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