Celivia, did I miss something? PeterD is now discussing harvesting organs from evil Chinese soldiers' 3 old girl rape victims.

I'd be quite nervous to be exposed to the hard drive of his computer.

Yvonne, :)
That's a scary thought!

Aqvarius,
Thanks for explaining. Even though I don’t agree with you about some things you say, I suppose I got to accept your opinion :) Still, I don’t think that CR deserved to be called a ‘liar’ for having a different view or not interpreting the figures the same way as you do, or wanting (more) evidence.

PeterD,
I wouldn’t call anyone a ‘murderer’ during this discussion because abortion is not murder: the aborted blastocyst or embryo is not a human being,

If I, for example, had been aborted, it wouldn’t have mattered to me because I wouldn’t have known, I had no consciousness that I existed; I couldn’t even live outside my mother’s womb, I had no rights.

If one of my dad’s other sperms had been lucky that day and won the race to the ovum instead of the one that helped create me, then I hadn’t been here either, I would’ve been a different person, maybe with non-trembling fingers, perhaps I’d even have turned out less dishonest and less immoral.

Are we all profiteers or murderers for not having allowed that other sperm to win and deny it a life? Of course not.

I am not sure what you are aiming at with your question about the three year old girl rape victim: all of us in this discussion have agreed that three year old children are human beings. Killing them, for whatever reason, would be obviously wrong.

But there’s an interesting article on http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5960 titled “Body parts for sale” if you’re interested. You can read some of my view on organ transplants there.

This discussion is about aborting (and/or using for medical research and IVF) zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses; which anti-choicers regard as human beings and others do not (with the exception of aqvarivs but he’s not your average pro-choicer).
Any (moral) question related to that I’d be happy to answer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,2102534,00.html

Well there we have it. It seems that according to Catholic
dogma, if a woman is raped, thats just her bad luck, she
should be forced to have the child. Kind of seems like
crazy dogma to me.

Dear Danielle, I'm not concerned with embryos from any IVF programme. As far as I'm concerned what ever is developed in a lab is under the propriety of that lab, the laws and that labs moral directives. I'm not anti-abortion, I'm just not pro-abortion. I realize it's a subtlety not easily grasped by the excuse makers. I'm not trying to define moral consensus, just state my opinion. Am I allowed?
As for your woman agonizing over whether to abort or not and residual guilt vs. mens. I'd say for every woman who agonizes and has residual guilt there is an equal number of men. If you actually read my post you would know I speak in terms of the responsibility of couples, since it was a couple that initiated that soon to be or post-aborted life.

If you actually read my posts you would know I don't speak in terms of ovum or embryo but, foetus. And have never spoke in terms of ovum as human beings.

You really got to be working for an excuse to run back to the 15th century for ammunition to argue the invalidity of marriage as a social contract. Lets try to keep our refections current. That way we wont be soon turning to the caveman for our justifications. Imagine the beating feminism would take. :-) Uggh!

Celivia, I didn't call CR a liar. I noted He made himself out a liar. That is quite different than calling him a liar. As in, “Surely you could have found some real point of contention with out making yourself out a liar.”
He choose to be contentious for the sake of argument while then outlining a minority life style that nullified his assertion of being of the typical majority. That is a contradictory argument and both can not be true. Hence the lie. Though perhaps that is being excused now too. I'm not current with the politically correct invocation that covers such circumstances.
Am I to be castigated for being astute and actually reading CR's post errors and all?

Aqvarivs

So now your argument has devolved to married couples from your original position.
as Catholic you surely don't admit of those "living in sin", albeit committed relationships:

I quote you:

* Aged in her 20s
* Single
* Childless
* Well educated
* Employed.
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au

Foreplay? I doubt that is her driving concern. Instant gratification and the next rung up the corporate ladder would be more to the truth."

So very nasty, Aqvarivs. As you are a Catholic, I don't know how much latitude you have in "having your own opinion". As I recall, deviation from the Pope's ruling on such serious matters ...! However, things might have changed. My mother had an uncle, a Catholic bishop; he questioned the infallibility of the Pope on a central issue, and guess what happened. He was excommunicated. Perhaps Holy Mother the Church has indeed changed since then.

Danielle, nothing nasty at all. 98% of Australia's young women are having abortions for social and economic reasons, not for birth defects or any other medical necessity. That medically acknowledged statistical fact is an abuse of the exception written into Australia's many abortion laws as they are today. Your personal or political prevarications aside. I'm suggesting that we look into this behavior and determine if or not it is in fact a reality and take the appropriate steps before others decide it has gone too far and more draconian steps are taken. I'm advocating a PRO-ACTIVE and SHARED RESPONSIBILITY in all social matters, not sexual separations and further strife.
Too bad this is anathema to your personal empowerment and feminisation of social law.
I have always referred to couples in relation to sex and pregnancy and the question of abortion. I don't concern myself with married or common law or one night stand. It takes two to tango. Two ought to be responsible in the decisions of the third they created. Try not to get bogged down in your own semantics.

If the Catholic Church ever decides to excommunicate me It wont alter my opinions one whit nor turn me a hateful anti-Catholic ranter. And since Vatican II (1964) the Pope no longer has dogmatic infallibility so whatever it is your talking about has less and less to do with me or my opinion and more to do with you and your inability to accept my opinion as a equal and contributing member of society.