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.