Here we go again! Martin with his "the sky is falling, muslims
will outbreed the Xtians, better have more babies to outbreed them!"

Codswallop. Fact is, the fastest growing religion, is non religion.
If we look at stats, in Australia around 8% bother to go to church,
mainly oldies. Even in Iran, 25% regularly go to a mosque. Methinks
the internet will play a huge role in educating people. Fundamentalists can breed all they like, their kids will tell them
to get stuffed, as we told our oldies, when it came to religion
and the supernatural.

If the population of Europe, Japan etc drops by 40%, so what? Does
that mean that they will perhaps actually live sustainably in future?
Do we really need overcrowded streets ala India, or China? Clearly
not, with limited energy its not sustainable.

The world population increased from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in
100 years, as we burnt up cheap oil to do it. Thats not sustainable.
If world population dropped back to 4 billion, so what? It would
certainly be more sustainable, then our present situation.

Martin is free to draw his line in the sand about holy human cells.
Aqva draws his at holy human blood. I draw mine at people, not cells.
Fact is, morality is a subjective question, there is no substantiated
evidence of an objective arbiter. In a tolerant society, we should
each be able to live by our beliefs, without forcing others to live
by ours. Without tolerance, what you will have is religious wars,
as history shows

I didn't use the word holy in any post. If your going to be a wank you can't say "I draw mine at people." This is about people for everyone. That you don't recognise a baby in the womb as life, or a valid representation of a human being, to justify terminating that life is a single point of view, no more valid and certainly isn't a superior view compared to anyone else's POV.

"This is about people for everyone."

Aqva, if this is about people for everyone, then give me your
defintion of a person. I've explained at length, my understanding
of the difference between an organism and a person. If you think
I'm wrong, tell me where my definition is wrong.

Sometimes I think that some of you city slickers live so far away
from the natural world, that you have lost touch with reality.

I remind you that killing in your name, goes on every day. Plants
and animals are killed, for your nutritional benefit. Trees are
killed, so that you can read your paper and wipe your butt.
Termites are killed under your house, so that you can live in
comfort. Millions of organisms are killed in your water supply,
so that you have clean water. Sperms are killed, for your
sexual benefit. Now you tell me that if human zygotes are killed,
as they involve human blood, I should feel some kind of guilt.
Why?

I have not said that my line in the sand is better then anyone
else's, simply that for me, its the most rational, for obvious
reasons. I accept that for any human embryo to realise its potential,
it needs a willing person to take care of it. As Darwin noted,
far more potential individuals of any species will be created, the
can ever survive. He was a smart fellow! Ignrore natural law at
your peril.

The problem with the religious, is that as they do with the bible,
they want to pick and choose about natural law, to suit their agenda.
They insist that because people happen to enjoy sex, any accidental
offspring should be provided for, as that is nature. But are
antibiotics and vaccines nature? Isn't it natural for people to die
of diseases? If they insist on not interfering with nature at the
point of conception, why is it suddenly ok to intefere with nature
at the point of vaccination and antibiotics? Its a bit like
their bible. Just pick and choose dogma, ignore the rest, then
protest like hell...

Aqvarivs,
like Yabby, I am struggling to understand your logic of the cut-off line. Just to double-check before I jump to conclusions, are you saying that:
It is OK to end the lives of human blastocysts by denying them blood supply; but it’s not OK to cut off their blood supply once they have it?

Martin,
Do you believe that the future economy is more important than the freedom of women?

Let’s look at some realistic points and FACTS that have been posted by some logical people in this discussion so far. No matter what our personal opinion is of when a human being is exactly created, there are some conclusions we can make.

1. A ban on abortion will not reduce abortion rates.
2. A ban on abortion will make abortions unsafe.
3. We should not attempt to reduce abortion rates- we should attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
4. Conclusion: banning abortion is useless in reducing abortion rates, while preventing unwanted pregnancies will reduce abortion rates significantly.

Yabby, Celivia, I agree with the bioethicist who argue that a foetus has achieved personhood. Which is why I'm an avid teacher of pro-active contraceptive use and responsible sexual education. I think terminating the life of a foetus is killing. Even in the name of medical necessity I think it is still killing. That is the name of terminating a life. I see no reason to couch it in non-specific blather or denigrate that life or to separate by language that woman and her baby so that the woman can terminate that babies life with out any moral, ethical or emotional concern for that life. And I certainly don't think we require more abortions to cement feminist empowerment.
Yes Yabby we do kill all kinds of life forms everyday in order to survive. We are not talking life in extenso but, human life in extremis.
We do not question the Lioness for killing the Zebra. While we do question the Lioness when she turns on her cubs and kills them. Lets not go completely off the reservation of reasoned debate just to cast derision on the opposing view. It is not human nature to kill ones own progeny nor is it the nature of the animal kingdom. That it happens does not alter the given nature. Once again lets not have the exceptions become the rule. 80,000 plus yearly exceptions need to be looked at critically and other means pushed to the forefront of thought and practice in terms of the Australian expression of sexual receptivity.
I put forth the thought on blood supply to suggest a demarcation between "just clump of cells" and a symbiotic relationship between two beings. One utterly dependent on it's mother at this stage. I think women actually need to revisit just what the word mother means and it's co-commitment, motherhood. As well as a number of men to study well the definition of father, the act to father, and fatherhood.
I have not divided responsibility I protect it as a shared interest and a shared responsibility.

"I agree with the bioethicist who argue that a foetus has achieved personhood."

Well Aqva, one bioethicist, does not make a summer :) I'd say
its highly likely that he is Catholic and they tend to define things
to suit the dogma. If you read what some philosophers and many
others have said about the definition of "person", you'd get a
rather different response. Even go down the street and ask 20
people. Fact is, if it hasn't got a human brain, its not a person.

A fetus does not yet have a human brain. A brain stem is not a human
brain. Crocodiles have a brain stem, that doesent make them people.
The parts that we can consider that make a human brain different to
others, ie the neocortex, don't come together until around week 25.

As Bugsy pointed out, an acorn is not an oak tree, a human organism
is not a person neither.

But these are philosophical points of reason. As Celivia wisely
points out, abortion is here to stay, as desparate people jump
to desparate measures. We can see this clearly in countries where
abortions are banned. All that we land up with is alot more deaths
from botched backyard abortions.

We all agree that better sex education, free availability of
contraception etc are ways to reduce the abortion rate. But
you'll have the religious lobby groups fight you all the way on
that one.

Personally I have no problem with the number of abortions, as
I think its simply females making choices about their lives.
As was pointed out, most happen in the first tremester and
I have no problem with that at all, organisms are organisms,
not people. Most of society seems to agree with me, thats why
the first tremester abortion ruling has become so common around
the world.