Fester, I am not suggesting that a human embryo has “higher status than other potential human beings”. I am just shooting for equality with the mother. I am a strict egalitarian.

On the subject of “moral absolutes” – very good post, MickV, and I found Yabby's response re rape a little disturbing. (Remarkable that the women online have let it pass.) I would say that “Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of another person” is a moral absolute.

What if I CHOOSE to interfere - is that okay? If anyone tries to stop me, they'll be interfering with my choice.

Robert, Yes I liked your answer to Celivia’s question.

Yvonne, you concede that “Late trimester abortion could only be justified in extreme circumstances”. You must, then, disagree with Col Rouge (one of the men you congratulated for their understanding) who says that no foetus is a human being so that they can all be killed. Wouldn’t matter which trimester. Why do you hesitate at 3rd trimester?

TRTL, You have two questions:

“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?”

Without wishing to be rude, I’m not going to attempt an answer (yet). I am focussed on the moral issue. Once it is agreed that the foetus is a human being and that, therefore, abortion is homicide, we can then have a discussion about the law. I always distinguish between the two. But, first things first. I would like the law informed by an ethic that is life-honouring and selfless, rather than self-honouring.

Once legislating, we will immediately enter the conundrum that Robert hints at. We will choose between alternative tragedies. We might even end up where we started (the legal status quo, I mean), but at least the dead will be honoured.

Pax,

"I found Yabby's response re rape a little disturbing. (Remarkable that the women online have let it pass.) I would say that “Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of another person” is a moral absolute."

Goodthief, I have no idea why you found my response a little
disturbing, for I never claimed them to be my views, simply views
that are expressed in society, including those by religious leaders
of various denominations.

If you are so convinced of not interfering with the choices of other
people, perhaps its time that you joined the pro choice movement :)

Robert,
It's a pity you had to spoil an otherwise thougtful argument with that silly epithet 'anti-choice' to describe those who oppose abortion. If we opposed every choice a woman makes, we would be targeting hairdressers, gymnasiums and shopping malls as well. You know this is not the case. It's abortion we oppose, not choice. Please at least give us credit for knowing what we stand for.
This aside, your response to Celivia was good - you took the words out of my mouth. Abortion is not the only evil in the world. Take the situation in Darfur, or Iraq, as you say. We would all, I am sure, agree that the wilful slaughter of civilians, especially women and children in those countries is an abomination, yet, according to Celivia's reasoning, we are only pretending to believe that, because we're not going over there in droves to try to stop it. Therefore, the argument goes, they are not really being killed.
Celivia is trying to disprove, using very shaky circumstantial evidence, what medical, scientific, ultrasound, photographic and, ultimately, eyewitness evidence can prove. We all know what a dismembered, decapitated baby looks like, if we have the courage to confront the truth, and we know it doesn't happen by accident.
We also know all too well that attacking abortion clinics, as Celivia suggests, might give us some credibility, but it would also give her side just the kind of propaganda they love, and probably not save one baby. In the present climate, it would be a symbolic and very short-lived avenue of protest. We are not just pro-life, we are realistic.

Yabby, I didn't express myself clearly.

People who say "Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of others" usually, as has happened here, speak against moral absolutes. They often say there aren't any.

Apart from simply disagreeing with them (for God-related reasons), I'm pointing out that their prohibition of interference is itself a moral absolute. Once they recognise this, they can no longer say there are no moral absolutes, but just one.

Then, they'll have to explain where that one came from, in order to impress the rest of us with it.

Pax,

RObert,
you are pretty good at getting into the heads of fundies : ) I wish they’d take the Bible not so seriously- after all, it was written by people, and even ‘if’ God’s words were channeled, it would have been easy to interpret his words incorrectly We interpret other people’s words incorrectly all the time, especially the words from religious leaders such as the Pope (when reporters thought he said Catholic politicians will be excommunicated if they vote for abortion) and al-hilali also has been interpreted incorrectly too many times ; )
Channeling words accurately from God must have been just as hard, or harder. That’s probably why there are so many contradictions in the Bible. Shame that Philo isn’t here, he might have been able to enlighten us : )

Thanks for pointing out that there’s hope of change! Yes, even Ireland allows divorce, which must have been one of the last Western countries to resist it. There’s even a growing number of bishops welcoming homosexuals in their churches. In The Netherlands, religious, same-sex couples are getting married in Church. This is evidence that morality is just subject to the moral zeitgeist. Who knows- next newsflash might be about Ratzinger pushing contraception and sex ed, there’s always hope : )

Goodthief et al,
Don’t we all have a common goal: to reduce abortions?
We might have different reasons why we think abortion rates need to come down, the most important thing is to achieve our goal as quickly as possible.

As we have already agreed on a common goal, then all we have to do is work out, from looking at other countries’ results what the quickest way is to reach our goal.
This will probably be: realistic sex education and free contraception distribution.

The slowest way would probably be to leave things as they are until we have a final conclusion on what the exact time is when a human being begins to exist. Theologians, scientists, philosophers etc can take decades or centuries to come to a final conclusion on ethics.

goodthief - no, I don't believe you can simply decide on the status of the foetus without looking at the bigger picture. To do so is to decide blind, and doesn't have consideration for the repercussions.

To continue my post (dang 24 hour rule):

What about pregancies caused by rape?
The pro-life argument hinges on the notion that foetuses are people from conception. Thus, under this definition, aborting a pregnancy caused by rape is just as heinous, as it's a question of the child not the father, so logically, she would be forced to have a child.
To abort these children would effectively be classed as murder, sanctioned by the actions of the father. This couldn't work now could it?

What about a mentally disabled rape victim? Will she be made to have a child?

Will she be watched to ensure she doesn't abort? Would she be held down or incarcerated if she was determined to have an abortion?

Would she be imprisoned if she had one? Would her circumstances be considered?

What if there's a slight risk to the mother? How great does this risk have to be before an abortion is permissible? If there's a 0.5 per cent risk? 1 per cent? 5 per cent? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 50 per cent? At what point do you permit an abortion to save the mother?

When you ban abortions, you are opening the floodgates to all of these possibilities, and if you don't have answers, then you need to go back to the drawing board.

The end result of the pro-life argument is to ban abortions - which means these things need to be considered beforehand, not after, because if it's changed these issues will need immediate answers.