"mcrwhite" says "Indeed, the only debate that really needs to take place over the issue of abortion is: when does life begin?".

Well, not quite - the debate is when does the agglomeration of human cells that constitutes a foetus become a person? Clearly, the extreme positions on this are (a) from conception and (b) from parturition. As personhood is a sociocultural rather than a biological construct, the point at which a foetus becomes a person will differ according to the beliefs and values of the observer.

As the extreme positions are entrenched, what we need to do as a society is arrive at a point in pregnancy when, by negotiated agreement, we determine that the foetus has become a person. Clearly, proponents of extreme positions are not going to be happy about that, but that's really their problem - such is the nature of democracy, I'm afraid.

Once a compromise position that is acceptable to the majority of Australian voters is established, then it would be quite easy to limit e.g. Medicare-funded abortions to legally defined foetuses.

When it comes to abortion it seems to me that most correspondents don't come to this debate honestly: rather, they just want to shout down anybody who doesn't agree with their position. I note that in these forums those who take a rigid "pro-life" position tend to do so by reference to Christian dogma or unsupported assertions of what they believe to be true.

Dogma is not debate.

Morgan

Gee fancy that the same old rabid right wingers spewing their dogma trying to make everyone conform to their religious position. While everyone else failing at a impossible task i.e. making the so called “pro-lifers” respect other peoples rights. If the so called pro-lifers are true to form they will go on to tells as the death penalty is not murder.

I say to the so called pro-lifers that if they believe abortion is wrong then don’t have one. That goes for you to Timmy I respect your right not to have a abortion.

"the only debate that really needs to take place over the issue of abortion is: when does life begin?"

A foetus, at least in its first trimester, is biologically little more than a bunch of cells. Surely a foetus can't be considered a living being until it's heart and lungs are sufficiently developed to enable it to breathe and its heart to beat. A foetus removed from its mother in the first trimester would have no chance of survival. This is not life.

mcrsmith, if you believe file begins at conception thats your belief, and not a fact. Don't impose your anti-choice beliefs onto others. Pro-choice believers don't do that to you. As kenny pointed out, if you disagree with abortion, nobody is going to force you to have one.

Anyone following these postings will realise which way I view this issue - of course it is the womans' right !

It is a womans issue "only" in that abortion is a procedure never required by men.

More importantly the "underlying issue" is should one person have the right to impose their will on another person in how that other person will treat their own body (regardless of gender), or will individual sovereignty be respected?

It might not sound like much but "individual sovereignty" is at the heart of democracy - it is why we no longer kow-tow to "the divine right of kings" and no longer accept the horror of the "inquisition" as acceptable methods of maintaining social order and the status quo.

Do not turn yout back or wish it away without realising what you are surrendering.


and mcrwhite - "religious fundamentalism" is the cognitive option chosen by a minority of the population.
That you would wish to deny someone elses "cognitive option" to "choose an abortion" would have some merit if you were to accept that they have a right to deny you your choice to find expression through being a "religious fundamentalist"

Now basing the options available to a secular society on
the demands of a minority of religious fundamentalists
lacks both respect and tolerance for the rights of individuals to self determination.
(but we all knew that anyway - "fundamentalist tolerance" is an oxymoron).

Okay Falcon, you propose your layman's 'belief' that life begins when a foetus can support itself. If this is your criteria for 'life', how do you define the status of a crucially injured person needing a machine to take every breath for them? How is your definition consistent?

Let's look at some slightly more expert views:
(Note: These statements are taken from embryology/biology textbooks)
Dr Keith L Moore: "The cell results from fertilization of a oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being"
Doctors J. P. Greenhill and E.A Friedman: "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life"
Doctors E.L Potter and J.M Craig (Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant): "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition".

Of course, I could provide many more of theses statements, but am conscious of the word limit!

Perhaps your pro-choice 'beliefs' should be influenced by a bit of fact

Col, you ask: “Should one person have the right to impose their will on another person in how that other person will treat their own body (regardless of gender), or will individual sovereignty be respected?”

You have fundamentally twisted the issue here. Firstly, it is not just about ‘our own bodies’ and we don’t have total freedom to use our bodies as we wish in any situation. Laws against discrimination limit one’s right to choose to treat others unfairly. We do not advocate a man’s right to choose to rape a woman because ‘hey, it’s his body and he can choose what he wants”. All of these situations involve innocent victims, therefore the law steps in to protect. Secondly, individual sovereignty is thankfully not just about rights, but about our greater responsibilities.

Yes, I’m a woman, but thankfully I can see past the selfish argument we have turned it into: "no one can tell me what I can do with MY body- no matter who gets hurt in the process!" Are we really so “immature and irrational that we cannot stand nine months of inconvenience in order to bring life to another person, or to bring happiness, perhaps, to some other family who might adopt that child?” (Rosemary Bottcher: “Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion”) I hope not.

“Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property, and indeed I am apt to be held responsible if such people injure themselves while on my property. It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from my property when I know that doing so will result in his death” (Mary Anne Warren- Pro Choice philospher)