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.