(cont...)

Wibble: ‘…with certainty women can think and feel.’ …killing the unborn is ok…therefore an unconscious, drunken woman can be killed?

Incidentally 25-week-babies have survived…with good long-term-health.

MIW good points – but they’ve probably gone over the heads of those fundie-anti-life zealots. Crikey, insults must be catching.

If Yabby and wibble keep talking about eating chimps, steaks and fish, everyone will get hungry and I'll have to fire up the BBQ.

What is needed here are a few FACTS.

These can be found at

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_emotional_issues
The following is an excerpt:

"Recommendations from women
Women who have experienced abortion tend to want changes to the current system, including:

* The final decision to abort should rest solely with the woman.
* Clear and unequivocal abortion legislation throughout the country.
* The removal of abortion from the various State and Territory Crimes Acts.
* The genuine experiences of abortion should be reported."

and at

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_Q&A

This is another excerpt:

"In general, a termination of pregnancy will not affect a woman's future chance of conceiving, any more than if a woman has had to have a curette for a pregnancy miscarriage. It is important to remember that a woman's fertility decreases after age 33."

Meg1 - I suffered my miscarriages at age 41 and 42 - not uncommon to have miscarriages at this age, my dear woman.

I am a very healthy woman, regular periods and all that. So is my sister who also had a couple of abortions in her youth and went on to produce a healthy boy at age 37 and girl at age 40.

The majority of women who have abortions go on to have healthy children and become good mothers.

You claim to be a counsellor - well, for such great responsibility you should, at the very least, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

Or are you, instead, pushing you own ideology instead of offering help? Hmmm.

One thing every counsellor knows (I have worked as a counsellor to low income people during my days with Dept of Human Services) is to leave your opinions at the door and

REFRAIN FROM JUDGEMENT.

I have moved no goalposts at all Meg, you just don't understand the issues. Womens right to an abortion up to the end of the first tremester, has become somewhat of a standard around the world, certainly in many countries. I think that the same should be enshrined in Australian legislation. 25-26 weeks is when the experts tell us is the point that the brain has developed to a point where it can be called a human brain, not a potential human brain.

LABs crude assertions did nothing but imply that well in that case clearly there was no reason why Catholics could not "throw a leg over" on unfertile days. The argument made no sense in the first place.

Unsustainably raping and pillaging the planet in the name of Catholic dogma doesent seem to be a problem for you Meg. To hell with all the other species. Even the last few thousand chimps and bonobos. Cook em up in the name of going to heaven. That shows me how much you really care deep down

mjpb “In any event your ‘team’ has a much worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour.”

Maybe you could enunciate for us all which “Team” is “My Team”.

I hold fealty to no religion. I am neither atheist nor agnostic.

So please tell me “Which Team” are you referring to in your pitifully defensive claim that “mine” is worse than “yours”.

LAB “In a commodity-driven, wealth-creation society we have lost the art of creating loving/caring families & community groups.”

Oh yes the world was a better place when the resources of production and collection of wealth was the exclusive preserve of religious deities. If you seriously think that, you are sadly mistaken. I know for a fact, my family, myself and daughters and brother and sisters are as loving as they come. Likewise my partner and her sons.

Martin “I am indignant”.

So! I could not care less

As for “Is the reality of abortion at will too confronting for you?”

I have no stomach for blood of any sort. I avert my gaze even when having a blood test. Whilst I have experienced heart bypass surgery first hand, I would pass-out watching a video of the operation on myself or anyone else.

I miss nothing. I am not fixated on the shadow of the Church but “shadow” it is.
Not the source of light it is supposed to be but the shadow of corruption well practiced in the dark arts of terrorising small children.

I do not deny the moral legitimacy of this society, I separate that moral legitimacy from any claim the religious might make to having contributed it, based on historic abuses.

Strange place for me to hide, – in plain view engaging in public confrontation with you. I would not hide even if the inquisition were to be reinvoked and your mob started to cart free men and women off for to be tortured and murdered.
Better dead than the no-choice living-dead.
I note the Office of the Inquisition still exists in the Vatican, so who knows.

My “Fraudulent Arguments”? You display self-righteous CRAP!

Hi all

Meg 1 (post 11:17:43 PM 8/3/06)

As you correctly state, illness will most certainly affect many of the contraceptives. Despite the fact that many of the so-called contraceptives are actually abortifacients, nothing will necessarily work is taken incorrectly, or the dosage is contaminated by additional chemicals such as medications or poor-health.

Abstinence is 100% infallible!
(13/3/06)

Yabby (post 8:55:14 PM 10/3/06)

A contraceptive is designed to prevent conception - viz, the condom.

An abortifacient allows conception then destroys/prevents implantation of the embryo. The 'old' Copper-T was one example, & RU-486 is another. That's its stated function. If it is dispensed like Paracetamol then women's lives will surely be endangered.

Meanwhile, if it has beneficial properties in the treatment of cancer, then I would have no objection to such usage. Who would?
(13/3/06)

Te (post 9:05:30 PM 10/3/06)

A frightening thought!
(13/3/06)

R0bert (post 9:33:19 PM 10/3/06)

It matter little what the mainstream churches think, nor what the Mormons, the SDAs, the Armstongists, the Christadelphians et alii say. It's what God (Yahweh) says, thinks & does that ultimately counts.

Imagine all the anti-god protagonists watching & listening as God simply says: "Well, I gave you a chance, but you told Me to go away." "I suggested that you concentrate less on yourself & genuinely cared more about others. But you said, that your career, affluence & lifestyle were more important than Me & the welfare of those whom I love (mankind)."

Says God: "Well, it's eternal damnation for you." Priceless!
(13/3/06)

Yabby (post 3:23:02 AM 11/3/06)

Dave ALLEN apparently sought God in the end! So you wouldn't want to be with him.

Bill CLINTON was a hypocritical practising Catholic. You probably wouldn't want to share your time with him - he'd 'screw' anything that wasn't "nailed-down" & he'd lie to you (just like he did to Hillary & Chelsea over his infidelity; & the American people over the status of the budget in 1996 & 1997).
(13/3/06)

Cheers all

Yabby,
I agree arguments about vegetarianism aren't on topic per se. I'm comfortable that if more people held your views, cruelty and suffering from to any entity, would be at a minimum.

Being utilitarian, I don't support rights based morality(including animal “rights”), but because the anti-abortion argument had somewhat dried up, I was playing devil's advocate and developing some assumptions behind pro-abortion arguments, to show how these can be attacked by anti-abortionists.

However, Meg1 has risen again to the challenge, and presented in analogy a better attack of "cognitive" based morality than my development continuum argument.

Meg1,
I'm not sure why you're asking if I'd prefer to eat a foetus to other mammals- I'd prefer neither (I'm vegan), but yes, I do value other, more functional(happier) mammals more than a foetus (so technically if I had to eat one, I'd choose the foetus. If you had to choose, would you rather eat a baby or a foetus?)

Your analogy about an unconscious woman is an astute critique of tying moral value to an impermanent state such as thought, although it doesn’t represent the situation of abortion. If the unconscious woman threatened the sovereignty of another woman (like the unconcsious violinist argument) the analogy would better represent an abortion situation.

But the attack shows good method; attacking the margins of a state that provides value (in this case thought/feeling) to ask why that value exists. It is similar to attacks of the margins of belonging to the category of human (anacephalics, hydatiform moles, aliens with human characteristics, even bonobos etc), to see why being human is important.

The main defense of “cognitive” based morality, when unconscious people remain morally protected, is that unconciousness isn’t a permanent state. This is ironically similar to the "potential" defense protecting foetuses from being non-persons- they’re not permanently non-persons (they’ll develop into persons).

Taken too far, I’m no fan of “potential” arguments- we’re all potentially dead, at which point it is dubious we have any moral value, yet that potential would not justify treating live humans in a manner we could acceptably treat the dead.

(continued)