yvonne, I think you are spot on about the envy issue. Being male I can not fathom a woman who would choose to waste a human life with out there being some over riding medical reason. Then we hear from some women on OLO how the womb or pregnancy is an inconvenience and one can not but think that for them it is a matter of penis envy. As they attack men who's philosophy doesn't support total abortion, "and how dare they attach conditional support".
And I think you are right. Historically birthing matters were womans business but, that was before woman started demanding entry into mens business. Surely you didn't think you were going to take over our little hobbies as a right with our loosing something. You see machines are our babies.
As for the third date business, well I suppose in this day and age of equality and the guy still having to pay for everything, he ought to at least get a little sex out of the deal. It's not like it cost you girls anything. Theres probably a few guys who would be happy if you just laid there and didn't even move. If you find you have to physically contribute or emotionally respond don't date him again. Take the free night out at his expense and run. Like a woman has never thought of that.
I'm happy to see you laying the advent of the pill at mens door for the fembots have been taking credit for that for years.

Some interesting posts -

Mick V - I said there are few moral absolutes, and the holocaust is undoubtedly one of those few. It's often brought up in relation to this debate, but again, in order for it to be relevant there needs to be agreement that the foetus is a human being.

Fair enough, I didn't propose where life does begin - I pointed out the difficulties of pinning down precisely where it does. I can't specify precisely where life begins, which underlines my point there are no absolutes.

Goodthief, you make some valid points, though when you state that we should be erring on the side of life, I tend to think that the outcome of what you suggest dictates we maintain the status quo.

If we take a step back for a moment, away from momentous questions of life and morality, and take a look at the reality for just a moment, there's a few questions that would need to be resolved before any decisions on this matter could possibly made.

Some will say this sounds cold and perhaps liken it to attitudes that lead to moral degradation, but remember that I'm working from the standpoint that we have all accepted that from babies onward, we are all human beings and entitled to all our rights - so whatever statements you make are relevant to foetuses, not wider society.

Reality check 1) Banning abortions would drive women to perform underground operations, risking their own lives.

Reality check 2) Are pro-lifers honestly advocating that if a women falls pregnant, she be forced to give birth?

(Continued)

Celivia, I've been thinking about your question to the anti-choicers.
None seem to have had an attempt at an answer but it is a good question. I assume that your question is serious.

In my understanding.

. Most are good people with a particular view of the nature of human life based on their faith. Some hypocrits but mostly people working with a consequence of their beliefs.
. Many do struggle with the issues you raise, you could call it the anti-abortion conundrum. The answers are not easy or clear cut on that side of the fence either.
. We all have to balance how far we take our response to issues which concern us. Many people are opposed to the war in Iraq but few are in Bagdad running a peacfull opposition to the coalition forces. One response would be for crowds of westerners to be standing in every street coalition forces tried to drive on. Many are opposed to the death penalty considering it barbaric and or murder but most limit their activities to stop it in places where it exists. Most people put their resources where they think it has the best chance of achieving the outcome they want, the others tend to be extremists.
. My impression is that most forms of active protest against abortion have been closed off legally. Praying quietly might be the most that they can do without becoming lawbreakers themselves.
. It seems that behind the scenes lots is being done, we have discussed elsewhere the issues around having a catholic health minister. I don't think that the proportion of active christains in parliment is entirely coincidence.
. I doubt that many of the anti-choice supports really believe that the issue is about better sex education or better resources for unconventional families.
. It's hard to believe that a more liberal society will reduce social problems when you start with the idea that we are all sinners. The mindset is different especially in the fundy circles.

Any of the anti-choice disagree with my conclusions?

R0bert

Goodthief, where I live, its so close to nature, as I see the story
of life-death-life etc unfold every day, that any god would be seen
as nature herself. Understanding those laws makes far more sense
then anything that the rest of you have invented as your gods.

Mick V, as far as I can see, morality is grounded in biology. Its
in the interests of social species to have "rules", which make
for more harmonious living and in the interests of their survival.
Not killing those in your own tribe, empathy, altruism, food sharing,
incest avoidance, etc, are all things we can see in various primates,
and other species, not just humans.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that what Hitler did, was
basically tribal warfare on a massive scale. He was going to wipe
out those seen as of another tribe/race/religion. Warfare in the
name of tribalism still goes on today. Shias/ Sunnis etc. The
popes even sent off their warriors to the ME, to kill non Christians.
We send troops to Afghanistan. All justified morally by those who
do it. So where is the absolute here?

Rape is the same. What about the 30 second rapist, was that really
rape? Remember the comments by some Muslims, when women dressed
alluringly were raped? Where is the absolute? It all comes down
to lines that we as a community draw in the sand.

I have not said that life begins at 25 weeks. DNA simply continues,
in one form or another. At 25 weeks, what you have is what basically
could be called another person. Our line in the sand is that
we don't kill other people. Nature will always make sure that far
more potential people are created, then can ever survive. Its
basic biology. If they all survived, they would wipe themselves
out by that very fact.

Peter D having been on the receiving end of your irrational vitriol on another thread, I challenged you to produce some reasoned arguments. All you do is present rhetorical statements in the “whining prose” style. This is an opinion forum, whining does not qualify as “opinion”, merely the “bleating of forgone defeat”.

Daniel - your "libertarianism"

A “true libertarian in every sense” would first respect the right of other cognitive adults to make up their own mind. A true libertarian would not come here and proclaim his support of “libertarianism” and simultaneously demand the right to define, for all, what was and what was not “murder”.

A true libertarian would focus not only on respecting but also actively protecting the freedom and right of others to exercise their own choices in the course of their own self-determination, regardless that he might not pursue such a decision if he needed to apply the “choices” for himself.

You need to reflect on your definition of “libertarianism”. If you don’t respect “libertarianism” when others exercise it, it is not what you really believe.

PS an embryo is not a separate human being, it is a physical extension of the mother until the moment of birth – Declarations of Human Rights just don’t apply to embryos for that reason.

Goodthief Laws are written absolutes and their interpretation challenged to determine their consistency in their application.

Our moral Laws are personally interpreted and their intentions and inflections “subjective”.

The "law", whilst “imperfect”, is no less imperfect than subjective interpretations, like the ranting of the fool who comes here claiming to be a “libertarian”, whilst demanding to deny others the right to express their own “libertarian” values.

Re “err toward life” – that is your choice. My choice is to err toward respecting women, They know, better than I, their own mind in regard to a decision which will significantly effect them and in no way effect me.

Preventing people from making significant choices for themselves (and learning to live with the consequences of those choices), stunts and withers their spiritual growth.

I’m with Celivia (hello fellow Cloggie!) congratulating the many men participating on this forum who support women in this. Even Aqvarivs who wrote a very good post in the beginning of this debate. Yabby, Col Rouge and TRTL have actually been quite passionate in their arguments.

By the way Aqvarivs, if she pays the bill will she get to call the shots and make him put on his pirate outfit a la Johnny Depp? She’d still want him to move though.:)
Sorry about wanting to play with the boys’ machines. They’re so much more interesting than the dishes in the sink.

Mick it’s actually a very interesting question, when does life begin. The other side is of course, when does life end.

Life began in some prehistoric soup or with creation on day 3-4 (?) according to the book of Genesis. Whichever you take as the most plausible.

To ban abortion would be a terrible retrograde step. Late trimester abortion could only be justified in extreme circumstances; there is nobody on this forum PeterD who is advocating ripping 24week old foetuses from wombs, but there always will be situations where an abortion will be the best option.

If it appeases some to call it ‘killing’, then OK. I went through 3 years of law at Uni and semantics is a clever strategy to bog down a good argument you haven’t worked out a good counter argument against. Killing then will also be done with stem cell research and with thousands of discarded, unwanted embryos created during in vitro fertilization. Killing happens when a woman uses an IUD, and everytime a woman has a miscarriage a human death occurred.

Legally available abortion does not mean everyone with an unwanted pregnancy has to avail themselves of this. There are very many women to whom this would not be an option. Having said that, it is nobody’s business to determine which women do avail themselves to this.