Continued...

<<The fact is, animals (including human beings) “violate” the law of gravity every time they lift their legs and walk, jump, run, climb up a tree or a ladder, or simply pick things up and fly (birds). In addition, humans have invented airplanes and spacecraft that allow them to fly around the world and out into space.>>

The ability to fly is part of the nature of a lot of birds. They're not violating anything. It is a skill enshrined within themselves. Often not appreciated by humans as they cannot fly, by themselves alone, so some humans will say they (birds) violate, instead of recognising their intelligence.

That's because quite a number of humans eat or kill birds. I don't engage in either being vegetarian.

In terms of a ladder or a plane, I as a human are doing absolutely nothing in terms of violation. A ladder sits on the ground, I am on the flat surface of a ladder. I can fall to the ground (a false sense of security, if I was to think I could float or fly away from a fall). I certainly wouldn't want to defy gravity (in a false sense), being permanently stuck on the floor of an aircraft.

Imagine if I was on the roof of a house, am I defying gravity? It's simply a built structure sitting on the earth's surface.

<<You are obviously looking at reality through the prism of your religious beliefs, Yuyutsu>>

All humans & living species look at a matter through the prism of their own beliefs, whatever one wishes to label them as religious or otherwise. Generally, I take the position all humans are religious in some form, having values, positions, attitudes, regular practices, with some sort of desire for more etc.

Finally, "I'm NOT just an ordinary person". I'd never describe myself in such a way. To describe onself as an ordinary person, to try and differentiate between a so called "religious" and "ordinary" person, when there are so many other ways to truly show who you are, is a better way forward.

The beginning and end of human life: the view from Australia......?

THE view from Australia?
As if there was was a standardised and homogenised single view with somewhere near 100% consensus marketed as "The Australian view".

It requires a consuming arrogance to make such a claim or even imply it, particularly in light of the religious bias that permeates most of what Peter Sellick writes. He can demonstrate no legitimate authority to speak for Australians on this issue.

It stems directly from religious doctrine, the necessity of maintaining and continually instilling male dominance of the female. In a civilised and enlightened society this outrageous anomaly should be erasicated,