Col Rouge, I see the foetus as a dependent individual. To me, “individual” doesn’t imply independence, the ability to live on one’s own resources. If it implied that, there’d be many millions of children and adults who could be legally slaughtered right now. On the contrary, people who are dependent deserve special care, not lethal neglect.

Yabby,

All I mean by “feeling” is personal moral impression or view. So, using that language you still end up in the same place. If morality were simply a subjective matter, our discussion would simply involve displaying our different impressions/views and the discussion would be no more interesting than “I have a headache” and “Well, I don’t have a headache”. If subjectivity is all there is, then we’re not talking about abortion at all but just talking about ourselves.

My point is that the discussion is not like this at all. We are really disagreeing and attempting (against the odds) to influence each other. Subjectivism does not account for this.

I’m aware that some other higher species exhibit behaviour that we would call altruism if it occurred (God forbid!) among humans. However, it is a leap to call it an ethic. I’m not aware that the animals choose this behaviour, they just exhibit it. By choose, I mean “I don’t want to do this, but I will because it’s right to do it and wrong not to”.

Anyhow, if some higher species are more sophisticated than we thought and really capable of ethics, I’m not sure how this affects our discussion about objective/subjective. I guess I would just say, “What’s right is so obvious that even some other species have figured it out, so it’s reprehensible that humans haven’t”.

Even if “morality is grounded in biology”, as you suggest, I would still say “And who grounded it? God did. He wired morality into us, and so we are all aware of it. It is objective.” “Objective” morality doesn’t have to come directly from the sky.

Pax,

Just a note that abortion is not actually legal in Australia, with the exception of the ACT.

In NSW, Queensland, Victoria and WA (where special circumstances apply after 20 weeks):

abortion is only lawful if the doctor performing the abortion has, in good faith, assed that the birth is a threat to the woman's mental and/or physical health and the woman has given informed consent (defined as given information by a certifed doctor NOT performing the abortion) or on feotal disability grounds.

In SA:
similar applies but abortions must take place before 28 weeks of gestation, and the woman must have been a resident of SA for more 2 months.

In Tassie:
Similar, except the descision that the abortion is damaging to the physical or mental health of the woman must be made by two doctors independantly.

ACT:
No laws relate to abortion within the crimes act. The ACT health act stipulates that the practitioner must be registered and have ministerial approval.

NT: Similar to the states except that abortions are unlawful past 14 weeks gestation.

South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have legislation in place that provides a statutory explanation of when an abortion is not unlawful. In the other states, common law interpretations of the Crimes Act, or Criminal Code, have had the effect of making lawful abortion available to a large number of women.

Abortion is still not legal in this country. Please note that I'm not advocating this as a good thing. I belive that, like Bill Clinton, abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I would have added acessable to that list as well.

See: http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/auslawprac.htm and
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm#unlaw

for more info.

Today I watched an Under 12 year football match and by chance I talked to the father of one of the smaller players.
He subsequently informed me that he was born at 25 weeks and has had lots of battles to stay alive.
His determination and skills were a standout. I'm afraid this little experience has re-inforced the amazing thing that "life" is.
Afterwards I felt very belittled by this event.
Who am I to value (or de-value) a small foetus.
I am sure we are all immensely richer for valueing human life.
Yes, by all means give to Caesar what is Caesar's..............

If I had been aborted I wouldnt know about it would I, because I wouldnt exist. However I only believe abortion should be done in the first few weeks at the very early cellular level. I myself would have found it a very difficult discision to make and unless there were some really devastating reasons I dont think I could have ever done it. I still wouldnt like to see the freedom of choice banned.

Runner,
When pro-lifers refer to the embryo or foetus as ‘baby’, this is done for emotive purposes. The facts are:
a baby can be defined as a baby at the moment of birth when the umbilical cord is cut.

Pro-choicers are ‘pro-death”?
If we are going to play with highly emotive words, here are some playful expressions for the pro-lifers: pro-child abuse, pro-poverty, pro-homelessness, pro-children of drug addicts, pro-crime etc.
Pro-lifers fanatics seem to be more concerned about zygotes than about suffering existing children.

Goodthief,
“You too want abortions to be rare, but why?”
Because women would prefer not to have abortions. Most women even dread having a PAP test done. Did you think that women want abortions for frivolous reasons. Prevention of pregnancies is a safer and easier method than having to rely on abortion as a birth control method.

Women have to decide between two or three negative and undesirable options. She will choose the option that means the least amount of suffering for herself and the potential child. Women would prefer to not have to make the choice between having a baby or not. That’s why we need to reduce abortion rates by promoting prevention of pregnancies.
If women are being pressured into having an unwanted child, then both the child and the woman are bound to suffer.

Why do I not talk about the foetus? Women are human beings, embryos and fetuses are not. Why should anyone be more concerned about embryos than about women or children that are living in poverty or are being abused? I am glad that most pregnant women are responsible enough to opt for abortion instead of bringing a child into her child-unfriendly environment.

A foetus is completely dependent on the mother, therefore it is has no individual rights until it has been born. Many zygotes abort naturally and are flushed down the toilet without the woman even knowing.

The best way to reduce abortion is to promote contraception, offer great sex education and to aim to make the world a more child-friendly and safer place.

Continued

Aqvarivs,
” Men should be removed from the equation and laws passed that reflect child birth as a woman’s right and men being protected from support issues.”
Men should share responsibility of practicing protected sex. Call it risk reduction.
Accidents do happen, contraception sometimes fails- this is a risk of having sex.

Men who complain that his partner makes the wrong choice by having a baby have to simply like it or lump it.
Nobody forced them to have unprotected sex, and they are fully aware that there is always a risk involved.

If they seriously want to reduce 'risk' they have to use condoms even as a boost to any contraceptive their partner is using or is saying she is using. Either that or they have to accept that his partner has the ultimate choice whether to have an abortion or child. Its HER body. Go for a vasectomy or don’t have sex if you want to be 100% safe.

Not even a partner should be able to either force a woman to have an abortion or to have a child by threatening poverty.

Once born, the child has rights and fathers have to carry some parental responsibility.

What would happen if men would be given the right to remove themselves from the responsibilities for child that they have helped create?

Women would lose their right once more. Women would either be forced to have an abortion because of financial reasons, or their child would suffer poverty just so that her/his dad can keep his previous life style.

"It's time men were freed from the financial responsibility of women’s rights choices and their decisions."
No, it is not time at all. At the stage where a child is born, the child’s interest and wellbeing must have priority, not the father’s life style.
This would either cause more abortions or more child poverty and possibly more crime.

Who should come first, a father’s life style or his child’s well being and education?

Balance is best.