That's a good point Grim, I hadn't thought of the jury factor before.

But then, it's only 12 of them (or so), how will they necessarily be representative of the commuunity?

And the politicians may be rich once they're in parliament, but they didn't all necessarily have that money before hand.

It's true, pollies do have a vested interest in the decisions they make. But that vested interest is that they need to be representative, or they'll be voted out. As far as vested interests go, I don't think that's too bad.

Re: your last sentence. I posted this a little while ago but nobody responded to it. What do you think in this case? Is the prolife GP making a medical decision without impeding on the moral autonomy of her patient?

2 situations: "1) prolife gp friend who doesn't refer patients for abortions still counsels them well. she bulk bills them, lets them say everything that's on their minds and together w the patient discusses pros and cons of 5 options (abortion, keeping child, open adoption, closed adoption, partially open/closed adoption). she gives the patients a wk or so to think of their decision. she herself does not refer patients on but she leaves them well informed enough to pursue abortions on their own if they choose to. in all her yrs only 3 patients have gone on to pursue abortions. later on they have come back to her practice and THANKED her for the counselling she gave. those who went on not to have abortions have also thanked her.

2) unwed pregnant teen friend from strict religious background found out from her gp she was pregnant. his response? this child will ruin your life, i'll call the abortion clinic.

since when r prolife GPs who don't refer patients onto abortion incapable of good non-directive counselling? since when r pro-choice GPs necessarily any good at it?"

Thanks for proving me right Herman- until you try to answer any of the arguments put forward- or even put forward some yourself, I will move on.
But so you know, my last post was trying to point out that it IS the mother's own body- the other organism is just a part of her- considering its entire nourishment comes from HER body.

Grim- interesting point- but the problem with trial by jury is that it requires 12 people to have their OWN rights violated by forcing them to attend.

That's a pretty poor argument. Being dependent on another person for your nutritional needs doesn't make you a part of that person. You can live in a uterus without being part of a uterus.

King Hazza,
Following your logic then:
because the "entire nourishment" for a breastfeeding baby comes from it's mother,
the mother is entitled to kill the "organism",
but only while she's still breastfeeding it,
after which time it would be a crime against nature.
I think netjunkie's "That's a pretty poor argument" was exceedingly kind, in this instance.
BTW, the "organism" has its own DNA, blood type, fingerprints, heartbeat, etc.

I believe this article discusses ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights?

Why then is everybody still arguing over the subject of abortion- when women already have a legal right to have an abortion in this country and many others?

I will ask one more question though.
Hermanyutic, and other right-to-lifers, if abortion was not legal, how will you force any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term?

Will you tie her to a bed for nine months, stop her going to backyard abortionists? jail her, forcefeed her, or force her to a hospital for the delivery,
Can you really answer me rationally how would you do this?

Yes suzieonline, you are right. There is no point endlessly rehashing the standard arguments about abortion. Talk about the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Hazza and Herman should turn their talents to resolving the Arab/Israeli conflict instead.

Hazza
You do not provide any criterion by which a right could be distinguished from
a) a wrong, or
b) any other exercise of power.

Let’s just be clear: do you agree that a right is whatever the powerful says it is, or not?

The fact that rights are enforceable and enforced, and that this adversely affects someone’s interest, does not mean that therefore rights are just an arbitrary exercise of power, because the person whose interest is adversely affected may not have a legitimate interest eg the rapist. The purpose of a theory of rights is to distinguish which interests we are justified in protecting by force, and which not.

Implicit in a Bill of Rights is that a right is whatever the state says it is. The moral confusion caused by this dominant but jumbled belief is displayed in various comments in this thread. People are using the word ‘right’ to mean ‘anything I want to use power to achieve’.

If rights are whatever the state says they, there can be no rational resolution of all these different claims, and no point discussing it. The conflict is a mere arbitrary power struggle, masquerading as a discussion of ethics.

But if a right is what you are justified in using force to defend - namely life, liberty or property - then there is no conflict of rights involved. The patient has the right to consult the doctor for medical advice. The doctor has the right to give it in good faith according to her lights. If one is in breach of contract, the other has a right to a remedy.