I have always thought as abortion as a money making exercise for abortion clinics, and abortion is also used as a symbol of women’s rights by feminists, similar to the sickle and hammer.

So no real efforts are being made to reduce abortion, as it could take away the flag.

Instead we have the same mantra of “women’s rights” = “abortion.”

How about feminists allow some decent studies into abortion, to find out why so much occurs, and then to work from there to reduce it.

Or maybe its not really “women’s rights” after all, but more to do with “feminist’s rights”

Its about the right to choose. Pure and simple. Its about the right to receive objective advise without any special interest group sticking its oar in, whether its pro or anti.

james purser wrote "Its about the right to choose. Pure and simple. Its about the right to receive objective advise without any special interest group sticking its oar in, whether its pro or anti."

On reasoning your comment...the first question arising is 'who will be looking after the rights of the unborn human when their interests is in conflict with the mothers'...as is the usual in these situations...

Sam

Why not come right out and say it Lesley - you want it to be possible for a woman to be able to abort a healthy baby the day before full-term if she simply says that is what she wants. Right?

After all, who are you to say what a woman should do with her own body? (It is a curious thing though that during pregnancy a woman grows an extra head (and sometimes two or three more!), not to mention extra arms and legs, and half the time she becomes both male and female along with all the male genitalia and then amazingly she reverts to being only one-headed and just female after birth! - hmmmmm.)

You say that there is "shame" and "a stigma" about abortion. If there is nothing problematic about abortion why is this so?

Just imagine if there were people protesting outside dentists saying things like 'Save the teeth!', 'Pulling teeth is wrong!'. Would people feel shame or have a stigma about visiting the dentist? Of course not.

It doesn't matter how much you and others try to pretend that there is no baby that is killed in every abortion, it does not change reality.

Women will continue to have abortions whatever anyone says or does. They always have, they always will. They do this not because they are morally retarded or irrational but because they absolutely understand that there is a great deal more to being a mother than simpy giving birth. Quite rightly, women who get pregnant without planning to always assess carefully just how well they are going to be able to parent the child they are bearing. If they decide they are not able to do the right thing by the child, they terminate the pregnancy. This is not simply a rational decision, it is a moral one. There are much worse things than not being born and love cannot be turned on and off like a tap. I chose not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy when I was young because I knew I was not emotionally or psychologically prepared to be a mother. I have not regretted it for one minute. How could I? Had I had that child I would not then have gone on to have the two much loved and wanted children I now have. That is the thing the anti-choice people never consider, that the birth of any child always also prevents other potential children from also being born - that's life.
Women do not want to simply be portals through which other human beings enter the world, they want to be good and loving parents. We cannot create loving families for children if we force women to have children they do not want.
You can make abortion legal or illegal, women will still refuse to birth children they know they will not love the way every child should be loved. Its simply some of the women will die too, if you make it unsafe.

Excellent article. Decriminalising abortion while adding restrictions to abortion under the Health Act will not be any improvement to the current situation and could very easily by used by politicians as an avenue to further reduce access to safe abortion. I doubt that the right wing conservatives would be able to help themselves and could certainly push to add even more regulations to the Health Act.

HRS, abortion is no more a "money making exercise" than is dentistry, general practice, optometry, or any private medical service.

GP, Leslie is not saying what women should do with their bodies but it seems that you are! In theory, if aborting a full term fetus was necessary to save the life of the woman, then yes, it should be a legal option of last resort. Even if a fetus did have legal rights as you imply, why would you think that the rights of an embryo or fetus should outweigh the rights of a woman who it is dependent on? This misogynistic attitude is typical of those who share your viewpoint.

Crumpet head
If abortion clinics are no different to dentists, doctor's surgeries etc, then what are abortion clinics doing to reduce the number of abortions.

I have never heard of anything.

In fact I have heard of abortion clinics that offer no counselling after an abortion, and the only counselling they offer before the abortion is to describe to the woman the actual abortion procedure.

Now this would be different to a dentist surgery for example, where the dentist would probably describe to the patient what to do to avoid the patient coming back again.

Ena,
People will continue to murder, rape and assault people whatever anyone says or does. They always have, they always will.

Stupid logic doesn't help the situation....

The only question that matters in the abortion debate is what is the unborn?

It isn't will live be hard after pregnancy, it isn't will abortions still happen if they are illegal. And plain and simple, science concludes unmistakably that the unborn is a human being.

Anything else is religious/metaphysical beliefs.

Abortion needs to be left to a woman and her conscience Women have the right to advice about the pros and cons of the health side of abortion and that should be given without any moralising.
It's great isn't that other people say a woman should not terminate a pregnancy - and then they go on to say that a single woman should not give up her child.
This is not considering the mother or the child. Not every woman wants to be a mother or should be a mother. There might be fewer abortions and more children available for adoption if those who see it as their role to interfere were less hell bent on insisting that children have the 'right' to be brought up by their natural parent - as if being brought up by a single mother who was not too keen on keeping you anyway is some sort of advantage.
We have made adoption a 'bad' thing when it has been around for as long as man and was sometimes considered to be a great advantage.

HRS, abortion clinics are probably doing about the same to reduce unplanned pregnancy that dentists are doing to reduce tooth decay. They provide information about contraception, prescriptions to patients who require one, information about how to take the pill, and about the momrning-after-pill when required. In any case, women seeking terminations are not just there because of contraceptive failure. It's also largely because of relationship breakdowns. (unplanned pregnancy is the real test for how strong a relationship is) To reduce the number of abortions, perhaps Tony Abbott should provide free relationship counselling instead of trying to talk women out of having a termination.

Women who are undecided about their decision to terminate should certainly receive non-directive counselling if they seek it, but why do you believe that abortion clinics should second-guess the dificult decision that the woman has already made? Do you think that women are not to be trusted to make this decision for themselves? Abortion clinics have a legal obligation to ensure that the women are having an abortion for reasons within the current legal framework and that she is not just there because her husband or parents want her to terminate. It is an anti-coice myth that clinics will provide an abortion on anyone who walks through the door. Women are frequently turned away from clinics in order to give them more time to seek independent non-directive counselling.

Crumpethead, you say, "In theory, if aborting a full term fetus was necessary to save the life of the woman, then yes, it should be a legal option of last resort."

But don't you see that you miss the point completely? If Lesley Cannold gets what she wants there will be no requirement for the woman's life to be at risk. No reason will be needed to get an abortion. It will be abortion simply on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

As it stands today, a woman who has an abortion can be charged under criminal statutes, but in practice this doesn't occur. Who is to say that someone like Julian McGauran becomes Premier and he decides to charge all women who have had an aborton retrospectively, say 30 years after the event? He is probably drawing up charges against over half the female population but if he is committed like Tony Abbott . . . . . .

The anti-abortionists like Julian McGauran can and has successfully hounded a woman and her doctor for inducing an abortion. This situation can be repeated time and time again. Do we want to be like Roumania where women were forced to have babies that they left to rot in orphanages? What makes you think Australian orphanages are ideal places for children to grow up in? Have you read the articles by Bernie Matthews about children growing up in state care?

As a 20 year old female university student, I would like to state that I believe it is NEVER ethically acceptable for a woman to have a convenience abortion. Statutory Legislation should not be changed to accommodate this.

Certainly there are mitigating circumstances. But "oops, I really didn't want to carry a child for 9 months yet" isn't one of them.

Stop making this issue about feminism. This is not about the autonomy of the mother. This is about non-maleficence to the foetus or embryo. When we're talking about the right to convenience vs. the right to exist, it is evident which right is more important.

James Purser said “Its about the right to choose. Pure and simple.”

And I wholly agree.

As for Sam said’s question “'who will be looking after the rights of the unborn human when their interests is in conflict with the mothers”

No one should. Where the interests are in conflict, the woman’s rights must prevail.

The rights of the unborn are the same as the rights of the un-conceived. If an unborn’s or unconceived’s rights were to prevail over the woman’s, you are declaring every pregnant woman a slave to her biology.

You would be declaring that a woman is merely a vessel for the procreation and production of the next generation, a life support system for a uterus - subordinate to the unborn -

and that is a heinous argument.

The phrase "abortion on demand" is a worn out and completely baseless assumption that women will simply turn up on a doctor's door and demand an abortion and the doctor will comply. This simply will not happen. Is it neccessary to legislate against "tonsillectomy on demand" or "hip replacement on demand"? Of course not. A doctor who behaved in this way would soon be sued by a patient who was unhappy with the outcome, or would be deregistered by the medical board. The same applies to any doctor who performed "abortion on demand". This is why it is not legally necessary to treat abortion any differently to other surgical procedure.

For any medical or surgical treatment, doctors are already required to take a detailed history, assess any risks to the patient and whether these risks outweigh the benefits of the treatment. If a patient does not meet these criterea, then the doctor can't proceed. This is already the requirement for ALL procedures, not just abortion therefore even without abortion in the crimes act or the Health act, it will never be "abortion on demand".

YngNLuvnIt: Perhaps you could expand on what "mitigating circumstances" you would deem acceptable for a woman to be able to circumvent the criminal stature on abortion? Does the termination that ena describes above satisfy your "mitigating circumstances" or does it fall within 'YngNLuvnIt's "oops" principle' (and is therefore unacceptable)? Because it's all subjective, isn't it? That's the problem with the ludicrous position of the law as it stands.

Why can't women be trusted to make their own reproductive choices; YngNLuvnIt could adhere to the "oops" principle and other women could decide their own priorities.

Also, "as a 20 year old female university student" I'm sure you must be aware that a "right to exist" is an ephemeral and contentious philosophical issue with no "evident" answer. Whilst you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, please do not presume that unsubstantiated assertions are "evident" to others.

white women shore do like that abortion, they jus gotta show who's got the power. Teach their men a lesson. Wonder how the world'll get on after white folks are gone with their power. There's no jihad like racialcide.

"With Margaret, women who seek abortions know just where they stand." - My suspicion is aroused as the author seeks to use her own licence to alienate both sides. Nothing is futher from the truth. Of all people, Margaret Tighe would have more compassion for the pregnant women than anyone else. Divide and conquor does not wash here Leslie.

"Unplanned pregnancy is a fact of life." - Profound statement! I think the debate has moved on a little.

"The ACT repealed abortion from the criminal code in 2002" - Is it a coincidence that the ACT is the porn capital of Australia. The place where degradation of women is promulgated.

"The position politicians and the public take on repeal reflects their view of women as moral decision-makers." - I don't agree. I think the fate of new life is a consideration here as well.

"It will be abortion simply on demand at any stage of pregnancy."

So GP, if abortion on demand was accepted in the first tremester,
as is now becoming fairly standard in the Western world, would
you accept it?

When the abortion debate happened in WA, we had the right
to lifers singing their Ave Maria's. That kind of revealed
who was behind their campaign.

"white women shore do like that abortion, they jus gotta show who's got the power. Teach their men a lesson. Wonder how the world'll get on after white folks are gone with their power. There's no jihad like racialcide."

Ok aqva, so please say whats on your mind deep down, ie. are your
tribal instincts surfacing, as you wonder about your white tribe
versus a perhaps light brown tribe?

Is that your real concern in this debate?

Yabby poor soul. So intent on justifying your own behavioral thinking.
Ms. Cannold finished her article with a very explicit statement which boils down to, if your not pro abortion, your anti abortion, anti womens health, anti choice, think all women are amoral, and no in betweens allowed. As for the white jibe, the statistics show that the majority of women having abortions are white 25-35, educated, and with good employment. If your going to advocate for Ms. Cannold's extremist thinking at least have the intellectual freedom to follow the stats to their ultimate end. Which is poor, uneducated white women, and their families struggling even more. How does that mesh with your idealism. Quite frankly any normal less politically sexist person than yourself would see such a concept as ass backwards and have poor, uneducated women being encouraged to abortion, and the wealthy, educated to carry to full term. And Yabby honey, feminism is a "white thing", not an inter racial concept. Your racism is showing in that snide comment.

Great article Dr Cannold. There is no reason not to reform abortion laws.

Those who think it is a bad thing do not need to avail themselves of an abortion. I do not think there will be any clauses that will make abortions compulsory.

Aqvarivs, stop the stirring. Terminating pregnancies is not a modern Western white feminist invention.

Matters of fertility and childbirth used to be in the domain of women only in times gone by. Women's business so to speak. The human race hasn't done too badly, women appear to have been pretty responsible. The dying out of any human race can be laid at the feet of murderous male warriors killing living, breathing humans. Not women aborting foetuses. Outlawing armies, guns and sundry weaponry would be more relevant to the debate of 'right to life'. It at least it would of benefit to all existing humans, not unborn potential humans.

"Your racism is showing in that snide comment."

Aqva honey, my racism? I remind you that it was you who was
pondering about the future white race and its power, not me lol.

What you have done is confirm my belief that people are tribal
by nature. Personally I can see huge advantages in everyone
landing up light brown! No more skin cancers for instance.
There is nothing about the white race that I cling to or want
to cherish forever, its just another race of people.

As I have commented on the other abortion thread, Aqva, its
time that you learned tolerance.

Celivia's suggestion is a great one! For all those pontificating
males on these threads, its time that technology developed
a portable, artificial uterus, so that you can all go and
rescue those little zygotes and take care of them for the
next 21 years. Sheesh, I can just see those men running
for the covers :)

Let me see, the first 27 we could dispatch to George Pell.
We'd see how he would cope with all those nappies :)

If abortion was used as such a convenience a couple of decades ago most of the posters might night even have a say on the issue. As has been said women who have turned off their natural instincts have turned this into a feminist rights issue rather than a women's rights issue. I wonder when was the last time the Age ran an article from someone opposed to abortion! Change the words but murder is murder. And we have the hide to moralize to other nations.

"Change the words but murder is murder."

Well Runner, next time that you ejaculate, for your own sordid
pleasure, I hope that you will feel terribly guilty! :)

For as you say, murder is murder! Millions of little sperms
will die, murdered by you!

They are human and they are also beings. Hopefully
you will have some sleepless nights over these many
murders. :)

Actually I think womb rental with proper surrogacy laws in place to protect the mans financial investment would be a good idea and reduce the number of abortions and unwanted children women have

Yabby

I think you see some basic biology lessons!

Its all about ME.

And whatever l say about me is so.

Why cant we just admit these things about ourselves.

Miss_Allaneous “Of all people, Margaret Tighe would have more compassion for the pregnant women than anyone else.”

One of the defining characteristics of “compassion” is “respect”.

Denying a woman the right to exercise sovereignty over her own body is a denial of “respect”.

Compassion without “respect” is merely “patronising”.

No one likes to be “patronised” but that is all that Margaret Tighe really stands for.

Runner “If abortion was used as such a convenience a couple of decades ago most of the posters might not even have a say on the issue.”

You know unless I am mistaken, it was.

Legal or not, abortion laws have been broken repeatedly since their inception. I would note, prior to the first half of the nineteenth century “abortion” was not legislated against.

The purpose of abortion laws were intended to protect the pregnant women (and not foetuses) from charlatan physicians who had peddled abortions services for centuries, at a time when the nearest thing to a “contraceptive” was something fashioned from the entrails of a sheep.

As for “who and when”, maybe some posters would not be here, maybe you, for instance.

When we think about it, recognising that intercourse does not presume pregnancy, the only reason anyone is here is an event of nature which might well have required an alignment of the planets (as much as the thrusting of the hips).

As it is “murder” is not “abortion” and “abortion” is not “murder”.

Just go to dictionary.com.

Each is defined and neither refers to the other in there respective definitions.

Whilst it might convenience your hyperbole to pretend they are the same, the fact is, “murder” is an action directed against an individual or several individuals.

A foetus is not an individual.

A foetus is, undeniably, adjoined to, indivisible from and subordinate to, the pregnant woman in whom it is developing and does not represent a “separate” identity / entity at any time prior to the moment of birth.

A fact acknowledged by the issue of a birth certificate (noting there is no “conception certificate”).

Well Col Rouge, thank God for Dictionary.com!

If Dictionary.com says it, it must be so!

Murder is the name the state gives to the crime of killing someone. Effectively, abortion is no longer a crime, so it is not murder.

However, in any state or nation and time in history, abortion will always be the killing of a life. Abortion = killing and that's a fact, no matter what dictionary.com might have to say about it.

Stop&think

If you want a debate then bring it all on but do not bother to bore us with your own semantic interlude directed at attacking me.

Start by challenging my argument on why you should not interfere in the sovereign decisions of others and why other people should not be allowed to interfere in your sovereign decisions.

In short, I suggest you dispense with your “trite emotions” and utilize some “rational reasons”.

The outcome may be less “emotively colourful” but it will be more “argumentatively substantial”

I look forward to your response but somehow think you lack the metal to score any real points

Interesting.

A completely hypocritical post from Col Rouge. Read my post again and find where I attacked you and point it out. Then read your post and see how you attacked me. That is, if we take the Dictionary.com definition of attack as "to begin hostilities against.."

I was simply arguing the point that despite what a dictionary says, there are human actions that are always categorised as killing, whether or not we decide to name them murder, abotion, termination, cessation of pregnancy etc.

Be careful about "the sovereign" decisions of others. The state has always interfered in the sovereign decisions of others when those decisions have led to actions that deprive others of that very sovereignty.

It's funny that you say I am emotional - I suppose because I used exclamation marks. I haven't used them here, and I have made sure I am "argumentatively substantial". People on my side of the argument are normally accused of being too unemotive, while those who support 'pro-choice' stances are carried away by the emotions of a difficult moral conundrum.

But lets get to the point - this will always come down to an argument about whether those 'others' I mentioned before are really human beings. I think they are, you don't, and that's the argument. Scientists and doctors know when life begins and so do many of us, but the truth is just too hard to face. Abortion is a sad reality, I just wish those who support it would accept that they are allowing themselves to compromise on this moral issue.

P.S. The most annoying argument for me on your side of the debate is the one that says "Well every sperm and ova that die off is the killing of a life." These people need a good lesson in logic and common sense, or a brief course in causailty. Without each other, neither will ever become a human life; a soon as they are joined, human life is inevitable. Every time. Why is this so hard to see? Now that is certianly a case of emotion clouding someone's thoughts.

stop and think, it seems that you miss the point. Murder applies to
people, killing applies to anything. We kill trees and lettuces,
for your benefit. We kill all sorts of things every day, just for
you, if you don't do it yourself.

Murder applies to people and a zygote is not a person.

Why you draw your little moral line in the sand at zygotes, is
yet to be explained, apart from usually religous reasons.

Yabby, if you read my post above, you wont find a religious point of view at all.

You are right - I should have been more specific. The killing of a person is always wrong (I just assumed that understanding). I agree with your distinctions.

But once again, the argument, as I said above, comes down to what you and I classify as a 'person'. There are some ethicists (Peter Singer for example) that consider consciousness or consciousness of self as a necessary condition for personhood. That is why he ranks some animals higher in the personhood hierarchy than young babies.

But don't you see that I am not drawing a "little moral line"? I am making a very black and white statement: when a sperm fertilises an ovum there is a radical change that occurs. Either gamete on their own would never become human, but as soon as they join, there is an unbroken unity: a human being, that will never become any other type of being, such as, let's say, a pig, or a horse, or a flower...or a lettuce.

Indeed, it is those who disagree with the above that draw a "little moral line" because they all choose a certain stage in the development of the child (most likely a comfortable time, like late-term, or even birth) at which they say the human is now a person. That is what I call drawing a line, and as I said, there are many lines drawn at different stages.

Some say development of the brain, some say development of all vital organs, others, when the foetus starts to finally look like a person. Singer says self-consciousness, so that might be at 3 or 4 years old.

I don't draw a line- like many others, I say when the most important event occurs: fertilisation. If it doesn't happen, a human person will never result. If it happens, a human person will always be the result.

Doesn't this make sense?

Again, no hint of religion here.

"If it happens, a human person will always be the result."

Absolutaly not, its a long way from a zygote to a person.
So your argument does not make sense and is simply one of
semantics.

I think that there are enough definitions of words around,
so that we can clarify their meaning.

A zygote is a human organism, its not yet a person. A
potential person perhaps, but it carries human dna,
just like sperms and ova. Big deal, lots of cells carry
dna. We kill them all the time when we graze our knee
or whatever.

There is alot of semantic rhetoric used by right to lifers,
like "unborn child". If its not yet born, then its not
a child.

If it hasn't got a human brain, how can it be a person?

Of course we draw moral lines in the sand, for morality
is a subjective question. There is no such thing as
objective morality, just lots of subjective opinions.

We get back to the original point. Murder applies to
people, killing to everything else. We kill things
every day. So what

What it comes down to is it's very important for some people to kill their offspring. Just like some animals do. I think it's a shocking thing to do but, for those who must, it probably is better for everyone in the long run. Finding the excuse to do so should be 'slightly' more difficult than the excuse to not have taken contraceptive measures. Still as a human being, I don't think it ought to be encouraged and the abortion laws are sufficient to the task as they stand. The high price is already being paid at around 100,000 per year.

Stop&think” A completely hypocritical post from Col Rouge.”

Nothing hypocritical about what I said, except in your eyes. I suggest you come up with some argument rather than simply firing off rounds of emotional hyperbole.

Re “The state has always interfered in the sovereign decisions of others when those decisions have led to actions that deprive others of that very sovereignty.”

Yes, however, unlike a child or adult, an embryo or foetus has never held the same position, status or sovereignty “in law” or “for the state to interfere in” as someone who has actually been born.

RE “while those who support 'pro-choice' stances are carried away by the emotions of a difficult moral conundrum.”

The “extreme emotional act” of bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion Staff or demanding women be imprisoned for seeking an abortion have never been pursued by the pro-choice lobby.

RE equating the expiration of separate Ova and Sperm a killing.

Nothing I ever argued would make use of such a facile comment,

Comparing an egg or sperm to a “life”, where a “life” is perceived as a separate cognitive and autonomous individual . . .

is as moronic as comparing an embryo or foetus to a “life”, where a “life” is perceived as a separate cognitive and autonomous individual

As for the foetus / embryo, whatever rights anyone may assign to it, those rights are only recognized as subordinate to the woman in whose body it is developing. That said, the rights (including choice) of the superior entity (the woman) must always prevail over any rights of the subordinate entity.

Yabby states that until a child is born it is not yet a person. It is this dangerous approach which leads to all sorts of probelms for people, not least of whom, the unborn child. The folly of such an argument can be seen when one considers partial birth abortions. Because the baby's head has not emerged, Yabby's definition of personhood is accepted, and the doctor pierces the back of the head and sucks out the brain with a catheter. Then the deceased body is removed.

Col Rouge will probably say I am being emotive, or calling up people's emotions, but these are simply clear facts.

Yabby says: "it is a long way from a zygote to a person." Well it's a long way from a toddler to a granny - much longer in fact. Yes, the zygote contains cells and DNA, but exactly why this is compared to cells on our knee is bizarre. Is your knee a separate living being that will one day be able to think for itself, breathe and talk? No. A zygote is a very very young human being and that is simply a matter of undeniable scientific fact. It may be dependent on the mother, but so is a 2-year old.

In these debates it is important to get our definitions clear as well, and I can see why Col Rouge and I disagree so emphatically. Col Rouge refers to life as a "separate cognitive and autonomous individual". If you look at my definition above, I talk about biological life, as there is an unbroken continuum with a zygote. Col Rouge's approach is similar to what I mentioned about Peter Singer: personhood based on cognitive levels. I think this is a dangerous stance, as this definition of life would not include some adults, for example those in a vegetative state who have lost cognitivity and autonomy.

I can only agree with aquavirus that humans have always killed their young - it's a fact. Again what I ask for is honesty - call a spade a spade.

"Yabby states that until a child is born it is not yet a person."

I said no such thing. Clearly you cannot read, are trying to
build a strawman argument, or havent stopped and thought :)

Please reread what I actually stated and feel free to comment.
If you have anything intelligent to say, I will certainly
respond.

Meantime please think about why you use the term "unborn child"
After all, you don't call an acorn, an ungrown oak tree, or
a person, a notyet corpse.

Yabby "If its not yet born, then its not a child."

Would this not translate into "until a child is born it is not yet a person"?

Or perhaps you totally despise the word 'child' being used to describe a being before birth. If so, please set out the magical process that occurs through the birth canal that changes whatever it is inside the womb to a child in a matter of centimetres and minutes. I'm sure it will make for an interesting biology lesson.

Now let's not confuse the issue. Acorns and oak trees have nothing to do with human beings. The fact that one in 10,000 acorns becomes an oak tree has very little to do with the process of the originating of human life. The complete lack of logic does nothing for your argument, and responding to my posts by saying I have nothing intelligent to say is a little defeatist, seeing as though you have ignored all of my arguments.

We are talking about the beginning of human life, not the end. Just because the zygote has potential to be a fully grown adult does not deprive it of its status as a human, just as your potential to be a senior citizen does not make you any less a human now. When we start confusing potency with being, we run into many errors. Why would I call myself a notyet corpse? All human beings gain life at fertilisation and lose that life upon death. I am quite right to use the term 'unborn child' as much as I can use the terms infant, teenager, adult and geriatric.

If you wish to make a further post, I suggest to you that you read my posts and begin to actually address the arguments raised, or a continuing debate on this forum will be pointless and immature.

"Would this not translate into "until a child is born it is not yet a person"?"

Nope, it would not translate like that.

How can you have a person, without them having a human brain?
Quite simple, no human brain = no person. Its at about week
25 that we can first describe the development of the brain,
ie. the development of the neocortex etc, as a human brain
being in place.

It was well explained by somebody qualified in the field,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6231

that human life never really begins, but simply continues.

Sperms and ova are cells, they form yet another cell, a diploid
cell. Its still only a cell. It will combine dna in unique
ways, but so what?

Acorns and trees certainly have something to do with it,
given that all life is related.

As Darwin wisely noted, far more potential beings will be created
then can ever survive. Most women could create around 400
little zygotes, so the potential is nearly unlimited. As
resources are clearly limited, its really up to the mother
to decide, which of those 400 potentially cute little babies,
she actually wants to spend the next 20 years taking care of.

Personally I am much more concerned with thinking, feeling,
suffering people and other creatures, then about the rights
of diploid cells, which clearly can be created in overabundance

Let's leave acorns and oak trees, please.

If we are talking about human beings, then the position that you take in support of the other article is quite tenuous. If we were to agree that human life never begins, then you could treat me as you like, because really, what would distinguish me from a big pile of dinosaur excrement?

The neo-cortex can be described as early as the 8th week, and I'm sure, as science progresses, we will be able to track its development even earlier.

Once again there are sweeping generalisations and dogmatic-sounding assertions such as "no human brain = no person". From what authority does this come?

Your final paragraph says it all - you are more concerned with a set group of human people - those people who like you, can think properly, feel things and suffer - than with very young human lives. You even rank "other creatures" higher on your scale. It is interesting that you could rank your pet budgie higher than yourself at 8 months old, simply because you can hear its voice and see it suffer.

If only people could hear the 'silent scream' or see the reality of abortion: perhaps this would wake them up to the reality that occurs.

"Once again there are sweeping generalisations and dogmatic-sounding assertions such as "no human brain = no person". From what authority does this come?"

Stop and think, please stop to think :) What do you call a human
body without a human brain?

If you actually do your neuroscience homework, around week 25 is
when what can be called a human brain is finally in place.

The question about the difference between living matter and a
pile of dinosaur excrement is fairly obvious too. You won't win
arguments based on an attempt at ridicule, sorry

Yes I am more concerned with living, feeling, thinking beings,
then I am with cells, even budgies! I'm not sure where you dragged
the 8 months from, at that point you would have what could in fact
be called a person, based on brain development.

If I had anything to say about abortion laws, I would keep them
quite simple. Abortion on demand in the first trimester, which
is slowly becoming accepted as standard around the world. Then
abortion for special reasons in the second trimester, like
health of the mother, abnormal fetus etc.

No silent screams in the first trimester sorry, which is when
most abortions actually take place.

My solution would neither satisfy the extremists at either end,
ie religious extremists at one end, those who claim partial birth
abortion is ok at the other end.

But then good law is about reaching a compromise somewhere in the
middle

Stop&think “Yabby states that until a child is born it is not yet a person. It is this dangerous approach which leads to all sorts of probelms for people, not least of whom, the unborn child.”

Yabby is perfectly correct.

A foetus has not developed to the point of existing separately to the woman in whose body it is developing, hence, it is not a “child” in the context that a new born baby is a “child”. that is why we have “birth certificates” but no “conception certificates”, because until the moment of birth the individual, as the child, does not exist.

Actually, the “unborn child”, in any context of individually existing and aspiring to claim any individual rights represents a statement which is best described as

a complete oxymoron.

So I suggest, with regard to “Again what I ask for is honesty - call a spade a spade.”

Please practice what you preach.

“Hypocrisy” is an ugly word but any one who deploys emotive misrepresentations like the “unborn child” and then complains about calling “a spade and spade”, one is practicing hypocrisy in its purest form.

My personal view is the only person responsible and capable of deciding if an abortion should be performed is the individual pregnant woman herself.

It is not up to the sexual partner who impregnated her, it is not his body at risk.

It is not up to parents or friends of the pregnant woman, again, it is not their body or life expectations which are being balanced and influenced.

It is not up to government or the state to interfer in the copulating practices of the electorate they are elected to serve.

And it must never be left up to the demands of minority view lobbyists, strangers and the vocal meddlers from prolife, who will bear no responsibility for the outcome of a decision they demand be imposed on individual pregnant women they may never meet.

Yabby,

A few questions:

Is 25 weeks the time we can "first describe the development of the brain" or "when what can be called a human brain is finally in place"?

There are some inconsistencies in your argument, which are not slight, given that you are drawing a line somewhere arbitrary where the being becomes a human person.

I picked 8 months because that is a time when the unborn child (I am not archaic, in error, or unreasonable in using this widely-used term), is still in the womb.

Another serious inconsistency:
"I'm not sure where you dragged
the 8 months from, at that point you would have what could in fact
be called a person" and "If its not yet born, then its not
a child."

Once again, I ask you to clarify the position.

When someone is brain dead, they die. Their brain ceases to function. A zygote has all the DNA for a brain and very quickly starts forming its brain, which will one day process large amounts of information and argue with people on online forums. You can't say that because a zygote hasn't fully developed the brain that it isn't human. What is it then? Call it what you like, but all it translates to is a young human. It's not a young cat or dog.

You may think I ridicule by referring to excrement, but realistically, you cannot follow the argument that life is continuous and never begins, or we are all truly part of some great biological blob that never begins nor ends. Look at the human as a single entity that never existed before and now does. Look at yourself. There was a time you never existed and now you do. What happened to cause your existence? The simple event of fertilisation, without which you would not be arguing with me now.

"Is 25 weeks the time we can "first describe the development of the brain" or "when what can be called a human brain is finally in place"?"

Well if you reread the sentence that I wrote, which included the
"ie", the sentence would make sense to you. But let me explain it
another way, if you are not into neuroscience, with an analogy.

A piece of steel is not a car. It can become a car, along the
line of production. But no engine, you have a chassis. When
the engine is placed in that chassis, even if the wheels are
missing, you could start to call it a car.

So its about stages of development of the human brain, which
is what makes a person. No brain = no person. A brain dead
person is a corpse.

Every cell in our bodies, contains the blueprint to build
another body, including another brain. DNA is a molecule
that replicates itself. The strings of DNA that make up
you, all existed before, in your ancestors. You don't contain
any new ones, unless a mutation occured. Thats why, babies
with 3 legs etc.

The zygote is a diploid cell, which contains the dna of
two other cells. But that dna, to build new brains, is common
as chips, ie in any cell.

As to the word child, you forgot "childbirth". Why not
use proper terminology, rather then emotive rhetoric?
The religious lobby are well known for their tactics in
trying to push emotional buttons. Semantics is one method
which they use.

As far as life beginning, as far as we know, it only began
once. Everything went from there, as dna copies itself and
uses various organisms to replicate itself. The only
thing that is passed on from generation to generation,
is dna blueprints.

There are some interesting lab experiments to begin life
all over again, using the basic chemical soup that was
around, billions of years ago. What you get is strings
of rna, which is also present in cells, like a sister
of dna.