My apologies, Anomie. I figured you would realise my comment, “This is your assessment and belief” referred to your assertion that “…what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

My point is that others would disagree with your assertion. I understand you may have been confused over my response when you replied, but understand that you can’t learn anything about people who differ from you by resorting to condescending responses.

“Do not, please, try to dispute what I freely, happily, admit, is the view of highly-acclaimed scientists, who are also believing Christians, by dismissing them as my personal opinion. I, I fear, quote what is established biological fact.”

You assumed I was referring to your statistical reference. I wasn’t.

“And, by the way, what do you understand the word "casuistic" to mean? It is not a derogatory term - casuistry has a far nobler background than you might suspect -it is a means of moral reaoning that looks at matters case by case, not in the hidebound way of those who dismiss all circumstances for the sake of a principle. On that path lies fundamentalism, and all its concomitants.

I assumed you meant ‘casuist’ as defined by The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as referring to one who attempts to resolve cases of conscience by the application of general rules to particular instances, but frequently discloses a conflict of duties? Or the reference to casuistic as plausible but invalid reasoning? Isn't there a hint of derogatory there?…

You have a different definition?

I wasn’t really interested in discussing the etymology of ‘casuistic’, anyway. In any case, I’m glad you’re more interested in the means of ‘moral reasoning that looks at matters case by case’.

So you agree that every individual woman’s circumstances are different, and each case needs individual attention? That many women may seek abortion, and their legal right should not be in question, but many women seeking abortion may want a solution, not necessarily abortion?

At least you've abandoned your ‘screaming carrot’ analogy… ;)

anomie,

I don't think Tracy was disputing your 75% statistic. What she is probably disputing (and what I certainly dispute) is your rhetorical statement "what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

Firstly, what does conception failure have to do with abortion? Nothing!

Secondly, aborted foetuses do not merely "fail to be born" - they are actively killed (murdered). A suction instrument is used to literally tear the baby's body to pieces. I have seen with my own eyes ultrasound imagery of a baby trying like crazy to get away from the sucker.

Later abortions are performed by injecting various chemicals (eg. concentrated saline) into the womb to induce premature birth. I have vivid memories of a documentary made by TV/radio personality Dean Davis of a baby aborted in this way but was still alive, lying in a dish trying to scream because its skin was burnt off. BTW, under Australian criminal law, if the baby is born alive and then left to die this constitutes murder (or at least manslaughter). Aborted babies born alive are, I have heard from people in the industry, not that uncommon.

Still later abortions are partial birth. That's when then bring the baby out legs first (breach) until only the base of the skull is extruded, then they stab it in the back of the head/neck (head is too big to pull out at this age) and when it stops writhing around (ie. when it's for all intents and puropses, dead) then they suck the brains out and the head collapses and drops out.

We treat crazy dogs and stray cats better than this. What a civilised society we live in....

anomie,

Such barbaric behaviour (described above) never goes unpunnished. If we continue to slaughter our unborn we will become a nation of geriatrics with no-one to pay our medical bills.

We will have to bring in more migrants. Where from? The Middle-East and Asia - mostly Muslims. To their credit, Muslims do not slaughter their young and hence their population is growing.

In the coming years, Muslims will outbread the rest of us and they will sieze effective power of government through their population dominance and bring in Sharia Law (like they have done in certain areas of the Philippines). Muslim leaders have said as much. Europe is already a lost cause. It will be as Islamic bloc in 50 years. The demographics demonstrate that this is inevitable - there is almost nothing Europe can do about it.

Anomie, if we have Sharia law, let me assure you that abortion rights will be the very least of your problems.

Aslan's emotive and irrational arguments invite dismissal, if not along the 'screaming carrot' lines that anomie has suggested, then at least from the perspective of objective reason.

The 'screaming foetus' tactic deployed by the god squad, while effective, is entirely disingenuous since it relies on the attribution of humanity and consciousness to a bunch of cells that would otherwise constitute little more than a lump of meat. In objective terms, a foetus is about as human as is a wart.

As for Aslan's attempt to link abortion with our declining birthrate and anti-Islamism, this is an outrageously specious argument. The birthrate has declined for a complex of reasons, including that women no longer see themselves as equivalent to breeding cows and choose to define themselves via roles may or may not include motherhood. The thinly veiled racism in Aslan's anti-Islamist argument is beneath contempt.

I've noticed that Aslan's style of argumentation in these forums is often the expression of a particularly nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. [Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for one week.]

Kathy Woolf wishes Natasha Stott-Despoja was out of step with public opinion - that's why she has written this article. Definitely a case of wishful thinking.

Fact is individual women will continue to decide what is right for them, their futures and their bodies as they have always done. Despite the current swing towards right wing fundamentalism, there will always be a majority of women who will decide for themselves what they choose to do with their lives.

Aslan, who was talking about conception failure? Nobody!

anomie was probably referring to the majority of fertilised eggs that do not result in pregnancy. The relevance to an argument about the ethics of abortion comes from the well known pro-life claim that life begins at conception.

Is it too much to ask that posters confine their anti-Islamic sentiments to one of the many threads that have already degenerated into commentaries about such? Or even better, those threads that have some significant connection to Islamic teachings? Likewise for multiculturalism.

Of those threads with activity in the last two days, I count this as the tenth thread where someone has attacked Islam. There are only seventeen and that doesn't include the "speak out" thread or the "nutbags" threads. OK, they were mostly about Islam, terrorism or Iraq (unlike this thread) but such posts have largely been unrelated to the articles and are increasingly repetitive & vacuous. I'm not suggesting moderation, simply that those who do want to attack Islam en masse choose to do so in a single thread and in a manner that is forthright, even-handed and factual.