Hi Celivia

Thanks for your comments.

I find myself in the position of having being exposed to the position of the Catholic Church as regards abortion and wished to hear cogent arguements from the other side.

I find much that is persuasive from a basic "human life is sacred and begins somewhere. Who decides where and when it begins?" perspective.

On the other hand the mother must have some sovereignty over her own self and situation.

It is this angle of arguement that I feel is undeveloped at the moment.

One thing that has recently annoyed me was when the lead actress from that nativity film was banned from visting the vatican because she was pregnant and not married.

Shouldnt they have been rejoicing in the new life rather than condeming someone. Would they rather she got rid of the baby on the sly?

Perhaps not a good comment but its something Id thought about before I came across this blog.

Is abortion illegal in every state?

Jellyback, thanks.
I agree with anti-abortionists that human life begins at fertilisation. Even a zygote is human life: it has human DNA and it’s alive.
But at this is the point I start to diverge from the view of the anti-abortionists.

Even though I agree that a zygote is ‘human life’, I cannot agree that it is a ‘person’ or a ‘human being’ in the sense of an autonomous person. Just having DNA doesn’t make a zygote or embryo a ‘person’ with rights. A sperm cell has human DNA and is alive.
First of all, to be a person one must have a brain and a complete nervous system so one is equipped to have consciousness, feelings and thoughts and be able to live independently within an environment as part of a society and outside a womb. To be a person and qualify for human rights, one needs to be born and be independent (not dependent on someone else’s body for survival).

That was indeed very upsetting; whatever excuses the Vatican used, if Benedict XVI wanted to make a statement he would have proudly publicly recognized this young actress.
BTW if I’m correct, the Vatican changed its mind about the beginning of Human Life- wasn’t it the case that at first they insisted that human life starts at the time of quickening (when a woman first feels the foetus move) and later they reviewed it and said human life starts at fertilization? I might be mistaken- I read this years ago but haven’t actually researched it any deeper.

I struggle with the thought that life would suddenly begin at one point, say fertilisation, and never end. We would end up with trillions of beginnings and no endings; it would be unbalanced. For me it makes more sense that life is a continuum, life takes on different forms. One day you’re a person, thousands years later you may be part of a star… I find it fascinating to think that everything that ever existed never leaves the universe and just take on different forms.

"It's about having the right to decide what goes on in your own body." Is it really TRTL? I thought it was about the right to decide whether or not your own life goals would be compromised by the introduction of an unwanted life. If, for instance, someone tried to overdose, I would hope some noisy and aggressive person would step in to assist that person to not make such a wrong choice. Or, if a pregnant woman (no matter what stage) was kicked in the stomach by her drug addicted boyfriend, I would dearly love to see someone try to rescue her and the new life in her stomach -rather than justify their inaction with nonsense about a "bundle of tissue". Moreover, if a woman was raped, I'd hate see her baby aborted for the sins of the baby's father. That would, for me, be unjust. Yes I acknowledge that it would be a woman of exceptional character who chose to not punish the new life for the sins of the father. The day-after-pill argument pretty well negates TRTL's rape argument anyway. Come on TRTL it's just your subjective reality driving your choices – just like others (myself included).

One's subjective position doesn't always reflect or understand an other's objective reality - of course, we know that don't we? This is the female pro-abortionists poke in the eye and it stings. So ten points for the poke-in-the-eye.

But it works both ways. Some female pro-abortionists exclude the male pro-lifer's point of view from their considerations. Isn' t that why you're trying to alter other folk's subjective reality - isn't it? Not going to happen with weak, subjective arguments that exclude the male partner. But then is there any such thing as objectivity? Pro-lifer males would probably have to get pregnant to have a truly objective account; a woman would have to experience the powerlessness of a male whose loved one decided to abort his child without his involvment.

I still think the law must reflect the value of human life and also the value of meaningful relationships.

To the article’s author. I am not religious; indeed, I think religion can and usually is a negative in our society. I am not noisy and I am not usually an aggressive person, and I am not in any noisy minority group or organisation - what a sorry generalisation on the author’s part. And what if I was – so what? What’s the crime there? I just happen to have a different opinion than you which I choose to share and you will no doubt reject. Is my position somehow enhanced by my being under resourced and under represented in the majority? Don’t think so.

Why is it that certain folk in the decriminalisation crew(including the drug mob) are always into stereotyping and personally attacking their enemies and relying on emotive tactics to get their point across? I remember when I was a bit - a lot- younger and in the peace movement I was forever being tagged a communist. Nothing's changed - just the tags. Maybe you all are compensating for a lack of solid uncompromised evidence, ethical correctness and moral foundation. I hold that our laws must reflect the value of life.

And girls, especially, Celivia, please don’t skew things with your quantity vs quality arguments. Really! I am all for contraception and that should have been clear even to the thickest of thickwits from my talk of planning in my earlier posts. So given that most of you are clearly intelligent and articulate folk I urge you to reconsider and don't get into such lame divergences. What do you call Dorothy in the distance? Dot. So connect the Dorothys next time.

Ronnie, you agree it is subjective how we see and experience a foetus or an unwanted pregnancy.

For a man to have to stand by while his 'loved' one decides to abort his baby must be truly agonizing. I wonder at the miscalculation of the 'love' for one another in this sexual relationship. Sex is the precursor to pregnancy. If he feels strongly about not terminating a pregnancy he needs to be particular with whom he has sex with.

Abortions have been with us since the cave days. They have never been stopped by criminalizing it. Back yard abortions have horrendous consequences. These are facts, whether we wish them to be so or not.

It is of paramount importance that abortions can be obtained legally and openly. For medical reasons and also to determine the numbers and how these can be reduced, or even eliminated.

When legal, it does not mean that your loved one has to avail herself of this when confronted by an unwanted pregnancy, it means that another's loved one can without resorting to subterfuge.

Ronnie, not to have been born at all is not as scary a thought to some as being born unwanted by your mother, through the result of rape or not.

Abortions should be legal. Why unwanted pregnancies occur, that needs to be our focus. It might even eliminate the need for abortions altogether.

Yvonne: Your arguments are unfair, weak and emotive. You skew what I said from loving meaningful relationships to a relationship for the sake of sex. Maybe you should be examining this behaviour as a cause of unplanned pregnancy instead of skewing my words and comparing loving relationships to purely sexual encounters.

You say: “Sex is the precursor to pregnancy.” Well go on ! ( Why aren’t gays getting pregnant?) If women know this and can’t afford the consequences of abortion, why do they engage in unprotected sex? Why don’t they and their partners consider the consequences? Read my posts, I have made clear my pro-contraception position and opinions on unplanned pregnancies.

You say: “Abortions have been around since the cave days.” How does that justify an abortion? We’ve had rapist around since the cave days so following your logic rape must be okay. No. Moreover, we have a social structure and a welfare system that women can access. This was provided, I might add, with the help of males with socialist ideals? It must follow that certain socialist ideals prevent abortions. It may also be noted that the drug use is bound to see couples making wrong choices.

If women know that backyard abortions are so horrendous, then why make that choice. Your argument is much like a teenager who threatens to cut her arms if she doesn’t get her way or a male who threatens suicide to coerce his wife into staying in a bad situation. It’s manipulation. It’s threat. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s cliché -status scaremongering and propaganda that most people have heard ad nauseam. I reject them as reasons to legalise abortions. Besides, given the waiting list and state of our hospitals, you’re probably not much better off.

The backyard-abortion plea implies responsibility for that mistake lies with the pro-lifers and that is just as silly as the murder guilt trip of the far right. The woman and perhaps her partner are responsible for that choice. Someone else has suggested re: drugs, etc. that next the lobbyists will want to legalise crime.