Celivia,

Those are two great posts. We need to shape a culture in which men and women are taught from an early age that sex is part of life for nearly everyone, that it is intimate, enjoyable and full of consequences — emotional as well as physiological. They will have to learn about it as they learn about other parts of life. But because sex can produce babies, they must also learn the basic rule: do not bring unintended and unwanted babies into the world: it can be disastrous for the baby and very difficult for the mother. If that culture were widespread, we wouldn't have many abortions. That might not be Mr Palmer's preferred option, but then one needs to ask what exactly his priority is.

I am reminded of the old joke that Presbyterians are opposed to sex because it leads to dancing...

"The religious anti-abortion lobbyists seem to obsess over the fact that sex happens between non-committed partners."

You hit the nail right on the head there Celivia! If one follows
the thinking of religious warriors in the US, they want to stop
all that so called evil fornicating. As their kids are taking
no notice of all the abstinence preaching, they want the
big stick of forced pregnancy, to enforce their agenda.

Educate kids about contraception and allow abortion and there
is no big stick to wield, to threaten then with.

The figures are clear. Good contraception and education
can massively reduce abortion rates, but then it does not
deal with their main concern, ie. all that so called evil
fornicating. IMHO that is what this whole argument is really
about, as the evidence shows.

Yabby,

You say, “The point is, your religious argument should be yours, not enforced on others by law”.

But your non religious viewpoint can be forced on me, by law if possible. We live in a democracy and in a democracy we have free speech and the religious and non religious can and must jostle over issues.

It never ceases to cause a wry smile and shake of the head to realise just how intolerant the non religious are! What would you like to see done to a country Doctor who refuses to undertake an abortion because of his moral scruple?

Again you say, “What you have not addressed is when an organism becomes a person”.

I do think personhood is a post birth thing but I challenge you to say what you mean by “an organism”. 24 weeks after conception that so called “organism” has a better than 50% chance of survival and as you would say, better than 50% chance of survival "as a person". The point I’m making, which you and others like you seem unwilling to accept (and for no good logical reason other than prejudice), is that that “thing” in the womb is a human person in the making and you would allow it its life to be taken from it. We Christians believe the weak and the defenceless, including the unborn are to be defended.

Yes men and women are individuals, but they do not exist in isolation – they live in communities and must get on with one another. We are inter-dependent individuals. We can never just “decide what we are and want” – this is not the reality of our lives. We are always conforming to societal, communal and family norms, and you are no different to the rest of us. You object to me allowing my religion to shape my attitudes. On the basis of what you have written, I object to whatever is motivating you to write as you do and I won’t be put off by your intolerance

I'll try again. I agree with David Palmer that he has as much right as anyone else in our deomocracy to state his point of view. And he has as much right as anyone else to try to persuade others that his view should prevail. If he is successful enough, MPs and Senators (and their State equivalents) will legislate his way. Later, things may change, and he will have to put up with that, while he continues to try to persuade us otherwise.

He may think that abortion is somehow more important than other kinds of 'killing', if he thinks that abortion is indeed the killing of a person. The trouble is that there is such ambiguity about killing. We kill 'enemies' in battle, and quite possibly a majority of Australians would approve of killing murderers of certain kinds. If there is something special about abortion, in this context, I would like to hear what it is, and when and how a foetus becomes a 'person', in his opinion, and why his opinion should be taken very seriously.

My own view has been expressed already, and Mr Palmer doesn't persuade me to abandon it. The person who has to bear the child and look after it is the potential mother. I can't see why anyone else is in a position to tell her what to do. For what it is worth, the women I know with whom I have talked about this issue strongly dislike the notion of abortion in principle, but accept that it may be necessary in certain cases. I think (but cannot prove) that this is close to the majority position in Australia now. My preferred position is to educate everyone to accept sexuality and sexual behaviour as completely natural, and to guard against unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. We will never be completely successful, but this strategy ought to reduce the number of abortions. And that is what, it seemed, Mr Palmer wanted to do. It would be nice if he commented on that possibility.

Eloquently posted Celivia!

David, why would a non-religious view be forced upon you when the laws on abortion are changed? Just like when the buggery laws were changed it doesn't mean you are forced to have sex with another man or that you even have to condone homosexual behaviour in others.

Why should a woman not have the last word on what happens to her being? There is lots of talk about rights. That's why I cannot understand why an autonomous female being suddenly has fewer rights than a potential human when she is pregnant. Somehow, when pregnant, she must suddenly put herself last, disregard her own rights or needs. Show willingness for any sacrifice.

Many of you have a romantic notion of the sacrificing 'mother'. The Madonna complex. And if she is no Madonna, society with its Christian morals will force her to be a 'real' woman. You wanted sex, you wanton trollop and now you are not going to honour your God given duty to bear children. The feminists have a lot to answer for for this unwomanly behaviour!

Gerrit even thinks that rape is not reason enough for a woman to want a termination. A woman must always love her baby. This subjugation of women is still used today. In Dafur for instance and Burma just to mention two countries.

Men are just going to have to accept that women have wombs and that no man can understand or know what this means. Just as there is something called penis envy, womb envy comes to mind when I read some posters opinions.

An unborn human must have fewer rights than an existing human. They cannot be equal.

I find it hard to keep up with all of you when we are only allowed 2 posts a day and there’s just so much time. I will comment on Don Aitken’s posts tomorrow night.

Yvonne,

As a Christian, I find the concept of an autonomous female or male morally repugnant. We are our brother’s, our sister’s keeper. Not only are we to love God, but our neighbour as well and who could be closer than that developing foetus with every potential for birth and a long and fruitful life before it?

Talk about rights leads in the wrong direction, because it is all about “me first”.

You talk rights, I’ll talk responsibility.

We have responsibilities. The man and the woman have a responsibility toward the developing child the woman carries, to love and cherish it. The problem is that the child was made without love and commitment present between the woman and man (yes I know there are exceptions and some of them are a lot worse). Because of this failure abortion is the fallback for the women left carrying the consequences. I understand this. But do you understand an abortion is the taking of human life, not some undefined human life, but a unique human being in the making with its own unique DNA, with every potential to love, to joy, to bring happiness, maybe even to be a pain in the backside.

I can assure you I would never say “You wanted sex, you wanton trollop and now you are not going to honour your God given duty to bear children.” I would say you wanted love and commitment from a man you considered worthy to share your life with and that sex was to be part of the wonderful glue to cement your relationship and from which a family can be built. That is what I would say. My wife and I waited for marriage and because we waited we married young and my wife of nearly 40 years is more precious than I can ever describe, and we still find the sex is good