Laurie,
You are of course, free to make up your own mind. But using nonsensical logic does nothing to help the issue.

That you regard human life as only worthy of protection once it fulfills criteria conveniently assigned by you does indeed speak volumes about your opinion.

"Kenny" is a convincing argument for abortion.

Laurie says that while the developing baby is totally dependant on her, she is entitled to terminate its life. When this developing baby could survive without her, she concedes her body is no longer hers to do as she pleases.

Accordingly and by extension, the better a child can survive without its mother, the more its mother feels responsibility. This is the same warped logic that deprives their fathers or prospective adoptive parents from those children – or fathers of their children post divorce. These too, could all survive without their mother, but we instead subvert any other rights to those of the woman, even if only to save her from embarrassment.

Our society affords significant concessions to women. Abortions are thus a way of keeping our women looking beautiful and feeling empowered, at what the state perceives as reasonable costs

Hi all

Laurie (post 12:14:53 PM 6/3/06)

Your logic under democracy sounds very plausible. However, it doesn't withstand the scrutiny of extrapolated examination. May I give you an example?

Imagine that I marry a Satanist who believes in sacrifices. The sacrifices are new-born males. That's our choice. To meet the demands we have many children. We're not hurting you by killing our children. Under your logic we should be able do as we see fit.

Society might, however, see it otherwise. Society would be appalled because it would be murder.

Opportunistic abortions are similar, only this time the "god" is that of convenience. The child, if born, might have prevented the enjoyment of 'luxuries'.

Pregnancy under circumstances of rape or incest may be a different consideration?

Once couples used to adjust their lifestyle around their children. Today we adjust our children - if we have any at all - around "the pleasures of life".

Is it any wonder that families within the Western-world are often seen as bickering, dysfunctional non-entities? The children aren't focal, because they aren't planned. They're 'accidents'.
(6/3/06)

Scout (post 12:43:33 PM 6/3/06)

I do enjoy your posts - even though we disagree on this issue.

Democracy is a weird word to call our political system - the people rarely vote on any issue themselves. Maybe politicians would be honest if referendums were more frequent?

For many women it is a frustrated "last resort". For some it is a first resort. Often it is an ill-informed option - the counselling is done by pro-abortionists, & more tragically, by those who benefit financially.

It's amazing how frequently, women, when all the facts are known, seek an alternative. Those opportunities are all too frequent.

As to RU-486: it will take the death of a prominent citizen before opinions might begin to change. The death of someone unknown will go unnoticed. However, if it were say Peter COSTELLO's daughter or daughter-in-law, then publicity would be substantial.

Time will tell. Here we go: another Thalidamide.
(6/3/06)

Cheers all

For a very good IMPARTIAL overview of the RU-486 issue [prior to the recent vote], have a look at http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn19.htm

This is an extract on risk:

"Risk management and the TGA

The TGA’s risk management role means that it is specifically charged with identifying, assessing and evaluating the risks posed by therapeutic goods, applying any measures necessary for treating the risks posed, and monitoring and reviewing the risks over time.(32)

The key point here is that the TGA is regarded by the government as being qualified to manage the risks associated with any therapeutic good that is used (or proposed for use) in Australia. From this, one could reasonably assume that it is also qualified to manage the risks associated with abortifacients such as RU486."

As we all know, there are no guarantees in life. Merely being alive is a health risk. But we have come to rely more and more on medical intervention in order to have a long and satisfactory life. And, despite all the scientific checks and balances, sometimes something does not go according to plan.

Yes, the thalidomide situation was a disaster, which hopefully, we've learned something from. But we can't allow an occasional mistake, no matter how horrendous, to prevent new drugs from being researched, trialed and brought into use. None of us would be happy if medical research just stopped, in case something went wrong.

I'm sure that many prominent people have already died as a result of various medical procedures, but that does not translate to a public demand for those treatments to be discontinued, just as long as the risks are considered manageable in relation to the benefits.

Some will continue to say that, in almost all cases, abortion is not medically necessary. But I would suggest that a woman's peace of mind is part of a healthy lifestyle and can reasonably be given priority.

Hi all

Jenny Stokes (post 2:04:09 PM 6/3/06)

Thanks for your input. I just hope that your dissenters read what you wrote.
(6/3/06)

billie (post 2:17:18 PM 6/3/06)

".. the product of their 17 year old loins ..". Surely that's part of the 'problem' of "modern society" - we're too anxious to become adults without taking on the adult responsibilities that sex can & does lead to, pregnancy. Pregnancy has imbedded in its reality a responsibility to care for the creation - the foetus.

".. I don't think every fertilised egg .. is sacred ..". Oh, really?! Well, which ones are important & sacred? The too young? The too ugly? The diseased? The wrong sex? The unwanted? The inconvenient?

Don't you see that this logic is paralleled to the same lack of respect afforded to the starving children in Third World countries. Whatsmore, in famine-ridden lands, the mother may have little choice (but to under-nourish her child). With abortion, there is a cognitive decision made to not only under-nourish, but to kill.
(6/3/06)

R0bert (post 2:37:14 PM 6/3/06)

Society made the decision to lessen the values of a (supposed) stable married life between two loving committed humans who had as one of their principal life-goals the raising of a family.

Often, our 2 'casual' "partners" live together with little thought of permanency, & with no/little planning to pro-create. Society has become self-centred & irresponsibly "pleasure-seeking".

With easy divorce laws & a disposability thinking, is it any wonder that at best (on average) 2 people create 1.7 offspring.

Any divorce, driven by greedy lawyers, can become a battle over assets - the children thereafter suffer.

Our solution to a diminishing birth-rate? Give $3000 as an incentive to each child born. That's very little assistance to a family, but hugely helpful to the under-privileged who are often less-stable.

To the 'modern' ladder-climbing, career-couple, an unwanted pregnancy is an inconvenience. Heaven forbid that they might have actually planned their life apart from their income-flow & their social life!
(6/3/06)

Cheers all