Dear Platypus,

<<i submit myself to the country's law because Bible teaches me to submit to authourity>>

What in hell are you referring to?

Yes, the bible has some verses about submitting to the Israelite elders and priests: it also instructed the Jews not to eat camels and rabbits, not to mention pigs (do you do all that?); there is also the famous words of Jesus - "give unto Caesar", e.g. if you're going to use Caesar's coins, then don't complain when he takes them from you.

How convoluted can one's interpretation of the bible be? Were any of the authors of the bible even contemplating the idea that one should submit to the modern secular state (which did not even exist at the time), born in sin and bloodshed?

There is hardly any institution less moral than the secular state. Suppose the state prohibited communion and prayer (as did the soviets and other communist countries), or suppose the state ordered everyone to worship its leader(s) as god(s) - would you still feel obliged to submit? Actually, the state of China does force families with more than one child to abort their babies!

The last thing we need is for the state to tell us what we can or cannot do with our children, including whether we kill or discipline them, whether we educate them in our own ways and morals and whether we allow them to be injected with unwholesome or toxic elements. It comes as a package, so you have no right to demand that the state allows you to do what you want with your children but does not allow another to do what they want with theirs. Surely killing one's children is immoral (and so is killing animals), but that should be none of their dirty business. In that regard I fully agree with David F. ("There is no reason that the laws of Australia should enforce your idea of sin.") - it's all between you and God and there it should remain.

Dear david f,

>> The law does not define what is moral. The law defines what is legal. Morality is not the same thing as legality. It can be monstrous when government tries to enforce morality. The purpose of the law is to maintain social order not to enforce morality. <<

What a clear statement about the need to distinguish between what is legal (in this or that country) and what is moral (with respect to these or those norms, whether or not rooted formally in a codex). Unfortunately, many people - those who sweepingly condemn abortions as well as those who see them as a woman’s right - are missing this distinction.

In particular, when speaking about one’s “right”: most of us would agree that a genuine (as hard as this is to verify) refugee should be allowed to find refuge and even settlement in Australia, however, there is no “right” to an Australian passport for everybody who asks for it. I think there is a similar difference between allowing a professional abortion to women who for serious reasons (however hard to define) cannot or will not carry out their pregnancy, and between proclamations of an a priori (i.e. irrespective of the legal system) “right” to abortion.

>>Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said, “In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone.” <<

A good illustration of your point. It has many implications, also unrelated to abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_streak

<<..Ethical implications

The primitive streak is an important concept in bioethics, where some experts have argued that experimentation with human embryos is permissible, but only before the primitive streak develops, generally around the fourteenth day of existence.

The development of the primitive streak is taken, by such bioethicists, to signify the creation of a unique, human being.

In some countries, it is illegal to develop a human embryo for more than 14 days outside a woman's body"">>..
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008C00694/Html/Text#param16

Formation

<<The formation of the primitive streak relies on a complex network of signaling pathways that work together to ensure that this process is highly-regulated.

Activation of various secreted factors (Vg1, Nodal, Wnt8C, FGF8 and Chordin) and transcription factors (Brachyury and Goosecoid) adjacent to the site of streak formation is required for this process.[9][10][11][11][12]

In addition, structures, such as the hypoblast, also play an important in the regulation of streak formation.

Removal of the hypoblast in the chick results in correctly patterned ectopic streaks, suggesting that the hypoblast serves to inhibit formation of the primitive streak>>

Developmental biology > Human embryogenesis (development of embryo) and development of fetus (TE E2.0)
First three
weeks
Week 1

* Fertilization
* Oocyte activation
* Zygote
* Cleavage
* Morula
* Blastula
o Blastomere
* Blastocyst
* Inner cell mass

Week 2
(Bilaminar)

* Hypoblast
* Epiblast

Week 3
(Trilaminar)
Germ layers

* Archenteron/Primitive streak
o Primitive pit
o Primitive knot/Blastopore
o Primitive groove
* Gastrula/Gastrulation
* Regional specification
* Embryonic disc

Ectoderm

* Surface ectoderm
* Neuroectoderm
* Somatopleuric mesenchyme
* Neurulation
* Neural crest

Endoderm

* Splanchnopleuric mesenchyme

Mesoderm

* Chorda-
* Paraxial (Somite/Somitomere)
* Intermediate
* Lateral plate
o Intraembryonic coelom
o Splanchnopleuric mesenchyme/Somatopleuric mesenchyme

i take leave from this forum

adieu

Platypus, I never had an abortion, but if I had, it would not be your business.

You are getting hysterical again, about legal abortions.
Yet, you seem to have no problems with illegal activities like caning children or murdering murderers.

Many women have spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), of which there are far more in the world than surgical abortions.
If you believe your God both creates and destroys, as he sees fit, then why would he cause all those babies deaths?
Do you call that murder?

Dear Saltpetre,

You wrote;

“Blaming God for miscarriages is a weird attitude for anyone, let alone for such as yourself.”

Not a point I'm going to die in the ditch over but it might be instructive to return to the Bible to see what God's Law, that thing that apparently sanctifies the innocent life of the unborn and is so revered by those who profess unfortunately often without much justification to be Christian (yes dear playtupus900 I am referring to your type), really says about God's attitude to the matter.

Firstly let us explore Exodus 21

“22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So causing a miscarriage obviously isn't considered murder otherwise those responsible would be facing the death penalty, however if the woman comes to harm in the process then 'eye for eye' stands.

To find an appropriate age for when a foetus/infant is considered a being of worth we travel to Leviticus 27:6

“6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;”

It further details amounts for those who are older but there is no amount proclaimed for those unborn or those born but under 1 month. Until that age they appear not to be regarded as children.

This point is further reinforced in Numbers 3;

15 “Number the children of Levi by their fathers’ houses, by their families; you shall number every male from a month old and above.”
16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded.

Cont...