Philo, the problems of Africa have always been many. Its been a basket case since we've known it, no sudden destruction. The reasons would not fit into 350 words.

You seem to be taking a Fred Nile approach to the world. You see your opinion as the universal truth and think all should live by it.

But that is extremely intolerant. Besides, you have no evidence to claim that you know the universal truth. So the rights of others to see lives differently, have different opinions etc, are as valid as yours.

One of the good things about RU 486, is that many women won't have to put up with the abuse from demonstrators outside abortion clinics.
In my experience women don't take abortion lightly. To then have these Christian Taliban abuse women who already have enough problems to deal with, is totally disgusting and totally uncaring.

Yup, plenty of young people want to find a partner, get married and have kids. The real problems they have are not even being addressed.
When a house in Sydney costs half a million $, how will they ever pay for it on one wage for instance? Those are the real problems that today's couples are facing.

Philo, today we understand that small changes in brain chemisty at about 6 weeks gestation, affects how human brains develop. All brains start as female, testosterone in miniscule amounts at this point can change sexual inclination etc. We can create gay rats in laboratories, if we wish. Lets say things had been different in your gestation and childhood and you grew up impulsively attracted to men and not women. Your life might have turned out quite different to what it has.

My point is, have your opinions as to how you should live, but also respect the rights of those who through often no fault of their own, have chosen a different lifestyle to yours.

Philo, I appreciate your dismay that others promote a practice you find abhorrent. Being vegan, imagine my horror if others were eating people; this must be something like the feelings you have to fight and still try to debate rationally with the people who condone abortion.

Pro-abortionists often feel anti-abortionists show fervor defending foetal lives (unthinking cells) over the rights of thinking, feeling, women(hence Yabby's "Christian Taliban").

Surely pro-abortionists are self serving only in the same way anti-abortionists are, spreading ideals they believe are beneficial at the expense of others they feel cause harm?

It may be unfair of me, but it seems from your point about pro-abortionists seeing human life as "not more than organic" (implying it is more than organic, though I haven't grasped your full views on that score), that your argument about abortion safety is an attempt at rhetoric, rather than an argument you believe holds moral weight against abortion.

I am dubious that abortion is more dangerous than child birth (though a contested topic), but find it difficult to believe you accept abortion if done completely safely? (with no health risk to the mother, would you consider infanticide an acceptable alternative?)

I agree polygyny does'nt seem to help women, though some would disagree. I mentioned polygamy as a counterpoint to your views of marriage (and their degree of universality) and the argument I believe you implied, that abortion correlates to social decay (with pregnancy outside of "your" traditional marriage) and is motivated by the same evils causing that social decay. Please correct me if I was drawing too long a bow.

If a broad political position could be ascribed to a continent (dubious) my "generalised social commentary" on Africa would be it displays the "righty" trends; law of the jungle rule, religious dogma (particularly re: contraception)suppressing responsible policy, economic exploitation... leading to STD, AIDS etc.

Again I suspect your generalised commentary doesn't entirely reflect your opposition to abortion. If (hypothetical) social benefits arise from abortion, would you support abortion?

I'm trying not to over-read your arguments; perhaps you could explain your main objection to abortion?

Philo you r last post is just an expression of judgemental hissing fits about people who’s view you disagree with, followed by a diatribe and moaning on about a variety of social problems relating to sexual practices but not related to abortion nor a woman’s right to choose how her body will be used.

It is inappropriate and immature to suggest, because of incidences of abuse which apply to some women it is reason to restrict the rights of all women. That is like saying “because some vehicle drivers drive when drunk we should ban all people from driving”. Such logic as yours would advocate no woman should be allowed to marry because her husband might be abusive.

As for analogies to polygamy, you must have fallen out of your tree and landed badly, head first, if you think there is any merit in such fatuous comments.

“symptoms of an immoral society” So what are your signs of a “moral” society,

Stoning to death or imprisonment of adulterers?
Burning and torture of anyone who questions the authority of the Church, State or social order?
Continue to let the priests, whose morality is sacrosanct, infallible and unable to be questioned, have first pick of the alter boys?

Keep posting Yabby, I express too infrequently how I do agree with your view.

Wibble social values and issues regarding polygamy have nothing to do with the abortion or a woman’s right to choose.

As for "polygamy". It is just a straw man topic of Philo's. Maybe it was introduced to ensure societies were capable of repopulating themselves after the menfolk had been decimated in tribal war.
I don’t really know, I am just guessing, but so too Philo is “guessing” if he thinks it has anything to do with a woman’s right of choice to abort or not.

Col Rouge,
I agree "social values and issues regarding polygamy have nothing to do with the abortion or a woman’s right to choose."

I was trying to counter Philo's assertions about the actual value particular social conventions (eg marriage, and raising children in a husband/wife/children family unit) he values, and show his valued conventions are not universal in any historical context. The only reason I was doing this was because Philo seemed to base some of his argument against abortion on a generalisation about abortion causing, or being caused by the same things that cause, a deterioration in the social conventions he values.

I agree that mentioning (deteriorating) social conventions such as marriage is usually a straw man tactic from anti-abortionists, as the true reason they are against abortion is because they are are against the killing of a foetus.

But in that context, I take your argument as a warning that talking about such red herring issues leaves us in danger of going dangerously off topic when discussing abortion, and I thank you for reminding pro-abortionists that the real strength of our argument is that it is pro-choice.

I wish anti-abortionists could be as up front about their real issue with abortion...

Col, Scout and Wibble, thanks for your posts on here, I always enjoy them. So keep posting!

Its people like us, who think beyond the narrow, religious dogma interpretation of the world, who questioned, who challenged, who made a difference to bring about change. If the Catholic Church still had its way, even divorce would be seen as not acceptable
and not allowed.

I'm always amused when Philo, Martin and others, think that the world collapsed because their definition of morality was not being
enforced. What really affected societies in the past was in fact
diseases! The plague, smallpox etc, were the real culprits which killed millions and emptied cities. All the prayer in the world did not change things, but modern science made a difference.

Anyhow, thanks for your contributions, they are appreciated.

Yabby, examine your posts and take out the irrelevant evolution-theorizing, anti-Catholic-vitriol, foot-stamping, etc. you’d have nothing left…so much for relevance.

Scout, like many abused women, you protected your abuser…hiding your bruises. Your ‘problem’ was your relationship, not your doctor or baby. Denial prevents you ‘moving on’…

Despite your own attacks, I have neither abused you, nor preached dogma...neither has Philo.

I’ve stated my case and answered the vitriol hurled about on these threads like grenades.

Col, like Reason, you don’t read with comprehension…your prattle is irrelevant to the topic…and my comments...try re-reading.

You’ve argued for anarchy. Every individual must consider other’s needs also, not just self-gratification.

Gullible, greedy, gratuitous? Whatever the label, also try growing up…

Moni, RU486 will put abortion back home ‘out-of-sight-out-of-mind’…with no supervision. Lethal for the unborn and mothers will die too.

Wibble read previous posts – there are MANY TRUTHS. Judging from evidence on these threads, ‘suspicions’ that anti-lifers are obtuse, would be justified.

Rex, insults for the Pope, his followers, the unborn, other’s beliefs, etc. and then assumptions of other’s beliefs while pushing your agenda! Who’s forcing beliefs?

Effectively stated Philo...

Yabby your deceptiveness knows no bounds. Babies aren’t ‘created easily, in virtually unlimited amounts of abundance…’

You lack knowledge of human biology. Fertility is over days, periodically…NOT ‘unlimited amounts of abundance’.

I’m happy NOT to plow the fields…I don’t regard it’s loss as a ‘blow’.

I’ve yet to see women being ‘abused’ in front of abortion clinics…stick to the truth. They may be praying or offering brochures or help, but abuse, NO!

RE: Gay rats - hormones (contraceptive pills) are documented to produce such results in the next generation. Solution - Natural Methods.

Look in any schoolroom Coraliz, see how many live within stable ‘family’ groups, married parents and children…statistics back Philo’s comments.

Col and wibble, try killing of human beings as the issue. Col continually chooses which red herrings to ignore and which to include. As long as it’s his red herring, it’s ok…take out all the vitriol towards Catholics and Col’s posts don’t exist.