RobP “I reckon your arguments are getting spuriouser and spuriouser.”

Then that should make it easier for you to challenge their reasoning – so why don’t you?

“What happens about midterm in pregnancy when the child starts kicking inside its mother? I'd put it to you that it's a separate entity then.”

Well you have answered that yourself – “inside its mother” tends to negate any assertion of “separateness”.

Re “physical and spiritual connections.”

I guess the embryo / foetus is making a physical connection – but only with the mother, within whom and by the grace of whom it exists but from “inside the mother” its “physical” connections with anything else are somewhat limited, to say the least.

As for “spiritual”, it indicates a subjective religious debate which only muddies the waters and thus, since your subjective concept of “spiritual” likely differs from my subjective concept of “spiritual” we can agree that there is no basis for reason in anyone’s view and thus any debate will be pure hypothesis (and likely pure hyperbole).

Then “allow everything, good and bad, to blur together.”

I think the best thing with any society is to respect the individuals, which it is there to serve, to know best for themselves, decide for themselves and be themselves, rather than the repressed objects of authoritarian socio / religious doctrine.

The world has changed. We are no longer dictated to and placed in order by our class, race, gender, birth right or how close to the front we sit in church.
Neither the parish priest nor local squire nor lord of the manor, hold sway over our individual human progress or that of our families.
The tyranny of Class and Church are broken and will never ever exist again.

Respecting people to make their own choice, despite that the choices they may make offend you, is a good thing. It is the best thing and a massive improvement over the repressive excesses of the authoritarian theocracies which used tools like the inquisition to keep individuals in line and under the papal jackboot

"No religion is as politically active as the Catholics."

yabby, are you sure? noticed anything going on with the evangelicals?

the family first party? the hillsong franchise?

Col's broken class barriers-babble Tell that to retirees, farmers, workers living under $15,000pa while some corporate execs make $35 million+benefits, or even $22 million for stuffing up. Be informed instead of voicing your ignorance on issues that try to justify the easy way out.

Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs as gospel while Tony Abbott is condemned for his beliefs...curioser and curioser. You guys need to practice what you preach.

Any of you prepared to do more than suggest an abortion. Quick, easy for you, cheap! Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?

I've worked with organisations (Catholic and other) who work with and help women and their families for many years. Other than mouthing off, what do Lyn's lapdogs have in mind after the abortion...should we dispose of them as inconvenient too? How close is the next step (like the UK) where every expectant mother MUST have amniocentesis and abort if any evidence of medical or physical abnormality is suggested. Given significant inaccuracy of the test, that still means enforced killing despite the mother's will. What side are you on there? Ask your friends, some doctors already pressure patients to abort here if they have had 'enough' children in the doctor's opinion.

The facts are that what is law becomes accepted and then IS LAW for all. Take China's one child policy, you'd like that...enforced abortions at term if a mother is found to be hiding a pregnancy and does not have permission to have the child or already has her quota of one.

State your real agenda and stop assuming the role of judge and jury in ignorance yourselves, while making assumptions on others because their views differ from your own.

It is interesting that I see there are life-saving drugs issued to older women to prevent recurring of breast-cancer, but denied to young women on the PBS...discrimination, women's rights, why aren't you beating your chests on that one. No this issue seems more like you justifying your own case, that's just how you come across.

Meg, when China instituted a one child policy it was to address a serious population problem. The central planners were undoubtedly draconian in their approach but the alternative was to see the population starve.

I have been told that Malaysian Chinese kids who wouldn't eat their greens were told that in China in times of famine, peasant families would swap babies so that the families wouldn't starve.

Likewise India has implemented strong 2 child policy.

In Australia we do not count the number of births, abortions, employed or unemployed people. In Australia we do not plan, politicians just respond to the loudest lobby group. Thus its up to each individual pregnant woman to judge whether she has the support and resources to give birth and rear the child until adulthood.

In the UK in the 1950s second and subsequent babies were born at home. There was a high still born rate. When births were moved to hospital the still born rate went down but the number of babies born with severe deformities increased. The conclusion to be drawn from this was that midwives were checking the newborns and failing to permit malformed babies to thrive. If the state is paying for the care of the infant then its not unreasonable for the state to suggest termination when severe abnormalities are detected in utero.

As RU486 permits medical abortion to occur earlier than surgical abortion it has to be preferred.

Let’s keep it simple. The basic argument is over when a human being comes into existence.

Does this happen at conception? Does this happen at birth? Or does this happen somewhere in between?

It is likely that most people will answer in the middle - somewhere in between.

Why? Well, some hold that life begins at conception. However there is more emotional evidence to this point of view than factual. After two days, the ‘human being’ being considered has no heart, no brain, no liver, etc, etc. It is easy to agree that this entity is a potential human but an actually human?

Now it would appear that very few will answer that the human comes into existence at the time of birth. Fully formed for a number of months, capable of existing if emergently removed (for any number of reasons), it is unlikely that many will be happy to see the entity as ‘not human’ at this late stage.

This leaves somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, this is a very grey area that not even scientists and medical professionals can agree upon. When does the entity become human?

Some claim at a point when all the organs are formed. But this can be so early that any attempt to remove it at the earliest possible formed stage will lead to near instant death.

Others claim when brain function begins. And what exactly does brain function mean? Emotions? Simple, non-aware biological activity? Again, there is still conjecture as to when this occurs.

So what have we left?

Simple – a choice.

It comes to: Who makes the choice?

Again, simple.

Look at where you live and under what conditions you live. A few hints… democracy, freedom.

If you believe the human exists at the point of conception, then follow your beliefs, act in accordance with them and live with whatever consequences you bring upon yourself.

If you believe the human exists at the point of conception, and the conception is not yours, you weren’t a party to it – mind your own business.

Simple really…

Meg1,

“Be informed instead of voicing your ignorance on issues that try to justify the easy way out.”

– I am informed and disagree with you!


“Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs as gospel while Tony Abbott is condemned for his beliefs...curioser and curioser.”

I arrived at my beliefs quite independently of Lyn.



“Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?”

I find your question intrusive, impertinent, judgemental and derogatory.
It is like me asking you if you knew the real name of the father of your children?
Don’t try to be offensive (you will find I am alot better at it than you).


If you want to “trawl” through my past you are at liberty to do so, you will find it an easy swim, no muck to obscure the clarity of view, the nature of some of the work I do and positions I hold has necessitated multiple police and other searches for test of character.

“what do Lyn's lapdogs have in mind”
such a mindless and stupid assertion displays a level of ignorance which beggars belief. You have no idea who I am or where my political allegiances lay.


Re “Take China's one child policy, “

Oh watch out before you try to widen this debate.

You are moving into dangerous areas if you want to challenge how another nation deals with the massive crisis it faces. You are displaying total ignorance if you think you can avoid the issues of exploding third world populations and the effect that has on environmental and other crises (try reading more of my posts).


“State your real agenda”

Simple.

I believe

Every individual is just that, an individual.
Individuals only grow by making their own decisions and living with the consequences of their decisions.
Society is a collective noun for individuals.
Society exists to support individuals and not to subordinate them.

I support the political party who leave me to make my own mistakes instead of inflicting the mistakes of government upon me (guess).