Yabby says: “Look around you how the Catholic Church has fought against divorce,
against the anti baby pill, against condoms, against abortion.
So much for respecting peoples rights.”

I don’t wish to defend the Catholic Church, but if Yabby’s point is that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes/decisions, because they are ultimately responsible and will have to wear the consequences, then I agree.

For example, if someone aborts, they deserve no Medicare assistance for IVF. If on the other hand they ignore the good counselling advice from an abortion clinic, they equally face those consequences on their own. If men are given no options and play no part in this decision-making, they should be exempt from any consequences of such decisions. If the government policy is to encourage higher fertility rates by rewarding/supporting these mothers, fine. If they end marriages because they made the wrong choice, fine. If they are unhappy, or simply bored, fine. If falling pregnant alone, and thus precluded from claiming “we’re pregnant” – again, their choice. If they happen to be murdered by their young lovers for aborting (as happened to a married mother in Melbourne on April 14, 2004), OK. We’ll deal with that too, as best we can.

But when fathers-without-choice are held solely and directly responsible fiscally for children that are either not biologically theirs, or are, but are subject to unequal parental responsibility and accountability, that is just pure social policy lunacy. What makes such fathers deserving of worse mistreatment, than the next taxpayer?

Women should be jailed for false paternity claims. Especially so now, that they have unhindered access to latest abortifacient technology. And while championing technology, DNA paternity testing should be compulsory for every birth, with results clearly stated on each birth certificate. If we no longer wish to be protected or directed by neither church nor state, then let us be truly free. Instead of shielding children from either parent, let’s show them precisely just how both parents behave. What’s there to hide?

Re anomie's comments about an un-aborted child expressing a preference that he or she had been aborted - anomie must deal with so few people who have ever had their lives held in the balance and LIVED to know about it.

I often speak to schools and one young girl made the comment that her grandmother "wanted to have me minced" - she was quite devastated that this was her blood relative's response to her mother's pregnancy at the age of 16. This young girl certainly did not express a desire to have been aborted - nor have any that are aware their lives were 'under discussion'.

The desire for life is so strong in the human person that under extreme pain (death camps in Germany or caught in a rock crevice in America) that against all odds,they truly strive for life.

It is interesting that those that hold the abortive view are those already born.

I found your comment re waiting for hostile responses a little sad - prolifers, true prolifers, are not hostile - the interpretation of their response is skewed by those who themselves, find it hard to have reasonable discussion with anyone who holds differing views to them and therefore attacks.

Re: KRS 1 comment - "Also, note no mention of rape victims or incest victims- does the blanket ban cover them as well? Should a woman have to have her rapist's child?"

I suggest KRS 1 finds out about the woman who features in the video "Sex has a Price Tag" - Pam Stenzel
( http://www.americandecency.org/resources/pricetag.htm )
She IS the product of a rape and is deeply grateful for her life.

A few points on the issue of rape -
1. Who is SURE that their mother was not FORCED by their father to have sex on the night they were conceived? (forcing does NOT have to mean punching, strangling, etc - mild violence and coercion is rape if the woman does NOT wish to participate)
2. If there are other children of the relationship (yes, rape does happen in de facto and marriage relationships) why is this one conceived of less value?
3. The father one has DOES NOT determine the value of a human being.
4. When the mother has been physically raped already, why should she be subjected to mechanical/chemical rape a second time?
5. People's horror is at the ACT OF RAPE, not at the conception of the child.
6. Ever thought of giving loving support to the mother so she can regain her sense of self and safety?
7. Should she not wish to keep the child, there is always adoption - yes, that's right, adoption. (Sadly many of you will say you would prefer the child DEAD than in the loving arms of adoptive parents - and please don't bring out the rhetoric of 'adoptive parents abuse children' - sadly so do natural parents).

To all the TRUE pro-lifers, below is a link to the "Save the Children Fund" and a chance to put your money where your mouth is.

These children are here and are suffering NOW. They are not foetal cells which may or may not come to term.

http://www.savethechildren.org.au/

“"and the best protection of the individual and their rights is a Christian society"

… Look at history. 400 years ago, the Catholic Church was all powerfull,
… heretics were burnt at the stake. So history clearly shows that the above claim is wrong. It was secular people who fought wars against the Catholics to achieve their freedom from the power of the Church.”
About 500 years ago Luther used the peasants to attack the nobility hoping that so doing he could dislodge the Catholic Church. This was called a “protestant revolt” not a “secular revolt” but comes closest to your description. If you have something else in mind let me know. Prior to Luther the nobility sought to increase power by reducing the power of the Church but no wars were involved. Luther helped fan the protestant revolt by encouraging hatred of the Catholic Church that at the time was still quite powerful. The “war” was not intended to create secularism and did not achieve any freedom from the Church or any overthrow of the nobility but tragically resulted in a slaughter of peasants by German rulers. Nevertheless by 400 years ago Luther had achieved his goals in alliance with the rulers and Germany was well and truly institutionally protestantised. The Catholic Church certainly wasn’t all powerful at that time.
Likewise in England Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church about 500 years ago and the country was well and truly protestantised by 400 years ago. King Henry may have gutted Catholic Churches and Queen Mary may have hung the occasional obstinate Catholic in the Sixteenth Century but that was hardly a “war”.
In the centuries since the Catholic Church was dislodged, Europe has simply drifted toward secularism no wars required.

” A fetus with no functioning human brain is not a person, its an organism. Murder only applies to people, so don't accuse people of things by distorting language.”
No it is a disagreement with your definition of a person.

MJ, perhaps you should read the Catholics own description of the reformation period.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

There was alot more going on then Luther, especially in France.
Secular types always played a role. They have just never been part
of any official organisation, like a Church, whichever brand of
Church. That does not mean they havent played a huge role, as even Catholics accept.

400 years ago the Catholic Church was still busy burning heretics in Rome.

As to your definition of person, please explain why a one or two celled organsim should be described as a person.