Like Amanda,for me,the key is that womans reproductive organs are the sole property of the woman and not some government or self serving "father" figure.The point that I think Amanda is trying to make is that our bodies are our own and hence, the uterus belongs to the woman and is not the starting point for the abortion debate. To give away the right of control over the body is to invite chaos. Science has given you all the choice to live or die and we embrace that.We have choice. We can take a life saving antibiotic or have surgery that saves us from death.We have those choices.The only area where the question of choice is being debated is with regards to the foetus,which at the point of most abortions,the foetus is essentially an unviable life.This is where the hypocrisy of the right to life movement bugs me. You have choice.You benefit from the choice that science has given you to live or die,but are insistent on taking that choice away from other women and use the name of the unborn foetus for your argument.

Miss Vegemite ownership of our own body is only in principle as we cannot sell our body parts -yes I know that is legal not moral- or in most countries kill ourselves.

But even if we did have an overriding right to our bodies as in the violin analogy I think many Pro-lifers fail to see any fundamental difference or relevance in the right to life of a unborn human in whether the care of said child is provided by the uterus of the mother or by the parents after birth.

What of a case where both parents decide they don't want the child after birth. Should they have the right -they still own their own bodies- to call a doctor to kill the child?

It has no personhood nor is it capable of independent existence just as in pre birth.

BTW when talking of choices no choice is given to the father or fetus and highlights the hypocrisy of many Pro-choice advocates.

You want fathers to take responsibility for participating in the sexual act by forcing them to contribute financially. Yet you refuse to give them a choice in whether the child can live, nor hold yourselves accountable for that selfsame sexual act.

You want to keep your right to choose to take a life OK then give up your legal right to force fathers to pay child support in these situations.

Re-iterating my central premise, l do not see this as a rights issue. Rights seem to get bandied about as incontravertible absolutes by all sides of any arguement that seek to justify competing interests. And they get used to coerce.

l fundamentally agree, that my body is mine. Resisting coercive impositions is not a right in my mind. Its a Truth that follows existence. l also agree, in principal, that l have an obligation to restrain the use of my body to the detriment of another. Until it does not suit my interests. In practical terms that does not work and contradicts exhibited human behaviour. In the fight for survival and its harsh reality, we do coerce others. It is the basis of conquest and the structure of civilization, the basis upon which we advance competing interests. The weight of numbers behind an aligned self interest has no implications upon the rational process by which we justify our interests in front of another. The weight of numbers is the weight of force. Coercive force applied against another.

We share the water until there isn't enough to go around. Then the trouble starts and 'use of my body' to the detriment of another begins. Its easy to 'do the right thing' in good times. When the bad times come is another matter.

The idea of not using my body to harm another, breaks down in self-defence, for example.

When push comes to shove, either l push or get shoved. Like retaining the ability to legally abort.

If you have power then you prevail. The rest happens in our heads.

If government chooses, they could prevail, until the next election at least. The pro-lifers could prevail, by influencing expectant mothers or by blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors. Your family might give you a dose of emotionally manipulative shame based therapy. You might evade or avoid the dictates of parliament and go somewhere where your behaviour is not punished and do what you want.

MJB
“Your case .. is rather purile.”

It a classic Pro-Life tactic. Denigrate and demean the view of the opposition by using florid and inappropriate language – ProLife believe they know what is best for us all – I would guess the woman who “owns the uterus” has a better idea of her circumstances than some unknown stranger

“Your freedom has been earned ...through the blood of activists being shed by the powerful who sought to keep control of their world.”

The blood of those “activists” was spilt pursuing the right of individuals to choose. Whether democratic elections or exercising sovereignty over ones body and choice to abort a pregnancy or not..

The powerful forces you mention - such as the various religious Priesthoods have shown, by their own corruption, that they are not fit to instruct people on any matter (that includes the Roman Catholics who are secretly behind many anti-abortion campaigns).

"The argument that it is my uterus .... I would think that the recent tsunami would have laid to rest such arrogance of our "controlling" western culture.”
OF course it is powerplay – it is individual power to decide on the matter of their own body. If the state were to decide – that makes us all slaves or vassals of the state.

“Life is so precious, in all of its potentiality and ever present vulnerability. In truth, none of us should inhibit it or diminish it, especially for our personal convenience.”

The difference between “Life” and “Existence” is the “right to choose our own destiny” – that means women choosing whether they will remain pregnant.

Do not denigrate the precious "right of individual choice and decision", which was earned by the blood of those past activists to presume it is a matter of “convenience” – a derogatory spin to denigrate one of the most important rights – the right of choice over our own bodies - up there with freedom of speech, free association and participation in public elections.

Col, your argument is fine up until the child can survive outside the womb. What about then? Fetus's are being aborted up to 32 weeks! One of my children was born at 28 weeks and the other at 32 and they're both fine and healthy with no problems whatsoever.

Abortion is fine up until the fetus can survive independantly of the mother, after that, it's just horrific. Surely it's not too much for the mother to make her decision to abort prior to this advanced stage? Have a read of this Bulletin article in relation to late term abortion. http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/38D1DECB2A1F2E05CA256E6C00087B8A

Col Rouge, you really are a rogue re your comment

""It a classic Pro-Life tactic. Denigrate and demean the view of the opposition by using florid and inappropriate language – ProLife believe they know what is best for us all – I would guess the woman who “owns the uterus” has a better idea of her circumstances than some unknown stranger""

It is you who has resorted to labelling. My choice of the word "puerile", as I should have spelt it, is a matter of judgement of the original comment based on the "it's my party I'll do want I want" genre. There is nothing demeaning or denigrating in it.

Col, re the rest of your comment, you have performed a mighty leap from the historical fact of a few people winning social freedoms for all to the fuzzy notion of self autonomy that has seaped out of the frivolous intelligensia into the expectations of an unreflective hoi polloi over the last 50 years. If you misunderstand that you simply prove the point.

MJB