"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"

Meg, that is not for me alone to decide, but society in general.
Your life is simple. If Cardinal Pell says its ok, then its ok by
you. I try to take a more philosophical and reasoned approach, then be dictated to by any church which it seems, might want to outbreed another church.

Its time that you asked yourself some crucial questions. How many billions of humans on this planet are sustainable? Do a few thousand remaining chimps and bonobos have a right to a bit of space too? For thats all that is left, as the human population grows and grows, destroying their habitat in the process.

You might be getting all emotional about some Time-Life pics, but reality prevails, even if we close our eyes and wish things to be different.

At the moment we watch on tv, as people stuff live poultry into bags and bury them alive around the world. Nobody says boo. These are thinking, feeling creatures! Yet you get all emotional about a bunch of dividing human cells, just because they contain human dna.
No feeling, no thinking, just dividing cells. Is it impossible for you to care about other species too?

RU486? RU486?

Our pollies in WW1 and WW11 sent our sons and daughters many of whom did not return. These pollies were mostly men and they did not give a backward glance at the thousands of our children slaughtered during these wars. The same can be said of the 5 women who lobbied to have RU486 bill heard and passed in Parliament. They have just allowed millions of potential babies to be flushed down the toilet. Is this what we the majority of women in Australia believe. That life is worthless. Send it off to be killed in war or flush it down the toilet. Will these minorities give a backward glance to all the children destroyed by this drug.

Once again the loud minority has spoken for the silent majority. How long will this continue in this country. Poiltical correctness, RU486, gay marriages when will it end. Our moral fibre is being erroded by the loud majority and many laws are being passed because we the silent majority are just that silent, for fear of looking politically incorrect or too moralistic or too religious

Hamlet “Yabby, where does 'personhood' begin?”

When “personhood begins” is an arguable point.

It is also irrelevant.

The point about abortion is, the embryo / foetus, whilst its exact position on the journey to “personhood” is not a separate “person”.

The embryo / foetus is a dependent person. It is totally and entirely dependent upon one particular person, the woman in whose body it is developing.

It might be “personhood” but it is not a "separate personhood". Separation does not occur until the moment of birth.

Why should the woman have the right to abort this possible "personhood"?
Well, it is her body at “risk” and she is not a slave to the embryo / foetus "personhood".

The woman is not a slave to the embryo / foetus, therefore the embryo / foetus should not have rights which prevail over the woman’s rights.

Any rights which any one may wish to ascribe to a embryo / foetus cannot be equal with the woman, since the woman has developed to a point of independence and is not physically dependent upon any one specific persons bodily resources to survive.

Any rights, therefore which can be ascribed to an embryo / foetus are subordinate to the sovereign rights of the woman, until the process of separation (birth) is complete and when the moment at which total dependence on one particular person is relieved.

Meg1 “Free will necessitates responsibility”
and who are you to judge when someone is not being “responsible” in the exercise of their freewill (especially as you will not even know the names of every woman who might seek abortion, let alone their reasoning)?

Such a decisions is between them and the God of their faith (not yours).

corrupt?NO!, “They have just allowed millions of potential babies to be flushed down the toilet”

So you want to force women to remain pregnant against their will? Are they cattle and fit only for breeding?

“. Is this what we the majority of women in Australia believe.” – YES

“Once again the loud minority has spoken for the silent majority.” I think you will find that there was actually a majority of the parliament of our law makers in favour of the amendment to relieve the Minister of Health form the burden to veto use of this drug.

Noting, this drug will not increase the number of abortions sought (merely provide an alternative process).

“Political correctness, RU486, gay marriages when will it end. Our moral fibre is being erroded by the loud majority”

Well you cannot have it both ways,
Look on the bright side, at least, gays will not need RU486 or surgical abortions

Well its like this the loud majority should prevail and your silent minority (you used the wrong word there (not “majority”, you cannot have two opposing “majorities”) have to accept the will of the majority.

btw, stick around, although I might seem to counter everything you say, you can be reassured, “political correctness”, the other thing you were whining about is not in my vocabulary, I like to indulge in “political incorrectness” at every opportunity.

As for the erosion of our moral fibre try allbran or metamusal, that’s packed with fibre.

Finally as for “too moralistic or too religious”

Since the lid came off the cesspool, the “religious” have been found to be far from “moral”.
In fact the preference for choir boys by many of the religious leaders from an array of denominations would suggest that “gay” is the order of the day, that is to say nothing of the plain old nasty paedophiles who would put it anywhere and who got recycled by the bishops into other unsuspecting parishes when their corrupt antics were causing too many ripples.

May God protect all the children from all who claim to be “moral and religious”.

Col

While I often find you arrogant and reactionary, and I still choke at your unprovoked insults to me when I lost my job last year, I do admire literate and succinct expression.

In fact, on the subject of abortion you have not only saved me from the necessity of responding to 'those who would control our lives', but provided a great deal of entertainment at the same time. You have people like Meg1, simply repeating themselves. So I do have to doff my cap to you on this occasion.

If I vehemently disagree with you - I will not hesitate to let you know, but in this instance you have displayed a remarkable degree of understanding (for such a rugged individualist) of the difficulties and moral anguish faced by women with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

Cheers

Dianne

Yabby, you are understandably very emotional about the loss of evolving relatives here, but you neglect to accept that many species have, in the normal process of Darwin’s 'theory' of evolution…become extinct…long before man was around to blame for it all. You can’t have it both ways. If you accept that the dominant species rules and survives (i.e., anti-lifers over unborn children) then the same applies to chimps or any other species.

Incidentally, I do not support the indiscriminate killing of any species (i.e., removal of their homes – the womb qualifies here), especially when the purpose is largely driven by greed of those who will benefit financially in the short term at the long term expense of others.

Since both the mother and child will suffer in the short and long-term, while the abortionists receive lucrative fees and government payments for supposedly counseling these women before, as well as then aborting their babies – I have to question the suitability and contradiction in both these ‘services’ being controlled by those who stand to gain financially from their barbaric activities.

Are they held responsible for the burden of cost, financial and psychological, when increasingly these women are unable to conceive or carry a wanted child to term, or for the many other ‘silent’ traumas caused in the long-term?

I make up my own informed mind about this and other issues that I hold opinions on and are prepared to defend, Yabby. It’s you who won’t face the Time Life pics or anything else that presents facts that contradict your own rigid mindset. ‘Reality’ will prevail whether you face it or not.

Despite your judgmental attitude to pro-lifers, it is you who rejects any contention that others have the right to the best information and support…or to differ in their views to your own.

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

Col, don’t mis-quote to suit your own contradictory ramblings-my quote is repeated above. Responsibility comes with the privilege of exercising free speech and democracy for us all.