DavidJS,
you raise a valid point in your question about "murder". I suspect though that your motives have more to do with wishing to inflame sentiment than with seeking truth.

I'm kind of in the middle of the debate at the moment, I am not currently convinced that an early stage foetus is a distinct human being but am dismayed at the double standards applied in other aspects of the debate (women who want all the say regarding the choice to continue with a pregnancy or not yet expect men to be financially responsible if they choose to proceed - and no I am not personally impacted by that scenario).

It appears from the sidelines that the "pro-choice" lobby are very difficult to engage in detailed debate on this issue. They appear to prefer emotive loadings and the use of language which inflames the situation.

Maybe the "right to life" crowd are searching for less explosive language in order to have a better chance at debating the issue on it's merit's or maybe it is expediency in a world where the "pro-choice" crowd appear to hold the upper hand.

There is also the possibility that some might see it as wrong but not in the same degree of wrong as murder. We have plenty of other situations where people allow for killing not being murder.
- manslaughter
- official execution (not current in Australia)
- killing in self defence
- war related killing

Fiona, Di,
I haven’t actually heard of an abortion clinic going out of business, so maybe abortion clinics could be defined in six words:- “Money, Money, Money….Money, Money, Money”. (and possibly abortion clinics couldn’t really care if their clients are female or male, as long as they have a Medicare card, or preferably private health insurance).

Now maybe I’m being too pragmatic about it all, by regarding unwanted pregnancy as a type of health issue, but why is it that there is such a comparatively high rate of abortion?

This seems to be a mystery, but clues can be found at
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

IE
“Since 1994, we've had three long-acting, very effective, forms of birth control, which have been available to the rest of the world – the Western world – but not Australia. We're very slow at taking up these issues, or these forms of birth control, so that that's why we appear to be lagging the rest of the world in abortion rates comparatively”

“And for instance, in 2000, from about 2000-2003, or 2002, the abortion rate began to rise again because of net overseas migration. In other words, the Federal Government were bringing in large numbers of women, in particular between 20 and 30, to bolster up the workforce, and these women, particularly from northern Asia, have a high uptake of abortion as a preferred method of birth control, as a back up to failed condom use, etc.”

So high abortion rates maybe a matter of not using more reliable forms of contraception, and differences in attitudes towards abortion by different ethnic groups

Will these issues ever be properly investigated, and any problems solved, if these issues become totally confused and distorted by politics (either political politics, or gender politics being advanced by people who appear not to want these issues properly investigated at all, but instead like to make generalised, maligning or “castigating” comments about “men”, “fathers”, “blokes” etc).

Probably not.

PS. I think feminists like to try and manipulate and exploit women, and castrate men. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3116#3999

Timkins, I don't know you and I don't know "Di", but I do know that you haven't responded to a single thing I have said.

The question posed by the article related to why bother raising abortion as an item of public debate and that any outcome is likely to be a fizzer - this moves to the fact that Fed Parliament only controls Medicare payments & that state courts have established the stalled application of existing State abortion laws (abortion = murder / women's rights over unborn) etc etc.

The likes of John Murphy feel compelled to raise this matter as it is fundamentally important - do we wish to promote (and subsidise) a culture of death. The fact that such a principled position needs to be spelled out to the community is in itself a worry, as is the fact that people lampoon such a view.

This debate need not be a fizzer - people need time to assess & re-evaluate events and place 'new' ideas/ practices in a historical context. If we re-examine this issue & find the outcomes wanting could we adopt a different position? Just what is the message? Is life merely a commodity that can be chosen according to economic value (cf intrinsic?) or does medication & medical procedures make life, marital bonds and families irrelevant?

Reality Check

Let's see if I can get some answer to these questions. A bit of thinking will be required of y'all.

1. Is a Jew a human being?

2. Who decides?

3. And if he is a human being, does he have an inalienable right to life?

1. Yes
2. Other human beings living in a civil society (and their prospective mothers)
3. Yes, unless he/she is proved to be a serial killer in a civil society where there is capital punishment.

But what has that to do with “abortion debate won't result in any change”?