Yabby, “So I think its more then that, they want control of peoples lives.”
I, too, had to come to this conclusion. Every religion that condemns abortion but does not take the trouble to strongly promote prevention of unwanted pregnancies can be suspected of clinging to an agenda of control of people’s lives, especially women.
I just read an article that the Bush administration has provided a grant to promote abstinence-only sex education despite a major study that showed that abstinence-only sex education does nothing!
He's just as thick as the anti-abortion crusaders.
I hope that Pell and pals will continue to be criticised for interfering in politics- imagine if al-Hilaly told politicians how to vote- wouldn’t there have been total outrage? Why should we have to accept this political interference from Pell but not from Muslim leaders?
As you said, Yabby- let them preach to their own diminishing flocks, but let them stay out of politics.

Danielle, thanks for bringing up these herbs- the anti-choicers must find this very interesting.
There are quite a few books available on the subject, such as: Eve’s Herbs by the historian Riddle.
http://www.amazon.com/Eves-Herbs-History-Contraception-Abortion/dp/0674270266
Eve’s Herbs by the historian Riddle is one of the many books available on the topic of contraception and abortion throughout history.
Since ancient times, women have always had control over their body, and guess what- world population has vastly increased. Not until the Catholic Church gained power were these contraceptives and abortifacients forbidden and women who used these herbs were tried as witches.

As you can see, women have managed very well without the interference of religion and allowed an enormous increase in world population despite all these natural abortifacients available to them, so I hope that anti-choicers will mind their own beeswax and accept that women can be, and always will be in control of their own body.

What anti-choicers say or do on their crusade against abortion is totally useless, in fact they are not going to ban abortion just make it unsafe.

Col Rouge, I struggle to be impartial, but I didn't use “stealth”. In fact, I was candid.

The “we” I refer to is just the people in the discussion – whatever their view or gender. We are deadlocked. I would prefer to break the deadlock. (I realise a deadlock on a moral issue is not the end of the world, but I have a strong inclination towards consensus where one can be conjured from the cauldron of discussion.)

“The answer” I seek TRTL is the compromise position that people who disagree can reach if they try hard enough. I’m trying to be pragmatic.

I don’t think religious people are the only people who perceive “moral absolutes”. Besides, I would call “Thou shalt not interfere with the choices of others” a moral absolute: you can tell, because I am rebuked when I am seen as doing this. And “Thou shalt ensure good societal outcomes” is also a moral absolute. If we didn’t believe in right and wrong, I don’t think we’d be debating each other.

The “fact” I put forward in the deadlock breaker is not “the foetus is human” but “the foetus might be human”. It’s a compromise. My point is that, because we’re dealing with high stakes, this “might be” is itself an enormous consideration compared with other considerations (even though some of them are also large). Even if not human, the foetus is SO CLOSE that even that is something we should take seriously. Or, we should err on the side of the life. Or, when in doubt choose life. This is not religious: I can imagine many humanists thinking this way.

(I don’t say the same about sperm-laden semen on a happy vector inside a woman after release, or gridlocked in a condom. I see sperm as fair game. Further, while the foetus only needs to develop, but still remain itself, I see sperm as having to undergo radical change by combining with something else, before it becomes morally interesting. I agree about prevention.)

Pax,

Celivia, you say to me –

“Thanks for showing me these bible quotes, which are probably a good explanation of how the religious use the Bible to support their anti-choice stance.”

Just a cotton pickin’ moment! You showed them to us, to demonstrate the opposite view. You were very pleased with them, and paraded them in triumph.

On Monday, you wrote –

“Goodthief,
thank you for explaining so openly and patiently your reasons for being anti-choice. I understand that you have a natural, perhaps intuitive belief that abortion is wrong; even I don’t share these feelings I can respect your reason.

RObert, aqvarivs, Yabby, MickV
perhaps I’m paranoid about secret agendas, and I can agree that the majority of the anti-choice Christians most probably haven’t considered verses such as those we have presented.”

I’ve never read those passages before, and I was surprised to find they seem to go the other way – in “my direction”. I have already told you, in very personal terms, why I believe what I believe about abortion. And you acknowledged it. So, it is ungracious of you now to forget all that and use me to make a polemical point about “the religious”. If you betray dialogue like that, it makes it difficult to speak with you.

I agree with you about prevention, by the way. I would include abstinence as one of the strategies, but I don't support the Vatican's view about condoms etc.

Pax,

PeterD you are quoting me on the 'clump of cells'. You would never have had a miscarriage. You will never know how or what a woman feels who is pregnant, whether a wanted pregnancy or not.

I KNOW what it is like to be pregnant. I KNOW what a 12-14week old embryo looks like. I have had 5 in my underpants. They are NOT perfectly formed 'babies'. Before you come to some conclusion. My pregnancies were desperately wanted and anticipated, my abortions are more commonly known as miscarriages. Are you saying I lost 5 children? Do you now that 25% of pregnancies do not get past 12 weeks? Very many women know exactly what an early embryo looks like.

I was offered IVF, but I have lots of difficulty with the idea of IVF. The world is full of unwanted and neglected children. Only when all children are safe and cared for should something like be IVF considered.

Eventually, I've been blessed with 2 children of my own and allowed to help bring up another, often very troubled, boy since the age of 3 who made me proud by calling me mum. He is a succesful young man now.

Whatever your beliefs, Christian it is not. Your disregard of what women have to say, or their experiences are of no consequence to you. Unlike other men who profess their Christian beliefs tempered with compassion for the plight of a woman who has felt she had to make this decision.

Men like you frustrate me. Vocal in your condemnation of women, but what do you actually do? Are you bringing up, or helping bring up, any children at risk? Where is your condemnation of men who allow their children to be aborted? Where is your condemnation of men who speak of a sexually acquired financial liability?

That the likes of you feel justified in making any kind of comment on myself makes me nauseous.

Bugsy, you didn't apologise for misquoting me. Does that mean it was intentional? If so, it tends to support the very point I was making about deliberately misleading terminology.
In both your posts, you make the point emphatically that teleological arguments - defining embryos or zygotes by what they may become, not what they are - are not valid. That's an interesting point, because it completely destroys the argument used to justify so many abortions - that unwanted pregnancies become unwanted children and so, because of what they will become, they can be destroyed. You really dug a big hole for yourself there! It's a false argument, anyway, because there is no logical connection. In human affairs, nothing is static, no crisis is everlasting. The unwanted pregnancy often becomes a much loved and wanted child. And the reverse is, sadly, true. Otherwise, we would have to believe that all women who have abortions are potential child abusers, and you wouldn't want us to believe that, surely? If that was true, child abuse would be declining by 80,000 victims a year.

Peter D, I remind you that millions of potential children are flushed
down toilets every month and nobody says boo. You are free to try
to raise 15 or 20 or however many you please, us taxpayers will
cough up for a large % of the cost, generous as we are :)

Your attempts at semantics, ad hominems and abuse of us more rational
people have not shown a single reason, as to why your subjective line
in the sand should be the correct one, and not some other.

You seem to totally overlook the laws of chance in this world. Had
your parents perhaps drunk a cup of tea before making you, its highly
likely that you would not be here, some other of the millions of
competing sperms might have won the race. Had your mom had a headache
that night, the same applies.

So its fairly pointless getting your knickers in a twist about
potential children, given the millions that miss out. Is your
wife pregnant? If not, is some little critter missing out?
Do you feel guilty?

Peter D, time to come clean, whats your real religious agenda here?