Goodthief, the reason I wanted to show and discuss these bible quotes was (on my mission to discover a hidden agenda) to question the religious’ choice of their bible quotes which back up their anti-choice stance.
I wanted to show quotes that seemed not anti-abortion at all.
From your reply on the quotes that I presented I gathered that many bible quotes can be interpreted in different ways- you showed quotes that would back up an anti-abortion stance and you showed different interpretations.

That’s when I gathered how religious leaders (which I called Head or Master cherry pickers) can use quotes to support their stance; even the quotes that I would have thought of as not anti-abortion seem to be interpreted by others as anti-abortion.
I just wanted to point out that there are bible quotes that can be used to support both the pro-choice and the anti-choice stance.
That explains to me why there are so many denominations and religious groups that do support the pro-choice stance, while others are strongly anti-abortion.
I said that the stance a religious leader supports on abortion probably depends on how he cherry-picks the quotes and how he interprets them.

What I said had nothing to do with your reasons for being anti-choice because you have your personal reasons and you are agreeing with prevention, which makes me believe that you are sincere. (Just keep in mind that abstinence education has proved wortheless; there are contraceptives that work most of the time).
My (and Yabby’s) problem is with those religious leaders (and I’d include political leaders as well) who resist prevention such as improving sex education and contraception.
If all anti-abortionists would focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than obsess about pregnant women, we would finally make some progress in reducing abortion rates.

PeterD et al,
have you thought of an answer to my question about embryonic stem cell derived medication? Would you take it if it was the only thing that would save your life or that of your children?

That you feel the need that I should apologise for 'misquoting' you, Peter D also says much more about you than me. I actually didn't quote you at all, much less misquote you, but that's probably just a miscomprehension mistake, very easily made and thus easily forgiven.

I also have never made the argument that you think I may have regarding unwanted children. In fact, I am under no illusions as to the nature of maternal instincts and love for unplanned children, probably more than you will ever know. That you also think that I seem to have "dug a hole for myself" (here I have actually quoted you), also speaks volumes about how you do do comprehend. I am arguing that the telelogical argument is NOT valid, and always have and yet you seem to think that I am using it to be able to justify abortion? How weird is that?

have you thought of an answer to my question about embryonic stem cell derived medication? Would you take it if it was the only thing that would save your life or that of your children?
Posted by Celivia,

Celivia, embryonic stem cells are derived from blastocysts which are a mass equal to about 70-100 cells and has never implanted. Embryonic stem cells are organ specific capable. The work done with them is with in a laboratory not the womb and no human blood courses through or nurtures those cells.

Yabby, a woman produces the ovum so that it is available to be inseminated, not because it must be. As well as mens sperm is constantly being produced and reabsorbed if it does not become ejaculate. Neither alone is a life.
An unfertilized ovum isn't aborted. It has received no instructions to not pass. When fertilized by spermatozoon the ovum then receives the necessary instruction to begin cellular construction and the act of implanting and developing a symbiotic blood supply. Blood equals life. No blood. No life for humans.

If you stop the flow of blood for what ever reason you have killed. Period. End of story. Create all the what ifs and manufacture endless excuses for doing so but, the reality, the bare fact remains death. Deliberate death. Killing.

And there you have it, Aqvarivs is a pirate. As soon as the wind changes, it's yarrr mateys killin is killin, but not if the embryo touches blood. Blastocysts are fertilised eggs, otherwise known as zygotes, so Peter D will be after ye Aqvarivs ol' matey, better watch out!

So then, under Aquarivs's law of the sea, whether a life is allowed to life or not depends on the blood!, Well mateys you better tell that to the Catholic Church, because someone better come up with a stage of ensoulment or we are all doomed! Doomed to eternity in the everlasting pit! Will someone please save us fron eternal damnation?

Celivia,

I was very interested in your reference to the herbal book. My mother told me that in France, a catholic country, and known for the way in which women care for themselves - beauty etc., and have the "wisdom of Eve" that pennyroyal was used. France has always had a very low birth rate, and men adore women who are pregnant or have small children.
My mother said that whenever she took me out in the pram, the gendame, smilingly, would stop the traffic so that we could pass.

I imagine it was a case of, if one was a day or so late menstruating, they just had a pennyroyal "tea" and thought no more about it. Many years later, an old Scots woman told me that if one was late, pennyroyal "tea" would get the menses moving again. I guess the same was in my day, when women, who were late, would soak in a long hot bath with a glass of wine.

I have just looked in a woman's health herbal published in 1995 and it warns that care must be taken with just making essential oil from pennyroyal as it can bring on an abortion. So it must be quite powerful, if it can be absorbed through the skin. Also, there is a recipe for making capsules of herbs to regulate the menstrual cycle, or prevent painful cramping during the period. Both use pennyroyal. Also does a recipe for amenorrhoe (for those who do not menstuate at all).

Goodthief ”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.)”

Your steathly expectation was to shift the issue away from choice onto one of supposedly acknowledging rights which have historically not been ascribed to a foetus. You would then extend that assertion to presume that similar standards be applied to an embryo as to a new born baby.

The way to break the dead lock is simple, for you to acknowledge that a sentient and cognitive human being who does not know you but who decides to exercise her own choice by proceeding to abort a pregnancy, has every right to do so without reference to your subjective moral values. Just as you are not compelled or obliged to consider your choices and actions in the context of her moral values.

PeterD I challenged you on another thread to debate and you slunk away. I see you are again peddling your tired and lame rhetoric here. Do everyone a favour, since you seem incapable of offering reason to the debate, just slink away again.

Pell, I would note Pell has enlivened a host of controversy with his dictates.

Although I first flagged his arrogant expectations to issue dictatorial decrees, I think I will address future comments on at least one of those threads now devoted to his “eminence's” outbursts.