"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.