I heartily agree with Graham Preston's arguments - they are logical and sound. A fundamental tenant of all human rights is that every human being is of equal dignity. From the moment of conception, when life is most vulnerable, every life must be protected. There can be no arbitrary distinctions. No one can take their own life. No one can take the life of another - except in the case of self defense by an unjust agressor. An unborn child is not an unjust aggressor. Laws for abortion which do not offer this protection fundamentally go against human rights. Laws protecting the unborn protect human rights. Thankyou Graham and those who support you for you clear mind and courage.

Why is control over your body more important than control over aspects of your life?

Carrying a child to birth is just one aspect of parental responsibility. A significant one no doubt but is the impact more significant than say the financial responsibility of being a parent and can we as a society reasonably quantify that?

Going back to the hypothetical (I hope) situation envisaged in the article one could ask if the father of the child was the one doing the attack are they assaulting the mother or killing the child? Neither is acceptable but could it not be argued that the father should have some control over his future life and income in the same way that the mother has control over her body (18 years vis less than 9 months). Is not the fruits of your labours for a significant proportion of your working life of some significance?

Yes there are unfortunate circumstances where unplanned and unwanted pregnancies happen. People also have accidents which leave them with a liability to another (careless driving etc). Should they be allowed to kill the victim (or have them killed) to relive the themselves of the liability?

As a society we accept that bad things happen, we try and put in place laws which reduce the unreasonable impacts but accept that people will be impacted often significantly because that is life.

Pregnancy happens, it never lasts much more that nine months and there are waiting lists of people wanting to adopt children. Put the "control over your bodies" thing in perspective.

R0bert

I am absolutely for women's right to choose in regards to their bodies and their involvement in reproduction.

Women will put the "control over your bodies" thing in perspective when the male population develops a uterus and can bear children alongside us. Biologically, historically and socially, women are the child-bearers, and the child-carers.

If, as R0bert says, "the father should have some control over his future life and income in the same way that the mother has control over her body (18 years vis less than 9 months)," should it not also be mandatory that the father shouldn't be able to abandon the mother and child until the child has reached 18? Can a woman hand the child over to the father and simply contribute financially throughout its life from afar?

No - the child is, however harsh this may sound, the woman's burden. Without the woman's care, the child cannot survive. Without the woman's body, the child cannot survive. Women should not be treated like reproductive machines - they should have the right to say 'no' to the possibility of motherhood. Society cannot simply give women full responsibility when it comes to caring, and making choices for children outside the womb, and then tell them they have no right to choose whether they wish to bring such children into this world.

Women are humans too. They have lives, they have dreams, they have goals. Do they not have the right to lead their lives as they see fit? Women deserve the freedom to choose when their bodies give life, and when they don't. However terrible the death of an unborn person may be, it may be necessary in order to sustain the chosen life of another.

K8ly

For God Sake.
Who is stirring this along.
Family first No Doubt.
Well look at the Good Godly Peoples attitude toward animal Welfare.
They dont Have A Policy
Can anybody beleive that.
After the huge public interest in the cruelty of live exports they are so uncaring and arrogant they say they are not going to have a Animal Welfare policy.[ May God! forgive them]
As for terminations its nobodys business but the womens or perhaps her partners if hes still around.
Even if the Male is against abortion its still none of his business to dicate to HER what she will or wont do with her body or her life.
Childbirth stuffs your teeth hair figure looks most times caree not to mention your bank account and thats just for starters.

Anybody who thinks they have the right to force women to give birth are without any respect for human rights for women
I would love to see the men give birth and carry a pregancy for nine months.

ladies dont even bother to respond to these pro life before your born nuts.
They are not worth your energy .
Just vote with your feet at the right time.
Nobody is alive until they are born.
birth Dates are--- from time of birth.

Leave the poor women alone and mind your own bloody business.
Get The Picture.
Butt out

This article is idiotic, as is Preston's self serving logic.

Choice is a key part of many laws. Each of the following instances are an identical action. One is legal, due to the choice of individuals, one is not.

1) Taking a car.
a) Keys handed over by choice.
b) Keys taken as theft.

2) Sex.
a) Consenting adults.
b) Rape.

3) Fighting
a) A karate match.
b) assault.

Self serving logic designed to twist perceptions of the argument. The only argument here is at what stage a foetus is recognised as a child.
At present, that is at birth. I happen to agree with that and have my reasons.
This is the debate, unclouded by dodgy arguments such as this.