For those interested in my position on contraception.
I have two natural children then a vacetomy.
I have five step children.
Between my wife and I we have fostered 64 infants and school age children children over the previous 40 years.
We have supported several children in Rawanda and India through Compassion International Aid throught their infancy and their education to age 18. All children deserve a life worthy of whatever we can give them. They do not deserve our intention to destroy them so it places less responsibility on us. Giving money to destroy them is not a worthy human response. No sane mother desires the death of her unborn, it is the selfish response of the calious western mind.

Philo

If what you claim about your care for children is true, then you are to be commended.

Given your responsible aid to minors, I ask what would you have done for a pregnant, sexually abused nine year old?

Forced her to term?

Or arranged an abortion?

Especially bearing in mind that opposing an abortion in this case condemns them both to death.

That's not principles. Even if you think that abortion is murder, you're still choosing two deaths over one.

That's just callous idiocy. Moralising arrogance that results in the death of another.

I'm going to offer my thoughts here, and judging by some of the other posts I have read in this and other threads relating to abortion over the years, I think there might be many who agree with me here.

The old line that "abortion is murder" is a bit of a distortion. Yes, abortion involves killing, and perhaps abortion simply because the child is unwanted is murder. But not all killing is murder. The term "murder" has legal implications; it also has a heavy base in our values. When a police officer kills a gunman to save a hostage, he is a killer but not a murderer. When a soldier shoots an enemy combatant, the only people who call him a murderer are those who do not like what he does. Nobody denies that he is a killer, but few call him a murderer.

How does this link to abortion? Well, in both situations the act of killing was a necessity. In the first, the killer saved a third party; in the second, he saved himself. We can justify these actions, so I guess we can justify abortion if it is necessary. I don't know that a 9 year-old can safely have a child, and I would hazard a guess that many rape victims would suffer terribly should they carry their attacker's baby to term. So much so, that they could be psychologically damaged to the point of self-harm or harm to the child.

Thus I would suggest that, while carrying a baby to term is preferable, there are times when it simply isn't an option. I am against abortion in principle, but that is easy for me to say from my sheltered, happy and safe (relatively) wealthy Australian male perspective. If a baby is aborted despite posing no physical or mental harm, I would be tempted to call that murder (from an emotive, not a legal perspective). If it is aborted for the common good, it is a sad but necessary act.

Our current Government has shown how morally bankrupt it is by approving aid money to be used for killing unborn children. It is no wonder that God's hand of protection appears to be lifting from this country. Ignorant people ask how God can allow bush fires or floods to kill innocent people and then nod their heads in the name of 'rights' to kill the most vulnerable in society. We now call evil good and good evil. Humanistic religion has again shown itself to be equal or even more evil than the catholic church at its worst.

TruthNow asked: "Will my hard-earned dollars now go to pay for abortions?"

A: they do already, but now that proportion of your taxes which was previously used to feed starving black people will be partly siphoned away to killing some of the very small black people so that we can all feel better that there are fewer starving black people in the world. See?

"How do religious Labor and Greens voters support a party that thinks aborting a fetus is the right thing to do?"

With a heavy conscience, hopefully, which is why they should look to parties such as the DLP to better represent their views.

Now to address some of the hideous initial responses:

"from a taxpayers point of view is the money better spent supporting new mouths? Indefinately?"

Presumably taxpayers can stop feeding new mouths down the track, if desired. A better use of tapayers money is, wherever possible, to help people to feed themselves, so there should be no problem for the taxpayer here. I see some taxpayers are more than happy to support the killing of small black people if it means saving taxes down the track.

"Presumably abortions will be available to those who don't actually want more children!"

Indeed, but the pro-life position - the humane position - is that you cn't kill people to solve your problems.

"Some of the same christian groups oppose contraception, which gets the people to this position in the first place."

This lie keeps popping up all over the place. Given that most pregnancies do not arise from rape and incest, it is the case that most abortions arise from people having sex who do not wish to have babies. Contraception availability has always increased the number of abortions, not decreased it. This is because contraception propagates the idea that some children are "unwanted."

Should we believe that someone's right to live is determined by his/her "wantedness"?