Te, at 1am, like many Australians, I am usually testing the bedsprings. You should try it, its more fun than searching the internet for articles of doubtful reliability.

Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion. Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.

If Australia has 220,000 live births per year, there is probably demand to adopt 22,000 babies. If the abortion rate is even 75,000 then there are 50,000 babies surplus to adoption requirements - who will rear them?

Te
If I understand you correctly you're arguing that if the baby's heart is beating then it is alive? Correct?
But wait. We can do an experiment. Let's hook up someone we both know is dead to a machine that will make their heart beat. Have they suddenly become alive again?
The answer of course is No! The reason? The heart may be beating but the body remains brain dead. Conclusion: It is the brain that determines when a human is alive or dead NOT the heart. Therefore when a baby's heart is beating is irrelevant. Sorry Te. Nice try though. :)

“Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion.”

When you say more dangerous do you mean there are more deaths or that a higher proportion of pregnancies than abortions result in deaths? (The clarification is for to ensure a meaningful comparison. Obviously there are a lot more pregnancies than abortions.)

Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.
If the weren’t killed in the war….

” But wait. We can do an experiment. Let's hook up someone we both know is dead to a machine that will make their heart beat. Have they suddenly become alive again?

The answer of course is No! The reason? The heart may be beating but the body remains brain dead. Conclusion: It is the brain that determines when a human is alive or dead NOT the heart. Therefore when a baby's heart is beating is irrelevant. Sorry Te. Nice try though. :)”

Wouldn’t a living brain exist if the heart has developed enough to beat and is a heart beating hooked up to a machine the same thing as a live heart? (I don't know but I would expect so)

“Yabby - women lose many 'potential babies' each month.” Ovum is an egg - not a human life – it is part of the reproductive cycle for ovum to be released and, if not impregnated, to shed. Abortion kills live, developing babies, not a ‘potential baby’, Coraliz.

“Isn't it funny...you do not see anyone telling the self labelled pro-lifers not to have a baby; have an abortion!.”

Coraliz, I beg to differ, there are many instances of women being pressured to abort, no matter how pro-life they are. This includes doctors harassing fathers to pressure their partners or to sign documents to allow abortions to be performed.

Yes, I know from personal experience and that of family/friends. For some medicos, difficult pregnancies don’t compute and an abortion is preferable…that is FACT, especially when abortion is freely available and income-producing.

Bosk – the difference is the baby’s heart beat is not artificially induced and the baby is scientifically, medically acknowledged to be ALIVE…with or without your consent.

“Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion. Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.” billie

…and now the situation with second partners is reversed, men die earlier…what does that tell you? The so-called statistics quoted in these postings re: deaths in pregnancy versus abortions are simply nonsense.

The incidence of pregnancy related deaths, though tragic, is small and encompasses situations that may or may not have any relevance to the pregnancy.

…including a steady growing list of partners unhappy with the pregnancy who find their own ‘solution’ to the mother and baby dilemma, by murdering both – considered to be murder in that case, curious. The availability of abortion hasn’t prevented these anti-lifers from refusing their partners the ‘choice’ to have their babies, has it?

Billie, you seem to think that putting a statement on line makes it become fact automatically – thankfully that is not the case and it isn’t difficult to disprove your allegations.

Brownie, your bigotry matches Col’s.

Mjpb and Te – well said!

Billie
“Te, at 1am ..."

Thank you so much for your concern about my sleeping patterns – I am deeply touched ;-)

”Pregnany ...surgical abortion and RU486 ...... Remember that 100 years ago ... childbirth.”
I have to wonder where you get your information from. How can anything artificial ever be safer than something natural? Of course there was loss of life in childbirth 100 years ago, they did not have antibiotics or advanced surgery or good clotting agents and conditions were not often hygenic – there is also loss of life today even with modern facilities – why? Because every human body is different and reacts differently to stimuli.

”If Australia has 220,000 live births per year...adopt 22,000 babies. If the abortion rate ....are 50,000 babies surplus... rear them? “
In most instances, their mothers and many other good souls. When a mother, under pressure and difficult circumstances is given support, she will bring forth that little life. However, the reality should not be after the fact – if sexual activity was confined to the safety net of marriage, we wouldn’t have this situation we have today. Sex before marriage is renewing a promise with your body that your heart, mind and soul has not made – lying with your body.

Bosk - I find your comment re the heart strange. If something is not alive it cannot grow so in the instance of ‘hooking up a dead body’ as you said, the mechanics of the body would be forced to work but the body would not be alive. However, from the instant the sperm and egg join, the ‘cells’ multiply at a rapid rate and continue to grow. Funnily enough, if ‘it’ is just a clump of cells, how would the abortionists know if they had all the ‘cells’ out in an abortion as they need to reassemble the head, spine, arms, legs and body to ensure they have it all so infection won’t set in.

Seeker my “fantasies” linger around areas of human activity far more exotic than anything which you will find being discussed on this website and certainly have nothing to do with religion or religious icons of any sort. :))


Te – “if sexual activity was confined to the safety net of marriage”

Wouldn’t that be nice, oh what a neat and cosy notion.

Reality is

Sexual activity never has been confined to the “safety net of marriage”.
Everything else you say is, in the terms of such a debate, in the “out with the fairies” category.


I am a father. Both my daughters are both in loving relationships “out of wedlock”

Shock Horror! Am I going to tell them to get married? – no – when they were little I taught them to have faith in themselves and their own judgement - they make up their own mind with who and when they will have sex and I really do not want to know the details because, whilst I love them as their father, I do not and never have tried to rule them with sanctimonious and self appointed authority which seems to come so easily to those who suggest “the safety net of marriage”.

So are you going to force them to abstain from sex?
I do not think so.

Any debate about peoples sexual practices has to start from the recognition of “what is” rather than be driven by notion of “what never was”.

Of course, such an issue belies the motives of a church, which realised the “power” of the human sex drive and the benefit of controlling it to ensure that energy was forced (with tyrannical determination) into exultation of the religious system and away from the private enjoyment of a natural human activity.

In short, "beware all those who demand abstinence whilst they deny condoms".

Brownie, welcome to the “Slagged Off by Meg1 Club”, you are one of a growing number.