A timely article.

A healthy democracy requires constant input from all points of view. There is real danger in leaving it to extremists to provide most of the input during government policy development. Most government committees provide extreme views with the appropriate weighting. The same cannot be said of politicians. I urge all to contribute their views to policy development debates.

Secondly, I am continually flabbergasted by the willingness of people, who claim to follow religious teachings, to be knowingly deceptive.

It’s ”funny” isn’t it that when mothers/parents are happily pregnant everyone recognizes that the woman is carrying a baby. Nobody enquires about how the fetus or the product of conception is going.

An article in the weekend paper confirmed this in a report about yet another development in ultrasound screening. To quote the article, “the eerie image is the way of the future bringing parents and their unborn baby face-to-face. . . . Philips Healthcare Australian Business manager Ian Schroen said it was an exciting time for parents. ‘There is an instant recognition of a growing baby.’”

We all know, and for quite a few years now we have all been able to clearly see via ultrasound, that a pregnant woman is carrying a baby.

Surveys may or may not indicate that most people want to be allowed to kill such babies. But some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them. If a survey in Germany during the nazi era had shown that most people wanted to legalise the killing of Jews, would that have made it acceptable? Or a survey in Alabama in 1850 that showed most people wanted to allow slavery – would that mean slavery would be legitimate?

Just because most people may want to legalise the homicide of the young does not mean that we should allow it.

Abortion brings out the worst in many people. Most will not commit or admit to an opinion on this issue.
Many defer this to a discussion and a decision between the woman and her doctor. That is how I believe this question needs to be asked.
It comes down to a woman's personal choice, a choice she needs to make- not the state, not the legislator, not God or their own belief system- their own choice. A choice never taken lightly, it is not an easy decision to make to continue with a pregnancy or to terminate. The tragic death of 18 month twins to a woman who already had 4 less than 5 years old is an example. Many are asking if she had gone to another hospital would she now be facing murder charges and her older children possibly now condemned to be remaining in foster care with both parents in jail. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton’s Law) but to take no action because ‘it was God’s choice and you are so blessed’ will not help the siblings in this case. Women are not given all options when faced with moral dilemmas that are conflict with Catholicism if/when attending a catholic hospital.
Abortion is not a decision for one person but a decision the community needs to be comfortable with in providing all choices for women in the community when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

"But some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them."

That's precisely the attitude that generates totalitarian regimes - the very antithesis of democracy. How arrogant of you to think that you are so smart that the views of others should be overridden. No doubt you will now quote from the absolute authority of some superstitious dogma.

Women have been persuaded to trade their integrity & virginity for the so-called freedom & protection of the contraceptive pill. Thus abortion has become the logical 'backup' for failed contraception. Adverse long-term effects of both the 'pill' & of abortion are denied, but poorly inquired about when medicos take a history. Thus a fairly typical scenario is: How many pregnancies? I have 4 children? Any other pregnancies? A miscarriage 8 years ago. Any other pregnancies? IF relevant, then silence & 'I had a termination at 17' & almost invariably a flood of tears.
Neither the Medical profession nor the Pharmaceutical Industry can afford to admit any possible relationship between long term hormonal use
& breast cancer, or any role of first pregnancy abortion in breast
cancer or of significant post abortion sequelae.

Nice article.

Now observe that silent majority attempt to dictate their views as being the only moral one, never mind the immorality of forcing a woman to give birth against her will.

I suppose what bothers me is the refusal to even consider the other side has a moral point of view as well. I can accept they view fetuses as being people and therefore view it in that manner, but they need to take a reality check and see that most people do not. It is when they do not respect this that I have an issue with them.

TRTL writes

'Now observe that silent majority attempt to dictate their views as being the only moral one, never mind the immorality of forcing a woman to give birth against her will.'

Just happens that the vast majority of journalist and writers on this topic impose their pro choice views on anyone they can.

TRTL speaks of the 'immorality of forcing a woman to give birth against her will'

No mention of the immorality she has often committed and then tries to cover it up by murdering her a baby. On top of that the shame is suppose to be on the one who calls this wicked act of murder wrong. Unbelievable!

The religious right are, in essence, no different from Al Quaeda. And they should be treated in the same way.

I wondering if routine or freely available abortion (paid for by the tax payer of course) will eventually lead to more women or men deciding that it is their right to choose whether or not they use contraception.

GP “some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them.”

Babs: “It comes down to woman's personal choice - not the state, not God or their own belief system [sic] - their own choice.”

I think GP has summarised this issue in a nutshell. Before we decide this comes down to “personal choice”, we must determine whether it is an issue where choice should be overriding consideration. Many people (Babs is an example) go straight to that conclusion, and you often hear this stated as if the primacy of choice was inarguable.

In fact, there are many situations where we do not allow choice to be the decider. I cannot “choose” that my schoolfriend is less than human, and bully them; that I have a right to torture my pet; that I can racially abuse or discriminate against someone of different nationality just because, in my opinion, they are not equal to me. A moral society considers mere “choice” or “opinion” is not sufficient to give me free rein.

The issue with abortion is – is a fetus human, and deserving of human rights; or is it not? If it is human, abortion should not be allowed; if it is not, maybe it can be. But the question must be addressed, and should not come down to individual women choosing that their fetus is human or not (which in any event would be a nonsense – how can some be human and others not? Humanity is not a matter of opinion), any more than the right of an immigrant to walk down the street without being insulted should come down to other individuals’ views on their “humanity”.

Forget the demonisation of pro-lifers as the “religious right” (come on everyone: Boo! Hiss!) – that’s just stick and stones. I pride myself I argue against abortion for the same reasons as the abolitionists argued against slavery – to protect those that cannot speak for themselves, against those who feel they have the right to decide who is human and who is not.

Runner - you (and many others) overlook the fact that pro-choice includes the choice not to have an abortion. That is why pro-choice is so widely supported, as it allows you and yours to make decisions based on religious beliefs, and leaves everyone else to make their own decision too.

Thanks for the timely article Anne O'Rourke.

ScienceLaw the decision to proceed with a pregnancy should be the woman's alone. After all she is the one left holding the baby. Our society holds the parents responsible for feeding, clothing, housing their children and teaching them how to behave. If you won't pay the kids medical, education or food bills then you have no right to tell people how to live.

As a grateful taxpayer you might resent medicare funded abortions, which should cost from $60 for RU486 to $700 for a D&C.
The alternative if the pregnancy proceeds at a minimum is
7 monthly antenatal gyny visits @ $120 per visit $840
delivery of baby $2000
hospitalisation of mother, 2 days $1000
standard run of neonatal tests $500

You can add on the costs of caring for the baby through infancy then the costs incurred in childhood until they are capable of earning enough money to keep themselves etc. If the child is not healthy then the child will cost more to rear.

Whereas moral opinion is fairly divided on the issue of abortion, the same nexus is there with the issue of voluntary euthanasia, yet the divide is more exaggerated.

If a popular vote was held on that issue, some 80 percent of Australians would vote to support a person right to die with dignity when their time has come. Yet reforms on this issue are overriden by a very small religious opinion surrounding the concept of the 'sanctity of human life'.

In short, this states that a person must be kept alive at all costs, even if that means subjecting them to a merciless and cruel end to their lives. The wishes of the dying patient are irrelevant.

On this basis countless people who have passed their natural lifespan, have lost all dignity and half of their bodily functions, are kept just alive but comotose - all this rather than leave their loved ones at the time and manner of their choosing.

Here again the extreme religious (minority) view prevails over the prevailing majority.

As we all inexorably move towards the end of our lives it is prudent for us to realize that our terminal days will be determined not by our strongly felt desires but by a religious view that we may not respect. The final indignity.

The abortionist debate has been thoroughly dishonest. It begun in the 60's/70's about the one in a hundred case of the poor girl who was raped. When this debate was dishonestly won (with the 99 in 100 abortions being done for convenience) it became a debate about women's right to choose to kill or to give birth. Billie now puts a price on having a baby (a financial debate). This mass slaughter is a great blight on our Western society. Secularist have succeeded in dulling the consciences of the masses in their immoral quest to justify immoral behaviour. No wonder people put little value on life today. More babies have been slaughtered by abortion than killed in all wars fought over the last couple of hundred years.

Runner says: "no mention of the immorality she has often committed and then tries to cover it up by murdering her a baby."

Actually, I did specifically mention something along these lines. I stated: " I can accept they view fetuses as being people and therefore view it in that manner, but they need to take a reality check and see that most people do not."

Make no mistake, most do not. My point was runner, there are two points of view here. For all your anti-abortion commentary, you never stop and consider the other side has a worthwhile point of view. You haven't stopped to think about it in anything but the most hostile of terms.

I understand your view. You view a fetus as a functioning human being.

I don't. I'm asking you to respect that other people have a different point of view.

My view is that it is the unique sum of our parts that makes us who we are, and a fetus hasn't yet distinguished itself from other fetuses.

Some may try and argue that babies haven't either, but I'm of the view that they don't actually *believe* that, rather it's a strawman argument of semantics to back the anti-abortion case.

ScienceLaw states: " But the question must be addressed, and should not come down to individual women choosing that their fetus is human or not (which in any event would be a nonsense – how can some be human and others not? Humanity is not a matter of opinion)."

I disagree. There is no definitive qualifier here. I have my view as to what makes a human being, I have stated it above. But thousands of years of science and philosophy have failed to quantify this into an answer acceptable for all.

The point of this article is a majority have made a decision as to what's the most practical - and yes, I believe moral - (before you start runner, try to debate this calmly without slurs of 'murder' of baby genocide or whatever other extreme adjectives you'd like to use) decision.

TurnRight: "I disagree. There is no definitive qualifier here. I have my view as to what makes a human being, I have stated it above. But thousands of years of science and philosophy have failed to quantify this into an answer acceptable for all."

TRTL, I think we are back on "it's a matter of opinion - you think it's human, but I disagree". My main point is that it isn't a matter of opinion, nor a question of everyone being entitled to act on their own view as to what makes a human. History has shown the harm that's often done when people do form an opinion that someone else (African slaves, Jewish people, black South Africans) are less human than themselves, based on their own view.

In my view, a human is enough in itself; it does not need to "earn" its human rights by having someone approve it as being human.

If we cannot form a definitive view, we should err on the side of giving the fetus the benefit of the doubt. As I said before, we would not accept that someone has the right to choose to torture a pet, which we all accept is not human - so surely a "might be human, might not, but definitely more human than a pet" deserves at least that protection?

I disagree that thousands of years of science and great minds have failed to agree on this. As someone else pointed out above, the evidence is clear on an ultrasound. It's clear when anyone gives birth that what was present before the birth was the same entity. I have a science degree (molecular biology); I have no doubt that a fetus is biologically human, whether you measure that by DNA tests, brain scans, other physiological indicators. I actually do not believe anyone who says they believe a fetus is not human; I accept there are arguments for abortion, but that - with our current knowledge - is not a valid one.

Dear Kitaro
welcome to OLO..I see you have only been here since the 10th of June.

Ok.. social niceties out of the way.. down to business.

You said:

"Secondly, I am continually flabbergasted by the willingness of people, who claim to follow religious teachings, to be knowingly deceptive."

and my response..

"Firstly, I'm continually flabbergasted by the willingness of secular people who claim their own morality, and knowlingly and deliberately vilify religious people yet not provide a single example"

"Secondly" I'm continually flabbergasted (but unphased) by secular and lefty folks who continually attack anyone Christian, yet do not actually address the specific issue being raised.. and then after a feeding frenzy of unrestrained ripping of verbal flesh off our carcus, (without I might add actually debating the point raised) they then indulge themselves in an orgy of self congratulation and claim 'we did it... victory for us -yayyyy.. see.. we all pointed out your faults' (indeed, but they did not point out weakness in an argument)

So...ur not the only 'flabbergasted' one here :)

There are some notable exceptions in the secular camp to the above and I emphasize that you, who know who you are, are not included in the above 'rant' :)

I urge you to watch.. observe..and hopefully don't make the same mistakes as they.

Here is how it goes:

"You disagree with me? huh? what? oh.. ur a sexist,racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, narccisistic mysoginist and you lack compassion, and also ur a badddd Christian"

If you can avoid such things, and for example on this thread look at "No one says hows ur foetus going" .. and analyze that.. aah.. we would be going well.

On Abortion.... I'm against it. On 'womens choice' I say that is one of the most sexist statements one could find. Children come equally from males and females and a man has as much right to 'decide' the fate of his unborn offspring as a women...Thats my view.

We need a new topic, this one has so much finger pointing.....
I define a religion as strongly held series of understandings about the meaning/purpose or futility of life and the resultant outworking of these. We are therefore all religious

For example, I like black sweet tea, rather than any kind of coffee and this can be seen in the way I buy more tea than coffee, and also in the way that I pay out latte drinkers. I don't hate them, I just can't understand their choices. It seems so clear to me that tea is the wiser choice.

Please don't judge me for my definition of religion, it works for me, makes me feel good about myself and helps me sleep. Or stay awake, depending on the caffeine content.

Of course tea vs coffee is rather less important than the current topic, or maybe is even more important. You choose by all means, since you will or have already.

Further to the current debate; my opinion, based on observation, and so it may be my religious understanding as well, is that people will do what they want to, since they always think about themselves first, and others later on..... even if you make a particular course of action illegal.

The debate comes down to opinions and far too many terminologies are involved for a clear debate. Therefore, I suspect that if we simply reclassify as abortion: the termination of the unborn; the termination those who have been born some time ago that I perhaps don't like; and the termination of those who are suffering with no hope of relief, (noting of course that the latter two are retrospective abortions) we may well be on common ground.

Anyway,
I believe the kettle just boiled, and you know what that means.

More than 80,000 abortions per year in Australia. Yet not one person in a thousand has ever seen a photo of an abortion but everyone has an opinion about it.

How many of you claiming that it is a "woman's right to choose" have ever seen an abortion taking place? If you are honest about finding the truth please visit any of the following sites to see what you are talking about:

www.tellthetruthcoalition.org.au
www.abortionno.org

When you've seen the abortion come back to the forum and tell us what you think. If you are not brave enough to view the abortion then you might like to ask yourself, "Why not?"

Abortion kills a human being. Abortion is evil.

negewnavdlanor- you are trying to use emotion to support your case. In response- as a 17 year old trainee nurse I was 'forced' to assist and accept the saline termination of a pregnancy to a young 20 year old mentally disabled woman as part of my introduction to the real world of nursing. She had not signed any consent. The gestation was said to be unknown, yeah right, yet I was forced to feel this child wriggle around attempting to find a safe spot. This child was birthed <24 hours later. Gestation was estimated to be 25 weeks by the expert. Was this woman given choice to conceive, I don't know but I sure as hell know this woman had no rights to making the decision to terminate. It was done as a matter of fact between her parents and the doctor falsifying gestation.
We had birth control but limited to those married. Before abortion became more readily available I witnessed women harming themselves in attempts to perform back yard terminations or forced into quick marriages. These women were often subjected to control, domination and violence by these men- sound familiar! Children suffered as they watched their mother being bashed night after night.
Until a man is able to conceive and carry a pregnancy then NO MAN has the right to take informed choice away from any woman. This decision is between her and her doctor and no-one else.

Hello Babs,
I wish I could follow your argument....all over this forum we are talking apples and oranges, the gender based argument vs what is a human...

What's suits me at this time of my life vs what's right.

Situational ethics makes for a poor night's sleep, because you are forever asking "what if?". In this case, “what if” the aborted child had the potential to be a genius and maybe solve global warming or the extinction of a species?

Would the possession of a womb allow me to decide what is a human? That's the decision that you are asking the child's mother to make.

If my daughter wanted an abortion and had received good information about all of the options, and still chose to abort, I would still love her. If the biological father had objections, I would hope she would give him a hearing, reach a compromise. I hope she would listen to her mother and I. In the event, we would however privately grieve the lost family member her decision had cast aside.

In the meantime, her mother and I try to teach her how there is no such thing as 100% safe sex, so the best option is committed monogamy. That everything in life involves choices and consequences. That its hard when you are young and facing making adult decisions. I guess as a family we talk about this stuff a lot. My sons know full well that women are more than sex objects. Their friends just don't get to talk about these topics with their parents. I'm doing what I can for my patch of the world.

Ultimately its about respect for life, male, female of all ages. Is there some absolute truth on the subject of abortion, yes there is, but this forum isn't going to agree on it. In the end I'll vote for the candidates that seem to agree with me, and lobby those who don't, as will everyone else. We won't solve it in here.

I wish you well in life,

Cheers

runner: "the vast majority of journalist and writers on this topic impose their pro choice views on anyone they can."

Runner, that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Telling someone to "make their own choice" can hardly be called "imposing a choice".

This is nitpicking, of course. But there is a reason to pick this particular nit. What you are doing here is claiming the victim status. You are saying we nasty secularists are trying yet again to impose our heathen views on poor runner. It is tactic you use often.

That would also be fine, if you weren't so keen to condemn others who do the same thing. Here is a selection of your comments where you do just that:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5532#74672
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6696#100305
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=363#6571
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6853#103153
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5532#74687

And perhaps most fittingly:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5911#82148

Or then again there was the case of a woman here in the NT who had a 'termination' performed. The foetus was evidently removed and placed onto a stainless steel tray and the woman taken from the 'procedure room' to recover. Some time later the cleaner, perchance, came into the 'procedure room' where upon entering, she heard the 'foetus' crying where it had been left lying in the tray some 82 minutes prior.

The matter was given some creedence by virtue of the fact an archivist working at the hospital concerned had verified the story - at some peril to their employment.

Pro-choice certainly, pro-life most definitely, but where in all of this does it give any of us - the adults responsible, the right to butcher so inhumanely a living being in this fashion? If the continuation of a pregnancy puts at jeopardy the life of either the mother or the foetus/child then the termination is quite possibly justified. Irrespective of theological dogmas, it then becomes a medical issue per se.

So it seems more and more with society, that animals are accorded more 'rights' than the unborn foetus. Please excuse me if I am missing the message, but something is very wrong with this picture.

"she heard the 'foetus' crying where it had been left lying in the tray some 82 minutes prior"

Given that a foetus can't breath on its own unless it is very near term, then either this is a very illegal abortion, or a load of rubbish. I leaning towards the latter.

Re Anne O'Rourke's OLO, Melbourne's Herald- Sun newspaper recent report "A womb with a spectacular view "(21/6) should embarrass the Brumby labor government and the Victorian Law Reform Commission. It heralds a time when "parents will be transported into a relaxed atmosphere where they can view their baby's first pictures with family and friends". The image of their baby will be bounced onto a wall, giving the appearance of being inside the womb. Right now this government plans to legalise the killing of babies such as depicted in the accompanying photograph. On the whim of a woman or the say of a doctor. After reading this report and seeing the photograph, even more Victorians than already are, must be outraged. The best thing the
government can do is to forget this bad idea and do something positive instead. Like building a special gaol for abortionists. As a former prison nurse I don't like the idea of abortionists corrupting other prisoners.

Re Anne O'Rourke's OLO, Melbourne's Herald- Sun newspaper recent report"A womb with a spectacular view "(21/6) should embarrass the Brumby labor government and the Victorian Law Reform Commission. It heralds a time when "parents will be transported into a relaxed atmosphere where they can view their baby's first pictures with family and friends". The image of their baby will be bounced onto a wall, giving the appearance of being inside the womb. Right now this government plans to legalise the killing of babies such as depicted in the accompanying photograph. On the whim of a woman or the say of a doctor. After reading this report and seeing the photograph, even more Victorians than already are, must be outraged. The best thing the government can do is to forget this bad idea and do something positive instead. Like building a special gaol for abortionists. As a former prison nurse I don't like the idea of abortionists corrupting other prisoners.

"So it seems more and more with society, that animals are accorded more 'rights' than the unborn foetus. Please excuse me if I am missing the message, but something is very wrong with this picture."

Not at all. How can you rate for example, a four-celled foetus that has at that stage no nerve or brain cells, and hence no thought, emotion or sense of touch or pain, over an adult dog, that has at that point infinitely more intelligence and emotional range.

rstuart you write
'What you are doing here is claiming the victim status'
You totally misread me if you think I am claiming victim status. Anyone who has believed in the Lord Jesus and called on His name could not possibly be a 'victim'. None of the posts you linked have me claiming to be a 'victim'.

The issue I pointed out was that the majority of the secular biased media are in favour of women choosing themselves if they want to kill their unborn. Our national broadcasters are prime examples of this. Given two sides to the story is not an option for them. This however does not make me a victim just because the press are often dishonest. Where you got that idea I will never know. As a biblically thinking Christian I will never be in the majority. I certainly don't feel victimised because of it. All the posts you link me to show how much I dislike people using the 'victim' status dishonestly to gain the sympathy of many.

The fact is that the true victims are those in woman's wombs. They can't speak or defend themselves. It is not the women who want to have sex and then murder their offspring that are victims. It is not the secular media who have a barrow to push that are victims. It is the unborn babies who are the victims.

Hi Sam S and good afternoon.

I am one of those simple souls, who has for most of his adult life, been unable to drive past dead wildlife on the roadside or wherever at whatever time of day or night to turn the still twitching body over to see if a "pinky" - (usually marsupials such as possums or macropods) is still alive in its dead mothers pouch. My last charge now climbs around my back yard & neighbourhood trees carrying a joey on her back... so I get great satisfaction at seeing a small pink jelly bean sized organism grow and mature into a wild creature in its own right. But am I interfering with nature perhaps...? I don't believe that vehicular death is 'natural' for most wildlife, or for dogs or cats.

The last post mentioned by me was not discounting the fact four celled life forms are something I quote "Missed..." unquote.

To appreciate that point thank you for elucidating a biology lesson from 5th class. Frogs legs and Galvanic reactions spring to mind here.

The foetus referred to in my earlier post was not, as I read from the evidence at the time, in its embyronic 4 celled stage and therefore unable to react to basic stimuli such as pain and the like. It was in fact almost full term and the term 'murder' should have been applied in the legal sense to the parties involved in the procedure. Not even remotely, am I applying a religious context at this juncture. For it to have been able to cry would imply it was advanced past the second phase of cellular multiplication.

Sorry if I neglected to explain that earlier Sam, hope this reply can in some way help.

Regards... Albie.

Generalising and labelling religious people as "extremists" and being from the "right" wing is not a legitimate point of view but an insult. Many people, granddads, grandmums, mums and dads and young people who go to church are more than likely to believe in compassion over cold business efficiency and overwork. Many have families and children and interact with love and selflessness if they be true to the Lord. There is no evidence at all that Catholic or Anglican schoolchildren and their parents are "right" wingers or "extremists".
Non-religious people who make such remarks are projecting their OWN totalitarian ideals onto the religious as a result of blindly following the latest post modernist lecturer at their TAFE or University without REALLY thinking for themselves.
To label religious people this way, many of them your own neighbours whom I'm sure you actually LIKE is hypocritical, unscientific ( which is supposedly held in high regard by the non-religious). I would also call the branding of religiosu people by some psoters here as being discrimination and a hate crime( after all the non-religious championed the politically correct nonsense we have all been suffering under the past 30 years).
Alleged "extremists' brought us all the universities, hospitals and respite care for the aged and the severely disabled. Remvoe the Catholic hospitals, aged care and schools and social supports and society would suffer huge problems of compassion deficit.
Long live the alleged 'extremists'! God Bless 'em.

I question why anyone would want to force a woman to have a child that she does not want. Why should any child have to start life with someone that resented their very existance, and endure possible neglect or worse - harm.

If we view it as "life" from the moment of conception then we also obligate the continuance of pregnancy for congenital defects, downs syndrome and the like. No disrespect to those that choose to continue such a pregnancy with love and dedication, but no one should be forced to go down that path unwillingly.

Rojo,
No one forces the mother to keep the child. There are plenty of couples (hopefully married) wanting to adopt children.

A look through another forum revels why abortion has to be heavily regulated, to stop extremists misusing abortion.

One person wanted more girls aborted then boys, because it would eventually give women more choice in who to marry.

Another person wanted to treat men as farmyard animals, where they are harvested for their sperm, and reproduction occurs only through IVF.

Another person wanted to abort baby girls if they thought society was “patriarchal”.

So how can society have stringent laws protecting children when they are born, but have no laws whatsoever to protect children from feminist extremists when they are in the womb, and yet to be born.

So HRS you are bringing up the adoption option again.

In previous decades the babies that were surplus to the adoption needs of childless couples were reared in orphanages with some very sad results, ranging from abuse that bordered on torture through to basic education until sent to work at 14 years old. It's too expensive for state governments actually to pay agencies to rear children in orphanages again, and they don't want to. What proportion of babies were surplus to the requirements of childless couples? A fairly high percentage actually.

In todays figures the number of aborted fetuses surplus to adoption requirements are 63,000 - see below.

CALCULATIONS
assume 1 in 10 couples infertile & want 1.81 children
90,000 abortions
265,900 births in 2007 with 67% of parents in a registered nuptiality see http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3301.0
26,590 babies wanted for adoption each year
63,000 surplus babies to be reared by unwilling mothers or as "wards of the state"

Billie,
You were the loving feminist that wanted children born through IVF, with men being harvested for their sperm

It could be the case where aware and loving feminists such as yourself cannot understand the complexity and sophistication of human society.

Abortion is not very complex, and definitely not very sophisticated, so aware and loving feminists such as yourself choose abortion.

If the woman doesn’t want a baby, then she has a choice of not one, but several forms of contraception.

If she doesn’t want a baby, and doesn't want to use any form of contraception, then don’t have sex (or IVF).

HRS - no form of contraception is 100% effective. There will still be many an unwanted pregnancy regardless of how careful people are with their contraceptive methods.

Which raises the question of what your stance is when a pregnancy occurs despite careful use of contraceptive.

"If she doesn’t want a baby, and doesn't want to use any form of contraception, then don’t have sex."

As has already been said, no form of contraception is 100% perfect. Accidents can and do happen. Most people see sex as an essential part of a meaningful and fulfilling life (and I wholeheartedly agree with them), and will not accept abstinence as an option.

The question of how long after conception should abortion be made illegal is really the only interesting one here, unless someone can come up with a decent argument why, for example, the termination of a four-celled embryo with no brain, nerves, feeling or emotions by morning-after pill should be illegal (without resorting to religion or other superstitions).

I would be very interested to know a number of things - has Anne O'Rourke actually seen the "one page proforma" submissions she tosses in scathingly? Or is this yet again a madeup attempt to throw dispersions upon the efforts of those who wrote them? Also she goes on to quote studies but at no point footnotes which studies - so which ones are they Anne? Or again, are they just 'made up' survey results?
A person can say they believe there can be choices but that does not mean that they believe in the choices that are made - all too often we hear people say "Well, I don't agree with abortion but I agree with a woman's right to choose." So far more people DISAGREE with abortion but not understanding the real impact this has on the woman individually, the father of the baby and extended family including siblings and society as a whole, and often refusing to investigate the whole abortion issue, abortion goes on.
What most women want is not abortion but to be pregnant under different circumstances. So let's set about changing their circumstance INSTEAD OF removing the baby.

Dear Teresa

Yes I have seen the proforma one page submissions. Anybody can make an appointmtnt with the Victorian Law Reform Commission and go and examine the submissions. I did so and a significant amount of opponents are one page pro-formas organised by religious groups.

The surveys I referred to are the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, the Australian Election Study survey, the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute Survey, the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations Survey and Marie Stopes International Survey. If you bother to read the article correctly you will see that they are all examined in the Victorian Law Reform's Final Report, as that report is referred to in the article there was no need to footnote it as well.

This was not the only point of the article it was also to highlight that there is no religious consensus on the issue of abortion nor is there any grounding in the Bible to oppose abortion. See Hosea 13;16, Isaiah 13:18, 2 Kings 15:16, 2 Kings 8:12, and 1 Samuel 15.3. The religious right are very selecvtive when quoting the bible, I can quote different parts to support my argument.

Anne

Therese 3 until the arrival of the $5000 baby bonus the imminent arrival of another baby hasn't always been greeted with unalloyed joy, especially if the baby was illegitimate, another girl or just more strain on the family budget.

Most Australians think that as we expect each family to be responsible for feeding, housing, clothing and educating their own young to be worthwhile members of society then really it's up to each individual family to decide whether they can take on the job of rearing another child. Except in the case of the Geelong/Adelaide woman who should denied the opportunity to get pregnant again.

Dear Anne,
Always pleased when the Lord's word is brought into the discussion, and I see you were spot on regarding the context. Hosea 13:16 relates God's intention to Judge a guilty nation who has rejected Him. Your quote from Isaiah is in a similar vein. As is 2 Kings 15:16, and 2 Kings 8:12, 1 Samuel 15:3. These words are recorded to horrify those under judgement and to inspire the God haters to turn from their evil ways.

In quoting the Bible to prove your point, do I correctly assume that your point is that you believe that the curse of infant slaughter is once again being released because we as a nation have rejected God.

I hadn't even considered that angle. Its got me thinking.
Dav

I see 'Lititia'. The God who loved you enough to send His Son to die for your immorality is the bad guy and those who murder the unborn are the good guys. They are the poor victims who are quick to commit immorality and even quicker to kill their babies but it is their Creator that is the bad guy. Your misquoting of Scripture comes from the same source as the serpents misquoting of Scripture to Jesus in the wilderness. Surely you can do better than that! You would be more honest if you just told the truth that You (as a god) want to decide what is right and wrong.

On the contrary Runner and Dav. My point is that there is no reference to abortion or whether it is right or wrong in the bible. There is no special emphasis placed on the fetus. If it is such an important issue why is it not addressed in the new testament. This total obsession with abortion and controlling other people's fertility is purely an invention of the religious right in modern times given that it is not a part of christian history. The most common issue that is addressed by Jesus is poverty and social justice but rarely will either of those words pass the lips of the religious right.

It is not those of us who allow people to make their own decisions regarding the size of their families and how many children they have that play God but indeed the religious right who mask their own authoritarian dersires behind religion that are playing 'God'. Indeed the beauty of the secular state is that it allows those who believe in God and the bible to live by it and those that adopt their ethical system from equally legitimate but alternate systems of belief to also follow theirs. The secular state does not impose actions or a course of behaviour on christian fundamentalists they are free not to engage in sex before marriage, have abortions, etc. However, fundamentalists or the religious right, whichever label you choose, do not allow others who do not share their belief system to follow a different course of action, indeed they are the ones playing God.

Anne

Runner: "None of the posts you linked have me claiming to be a 'victim'."

They weren't meant to. They show how much you dislike others claiming victim status.

Runner: "You totally misread me if you think I am claiming victim status."

Really? Because you certainly claim others say your politics and beliefs are despised, evil, bigoted, and hated. Hated is your favourite - you use that word more than anybody else on OLO, by a huge margin. You use it so much it makes me wonder if you have to hated into order to be a Christian.

Here is a small sample from you posts, small because it has to fit into 350 words:

It amazes me that so many ... imply that Christians ... are the cause of every evil on this planet.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4812&page=0#52895

u would have to at least pretend to be a Howard hater to get where u are
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4896&page=0#55367

as far as the god haters are concerned that everyone has free speech except the Christians.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5362#67236

The reason why Christians opinions are so depised ...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5422&page=0#69659

so many locals who hate everything Australia stands for and has achieved over the last 200 years.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5510&page=0#71050

Certainly brought out plenty of god haters and earth worshippers.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5441&page=0#71195

Brain I suggest at best is a church hater and at worst a god hater.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5986#83784

The Christian faith is demonized and mocked daily.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6221&page=0#90850

It amazes me that we have so many god haters on these posts.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6287&page=0#91680

I have no idea except to allow the usual god haters to vent their spleen.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6117&page=0#88372

I wonder who really are those who 'hate' the family unit.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6402&page=0#94637

Another hate filled bit of drivel
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6507&page=0#96655

the usual fundamental atheist who are happy to demonize everyone who disagrees
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1208&page=0#21446

the overwhelming amount of violence ... seems to come from the atheist
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1234#21954

law abiding bible believing Christians as evil
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1234&page=0#22140

hate of Christ and what He stands for is nothing new.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1244&page=0#22386

these people detest ... the biblical principles
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6632&page=0#99570

label anyone who oppose them as bigots.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1300&page=0#23062

rstuart

The fact that people hate truth and I point that out does not make me or any other Christian a victim. It is clear that many do hate light and truth while a Christian will love truth and light and hate darkness. Anything that somehow paints God or His ways as the bad guy and us humans as the good guys is darkness. I will point out that it is never the person holding the perverse view that is hated unlike many from the secular side. Many of them seem to love to demonise those who oppose their views.

The point you are trying to make is very obscure. Part of the price of attempting to live in Christ is persecution. Does this make us victims? Certainly not.

Turnrightthenleft, Sams
Contraception is 100% reliable, depending on how it is used.

Woman in particular have a choice of many forms of contraception, and a woman can use a number of forms of contraception at once (eg. Long term contraceptive implantation + using a condom, whether it be the male or female condom).

If 2 or more forms of contraception are used at once, a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant would possibly be about 0.000000 %, or less. However I have never heard this mentioned by feminists or pro-abortion lobbyists.

All shame on aware and loving feminists for not mentioning it.
All shame on pro-abortion lobbyists for not mentioning it.
All shame on the author for not mentioning it.

With about 1 in 4 pregnancies now resulting in abortion, there doesn’t need to be a debate about abortion. As a part of risk management, there needs to be a public education campaign to use more than one form of contraception.

Stop smoking, don’t over eat, get some exercise, and use more than one form of contraception.

Lititia,
In your research on abortion, you are possibly aware of a Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who belonged to the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S.

This organization carried out a number of actions to change the abortion laws, most of which amounted to lying to the government and the public.

One of the actions carried out was as follows: -

“We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly.”

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

This seems very similar to what you are doing, so double shame on you.

In his “Confessions of an Abortionist” he gives the reasons why he supported abortion: -

“at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.”

Maybe abortion was not mentioned in the Bible, because abortion as a money making industry was not around when the Bible was written.

Runner, I didn't think my point was obscure. You seem to have no trouble understanding it.

I guess what perplexes me is at Sunday school, I recall being taught Christianity was a religion of peace and acceptance. Yet here you are, a Christian who loudly proclaims his faith, posting the most hateful messages we see here on OLO. And I mean that in the most literal sense - they are full of the word hate. You don't actually go as far as claiming you hate others, but you regularly call anyone who disagrees with your views stupid, perverted, intolerant, feral, evil, haters, villains, daemonisers, violent ... the list goes on and on but I only have 350 words.

The reality runner is the vast majority of the people here are at worst indifferent to your views - although possibly not to how you express them. They do not judge you by whether you chose to worship God - or the Devil, or on whether you think evolution is a fraud or not, or whether your political views are from the right or the left. They do not hate you or your religion, they are not violent towards you, and they do not expect you to accept their arguments without question - but instead to take them on their merits.

Rather it is you, runner, who apparently judges others on this basis. And then you accuse of others of judging you the same way. I guess that's understandable. You think others view you through the same prism you view them. But your wrong - they don't.

So you say you aren't a victim. Well none of the articles you said were claiming victim status did so directly. It was you who judged them to be victims, and then accused them of claiming victim status. I don't actually think you are a victim, runner, but then I didn't think they were claiming victim status either. I was just pointing out the pot was calling the kettle black.

"If 2 or more forms of contraception are used at once, a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant would possibly be about 0.000000 %, or less. However I have never heard this mentioned by feminists or pro-abortion lobbyists."

That's because firstly it is wrong, and secondly it is a red herring.

Typical use combined oral contraceptive efficacy is 97% and condoms 85%. At best you still have more than 1 in 250 chance when using both methods at once, although it is not clear that these probabilities simply multiply (in fact, I doubt they do). Its true that this could improve with education, and that is to be encouraged by all means. Yet perfect used scenarios would still never be achieved (unless you are perfect).

In any case, you can quibble over the numbers all you want, but all of this is just a matter of degree as there would still be unwanted pregnancies (albeit less, which would be great) and thus the issue still needs to be addressed.

Anne "This total obsession with abortion and controlling other people's fertility is purely an invention of the religious right in modern times"

Can I just say that, as a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded to see this statement from another lawyer? Its loaded language, illustration of an evidently entrenched position, vindictiveness, lack of any objectivity, attack ad hominem, etc etc - how do they warrant any place in what is meant to be a constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate?

I personally feel religion is a red herring - views based on religion are only applicable to those of that faith. I try to argue on the basis of biology and human rights. I certainly have no interest in controlling anyone's fertility, any more than those opposing slavery, say, really just wanted to reduce the amount of cotton about. Vilification such as the statement above takes us nowhere and completely undermines the author's credibility in my eyes.

Sams,
If 2 forms of contraception are not sufficient, then use 3.

This is basic risk management. If you look at the computer in front of you, there is not one system to stop you from being electrocuted, but several.

I have never heard of an academic working out the risk of unwanted pregnancy when a number of forms of contraception are being used, but risk management is taught in universities in engineering, and the author would be teaching risk management in her business classes.

It is a sign of the complete corruption of the university system, where risk management can be taught and applied in some areas, but cannot be taught or applied when it comes to contraception and abortion.

All shame on academics for being corrupted by abortion loving feminists, and the money hungry abortion industry.

HRS, re: adoption, so it's ok to force the mother to endure months of pregnancy, discomfort, labour, birth and recovery? And all for someone elses benefit. Don't think so.
There is no doubt about it we would be forcing someone to do something against their will, where is the "mothers" rights in all this.

I haven't had a chance to look at the other thread, but so what exactly? There are fringe lunatics in all walks of life, what they say and what they do are often quite different things. Even carried out all that will happen is a change to society, where indeed women are highly valued. Perhaps a society where women have multiple husbands. Few comment on gender imbalances from societies that have men with muliple wives. Surely that means some men have to go without.

At the crux of the matter is the assumption that the unborn at the time of abortion have "rights". What I wonder is why we think an unformed brain has more rights than say the brain dead person on whom the plug can be pulled? Potential does not infer that future rights should be bestowed on the fetus, IMO.

HRS wrote: "If 2 forms of contraception are not sufficient, then use 3."

The reality is that nobody wholly sane is going to do that. Nor should they have to. Imagine the expense and impingement on quality of life. Women are supposed to take a break from the pill occasionally too for health reasons. I know women whose bodies can't abide even low dose pills after being sensitised by years of use.

"but risk management is taught in universities in engineering"

I taught IT at QUT and am the managing director of an IT company and a consultant/programmer. I used to work as a principal engineer for the top security software multinational, so I think I know a little about risk management. I know about reality versus perfect world fantasies.

"shame on " ... x 10

Your self-righteousness blubbering really has no place in a rational debate, and is far more likely to increase the resistance to your point of view than garner you any support.

rstuart

I don't know what you were taught at Sunday school but it sure does not sound like bible if you were not taught to love people but to hate sin. I hold no hate towards any person.

You infer that I am a hateful person because I come across strong on moral issues. I think many people would prefer a spade called a spade instead of beating around the bush. I have constantly conveyed the message that we are all flawed creatures and lost without Christ (including myself).

You claim 'vast majority of the people here are at worst indifferent to your views - ---

You might be right but you are kidding yourself if you have not noticed the vile posts directed at myself and others at times. There are a number of posters who equate belief or faith in Christ as 'stupid, vile, gullible. deluded. You must have turned a blind eye to these.

You say 'They do not hate you or your religion, they are not violent towards you'

Try telling that to Fred Nile who many times had urine thrown over him for having a 'religous' point of view. Is it not feral to throw urine over people? The truth is it is a lot easier to find violent secular people than it is to find the odd luny calling themselves a Christian in this country. Just ask the police. Whether it is the despised brethren, happy clappers at Hillsong or Baptist you are unlikely to find violence. Many environmental gatherings or lets hate the US gatherings are marked by violence. Just look at the number of Police needed at those events.

And so you accuse me of being the judgemental critic simply because I hate the murder of the unborn, the pornography industry leading to the breakdown of the family and degradation of the human race, the lies pedaled in the name of science (eg a baby is not a human being.)
If this is what you call hateful then I think you are reading it wrong.

ScienceLaw: "I am absolutely astounded to see this statement from another lawyer? Its loaded language, illustration of an evidently entrenched position, ..."

You kidding, right? You just said earlier:

GP: "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them."
ScienceLaw: "I think GP has summarised this issue in a nutshell."

It is very possible to come to ethical decisions about many things, such as "thou shall not steal". It everybody suddenly decided to take whatever they want we would be in a real pickle, so we forbid it. Easy.

There is no such line of reasoning for abortion - one way or the other. If every woman was allowed to make her own decision on abortion then ... what? You don't have to speculate about the outcome. They currently do make their own decisions, and last I check the only negative outcome on society is that it makes some people feel real uncomfortable. You can't decide this debate on logic alone. Just ask runner.

However, that is not my point. You attack Anne for not following a "constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate", having just cheered on the argument "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them". Get real.

Sams
You seem quite abusive, and I can understand why you like abortion.

There are many forms of contraception, and a woman need not use the pill or any type of chemical as a form of contraception. Using more than one form of contraception is obviously best, and some contraceptive sites on the net recommend this, but I have never heard of any academic researching, publicising or even mentioning the decreased risk to a woman of getting pregnant, if she OR her husband/boyfriend uses more than one form of contraception.

I would think that their lack of mentioning it, publicising it, or researching it is because they have no interest in reducing the rate of abortion.

In the case of Anne O’Rourke, she attempts in this article to vilify a religion, (which does nothing towards reducing the rate of abortion), and such vilification was one of the primary methods carried out by the completely corrupt NARAL organization in the US, so as to fill the coffers of the abortion industry in that country. (See the link I kindly provided previously for verification of that).

The abortion rate has hardly declined in time, and in reality, Anne O’Rourke and similar academics have been a dismal failure at reducing the abortion rate. I’m inclined to believe they secretly like abortion.

Rojo,
Adoption is a way of reducing abortion, and there are other ways also. For all the words written by various people in support of abortion, I have rarely read anything from them on ways to reduce abortion. The author has written many words in this article in support of abortion, but not one word on how to reduce abortion.

Even more shame on the author, and anyone else like her who is too lazy to think of ways of reducing abortion.

HRS if you believe that the unborn have more rights than their mother you are saying that women have no value.

runner: "You infer that I am a hateful person because I come across strong on moral issues."

I didn't say that, and didn't intend to infer it either - although now you point it out I agree some will. What I said is you post many messages claiming people hate / despise / ... you, and often that you feel the same way about them. The difference is subtle, but real. I am attacking the issue - you posting hateful messages. You attack the person.

runner: "love people but to hate sin."

Exactly. Lambaste the the sin, not the person. Which I notice you did here when you said "I hate the murder of the unborn". But you don't normally. Instead you say:

The small mindedness of the academic elite
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4334#41039
(these are your first words on OLO)

typical of someone who lives in la la land
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4485&page=0#42398
(your second post)

You attack the people, not the sin.

Runner: "the vile posts directed at myself .. You must have turned a blind eye to these."

Yes, I did. They are not unexpected, given the vile posts you direct at others. But more to the point I expect you, as a Christian, to turn a blind eye to them as well. They say more about the poster than they do about you.

Runner: "Fred Nile who many times had urine thrown over him"

Regrettable but true, runner. It is also regrettable but true that fundamentalist preachers in the US slept with the women in their congression, catholic priests have raped young boys, nuns in Australian orphanages have dealt cruelly with their charges. But do people, even atheists or the secular, tar all Christians with this brush? Of course not. Yet you runner tar all homosexuals with the urine brush. You tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush. You tar all secular people with the violent brush. That's not a great example of hating the sin and loving the person, is it?

HRS wrote: "Sams You seem quite abusive, and I can understand why you like abortion."

And I can understand why you can't grasp subtle concepts such as the difference between liking something, and supporting someone else's right to do it. I support the right to get eye laser surgery. I don't "like" eye laser surgery. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks now - a sign of a losing battle. Your farcical rant about "liking" abortion and the "laziness" of academics is irrelevant. Contraception is not 100% effective in the real world - you even seem to recognise this now despite your earlier claims. Hence there are and will be unwanted pregnancies, and hence the issue to abortion still exists, and so I ask:

What is exactly is your policy for those people - ignore them and hope they go away?

runner wrote: "The truth is it is a lot easier to find violent secular people than it is to find the odd luny calling themselves a Christian in this country."

Although you've rambled completely off the topic, I couldn't let this go without pointing out that the reality is quite the opposite. For example, atheists are vastly under-represented in jails, by something like a factor of 10.

Sams,
Nothing is 100% perfect, and that is why there is risk management. But find me the academic who has put forward a list of ways to reduce the abort rate.

I don’t think a single academic anywhere in the world has done so, but there is at least one academic who attempts to villy a relion in order to sustain or even increase abortion.

"But find me the academic who has put forward a list of ways to reduce the abort rate. I don’t think a single academic anywhere in the world has done so"

I doubt that you've really bothered to look. Try Googling:

["reduce the abortion rate" university research]

without the square brackets for example. Hundreds to play with there - let me know when you've finished reading them all and I'll find you a few more queries. Your suggestion that the very act of taking up a teaching position at university level turns all people into baby killing ogres is quite amusing really.

rstuart: You attack Anne for not following a "constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate", having just cheered on the argument "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them". Get real.

I'll certainly admit that some of my own statements might be guilty of some of the criticisms I directed to Anne (tho' hers really was a doozy), but I don't think this is one of them.

Surely - hopefully! - everyone on this thread agrees that "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them"? This is not hyperbole or opinion, but a widely accepted moral view (again I'll add "hopefully"!). We may not all agree that abortion is one of those things, but surely we accept the premise that there is a category of such things? For instance, killings such as the Holocaust; rape of 2 year olds; etc etc To me this view stands up as logical, and intellectually defensible.

You may have missed the point of my comments on Anne's statement, but I certainly do not think GP's statement is of the same type. In my view, GP's statement is a very constructive place to start a debate on any moral issue - the debate then can proceed as to whether the issue in question is "simply so wrong" etc.

rstuart,

You point out I said 'The small mindedness of the academic elite' and 'typical of someone who lives in la la land'. You could hardly call that vile hateful language. It seems incredible that you must go through a couple of years of posts in order to paint me as hateful. I wonder what motivates you to go on such a witch hunt and then form erroneous conclusions. I have never said all homosexuals are the same the just as I don't claim all Christians are the same.

I have attacked however the over represented homosexual lobby which is bad for society. They are not slow in coming forward in denigrating any biblical view. In actual fact along with the perverted pornography industry they are often outspoken and are quite vile in their tactics.

The fact that you point out shameful acts by Priests, Ministers and other religous people just shows you judge them by different standards. Jesus had 12 with Him and one was a thief. I am not sure what you are trying to infer.

This forum is one whereby all get to express an opinion. You seem to imply that biblical thinking Christians should allow the loud voices of the humanist to drown out all else. Any counter opinion to you seems to be labeled 'hateful'. I find that rather amusing as I have worked in number of different occupations and have never had that view slightly expressed to me. I am sorry but as long as I have the opportunity I will voice my convictions and opinions.

Sams,
As well as being arrogant and abusive, you seem to find abortion amusing.

I have noticed that you haven’t mentioned ways to reduce abortion, so either you can’t think of any, or you like abortions so much you wouldn’t like to see the abortion rate reduced.

I went through about 50 of the sites you have recommended, and I could not find any list of ways to reduce abortion. Over time I’ve seen many lists, including lists on ways to reduce electricity consumption, water consumption, green house gas emissions, food wastage, skin cancer, heart attack, and even malaria, but I’ve never seen a list of ways to reduce abortion.

Academics don’t seem very concerned that a list of ways to reduce abortion is not available, (or very hard to find), but perhaps a university academic would be automatically fired from their job if they ever produced a list of ways to reduce abortion.

Green house emissions, lung cancer, heart attack, malaria -> bad.
Abortion -> good.

I hope you also found the NARAL link amusing, and recognized the similarity between the methods used out by the totally corrupt NARAL organization in the US, and the methods being used by the author in her article.

Next university academics will be saying that universities help to broaden the minds of the young, but others would believe the exact opposite

HRS

Finding ways to reduce abortion would be career suicide for those more interested in morals than rhetoric and blinded dogmas. That is why so many take the killing of the unborn so lightly. You might also notice that the mental affect on woman having abortions is little researched or kept silent. Some boldly proclaim they have no regrets but those woman I have come across are a different story.

Your statement 'Next university academics will be saying that universities help to broaden the minds of the young, but others would believe the exact opposite' is spot on.

They are the first to point the finger at other 'narrow minded' people' and yet scream the loudest when there own godless views are challenged by science or otherwise.

Well it seems that the two pro-lifers have fallen back to fallacious ad hominem attacks (somehow abortions are caused by those sinful, lazy academics - shame on you Einstein and Desmond Tutu), red herrings about contraception research (not that its relevant but I found plenty - obviously "others" lack the literacy skills needed to find it - maybe they should go to uni) and whining about being persecuted ... so I guess this debate is over.

runner has spent the last 3 or more post whining about how persecuted he/she is. HRS couldn't even answer a question that was actually on topic "What is exactly is your policy for those people - ignore them and hope they go away?"

HRS wrote: "Next university academics will be saying that universities help to broaden the minds of the young, but others would believe the exact opposite"

... or, we could take about abortion .. just a thought. Aside: I found uni level science, especially quantum mechanics and relativity broadened my view of the universe. My grad cert in education taught me a lot about developmental psyc which is helping me raise my child adopted from Ethiopia - she is a gem. I'm sure others that have studied science, art and literature have founds these broadening - not to mention their incredible contributions to society: I hope you are enjoying having computers and the Internet - brought to you by science, engineering, and IT academics by the way. Did they broaden your experiences by any chance? I suppose though if you treat online forums as a broadcast medium instead of a means to discuss and learn, and you don't know how to research using Google, then the benefits are diminished.

Sams,
I really don’t want to hear about you. I ’d like to see a list of ways to reduce abortion. You haven’t suggested even 1 way of reducing abortion.

The author must have spent considerable time reading through submissions, and then writing an article in an attempt to vilify a religion. That time that could have been spent developing a list of ways to reduce abortion.

However I don’t think a university would give any type of reward to someone who drew up a list of ways to reduce abortions. That university could give them the sack.

HRS: "I really don’t want to hear about you."

Well stop reading then. Welcome to free speech!

HRS: "I ’d like to see a list of ways to reduce abortion. You haven’t suggested even 1 way of reducing abortion."

Contraception - there's one. I think I did mention that as did many researchers that I saw. Less interference in decent sex education by ignorant right-wing superstitious extremists - there's another. But there again I'm not an academic, I'm the managing director of an IT company to helps charities and other non-profits (tsk tsk there I go again talking about myself). Better left to the experts I'd say.

Sams writes after blowing his/her trumpet about what a good citizen he/she is

'Contraception - there's one. I think I did mention that as did many researchers that I saw. Less interference in decent sex education by ignorant right-wing superstitious extremists - there's another.' Well I suppose you did say you aren't an academic. With statements like this it is obvious.

After 40 years of promoting promiscuity and telling kids just to wear condoms the abortion rate has grown dramatically. Many with sam's thinking even hand out condoms free really believing they are doing these kids a service.. It is obvious that it is the amoral Marxist philosophies that sam's seems to be so keen on that has resulted in the dramatic increase in these murders

HRS, i couldn't agree more, adoption is a great way to lower abortion rates. Hopefully that avenue is seriously considered by the mother-to-be. There are many genuine people who would do just about anything to adopt a child, maybe the anything requires some thought. While callous to put a value on that potential baby, it is better than the alternative.

My point though is that the woman would be forced to go through a pregnancy she does not want. By all means give incentive to continue that pregnancy, just don't force people to do so against their will. I find women to be higly nurturing in general and if they see abortion as the best outcome for themselves then they must really really not want the pregnancy. It's not always just about not wanting the child, it's not wanting the pregnancy too.

Where do right-to-life proponents draw the line on birth defects?

ScienceLaw: "everyone ... agrees "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them"?'

ScienceLaw, you are appealing to some universal, absolute truth which we could all see if we looked hard enough. You realise this - yes?

You also realise that since time immemorial no one has agreed on what that truth would be. So whose would we use - some intellectual elite perhaps? We have a lot of deeply religious people who post here on OLO who believe they known an absolute truth. Is it their truth you wish to adopt, or do you have another version of the truth in mind? The elite who ran Germany in the 1940's who ran their world in much the same way you are proposing now. You didn't like their truth either, I gather. You are a picky bloke, ScienceLaw.

And your protests notwithstanding, universal truth is the very opposite of logic. Our religious friends have this right - it is an act of faith, not of logic. Accept this, ScienceLaw, for they know - they tell me they speak the truth.

Anne: "This total obsession with abortion and controlling other people's fertility is purely an invention of the religious right in modern times"
ScienceLaw: "Its loaded language, illustration of an evidently entrenched position .."

You may be right ScienceLaw, it may be loaded language and all the other things you say. It is also the truth. Not some "universal truth" you must have faith in though - it is something much better. It is verifiability true. Verifiable truths are the basis of logic. You know how it works - you establish the facts of the case, you logically apply the rules, and you end up with a conclusion.

And because I know you know all this - like I said before: Get Real.

There seems to be an unquestioned assumption held by some commentators that there are too many abortions. I disagree. Australia, like the rest of the world, is overpopulated already in terms of carrying capacity.

Surely it would be desirable to terminate more human embryos and foetuses before they are born and become people?

I'm more concerned by acts of animal cruelty. These are acts against conscious beings. In my opinion, legal abortion is the destruction of preconscious and dependent human life, not of human beings.

A definition of murder:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."

What defines a human being, and how one compares consciousness between different species, would seem to be the points of contention.

Sure CJ...and what if your mum had aborted you?
Youre alive today by Gods Grace which says "thou shalt not kill".

Gibo: << Sure CJ...and what if your mum had aborted you?
Youre alive today by Gods Grace which says "thou shalt not kill". >>

Rubbish, Gibo. If my mother had aborted the foetus that became me I would never have existed.

I'm alive today because she wanted a baby and I've managed to survive the subsequent half century or so since she gave birth to me.

Nothing to with God, Grace or not killing people, but everything to do with choice and good luck :)

runner: "as long as I have the opportunity I will voice my convictions and opinions"

I would be disappointed if you didn't continue to express your convictions, runner. Believe it or not, I actually enjoy being challenged by sound arguments for different ideas, as I often learn from them. For example, your posts on home schooling and the state of aboriginal affairs in Australia are usually very informative, and thus make good reading.

However, they are the exception. The statements that started this discussion between us are far more typical. The one I took exception to was: "the vast majority of journalist and writers on this topic impose their pro choice views on anyone they can". The statement is accurate of course and I would would have no problem with it if, when others claim they are also an unfairly treated minority, you didn't then accuse them of seeking victim status. But you do. When I pointed out you use the same tactic, you bridled indigently. Thus you end up holding others to standards you don't accept when imposed on you. Do you think anyone finds this style of argument convincing?

The bible is full of good advice, runner. You say this is because the bible is an absolute truth, but most of us atheists accept it well. Take "love people but to hate sin". If your goal is to reduce sin, this is sound advice. Calling someone a pervert, a god hater, or vile just ensures they ignore will ignore anything you say. Embracing the person while attacking the sin, whether it be abortion, pornography or whatever, means you have a chance of implementing God's will.

But right now, your words are having the reverse effect. If I recognised your church group approaching in the distance, given the treatment you hand to everybody you disagree with here I'd be tempted to run a mile. When you resort to attacking the sinner you don't contribute to the discussion here on OLO, and you repel people from the church. You can do better.

Sams
I don’t want to know your life story. As a concerned citizen, I want to know how to decrease the abortion rate.

You label people “ignorant right-wing superstitious extremists”, (which seems rather abusive), and then you can only think of one way to decrease the abortion. rate. If abortion is a risk, then a number of control measures are normally necessary to reduce a risk (but as a self-proclaimed expert in risk management, you would probably know that already).

The author labels certain people “religious right”, but the author has not mentioned any way of actually decreasing the abortion rate.

Similarly, the vast majority of university academics who write about abortion, do not mention any way of actually decreasing the abortion rate either.

Next university academics will be saying that they are not biased, bigoted or prejudiced, and they would like to see a decrease in the abortion rate.

Rojo,
Birth defects are subjective, and abortion is very subjective.

Abortions can actually change with fashion, and there was noticed a decline in the abortion rate in some areas, when female celebrities such Madonna and Britney Spears had babies (or kept their babies).

I now tend to think of wide scale abortion as being a form of racial genocide, whether intentional or unintentional. This is currently being seen in Europe, where whole races of people will not last much longer, because they have not been able to produce enough live babies. Those races are being overrun by other races that can produce more live babies, and don't kill their babies in abortion clinics.

Survival of the fittest I suppose, and any race or culture that embraces the feminist ideal of wide scale abortion, is eventually doomed to extinction.

HRS: "As a concerned citizen, I want to know how to decrease the abortion rate."

As a concerned citizen, I want a viable fusion reactor. Can you build me one please?

HRS: "Next university academics will be saying that they are not biased, bigoted or prejudiced."

Everybody is biased in one way or another when it comes to social policy. That's why we value high-quality objective social science research by those trained to do it ("academics"). It is also why we have democracy. Doomed to fail are those that make their conclusions based anecdotal evidence, which often fails statistically, and on "common sense", which often fails outside of a person's domain of experience, or unscientific dogma, such as strongly-held superstitions, that make people try to bend the facts to fit their theories (or lash out at people when they are losing the debate).

runner: "After 40 years of promoting promiscuity and telling kids just to wear condoms the abortion rate has grown dramatically."

People have also been using more sun block - is this caused by promiscuity too? You must prove causality (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Happily, the abortion rate has been falling for over a decade despite the political hyperbole surrounding it. Furthermore, studies of the abstinence programs in the US showed that the people in the programs had just as much sex and at the same age as those not in them, and had the same rate of STDs. As I've mentioned in a previous post, I'm a staunch supporter of good sex education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Please consider:

1. Unwanted pregnancies do happen and will keep happening - unfortunately, mistakes happen.
2. Thus we must address the consequences, not sweep the unfortunates under the carpet. It surprises me that some would-be Christians fall at this hurdle.
3. Where people disagree is the balance of rights between the unborn and the mother. Some people treat a single-celled embryo as a person with a full complement of human rights, and others don't. The others are dominating by a very large margin (getting larger too I'd speculate).

Can someone show me one of these "pro-abortionists"? This debate only ever plays out between anti-choice advocates who wish to dictate how women may treat their own bodies, and pro-choice advocates who respect the decision to either abort or bear a child.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. That should be the end of the argument.

SamS,
Even though you are an arrogant and abusive individual, who finds abortion amusing, and also likes to talk about themselves, I would agree that research and statistics would be an important requirement for decreasing the rate of abortion (if decreasing the rate of abortion is required).

Unfortunately Australia is keeping virtually no reliable statistics on abortion. Even NZ keeps much better statistics on abortion than Australia (and makes them readily available to the public), and NZ carries out less abortions than Australia.

So research into abortion in Australia cannot be adequately undertaken, when so few reliable statistics are being kept.

If someone wanted to carry out a course in risk management, they could always use abortion in Australia as an example of how not to carry out risk management.

Virtually no reliable statistics are being kept, virtually no research is being undertaken (except biased or feminist type research), and it appears there is not even a list of ways to reduce abortion.

In terms of risk management, abortion in Australia scores a D-.

Next university academics will be saying that everyone should attend a university course in risk management, (while simultaneously ignoring abortion, and definitely not thinking of ways to decrease abortion).

"So research into abortion in Australia cannot be adequately undertaken, when so few reliable statistics are being kept."

Or so you wish. While it is true it is currently hard to determine the absolute *number* of abortions, however, that is not the same thing as saying that you can't determine a *trend* based on proportions. A simple mistake of statistics which I forgive you for. Even if you were right (which you're not), you shoot yourself in the foot because you or runner can't now claim that abortions are increasing.

runner, interesting is it not that the very permissive Netherlands has extremely low rates of adolescent pregnancy and lowest rates of abortion in the world (far less than Oz) and yet about 43% have no religious affiliation and 27% say yes to "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". Australia is heading that way, but unfortunately we are not "Godless" enough yet. Study the correlation between the levels of religion in the countries of the world and their developmental indices and their crime rates. Get back when you are done.

I note neither of you is willing to take on the embryo versus person debate. This speaks volumes.

rstuart,

You make some good points. You say that I should
'Embracing the person while attacking the sin, whether it be abortion, pornography or whatever, means you have a chance of implementing God's will.'

I have no problem with that advice as long as we stop redefining terms (ie. abortion is now termination and living in sin is now living defacto). Until someone knows they are sick they will never go to a doctor. Calling murder termination or child porn art does not change the fact that these things are repulsive to God. Many posters twist the Scriptures in a pathetic attempt to somehow make our Creator the bad guy and them the good. I hope you would run a mile from the church unless you are prepared to repent and receive forgiveness from our Saviour. Their are to many now in churches who refuse to call sin sin and thus make God out a liar. It is Him that has made a way for all men to be saved from their vileness. Glory be to His name. I pray all contributors to this forum including yourself will find His grace if they have not already.

"I now tend to think of wide scale abortion as being a form of racial genocide, whether intentional or unintentional. This is currently being seen in Europe, where whole races of people will not last much longer, because they have not been able to produce enough live babies. Those races are being overrun by other races that can produce more live babies, and don't kill their babies in abortion clinics.

Survival of the fittest I suppose, and any race or culture that embraces the feminist ideal of wide scale abortion, is eventually doomed to extinction."

This comment by HRS raises a number of questions if it is true:

-What is of greater importance; the status of civilisation of a country or the racial origin of her citizens?

-Who enacts this genocide by procreating hordes by allowing their migration? Is it predominantly determined by conservative aging males or by radical feminists?

-Is "the survival of the fittest" a natural order that dictates that races of people must procreate at a rate greater than other races, least they be diluted or destroyed?

This could be an interesting line of discussion once the fundamental question of the abortion debate is agreed upon. i.e. When is a human embryo a human being?

HRS, this whole discussion is quite subjective, isn't that the problem, and the heart of the pro-choice debate? That women should have a choice, and not be subjugated because of others beliefs. Especially where such beliefs are based on personal faiths or misinterpretation of what constitutes life as we know it.

Even people on the religious right believe that personhood is determined by having a mind and not by the presence of human tissue or DNA. People with brain damage might be given the benefit of the doubt, but none of the anti-abortion people would have problems with shutting off the life support system of a brain-dead accident victim, even if medical technology could keep the heart beating for the next 30 years. They probably have no problem with using the organs to save other lives. They would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, even though the victim's DNA lives on in the twin. They would extend human rights to ET or Commander Data if they actually existed.

The vast majority of zygotes never end up as a live baby, even if there is no deliberate interference. A large proportion die, largely due to chromosome abnormalities, before the woman even suspects that conception has occurred. If something were killing half of all puppies or kittens there would be a massive research program to find a cure, but no one cares about these embryos, so long as no one is deliberately killing them. Yet if they passed an injured person in a lonely spot and did not help him or her, they would be condemned as moral lepers and might even be up on criminal charges in some places.

It can be argued that, given the right conditions, an embryo has the potential to grow a mind, but the same is almost certainly true of countless millions of Runner's cells, since cloning has been shown to work in many other mammals.

The real concerns of anti-abortion people probably relate not to concerns about murder, but to religious beliefs about the soul, concerns about demographic competition from other religious and ethnic groups, and a desire to keep women subordinate.

Sams,
I’m still waiting for you to come up with more suggestions on how to reduce the abortion rate (or perhaps you do like abortions after all ).

In fact, I’m still waiting for any university academic to come up with suggestions on how to reduce the abortion rate.

Next pro-abortion lobbyists and university academics will be saying that they believe in risk management and the preservation of human life, and they also believe in diversity, and don’t like to see various races abort themselves into non-existence.

Rojo,
If someone is dealing with a risk, then it is best not to become too submerged in emotive or subjective issues, because it stops the risk from being properly identified, or it stops adequate control measures from being implemented.

Disregarding the issue of whether or not the fetus is human, there are several other risks associated with abortion.

As examples: -

- Abortion is a surgical procedure that does have physical and psychological risks, and unregulated abortion can increase those risks.

- Abortion clinics can start encouraging or compelling women to have abortions, particularly if abortion rates decline, and this begins to affect the profit margins of the abortion clinics.

- Abortion is central to the cult or religion of feminism, and feminists can begin brainwashing women into having more abortions, particularly if the abortion rates do decline.

- Certain religions or cultures have been usingd abortion to kill baby girls, and various gender prejuiced feminists could also use unregulated abortion to kill baby boys.

- There is also a risk that a race can carry out too much abortion, and eventually they cannot maintain their population numbers, and they become extinct, which now appears to be happening to a number of races in Europe.

I’m still waiting on pro-abortion lobbyists and university academics to make more suggestions on how to reduce the rate of abortion, and eliminate the risks attached to abortion.

rojo "isn't that the problem, and the heart of the pro-choice debate? That women should have a choice, and not be subjugated because of others beliefs."

Our choices are subjugated every day to others' beliefs - I cannot rob a bank, much as I would like to, regardless of whether I choose to believe it is OK.

Divergence: "Even people on the religious right believe that personhood is determined by having a mind and not by the presence of human tissue or DNA."

Not sure who the "religious right" is (other than a handy bogeyman to name-callers). This distinction between humanity and personhood was raised by Peter Singer. It seems an artificial demand; it just looks like "some are more human than others" to me. Being human (biologically) should be enough in itself; one should not need to "earn" the extra layer of "personhood".

Given mankind's history and what has happened when one group decides another is entitled to fewer (or no) human rights, we should be extremely reluctant to take away rights on the basis of difference. Interestingly, many philosophers dispute the existence of the mind - does that mean they are free to choose to dispose of anyone they like, as then no-one is human (sorry, a person)? If you can decree that personhood requires a "mind" (and what exactly is that?), why not say it requires white skin/a Y chromosome/being non-Jewish?

"The vast majority of zygotes never end up as a live baby, even if there is no deliberate interference."

Yes, but there is a difference between dying naturally and being killed. We are all going to die, but that does not mean you should be free to kill me (even if I have terminal cancer). Abortion cannot be justified on this basis.

rstuart - no space to answer you, but briefly - I am not a bloke!

sciencelaw, of course you can rob a bank, you just have to either get away with it or take the consequences. No one is stopping you from trying except by making it as hard as possible for you to be successful.
Now I would completely back you that stealing others property is wrong, and I'm sure society would overwhelmingly have the same view. What we see in this discussion is disagreement. So you are trying to compare something that all would agree on(robbery/murder/rape is bad), with the abortion topic that is say 50-50 in Australia. I'm not saying you are wrong, but what if you are? I am equally certain the woman is doing nothing wrong, but isn't it her reasponsibility to face the consequences, be it eternal damnation, future regret... based on what she believes?

"Being human (biologically) should be enough in itself"

Why should that be? I accept it is your opinion, but it is really a belief statement. You believe human life starts at conception, fair enough, I repect your right to express that view. Hopefully those that consider abortion contemplate that line of thought before making their choice. And I mean their choice.

HRS, isn't the point choosing to take such risks. Isn't that something that needs to be weighed up? By all means point out those risks, but don't deign to assume the responsibility of decision maker.
"and unregulated abortion can increase those risks." absolutely, backyard operators would once again creep back into operation. A sound case for the status quo.
Compelling/encouraging women at abortion clinics? Now I have to admit not ever approaching an abortion clinic, but you don't suppose they already have abortion in mind before going there. If the pro-life arguement is so profound why would they even consider such an approach. In the light of less abortion can we expect an advertising campaign soon. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23403616-421,00.html

"Abortion is central to the cult or religion of feminism, and feminists can begin brainwashing women into having more abortions, particularly if the abortion rates do decline." Then that's not pro-choice either is it, who sets this target abortion rate? What makes feminism a lesser "religion" than any other for that matter. Merely another group pushing their beliefs on others. Quite ironic really that that upsets you.

"Certain religions or cultures have been usingd abortion to kill baby girls, and various gender prejuiced feminists could also use unregulated abortion to kill baby boys" maybe, but isn't that another moral dilema., whether it is wrong to favour on gender over another. Many civilisations have been doing that for millenia, not just through abortion. Better to leave the girls up in the mountains? What has to be addressed is the underlying cause, simply removing one "tool" isn't the solution..
If those races become extinct through over use of abortion, doesn't that eventually solve your problem?
You might be waiting a while for pro-abortion lobbyists to lower the rate of abortion. It would be kind of contrary for them to do so. I haven't come across one but fear not, as a pro-choice advocate I would be on their case with you, as forcing someone to have an abortion is abhorrent.

Rojo,
If abortion was moral, abortion would be carried out by non-profit organisations (have you ever wondered why their is a shortage of surgens, but not a shortage of abortionists.)

If abortion was moral, then proper statistics would be kept on abortion and made public.

One of the statistics that is not often made public, is that about 50% of women having an abortion did not use any type of contraception at all, in a country where there is ample, cheap and effective contraception, (and a woman could always use more than 2 forms of contraception).

If abortion was a health issue, then there would be much less abortion than at present, as various risk management practises could be used to reduce this health issue. Because abortion has been submerged in the haze of moral or ethical issues, then wide-scale abortion still exists.

The author carries this out by attempting to bring religion into abortion. Why not bring religion into cancer, over eating, smoking, improper diet, lack of exercise etc.

I think it is at the stage where university academics cannot be relied upon for anything.

I find feminist's eagerness on this issue chilling to the bone at such heartless greed and two-faced pretentiousness.

The child is not your body, it is a seperate individual. This is a fact.

People have been fooled too long on this and don't realise that many feminists behind abortion are deadly serious when they think that any baby can be killed for any reason at any time...and can say this with almost violent greed.

I draw a line myself but it is at a much simpler stage of the process and I do support women who *need* it.

ScienceLaw “Our choices are subjugated every day to others' beliefs - I cannot rob a bank, much as I would like to, regardless of whether I choose to believe it is OK.”

And so they should be.

Our choices are subjugated to balance with the rights of others.

However, the interrelation between a pregnant woman and the embryo / foetus inside her is unique and entirely different to the relationship to external entities.

The point of difference is this

The woman is a separate cognitive entity compared to all other folk who might have savings in the bank your illustration foresees her robbing.

The woman is not a separate entity to the embryo / foetus growing within her body.

A woman is the principle occupant and user of her bodily functions and resources.
An embryo / foetus is a secondary occupant and user of a woman’s bodily functions and resources.

In a case of competing rights and entitlements, the primary occupant has priority of discretion over the secondary occupant, especially when we consider the primary occupant is a cognitive being, capable of reasoning and intelligent understanding to her circumstances and wishes, whereas the secondary occupant has not developed any such reasoning, intelligent awareness or wishes.

But the whole issue of choice is central to being a human being.

We are not like ants, whose primitive existence exists only within a structured order.

Central to being an individual is our free will.

Exercising that free will means our lives will be affected by the decisions we take.

Sometimes those decisions will be the right thing to do and other times possibly things we may later regret.

If we make those choices freely, without duress, we have only ourselves to congratulate or blame for the outcomes and results of our life.

If that free will is denied us, we are no different to the ant, with an existence tolerated within a structured order.

Ultimately, the difference between life and existence is not the decisions we make but the right to make those decisions

HRS: "Disregarding the issue of whether or not the fetus is human"

Convenient.

HRS: "Abortion [has] physical and psychological risks".

So does giving birth to a baby (eg. post natal depression, birth complication), especially where the pregnancy was unwanted. Even worse, being forced to go through the process with no choice in the matter would risk further psychological harm.

HRS: "clinics can start encouraging or compelling women to have abortions"

Slippery slope fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

HRS: "feminists can begin brainwashing women into having more abortions"

Slippery slope, plus an unhealthy dose of conspiracy theory.

"various gender prejuiced feminists could also use unregulated abortion to kill baby boys"

Slippery slope again! So you support regulated abortion .. what form does that regulation take?

HRS: "a race can carry out too much abortion, and eventually they cannot maintain their population numbers, and they become extinct, which now appears to be happening to a number of races in Europe"

Show us the research - but you can't because you discount all academics. Convenient. Permissive and highly atheistic/agnostic, Netherlands has exceedingly low abortion rates .. please explain.

SO ignoring these delaying tactics, what about whether an embryo is a person or not?

ScienceLaw,

I didn't intend "religious right" as an insult, just a description of religiously and politically conservative people, such as dominate the anti-abortion movement in the United States.

If having a mind is irrelevant, then why isn't it murder to shut down the life support system of a brain-dead accident victim? It is quite possible to imagine advances in technology that would allow a body in this state, possibly even without a head, or an anencephalic infant to be maintained on life support indefinitely, but at enormous cost.

Why, if embryos are full human persons, do we only need to meet the lower standard of not killing, and not the higher standard of saving, as opposed to how we treat other people? Again, it is quite possible to imagine grossly abnormal embryos detected, removed from the womb, and maintained in some sort of artificial womb or on artificial life support, at ruinous cost to the parents or society. If it turns out that the female body can actively expel or prevent the implantation of abnormal embryos, is the woman obliged to suppress this natural mechanism?

Sancho: "Can someone show me one of these "pro-abortionists"? This debate only ever plays out between anti-choice advocates who wish to dictate how women may treat their own bodies, and pro-choice advocates who respect the decision to either abort or bear a child.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. That should be the end of the argument."

If you are willing to allow others the choice to take an action, you are de facto approving of that action. It is not enough to say "I wouldn't do it myself, but I won't stop others" or "If you don't want one, don't have one; but don't stop others". Easily illustrated by a strong example: If you agree that it is up to others to choose whether or not to keep slaves, you are implicitly approving slavery by allowing it to continue (on the basis of someone's right to choose). Would you ever say, "If you don't want to be racist, just don't be racist, but don't stop others being racist if they choose"? No, because that is effectively condoning racism as a valid choice.
Pro-choice advocates are thus de facto pro-abortion.

We "anti-choicers" don't agree that the issue turns on the woman's choice, but on the rights of the fetus. In my slavery example above, we would say the slave's rights trump the choice rights of the "owner". Ditto for the racism example: society should stop people being racist, and whether they wish to be so (or even accept that certain behaviour is racist) should be irrelevant. That's the gist of our whole argument on the choice point - that's its not an issue where choice is paramount.

Rojo: You are perhaps losing sight of your original point. You said "Women should...not be subjugated because of others beliefs."

I responded that our choices are subjugated every day to others' beliefs. As you say, "of course you can rob a bank, you just have to either get away with it or take the consequences"; but your choice to do so is still subjugated. Because of society's belief that robbery is wrong, you will be locked up, or you will be prevented from robbing the bank, or you will spend your life on the run - none of these would be circumstances you would choose (as I imagine your choice would be to rob the bank and live happily ever after on a beach on the proceeds – well, that would be mine!).

I am currently subjugated to my employer's belief that I should work for my pay; if I choose not to, I will be subjugated to his belief that I should lose my job, and then to the bank's belief I should lose my house for non-payment of the mortgage.

In summary, to say that making abortion illegal would subjugate a woman's choice to others' beliefs is not a strong argument, since that's basically what laws do.

sciencelaw,"In summary, to say that making abortion illegal would subjugate a woman's choice to others' beliefs is not a strong argument, since that's basically what laws do."
my point was that there is majority consensus that robbery etc is wrong, but no such consensus on abortion. In the absence of a clear consensus on right or wrong, I believe it is the womans own moral view that takes precedence. I fail to see the guaranteed benefit to anyone, even the potential child, of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want.

Employers/banks expectations are reasonably well defined, and generally mutually beneficial.

You have the right to support fetus rights, just as I have a right to support the womans choice, which I think overides the rights of a group of cells that have the potential to be a person.
I guess it comes down to what you believe it is to be human, merely having a body or is it the neural connections that give us consciousness, or the experiences that mould our personality. I suspect we will all have different views on that.

If the argument for fetal rights is profound enough then the woman by choice will not abort, and no-one need make decisions on her behalf.

ScienceLaw” If you are willing to allow others the choice to take an action, you are de facto approving of that action.”

I do not wholly agree with that statement. I do however agree with the following

I defend my own individual sovereign right to make the decisions which effect my life and I know that my right is only secured by ensuring the sovereignty of others is similarly protected.

“If you agree that it is up to others to choose whether or not to keep slaves, you are implicitly approving slavery by allowing it to continue”

Another fallacious example.

The keeping of slaves requires one individual to impose their will and hold dominion over another individual.

The relationship pregnant woman and the embryo developing within her is, because they are both exclusively dependent upon the same bodily resources, is entirely different to a master:slave relationship, where the master and the slave are not exclusively dependent upon the same bodily resources.

Actually what ScienceLaw is demanding is for every pregnant woman to be “Enslaved” to ScienceLaws authority and dominion by denying those pregnant women are denied their sovereign choice to make up their own mind.

“We "anti-choicers" don't agree that the issue turns on the woman's choice, but on the rights of the fetus. In my slavery example above, we would say the slave's rights trump the choice rights of the "owner".”

All you have done is (supposedly) liberated the fetus by enslaving the woman.

In my humbly opinion, that is a heinous barter, a deal with the devil.

Better the secondary or subordinate occupant of a woman’s body (the fetus) be extended considerations subordinate to the will of the principle occupant of the womans body (the woman herself).

Your comparison to employee and employer is equally invalid. You do not have a unique and non-duplicable relationship with any one specific employer, unlike the specificity in the pregnant woman : embryo relationship.

ScienceLaw,

Your slavery example presupposes two people, something that the rest of us would not accept in the case of a first trimester abortion (or the morning after pill or IUD). If you are willing to accept the brain death criteria to distinguish between a human person and human tissue at the end of life, why wouldn't the same criteria apply at the beginning? As the late Carl Sagan said, if there is brain death, then there logically has to be brain birth. He put brain birth somewhere in the second trimester, so wouldn't have agreed with Peter Singer about infanticide or very late abortions. I don't either.

Incidentally, the majority view among early Christians was that abortion was morally wrong at any stage, but didn't become immediately tantamount to murder. We know this from the different penances suggested for late and early abortion in early manuals for priests.

A large group can be tyrannical in a democracy, the real issue is whether it is right or wrong to kill the unborn.

Everyone knows human life along with the life of every animal starts at conception, human rights are there to protect humans. Killing innocent humans is wrong.

Either we all have rights or only some have rights, if they are arbitrarily assigned at a certain stage of human development or lack of it what stops other rights being arbitrarily assigned. Perhaps one day we’ll find ourselves on the wrong end of a majority decision to end our life.

(Don’t worry they’ll use anaesthetics.)

Who decides if you are worthy of life? Or if you are human? Or is it intrinsic to us? A slavemaster used to be allowed to decide. A slavemaster had unparalleled access to the humanity of their slave – in our time organised criminals mete out justice according to their own rules, with unrestricted abortion we would allow something similar - allow the whim of individuals to determine who is going to live or die.

If abortion is allowed now, in a decade or two what about involuntary euthanasia of you or me? We aren’t pretending to ourselves that we might escape the effects of an increasingly callous society are we? If society is so accepting of killing its inconvenient young children, what about killing its inconvenient elderly or not so elderly?

Fools.

That there is a desire to protect sexual license by sacrificing 90 000 of our children per year ought to show us how desperate our situation is.

Generations that actually make it out of the womb (that most hostile of places for humans these days), will name what we explained away as the "surgical removal of a clump of cells" as the barbaric child sacrifice it is.

(Abortion in the first trimester)
http://www.silentscream.org

Divergence – I think your arguments are very intelligent and well-made, so here goes!

“Your slavery example presupposes two people, something that the rest of us would not accept in the case of a first trimester abortion (or the morning after pill or IUD).”

I acknowledge that that is something you and many others do not accept (and as you know I think otherwise).

My point is that people made the exact same argument at the time of slavery – that black people were not people, and this was the basis on which they denied their rights. We need to be so so careful about ever doing this again, whether it's on the basis of skin colour or age/stage of development.

Divergence “If you are willing to accept the brain death criteria to distinguish between a human person and human tissue at the end of life, why wouldn't the same criteria apply at the beginning? As the late Carl Sagan said, if there is brain death, then there logically has to be brain birth. He put brain birth somewhere in the second trimester”

I disagree with this – there is evidently growth and development before this stage, so life is there already. The development of the brain (like that of all organs of the fetus) is continual from conception; the second trimester may be the stage at which we (with our imperfect skills and equipment) become able to detect brain activity.

Also, on such a vital issue, “somewhere in the second trimester” is too vague a delineation. If we are unsure, we should err on the side of the fetus. [There is a famous allegory that used to come up in philosophy classes. You are out hunting with a friend, and you become separated. There is movement in the trees; could be a deer, or it could be your friend. Do you shoot? Of course not, until you are absolutely sure it is not your friend – ie you err on his side, rather than take any risk.]

“Incidentally, the majority view among early Christians was that abortion was morally wrong at any stage, but didn't become immediately tantamount to murder. We know this from the different penances suggested for late and early abortion in early manuals for priests.”

That’s interesting – I did not know that. Still, I would say that was due to people in those early times not having the knowledge of embryology and fetal development we now have. I think they thought a fetus was not alive til “quickening” (?The first time the mother felt it move). We now know different.

ScienceLaw,

I would be inclined to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt in the later months of pregnancy, but an embryo or early fetus either has no nervous system or only has a very rudimentary one, i.e. no capacity for consciousness. There is no room for doubt at this stage. There is no question that living human tissue exists from the moment of conception, but it also exists in a brain-dead body on life support. To say human tissue = person or potential person = person is a matter of religious revelation, not reason.

Martin,

Some of us don't want to be hung as albatrosses around the necks of our children. I am actually far less worried about being offed prematurely than about being kept alive to suffer, long past the point when I would have been mercifully dead back in the first century, thanks to the efforts of the religious zealots and their allies, the money-hungry medical industry and the venal politicians they buy.

Divergence: “An embryo or early fetus either has no nervous system or only has a very rudimentary one, i.e. no capacity for consciousness. There is no room for doubt at this stage.”

Why is consciousness the criterion for determining who is entitled to human rights? Again, like for “personhood”, we are imposing another threshold for an entity to “earn” its humanity. I see this as arbitrary – why choose consciousness? Why not birth, ability to walk unaided, passing a fifth birthday? (or having white skin/non-Jewish religion, for that matter?). Of course I can see arguments why attaining consciousness is an important stage of development, but as I’ve said all along I do not feel humanity needs to be earnt or conferred by criteria decided by others.

“There is no question that living human tissue exists from the moment of conception, but it also exists in a brain-dead body on life support. To say human tissue = person or potential person = person is a matter of religious revelation, not reason.”

I did not say that; I said there was growth and development before brain activity becomes observable, and hence human life was present before that stage.

Divergence "...thanks to the efforts of the religious zealots and their allies, the money-hungry medical industry and the venal politicians they buy."

Ooops - on the back of this comment, I now withdraw my earlier statement that I thought your arguments were intelligent and well made. My mistake.

ScienceLaw,

You accept that consciousness distinguishes human tissue from a human person at the end of life by the brain death criteria. I am applying exactly the same criteria at the beginning. If you have religious reasons for not accepting this, that is fine, but you are the one being inconsistent here. If it is good enough for the end of life, why not the beginning?

The religious conservatives have lost, rightly or wrongly, on nearly every other issue besides euthanasia: contraception, divorce, abortion, gambling, Sunday trading, votes for women, you name it. According to the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, Richard Nicholson (in 6/10/06 (London) Times Higher Education Supplement) half the money ever spent on an individual's health care is spent, on average, in the last six months of life. A recent news report (sorry, I didn't save the reference) said that 70% of the money spent on Australian public hospitals goes for people who will be dead within six months. Do you seriously think that the people who benefit from this enormous stream of money will not take steps to protect it, from euthanasia or even an effective right to refuse treatment?

"Why is consciousness the criterion for determining who is entitled to human rights"

Because without consciousness the entity has nothing to lose. We could use birth as a natural default, but we do know awareness , and viability precede that when we consider full term babies. Some regard "wakefulness" at the around the 28-30 week stage as the beginning of consciousness, whereas babies can apparently survive from 22 weeks in the case of premature birth.
Who let's an unwanted pregnancy get to 22 weeks?


Why do fanatical pro-lifers have to resort to such misinformation as provided by the likes of "silentscream.org" to defend their position. Isn't there any compelling real evidence?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf

Ludwig

"A steady rate of new discussions is good. Broad variety is fine. But I think that obvious duplication is unfortunate."

I agree. In my effort to track both debates when those two Henson threads were running concurrently, I actually posted a considered response on the wrong thread. Even though the topic was the same, the post itself was out of context and referred to posters who weren't on that particular thread etc. I've never done that before or since and did find it quite annoying at the time.

"With regard to being able to fix typing errors after posting, if new posts appeared in different colour print or on a different colour background or with a notice attached, for the first 15 minutes or half an hour, thus indicating that they are open to alteration..."

As much as I would like this situation to exist when I personally stuff up, as above, I think it would slow, complicate and confuse the thread more than it's worth. I actually don't think it hurts to know there is no going back and that you have to consider your response carefully before you post. It helps keep the general standards up I think.

..."any thread that is below the first five doesn’t get seen on the main page, unless the reader expands the list to 20, 50, 100 or 200. How many readers think to do this? I’d reckon that a lot just don’t bother."

I always change it to 20 and occasionally to 50. Having it too long to begin with though would just add to the loading time every time you wanted to go to that section.

"Perhaps it would also be useful if older popular and active threads that slip right down the list could be brought up towards the top?"

I think it's important to keep the order so that the archive is a true record.

Sorry to dump on your good ideas, Ludwig! I relate to most points you've raised, but on reflection usually end up deciding that there are more reasons to maintain the status quo.

Excellent post, rojo, and a very interesting paper.

To continue with the argument for why strong pressure (beyond that of the Christian groups) was brought to bear on euthanasia, but not abortion, consider the Andrews Bill. It overturned the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation by a vote of 88 to 35 in the Lower House and 38 to 33 in the Senate. Opinion polls then and later showed 70-80% public support for voluntary euthanasia.

Even if we assume a 40% probability that a politician has strong convictions against euthanasia (and why should they think differently from everyone else on this?) the probability that, by chance, the bill would be passed in the House, even by a bare majority, was 0.6%. The probability that it would be passed in the Senate, by chance, even by a bare majority, was 3.6%. The probability of both these events occurring was 0.08%. (See any textbook on probability and statistics, and look up normal approximation to binomial distribution, assuming 149 Members and 78 Senators.)

Which is more likely? That this all happened by chance, or that there was strong lobbying from the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment suppliers, and other groups who profit from end of life care? If the claim is made that the politicians are much more likely to be authoritarian Christians than the rest of the population, then why haven't they made abortion illegal, despite strong lobbying from the Religious Right?

Sorry folks, wrong thread. Ignore my last post which I'm sure you have

Rojo despite the fact that fetal pain misses the point, is that all you can say about what you saw? Is an embryo like a plant in your mind?

Do you hold Peter Singer’s position on infanticide for a similar reason about ‘the greater good’?

Maybe I could anaesthetise to unconsciousness and then kill?

Killing a fetus that if left alone would in the ordinary course of events grow into a sensing, dreaming, believing human creature, so as to prevent consciousness to justify this killing is repugnant. “If she survived to consciousness she has moral worth, if she’s killed as an embryo she had no consciousness and therefore no moral worth”.

Pro abortion positions are incoherent, and our reason is repelled by them.

Scepticism about what humans can know about the external world, (human biology in particular), and our own motivations is a healthy thing and the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life. Happening far more often than medical science recognises, a supposedly comatose/brain dead individual is often fully aware. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3004892.ece
I’m hearing too many voices so quick to kill.

“History does show us that those whom we would exclude from the community of the commonly protected, those whom we would kill or authorize the killing of, we first dehumanize.” Prof Robert George Princeton Moral Philosopher

The merits for or against voluntary euthanasia don’t interest me here Divergence, the involuntary kind however, even you would be against - preventing as it might some further indulgences before (what you believe to be) your extinction at death. We can all do without the fear that in a weakened state we will have to worry about whether we have been targeted for a ‘merciful’ death.

Clearly you are prepared to protect your own life from someone’s arbitrary decision to kill you, why not protect those who have no voice at all?

We would kill THEM?

You may wish to hasten your own death, for all I care the whole culture of death can go off to its demographic destruction http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

But leave the little ones alone!

A tale of three weasel words ...

1. "We would kill THEM?" No, because "them" implies (for example) that a 4-celled embryo is a "them" - a person - which it is not. Someone asked whether an embryo was like a plant. In fact, grown vascular plants are far more developed than a 4-celled embryo. If you happen to believe that the embryo is magically imbued with some supernatural 'soul' at the moment the sperm hits the egg then you might see things differently.

2. Using the term "PRO ABORTION" for people that protect the right to choose is like saying that a waiter who respects the choice of a customer over whether to have coffee or not is "pro coffee".

3. To paraphrase: "An embryo is HUMAN, and thus must have HUMAN rights". The term 'human' has at least two meanings: (a) an instance of organism of the species Homo sapiens, and (b) a natural person. When people are talking about human rights, there are referring to the second meaning. The two should not be confused (see no. 1) because while an 4-celled embryo is technically a member of Homo sapiens, it is far from being a person as most people understand the term.

Let's talk about "culture of death" and who the real baby killers are. There is an article by Madeleine Bunting in the 4/7/08 Weekly Guardian about the work of Ann Pettifor on maternal mortality in the Third World. In some African countries one out of 16 women dies in childbirth. Pettifor is trying to find ways to distribute a kit devised by Prof. Anthony Costello that would allow traditional village midwives to save most of these women. It contains antibiotics to cure infections after birth and a drug called misoprostol to treat postpartum hemorrhage.

The "pro-life" lobby is trying to block distribution of the kit, because misoprostol can be used an abortion drug. Doctors in the West use it along with RU486, but it is not a good abortion drug on its own. Nevertheless, some desperate women might be tempted to use it if they lack other choices.

It is obviously better for the "pro-life" types that these mothers die in childbirth to (maybe) save some embryos. Of course, the new baby is then also very likely to die. (Before the 20th century a baby only had about a 1 in 10 chance of survival in this case.) The survival of any older siblings might also be compromised.

I am not in favour of either abortion or euthanasia, by the way, although I am worried about being kept alive against my will. I am just not arrogant enough to think that I can make choices for other people. I have better things to worry about than Martin's petty and vindictive God.

Let me do some tabulating Sams:

1. You believe a plant with greater cellular development has more moral significance than an human embryo.

2. You think you know what a person is; but in a deep sleep or coma I wonder whether your definition would still make sense. So what then? The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain.

If it is more permissible to kill a fetus than to kill an infant because the fetus is less of a person, then it is for exactly the same reason more permissible to kill a seven-year-old, who has not yet developed his reproductive system or many of his educational and communications skills, than to kill a 27-year-old.

3. To paraphrase you want to decide what a person is so you can go on killing them.

4.You want the right to choose who lives and who dies? Explain to me what individual citizens, apart from the State and the justice system have been granted the right to decide for themselves when they may use lethal violence on another? Talk to me about this kind of “right to choose” while you order your coffee.

You know what I think the weasel word is mate? Personhood - because of the slimey elitist definition you have of it. The kind of definition: that justifies the killing of 90 000 of us in the womb every year, that went along with the term untermenschen only sixty years ago, and that prejudices the preferences of the powerful over the weak by dehumanising THEM.

"Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain."

So, abortion is wrong because it destroys a living soul with free will that wants to survive, but humans are also pre-programmed automatons whose individuality is cast at conception?

"If it is more permissible to kill a fetus than to kill an infant because the fetus is less of a person, then it is for exactly the same reason more permissible to kill a seven-year-old, who has not yet developed his reproductive system or many of his educational and communications skills, than to kill a 27-year-old."

If you've been participating in the abortion debate this long, but still think this sort of nonsense constitutes an argument, it's hard to believe you're susceptible to rationality. A seven or 27-year-old is sentient and has free will, and can tell you whether or not it is willing to die. A foetus has the intellect of plankton and cannot. The day an embryo can tell me it wants to live and why, I'll become a pro-lifer.

Martin: "You think you know what a person is" ... "The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain"

And you think you can predict the future. A zygote may die (in fact most do before birth due to genetic defects), .. more below ...

"Killing a fetus that if left alone would in the ordinary course of events grow into a sensing, dreaming, believing human creature, so as to prevent consciousness to justify this killing is repugnant."

Your line of reasoning would lead us to stop recycling old cars, because someone might have sex in the back of one and conceive a baby.

Martin: "Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality" ... "and aversion to spinach.".,.. "The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb"

Sorry, you are quite wrong there. Much of this is determined by environment. As for the tulip bulb, you mean a tulip cell, since each cell can lead to a tulip plant. In fact, each cell in your body could in theory be used to clone you because it has your DNA. On no - don't let them take blood, they are killing millions of personhoods :-)

"To paraphrase you want to decide what a person is so you can go on killing them."

The sentence is tautological. It makes about as much sense as 'you want to decide whether rocks are people so you can go on killing them'. The correct paraphrase is: 'you want to decide what a person is so you can avoid killing them', in which case that is true. I'd prefer not to kill any embryos either by the way, but this is not about me, this is about freedom of choice.

And of course, the inevitable comparison to Nazi Germany .. the last bastion of a failed debater.

Sams,
I would think that most of the babies being aborted are quite healthy, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be in the womb.

Religions can appear and disappear in time, but I would also think that most species of plant or animal go to considerable lengths to protect the fertilised ovum cell (except for homo sapiens it seems).

However I’m perplexed as to why there are restrictions placed on what IVF clinics can do with haploid sperm or egg cells, but certain people want no restrictions placed on what abortion clinics can do with a diploid zygote cell(that contains the full quota of human chromosomes)?

martin, it's an interesting point and strangely enough there are plants that react to touch stimuli by moving, I'm not sure where that leaves our discussion.

No idea about peter singers ideas on infanticide, isn't he the "don't eat animals" bloke? He must have a conflicting set of ideals.
I thought I was pretty plain about consciousness as to where I would have taken as a max. delination, with a personal default position of viable age (currently about 22 weeks). Why anyone would allow an unwanted pregnancy to get to 22 weeks is beyond me, but ask yourself if these are the type of women you wish to force to bear an unwanted child.

"Maybe I could anaesthetise to unconsciousness and then kill?"
maybe you could martin, however unconsciousness as a prelude to murder isn't the same thing, as presumably without the latter the former would wake up again (emphasis on again). In this case you would be taking away their consciousness, as opposed to not granting consciousness. Subtle difference but very important.
Your whole argument really boils down to the potential of the zygote/embryo/fetus, not on it's status at the point of termination.
Morals are highly subjective, what makes your's right and the woman's wrong. Who judges? If we take it as her peers then the majority will back the ability to choose.

I read your link but you must have missed the line: "Vegetative state and minimal-conscious state are different from brain death", no-one questions comatose patients can recover. they've had life, experiences,and particularly have loved ones that want them back. I too would give loved ones that don't need life support the benefit of doubt. The decision to stop feeding would be terribly difficult.
Do have another look at the "landmark comas" at the end, and consider is life always worth living.

"Pro abortion positions are incoherent, and our reason is repelled by them." hmmm, this just about sums it all up

Nice post sams and rstuart, though both runner and HRS have proven themselves immune to logic or reason.

Were I to predict their response to this post, I'd say runner would say it's an example of the vilification of Christians, instead of criticism of his particular approach. I found it rather amusing that despite your clear evidence of his repeated claims of victim status, he still denies it.

Alternatively, he might just say how evil abortions are and make some comment about earthworshippers or babykillers, ignoring the fact that other people don't consider it a baby. Engaging on a philosophical level where you can discuss views as to what makes a person a person requires a degree of respect for other views. Runner claims it is his view that is not respected.

I put it to you runner, your view is not respected because you've no respect for any other views on abortion. Before you call it 'baby killing!', ask yourself why others don't view them as babies, and don't take the cheap easy route of assuming they're all just bad people, or they just want the most convenient answer. Consider that perhaps, if foetuses aren't seen as individual people, forcing a woman to give birth against her will is the greater of two evils.

This might take effort. I honestly don't think you're capable of it, but maybe you can surprise me. I feel as though I'm bashing my head against a wall, but I have a slim hope that perhaps some small reflective part of you can consider what I'm saying and surprise me.

Now were I to predict HRS's response, it would be 'ahh, they're being abusive! You're all so abusive! Abusive people like abortions! Therefore, women shouldn't be able to choose!'

Make sense? No? Well, don't point that out, or you'll be labelled abusive.

HRS, I'm pretty sure this line of reasoning proves you're a misogynist, and you've never been able to correct it, so I'd say I'm not the least surprise you don't wish to grant women these rights. You have accepted all of the following. I can link to them:

1) Any person who says they're a feminist, is a feminist.
2) Some people who believe women should have equal rights to men, would call themselves feminists.
3) You believe all feminists are evil and can't accept any could be good.
4) Even a person who called themselves a feminist because they oppose the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia. (I've asked you to deny this, but you just can't accept any good from feminism so you can't).

Therefore, the combined logic of the above indicates you don't believe women deserve equal rights to men, therefore you are a misogynist.
To bring this back to topic, I'd say that your impractical views on contraception, calls that abortions must be stopped, and your misogynistic views as evidenced by the above lines, is the source of your view that women shouldn't have the right to choose.

I'd put it to readers that both runner and HRS are indeed extremists who don't have regard for those with opposing views.
I'm not saying I disrespect the pro-lifer position. I think sciencelaw, for example, has made some persuasive posts which I politely disagree with, but they're persuasive because there's some understanding that there are two views here, that both need consideration.

Sams you're an embarrassment.

What? Zygotes sometimes die in a spontaneous miscarriage so therefore I can kill them? Ipso facto given death is inevitable I can kill you?! – As for your inevitable death I DO know the future mate. Trying to justify the killing of a new unique human being because it may spontaneously miscarry is absurd. And you’re criticizing my ability to debate? “Have IQ’s just dropped sharply while I was away?”. This is an embarrassment.

I state a pro abortion position, that is, if a fetus makes it to birth it is a significant part of the human community and can be protected, but if it is killed then it didn’t have moral significance – and you say its MY line of reasoning? And crap on about used cars! Do I need more proof that pro abortionists are soft headed and hard hearted? No wonder children are destroyed by their parents given this level of mindlessness.

Sams you are not only philosophically illiterate but scientifically illiterate also. What cells of the body grow into a bouncing baby boy or girl if left alone to do what they do? Only in a deformed imagination like yours would human cells be used to clone people.

It most certainly is tautological, pro abortionists decide whomever they kill in the womb is not a person because people are human beings not aborted in the womb! You keep unconsciously showing everyone the incoherence of the pro abortion position. Something good in you is trying to trip you up from going further down this murderous path.

And again if you can’t see how members of the human family in the past have been dehumanized and accept the precaution as intended then you’re not worth talking to.

Go and read some moral philosophy (this goes for you too rojo "morals are highly subjective" fair dinkum!!), this is life or death for those utterly dependent on our protection.

Martin: "Trying to justify the killing of a new unique human being because it may spontaneously miscarry is absurd."

Wikipedia: "To 'set up a straw man'" ... "is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute"

Martin: "Have IQ’s just dropped sharply while I was away?" ... ""Sams you are not only philosophically illiterate but scientifically illiterate also" .. "Only in a deformed imagination like yours" ... "you’re not worth talking to"

Wikipedia: "An ad hominem argument," ... "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Martin: "It most certainly is tautological"

At least here you admit your error.

No case to answer here, just a hateful attitude and a truckload of illogic.

PS: given my publications in international science journals, one can infer that at least the reviewers didn't think I was "scientifically illiterate".

Sams,
I don’t know too many scientists who refer to Wikipedia, as there are groups of people who launch attacks on Wikipedia and change the data, similar to hacking.

Reminds me of what the corrupt NARAL organization did to abortion statistics in the US. They hacked the abortion statistics, as well as vilifying anyone who questioned the necessity to have so much abortion, calling them extremists or right wing and so on.

It was all done to add more money to the bank accounts of abortionists. Abortion loving feminists went along with it also, and still do.

HRS: "I don’t know too many scientists who refer to Wikipedia, as there are groups of people who launch attacks on Wikipedia and change the data, similar to hacking."

I'm pretty sure then you don't know any scientists at all. There are plenty contributing to Wikipedia by the way. Most people are doing the right thing, and what few hacks there are are usually repaired rapidly, but you must always be cautious when using any such information source. Fortunately, I already know the definitions, but used Wikipedia to borrow some nice wording. You should learn the classical fallacies, although I think there is about as much chance of that happening as a Teflon frying pan absorbing a fried egg. The phrase "Teflon intellect" springs to mind.

"Reminds me of what the corrupt NARAL organization " .. rant .. rant

Isn't this the third or fourth re-bleat, er, repeat? Does somehow repeating something make it true?

Sorry people, I posted the above on the wrong abortion thread, I've let Graham Young know and hope he'll delete that (and this) post for me.

It was a post for you, HRS, I've posted the same in the correct discussion so you can reply there if you want to.

Sams,
I’d recommend Dictionary.com rather than Wikipedia, as Dictionary.com normally references several sources when defining a word, and will often reference a number of science dictionaries.

“Does somehow repeating something make it true?”
This reminds me of the repeated mantra from pro-abortion lobbyists that the foetus is not human.

Celivia,
I’ll solve the abortion problem for you.

Dentists carry out a number of programs to reduce tooth decay, and doctors and nurses carry out various programs to reduce heart disease, cancer rates etc. That is all good, but I haven’t heard of too many abortion clinics that carry out programs to reduce the rate of abortion.

Relying on academics to reduce the rate of abortion is obviously a waste of time, as most appear feminist, but the government could put increased pressure on the actual abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion. If an abortion clinic cannot demonstrate that it has in place significant programs to reduce the rate of abortion, then that abortion clinic loses its licence to operate.

Programs run by abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion could include counselling of women who have had an abortion to reduce the chances of a repeat abortion, contraception education, keeping better statistics, running better research programs etc.

It seems quite fair, ethical and responsible for a government to put increased pressure on the abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion, as much of the money going to abortion clinics is taxpayer money. However abortion clinics, pro-abortion lobbyists, academics or feminists would probably object to this in some way, thereby ensuring the abortion rate stays the same or increases.

martin, re:fair dinkum, thankyou for a rigorous analysis of my points. thought so.

lets have a real think about it, sex before marriage viewed as immoral by some, hows that work in practise? homosexuality, hows that by you? certainly likely to have a similar disapproval rating than abortion, but does that make disapproval morally right.

The thing you might like to think about is how all this immorality affects you. How are you personally affected by someone you don't know terminating a pregnancy you didn't know about for reasons you know nothing about.
On the flipside a woman(or 90000) is expected to endure and complete pregnancy to salve your personal feelings of morality. Fair dinkum.

Back on Thursday, 3 July 2008 I posted some challenges to assertions by ScienceLaw which I note, ScienceLaw has conveniently ignored.

Doubtless ScienceLaw has no comeback to my expressed views so I will accept silence as ScienceLaws surrender to a superior argument.

Now Martin Ibn Warriq “If abortion is allowed now, in a decade or two what about involuntary euthanasia of you or me? We aren’t pretending to ourselves that we might escape the effects of an increasingly callous society are we? If society is so accepting of killing its inconvenient young children, what about killing its inconvenient elderly or not so elderly?

Fools.”

The ‘fool’ is Martin. He obviously confuses voluntary actions with state endorsed policy.

Btw, a fetus or embryo is not a young child.
Less ‘foolish’ folk acknowledge the transition, marked by the moment of birth, as separation from the mother dependency and the recognition of the individual “young child”.

Martin “Pro abortion positions are incoherent, and our reason is repelled by them.”

But ‘pro-choice’ is not “Pro-Abortion”.

I count myself among the many who are ‘pro-choice’ but have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”.

More foolishness, I fear.

“But leave the little ones alone!”

Leave the pregnant woman alone to decide for herself which burdens in life she wishes to accept and which she wishes to relinquish.

Her Body, not yours.
Her Choice, not yours.

Col Rouge, I've dipped out of this thread mainly because I feel I've said my piece, but as you've specifically referred to me I'll add this further short message (then it's definitely good night from me).

I did not respond to your earlier message partly because some of the points you made had already been raised in different language and addressed; and partly because I felt the debate at that time generally had moved to a higher level than your contribution's (sorry, I cannot think of a nice, unpatronising way of saying that). I preferred to use my two posts a day limit to respond to those at that level and try to move the discussion constructively forward, trusting that a response to your points would be self-evident to most readers.

ScienceLaw “I felt the debate at that time generally had moved to a higher level than your contribution's (sorry, I cannot think of a nice, unpatronising way of saying that).”

It seems to me, there can be no higher level of consideration than the matter of an individual’s personal sovereignty.

Certainly, I look at society as the supportive organization for individuals which comprise it.

You may consider it differently, maybe that we individual’s are all mere components which go to comprise a social whole. If that is the case I can appreciate at least why the matter goes completely over your head.

It seems to me, your patronizing attempt at deflection from that debate is simply because you lack the intellectual rigor to address it directly.

That you are so obviously disposed to dismiss what you cannot comprehend says volume to your limits, despite your pretensions.

I look forward to you coming back, once you have mustered both the backbone and the comprehension to challenge me.