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?