Meg1,
as you suggested I re-read your previous posts. Most of your arguments seem to be rebuttals, but with a limited word count and more people attacking your position than supporting it, that is fair enough. If I have missed an argument that is central to your case, I probably misread it as rebuttal, and I apologise. Please add any points I have missed.

These were points I could interpret as making a case against abortion, though I’m not sure you were attempting to. I think these are countering other arguments, or showing your views of morality, in a broader context.

*“Where’s the baby’s (2ndindividual's) decision?”-8 March

*”‘Criminalising pregnancy is a very very dangerous path to go down’ – I agree Col, which is why abortion is wrong, it does just that”-6 March

*”…‘PLENTY’ of Australian women DON”T die in childbirth Col, that's fallacy and killing viable babies of at-risk mothers is counter-productive”-8 March

*”RE: Truth does not require belief. If it is truth then it will be proven…at some stage”-10 March

*”However, there’s nothing natural about abortion…”-13 March

These are the points that seem central to your anti-abortion argument-

*”…only the Creator should decide when your time has come”-4 March

*”Abortion kills another human being”-5 March

*”…try killing of human beings as the issue”-16 March

*” 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...you're deciding on a living human, whatever stage of life it's at, there's no doubt on that score...Even if life is held in suspension, it remains until it's extinguished, however, it cannot be commenced by injecting life-sustaining drugs or anything else, including genetic material into a human corpse at any stage of the life span...if life isn't there, it won't commence or develop, except from conception”-6 March

*”As for ‘a piece of steel’ being a ‘potential car’…apart from being inanimate, it can potentially be many things. A conceived human life remains a human life with potential…get the difference?”-12 March

(continued)

Meg1: Philo made a grand generalization in saying:
"It would seem that this generation feels marriage is a hinderance and woman have children to any man without responsibility. That sex alone is the criteron of the pinacle of a relationship." Your statement to me that Philo was correct is just as grand and I would like to understand where the logic of your remark came from.
Your suggestion "Look in any schoolroom Coraliz, see how many live within stable ‘family’ groups, married parents and children…statistics back Philo’s comments" will not give me any statistics to support Philo's sweeping aspersion on this generation.

Meg1

You claim to never have abused me.

1. You stated that I needed a dictionary for the word 'dogma'

What a pathetic little swipe. If I ever did need a dictionary, with the likes of you, Philo and LAB - I have had a surfeit of dogma.

2. Judging me ie 'my problem is.....' need to 'move on' is personal abuse, Meg1.

For a start I did move on - I no longer live with my spouse - despite the fear and abuse I managed to escape completely - he has no idea where I am. Something I would not have been able to achieve if I had gone through with my pregnancy.

On the subject of women who have abortions being called murderers.

1. We go on to become loving mothers and partners.
2. We work, contribute to society.
3. We are not a threat to society as we care enough about ourselves and children not to bring children into dangerous and inappropriate situations.

Again, Meg1 I say to you - you do not have to have abortions, no one is forcing you to. All I ask is that my decisions about my life be respected. You have not done so, you have hoisted yourself above all others and presumed to judge.

Are you so perfect, so free of sin that you have the right to judge others?

Meg, your Catholic Church accepts evolution theory, they just don't apply it to their dogma. The laws of nature are my god, ignore them at your peril.

Lets look at what happenend in Rwanda, where Catholic pro life dogma prevailed and the Catholic pro life commandos used to raid the pharmacies and destroy the condoms. The population went up and up,
land, people and the environment got out of balance, the system stressed to the limits. Woooosh - genocide by the hundreds of thousands happened. Catholics killing Catholics. But, you ignore nature at your peril, you think you've got your ticket to heaven, so what do you care or even understand about these things.

Meg, organsims are created very easily, in massive overabundance, in just about all species. Again you ignore natures laws. The limits are always in resources to raise the offspring, not in creating organisms. Then you have the human problem. We've learnt how to create vaccines and antibiotics etc, so an unnatural situation.
They are great if used with intelligence, but combined with cheap food from cheap oil, they have created a human population explosion in the last 100 years. If you keep encouraging people to breed like rabbits, like the pro life people in Rwanda, don't be amazed when genocide happens as the system collapses. Thats my very point, Catholic dogma is responsible for much misery and sadness around the planet, when much of it could be avoided with just a little intelligence.

What are you doing in front of abortion clinics Meg? Are you out there harrassing those poor women too?

Clearly your natural methods of birth control have been a dismal failure in Catholic Rwanda Meg.

Wibble – you are correct, I was warning, not criticising. Thank you for putting the correct interpretation on my post.

Yabby – until around 100 years ago people were ruled by social order and held in check by their class status. The vast majority of us have weathered well in the revolution which has ensued through the 20th Century to break that offensive system.

Unfortunately the organised religions, who depended upon the maintenance of the status-quo and implied authority of the clergy have been the losers.
Hence, they resent that individuals can exercise freewill without first requesting permission (which was often denied).

Some small minds still cling to the old order, where all direction is derived from the pulpit.

We should pity them, they have not adjusted well. They cling vainly to what was. Incapable of exercising reasoned decision making and needing a life pre-ordained and regulated, where they are relieved of the responsibility to take or make decisions.

Scout. You have brought into this debate some important points, the things which can only be expressed from the perspective of personal experience.

You have also identified another important issue.
If it were up to the Catholic Church, You would still be married to the abusive brute who you sought escape from.

A “double-wammie”.

I too am divorced, although I have a good relationship with the mother of my children and shared an enjoyable dinner recently, at my younger daughter’s 21st birthday, each with our respective new partners.

Rex, based on his posts here and the insight he has given to his own thought processes; I would suggest, he and I share a lot of common values beyond this debate.

Philo, I could regale you of my counselling experiences too.
To summarise them
If the counsellor preaches “This is not what you must / must not do” they will achieve nothing.
If the counsellor asks “Well what are you going to do about it” and advises on consequences, only then do they stand a chance of making a difference.

Meg1 – based on your last post, you have “lost it”.

I've been off line for a few days so have not been able to post online as my security settings were set too high.
_________________

You would think that intelligent beings as we purport to be; by now could have put responsible practises in place to avoid pregnancy in the first place if we did not want a pregnancy. No it would appear we prefer to have a hand in the death of our potential children.

It is not Rawanda that are aborting their young and need RU486 to do so; It is Australians! It is obvious that many Australians do not possess the intelligence we imagine above Rawandians to avoid a pregnancy. Rawandians may not use condoms but it would appear that Australians do not either. It would appear we prefer to kill our children in the womb while Rawandians allow the ravages of poverty and disease to kill their children. This does not make us superior.

In fact it is our affluence and drugs that would place us in a better position to raise children if poverty is the criterion to abort.