Dan,

I did read the article. Indeed I read the entire act. The key comment to pay attention to is that there are circumstances where abortion is lawful. Therefore your claim that abortionists should be jailed is incorrect.

Runner,

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You claimed that someone wanted to put Christians in jail. That is clearly and obviously a demonstrable falsehood. I stated that bible believing Christians are deserving and will receive ridicule and that they are possibly dangerous. But nobody in the entire discussion suggested they should be jailed on account of being fundamentalist Christians. However if and when they start bombing abortion clinics or gassing Jews in the name of the Saviour then too right they should go taken away from civil society.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? What is wrong with your brain or moral reasoning that makes the admission of error so hard? It's not really that hard. Here's an example: "Oh OK, I was wrong. Nobody wrote that Biblical Christians should be put in jail". It's that easy.

Last night I attended a meeting of the "Sea of Faith" to hear Rick Barker speak on "The Godly Delusions of Richard Dawkins: The Darwina Codes". The somewhat harsh title contrasted with rather convivial in content and discussed the differenced between "Darwinism" and "scientist" as an ideology versus the actual scientific contributions of Darwin and the facts and theories of the evolution.

During the question time after the presentation a woman made the claims that there have been (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) no observed instances of speciation and that there are (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates) no intermediate fossils. I suggested to the questioner that this was not the case and that references could be provided, the person got up from their chair, put their hands over their ears and started to make for the door saying 'No, I don't want to hear it! I don't want to know!.

She reminded me a lot of you.

Lev,

My contention (no more and no less) is that anyone who commits serious crime should be jailed.

You claim to have read the whole Crimes Act. Are you a lawyer, a criminal, or did you just read it for fun?

If you have read it, then you would know what saying is correct. (Illegal) abortion is still listed as a crime.

If this was not the case, why were Labor in Victoria discussing decriminalising abortion?

(He talks about people putting their fingers in their ears!)

Dan,

The Victorian Crimes Act is readily available. As someone who used to be somewhat involved in political activity as the policy convenor for a faction of the ALP and a member of several policy committees (including a three year stint as President of one) I occassionally have a look at legislation.

Obviously illegal abortion is a crime (by definition); and, as I stated, there are cases when abortion is legal. The legal system is not always a yes or no situation. Some laws and circumstances are given precedence over others.

The decriminalisation of abortion is simply part of this process.

Regards,

KatieO "You are trampling all over the freedom of expression that the UNHRC was set up to protect. "

Can you please explain how by suggesting that I think a balance is missed with this work I'm trampling all over freedom of expression?

I've not called for it to be banned, rather pointed out that it appears to me (in the absense of better information) that the purpose of the piece was to offend and that I think freedom of expression like most freedom's carries with it responsibility.

I'm sure that most of us could think of some images involving loved ones that we would consider it inappropriate for someone else to create and put on public display.

I don't think legislation is an appropriate solution but responsibility and respect should play a greater role in discussion of freedom of expression. Those of us who do value it should perhaps take care not to applaud those who abuse that freedom just because others who don't much like freedom have opposed something.

R0bert