'Some people such as religious nut cases say they know what it is,'

Some however like the irreligious nut cases think it is moral to kill unborn babies. That is the morality you come to when you allow man to think he is a god and decide in what is right and wrong.

runner, until you learn to accept that not everyone accepts 'unborn babies' as a label for foetuses, and you learn to apply logic and some degree of understanding for other points of view, you'll only ever succeed in persuading people who are already as convinced as you are, and you'll alienate anyone who doesn't share your extreme realms of hostility for other views.

diver dan, you didn't really grasp my point. My point was that a) modern society is far more civilised than it's been at any stage in history and b) modern society is based on a secular framework and c) that any form of government that bases itself on an absolute moral framework that isn't a consensus is doomed to alienate those who are not of the dominant dogma.

Thus, as rstuart points out, we have the alternative, which is what we employ currently. Democracy. Quite a handy thing, when it works reasonably well. Keeps the shrill antagonists (see above) on the edges where they can exercise their right to be heard, but not oppress.

TRTL you argue

'runner, until you learn to accept that not everyone accepts 'unborn babies' as a label for foetuses'

well not everyone accepts that Paedophile is gross child abuse either. It does change the plain fact that it is.

runner: "That is the morality you come to when you allow man to think he is a god and decide in what is right and wrong."

Thanks for that runner. It provides the perfect example for the point I was trying to make. People who believe in God, even your God, are allowed to think that abortion is OK. Or at least they do believe it is OK, so I presume they are allowed to. I am not sure who does the "allowing" - the sect they subscribe to? I guess you would know more about than me.

Anyway regardless of who does the allowing the views of the religious compass the full spectrum of possibilities, just as the views of we secularists do. And that was my point above. These supposed "universal morals" are for all intents and purposes impossible for we mere morals to divine using any logically rigorous method, which makes them useless as a basis for law. For the attitudes on various religious to abortion see this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/Religions.htm

You of course will claim all those other religious nutters are wrong, and your version is right. I do hope God knows how to figure out which of you is telling the universal truth, because the rest of sure as hell don't.

Peter Hume

‘The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.’

Oh … Silly me! So that’s why a series of undocumented anecdotes, that no one can find a source for, in which the same man always puts the same woman in her place, which are told regularly by men, and which all reinforce an historical set of negative stereotypes about women … must all indeed be true.

‘… the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services…’

Oh … Silly me again!. And here’s me thinking that a woman’s 'common pattern' of sexual behavior is to actively desire sex and decide to have it because it gives her pleasure. I keep forgetting that in the mind of men like yourself, a woman’s sexuality does not belong to her, but rather to the nearest man who barters for exclusive rights to her body.

‘... did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health?’

I would assume that when the Scarlet Alliance – i.e. the sex workers union of Australia – claims that it is ‘…the leader in advocating for the health, safety and welfare of workers in Australia’s sex industry’, maybe sexual health is high on their list of priorities. And when they also say that their aim is for ‘sex workers to be self-determining agents’ that they prefer to do their own policing.

http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/who/

‘Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF.’

I'm sure that oversteps OLO decency guidelines. I won't take it any further or demand an apology. However, if you make another sordid quip like that about my personal sexuality or the personal sexuality of anyone here, a formal complaint is going straight to the editor.

SJF
Your arguments consist of misrepresentation, personality, mind-reading, projection, evasion: a veritable welter of fallacies.

‘The other possibility is simply that Lady Astor wasn't as quick-witted as Winston Churchill.’

Oh … Silly me! So that’s why a series of undocumented anecdotes… must all indeed be true.

No, that’s why I cited both possibilities and you are misrepresenting that I concluded only one “must” be true.

‘… the commonest pattern of human sexual behaviour is where a woman agrees to sex with a man in consideration of something valuable from him including property and services…’

‘Oh … Silly me again!. And here’s me thinking that a woman’s 'common pattern' of sexual behavior is to actively desire sex and decide to have it because it gives her pleasure.’

A woman enjoying sex is not inconsistent with her requiring, and obtaining, valuable consideration for it. You do not deny that the commonest pattern of heterosexuality is as I have said it is. Nor is what you have said inconsistent with what I said.

‘I keep forgetting that in the mind of men like yourself, a woman’s sexuality does not belong to her, but rather to the nearest man who barters for exclusive rights to her body.’

Mind-reading, personality, projection, and a non-sequitur: four fallacies in one sentence – not bad – do they teach you to argue like that in gender studies?

Even if and when a woman requires some form of valuable consideration for sex, that does not have the result that her sexuality belongs to the man she agrees to have sex with. If we put aside your confusion and bitchiness, there is nothing of your argument left – fool.

‘... did any sex worker ever ask Andrew Leigh or SJF to police her sexual health?’

Nothing you have said shows that any sex worker did ask you to police her sexual health, so the honest answer is “no”, and you then attempt to evade the question by appeal to absent authority.