"What have you got against Anglo Celtic babies?
Are you a racist?"

Why should I have anything against Anglo Celtic babies?
I see them as no different to any other babies.

I don't think that mothers should be forced to have
babies that they don't want, don't believe in dumping
them into orphanages either. But then I don't have
a demographic agenda, unlike some.

All very simple really. Let mothers have babies when
they are loved and wanted, thats a win-win all round.

We still have this nonsense about women rights over their own bodies, where this simply is misguided as an argument.

If I as an owner of a property have the sole right over how I deal with my property then no one but myself can dictate me about this. If then I allow my property to be used subject to a lease by a tenant then I have effectively given up my sole right of decision making by my own doing. I cannot then argue that I have the sole power over my own property where I have myself restricted this right by entering into some form of agreement with someone else.

If I desire to have the pleasure/benefit of someone else using my property then so I have to accept any consequences that reasonably can be expected, including consequences that may perhaps be less then pleasant.

A women has the right of her own body and I hold no one can demand that a woman has to become pregnant. No one can demand that a woman shall have sexual intercourse. However, if a woman gives up that right by engaging in sexual intercourse and have her body occupied by the penis of a man then she can no longer complain about the consequences of such conduct she allowed to occur by her own doing. She gave up her sole rights by engaging in sexual activities.
Likewise when a women gets herself impregnated by IVF she had given up her sole right by this.
Therefore it is not that some stranger has a power to override her sole right rather that she herself has given up that sole right by her own doings.
If she desires to have the benefits of sexual intercourse or having an IVF treatment then she no longer, by her own decision, can claim to have sole rights.
Why indeed should a woman be entitled to have IVF if somehow she still can claim she has every right to abort the unborn child because it is her body?
Simply,-don't-make-decisions-to-give-up-your-sole-right-or-face-the-possible-consequences! It is that simple!

Celivia: "Seems that there is a need for the invention and manufacturing of artificial wombs."
Yvonne: "Celivia, love the idea of artificial wombs. Methinks the whole anti-abortion debate would then deflate like a balloon!"

Yeah, this will solve the whole debate, won't it?

Scenario 1: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
Then finds out her husband is cheating and wants a divorce.
She wants to abort as she will not raise *his* children!
The husband wants to raise the child.
Whose "rights" prevail?

Scenario 2: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
The husband finds out from tests he's *not* the father.
He wants to abort, she doesn't.
Whose "rights" prevail?

Scenario 3: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
Weeks later, *before* the foetus is viable, both parents die in a car accident.
Should the foetus be aborted? Who decides?

Scenario 4: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
Weeks later, *after* the foetus is viable, both parents die in a car accident.
Should the foetus be aborted? Who decides?

Scenario 5: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
The embryo divides into twins.
She didn't want twins, just *one* baby.
She wants to abort one embryo.
Whose "rights" prevail?

Scenario 6: A woman transfers her embryo to an artificial womb.
The embryo divides into twins. She's happy!
Around the 18th week, she finds out one twin is deformed and will probably not live more than a few years before dying.
She wants to abort it, but the abortion poses a high risk of death for the *other* foetus.
Whose "rights" prevail?

As you can see, the issues haven't evaporated:
Do the unborn have rights?
Do fathers?
Do doctors?
Does the state?

Same old questions, only this time you won't be able to just chant "Her body! Her body! Her body!".
These embryos aren't *in* her body!

You'll actually have to come up with a real argument that resolves the questions of who has *what* rights and under what *circumstances* do they prevail over the rights of others.

Geritt, the argument is not misguided at all. The world has simply
changed a bit, you havent noticed, or are perhaps too old to change
your thinking. Thats life.

Sex is a natural and normal, instinctive human drive. People don't
only do it to make babies, they do it as its enjoyable, etc. etc.
You have given no good reason why that should not be so.

If a woman agrees to have sex, that does not mean she agrees to
have a baby. In today's world, they are separate issues.

Women might have sex for most of their adult lives, yet its only
2-3 out of the 400 appr times they could have a baby, that they
actually can afford them, want them, etc. The other 398 potential
babie are flushed down lifes toilet, thats the reality.

Thats progress for you. Children that are actually wanted, loved
and cared for!

Shocka, an artificial womb would certainly change the argument.
For people like you, screaming the loudest, we could flood you
and George Pell with sperms and ova, as many as you want.
You could then nurture and feed them all at your expense,
that would soon shut the lot of you up :)

You'd then also take the trouble to understand Darwin's argument,
that potentials of any species can be created in virtually
unlimited amounts, its resources to raise them that are the
limiting factor in this world.

"Shocka, an artificial womb would certainly change the argument."

Not as much as you think.
You'll never get them anyway.
No company would risk the legal liabilites if something went wrong!
But hypothetically, you still have to decide what the "rights" of the various parties are.

Do the unborn have *any* rights in an artificial womb?
Do fathers?
Does the state?
Why don't they have these rights now?

"*Flood* you with sperms and ova, *as many as you want*.
Potentials of any species can be created in *virtually unlimited* amounts."

Here we go with the population growth nonsense, which wouldn't occur if we stop immigration.

Population growth projections are based on *current* trends, without considering catastrophes, technological inventions, or changed behaviour that would alter the prediction.

A meteor could hit us, wiping out most of the world's population.
An influenza epidemic could do the same.
We could colonise other planets or live in space or under the sea.
Plain and simple: We just *don't know* what the future is.

And the sinister "demographic agenda" accusation.
Ooh, scary! My eyes are gleaming a hellish red.

Any babies born here would simply reflect the *existing* demographics of whoever lives here (i.e. reality).
How is this an "agenda"?

Sounds like regular old genetic inheritance to me, something I can't do anything about.

Is there something *wrong* with the existing genetic demographics of Australia?
To say so makes *you* the racist.

George Pell?
I really wish you'd get over this automatic lumping together of religious and non-religious opponents.

We share an opinion, but for different reasons, which you ignore because it's too difficult for you to deal with secular arguments.

I've clearly stated that my opinions are based on science and philosophy, which are a lot more complex than your "rationalism" would like to admit.

If our lives were only based on the "rational", we'd have no music, no dreams, no chocolate eclairs.
What a boring world your rationalism would create!

Newton and Darwin have been replaced by Einstein and Chaos.
Get with the times, Yabby!
Is that a butterfly's wings I hear fluttering?

I must catch up!

Shockadelic,
“Women shouldn't be forced to raise unwanted children. Adoption and fosterage are available.”
It’s irrelevant what’s available. Women should not be forced to give birth, that’s the point of abortion.

“All the post-pregnancy *control* can only be the woman's. “
Yes, you got it, congratulations- who else do you suggest should have control over a woman’s body? The anti-abortion brigade? Don’t YOU want control over YOUR own body?

“Your religion's priority is to *control* others.” Feminism is a movement, not a religion.”
There are not ‘others’. Embryos are not “others’.
As for ‘religion’, equality between sexes is what feminism broadly is about- and although there are religious feminists, feminism and religion don’t necessarily have anything in common. I happen to think of feminism and religion as a bit of an oxymoron.

“Prostitutes' …have *controlled* their bodies for millenia! Why can't other women?”
Ah, you mean why can’t women today continuously breast feed, eat beaver testicles, flush the vagina with acid, push little rocks and fruit pips into the uterus, dance under the moon, or insert a sponge dipped in lemon juice during sex?
So, women could, but don’t want to. They now prefer safer and more reliable methods.

FYI in the past prostitutes had abortions ALL THE TIME by using natural abortifacients like toxins or herbs such as pennyroyal.