>>"Well Brazuca –I place paramount authority with the individual. I am pro-choice."<<

Why do you place "paramount authority with the individual"? Hitler, as I understand it, was an individual. Same-same with Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc.

>>"My subjective opinion is “every woman and every man should have sovereignty of choice over matters concerning their own bodies” – in the case of females that means the right to choose to abort.
As far as that may apply to yourself – I respect your right to choose “not to abort”."<<

If there's more than one subjective opinion -- another, for example, that contradicts what you've expressed -- how do we know which one's the right one? Do we have available to us an objective standard of measurement by which we can determine the rightness and wrongness of competing views on morality?

>>"Thus the subjective opinion imposes no demand by me upon any “choice” you wish to make in regard to your own body."<<

That's precisely what's at issue. The "little one", or "foetus", has his *body* ripped apart, sucked out and discarded in a garbage bin. You don't seem to be aware of what you're saying.

>>"I do not presume to force you to abort. If I did, what you suggest would make sense."<<

No Nazi presumed to force you to eliminate any Jews. Does that mean it was their prerogative to exercise their "final solution"?

>>"Since my subjective opinion endeavours to enshrine “choice” with you, suggesting anything would be imposed upon you by codifying my “subjective opinion” into law – is nonsense!"<<

It would impose on me the requirement to stand aside and allow a holocaust perpetrated against the most innocent and defenceless of people to be carried out unopposed. It would also implicate me indirectly in mass murder by using my tax dollars to fund this gruesome, murderous industry. It would very much be imposing your depraved and benighted (im)morality on me and so would be raping my conscience.

Thanks Brazuca for finally coming out of the closet as yet another godbotherer presuming to impose their subjective beliefs on everyone else. At least we now know that we are unlikely to get any sensible debate from you, and we can frame our dialogue with you accordingly - rather than providing answers for your inane questions.

Although there's little point in saying so to someone whose mind is constrained by the straitjacket of religious faith, may I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here - subjectively, you have decided to abdicate your own moral authority to that prescribed by your religion. While you talk about an embryo as if it is a human being (which it isn't - in law, in science or anywhere except in the minds of you and your cohorts) that has "God-given rights" (ignoring the fact that both your god and those rights were devised by people), that is your subjective belief, presumably based on a worldview that you've acquired since you were born. There is absolutely nothing 'objective' about any of that.

Although I accept that objective truth is perhaps an unattainable goal, at least science strives towards it, while adherents to anachronistic religions seek aggressively to drag us back to the Dark Ages, when theocracy ruled and superstition was its henchman.

"Brazuca" is now added to my list of godbothering correspondents to these forums whose contributions will only be read for entertainment value.

Morgan