Enaj, am with you 100%. Some men ( and I certainly don't mean all male posters on this site, because some have brought some great support and insights, sans judgement) have this thing about the womb and how we should wear it, that women have the responsibility, outside of contraception. Some women may have 6 abortions, some men have spread their seed too much, but never is it judged that they should have a vasectomy over self-enforced celibacy. Get over the moral thing about why women become pregnant and stop judging why we have abortions. If guys want to have more control over women having abortions, well start whacking on a condom! And taking a bit of responsibility over birth control before you want a say on the abortion issue. Women don't moralise about what you do with your joystick. Otherwise the premarital world would be full of head jobs!

Pt1
Somewhat disappointed that this thread has kicked on but “The semantics of embryo research and human cloning” thread ended up just being between Deuc and myself.
BTW I’m not a Bible basher I’m actually a secular humanist. Aslan we are on the same side on this one, go figure. I’m also an ethical moral relativist so I’m not saying either side is either morally right or wrong, just looking at to what degree they are consistent in their moral arguments.

To summarize we debated from my point of view.

In the West those that have legal abortions are inconsistent in that if they use personhood to decide whether a human entity has equal moral consideration but they also grant personhood rights to born humans with infants, the mentally handicapped and some elderly who don’t have functional personhood, but deny it to unwanted unborn humans.

If we experiment/use/kill them we should to be consistent, also be able to experiment/use/kill these born non-persons. This is not accepted by the Pro-Choice therefore they are inconsistent.

We value human life as a fundamental moral consideration, we don’t go around saying such-and-such just saved 10 human persons/personhoods we say we saved human lives.

When it comes to fundamental moral precepts we don’t accept ones that are arbitrary or aren’t universal. Saying I value this unborn and no one should harm it because I want it but if it weren’t wanted you can go ahead is plainly arbitrary.

We have limited right to even our own bodies (selling body parts etc) and what we do with our bodies he highly constrained when it involves harming others.

We give responsibility to individuals who knowing take part in an action even if the result has only a small chance of happening when it involves potential or actual harm to others.

This is the only situation I’m aware of where a healthy human life can be taken, only one side of the equation is given consideration and no responsibility for taking part in the action that was directly linked to the event happening is give to that party.

Pt 2
If fairness and equal consideration is applied to both the man and the woman either the woman gives up the sole right for the birth to be terminated or gives up the right to force the man to financially contribute.( Let alone any consideration for the unborn.) BTW if as a community we allow the woman the right to terminate that should allow the male to forgo financial responsibility and we as a community must pick up the tab.

My question for the pro-choice if we don’t want to be arbitrary on a fundamental moral precept of valuing human life (all things being equal) -which any parent who wants a child clearly shows to their unborn- why not give the baby up for adoption?

I’ve already conceded to Duec that I believe that I think moral decisions are largely non-rational with some objectivity throw in (infact I don’t think morality can be both complete and consistent) and that I would diverge with some strong pro-lifers in that I would terminate a human life it were with large genetic defects/diseases.

Enaj,

So opinion polls are irrelevant unless they happen to support abortion?

I don't know whether youre "competent, intelligent, responsible, fully conscious" but you do seem to be very selfish. Youre not just deciding for yourself - youre deciding for your unborn child, who didn't get a say.

The idea of a woman killing her (and her partner's) child because she decides that she doesn't want it, is appalling.

Reason,

Was the crying baby left in a kidney dish after an abortion at Darwin Private Hospital not a human being? Or the numerous others who have actually survived an abortion? See for eg:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/survivors.asp

If not, then when does a baby become a human being? Premature babies have been born around the time when many abortions are performed, and still survived.

Di,

Agree that men need to take more responsibility for their actions. Indeed, in many cases women seek abortions because their men refuse to support them in raising the child and/or pressure them into aborting.

However, I never "sowed my seed" before I got married and have never had any extra-marital affair, so by your own standard I have every right to speak on the abortion issue.

Re Not pushing one's own morals onto others

This accusation made by a few posters is silly. The idea that it is wrong to "push one's own morals onto others" is itself clearly a moral belief, hence the whole idea is self-defeating.

A true relativist can only say "I think it is wrong for ME to push MY beliefs onto others", but this does not exclude others from pushing their beliefs onto the relativist.

Problem is that the people who make this argument think that their views should be my views as well ie. they are want to force their views onto me. Indeed, Natasha's bill is doing exactly this! She is trying to legislatively enforce her morality on everyone!

BTW, free choice regarding abortion won't save these women from breast cancer. You can vote away laws but you can't vote away the resulting consequences...

Enaj – I agree with you

One thing we are is individuals.

We are not the chattels of some greater society.

An embryo is not an autonomous entity (individual), it is an extension of the mother, until such time as the mother gives birth. A child is post-birth and although helpless, is able to be cared for by someone else – an embryo is an exclusively dependent extension of the pregnant woman in whose body it is developing.

Neohuman –

“My question for the pro-choice if we don’t want to be arbitrary on a fundamental moral precept of valuing human life (all things being equal) -which any parent who wants a child clearly shows to their unborn- why not give the baby up for adoption?”

Simple – a pregnancy is not without risk, discomfort or stress. Most importantly, it may not be what the individual woman wants – and she is the one who matters – it is her choice to proceed or not – her body and her responsibility alone to decide – it is not up to some third party who gets their jollies from imposing their interpretation of morality upon her.

As for

“We have limited right to even our own bodies (selling body parts etc) and what we do with our bodies he highly constrained when it involves harming others.”

We have absolute right to do what we want with our body including abuse them with drugs (use of drugs is not an offence – possession is) or pierce of tattoo them as we wish – the matter of selling body parts is to prevent the commercial exploitation of those who might want to “sell” a kidney (or whatever), noting there is nothing illegal about a living person 'donating' say a kidney to someone else (surgically removed and relocated from the donor and into the recipients body) -

Curbing commercial exploitation was the reason for the criminalisation of abortions in the mid 19th century - nothing to do with the embryo.

Aslan, Boanerges
That is my simple point – when is a baby a new life? Some state at the moment of conception, some raise instances where there was breath taken when as some say ‘ripped’ from the womb.

I do not judge this as it is an impossible question to answer.

As to erring on the side of caution – life. Well that entails some individual choice. Who’s caution? That also depends on one’s point of view. All your examples notwithstanding, the point at which a life becomes independent and human is and probably always will be very contentious.

I am not taking a stand on this. Call me a fence sitter but it’s not my place to say. I believe that the only person to ultimately make that choice is the person carrying the ultimate burden – the woman. They are the ones who eventually live with the consequences.

I think it is very important for a man and woman to discuss the matter – both carry the burden of creating the situation. And a good man will stand by the woman once his input and opinion is known – but he will not and I believe should not force a position on her – as should no one else.

The pro-life lobby claim to be speaking for the rights of the unborn. If that be the case, perhaps the pro-lifers should be the ones who take on the child after birth – if it ever gets to that. When every unwanted pregnancy has a happy, reliable home to go to, then we can discuss the matter further.