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.