There is 69 posts here. I have not read them all. I will quote parts of the most recent and respond and in my next post another that caught my attention.

Anomie’s

>An unborn baby is not necessarily a genetically unique ...

Killing two people instead of one makes it better?

>Apropos twins, you get yourself into a bit of trouble with your insistence on personhood ab initio. There is a compelling argument that personhood cannot exist in zygotes until the possibility of twinning has passed....Honestly, you should know about this one – it comes from Norman Ford, head of philosophy at the institution where you're studying.

Nice navel gazing, and no disrespect intended for your intellectual games, but a human life (or possibly more) has been created. People who like to focus on the concrete material moral issues rather than engaging in a navel gazing exercise see killing in this context as a problem. Mr Ford is welcome to contemplate the issue of uniqueness to his heart’s content and I am sure he is very capable of doing so but it doesn’t change the fact that human life is created.

>There's also Bedate and Cefalo's argument about hydatidiform moles – concepti carrying gross genetic abnormalities which lack the potential to become even a human being, let alone a person. So you might be in a bit of trouble with even your weaker claim that all concepti are axiomatically human beings.

You certainly might but the material issue is the morality of abortion. Obviously most probably the concepti concerned will be axiomatically a human being. The incidence of hydatidiform moles is only one in two thousand. Such a remote possibility makes a poor excuse for the death of so many.

>Oh, and as I've asked in another thread, what happens if, when asked, the un-aborted child expresses a preference that he or she had been aborted?...

I don’t suppose that I could elicit your agreement that anyone who really did pose such a question to a child would be a better candidate for termination then the child themselves?

Yabbie’s

>A woman's uterus is ... not the business of the pope, the govt, or anyone else...

Then let's focus on abortion and leave the uterus out of it entirely. The uterus is just the crime scene. Human life is a basic moral issue clearly an issue for the Church and government.

>...Yet we have heard from Christians time and time again ... the old testament should not be taken literally. So why should this particular bit be taken literally?

There are two issues here. There are many people with many diverging views who call themselves Christians. Those who argue that the bible should be taken literally may agree but this is not an answer to the argument of others. The other is the issue that in the Judeo-Christian tradition (with some recent exception) is that the Church has always guided people as regards the scriptures and it maintains that abortion is a problem.

>The reality is that the church is in a corner. One pope has claimed the evils of ... abortion, ... and he is meant to be be infallible. If the church changes its mind...

JPII’s position was not an aberrant political embarrassment but rather a re-statement of the view the Church has always expressed.

>Having a Catholic health minister in charge of RU 486, IMHO is like having dracula looking after the blood bank.... So how is he able to be objective about his views on abortion?

It is quite a controversial topic. Where do you propose finding someone without a viewpoint? A better analogy would be the Pope looking after a virgin but you are entitled to your bias. As I said it is a controversial topic.

>We want freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion !

That you want freedom from religion is a neat summary of your bias. However it is curious to include wanting freedom of religion and freedom from religion in a sentence as we can’t have both. Freedom of religion usually allows for a freedom not to have a religion but doesn’t allow freedom from religion.

Billie,

“RobP how presumptious of you to assume that people who want the TGA to regulate drugs in Australia are anti-church. Last time I looked the Uniting Church did not have a position on this debate. The Roman Catholic church does. According to the 2001 census Roman Catholics are 26% of the population. Why is national policy being set by a minority group?”

1. I was writing to Col, not to “people who want the TGA to regulate drugs”. In the context of this debate, the way Col put the case normally has the effect of being anti-Church, or at least anti-Catholic Church, whether he/she meant it that way or not.
2. Assuming there are 100,000 abortions a year, and given that there are about 260,000 births per annum in Australia, that means that 28% of women have an abortion. If Roman Catholics, at 26% of the population, are a minority, what does that make the 28% that are abortive women?
3. I think it’s an overstatement to say the Catholic Church is setting social policy. The (good in the) Church is just maintaining what they believe are important values in society; to that extent I agree with them. The current policy is ultimately a result of our Judaeo-Christian heritage.

Hallo again to you all,

May be it will be clearer if we put it this way: "We as human (not animal who doesn;t have maral concious)..Just have a good plan for our life like get married and with all preparation (such as financial and other things) to get ready to welcome a very important person to be born in the marriage; may be then we will never ever so desperate to get rid of something so loveable like the unborn baby..
And when when the baby maight be one day will able to thank you for preparing a peaceful and lawful environment to live.

Judgment belongs to God only and not on human hand to take any judgment especially about a life which comes from God and not from human; Don't kill others if you don't want to be killed, agree ?

Choose life and don't choose death, believe me death is not nice it you never try it then don't force it on others OK, Thank you very much, The Lord Jesus Christ loves us that He died for us to gave us live till eternity and not death, for death only comes from the devil and his children.

Col, again you contradict/forget your own argument between sentences.

My quote: “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.”

Yours: “With such comment you express the interest in my political affiliations which you are now denying. “

My statement made no reference to Lyn Allison’s politics or yours and referred to “GUYS”, not you specifically - Lyn Allison’s word was accepted as gospel but Tony Abbott’s were regarded as unacceptable simply because of his beliefs – refer to spurious attacks suggesting just that.

I’d feel the same way about your disjointed prattle if you were liberal, alp, national, democrat, green, lemon or pink. The assumption is that anyone sharing your viewpoint is right - just because and anyone who doesn’t - is wrong, for the same reason. That sums up your rational for ‘debate’.

My quote: “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?”

Again, “Any of you” means just that, if you can’t read or suffer a persecution complex, I will make allowances for that. Many offer little more than abortion…or payment for one - not assistance with necessities for the mother to keep the baby…not one! So much for offering CHOICE.

Re: “cheap shots”, how’s this for some examples of your own: “spitting vitriolic and sanctimonious venom”, “to the point of mental disorder”, “admit you suffer from short term memory loss”, “the only reason you are posting is your nurse got distracted”, “shove his mass where the sun don’t shine”, referring to the Pope and Bishops – “I reject their malevolent and pernicious attempts to exert power over our lives”, “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”.

Such a lot of hot air…and my arguments remain unchallenged.

RobP “Col… anti-church”

Yes RobP, you are right. I am “anti-church”.

Not particularly "anti-catholic" and certainly not anti-Christian but since the age of around 12, when I was forced to go and listen to a complete tosser ramble on and assert socialist propaganda in the name of God, which I completely disagreed with and had no right of reply.

Since that time I have erred to the view that someone has have more than fancy vestments or a back-to-front collar to merit being listened to.

My views were only enforced by the revelations of the past ten years or so when the organised clergy have been exposed as the worst abusers and betrayers of the innocent children left in their charge (again none of this is specifically pointed at catholics).

My view is a Christian does not need the intercession of a corrupt priest class to intercede between him or her and God. A Christian needs only to be guided by a selfless compassion, tolerance and ethics in their daily lives.

The rest of religion is a “ra ra” exercise, as we see in those dreadful TV clerics (failed snake oil salesmen) from USA who sometimes get on TV between 3 am and 4 am.

Of course the wack-jobs who trawl around here, protesting the authority of the Pope and Pells, then denying the inquisition do not engender any glimmer of hope that anything has changed to the depths of desperation some lost souls are prepared to sink to in their vain attempt to impose their own corrupt will on others.

The most “important values in society” are to respect the rights of others to act according to their conscience and to interact with compassion to their circumstances (eg which push women to consider abortion) and without judgement.


Lady – I suggest you return to the end of your garden and resume your communion with the fairies.


Meg1 – you have lost the argument, just as Abbot lost the debate in parliament, youa re just too obtuse to realise it. I trust you will have a nice life.