Yes Xena...and who could be more 'downtrodden' than a young child being formed in it's mother womb? One who is given no voice... but without any choice or voice it is often 'killed' for any one of a variety of 'convenient' reasons...including "Oh but I'm not ready to have a child right now" aah..simple solution..KILL IT, then, go through a mental re-wiring process to convince ones-self that 'life does not begin until.... (fill in the number of months)....'

We hear plenty about 'womens choice' but little about unborn child's choice... because the pregnant mother has the 'power'.... over the unborn infant.

I have no problem with 'shock tactics' if they simply confront people with their own actions.. who can argue with that? I think the whiners simply don't like the truth about their own position maybe?

I've stood at RMIT with some pictures of a PLO massacre of Christians which predated the high profile Sabra and Shatilla camp attacks which the Palestinians love to trot out each time Israel is mentioned.
Sometimes the truth IS..."shocking".

The assumption in the article seems to be that most Christians hold secular values.. well they/we don't. Their might be a lot of nominal 'Christians' who's faith is just enough to fill in a box on a census form...but the true believer is characterized by boldness and confidence and an awareness of his position..no matter how unpalatable it might be.

They are not "Christian" in the sense of the "ethics of the Judea-Christian values" that contribute to democracy. The religious right care little for human beings, tolerance, equality or secular values. They exploit trust in mainstream faith.

There is not one "noble" religious deed that cannot simply be done for its own sake. No reader here can supply one without reference to superstition. Thus "good" is human, not godly.

The modern world is a crisis of faith to the weak minded who are unable to rationalise disparate convictions, enter into compromise or even admit error. Democracy, ethics and science vs fundamentalism, superstition and erosion of science.

Over 7 years since 9/11, it is also Christian fundamentalists who seek democratic demise. The Christian merging of free thought, choice and knowledge, with crime, deviance and immorality is disgusting. That it comes with a rejection of science, evolution, history and simple reality is a mill stone around the neck of all Western nations.

New age Christian serial pests/moral thugs are revealed as intellectually impoverished in that the "right to life" ensures the arguments that minorities have no rights, persist. Ultimately human beings matter less than the hideously cruel world Christian fundamentalism desires. It is bizarre to cry foul over abortion, yet falsely cast those who "sin" as social predators then set about enshrining their lack of rights in law. As a bonus, they'll keep you alive in agony, unable to communicate and on display as grotesque proof of their "compassion". This blinkered, stumped view of the fundamentalist is ubiquitous.

Consider one method of false influence:
"[Family First] is deliberately not called a Christian party. We called it Family First so non-Christians who believe in family values will vote for us. But to be a member of the party you have to sign to say you oppose abortion, euthanasia, prostitution and so on so most of our members are Christians": Andrew Evans 2003.
http://unbelief.org/groups/ffp.html

How simple. Sign here and you're "a Christian" who abuses the rights of others.

In the 21st century, soul saving is an abuse of our democratic rights.

Other:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

http://www.abortion.org.au/waragainstsex.htm

Spikey,

Even your past record is blown away by your absurd comment to me.

Would you please point out where my post justifies your claim: “In other words, Mr Right, if the democratic vote goes against your opinion, it's not democratic?”

After you have done that, please tell me how I and all other Australians but you, apparently, missed the chance to democratically vote for or against the issues under discussion. I’m 65 years old, and I cannot remember having the chance to express an opinion at the ballot box. When did the democratic vote go against me?

You have proved that you are brave enough to risk making a fool of yourself to say what you think, but your two liner in this instance has me stumped because I cannot see how I could be guilty as criticised.

Disagree with me by all means, but have a good reason for doing so!

Religious folk crack me up.
The "real Christian voice" does not exist because "Christianity" allows you to do just about anything.
Look at the priesthood and children...
Look at the "Christian" behaviour of Jonny Howard and GW Bush.
Look at the witch burnings, black slayings, etc.
Also, Jesus said to be good to your slaves. *Not* not to keep them, but to treat them physically well when you do get a few. I would argue that as the son of God...he was misinformed on that one. Any christians want to argue his case to re-introduce slavery? (with husbandry standards of course!)
From the loony fringes (Hi Runner!) to the common christian, the tag leads us no-where and protects us from nothing.
The more religion, the more argument.
Society went secular for a very good reason! Alas, most religious folk forget/ignore that.

Ray is of course correct in stating that HOW debate is conducted is almost as important as the issue being debated. There is no room for personal abuse and hate mail. However, how can a debate around the abortion issue be complete without real consideration of what actually happens during an abortion and what the real effects are on the mother in the long term?

No-one WANTS to see pictures of an aborted child, but to pretend that abortion is "just another medical procedure" is to limit debate to platitudes and ignores reality.

I thank Anglicare and other church based agencies that offer so much support and care for women with unplanned pregnancies, but issue a challenge to our society - are we really comfortable with 1 in 4 pregnancies ending this way? Are we ready to offer real help or do we simply want to have an argument?

<< "No-one WANTS to see pictures of an aborted child, but to pretend that abortion is "just another medical procedure" is to limit debate to platitudes and ignores reality. >>

By that reasoning, all surgical patients should be shown the most gruesome aspects of their operation. We can make knee replacement candidates watch a surgeon grinding a bone surface down, and the patient's pain and wounds afterward, before they decide to go ahead. Eye patients, especially, should be made to watch an ocular slice-and-dice before they go ahead with plans to save their vision.

I see your point, but you have to understand that the majority of Australians truly and genuinely do not consider a foetus a human being, so for us it really is "just another medical procedure", and doesn't warrant pre-traumatising the patient.