Hi y'all
Te touches on something important with:

"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. "

Basically, modern techiques just suck everything out, there is no check of body parts or cell counts. If infection sets in a D&C and another vacuum evacuation is performed.

Technology aside, the issue identified goes to the heart of what constitutes an abortion. In so far as I have seen, there is no defensible statistical disaggregation of the 85,000 or 100,000 number under the relevant medicare item. That item, in so far as I am aware includes removal of miscarriages, post-miscarriage placenta and bits, and various other objects. It probably also involves removal of dead foetuses that have, for some reason not been miscarried.

In order to have a semantically defensible debate about 'abortion', an implication of the title of the article, there needs to be an agreed description or definition of what constitutes an 'abortion'. At present, there is no such agreement, the statistics thrown about may or may not be an accurate reflection of what that definition might be, and many people (not all, mind you) resort to posturing and position taking. Until there is an agreed description/definition and the statistics reflect it, the numbers are essentially meaningless to the debate.

Again, the semantics are important to and prior to meaningful debate: even for those who regard one abortion as one too many.

odsoc

I think we as human being sometimes need to learn from animal, for instance we'd rarely heard that there is a prostitudous dog need abortion for convinience or no body wanted to addopt the unborn puppy dog; for dog usually higher moral concious than some people. Even God only promise eternal life to human being in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world (you and me) that He gave His only begotten Son (The Lord Jesus Christ), so that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish (go to hell) but have eternal life".

So much we can learn from any other living things created by God (for no one even able to create a seed of chilli, yes human being can create synthetic material but never able create a mango seed or apricot kernel, because human being is NOT GOD, so be humble and not so arogant by saying things against God who has created your nose with two holes to help you to breathing and borrowing Oxigen from this world.

Be humble, be sincere, be honest to your heart; Who keeps your heart beating while you soundly sleeping ?

I would like to use my freedom resposibly in fear of The Lord Jesus Christ and not speak stupidly or foolishly about God who deserve our Honour and Praise; I'm just thankful to be born to enjoy this life God has created with all of His Providence, one mother and one father who loved me and all other people God sent to help me all the way of my life, Amen.

"Sexual activity never has been confined to the “safety net of marriage”.”

Even today many atheists have sufficient morals to confine sexual activity to the "safety net of marriage" - at least once they become married. Why do you find it so hard to believe that committed Christians don't confine sexual activity entirely to the "safety net of the marriage"?

"...I do not and never have tried to rule them with sanctimonious and self appointed authority …”."

You deny God's authority and think right and wrong are defined by your own judgement. Noone forced you to consider your authority above God’s so you must be self appointed. As children did you provide your daughters with equal opportunity to become Christians or immoral or did you rule over them with your current views? If so then in these premises how can your assertion be correct? At the least they were subject to your authority as children.

"So are you going to force them to abstain from sex?”

Forcing is irrelevant. Christians are not and cannot be forced to abstain from sex. It is a choice that they make with the benefit of a sound concept of right and wrong.

"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."

This is such a negative comment generally yet you use the word "benefit" in there. Is that a Freudian slip?

The way God has set up the Church there is a hierachy. When you talk about a “church” controlling other people I presume that you mean those with more authority in the Church controlling lay people. If your above claim is correct how do you explain that the supposed power brokers are celibate while those whose sex drives they are supposed to be controlling can have as much sex as they like within marriage?

funny, i would have thought the celibacey of priests would have comfirmed Col's point.

anyway this is rapidly decending into farce. so im going to help it on its way....

lady, you hit the nail on the head. we should be more like dogs, i think if more people could lick their own genitals then there would be less unwanted pregnancys and therefore less abortions.

Brownie, your bigotry matches Col’s.

Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22

Meg1 - if you don't mind, I did not come here to read personal attacks from you on my character. Stick to the topic of Ms Ransom's essay or I will get you blacklisted here.

Mjpb

“committed Christians don't confine sexual activity.. ”
“sanctimonious and self appointed authority”
“force them to abstain”

Sorry, I was responding to Australian society as a whole, not just 2 % of it.

The word “benefit” referred to that derived by the theocratic organisation of the church over the lives of ordinary congregants.

“as much sex as they like within marriage”

but only on the “rules” and conditions set down by those who are supposed to be “celibate” and specifically , denying the (individual) contraception or as expression of anything other than “procreation”, unless you are telling me that the Church of Rome supports the pill, condoms and has approved every position in the Karma Sutra?

“The way God has set up the Church “ He probable shudders at what it has become.

There is nothing God needs from such a corrupt organisation. If God did set it up, it would have been a prototype and he would have thrown it out a long time ago. Gods discarded husk has become a cesspool of corrupt thinking and practices. It is a retreat for a bunch of power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists.

One reason we have separation of Church and State is because of observation of the malevolent influences exercised when the Church of Rome shared authority with and over the offices of the state.

its not easy being – I doubt lady reads other peoples posts here, she seems to exist on a different plane where debate has no purpose. However, I chuckled at the dog reference.

Oh Lady – “prostitudous” that one escapes me and the dictionary – making up your own words does not facilitate debate, although from the balance of this one and your other posts I fully expect to see you “speaking in tongues” shortly.

The parable of the women who hid her “talents” instead of using them.
“Freewill” is (even by your definition) a gift from God.
That other people choose to exercise it and you would, from your statements seek to hide it, identifying you clearly within the context of the parable. Sad