Francis, many thanks for underlining the point I made about logic vs emotion with your little outburst:

>>Despite the rantings of the apostles of the culture of death, when it all boils down abortion is surely the ULTIMATE in child abuse. It's a hateful, violent act. It's interesting to ask the culture of death mob at what stage of the baby's development they would draw the line or do they support late-term abortions: how about the day before baby is due?<<

"Apostles of the culture of death". Hmmm, nice ring to it.

Mind you, Jana Banana comes close with:

>>Our bodies contain microscopic particles that only science can confirm with the latest technologies. Each time we invent a new microscope we see another form of micrposcoic particles all known as life. It is beyond our scientific capablities to make that judgement.<<

And these "micrposcoic particles" are what, Jana? New life forms? Name those, please, that were discovered with the most recent microscope that we "invented".

I'd steer clear of those little blue pills if I were you.

I'm still fascinated with the image of the company chaplain, sending the soldiers off with the exhortation "don't forget boys, thou shalt not kill"

I guess consistency doesn't matter when God is on your side.

"Mr President, what's your position on Roe vs Wade?"

"I'm not bothered, as long as they got safely out of New Orleans"

In Australia the mother is responsible for feeding, rearing, clothing and educating her child. If she has support from her partner - well and good. Our society provides very little support for women rearing children.

I am shocked that the senator who is most outspoken in his anti-abortion sentiments has been outed by The Australian of Saturday February 4th that showed a photo of his aprtment block which is readily identifiable as being in Fitzroy St, St Kilda. Although the article said that he is "tango loving" I am surprised that he lives in an apartment block for single adults in the gay, drug and prostitute hub of Melbourne. The senator's choice of abode smacks of hipocrisy. I would think that a person who has named a woman who had a late term abortion in Parliament would, by the age of 39, be married with a number of children.

KRS1,

You have the gall to call Francis a liar and then follow her around demeaning everything she says. Have you got anything to say or are you the bully girl/boy.

Francis,

Nice work, ignore KRS1. It (KRS1) is not worth it.

I'm pro-life but ultimately it's the woman's decision. So be it.

KRS1 I invite you to debate me on any subject.

If disregarding the value of life is a sign of society’s moral decline, then I fear that this species, as a whole has never achieved a moral society.

the wistful belief that the past was somehow 'more moral' seems to stem more from a nostalgic desire for authority rather than morality, a state of tutelage in which the authority of the church justifies what we now understand to be essentially immoral.

in a related issue, the reaction to the appointment of dr Fraser as aussie of the year and the subsequent focus on his vaccine for cervical cancer has produced some reactions from pro-life groups and politicians (notably abbot and Joyce), which I would describe as both disgusting and morally reprehensible.

Joyce’s comments that he would oppose a free vaccine as it would encourage pre-marital sex highlights a point Pericles was making (I think) that the actual moral outcome of the pro-life position is expedient to their position. If we extend Joyce’s logic what do we have? STDS are a good deterrent? Is adherence to the abstinence policy more important than a real examination of the morality of the outcome?

More importantly is the possible deterrence (im sceptical of the causality implied anyway) of a few teenagers more moral than the chance the rid every woman from this point on from the stress and stigma of hpv, not to mention a potentially deadly cancer.

Simple question people. which is the moral outcome.

Remember assumed authority does not equate morality.

Rachel
"There's even a link between the increased availability of abortion and a decrease in crime, due to a smaller number of "unwanted" children being born."

Let's apply that same rationale to another situation.

Hypothesis: 'People living in a city ghetto are more likely to commit crime than the people living in a middle class suburbian area'.

Solution - Section off the ghetto and 'abort' all the people using a painless gas. We could hence argue a reduction in crime has been achieved, giving healthy benefits to the whole society! However, as I'm sure you noticed, we forgot about the dead group of people, whose quality of life happened to be greatly reduced :).

In abortion, we violently remove the next generations right to life for reasons that (appear to) make the lives of our generation more comfortable. Let's never forgot the true price that is paid for the crime-drop (We could kill every baby that is born = Future 0% crime rate!). Personally I'd rather spend more a bit more of the budget on policing.

Col Rouge
"Whose selfishness, the woman involved who decides to act according to her own judgement, knowledge of her motives and circumstances or your selfishness in judging her conduct without knowledge to her motives and circumstances?"

Take a couple who make the judgement call that they no longer believes bringing their 1 year old into the world was right, because of the world is becoming way too dangerous with terrorism. So they painlessly kill baby. What would a court of law say? They would either be institutionalised for a non-sound state of mind, or jailed because the 'reasons' are just justifications of underlying selfish motives.

Anomie
"Let's say we follow your reasoning, and don't act until the potential abortion is old enough to vote. We then ask what should have happened. What if he or she says "Yeah, I wish you'd aborted me"? How do you propose to do it retroactively?"

Anomie, please never decide to counsel depressed teenagers. Anyway for arguments sake lets say a young person does think that.
- CONT

They can suicide if they REALLY want to die. However the reality is most people, including you and me, enjoy life. Using surrounding evidence, it is most likely the person surviving the abortion will be very grateful, rather than bitter and twisted.

Scout
"Pro-lifers people who care about the well-being of actual living breathing humans? Or are they people who care only for the viability of a foetus?"
This is casting aspersions which are utterly baseless. See my response to original article above.

Will response to other comments l8r, running outta words.

Coraliz
"Justin86 deem it selfish to elect to have an abortion then why not go one small (very small) step further and condemn all those who even use contraception for their killing of potential babies."

A sperm is a cell of the host organism, as is an egg. A zygote + is a self differentiating organism that has its own genetic code. It is its own organism, and it merely uses the mother as a source of nutrients. Not unlike a post-natal baby who requires its mother for breast milk, otherwise it will die.

Pericles

LOL! To say that pro-choice is logical and pro-life is emotional is a bit rich. What about "I had an abortion, and you have no idea what I went through". What is the 'logical' way of assessing when a foetus becomes human. I can agree with you that is it a very emotional debate though, and so it should be I suppose.

"Playing with other people's lives, as the pro-lifers do, by injecting the process with guilt at every opportunity, is simply unacceptable."
Personally, it is never my goal to make someone feel guilt. Guilt is a fruitless emotion. If you'd have an abortion, I am not here to make you feel bad about it. Honest. However I am a big believer that the past doesn't equal the future. If I can persuade someone to empathise from the young ones POV, and this stops them from proceeding with a termination, then I will feel I have had a positive impact through this debate.