Robert,
Thanks for those priceless links!

Aqvarivs
Men do not foot the entire bill- both sexes are financially responsible for raising their child.

About wages; in a world where men still dominate the majority of professions there is still a huge gap.
What you want is a world in where men get their rocks off without concern for women and without any responsibility.

Your apartheid argument is a straw-man one. I’ve said that I’m in favour of both partners sharing access to maternity/paternity leave so both can benefit and share both the financial side and the caring for children, IF they want that. It has been done in some countries, it is possible.
And you know that I agree with a more flexible law to deal with special cases.

“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.”
Yes, she can. It has been done in other countries-partners can share their super and time-off work.
Is it fair that many more elderly women than men live below the poverty line just because they’re the ones who have babies? They need to pay for that in her old days?
I admit that my figures about poverty before were wrong, but I don’t think it affects the argument. More women live below the poverty line than men.

“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.”
Men who want careers and money over raising children should seek women that will be stay home Mums. It's not like these potential Mums don't exist.

Aqvarivs, this debate is about whether it is justified to call women who opt for abortion and doctors who perform them, murderers.
I rather use my posts debating about that than discussing the sub-topic of men’s rights- women here are being called murderers and you try to make this debate all about men’s rights.

TurnRightThenLeft
You ask, what would happen if our definition of a person was to be stretched to the point of conception?

This is an intricate and value laden question, as many would say that this is a proper interpretation of the law as it stands now. Why else would certain state governments be considering legislation to decriminalise abortion?

Another problem is that it is a kind of hypothetical, crystal ball, type question. Many would say that there would overall be many great consequences, including society valuing life more highly.

But I think your question relates largely to rape. In Ireland, public opinion is mostly pro-life and this is reflected in their constitution. However, there is, I believe, a provision in the law for cases of rape. Does this make the law in Ireland inconsistent? Perhaps, but I think this is a better state of affairs than what we have here, where tens of thousand of abortions occur for who knows what reason, so that the door can stay open for the tiniest number of rape victims – which is a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog.

Even under our present law, not all homicide is the same. There are different classes. A man who kills an intruder in his house would be treated differently to an armed bank robber who killed. The intention and mental state of a person is always taken into account.

For example, even before Roe v Wade, in some states there was the crime of infanticide, which is where a mother killed a baby under one year old. The penalty for this was much less than other murder as the stress of giving birth was considered a partial defense. Yet it was still an illegal homicide. I can only presume that this was the unstated motive in the Lindy Chamberlain case, but the Northern Territory had no such thing on the books as infanticide, so she was charged with first-degree murder.

Your other query related to ‘backyard abortions’. This is a Pro-choice propaganda furphy. Did they really occur in vast numbers before RvW?

Daniel what I saw looks like you are using a strawman to push your POV.

Following what appears to be your argument a bit further though on the idea that stopping a potential human from having the the opportunity to develop into a human is murder then
- use of contraception is murder (sounds familiar). A baby could result if the egg and sperm can just get together.
- failing to have sex with any fertile woman might be murder because a baby could have resulted.
What has changed is the odds not the ethics.

It is awkward that we don't have a clear cut easily justified basis for determining at what point a fetus becomes a human being. We have some rules of thumb based on the best available evidence. Life is like that. Setting the start of a human life at the point of conception is somewhat more arbitrary.

Mick, was it to much effort to follow the links I provided earlier? Have a read of the Numbers 5 section passages.

Have a read of Genesis 38:24
'About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant. "Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"'

Now if the fetus has fully human status then thats a pretty big call beyond the ethics of killing prostitutes.

Celivia quoted another place where the life of the fetus is clearly valued at less than that of the woman. The Numbers 5 passage shows that god supported termination (no health issues there either).

R0bert

TRTL, I suppose your questions earlier (about rape etc) are simply hard to answer. Opposed as I am to abortion, I am so pessimistic that our enlightened community will take the human status of the foetus seriously that I haven't given much thought to what might follow if it were.

I believe that, if abortion was illegal, then we would encounter some situations in which we face a choice between tragedies. Rape is the classic, in which there seems no good way to go. The choice seems to be between asking the woman/girl to undergo 9 months of horror so profound that I know I am not in a position to understand it, and the death of the foetus. Worse, the horror might seriously undermine the woman/girl’s mental and emotional health long-term. Here, I have to admit, I just don’t know which way to go.

Danielle’s case of the young mother who faces a real risk to her life is probably different – like self-defence in a more conventional murder context.

However, the fact that pro-lifers don’t have all the answers to these cases doesn’t get you around Daniel06’s point that they are the extreme cases. Our difficulty dealing with them is no excuse for legalising the vast majority of abortions. Otherwise, you would have the tail wagging the dog.

Celivia, You are owed a response on the Bible. This won't be easy, as I lack expertise, and would have to go to each passage. Of course, you have stripped these verses from their context, but they are still disturbingly blood-curdling, don't they? (Rather like an abortion). My main response is that most prolifers are Christian and rely more heavily on the New Testament. The savagery - including God's apparent savagery - in the Old Testament is a challenge for us. I would only say that love is savage, and the God of the OT was a partisan jealous lover of the people of Israel. Since the New Testament, I believe God's love is equally for everyone, so we Christians usually don't speak in these terms.

Pax,

Robert says, “the basic difference here seems to be the difference in understanding of when a fetus becomes a human being”. True, this is where we all part company and, until we can agree about this, it will be hard to agree.

This is why we have to arrive at an approach that is based on uncertainty and disagreement about the status of the foetus. Like TRTL, I am a little frustrated at receiving no response to my suggestion that, since we don’t know whether or not the foetus is a person, we must choose between the following risks:

i) Terminating – the risk of killing something/someone who is a human; or

ii) Giving birth – the risk of allowing to live something/someone who is not a human but who indisputably becomes a human later.

It’s not that I think the foetus is the only person involved, or even the most important person. It’s just that, generally speaking, there is far more at stake for the foetus than anyone else. I realise that the foetus is blissfully unaware of all this, but of course it’s that very helplessness that qualifies for advocacy and consideration.

Danielle, I agree that there are “complexities with which women are faced when having to make a decision to have an abortion” that I would not want to face. Complexities that make this discussion very painful. However, these complexities entitle the woman/girl to assistance and support, they don’t justify termination. For too long, the prolifers have neglected the mother. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that abortion be criminalised and the mother neglected, as though she just didn’t matter.

Whatever the law does, its aim should be to make sure everyone gets to live and that they get to live as happily as the community can make possible.

Pax,

So far no man who is anti-abortion has actually said that he wants abortion banned. This to me means that they agree that there are circumstances where abortion is permissible.

In which case, all their arguments about abortion being murder of a human appears to be relative only. Killing is justified in some circumstances.

Some men want to force another autonomous human to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. How can you force another person to do something like carrying on with a pregnancy? Even with surrogate pregnancy, where the woman has gone freely into being an incubator there are all sorts of problems. And she gets paid for it, while beforehand has thought about this.

What would you do if she changes her mind and wants to ‘keep’ the child after birth? What if she purposely or continues to live a life detrimental to the well-being of the foetus, like drinking alcohol, using ‘recreational’ drugs, smoking, excessive exercise? Would you then demand imprisonment and put her on 24hour watch?

Is there any man or woman who would allow another such control over their being? People with a medically diagnosed mental illness who are a danger to themselves or another are accorded more respect and can only be held against their will for a very limited time.

How do you fit this into the UN charter for human rights Daniel? A woman by becoming pregnant has fewer rights than a man or a foetus? Wow, there are a few warlords in Dafur who would love that, UN sanctioned ethnic cleansing.

Abortion should always be freely available.

To some a one day old zygote is as human as a 3 year old (Daniel), to another an embryo is not a human until life outside the womb is possible (me), or until actually born (the law). Mick, abortion is the crime, the foetus does not have legal status until birth, though this is undergoing change.

Let’s concentrate on making abortions rare. We should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.