Michael is to be congratulated for so accurately pinning the pro-choice position. He exposes the absurd notion that the self is the ultimate authority and is insulated from the rest of society and its mores. We should all be appalled that so many abortions are taking place in our hospitals; if the foetus is not a human being what is it? Abortion is nothing less than murder and its legalization is an indication of how corrupt our society is.

Peter Sellick

There is one portion of this article I must object to, Cook wrote:
"Furthermore, "in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman”, the doctor must perform it." This should not even be an option, it should be a mandatory obligation. In many cases where an emergency situation exists that requires an abortion to save the life of the mother the child is too young to survive outside the womb. In those cases where the child is old enough medical complications from whatever is causing the emergency will often kill the child anyway even if it is delivered.

Although it may sound callous, should not the life of the child be sacrificed who to be fair has probably known (if conscious) nothing but warmth and comfort to save the life of the mother instead of trying a hopelessly desperate attempt to save both just to placate a doctors conscience? The answer from any sane rational person who does not have a vested interest must be yes.

As for the other issues of abortion, these are subjects in areas in which angels fear to tread. Fools have at it...

Michael accuses Leslie of being a relativist.

Perhaps he should read the contents of these two sites to see the easy chosen relativism of his favourite institution.

A relativism which it chose the moment the "church" was coopted by the Roman state,and thus became another entirely worldly power seeking institution, which inevitably created mountains of corpses and rivers of blood.

1. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

2. http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

' But what would happen if a 14-year-old girl requested to be circumcised? Unlikely, perhaps, but possible in certain cultural settings. Would MPs force a conscientious objector to refer the girl to a colleague down the corridor who specialises in genital mutilation? I think not. I suspect that they would regard mandatory referral as an abhorrent violation of a doctor’s conscience.'

Haha. Where is Steel? Would this be a Jewish doctor perhaps?

Many would question the belief that a doctor’s conscience is more important than a woman’s right to have an abortion. That a doctor would be too uptight to deny the woman a referral to another doctor (one without a conscience?) suggests that the doctor should find another occupation where he/she can refuse a service without denying another person her wish.

As for this male writer, the comparison of requested abortion with genital mutilation by another dreary pro-foetus person is rubbish.

As a male, I support women’s decisions to have an abortion or to not have an abortion. If I was opposed to abortion, I would keep my mouth shut because it is ‘women’s business’.

a sleazy misreading of cannold's piece.

but i appreciate sellick's response. in the past sellick has implicitly been a disgusting moral grandstander. it's refreshing that he is now explicitly a disgusting moral grandstander.

This piece is neatly typical of its kind. Chock full of near-facts, straw men and leaps of logic.

"It certainly left its mark on Ava Gardner, the American leading lady. 'On The Beach is a story about the end of the world,' she told the press, 'and Melbourne sure is the right place to film it'."

Not a good start.

http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?intid=659

Then comes the straw-man.

"But what would happen if a 14-year-old girl requested to be circumcised? ...Would MPs force a conscientious objector to refer the girl to a colleague down the corridor who specialises in genital mutilation?"

Enlighten me. Is genital mutilation legal in Victoria? I thought not. Straw-man.

And then there's the usual slime attack on those who take responsibility for their own decisions.

"'The right to act according to the dictates of our conscience is founded in the value of autonomy,' she says. 'Autonomy means self-rule. An autonomous person is one who is free to direct her life according to her own values.' In short, Ms Cannold is a relativist."

And the crime of the relativist is described as:

"her kind of conscience makes arbitrary, even capricious, choices. It is just a whim, like choosing between Colgate and Ipana, or painting your bathroom Autumn Peach or Twilight Rose, or ordering mango or chocolate chip ice cream."

That is of course the opinion of everyone who believes that their lives should be governed by others. But the evidence to support that opinion is extremely thin.

"A well-oiled conscience makes its choices based on reason and evidence, not on whimsy."

Having declared Ms Cannold's decisions to be whimsical, the article uses that at the logical base of their discrimination of a "well-oiled conscience".

What is absent here is any form of justification. It is the logical equivalent of my declaring that Christianity is merely a capricious whim, and deduce all further argument from that starting-point.

A conscience, by definition, is a personal quality.

If one simply follows someone else's rules, then - as was claimed at Nuremberg - conscience cannot, and does not, play any part.

Hows this for a Straw man, If the Author was in a car accident and was badly injured, would him be happy that the emergency doctors religious views ment that he would rather see him die then give him a blood transfusion? What about if the he was charged with touching kids, would he be okay with all the lawyers not wanting to defend a child molester? Or what about a Police officer only enforcing the laws he/she personally agreed with. In some community service roles you have to work to the states laws not your own. If you don’t want to , it’s easy find a different job.

Get of it the bulk of the community want these changes and we should not be held up by a bunch of fringe fanatics

You Pro-lifers must really hate God for designing such a cruel reproductive system. Nature kills off about 60% of "human life" if you believe the "Pro Life" line: God is such a bastard!
Seriously folks, calling a bundle of cells "human" and then treating them as the moral equivilent of a human adult is perverse.
Another thing is: The law is a social instrument, not a moral one. Stupid laws that prohibit things that people will find a way of doing anyway, for moral (read "everyone is different") reasons generate *much* more pain than they save.
By all means lecture, advertise and convince...but don't kill women and enrich crimminals by using the law to promote *your* morality.
Oh, and curtailing a doctor's power to bar a woman from her choice of action is not harming "conscientious objection"...it is protecting the woman from doctors who confuse medicine with opinion.
If they cannot convince the woman to change, then it is indeed their *duty* to do the right thing by their patient.

A Doctor whose conscience prohibits him from addressing the expressed requests of his patient has no right to deny that patient a procedure which is legal and available from other doctors.

In short, every doctors conscience is subordinate to the needs of their patients.

Anything otherwise would amount to a defense of a doctors personal decisions to employ indiscriminate actions, above and before the patient needs and rights.

Some doctors need to understand, they are service providers, not God Almighty

Exactly Col

You write

'Some doctors need to understand, they are service providers, not God Almighty'

In other words they should be saving life and not killing it. Leave the day of our death to God not those who find babies inconvenient.

I don't wish to go into the ethics of abortion but the bottom line has always been this. A woman can be pregnant without anyone else knowing. When the pregnancy is unwanted, that woman can take steps to end the pregnancy. If safe abortions aren't legally available, desperate women will try other methods to end the pregnancy. If it works, the pregnancy is terminated and no one is the wiser. However, the 'backyard' methods are crude and dangerous, and the health of the woman and the foetus can be horrifically compromised by them.

In short, abortions will always happen whether narrow-minded men like runner like it or not. Anti-choice activists would just prefer women to die instead of a bunch of cells.

Well done Col Rouge, Kenny and Ozandy. A practical law. Let's see how many doctor's go to jail for saying. "I won't perform this abortion. If you really want one, you need to go to another doctor."

This law seems designed to ensure that no doctor says "You absolutely cannot have an abortion under any circumstances and you must not go to any other doctor to get another opinion."

Leave the day of our death to God, when I hear statements like this I must ask that person to prove that this so called God exists, I think not.

The article concludes:

"If you accept abortion, you probably don't believe in truth. And, if you don't believe in truth, you won't think conscientious objection is worth the hassle."

The above is a non-sequitur and an unwarranted attack on those who accept abortion as not believing in truth.

I favour the right of a woman to decide to have an abortion. I also oppose the legislation. No one should be forced to provide or assist in a procedure that they think is wrong.

Favouring the right of abortion does not mean restricting the rights of those who oppose it.

The advantage of looking after one's own interests is that it's easy to see why we should do so. Anyone who argues for an absolutist moral stance, on the other hand, is obliged to provide some evidence why we should adopt it. "Because God says so" is not enough. "Because I want you to" is not enough. "Because it provides the best outcome for everyone" is better, but that in turn requires some empirical justification. If it is genuinely better to follow a set of rules than to make your own decisions, then clearly we should be doing it: but the fact is that no two groups of people can agree on what those rules should be. Why should we believe that the Catholics, for instance, have just happened to stumble on the right set of rules when everyone else has got them wrong?

If and when everyone can agree on a set of rules for right behaviour then we can have a serious debate about whether to adopt them. Until then we are better off looking after ourselves and letting others look after themselves too.

I'm pro-choice, but like david f. I am concerned with the rights of doctors who don't wish to be involved with assisting in abortions. Firstly, because they have changed the rules on the doctors. When the current crop of doctors trained, they went into it with no obligation to refer women for abortions. Secondly if we accept this as a legal obligation on doctors, what is then to stop a anti-pro-choice government changing it to doctors being prosecuted for assisting in abortions, a return to the bad old days.

Mostly I oppose this aspect of the legislation because I think we are being sold a lemon. The Victorian government is saying see 'we are helping women's rights, and not being judgemental about women seeking abortions'. But then rather than have a large advertising campaign on TV, radio, and in the press to inform women what their rights are, and where to access a abortion, which would truly be telling women that 'yes' the government supports their right to choose, and have access to free safe abortions and also tipping a lot of money into woman's services, they are trying to take the cheap inefficent option of trying to get the doctors to do their job for them.

Not good enough Mr Hulls! Get to work.

Where are we Going?

At a time where we could turn the page forever, address the human reality of others, as well as ourselves, we find ourselves being dogged by heel-bitting yappers who can see nobody else other, than themselves.

I am tired of the self-serving disaffirming contradictions that fail people in the path of community. It would be different if these 'self-servers' provided the 'buffer zone ' conscientiously to address household-poverty, especially where their research or knowledge experience is based on short-sighted dogma.

Be it the issue of abortion, elections or the problems on Wall St, it seems we are flat certain about continuing the demise of our unlearnt human past.

For example;

During the Roman civilization/s, thousands died in arenas, as slaves, and being tortured because they defied the morals and lifestyle their leaders of choose for them.

During the middle ages, leaders like Robert the Pious (King of France) and Pope Gregory IX created laws allowing the torture and burning of witches, Jews, and freethinkers.

Then there was the Holy Crusades and the Inquisition where thousands more died in war because they chose a different belief than the leaders of that time.

Even Queen Mary the first killed her own fellow citizens, especially Protestants, if they did not convert to Catholicism.

The US was formed partially from people seeking refuge from religious persecution. During 1930 and 1940, millions of humans lost their lives because Adolph Hitler believed the world should be ruled by a superior race that did not include Jews, Africans, and the disabled or mentally ill.

Which way can we go?

To me it feels that greater conscientious 'awareness' is a need to see the bigger picture so as to counterpoise an unbalanced world.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
 

Pericles has it in the bag. Discussion over, in my opinion.

I don't know if anybody noticed this but Micheal's objection about perfoming an abortion to save the mother's life was illogical.

If the termination is to save the mother and is refused BOTH will logically die or the premise is wrong.
Is he advocating killing two lives for his "morals".

If the foetus could be reasonably be saved then the doctor is oblidged to save BOTH in which case his arguement is a null.

The key argument is the validity of the survival of 24 week foetus. Need I point out that while some survive it is a forgone conclusion that EVERY 24wk foetuses will. Hence the dicission shouldnbe made on a case by case basis that getting all hot and bothered about comarative moral stances.

If the arguement is one or the other then the doctor is oblidged to use save the one most likely to survive/maintain life.

In short his whole piece is a pro-life rave and an ad hominem attack on the other author.

Thank you for this expression on conscience and what I consider legislation committed to achieving absolute choice by the practice of conscience shopping.

I would like to hear from those that support the "womans body - womans choice argument" in responding to my personal feelings on the issue. I am a man and I would grieve in the face of an aborted foetus if it were to be my child. I feel sickened by the very idea of exterminating foetuses, those foetal images look like a child to me. I have known pro-rights girls that have had abortions, one or two had multiple abortions, I knew them before and I knew them after. I can tell you that they were deeply affected. I didn't ever make my views known to them and if ever they asked me my response would only be versed in how i would suffer if it were to be my child.

We also have many women in society now that don't see the hypocrisy of being both hard line animal rights IFAW or PETA supporters and hard line abortion supporters. Even the baby whale couldn't be left to be eaten by the sharks. It talks of spiritual expedience to me.

I can forgive and have empathy for a desperate girl having a safe abortion but I can't agree with it or stop feeling sickened by it.

My last two cents on the subject - I haven't been so annoyed about an issue for ages. Various people in the media and in forums have said that while they acknowlege a doctors right not to perform an abortion, they think that it's taking it to far, for a doctor to have the right to not to be compelled to refer a woman on.

Really? Shouldn't it be up to the doctor as to what is okay with them? Isn't it a question of degrees? If a doctor is distressed at the thought of being involved at all in any way, shouldn't it be up to them, whether they refer on or not? It may be uptight in some people's eyes but it's the trampling on one group by another.

If the doctors rally, I'll be down there to march with them - pro-choice though I am - I think it's a matter of civil liberties.

If we can spend millions on feel good commercials around election times and on Terror campaigns in the media, surely we can have a public information campaign aimed at women, and a hotline with information available and reduce the hit and miss approach of women approaching GP's seeking information on abortions.

Pericles by a country mile, well said, nailed actually.

Tell me ciao, do you really mean 'hard line abortion supporters' or 'hard line pro-choicers'? There is a huge difference - and I have never met a so-called 'abortion supporter'. I am fervently pro-choice myself, but my preferred situation ALWAYS is that there should not be any unwanted pregnancies. The catholic church makes this hard with their ridiculous attitude on contraception, but when a religion wants more recruits at whatever cost to society, women or the planet, that is the outcome.

Catholic doctors and nurses who want to refuse to tell women considering an abortion where they can go for advice are just being precious. Such women will get the outcome they desire eventually, and being judgmental and petty is, to put it mildly, unchristian. What is that bit in the bible about judgment being for God, not people? Anyway, the big out for the Catholics has always been confession - do whatever you want then say you're sorry and all is forgiven. If it's OK for Mafiosi to murder people and get absolution, I'm sure Him upstairs wouldn't have any problem with giving a woman the name of a non-biased medical service. And how many of these doctors and nurses practice contraception themselves, in disobedience of their Church's edicts? Those who do are just as guilty of preventing a human life coming into being as a woman who has an abortion, and are hypocrites to boot.

Ozandy,

<<Seriously folks, calling a bundle of cells "human" and then treating them as the moral equivilent of a human adult is perverse.>>

Really? http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures_2.htm

Candide, I would call it hard line absolute choice.

The moral issue can never go away, it is the same for the death penalty for me, it is an absolute. But can I forgive a death penalty advocate on that? No. Whereas on abortion I couldn't take that line.

Now the question on abortion is whether it is my choice and others? Well you might read into it that I am certainly not hard line that it is my choice. But standing by when foetuses are terminated doesn't get any easier when in "the choice" expedience is indeed so much a factor and the later terms are just an extra blip on the debate. Another sickening thing the related issue of the pre-natal testing, how many down syndrome babies get terminated when if they showed up unannounced they would have been loved and cherished? I've seen many people who were mortified when told their kids were autistic, and thought they had been cheated in life, but they then went on to have fully rewarded lives with these kids despite all the hardships. So is rational choice in the face of that certain hardship the right choice?

On catholics, hypocrisy appears to me part of the deal, and I think is what allows it to survive, but I'm with JPII on eternal truths.

Ciao if so many people are happy to raise and love downs syndrome and autistic children why do 80% of disabled children end up in single parent families?

Billie, I was not aware of that statistic. I only know of 2 cases at first hand. 1 does fit that category, but I can tell you that the autistic child had nothing to do with it in that particular case and she continues to be loved by both parents. Other than that I add no comment other than the successful family has 4 kids with the boy concerned the eldest - a great kid too, but he has his moments. I keep thinking he wouldn't exist if the Orwellian state technocrats working on statistics had anything to do with it. So I don't refute your implication that marriage breakdown could increase as a result of the stress but I couldn't in any case abide individual termination decisions being justified by weights of numbers (which in turn are subject to other forces) within the sight of real people outcomes.

So its a meaningless bunch of cells when in utero.

But if my pregnant partner has a car accident with a negligent driver on her way to the abortion clinic and she miscarries, the other driver can be charged with ahem, 'man' slaughter.

Maybe we should all be done with the ridiculous pretentions to reason, as the fundamental driver of reason is NON-CONTRADICTION.

If you can hold two contrary notions at once, this is said to be the marker of a first rate mind. If you can live by the contradiction, your mind will be first rate, but the delusion will surely result yield insanity. Maybe thats why psycho-therapy and psychotrpic drug use has become so common. Its hard to get on while believing the lies.

l dont even know why folks bother trying to sound rational about stuff like this. Its not reason, its FORCE. Whose forcing who, l dont know. Everyone to some extent is as. It doesnt take much effort to intellectualise both sides.

Essentially, if you get the numbers (might is right) you get the laws (force) and you get your way. Women constitute a demographic majority. Its about time us men stepped aside and let them get of their arses and really be independent and NOT DO THEIR BIDDING. Thats is the biggest problem in women becoming equal. The sexes wanna bask in the fairytale 'lancelot to the rescue of damsel' co-dependant game of clipping each others wings... instead of learning to fly.

As a female medical student, I am absolutely horrified by the Victorian bill's mandatory requirement for a doctor to put aside his or her own morals and be involved in a woman eventually getting an abortion.

You might not think that the taking of a human life who happens to be developing inside of a uterus as opposed to outside of one is murder, but prolifers do. How would you like it if you were forced to be a part of something you considered murder?

I think it's ironic pro-choicers are standing against a doctor's right to choose not to be involved in this. It makes no sense ethically. It's not just the mother of the foetus that has some degree of autonomy- the doctor should as well.

I'm also weary of people treating abortion like a human right, or a medical necessity. I believe people who say prolife doctors should choose another profession are simply showing their ignorance. The Hippocratic Oath states explicity that doctors must not help a woman procure a miscarriage (abortion). Now I know we don't follow the Oath strictly (doctors kids aren't given preference in getting into medicine for example) but I think it's an interesting evolution of medicine that there are now people who see this as a right.

Oh Precious, take a trip to La Paz, Bolivia and walk from downtown to Hotel Europa. Most likely you will travel up a street that has shop after shop filled with white shoe boxes. Well actually they aren't shoeboxes but coffins for babies that die in utero in the last trimester or are stillborn or fail to live to 12 months because mum's diet is so poor that she hasn't good enough nutrition to bear a viable baby.

Listen to the stories of second generation Australian welfare recipients and empathise.

Better still Precious, don't go into general practice.

Two points.

1) We do not know, and probably never will, if a foetus has the same life status as a born human being. Perhaps proper consciousness does not appear until the baby is born. The Rabbis thought so, presumably so did Jesus as a Jew. Medieval and modern Christian according to the Catholic Church thinks otherwise.

It does seem reasonable to me that if a birth is likely to endanger the life of a mother it is an intelligent choice to put the obviously fully alive mother ahead of the foetus which may or not be.

2) Why this concern about the Hippocratic Oath? The ancient Greeks who produced it possessed by comparison to us a very poor knowledge of the human body. Any medical procedure involves a risk, yet we endure it if the probability of success and the possible improvement to our health make that risk acceptable. Do no harm is meaningless in terms of modern knowledge. Surely no surgical procedure can ever totally fit that criterion?

"We do not know, and probably never will, if a foetus has the same life status as a born human being. Perhaps proper consciousness does not appear until the baby is born."

Wrong.

Good evidence suggests babies don't develop consciousness (or awareness of self) till 6-9months after birth.

Also, it's worth remembering, most abortions occur before the embryo even develops a nervous system.

netjunkie, the Hippocratic oath says nothing on abortion.

It is legally considered as a medical procedure that every person has a right to.

If a patient comes into a doctor's office the doctor has the right to refuse to perform the procedure, but having taken on the patient is obliged to refer.

I have no doubt that the doctor that refused to refer would also have no problem in claiming his fees (hypocritical oath)

Netjunkie, believe me as a doctor you will be asked to attend to persons who have done things and have got themselves into a medical situation whom you will find abhorrent. You will at times have to fight your natural revulsion and feeling that this person no longer deserves to live. Indeed, here this person will die, but for your intervention. Are you going to let 'nature'/God take its course? Are you going to refer this patient to another doctor? Are you going to attend to this person yourself?

Doctors are not there to determine a person's morality or worthiness, but to use their skills to provide a service.

Do no harm? How wonderfully arrogant for any human to presume what is harmful and what is not for another autonomous human being.

Unfortunately, dreadful harm is perpetuated on some patients on any given day in a hospital near you. But that's another topic altogether.

The termination of a pregnancy is the business between a pregnant woman and HER conscience. She is the one who has to live with the consequences, one way or another.

“The ancient Greeks who produced it possessed by comparison to us a very poor knowledge of the human body.”
Both abortion and infanticide were common throughout the ancient Greco-Roman world. Plato actively supported it. The only real concerns were that abortion could be used to conceal a woman’s adultery.

“Good evidence suggests babies don't develop consciousness (or awareness of self) till 6-9months after birth.”
Bathos, would that negate personhood up until that point?

“the Hippocratic oath says nothing on abortion.”
Despite the prevalence of abortion and infanticide, the Oath states “I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor suggest such a plan. Similarly I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion.”

“It is legally considered as a medical procedure that every person has a right to.”
No. Up until this point it has only legally been considered a “right” if it could be shown that continuing the pregnancy would be more harmful for the mother than terminating it.

“but having taken on the patient is obliged to refer” I don’t think there is an obligation- the doctor didn’t know that would be requested beforehand.

“Netjunkie, believe me as a doctor you will be asked to attend to persons who have done things and have got themselves into a medical situation whom you will find abhorrent.”

I know. And personally, I have no problem with that. I would save the life of any person who presented for medical care- who am I to judge them? We have a court system to do that.

“Do no harm? How wonderfully arrogant for any human to presume what is harmful and what is not for another autonomous human being.”

Both foetuses and women are living homo sapiens/human beings. The question here is personhood. I respect that you may not believe foetuses to be persons (and therefore your ONLY consideration is for the autonomous mother), but I do. So, as a doctor, my concern is not just for the mother’s health, but also for the foetus’s. In weighing up ethical considerations, I would have to say that the right to autonomy of the mother is not as important as the right to continue existing and not be killed of the foetus.

This bill opens up abortions for any reason whatsoever until 24 wks. Born 21 wk old foetuses have survived. Therefore I would say there’s not much of a basis to say 21 wk old foetuses are not persons- they are simply persons who happen to be living inside of a uterus as opposed to outside of one. But this bill will force me to be a part of the process that will end his or her life, even if both mother and foetus are perfectly healthy.

“The termination of a pregnancy is the business between a pregnant woman and HER conscience. She is the one who has to live with the consequences, one way or another.”

This reminds me of the prolife campaigner who survived a saline abortion, which has left her disabled with cerebral palsy. Although her speaking engagements are often mediated by heavily religious language, she did say something that I think would stick out for anyone: “where were my rights, when they were trying to burn me with salt?”

I also think this was quite a good opinion piece on the issue of conscience:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/denying-people-right-to-conscience-akin-to-fascism-20080925-4o2l.html?page=1

Netjunkie,

Thank you for affirming that "both foetuses and women are living homo sapiens/human beings." Yet "logic's" post on this forum wants us to believe that "we do not know, and probably never will, if a foetus has the same life status as a born human being."

I'm not a medico but a family therapist. I do read the research. In Landrum Shettles M.D.'s book, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, he provides the medical/biological evidence of when human life begins:

• Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former leader of Planned Parenthood in the USA, said of the fertilised egg as far back as 1947 that it is "the new baby which is created at this exact moment." In 1961 he wrote that when "fertilization, then has taken place; a baby has been conceived."

• Dr. Richard V. Jaynes declared in Ob. Gyn. News, 15 September 1981, "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is . . . utterly ridiculous."

• Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris: "When does life begin? I'll try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science. . . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of conception. . . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." [This is from evidence provided in testimony during the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings on "when life begins", 1981.]

Other medical professionals provided similar evidence at the 1981 hearings.

Since this is true, with this biological evidence to confirm that human life is continuous from conception to old age, we need to acknowledge that the change has taken place in society and not in the biological evidence.

Human life does not begin at conception. Human life continues. Sperm are living humanity as are eggs. Human life consists of alternate generations. 100% of the multicelled generation die. Most of the single-celled generation die except for a few which join with other single cells to form new individuals not new life. If we grant these fertilized eggs equal status to live multicelled creatures it is also logical to grant the sperm and eggs special status. They are just as much alive. A man who masturbates is a mass murderer. A woman who allows herself to menstruate and flush eggs away without fertilization has wasted life. She has allowed life to be thrown away. One must not confine our condemnation to abortionists. One must get after male masturbators and those women who have allowed their precious eggs to be wasted without fertilization. After all, human life is human life. It is all sacred.

Are you one of the criminals?

Davidf,

"Human life does not begin at conception. Human life continues. Sperm are living humanity as are eggs."

That may be your opinion but it is not based on the scientific evidence from biology.

Dear Ozpen,

My evidence is from biology. Sperm and eggs are living human matter. Fertilized eggs are a continuation not a beginning of life. Animate matter comes from animate matter.

Well said, DavidF

It is we human beings who place arbitrary divisions into what is a complete and interconnected process. I am aware I am getting into the region of metaphysics here - the question of the nature of existence itself.

Therefore, to remain on topic, I wish to say that the decision to continue a pregnancy is for the pregnant person to decide and the respectful response is to accept this decision.

Netjunkie

Many people will make decisions with which you will disagree therefore, I wish you success in your future career and may you develop your receptiveness to the challenge of new ideas and situations which you will encounter on your journey through this life.

Thanks :)

"Human life does not begin at conception. Human life continues. Sperm are living humanity as are eggs. Human life consists of alternate generations. 100% of the multicelled generation die. Most of the single-celled generation die except for a few which join with other single cells to form new individuals not new life."

Taking that line of reasoning, a child is just the "continuing humanity" of his or her parents, and there's no room for individualism or autonomy. As you said, a new individual starts at conception. This individual is a unique living homo sapien with different DNA to the mother.

Your life started when your father's sperm fertilised your mother's ovum. You are not just a REALLY developed sperm. You needed some genetic information, mixed around and changed a little, from each of your parents, to create YOU. You began at conception.

And btw, the sex cells are living in the same way that somatic cells are living. You wouldn't define them as individual humans on their own though. Skin cells on my body carry my DNA but they're shed. That's not the death of a human but the death of a part of the physical make up of a human.

Scientifically speaking, when two sex cells come together a new human is made. If this then dies, a human has just died.

"Since this is true, with this biological evidence to confirm that human life is continuous from conception to old age, we need to acknowledge that the change has taken place in society and not in the biological evidence."

True. And in a pluralistic, multicultural society, defining persoonhood is next to impossible. To me it seems arbitrary to say a unique living homo sapien is somehow not a human but I respect people disagree with me.

Back to the original article- as someone who believes a foetus is a person, I should not be legally forced to be involved in having that foetus killed.

Dear Netjunkie,

Those who oppose abortion do not say a new individual is generated at conception. They claim life starts at conception. My post points out the fallacy of equating creation of life with the creation of an individual. Life comes from life and does not start at conception. At some point in the past self-replicating matter came into being. From that life has continued. It may be that self-replicating matter was generated by supernatural means. I don't think so, but maybe it was. Since then life has continued. To say that life starts at conception is to deny that both sperm and egg are living cells.

"Those who oppose abortion do not say a new individual is generated at conception. They claim life starts at conception."

That is not what I said. When a sperm unites with an ovum a unique individual human being begins and that human life continues until death, whether by abortion or natural processes.

Dear Ozspen,

Abortion is a natural process. Whether it is spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or a result of surgical intervention there is nothing supernatural about it. If there is surgical intervention an element of choice enters the natural process. It is a woman's right to make that choice. She may be aborting a Hitler or a Lenin. The declining crime rate in the US started about 16 years after Roe vs. Wade made abortion more available. Apparently pregnant women had the wisdom to know the probable future of the child if they had brought their pregnancies to term. Having a medically safe abortion rather than going the coat hanger route left them free to have a child when their circumstances might be different.

david f

"Abortion is a natural process. Whether it is spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or a result of surgical intervention there is nothing supernatural about it. If there is surgical intervention an element of choice enters the natural process. It is a woman's right to make that choice."

This is a straw man argument. A miscarriage is not the result of deliberate killing by an external person. Not once have I mentioned "supernatural," hence your straw man logical fallacy.

If "it is a woman's right to make that choice," who has the right to protect the human being in the womb?

I will be one such person.

Its a pity Michael did not check his facts first. S48 of the Victorian Charter was put in at the urging of the catholic bishops to stop women from being able to enforce their reproductive rights under the Charter. It effectively means that women cannot argue that criminalising abortion is a breach of a woman's right to security and liberty.

This essentially is a case of the church being hoist on its own petard. In seeking to ensure that women could not enforce their rights they have limited their own, oh what a tangled web we weave when we ....

An excellent article by Michael Cook. Finally someone is speaking rationally and intelligently about this issue.

Think about it...Is this whole issue REALLY about protecting the rights of females? How can it be, when half of the children who are aborted are females?

Cat J wrote:

"Think about it...Is this whole issue REALLY about protecting the rights of females? How can it be, when half of the children who are aborted are females?"

It is about protecting the right of an adult woman to decide what happens with her own body. The sex of the fetus is irrelevant to that consideration.

If pro abortion advocates were REALLy pro "choice" they would be concerned about a number of aspects of the Abortion Bill.

Even Pro "Choice" Ethcist Daniel CAllahan admits that many women are coerced into abortion by men. Even the research arm of Planned Parenthood has some statistic that 30% of women are coerced into abortion. Now pro lifers would claim thst figure is higher, but if we accept the pro choice figure AT LEAST 1/3 women are coerced into abortion.

one would think pro "choice" advocates would support ammendments to protect women from coercion. However, pro choice advocates do not want any anti coercion measures in the Abortion Bill. It seems to me the pro choice movement should really call itself pro abortion as it supports only one choice and that is to abort the baby, even if you want it and are being coerced by your husband, boyfriend,parents!

The pro abortionists are also opposed to mandatory counselling which informs women of alternatives to abortion, the psychological risks(depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse)etc. Pro "choice" psychologist Professor Fergusson who describes himself as an atheist and rationalist found that abortion increases young womens risk of depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol abuse. See the Journal of Child Pychiatry and Psychology 2006.I admire this pro choice researcher for being willing to admit research findings against his own position. Shouldnt women making a decision to abort be aware of any risks to their mental health? Post abortive women are more likely to commit suicide than those who carry their pregnancies to term- shouldnt women be informed of this? Abortion is in a woman's best interests? I don't think so!

Well said Caddie.

I think every woman who chooses to abort should be made aware of the consequences- it is not the easy option out as a lot of people think.Planned Parenthood lists the prevalence of moderate-severe depression at 10-50% for one year after the procedure- if you or anyone you know has ever been through anything like that, you know how terrible it is.There is then another 3 pages worth of increased risks due to abortion, including infertility.

In line with this doctors, should take the time to talk to the woman about what her other options are- keeping the child, giving the child out for closed, open or partially open adoption, etc., and the different strengths and weaknesses of each plan.

The point about coercion is very valid too.I have a friend who was forced to have 2 abortions by her grandmother (legal guardian) even though she didn't want to.I also know a woman who was told "You're pregnant.This child will ruin your life" by a doctor, who then preceded to pick up the phone to call an abortion clinic, without giving her any time to think about it (she basically told him to get stuffed and took some time out to think about it herself- she ended up keeping the baby and while the child lives, that doctor is long dead). I also imagine employers would be less likely to accept a woman's pregnancy if she's the one "choosing" to get pregnant by not having an abortion.

I also think it is important women know the full facts surrounding the abortive procedure. IMO this should include viewing the ultrasound (partly to make the woman understand what she's doing, and partly to prevent her seeing a similar image years later and suddenly realising how developed the foetus was that she considered simply a mass of tissue to be aborted and having delayed PTSD). I can think of almost no other medical procedure in which a patient would not legally be required to have full informed consent. Why is abortion, an elective procedure with significant health risks, any different?

"We affirm that human life begins when a cell containing human chromosomes first has the ability to replicate and differentiate into individual tissues, as occurs at fertilisation. The genetic pattern of such a cell is uniquely human and determines its adult characteristics."
http://www.medicinewithmorality.org.au/ (I don't work for them; I just stumbled across them.)

"Abortion is a natural process. Whether it is spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or a result of surgical intervention."
Death, is also a natural process. Whether it is from natural causes, the result of murder, or through capital punishment/as a result of war, it still results in the end of a life.
That doesn't mean all these things are justified. Just because people die, doesn't mean I have the right to kill someone. Just because foetuses are miscarried, doesn't necessarily mean doctors have the right to actively kill them.

"She may be aborting a Hitler or a Lenin."
She may also be aborting an Einstein or a Beethoven.

It's interesting you mention declining crime rates. What has happened to the crime rates since? And what are your sources?

Look, I'm not saying every woman who falls pregnant should raise her child. I am saying that every woman who chooses to have sex and conceive should not kill the foetal life that happens to grow inside of her and at least bring it to full term. There are huge waiting lists for adoption, and lots of couples on or seeking IVF. Why not adopt these children out to the many loving mums and dads out there that desperately want a child?

netjunkie You write

'Look, I'm not saying every woman who falls pregnant should raise her child. I am saying that every woman who chooses to have sex and conceive should not kill the foetal life that happens to grow inside of her and at least bring it to full term. There are huge waiting lists for adoption, and lots of couples on or seeking IVF. Why not adopt these children out to the many loving mums and dads out there that desperately want a child?

What you forget is the pro death brigade are not interested in facts. They are more interested in defending their dogmas. They have changed the arguement from the poor 14 year old girl who is raped to a woman's right to choose and now use pseudo science to say the baby is not a child. Their is no science or morality in their arguement and so they keep changing the fact that abortion is the murder of the most vulnerable in society. That is why 80000 plus are murdered each year, They make Hitler and the Catholic church look tame!

"If and when everyone can agree on a set of rules for right behaviour then we can have a serious debate about whether to adopt them. Until then we are better off looking after ourselves and letting others look after themselves too."

And we'll let paedophiles, murderers, terrorists, and Gulag officials look after themselves also!

"I'm pro-choice, but like david f. I am concerned with the rights of doctors who don't wish to be involved with assisting in abortions."

It is paradoxical to be pro-choice but not pro-choice enough to allow a doctor to make his/her own choice.

"What you forget is the pro death brigade are not interested in facts. . . . That is why 80000 plus are murdered [through Australian abortions] each year, They make Hitler and the Catholic church look tame!"

Thank you for such a pointed example of what is happening in this sunburnt country.

"I can think of almost no other medical procedure in which a patient would not legally be required to have full informed consent. Why is abortion, an elective procedure with significant health risks, any different?"

You made excellent points about informed consent when the patient knows the effects on her and the implications of her abortive actions.

"If we accept the pro choice figure AT LEAST 1/3 women are coerced into abortion."

Talk about the paradox of pro-choice in abortion!

"It is about protecting the right of an adult woman to decide what happens with her own body. The sex of the fetus is irrelevant to that consideration."

It is also about protecting the right of the unborn child to continue with life. Otherwise your argument is discriminatory.

A lot depends on whether the foetus has a "soul" or whether it is like an animal, with life but not yet the full self understanding of a "born" human being.

I repeat we do not know this. I would always support an abortion at any stage when the life of a mother is threatened as the mother is clearly fully human whereas it is by no means clear that the foetus is. This is the common sense approach that Judaism for one has supported over the millenia and also supports abortion in the case of rape.

If the child can be born and the mother stay alive the case is not so clear cut. Some Churches takes a narrower approach and have been known to prefer both child and mother to die when one of them could be saved. An ironic stand given the attitudes of the Church toward human life during the Inquisition, the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I think that if a Doctor takes an anti-abortion stand the Doctor is entitled to that position, but should not moralize and should be obliged to make the patient aware that other Doctors hold different views. In the case of an abortion being an emergency procedure to save the life of a mother any Doctor who lets the mother die because of religious or ethical preferences is guilty of homicide.

Why are you un-validating my rights?
Do I not have Life?
Do I not have feelings, thoughts, memories, relationships, goals, dreams, hopes, fears?
Do I not deserve a Choice?
Free will is Gods gift to us(who or whatever your god might be)
(S)he? gave us this gift so we could make mistakes, learn and grow and anyone who has learnt enough, and has learnt the truth, knows that choice is individual.
Who are YOU to JUDGE?
Who have you NOT harmed?
Who have you made wish to die in order to not know lifes pain?
Have you wished to die? if even for a second.

I have life, yes it is a great gift.

I will create life for god, for the right reasons depending on my world around me, and untill this world has that which is not war and lies and a constant paradement of distractions, I Will be Pro-Abortion.
Lest not give Choice to those who have not been given choice by god, named the Un-Born.
Lets give Love to those already breathing, living, loving, learning, hurting, morning.
I reach out to you because you are here you can hear and you can choose.
Continue to choose whats right for you, yet remember whats right for you isnt whats right for another.
Peace x

"Continue to choose whats right for you, yet remember whats right for you isnt whats right for another."

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin & the Taliban also chose what was right for them and that wasn't right for me!