Brian,

This issue really isn't anywhere near as much of a conundrum as you think. It is one of those few issues in society that really is black or white.

Arguement A: If an unborn child is recognised as a human being, then by default abortion is clearly murder. Unless perhaps the life of that child is posing a serious and real threat to the life of his/her mother.

Arguement B: If an unborn child is not recognised as a human being, or is considered sub-human, or some kind of lesser-human, then perhaps abortion may not be considered as murder.

So the crux of the arguement is weather and when an unborn child is considered to be worthy of our current society's arbitrary measure of what constitutes a human being.

Remember in Hitler's Germany many were considered sub-human/lesser-human and it was considered scientific fact. I am sure the indiginous peoples of this country were not to happy with their 'sub-human' banner only lifted here in the late 60's.

Brian I put this to you. There are only 2 single things that all human beings share - and this is proven by scientific fact:-

1. Being genetically homo-sapien.
2. Being alive.

Have a think about that. Every single claim you can think of to de-humanise the unborn can be disproven by the fact that each and every supposed sub-human trait can be found in many fellow humans who have made it past the abortion gauntlet and are considered human.

I guarantee you that the above measure holds 100% of the time - try it.

I seems to me that the only thing that an unborn child has thats different from say a severly mentally disabled person or a person in a 9 month coma is that they just happen to be unlucky enough not be born yet and live in a society where abortion is as accessable as having a tooth pulled.

PS I am sure that half the people here were un-wanted at some point in their lifes.

As a developmental geneticist, I find the entire debate over reproductive technology (including abortion/contraception etc.) misguided. It is based on the mistaken idea that human life actually begins. It never does! Human eggs and sperm are not dead. They are living cells whose main difference from any others is that they have one copy of the genome rather than two. Human life is not a series of discrete events but rather a continuous chain of biological life alternating between a one-copy and two-copy genome state. (At some stage in its neural development, each two-genome-state human form becomes self-aware - i.e. an "individual"). Human life BEGAN about 3.5 billion years ago when the first living cell arose and each of us living today is only here because ALL of our millions of ancestors were survivors who reproduced - a fantastically unlikely event (so count yourself lucky)!

Is a soul created when two living cells with one genome copy each fuse to form a single living cell with two genome copies (not a remarkable event in biological terms)? Surely the debate on the value of human life should centre around consciousness and when human consciousness becomes sufficiently developed for self-awareness. Beating each other over the head about the rights or wrongs of "killing" a newly-formed two-genome-copy cell is ridiculous! (How many two-genome-copy cells in our bodies die naturally each day - millions?)

Maybe we're asking the wrong question here.

Instead of asking when life begins we could be asking how we can go about helping pro-lifers live with the fact that abortion is legal. Unless Tony Abbott somehow manages to swing a dictatorship sometime soon, abortion is going to stay legal.

I don't like the fact that Tony Abbott is the health minister, but I'm not going to get hysterical about it. I live with it.

Maybe we should be thinking of pro-lifers as trauma victims and work out ways to help them live with the reality of abortion.

Murder will always be murder just as stealing will always be stealing. Legalising something does not change the morality of it. The pro death campaign do not argue that abortion use to be murder because it was illegal. The authors arguement is summed up 'Debating the issue seems pointless.'

Many people hearts are so hardened that they will continue to defend the indefencible. The defender of life then becomes the villian. I dare say many of us would not even be allowed to have had an opinion if abortion was legal in our parents day.

This article is another pathetic attempt to hide the fact that we have legalised the murder of those who can't defend themselves. The same people then scream about sending Australian troops to war. Our morality is warped.

Michael in Adelaide,

I have an autistic cousin who is far from conscious nor self aware.

By your logic if someone where to murder him it would be acceptable?

Read my post above - every single de-humanising excuse anyone can think of can be disproven by the the genetics/alive measure.

Told you it works 100% of the time.

Next please.

Daniel06, dragging your cousin into this debate, although emotional, really has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is legal. Your cousin's autism would have been noticed when he was 2+ years old, and killing a 2 year old is murder or euthanasia.

Yes pro-choicers have to be vigilant to preserve the right for Australian women to be able to access safe medical abortions.

When single women have children they are condemning themselves and their child to years in substandard housing, living a demeaning hand to mouth subsistence on the paltry single parent pension and waiting in long queues to access health and dental services for themselves and their children. Make no mistake unremitting poverty triggers depression.

If abortion is murder then logically anti-abortionists must campaign for the full weight of the law to be brought down on women who have abortions and family planning clinics which assist them in the process. Yet I have not heard that the Christian Democrats or Families First or Right to Life have proposed such legislation.

If anybody knows anything about such proposed legislation I would be interested in seeing it.

DavidJS - In the US some people do feel that way, and doctors have been murdered and clinics firebombed as a result of their Christian 'forgiveness'.

Daniel06 - Did you even read the article? The author's main point was that there is no clear definition of what an 'unborn child' actually is.

When does an unborn child become an unborn child? When the egg is fertilised? When the nervous system is in place? When the mother feels love?

I also liked the point about human vs. animal life. Why is it compassionate to have abortions, cullings, and euthanasia in animals, but not humans?

cheers,

gw

DavidJS,

I think you will find the vast majority of people who oppose the murder of unborn babies more concerned about the child then they are prosecuting those who murder them. Personally I think most people involved are willfully blind or deceived. Maybe they need an education campaign that shows them the nature of their crime instead of threatening with laws that never change a heartless person into a person of compassion.

grn, my main point was to find out whether anti-abortionists intend to live up to their principles or not. To say abortion is murder is a pretty serious charge. And if abortion is murder then legislation must be amended or new legislation introduced to ensure that women who have abortions should receive life sentences.

Nowhere on the websites of NSW Right to Life, Families First or the Christian Democratic Party is there a statement that a) abortion is murder and b) those who do it should be treated like any other murderer. Nor are there proposed legislative options to get the NSW Government to treat abortion the same as murder.

All I can conclude is that the main anti-abortion groups in this state have no idea what they are talking about or they are unable to even try to live up to their principles.

runner - thank you for demonstrating the views of the pro-life advocates who refuse to consider the notion that abortion isn't murder.

You can call these cells 'unborn babies' and use words like 'murder' all you want but that only demonstrates the fact that your view hinges on the notion that these collections of unthinking - yes, unthinking in the early stages of development - cells have a soul, which is the edifice your views are constructed on.

Until you address the fact that these cells don't have a brain, and are indeed have such broad genetic characteristics that they have yet to become unique, you're just highlighting the empty, emotional nature of your argument.

There is a distinction between a human being and living human tissue, which even people like Runner would make when confronted with a brain dead patient. When someone is diagnosed as brain dead we have no problems in pulling the plug, or in removing (living!) organs for experimentation or transplant into other people. We would have no problems even if medical technology could keep the heart beating for another 30 years. No one is there any more! Similarly, if an embryo or fetus could not pass the test for brain death, why isn't it reasonable to say that no one is there yet?

To worry about single cells reminds me of the recent controversy about Shambo the temple bull at a Hindu temple in Britain. The bull was recently diagnosed with bovine TB and ordered put down by the authorities. Some of the more devout Hindus are proposing a human chain to protect Shambo. As the Swami in charge of the temple put it, "The sacred life of a temple bull is not to be desecrated". I doubt if Runner would have much sympathy for him, but why is his own position any different? There may well be reasons for objecting to abortion within a particular religious tradition, but why should views which cannot be justified, other than by an appeal to revelation, be forced on people who don't agree with them?

The troublesome thing about many pro-lifers is that their involvement begins and ends with their personal moral view of the world and displays no empathy toward the parent or interest in the outcome.

For example, if a woman has a valid personal or medical reason for a termination the opponents never ever say “Have the child and I will personally contribute to the ongoing cost of medicine or treatment” or ”I will adopt the child and raise it as my own” or offer to undertake any involvement for the consequences.

No, they just exacerbate whatever moral suffering the woman has already gone through and are happy to subject others to a potential lifetime of misery - and simply go home feeling good about themselves for doing “the right thing”.

Many have surrendered personal responsibility for their own life-decisions to another authority yet in turn demand that others surrender the same choices to them.

Some claim to cherish the life of an unborn child yet are silent during wartime or support capital punishment.

How many make an active physical contribution toward looking after the sick or destitute or does their compassion for humanity begin before birth and end shortly afterward?

For every feel-good victory they announce, how many other lives have they ruined?

Until they demonstrate a vested personal interest in the outcome it’s more a display of moral arrogance and superiority.

The right-or-wrong decision is simply not theirs to make and not their burden to carry through life.

People talk of abortion as if it is all one and the same. It isn't. I dare anyone to witness a partial birth abortion and declare that procedure anything other than murder. All men and women advocating abortion as a simple procedure with out residual emotional and physical consequences should have to view a partial birth abortion. It may not be the highest percentage of type of abortion technique given that about 85% of all abortions are performed before or at 12 weeks gestation. Everything less than 22 weeks gestation is considered nonviable (the shortest length of pregnancy after which a child born prematurely has a chance of survival. Generally, this ranges from 20-27 weeks.)However, such a experience might bring those having a loose interpretation of what constitutes life to refine their personal definition. Showing the woman the fetus after it's been taken from her womb might reduce the number of second and third and forth abortions some women have. Advocating for abortion to be seen no different to a trip to the dentist with out moral consequence is a political stance I can not endorse. I refuse to accept as some posters suggest, that this is because I'm a man. I know lot's of women who think as I do.
I'm not anti-abortion. I believe it has it's medical value and support the pro-choice line. I most definitely am not pro-abortion. I do question the necessity that 1/4 of all Australian pregnancies are terminated through abortion. I believe this very fact needs to be questioned by the Australian public in terms of moral and ethical behavior patterns.

The thing about abortion is that at the end of the day the woman decides. It doesn't matter if the fetus is a living soul or a bunch of cells, because if the woman doesn't want it she can get rid of it, even if it is unlawful to do so.
And the social stigma of abortion may never vanish, no matter how hard the "pro-choice" side pushes for it to be socially accepted. Even if it was totally accepted socially, the woman is always the one who has to live with the decision and her own conscience.

So actually from a religious perspective, it is more the womans "soul" that could suffer from the act, not so much the unborn.

I think "pro-life" advocates would better serve if they turned their energies from damning to helping. Many do this already. Concentrate on the "pro-life" idea rather than "anti-abortion". Help these woman be able to survive the 9 months of pregnancy and then help find a suitable home for the child. Help make it not so much of a terrible, "life-ending" prospect for a woman to carry a baby to term and give birth when she doesn't want to raise it. Reduce the abortion rate by positive action rather than duress and damnation.
Save both their "souls".

Daniel06 the unborn child is not recognized as an autonomous and independent human being, it is entirely dependent upon someone elses body and only has “rights” subordinate to the rights and choices of the occupant of the other persons body (viz the woman who is pregnant)

Re “Remember in Hitler's Germany many were considered sub-human/lesser-human “ References to Hitler is not a good debating tactic especially when

Hitler’s Germany made attempting to obtain an abortion a criminal offence punishable by death.

Runner “Murder will always be murder”

And abortion will be abortion - not murder – check the dictionary, the two definitions do not refer to the other in any way at all

As for “Warped morality” – morality is a subjective value and thus what is warped for some is straight for others.

For myself, I find the notion of paedophile priests being systematically protected by their bishops and religious hierarchy the most “warped” of all morality.

Divergences point is right on the money.

What is obvious is that it is a womans body which is carrying the embryo, until the moment of birth, when and only when, the (now) baby is recognized as a separate and autonomous individual.

What is also obvious is the woman is the first occupant of her own body and that woman has rights which pre-exist those of the embryo.

If that woman does not want to proceed with a pregnancy then it is her sovereign right to decide not to and it is no one else business or right to interfere, regardloess of how selfrighteous they might feel.

I've always been against abortion - don't really know why. My basic moral foundation lies in not doing harm. Once a couple have sex I see that as an acknowledgement that the possibility of a new life is eminent. So it’s at this point of commitment that decisions and care must be undertaken. Johnny Rotten (John Lyndon) said "We (the working class) never accept responsibility for our own lives and that is why we'll always be down trodden." And so it goes for all.

I question the feminist idea that it is a women’s issue. I think it is a humanist, or more precisely a non-gender, issue. We cannot set about making laws on the basis of sex or “ownership”. Unborn children are the responsibility and belong with their parents first and foremost but they are also the responsibility of all society. Perhaps, as a poster above suggested, the wider community need to take more responsibility when women and their partners find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. The value of human life isn’t reflected in our laws.

Having said this, I really don’t see how it helps to slag off women as murderers. I think pro-abortionists need to try and understand why people, who see it as murder, get so angry. And the anti-abortionistsneed ask: “Do these women deserve to be treated this way? - to be guilt laden?” And the actions of the more radical anti-abortionist are a contradiction to the idea of pro-life. The women and men who find themselves with a pregnancy don’t make the laws – you do (supposedly).

What’s a soul?

I think Irish lass once said that God would accept an aborted baby because it was absolutely innocent. The baby’s soul would be born straight into the arms of God. Hmmm.

According to the Catholics, I’m an evil lost soul; according to the educated elite, I’m stupid; and according to the anti-feminists, I’m a retard; according to the rednecks, I’m all of the above; so before the gimmicks come out and start coating me off - I’d better go and hide their bastard pills.

This seems to me to have been for the most part a very intelligent discussion. Hope of reconciliation between pro-life and pro-choice seems to be remote. There seems to be an assumption that we make up our minds by considering the facts and arriving at a logical decision - hence all the disputation about what is a soul, what is a life. I think that on the issue of abortion many of us have a deep conviction and then delve for arguments to prove the validity of our gut. I am not knocking this rationisation process, it is true for many issues. I happen to be pro-choice for purely pragmatic reasons. Who wants unwanted children? How can an unwanted child get a fair go? Why should an unwilling woman be required to have an unwanted child? At some arbitrary point we have to declare that a destruction of life be a murder and therefore forbidden. But that arbitrary point needs to be settled through democratic process. Souls, sacredness of life, right and wrong in an amoral universe, all these are rationalisations of what our gut is telling us, no more.

well well well....it is funny to see that the majority of people who have responded to this article are male....well by nicknames i have assumed and very well could be mistaken. it is amazing that not many women have respond to this or to what some people have said.

Aborition is not murder, it is far from it. many of you have put forth these beliefs with really good analogies.
i agree that people should not waste their time fighting against something that gives a women choice. for many years women lived without any choice and now that they are gaining some they are being criticized for it. why not fight against children living in poverty, domestic violence, child abuse (physical and sexual)racism, the disgusting treatment of immigrants. Aborition is legal and very acceptable.

If it is simply a matter of it being the womans body, therefore her decision alone to abort or not to abort, do not make men responsible for children at any stage of the process. Those who advocate that it is a womans body should be also advocating that Men should have zero responsibility for children period. The whole concept of children should be a female issue and a female responsibility and men should be free from any and all regard.

At the end of the day, the question of abortion is a subjective
question, given that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Darwin was right. Far more potential beings of any species will be
created, then can every survive. We ignore the laws of nature at
our peril.

My own personal line in the sand is drawn at the point where
a being becomes a person, ie they have a functioning human brain.
No human brain = no person.

Runner and others might well preach their sanctamonious preaching
about the heart. I remind him that hearts are pumps, nothing
more.

Do they practise what they preach? I guess actions speak louder
then words. There is much noise preached about the sanctity of
human life. It seems everyone wants to tell everyone else what
to do, as long as it does not involve their own personal resources.

Given the number of starving babies in Africa, Runner is free to
sell his computer and send the money there, and save another couple.
Or he is free to keep telling us about how uncaring we are, whilst
he puts his own self interest first, via owning his computer, when
those babies could be saved

Wobbles says –

“The troublesome thing about many pro-lifers is that their involvement begins and ends with their personal moral view of the world and displays no empathy toward the parent or interest in the outcome.”

This is true of “many pro-lifers”, and I think it’s a big part of the problem.

Donnie says –

‘I think "pro-life" advocates would better serve if they turned their energies from damning to helping. ...... Help these women be able to survive the 9 months of pregnancy and then help find a suitable home for the child. Help make it not so much of a terrible, "life-ending" prospect for a woman to carry a baby to term and give birth when she doesn't want to raise it .....’

I can’t put it better, so I won’t try to.

I’m in the pro-life camp, and am quite clear about abortion almost always being homicide, but I’m very conscious that pro-life has got obsessed about this one aspect of a complex and varied situation.

Col Rouge says – “morality is a subjective value” And Yabby says something similar:

“At the end of the day, the question of abortion is a subjective question, given that there is no such thing as objective morality.”

If Col and Yabby are right, then there is nothing to discuss. I mean, there is never anything to discuss. Not even the legality of abortion, because someone might not subjectively “feel” morally bound to obey the law.

The fact that we’re all bumping heads over this means we all know there is a moral reality and that abortion, like everything else, has a real moral character. It’s just that we have a different idea of what it is. Imagine someone hiding either an apple or orange behind their back and asking people to guess: some say “apple”, some say “orange”. They may be confident or not, vehement or not. They have subjective opinions, but these opinions are about an objective fact. I see morality like that.

Ronnie Peters: Good luck with all your labels. You’ll need to make some t-shirts!

Pax,

Yabby's arguement of all pro abortionist being hyprocites is typical of the pro deaths arguement in trying to defend the indefencible. As if giving money to Africa has anything to do with the murder of thousands of unborn babies mainly due to inconvenience. Yabby then argues the hopelessly flawed moral relativism arguement which is secular humanism at its worst. Secular humanist or athiest continue to insist their view is correct and then deny absolutes. How dishonest?

Many great posts and a wonderful debate!

Abbott shows, with his anti-choice crusade, that he is more concerned with protecting Ratzinger’s health than with protecting Australian women’s health, even though he is being paid to be concerned about women’s health.
If he was serious about women’s health, he would do everything in his power to help women PREVENT unplanned pregnancies. He is reactional and will keep running around in the same circle.
Do we see him putting any pressure on the government to greatly improve sex education in all of our schools? Does he hand out free contraception to all (teenage) women?
Are condoms easily available from all senior's High Schools toilet area's?

WHY NOT?

If he neglects his duty as a health minister he should have to hand in his present portfolio. Making abortion harder to obtain is gambling with tax-paying women’s health!

There is enough evidence that promoting excellent sex education and free contraception is making abortions very rare (lowest rates are in the Netherlands: 6 in every 1000 women, while the vast majority having an abortion are the immigrant women who obviously have missed out on sex ed.)

Most abortion cases are in countries where abortion is illegal and where there is no realistic sex education. Telling teenagers not to have sex to prevent pregnancies doesn’t even count as sex Ed in my opinion.

FACE IT!

Ignoring these facts and not acting upon them is neglectant and moronic.
Instead of calling women murderers, why don’t pro-life crusaders do something positive and insist on prevention?

As Bill Clinton said, abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Abortion MUST remain legal in order to be safe. I add, it should not only be safe and legal, it should be easily accessible as well! Accessibility does not increase abortion rates.

Continued

Religions should not interfere with the freedom of others.
Why is it that anti-abortion campaigners justify violating the rights of women in the name of religious morals?

Do religious anti-abortion campaigners have a patent on morals now?

BTW, there are quite a few religious organisations in agreement with legalisation of abortion.

About the soul argument, it does not make sense.

One reason is that the evidence of the existence of souls or a God is absent. Stick to reality and facts when dealing with important issues, not with fairy tales.

Reality is that many women have to deal with unwanted pregnancies and should have choices and support in whatever decision they make.

Who wants to favour something that does not exist over an adult woman, who, obviously does exist and has human rights?
A woman’s physical and emotional well-being should always have priority over the non existing.

CR is right; abortion is nobody’s business but the pregnant woman’s.

Newsflash for the pro-lifers:

Woman -->> Boss of Belly!

"Secular humanist or athiest continue to insist their view is correct and then deny absolutes."

Runner, you are correct, us evil secularists believe in things
like people having choices in their lives, tolerance of others
etc. How shocking is that!

Given that you have no idea as to why various women make the choices
they do when it comes to abortion, I'd say that judging them
is rather arrogant of you.

As there is no substantiated evidence of any being who can claim
to decide on objective moral absolutes, it clearly makes no sense to
accept them.

Perhaps we could send you to the Taliban for a bit, so that you
can experience what living under claimed moral absolutes is really
like! :)

Runner “Secular humanist or athiest continue to insist their view is correct and then deny absolutes. How dishonest?”

Strange you put a question mark after “how dishonest”.
I would have thought you were actually making a statement, not asking a question, not even a rhetorical one but then, I do possess a rational mind, which might limit my ability to interpret the ravings of the irrational.

I would note, runner, your post has not advanced the reasoning process one iota.

The point of debating is to sway the argument, you seem to be content to make emotional stabs in the air with a blunt object as substitute for rapier wit and expect your antagonists to fall before you.

That is very Quixotic of you and like all things efforts to fight windwills, completely pointless.

Now, maybe you could try to challenge the statements of reason which I and others have made, which support the idea that women (and men) are sovereign individuals, with the right to determine their own destiny and that whilst that destiny may not comply or conform with your beliefs, those people are not forced to fealty to whatever mumbo-jumbo you shroud yourself in and would seek to inflict on others.

Good thief, If you believe, like I do, that individuals are free to make up their own mind, then yes, morality is subjective. The moral “collective value” is enshrined in the “law” of the country.

The “law” regarding abortion was introduced around 180-120 years ago (generally in the early half of 19 century) and repealed around 30 years ago, thus to “change”, abortion law could not be “absolute”. Thus it must be “non-absolute” or “subjective”.

Celivia, Happy to agree about prevention. However, that will only reduce the number of abortions, not eliminate them. They should be as rare as executions and killings in self-defence. You too want abortions to be rare, but why? Certainly not for the sake of the foetus. Two long posts from you without one reference to the foetus. Just “women, women, women”. Something missing.

Yabby, The evidence for objective morals is the fact that we are all having this discussion. If morality were merely subjective, we wouldn’t bother: we’d just have our different moral “feelings” and that would be that, there’d be nothing to discuss. If we did discuss, it would be like me saying “I have a headache” and you saying “I don’t have a headache”. Notice there’s no disagreement about the headache, just different separate feelings. However, when we express different views about abortion, don’t you get the impression that we’re talking about the same thing and disagreeing about it?

Col Rouge, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the sovereignty of the individual. Personally, I regard God as sovereign and humans as equal subjects. Anyhow, I am concerned about the limitations you seem to be placing on who is, and who isn’t, an individual. I say the foetus is.

I think we should do better than the law. For example, I regard lying as morally wrong, but it’s legal. It’s only fraud that’s illegal, ie lying for money. Same with adultery, or cheating on your partner generally: legal, but not right. Do you really regard lying and cheating as morally acceptable? I know I can’t force my view about what is right down your throat – and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t even if I could, as a matter of respect – but that doesn’t mean abortion is okay and up for grabs. If morality were really subjective, then everything would be okay, as every thing is bound to have the support of someone who “feels” it’s okay. In that case, the word "moral" wouldn't even exist. But, it does exist, and it means something.

Pax,

I agree with Celivia and Col Rouge with one exception. If it is to be the womans singular responsibility and rightful choice prior to any birth to abort or not to abort, then it should also be the womans singular responsibility after a birth. Men should be removed from the equation and laws passed that reflect child birth as a womans right and men being protected from support issues.
"I have chosen to abort. I have chosen to carry a child to full term. Oh, by the way. In 9 months it becomes your responsibility to see that it has food, clothing, shelter, access to health care, education and other social services for the rest of your life. It does not matter if you want the child or not". And The Courts back up this double standard. It's time men were freed from the financial responsibility of womens rights choices and their decisions.

I have difficulty understanding the apparently vast difference between two gametes about to fuse and a fertilised ovum. Destroying the former is uncharitable. Destroying the latter is murder. Presumably it is the same situation for a cell used to produce a clone.

What is the condition that is being satisfied here? The potential to become a functioning human being is satisfied by all cases, but such a definition would make all functioning human beings mass murderers. Kicking your toe or a having a good scratch would make you a murderer. In fact, a woman having an abortion would account for the loss of far fewer potential lives than a patient undergoing liposuction.

Then there is the related question of whether other animals have human qualities and how this might affect their status.

It has been discussed before on OLO but no differences have been resolved. I believe that the onus of proof lies with the right to lifers. If they wish to refer to consenting women having abortions as murderers, then they must show why an embryo should be so differently regarded than its precursors.

This article by Brian Holden is the most muddled and poorly argued article I’ve read in a while on OLO. It is so bad that I begin to question the process of how articles get to be placed on OLO.

Perhaps they think it good to choose the most controversial subject there is, abortion, find an article that presses people’s buttons with some pseudoscience, add a dash of religious bigotry, and you have a certain recipe to increase the participation rates on this site.

If that was the plan, then it worked on me, because here I am adding my little contribution.

Many of the posters above contain more rationality than the article, in much less space. The article itself concludes with “Debating the issue seems pointless”, which makes you wonder why he wasted his breath up until that point. I think he’s wrong. I think any issue that touches on our deepest sensitivities and most basic sense of right and wrong is worth debating.

If I could just tackle one of his many fallacies, Holden is dismissive of the idea that a human embryo can have a soul. The pro-lifer believes the opposite, but Holden is worried the pro-lifer has religious motivation. However he cannot deny a religious position without taking a religious position himself. To deny a position you must enter the same philosophical plane (which he obviously does). For example, the denial of theism is atheism. That he dresses his position in scientific terms does not hide that he simply holds a different position to the pro-lifers on the human soul. He’s not any less religious.

If I could offer one reason why I believe abortion is wrong (trying hard to not to refer to any one particular religion), I appeal to the interconnectedness of all people. ‘No man is an island.’ As humans we sense our relatedness. Go back far enough in ancestry and we are all related. I challenge the individuality in our society. When any one life is ended, no matter how small or defenseless, we all feel pain and feel at loss.

The person I would most like to pick the bone with is Chainsmoker, and maybe DavidJS who said something similar, that is, pro-lifers are just finding it hard to get over the fact that abortion is now legal.

Hey, Chainsmoker, this country is a democracy. We are always free to change the laws. All it needs is a popular vote. In fact, if you want to be a good citizen, you are morally obliged to help or at least vote to change bad laws.

The abortion law changed with Roe v. Wade (and other similar court decisions around the world) about 30 or so years ago. Not long before that, the law was different and most people thought differently. Times change and tides turn fairly quickly.

That reminds me that 2007 is the 200th anniversary of the law that brought the abolition of slavery around the British Empire. In those days slavery was the hot debate, just like abortion is now. Many of the same arguments were used, “it is a personal choice, if you don’t believe in slavery then don’t have slaves.” “Don’t let your religion interfere with my personal morals”. But after that the slavery laws were changed, and we all (I think) believe they changed for the better.

And just by the way, abortion is still illegal technically. That’s right; it is illegal to kill the baby in the womb. The decision in Roe v. Wade changed the law by saying that a doctor may terminate a pregnancy in the event that such a doctor is willing to say that the termination is in the health interests of the mother. And there are many doctors out there who make their livings by being willing to say such a thing for the slightest of reasons.

If abortion was not still a criminal act, why is it that the Victorian governments, along with some other state governments, are proposing legislation to ‘decriminalise’ abortion?

The average mother in the developed word gives live birth to less than three children in her lifetime. With the depletion of our resources that is more than enough. In effect about 300 eggs in the menstral cycles of each woman's potential childbearing years are destroyed along with millions of her patners sperm.
It is strange that many of those who oppose abortion are the philosophical descendants of the people who murdered so called witches ( many of whom were only affected by rye flour poisoning) and who condemned Galileo for supporting the thesis that the earth went around the sun.
The sensible limit to abortion is that no one has the right to inflict pain or disadvantage on a concious personality. The foetus in the first few months is not a conscious personality.
We need to get our priorities right.
All pro-lifers should ask themselves what is their personal priority between unborn foetuses and the 30000 children who die each day because we do not feed or house them adequately or did not provide adequate birth control measures to their parents.

"The evidence for objective morals is the fact that we are all having this discussion. If morality were merely subjective, we wouldn’t bother: we’d just have our different moral “feelings” and that would be that, there’d be nothing to discuss."

Goodthief, I'm puzzled as to how you came to your conclusion.
Emotional intelligence after all, has to do with thinking about
how we feel. The emotionally engulfed don't do that, they just
follow their feelings. See the brain for its different "centres"
for a better word, all competing. What you feel and what you think
are not the same.

What we can show, if we study other primates (we too are classified
as primates btw), is that what can be called simple morals and ethics
are in fact part of their lives in groups and tribes, as social
species. From an evolutionary perspective, living in groups has
distinct advantages for some species.

So you will see empathy, food sharing, cooperation, do not kill
your own tribal members etc, all occuring within their groups.
If you are interested, primatologist Frans de Waal has written
some great books on the subject.

In fact, studying primatolgy is a great way to increase your
understanding of people :)

So I put it to you that morality is grounded in biology. Harmonious
living in a tribe has distinct advantages when it comes to survival.

Morality will thus always be subjective. If you look at the age of
consent for instance. Our society claims its 16, anything below
that and people are considered paedophiles. Other societies have
drawn different lines in their sand. Its much the same with abortion.
Abortion in the first tremester has become pretty well the "standard"
in most countries now. But again, its a line in the sand that
we've all drawn, no higher being involved in that line.

Thanks for a very rational and informed comment on the abortion debate Brian. Unfortunately there is no way of keeping an open mind about this question and certainly no way of changing anyone's mind about which side they are on. All one can do is make up one's own mind about what is the right course of action for oneself and then avoid making that choice for anyone else. Our freedom of speech and action are suffering so many assaults from zealots, bigots and fanatics that we need to guard and protect what we have left.

Good thief
“I regard God as sovereign and humans as equal subjects.”

That you consider God as Sovereign and you his subject is your sovereign choice, a choice not universally supported.

My morality is between me and my God, who might be the same as your God but I see our relationship as somewhat different to yours.

A woman’s right to exercise choice to abort is between her and her God and nothing to do with you or my moral choices.

Re” and who isn’t, an individual. I say the foetus is.”

Prior to the moment of birth the foetus is whole and totally dependent upon the bodily resources of the mother. “Birth” defines the point at which the “separate individual” emerges. Pre-birth = adjoined and dependent upon the woman whose uterus is for gestation.

Col Rouge, I see the foetus as a dependent individual. To me, “individual” doesn’t imply independence, the ability to live on one’s own resources. If it implied that, there’d be many millions of children and adults who could be legally slaughtered right now. On the contrary, people who are dependent deserve special care, not lethal neglect.

Yabby,

All I mean by “feeling” is personal moral impression or view. So, using that language you still end up in the same place. If morality were simply a subjective matter, our discussion would simply involve displaying our different impressions/views and the discussion would be no more interesting than “I have a headache” and “Well, I don’t have a headache”. If subjectivity is all there is, then we’re not talking about abortion at all but just talking about ourselves.

My point is that the discussion is not like this at all. We are really disagreeing and attempting (against the odds) to influence each other. Subjectivism does not account for this.

I’m aware that some other higher species exhibit behaviour that we would call altruism if it occurred (God forbid!) among humans. However, it is a leap to call it an ethic. I’m not aware that the animals choose this behaviour, they just exhibit it. By choose, I mean “I don’t want to do this, but I will because it’s right to do it and wrong not to”.

Anyhow, if some higher species are more sophisticated than we thought and really capable of ethics, I’m not sure how this affects our discussion about objective/subjective. I guess I would just say, “What’s right is so obvious that even some other species have figured it out, so it’s reprehensible that humans haven’t”.

Even if “morality is grounded in biology”, as you suggest, I would still say “And who grounded it? God did. He wired morality into us, and so we are all aware of it. It is objective.” “Objective” morality doesn’t have to come directly from the sky.

Pax,

Just a note that abortion is not actually legal in Australia, with the exception of the ACT.

In NSW, Queensland, Victoria and WA (where special circumstances apply after 20 weeks):

abortion is only lawful if the doctor performing the abortion has, in good faith, assed that the birth is a threat to the woman's mental and/or physical health and the woman has given informed consent (defined as given information by a certifed doctor NOT performing the abortion) or on feotal disability grounds.

In SA:
similar applies but abortions must take place before 28 weeks of gestation, and the woman must have been a resident of SA for more 2 months.

In Tassie:
Similar, except the descision that the abortion is damaging to the physical or mental health of the woman must be made by two doctors independantly.

ACT:
No laws relate to abortion within the crimes act. The ACT health act stipulates that the practitioner must be registered and have ministerial approval.

NT: Similar to the states except that abortions are unlawful past 14 weeks gestation.

South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have legislation in place that provides a statutory explanation of when an abortion is not unlawful. In the other states, common law interpretations of the Crimes Act, or Criminal Code, have had the effect of making lawful abortion available to a large number of women.

Abortion is still not legal in this country. Please note that I'm not advocating this as a good thing. I belive that, like Bill Clinton, abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I would have added acessable to that list as well.

See: http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm and
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm#unlaw

for more info.

Today I watched an Under 12 year football match and by chance I talked to the father of one of the smaller players.
He subsequently informed me that he was born at 25 weeks and has had lots of battles to stay alive.
His determination and skills were a standout. I'm afraid this little experience has re-inforced the amazing thing that "life" is.
Afterwards I felt very belittled by this event.
Who am I to value (or de-value) a small foetus.
I am sure we are all immensely richer for valueing human life.
Yes, by all means give to Caesar what is Caesar's..............

If I had been aborted I wouldnt know about it would I, because I wouldnt exist. However I only believe abortion should be done in the first few weeks at the very early cellular level. I myself would have found it a very difficult discision to make and unless there were some really devastating reasons I dont think I could have ever done it. I still wouldnt like to see the freedom of choice banned.

Runner,
When pro-lifers refer to the embryo or foetus as ‘baby’, this is done for emotive purposes. The facts are:
a baby can be defined as a baby at the moment of birth when the umbilical cord is cut.

Pro-choicers are ‘pro-death”?
If we are going to play with highly emotive words, here are some playful expressions for the pro-lifers: pro-child abuse, pro-poverty, pro-homelessness, pro-children of drug addicts, pro-crime etc.
Pro-lifers fanatics seem to be more concerned about zygotes than about suffering existing children.

Goodthief,
“You too want abortions to be rare, but why?”
Because women would prefer not to have abortions. Most women even dread having a PAP test done. Did you think that women want abortions for frivolous reasons. Prevention of pregnancies is a safer and easier method than having to rely on abortion as a birth control method.

Women have to decide between two or three negative and undesirable options. She will choose the option that means the least amount of suffering for herself and the potential child. Women would prefer to not have to make the choice between having a baby or not. That’s why we need to reduce abortion rates by promoting prevention of pregnancies.
If women are being pressured into having an unwanted child, then both the child and the woman are bound to suffer.

Why do I not talk about the foetus? Women are human beings, embryos and fetuses are not. Why should anyone be more concerned about embryos than about women or children that are living in poverty or are being abused? I am glad that most pregnant women are responsible enough to opt for abortion instead of bringing a child into her child-unfriendly environment.

A foetus is completely dependent on the mother, therefore it is has no individual rights until it has been born. Many zygotes abort naturally and are flushed down the toilet without the woman even knowing.

The best way to reduce abortion is to promote contraception, offer great sex education and to aim to make the world a more child-friendly and safer place.

Continued

Aqvarivs,
” Men should be removed from the equation and laws passed that reflect child birth as a woman’s right and men being protected from support issues.”
Men should share responsibility of practicing protected sex. Call it risk reduction.
Accidents do happen, contraception sometimes fails- this is a risk of having sex.

Men who complain that his partner makes the wrong choice by having a baby have to simply like it or lump it.
Nobody forced them to have unprotected sex, and they are fully aware that there is always a risk involved.

If they seriously want to reduce 'risk' they have to use condoms even as a boost to any contraceptive their partner is using or is saying she is using. Either that or they have to accept that his partner has the ultimate choice whether to have an abortion or child. Its HER body. Go for a vasectomy or don’t have sex if you want to be 100% safe.

Not even a partner should be able to either force a woman to have an abortion or to have a child by threatening poverty.

Once born, the child has rights and fathers have to carry some parental responsibility.

What would happen if men would be given the right to remove themselves from the responsibilities for child that they have helped create?

Women would lose their right once more. Women would either be forced to have an abortion because of financial reasons, or their child would suffer poverty just so that her/his dad can keep his previous life style.

"It's time men were freed from the financial responsibility of women’s rights choices and their decisions."
No, it is not time at all. At the stage where a child is born, the child’s interest and wellbeing must have priority, not the father’s life style.
This would either cause more abortions or more child poverty and possibly more crime.

Who should come first, a father’s life style or his child’s well being and education?

Balance is best.

Celivia, I liked the first of that two part post but disagree with much of the second.

I've proposed previously that that there should be a cut off point during a pregnancy before which the nominated father is given the chance to opt in or out. The mother then gets to decide based on that and her own desires and circumstances if she will proceed with the preganancy or not. That decision must rest with the mother because the father cannot carry the fetus to term.

The arguments you put forward seem (from my POV) quite similar to some of those put forward by the Anti-choice mob, just applied to men rather than women. As I understand it the choice to abort or not is generally about more than just the period of the pregnancy. It's about the parents ability to cope with the ongoing responsibilities of a child resulting from the pregancy.

Would you ban woman who thought they could not afford the upkeep of a child from having an abortion?

R0bert

Celivia, it seems you have all the rights and men have all the responsibility in your feminist world. If it's a womens singular right to abort or not, then by extension it ought to be the mans right to support or not. After all it's her body, just as it is his wallet. Don't ask men to protect women from her own decision. It's her body, have her do something responsible to mitigate any opportunity for an unwanted pregnancy or have her keep her legs closed. Take full responsibility of your "rights" is all I ask. Don't make men pay for your "right" to decide to carry to term, and don't make men responsible for your "right" to have an abortion. It's simple enough. Leave men out of it.

Good thief “I see the foetus as a dependent individual.”

It is dependent, it is not individual until the moment of birth. Its dependency negates all presumptions to “individuality”.

Hence the difference in legal treatment between a new born who can be cared for by anyone, even in the event of the mothers death in childbirth and the “preborn”

Re “On the contrary, people who are dependent deserve special care, not lethal neglect.”

The difference, any number of different folk can offer care to separate individuals who are incapable of looking after themselves.
An embryo does not have the same options.
Its existence is exclusively dependent upon the pregnant woman within whose uterus it is developing.
That unique woman has a priority right to decide how her uterus will be used and if that means terminating the pregnancy, then so, sadly, be it.
Better she is free to decide, against the wishes of the religious, than she is forced to accept the dogma of a minority faith (which she might not even believe in).

Goodthief, to have a thing called objective morality, you need
an objective arbiter and we have no evidence that one exists.

You may well claim "God", but in human history we have had
thousands of gods, hundreds of holy books etc, but no evidence
that a single one of them is the real one. What we do have is
evidence that people mostly believe what they were taught as
kids. Had you grown up in say Iraq or India, would Allah or
the Indian Gods be your god? Statistics say most likely.
So much of religion is really about geography.

When it comes to discussing things, I'm sure that if you looked
through the internet newsgroups, there would even be those
discussing every aspect of headaches!

Morality clearly has biological and cultural influences.
If you think about things to do with sex for instance, many
cultures certainly did not have the hang ups about it, as the
Christian Church does. Those missionaries were pretty shocked,
when they arrived on the Pacific Islands. I'm told that the
Intuit used to offer their wives to visitors. etc etc.

Your subjective opinions were formed by both genetic and
cultural influences, experiences etc. Of course you will
discuss them. In my experience, one single argument very
seldom changes anyones mind. I've spoken to JWs who eventually
gave up family and friends and left the sect. According to them,
it was a mountain of little arguments that eventually grew to
the point where one day, the crunch came.

So I never expect anyone to change their mind overnight, based
on one thing. I see OLO more as a way of exchanging information,
making points, but people are then free to think about them.
I've certainly changed my mind on some issues, over time.

So what is right is not that obvious, thats why we debate about
it.

There is no conundrum. A human being is formed as soon as the egg and the sperm come together and an embryo is created.

As an earlier poster said, let's value human life for what it is - amazing and a huge opportunity.

Imagine the amazing people we might have on this earth today if it weren't for them being aborted! I fear for the day when we become so obsessed with killing any human life for any reason that there is hardly anyone left.

Indeed, if we need to see an example of how abortion ruins societies, look at northern India (part Bihar and the Hindi belt states), where women are literally stolen by men to become wives for them because there are so few girls around. Shame pro-choicers, shame!

"Imagine the amazing people we might have on this earth today if it weren't for them being aborted! I fear for the day when we become so obsessed with killing any human life for any reason that there is hardly anyone left."

That's nothing compared to the vastly greater number of even more amazing people who might have been if only the otherwise wasted gametes had only combined. Then there are the gazillions of amazing people who might have been if only for the careless stubbing of toes. Why is that these poor potential more amazing people count for so little compared to the fused not as amazing people?

Even Rodney Rude is well aware of the enormous wastage of potentially amazing people that results from being careless with one's gametes. Yet for the prolifers it is as if the haploid part of the human life cycle does not exist.

Among its many howlers, the problem with this article, and the writer virtually admits it, is that he is struggling to find an ethical base. He asks the question, when does the soul begin? But he can’t find an answer or even a method for coming to an answer.

Along the way he flounders with various possibilities. He has 90% the same genetic make up as dog. He has 50% the same genes as a tomato. So what? If he eats a tomato does that make him 50% a cannibal? He tosses around the idea that “Thinking like a human” might make someone human. This brings to mind horror stories of someone deciding whether others are fit to live by whether or not they agree with their reasoning processes. Don’t anyone say it could never happen.

To his credit, the writer dismisses these possibilities. But without a firm ethical footing, you might soon be going down the slippery slope. Today, 'my belly, my decision' as one poster said. Tomorrow, 'what came from my belly is my domain' (infanticide).

Then the writer says, “It would never be acceptable to pro-choice people…”

One wonders how he is going to finish such a sentence without making a sweeping generalisation. Can he speak for all pro-choice people? Are they all such a unified bunch that they agree on everything?

“… that a new-born baby could be put down if the mother, who could not get access to an abortionist during her pregnancy, still did not want the child.” The pro-choice philosopher, Peter Singer, would disagree, especially if the baby was handicapped.

At conception, an embryo is genetically and uniquely as human as it will ever get. When most abortions occur, the heart is beating. They have fingerprints at 12 weeks. I’ve held my 24 week old son that my wife miscarried. He was quite well developed including family resemblances.

If we searching for a good ethical base or starting point, it is hard to go past this one,

“Thou shalt not murder”.

Col Rouge says, ‘[The foetus] is dependent, it is not individual until the moment of birth.’ Comparing the foetus with other situations of dependency, Col says, “any number of different folk can offer care to separate individuals who are incapable of looking after themselves. An embryo .... is exclusively dependent upon the pregnant woman within whose uterus it is developing.”

This doesn't help determine what a human is. You end up saying, “If you are in a situation of dependency, then it’s the number of people you are dependent on that determines whether or not you’re a human being. If several, then you’re human. If only one, then you are not – especially if that one happens to be your mother. A strange outcome?

The alternative argument seems to be focussed on location. “If you’re in, you’re not a human; if you’re out, you are”. So, it really comes down to geography?

Col, I don’t think this is necessarily a matter of a “minority faith” being imposed on others. The ethic against murder is not a religious idiosyncrasy. It’s just a matter of working out who the humans are so we can all take care not to kill them. Suppose we’re not quite sure, or not in full agreement (not really a matter of “supposing”, is it?), the question becomes:

“Which risk will we take?

i) The risk of killing something/someone who is, after all, a human; or

ii) The risk of allowing to live something/someone who is not a human but who indisputably becomes a human later”.

Yabby, you say, “So what is right is not that obvious, that’s why we debate about it.” I agree. Perhaps we have been at cross-purposes. My point has not been that I know what’s right (and am good enough to edify you!), but that there is a right answer (somewhere) to this and other moral questions. On particular issues, even abortion, I too am happy to learn.

Pax,

Mick V “If we searching for a good ethical base or starting point, it is hard to go past this one,
Thou shalt not murder”.

How about the moral merits of “humility” and recognition that someone else might know what is best for themselves, based on their knowledge of their circumstances, regardless of what your ethical base might have decided for them?

I would note the terms “abortion” and “murder” are mutually exclusive (check the dictionary).

Prior to the early / mid 19th century abortion was not a crime. The criminal deterrents were introduced primarily to stop the activities of nefarious quack doctors offering dangerous procedures and had nothing to do their any notion of the foetus being a “person”.

I believe we should accept that other people have rights to determine how their bodies will be used and if they decide not to be pregnant, that is their right and our moral duty to respect their choice.

Better that someone makes their own decision and lives with the consequences than a decision, with which they disagree, is forced upon them and they are stuck with the consequences.

To address Brian Holden's points:

1. Prolifers don't "froth at the mouth". I suggest spending an hour nearby a major abortion clinic observing peaceful prolifers praying or courteously offering women help ... and their snarling, spitting, blaspheming, cursing pro-abortion adversaries.

2. The new human being looks and is exactly the right shape and size for the person at the beginning of his/her life. This amazing little creaure organises its own environment and simply needs to be left in peace to grow. Brian Holden was himself as a zygote, not something or somebody else!

3. To argue dependency as a criterion for killing means none of us deserves; we are all dependent on others for our food, clothing and shelter.

4. If Brian can't tell the difference between himself and his dog, then I address my comments to Fido.

5. A human reaching viability when the mother falls in love with him/her? Oh, please! Post abortion grief demonstrates with crystal clarity that the woman who desperately wanted not to be pregnant knows sadly too late that she had bonded deeply, albeit unconsciously, with her unborn baby: if this were not so, she would not be suffering so profoundly from the loss of her child. Google "post abortion grief" and then argue that women don't bond with their babies until "later". The great evil of the pro-abortion ideology is to pit the mother against her child and declare a pregnant woman's body a war zone.

6. Those who deny the humanity of the unborn child seem to have sheltered themselves from looking at pictures of dismembered 8-week-old foetuses. Little heads, arms, legs, torsos, abdomens.

7. Abortion is never a private, autonomous event. The abortionist, clinic staff, the woman, usually her partner, sometimes family and friends, the government, the media and socialist ideologues all contribute to the death of a small, helpless, innocent human being.

Pro-abortion people refuse to look at the evidentiary arguments against abortion. Please look at the websites of abortiontv.com and afterabortion.org and also (to read the posts of women who have had abortions) afterabortion.com.

Perhaps we need to recognise that there is no right answer to this question. The answer lies with the individual, based on their beliefs and values. How to combat the concerns of both sides of the debate? Make the compulsory conselling session prior to abortion a dual one, where moderate members of each persuasion both sit with the woman to discuss the issues. If one gets too rabid, the other can report them and request someone else. Its a reasonable way of ensuring that the woman gets informed information about both options and other support that may be available, and also make a choice that based on her circumstances (after discussing these with the two counsellors). It is the way that she is least likely to be pressured into a particular choice, and both lobby groups get to have their opinions represented.

Maryse, my first question would be, what on earth are prolifers doing,
praying outside abortion clinics? Can't the Almighty hear them from
their homes? Why harrass these women, even if in a peaceful way?

A corpse looks exactly like a person, but its not a person, as it
doesent have a functioning human brain. Its the same with embryos.

Yup, various hormones are triggered by pregnancy, all evolutionary
traits. The largest aborter is in fact Mother Nature herself.
Some women grieve over misscarriages, some suffer from post natal
depression. Some will grieve over an abortion some won't.

Fact is any decision which involves emotion versus reason, can be difficult
to weigh up. The only person who can make those decisions, is the
person herself. All we can do is provide information and choices,
the rest should be their choice!

At 8 weeks, an embryo is not a child, thats just emotive language.

Look up the definition of a "being" Basically its any creature
which can move about. A human being would thus be a being with human
dna. All those billions of sperms, flushed down life's toilets, are
in fact, by definition, human beings! Should we share a tear or
two over them too?

At some point we have to accept the laws of nature, as was wisely
pointed out by Charles Darwin. Far more beings of any species will
be created, then can ever survive. Lets face it, most women shed
around 400 eggs in their lives, all which could be cute babies.

Personally I am more concerned with the suffering of living,
thinking people, then I am about organisms and a fetus is not yet
a person, its still an organism.

Thank you, Yabby and CR!

RObert and aqvarivs, while I can see your point of view from a men’s angle, have you ever tried to look at it from a woman’s or child’s POV?
There is ALWAYS some risk involved by having intercourse unless the man or woman is sterile. Both partners need to take some risk, and the risks a woman has to take for biological reasons is always greater than just the financial risk it carries for men.

It seems like some men want to be totally risk free, thereby saddling up his partner with ALL of the risks just by having sex with him.
How does this really sound and are there any ladies that might be interested in sex with a man at all if he says something like:

“ Hey babe, I know that there is always a risk of pregnancy when we have sex, but I want to have sex with you without any risk at all.
I want to be free of all the risk that comes with having sex, I just want to enjoy it and will refuse any responsibility after.
So, if you want sex with me, you need to take all the risks. I have better things to do with my money.
If you fall pregnant, I wipe my hands clean off you, you’ll be on your own if you don’t make the choice I tell you to make, which is abortion. Don't care how poor the environment is that my kid bound to grow up in.

Not my fault if you make stupid decisions or feel silly emotional connections with or even love and care for a bunch of cells and become all over-protective!

Now, before we make love, sign this agreement- otherwise you may take me to court later and some unfair judge might agree with an outdated law which is more concerned about the welfare of a child than the rights and life style of fathers. Children need protection from the mistakes of their parents? That’s unfair rubbish!”

Anyone interested in this kind of foreplay?

Maryse Usher in an earlier post you said you were a volunteer counsellor.

Now you are saying that pro-lifers stand outside abortion clinics peacefully praying. Not what I saw last time I drove down Wellington Parade in East Melbourne. What's peaceful about shooting a security guard, the father of 5 children?

Your next point was that a human fetus looks like a baby at birth. Not in the birth atlas I looked at. A kangaroo fetus looks like a human fetus to my untrained eye. My understanding is that an 8 week old fetus can be vacuumed out and is the size of a large blood clot.

Post abortion grief is probably the province of those who go through life playing victim because its the only way they can use your services.

Abortion is never a private, autonomous event - but neither should it be in the public arena where women can be publicly named and shamed by pro lifers. Its absolutely scandalous that there is a special medicare number for abortion.

And Maryse we don't need those aborted babies. I know the federal government has increased immigration into Australia but we don't need any more mouths to feed - we are destroying this country's ability to feed itself as we refuse to acknowledge global warming and the increasing driness of our continent.

Yabby along with many pro abortionist is entrenched in the hopelessly flawed theory of evolution. Karl Marx was another who was brainwashed by this theory leading to millions of deaths. They hold to their dogmas and often have more 'faith' than what many believers in God have. This is why they can't even see what a 2 year old can see when it comes to an unborn baby. The dogma of evolutionary thinking might ease the conscience for some but can't disguise what the killing of the unborn plainly is.

Peter Knight, the man who shot a guard at the Wellington Parade abortuary, was NOT a prolifer. He appeared out of the blue, tried to enlist prolifers and failed. He might well have lost a child in that abortion clinic, for all we know. He was not a member of any prolife organisation, nor did anyone know him. And Billie, if you saw someone swearing and yelling and kicking signs around outside the clinic, that was the guard, not the prolifers.
If people are going into the abortion clinic convinced they are doing nothing wrong, why would they feel ashamed? Prolifers do nothing to "make" them ashamed; they're just there.
I did not say an 8-week foetus (Latin for 'little one'" by the way) looked like a baby at birth. It looks exactly what it is, a small, mangled, dismembered human being. "Clot" is precisely the kind of description used by those who refuse to recognise the humanity of the unborn baby.
As for equating eggs and sperm with a unique, living, growing human being... well, I can only say I have never listened to a man or woman in a state of emotional agony because they're missing their departed eggs and sperm. No, it's the aborted baby they're missing.
The problems of life are never solved by killing people, whether they're young or old, small or large.

Nice job Celivia, it's your body on the underlining question A but, mens financial responsibility if you choose option B. So men have no choice in the matter until birth, then if they don't take up the financial responsibility they're creeps. Excellent reasoning and way to value men. "Keep out of my life unless your paying to be there. Otherwise we women just don't need you".

Around one in three Australian women will undergo an abortion. Unwanted pregnancy can affect any woman of childbearing age, but studies show that some women are at greater risk than others. The typical profile of a woman seeking abortion includes:

* Aged in her 20s
* Single
* Childless
* Well educated
* Employed.
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au

Foreplay? I doubt that is her driving concern. Instant gratification and the next rung up the corporate ladder would be more to the truth.
It takes some clever spin to create a victim out of anyone matching that profile. Celivia my little spin sister.

I am afraid that abortion in its current practice and laws is at an end...

Technology is the cause...they show a living baby responding to stimuli including voice of mother and father in the womb...

when the current laws enacted such information did not exist...

Now generally no doctor would 'refer' a woman to an abortionist until they have fulfilled their duty to the higher standard of assessment which I suppose include/should interviewing the real father...a woman without such a referral would not be able/difficult to get an medical abortionist to preform the procedure...

so change is already happening...but what is in our control, the common people, is to avoid risk of pregnancy...for an unplanned pregnancy is essentially this...for own pleasure an lovingly responding, totally dependent and totally helpless little human is placed at risk of death...and that is never on...

Sam

Would termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which has been with us humans since the cave days, be so hotly debated if it were men who got pregnant and had to bear the risks of pregnancy?

Runner, I so hope you are not male. It would be such an unfortunate pen name in this debate. Very many women contemplating terminating a pregnancy would be precisely in that situation because a man has done a 'runner'.

What makes me so angry with this particular debate is the cavalier assumption that a woman sees a termination akin to a dentist's appointment. Some of the emotive language is horrendous.

Every abortion performed, not because of a medical reason, is because of failed contraception. Contraception in itself can be a controversial issue. I haven't seen any anti abortionists mention that abortion shouldn't be necessary because of available contraception.

The issue is, why are women still primarily deemed responsible for contraception and pregnancy? Why do we not have a culture that regards the man as responsible for an unwanted pregnancy as the woman?

It would be incredibly rare for a woman to take the step to terminate a pregnancy if she was in a loving supportive relationship.

We should never ever even contemplate going back to backyard abortions

"This is why they can't even see what a 2 year old can see when it comes to an unborn baby"

Runner, relying on the knowledge of 2 year olds for your wisdom,
just might be your thing, but may I suggest that there are
wiser options :)

Fact is that virtually every university on earth, along with their
various highly qualified staff, accept and teach evolution theory.
Even the old Catholic Church concedes on this point. Just a few
fruitloop fundies who disagree. But then last I checked, the flat
earth society still existed.

Next time you plan to go travelling, given your doubts about science,
perhaps best that you mistrust that 747 and rely on the magic carpet!

Maryse, grieving is a natural, normal, human experience. People grieve
when their partner dumps them, their pet dies, relatives and friends
die, etc. etc.

How we deal with trauma is another question. I was once involved in
a huge, community wide traumatic drama.( a gynormous fire)
How various people coped, was quite interesting to observe. Those
who had experienced various trauma in their lives before, had learnt
to cope, to find solutions, to deal with the problems. Those who
had led lives of relative bliss (spoilt kids etc), were far the
worst affected. They had simply never learnt to deal with these
kinds of stresses, so they needed the most assistance.

Life is one long learning trip. Dealing with trauma and hard times
is part of it. That is will always be about tippytoeing through
fields of flowering tulips, is simply not the case!

Sam said, abortion in the first tremester is today accepted as
standard in the Western World and increasingly spreading to the
third world, as the link between poverty and too many kids becomes
clear. If politicians tried to change it, there would be riots
in the streets and they know it. The silent majority would no
longer be silent, every survey shows that

Celivia, I take your point about risk but I think we differ on our perceptions of the level of risk taken. I'm assuming that both pregnancy and abortion are relatively safe under western conditions in Australia. There are risks but the risks associated with both are risks that women choose regularly and seemingly willingly (especially in regard to pregnancy).

I'm fine with both parties carrying some risk, in my view the risk to the male when he is left with no choice other than at the initial act is disproportionate. The proposal I make leaves the man with far less choice than the woman and less risk, I don't see an ideal way to even up that balance. Maybe a differentiated child support formula that takes into account the choices that the adults have made.

My views may be tainted by how ruthlessly I've seen C$A exploited by some who just don't like working and how devastating the impact of C$A's beloved formula can be.

R0bert

Col Rouge

“I believe we should accept that other people have rights to determine how their bodies will be used and if they decide not to be pregnant, that is their right and our moral duty to respect their choice.”

This is question-begging, as the foetus is only merely a part of the woman if it is not itself a human. What is the source of my duty to respect such a thing?

“Better that someone makes their own decision and lives with the consequences than a decision, with which they disagree, is forced upon them and they are stuck with the consequences.”

The consequences are nine months pregnancy and all the inconvenience that pregnancy entails. Then, adoption. Everyone gets to live!

Country Gal:

“Perhaps we need to recognise that there is no right answer to this question. The answer lies with the individual, based on their beliefs and values. How to combat the concerns of both sides of the debate? Make the compulsory counselling session prior to abortion a dual one, where moderate members of each persuasion both sit with the woman to discuss the issues.”

I’m one of the ones who thinks there is a right answer, and allowing people to abort if they wish is simply saying Yes, it's not being neutral. But, if abortion is still going to happen, I like the sound of your counselling idea. Just as pro-lifers have in the past shown too little concern for the woman/girl, the pro-choicers have certainly sought to deprive the woman/girl of the ability to make an informed choice.

Maryse Usher, rough ride isn’t it?

Yvonne, “I haven't seen any anti abortionists mention that abortion shouldn't be necessary because of available contraception.”

I’ll go along with the contraception idea. But, there will still be unwanted pregnancies. The numbers will change, but not the nature of the issue.

Pax,

Col Rouge
You asked me to check the dictionary for these words. I looked in my Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary (the only one I had in the house). It said,

abort - to bring forth stillbirth offspring

murder - the intentional and unlawful killing of a person

They are not the same but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. They both can involve people, they both can involve intention. Whether they are exactly the same hinges on the word ‘unlawful’.

Given that the law is intentioned to firstly protect the health interests of the mother, and given the incredible advances in medical science currently available making risks in pregnancy negligible in most cases, this means that in only the great majority of intentional procedures in this country do the two definitions coincide, but not all.

Goodthief. My belief: we are morally bound to accept the decisions of others in regard to the deployment of their own bodies (as in the pregnant woman deciding whether or not to terminate), regardless of our own individual belief.

Ultimately, for a woman who aborts, God will judge the actions of the whole of her life, just as he will judge you and I.

I would note the law and the dictionary, in distinguishing between abortion and murder recognise the difference and between a baby and a foetus and celebrates the transition which occurs at birth, the moment of "separation".

This moment of "birth" is what makes the difference, regardless of your attempts to obfuscate.

I repeat, the law and social morality (regardless of your religious convictions) recognise the moment of birth as the creation of the individual and celebrates that moment by issuing a "birth certificate". Social morality does not recognise the moment of conception or issue a "conception certificate", regardless of what you or "Pax" dictate.

The Salvation Army goes among the drunks and destitute not to judge them but to help them. I wonder if "Pax" holds similar moral values or do you prefer simply to judge from afar the affairs of strangers who do not share your dogma and for whom excommunication is a foregone conclusion?

I wonder if you would help a woman who has decided on abortion or would you turn away and deny her support or comfort? I know, for instance, the Catholic Church turns away its own for far less significant infractions than an abortion. Somehow the word "Love" got displaced by "Authority" and “Power to Command” in that religion, speculating on your persuasion, I would suggest the Church of Rome has little to offer by way of moral guidance for anyone, if their indulgence in inquisitions and the more recent cover-up of paedophile priests is anything to go by.

“The consequences are nine months pregnancy and all the inconvenience that pregnancy entails. . . “

Wrong, pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman’s body and is a “significantly inconvenience”

col rouge wrote "My belief: we are morally bound to accept the decisions of others in regard to the deployment of their own bodies (as in the pregnant woman deciding whether or not to terminate), regardless of our own individual belief.
Ultimately, for a woman who aborts, God will judge the actions of the whole of her life, just as he will judge you and I."

just a question...and so why do you think that god on judging you wont say 'you had a duty to me when you had your body to act against unbalanced selfish interest...'

this arises by implication of what you wrote

Sam

I have just read Brian Holden's article 'The Abortion Conundrum ..pro choice advocates must remain eternally vigilant" This guy is either ignorant or mendacious to claim prolifers oppose abortion because "Under siege is the concept of the soul upon which Christianity,Judaism and Islam are fundamentally based". Nothing could be further from the truth. Opposition to abortion is based on biologic fact not philosophic belief about ensoulment ...just read any of the Handbooks..the bibles of the movement.....on abortion.I have been in the movement for 34 years, attending annually state, interstate and international gatherings of prolifers At none of these has the subject of ensoulment been a topic of discussion.As for "the hidden agenda" of the prolife movement,let me reveal it..in three words! Stop the killing! Worry away Brian, about society not being able to "afford to have a signficant proportion of our society" labelling doctors who kill babies as "murderers". You should. Only 5 per cent of the population of America ever opposed slavery ...but eventually "overcame". So it is not all that improbable that one day society will see these doctors for what the "murderers" that they are and outlaw baby killing, just as it did slavery. Where does this fellow get off prying into the bedrooms of prolifers he claims to know? The prolife movement has never poked its collective nose into his ...or any other persons bedroom. We just concern ourselves with what is done in abortuaries and hospitals...with public money.Tax payers money. Prolifers should spend their time "agonising over the unnecessary and painful deaths of young lives in developing countries" says Brian. But we do...prolifers are all over the world doing just this. Brian doesn't have a monopoly on compassion.Tell me how ignoring the killing of Australian babies helps those suffering in other countries? Surely we should be giving good example to the often despotic rulers of these countries by showing them just how important we consider human life?That we believe the more vulnerable the member of society,the more protection we guarantee it.

Sam “just a question...and so why do you think that god on judging you wont say 'you had a duty to me when you had your body to act against unbalanced selfish interest...'

Would God say that?

What evidence do you offer to suggest he would?

Even if he were to, I would expect he and I to first debate the merits and virtues and underlying reasons which I would use to support my position.

I find the idea of “free will” (bestowed upon each of us by God) completely undermines the dogmatic drivel and threats of hell and eternal damnation, which the religious zealots like to regale us with.

Only through the exercise of choice can people develop spiritually.

A spirit shackled to a religious dogma decreed by some committee of ancient despots, intent on securing their own theological power base is not going to grow.

A true or real belief or faith is the type which respects another’s right to act in disagreement to ones own views and still sit down and help that person without consideration to the divergence of views.

That is what true "Christian Charity, Love and Tolerance" means; acceptance of divergence. It does not mean simply caring for those who, through fear of excommunication or the flames of hell, are forced to surrender their individual values and tow the dogmatic line.

Why it's very easy Denny. The more western women abort their children the more that can adopt truly deserving children from Africa. Kill the one child in the womb and adopt the other from the other. Madonna and Angelina Jolie have set the example for western women. Well, until the next fad comes along. Children as jewelry. A little something to kill today, adopt tomorrow, and trade in for cash come time to settle up during the divorce. It's all about the win win. Womans just gots ta be free and the mens just gots ta pay the way. Equality baby. Equality.

Denny... your post rambled on about how the soul wasn't the issue, it was all a biological matter, but I'd be amused to see how you've decided that a bundle of cells are a 'baby' other than, well, the soul definition. Your post gives no clarification as to how or why these should be classified as babies.

The repeated insistence that abortion is 'baby killing' doesn't persuade anyone. It just makes the argument look more emotive and less based on sound reasoning.

TurnRightThenLeft
Your repeated insistence that those opposing abortion on demand have not put forward reasoning for why abortion is ending the life of a human being, and are just relying on emotion, just shows that you are reading the posts selectively or not carefully enough.

Can I repeat to you just some of the reasons that have already been put forward:

The embryo at conception is, genetically speaking, as human as it will ever get.

It contains all the coding within its DNA for the proper development of all biological systems into adulthood and maturity.

Its dependence upon its mother for survival, if anything, makes it more human not less. (I might add, it is in many ways independent from its mother, e.g. different sex, blood group, ability to fight diseases of the mother, etc.)

Your insistence that the issue is about what word we use, baby, zygote, embryo, infant, or something else is not nearly as important as what we are really debating here. ‘A rose by any other name smells just as sweat.’ These words simply describe different stages of development. At one point it looks like ‘just a small collection of cells’, but that is exactly what a human being looks like at that stage of its development.

You were once a zygote. And if you were cut off at that stage of development, you would not be here to argue your points.

MickV has just about said all that needs to be said to answer
TurnRightThenLeft. But perhaps I could add that there is nothing potential about a zygote, embryo or fetus.The zygote,embryo,fetus is a human being.The zygote,embryo,fetus is a person and it looks like a person should look at that stage of development. I really wanted to address Billie's argument that "we are destroying this country's ability to feed itself as we refuse to acknowledge global warming and increasing the driness(sic)of our continent. We don't need those aborted babies. We don't need anymore mouths to feed." I have been hearing this argument for 30 odd years Billie. But never do I hear the one putting forward the argument offer to do a bit of sharing....to offer up their place on the planet themselves to make room for some one else!They always want to stay on it themselves..not let someone else have a go at enjoying it. After all they have enjoyed it for a while at least. Why should not someone else have the same privilege? Who says the born should take priority? After all, those yet to be born might make a better job of stewardship of the planet ...and do a better job of distributing the food more evenly.Shortage of food is not the problem Billie. Good will on the part of the haves for the have-nots is. That is the real and humane challenge Billie.

Aqvarivs, that was a singularly nasty little post you last wrote. Your first one was so well argued and compassionate.

I find it distressing to read so many hateful posts written by men. Why are you men suggesting that opting for a termination would be an easy one for a woman? Don't you think that most would not want to feel the need to go through with this?

I want to know now, before I have to read anymore crap from the likes of Runner, Denny, Maryse, each of you, how many children are you fostering? Before I have to read any more drivel from placard carrying praying persons who are interfering at clinics, WHAT are you DOING that will demonstrate that no woman who decides to go through with the 'trivial' experience of a 'mere nine month pregnancy' will be left to her own devices once she has fulfilled your wish for her to produce a child?

Child services is stretched to the max and not really capable of coping with the numbers of at risk children.

You don't want any more pregnancies terminated? Then make sure there is not child here in Australia without a safe home to come to.

Any man who does not want the risk of paying for the upkeep of an unwanted offspring, keep your pants on. Simply really. Interesting how men immediately start whinging about money. In case you guys haven't cottoned on, there's more to rearing a child than paying child maintenance.

And by the way, in this day and age, there are many women who are the main bread winner, or who support their children, either living with them or with their father. It's not just men who have to part with money.

Yvonne

You obviously do not know how many loving childless parents are waiting years to adopt children. Talk about using emotional claptrap. You do a very good job and ignore the facts in favour of demanding a womans rights above the life of an innocent child.

Foyle,
I too wonder how many prolifers open their doors to foster children. Accusing women of murder is easy. So, hands up if you are providing a much needed foster home for those unwanted Australian children you are happy to force upon women.

RObert, aqvarivs
I can probably agree that in some cases there is not 100% fairness from the father’s POV.
But things are not ‘fair’ for the woman who didn’t want pregnancy either. She doesn’t WANT to make a choice between having a child or an abortion. She’d rather not be pregnant at all. Yet, she HAS to, there is no escape from choosing between two options she does NOT want.

The focus should be on the child. The refusal of paternal financial responsibilities is, in my view, a child vs. father case rather than man vs. woman.
The child is the innocent victim.

The risk of a man is that ‘if’ his partner becomes pregnant, she might decide to have a child and he will have to contribute to financially support his child, even if he doesn’t want to. Bad luck- the woman had to deal with bad luck as well.

If the mother is making a reasonable income by herself, is able to afford everything that comes with raising a child, and both partners can come to a satisfying negotiation about the father’s (non) contribution, then of course, they may negotiate without court interference.

Otherwise, the focus should be on the child; not the man or the woman who BOTH were aware of their individual risks and responsibilities. Men who want no risk at all should have a vasectomy, or no intercourse; they can also minimise their risk by using contraception on top of the contraception the partner is using already for double the effect. This is something I said before and which Yvonne also brought up.
Men need to get serious about contraception if they are so concerned about their risk.

There simply needs to be a system in place that looks after the child’s best interest, even when it seems not always ‘fair’.

Col Rouge, We can do better than the law. We can be more rational, more consistent, more merciful, more elevated. Then, we can make the law better. So, telling me the law is of no persuasive value here, where we think freely.

So, I’ll stay with my point that birth is not the point at which the child becomes a human being worthy of protection. I was present at the birth of my two sons and no-one noticed a flash of lightning or a peal of thunder. We had already named our sons and we, especially my wife, actively related to them well before birth. Unless you think all expectant parents are foolish in this fanciful and delusional practice, then I think it is relevant to our discussion.

You say, ‘pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman’s body and is a “significant inconvenience”.’ True enough: but, I suggest it’s not as bad as being killed, and doesn’t justify killing. If I killed everyone who caused me significant inconvenience, I’d have a lot of blood on my hands.

Anyhow, why is the woman’s inconvenience relevant to you: if the foetus is not a human, it is surely okay for the woman to terminate regardless.

Compassion. I couldn’t agree more. But look at my earlier posts: I’ve already made clear that the finger-waggers on my side of the debate have generally neglected the woman/girl. I agree that this neglect and lack of compassion is reprehensible, and that it’s a major issue not a minor one.

However, there is a difference between mercy and permission. If the pro-lifers were conspicuously compassionate and supportive of the woman/girl, would you shift your position and agree that killing the foetus is wrong - so that everyone is protected?

Free will. The fact that we have a choice doesn’t mean there is no right and wrong, it just means God hasn’t programmed us to do right. He took a big risk – hoping we would, out of love for Him, choose to do right – and lost.

Pax,

“The zygote,embryo,fetus is a person and it looks like
a person should look at that stage of development.”

Denny, attending all those prolife rallies has clearly left
you uninformed and confused :)

The zygote, embryo, fetus is not yet a person, it doesen't
yet have a human brain. It’s a human organism.

Yes, given the right circumstances, it has potential, but then
every egg and sperm flushed down life’s toilet, would have
potential, given the right circumstances.

If my mom had had a headache on the night I was created,
or if one of the other zillions of sperms had swum a bit
faster, I would not be here. Umm so what? I would not
know about it, so it would not matter a jolt. That’s just
part of life’s lottery, far more beings of any species will
be created, then can ever survive. Ignore the laws of
nature at your peril.

If you are going to talk about stewardship of the planet,
how many billions of humans do you think can live at
once, sustainably? There is plenty of time for others
to enjoy their lives, but if we don’t live sustainably,
we know from biology what happens. Read up on
Easter Island etc to find out what happened to humans,
when they did not. Once ecosystems collapse from
unsustainable overpopulation of any particular species,
Mother Nature sorts it out the hard way and its not
pleasant.

As we haven’t yet figured out how to live sustainably,
perhaps before trying to cram ever more people onto
the planet, in the name of religion, what we in fact
risk is a fight between ever more people for ever scarcer resources.
Once radiation levels increase enough, our planet would
spin with little more then ants and cockroaches on board.
Is that what you call your judgement day?

Yabby, I know that the human population presents the planet with a crisis. There are way too many of us. But, how is it relevant to the discussion?

If the foetus is not a human, then you can kill it without any discussion or any need for justification. Just go for it.

If it is a human, then killing it is not justified even if the killing alleviates the population crisis. Or, if saving the planet really is an excuse for killing, then we needn't stop at the unborn, but should plunge the knife deep into the general population.

Pax,

Well said Yabby. I would like the prolifers to at least consider human existence as a cycle before they keep referring to informed women having abortions as murderers. As you rightly point out, the potential pre-fusion or pre-clone humanity eclipses the most optimistic estimate of what the Earth can support. To equate the destruction of a cognitive and interacting human being with the destruction of human life at a pre-cognitive level is an absurdity. But as you would frequently note, the prolifer's disregard for pre-fusion humanity is at least equal to th pro-choice disregard for pre-cognitive humanity. At least you and I acknowledge that human existence is a bit more complex than the fusion of two gametes.

Yvonne,
Sorry if I appear to repeat some of your post, I hadn’t refreshed the page yet. Luckily there’s need for reiteration here :)

Mick and Denny,
A human embryo is not a human ‘being’. CR made a relevant comment about birth certificates. I would like to add that the parents of aborted embryos do not receive death certificates. Because this embryo was never a human being.

Having ‘potential to become a human being does not mean that an embryo has a right to be one.
A child can have potential to be a doctor, but if her parents take her out of school and make her work at a supermarket, then this person does not have the right to call himself a doctor no matter how much potential s/he had.
As long as the embryo can only live inside the womb, its rights should not overrule the rights of the mother.

Runner,
There may be many people wanting to adopt but the not nearly enough; and the child foster system is terribly inadequate.
Actually, I don’t know why anyone in their right mind can be against abortion at all- we need to discriminalise the law, or else we are no better off than the days of backyard abortions.
If you vote AGAINST abortion, you automatically vote FOR backyard abortions.

Goodthief,
I was present at the birth of my two children as well and just like your wife, I felt an instant connection with and love for the embryos even though I knew very well that they were just a bunch of cells. However, I did not ever have unwanted pregnancies but guess what- I can still empathise with women who feel despair instead of the delight.
It is equally cruel to force a woman to carry a child that she does not want, than it is to force an abortion on a woman who loves her embryo. That’s why the decision must remain the woman’s prerogative right.

And, keep dreaming about ‘rescuing’ unwanted embryos. Many unwanted children end up being neglected, abused, or end up as criminals

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Yes yvonne, it was, but if we are going to bank our arguments with emotive probabilities lets also show the greedy selfish residue of the self absorbed female. Statistically the greatest number of abortions are being had by a percent of the female population that by incidence can be cause for a profile. She is single, twenty-something, educated, and has a job. I don't see victim of life or circumstance presiding over this profile. I see actions before consequences and a confidence that surgery will solve tomorrows issue. And I see politic as empowerment gone astray and a devaluation of male involvement in procreation, and I am personally sickened that any educated woman would willingly allow themselves to be corrupted by the few angry women that place themselves before all women and their considerations. The idea that all a man has to do is keep his pants on or hand over his wallet but, in any event shut the F up. This is a womans right and a womans issue alone. This attitude makes me very concerned for my daughters future respect and advice that is to come from her generations sisterhood, when your generation places no value on life but their own misunderstood sense of empowerment. Yes abortion has definable medical necessity. And I fully support choice. I do not support the advocating of abortion. I'm disgusted that abortion is being advocated to preserve a lifestyle and in order to shirk a responsibility and a debt to a life that has become part of, and dependent at the same time on the internal workings of a womans complete biology.
The sentiment that, I can always have a "nother one" down the road exemplifies this preached disregard for human life disguised as womans rights and sexual freedom. It's contemptuous of life at it's very foundation and do not think I am excluding men from their responsibilities as father. I am not. I'm advocating they take up their responsibility to life along side women.

yvonne, "Any man who does not want the risk of paying for the upkeep of an unwanted offspring, keep your pants on." - Doesn't part of the anti-choice creed go something like "Any woman who does not want the risk of carrying an unwanted offspring, keep your pants on."

How is what you are saying any different to what they say?

The pro-choice position is weakened by women using similar arguments to those from the anti-choice position. Concerns about autonomy and the like seem more like arguments of convenience than genuine values when they are applied selectively and not across the board.

Celivia, "If the mother is making a reasonable income by herself, is able to afford everything that comes with raising a child, and both partners can come to a satisfying negotiation about the father’s (non) contribution, then of course, they may negotiate without court interference." - unfortunately the system makes that difficult. Family Tax Benefits (which the mother who is making a reasonable income by herself will be paying for) require that C$A be involved.

If our so called child support system was more realistic then I'd find it easier to agree. The current formula and sexist application of the system are groslly unfair and perpetuate conflict between parents. Again the reminder for those who think I'm just another absentee dad whining about the money - I'm the prime carer of my son (12 to 13 nights a fortnight normally and most of the school holidays so far).

I'm also still supposed to be a C$A payer. I've been advised by C$A that there is no way for us to have an agreement that they will recognise that is less than an assessed amount. To seek a reassessment would involve an unacceptable disclosure of private details to my ex and the difficult process of trying to prove that she really could work more than she has chosen to do in the past. A recipe for yet more conflict.

R0bert

Oh I get it now. The usual secular humanistic arguement that those who want to protect life have no compassion and no real concern for humanity. Those who condone the killing of the unborn are really the compassionate ones who are more likely to look after orphans and widows! Somehow they turn from being totally selfish to totally selfless. Dream on in your deceit.

Goodthief “Col Rouge, We can do better than the law. We can be more rational, more consistent, more merciful, more elevated. Then, we can make the law better. So, telling me the law is of no persuasive value here, where we think freely.”

I see how you think,

More rational
More consistent
More merciful
More elevated

How about

More Tolerant
More Loving

You suggest we “think freely”

How about more Respectful of the rights of others to exercise both free thought and the Free-will God gave them.

The law would not be “better” by re-criminalising abortion.

I was present throughout the gestation period of my daughters and their births. Prior to the moment of birth they existed solely through the resources of my wife’s body, without separate capacity. For one hour after the birth of the first, she lay in my arms, close to my chest, her mother being attended to by a team of doctors sewing her up from a less than perfect delivery.

For me the real “bond” with my daughters started with birth and I would have been prepared to say, prior to birth, if a party is to be lost, I want it to be the embryo, not the mother. After the moment of birth the baby existed as an independent individual and not as the exclusively dependent embryo/foetus which developed inside the womb.

“Birth” is the critical moment of recognition, for most people of the coming into individual “existence“ for social values in general, as acknowledged by a birth certificates.

RE “Anyhow, why is the woman’s inconvenience relevant to you” It is not.
Her choice is of no relevance to me either, just as your and my “sensitivities” are of no relevance to her.

“If the pro-lifers were conspicuously compassionate and supportive of the woman/girl, would you shift your position and agree that killing the foetus is wrong”

No, compassion is an individual expression. The point is to accept, absolutely, other peoples right to decide, for themselves, how their bodies will be used and support them in that decision, regardless of ones own "choice".

runner - when will you accept that it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition? The world isn't black and white. We're talking about abortions, not murderers and heroes. It isn't about judging people, it's about having the ability to decide what's best in a difficult situation. It isn't about pro choice people being automatically heroes any more than pro life people automatically being villains. It's not always about mere convenience any more than it is always as a result of rape.

I've yet to see any of your posts budge even the slightest iota from the predetermined script - what say you to the grey parts of this argument which can't simply be defined as 'good' or 'evil'.

What say you to the fact that banning abortions will inevitably result in backyard attempts and risk the lives of desperate mothers?

What say you to the notion that the pro-life stance means denying people the right to govern their own bodies?

The world isn't about good and evil. It's complicated, often messy and morality holds few absolutes which is why rigid codes that refuse to take into account different situations are inevitably cruel in some instances.

More to the point sharkfin, is an acorn any more an oak tree than the sporangia that formed the nucleus of the acorn? The prolife position makes perfect sense if you equate the individual with any diploid human life at any stage of formation a human being, and ignore all haploid human life that precedes it. If the prolifers can provide arguments as to why a fertilised ovum is deserving of such distinction over the gametes an instant prior to fusion, then they might have some justification for their "murderer" accusation. I would want substantial justification before calling someone a murderer.

"If the foetus is not a human, then you can kill it without any discussion or any need for justification."

The question is not a human, but a human what? We kill human
cells all the time. Each cell contains the dna code, to build
another body. Take some skin off your leg, you are killing
millions of human cells! To me a zygote is a human cell.
Its not a person, who feels or thinks, big difference.
So where we draw the line in the sand, is purely a subjective
question.

" Or, if saving the planet really is an excuse for killing, then we needn't stop at the unborn, but should plunge the knife deep into the general population."

Goodthief, where did you dream that one up? I remind you that
the secular society in which we live, is more compassionate, more
generous to the poor, then any society before us. Compare that
to the slippery slope down into religious dogma running things,
you land up with the Taliban, the inquistion etc. They used
to burn people like us! I much prefer our society, thanks very
much. That includes tolerance of the rights of others.

Personally I believe that if every woman on the planet had
adequate family planning available, along with good education,
there would be far less abortions, if that is what concerns you.
But I still think that abortion is the first tremester should be
a universal human right. Clearly those many thousands of women
who die each year from backyard abortions, where abortions are
illegal, are fairly desparate, to be risking their lives.

Adoption say in Aus, won't solve it either. If you dumped
85'000 babies onto the Aussie adoption market, they would
soon be back in orphanages and we know what happened there.

Preaching abstinence doesent solve it either, as George W
found out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6554743.stm

Celivia, so nice to have another woman in this debate!

Runner, I don’t know any childless parents. I know some childless couples and I know 3 childless couples who are now parents after adoption. I went through 9 dreadful and painful years of unwanted childlessness, with 5 miscarriages. My first marriage broke down because of it. Now I have 3 beautiful children and another husband.

Robert, I agree with you. If you’ve read any of my previous posts you’d know that I strongly believe that contraception and responsibility for a pregnancy is the responsibility of BOTH parties. So, I’m not sure what you’re saying. My comment was purely in relation to men feeling resentful of having to pay child maintenance. Celivia commented on this well.

Too often the tone is still, that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she must be at fault and should therefore somehow be made to pay. Even aqvarivs, whose comments I generally really like, seems to be of the opinion that it’s the feminists’ fault. They are promoting selfish behaviour and advocating (!) abortion. Leaving aside the fact that a financially independent woman would no longer be financially independent when she has a little baby, where did you get your statistics from? Incidentally, I don’t think you’re referring to my generation, but my sons’ and daughter’s.

Col Rouge, your daughters are lucky with a dad like you.

Still I haven’t read any comments from the anti abortionist brigade about what they are doing right now about all the unwanted children in our own society. I come across a few in my work in the public hospital system. It’s so easy to wail about terminated pregnancies, only need to wave about a few placards, pray a bit, then go home. Rearing a child to responsible adulthood takes a bit more effort than that.

yvonne, I appear to have misunderstood your intent in making that comment.

There is a stance taken by some pro-choice supporters that women should have choice at the time they have sex, during any resulting pregnancy and after a child is born regarding their ongoing involvement but that men should only have a choice about particpating in the sex act, if an unplanned child results then dry your eyes fellow and start paying. I read your comment as being from that position, if it's not then I apologise.

R0bert

RObert,
thanks for enlightening me- I will accept that you know more about this system than I do as I only gained my information by reading, not from having practical experience in dealing with the system.
I agree, from your description of the system, that a better one is badly needed. This financial arrangement doesn’t seem to be in the best interest of your son.

While there needs to be some kind of system to ensure that non-custodial parents financially contribute to their children, the system also needs to become more flexible so that special cases such as your own can be. fairly and discretely, dealt with.
The child should be the main concern of such system.

Having said that, I still believe that a man’s reason of ‘not wanting the child’ is not a good enough reason to allow a father to financially abandon his child, unless there are special circumstances, e.g. the mother being more than adequate and willing to financially look after the child herself.

I am too concerned about the much higher rates of poverty among women than among men in sole parent families to allow fathers to escape their responsibilities because poverty has a very negative effect on children.

Yvonne,
thanks. I think that we were saying the same thing about BOTH partners responsibility in the prevention of pregnancy, although I realise that men don’t have as safe contraception as women have. My point to RObert and others was that it can’t harm if a man uses condoms even if his partner is on contraceptives.

Thanks for that amusing link, Yabby- I’ve always thought that sex-abstinence classes are quite ineffective, but didn’t know that they are totally useless!

Goodthief and other religious pro-lifers
“The fact that we have a choice doesn’t mean there is no right and wrong, it just means God hasn’t programmed us to do right”
Perhaps because God has no clue what’s right and wrong about abortion. Don’t forget he killed every Egyptian’s first born child, according to the Bible.

I thought of a question to ask the religious mob: Why don’t you target IUD’s instead of abortion?

The religious seem to be convinced that life begins at fertilisation.
Are they not aware that IUD’s destroy many more fertilised ova than abortions do? In fact, they can destroy one every month. So feel free to call all women who rely on IUD’s for contraception murderers, too. Go ahead, why not say it out loud?
Why is the focus on abortion? I have never seen a religious group standing outside IUD factories to pray,
I have never heard them attack these factory workers or on the inventers of IUD's, these evil human life destructors.

In fact, the silence about IUD's is so loud that it wouldn’t surprise me to find anti-abortionists who rely on IUD’s for contraception.

I expect this is another question that is going to remain unanswered.

yvonne, "Too often the tone is still, that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she must be at fault and should therefore somehow be made to pay." No. What I'm saying is if mens only choice is to pay then men should be left out of the equation period.
"Even aqvarivs, whose comments I generally really like, seems to be of the opinion that it’s the feminists’ fault. They are promoting selfish behaviour and advocating (!) abortion."
Thank you for the first part:-), I personally know of many cases where the woman told me she was encouraged by pro-abortionist staff to abort. And yes feminist push the "right to abort/womans body" over "woman has responsibility for actions and for the life they initiated". "the fact that a financially independent woman would no longer be financially independent when she has a little baby", is their prime argument. Like if you have this nasty little creature our hopes of being CEO of Ford Motors is down the drain. "Motherhood devalues women". I've heard that little bon mot too.
"where did you get your statistics from"? www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au is the site that gave the profile.
Unwanted pregnancy,abort. Unwanted children,abort. Unwanted wives,abort. Unwanted husbands,abort. Unwanted aging adults, abort. Where does it end for those too selfish to contribute to the care of their own. Our disposable society. Lets all stand is self glorification and celebrate our freedom to dispose of life. Hurrrray

Aqvarivs, thanks for providing me with your source for your stats. It would indeed be disturbing if women were using abortion as a form of contraception, because that is what those stats appear to be implying. Incredibly stupid if you ask me, as there are so many good and safe choices now. Abortion is such an invasive procedure and does carry risks.

It is manifestly unfair to suggest a woman would not want to have a baby because she could not then be the CEO of a company. The truth is if she indeed could be, or was, she could actually afford the nanny and the whole shebang to help. I have a good friend who did just that. She started earning the money that enabled her to have a child. Not many in that league.

And ‘motherhood devalues women’ I’ve never heard that ‘bon mot’. It is that uniquely female thing men can never do. You’re sure that was not taken out of context or even part of a sentence?

Robert, it takes two people to make a baby, the decision to do so is a decision that is to be made by both. Yes, one party may be ready before the other, but neither can coerce the other to have a child. I’m aware that probably more men are pressured to have a child, than women, but women do have a shorter time frame to have children. It’s the very real biological clock ticking.

Celivia, what an excellent little cat you threw amongst the pigeons! The issue of contraceptives though, not only IUDs, is also pretty controversial amongst some of the anti abortionist brigade. That’s why there is this silence whenever there is talk of education re contraception and availability. Abortion should rarely be necessary. If they indeed were that concerned about ‘killing’ of babies prevention of conception should be their focus. Handing out packets of condoms would be more effective than praying.

Yvonne :)
I agree, and I’ve never been able to “get” why anti abortionist brigades don’t promote (free) contraception and education, which have been shown to be the most effective combination to prevent abortions, while a ban on abortions will result in backyard abortions and cause women to die.
Since I have never heard anyone dieing from using the contraceptive pill or a condom, or get a heart attack during sex ed, these methods are more logic and effective than a ban on abortion to lower abortion rates.

I know that some of the contraception methods are regarded by pro-lifers as abortifacients, that’s why I thought I specifically mentioned IUDs because many pro-lifers regard this device as one of the abortifacient methods because their reasoning is that it’s possible that the ovum is fertilised before it implants in the uterus, and the IUD would kill the day-old person.
Plan B, or the morning-after pill, would also fall in this category.

I hope that the little cat wasn’t too scarey and the pigeons come flying back soon because I’d really like to find out why it is that they focus on abortions and not on abortifacients, since these would be likely to kill more ‘persons’ than abortions at clinics do.

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of anti-abortionists do not really, sincerely, believe that abortionists kill babies, or that women who have abortions are murderers; I dare say that they’re just pretending to believe this for some mysterious reason. Could it be that they’re just protecting their religious dogma, their church, the pope, God, or simply don’t want to give up control over women? I am not sure of their motives, but I’m suspicious!

Aqvarivs, “…if mens only choice is to pay then men should be left out of the equation…”
But won’t that put even more pressure on the woman to opt for abortion?
Isn’t the threat of financial distress even a greater ‘encouragement’ to opt for an abortion than the encouragement feminists you say are guilty of?
Or don’t you think that the partner of the pregnant woman is not guilty of manipulating her into having an abortion when he says: “If you have the child, you’ll totally be on your own!”
Why is it OK for a man to intimidate or encourage a pregnant women into having abortions but not for feminists?

For all the women who belong to the poorer group, this withdrawal of responsibility of her partner would mean that there will be more abortions, rather than less. These women who otherwise perhaps would have opted for a child, are now expected to have the child in poverty, and they opt for abortion.
Are these women selfish for ‘disposing’ of her embryo? You clian they are. Are the men selfish for running from their obligations? You claim they aren't.

Your figures show that there is a rise of financially strong single mothers, but there is still a significant group of single mothers who live in poverty.

Nobody has yet explained to me why it is in the best interest of the child if fathers are allowed to shed all their financial obligations.

Women are often dragged through the mud.
Why are women who choose to have an abortion selfish,; as well as women who, regardless of poverty conditions, have a baby; as well as career-minded women who want to have a child alongside their career; as well as stay-at-home mums; as well as women who expect payments of the fathers of their child?

Why is it not selfish when a man runs away from his responsibilities because… ‘he doesn’t wanna’?
Pregnant women cannot be ‘left out of the equation’, ever; they neither want an abortion nor a child; they simply HAVE to choose- whether they ‘wanna’ or not.

yvonne, "the fact that a financially independent woman would no longer be financially independent when she has a little baby" is from your post. It would also mean that a financially independent man would no longer be financially independent taking up his responsibility as father to that child of a financially independent woman who has a baby. Damn few people are financially independent and we still manage to raise our families and meet our other obligations to society. Actually the very idea of becoming a couple excludes any independence. I am pro-choice. I would just like to see that choice of selecting abortion to be as rare as medical necessity dictates. I'm not pro-abortion and would like to see more effective potential mother/father counsellings, especially in the very early stages, and I would like to see a more responsibility orientated sexual education in the schools. We all want that elusive perfect life chocked full of our favorite material goods and that perfect job that demands all society bow to our magnificent and envious height. However, sometimes you get the life you think you wanted or should have. And sometimes you get the life your supposed to have. That's the one where you take up your responsibilities and face your trials and tribulations as a mature adult. We are gradually turning away from disposable goods in order to protect Mother Earth. let's also begin turning away from disposable life and protect baby, mothers, fathers, and grandfathers and grandmothers.
I think the nuclear family model has had it's day, and a more inclusive family model needs to be incorporated into our social think and how we express our values and what is to be valued. Materialism isn't new but, it sure has taken hold.

Celivia,"But won’t that put even more pressure on the woman to opt for abortion? Isn’t the threat of financial distress even a greater ‘encouragement’ to opt for an abortion than the encouragement feminists you say are guilty of?"
Maybe it will. And maybe then women would consider men an integral part of the pregnancy and not just a wallet sitting on the side lines. I don't deny that there are men who opt out for the quick fix of abortion. No where did I say I supported such behavior. There is two sides to the manipulation game and often women use pregnancy to catch their man.
"Why is it OK for a man to intimidate or encourage a pregnant women into having abortions but not for feminists?"
For the simple reason that feminist are encouraging abortion as freedom and children as enslavement to a patriarchal mold. And secondly feminist have no real concern for other women but, use them to achieve their politicalization of the sexes. I would be just as much against a masculinist group that exalted men and mens "rights"(?)over and above womens rights(?). I don't support socially divisive structures. If an intended couple question the validity of starting a family and all precaution has been taken and failed and one or the other after discussion is adamant about not taking up the duties of parent, then abortion would be a necessary evil. This scenario is a long shot from womens right/womens body/men shut the f up and pay up, approach of the fembots. Having a child and making the fellow pay isn't freedom of choice. It's enslaving a man to fulfill your choice from which he was excluded. It's a two faced approach fembots want enacted into family law.

Col Rouge, Your post Thursday 24 May, 11.42am, accuses me of being unloving and intolerant. Look at my post. “Mercy” was in my list, which is very close to what you want. (And we’d already agreed about compassion for the woman earlier.) Remember, my point was simply that we can do better than the law, so don’t wield the law here for persuasive purposes:- it seldom gets things right.

You ask, “How about more Respectful of the rights of others to exercise both free thought and the Free-will God gave them.” I have a high level of respect of this kind, and I don’t wish to impose my views on others just as I believe God himself does not impose in this way. The problem here is that I believe the foetus also has rights.

To use your language, I say that the pregnant woman should be “more respectful of the rights” of the foetus. Just the right to live, nothing more than that. Then, she can give the child to someone else. She loses 9 months, the child gains a whole life. It’s a good deal.

Yabby, in response to my polemical suggestion of a general slaughter, you remind me that “the secular society in which we live, is more compassionate, more generous to the poor, then any society before us”. I agree. You know from my post that I wasn’t really suggesting a slaughter, but saying that killing tiny humans, as I regard them, is not the solution. If it is, we might as well kill big ones. We have to find a better answer than death.

Celivia, you ask: “Why don’t you target IUD’s instead of abortion?” I would, in this discussion, target anything that takes out a human life, post-conception. As the IUD is contraceptive, it is not relevant.

Earlier, you say, in the parenting discussion, “The focus should be on the child”. You should qualify that: “The focus should be on the child if he or she is fortunate enough to have survived its mother’s magnanimous deliberations about terminating.”

Pax,

Yvonne, Thankyou but I am also lucky with the daughters I jointly raised. They are a source of pride since they have grown into individuals who know their own minds and now function as independent adults. They too share my values of “self determination”.

Goodthief What I posted on 24th May accuses you of nothing. It merely questions certain human qualities which were missed from your list of attributes.

Re “The problem here is that I believe the foetus also has rights.”

But any such “rights” do not subordinate the woman’s own rights of choice, otherwise her role and rights are diminished to the role of “life support system for an embryo”.

As for “She loses 9 months,”

You or I do not know what she might lose.

She might lose significant opportunity in a 9 month period.

But what she will certainly lose is her right to self control, her right to determine her own destiny, her life direction and thus her right to exercise the free will which God gave her.

Here we get to the real point of respecting other peoples choices.

You and I do not know what she might lose, maybe an education, maybe an career opportunity, maybe anything. All I do know is the woman herself will know far better than you or I her circumstances, capacities, abilities, plans and expectations and therefore she is a far better informed to decide how and if to abort or not.

I am not (and never have) promoted “abortion” as a system of convenience or expediency. I do, however, support, absolutely, a woman’s right of choice to choose abortion if she wishes and is prepared to bear the responsibility for the decision.

As for “so don’t wield the law here for persuasive purposes:- it seldom gets things right.”

Maybe you should illustrate your concerns regarding other “errors” in our current criminal and civil codes if you reckon it so seldom gets things right.

(one I would change is to make the death penalty mandatory for second offense drug dealers but that is a seperate debate).

"You know from my post that I wasn’t really suggesting a slaughter, but saying that killing tiny humans, as I regard them, is not the solution. If it is, we might as well kill big ones. We have to find a better answer than death."

Goodthief, I don't see why one should lead to the other. You refuse
to accept the difference between cells and people. Cool, if you want
to become emotional about a cell, thats your philosophy, not mine.

I accept the laws of nature. As Darwin noted, far more potential
beings of any species will be created, then can ever survive.
Resources will always be the issue. I try to see the big picture,
at some point we have to.

IMHO, given limited resources, its best to focus on suffering
people and other species, rather then get bogged down about cells.

Without biodiversity and sustainability, there won't be a humanity
to enjoy living at all. An interesting theory was presented on
"Crude" the other night. They reckon that we've had carbon cycles
before, thats how we landed up with today's crude oil. Once we reach
4times today's CO2 levels, the whole system basically heats and crashes,
bacteria in the world's oceans change and living things
become the next locked up carbon, at which point it all cools again.
Perhaps all those Catholics might one day become the next lot of
crude oil :(

I guess thats judgement day for you :)

Personally I find abortion impossible to morally justify in virtually all cases - many arguements have been put forward and I don't need to reiterate them. However I think that the following compromise is one which both camps should agree on as step forward:

The overwhealming majority of abortions are inflicted on perfectly healthy mother and child. I'll be generous and say 95% of abortions fit in this category (if not more).

Further in 95% of cases the stated reason for the abortion is 'economical reasons'. This calculates as follows:-

100,000+ abortions a year X 95% on perfectly healthy mother and child X 95% for economic reasons = 90,250 abortions a year simply because people think they can't afford to support the child!

This is a gross injustice in one of the wealthiest nations this planet has ever seen. It is an impossibility that any parent in Australia can claim not to be able to adequately economically support a child when the government will always at minimum ensure that every Australian citizen is housed and fed. Not having a wealthy up-bringing is no excuse for murder. My childhood was far from wealthy but was brilliant all the same.

Surely the "pro-choice" camp can see the injustice here? The abortion rate is disgustingly high. I have come to accept that at least for the next generation or so many people will push the abortion line (there is just such a lack of education out there), but surely no-one can justify such a high number based on a total lie that people can't afford it.

"100,000+ abortions a year X 95% on perfectly healthy mother and child X 95% for economic reasons = 90,250 abortions a year simply because people think they can't afford to support the child!"

This is a good example of why you should be very wary of participation in surveys. To me, such reasoning seems oversimplified and faulty, much like the reasoning that suggests a woman having an abortion is a murderer. Again, I call on the prolifers to provide reasons why a cell or cells in the process of forming a human being should be regarded so differently from cells with the capacity to form a human being ( gametes or somatic cells). Clearing this hurdle would at least give the unwashed an insight as to how a lab technician destroying human embryos and Martin Bryant have so much in common.

Daniel “Personally I find abortion impossible to morally justify in virtually all cases “

It is not about your ability to “morally justify” anything.

If you cannot morally justify an abortion, don’t have one.

However, for all your moral anguish, it does not entitle you to deny someone else, likely female, the right to make up her own mind and to live with the moral consequences of the decision.

“Surely the "pro-choice" camp can see the injustice here?”

I would suggest the greater injustice would be if a pro-lifer get legislation on the statutes to decide a woman will not be allowed to get an abortion but does not carry any responsibility or duty for the outcomes of that decision.

Goodthief, an IUD works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. Therefore it works post conception.

Even very liberal thinking (on other issues) Daniel would therefore have trouble with an IUD.

Aqvarivs, yes, a man financially responsible for a child loses independence. But, a man can continue working throughout the nine months of pregnancy, throughout the early months of a baby's life without missing a beat. That is the difference. Paying for child care for a baby, taking in account that the mother may not have the choice to stay at home to look after her baby costs.

The fact that single mothers account overwhelmingly for those living in poverty speaks for itself. This cannot be brushed of with lazyness or everyone wanting plasma TV's.

Would fewer women choose abortion if low living standards wasn't an issue? Maybe so, but then, as some already do, women who choose to have their baby would be accused of being lazy spongers, living off suffering men and the state.

If she does go to work when the child is still a baby, so not to lose too much of her skills etc. and be independent, she's selfish and a 'bad mother'. If she waits until her child is of school age, no employer is really interested in her dated skills, and not really interested in fitting in with school times.

Terminations for purely financial reasons, are the saddest reason of all. That surely is purely about failed contraception. So, we're back to that. Contraception. And men play a huge very important part in this area too. By discussing, by asking, by making a joint decision on this. By talking about what would happen if contraception failed.

But, babies is often the last thing on men's minds. In beginning relationships, if a woman is not 'ready and willing' after the 3rd date, she's 'frigid', 'manipulative', 'a teaser' and worse. Ask any single woman who is dating. It is hard out there.

It's a strange fact of human nature that the only certain way to avoid the accusation that you are doing nothing to stop evil and injustice in the world is to do nothing to stop evil and injustice in the world. Particularly if you are pro-life.
If you dare state the truth that abortion is the deliberate killing of a small, developing human being in the womb and, on the basis of this simple and incontrovertible truth, state that it is a great moral evil, you will become the target of irrational abuse from people you have never met, yet who claim to know every thought which crosses your mind, how you spend all your time and money, and your views on war, capital punishment and poverty. You can't get more irrational than that, and it's hardly surprising such people use the same standards to judge the value of life in the womb.
If you go one further and state that those who deliberately kill recognisably human unborn babies with fingers, toes, eyes nose, mouth and beating heart are murderers, you will be contradicted, yet it is as literally true and self-evident as to state that those who sexually abuse small children are pedophiles.
Fester, you demand of pro-lifers that they justify their use of the term "murderer" in relation to newly-fertilized embryos. The simple answer is that, in my experience, they don't use that term because of its generally-accepted usage. It doesn't alter the fact that the deliberate destruction of embryonic human life is just as it says. But why do you divert the discussion from the article's topic of surgical abortion, as I have described it above? That is unquestionably murder. Is it too embarrassing for you to confront?

Celivia, when you say you can't understand why anti-abortionists say abortionists kill babies, and that they must just be pretending, I suggest you are the one who is pretending. That's like saying you can't understand why people who prey on young children are called pedophiles. Just being nice to them, are they?
Here's how Registered Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer described a 6-month partial-birth abortion she witnessed, in testimony to a US Senate hearing on the subject:
Shafer testified that she saw the baby's beating heart on the ultrasound monitor. The 'doctor' pulled the baby into the birth canal with forceps, partially delivering his body while leaving the head inside.

“The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall …

"The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.”

Shafer added that the abortionist pulled the baby out and threw him into a pan. She continued, “I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just ‘reflexes.’” Shafer, who is now pro-life, said two other partial birth abortion procedures she'd witnessed involved healthy women and healthy babies.
Now why would we pretend to believe that abortionists kill babies, Celivia?

"But why do you divert the discussion from the article's topic of surgical abortion, as I have described it above? That is unquestionably murder. Is it too embarrassing for you to confront?"

Deary me, the pro lifers are at it again! Peter D, you still seem
to confuse cells with people, big difference.

No functioning human brain = no person, so no murder. Arms,
legs, whatever, might all be great emotional wearing your heart
on your sleeve, or religious dogma, but lack common sense or
reason.

The first tremester abortion rule, which is now common through
most of the world, clearly leaves a huge safety margin between
a bunch of cells and a person. Now you are free to draw your
line in the sand at the point of the holy cell, others beg to
differ.

But then most of this comes down to emotional rhetoric anyhow.
We hear great preachings from the religious about this topic.
Yet in reality, we see huge wealth, billions of $ of real estate,
held by the most fanatical of the pro lifers. Yet do they sell
their assets to feed the starving babies? Not that I can see.
They just want to force others to live by their rules.

Sorry Peter D, unless murdering flies and cockroaches is
part of your language, then murdering cells is much the same.

Check the definition of what a person is. Using emotive
language to try and get your point across, just doesent work
with the more enlightened.

PeterD, dear boy, get your facts right before carrying on. Your story relates to an enquiry in 1996 talking about a partial birth abortion of a 24 week old fetus. There is unfortunately no explanation as to why a termination was performed at this late stage. It is only done in extreme circumstances and only ever comprised about 0.17% of all abortions (this from the article itself).

Aborting a fetus of this age is not allowed in Australia. Most States allow up to 20 weeks from the last menstrual cycle, some up to 14 weeks. Implantation of an embryo happens around 7 days after the last menstrual cycle. We’re not talking about allowing partial birth abortions.

This is the problem with the anti-abortion brigade. They keep on talking about 24 week partial birth abortions. First trimester abortions are a different thing.

Most natural occurring abortions (miscarriages) happen in the first 20 weeks. A fetus younger than 20 weeks is still only a potential autonomous human being

Why is it that anyone who thinks a human life is worthwhile is called religious zealot? By that logic any judge, jury, police officer, politician who supports the morality and law against murder must be a religeous zealot?

Just for the record I am actually an agnostic/atheist - yet even my atheism can clearly see that it is the most basic of human rights to have a right to life. Even a pure moral relativist can see the absolute basis of this right.

If an unborn child were not a human (despite all evidence to the contrary) then there would be no debate. I find it hillarious that "pro choice"ers say that it is still a big decision. Why? if an unborn child is just a "bunch of cells" then it would not even be a choice, but simply a day-to-day procedure - your very claim that it is a "big decision" proves that the unborn child is human. Where else in society is the "life" of another human balanced against the selfish desires of another person?

Wake up you idiots I couldn't give a flying f**k about preventing your supposed "choices" in life - I am a true libertarian in every sence. There are a million and one ways to excercise your sexual freedom without murdering unborn children.

1. keep your legs shut!
2. Use contraception
3. Take some responsibility for your actions!

I enjoy sexual liberation more than anyone I know, but I would never murder my son or daughter!

Stop flattering yourselves - no-one gives a toss about controlling you or your irresponsibility unless it involves killing another human. Stop twisting the arguement and literally trying to justify murder for the sake of some ridiculous claim to "freedom of choice" - no-one has the choice to murder!

Daniel, whatever you think you are, you are not an atheist. Agnostic maybe.

Your "scientifically proven" criteria of of humanity:
"1. Being genetically homo-sapien.
2. Being alive."

is a joke mate, no scientist would define humanity in such a way. Cancers would fit this criteria, is it morally wrong to remove cancers? Or kidneys or other organs? What about removing a dermoid ovarian cyst? Is it murder if the pregnancy is ectopic? Seriously man, you need to get your "scientific" ideas in order.

yvonne, yes a man is in perpetual slavery from the moment he takes his first job until his death and if he ever looses that job he's kicked to the curb and joins the multitude of homeless men rampant on our streets where the demands of the woman come first as (women and children first) she is the victim of her womb and nature having done her so terribly wrong must be righted through science. Otherwise how will she ever become the equal of men. Woman is cursed. If it wasn't for their womb they would be men.
Well rest easy my dear. In a matter of years the womb will be immaterial and you will find out then what it means to be treated equally with men and you will not be afforded the excuse of having a womb. Artificial insemination, genetic profiling and artificial incubation will completely remove the human element from procreation. Women will be as removed from giving life as men. Finally total freedom. And all it will cost you is that desiccated useless organ once referred to as womb, where life was generated. Then, then, ah the taste of freedom. Except how long will women remain of any issue. Nature produces approx. 1:1 ratio of men to women. Science will not. A healthy women over 20 yrs will produce 240 ovum and there will be no need to have any greater number of women than the projected necessity as men will be still best suited to labour or war. A complete system of managed life cycles based on the best projections of need. Steps must be taken to remove this awesome burden and "inconvenience" nature has laid at the foot of woman kind. It's just so unfair.

Peter D

Yes, the destruction of a human life with the capacity for consciousness is murder, but this is not in dispute. What I object to is defining an abortion as murder at any time from fusion of the gametes. It raises the question of how you and other prolifers define murder. Is it the destruction of a conscious human being? Is it the destruction of human life with the capacity to form a conscious human being? If the latter definition of murder applies, then what is the basis for excluding gametes and diploid somatic cells which also have the capacity to form a conscious human being?

That abortion equates to murder might be clear to you, but you will only convince others if you provide reasoning to support that view.

'when does a zygote become 'human''...if this question hits the high court I can see the justices forced to graple with this one with all their skill, will and talent... a very hard one at law...particularly due to fact that to date law has not attempted to 'codify' a child in the womb to attribute rights...has to happen...

what is more needed is statistical facts...particularly the prevalent causes and reasons for selecting abortion...is it as most women and feminist argue...or is their reasons apply to the minority...the major reasons will be needed...

on the other extreme is it willful planning then after the fact(getting pregnant) things get too dicy and decide to bale out the easy way and remove all evidence(dna testing on every aborted baby will help here) or just careless eg drunk...or men just blindly leave contraception to women...etc

C'mon Australian Bureau of Statistics...do your thing...a word of warning...ensure the method and data are above all reproach...this one would go through fine analysis by all...

Sam

Aqvarivs, I have no issue with men; I have an issue with people who want to impose their beliefs onto others.
You seem to have a dim view of women as men-haters. I like being a woman, I like feeling feminine, I liked being pregnant and having my babies- but that doesn’t mean that I believe that women should have no choice.
Do you believe that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions wouldn’t happen? Men would want the exact same rights.

Daniel,
While you are making a good point in saying that it’s a shame that abortions being performed because of financial reasons, telling women, who live below the poverty line that they have to have a baby because the rest of the country is wealthy is quite cruel and irrelevant to their personal circumstances. Unfortunately, there are many children who are not properly looked after because they live in poverty.

The main reason why abortions are being performed is ONLY because no contraception was used or contraception failed. Therefore, encouraging use proper contraception and providing it freely should have priority, in conjunction with realistic sex education.

I still don’t understand why religious anti-abortionists are not strongly campaigning and lobbying for sex education and free contraception when there is proof (e.g. From Netherlands) that these measures reduce abortion rates significantly.

If (religious) anti-abortionists are serious about significantly reducing abortion rates, then they need to focus on these three main aspects (sex education; free contraceptives; improving services for women and children).

The religious should know by now that banning abortion will only make it unsafe, and that praying doesn’t work.

Peter D,
I agree with Yvonne: check facts. If I had the space and time, I could come up with a true real life drama, an equally emotive story to your abortion story and title it: “The gruesome life of an unwanted child. The conclusion would be that some people simply should not have children.

Now, why do I believe that anti-abortionists don’t “really” believe that “babies” or “persons” are being killed?

continued

Yabby gives a hint: “Yet in reality, we see huge wealth, billions of $ of real estate, held by the most fanatical of the pro lifers.”

If you’d really think that kids are being murdered every day, up to 100,000 each year, why is it that all you do to protect these ‘human beings’ is just hang outside a clinic and peacefully pray, or for the ‘agnostics’, peacefully protest?

Your actions (or rather non-actions) show that you don’t ‘really’ care to stop the cold-blooded, murdering mothers and evil doctors.

Now… whatever you have been doing, your actions have failed, because this is all you are prepared to do to save ‘children’. Big deal!

Imagine that parents took their three-year-olds to ‘child-euthanasia clinics’ where they were lined up by the thousands and shot because parents just didn’t want them.

I am positive that there would be a huge outcry and much action; you would do more than just pray outside those euthanasia clinics or ‘peacefully demonstrate’.

Would you really let these murders go on for thousands of years and just keep hoping and praying that gentle protests would change parents’ minds, just like you're doing to stop abortions?

Reality check: if you really believed that genuine “murders” of “children” happened at abortion clinics, you would be less inactive than you are now.
You might even go as far as lobby for free contraception and realistic sex education; really pressure the government. Barricade or bulldoze killing clinics. Get serious.

That’s why I suspect that the vast majority of anti-abortionists don’t really believe that abortion is murder, or that a zygote or an embryo is a person.
By your lack of actions, you are admitting that zygotes and embryos don’t have the same rights as people.

Actions speak louder than words, and since you do not act proportionally with your so-called beliefs, well, what am I supposed to think?

Celivia, Not women as men haters but feminist who devalue women such as yourself for being feminine and gratified to be a woman. I want you to have every choice medicine can offer that will bring you greater joy, comfort and longevity. I just don't want you to be limited to the pro abortionist rant or the fembots empowerment through abortion. I would much rather you considered an approach of intelligent proactive contraceptive sex education, it's practice and accepting responsibility for your behavior, leaving abortion to a few extreme cases. I say you as women, not you as a specific individual. And certainly not having women accepting or defending 1/4-1/3 of all Australian pregnancies being aborted. And most certainly not the profile offered by www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au with out a little female on female reflection.
Ok I can understand some blind defence, "the girls supporting the girls" thing and I didn't want to come across as leading a frontal assault on women. I don't want to take abortion off the table. I would like to see it reduced to a negligible frequency replaced by intelligent contraceptive education and practiced by both sexes. BUT. As I tell my own daughters. They must be proactive in their choices and not expect that a man will understand or necessarily accept responsibility. Understand your situation and evaluate the risks and be willing to accept responsibility alone for your decision. That way if worse comes to worse your not left alone and angry at someone for not meeting your expectations. In truth I worry less about my daughters becoming pregnant than I do about them becoming irrevocably diseased through reliance on the pill to protect them. Unprotected sex? HIV/AIDS? Think, plan ahead. Times ain't what they used to be.

Pure verbal garbage, Yabby. Shallow, flippant , irrational and, I might add, transparently dishonest.
If a fully-formed unborn baby very similar in appearance to a newborn, though slightly less developed, is merely “a clump of cells”, then in what way are you -with the same number of arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose,
mouth and non-functioning brain - in what way are you any different?

Just a bigger clump of cells?

Aqvarivs, I agree with you to a large extent. But hey, what a horrible scenario you then describe! Women who support abortion remaining available and legal are not resentful about having a womb. A womb creates particular issues for one half of humanity, like the prostate does for the other half.

And give feminists a break. They are not a homogenous bunch responsible for all ills in society. There's quite a variety in feminist philosophy. From the idiotically banal to the inspiring.

As you tell your daughters, we also tell our sons. Our sons know that we will not be sympathetic to 'I thought she was using contraceptives', 'she tricked me' etc. Contraception is NOT only the responsibility of the one with the womb.

Women, mothers in particular, should play a larger part in educating and empowering not only our daughters, but also our sons. By behaving with responsibility and respect towards themselves and the other. For instance Daniel, we not only say 'keep your legs together' to our girl, but 'keep your pants on and zipper up' to the boys. I noted your omission of the other half of the baby making set.

It is not until society sees unplanned and unwanted pregnancies as an issue not only about irresponsible, selfish women and murdered babies, but also irresponsible, callous men will there be a more honest debate about the number of abortions in this nation.

As Celivia so passionately keeps on restating, if the distress about abortions was indeed for babies, why is there not a loud cry for good education on contraception? A pregnancy prevented is an abortion avoided.

The USA goes mainly for abstinence and has a very high abortion rate. The Netherlands has a very comprehensive sex education (I know! went through it myself 35 years ago.) and has a very low abortion rate.

Ahhh Peter D, calling me names, does not win you any brownie points
nor any intellectual points. You will have to do a bit better then
that :)

At some point you should question as to what makes Peter D whom he is.
We can show, that we can give you a new heart, new lungs, new kidneys,
a new liver, new eyes, a new face, new arms or legs or fingers, you will still
be Peter D, with somewhat changed appearance,
thats all.

What it comes down to is that your mind is what your brain does and
without a human brain, we don't have a Peter D, simple as that.
We cannot give you a brain transplant either, as no Peter D brain
= no Peter D.

A clump of cells does not have a developed human brain, a person
does. All quite simple really, but perhaps beyond you :)

yvonne, "what a horrible scenario you then describe!" I know. :-)
We are fundamentally different creatures who have to come together to procreate.
I took it to an extreme to make a point that if women can not come to an agreement on accepting that their God given nature sets them apart from men and that it is NOT a conspiracy by men to keep women pregnant and barefoot anchored to the dishwasher. And if you want to have a family you will have to weight that against the value you place in your job, income, and what ever freedoms you attach to being with out child verses being with child. To say it is grossly or manifestly unfair for women to have to "give up" so much to bear a child because men have penises and can remain at work is nonsensical. Then to say if it was men having children they would have every device and law to support their freedom from childbearing. What nonsense. If men had babies they would have maternal instincts not paternal instincts. One follows the other. We would then also have the required hormones and be just as emotionally and intellectually stunned as women. :-)
But here is the major point I am trying to make. If women can not cope with the responsibility of being the incubator of human conception, men tired of listening to the ceaseless whinging and feminist womb hysteria will with the help of science take that responsibility from you. It's that simple. If you doubt the premise search the history books. So while your fembot friends, whom you don't want to be critical of, attempt to foster the responsibility for your sex onto men, be aware. Men pride themselves on their ability to problem solve not on their ability to sit and listen patiently while you go through some hormonal imbalance.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, "BIRTH!" or other status.

Article 3:

Everyone has the right to "LIFE!", liberty and security of person.

I suppose all your "pro-choice to murder" people are going to call the UN a bunch of religious kooks now?

The fact is the unborn human is recognised by law - the highest law on the planet. Its just through a handful of deceitful, evil loopholes that people make the ludicrous claim of a womans supposed right to murder their own children.

You will of course see that the UN uses the word "everyone". What most of the debate is of course about is whether a foetus or a zygote can be recognised as anyone.
It's all in the interpretation isn't it? Does "security of the person" mean a womans right to reproductive choice, or ability to abort a pregnancy when it threatens the wellbeing of the mother? My guess is that many people would feel that it does and to criminalise the act of abortion would violate this article in the UN charter.

The following website is fantastic. I am not too keen on the religious slant of some of the content as I think that evidence and science prove the pro-life arguement resoundingly on their own.

Please watch the introduction video and then really question how it is that people think they have a "right" to such a disturbing practice.

http://www.abort73.com/

Daniel06 there are many disgusting things that are done to people's bodies. Do you really want to rear a child that will never have control of their bowel movements so that every day you have to dig out their hardened faeces? Maybe termination ain't so bad.

see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5828#81734 for details on how to feed someone with severe cerebral palsy

I would think people would realise by now that there are few absolutes. I'm willing to listen to arguments for the pro-life position, but not when they throw around ridiculous terms such as 'murderers' and try to paint foetuses as cuddly little babies.

Daniel06 - Your UN post is irrelevant. Misses the point.
This entire argument revolves around what point you consider a foetus to be a baby. You quote the UN statement as everyone has the right to life, but you miss the significance of 'everyone.'
It requires both parties to acknowledge we're talking about a person - that is the entire debate. If we'd settled on the fact that the cells that constitute a foetus was a person then perhaps you'd have something. As it is, it's a straw argument that distorts the debate, and puts the cart before the horse, or rather, the fully formed person before the foetus.

A particularly apt quote was said earlier - an acorn is not an oak tree.

To take this notion further - say, hypothetically, it was possible to inflict sperm with spermacide, moments before they fertilised an egg. Would this be murder?

If yes, then masturbation constitutes murder - so I'm going to assume no.

So, seconds later, once the sperm has entered the egg, are we now dealing with a full human being? Is terminating the egg that would have passed from the body anyway, now murder, because there is a sperm inside?

Is this honestly now murder? What's changed? A sperm has entered the egg, one chain in a series of events that creates life. But the egg has yet to fuse and begin developing. It's still an egg at this point.

Is it murder yet?

Yes? No? Do we need to wait a little for it to develop some more?

I get that this is pedantry - but the point I'm getting at, is all this absolutist 'this is murder' crap doesn't contribute to the debate and is an exercise at wilfully refusing to consider the issues.

We could compare a new-born baby’s brain to that of a developing foetus. Both are essentially a blank slate full of potential and capable of developing into much more. Besides that and many other arguments that Goodthief et al have posited I simply think we must nurture human life – not destroy it. My stomach turns when people refer to developing humans in the womb as a bundle of cells. I also see haranguing women whose intention is to provide a better life for herself and her existing family as harmful, manipulative and often ideologically driven.

While the right to be individual is important, I also think that boundaries are essential. We live in a society and our behaviour affects and impacts on others. I think that the Bible(and philosophers who’ve examined it’s Principles) are correct to point out the relationship and moral responsibilities that we have to our neighbours (rest of society) outweigh individual wants.

For argument’s sake, let’s go extreme, if you agree with the idea that the individual's right transcends all, then you are on the road to anarchy and corruption; while, if you start imposing your will on others, then we are on the path to fascism and corruption. So (note the irony ) the anarchist will revert to unbridled terrorism which is really fascism (control through fear – put simply) while fascist control will lead to anarchy (power corrupts, people rebel- disregard for morality, people’s feelings, ethics and the law ensues).

So reasonable boundaries (enshrined in law) are a must to govern how we as individuals behave in relation to others. Given that we are all human and thus value above almost all else life (in a crunch you will). I tend to think we have no right to allow people to abort developing life . For to do so devalues human life – devalues that which we most hope to enrich. The ultimate consequence of corruption (pro-abortion rationalising) will be to undermine the value of life and the moral principles which hold life in the highest regard which in turn endangers us all. Cont.

The pro-abortionists argument usually hinges on assigning to the developing individual the “bundle-of-cells” status. That I think is very wrong, for reasons above, but also because it denies potential and regards life and the creation of life in an instrumental almost inhumane and clinical way. This is dangerous way to think.

Also, I wonder how children feel when they hear/read about abortion. Words like “unwanted” must be very hurtful. A new life referred to as unwanted, as a burden, etc. suggests a kind of failing in our culture in its attitude to children.

A child has many shared characteristics with a foetus, for example, they’re dependent, need sustenance, nurture, physically one is just more developed, etc. and that some of these are sadly what expectant mothers believe that they can’t provide and so argue for an abortion. This suggests that maybe those with potential to abort a developing child are trend conned or mistakenly think they are not capable of proper motherhood. If so they must make sure they don’t slip up and be prepared to accept the blessing if she/he does. I can’t see any legitimacy in aborting a pregnancy (harming life) to counter another’s mistake.

If she and/or he slip up - well life’s not fair. People in the third world have to deal with unfairness that’s a lot worse.

Most of us would like to get rid of some troublesome people in this world but we just have to deal with it. Men and women have a voice - children and developing children don’t.

The attitude of the media, government and advertisers towards children needs to change to reflect their value as humans and the wonderful experience it is to be a parent.

The impasse is set. Maybe sharing other perspectives helps with understanding -after all we’re a multicultural society.

Celivia you seem to think that battlers somehow resent unplanned pregnancy. Your posts suggest that you’re sensible enough to reconsider. I wouldn’t change a thing in my life even though my kids have shown me that money actually does talk. It says: “Goodbye.”

Forcing women to have unwanted children when they haven't the emotional or financial resources to do so is very painful for all involved.

Many children growing up in the 50s and 60s knew they were not wanted as they were yet another girl, or another mouth to feed on a tight household budget. Those children who were reared in orphanages can attest to the deprivation they endured in those places.

I have come to the conclusion it is envy. So many men are so strident in their insistence of the evil, selfish and irresponsible nature of women who terminate a pregnancy it must be envy. Men cannot have babies, it’s a power women have and men do not. They cannot stand the fact that we do not see ourselves as victims because of this. No indeed we have the temerity to choose whether or not to exercise this power.

The contraceptive pill was bad enough. But then was seen as a plus. Sex without commitment and no necessity to visit a house of ill repute.

Now of course, if a woman doesn’t have sex after the 3rd date because she doesn’t want to take any risks she can kiss any thought of a relationship with said man goodbye. Not only must she have ‘lots of baggage’, she’s probably frigid.

If she does take a risk and she falls pregnant most of you men think she should lie in the bed she made, pardon the pun, and carry through with the pregnancy. Regardless of her mistaken impression of the man.

It is only in recent times that men are party to this kind of discussion. I’d like to remind you, that babies used to be strictly women’s business. Abortions are NOT a new thing. Midwives not only knew how to help at birth, they also knew how to assist with procuring a miscarriage - an abortion.

With a wanted pregnancy, most women would not make an announcement until after 12 weeks. This is because, although happy, there is a pretty high chance that the pregnancy will not proceed to full term and could end up in a miscarriage.

This is probably why women on the whole are less obsessed with the notion of a first term embryo being a full blown human. An embryo in the first trimester is only potentially an autonomous human being. If a soul is bestowed at the time of conception there must be gazillions of lost souls, from naturally occurring miscarriages floating around

Ronnie

The law is to protect the rights of current human beings, not potential human beings. Your suggestion that legalised abortion will corrupt and destroy our humanity can only make sense if you can explain why one type of potential human being should be treated so differently from other types of potential human beings. Celivia has also frequently brought up the point that if there is such a difference, then why aren't all the prolifers advocating contraception? It is a better choice for the woman. Is it not also better to prevent a murder as per the prolife definition?

I would guess that everyone on the forum would like to live in a world without medical abortions. But I would rather this be because of education and the availability of contraception than a subjective view of when human life becomes a human being.

In an imperfect world we can only try.

"We could compare a new-born baby’s brain to that of a developing foetus."

Ronnie, the point is we can't compare them, as one has a human
brain, the other does not. You still don't get it, but its only
around week 25 that what can be called a human brain, is finally
in place. The blank slate hasn't even formed yet, in a fetus.

You are contradticting yourself, your philosophy must be flawed.
At one point you say that life isn't fair, next thing you are
getting emotional over a cell!

Why are you obsessed with quantity of life, versus quality?

This issue faces most parents. Do they raise 2 kids or 10?
Do they flush those surplus 8 eggs and sperms down lifes toilet,
or do they try to raise all 10? Most, given the choice, decide
they would rather focus their resources on 2-3 and bring them
up well, give them a good education etc, then get bogged down
in quantity, as you seem to be.

Respect for human life has little to do with respecting cells.
What about hungry, sick, suffering people and other species?
Why not focus on those first? What is your obsession with
volume?

TLTR, great questions, great posts, but way over the heads of
the devoutly religious, I'm sad to say.

I really don't care what the bible says. It says I should kill
my neighbour for working on the sabbath. I like my neighbour, no
way will I kill him! It also talks about the wasted holy
sperms, which is what the Catholics base their dogma on.
Sorry, I base my opinions on ability to reason, not some
primordial dogma from a primitive bunch of people. But then
as Dawkins points out, brainwashing is part of their upbringing,
many just can't help themselves...

Col Rouge,

“You and I do not know what [the woman who terminates] might lose, maybe an education, maybe a career opportunity, maybe anything.” True, but not her life.

Illustrations of legal errors: Lying is legal (it’s only lying that does damage, like fraud, that is illegal); we are allowed to deceive each other. Adultery is legal. Workchoices. We can and should do better than the law.

For this reason, I’m not impressed by Yabby’s reference to “The first trimester abortion rule, which is now common through most of the world”. Incidentally, Yabby, if you really “try to see the big picture”, as you claim earlier, you risk seeing God: hold on to your hat!

TRTL, some more pedantry for you. Some say a human must be outside the woman and independent in order to be protected. How far out? Just the head or the whole body? What about a breach-birth, do we wait for the head? What about totally out, but still connected by the umbilical cord? Still kill “it” if we feel like it? What about dependent adults? What about the poor, the unemployed, drug addicts, orphans – just take them out? For their own sake, or because the sight of them is an affront to the pro-choicers? Who is safe?

We have to do better than death.

I haven’t read any post here that disrespects the woman’s sovereignty over herself. We just don’t agree that it’s just her. Some of us think a woman plus a foetus equals two people. If that’s a mistake, there’s nothing to discuss. But, if it’s true, then I don’t see how the woman’s rights to self-governance, while extensive and important, can go so far as to trample on the foetus’ right to survive.

If we could agree about the status of the foetus, I have no doubt we could come to terms on everything else.

Given our disagreement about the status of the foetus, I still recommend erring on the side of life rather than death. Life is a better orientation for us humans.

Pax,

Goodthief

"If we could agree about the status of the foetus, I have no doubt we could come to terms on everything else."

I agree with your sentiment. Yet, furnishing examples which Adolf Hitler, the now deceased anti-abortionist,

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/abort97.html

might have found abhorrent hardly gives insight as to why a single celled embryo has such higher status than other potential human beings. Nor do descriptions of babies writhing in agony as they are torn apart in Mummy's womb, or of Dr Evil wrenching out bubby with a pair of forceps then sticking a suction tube into the poor bugger's head and sucking his brains out. All very confronting, even challenging for a computer animator, but how do these examples equate to a lab technician destroying a human embryo of a few cells?

Fester, Your question is intelligent, and deserves a response, though the logic of your challenge escapes me. As I have already pointed out, pro-lifers, in my experience, do not describe the destruction of newly-fertilized embryos as murder, nor do they claim that anything that exists before conception (which is scientifically accepted as the beginning point of every individual human existence) is a human being. Consequently, they owe nobody an explanation for a view they do not hold. You may say they they should hold that view, but that makes it your argument, not theirs.
Nevertheless, whatever terminology we use, an act specifically designed to deprive a human being already in existence of a future existence which would otherwise be lived is wrong. That is why both murder and abortion have been deemed to be criminal acts.
Like all arguments for abortion, yours takes a 'freeze-frame' view of human existence, comparing different stages of a single existence as though they are different types of life, when they are merely different stages (through which all of us have passed).
Try this reasoning, not with embryos in the abstract, but with the embryo which gave you your present existence. Assuming that the pregnancy which followed could have been ended at any time before birth, can you suggest why it would have made the slightest difference, morally or in any other way, whether that had occurred before or after you attained the "capacity for consciousness"? There are no degrees of death.
If you consider that the embryo-is-what-it-will-become argument is not valid, consider also that this is exactly the argument used in equating the unwanted pregnancy with the unwanted child. If an unborn child can be devalued for what it might become, we can hardly be derided for valuing embryonic human life on account of its immense future potential. Present appearance is irrelevant to that view of life.

Yvonne,
coincidentally, I am also from The Netherlands!
Must comment on your’ envy’ conclusion { smile}, I’ve always thought that the ‘Eve was created out of Adam’s rib’ story was inspired by envy also- how hilarious!

Ronnie,
I don’t get my morals from the Bible- as I said, according to the Bible, God killed all Egyptian first born children, how moral was that?
Pregnant women can decide for themselves whether there’s legitimacy in terminating their pregnancy.
We can’t know how they feel; neither can we tell them how they should feel. If force a woman to have a baby, then who’s going to be responsible for the child if she cannot cope, or abuses it? Bullies normally don’t accept responsibility.
I am sure that ‘hearing’ the words “unwanted child” is a lot easier to cope with than ‘being’ one!

Although I am pro-choice, I am all for reducing abortion rates, but ONLY in a way that doesn’t rob a woman of her freedom to choose. Abortion must always remain easily accessible.

Not only sex ed and contraception are important to reduce abortion numbers, but also improving social services which will help women feel that they can manage to bring up a child. Having a good, social services system is what real support is about, rather than some silly biased counseling sessions or a baby-bonus.

This social support can include, for example, equal wages for men and women, paid maternity leave and also paternity leave for the fathers if applicable (parents might want to share the care for their child, giving fathers more qualitiy time with their baby and mothers won’t lose job skills), superannuation up-keep while out of the workforce to have and raise a baby, affordable child care, flexible work hours for both fathers and mothers etc. Any other ideas?

If anti-abortionists are serious about reducing abortion rates, then make it attractive for women to have their babies.

I also want to say that I am delighted to find so many men in this discussion who really “get” abortion, thank you for your wonderful support

Yabby and TRTL have said that there are few moral absolutes. Can I quickly ask, the holocaust against the Jews in WW2, can we say it was absolutely wrong or not? A woman walks through a park after dark. She is mugged and raped by someone hiding behind a tree. Can she claim an absolute moral wrong, or does she lie there and consider the philosophical debate over objectives and subjective values?

I ask because I think it is relevant. Pro-lifers are obviously concerned that a major moral tragedy is taking place in the deliberate and largely unnecessary ending of human life.

In this end of the forum, the question of how to define life has featured strongly. Pro-lifers have given their case that life begins at conception.

Yabby, you have said that life begins with a functioning human brain, which you said comes in around week 25 (itself questionable). Does this mean you have concerns for implications of abortions which take place after week 25?

You claim that pro-lifers are being emotional when they talk about ‘babies’ in the womb which are not well developed. However, it cuts both ways. Haven’t you fallen for the pro-choice propaganda when you say abortion is just surgically removing a ‘clump of cells’, when evidentially it is far more than that? Many abortions occur after 13 weeks, at which stage the little one has developed fingerprints (and much else long before).

TRLT, you deny that a life beginning at conception is an absolute, but you didn’t propose when life does begin. If it is at brain development or at conception, how can we be sure, and on which proposition lies the burden of proof?

If a hunter sees rustling in the bushes and is not sure if it is a deer or a fellow hunter, if he shoots and hurts another human, he will be liable to a degree. If we are not sure of the status of the unborn, then society owes them more than what their getting now.

Please, Yabby, if responding, try to minimise anti-religious insults or Dawkinsian rhetoric.

yvonne, I think you are spot on about the envy issue. Being male I can not fathom a woman who would choose to waste a human life with out there being some over riding medical reason. Then we hear from some women on OLO how the womb or pregnancy is an inconvenience and one can not but think that for them it is a matter of penis envy. As they attack men who's philosophy doesn't support total abortion, "and how dare they attach conditional support".
And I think you are right. Historically birthing matters were womans business but, that was before woman started demanding entry into mens business. Surely you didn't think you were going to take over our little hobbies as a right with our loosing something. You see machines are our babies.
As for the third date business, well I suppose in this day and age of equality and the guy still having to pay for everything, he ought to at least get a little sex out of the deal. It's not like it cost you girls anything. Theres probably a few guys who would be happy if you just laid there and didn't even move. If you find you have to physically contribute or emotionally respond don't date him again. Take the free night out at his expense and run. Like a woman has never thought of that.
I'm happy to see you laying the advent of the pill at mens door for the fembots have been taking credit for that for years.

Some interesting posts -

Mick V - I said there are few moral absolutes, and the holocaust is undoubtedly one of those few. It's often brought up in relation to this debate, but again, in order for it to be relevant there needs to be agreement that the foetus is a human being.

Fair enough, I didn't propose where life does begin - I pointed out the difficulties of pinning down precisely where it does. I can't specify precisely where life begins, which underlines my point there are no absolutes.

Goodthief, you make some valid points, though when you state that we should be erring on the side of life, I tend to think that the outcome of what you suggest dictates we maintain the status quo.

If we take a step back for a moment, away from momentous questions of life and morality, and take a look at the reality for just a moment, there's a few questions that would need to be resolved before any decisions on this matter could possibly made.

Some will say this sounds cold and perhaps liken it to attitudes that lead to moral degradation, but remember that I'm working from the standpoint that we have all accepted that from babies onward, we are all human beings and entitled to all our rights - so whatever statements you make are relevant to foetuses, not wider society.

Reality check 1) Banning abortions would drive women to perform underground operations, risking their own lives.

Reality check 2) Are pro-lifers honestly advocating that if a women falls pregnant, she be forced to give birth?

(Continued)

Celivia, I've been thinking about your question to the anti-choicers.
None seem to have had an attempt at an answer but it is a good question. I assume that your question is serious.

In my understanding.

. Most are good people with a particular view of the nature of human life based on their faith. Some hypocrits but mostly people working with a consequence of their beliefs.
. Many do struggle with the issues you raise, you could call it the anti-abortion conundrum. The answers are not easy or clear cut on that side of the fence either.
. We all have to balance how far we take our response to issues which concern us. Many people are opposed to the war in Iraq but few are in Bagdad running a peacfull opposition to the coalition forces. One response would be for crowds of westerners to be standing in every street coalition forces tried to drive on. Many are opposed to the death penalty considering it barbaric and or murder but most limit their activities to stop it in places where it exists. Most people put their resources where they think it has the best chance of achieving the outcome they want, the others tend to be extremists.
. My impression is that most forms of active protest against abortion have been closed off legally. Praying quietly might be the most that they can do without becoming lawbreakers themselves.
. It seems that behind the scenes lots is being done, we have discussed elsewhere the issues around having a catholic health minister. I don't think that the proportion of active christains in parliment is entirely coincidence.
. I doubt that many of the anti-choice supports really believe that the issue is about better sex education or better resources for unconventional families.
. It's hard to believe that a more liberal society will reduce social problems when you start with the idea that we are all sinners. The mindset is different especially in the fundy circles.

Any of the anti-choice disagree with my conclusions?

R0bert

Goodthief, where I live, its so close to nature, as I see the story
of life-death-life etc unfold every day, that any god would be seen
as nature herself. Understanding those laws makes far more sense
then anything that the rest of you have invented as your gods.

Mick V, as far as I can see, morality is grounded in biology. Its
in the interests of social species to have "rules", which make
for more harmonious living and in the interests of their survival.
Not killing those in your own tribe, empathy, altruism, food sharing,
incest avoidance, etc, are all things we can see in various primates,
and other species, not just humans.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that what Hitler did, was
basically tribal warfare on a massive scale. He was going to wipe
out those seen as of another tribe/race/religion. Warfare in the
name of tribalism still goes on today. Shias/ Sunnis etc. The
popes even sent off their warriors to the ME, to kill non Christians.
We send troops to Afghanistan. All justified morally by those who
do it. So where is the absolute here?

Rape is the same. What about the 30 second rapist, was that really
rape? Remember the comments by some Muslims, when women dressed
alluringly were raped? Where is the absolute? It all comes down
to lines that we as a community draw in the sand.

I have not said that life begins at 25 weeks. DNA simply continues,
in one form or another. At 25 weeks, what you have is what basically
could be called another person. Our line in the sand is that
we don't kill other people. Nature will always make sure that far
more potential people are created, then can ever survive. Its
basic biology. If they all survived, they would wipe themselves
out by that very fact.

Peter D having been on the receiving end of your irrational vitriol on another thread, I challenged you to produce some reasoned arguments. All you do is present rhetorical statements in the “whining prose” style. This is an opinion forum, whining does not qualify as “opinion”, merely the “bleating of forgone defeat”.

Daniel - your "libertarianism"

A “true libertarian in every sense” would first respect the right of other cognitive adults to make up their own mind. A true libertarian would not come here and proclaim his support of “libertarianism” and simultaneously demand the right to define, for all, what was and what was not “murder”.

A true libertarian would focus not only on respecting but also actively protecting the freedom and right of others to exercise their own choices in the course of their own self-determination, regardless that he might not pursue such a decision if he needed to apply the “choices” for himself.

You need to reflect on your definition of “libertarianism”. If you don’t respect “libertarianism” when others exercise it, it is not what you really believe.

PS an embryo is not a separate human being, it is a physical extension of the mother until the moment of birth – Declarations of Human Rights just don’t apply to embryos for that reason.

Goodthief Laws are written absolutes and their interpretation challenged to determine their consistency in their application.

Our moral Laws are personally interpreted and their intentions and inflections “subjective”.

The "law", whilst “imperfect”, is no less imperfect than subjective interpretations, like the ranting of the fool who comes here claiming to be a “libertarian”, whilst demanding to deny others the right to express their own “libertarian” values.

Re “err toward life” – that is your choice. My choice is to err toward respecting women, They know, better than I, their own mind in regard to a decision which will significantly effect them and in no way effect me.

Preventing people from making significant choices for themselves (and learning to live with the consequences of those choices), stunts and withers their spiritual growth.

I’m with Celivia (hello fellow Cloggie!) congratulating the many men participating on this forum who support women in this. Even Aqvarivs who wrote a very good post in the beginning of this debate. Yabby, Col Rouge and TRTL have actually been quite passionate in their arguments.

By the way Aqvarivs, if she pays the bill will she get to call the shots and make him put on his pirate outfit a la Johnny Depp? She’d still want him to move though.:)
Sorry about wanting to play with the boys’ machines. They’re so much more interesting than the dishes in the sink.

Mick it’s actually a very interesting question, when does life begin. The other side is of course, when does life end.

Life began in some prehistoric soup or with creation on day 3-4 (?) according to the book of Genesis. Whichever you take as the most plausible.

To ban abortion would be a terrible retrograde step. Late trimester abortion could only be justified in extreme circumstances; there is nobody on this forum PeterD who is advocating ripping 24week old foetuses from wombs, but there always will be situations where an abortion will be the best option.

If it appeases some to call it ‘killing’, then OK. I went through 3 years of law at Uni and semantics is a clever strategy to bog down a good argument you haven’t worked out a good counter argument against. Killing then will also be done with stem cell research and with thousands of discarded, unwanted embryos created during in vitro fertilization. Killing happens when a woman uses an IUD, and everytime a woman has a miscarriage a human death occurred.

Legally available abortion does not mean everyone with an unwanted pregnancy has to avail themselves of this. There are very many women to whom this would not be an option. Having said that, it is nobody’s business to determine which women do avail themselves to this.

TRTL et al:

My UN Declaration of Human rights post is very relevant. Can none of you read the part about the universal right to life regardless of amongst other things "BIRTH"!

I am not sure how you can miss it. The UN clearly states that everyone has a right to life regardless of weather they are born or not!

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Read article 2 and 3.

Its right there in black and white. Please acknowledge this! Why would they etch the word "birth" clear as day if they were not refering to the unborn?

This is a clear protection of the unborn human - so by your standards the UN must be a bunch of religious kooks and woman haters/bigots?

The fact is there are a million ways to excercise sexual freedom - why pick the one way that murders another human. Use a condom, the pill or any of the other preventative measures that can be used!

Daniel, I suggest that you calm down a bit and read those passages in their proper contexts. They are about discrimination, including sex, race and birth status. It's about making laws that discriminate against those persons, eg. forcing women to abort certain babies (eg down syndrome children), or even forcing them to not abort them. The Nazis had laws on both of these for their eugenics program (they had very strict anti-abortion laws for German 'Aryan' women).

But if a woman chooses to have an abortion, then you are saying she is discriminating against a whole class of individuals (ie unborn children)? Get real.

yvonne, If women can play with our toys it's only fair we get to play with theirs. The pirate thing is pretty interesting. :-)
AAAAARRRHH, matey. Shiver me timbers. ;-)

If pro-lifers use the argument that a zygote is a ‘potential human being’ and therefore should have the right to live, then they should take this same logic into the euthanasia debate: a suffering, terminally ill, elderly patient is a ‘potential corpse’, and therefore should have the right to die if they wish.

Aqvarivs,
many men love being involved in ‘women’s’ things as well, and luckily they can now come to pre-natal classes, be part of the birth process and child raising; it’s not only women who need or want more options, and it is not only women who benefit from the changes the early feminists fought hard for.

MickV,
abortions may be largely unnecessary to you, but to pregnant women who strongly feel they cannot cope abortions are necessary. Women don’t have abortions for frivolous reasons.

RObert,
thoughtful points. I am aware that my question was quite confronting but I wanted to improve my chance of getting across that anti-abortionists should take realistic steps to reduce numbers of abortions instead of keep doing what they’ve always done.
They should know by now that a ban on abortions is ineffective.
It is time for something more pragmatic: to look at countries with low abortion figures and copy what they are doing.
Only then will there be fewer abortions to worry about.

Would they rather have to worry about 100,000 abortions a year or about 10,000? All I wanted to do is make them see that what they are doing is achieve the opposite of what they want.
If they are serious, they should look at facts and figures, not only of abortions but also of abused and neglected children who are being dragged from one dysfunctional foster home to the next. I have looked after neglected children and I tell you: some people should NOT be parents.
But I hear you about their ‘mindset’.
I just won’t accept that they think women should be Stepford Wives.

They really don’t ‘show’ how serious they are because they deliberately ignore facts.

Celivia I have been following your discussion with Aqvarivs and I see a lot of anger directed at women, and not a lot of understanding of where that anger comes from. The usual feminist rebuttal is to yell misogynist. I think it comes more from women being so fantastic at playing the victim, and having the stage for the last 50 years, and in this time mens issues/needs (not that we'd call them that) have been secondary to womens for that whole time and there are many men bought up in that environment.

Celivia, "They should know by now that a ban on abortions is ineffective. " - put that in context with historical patterns.

Remember Galileo and how he was treated. All they had to do was have a good look through the telescope but it still took a long time for the evidence to be accepted. Someone has suggested that a flat earth society still exists.

Consider how long and hard they fought to have creationism taught as science despite the evidence (and some still have not given up). It might be called Id now, there may be a grudging evidence of the most difficult to refute parts of the science but that determination to ignore the evidence is still there.

In part the issue for fundies is that god cannot be wrong, given time and enough evidence they can accept that their predecessors had a wrong understanding of god and his word but god cannot be wrong regardless of what the evidence says.

Many of the moderates will have come to accept abortion as a fact of life, one they don't like but a fact of life.

On the other hand there may be some hope for change when you consider how quickly and thoroughly the church has taken to divorce and remarriage. Despite the bibles clear teaching on the topic most of the church has embraced divorce and remarriage with a vengeance.

Of course it's easier for church members to keep quiet about having an abortion than it is about a divorce so it may take some time for the church to realise that abortion has become common practice within their own ranks (if it has).

R0bert

Fester, I am not suggesting that a human embryo has “higher status than other potential human beings”. I am just shooting for equality with the mother. I am a strict egalitarian.

On the subject of “moral absolutes” – very good post, MickV, and I found Yabby's response re rape a little disturbing. (Remarkable that the women online have let it pass.) I would say that “Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of another person” is a moral absolute.

What if I CHOOSE to interfere - is that okay? If anyone tries to stop me, they'll be interfering with my choice.

Robert, Yes I liked your answer to Celivia’s question.

Yvonne, you concede that “Late trimester abortion could only be justified in extreme circumstances”. You must, then, disagree with Col Rouge (one of the men you congratulated for their understanding) who says that no foetus is a human being so that they can all be killed. Wouldn’t matter which trimester. Why do you hesitate at 3rd trimester?

TRTL, You have two questions:

“Reality check 1) Banning abortions would drive women to perform underground operations, risking their own lives.
Reality check 2) Are pro-lifers honestly advocating that if a women falls pregnant, she be forced to give birth?”

Without wishing to be rude, I’m not going to attempt an answer (yet). I am focussed on the moral issue. Once it is agreed that the foetus is a human being and that, therefore, abortion is homicide, we can then have a discussion about the law. I always distinguish between the two. But, first things first. I would like the law informed by an ethic that is life-honouring and selfless, rather than self-honouring.

Once legislating, we will immediately enter the conundrum that Robert hints at. We will choose between alternative tragedies. We might even end up where we started (the legal status quo, I mean), but at least the dead will be honoured.

Pax,

"I found Yabby's response re rape a little disturbing. (Remarkable that the women online have let it pass.) I would say that “Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of another person” is a moral absolute."

Goodthief, I have no idea why you found my response a little
disturbing, for I never claimed them to be my views, simply views
that are expressed in society, including those by religious leaders
of various denominations.

If you are so convinced of not interfering with the choices of other
people, perhaps its time that you joined the pro choice movement :)

Robert,
It's a pity you had to spoil an otherwise thougtful argument with that silly epithet 'anti-choice' to describe those who oppose abortion. If we opposed every choice a woman makes, we would be targeting hairdressers, gymnasiums and shopping malls as well. You know this is not the case. It's abortion we oppose, not choice. Please at least give us credit for knowing what we stand for.
This aside, your response to Celivia was good - you took the words out of my mouth. Abortion is not the only evil in the world. Take the situation in Darfur, or Iraq, as you say. We would all, I am sure, agree that the wilful slaughter of civilians, especially women and children in those countries is an abomination, yet, according to Celivia's reasoning, we are only pretending to believe that, because we're not going over there in droves to try to stop it. Therefore, the argument goes, they are not really being killed.
Celivia is trying to disprove, using very shaky circumstantial evidence, what medical, scientific, ultrasound, photographic and, ultimately, eyewitness evidence can prove. We all know what a dismembered, decapitated baby looks like, if we have the courage to confront the truth, and we know it doesn't happen by accident.
We also know all too well that attacking abortion clinics, as Celivia suggests, might give us some credibility, but it would also give her side just the kind of propaganda they love, and probably not save one baby. In the present climate, it would be a symbolic and very short-lived avenue of protest. We are not just pro-life, we are realistic.

Yabby, I didn't express myself clearly.

People who say "Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of others" usually, as has happened here, speak against moral absolutes. They often say there aren't any.

Apart from simply disagreeing with them (for God-related reasons), I'm pointing out that their prohibition of interference is itself a moral absolute. Once they recognise this, they can no longer say there are no moral absolutes, but just one.

Then, they'll have to explain where that one came from, in order to impress the rest of us with it.

Pax,

RObert,
you are pretty good at getting into the heads of fundies : ) I wish they’d take the Bible not so seriously- after all, it was written by people, and even ‘if’ God’s words were channeled, it would have been easy to interpret his words incorrectly We interpret other people’s words incorrectly all the time, especially the words from religious leaders such as the Pope (when reporters thought he said Catholic politicians will be excommunicated if they vote for abortion) and al-hilali also has been interpreted incorrectly too many times ; )
Channeling words accurately from God must have been just as hard, or harder. That’s probably why there are so many contradictions in the Bible. Shame that Philo isn’t here, he might have been able to enlighten us : )

Thanks for pointing out that there’s hope of change! Yes, even Ireland allows divorce, which must have been one of the last Western countries to resist it. There’s even a growing number of bishops welcoming homosexuals in their churches. In The Netherlands, religious, same-sex couples are getting married in Church. This is evidence that morality is just subject to the moral zeitgeist. Who knows- next newsflash might be about Ratzinger pushing contraception and sex ed, there’s always hope : )

Goodthief et al,
Don’t we all have a common goal: to reduce abortions?
We might have different reasons why we think abortion rates need to come down, the most important thing is to achieve our goal as quickly as possible.

As we have already agreed on a common goal, then all we have to do is work out, from looking at other countries’ results what the quickest way is to reach our goal.
This will probably be: realistic sex education and free contraception distribution.

The slowest way would probably be to leave things as they are until we have a final conclusion on what the exact time is when a human being begins to exist. Theologians, scientists, philosophers etc can take decades or centuries to come to a final conclusion on ethics.

goodthief - no, I don't believe you can simply decide on the status of the foetus without looking at the bigger picture. To do so is to decide blind, and doesn't have consideration for the repercussions.

To continue my post (dang 24 hour rule):

What about pregancies caused by rape?
The pro-life argument hinges on the notion that foetuses are people from conception. Thus, under this definition, aborting a pregnancy caused by rape is just as heinous, as it's a question of the child not the father, so logically, she would be forced to have a child.
To abort these children would effectively be classed as murder, sanctioned by the actions of the father. This couldn't work now could it?

What about a mentally disabled rape victim? Will she be made to have a child?

Will she be watched to ensure she doesn't abort? Would she be held down or incarcerated if she was determined to have an abortion?

Would she be imprisoned if she had one? Would her circumstances be considered?

What if there's a slight risk to the mother? How great does this risk have to be before an abortion is permissible? If there's a 0.5 per cent risk? 1 per cent? 5 per cent? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 50 per cent? At what point do you permit an abortion to save the mother?

When you ban abortions, you are opening the floodgates to all of these possibilities, and if you don't have answers, then you need to go back to the drawing board.

The end result of the pro-life argument is to ban abortions - which means these things need to be considered beforehand, not after, because if it's changed these issues will need immediate answers.

Celivia, "many men love being involved in ‘women’s’ things as well, and luckily they can now come to pre-natal classes, be part of the birth process and child raising;"

This my dear is the mind set I'm battling against. How do you exclude men as in "babies are womens thing" knowing that it (the pregnancy) was initiated by semen, the male gamete, and the issue, whether carried to full term or aborted carries half it's genetic information from the man involved. Abortion is not a womans right. It is an available couples choice but, not hardly one I should think championed in favour before all else.
IF I was a woman I wouldn't be arguing about abortion services that are available and aren't likely to disappear. I would be questioning my fellow female citizens on the reliance/use of abortion and why 1/3 to 1/4 of all Australian pregnancies are terminated through abortion. Surely one doesn't have to be a man to see this as desperately urgent.

I have questioned a number of men informally during counsellings and many men have given their reluctance to carry the relationship further on the unfairness of family services and the blatant disregard shown them in the courts. I compare what I have learned there with the profile provided by http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia?
The unfortunate reality is that while feminist see it as a victory over men, real women are left to carry the burden of what is not equal nor fair at all in the final analysis, for men nor women. Not fair nor equal for families and not fair nor equal for the future child.

Daniel06 “The UN clearly states that everyone has a right to life regardless of weather they are born or not!”

nice misrepresentation of what was written!

The whole statement reads

“Article 2 : Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

“Birth” refers not to the physical process of the “birth” of the individual but the “inherited rights” or "status" also referred to as “birth rights”. Thus, “birth” into a particular caste or social class does not entitle one to rights distinguishable from people of another caste or class.

It has nothing to do with inclusion of the unborn or preborn.

If you want to get pedantic, I would further note that Article 1 says

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Notice the word used is “Born” used, not the word “conceived”.

Clearly Article 1 does not apply to those still in the womb.

Article 13 “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”

The pre-born cannot be included here. They physically lack the ability to exercise “freedom of movement”, as intended by the article.

Article 15 “Everyone has the right to a nationality.”

“Nationality” will depend on conditions which include where someone is “born” (eg automatic right to US citizenship if born on the territory of USA). “Nationality” therefore, cannot be defined, in the case of the “pre-born”.

Article 25 “ . . All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”

Does not refer to the “pre-born”.

It seems to me your statement

“This is a clear protection of the unborn human - so by your standards the UN must be a bunch of religious kooks and woman haters/bigots?”

is a mythical crock of doggie doos

Peter, treat it as nailing my colours to the wall - given the rest of the content of the post I did not wish to be misread. You might also consider runners earlier "pro death" comment regarding pro-choice supporters.

As for the point "If we opposed every choice a woman makes, we would be targeting hairdressers, gymnasiums and shopping malls as well.". On that basis all pro-life supporters would also be strongly against capital punishment, war etc and that is just not the case just as pro-choice advocates are not always pro-choice on other issues.

Life is complex, few of us fit neatly into stereotypes or sit at the extremes. I sit on the pro-choice side because I don't see a better alternative currently available to us. As with some other posters I would like to see abortion a measure of last resort. I would like to see independant research regarding the numers of abortions, why they are sought, who is having them etc.

I do think that the issue has gained symbolic status for some on both sides of the debate. Those who cannot and will not listen to the other side of the argument, who will not give any ground.

I believe the issue to be complex with no easy solutions, one where we should work towards best case solutions rather than the dictates of dogma.

R0bert

Celivia, you have made some great points, but many of them
far too rational for this thread :)

Yup, Holland has shown how abortion rates can be minimised
with great school education, free availability of contraception
etc. If we look at say teen pregnancies in Holland compared to
say the US, where abstinence is preached, they are like night and
day!

But I doubt if you'll get a response from many in the so called
pro-life lobby. All the investigations that I have done show that
yup, there are a few inviduals who claim to be anti abortion for
non religious reasons, but that does not apply to most of the
pro-lifers, who are mainly Catholics, with a few fundies thrown
in.

The extreme end of Catholic dogma (unlike most Catholic churchgoers)
is into no condoms, no snip, no pill, no abortion either.

Check out this website for prolife Philipines, to see what I mean.

http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control

As if the Philipines isn't already overcrowded, they want more
babies! Perhaps they really want more little Catholics to outbreed
the Muslims?

Luckily the pro lifers are a very small but very noisy part of
Australian society. Last I read the data, only 8.8% of Australians
bother to go to weekly church. Of the Catholics, only 17% are
committed to the Church vision, so if you work it out, thats
a teensy weensy part of Australian society. What they lack in
numbers, they make up in noise lol.

Fact is abortion in the first tremester is now spreading to country
after country, as people realise that killing women in the third
world, (70000 a year die), is not about compassion or caring for
other people, its simply about flawed religious dogma.

If they really cared about people, they would welcome them to
have the snip tomorrow!

Goodthief, Yabby’s rape comment’ was to illustrate a point about moral absolutes not an opinion about rape.

Re late trimester abortions. There’s a vast difference between a 10 week old embryo and a 24 week old foetus. Disregard PeterD’s lurid descriptions. He’s stuck on the wrong pictures. Many women have had miscarriages in the first 12-14 weeks of pregnancy (and seen what it looks like) and view pregnancy this early in the piece much differently than when a pregnancy is well established.

In this debate we are talking about unwanted pregnancies. This would be determined well before 4 months (16weeks) are up don’t you think? There may well be some who think that late trimester abortions should be freely available, but no means by most who are in favour of legally available abortions. This would be another area of discussion all together.

Oh Aqvarivs, you’ve got such a bee in your bonnet about feminists. Most of us love men, find them on the whole much more fascinating than women. Women are so easy to understand - pragmatic and rational. Do you really think the majority of feminists are men hating dragons who want to destroy men? Men are the other side of the human coin. We really don’t want a world without you.

As Celivia points out, everyone at least wants a reduction in the number of abortions, this can be done.

How many of the abortions performed are done at the behest and coercion of the father? Many men do feel very hard done by because they have to contribute with the upkeep of a child. Men tend to be focused on their hip pocket; they forget it is inevitable that the mother also pays. Financially, emotionally-day to day care of child, job opportunities and relationship wise.

Abortion should never be seen as a form of family planning taking the place of contraception. Not because of moral reasons, but because it is a surgical procedure and will always carry risks. As Robert said: an option of last resort.

The issue of abortion is extremely emotive. However, I have noticed that the issue as presented here involves adult women, and presumably with no mental defect. There are other circumstances which should be addressed. This alone, widens the debate ...

I believe that when children are raped and become pregnant, and there is the other factor of rape and incest resulting in pregnancy, that no child should be forced to undergo a pregnancy. Today, girls as young as 12 yrs are menstruating and undoubtedly could be able to give birth. Some writers above would prescribe counselling and permitting the pregnancy to go ahead. However, I do not believe counselling under such circumstances would alleviate the trauma that rape and pregnancy would cause a child. Also, there is the issue of young women who, through mental incapacity, are vulnverable. I would be interested in what others have to say.

I had five children within seven years and although told that I was undergoing considerable risk, still did not contemplate an abortion. However, this was my choice! I firmly believe that all women should have right of choice whether to abort or not. Not so long ago, women used a herb "to regulate their menstrual cycles". As this herb had to be taken within the time a period was missed, it was often a euphemism for abortion. Many of these women were devout, understanding the implication of what they were doing, but did not even consider that they were committing a "sin". One woman told me that she had been "cleansing".

Aqvarivs,
I’m with Yvonne on this and I’m sure that most women in healthy relationships would consult their partner before making a decision about their future. I would.
Still, nobody should be able to force women to give birth against their will or to have an abortion when they want the baby. But I am repeating myself. In short, my opinion is that fathers gain their rights at the moment of their child’s birth, but before that it’s women’s prerogative right to make the ultimate decision.

Yabby,
I hope they finally see the light after a few reps of the obvious points on how to reduce abortion rates! How hard can it be; If they want to see a drop in abortion rates- prevent them. I really don’t find that the pro-lifers are helping to reduce the rates, and I find this quite frustrating. Even though they are aware that their God has given humans a free will, meaning that they are responsible for their own actions, they still want to impose their own beliefs onto others.
I remember that I read somewhere (sorry can’t give you a link it was in some magazine) that one of the Saints- it was St August or similar name- said that a foetus before 13 weeks isn’t a person yet and wouldn’t go to heaven. Perhaps this info was not reliable, but if it is, it would make a good point in this debate. I’m hoping that anyone here knows something about that Saint. Thanks for the link- and remember that Australian politician who also made the comment about Muslims overtaking Australia if non-Muslim women continued to have abortions? So you are probably right about that!

Danielle, welcome!
I also find teen pregnancies very disturbing- even if the emotional side can be looked after, there is the physical side as well as their bodies are still growing Would a pregnancy stunt their growth, or misalign the hips which are still forming and growing at that age?

RObert,
I am also very interested to see this kind of in-depth research done.

Yvonne, I know and can appreciate the difference between yesterdays feminism seeking inclusivity and todays feminist who want exclusivity(fembots). See Celivias argument that mens rights(?) don't start until it's time to pay for the up keep of the womans right(?) of ultimate decision. Enslaving men to the womans ultimate decision.
I'm intellectually stumped by anyone who suggest that life can be broken down into mens rights(?) and womens rights(?) when there is no life with out one or the other. My Mothers crowd fought for equality of the sexes and for women to be included as full members of society and not property. Todays feminist are demanding special rights and considerations at the expense of men. These are not feminist. They're fembots who have hijacked feminism so to have a righteous start point.

And the men only focusing on the money is out right misdirection used to marginalize men. The money has no meaning to men who will willingly spend all they have and work themselves to death for their families. It only becomes the focus of the issue when fembot dominated family services and family courts relegate men to nothing but "money" while denying them their family.

These women want to be treated as equals while demanding exclusive rights still expect to have the first seat in the life boat. We lucky men still get to go down with the ship.

RObert
I note the anti-creationist clichés that you trotted out a few posts previous. Firstly, I’d see this as a victory of sorts. Years ago, when I first got interested in the creation/evolution debate, people would say, ‘who or what is a creationist?’ Now we are getting insults. That’s progress!

A full on debate here is probably off the topic, as we are arguing the issue of abortion, and majoring on our religious differences is more likely to mean we have less common ground.

But a few of the posters have brought the subject up, and the original article writer did hint that our religious views will definitely come into this discussion at some point, so can I, please, respond a little to your worn out clichés.

The flat earth society does not exist and never did, except perhaps as a university day prank, and as a reference for those who want to throw insults or name call.

You say creationists ignore the evidence. I’d challenge you to let me know your best piece of evidence that proves evolution, or even strongly suggests that it is not a worn out 19th Century idea, coming close to its Used By date. Give it your best shot, and then see if I can ignore it.

I wonder why anyone would choose to believe such an unappealing worldview as Darwinian Socialism, or some similar variant, where ‘the strong out surviving the weak’ is an avenue to upward progress. Perhaps they believe it is based on science or some other set of facts. It is, after all, taught at university. I think you would then have to draw a long bow to justify commonly accepted morals such as ‘be good to your neighbour’, etc. But the idea of the strong not worrying too much about the weak would sit quite easily with letting those in the womb die. After all, there is no one more weak or defenseless as a baby in the womb.

Celivia,
I said abortions were largely unnecessary. You took me to task, saying women don’t have abortions for frivolous reasons.

However, I still don’t see why I should step away from my comment. Can you tell me what these necessary reasons are for the many tens of thousands opting for abortion?

Coercion from the boyfriend.

Misinformation from the doctor at the clinic who needs to make a payment on his fancy car.

Cases where the mother faces a serious health risk are marginally few in this age of modern science.

Rape is often mentioned. My understanding is that these cases are also extremely few due to the trauma associated with rape making conception less likely.

Incest (or similar abuse) is a possible reason for contemplating abortion. Yet usually it is the male perpetrator that pushes for abortion, as it will help to cover up his activities. A girl may be inclined to have the baby, as it will prove to the world the abuse she has suffered, and give her an object of love that will help to take her out her current situation. Possibly a win-win for everyone (especially the little one).

The most illogical reason for abortion so far is that the unborn will never be at risk of abuse from parents that didn’t want them. Huh? I was conceived when my mum was on the pill, but she never abused me.

I challenge this idea that free abortion makes us treat the kids we do have and did want any better. Rather it devalues kids in society as a whole. When we kill the unborn when we ‘cannot cope’ (your words Celivia), how consequently do we treat the kids we have when we struggle to cope. I would like to see statistics on child abuse after Roe v. Wade.

I will admit that I have never had to face the emotional turmoil of going through the decision. But outside of emotional reasons, if I have missed any ‘necessary’ reasons for most abortions other than convenience/inconvenience, please fill me in.

(By the way – ‘necessary’ implies no choice).

Aqvarivs,
I find it a shame that you feel that financial responsibility for one's own child equals “enslavement”. But the only alternative we have thought of so far is the one that supports the oppression of women combined with depriving the child; this is worse than just a financial obligation of fathers to their children.
We debated before why I don’t think that men should be able to walk away from their child if the woman doesn’t submit to his wishes and has an abortion. The welfare of the child should get priority. That is my only reason- not because I take pleasure out of ‘enslaving’ men.

I have also agreed that the law should change to allow more flexibility for special cases such as RObert’s. So I suggest that men follow the feminists example and call themselves ‘homminists’ or ‘hombots’ if you like and campaign for what you want..
Women fought hard for what they have, men are welcome to do the same.

MickV,
I’d have thought that the Flat Earth Society is real and serious. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm I don’t blame you for not believing they exist because it IS hard to believe.

I am not going to make a list in where I state what women’s reasons for abortion are or should be – I trust that every woman knows for herself. If she didn’t think that she had good reason, she would not have the pregnancy terminated. Women who opt for abortions believe that they have good reason. Who are we to criticise their judgment?
On the abortion-crime link, some evidence suggests there is a llink, google and you’ll find much info on this e.g. Donohue and Levitt's rsearch.

Religious pro-lifers:
I did some research and found this great site that points out that there is no evidence that the Bible is anti-abortion.
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

So where does this ‘moral’ anti-abortion stance come from if not from the Bible? Who then decided that abortion is murder?
If God had been as serious as our fundies about abortion, he would have been clearer about it in the Bible.

Thank you for your welcome Celivia.

I am submitting here some unpleasant details about childbirth. For those squeamish, I suggest they do not read this, however, this is a reality and has to be faced when discussing abortion. Society can't make a so-called moral decision based on very slim cohort of white middle-class women. No woman would easily decide on an abortion; the morning after pill, perhaps. But once a woman knows she is pregnant, psychological factors enter that neither men, nor women who have never had a child, could begin to comprehend. It should remain the woman's choice whether she abort a child, or not.

I draw on the evidence found in third world countries where child-brides, or female circumcision, botched abortions, or pelvic fractures, commonly lead to obstructed labour. Without medical intervention, these virtual children endure days of excruciating labour. The baby’s head, wedged into the mother’s pelvis, cuts off blood supply to the bladder, or rectum. The pelvic tissue rots, leaving a hole (fisutla). Only when the baby dies, and its body collapses is the mother is able to give birth. However, due to constant leakage of urine and faeces, these young women are found noisome are rejected from the community. In such cases a small hut is built for the girl and she remains from other isolated until her death. Even hospitals will not admit them.

Celivia, thanks for the link to the Flat Earth Society.
I don't think that one is serious but it's a good laugh. They give the game away in the Current Events page. My guess is that the site is a payout on creationists who continue to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Similar techniques.

The Genesis museum opened today - reportedly the most popular exhibit was the one with the dinosaurs getting onto the ark.

R0bert

Celivia, once again you dance around intentionally being obtuse to what I actually say to maintain your "men just have to pay" stance. I reject it. Thankfully the great majority of women reject it. Your split society of feminist and masculinist sounds just perfectly harmonious.
IF, it is as you suggest; "the womans belly the womans decision". Then you are enslaving the man to your decision because you disallow the man any consideration. That is enslavement and sexual apartheid. I rather think that it is a shame that you willfully support and advocate sexual apartheid. Especially under the guise of feminism. It's a philosophical contradiction. All those years fighting for inclusion into the mans world only to be tossed aside after obtaining equality by a new sexual apartheid under feminism as a womans right.
I first thought it was ironic but, that wasn't the right word. It's tragic.

Aqvarivs and Robert, all the ills of society and injustices, to either men or women, cannot be laid at the feet of feminists. There are women who hate men, but are not necessarily feminists at all. There are also men who hate women.

Injustices, perceived and real, in the Family Court are not because of ‘feminist’ influence. The legal fraternity and the judiciary are the last true male bastions for Goodness sake.

Read up on the history of the Family Court. It was created and enacted in 1976 to correct a longstanding injustice for women and children. I agree the pendulum has swung very much to one side (I’ve been involved in a long painful journey with a father in relation to his child), but there are attempts to correct it.

One reason why this is I think, and this is only my humble opinion, has nothing to do with feminism at all, but the fact that many, perhaps especially men, cannot countenance the idea that all mothers do not fit the ideal ‘sacrificing Madonna’ image. Very few men of a certain generation have any relationship with a father, but have idealized memories of a mother or if they don’t rationalize why and blame another, probably their father. After all, he was cruel, cold, etc. to them as well.

One good thing that has come from all this is that fathers now, unlike previously, are more and more involved and have developed meaningful relationships with their children. This is a relatively new development.

Because of the idealized ‘mother’ image I think is also why it is more often men who get quite emotional about abortion. Read some of the posts and you’ll get the gist how angry men get with women who terminate their pregnancy.

Women, on the other hand, do not tend to be so romantic. Especially in regards to very early pregnancy. Attachment tends to set in once you’ve felt the baby move.

Further to my letter regarding the experiences of women, especially virtual children, in third world countries, I wish to place the situation in the worldwide context.

The UNFPA report that pregnancy, worldwide, in young women aged 15 to 19 is the leading cause of death; girls under 15 being five times more likely to die in childbirth.

The report continues: “For every woman who dies in childbirth, some 15 to 30 survive but suffer chronic disabilities, the most devastating of which is obstetric fistula. Young women under age 20 are especially prone to developing fistulas if they cannot get a Caesarean section.”

Indeed, five percent of women worldwide will experience obstructed labor, meaning that the baby will not fit through the woman’s birth canal because her pelvis is too small, or the baby too big, or badly positioned. The small, undeveloped pelvis of young girls places them in this category.

www.unfpa.org/swp/2003/english/ch5/index.htm

Abolishing legal abortions will not stop abortions. But the injuries sustained by back-yard abortionists will be horrific, and many young women will become a mortality statistic. Surely this is a horrendous punishment to pay.

I suspect most pro-lifers are Catholic, therefore, do not accept the use of contraception. Are contraception methods also to be banned. This is the logical corollary of banning abortion.

Pro-lifers, whilst admirable in many ways, should not force their views on others. Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others.

"Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others."

Danielle, that would be ideal, but sadly things arn't that way.
The Vatican maintains a huge worldwide lobby network and their
view is quite clear. If they can use political influence to force
people to live by their dogma, they have no problem with that.

If you look at countries like Chile, they have only just won
the right to even obtain a divorce! The church fought it all
the way.

Yup, 70'000 third world women die needlessly, due to abortion
being illegal. Clearly these women are desparate, to risk their
lives.

Some more info on the flat earth society. They in fact used
the bible to prove their case:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Mick, evolution theory is today overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, as we can watch it happen daily, before our
eyes. Even the Catholic Church accepts it. Just a few fundie
nutcases don't, but their numbers are minimal. So they really
don't matter in the context of the bigger picture. But we will
tolerate them :)

Danielle, you say -

"Pro-lifers, whilst admirable in many ways, should not force their views on others. Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others."

I, for one, have not used force. Just airing, critiquing, hoping to influence, trying not to get clobbered for it. Just like the pro-choicers.

Pro-choicers would enforce their views just as readily. The "sufficient ... to ... uphold them in their own lives" point is usually quite innocuous: "Live and let live" is a common way of expressing it. Usually, I am happy to live and let live, agree to disagree etc. However, on the subject of abortion, "live and let live" is not entirely accurate, is it?

I'd like to see the pro-choicers take a live and let live approach to the foetus.

Pax,

Yvonne, I want to assure you I do not "blame" anyone. I have entered this debate keeping in mind a general view, that of any laws or rules or rights be open to all involved and not become a policy of sexual exclusion. I'm talking about abortion in general, not specific or exceptional cases. People keep bringing up rape but, it is not statistically valid since births due to rape are 4.7% of all cases. Of greater concern with rape is the transmission of STD's at 56% of all cases.
Family court is as it is because children are considered the womans not the husbands.(that's a feminism) Which is why after a DNA study 23% of married men have been found to be raising children they had thought their own but, are not. And why right now there are legal discussions on whether or not to allow prenatal DNA testing. (which the feminist are fighting tooth and nail) Accordingly men who find they are not the fathers are being held financially responsible regardless. The courts will make no distinction. The man pays. In one case already the man took the child and had a DNA test done which proved the child was not his and the courts asked if he had the mothers permission. He said no I did it on my own. The courts said, sorry no permission, no right, you pay. He's not allowed any contact because the child isn't his. Don't think men are angry at women. They're not. They're angry at a system that has always marginalized them while telling them to accept women as equals but, that they must also allow them special considerations.
I have no doubt things will work themselves out. Especially now that women have the same potential wealth as any man and there is now a greater incidence of deadbeat moms. The more women prove they wont behave any differently than men given the opportunities the better for the men. kinda sad when you think about it.

Danielle,
I’m absolutely horrified; I assumed that there would be ‘some’ deaths and some problems with very young women giving birth, so I feel quite ignorant that I didn’t realise how serious this is.
I’m so glad that you posted this, it’s a real eye-opener, not only for me but I imagine for the pro-lifers in this discussion as well.

Aqvarivs,
If you think that it is tragic that a father has to financially contribute to the welfare of his child, then think again- there are worse things, such as children and sole mothers living in poverty.
The only difference between your opinion and mine is that I am child-focused and you are father-focused.
If you can show me how it is in the child’s best interest that the sole parent runs off with his/her financial support, then I am happy to agree with you.
I already agreed with RObert and you that the law should be revised to suit cases where men are sole parents, and I also agree with you on the DNA testing. It is not fair to say that I am promoting sexual apartheid.
Although many women have the same ‘potential’ wealth as men, the reality is that wages are still not equal and that the biggest group living below the poverty line is sole mothers.

Yabby,
Thanks for the amusing link- and for being so tolerant ; )
I am still hoping that one of the pro-lifers will show me where in the Bible God refers to abortions as ‘murder’ and where it says that a soul enters a zygote right after conception.

As I mentioned, Saint Augustine said (if my info is correct) that this happens after the 13th week.
This is the point of the article. God would have been clear about this if he thought abortion was an issue.

RObert,
Do you know how this museum was funded? Donations? I read that about half of the USA population believe in creation! The museum amuses me, but I also find it terrible that this museum will be used to show children these “facts”.

Celivia, its been set up by "Answers in Genesis"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/27/1180205124107.html

Andrew Denton did some coverage of the museum during construction in his "God on my Side" film which was mostly based around discussions with delegates at the 63rd National Religious Broadcasters' Convention held at (this is good) the Gaylord Convention Center.
http://origin.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200705/programs/LE0515H036D21052007T213000.htm and for more direct info http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/

you might have some fun at
http://tribes.tribe.net/189be8fb-b353-4620-8fd7-812104a604b6 (Fun with Fundies)

I found a claim that the bible is pro-choice there refering to Numbers 5:11-31 which does not seem by my reading to have much to do with choice but the footnotes in the NIV study bible do suggest a miscarriage and barrenness for unfaithfull wives after a certain ceremony. A telling point is the closing verse "The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin."

yvonne, I don't blame feminists (although some have been involved). In my view paternalists have had a major role in creating the mess. Those who think women make better parents than men, those who see the male role as supporting women and children, those who see women as less able to take responsibility for themselves and their choices than men. I do think some feminists have provided aid to the mess out of solidarity for other women and possibly as part of fightback at what they consider injustice. Others such as Patricia Pearson have done some good work speaking out against double standards.

I consider traditional views about male and female roles a much bigger threat to equality than the excesses of some feminists.

R0bert

Earlier in the thread I posed some questions as to the implications of what would happen if our definition of a person was to be stretched to the point of conception - nobody answered, so I'll post the logical answers and kindly ask pro-lifers if they believe this is an acceptable outcome for society.

If all foetuses are classed as people, then they have the same rights as anyone else. Thus, if abortions are banned it would logically include pregnancies caused by rape.

If not, it would be sanctioning murder of the child on the basis of the actions of the father. This clearly wouldn't be acceptable under law.

Aborting would have to be classed as murder. Therefore, if a woman has made her intention clear, all efforts would have to be made to prevent her, such as incarceration.

Women who undertake an abortion, regardless of whether it was rape, would have to be sentenced for murder.

Those who do 'backyard abortions' would be risking death to themselves.

There would of course, be some provision of risk to the mother which permits an abortion - if the birth was likely to kill them both, then of course it would be allowed. This of course, could encourage women to harm themselves in some way, so they qualify for an abortion. Determining what level of risk is acceptable would be a nightmare.

If I'm wrong - by all means, say so, but clarify how. I'd like to see these issues accepted as truth by those who are determined to change the status quo, or at least, have them provide persuasive arguments to the contrary.

As a pro-lifer trying to engage those who oppose my views I genuinely ask the pro-abortion advocates here the following questions to help me to understand your point of view:-

You make a lot of claims about rape victims, teen-pregnany, women in poverty, somehow unacceptably handicaped childen etc as justifications for abortion, am I correct?

What about a perfectly healthy woman, with access to enough resources to feed, house and school their children (the govt ensures this for every child in Aus), who consented willingly to the sex which inpregnated them, who neglected to use the virtually fool proof contraceptive devices, potions and actions available and simply decide they don't want a child?

The reason I ask is that the above category makes up the overwealming majority (90%+) of the 100,000 abortions each year.

You can bang on about rape victims all you want, but they make up only a tiny fraction of pregnancies - get to a doctor within 24-48 of rape and pregnancy is totally avoidable.

Not that I think rape, teen-pregnancy, or handicap justifies murder, but I am willing to listen to those arguements with an open mind (I can at least understand the sentiment) - I can not however see how the example I have given above is even remotely morally acceptable and yet it makes up for around 95,000+ murdered human lives a year in this country alone!

Daniel, the basic difference here seems to be the difference in understanding of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that a fetus in the early stages exhibits enough characteristics to set it apart as a human being.

Potential human but not human, a step on from the bit where a fertile male and fertile female at the right time of the month represent a potential human. If it's not human then it's not murder.

As to your question, abortion without "need" is not something I'd be keen to waste effort on and I'm not desperate to have my tax dollars used to support it but then I've not seen the evidence to suggest that over 90% of abortions actally fall into that category. As suggested earlier independant research is needed so that we can find ways to reduce the "need" for abortion.

For those interested in the biblical treatment of the issue.

I found an interesting article at http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Position:Republicans_are_unbiblical_on_abortion Some of the links off that page are also interesting such as the article at http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

I've done a bit of scouting around regarding the Numbers 5 material I referenced earlier. Most commentators appear to suggest that the wording describes an induced miscarriage (amongst other things) if the woman has been unfaithful - if so then god appears to support termination on the basis of unfaithfullness. Not exactly the pro-life position and not pro-choice (for the woman).

Another reference Numbers 3:15 tells how to count the Levites - "every male a month old or more" sorry for the sexist approach, they are not my words.

R0bert

I appreciate your response R0bert,
So the crux of your arguement is that abortion is morally acceptable on the basis that you believe that an unborn child does not exhibit enough 'human-ness' to be counted as a human? (I will assume that you mean unborn children less than say 10-12 weeks gestation as any later and all body organs, including brain are formed)

Can I ask you to consider this: You seem to have a very abstract and arbitrary system by which you measure 'human-ness' (for lack of a better term).

It seems that you use a combination of social norms (very western ideals at that), contemporary views of individual identity, mode of conception and economic strength of parents as the basis for your view of what makes a human a human.

By your resoning if you have wealthy, loving parents who want you and can somehow by their wealth ensure that nothing bad will ever happen to you (a crazy notion as many rich parents are terrible) then you are magically a human.

If you have lower earning, less loving parents (or parent) who feels overwhealmed and scared then you are not a human? I am actually not trying to patronise or put you down, but the arguement is certainly lacking in objectivity.

I mean what happens if Mr & Mrs perfect go bankrupt and divorce when you are 3? Do you get demoted back to animal status? What happens if single mum on the dole gets rich and finds her dream man in 2 years? Does the dead baby suddenly get recognition of being murdered?

I put to you that humanity is not defined by religion, social norms, or contemporary fads about identity. Can you not see that using 'subjective' reasoning to define humanity is so open to abuse. It happened in the slave era, in Nazi Germany and in today's society.

By your logic you can justify killing anyone so long as the killer cant see the humanity in his victim. Just because you cant see the humanity - doesn't mean that it is not there.

Celivia, yes it is tragic that you as a self pronounced feminist would sanction as well as advocate sexual apartheid and a two tier social system and special rights for women. That you declare you are all about the child because after [I], WOMAN ALONE, make the decision whether the child lives or dies, [I] then demand that the father financially supports MY DECISSION. You can spin yourself in circles but, once again your position propagates a sexual apartheid. I don't see you being about the child at all. Your about men paying for the womans decision.

Wages for the most part are equal and the overall gap is virtually closed. There are some exceptions but, mostly it depends on ones interpretation of equal work for equal pay. A woman can not take two or five years off work to have a child then expect to return to her old job, the same position, the same pay rate. Too much has changed. And a woman cannot have taken that time out of the work force and then not expect a difference in her superannuation or expect that she should receive the same as a man who has invested 25-30 consecutive years.

Women who want careers and money over raising children should seek men that will be stay home Dads. It's not like these potential Dads don't exist.

Single women with a child do not make up the largest portion of Australia's poor at all. The largest portion is made up by working poor families who have three or more children. [These poverty stats were defined by using a single income couple with two children with earnings of 406.38 a week.] As of 1999 in Australia, there were by count 1.7 million adults living in poverty while only 732,000 dependent children living in poverty. If by your thinking each of these children were being raised by single Moms that would leave a greater number of single people in worse straights than single Moms with children. Like a million more. And those children were not all dependent on single Moms.

Daniel06, I really think it's time you tell us what your definition of "a human" is and when it applies. Your old definition was substandard, has been shown to be such (thanks for the non-acknowledgemnet BTW) and needs upgrading.

What many have been talking about, yes it's "a human", but a human what?
An embryo may be a human embryo but not a human being, a foetus is a human foetus not an embryo nor a baby, a developing stage that is gentically dissimilar to (but not independent of) the support system that is it's mother. No cognitive ability exists, nor a range of other criteria that enables a human "being" to be classed as such. Now what is your definition that is so all encompassing and is so objectively rational?

Daniel, you really need to start to differeniate between a human
organism and a person, thats the big difference and much what this
debate is all about. Murder does not apply to organisms, it applies
to people. At 12 weeks a fetus is not yet a person, it doesen't yet
have a human brain.

You are hugely concerned about potential people. Well I remind you
that every month, millions of potential people are flushed down
life's toilet and nobody says boo. They suffer or think no more then
an aborted fetus.

Most woman have about 400 chances of creating another person, reality
prevails, they can't keep them all. So its really the woman's decision when she feels that she is able to care for that child
and raise it. Only she knows the circumstances of her life.

Yup, some people are paying off houses, simply can't afford to feed
any more children. High house prices are a very good contraceptive :)

But thats their business, not your business. You are free to make
choices about your life, they are free to make theirs. Just because
a contraceptive did not work, or they were never educated properly
in their use, or they made a mistake, does not give you the right
to force your morality on them, if it has no logical reasoning behind
it.

Perhaps its time that you explained, why a one or two celled organism
should suddenly start to be seen as a person, when its clearly not.

Daniel06,

You make some valid observations, however, not all contraceptives work - if a woman is unwell, vomits, etc. any protection can be negated. I wonder just how many young women with calm deliberation think “in two month’s time, I will become sexually active” and go on the pill. Condoms are not 100% reliable. I’m sure many young men carry one around in the expectation of “getting lucky”; but when they do, the condom has passed its use-by-date; also in the throes of young passion, condoms may not be used appropriately.

You state: “get to a doctor within 24-48 hours of rape and pregnancy is totally avoidable”. In these cases, the day-after pill prescribed is, in fact, an abortificant. It is not a contraceptive.

Admittedly, I do not know the current policy regarding late abortions, but feel strongly about these when the baby, with help, could possibly survive. My emotional reaction is that if a woman is far advanced, and with no medical condition precluding birth, why not go full-term. I have heard of doctors who refuse to conduct late abortions. They feel that they are attempting to save babies at the same weeks’ gestation, as other babies who are being aborted.

However, there are reasons to have a late abortion. Many years ago in a delivery ward, a woman next to me was being induced. The baby had been found to have only a residual brain. With all my “emotional” reaction, I concede that late abortions may be necessary.

goodthief,

I have no doubt that you and other pro-lifers are extremely fine people and if a member of your family or a friend found herself in the predicament many women find themselves you would be there to support her, not just for the first year or so of a child’s life, but also for another 20 years it takes to raise a child properly.

During the entire time of child-rearing days, I only once asked for someone to babysit my small children; my husband was away. My two-year old, as it transpired, was dying. It was a Saturday evening; everyone had something important to do; I was told not to be silly, etc. If I had been naive, or influenced by others, my toddler would have died an aweful death. In desparation, I managed ... Just. However, I learnt a very valuable lesson ... In doing so, I also learnt the complexities with which women are faced when having to make a decision to have an abortion or not. Many unmarried mothers do not have support, or indeed, can rely on loving family members, friends, or indeed some outside public body.

I have seen single, supporting mothers in tears because they could not find a babysitter and had to attend an important meeting.

As for teenagers having babies, I knew a 16 yr old who gave birth and was unable to bear children later.

In all conscience, I could not advise an unmarried mother to have a baby, or an abortion. The only thing I could do would be offer my complete support in any decision she would make. Certainly, there is a risk in as you say, ”hoping to influence.” This can lead a woman to feel guilty, and a woman in this difficult situation should never be made to feel guilty either way.

Pax also.

Now we have a mini creation/evolution debate as a subplot within the abortion debate. This is not so surprising.

It is funny how people ask to keep religious ideas out of the debate, and then the same people start looking for justification within the Bible for their pro-choice argument. Such is the fickleness of this debate. What next I wonder?

The Bible is pretty consistent in that whenever it talks about the unborn it refers to them as having normal human status. This is true for David, who said in the Psalms, “You knit me in my mother’s womb, I am wonderfully made.” Also Luke talks about Jesus himself, when he was in the womb (less than 3 months), when mum met with her pregnant cousin Elizabeth.

If any of the non Bible believers who have now become inclined towards quoting the Bible can find a counter example to the Bible treating the unborn as fully human, please, let’s hear it.

R0bert and Yabby,
The only argument put forward so far supporting evolution is that most scientists believe in it. This is the ‘billion people in China can’t all be wrong’ type of argument. Fortunately, science is not a democracy. One scientist with a good argument can prevail over a multitude of others who perhaps are looking at the matter from the wrong angle. You can take comfort that you sit with the majority. I’ll take comfort that I sit with a small (but growing) number of scientists who are willing to stick their necks out, risk their reputations and any hope of university funding because of their convictions.

(I’ll counter Yabby’s “we see it happening every day before our eyes”, by saying, “no, we don’t”).

ok...lets put it this way for analysis purpose...if medical procedure for unplanned pregnancy is abortion included ceasing the life of the mother at the same time...how many unplanned pregnancy would occur...yep...close to zero...

So there are other factors currently that causes this to such a prevalent occurrence and now to point that social rejection is growing stronger...these factors have to be identified and addressed...

I think this is the fundamental point and the general direction of the force of change is if one still forms a part of unplanned pregnancy then you cannot expect/demand/behave to induce 'sympathy and understanding' to do what one wants...but accept that a balanced out come for all, mother, father and baby is the goal...

Sam

Sam "ok...lets put it this way for analysis purpose...if medical procedure for unplanned pregnancy is abortion included ceasing the life of the mother at the same time...how many unplanned pregnancy would occur...yep...close to zero..."

Like most of the pro-life arguments, your comment relies, not on the reality but on a non-existent hypothetical presumption.

I would observe a woman, pregnant against her will or expectation, is not interested in "hypotheticals" or your personal view of what suits your debating style. She is dealing with the reality that if she remains pregnant, it will significantly effect her life and if she aborts, that too may well significantly effect her life.

I would further note, whatever the womans decision, it is extremely unlikely to effect your life.

That said, I fail to see where your authority for her to comply with your desires or subject herself to you hypothetical constraints, when considering what she should do.

Some women finding themselves pregnant, may decide they do not want to deal with the possible guilt of abortion and so continue with an unwanted pregnancy but some will decide to go through with it.

Her body, her choice.

I suggest respecting her right of decision with not diminish you, your rights or your hypothetical decision if you were ever hypothetically pregnant.

Thank you, Col.

Mick V,
my purpose is to ask the religious to back up their claim that abortion is murder because they base this claim on the belief that God tells them that abortion is a sin. This debate’s topic is about whether it’s justified to claim that abortion is murder. I want to go back to the source, the Bible, so I can understand why religious people might think that abortion is murder.
IMO, the Bible is hardly pro-child given the fact that God killed or ordered to kill many babies and children, and people including pregnant women.

“…a counter example to the Bible treating the unborn as fully human, please, let’s hear it.”
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25
Here, the bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

There are several quotes that show no respect for pregnant women and their “fruits”:
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal.

Here’s the source of the this info: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

So, now that we know that the Bible does not condemn abortion, then why are millions of women be told what to do in the name of God?

col wrote "I would observe a woman, pregnant against her will or expectation, is not interested in "hypotheticals" or your personal view of what suits your debating style. She is dealing with the reality that if she remains pregnant, it will significantly effect her life and if she aborts, that too may well significantly effect her life. "

well col, it seems that you seem to be sitting like a frog in a well only paying attention to whats been paraded in front of you...one needs to get out and see the issue in its whole context...if not or refuse to then the first question becomes 'what is your real agenda'...

For example what do you say to fathers whom have taken mothers to court to stop them aborting their child...and failed...does not seem to explain 'all' things doess it...when a woman choses abortion over giving birth and handing the child over to the father for care and raising...so time to rethink your position that its solely the woman holding the can in an unplanned pregnancy situation...eh...

Sam
Ps~I dont believe I am 'anti' or 'pro'...what I am for is better available options for all concerned than the current...like a law that says a man can have his child in a relationship with a woman or when he choses not to be in a relationship with sole legal rights over the born child...ie increase the available legal options as main stream...all so that more unborn babies may live...

More bible quotes, put together by Ralph Nielsen,
so I'll paste them, just for Mick :)

GOD LOVES CHILDREN
Read what the Bible says about God's love for children:

According to God's law, children are not persons but the property of their fathers, who may sell
them as slaves (Exodus 21:7).

God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of the Hebrews if they didn't obey
him. If they still didn't obey him, he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves
(Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53).

God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all of the people in the lands they conquered. This
includes slaughtering all the children and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34; etc.).

If you do not obey God, he will punish your children and your children's children unto the third and
fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; etc.).

God says, "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling..." (1 Samuel 15:3).

God says, "Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes..." (Isaiah 13:6).

God says, "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9).

Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned the entire human race (except the Noah
family). This included every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6 & 7).

Does God really love children?

Robert,
Thanks for those priceless links!

Aqvarivs
Men do not foot the entire bill- both sexes are financially responsible for raising their child.

About wages; in a world where men still dominate the majority of professions there is still a huge gap.
What you want is a world in where men get their rocks off without concern for women and without any responsibility.

Your apartheid argument is a straw-man one. I’ve said that I’m in favour of both partners sharing access to maternity/paternity leave so both can benefit and share both the financial side and the caring for children, IF they want that. It has been done in some countries, it is possible.
And you know that I agree with a more flexible law to deal with special cases.

“a woman cannot have taken that time out of the work force and then not expect a difference in her superannuation or expect that she should receive the same as a man who has invested 25-30 consecutive years.”
Yes, she can. It has been done in other countries-partners can share their super and time-off work.
Is it fair that many more elderly women than men live below the poverty line just because they’re the ones who have babies? They need to pay for that in her old days?
I admit that my figures about poverty before were wrong, but I don’t think it affects the argument. More women live below the poverty line than men.

“Women who want careers and money over raising children should seek men that will be stay home Dads. It's not like these potential Dads don't exist.”
Men who want careers and money over raising children should seek women that will be stay home Mums. It's not like these potential Mums don't exist.

Aqvarivs, this debate is about whether it is justified to call women who opt for abortion and doctors who perform them, murderers.
I rather use my posts debating about that than discussing the sub-topic of men’s rights- women here are being called murderers and you try to make this debate all about men’s rights.

TurnRightThenLeft
You ask, what would happen if our definition of a person was to be stretched to the point of conception?

This is an intricate and value laden question, as many would say that this is a proper interpretation of the law as it stands now. Why else would certain state governments be considering legislation to decriminalise abortion?

Another problem is that it is a kind of hypothetical, crystal ball, type question. Many would say that there would overall be many great consequences, including society valuing life more highly.

But I think your question relates largely to rape. In Ireland, public opinion is mostly pro-life and this is reflected in their constitution. However, there is, I believe, a provision in the law for cases of rape. Does this make the law in Ireland inconsistent? Perhaps, but I think this is a better state of affairs than what we have here, where tens of thousand of abortions occur for who knows what reason, so that the door can stay open for the tiniest number of rape victims – which is a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog.

Even under our present law, not all homicide is the same. There are different classes. A man who kills an intruder in his house would be treated differently to an armed bank robber who killed. The intention and mental state of a person is always taken into account.

For example, even before Roe v Wade, in some states there was the crime of infanticide, which is where a mother killed a baby under one year old. The penalty for this was much less than other murder as the stress of giving birth was considered a partial defense. Yet it was still an illegal homicide. I can only presume that this was the unstated motive in the Lindy Chamberlain case, but the Northern Territory had no such thing on the books as infanticide, so she was charged with first-degree murder.

Your other query related to ‘backyard abortions’. This is a Pro-choice propaganda furphy. Did they really occur in vast numbers before RvW?

Daniel what I saw looks like you are using a strawman to push your POV.

Following what appears to be your argument a bit further though on the idea that stopping a potential human from having the the opportunity to develop into a human is murder then
- use of contraception is murder (sounds familiar). A baby could result if the egg and sperm can just get together.
- failing to have sex with any fertile woman might be murder because a baby could have resulted.
What has changed is the odds not the ethics.

It is awkward that we don't have a clear cut easily justified basis for determining at what point a fetus becomes a human being. We have some rules of thumb based on the best available evidence. Life is like that. Setting the start of a human life at the point of conception is somewhat more arbitrary.

Mick, was it to much effort to follow the links I provided earlier? Have a read of the Numbers 5 section passages.

Have a read of Genesis 38:24
'About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant. "Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"'

Now if the fetus has fully human status then thats a pretty big call beyond the ethics of killing prostitutes.

Celivia quoted another place where the life of the fetus is clearly valued at less than that of the woman. The Numbers 5 passage shows that god supported termination (no health issues there either).

R0bert

TRTL, I suppose your questions earlier (about rape etc) are simply hard to answer. Opposed as I am to abortion, I am so pessimistic that our enlightened community will take the human status of the foetus seriously that I haven't given much thought to what might follow if it were.

I believe that, if abortion was illegal, then we would encounter some situations in which we face a choice between tragedies. Rape is the classic, in which there seems no good way to go. The choice seems to be between asking the woman/girl to undergo 9 months of horror so profound that I know I am not in a position to understand it, and the death of the foetus. Worse, the horror might seriously undermine the woman/girl’s mental and emotional health long-term. Here, I have to admit, I just don’t know which way to go.

Danielle’s case of the young mother who faces a real risk to her life is probably different – like self-defence in a more conventional murder context.

However, the fact that pro-lifers don’t have all the answers to these cases doesn’t get you around Daniel06’s point that they are the extreme cases. Our difficulty dealing with them is no excuse for legalising the vast majority of abortions. Otherwise, you would have the tail wagging the dog.

Celivia, You are owed a response on the Bible. This won't be easy, as I lack expertise, and would have to go to each passage. Of course, you have stripped these verses from their context, but they are still disturbingly blood-curdling, don't they? (Rather like an abortion). My main response is that most prolifers are Christian and rely more heavily on the New Testament. The savagery - including God's apparent savagery - in the Old Testament is a challenge for us. I would only say that love is savage, and the God of the OT was a partisan jealous lover of the people of Israel. Since the New Testament, I believe God's love is equally for everyone, so we Christians usually don't speak in these terms.

Pax,

Robert says, “the basic difference here seems to be the difference in understanding of when a fetus becomes a human being”. True, this is where we all part company and, until we can agree about this, it will be hard to agree.

This is why we have to arrive at an approach that is based on uncertainty and disagreement about the status of the foetus. Like TRTL, I am a little frustrated at receiving no response to my suggestion that, since we don’t know whether or not the foetus is a person, we must choose between the following risks:

i) Terminating – the risk of killing something/someone who is a human; or

ii) Giving birth – the risk of allowing to live something/someone who is not a human but who indisputably becomes a human later.

It’s not that I think the foetus is the only person involved, or even the most important person. It’s just that, generally speaking, there is far more at stake for the foetus than anyone else. I realise that the foetus is blissfully unaware of all this, but of course it’s that very helplessness that qualifies for advocacy and consideration.

Danielle, I agree that there are “complexities with which women are faced when having to make a decision to have an abortion” that I would not want to face. Complexities that make this discussion very painful. However, these complexities entitle the woman/girl to assistance and support, they don’t justify termination. For too long, the prolifers have neglected the mother. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that abortion be criminalised and the mother neglected, as though she just didn’t matter.

Whatever the law does, its aim should be to make sure everyone gets to live and that they get to live as happily as the community can make possible.

Pax,

So far no man who is anti-abortion has actually said that he wants abortion banned. This to me means that they agree that there are circumstances where abortion is permissible.

In which case, all their arguments about abortion being murder of a human appears to be relative only. Killing is justified in some circumstances.

Some men want to force another autonomous human to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. How can you force another person to do something like carrying on with a pregnancy? Even with surrogate pregnancy, where the woman has gone freely into being an incubator there are all sorts of problems. And she gets paid for it, while beforehand has thought about this.

What would you do if she changes her mind and wants to ‘keep’ the child after birth? What if she purposely or continues to live a life detrimental to the well-being of the foetus, like drinking alcohol, using ‘recreational’ drugs, smoking, excessive exercise? Would you then demand imprisonment and put her on 24hour watch?

Is there any man or woman who would allow another such control over their being? People with a medically diagnosed mental illness who are a danger to themselves or another are accorded more respect and can only be held against their will for a very limited time.

How do you fit this into the UN charter for human rights Daniel? A woman by becoming pregnant has fewer rights than a man or a foetus? Wow, there are a few warlords in Dafur who would love that, UN sanctioned ethnic cleansing.

Abortion should always be freely available.

To some a one day old zygote is as human as a 3 year old (Daniel), to another an embryo is not a human until life outside the womb is possible (me), or until actually born (the law). Mick, abortion is the crime, the foetus does not have legal status until birth, though this is undergoing change.

Let’s concentrate on making abortions rare. We should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Celivia, no we are not talking about calling women murderers. No where have I even remotely suggested such a thought. This thread is about abortion and your stated position is that it is a womans right and men should butt out until it's time to hand over the cash to raise the child, after the woman alone makes the choice. Naturally, I can understand how you would come to the conclusion that I'm arguing mens rights when your only concerned as a woman with dominating by "right". However, I am not arguing mens rights but, rather suggesting that singularity of "right" ends when two individuals come together and initiate a life, a third individual. I have no where suggested that abortion should be denied. I believe it should be freely available, just not so freely abused as it appears to be, going by the numbers and the profile offered several times by myself on the typical woman using abortion. I would much rather see a active (proactive) contraceptive education and practice, early relationship counseling, and the adherence to moral and ethical responsibility above the quick fix of abortion as a solution. I am talking about couples. I am not talking about exceptions but the general rule. You and others may post all the exceptions as you please. I'm discussing the use of abortion in general from a pro-choice point of view. The choice reached by the couple involved, as a couple, and hopefully with some counseling via a third party not advocating a political position. Some one professionally mature enough to remain neutral and unbiased. I understand how such a platform is threatening to your desire to divide the sexes and achieve empowerment through social disharmony but, I just can not help but offer a more socially unifying position. I very much dislike socially divisive political structures and think it is counter to nature to encourage sexual divisive ideologies. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for disagreeing with you.

Sam, I am not a frog and I do not sit in a well.

As for fathers of children who challenge the women they impregnated, bearing in mind I am a father –

The decision remains the prerogative of the pregnant woman and always should.

As to the father, his bodily resources are not utilized (beyond his sperm contribution),
his physical safety is not put at any risk,
His body is not altered.

His rights to make the decision are, therefore just like the embryo’s, subordinate to the decisive rights of the pregnant woman.

Regarding my “real agenda”. Simple, I believe in the supremacy of the individual. I believe all ideas and developments which affect mankind have originated from an individual. I feel that socialism, monarchy, class, religious dogma and indoctrination and similar forms of institutional constraints are yokes which hinder and impede the development of the individual.

Since a “pregnancy” most profoundly effects one existing human being, the woman (ignoring the embryo which is not a separate or functioning individual). I see the sole authority for decisions in terms of maintaining that pregnancy as the woman herself.

My underlying “agenda” is to actively support and express the ideal that individuals are paramount. Therefore, I can only support a woman’s right of choice and acknowledge that whilst she might later regret her current choice, we only grow as individuals through dealing with the process of making serious life choices and living with the consequences.

All the pro-life/religious meddlers are nothing more than that, meddlers, hindering the progress of other individuals, to assuage their own overdeveloped sense of narcissistic importance. They would deny a woman the right of decision and sovereignty over her own body. They would reduce her individuality and class her as nothing more than a life support system for an embryo.

Bugsy, my initial basis for human life has stood up to every single attempt made to de-humanise the un-born (see the 1st post to this thread). Why would I acknowledge any such claim that it is substandard? So far it is the most robust and solid case put forward.

RObert, you are missing my point - I have never claimed that killing a "potential" human as you put it is murder. The fact remains that an unborn child is totally, clearly, 100% a human life! (and therefore ending it is clearly murder) - don't try to confuse the topic by comparing egg and sperm seperately to the clear massive difference that conception is.

Seperate human DNA in the form of unfertilised sperm and eggs are not human - no one has ever claimed that so don't be silly and please stop claiming that anyone has.

A fertilised egg is the clear scientifically proven point of the inception of a new human "organism" (as you put it) - and therefore the start of a human life. Ending the life of a clearly defined seperate human entity is murder. You may think that it is justified murder, but it is murder all the same.

Yvonne, I am a male, a human, a person of conscience, and an agnostic/athiest and I can assure you that I support the protection of human life through the system of law globally and locally. Abortion is actually illegal in all nations including Australia (accept where the unborn child poses a direct risk to the mothers life) - it contraviens the Declaration of Human rights and is morally abhorant. It is a flagrant exploitation of some very minute loopholes that have lead us to this mess. Besides the law does not equal morality - that is a lame and tired arguement.

Col Rouge,

Firstly I am an atheist.

Secondly I think that murdering a baby could be considered as meddling with another persons life - don't you?

Daniel06 and goodthief, I respect your viewpoints, as I do other pro-lifers on this site. Oh, that life was as fair and tidy so as your ideas could be adopted. However, life is not, and we have to struggle and make decisions according to how things are at a given time.

Daniel06, you mentioned that rape victims could be helped if they reached a doctor within
24 - 48 hours. However, the pill they are given, the "day after pill", is not a contraceptive, but an abortificant. Based on your principles, society is thereby killing an unborn innocent who had done no crime, other than to be the product of rape. Unfortunately, rape with resulted pregnancy is a great deal more common than reported.

Every day, science laboratories in creating life in IVF programs, are also disposing of the unwanted embyos.

A very caring mother has just told me that she is putting her 12 yr old daughter on the pill - the child not only attends an all girls school, but has shown no signs of interest in boys what so ever, but the mother wants her daughter to be "safe". I can't but wonder what the effects of the pill on the development of such a young child is going to be. Scientists are now predicting that with better health care and food, in a few generations girls as young as 9 will be menstruating.

I have often heard: "well if the girl is old enough to conceive, she is old enough to be a mother". I am sure none on this site would agree that boys and girls as young as 12 yrs are in any way capable of being fathers and mothers; and if this should lower to 9 years ...!

In "The Weekend Australian Magazine, June 2-3, 2007, pp.30-33" an article "Secrets & Lives" reports that in the 1940's every fourth pregnancy ended in an abortion and sometimes a maternal death. Admittedly today's society has sophisticated birth control methods, however, these are either not used for a number of reasons, or fail, or even unsafe. Yet how many men are prepared to have a vasectomy when their family size is finished, or those who "might" marry but want to make merry beforehand; the procedure is safe, simple and can be reversed, unlike the tubal ligation women have to undertake.

The Catholic church forbids contraceptive use, relying on the quite unreliable rhythm method. A girl who conceives out of wedlock is in "mortal sin", if she uses a contraceptive she commits "mortal sin", if she has an abortion she commits "mortal sin". When I was at Catholic school, albeit many, many years ago, a girl was held responsible if the boy become roused, and again considered in "mortal sin".

As many pro-lifers are Catholic. I would be interested to know if, along with the abolition of abortions, do they also want the abolition of all contraceptive methods. Unwanted pregnancies have always occurred and, with the falibility of humanity, will always do so.
We don't want to go back to the 1940's of horrific backyard abortions, with the loss, often, of the ability to have another child, or maternal deaths.

Excellent points, Danielle.

Aqvarivs, no worries, in debates, we cannot expect everyone to agree. You have made many good points.
With the ‘women are being called murderers’ remark, I was referring to what Brian Holden said in his article. “We cannot afford to have a significant proportion of our society labelling women who have abortions, and the professionals who assist them, as murderers. So - what is the hidden agenda and what drives it?”

I am very interested in finding out exactly what this ‘hidden agenda’ is, if it is not ‘souls’, God, or the Bible.
Some of us including myself, RObert, Yabby, Goodchief, have been looking at the Bible to find the reasons behind religious pro-life reasons. I have found that God and the Bible are not anti-abortion and that many Christan denominations and religious groups are pro-choice.
I therefore cannot accept the justification of pro-life views of the religious anti-abortionists when they refer to God as their reason.
Now I’m asking: So, what are their real reasons for opposing abortion?

Attack on feminism?
There are feminists who are anti-choice, they respect all human life and regard the unborn as people.

Anti left-wing?
There are also pro-life ‘lefties’; they believe that abortion is violence and abortion violates liberation and freedom; that freedom cannot be built on a base of violence. Sounded good until I realised that they regard embryos as human beings.

As someone pointed out, an acorn is not a tree. If I dipose of a few handsful of acorns or gumnuts, am I guilty of forest destruction?

I would like to pose a hypothetical question to pro-lifers, whether they are religious or not:

The doctor tells you that you have a terminal disease and have only 3 months to live, unless you take medication directly derived from embryonic cells.
Would you take the medication, being well aware that embryonic, human cells were destroyed in the creation of your life-saving medicine?

Daniel06

"Seperate human DNA in the form of unfertilised sperm and eggs are not human - no one has ever claimed that so don't be silly and please stop claiming that anyone has."

Well if they are not human then what are they? Would you think differently if they were human? So you believe that human cells with 23 chromasomes are another species? Yes, that's a good dogma for the prolifers as it makes the demarcation simpler. But where does that leave diploid cells with the potential to be cloned?

Your comment also leaves me wondering whether your interest is in protecting human life for its own sake, and not for the potential human being that it might become? You seem unconcerned of the fate other potential human beings. I would have thought the potential for something to become a human being to be the main motivation for concern, as it is for me.

Celivia,
First of all you would have to accept that the rabid pro-lifers, aka masturbation is murder types, "are a significant proportion of our society". I certainly don't. Statistical evidence shows that both pro-abortionist and pro-lifers occupy the minority view. The majority view in the USA, Canada, Europe, Britain, and Australia is decidedly pro-choice. Next you would have to accept that there is a hidden agenda. That is just blatant nonsense. The pro-life agenda is not hidden and is as old as abortion itself. There is no uncompromising pro-life view. The pro-life camp is as diverse as the pro-choice camp. The only camp that is uncompromising is the pro-abortionist crowd.

"In seeking an answer I ask myself - in what essential way do I differ from my dog?" As soon as I read that I knew I was reading the opinion of NOT a intellectual giant and no longer became concerned when reading his gross emotional mensurations.

The author ends with this, "the danger of faith-driven pro-life thinking." AS apposed to what? Unfaithful pro-life thinking? So it really isn't about abortion. It's about him having his day ranting against his misinformed and misconstrued version of religion and pro-life advocates, which he has twisted into his reason d'etre for supporting abortion.

Abortion should never be considered until the 21st year. By then you ought to know if the life will be of any value. Everybody should get a chance. Keeping it should be contestable. The ultimate reality game. Judged by ones peers as to ones validity for continued existence.
Stupid forms a line next to the suicide booth. :-)

Col Rouge, there is nothing I could add to how well you put the case forward.

Celivia, excellent post. Would love to hear some answers to your questions.

Aqvarivs, I’m not so sure of a ‘pro-abortion crowd’. Abortion is a surgical procedure. All surgical procedures always carry risks. If there is such a beast as a pro-abortionist it couldn’t be anyone with a woman’s best interests at heart. It’s pro-choice vs anti-choice. Those who call themselves pro-lifers are not pro-choice, they are anti-choice and anti-abortion. Why else pray and picket clinics where abortions are performed?

I never refer to someone as being pro-life, it insinuates that someone with a pro-choice stance is anti-life, which is patently not true.

I have to agree with your opinion on the article. But then, when have we posters not opinioned that we could write a more coherent argument than the author of an article? It still starts us on an interesting debate, which allows us to examine and re-examine our own beliefs/conclusions.

Danielle, I have to comment on the mother who put her 12 year old on the pill. That’s horrific. Does this mother have sons? Is her father a raging misogynist? She is teaching this girl that men are dangerous and are unable to ‘control’ their urges and she’s a victim. This mother is not caring, she is physically, emotionally and psychologically abusive. She gives the likes of Sheik Hilali strength that woman and girls should veil themselves lest they be seen as uncovered meat in front of cats.

"So far it is the most robust and solid case put forward."

Hehe Daniel, you are free to kid yourself :) If its
unborn, its not yet a child.

"Seperate human DNA in the form of unfertilised sperm and eggs are not human"

Of course they are human, they are human organisms. So is a zygote
and an embryo.

"A fertilised egg is the clear scientifically proven point of the inception of a new human "organism" (as you put it) - and therefore the start of a human life."

Ahh, at last, you'd have to concede that its an organism, not
a person!

" Ending the life of a clearly defined seperate human entity is murder."

Nope Daniel, murder applies to people, not organisms. A human
organism has the potential to become a person, its not yet a person.
So murder does not apply, sorry, go check your dictionary.

Celivia, to understand the pro life lobby and their agenda, you
need to go back into JP2's childhood and his views. He had a huge
effect on Catholic dogma, which is still evident today and is
preached by the extremist end of the Catholic Church, which still
dominates in Rome. If you look at the statistics in say the US,
Catholics have as many abortions as non Catholics, so very few
practising Catholics take huge notice of what the Vatican says
about family planning. Thats why the Catholics for choice movement
etc.

Dan iel06 “Firstly I am an atheist.”

Ah you must be responding to my statement

“All the pro-life/religious meddlers are nothing more than that, meddlers, hindering the progress of other individuals, to assuage their own overdeveloped sense of narcissistic importance.”

Two points to make
1 I was not referring to you.
2 However, that you feel the need to respond, does confirm my tail comment about prolife supporters and an “overdeveloped sense of narcissistic importance”

“Secondly I think that murdering a baby could be considered as meddling with another persons life - don't you?

Again, an embryo is not a baby, birth and separation from the mother has not been achieved, hence we acknowledge different standards / states of being, different expectations between a baby versus an embryo or a fetus and therefore use different words to describe each.

Just like we recognize that “abortion” is not “murder”.
(different terms referring to different things, your sensitivity for similes is obviously skewed or very obtuse).

The great thing with pro-choice: regardless what a pregnant pro-life person decides in terms of going to term or aborting, I not only support her decision but also her right to make it.

Danielle, the Catholic Church is obsessed by sex and mortal sin. Intimidation and sexual oppression are used as control processes to subordinate their congregants and impose what is recognized by non-Catholics as an immoral influence. It is their power and they exploit it cynically and ruthlessly. If I were not so content with my redneck ways, I think I would of change my logon to “the happy heretic”.

Yvonne – thank you for your comments, I have thought long and deep about “abortion” for many years and remain convinced that the real issue is not abortion itself but what it represents, that is - an individuals sovereign right of choice

Celivia, I don't think that there is a secret agenda.

Most anti-choice christains have probably not considered the verses we have raised in the context of gods attitude to abortion. The theology is probably more influenced for most by songs like Jesus loves the little children http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/mediaplayer.asp?ean=084418221820&disc=1&track=5 than an actual understanding of what the bible says. It is one of those "everybody knows" type of issues.

Add to that a couple of verses where god talks about making someone in the womb or knowing them before he made them and one about the fetus which was to become John the Baptist leaping when Mary spoke to Elizabeth.

As goodthief pointed out most christains focus more on the new testament than the old. From what I've seen the pro-life case is very indirect in the bible. It's about what people believe about the nature of god than clear teaching on the status of the fetus.

It will be interesting to see if we do get a serious response to the points we have raised.

R0bert

Celivia, you say, after finding no basis for the pro-life position in the Bible –

“I therefore cannot accept the justification of pro-life views of the religious anti-abortionists when they refer to God as their reason. Now I’m asking: So, what are their real reasons for opposing abortion?”

I am Bible-inclined, though not learned. The blood-curdling passages you found were punitive – ie God was being pointedly high-handed and doing what people are not permitted to do. This is a bad look to a Bible “outsider” but it is not a positive message about abortion.

I am a Christian. Ex-Catholic, but not anti-Catholic (as so many ex-Catholics are). Anyway, I’m not towing the Vatican line. My “real reason” for being anti-abortion is my inability to be otherwise. I would prefer to be pro-choice. The more I hear of the plight of some women at the statistical extremities, the stronger that preference. However, I am prevented by what I see as a fact, not a doctrine. The fact of the unavoidable humanity of the foetus. I would really prefer to believe that the foetus was not a human being. But, so far, the reasons supporting this idea have been very unimpressive.

I hate the idea that my pro-life position becomes so intrusive from the woman’s point-of-view. The idea of “meddling” (courtesy of Col Rouge) appals me. And, as it leads me to be accused of such things as having an “overdeveloped sense of narcissistic importance” (another unpleasantry from Col Rouge), it’s really in my interests to be pro-choice.

However, as presently advised, I believe the foetus is a human being and entitled to live. And I am yet to hear any reason that moves me to think otherwise, even though I would be happy to shift on this issue. So, my “real reason” is that I truly feel “stuck” with the humanity of the foetus: I see no way around it.

Thank you for asking so directly, as it forced me to confront my own discomfort.

Pax,

Celivia
It’s true that, “many Christians believe …” but many Christians believe many weird and wacky things that the Bible clearly does not teach (e.g. evolution). However, the strong majority of Christians have convictions that the current open practice of abortion is wrong, reflected in these clear Biblical principles.

1) The commandment not to murder, or to kill the innocent. e.g. Exodus 20:13.

2) The unborn baby (‘fetus’) in the womb is human. There are plenty of Scriptures you could quote refering to those in the womb as if they were people.

e.g. Genesis 25:21–22 states: “Rebekah conceived. And the children struggled together within her; …” characteristic of their later lives.

This view of the unborn appears consistently enough without obvious contradiction.

I’ve seen Exodus 21 argued both ways. Some say the lost child is valued less that the woman, others note that the child is valued more than just a ‘clump of cells’. The value ultimately is determined by the judge (v.22).

For Numbers 5, excuse me if I’m missing something, but I don’t read this an example of abortion practice at all. There is doubt that the woman is even pregnant. The curse for her sin is barrenness. Even if she was pregnant, it does not deny point 2) above (also see ii. below).

As for Solomon saying he would be better off if he’d never been born, that is exasperation at the futility we often see in life. A lot of us have had days like that. In fact, I feel tired and need a bit of a rest now. But Solomon was not proposing suicide. And it doesn’t contradict point 2) above.

As for the Scripture about counting a child after they reach one month old, that is a bit like the government grant that we get for new kids at about 6 months. Or like the funny argument someone had in one of the posts above about birth certificates. If I need a birth certificate to prove I am alive, I’d better dig it out from my drawer right now.

(continued)

A lot of other Bible quotes have been raised above, (and on some interesting links, thanks Robert). But rather than focusing at individual phrases, it is important to read them in their i. proper context, ii. cultural context, and iii. context of wider Biblical themes.

i. In Genesis 38:24, when Judah said of his daughter-in-law, Tamar, pregnant from prostitution, ‘bring her out and burn her,’ this was Judah speaking, not God. By reading further you see that Judah recognises he was more in the wrong than Tamar.

ii. Biblical cultures were more family or society oriented than us individualistic westerners. Therefore they more easily understood it when the judgment of God came upon the whole society for general sin or the descendants of the one person who sinned. This idea is expressed by the widow in 1 Kings 17:18 “Have you come to punish my sins by killing my son?”

iii. Judgement, death, as well as forgiveness, and new life, are strong themes in the Bible. From the day dot, God warned Adam that the judgement for sin was death. Adam sinned, therefore he died. But God granted him (and us) grace to continue to propagate the human race before he died. All of us have sinned, and we are all going to die and face judgement.

Some of the terrible judgements God has handed out to people are highlighted by the Old Testament Scriptures in some of the posts above. In them we learn about the harsh realities of life, sin and death. God himself is not aloof from this pain of judgement and death. God himself (Jesus) died the worst death imaginable, willingly taking a criminal’s death (though totally innocent). Christians have found forgiveness in this story.

Ultimately, life and death belong in the hands of God. And he commands us not to take the life of another

Goodthief,

The problem with regarding an early fetus as a human person, and not just human tissue, is that it is in conflict with other moral judgments that pass unchallenged and which make it clear that we think it is the mind that determines human status. Thus we have no problems with pulling the plug on a brain dead "patient", and would have no problems even if medical technology could keep the heart beating indefinitely. We would extend human rights to ET or Commander Data if they actually existed, even though they would have no human DNA. We would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, even though the victim's DNA lives on in the brother or sister. We can disagree about precisely when a fetus has enough of a brain that it should be given the benefit of the doubt, but it is unreasonable to think this happens before the end of the first trimester. In fact the majority view among early Christians, as we know from the writings of St. Augustine and others and from early manuals for priests, was that early abortion was still wrong (for other reasons) but not tantamount to murder until well into the second trimester.

We now know that considerable quality control takes place after conception, with the vast majority of zygotes never ending up as live babies, even if there is no deliberate interference. There is a deafening silence on this from the anti-abortion people, even though all would admit that we have a positive duty to save human lives. If something were killing more than half of all puppies or kittens there would be a massive outcry, with demands for a huge research program. The truth is that anti-abortion people don't want grossly abnormal babies any more than anyone else.

A zygote may be capable, given the right conditions, of growing a brain that will support a mind, but so, most likely, will countless millions of your own cells, given that cloning has been shown to work in a wide variety of other mammals.

yvonne, oh there is a pro-abortionist crowd and your right they don't give a fig about women. They are women who are using abortion to dominate womans sexual politic thinking. They are about diminishing the womans self esteem and want to perpetuate the woman as victim. I wouldn't call them feminist but, they hide within that circle keeping the politic on full boil. Their whole design is to gain influence, especially through sexual disharmony, their greatest victory to date is that seemingly unwritten rule that it is wrong for women to be critical of anything done under the umbrella of feminism or female leadership. My supervisor(female)tells me that they aren't so much man haters as they are woman haters. (We are good friends and we discuss what I'm posting on OLO.) To make her point she told me about a newly hired woman whom she had to let go. The thought that one must be religious to be pro-life is probably more a reflection of anti-religious sentiment on the part of such thinkers.
Not all men are parentally motivated and not all women exhibit maternal instincts. Personally I don't think that crew ought to be influencing family practise. Do you?
Being the material or source from which new life is derived is an awesome responsibility for any couple and should involve forethought, not the laissez-faire approach advocated by pro-abortionist and some feminist who are only motivated by the politic of abortion. The loss of a life for them is just the means to an end. (sick pun not intended)
There are exceptions to every rule but, we mustn't allow the exceptions to become the rule. Healthy, educated, childless, employed twenty-something women as according to the profile offered by http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/ are not the exception but, are the rule when it comes to Australia's some 80,000 plus yearly abortions. Women and men should be free to be critical of this trend in the use of abortion with out being labelled anti-choice or religious nut jobs by the pro-abortionist. Pro-choice is about developing choice not restricting the choice to abortion.

Yvonne,
“Those who call themselves pro-lifers are not pro-choice, they are anti-choice and anti-abortion.”
Agreed, from now on I will use the term “anti-choice” rather than “pro-life”.
I am also curious about the answer to my hypothetical question what terminally-ill anti-choicers would do if offered medication derived from killed zygotes.
Personally, I wouldn’t want my life saved if it meant pulling random people off the street, killing them without their consent and using their bodies to manufacture my life-saving medication. But I would certainly take medication derived from zygotes.

Aqvarivs,
“Pro-choice is about developing choice not restricting the choice to abortion. “
Now that is a statement I can 100% agree with. Counselling services that are supposed to and expected to offer pregnant women balanced advice and support but fail to offer the full range of options need to be adequately dealt with. There was an OLO article and discussion titled Truth in Advertising which addressed this also.

Divergence,
thanks for highlighting the fact of natural quality control. Indeed, more than half of the conceptions are naturally aborted within the first trimester.
Imagine that zygotes were indeed regarded as ‘persons’, then every natural abortion should be a terrible, natural disaster, not different from an extremely high rate of cot deaths or childhood diseases killing about half our children. Much more attention is given to cot death, while the number of natural abortions is significantly higher..

Goodthief,
thank you for explaining so openly and patiently your reasons for being anti-choice. I understand that you have a natural, perhaps intuitive belief that abortion is wrong; even I don’t share these feelings I can respect your reason.
Still, can I assume that you understand why some women (in extreme cases such as presented by Danielle about very young women) should not be denied abortions because abortions are sometimes necessary to save women’s lives?


RObert, aqvarivs, Yabby, MickV
perhaps I’m paranoid about secret agendas, and I can agree that the majority of the anti-choice Christians most probably haven’t considered verses such as those we have presented.

continued

My main concern is that religious leaders with much influence (for example Ratzinger) must know the bible inside out and are very well aware that there are enough contradictions in the Bible to be able to conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that God is definitely opposed to abortion.
If the bible was clear about abortion there wouldn’t be so many Christian denominations who are pro-choice.

Having said that, and having read MickV’s post, I am now back at square one: it all boils down to the definition of a human being.

In my opinion, believing that a zygote has the same rights as a human being seems unreasonable.
A zygote or embryo does, undeniably, have some human properties such as DNA, or a few human cells, but that doesn’t make it a person.
If you’re building a car, for example, when do you need to start paying registration? When do you call it a car and when does it function as a car? Do you call it a car when you own one wheel, or four wheels, a windscreen or a car seat? Of course not- you wouldn’t say: “I’ve built a car” until the whole car is finished and functions.
Would the RTA people not find the owner of a windscreen and a couple of tyres a bit nutty if that person came in to register some tyres and windscreem with the statement that s/he wanted this “car” registered because it had potential?

I also like what Col says about the real issue: “the real issue is not abortion itself but what it represents, that is - an individuals sovereign right of choice” I suspect that there may be a lot of truth in that.

Now, all we have to do is agree at which point the life of an individual begins
I would say that an individual isn’t born until s/he has all human properties including a brain that is as developed as the brain of a newborn baby who is able to live independently outside the mother’s womb

Mick V, I enjoyed that Scriptural input, thank you.

Divergence, The points you make about euthanasia and what I’ll call “natural selection in utero” are well made. However, if we are going to allow this selection to take place, and the old and sick to be unplugged, I want this to happen with a full acknowledgement that it is a human being who is unplugged or deselected. Similarly, however many foetuses we abort, and no matter what our reasons, I want to see that same acknowledgement.

I can’t help but suspect that we all feel bad about abortion, out of consideration for the foetus, and that we reduce the foetus conceptually to make it easier to bear. I’ll be rebuked for suggesting this, I guess, but I really suspect it might be so.

Meanwhile, back in the fray, I would back a foetal brain with a positive prognosis over an adult brain that is setting like the sun. And if worse comes to worst, and I find that I am inconsistent but have saved some lives, I won’t be too regretful. This may seem shabby to the logicians online but, if forced to choose, I would choose life over consistency. Consistency and death are shabbier still.

Celivia, Thank you. You might agree that the combination of disagreement and understanding is not such a bad recipe for peace. I would accept an abortion that is necessary to save the woman’s life. I accept it because it’s self-defence, which would justify a killing in ordinary circumstances. Do you accept that it is a human being whom it was necessary to kill, to save the woman?

Celivia and Yvonne, Please don’t make peace one minute and then start with the name-calling the next. If you guys start with the “anti-choice” you’ll end up being called “pro-death”. Let’s not go there.

Pax,

Celivia, as we can see by the many various Xtian cults and sects,
the bible verses can be interpreted in just about any way at all,
with each group claiming that their particular interpretation is
the correct one. So how long is a piece of string?

The Catholics take a differnt viewpoint:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-plans-fidelity-oath-for-principals/2007/06/03/1180809340768.html

The idea there is that Catholics "submit intellect and will" and
simply accept what the old papa in Rome deems true, for he is meant
to be infallible and divinely inspired. That makes things easy lol,
you are wrong, as the pope says so :)

Xtians do what people do, they have selective memories. So they
forget all the nasty bits in the bible, just remember those that
suit their agenda. As they say, people create gods in their own
image, so true!

Yabby, having read your link and then your full post it would seem that it isn't just Catholics who suffer a selective reading and comprehension disorder. It isn't the text that is at fault. It is the interpreter and what he/she wants to convey. There are two types of people who read the Bible. Those who come to praise God and discover the history behind Christianity in all it's light, and those others who have come to denigrate and use the Bible to bash the faithful by continually highlighting and misrepresenting the negative lessons written for purposes of instruction. It's too bad that so many children have their maturity stunted by anger issues and grow into vindictive narrow minded bigots who can not but blame life for their existence. I'm amused by your inability to conceive why the Catholic Church might be pro-life. I suppose in your world pro-death is more serving for how you view the church. What the Church actually strives to do is ingrain in it's followers a sense of attention to personal responsibility and thinking about ones actions and the repercussions that follow such inattention. As in abortion for the sake of coping out on your responsibility for your actions.
Like all those criminals in prison who thought they were ever so clever in doing crimes but now whinge and bleed about doing the time and facing the consequences of their chosen acts. So to are there men and women who want to have sex with out having to face any responsibilities. Abortion is not about the business of life it is, absent of the rare exception, the business of stopping life. Surely you don't actually expect any religion to champion such a thing?

Mick, goodthief, thanks for your responses.
I clearly take a different view to Mick on some of that stuff but that happens. I've only founded limited commentary on the Numbers 5 passage so far and that pretty much all suggests that a miscarriage is suggested.

As Celivia pointed out it's hard to get rego on an incomplete car even if the designers know what they are going to build or regardless of how much care you lavish on it as you build it.

Personally what the bible has to say on the matter is no longer of much relevance to me other than as a consequence that some seem to think what it says should impact on how those who don't follow it should live. It's interesting to see that some christains interpret the same sources differently.

I do wish there were better names that pro-life and pro-choice, clearly few of us thinks the anti-<pick your stance> version reflects our position.

Cheers
R0bert

Goodthief “Thank you for asking so directly, as it forced me to confront my own discomfort.”

Belief in a view is often only tested by the discomfort it generates in us.

I, personally, have no desire to see any woman undergo an abortion. I wish they did not but I wish more that they be respected sufficiently to decide for themselves than be told by any authority that they cannot. Certainly if I were female, I would be as equally strident to defend my right of sovereignty over my body as I am here.

As for “I believe the foetus is a human being and entitled to live.” It is a potential human being and absolutely dependent upon the resources of one specific person, the mother. It is not dependent upon the resources of a group or range of different people, like a new born, This distinction of state, being dependent upon the resources of a range of people versus being exclusively dependent upon the resources of but one person significantly alters the dynamics of the relationship between the “potential human being” and the resource provider.

When the resource provider is exclusive, their body is put not only subject to permanent physical change and probable psychological change. That exclusive resource provider has pre-existing rights. Those pre-existing rights are pre-eminent and folk not so directly involved in the delivery of resources (= everyone else) should stand back and let the holder of those pre-eminent rights decide.

Celivia “all we have to do is agree at which point the life of an individual begins”

That event is already recognised. “Birth” and society’s recognition of the individual through the issue of a birth certificate. Prior to “birth” the embryo / feotus is not “individual” but part of the pregnant woman on whose bodily resources it has absolute reliance.

I must say, despite some rocky patches, I'm impressed that the topic has been so calmly discussed without the demeaning rhetoric that tends to haunt this topic.

I concur with R0bert in that pro-life and pro-choice aren't adequate terms - I'll go one further and say that the use of these terms only serves to polarise discussion further.

Nobody is arguing that abortions should take place of course - they're arguing that the option needs to be there.

Even those on the other side of the debate tend to agree abortions are necessary in some instances.

On the flip side, I dare say some are probably taken too lightly, though I dispute some of the statistics mentioned earlier and would be curious to see the source which indicates 90,000 odd abortions are for convenience. I also think that many abortions would be due to the failure of contraceptive devices, rather than a carefree attitude some posters have suggested.

The term 'convenience' is also a loaded one - it implies it's a carefree decision simply for ease, though I suspect that definition includes all manner of women in so many different situations that I don't think you can be too prescriptive. I think many of these abortions of 'convenience' are women in very trying situations.

I suppose I come back to the fact that if you do redefine a human to the point of conception, you then take a step toward the problems I outlined earlier - there will be some determined 'pro-lifers' (for want of a better word) that would want to take it to the next stage and force women to have the children of rape.

I just can't countenance a woman being commanded as to how to use her body. Those who feel that life begins at conception have a repugnance at abortions, probably akin to the repugnance I would feel knowing women are being made to have a life grow in their womb they don't want there - and puritan notions of abstinence aren't persuasive in implying they deserve it.

Life begins after the first cell successfully divides and replicates itself. After that it is all semantics, dividing the cellular replication into identifiable developmental progressive stages. A foetus is no more alive than an alive embryo should be considered less alive. It is just a stage in the process of human development. Like childhood and adulthood. Primarily all developmental cellular replication ends with adulthood. Human mental and physical development is on average a 20-25 year process. Picking a favoured moment to end a life does not mitigate the ending of that life. So it too becomes a matter of semantics to cover for our unease knowing we are taking a life. For many it seems, hiding this fact is their chief expression of abortion. They want their definition up held. It's the one that excuses them, and cost the least mental anxiety.

"Life begins after the first cell successfully divides and replicates itself."

No. As has been pointed out in the thread, life is a continuum. The fusion of gametes is just part of that continuum. I thought there was interest in getting away from axioms. Surely there are objective means for determining a transition from human organism to human being?

Goodchief,
“Do you accept that it is a human being whom it was necessary to kill, to save the woman?”
I don’t see an embryo as a human being; I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.

Like RObert, I wish there were better names to describe our stance on abortion.
The term ‘anti-choice’ just conveys that women should have no choice, which is what anti-abortionists are saying.
Pro-choice vs. anti-choice sounds more clear and to the point than pro-life vs. pro-death.
Jehovah’s Witnesses regard themselves as pro-lifers while they would choose (their children’s) death over a blood transfusion. Anti-choice is a more suitable term.

Yabby, (aqvarivs),
Thanks for the article. Well, it’s true that religious people including leaders cherry-pick from the bible those quotes and passages which they can use to back up or reinforce their own beliefs and morals or that of their religious community. Any opinion at all could be backed up by quotes or verses from the bible; depending how good we are at cherry-picking them. Some leaders, like the Pope, are Master Cherry-Pickers and they’ll be the most powerful and respected members in their organisation of community.

A while ago, Boaz David told me I was cherry-picking when I presented him with not-so-favourable bible quotes. I suppose when atheists do the cherry-picking it becomes a sin.

All religions cherry-pick what they want to use, since no religion cherry-picks the whole bible.
As for the New Testament, it is, indeed, much less violent (more moral?)than the OT, but still, Jesus endorses slavery, the killing of innocent children of sinners and of disobedient children.

Aqvarivs,
“So to are there men and women who want to have sex with out having to face any responsibilities.”
I hear you- but taking responsibility about sex should include the use of contraception, which the Catholic Church condemns. It is natural for human beings to desire sex, and it would be unnatural to expect them to have sex only if they intend to reproduce.

May be continued

Goodthief, my resentment at the pro-choice vs pro-life names is that it infers that one side is not for life. And actually, pro-choice people have been called worse than pro-death. Murderer is bandied about quite freely by the anti-choice side. There isn’t quite as an emotionally laden comeback to that!

Aqvarivs’ opinion aside, I have yet to speak to a pro-choice person who actively advocates abortions. I’d say that a person who advocates an abortion is more likely to be the male who will be personally adversely affected by the birth of a baby, or parents, either concerned about what the neighbours might think or genuinely of the opinion this will ruin daughter’s life.

This is where deep emotional problems will arise. The choice MUST be the woman’s own.

Genuine, non-judgmental counselling is necessary, to help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy come to her own decision. She will need to be able to reflect on her own philosophical/spiritual beliefs. Though they will change and develop over time, that does not mean she cannot come to a decision that is the best at that time.

When life begins- I think life is a continuum, before and after death. When does a life become a human? I think of human in the sense of what makes us human, a being who feels joy, anger, fear, peace, hunger and thirst for starters. A being with a ‘soul’ for want of a better word, more than just a clump of cells in any which shape.

Aqvarivs, a man hating woman who sees herself, and by extension all women, as victims of men does not make her a feminist. Just like a male misogynist cannot be brushed off as probably being a homosexual. They’re both just irrational.

Are there abortions for ‘frivolous’ reasons? Well, none of us know. We may suspect, but simply cannot know. To undergo something as invasive as an abortion, which does entail risks, for ‘frivolous’ reasons sounds like a singularly uneducated thing to do.

Celivia, a possible response to your Bible quotes:

Exodus 22:22 – sounds like the culprit is punished for the miscarriage he caused, because the miscarriage was the only harm. Sounds like a miscarriage is significant.

verses 23, 24 – “life for life, eye for eye”. Sounds savage, but it was a softening of the prevailing ethos. In those days, you’d be killed for the slightest offence, and this was an attempt to introduce proportion into justice.

2Kings 2:12 – the “ripping up of the pregnant women” is described as an evil.

2Kings 15:16 – sacking of Tirzah, including the familiar “ripping”, is neither approved nor disapproved. It’s just reported, along with other carnage. But, it’s carnage. Again, the focus on the pregnancy suggests some significance attached to it.

Isaiah 13:18 – is better suited to your purpose. This is God’s threat against one of Israel’s enemies, Babylon. No mercy for the fruit of the womb, no pity for children. NOTICE THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB AND THE CHILDREN HAVE PEER STATUS. This is punitive, and it’s a black day (v10 – “the sun will be dark in its rising etc”).

Hosea 13:16 – another instance of God taking out one of Israel’s enemies, Samaria – or at least cursing them (hard to tell with prophecies). Again, the “ripping of the pregnant women” is punishment, destructive.

Hosea 9:14 – a variation, this time God is punishing Israel. Here, there is no ripping, but giving them miscarrying wombs. Traumatic barrenness. Again, a negative.

I’m amazed you look to these passages to support your view. Nothing lenient here about abortion. Induced miscarriage is clearly a dark business. Foetus and child have peer status.

That’s a truly excellent post, Aqvarivs. For what it’s worth, pro-choicers, I know what it’s like to try to dodge responsibility. I do at least my fair share – eg every lie I’ve ever told was probably “dodgy” in this sense. The mental gymnastics of denial is a classic species of lie. I don’t pan you for doing it – “welcome to Earth” – but you should recognise it.

Pax,

Celivia, the usual criticism of these passages concerns God's violence. I thought that’s also what was bothering you.

God’s violence involves –

i) taking out His Israel’s enemies, or threatening to;
ii) punishing His Israel, or threatening to, for its sin of betrayal (turning to other gods).

This is love – jealous and savagely protective love. The Old Testament knows this. The New Testament is somewhat blanched in this regard, although on balance I guess the savagery of love should be tempered. Christians say the savagery of God’s love is no longer a concern because –

iii) there is no longer a Chosen People to whom God is devoted in this partisan way (all are eligible and welcome);
iv) our own sins went up in smoke when Jesus, the Son of God, was hoisted up onto that cross of His.

Sorry if this sounds sanctimonious – just pointing out that the savagery is a thing of the past.

Robert and Celivia, Against your point about car rego (you were joking, I trust?), may I point out that it is now common to purchase apartments and condos etc “off the plan”, and trading-inclined people have been trading in “futures” since at least the 1980s. Just as irrelevant as your excellent car rego thing. Why don’t we avoid red herrings?

The core point of disagreement remains when one’s life begins, or whether the foetus is a human being. The rival positions are outlined by Col Rouge and Aqvarivs. As we cannot agree, I propose (again) a way of dealing with the deadlock. I think (not surprisingly!) the way forward is to preserve the foetus. This is the reasoning:

a) The foetus might be a human. And it might not be. (It definitely becomes one a few months later.)
b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.

CARE FOR THE MOTHER IS A GIVEN. (I know it hasn’t been, but care for her must be a part of this.)

Pax,

Fester, your statement is a contradiction in terms.
You would seek objectification, and want to have determined a demarcation of the stages of life to provide excuse to do what you want to do with out having to face the repercussions. To mitigate the moral, ethical, religious, legal, or simply ones natural innate sense of right and wrong. If a foetus can be considered a organism it is much easier to shake it's lifeless remains off your fingers and into a kidney dish, send the woman off, and then do it all over again with a clear conscience. And the woman can come back for second or thirds, and not have to consider her choice because she has been well assured that SHE is free. Free from moral, ethical, religious, legal, or simply ones natural innate sense of right and wrong.

Celivia, “I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.” If this is true, you should then be against any abortion, baring medical necessity, that is done past week eight because that is the end of the embryo stage and the foetal stage begins. At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Or is this still not alive enough for you to name human and wish to refer to as Fester, nothing but mere organism.

yvonne, there is no sense getting on at me about feminism. I get all my info about feminist from the women in my life who are feminist. They're just not rabid man haters and aren't using “feminism” to get away with shirking their responsibilities as citizens and as half of the equation of procreation. They too have heated debates about abortion and other womens issues. It was a woman who explained to me the concept of woman woman haters. My wife is feminist and is not happy with the numbers of abortions and didn't like reading that profile I offered to OLO.

"What the Church actually strives to do is ingrain in it's followers a sense of attention to personal responsibility and thinking about ones actions and the repercussions that follow such inattention. "

Aqva, you seem to miss my issues with the Catholic Church completely.
I really don't care what they or any other religion teach their
flock of true believers. If the Church stuck to what you suggest
above, thats up to them, fine by me. I don't have an issue with the
Hare Krishnas, Buddhists etc, never comment on them.

My point is that in todays secular world, society is made up of
many people with many faiths or no faith at all. Religion should
be a lifestyle choice, no more. When any religion, be it the
Taliban, extremist Xtians or the Vatican, try to use their political
muscle to force me or others to live by their dogma, thats when
I object loudly, as they are then a political force, open to complete
scrutiny and criticism of what they believe or are trying to enforce.

Politics is open slather, if people want to force their dogma onto
me and others,they need more justification then the claim that they
are in touch with the Almighty, to justify their moral positions.

The Vatican is free to bog itself down with their belief in the
holy cell, clearly the majority of Catholics do not even agree with
them. I will also point out the considerable suffering caused by
their dogma, especially in the third world. But then that is
our big difference in philosophy. If you dig deep into Catholic dogma,
they have this belief that its noble to suffer. Thats why say
Opus Dei members, even whip themselves. I disagree, I think there
should be less suffering in the world. I also believe in humanity
living sustainably, or there won't be a humanity. I believe that
other species should have a right to a bit of this planet too, not
just wall to wall humans. So my argument with the Vatican continues :)

Goodthief
Your reasoning is good but flawed and an attempt, by stealth, to sway the debate.

I note you use the expression “we” as in

“b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.”

Problem with your reasoning is this

Your presumption the decision involves “we”.

My assertion is that it does not.

My assertion is “we” don’t count or get to decide.

The only one who “counts” and should, therefore decide, is “her”, the woman in whose body the foetus (regardless of it being human or not – a point I have never argued against. Although I would argue it is not, by definition, a separate individual, as a baby is a “separate individual”).

As far was “we” are concerned, “we” should respect her choice.

Regarding Yabby’s point “When any religion. . . . “

In an associated arena of public interest, I heard on the radio this morning that NSW Catholic MPs were being put under direct pressure by the arch-dictator, George Pells to conform with his commands and have been threatened with “consequences” if they dare disobey.
The radio report included an interview with one Catholic MP who said he had several different things to consider, including the views of the people he was elected to represent (good on him).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21852739-29277,00.html

All MPs should remember that, regardless of their own religious convictions, they are first elected to represent the views of their constituents and not the particular interests of any religious leader, not appointed through processes of universal suffrage.

I find Pell’s declarations illustrate Yabby’s point and supports many of the issues I have alluded to in regard to the dictatorial aspirations of the Catholic hierarchy. Aspirations which, as Yabby rightly observes, are not forthcoming from Hara Krisnas or Buddists, although I would observe such intimidatory attitudes are echoed by other Christian fundamentalists sects.

Goodthief - Col Rouge disagrees with your reasoning, because it should automatically be up to the mother.

I see his point, but I think you're both missing something here.

You say:
a) The foetus might be a human. And it might not be. (It definitely becomes one a few months later.)
b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.

Fair logic - but it reads as if there is an answer, a definitive 'yes this is human' even if you do say we mightn't be able to figure it out.

It hinges on the supposition that there is indeed an answer.

This, whether you mean it to or not, is a concept derived from religious thought - perhaps god has an answer, even if we don't - best stay on the safe side.

For the non-religious, this kind of thinking doesn't work - it's the very core of a moral absolute. 'Thou shalt not kill.'

The thing is, from a religious viewpoint, 'thou shalt not kill' is codified as something imperative due to religious values and avoiding god's wrath - there is much less emphasis on societal outcomes.

The key difference I see here is that if we look at societal outcomes, I don't believe the arguments against abortions hold much sway. You can talk about the degradation of values and such, but all systems that try to enforce values based on more than straightforward societal outcomes end up as a form of fascism - fundamentalist Islam nations being a prime example.

I can see societal outcomes of women being forced to do fundamental things with their bodies against their will; while on the pro-choice side of the fence, I can only see lost foetuses, because the things by which we realistically see people as people and tell them apart - brain, body, personality - don't exist there.

Goodthief, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad someone gets what I'm trying to bring to the topic.

Yabby, if your not Catholic, and your obviously not, then you can not be coerced into living by any pronouncements handed down by the residing Pope. It's a non issue and a strawman argument that allows you to voice your religious prejudice in the name of being pro-abortion. The Pope does not set the standard for the pro-abortionist who want to limit womens choice to abortion, nor does the Pope influence those of us who are pro-choice and want more available diversity of choices and responsible, safe, sexual practises. We Catholics who are pro-choice understand that the leadership of the worlds Catholic population must be seen to be pro-life. It's his duty as God's Catholic representative. We also have a more current understanding of our Catholicism. We're involved with in our parish and the broader community, take the pill, use condoms and spermicidal, and when worse comes to worse have abortions. We even participate in interfaith marriages with out fear of being excommunicated. But then again we live in the year 2007. Why not join us. So much has changed since 1964 and Vatican II. Primarily that which has avoided "proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
I don't expect you to accept this, or try to understand what it means, or to moderate your disaffection. Your probably dug in pretty deep to ever get out.

Aqvarivs,

I agree with your post to Yabby. Though I generally agree with him, it is pointless to make anyone deny important personal values.
That is what pro-choice is all about. To be able to make the choice most right for your own personally held spiritual and moral values.

But,we must start from the point that the decision to terminate was a considered one with valid reasons for that person.

No abortions are even better than a few. So,let's determine how and if numbers can be reduced.

We can argue ad nauseum about when 'life begins'. This will not reduce abortions.

Celivia has mentioned the experience in the Netherlands. The number of unwanted pregnancies is very small. The exception being amongst new arrivals.

It is because of excellent sex education. The Dutch have often been accused of removing 'the mystery' of sex. There is nothing mysterious about finding yourself pregnant or with an STD. The mystery lies with why you are attracted to, or love a particular person.

Explicit and comprehensive education is paramount. Classes should be mixed. After all it is an activity that takes two! I found it revelatory to hear some of the remarks and questions from the guys. Sex education in Australia is laughable and of negligible benefit.

Equally, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in wanting to follow the teachings of your church. The rhythm method has a lot going for it. Not only to prevent pregnancy, but also to fall pregnant. Besides that, it is fascinating learning the biology of it all. It is empowering to know how a pregnancy occurs. This is a very important part of education. Ditto how and why STD's are transmitted, what it looks like and what the consequences are.

We are so obsessed with HIV, that we forget that the number of common easily transmitted STD's are on the rise. This is shocking.

The issue is that however a person decides to behave as a sexual being, a young person has to know that it comes with specific responsibilities with potentially far reaching consequences, to self and others.

To add a bit of frisson into this debate:

The Department of Health, Britain, introduced a new bill, called the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill in May this year.

The bill covers a number of areas, including research using three types of human-animal embryo:

• Cytoplasmic embryo or cybrid: where a human cell is inserted into an animal's egg that has been stripped of nearly all its nuclear DNA. The embryo would be 99.9 per cent human and 0.1 per cent animal.

• Human-animal chimera: where animal cells are introduced into human embryos.

• True human-animal hybrids: where a human egg is fertilized by animal sperm or vice versa.

The new bill will allow research to use cybrids and chimera, but not the true human-animal hybrids. The law will require all such embryos to be destroyed after 14 days; and under no circumstances would it be legal to implant them into a womb.

However, human embryo (from IVF) storage period will be extended to 10 years from the current 5.

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,2081756,00.html

According to the Journal of Cell Research, scientists in 2003, in China, created the world’s first embryonic chimeras, hybrid embryos that contain human and rabbit DNA.
www.newsmax.com/archives/ articles/2003/8/14/153903.shtml

Regarding my post above:

As I always thought that animal and human species were completely incompatible - in other words, dna from both could not produce a embryo - are we now looking at the fact that at some stage of development - within the first two weeks at least, an embryo can be grown using both species.

Does this mean that what it means to be "human" actually develops at a later stage.

I always assumed that in the case of a human and different species (except perhaps for a primate) a spontaneous abortion would occur if impregnation was attempted. Apparently, not.

I am not a scientist, so would be interested in the scientific explanation.

Aqva, actually when I was a kid, my mother unfortunately decided
that I was to be a Catholic, so the nuns got hold of me and tried
their brainwashing tactics and scare tactics. 5 year olds are still
pretty gullible, but I grew up and learned fast :)

I wish what you said was true, but sadly its not. The Catholic
Church remains highly political around the world. I give them credit
for being masters at lobbying! I remind you, that when the
euthanasia debate in the NT was on, Catholic policiticians came out
of the woodwork from everywhere to can it and we have since been
told by Catholic politicians, that euthanasia won't happen in
Australia.

So we have hundreds of golden oldies from Australia travelling to
Mexico, to buy their stash of drugs, another whole bunch even
spending two years to learn how to make their own, all because they
want to make choices about their lives, when they feel that the time
comes, they want to die with dignity, at their choice. Others stagger
to Switzerland, as best as they are able in their condition, to
make their choices. The Catholic Church uses every influence it can
to stop euthanasia being accepted in Australia, so clearly your
notion that what they say doesen't affect me, is wrong.

What really needs changing is the thinking in Rome. Perhaps it is
finally changing, now that JP2 has fallen off the proverbial perch,
but I am yet to notice it. The Vatican should accept that their
role is preaching to their flocks of believers, not forcing their
dogma on others. In the third world, their political influence is
enormous. It would be inhumane of me to not acknowledge some of that
suffering caused and not to highlight it. Why don't they just stick
to preaching to their flocks and forget the politics?

Ok Danielle, I can but try to help and just hope to be clear.

Most people think that genetics is the sole determinant of life or exactly how an animal develops. It isn't. It's genetics and the protein environment that surrounds them. A skin cell, or any tissue cell cannot develop into a whole organism as it has already passed a type of specialisation threshold that makes it what it is. Even stem cells cannot become whole organisms, even if they can become a number of different tissue types.

A major thing is that embryonic cells, human or animal, contain a specialised protein environment where only certain genes are expressed and then in the right order to make full organisms, something that is lost later in life when tissue specialisation kicks in. Chimera, or cybrids, are embryonic types that can't really be considered human by standard definitions because they don't come from fertilised eggs or sperm (take note Daniel06) but contain the right protein environment necessary for cell division and early organismal development. This is the way that is proposed for cloning "embryonic" stem cells without using actual fertilised eggs. Initially the animal embryonic cell donates the protein environment necessary and the human genes are then injected and turn subsequent cells into human type embryonic cells (because they use human genes which are then turned into human proteins), so scientists can study the very early part of develoment without having to harvest human fertilised eggs (which we have all seen upsets quite a lot of people). However, since this could also be potentially the first step in actually cloning people, it is banned from be implanted into a womb for development. This research also upsets a lot of people because of some human/hybrid value barrier, but as far as I can see does not cross any morality that involves "ensoulment". I hope this has been clear enough, but I know it probably isn't. It is a complicated subject.

I congratulate all those who have taken up a spirited defence of their own kind in its earliest and most vulnerable state in this discussion - Goodthief,
aquarius, Daniel06, Mick V.
Daniel, especially, your perspective as a self-described atheist is appreciated. Your passionate defence of the unborn demonstrates clearly that this is not essentially a religious issue. It is about the most basic right to continue a life already begun, which any honest person can understand.
What can I say of those who argue relentlessly, and often illogically, to deny all consideration to the rights and humanity of the unborn? They are like Titanic survivors arguing for a ban on lifeboats. ('They couldn't survive if you threw them over the side, so they are not "viable"'. 'They are helplessly dependent on the captain for sustenance and life support, so he can do what he likes with them'). You have reached dry land, but use the gift of life to deny life to those who follow.
When you use terms like ‘zygote’, ‘organism’ and ‘clump of cells’ as derogatory terms, you are demeaning all human life, yourself included. That is where you came from. There is no other way you could have reached your present state of life.
You have difficulty with the argument that the embryo is what it will – or is naturally destined to - become, and should be valued accordingly. Simply turn the argument around, and try it, from your adult perspective, with the embryo who gave you your present existence. Can you seriously argue that the destruction of that embryo would have been an inconsequential action, simply because of its size, appearance and abilities at that time? I can state with absolute certainty that you would be expressing no views on this blog if that had happened. You are that embryo. It is an inseparable part of your life story.
Why should any other embryo be valued less simply because of unknown and unachieved capacities? To deny our beginnings – or the beginnings of others – is unbelievably perverse

With all due respect Peter D, that is a teleological argument. To describe things not in terms of what they are, but what they may become is an old but not a valid philosophy. The terms "embryo" and "clump if cells" are not derogatory, they are descriptive. There are many things in this world that have a certain potential, the vast majority of which do not fulfill that potentiality. Humans are no different from anything else. To use a previous example, if I destroyed an acorn, I would not be destroying an oak tree or a forest, only a very few get to become actual oak trees.

Please try and refrain from describing things as the same as their potential. I do not describe men as potential rapists, that would be offensive and only correct in an exceptionally few cases. But that potentiality is there and only really exists when that defining event actually occurs, not before.

"The issue is that however a person decides to behave as a sexual being, a young person has to know that it comes with specific responsibilities with potentially far reaching consequences, to self and others."
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 6:57:24 PM

Thank you, yvonne

Well said, Bugsy!

Aqvarivs,
“ Surely you don't actually expect any religion to champion such a thing? “
Perhaps not exactly ‘champion’ but many Christian denominations and religious groups are supporting the pro-choice stance, others don’t. It probably depends on who their Head cherry-picker is.
Yabby also pointed out that many Catholic women have abortions.

Yes, luckily the vast majority of Australians support the pro-choice stance.

“Celivia, “I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.” If this is true, you should then be against any abortion,...”
If you’ve read my other posts, I have said that an unborn (this includes foetuses as well) becomes a ‘human being’ or 'person' only after birth- that is when the umbilical cord has been cut and the child is able to live independently, outside its mother’s womb.
I think the earliest age a foetus has been known to live outside the mother’s womb was at about 24 weeks with medical interference. The cut-off of all countries is well before that- as far as I know.

As Yvonne has pointed out in one of her earlier post, more than 99% of abortions are done during the early stage. Late-term abortions are done as medical necessities.
Ironically, some late abortions (I think this happened in the USA) were done because the women weren’t able to access abortion earlier. All the more reason to make abortion easily accessible.

Goodthief,
Thanks for showing me these bible quotes, which are probably a good explanation of how the religious use the Bible to support their anti-choice stance.

Yvonne et al,
Seems there’s a problem with getting the message across about prevention.
Facts and figures don’t seem to matter much to the anti-abortion groups, which seem concerned only with helping women who have already become pregnant avoid abortion.

Doesn't that make anti-abortionist groups a big part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Bugsy, your counter to Peter D is not relative. Peter is not taking about human potential. But, individual life. Your reference is about human decision. People decide to commit rape, they only become rapist after making the decision to perform such violence. Men are not potential rapist. Your argument would have to include foetal decision in the process of life and abortion. Peter didn't make that suggestion.
And teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. And there is in human development a great deal of observable directive principle. ie: chromosomal and DNA RNA interaction just for starters, not to mention organogenesis and the many different organ specific cell types that develop due to this DNA directive and neurogenesis and the ectoderm cells that become brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves. So there is only more support for Peters post by bringing attention to the fact that it is teleological in nature as is human existence.
I wont even include here the observable instinctive directive of animal and insect life.

Celivia, it's nice to rant on about religious people being pro-life but, in your haste to slag those of faith give non-religious pro-lifers a pass. Yabby does the same thing by not being able to shift the focus to the subject and not the exceptions. All different races, colours and creeds are pro-choice and similarly anti-abortion. And many people are anti-abortion and do not condemn it's medical necessity but, want a limited use of abortion and are uneasy with 1/3 or 1/4 of all pregnancies being surgically aborted. Not everyone sees abortion as black and white.

The record for preemies is, 24 October 2006, Miami, Florida at 21 weeks gestation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6384621.stm

Anti-abortionist play a part in defining the social boundaries otherwise pro-abortionist would be killing children in their cribs and advocating euthanasia for the treatment of head colds and anyone over 50. They'd have all the potential of a rapist.

Aqvarivs - I've never heard any pro-choice advocates suggesting killing babies. If the argument's about pure potential then I see your point, but can counter it by suggesting the pro-lifers would seek to ban unwed women from sex for fear of illegal abortions and lock them away in convents. It's unsubstantiated either way and is basing arguments on extremities neither side has actually pursued.

If the teleological argument alone isn't persuasive enough, view the one I put up earlier - viewing morality on the basis of societal outcomes - this morality hinges on what we as a vast majority of people can accept as a person.
Provided you avoid delving into speculating on the extremities of either side it fits - the counterpoint to this argument is that the societal outcomes will lead to killing the elderly or babies for convenience - but that's simply those extremities again. Nobody has ever pursued that and I honestly can't see any realistic reason to believe such a thing would happen, outside of it being used as an argument against abortions.

You say that the argument that the foetus isn't yet a person isn't valid because it is describing life.
But here we hinge on definitions - you're saying life is automatically sacred and cannot be terminated.
Now bear in mind the point I've repeatedly made earlier - we're not suggesting the murder or people beyond birth - nobody beyond the fringe is or has.

It comes back to the fact, that honestly, when we think of a person, it's a concept of a body, brain and personality - semantics aside, all people have at least two of these, while a foetus does not.

"Seems there’s a problem with getting the message across about prevention.
Facts and figures don’t seem to matter much to the anti-abortion groups, which seem concerned only with helping women who have already become pregnant avoid abortion.
Doesn't that make anti-abortionist groups a big part of the problem rather than part of the solution?"

Celivia, I think that you are quite correct here. First class
sex education in schools, is often held up by religious groups,
who claim that just abstinence should be preached. We can see
in the US, compared to say Holland, how effective that is!

So I think its more then that, they want control of peoples lives.
They used to threaten us with burning in hell forever or threats
of judgement day etc. That simply doesent work anymore, so they
need other forms of control. Can't have these young hoodlum
teenagers go screwing around now, fornicating when they are not
even married. Sheesh, shock horror.

So they want the threat of pregnancy as a form of leverage, to keep
those people in line, according to their little worldview.
Contraception, sex education, the morning after pill, RU 486,
abortion etc, threaten all that. People can actually enjoy sex with
partners, without being married, knowing that their are options.
How terrible!

I will believe the pro life mob, ie that they are sincere, when
they start calling for better sex education in schools, easy and
cheap availability of contraception, the snip being availabe even
in Catholic hospitals etc. Somehow I doubt that it will happen.

Why don't they just come out and honestly say what they think?