Celivia, a possible response to your Bible quotes:

Exodus 22:22 – sounds like the culprit is punished for the miscarriage he caused, because the miscarriage was the only harm. Sounds like a miscarriage is significant.

verses 23, 24 – “life for life, eye for eye”. Sounds savage, but it was a softening of the prevailing ethos. In those days, you’d be killed for the slightest offence, and this was an attempt to introduce proportion into justice.

2Kings 2:12 – the “ripping up of the pregnant women” is described as an evil.

2Kings 15:16 – sacking of Tirzah, including the familiar “ripping”, is neither approved nor disapproved. It’s just reported, along with other carnage. But, it’s carnage. Again, the focus on the pregnancy suggests some significance attached to it.

Isaiah 13:18 – is better suited to your purpose. This is God’s threat against one of Israel’s enemies, Babylon. No mercy for the fruit of the womb, no pity for children. NOTICE THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB AND THE CHILDREN HAVE PEER STATUS. This is punitive, and it’s a black day (v10 – “the sun will be dark in its rising etc”).

Hosea 13:16 – another instance of God taking out one of Israel’s enemies, Samaria – or at least cursing them (hard to tell with prophecies). Again, the “ripping of the pregnant women” is punishment, destructive.

Hosea 9:14 – a variation, this time God is punishing Israel. Here, there is no ripping, but giving them miscarrying wombs. Traumatic barrenness. Again, a negative.

I’m amazed you look to these passages to support your view. Nothing lenient here about abortion. Induced miscarriage is clearly a dark business. Foetus and child have peer status.

That’s a truly excellent post, Aqvarivs. For what it’s worth, pro-choicers, I know what it’s like to try to dodge responsibility. I do at least my fair share – eg every lie I’ve ever told was probably “dodgy” in this sense. The mental gymnastics of denial is a classic species of lie. I don’t pan you for doing it – “welcome to Earth” – but you should recognise it.

Pax,

Celivia, the usual criticism of these passages concerns God's violence. I thought that’s also what was bothering you.

God’s violence involves –

i) taking out His Israel’s enemies, or threatening to;
ii) punishing His Israel, or threatening to, for its sin of betrayal (turning to other gods).

This is love – jealous and savagely protective love. The Old Testament knows this. The New Testament is somewhat blanched in this regard, although on balance I guess the savagery of love should be tempered. Christians say the savagery of God’s love is no longer a concern because –

iii) there is no longer a Chosen People to whom God is devoted in this partisan way (all are eligible and welcome);
iv) our own sins went up in smoke when Jesus, the Son of God, was hoisted up onto that cross of His.

Sorry if this sounds sanctimonious – just pointing out that the savagery is a thing of the past.

Robert and Celivia, Against your point about car rego (you were joking, I trust?), may I point out that it is now common to purchase apartments and condos etc “off the plan”, and trading-inclined people have been trading in “futures” since at least the 1980s. Just as irrelevant as your excellent car rego thing. Why don’t we avoid red herrings?

The core point of disagreement remains when one’s life begins, or whether the foetus is a human being. The rival positions are outlined by Col Rouge and Aqvarivs. As we cannot agree, I propose (again) a way of dealing with the deadlock. I think (not surprisingly!) the way forward is to preserve the foetus. This is the reasoning:

a) The foetus might be a human. And it might not be. (It definitely becomes one a few months later.)
b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.

CARE FOR THE MOTHER IS A GIVEN. (I know it hasn’t been, but care for her must be a part of this.)

Pax,

Fester, your statement is a contradiction in terms.
You would seek objectification, and want to have determined a demarcation of the stages of life to provide excuse to do what you want to do with out having to face the repercussions. To mitigate the moral, ethical, religious, legal, or simply ones natural innate sense of right and wrong. If a foetus can be considered a organism it is much easier to shake it's lifeless remains off your fingers and into a kidney dish, send the woman off, and then do it all over again with a clear conscience. And the woman can come back for second or thirds, and not have to consider her choice because she has been well assured that SHE is free. Free from moral, ethical, religious, legal, or simply ones natural innate sense of right and wrong.

Celivia, “I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.” If this is true, you should then be against any abortion, baring medical necessity, that is done past week eight because that is the end of the embryo stage and the foetal stage begins. At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Or is this still not alive enough for you to name human and wish to refer to as Fester, nothing but mere organism.

yvonne, there is no sense getting on at me about feminism. I get all my info about feminist from the women in my life who are feminist. They're just not rabid man haters and aren't using “feminism” to get away with shirking their responsibilities as citizens and as half of the equation of procreation. They too have heated debates about abortion and other womens issues. It was a woman who explained to me the concept of woman woman haters. My wife is feminist and is not happy with the numbers of abortions and didn't like reading that profile I offered to OLO.

"What the Church actually strives to do is ingrain in it's followers a sense of attention to personal responsibility and thinking about ones actions and the repercussions that follow such inattention. "

Aqva, you seem to miss my issues with the Catholic Church completely.
I really don't care what they or any other religion teach their
flock of true believers. If the Church stuck to what you suggest
above, thats up to them, fine by me. I don't have an issue with the
Hare Krishnas, Buddhists etc, never comment on them.

My point is that in todays secular world, society is made up of
many people with many faiths or no faith at all. Religion should
be a lifestyle choice, no more. When any religion, be it the
Taliban, extremist Xtians or the Vatican, try to use their political
muscle to force me or others to live by their dogma, thats when
I object loudly, as they are then a political force, open to complete
scrutiny and criticism of what they believe or are trying to enforce.

Politics is open slather, if people want to force their dogma onto
me and others,they need more justification then the claim that they
are in touch with the Almighty, to justify their moral positions.

The Vatican is free to bog itself down with their belief in the
holy cell, clearly the majority of Catholics do not even agree with
them. I will also point out the considerable suffering caused by
their dogma, especially in the third world. But then that is
our big difference in philosophy. If you dig deep into Catholic dogma,
they have this belief that its noble to suffer. Thats why say
Opus Dei members, even whip themselves. I disagree, I think there
should be less suffering in the world. I also believe in humanity
living sustainably, or there won't be a humanity. I believe that
other species should have a right to a bit of this planet too, not
just wall to wall humans. So my argument with the Vatican continues :)

Goodthief
Your reasoning is good but flawed and an attempt, by stealth, to sway the debate.

I note you use the expression “we” as in

“b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.”

Problem with your reasoning is this

Your presumption the decision involves “we”.

My assertion is that it does not.

My assertion is “we” don’t count or get to decide.

The only one who “counts” and should, therefore decide, is “her”, the woman in whose body the foetus (regardless of it being human or not – a point I have never argued against. Although I would argue it is not, by definition, a separate individual, as a baby is a “separate individual”).

As far was “we” are concerned, “we” should respect her choice.

Regarding Yabby’s point “When any religion. . . . “

In an associated arena of public interest, I heard on the radio this morning that NSW Catholic MPs were being put under direct pressure by the arch-dictator, George Pells to conform with his commands and have been threatened with “consequences” if they dare disobey.
The radio report included an interview with one Catholic MP who said he had several different things to consider, including the views of the people he was elected to represent (good on him).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21852739-29277,00.html

All MPs should remember that, regardless of their own religious convictions, they are first elected to represent the views of their constituents and not the particular interests of any religious leader, not appointed through processes of universal suffrage.

I find Pell’s declarations illustrate Yabby’s point and supports many of the issues I have alluded to in regard to the dictatorial aspirations of the Catholic hierarchy. Aspirations which, as Yabby rightly observes, are not forthcoming from Hara Krisnas or Buddists, although I would observe such intimidatory attitudes are echoed by other Christian fundamentalists sects.

Goodthief - Col Rouge disagrees with your reasoning, because it should automatically be up to the mother.

I see his point, but I think you're both missing something here.

You say:
a) The foetus might be a human. And it might not be. (It definitely becomes one a few months later.)
b) If it isn’t, and we preserve it, we’ve preserved something that becomes a human. Good result.
c) If it is human, and we terminate, we’ve murdered a human. Bad result.

Fair logic - but it reads as if there is an answer, a definitive 'yes this is human' even if you do say we mightn't be able to figure it out.

It hinges on the supposition that there is indeed an answer.

This, whether you mean it to or not, is a concept derived from religious thought - perhaps god has an answer, even if we don't - best stay on the safe side.

For the non-religious, this kind of thinking doesn't work - it's the very core of a moral absolute. 'Thou shalt not kill.'

The thing is, from a religious viewpoint, 'thou shalt not kill' is codified as something imperative due to religious values and avoiding god's wrath - there is much less emphasis on societal outcomes.

The key difference I see here is that if we look at societal outcomes, I don't believe the arguments against abortions hold much sway. You can talk about the degradation of values and such, but all systems that try to enforce values based on more than straightforward societal outcomes end up as a form of fascism - fundamentalist Islam nations being a prime example.

I can see societal outcomes of women being forced to do fundamental things with their bodies against their will; while on the pro-choice side of the fence, I can only see lost foetuses, because the things by which we realistically see people as people and tell them apart - brain, body, personality - don't exist there.