than an insect?

At times, however, abortion is carried out on altruistic grounds (have you seen the clip I referred you to?) »

You replied to David f :

« For your children, I can no more agree with your view that it'd be better if they weren't born, then I can agree with Yuyutsu's view that children dying are not a tragic event » (Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 13 May 2019 3:20:44 AM)

It’s not “children dying”, it’s “foetuses”.

Also, life does not “start” at conception. It is "relayed" at conception.

.

david f,

<<A Christian is any one who identifies as a Christian whatever their belief or opinion is. There is no authority in Christendom which determines what all Christians should believe or how they should behave.>>

That is nothing more than your personal opinion.

There IS an authority for beliefs regarding who is a Christian. That authority is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...." (2 Timothy 3:16).

In those Scriptures the good news of the Gospel that is accepted by Christians is identified: "When you sin, the pay you get is death. But God gives you the gift of eternal life. That’s because of what Christ Jesus our Lord has done" (Romans 6:23).

There is a God-breathed authority for Christian faith: 'All Scripture".

Interesting question - who is a Christian?

To put in my 2 cents, a Christian is one who, following Jesus Christ, is willing, if called upon, to even lose their life on the cross or incur an equivalent painful death for their love of God and others.

This makes the number of Christians very small. I certainly do not qualify.

To claim that identifying as a Christian is sufficient to be a Christian, is like claiming that identifying as Napoleon is sufficient to be Napoleon.

Yuyutsu,

<<To put in my 2 cents, a Christian is one who, following Jesus Christ, is willing, if called upon, to even lose their life on the cross or incur an equivalent painful death for their love of God and others.>>

From where did you obtain that information about what a Christian is?

You have left the message of John 3:3-5 out of your definition,

"Jesus replied [to Nicodemus], “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again [born from above], you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

“What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”

'Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit"'.

Dear OzSpen,

In relation to baptism, allow me to tell you a story:

It occurred during the Middle Ages, when everyone was forced to convert to Christianity, including Jews. Also at the time, meat was forbidden on Fridays.

So one Friday evening, our friend, a converted Jew, had his Sabbath meal which included meat when knock-knock, there came the priest to inspect.

Our friend quickly dipped his finger in water and sprinkled it over his dish mumbling something, this he repeated three times. The priest was astonished: "what are you doing?".

"I just did as you did", replied our friend: you splashed water on me three times, saying "You were a Jew, now you are a Christian; You were a Jew, now you are a Christian; You were a Jew, now you are a Christian", so I did the same over my plate saying: "You were meat, now you are fish; You were meat, now you are fish; You were meat, now you are fish".

Banjo

give up your lies. Changing the name of an unborn baby does not change what it is. You employ the same tactics as the nazis did with the Jews. By all means defend mudering unborn human beings but try being a little honest instead of using pseudo science and pseudo language to justify the unjustifiable. There is no honesty or science to back you.

Dear NNS,

No species can increase without limit. There are two basic reproductive strategies. One is characteristic of spiders, many insects and most fish. Social insects are an exception. They care for the young in the hive or nest and limit births when the honey season is ending as bees do. One reproductive strategy produces many young with little or no parental care. The other strategy involves producing fewer young but with parental care as in the case of mammals. In the case of humans until recently women would produce young with the expectation that even with care all would not survive.

Not long ago there was both a decrease in infant mortality and longer life spans due to better sanitation and medical care, but people kept on having children at a rate which ignored the fact that the world had changed. One of my two grandmothers had six children. Five survived to adulthood. The other grandmother had seven children who survived to adulthood. It is obvious that all women of childbearing age cannot keep producing at such a rate. My mother produced two children, and only one survived to adulthood. My wife’s mother did the same.

My wife and I were in effect only children. We both had more than one child as we wanted our children to have sibling(s). Unlike the bees we do not produce fewer children by instinct when the situation calls for it.

The Chinese realised that reproduction unchecked would lead to disaster. They initiated the one child policy and enforced it in a brutal manner with coerced abortions which both of us find unacceptable. Many of the only children grew up to be spoiled brats. The Chinese policy led to a sexual imbalance. Many Chinese couples faced with the fact they could only have one child opted to have a boy. A society with many more males than females leads to both frustrated males and oppressed females. It is not a healthy society. It is not good to follow the Chinese example.

continued

continued

For a happy home life for children while controlling population growth some couples could have many children while most have none. For childless couples that is not a good solution either.

We are seeing the effects of uncontrolled population growth in today’s world. People are fleeing countries which no longer can support their people. They seek entry to more stable, prosperous countries which cannot admit them all without unfortunate social changes. Fertile land which could grow crops is used for housing the teeming hordes. Fewer countries can export food. One million species are on the verge of extinction due to humans encroaching on their habitat and causing climate change they cannot live with. To save the world it might be better for humans to disappear. However, I don’t want to go yet.

The 1994 population conference in Cairo had several recommendations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Population_and_Development

1. Universal education: Universal primary education in all countries by 2015. Urge countries to provide wider access to women for secondary and higher level education as well as vocational and technical training.

2. Reduction of infant and child mortality: Countries should strive to reduce infant and under-5 child mortality rates by one-third or to 50–70 deaths per 1000 by the year 2000. By 2015 all countries should aim to achieve a rate below 35 per 1,000 live births and under-five mortality rate below 45 per 1,000.

3. Reduction of maternal mortality: A reduction by 1/2 the 1990 levels by 2000 and 1/2 of that by 2015. Disparities in maternal mortality within countries and between geographical regions, socio-economic and ethnic groups should be narrowed.

4. Access to reproductive and sexual health services including family planning: Family-planning counseling, pre-natal care, safe delivery and post-natal care, prevention and appropriate treatment of infertility, prevention of abortion and the management of the consequences of abortion, treatment of reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and other reproductive health conditions; and education, counseling, as appropriate, on human sexuality, reproductive health and responsible parenthood. Services regarding HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, infertility, and delivery should be made available. Active discouragement of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Continued

Continued

It is important that there is a planet in which future generations of humans and other species can live. To secure that, we must control our rate of reproduction. No species can increase indefinitely, and there are already too many humans. I certainly don’t have all of the answers but am just telling you my concern. There has also been a long struggle for women to have equal rights. That makes for a better world. Part of that struggle has been for women to have access to medically safe and legal abortion. It will be a tragedy in my view if women are stripped of that right, coerced to listen to arguments for or against abortion or harassed in any way after having decided to avail themselves of an abortion. They know what they are doing.

There are other concerns which we should address, but controlling our reproduction is near the top.

There is an unfortunate tendency in this thread to use emotive language and to charge somebody with a different view of being a liar or of bad character in some other way. I think it is better to assume good faith on both sides and to use accurate language. A fetus is not a baby. Abortion is not infanticide.

Dear OzSpen,

In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.1% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. The government accepted that those who said they were Christian were Christian. That is the criterion I use

david f,

<<In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.1% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. The government accepted that those who said they were Christian were Christian. That is the criterion I use>>

That's a say-so view of Christianity. Would you go to a Dr who was a say-so Dr without proven credentials?

That is your choice to regard Christian that way, but it is not how Jesus defined what it means to be a Christian: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

To Banjo Paterson.

You want an explanation of all those comments? Here it is.

•"Because killing your baby before it's born is easier!" You're reply is that it's a fetus not a baby. Changing the terminology from unborn baby to fetus is no excuse for the use of killing. Abortion has become the easy solution, that we allow as long as baby isn't born. As soon as a child is born to actually kill them for connivence of because we think we're sparing them a hard life are excuses that no one should hold. If we don't hold that attitude to babies born with deformities when they are born or receive an injury at a young age, then we should not hold the attitudes to kill with these same excuses before the baby is born. Changing the terminology does not change the situation!

•"To choose to kill a baby or a young child is a horrific choice … Killing a child is never a solution." Again your reply is to correct me with the terminology. However your missing the point of the comment and the context. I made my point about the difference between unborn babies and those that are actually born and the difference in how we use that state of development as an excuse to kill and terminate the person. Yuyustu replied from his religious perspective that the person being killed might be saved from a hard life and early termination is preferable. He did not say specifics that termination before birth, just earlier is better. Therefore my comment of killing a young child is a horrific choice. And I meant that killing a young child is a horrific choice. I was not talking about an unborn baby.

(continued)

(Continued)

•I apparently should have made my point clearer on this point, because it seems to have added confusion on what I wrote. You thought I mean fetus that isn't born when I said young child in both my reply to Yuyutsu and to David f. regarding Yuyutsu's response. What I meant is what I wrote. Young child and babies should never be considered to be voluntarily killed. Yet killing a fetus that is essentially the same as a baby before they are born. (Look up sonograms of babies in their mother's womb. You'll see them behaving like babies outside the womb as well. Sucking thumbs and all. Fetuses are babies. They just haven't been born yet.)

I'm not going to change my vocabulary to suit pro abortion agendas. If the term fetus wasn't used as an excuse to dismiss killing it, then I might consider calling an unborn baby a fetus as often as I call a young child a toddler. However I've already explained my reasons for acknowledging term baby even when they aren't born yet. This is how they are referred to by the pregnant mothers. You don't ask about the fetus, or talk about the fetus. You ask and talk about the baby. This should not be a hard concept to grasp, nor a difficult issue to handle. Or if it is, then I recommend you try out the change in terms universally and next pregnant woman you see ask her how her fetus is doing. Or when you hear about a miscarriage, refer to the loss using the term fetus. See how well that works and get back to me about it. As for me I see how foolish it is and see no merit in that kind of insulting talk to future mothers.

To David f.

First I want to acknowledge and correct my mistake. My reply to you and OzSpen about Ad Hominem fallacies was actually only for the term "red herring." I thought that red herring and ad hominem were referring to the same thing but I guess not. My point wasn't about which kind of Christian beliefs are good or not good, but that the topic of Christianity in the context of abortion is very much like a red herring on other topics. It has successfully changed the topic away from anything relating to abortion and instead is about defending one's faith with little or no mention of abortion in the context of the replies.

Regarding your second replies, my thoughts on population reduction aren't the same as what you've presented. None the less, more importantly is that the topic of population control by abortion can be compared to population control to newborns and young children. I said it before to Yuyutsu, that to kill a new born or a young child is an unthinkable and horrific idea. Yet we present doing the same for those still in the womb. If the arguments for population control hold merit when discussing abortion then they should have the same merit when discussing terminating the life of newborns and young children. In my opinion neither have merit when it comes to killing the baby (born or unborn). What can be done about population control? Adoptions, and people controlling themselves when it comes to sex. Either absence, or using a condom.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the different views of population control, look at it this way. If Australia, the US, and most European countries limit their population growth, and at the same time allow refugee immigration from countries that are over populated, what will happen? The influence of each country's domestic culture will be in jeopardy of being lost and over run. Some statistics seem to point to this conclusion in European countries where Arab refugees are coming in and having more children then the surrounding populations as well as raping at a higher frequency causing the same issues of over population (among other more criminal issues). The issue with stats is knowing whether to trust the numbers or not,mexpecially if they predict future trends. Nonetheless if some of those stat based arguments hold merit, then their predictions on populations in western countries are worth mentioning in the discussion of population control. With this in mind, having a few children to pass on a positive influence in the world in their generation is worth doing by responsible and loving parents. If you have done this with your kids then hold no guilt. You've done good contribute to the next generation and add a positive influence to the world. The second point on raising children from loving and responsible parents is that in our old age if a person has any children they might be able to help you when your older. Having children that turn into loving and responsible adults is a blessing to the parents as well as for the world as a whole.

This isn't an argument to have large families or small families, just that recognizing the different elements of the discussion that often seem to be left out of the population control conversations. My thought would be to be proud of those who adopt, and encourage families to have kids, but to be responsible in doing so. As long as they can make ends meet and raise them well, then their family size is their burden. Not yours or mine.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

First, I would like to acknowledge the correctness of your interpretation of my words in your last posts.

I agree that killing born and unborn babies is qualitatively the same, but there are quantitative differences in the severity of the act:

1. In the womb, education is slower because learning is only sourced from two senses: hearing and touch. Once born, vision, taste and smell are added, so education is accelerated. As I mentioned earlier, the worst thing about being killed is the loss of education.

2. It is easier to understand a young woman who aborts because she suffers from the physical effects of carrying a foetus, such as heaviness, shortness of breath, spine-curvature (especially while her body is still growing), gestational diabetes, bladder-pressure and other physical limitations, or because she fears the extreme pain, health-risks and scarring of birthing itself, but once the baby is out, these factors are no longer there.

3. In the past, deformities (and the lack thereof) were only detected after birth. This however was much reduced with the advent of ultrasound.

Regardless of the severity, it is still a bad thing to kill out of selfish motives and otherwise still extremely complex to estimate whether or not killing a given baby (born or otherwise) would advantage the soul which identifies with that baby.

Regarding population-control, abstinence is best but most people cannot handle it, so at this day and age, sterilisation is second-best, followed by the pill, the diaphragm and the like. Condoms are limited only to men who can maintain a steady erection throughout and might introduce anxiety and detract from the tenderness and intimacy. Adoptions are generous and welcome, but government should never provide financial incentives for making babies: the financial burden should fall squarely on the parents, as to try to deter them from flooding the planet with more humans.

Dear NNS,

The problem with adoption is that it does not terminate a pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion does not want to give birth. She wants to terminate her pregnancy. Adoption does not terminate a pregnancy.

Abstinence for teenagers brimming with hormones? Ha! Get girls fitted with devices that prevent pregnancy as a matter of course, and they won't get pregnant.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote: “That is your choice to regard Christian that way, but it is not how Jesus defined what it means to be a Christian: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

How Jesus defined a Christian is relevant if one is a follower of the superstition. I am not. Jesus was not a Christian either so we both are outsiders defining Christians.

It is a scummy, perverted God who would submit his son to a torturous death. I treat my sons well. If I were to worship a God I would choose one more decent than that New Testament monster. Believe in superstitious rubbish, and you live forever. What absolute gut-wrenching nonsense! It boggles the mind to think over half the population of Australia accepts such garbage. It’s a frightening thought that over half the Australian population has abandoned reason for mind-numbing nonsense.

Jesus couldn’t have endorsed that craziness. Not only was he crucified, but the poor guy must also have been misquoted. The things that you’re liable to read in the Bible, it ain’t necessarily so.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« give up your lies. Changing the name of an unborn baby does not change what it is. You employ the same tactics as the nazis did with the Jews. By all means defend murdering unborn human beings but try being a little honest instead of using pseudo science and pseudo language to justify the unjustifiable. There is no honesty or science to back you »
.

The earliest known life forms on earth date from about 4.28 billion years ago. From those early beginnings, life has constantly been relayed from generation to generation. Consequently, fertilization produced by the fusion of a male sperm with a female ovum is not the beginning of life. It is its continuance.

Life is not a single event. It is a process. The fusion of sperm and ovum produces an entirely new cell called a zygote (a fertilized egg) which develops into an embryo that later becomes a fetus before ultimately being ejected from the womb as a baby.

The gestational process usually takes about 40 weeks from fertilization to birth – unless it is interrupted – either as a result of natural causes, accidentally or deliberately. Although the process normally ends at birth, further growth and development continues well into old age.

An abortion is the deliberate interruption of the gestational process (the pregnancy) beginning at fertilization and ending at birth.

Therefore, while it is correct to say that somebody did not have the baby because she had an abortion. It is not correct to say that the baby was aborted because if it was a baby it was already born and therefore could not be aborted.

I grant you that this may seem a little complicated and difficult to understand, Runner, but it is by no means a “lie”. It is simply the correct expression of the intricate biological reproduction process of human beings and how abortion relates to that process.

None of this is my invention. I'm no specialist. I’m sure your family doctor could explain it better to you than I can.

.

Dear David,

«Abstinence for teenagers brimming with hormones? Ha!»

Hormones play some role, but a greater role, I believe, is played by social pressure.

Peer pressure of course, but also family-pressure, from parents and grandparents who encourage their offspring to be sexually active, not always consciously, because they desire to continue their genetic line. And peer pressure too is often derived from the attitudes that one's peers absorbed from their own parents and grandparents.

Where there is a greater motivation to life than just continuing the biological line, sexuality falls by the wayside and one even tells their hormones: "shut up, can't you see that I am busy?"!

But then, if you discard religion, what greater motivation to life remains? Humanity perhaps? You don't believe in that yourself, David, you know it has no lasting future and you just commented yourself that you would be glad to see the human race disappear.

What remains then - well sex, you said so yourself: «I favor allowing and encouraging teenagers to have as much sex as they want but to prevent pregnancy. I had my first sex at 22, and I mourn those lost years.»:
I sadly suspect that due to your own personal experience, you favour encouraging teenagers to have even more sex, beyond what they want themselves.

To David f.

You said:

<<The problem with adoption is that it does not terminate a pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion does not want to give birth. She wants to terminate her pregnancy. Adoption does not terminate a pregnancy.>>

Does it matter that abortion kills babies? Apparently the point of that question is lost on you and several others here. Even though that point is the title of the article this conversation is drawing from.

Dear NNS,

The article is called: “Does it matter if abortion kills babies?”

The question incorporates a false equivalence. To be a baby one has to be born. A fetus is not a baby. Abortion kills a fetus. That is necessary if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. I support the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy and place her rights above the preservation of a fetus. You apparently don’t.

You, like the author of the article, equate a fetus with a baby. That is a false equation and bad language. With twisted logic and bad language there is no possibility for reasonable dialog. I support the right of a woman to decide to terminate her pregnancy with a safe and legal abortion. If all women were fitted with IUDs which prevent pregnancy and did not remove them unless they wanted to be pregnant there would be less need for abortions. Of course even if she wanted to become pregnant her circumstances might change after she became pregnant, and she may feel an abortion is in her best interests. If that is the case she should have the right to have an abortion by a doctor. It was a great step forward to a woman to have the right to abortion. I hope the clock will not be turned back.

david f,

<<The question incorporates a false equivalence. To be a baby one has to be born. A fetus is not a baby.>>

Please provide the medical evidence that the baby in the womb is not a human being and that to be a baby, he or she has to be born.

Using the term fetus doesn't change the sitution. Since fetus is the only justification for killing when it is still very much human, showing even the same qualities of babies even in the early stages of developement, it is a horrible excuse. Women who do not want to have babies should not have sex. If they volunteerily have sex, get pregnet, then the excuse that the baby isn't born yet is all the excuse they need to justify killing them.

Hiding behind the term fetus shows more dishonesty in the discussion then it justifies anything. Trying to force the conversation to the terms of fetus is just as bad, because all it means is trying to force a term that is used to justify countless voluntary deaths every year. I'm not blind, I've seen many sonograms online mapping out the stages of developement. The stages within the womb should be protected just like the stages of developement outside of the womb. Least we have one of those pro abortion arguments actually justify killing babies after birth as well because there's no known difference in whether the baby is self aware, alive, intelligent, dependent on it's parents for survival, and just about every other argument justifying that a fetus is a lower class human.

The only difference is blind terminology. It's not born yet, it counts as a fetus. If it's unwanted kill it. Murder before birth doesn't count as long as we keep feeding ourselves the crap terminology to justify and control the conversation.

As for the rights of the woman, try adoption if they don't want to raise the child. But if she chose to have sex and got pregnant, then let the baby live, damn it. That's not asking much. Maybe have a little less social preasure to have sex would be a better solution? It's worth a shot that might actually help relationships from spiraling out of control because sex and love are confused too often in a relationship. There are other strategies to help the situation besides resorting to the mass killing that we currently have.

To:

David f, Alan B, individual, John Ryan, SteeleRedux, Banjo Paterson, Loudmouth, Foxy, Divergence, and Yuyutsu.

If you have the time or the ability, please look at these videos and give your feed back on them. They are not graphic videos.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k&list=PLRCroccSjXWR9HVr_ooA3ErEAR0SifdwY&index=1

They explainations and interviews with a doctor who performed many abortions and no longer does. He explains the procedures of the abortions and has an interview with the woman who apparently is the president of the organization producing the videos. Each video is shorter then 7 minutes long, or has 2 combined videos that include the explanations for how abortions are done (about 12 minutes long) and the combined segments of the interview (about 25 minutes).

If the videos are inaccurate, untruthful, please say so. Or if there are other kinds of abortions not mentioned in these videos, I hope some of you can shed light on some of the other kinds of abortion procedures.

Honestly we're talking about everything except the abortions themselves. That should be at least looked at by both pro and anti abortion positions. I found the doctor's outlining of the health risks for each type of abortion worth hearing as well.

Dear NNS and Ozpen,

I support Australian law which gives a woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion which kills the human being inside her. The law also penalizes those who would harass her. I think those are good laws. If you do not think those are good laws you are free to use democratic methods to try to change those laws.

david f,

<<A Christian is any one who identifies as a Christian whatever their belief or opinion is. There is no authority in Christendom which determines what all Christians should believe or how they should behave.>>

That is your personal opinion and perhaps that of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

There IS an authority for beliefs regarding who is a Christian. That authority is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...." (2 Timothy 3:16).

In those Scriptures the good news of the Gospel that is accepted by Christians is identified: "When you sin, the pay you get is death. But God gives you the gift of eternal life. That’s because of what Christ Jesus our Lord has done" (Romans 6:23).

There is a God-breathed authority for Christian faith: 'All Scripture".

Dear OzSpen,

How do you define who is a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu or Muslim? I define them in the same way I define a Christian. If they declare themselves as a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu or Muslim then I accept them as what they identify themselves. The Australian Bureau of Statistics and I have the same criteria. I see no reason to classify the Christian superstition differently from the way I treat other superstitions. You are free to use Scripture in any way you like. I don't see why I should do so.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote: In those Scriptures the good news of the Gospel that is accepted by Christians is identified: "When you sin, the pay you get is death. But God gives you the gift of eternal life. That’s because of what Christ Jesus our Lord has done" (Romans 6:23).

In my opinion that is one of the sillier passages of the Bible. There is no such thing as eternal life. Considering the bloody history of Christianity, the Inquisition, the wars of the Reformation, persecution and massacre of heretics, Jews and others, enslaving and slaughter of native peoples, Christian imperialism and other atrocities the Gospels are very bad news, and the world would be better off without Christianity. You don't get death through sinning. You get death because that is the end of us all. Nobody escapes it. I think better of Christians than to define them all by that silly passage. Some Christians, I hope, are more sensible.

Dear NNS,

I watched the video. It is propaganda and not factual. The video assumes the skull of the fetus is in one piece. It is not in one piece until over a year after the birth. A direct quote from the video. “The babies bones and skull are too strong to be torn apart by suction alone.” The skull need not be torn apart because it is not in one piece. There are a lot of soft plates which will later harden and fuse after the birth.

https://skeletalsystemdev.weebly.com/development-of-skull.html
New born skull

The plates of the membranous bones making up the calvarium of the skull are each derived from the primary ossification center, from which bone formation spreads outward. However, the individual plates do not fuse with each other during prenatal development. As a consequence, new born babies have unclosed sutures and fontanelles (fig 9). The posterior (smaller) fontanelle closes during the first year, and the anterior (larger) fontanelle closes during the second year after birth. However some of the sutures remain open until adulthood.

The ‘doctor’ is no more a doctor than I am. A real doctor would know the bones which will become the skull of a fetus are soft and have not fused.

The following refers one to the dishonesty of anti-abortion propaganda.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-messiness-of-reproduction-and-the-dishonesty-of-anti-abortion-propaganda

david f,

<<I support Australian law which gives a woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion which kills the human being inside her. The law also penalizes those who would harass her. I think those are good laws. >>

I am not so naive as to obey the laws of Australia if they conflict with the laws of God. This is how 'Peter and the apostles replied [to the Jewish leaders], “We must obey God rather than any human authority"' (Acts 5:29).

The law by which God judges killing of human beings is, 'You shall not murder'. Murdering an infant human being in the womb is what takes place in abortion.

Although I was born after World War 2 and my father fought in the war, I'm old enough to know of the horrors of what happens when a nation passes laws that violate God's laws, Germany being one example:

'At their annual party rally held in Nuremberg in September 1935, the Nazi leaders announced a set of three new laws to further regulate and exclude Jews from German Society. These laws now known as the Nuremberg laws served also as the legality for the arrests and violence against Jews that would come to follow', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_pre-war_Nazi_Germany

We now know that those ungodly laws led to genocide of Jews and other minorities in Germany.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You asked me to watch certain videos then give you feedback.
I watched them, certainly not a pleasant experience.

I wouldn't do what is shown in the videos even to a chocolate bunny, I was too timid and couldn't do so as a child, I am even a bit upset at the insensitivity of all those uncles and aunts that kept giving me animal-formed chocolates - or was it their intention to try to toughen me up?
Biology is a gory thing, which is probably why I never studied medicine.

What I find irrational is, how come so many find abortions gruesome but at the same time find the meat on their plate appealing: the animals they eat were typically more developed than a foetus - physically, emotionally and intellectually. Many would faint if they saw how their food was killed, but not when they see their various organs on their plate or barbecue; and yes, there are also those who prefer their meat minced so the horror is not that vivid.

So much for the "yuck factor" - the videos use it very effectively and so does PETA (http://www.peta.org.au/news/all-beings-bleed-the-same-new-peta-ads-challenge-speciesism/).

Now please remember: this does not make abortions right nor wrong: the issue at hand is those specific videos, rather than abortion itself. The question is, are we to base our decisions in life on emotions? Almost everyone is guilty of it, myself included, but is this the correct way to go? I think not, neither does the bible:

"And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring" [Numbers 15:39]

[continued...]

[...continued]

Another criticism I have about the videos (and remember again, this is not in support of abortion, only in criticism of the videos), is the listing of the medical complications for the mother:

While the information is useful, it is one-sided: the moment a foreign organism enters our body, we are in trouble. A fertilised egg is a foreign organism and it produces medical risks either way, whether removed or allowed to remain. Ectopic pregnancy for example can happen and is life-threatening with or without medical abortion. Often the woman does not know about it until it is late. The video suggests that because of the abortion-pill the woman fails to have an ultrasound, but how likely would she to have it otherwise?

To be objective, the videos would need to list the ADDITIONAL medical risks of aborting, if any, as opposed to the risks of allowing the embryo to grow and be birthed. If the woman's physical health is the objective (as opposed to spiritual health, which was not discussed in these videos), then the only [physically] healthy way is to never allow a sperm nearby, with abortion probably taking the second place and birth the third and last.

Sorry, the considerations around abortion are serious and extremely complex, we touched their tip-of-the-iceberg earlier in this thread and in most likelihood we will never be able to exhaust them. What we should avoid though, is to allow emotional/instinctual/hormonal/cultural considerations to control the discussion.

Yuyutsu,

<<What I find irrational is, how come so many find abortions gruesome but at the same time find the meat on their plate appealing: the animals they eat were typically more developed than a foetus - physically, emotionally and intellectually.>>

I find it irrational that you don't distinguish between a human being and an animal to see and understand the value of human beings is superior to that of animals.

However, I understand that's coming from your Hindu worldview.

To Yuyutsu

Thank you for watching the videos. I'm sorry they are hard, however that's the most information I've seen about actual abortions. When it comes to abortions, people are in the dark about what actually happens. I especially think the potential health risks and side affects that are part of abortion is worth while knowledge. While I agree that this creates an emotional response of disgust while watching the videos, I'm glad that the explanations showed a simple animation to visualize what is being described. The knowledge is worth while towards an industry that promises that this is safe and not harmful to the mother.

As for the spiritual health of the mother. I get one position of not having sex being considered more healthy spiritually. That's for trying to remain pure and undefiled. I don't know if that is your reasoning or if it is because you don't agree with people having children to begin with (or different reasons entirely). I don't completely agree with the reasoning for purity though regarding sex, because I support married couples increasing their intimacy and their relationship through making love. (Any other relationship before marriage having sex I agree is not a good practice).

That said, understanding and not agreeing completely with the position is one thing. I don't understand why you think it's more spiritually healthy to have an abortion then it is to give birth. Considering what is actually happening in an abortion, how can that be considered healthy in either a physical or a spiritual sense? Physically it can damage the structures in a woman's body that would harm the chances of having a good pregnancy later in her life. Spiritually? I have no idea where you come from on that aspect regarding health.

Again though thank you for watching the videos.

To David f.

Please watch the videos. Since you're take on abortion is full support for several rationalizations then I'd like you're feedback on the information. Perhaps you are educated on what happens in an abortion or the types of abortions out there, that you can refute the information as it's presented in the videos from a pro-life organization. If you have feedback this is your opportunity to better present your case for abortion in light of an educating set of videos that talk about what occurs in the different types of abortions.

The more information we have about abortions, and better educated we are the more likely we can have worthwhile and accurate discussions about the matter. I'm disappointed in how much discussion about abortion has been to hide behind the term fetus, but otherwise have little to no knowledge of the abortion process. To say it's a woman's body and her choice, but not to know the potential risks involved to a woman's health. Much of the topic of abortions goes into talking about everything around an abortion but little to no talk about the abortion itself. Honestly I'm disappointed in all the pro-abortion/pro-choice positions in this thread. In order to actually get educated on abortion a person has to find a pro-life organization. Because they will actually talk about the matter instead of shuffling it under the rug and hope no one notices.

As for a democratic process for changing the laws and the views regarding abortion. That is what I'm doing here. Democracy is about multiple votes not just my own. Therefore a better understanding of the matter given to the public is a democratic method because of how that information will influence the votes and the views concerning abortion.

To David f.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your prievous post before I replied. In light of that here are a few questions. You're suspicious of the information in the videos, but do you have any other source to point to to correct the videos? The skull of a fetus in a late term abortion might still need to be broken up because it is too large and too strong for the suctioning tool in abortions, even if the skull hasn't hardened completely. If there is some information you have to point to actual abortions .

This is an oppurtunity to refute the information givens in the videos. If nothing is refuted, then the silence is it's own response. I understand they came from a pro-life orginization, and if the information is inaccurate, then the pro choice and pro abortion positions should have an ample oppurtunity to refute the information with their lives wn sources about the abortion processes. Again silence from medical doctors is it's own response.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

The educational abortion videos you posted are quite impressive, but, unfortunately, I have to say I am not qualified to judge their accuracy or validity.

Having looked-up Dr. Anthony Levatino on the internet I see that he and his wife, Cecelia, had “an infertility problem” and were unable to have children. They finally managed to adopt a little girl, Heather. Then he tells the story :

« Life was good until June 23, 1984. On that date, I was on call, but I was at home at the time, and we had some friends over, and our children were playing in the back of the yard. At 7:25 that evening, we heard the screech of brakes out in front of the house. We ran outside and Heather was lying in the road. We did everything we could, and she died.

« I went to a Catholic conference in Connecticut a couple of weeks ago. I gave my usual talk and didn't go into the whys, and one of the bishops came up to me afterwards. He said to me: You haven't told me why you quit. I kind of avoided it. I told him, and he was the one who encouraged me by saying, you should tell that story. You should let people know.

« Let me tell you something. When you lose a child, your child, life is very different. Everything changes. All of a sudden, the idea of a person's life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore »

That is why Dr. Levatino couldn't do abortions anymore. That is why he has fallen into the hands of the pro-lifers. They greeted him with open arms, of course.

Here is his very sad story :

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/1127-testimony-of-dr-anthony-levatino---former-abortion-provider

.

Dear NNS,

I don’t find the video credible.

Dear OzSpen,

Comparison of abortion to the Nazi holocaust is rubbish. No one is out to kill all embryos. It is an insult to the memory of the alive and conscious Jews murdered by the Nazis to equate them with embryos for pro-life propaganda.

The following is an article on the subject.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/03/comparing-abortion-to-the-holocaust-has-a-long-history-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

My cousin committed suicide when an abortion might have enabled her to get on with her life. If she had an abortion would she have become a Nazi? Shame on you. Her boyfriend was killed fighting the Nazis and left her pregnant. Unfortunately, many of those who oppose abortion usually don’t think of what the woman’s life would be like if she doesn’t have an abortion.

God’s law? How do you know God doesn’t favor abortion?

https://www.thoughtco.com/when-did-abortion-begin-721090

“Abortion is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible, … The absence of any discussion of abortion in the Bible is conspicuous, and later authorities attempted to close the gap.”

In the debates about abortion in olo I have rarely seen the welfare of the woman mentioned. She is just a vehicle for the fetus. To hell with that hussy. All hail the fetus.

Many of the anti-abortionists are addicted to emotive, false arguments. One false argument is pointing out the dangers to the woman of an abortion while ignoring the danger of giving birth.

Any invasive medical procedure carries risk, but a legal abortion is less risky than giving birth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

“Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.”

With good medical care in both cases the risks are small.

I regard abortion as a woman’s right. She should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she feels a continuation of it would be bad for her. I am more concerned with the adult woman than I am with the fetus in her.

Dear OzSpen,

«I find it irrational that you don't distinguish between a human being and an animal to see and understand the value of human beings is superior to that of animals.»

This misrepresents what I said: I compared grown up and fully-developed animals with yet-to-develop-and-learn humans.

I consider it rational to compare and value the level of development: physical, emotional, mental and of course spiritual. Humans are capable of much more (other than physically) than animals, but it takes years of hard work. Also looking at the behaviour of SOME people, and of SOME animals, the animals score better.

Did you know that chimpanzees develop intellectually similarly to human babies until the age of 3? It is at that stage that they stop and develop no further.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«I don't understand why you think it's more spiritually healthy to have an abortion then it is to give birth.»

I don't!
(had this been the case, then the question of abortion would have been trivial so impregnating and aborting as fast as one can would be a recipe for sainthood...)

I thought I made it clear enough that the videos only discuss the PHYSICAL health of the mother, while the arguments against abortion are spiritual. I am not a doctor, but it is my impression that on pure medical grounds (excluding mental health) it is comparatively healthier to have an abortion than to carry a baby to full term. I may be wrong about it, but the videos failed to produce a comparison.

With regards to intimacy of married couples, I agree, but at this day and age with the state of the world as it stands, it is best for them to get sterilised, then enjoy the intimacy as best they can.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Couldn’t access the url.

OzSpen wrote: I find it irrational that you don't distinguish between a human being and an animal to see and understand the value of human beings is superior to that of animals

Dear OzSpen,

I don’t find it irrational at all. I don’t understand that the value of human beings is superior to that of the other animals. You’re just speaking from a human point of view.


An eagle has better eyesight. A dog can run faster. A shark lives longer. Other animals are superior to us in many ways. We have bigger brains. Does having bigger brains make us superior? Brains are just another organ. We are part of nature like other animals. We have fantasies such as life after death, but after our death we become inert matter like other animals after their death. Like other animals we ingest food, eliminate waste and breed. We invent gods and religion, but we are just another animal. We may casually snuff out the life of an ant. However, isn’t the ant’s life as precious to the ant as ours is to us? We mourn our battlefield dead, but in a cosmic view is it any more than the life of an ant killed in a struggle with another anthill?

One of the five vows of Jainism is found in the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Ahimsa, "intentional non-violence" or "noninjury": The first major vow taken by Jains is to cause no harm to other human beings, as well as all living beings (particularly animals). This is the highest ethical duty in Jainism, and it applies not only to one's actions, but demands that one be non-violent in one's speech and thoughts

Western religions are anthropocentric and don’t recognize our kinship with all life. Fundamentalist Christians generally don’t support environmentalism.

OzSpen, Explain to me why a human being is more valuable than another animal. I find it quite rational to regard any member of any species as equally valuable.

To Banjo Paterson

Thanks for watching the video and the link. The second half of the videos are and interview with the Doctor,band he covers a lot of the same stuff in the link. But not everything is the same, so thanks for sharing the link as well. It is a sad story.

To David f.

It wasn't as easy to find but here's another source for the procedure of abortions. The descriptions sound like they validate the descriptions in the video. This is how abortions kill the human inside the women receiving an abortion. With a suctioning tool and a "combination of tools."

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion

To Yuyutsu.

I mentioned the physical part because I think often our physical health affects our emotional and behavioral well being. I don't know your views on spiritual health, so again I don't understand how going full term would be less healthy spiritually, then having an abortion.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«so again I don't understand how going full term would be less healthy spiritually, then having an abortion.»

And again, this is not what I said: all I referred to in this context, in response to the videos, was PHYSICAL health: I think (though I am not sure) that PHYSICALLY ONLY, having an abortion is healthier for the potential-mother than carrying a baby to full term. I also noted that the videos completely failed to relate to spiritual health.

I am quite aware of the emotional issues and I could write many pages about spiritual health in general, but I think that there is no need here because it is not my view that abortion is spiritually healthier - I must have been misunderstood.

.

Dear david f,

.

The link opens-up when I click on it. Here it is again :

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/1127-testimony-of-dr-anthony-levatino---former-abortion-provider
.

If it still doesn’t work, try this short video version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
.

If that doesn’t work, try typing this in your browser :

Testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino - Former Abortion Provider

.

Dear NNS,

Abortion kills the human being inside the pregnant woman. We agree on that. However, I think the best judge of whether it is a good thing to continue the pregnancy is the pregnant woman herself. Any counseling she will get should neither promote nor discourage the procedure. It should just deal with the facts in a non-judgmental manner and give her the information she can use to make her own decision.

Dear OzSpen,

One meaning of value is the inherent value, the value in the thing itself. That is the kind of value I was taking about in my previous post when I said that I find it quite rational to regard any member of any species as equally valuable.

Another meaning of the word value is the value we assign to an entity. When we say a human animal is more valuable than a non-human animal it is because we have made a value judgment as to their relevant value. You did so, but the values were imposed by you. Other people may make different value judgments.

Of course the fox implicitly makes the judgment by his actions that his life is worth more than the rabbit’s life. However, if the foxes succeeded in wiping out all the rabbits it would be more difficult for them to find something to eat. Rabbits are necessary for foxes. The ecologist looks at the system from neither the point of view of the fox or of the rabbit and concludes that both animals are necessary to maintain the ecosystem. We humans can realise that we are also part of a web of life. If all bees were wiped out we could suffer famines because bees are necessary to pollinate our crops. It is better to think of humans as one element in a web of life rather than make value judgments about the superior or inferiority of one species in the web to another species in the web. The Jains in the doctrine of Ahimsa have regard for all creatures in the web.

david f,

<<OzSpen, Explain to me why a human being is more valuable than another animal. I find it quite rational to regard any member of any species as equally valuable.>>

I don't expect you to accept my explanation.

From the beginning of time, God explained the difference this way:

'Then God said, “Now let’s make humans who will be like us. They will rule over all the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. They will rule over all the large animals and all the little things that crawl on the earth.”

"So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female" (Genesis 1:26-27).

The Hebrew language of v. 26 emphasises that God's image in human beings makes humanity distinct from animals. To be made in God's image does not refer to our physical bodies as God is spirit.

Genesis 2:7 tells how God finished his work of creation in a personal way different to animals. After Adam was formed from the dust, God gave him life when He 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being'.

This makes human beings unique from any other living things in the universe as they have physical bodies with an immaterial soul/spirit.

"The image of God (Latin: imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

"Mentally, humanity was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, human beings can reason and choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom” (GotQuestions 2019), http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

This explanation fits the reality of the world in which I live. I cannot have a rational, mentally coherent conversation with a sheep, bee or a taipan snake. Neither can I do it with a chimpanzee

david f,

<<An eagle has better eyesight. A dog can run faster. A shark lives longer. Other animals are superior to us in many ways. We have bigger brains.>>

However, I cannot have a loving, compassionate, sexual relationship with any of these.

Dear OzSpen,

I wrote <<An eagle has better eyesight. A dog can run faster. A shark lives longer. Other animals are superior to us in many ways. We have bigger brains.>>

OzSpen wrote <<However, I cannot have a loving, compassionate, sexual relationship with any of these.>>

Dear OzSpen,
You have opened new horizons to me. I never thought of having sexual relations with an eagle, a dog or a shark. However, I am an incurable romantic and will remain faithful to my wife.

david f,

<<You have opened new horizons to me. I never thought of having sexual relations with an eagle, a dog or a shark. However, I am an incurable romantic and will remain faithful to my wife.>>

You practise avoidance again. You didn't respond to the evidence I provided that differentiates between human beings and animals.

To David f.

Why would women be the best judge of a decision if they aren't given the information, or if the information given to them isn't accurate? How many people know how an abortion is done before they commit to accepting them and supporting them. Instead what I see for abortion is blind support in spite of what is accurate information. There is a cultural push for abortion that blindly accepts and supports it. There is also clinics that only perform abortions instead of just a regular doctor who also performs abortions. Do you honestly think an abortion clinic specializing in abortion wouldn't encourage those who come there that an abortion is the best choice for them? I have no confidence that abortion clinics will tell the whole story and let the women make their own decision.

One thing that I think would really harm the chances of choosing to abort is if women knew there was a risk (however large or small) that the procedure for abortion could end in harming the woman's ability to have children later if she wanted. One other issue is that abortion is repeatedly said to be the safest medical procedure. However according to the doctor that turned pro life, there is a number of abortions that ended in killing the women. He even explains that to do it right, the doctors need to be sure they get all of the parts that were in the womb out or there will likely be an infection that can be fatal. (Which supports the conclusion of abortions can kill women if you include the medical abortions that use a combination of pills instead of a doctor's office).

If you get the chance watch the second sections of videos that are an interview with that doctor, or read the testimony that Banjo Paterson found from that doctor. You might not like the conclusions, or that these came from pro-life sponsored websites. However the information is the most detailed I've found about abortions themselves. That is at least worth something.

Dear NNS,

I think it's a great thing that women have the right to a legal abortion. You don't think it's a great thing and would apparently rather they be made to give birth whether or not they wanted an abortion. That is what your recommendation of adoption means.

Dear OzSpen,

You didn’t provide evidence. You merely repeated biblical statements supporting your anthropocentric viewpoint which you probably got from the Bible. It is circular reasoning. I have already pointed out the flaws in that viewpoint. Quoting from the Bible is not evidence.

Dear OzSpen and NNS,

I am tired of this interchange. We will continue to disagree. Perhaps we can agree or disagree on another subject or discuss something we have in common. I think further discussion would be wasting the time of all of us.

I'm tired of this interchange as well, David f. However there's one thing I want to correct. You said earlier:

<<You don't think it's a great thing and would apparently rather they be made to give birth whether or not they wanted an abortion. That is what your recommendation of adoption means.>>

I see many of the reasons why people want abortions, and it isn't that I don't think those reasons have value. It's just that I don't think those reasons are good enough to excuse killing. It's not that adoption is the answer, it's that abortion just shouldn't be on the table for an option. 9 months isn't a life sentence. And afterward they don't have to be chained to the baby like it was forced on them. There are lots of couples that want to adopt. More then there are for available adoptions (which makes for a long wait for many couples, sometimes a few years).

Abortion just shouldn't be an option, for the same reason that killing a person (of any age, even before birth) shouldn't be an option for the reasons people justify abortion.

That said, this conversation has gone on long enough and I'm tired of it as well. You think I'm forcing women against their will with my stance. Nothing I say is going to change your mind on how you see my stance.

david f,

<<You didn’t provide evidence. You merely repeated biblical statements supporting your anthropocentric viewpoint which you probably got from the Bible. It is circular reasoning. I have already pointed out the flaws in that viewpoint. Quoting from the Bible is not evidence.>>

False again. I provided links to the evidence but you are not listening. I provided links to research that demonstrated the Old Testament and New Testament are reliable historical documents (1) The Old Testament, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false; (2) The New Testament: http://www.bhacademic.com/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament/.

We also should check archaeology associated with the OT and NT. There are research documents covering these topics.

Then I went to these reliable documents (the Bible) to show that human beings (made in the image of God) are on a different level to animals and other creatures (which are ruled over by human beings). It is not circular reasoning, it is proving something is historically credible and then going to those credible documents to obtain facts recorded in them.

I use the same historical criteria that would be used to determine if Captain James Cook's journals are reliable documents. See: http://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/the-journals.

When I take the content of the Bible in one hand and look at the world around me, what the Bible states about human beings, their nature and place in the world, matches reality. This is the beauty of a Christian world view where truth - aletheia - conforms to reality.

On the topic of this thread: ‘Does it matter if abortion kills babies?’ The answer is a resounding ‘yes’ because of the logical consequences that flow from such horrendous actions. Since murdering human beings in the womb is sanctioned by government, what will be further consequences? Since infant human life is considered of such low value as to be slaughtered, who is safe in Australia?

Francis A Schaeffer wrote: 'When people refuse God’s answer, they are living against the revelation of the universe and against the revelation of themselves'.

Dear NNS & OzSpen,

I have noted your comments.

.

Dear david f, NNS & OzSpen,

.

Professor Kenneth Anderson Kitchen is an evangelical Christian :

http://everything.explained.today/Kenneth_Kitchen/#Ref-7

In the introduction of his book (On the Reliability of the Old Testament), entitled “First things first – What’s in question”, Kitchen warns his readers clearly and honestly, page 3 :

« In this little book we are dealing with matters of history, literature, culture, not with theology, doctrine, or dogma. My readers must go elsewhere if that is their sole interest. So "reliability" here is a quest into finding out what may be authentic (or otherwise) in the content and formats of the books of the Hebrew bible. Are they purely fiction, containing nothing of historical value, or of major historical content and value, or a fictional matrix with a few historical nuggets embedded? »

Kitchen indicates that his study is based on the interpretation of archeological findings and over 90 ancient documents “set against the Old Testament data”. It is limited to facts relating to individuals, societies, places times and events of an exclusively human and earthly nature.

It does not deal with any religious beliefs or anything of a supernatural nature as related in the Old Testament.

You will find this here :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&pg=PA3&dq=%22in+this+little+book%22,+On+the+reliability+of+the+Old+Testament&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxudTajbTiAhWJmBQKHRK2AV8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20this%20little%20book%22%2C%20On%20the%20reliability%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament&f=false

The editors of Kitchen’s “Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003)” asked Charles David Isbell, Director of Jewish Studies, Louisiana State University for a brief, partial peer review of Chapter Ten. It is not too long, not systematically negative, and is worth a read. But, he does note, for example :

« … from the biblical text itself, Professor Kitchen can no more prove his own assertions about a Ramesside foreign ministry baccalaureate degree for Moses than his opponents can prove the opposite. That is the point. Professor Kitchen is just as alacritous about inventing possibilities to sustain a point of view [his!] as are the very foes whom he so roundly condemns. Both resort to their own theories and step outside the evidence whenever necessary to sustain a personal ideology »

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.shtml

.

To Banjo Paterson.

What does the book or any reviews and critisms of the book Kitchen wrote have to do with abortion?

There is a thread between Christian philosophy rejecting abortion, that can link Christianity to the topic. However does this book or the review of one of it's chapters have any relevance to the topic? The book is about justifying the Old Testiment through historical research isn't it, and the review is criticisms on the book? Is that the only apporach to this subject on abortion? It's justified because Christianity is regarded as lacking?

Banjo Paterson, I think this book and it's review could be it's own topic in it's own right. Maybe start a topic with it in the general section on OLO?

I'm no historian, and I'm gathering from a different book on the history of Bethlehem, that historians are prone to find fault with other historians they disagree with. That said, I'm sure OzSpen can be of better value on the book and it's review then I can. Again, perhaps this is a good enough subject to be it's own topic instead of here on the topic of abortion?

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« What does the book or any reviews and critisms of the book Kitchen wrote have to do with abortion? »

I really don’t know, Not_Now.Soon. Better ask OzSpen. He brought the subject up in his last post to David F.

.