Scout,
I'm sorry you found my post offensive. I'm not trying to offend.

1)if it is my style you find offensive, I'm not sure what I can do about that; it is the way I think and write.

2)As I haven't had an abortion, I can't convey the human nature of the debate like you can, which is why it is vital you (and others) continue to explain why abortion is really important as an option for people who actually experience unwanted pregnancy. It makes no real difference to me whether others choose to have abortions or not, but if abortion could be approached more from an "intellectual" perspective, I think it would be a less distressing issue for those actually faced with it.

3)Additionally, as many people (as voters) have some say on abortion but are unlikely to experience abortion, examining the philosophy of abortion may be one route to involving them in the issue, to the extent that they can understand it is not really their issue, so they too can choose to leave abortion to the people it really is an issue for (pregnant women). Just appealing to the experience of being pregnant may make some feel excluded from the debate (even though upon intellectual reflection it should not really be their debate), so emotional appeals like showing aborted foetuses may have an undue and unhelpful influence on them.

4)As I have this "intellectual"(neutral-ish?) style, you may suspect my motives. In one sense, if my arguments are sound, this should not matter. Nevertheless, my motives are to promote pro-choice over anti-abortion, because the motives supporting an anti-abortion argument are oppressive and impact on everyone (including me). As I said, on the actual issue of abortion, I am indifferent except as I need to oppose people who feel they can tell others what to do for no good reason.

5)Finally, as you mention my "virus vaccines" dilemma, it may be this which has offended. The point of a heuristic device is to challenge. If it has offended you, I would ask that you examine why this is so.

Dear Dianne,

What you went through was horrific and words are thin compared with experience.

I can only speak in principle about abortion.

Having said that though my times of desperation may be analogous?

If you're interested I can share my experience of the healing presence of God, the same kind that our ancestors have been speaking of for thousands of years and people continue to feel to this day. This is the most important thing in my life. Our Lord is waiting for you, I know he loves you but that is between you and Him.

Sincerely,

Martin

P.s. Evolutionism isn't really very solid as a metaphysic Dianne, you deserve better. I think Michael Behe writes well on it. Also Antony Flew the most famous contemporary atheist has converted to theism because of the massive problem with evolutionism.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=antony+flew+conversion&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

Must run

Wibble

Thank you very much for your well considered response. I feel it is necessary to question motives due to the appalling abuse I have received for my honesty.

I have not missed the point of your technique in introducing hypotheticals to engender some thought in those who are anti-abortion. I guess having experienced the hard reality of an unwanted pregnancy - reading the 'holier-than-thou' posts has brought out some hypersensitivity on my part. That I should have the luxury of posting heuristic style arguments - it is something to be indulged in when one isn't so emotionally entangled in the issue.

I actually agree with your post - but it is not my nature to accept something without looking at it from all angles. I am glad I challenged you and am very pleased with your response.

I notice, thus far, not one of the anti-abortionists have provided any suggestion as to what to do with unneeded embryos. Interesting, no?

Martin - I find the concept of God itself limiting in the extreme. Compared to the size of the universe and then down to the worlds within a single atom: he/she/it is a small thing with a very big ego. I do not intend to insult you with these remarks - this is MY belief. I look to find peace within myself, I look towards helping others find their own inner peace. I do not find peace worshipping some deity for which there is no evidence of its existence. I prefer to get on with my life and live it to the best of my ability.

Regards to all

Scout,

I'm glad you challenged me as well. As you suggest, our different approaches highlight that abortion is really a debate those of us who haven't had one, are imposing on pregnant women.

Though abortion is an important issue for each individual pregnant woman to consider, that is none of my affair; I speak on the topic only because the anti-abortion debate is based on a "philosophy" of an absolute moral stricture(eg doing God's work).

If each anti-abortionist decided for themselves that abortion wasn't for them, I would not object. But because the whole anti-abortion argument is pitched in terms of the good/evil of the action irrespective of individual circumstance, and thus judges women with unwanted pregnancies (as you have been judged in this forum), I'm compelled to offer an alternative good/evil debate.

To this end, heuristic devices are an indulgence, and most specifically aimed at anti-abortionists (most of whom will never have to contemplate an abortion) to test the limits of their philosophy. I also find it interesting that there have been no attempts to answer any of these "philosophical" questions, particularly about unneeded embryos.

I appreciate that anti-abortionists genuinely feel that abortion is evil and violates some holy decree. But then the onus is on them to-

1)Prove the metaphysics behind their argument (ie that God exists)

2)Prove that God believes killing humans is wrong, and that humanity starts at conception (and must then defend why their interpretation of God's will is better than others- a point Col Rouge is working on)

...and since these first 2 things form their world-view, they need to test that world-view by-

3)Adequately answering philosophical questions to test the limits of their beliefs, or to compare their moral intuitions with everyone else's

Since the topic of this forum is the "semantics" of abortion, this debate started on the premise that abortion is a "topic" that we can debate, so I am, though it is actually an issue we should leave to those who it concerns.

Thankfully, our society and politicians seem, on a whole, to agree that abortion is an individual choice.

Hi Wibble
Anti-abortionists [at least the religious ones] believe that life begins at conception because that's when ensoulment occurs. The only trouble is NO ONE can prove that the soul exists, or if it does when the soul is implanted in a human. There are NO infallible reasons given by a pope or church council, no verses from a holy book. It is just a guess.
This being so it follows that such a guess [based on a complete LACK of data] has a high probability of being wrong. It is also true that any unsubstantiated guess is equal to any other.

I for example might claim that all babies MUST be aborted since it is MY guess that invisible aliens impregnate women in the middle of the night with the intent to take over the world. Silly? Absolutely! Unsupported by facts? Totally! But My guess is no more unsupported by facts than the guess of the protestant & catholic churches.

Since the soul's existence & when [& indeed if] it is implanted in the body is guesswork it would seem logical that the one to make the decision as to the relevance or irrelevance of these guesses is the one who will be most affected. ie the woman concerned.

If there are any anti-abortionists still reading this thread perhaps you would like to deal with this argument.

Wibble, for the very sake of democracy and to avoid religious tyranny, people like myself, you, Col etc etc need to have our say and to say it loudly lol. Bosk you are correct, they don't have any evidence to justify their beliefs, no evidence for good reasons to force their views on others, but that does not stop them trying to manipulate the political system.

One thing I give the Catholic Church credit for, they have learnt how to lobby. Seldom under their own name, usually the name of some catchy sounding organisation, that just happens to be affiliated with them somehow.

Note that when the RU 486 debate took place, one of Abbot's old media people was employed, 100k$ was found in a hurry, thousands apon thousands of pro forma letters against RU 486 were mailed to politicians. A dubious survey was produced, all this is a very short timeframe. So the noise that they make is far out of proportion to their numbers.

When abortion was finally legalised in West Australia, various surveys showed that well over 90% of the population were for it.
But the pressure from the anti abortion lobby on politicians was phenomenal! I guess that is what happens, when people are fanatical
about their religious views, wanting to get to their heaven at any cost :)

Its a pity that people like Martin, don't stop and smell the roses,
have a look around them at the beauty of nature etc, and take notice
of natures laws. They might not be written in one single book, but they are plain for all to see, who are interested. If I have any god, its those laws, I've taken the trouble to understand them and
admire them, also the sustainability of the system they represent.

Its a shame that people like Martin can't quell their anxieties by observing the same, but need to turn to a few manipulative old men in Rome to cope with life. Don't forget, heaven is here and now,
so enjoy! After that, the only guarantee is the worms :(