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.