Reason, you claim to have been insulted – surely you mean corrected…see above post!

Reason argues: ‘this argument fails as the whole of society does not agree on whether the pre-born have these rights in the first place.
If the whole of society cannot agree and the whole of the body of experts cannot agree – then it is folly for the minority to presume to be right and force your view on others.
Given this, the only one to make a judgement is the individual’

First you argue that the whole of society or the body of experts should agree what is right…not a minority – then you flip and pass YOUR judgment that the INDIVIDUAL should make the judgment…isn’t one a MINORITY?

REASON: ‘I made no judgement on whether to decide this for one’s self was right, wrong, correct or incorrect.’
Reason: ‘You could argue that in defending the unborn…However this argument fails’

Sounds like judgments to me…also sounds like you ‘imposing your beliefs’… etc.

Reason: ‘every individual also has the right to reject your truth and find their own’

Your lack of ‘reason’ beggers belief – truth, whatever it is, is universal…it doesn’t require you or I to agree with it first. Neither of us OWN it, nor can we manipulate it to suit our own convenience…it is nonsensical to suggest that your comment, therefore, can be regarded as reasoned debate.

You applaud Col and Yabby’s ‘patience’ but deprecatingly say, ‘a little wasted on the crowd who believe only God’s way is the right way.’

I’m still waiting for Col or Yabby’s ‘patience’, civility or reasonable debate, to be expressed in their posts. It appears you lose any sense of ‘reason’ unless the point of view agrees with your own or do you argue your case believing that your way is the WRONG way? Curious.
(Cont...)

Reason thanks for the statement of support.

“Though I see that it is a little wasted on the crowd who believe only God’s way is the right way.”

I would disagree with you.

I do not believe, for one minute, we are talking about “Gods way”.

If we were the way would be that “abortion” would be a technical impossibility.

“Gods way”, I believe is to leave individuals to make their own choice.
I believe God gave us free will to exercise and “grow” as individuals through making decisions and then living with the consequences of those decisions.

I believe this applies to all aspects of the “human life experience”, not just abortion.

I believe the “anti-abortion” demand is a power play by a religious organisation and its congregants to interfere in the freewill of others, as has been the style and expectation of that religious organisation for centuries.

I believe the arguments equating murder versus abortion are flawed because one applies to an action between two separate individuals (murder) and the other between one individual and an adjoined entity (the embryo / foetus) which has not achieved “individuality” through separation (birth).

Re “when does a human become a human”. The ovum and sperm are both of “human” source. The embryo is “human” but that is not the point. The issue is “when does the “human” entity evolve to a point of warranting the common rights applicable to all?

On that matter I believe it is simple.
When the human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman) and that is the moment of birth.

And you are absolutely right. RU486 is merely an alternative method and nothing “unique” in the development of the abortion debate.

Meg1
“You'll (Reason) need a new nom de plume”
“Reason, you claim to have been insulted – surely you mean corrected”
“I’m still waiting for Col or Yabby’s ‘patience’, civility or reasonable debate, to be expressed in their posts.”

Ah Meg1, You like to spread it about but cannot deal with receiving it. Typical of your ilk!

Phil your logic is not clear.
On the one hand you tell me to take responsibility for my actions then tell the forum about a heroin addicted woman who had 4 children she wasn't able to rear.

billie,
Just because you did not get my point: my example was to demonstrate that the State and others make decisions on the behalf of sick or irresponsible women who are emotionally imbalanced or will not act socially responsible. NSW laws forbid abortion on all grounds unless it affects the physical or emotional health of the woman.

Because of the frequent use of abortion as a contraceptive it indicates under NSW laws that we have a physical and emotionally sick society. Many sick and emotionally endangered women themselves wish to push to increase as a right to abort their infant.

Col,
According to your definition: "I believe the arguments equating murder versus abortion are flawed because one applies to an action between two separate individuals (murder) and the other between one individual and an adjoined entity (the embryo / foetus) which has not achieved “individuality” through separation (birth)... On that matter I believe it is simple. When the human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman) and that is the moment of birth."

That would mean one minute before the birth it would not be murder to decapitate the infant, but would be murder to decapitate the infant one minute after the infant took a breath. However you definition continues to individual equal rights. Which would not happen under Australian law till the child became 18 years of age, and as an individual sign a legal contract or accept full rights as a human citizen

(cont)

Well said Philo!

Reason: 'When does a human become a human?''...no certainty in answering – nothing that can be held to be ‘beyond doubt’.'

(Me) If there's no certainty in deciding that human life DOESN'T begin at conception, who're you to decide against giving the benefit of the doubt to the unborn... Scientific and medical proof exists…life won’t commence or develop, except from conception.

You'll need a new nom de plume if you're suggesting that it's reasonable to kill based on mob rule...that's why Jesus Christ was crucified...it doesn't make it right!

REASON: ‘refrain from imposing your beliefs…have a civilised discussion without degenerating to insults. I’m sure that Col and Yabby would do likewise if we all agreed that insults do a discussion no good at all. If you claim to be a good Christian… think about why you insulted me... Where did I do so to you?’

Good luck with Yabby and Col's revamping...

If you’re sensitive to correction, don’t suggest it’s insulting as it’s not un-Christian to point out the truth, or defend myself from inaccurate accusations.

Otherwise refrain from making accusations you can’t back up, then check your dictionary’s definition of ‘truth’ and ‘reason’…add ‘insult’ and ‘judgment’ so that you can follow the same definitions for everyone.

Col: 'The issue is “when does the “human” entity evolve to a point of warranting the common rights applicable to all?...I believe it is simple…human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman)…that is the moment of birth.'

Oracle Col chooses when life begins…however another contradiction - a newborn, infant, or even an unconscious accident victim are all ‘totally dependent on another “specific” entity’…by your call they do not warrant common rights applicable to ‘all’. See also Philo's comment above.

Col: ‘You like to spread it about but cannot deal with receiving it.’

Actually Col, I didn't complain…REASON spat the dummy…but check your own posts and 'fess up...it's you who can’t take your own medicine dished back.

Philo – “one minute before the birth it would not be murder to decapitate the infant”

the point of distinction is “separation” and thus “individuality”.

However, your suggestion can be answered

Your suggestion is stupidly nonsensical.

No woman would seek to endure 9 months of pregnancy only to abort on a murderous whim at the last moment.

No one, in control of their senses (ie without diminished capacity or a howling loony), would seek to do it. Therefore, it is a complete and utter red herring, lacking in any credibility and devoid of all reason.

It suggests lack of substance and paucity of rationale when you are reduced to suggestion infantile and ridiculous charades.

Do you really expect me to indulge such deluded fantasy with any serious intent?

In a similar manner, we can apply such reasoned logic to the matter of late term abortions. No woman and her doctor would undertake such a course of action unless the circumstances were considered “extremely prejudicial” to her ongoing safety and as the only option.

If anyone wants to know what can happen when PBA s and late abortions are not performed when needed , just go to

www.fistulafoundation.org

and read about what really happens if “nature” is left to take its course and then thank your lucky stars you live in Australia, where medical intervention is an option.

Meg1 “Col's rule: lower the standard until you're forced to stop?”

You are like a limbo dancer, the lower you drop the bar the more you feel you are achieving.

As for “infant, or even an unconscious accident victim are all ‘totally dependent on another “specific” entity’”

Oh how absolutely and totally WRONG!

Plenty of children have been born to women who died in childbirth. Their life continued because, like accident victims, whilst they were dependent upon someone, any one of a potentially large number of “wet-nurses” or carers -

They were not dependent upon “A SPECIFIC ENTITY”

I have been gentle and restrained with you thus far, keep it up and I might forget that you might possibly be almost a woman.