Now we're getting a little closer to the meat of the matter:

You make a fair point on the sentience v humanity argument, and you highlight the notion that it could lead to the termination of people with nominal brain function - again, fair enough.

On the other hand... if someone's brain function is so limited they are incapable of breathing or surviving without assistance, the plug is often pulled.

This bears more similarity to a foetus, though were I to draw a direct comparison, it would not acknowledge the fact that the foetus is developing and has a chance at life, while the brain damaged individual does not.

So we have the same runaround. Again it comes back to the perception of humanity, there are those who view foetuses as human, and there are others who see that the intertwined nature of the foetus's survival makes it more a part of the parent than an individual.

Two things to consider, when comparing people in states with limited brain function, which makes them different to a foetus:

One: do they have a chance of recovery (this one isn't so much a difference, but it leads into point two)

Two: They have lived a life... if they are comatose or something similar and have a chance of recovery, it represents a hiatus in brain function, which is different from a potential life (and make no mistake it is a potential life, many foetuses naturally terminate without assistance).

(And I've yet to see anyone show that opinionated2's argument is flawed).

To date, I have worked out that the following stats relevant to above are true; I have tried to be impartial:

Pro-Foeticide posts = 34, including support by –proxy.

Anti-Foeticide = 11, including a Bi-Polar post by Franzy

Central/Nuetral posts =21, including Questions and Comments.

Some posters had multiple scores, they were: IanHall 8, BillyC 2, Billie 6, Turnrightleft 3, Cornflower 7, Skeptic 2, Gekko 2, AudApple 4, Stewglass 5, Franzy 9, Samsaid 3, Bugs 4, Opinion2 3, Gadget 4, Darlene 2, Mykah 2 and MarRichardson 2.

I am in full support of this definitive and properly humane/human post by Blackstone:

‘I'm a mother of two and have had the privilege of being pregnant. Yes, ladies, it is a privilege. I am not anti-abortion. I am not anti-choice. But I do not think abortion should be touted as a lifestyle saving procedure. Abortion is not a form of birth control. Women should be entitled to have freedom over their bodies. But for those of us who have carried a child, those of us who have desperately tried to fall pregnant, those of us who have gone in for a 6 week ultrasound check to look for a heart beat - a fetus is a living, feeling, amazing miraculous soul. Don't dare tell us otherwise. ‘ Posted by Blackstone, Friday, 5 January 2007 7:56:38 PM

I believe this is our national benchmark, a place from where to begin repairing the damage perpetrated by the rabid death cult of abortion.

I think the Federal Parliament ought to form a National body, to oversee abortion. It should be enshrined in legislation, with a Salvationist perspective as part of its core functions.

Anyone contemplating foeticide should be hauled before this panel of Medical Experts to determine the validity of the impending slaughter. Make the body be populated with Doctors, Ethicists, Psychologists, Atheists-(1 of) and Church leaders on the panel.

Down with Abortion

Terminations will occur regardless so the best anyone can do is to look earnestly and frankly at what pressures contribute to the high termination numbers. There is nothing to be gained from forcing women to have children when there are systemic limitations and penalties for having them. We should not expect the underlying causes to be simple and some drilling down is needed.

To take an example, both men and women are having to study longer to compete in the jobs market and this combined with having to pay off a HECS debt and the lack of 'permanent' positions mean that couples are prevented from forming households as early as for previous generations. This is but an example of a possible scenario for some couples.

Maybe another of the causes could be that the brave new order of the intellectual elite that advises government is not conducive to family formation. For example, there is reason to suspect that many men could regard Family Law as being unfair. Stories abound of men who have lost all including access to their children following divorce.

There is also the other end of the problem which is finding out why contraception appears to be failing more than it should and for unexpected age groups (eg women 20-30).

Gadget and others vehmently anti-abortion -

What is your position on abortion where the pregnancy genuinely threatens the life of the woman? For example, when she has cancer? In these cases the pregnancy will both prevent treatment occuring and increase the spread of the cancer, likely making it beyond cure? Do you then still insist that the pregnancy must continue?

I am not being rude, I am genuinely interested as to how you would view such a situation.

Iain, I see what you mean about you not denying women the choice to have an abortion and that is commendable. Also commendable is the fight against attempts to de-emphasise the importance of the decision to abort or continue with a pregnancy.

The problem with accepting that a foetus is a living human being is that it makes every abortion murder. This, in turn, makes every woman and doctor who performs abortions murderers. The only solution to this outcome is to outlaw abortions in all cases—rape, threat to mother’s life, everything. This will stop the murder of unborn children. Mostly. Women will continue to access backyard and illegal abortions and the implications of that have been discussed.
In advocating for the recognition of foetus humanity, you are, while still supporting the availability of abortion, advocating the dehumanising of any woman seeking to access abortion.

The other solution is at the end of conception. Here the solution is no sex at all or contraception which can and does fail (as we have seen) and will result in an unwanted child or an illegal and dangerous abortion.
Iain, as a parent, you know that there is probably no greater upheaval to one’s life than a child. You probably also know that for any woman planning to have a child, regret, disappointment and unfulfilled ambition and potential in her own life are probably not high on the list of emotions that that woman wants to have hanging around going into that pregnancy. She would want to have a child under her own terms, not those of a parliament, a failed contraceptive or a rapist. These terms would also include choosing if, when and how she has that child. Hence, the ability to choose safe abortion.

Gadget – Thanks for that unintelligible comment on my personal blog! What happened? Losing friends in the Anti-foeticide camp? I’m also pretty sure that using ‘bi-polar’ to mean ‘crazy’ will lose you the few supporters you may have had left. Credibility, on the other hand … what’s nothin’ from nothin’?

Franzy said: 'The problem with accepting that a foetus is a living human being is that it makes every abortion murder'.

So presumably 'parasite' or 'tape worm' would be preferable to foetus.

At this stage maybe a quote from Lewis Carroll's Alice Through the Looking Glass is relevant:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Not taking sides however some of the rhetoric in this thread is so pompous and funny and would not be out of place in a student rag.