I appreciate your response R0bert,
So the crux of your arguement is that abortion is morally acceptable on the basis that you believe that an unborn child does not exhibit enough 'human-ness' to be counted as a human? (I will assume that you mean unborn children less than say 10-12 weeks gestation as any later and all body organs, including brain are formed)

Can I ask you to consider this: You seem to have a very abstract and arbitrary system by which you measure 'human-ness' (for lack of a better term).

It seems that you use a combination of social norms (very western ideals at that), contemporary views of individual identity, mode of conception and economic strength of parents as the basis for your view of what makes a human a human.

By your resoning if you have wealthy, loving parents who want you and can somehow by their wealth ensure that nothing bad will ever happen to you (a crazy notion as many rich parents are terrible) then you are magically a human.

If you have lower earning, less loving parents (or parent) who feels overwhealmed and scared then you are not a human? I am actually not trying to patronise or put you down, but the arguement is certainly lacking in objectivity.

I mean what happens if Mr & Mrs perfect go bankrupt and divorce when you are 3? Do you get demoted back to animal status? What happens if single mum on the dole gets rich and finds her dream man in 2 years? Does the dead baby suddenly get recognition of being murdered?

I put to you that humanity is not defined by religion, social norms, or contemporary fads about identity. Can you not see that using 'subjective' reasoning to define humanity is so open to abuse. It happened in the slave era, in Nazi Germany and in today's society.

By your logic you can justify killing anyone so long as the killer cant see the humanity in his victim. Just because you cant see the humanity - doesn't mean that it is not there.

Celivia, yes it is tragic that you as a self pronounced feminist would sanction as well as advocate sexual apartheid and a two tier social system and special rights for women. That you declare you are all about the child because after [I], WOMAN ALONE, make the decision whether the child lives or dies, [I] then demand that the father financially supports MY DECISSION. You can spin yourself in circles but, once again your position propagates a sexual apartheid. I don't see you being about the child at all. Your about men paying for the womans decision.

Wages for the most part are equal and the overall gap is virtually closed. There are some exceptions but, mostly it depends on ones interpretation of equal work for equal pay. A woman can not take two or five years off work to have a child then expect to return to her old job, the same position, the same pay rate. Too much has changed. And a woman cannot have taken that time out of the work force and then not expect a difference in her superannuation or expect that she should receive the same as a man who has invested 25-30 consecutive years.

Women who want careers and money over raising children should seek men that will be stay home Dads. It's not like these potential Dads don't exist.

Single women with a child do not make up the largest portion of Australia's poor at all. The largest portion is made up by working poor families who have three or more children. [These poverty stats were defined by using a single income couple with two children with earnings of 406.38 a week.] As of 1999 in Australia, there were by count 1.7 million adults living in poverty while only 732,000 dependent children living in poverty. If by your thinking each of these children were being raised by single Moms that would leave a greater number of single people in worse straights than single Moms with children. Like a million more. And those children were not all dependent on single Moms.

Daniel06, I really think it's time you tell us what your definition of "a human" is and when it applies. Your old definition was substandard, has been shown to be such (thanks for the non-acknowledgemnet BTW) and needs upgrading.

What many have been talking about, yes it's "a human", but a human what?
An embryo may be a human embryo but not a human being, a foetus is a human foetus not an embryo nor a baby, a developing stage that is gentically dissimilar to (but not independent of) the support system that is it's mother. No cognitive ability exists, nor a range of other criteria that enables a human "being" to be classed as such. Now what is your definition that is so all encompassing and is so objectively rational?

Daniel, you really need to start to differeniate between a human
organism and a person, thats the big difference and much what this
debate is all about. Murder does not apply to organisms, it applies
to people. At 12 weeks a fetus is not yet a person, it doesen't yet
have a human brain.

You are hugely concerned about potential people. Well I remind you
that every month, millions of potential people are flushed down
life's toilet and nobody says boo. They suffer or think no more then
an aborted fetus.

Most woman have about 400 chances of creating another person, reality
prevails, they can't keep them all. So its really the woman's decision when she feels that she is able to care for that child
and raise it. Only she knows the circumstances of her life.

Yup, some people are paying off houses, simply can't afford to feed
any more children. High house prices are a very good contraceptive :)

But thats their business, not your business. You are free to make
choices about your life, they are free to make theirs. Just because
a contraceptive did not work, or they were never educated properly
in their use, or they made a mistake, does not give you the right
to force your morality on them, if it has no logical reasoning behind
it.

Perhaps its time that you explained, why a one or two celled organism
should suddenly start to be seen as a person, when its clearly not.

Daniel06,

You make some valid observations, however, not all contraceptives work - if a woman is unwell, vomits, etc. any protection can be negated. I wonder just how many young women with calm deliberation think “in two month’s time, I will become sexually active” and go on the pill. Condoms are not 100% reliable. I’m sure many young men carry one around in the expectation of “getting lucky”; but when they do, the condom has passed its use-by-date; also in the throes of young passion, condoms may not be used appropriately.

You state: “get to a doctor within 24-48 hours of rape and pregnancy is totally avoidable”. In these cases, the day-after pill prescribed is, in fact, an abortificant. It is not a contraceptive.

Admittedly, I do not know the current policy regarding late abortions, but feel strongly about these when the baby, with help, could possibly survive. My emotional reaction is that if a woman is far advanced, and with no medical condition precluding birth, why not go full-term. I have heard of doctors who refuse to conduct late abortions. They feel that they are attempting to save babies at the same weeks’ gestation, as other babies who are being aborted.

However, there are reasons to have a late abortion. Many years ago in a delivery ward, a woman next to me was being induced. The baby had been found to have only a residual brain. With all my “emotional” reaction, I concede that late abortions may be necessary.

goodthief,

I have no doubt that you and other pro-lifers are extremely fine people and if a member of your family or a friend found herself in the predicament many women find themselves you would be there to support her, not just for the first year or so of a child’s life, but also for another 20 years it takes to raise a child properly.

During the entire time of child-rearing days, I only once asked for someone to babysit my small children; my husband was away. My two-year old, as it transpired, was dying. It was a Saturday evening; everyone had something important to do; I was told not to be silly, etc. If I had been naive, or influenced by others, my toddler would have died an aweful death. In desparation, I managed ... Just. However, I learnt a very valuable lesson ... In doing so, I also learnt the complexities with which women are faced when having to make a decision to have an abortion or not. Many unmarried mothers do not have support, or indeed, can rely on loving family members, friends, or indeed some outside public body.

I have seen single, supporting mothers in tears because they could not find a babysitter and had to attend an important meeting.

As for teenagers having babies, I knew a 16 yr old who gave birth and was unable to bear children later.

In all conscience, I could not advise an unmarried mother to have a baby, or an abortion. The only thing I could do would be offer my complete support in any decision she would make. Certainly, there is a risk in as you say, ”hoping to influence.” This can lead a woman to feel guilty, and a woman in this difficult situation should never be made to feel guilty either way.

Pax also.