"With RU486, the issue of late term abortions is irrelevant. RU486 is designed to return abortions to the ‘backyard’ – at home, out of sight, out of mind - with NO medical care and the resultant risks.
This ‘morning after pill’ is designed to be taken after a night’s misadventure before pregnancy tests are possible."

Sheesh Meg, as a Catholic you clearly know nothing about contraception of abortion :)

RU 486 is not a morning after pill. The morning after pill is simply a higher dose of the normal pill. RU 486 is taken instead of surgical termination, under supervision of a doctor. At least those
poor women might not have to face the ignorant placard wavers outside the clinics anymore. RU 486 is 10 times safer then pregnancy. There ya go Meg, lots of noise from you, but clearly you are confused :)

Now to cheer you up even more! Your dna is closer to a chimp or bonobo, then a chimp or bonobo to a gorilla. Your haemoglobin is identical to theirs, in all 287 units. There is no part of the brain that you have that they don't have, its just a matter of some bits being larger. So get used to it Meg, they are long lost ancestors to all of us including you :)

Coraliz has answered the tax question very well, I don't need to add anything

Meg1 wrote “you better hope your children don't want your estate enough to use the same rational when 'debating' your worth in your dotage”

I replied “try to stay away from your “lowlife scumbag troll comments” “

you respond “to discredit himself completely, but still no rational thoughts.”

I said previous “or I will be unable to resist a more appropriate response.”

I am still resisting but you are testing that restraint.

“Individual sovereignty” acknowledges the priority of right of the first occupant of a body (the woman) over any claim which might arise from subsequent, subordinate occupants (foetus).

That is part of my reasoned argument, argue that or are you going to prattle on with more inane “still no rational thoughts.” ?

Unless someone kow-tows to your will, they will never have any credibility with you. Unless someone subjugates themselves to your dogma, you will damn them.

I can live with that. I neither need, want nor seek your approval

Thank God the inquisition is over and the authority of the papists destroyed. Such evil represented a low point in human socio-political development which should have seen the whole corrupt system broken up (Henry VIII and the Church of England was a good start but he never finished the job and the rest of Europe continued to suffer for generations).

I am happy to challenge your reasonless drivel.

I am quite content to let you make a fool of yourself with your inane declarations of your own self righteous importance.
I take delight in pointing out where you are behaving like a lowlife scumbag troll.

In short, Meg1, if I could help elevate you alot, you would still be beneath contempt.


Coraliz “fair and equitable account of the right to choose and the reasons for such rights”

Thank you, some things are too important to be left to government and that is where I see this debate as being, about individual sovereign rights versus the demands of repressive socio-political theocracies (run by a bunch of misogynist in drag).

I concur with your comments re the tax status of churches..

Coraliz, your blinkered mis-reading missed the bits you can’t answer. My comment on tax indicated we are ALL forced to support (through funding in this instance) things we don't condone.

Check the meaning of contra-ception…prevention of conception. RU486 is administered after the fact and has potential for significant risk to the mother. (Nine documented deaths in Western countries from RU486 alone).

My concern for women avoids pressuring them, at possibly the most vulnerable point in their lives, to abort - thereby compounding their problems and ignoring their need. Medical and psychological effects of abortion, surgical or otherwise are documented and long term.

I argued it is preferable to support these women, not only through the pregnancy, but also the problems they face…hardly insensitive.

Inaccuracies on statistics of death in pregnancy ignore the fact there will always be women with high-risk conditions who choose to have children – or serious illnesses that can coincidentally or otherwise present during pregnancy.

Pregnant women are sometimes killed by deranged partners, would you suggest mandatory AI and a ban on partnerships too?

Statistical deaths, risks and complications from abortion are incomplete by their very nature. You omit recorded statistics on mortality of the unborn – 100,000 Australians annually.

You presented classic examples of the use of engineered statistics.

Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically ridiculed with childish name-calling and slurs on their beliefs-very mature.

RE: confessing – I confess to God and am answerable to him. My forgiveness is dependent on my sincerity, not the frequency of my visits to the priest.

Yabby, any of those creatures would have more regard for its kind than you have shown, least of all to women. None deliberately destroy unborn of its kind, rather they are nurturers, so I guess you just haven’t evolved to their level yet.

Col as usual has a problem with the meaning of words, so he writes his own definitions. Incidentally, I don’t damn anyone, nor does God, you have free will and you choose eternal damnation or life for yourself.

I am awaiting your challenge, so far it’s been inane insults.

Yabby wrote:

Credo, a person has a functioning human brain. A dead person is no longer a person, its a corpse. A fetus is an organism, not yet a person. Tell me where the semantics of that is wrong.

Unquote:

Can I ask how you define 'person'? Is a foetus who cries for 45 minutes after being aborted - feeling pain, breathing, heart beating - as happened in a Darwin hospital - less of a person than a newborn 'baby' who cries, feels pain, but who is nurtured to maturity?

Or do you suggest that a 'person' only comes into existence when a human organism is capable of expressing an idea or concept?

Yabby, where does 'personhood' begin? Or should we just let premature babies die because they are not yet 'persons' or allow mothers to kill their newborns because they are not yet 'persons'?

Yabby, I fear that you will have to look around for a new definition, particularly as an abortion doctor has recently been charged with manslaughter in NSW because the 'not person' breathed whilst in the toilet bowl after the procedure, and a driver was found guilty of 'dangerous driving occaisioning death' when what you consider was a 'non-person' was 'killed' during a car accident.

"Can I ask how you define 'person'?"

Hamlet, I'm not the first one to think about that question, there is alot of discussion about it on the net. One cannot compare a 6 or even 12 week old fetus with a 32 week old baby and the huge difference is exactly in brain development. Its changed from a heap of dividing cells into a baby. Week 29-30 are seen as when that
has fully taken place.

Thats why my continuing point regarding abortion, much along the lines of what many European countries have implemented. ie. abortion in the first 12 weeks, up to the end of the first tremester, should be freely available. Any talk at this point of murdering babies and other emotive rhetoric is exactly that, but factually nonsense.

After that there would need to be sound reasons in place for abortions. I don't think that partial birth abortions as practised in America are acceptable.

RU 486 is best used around 6 weeks IIRC, so once again, all the emotive language from the anti abortion lobby is nonsense.

Yabby, again, one set of rules for yourself and another for us mere mortals…or evolving chimps as you prefer.

How about your views on destruction of comparatively aged chimps and other creatures of earth…are you more protective of their lives than that of the human species?

If abortion is ok, i.e., it is ok to destroy human life, who are you to decide at what stage it is ok, or not. When I put forward one viewpoint, you hurl abuse and insults, yet all should accept YOUR word on that basis alone. Only you should decide the cut off point when life is of value – isn’t that despotic, dictatorial? Isn’t that shoving your views down our throats?, “its unacceptable”…well, well!

Once respect for the value of life is lost at any stage, ALL stages of life become valued accordingly, usually beginning with the more vulnerable sectors of society…the unborn, elderly, disabled, victims of mental disorders, the list goes on…until the individual has no control over the decision to end life – instead that decision is left to society to rate and decide, sound familiar?

Incidentally, you should get hold of Time Life’s supplement on unborn life photographed within the womb - produced some 25 years ago. It will debunk your assertions about the development of life in the first trimester.

You might also read the early history of the US abortion industry as written by Bernard Nathanson, a self-proclaimed killer who gradually came to the realization that he had overseen the killing of thousands of unborn children. He came face to face with one such baby, perfectly formed and struggling for life within its tiny sac after being removed from its mother’s body. The photo is shown in the Time Life supplement mentioned above. Dr Nathanson is now an advocate for life, arguing against abortion.

You might also give due credit to pro-lifers generally. Other Christian religions follow the teachings of CHRIST and are pro-life as are many non-Christians.

Free will necessitates responsibility to educate ourselves with facts, not clichés, generalisations and hyperbole or the 'emotive' language of anti-lifers.