Celivia

Only heartless people whose ideology is more important than the life of the unborn could not feel emotional about the murder of these little ones.

You know as well as anyone else that the vast majority of abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies (as opposed to the health risk of the mother). You along with others defend the indefencable. Thankfully some like the doctor I spoke to the other day are waking up to this mass killing. This man now deeply regrets his part in what he now calls murder. I take heart that the younger generation will have more compassion than the selfish baby boomers who want act immorally and take no responsibility.

Runner,
I do feel emotion when I think of the outlook of all those unwanted children who are shoved from one foster home to the next.
I feel emotion when I think of how street kids have to commit crimes to survive or are on drugs.
And I feel emotion when I hear of totally dysfunctional or mentally ill families who have no idea how to raise their children and starve or abuse them.
THAT is what I feel emotion about; that, and about filthy backyard abortions women have had to endure when no legal and safe abortion was available.
I also feel emotional when women have to go through birth only to produce a baby with no other option than lying in their little intensive care cot, suffering severe pain until death relieves them.
Suffering that could’ve prevented if the women had opted for abortion.

You’re still not any wiser about the difference between murder and killing, I see.
Once you learn the difference, perhaps you can tell that (born-again?) doctor he is wrong.

“I take heart that the younger generation will have more compassion than the selfish baby boomers ...”
I take heart that the younger generation will receive a better, more comprehensive sex education, which will probably happen as soon as governments are willing to ignore retarded, loudly lobbying fundies. I hope that the younger generation will have access to free contraception by then, too.

Country Gal,
I have been concerned about any possible pain involved in abortions as well. From what I’ve read there is on pain or awareness involved before the 24 week cut-off date because the foetus’ nervous system isn’t advanced enough to be able to experience pain although they can have reflexes.
If late term fetuses need to be aborted and there is any doubt about their ability to feel pain, I agree that anesthetic should be applied.

Celivia

Changing terms such as murder to termination does not change the act. Changing fornication to partner or adultery to relationship does not change the act. Playing on words to justify actions is pc gone mad.

MOst would prefer not to be brought up in a foster home but I am sure they are pleased that they at least have an opportunity to live.

On your summation many Indigenous kids would be murdered (sorry terminated) because they have very tough home lives. Or could it be that we can work harder to improve the lives of these kids as we could those fortunate enough to have someone caring enough not to abort them.

The trouble with anomous discussion is you have to get around the religion talking and try to decifer what they are realy trying to say. I don't believe in life at all cost, and i don't believe in people suffering without quality of life, at the other end.

Exactly Jason,
If Runner refuses to use the correct terms, then communication becomes unclear.

Runner,
Foetuses are killed by abortion, not murdered. Not many will take your arguments seriously if you keep using emotive language and the incorrect terms.

Fact is that up to 24 week old foetusus have extremely low survival rates when born prematurely, and in the past 12 years there has been no change in their survival rates.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3898503.ece

Runner do you get it that the religious right actually add to the number of abortions instead of minimising them?
We can teach abstinence-only education all we like but there is enough evidence to say it’s a failure!

Celivia - this is a quote from the link you posted:

"There were, however, significant improvements in the survival of babies born at 24 and 25 weeks. Of 497 babies admitted to intensive care in 2000–05, 236 (47 per cent) survived to discharge compared with 174 of 490 (36 per cent) in 1994–95."

This accords with the data I have already posted - roughly half of those born at 24 weeks will surive. So while survival of 23 weekers has not improved, 24 weekers HAS.

Presumably you are familiar with the concept of confounding also... you may like to consider that the very fact that babies are born prematurely indicates some sort of difficulty with the pregnancy, be it PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes), intra-uterine infection, maternal trauma, congenital abnormality, hemolytic disease etc. So it is common sense that a hitherto normal foetus, electively terminated at 24 weeks, would have stood a far better (on average) chance of survival than a spontaneously delivered 24 weeker.

I note with interest that you (and others on the "pro-choice" (bad term, used for convenience) end of this debate), appear to be engaging only with the lunar right on this topic, not with those such as myself that merely have an issue with the particular cutoff contained within the legislation.