Debate on this topic is always going to be hot and a big 'kudos' goes to Audrey for her courage.

I'd like to address Ian and the other pro-lifers (I hate that term!). Imbuing the foetus with all the characters of a full life opens us all to the path of much suffering. During the first weeks of our first pregnancy- a very much anticipated and desired pregnancy- my wife caught a fever. During that time the foetus she carried was badly damaged. Soon afterwards she miscarried, painful both emotionally and physically. Since then we have had a beautiful and healthy little boy. At times I think the first one and I console myself by saying that, while it was had potential, it was not a full life. What gives the 'pro-lifers' the right to challenge that opinion? Who says that they are able to make my pain, and the pain of thousands of other people, more intense by telling us that that foetus was just as alive as my little boy?

No one goes though an abortion unscathed. Despite the front shown to the world this is one of the hardest things to decide on and to live with. It is not one made for convenience. It is one made in the face of a harsh evolutionary equation: can I afford to give this child the life that it deserves? The massive investment in resources necessary to raise a child in our fragmented society makes this a vital question. If pro-lifers want more women to make the 'right' choice then they should be trying to rebuild the structures that made child rearing a community responsibility- not demonizing young women for coming out on the losing side of an equation we have given them.

One final point: the comment was made earlier that calling the foetus a parasite was a way of making it the 'enemy'. So is calling women who go though an abortion and the people that support them 'murderers'. It is just a way to make them 'not us' and therefore easier to hate.

Audrey, it all depends if it's "only a fetus" or if it really is a human being. If it's a human being growing inside you then all arguments abuot personal freedom are nuked by the prohibition on murder. If it's only a collection of cells accidentally growing as a parasite in your body then there is no moral prohibition on removing it and no public interest. So all other rhetoric and emotional arguments aside, how can we as a society confidentally say that the new life inside you is not human? We do confidently call a new-born baby human, and also one that is due tomorrow. And also one who is due to be born in 2, 3 4, 5 etc days. At what stage do we say the new life is not human? Unless we can confidently, with 100% certaintly say that the unborn baby is no human then we have no right to take it's life. If you were blindfolded, given a gun and asked to shoot, would you do so if you were unsure if there was a human being standing in front of you?

Franzy is operating according to some strange modernist mentality in which there is no objective truth but only our own subjectively created reality.

According to her, if the unborn is wanted by the mother then it's human. If it's not wanted by the mother, then it's non-human.

This is not just individual preference determining right and wrong (I don't want the unborn so it's alright to terminate it). It's individual preference determining the nature of being itself (I don't want the unborn so its being changes from human to non-human).

Although I generally support the right to choose, I would have reservations about the late term termination of an otherwise healthy foetus where the mother's health is not at risk. Quite obviously at this stage of development the foetus does not resemble a 'tape worm' as it was described by one respondent and nor would most people perceive the foetus as being entirely without rights at that stage (although the law could differ on that). In what I consider to be a worst case scenario (though unlikely), a healthy foetus that could survive with little assistance could be delivered then killed.

However I don't think the standard should be set at the stage at which the foetus could be supported outside the womb with the full assistance of life support and probably with the likelihood of some detriment to brain or other bodily functions if it survives.

Maybe those who are not engaged in the slanging match over all or none might similarly like to discuss these issues.

MYKAH: You hit the nail on the head. The real questions are:

1. When does the fetus/zygote begin living?
2. When does the fetus/zygote begin being human?

All the other questions come next (ie is abortion acceptable in cases of rape, incest, mental health of mother, lifestyle changes, father support issues etc).

But if we can't answer the 2 fundamental questions we are trying to do quantum physics when we haven't finished primary maths.

I would be interested in hearing everyone's views on this (although I think Franzy has responded already)

Ha ha! Franzy’s a boy y’all…

Stewart Glass – I did answer your (ridiculous) question. I believe that the foetus is a living organism that is not a human being.

Sam said – People often throw out the statistic of 90,000 abortions a year without qualifying that this includes standard D&C procedures that have nothing to do with terminating a foetus. As a doctor, you should know that.

Stewart Glass – “Obviously you, and Billie and Audrey don't see yourselves as selfish or murdering - (though you do see abortion as killing but not murder).” I never said I thought it was killing, so please don’t imply that I am selfish and murdering through rose coloured glasses.

Opininoated2 – “I was more pro-life than the parents, the boyfriend or anyone else for that matter. I was pro the young woman's life - unconditionally.” Thankyou for illustrating so succinctly the most important issue at hand here – and good on you for helping the woman when her family had abandoned her. When ranting about the supposed ‘pro-abortion’ industry, few people acknowledge that the people who are most likely to talk a woman into abortion is her family, her friends and her partner. I wish people would understand the the pro-choice camp’s only agenda is to provide unqualified support for the pregnant woman seeking help.

Franzy – I know you are more than capable of looking after yourself, so as you were.

Iain Hall – I think Billie sums it up perfectly when she says that a foetus becomes a baby when it becomes able to survive outside the womb. Until then, it is reliant upon the host for its survival and said host has the right to decide if she wants to share her body with it.

Gadget –I’m willing to deal with zealots but you’re actually just offensive, sexist and crazy. Please refrain from commenting here anymore.

Bugs – Everyone knows the woman’s desire is immaterial when it comes to birthing children silly!