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?