Abortion

[Cody]

Abortion is an issue that confuses the hell out of me. What are everyones views on the matter?

[Duffy]

Abortion is an issue that confuses the hell out of me. What are everyones views on the matter?

What is it that confuses you? The church's stance?

[Lee]

Hi Cody,

Women throughout all of history have needed and wanted abortions for one reason or another. In light of that fact abortions need to be safe and legal.

Making them illegal only drives it underground.

Abortion is a medical issue not a moral issue.

Woman must be able to have the choice. It's that simple.

Cheers
Lee

[Kid]

for me it's simple; leave the decisions concerning abortion up to the people concerned. It's no one else's business why a woman, as a private citizen, wants or needs a pregnancy termination (save perhaps her partner, if she has one; but certainly not the greater community), only that she must have the right to choose; a person can be privately against it, but that right to choose for herself must be there and upheld in Law.

I myself am against abortion for those who just find themselves pregnant through negligence, that is, getting knocked up cos no contraception was used and the foetus is healthy and the mother is healthy, but that's just me. I would never stop another woman from having the right to choose, and basically, that's all it boils down to: it's about voluntary choice backed up by the Law of the Land, and should not concern those not involved, as with a terminally ill person who wants to end their own life, voluntarily; it's a thing that only the people concerned can be a part of, and no one else: not church groups, not outraged religious lobbyist, not governments: just those involved, as really, abortion is a very private matter and shouldn't be used as a political football to kick around to make some groups of people feel better and righteous. It's a damn hard choice to make as it is without the whole of society frowning on you...

hope that helps!

[Elbert]

It’s a bit depressing to see that no one has considered the child. Surely every child has the right to:
1. parents who want them, will love them and care for them.
2. two parents in case of accident; [a full set of grandparents who love the kids is also desirable].
3. parents with enough resources to provide the necessities.
4. parents old enough to deal reasonable maturely with bringing up children.

If any of these criteria are absent, then there should be a termination. Parents who have children and don’t care for or about them are criminals. I think it is callous indeed to say that if a pregnancy results from an accident then tough luck – have the child. What? Are we no longer permitted to make mistakes? What about children brought up with no sex education? With no knowledge of contraception? Too bad, kid! You’ve just ruined your life and that of your ankle-biter – you're stuck with it! That’s a religious outlook – irrational and cruel.
The world is overflowing with children. Millions starving to death, dying of preventable disease all be cause contraception and safe abortions are either illegal or unavailable. Instead of making abortion difficult, we should be making it difficult to become a parent. You can't drive a car without a permit, but you can have an unwanted child. Makes no sense.

[Cody]

What is it that confuses you?

I just wonder how I would feel if my partner was to become pregnant and wanted an abortion.

On the one hand it seems okay in the early stages when the fetus is little more than a bunch of cells and is incapable of suffering. It does have the potential for life though, but by that logic you could argue that condoms are wrong because they interfere with the potential for life.

But I'm not sure if I like the idea of it later when it's almost fully developed.
But then the idea of specifying a stage of development and saying before this it's ok but after this it's wrong seems arbitrary.

I just wanted to hear other peoples opinions to help me sort through my confusion.

[Godless Ray]

I honestly don't think it's anywhere near as clear as this. The situations these woman find themselves in is extremely complex. I don't think any woman goes through the decision making process lightly and for the most part I would look at the choice as intensely personal.

The world is indded overflowing with children but it has more to do with poverty that contraception. (as I understand it)

In a nutshell I guess I support the womans right to consider it an option.

Godless Ray

[Godless Ray]

Cody, me neither but how many abortions get done with fully formed babies? I mean I know it can and does happen, but for largest part of this group we are looking at bunches of cells really.


Godless Ray

[Cody]

Maybe it's just the scientist in me that feels uneasy without definite quantifiable answers. Seems this issue eventually comes down to personal moral intuition. All I can say is I'm glad I'm a guy so I'll never be faced with the choice.:)

[Godless Ray]

It is a very complicated subject that looks black and white. But all the same I am with you Cody.

Godless Ray

[Duffy]

Maybe it's just the scientist in me that feels uneasy without definite quantifiable answers. Seems this issue eventually comes down to personal moral intuition. All I can say is I'm glad I'm a guy so I'll never be faced with the choice.:)

Hi Cody, I had to make that choice, and because I sense a general consensus that it is indeed a difficult choice, I don't need to elaborate on how I felt.

I understand that the 'idea' of abortion is abhorant to most people's sensibilities. The emotional aspect is understandable but not at the expensive of practical and rational thinking. The right for every child to a grow up in an environment condusive to their well being, is far more important than 'feeling uneasy' about aborting a foetus. As with most things in our society, we tend to 'humanise' what is not yet human in the sense of consciousness and cognition.

Drawing on findings from thousands of articles in medical journals on the subject of foetal pain and related topics, Dr Mark Rosen and team write that "pain is a subjective sensory and emotional experience that requires the presence of consciousness".

Consciousness is created by brain connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex, and those do not begin to develop before the 23rd week and possibly not before the 30th week of gestation. The human gestation period is 38 weeks from conception.

"Conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester," the researchers write.


I don't know anyone that has an abortion after 23 weeks (not that it doesn't happen) but then you have a far worse decision to make. But without walking in their shoes, I hesitate to pass judgement.

[GenericBox]

Well I'm a guy. So theres not much I could probably offer. Only in response to Elbert's post. I think your criteria are all wrong. I was raised entirely by my single mum, I mean entirely in that there was no boyfriend, or no other presence with her that raised me. So should I have been aborted? I mean I have lived a pretty good life. She is a successful Nurse (now a CN) and I am an unsuccessful uni student (well that last ones beside the point :P ). I am pro-choice, and do not see the moral dilemna of 'killing'. It isn't killing. I agree with the quote in Duffy's comment, but would extend the timeline to later. It is the conscious that people identify as human. Until a consciousness is developed we are cells with a bit of electricity circulating around our body (which I know we still are, but I suggest our consciousness extend that definition). So abortion is no more killing than is using a condom. Its just been around a little longer than those stopped by contraception.

But I do agree that children born just because of the fact that the parents are against abortion is also wrong. Its a big decision to raise a child and I think the parents should be prepared as well as they can for the situations it brings. Mentally, financially (as best as they can - not set to a community standard, but a personal standard), and physically.

[Vonnie]

It’s a bit depressing to see that no one has considered the child. Surely every child has the right to:
1. parents who want them, will love them and care for them.
2. two parents in case of accident; [a full set of grandparents who love the kids is also desirable].
3. parents with enough resources to provide the necessities.
4. parents old enough to deal reasonable maturely with bringing up children.


If any of these criteria are absent, then there should be a termination.
WTF?!? Did I read correctly? "...then there should be a termination"?? Should? Should? Even though I fit all your "criteria", I am pro-choice and I strongly object to your statement that someone should abort if such ridiculous, old-fashioned and outdated criteria isn't met.

Parents who have children and don’t care for or about them are criminals. I think it is callous indeed to say that if a pregnancy results from an accident then tough luck – have the child. What? Are we no longer permitted to make mistakes? What about children brought up with no sex education? With no knowledge of contraception? Too bad, kid! You’ve just ruined your life and that of your ankle-biter – you're stuck with it! That’s a religious outlook – irrational and cruel. The world is overflowing with children. Millions starving to death, dying of preventable disease all be cause contraception and safe abortions are either illegal or unavailable. Instead of making abortion difficult, we should be making it difficult to become a parent. You can't drive a car without a permit, but you can have an unwanted child. Makes no sense. I agree with most of the 2nd part of your post, but I'm afraid it's overshadowed by the bunkum in the first.

Vonnie

[Cody]

Thanks for sharing that Duffy.

I understand that the 'idea' of abortion is abhorant to most people's sensibilities.
I certainly don't find the idea abhorrent myself, just confusing.

The emotional aspect is understandable but not at the expensive of practical and rational thinking
This is exactly what I want to do, find a rational guideline, but it's easier said than done.

In any case one thing we can agree on is that above all it's the woman's choice.

[Skyblues]

abortion or not, it is not a yes or no question, it is a 'mu' or 'wu' question, the yes or no answers are not applicable. the choice in this case is circumstantial, individual and contextual. morality concerns can be valid for some people, and for some not. it is a situation we have absolutely no say about anyone else...the crucial point of discussion is whether state should regulate this, definitely noooooooo...if a woman or a family choses to do abortion, it is their choice, it is a colossal decision already, with possible psychological effects that i wouldnt dare imagine, society or the state should keep away.

[SchizoDeluxe]

I guess I'm pro-choice in these matters, it's a woman's body, they can do what they want. The problem with anti-abortionists is there's inconsistencies in their arguments, especially from the religious groups. The argument revolves around when life actually begins, the same arguments apply to stem-cell research as well which I think they have absolutely no case to present.

[Elbert]

And which of the following criteria, Vonnie is/are bunkum? And Why? I'm curious. very curious indeed.
1. parents who want them, will love them and care for them.
2. two parents in case of accident; [a full set of grandparents who love the kids is also desirable].
3. parents with enough resources to provide the necessities.
4. parents old enough to deal reasonable maturely with bringing up children.

WTF?!? Did I read correctly? "...then there should be a termination"?? Should? Should? Even though I fit all your "criteria", I am pro-choice and I strongly object to your statement that someone should abort if such ridiculous, old-fashioned and outdated criteria isn't met.

I agree with most of the 2nd part of your post, but I'm afraid it's overshadowed by the bunkum in the first.

Vonnie

[Elbert]

It was supposed to be a 'soft' should, GenericBox, as in 'I should think before I write.' 'I should get more sleep'... not a compulsory should. Of course you shouldn't have been aborted, we need more atheists, even those who disagree with all my criteria. Do you reckon there should be none? I'm pleased you agree with the rest of my post. As for your being a guy, Try not to feel too bad about it - your opinions seem to be pretty sound -- except for your disagreement with me, of course. :)
Well I'm a guy. So theres not much I could probably offer. Only in response to Elbert's post. I think your criteria are all wrong. I was raised entirely by my single mum, I mean entirely in that there was no boyfriend, or no other presence with her that raised me. So should I have been aborted? I mean I have lived a pretty good life.

[Duffy]

2. two parents in case of accident; [a full set of grandparents who love the kids is also desirable].


Hi Elbert, 1,3 and 4 of your criteria are desirable but number 2 in particular is far from essential as anyone from an abusive background will attest. Many a single mother, or father, have done fantastic jobs raising children with no support other than their own love and determination for the child to thrive. Fear of raising a child alone belongs back in the fifties when woman had a lesser standing in the work force and government support as we know it was nonexistant.

Basically the abortion issue is a personal one. Each story is different. I don't believe any decision is taken lightly and pro-lifers need a huge dose of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!

[Duffy]

Imagine coming across these imbeciles, especially if you are very young. Shame Christians Shame.:mad:

koOsJO3ss0o

[Vonnie]

And which of the following criteria, Vonnie is/are bunkum? And Why? I'm curious. very curious indeed.

1. parents who want them, will love them and care for them.
2. two parents in case of accident; [a full set of grandparents who love the kids is also desirable].
3. parents with enough resources to provide the necessities.
4. parents old enough to deal reasonable maturely with bringing up children.

Frankly, all of them.

1. If it said parent, rather than parents, I'd have no problem. It's your old-fashioned, unreasonable stance on two parents that I oppose. But even two parents who fit your criteria does not guarantee anything. Plenty of women get PND, and plenty of husbands/partners can't cope. Perhaps some genetic test should be developed to weed out these non-copers from the chance of parenthood? :rolleyes:

2. Apart from my issue with "parents" as opposed to "parent", while some people are lucky enough to have grandparents available for their children, lots of children don't have any grandparents, or the parent/s are estranged from them. According to you: "If any of these criteria are absent, then there should be a termination"! So, no grandparents, no baby! :(

3. Frankly, some people solely on government benefits are better off financially (because of baby bonuses, childcare assistance, pharmaceutical assistance, housing assistance, etc) than some struggling middle- to high-income earners I know. So, how the heck does one determine "enough resources". Who would you have terminate their babies? The poor people who rely on government assistance, or the struggling middle- and high-earners because they are having trouble making ends meet and are in danger of losing their homes? Both? Perhaps temporary sterilisation is the way to go (until their prospects improve down the track) :rolleyes:?

4. I've seen some totally crappy "mature" parents, and some absolutely wonderful teenage parents (and, of course, vice versa). Who determines maturity?

What about the people that fit your criteria, but due to a breakdown of the relationship, the children are put "at risk", or worse... This happens frequently, as we know from media reports. And, in these same reports, I've seen grandparents, who love the children and have frequent contact, state that they had no idea there was any problem.

As I said, I am "lucky" enough to have fulfilled all of your criterion. But many, many parents are not. And most of those parents are doing a pretty good job.

Laying down such unrealistic criteria for parenthood is just as bad as the pro-life stance, in my eyes.

Vonnie

[Duffy]

What about the people that fit your criteria, but due to a breakdown of the relationship, the children are put "at risk", or worse... This happens frequently, as we know from media reports. And, in these same reports, I've seen grandparents, who love the children and have frequent contact, state that they had no idea there was any problem.

My own circumstances prove you right. To the outsider we appeared a happy family but after years of enduring my husbands mental illness we finally had to flee. I raised my boys on my own for many years without much assistance. I have never felt we were a 'normal' family but what is normal anyway?

[Elbert]

Hello, Duffy. Why do you bring in abusive parents? I thought I'd covered that by saying parents should love their kids. Of course one good parent is better than two that aren't... that goes without saying. I'm merely trying to open up the abortion debate to make it inclusive of the rights of the forthcoming child. So far, these are seldom considered. It's all about whether the mother wants a kid or not. There are cheers when a 67 year old Italian woman gives birth -- gosh isn't she clever... what about the mental anguish of a child with a mother old enough to be her great grandmother? IMO it is immoral for a woman to have a child with the expectation that the state will provide. :(Hi Elbert, 1,3 and 4 of your criteria are desirable but number 2 in particular is far from essential as anyone from an abusive background will attest. Many a single mother, or father, have done fantastic jobs raising children with no support other than their own love and determination for the child to thrive. Fear of raising a child alone belongs back in the fifties when woman had a lesser standing in the work force and government support as we know it was nonexistant.

Basically the abortion issue is a personal one. Each story is different. I don't believe any decision is taken lightly and pro-lifers need a huge dose of NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!

[Elbert]

Vonnie, it is not old fashioned to think two parents are better than one. It is common sense. Accidents happen; children fall ill or need a legal parent at inopportune moments so two double the chance of one being available. Two incomes are better than one. It would be foolish indeed to imagine that the protective cocoon of social welfare that has permitted single women to have babies with no visible means of support will continue into the future. Reputable studies have shown that children do better with two parents – boys in particular need a father – girls are tougher in that regard. Of course nothing is guaranteed, and of course there are exceptions in which a single parent does a wonderful job, but exceptions are exactly that. I've had a lot of contact with children from single parent homes and pretty consistently they are not as well adapted, not as secure, not as ‘successful’ as those with two loving parents. Especially boys. But it isn’t sexist to accept facts about childhood needs; the state of the word economy; the impermanence of institution; and the likelihood of social upheaval in the not too distant future.
Also I suggest you take the time to read carefully, I did not write grandparents were essential, nor did I say a termination should be compulsory – although I can understand how someone could read that into it – I put that badly. Of course it isn’t ‘no grandparents, no baby!’ That’s a deliberately mischievous comment from you.
As for your complacent assumption that the state [taxpayers] should pay for single women to have babies; what's the difference between that and the subsidies and tax havens provided for religions? It isn’t as if we are in need of more children! As for your crack about sterilizing everyone who is in financial straits, what do you think I mean by being able to provide the [I]necessities? Necessities are food on the table, a roof over one’s head, and love and security. No more. Furthermore, I fail to understand how a suggestion regarding suitability for parenthood and the desirability of permitting safe abortions can be construed as just as bad as the pro-life stance.
Frankly, all of them.

1. If it said parent, rather than parents, I'd have no problem. It's your old-fashioned, unreasonable stance on two parents that I oppose. But even two parents who fit your criteria does not guarantee anything. Plenty of women get PND, and plenty of husbands/partners can't cope. Perhaps some genetic test should be developed to weed out these non-copers from the chance of parenthood? :rolleyes:

2. Apart from my issue with "parents" as opposed to "parent", while some people are lucky enough to have grandparents available for their children, lots of children don't have any grandparents, or the parent/s are estranged from them. According to you: "If any of these criteria are absent, then there should be a termination"! So, no grandparents, no baby! :(

3. Frankly, some people solely on government benefits are better off financially (because of baby bonuses, childcare assistance, pharmaceutical assistance, housing assistance, etc) than some struggling middle- to high-income earners I know. So, how the heck does one determine "enough resources". Who would you have terminate their babies? The poor people who rely on government assistance, or the struggling middle- and high-earners because they are having trouble making ends meet and are in danger of losing their homes? Both? Perhaps temporary sterilisation is the way to go (until their prospects improve down the track) :rolleyes:?

4. I've seen some totally crappy "mature" parents, and some absolutely wonderful teenage parents (and, of course, vice versa). Who determines maturity?

What about the people that fit your criteria, but due to a breakdown of the relationship, the children are put "at risk", or worse... This happens frequently, as we know from media reports. And, in these same reports, I've seen grandparents, who love the children and have frequent contact, state that they had no idea there was any problem.

As I said, I am "lucky" enough to have fulfilled all of your criterion. But many, many parents are not. And most of those parents are doing a pretty good job.

Laying down such unrealistic criteria for parenthood is just as bad as the pro-life stance, in my eyes.

Vonnie

[davo]

Reputable studies have shown that children do better with two parents – boys in particular need a father – girls are tougher in that regard. Of course nothing is guaranteed, and of course there are exceptions in which a single parent does a wonderful job, but exceptions are exactly that.

interesting have you got evidence for these claims? I thought this stuff has been refuted many a time.

[Kieran]

@ Elbert, BULLSHIT. That is all.

[Vonnie]

Ditto what Kieran said.

Vonnie

[atomac]

Well I'm a guy. So theres not much I could probably offer.

It is a shame the Pope and the Catholic Church don't have this attitude.

[Kerri-Lee]

On a lighter note,The Atheist Alliance website has some amusing bumper stickers to do with the abortion issue. One stuck in my mind 'If you keep your hands off my ovaries I'll keep mine off your rosaries.'
Another one (which is off on a tangent) also stuck in my mind: "If you teach evolution in your church, we'll teach creationism in our school".

[Cody]

"If you teach evolution in your church, we'll teach creationism in our school".
reminds me of 'don't preach in my school and I won't think in your church'

[Serenity]

I think the abortion debate is at heart a religious debate.

The immorality of abortion relies on the idea of the soul being magically transferred to a dual cell cluster when an egg and sperm meet. The soul is an utterly theistic concept and therefore of no significance to people without theistic values. A cluster of unwanted cells are a cluster of unwanted cells and as the woman is the bearer of said cells, the value of the contents of her uterus are entirely hers to place.

And as 75% of pregnancies can abort spontaneously in the first trimester, doesn't that make God the ultimate abortionist, anyway? If he can do it, and he is the pinnacle of good and light and morality, why can't we?

[Duffy]

Firstly Kerri-Lee, lol, the bumper stickers. Gotta get me some.

But Elbert...please think this through. If society followed your 'criteria' we would be extinct by lunchtime (exaggerated by poetic licence no:2763880)

In my cynical opinion the 'ideal family' would probably account for about 2% of the families in Australia (and they are probably deluding themselves). Sorry but my NOT YOUR BUSINESS does apply to you and before you burden single mothers with all the social guilt remember none of these were immaculate conceptions.

[peterthames]

Hi Cody,

Women throughout all of history have needed and wanted abortions for one reason or another. In light of that fact abortions need to be safe and legal.

Making them illegal only drives it underground.

Abortion is a medical issue not a moral issue.

Woman must be able to have the choice. It's that simple.

Cheers
Lee
Sorry to say but it is a long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long way off being simple, you forgot the right of the human about to be excuted just for being alive, if there was no intervention by anybody the child would grow to be 70 or 80 odd and then die of natural causes, it's journey of life started at conception and should end at old age, any murder at any stage in that journey is murder, It's that simple.
ask yourself would you want to be killed at any stage in your life?

[peterthames]

I think the abortion debate is at heart a religious debate.

The immorality of abortion relies on the idea of the soul being magically transferred to a dual cell cluster when an egg and sperm meet. The soul is an utterly theistic concept and therefore of no significance to people without theistic values. A cluster of unwanted cells are a cluster of unwanted cells and as the woman is the bearer of said cells, the value of the contents of her uterus are entirely hers to place.

And as 75% of pregnancies can abort spontaneously in the first trimester, doesn't that make God the ultimate abortionist, anyway? If he can do it, and he is the pinnacle of good and light and morality, why can't we?
Because two wrongs don't make a right
The immorality of abortion relies on the idea of the soul being magically transferred to a dual cell cluster
Not so, not from this Atheist point of view, life is precious and should be protected at all costs

[davo]

Not so, not from this Atheist point of view, life is precious and should be protected at all costs

What is 'all costs'?

The cost of an unwanted child being brought into the world? The cost of a Doctors life? The cost of a child being brought into a social situation that is not suitable for it or the parent? The cost of a womans right to choose what happens to her own body?

Rather than go thru the whole schebang and repeat pretty standard replies to this idea a foetus is 'life', there is a great article about how the concept of life in the collection of cells within a woman is really one of religious dogma, here :

http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm

[Duffy]

ask yourself would you want to be killed at any stage in your life?

I have heard the same thing from christian pro-lifers. An embryo/foetus, is only a child in the mind of an idealists. Are you going to hold funerals for all the miscarriages that happen everyday? A few of the forum men have admitted that they haven't walked in these shoes so they hestate to pass judgement. I think this is wise because the issue should be left to those it concerns.

And to answer your above question, yes. If I have no quality of life then I wish to leave the room.

[peterthames]

In the end, it's the woman's body, the woman's choice.

Not those women who are out of that particular situation, like church ladies, politicians and grannies. Certainly not blokes: they can decide when they themselves get pregnant.

I've always found it absurd that the Blight To Life people focus on the not-yet-living and the dead-but-still-breathing, and show very little concern for the very-alive people in the stages between.

Mr Black how could you get it so wrong, it's not the womens body but that of a new living human inside that womens body, if she wants to have her kidney out for example thats her body, she can decide but the embryo is a fellow human being and not a piece of her body and that is my business and should be yours too if you know about it and can help to stop it, as I have said before the journey of life has started at conception and if someone wants to kill a fellow human being at 2 weeks since conception or 2 months or 2 years or 22 years since conception then it needs to be stopped because it is wrong and it is wrong for at least one very good reason and that is if it was going to happen to me (and you and everyone else) I would not want that to happen and would fight and defend my only chance to live and breath on earth for the finite time that I have, as after that your dead for a long time, would you allow someone to take your life now? I think not, so why allow it when in the womb?

[davo]

well put Duffy, a woman has the right not to have to release her rights to something that only has the potential for life. The concept of a foetus having life is a religious one based on concepts of a SOUL.

[Duffy]

http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm

Thanks Davo, I really enjoyed that piece.

"If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students."

Brilliant:D

"Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life — lovers of tissue, maybe."

Ouch;).

[davo]

I think not, so why allow it when in the womb?

It's not life peterthames, it's nothing like a living breathing person. It has no concepts, it only has the potential for life.

The only reason you would not want it to happen to you is because you have experienced life, a foetus hasn't. It has no 'regret'. You can't compare the two, that's exactly what religious people do.

A foetus at these stages having 'life' is a religious concept, based on the soul.

[peterthames]

I have heard the same thing from christian pro-lifers. An embryo/foetus, is only a child in the mind of an idealists. Are you going to hold funerals for all the miscarriages that happen everyday? A few of the forum men have admitted that they haven't walked in these shoes so they hestate to pass judgement. I think this is wise because the issue should be left to those it concerns.

And to answer your above question, yes. If I have no quality of life then I wish to leave the room.


If I have no quality of life I wish to leave the room

That sound fine to me as you can decide that after you have been in the room for a while, but when your not in the room but rather the womb you can't decide so need to be around awhile untill you can decide not even given the chance to decide or not, but since I would think your chances of having a quality of life is 99% then follow what you believe below in the quote by (Stephen Grellet)

I Shall Pass through this world but once; any good thing therefore I can do, or any kindness I can show to any human being let me do it now, let me not defer it or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. (Stephen Grellet)

[Duffy]

it's not the womens body but that of a new living human inside that womens body

*sound of jaw hitting ground* Women are not just incubators. Are you going to make yourself available to any woman that knows she can't cope with bringing a child into the world and help her every step of the way? Or aren't there any steps down from that ivory tower.

[peterthames]

It's not life peterthames, it's nothing like a living breathing person. It has no concepts, it only has the potential for life.

The only reason you would not want it to happen to you is because you have experienced life, a foetus hasn't. It has no 'regret'. You can't compare the two, that's exactly what religious people do.

A foetus at these stages having 'life' is a religious concept, based on the soul.

Yes but we have concepts and regrets and because I have experienced life then I know and have knowledge and feel I must try to protect those who can not protect themselves, and because of this knowledge I can compare the two and
it's nothing like a living breathing person
but it will be if you leave it alone and at 3 months post conception the heart beats and if you leave it alone and help it on its way it will continue to beat for nearly 80 years or so

[davo]

but it will be if you leave it alone and at 3 months post conception the heart beats and if you leave it alone and help it on its way it will continue to beat for nearly 80 years or so

I rest my case, it's not, and you are arguing that a living breathing woman should give up her right to life, for that of one that only has the potential for it.

[Duffy]

but when your not in the room but rather the womb you can't decide

So therefore, let the child grow up in the reality that his/her parents didn't want them or can't cope with parenthood ...knowing at anytime they decide it is too much to take...they can then decide to kill themselves. Hmmm.

Abortion is often not how you see it. A mother doesn't kill a unwanted child. She makes a (often painful) decision that the pregnacy should not continue because she cannot provide a quality of life to the future developed child. To me, that is unselfish.

[peterthames]

that is belief, not fact.
I think not, can you not see that, that is a body within a body, surely a fact

[Duffy]

can you not see that, that is a body within a body, surely a fact

It is cell tissue within a body...can you not get that?

[peterthames]

I never said the new human was sentient, I just said it was a new life and should be left alone not killed but helped on it's journey

sentient /"sEnS(@)nt/
· adj. able to perceive or feel things.
– DERIVATIVES sentience n. sentiently adv.
– ORIGIN C17: from L. sentient-, sentire ‘to feel’.

[davo]

What do you think should be the penalty for abortion peterthames?

If it is wrong, shouldn't there be a penalty?

If a mother is looking to abort, should the State step in and force her not too? How do you think this should be dealt with?

Your saying murder, so therefore should the mother do life for it? If not, why are you judging one 'life' as more worthy than another?

[peterthames]

It is cell tissue within a body...can you not get that?

Yes i get it but I don't agree with you, it is cell tissue on it's journey of life and if you leave it alone it will be one of us one day, surely worth protecting, you were once that cell tissue as was I

[Duffy]

I never said the new human was sentient, I just said it was a new life and should be left alone not killed but helped on it's journey

Quality of life is more important then life alone.

I am curious to the 'help' you are referring to.

[Duffy]

Your saying murder, so therefore should the mother do life for it? If not, why are you judging one 'life' as more worthy than another?

Kapow;)

[peterthames]

I don't have time to answer all that now but to say having bad manners is wrong but we don't have a penalty for that, there is no easy answer for your questions, being that I am a black and white person with not many shades of grey inbetween. education comes to mind though, and also think about this, society will put a mother in jail if she was to give birth to a baby and then immediately put it in a bucket of water to die.

[peterthames]

Helped means being there at the birth to assist, as midwifes do and help if the baby is unwanted by finding a home for it, as there are many people longing for a baby that they can not have themselves and so on etc

[peterthames]

It is a POTENTIAL human being as we know humans living now that is fact as we were all at that stage before ourselves, so I say again leave it alone.

[Duffy]

being that I am a black and white person with not many shades of grey inbetween.

But it's the grey that matters. That's were the reasoning happens.

[davo]

A sperm and an egg are a potential life ... should we outlaw condoms?

[Serenity]

So every fertilised egg is a potential human being? Even if that were the case, big flipping deal. "Potential" means "not there yet". As such, not human and therefore not deserving of the benefits that are given to human beings.

If we lived in potentials, you'd have to leave cancer the hell alone - it has the potential to grow into something marvellous if you let it! So what if another person's life and liberty are curtailed - it should be helped along its path!

[Buddhish]

My 2 cents...

Carrying a child is not easy. It is highly invasive, physically demanding and has long term effects on the physical and mental health of the mother. This is the reality without the warmth and hype.

Raising a child is even more demanding; it is around a 20 year committment normally that dramatically alters employment, livelihood, personal goals and time, almost every aspect of the parents existence. Again, the reality without the warm and fuzzy stuff.

No one should be forced to do either; you cannot do them properly if you are doing them against your will - they are hard enough at times when the child is desperately wanted and deeply loved.

I personally have my own set of circumstances wherin I could imagine having and abortion, and an equally defined set wherin I could not imagine doing so. But that's a decision I feel I have a right to make, sometimes in conjunction with the other person and sometimes not.

That's what is worth defending IMHO - the right to choose, and to be properly informed of the realities (not the emotional warm and fuzzies) of the choice being made, and, in a great society, supported in whatever choice is made.

My 2 cents seems to have suffered some inflation - forgive!

[Duffy]

My 2 cents seems to have suffered some inflation - forgive!

I think all opinions are worthy of expressing even if it only confirms your own. So I think 2 cents is good value:D
BTW I like your 'warm and fuzzy' reference. I think it is all too easy to romanticise something if you haven't experienced it as a reality. Peter doesn't like the idea of abortion so he thinks of an alternative. But the difference between that ideal and the reality is a Pacific Ocean apart in comparison.

A good example is the movie 'Into the Wild' (http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/movies/21wild.html) (off the subject of abortions I know but if you have seen it you'll get my drift) where ideology meets reality.

The thing with reality is that it is harsh. And that's perhaps why so many people choose not to accept it.

[davo]

Asking Anti-Abortion Demonstrators an Important Question



iD97OVJ4PNw

[Lee]

The AFA has some excellent articles on the website about Abortion.
They are well worth reading.

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

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/abortionalternatives.htm

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/abort1.htm

Cheers
Lee

[Serenity]

Rubbish. A sperm and an egg are live cells.

[Elbert]

@ Elbert, BULLSHIT. That is all.

Thanks Kieran and Vonnie for teaching me how to participate in robust debate. If someone says something you disagree with, simply say it’s all rubbish, and then when they try to explain, say bullshit – in capitals. No wonder the religious lobby is running scared when great minds from the Atheist Foundation of Australia are ready to pounce with such killer ripostes.
Just joking. It’s OK, I understand that old brains get stuck in ways of thinking. Old folk reckon because they've survived more or less intact for half a dozen or more decades they know all the answers. I realise you'd like me to shut up and go away, and I will, after this final attempt to explain where I was coming from.
While working on a submission to the Human Rights Charter consultation committee, www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au (http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/). I thought that ‘Right to Lifers’ would be well and truly stumped by a group called, for example, “Right to Good Lifers”. This would take the focus off the right of a mother to terminate, which religious people deem both selfish and irresponsible, and would force law makers to consider the human rights of the child. Thus, in order to preserve ‘rights’ for the as yet unborn child [such as the ones I listed] the right to abortion has to be enshrined in law. And the fact that such rights were spelled out in a Charter of Human Rights, would make it impossible for religious groups to demand the rescinding of the right to abortion.
Furthermore, it would be much more difficult to persuade a woman not to terminate, if she has the support of a list of children’s human rights that she knows she will be unable to fulfil.
I floated the notion of children’s rights superseding the pregnant woman’s rights, to gauge the response from Atheists. Having done so, I've decided not to bother taking the idea further. So you can relax, Vonnie. Nothing will change. You're safe.
:cool:

[Duffy]

They are only potential life when brought together, seperate no life.

What's your stance on IVF if the fertilised eggs are no longer required? Do we have to find an incubator because disposing of them would be murder wouldn't it?

[peterthames]

I rest my case, it's not, and you are arguing that a living breathing woman should give up her right to life, for that of one that only has the potential for it.

Where did I say anything about a women giving up her right to life?

[Elbert]

interesting have you got evidence for these claims? I thought this stuff has been refuted many a time.

No, Davo, I haven’t – I read a great deal, remember the interesting bits, and forget to file the references. I tried for a while and have more than 250 ‘word docs’ to prove it, but finding the quote I want? Hopeless. It was a few years ago in the New Scientist. The article went further, stating that in general, girls showed little noticeable disadvantage if the mother was single, or if the girl lived only with the father, or if the mother took a new partner, or if she had to live with grandparents. On the other hand, boys showed marked behavioural, social and scholastic problems especially if separated from the father, or if the mother took a new partner – this was sometimes the catalyst for violent behaviour. Living with grandparents also was not easy for them. As I can give you no reference and my own observations of students during 40 years of teaching can in no way be called a reliable scientific study, then of course you must discount what I've written if you find it unbelievable. My sole concern is that the interests of the child are taken into account when considering abortion. I am pro choice, as long as the parents are capable of being good parents. I do not think that every woman who wants a child has the right to have one, regardless of foreseeable consequences.

[davo]

Where did I say anything about a women giving up her right to life?

She has to give up her body, her health, her ability to choose, a good 15+ years, probably her ability to support herself, her social norms etc etc

That life ... It's very easy as a male to say 'she must give up her life (as in how she is living into her future) because some cells have the potential to be a human', but it's another to be in the situation.

Anyway, you have sidestepped on the questions I asked, as shown in the video. What penalty should be given women that do have abortions, and what methodology do you work out how valuable stages you say are life are, if it's not the same as murder of a born child?

[peterthames]

What's your stance on IVF if the fertilised eggs are no longer required? Do we have to find an incubator because disposing of them would be murder wouldn't it?

Sure in an ideal world it would be best to do all in your power to find a surrogate to continue the life of the concepted human. I think I'm having trouble getting the message across, like evolution once it has started it's to late to go back, so just do what ever it takes to try and keep the human alive

[peterthames]

She has to give up her body, her health, her ability to choose, a good 15+ years, probably her ability to support herself, her social norms etc etc

That life ... It's very easy as a male to say 'she must give up her life (as in how she is living into her future) because some cells have the potential to be a human', but it's another to be in the situation.

Anyway, you have sidestepped on the questions I asked, as shown in the video. What penalty should be given women that do have abortions, and what methodology do you work out how valuable stages you say are life are, if it's not the same as murder of a born child?

I've been out I will look at that soon anyway this is you quote not mine
"She has to give up her body, her health, her ability to choose, a good 15+ years, probably her ability to support herself, her social norms etc etc" So glad we cleared that up, I do not want to be mis quoted, so what about adopting the baby out, then she is free to continue her life, except for the side effects which she would not want like stretch marks and enlarged virginal opening never to return to pre birth size etc

[Serenity]

Okay, Peter, in what situation is abortion okay?

Rape? Incestuous rape? Terminating one foetus so that the multiple others can survive? High risk of disabling the woman carrying the foetus? High risk of the foetus being physically and/or mentally disabled with conditions such as Downs Syndrome? Are any of these terminations okay?

The simple fact of the matter is that if any situation makes termination a valid choice, EVERY situation makes termination a valid choice.

[davo]

I am pro choice, as long as the parents are capable of being good parents. I do not think that every woman who wants a child has the right to have one, regardless of foreseeable consequences.

Therein lies the problem. How to judge who is a good parent? You can't and you have no definitive way to say someone will not be, based on 'profiling'.

There are plenty of rich, mum and dad with grandparent families that are not 'good parents', and even defining 'good parenting' is pretty much impossible, as children themselves are all very different, as are different peoples ideas of 'good'. One of the main problems families with one parent, same sex parents, or financial problems etc have to face is the bigotry of people who consider themselves more fortunate, more valid and more deserving of choice than others, based on preconceptions. They are as much a part of their problem and contributors to their struggles.

[peterthames]

Really, Peter? What logistical masterstroke do you have to save all those unwanted girl babies in India, China and other places where boys are preferred?

Your desire to be everywhere and do everything is not worthy of praise: it is symptomatic of trying to be god.

Some people are going to have different opinions and think differently to you, or for that matter, to me.


A bunch o' cells is not a person. My poodle is brighter than my brother had potential to ever be. A slime mould reacts to stimuli.

While it is perfectly obvious that, should you become pregnant, the child will be carried to term, you cannot extend your choice to cover other people.

And what you feel, is what you feel, not science or fact.

What logistical masterstroke do you have to save all those unwanted girl babies in India, China and other places where boys are preferred?

One person alone can not change much like that and with opposition like you and others it's not easy but I think you will find killing a baby at birth is againest the law in those countries

Your desire to be everywhere and do everything
I do not have this desire but I do have an opinion and I am expressing it here

[Serenity]

so what about adopting the baby out, then she is free to continue her life, except for the side effects which she would not want like stretch marks and enlarged virginal opening never to return to pre birth size etc

Do you have any idea the sort of stresses that are placed on a woman's body during pregnancy and birth? Hyperemesis (violently bad 'morning sickness' that can leave a woman severely dehydrated and malnourished, often resulting in hospitalisation and IV feeding augmented with anti-nausea medication), sciatica (intense pain of the back that can result in the woman being bed-ridden for most of the pregnancy), pre-natal depression due to surging hormone levels, sometimes pre-natal psychosis resulting in endangering herself and those around her. Gestational diabetes. High blood pressure. Placenta previa resulting in the need to cut her open and lay her susceptible to infections.

And then there's the birth. Women still die in child birth. It's not as likely as in times past but it does still happen. Complications after birthing the child include women being left with colostomy bags for the rest of their lives. If there was an c-section, there will be intense pain for weeks, months, possibly years after. There's also post-natal depression and post natal psychosis.

The glibness of your "stretch marks" and "enlarged vaginal opening" is insulting to say the least.

[peterthames]

Really, Peter? What logistical masterstroke do you have to save all those unwanted girl babies in India, China and other places where boys are preferred?

Your desire to be everywhere and do everything is not worthy of praise: it is symptomatic of trying to be god.

Some people are going to have different opinions and think differently to you, or for that matter, to me.


A bunch o' cells is not a person. My poodle is brighter than my brother had potential to ever be. A slime mould reacts to stimuli.

While it is perfectly obvious that, should you become pregnant, the child will be carried to term, you cannot extend your choice to cover other people.

And what you feel, is what you feel, not science or fact.

Okay, Peter, in what situation is abortion okay?

Rape? Incestuous rape? Terminating one foetus so that the multiple others can survive? High risk of disabling the woman carrying the foetus? High risk of the foetus being physically and/or mentally disabled with conditions such as Downs Syndrome? Are any of these terminations okay?

The simple fact of the matter is that if any situation makes termination a valid choice, EVERY situation makes termination a valid choice.

It is never OK but sometimes and that would be a very small % compromises have to be made, if there is a high risk of the mother dying then that need to be taken into account and you could not blame her for wanting to live and in that circumstance it would be OK. Terminating one foetus so that the multiple others can survive? that to is OK, like setting a few old folk afloat from the sinking liferaft, better some survive than all dying.
Rape? Incestuous rape? The best interests of the baby should be taken into account and living would be the best interest, if at a later stage someone wishes they were never born then that is their choice then and what they want to do about it.

being physically and/or mentally disabled with conditions such as Downs Syndrome? Are any of these terminations okay?

You should ask those people that, try Stephen Hawking

[peterthames]

Did you even bother to check? No.



That took one minute including the copy and paste. You can take care of India on your own.

It does, however, show the value of the research that goes into your opinions.




You are insisting that your opinion matters more than the opinions of people actually involved in pregnancies all around the world. It amounts to wanting your will done everywhere.

Nobody is telling you what to do with your pregnancy. Kindly extend the same consideration to others.

opinions are opinions no immediate research is needed, only years of observation
Nobody is telling you what to do with your pregnancy

Propable because I will never be pregnant, :D but beside that people are telling you and me what to do about everything anywhere thats why there are rules left right and centre

[davo]

my posts / questions have simply been sidestepped :confused:

What penalty should be given women that do have abortions, you said this is the same as drowning a new born child? I presume life in prison?

[peterthames]

She has to give up her body, her health, her ability to choose, a good 15+ years, probably her ability to support herself, her social norms etc etc

That life ... It's very easy as a male to say 'she must give up her life (as in how she is living into her future) because some cells have the potential to be a human', but it's another to be in the situation.

Anyway, you have sidestepped on the questions I asked, as shown in the video. What penalty should be given women that do have abortions, and what methodology do you work out how valuable stages you say are life are, if it's not the same as murder of a born child?

Like one women said in the video living with the action she took to kill her own flesh and blood is a very high punishment already, because most women know it is wrong, but making abortion illegal would make a point that abortion is not acceptable, then she should be counslled which could mean talking to other women who have had an abortion then realized there mistake, if the women is still unrepentant then jail is an option

[davo]

So at what point does 'taking life' become instant gaol, and why?
Cheers for the replies!

[Cody]

Boy, allot happened while I was at work today:D

[peterthames]

But Peter, you do not observe. I give you an opportunity to check things about India and China, indeed a second chance at India, and you don't bother to observe, you just reach into your fundament for yet another reiteration of your opinion, which appears to rival the law of the Medes and Persians for immutability in the face of evidence.


And what is being said here, Peter, is that there should be choice for the people directly involved in pregnancy. I hoped that by making the improbably foolish remark about your pregnancy, that you might, for a moment, imagine yourself in the shoes of a woman who does not conform to your rigid worldview.

People here have provided you with examples. I've even mentioned some family history I'd rather have left alone.

I don't think you do more than repeat yourself loudly. Could you prove to me that you actually research anything?

Could you prove to me that you actually research anything?,

no I don't and I dont need to, opinion is just that sometimes wishful thinking, even if abortion is allowed in China India that does not make it right, they used to burn witiches at the stake and WHF has law of the Medes and Persians got to do with it, they are in the past just like where religion came from, the dark ages, we are surposed to live in enlightened and scientific times

[peterthames]

Do you have any idea the sort of stresses that are placed on a woman's body during pregnancy and birth? Hyperemesis (violently bad 'morning sickness' that can leave a woman severely dehydrated and malnourished, often resulting in hospitalisation and IV feeding augmented with anti-nausea medication), sciatica (intense pain of the back that can result in the woman being bed-ridden for most of the pregnancy), pre-natal depression due to surging hormone levels, sometimes pre-natal psychosis resulting in endangering herself and those around her. Gestational diabetes. High blood pressure. Placenta previa resulting in the need to cut her open and lay her susceptible to infections.

And then there's the birth. Women still die in child birth. It's not as likely as in times past but it does still happen. Complications after birthing the child include women being left with colostomy bags for the rest of their lives. If there was an c-section, there will be intense pain for weeks, months, possibly years after. There's also post-natal depression and post natal psychosis.

The glibness of your "stretch marks" and "enlarged vaginal opening" is insulting to say the least.

Do you have any idea the sort of stresses that are placed on a woman's body during pregnancy and birth?

Well I'm not a woman but I am very close to one, who has had 4 of my children 1 still birth and now 3 months pregnant, as for my glibness, well that's my observation and fact of the matter. I am not insincere or shallow and I try not to be insulting.

[peterthames]

So every fertilised egg is a potential human being? Even if that were the case, big flipping deal. "Potential" means "not there yet". As such, not human and therefore not deserving of the benefits that are given to human beings.

If we lived in potentials, you'd have to leave cancer the hell alone - it has the potential to grow into something marvellous if you let it! So what if another person's life and liberty are curtailed - it should be helped along its path!

We can see what cancer does, it kills you, no comparison, conception and uninterupted pregnantcy brings life

[Vonnie]

Holy freaking frick! Well, I started trying to catch up on 5 pages of posts written in one day, but gave up when I saw the same old crap about murder, blah, blah, blah, living human being, blah, blah... And - oooooooooo - super-sized coloured font to boot!

So, skipped straight to the end, and saved my blood pressure! :D

Vonnie

[peterthames]

Holy freaking frick! Well, I started trying to catch up on 5 pages of posts written in one day, but gave up when I saw the same old crap about murder, blah, blah, blah, living human being, blah, blah... And - oooooooooo - super-sized coloured font to boot!

So, skipped straight to the end, and saved my blood pressure! :D

Vonnie

lol
i had the day off work and thought i would put my 2cents worth in
thanks to all concerned for a lively debate
over and out

[Kerri-Lee]

Like one women said in the video living with the action she took to kill her own flesh and blood is a very high punishment already, because most women know it is wrong, but making abortion illegal would make a point that abortion is not acceptable, then she should be counslled which could mean talking to other women who have had an abortion then realized there mistake, if the women is still unrepentant then jail is an option

I'm feeling like a piece of meat, an incubator without any feelings or emotions. Adopting a child out leaves a mother with more than stretch marks and an enlarged vagina. The emotional anguish of giving a child away and thinking about that child everyday for the rest of your life is not to be sneezed at. What about the child? His/her sense of abandonment for the rest of their life? It's not like giving away a piece of furniture where it's out of sight out of mind!

I think by using subjective terminology like right and wrong, not only are you clouding the decision-making process you are labelling women and adding to their trauma.

I have a friend who gave birth to twins. One of which has a rare, little understood condition(sorry can't remember the long name), whereby her muscles were wasted in the womb. While it is not degenerative, she is incapacitated and in a wheel chair and needs constant care. My friend wanted another child. She also hoped it would help the other twin to help her disabled sister, as her and her husband were older parents. She was assured by the doctors that the condition was not genetic and the probability of the same condition occurring again was so many millions to one. After much deliberation, she became pregnant.
Unfortunately, this condition cannot be diagnosed until 23 weeks into the pregnancy. My friend found the baby to have the same rare condition. What was she to do? Her decision would impact on her whole family. Who would look after 2 disabled children when her and her husband could not?Her able daughter? How could they afford to care for 2 disabled children and give them the best quality of life? To abort meant having to give birth at this stage of the pregnancy?Who would want to adopted a disabled child? What would you do in this situation? I doubt any of us know until we are there in those shoes.

So when you talk about murder, right and wrong, unrepentant ,jail, at best it is unhelpful and at worst it reeks of the naive, patriarchal, black and white morality of the god squad and the dark ages. This attitude rips a woman's heart out and clouds her mind when she needs to be using every once of her reason and emotion to make her decision.

Just for the record, making abortion illegal doesn't lower the abortion rate, it simply sends women to the backyard abortionists.

PS Hey Vonnie I did the quote thing.

[SyVincent]

One fascinating question to put towards proponents of making abortion a criminal practice is simply: What should happen to the mothers who have abortions?

If it's illegal how do you punish them?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
That link is perfect evidence for the alarming lack of forethought Libertyville protesters had before setting up a huge protest. VERY entertaining! The God squad are left speechless after this question over and over.

[Serenity]

Do you have any idea the sort of stresses that are placed on a woman's body during pregnancy and birth?

Well I'm not a woman but I am very close to one, who has had 4 of my children 1 still birth and now 3 months pregnant, as for my glibness, well that's my observation and fact of the matter. I am not insincere or shallow and I try not to be insulting.

Your observation does not make it a "fact of the matter". You have a limited pool of information, severely limited indeed if the only issues the mother of your children had were worries about stretch marks and vaginal stretching.

[Serenity]

We can see what cancer does, it kills you, no comparison, conception and uninterupted pregnantcy brings life

And we can see that birthing a child can potentially kill a woman, even women living in developed countries and with access to medical professionals.

The potential human does not outweigh the actual human and it is up to the actual human to assess the benefits vs the risks of any pregnancy.

[peterthames]

Your observation does not make it a "fact of the matter". You have a limited pool of information, severely limited indeed if the only issues the mother of your children had were worries about stretch marks and vaginal stretching.

Your observation does not make it a "fact of the matter".

Well how could that be? it looks like that to me, or am I dreaming, before the children were born, there were no stretch marks and the vagina was a lot slimmer if that is not facts of the matter then I don't know what is.

"You have a limited pool of information"

You are making a statement here, and you don't know the extent of my knowledge, please don't do that, better you say this, I think you may have a limited pool of information. and I never used the word worry, so I think you are putting more into this than is necessary.

[peterthames]

And we can see that birthing a child can potentially kill a woman, even women living in developed countries and with access to medical professionals.

The potential human does not outweigh the actual human and it is up to the actual human to assess the benefits vs the risks of any pregnancy.

The potential human does not outweigh the actual human and it is up to the actual human to assess the benefits vs the risks of any pregnancy.

I agree with you, but weighing up the risk of pregnancy is not given a chance when I believe most abortions are done before 23 weeks on the grounds of failed contraception.

[peterthames]

Just for the record, making abortion illegal doesn't lower the abortion rate, it simply sends women to the backyard abortionists.

I would like to see some proof of that, given maybe 100,000 abortons take place in Australia in a year, if the clinics were to close down and the tax payer hospital abortions stopped, then thats alot of women to go and find a backyard abortionist.

[davo]

I would like to see some proof of that, given maybe 100,000 abortons take place in Australia in a year, if the clinics were to close down and the tax payer hospital abortions stopped, then thats alot of women to go and find a backyard abortionist.

There is an interesting post by the New York Times here :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

[Serenity]

Your observation does not make it a "fact of the matter".

Well how could that be? it looks like that to me, or am I dreaming, before the children were born, there were no stretch marks and the vagina was a lot slimmer if that is not facts of the matter then I don't know what is.

"You have a limited pool of information"

You are making a statement here, and you don't know the extent of my knowledge, please don't do that, better you say this, I think you may have a limited pool of information. and I never used the word worry, so I think you are putting more into this than is necessary.

It was you that brought up these issues, not me. It was you that suggested that the pressing concerns of women wanting an abortion instead of going the route of adoption were stretch marks and loose vaginas, not me. It was you that was suggesting that you knew about pregnancy complications concerns based on your wife's pregnancies, not me. It was your implication that those were the only concerns women have when pregnant, not mine.

If there were other concerns, you shouldn't have been so flippant with real rather than misogynist aesthetic concerns.

And as for saying "I think", bugger that. It's clear by the fact that these words are appearing in my reply space that it's what I think. It's certainly not what you think, after all. And I refuse to mitigate my opinion. If I was wrong on your pool of information, perhaps that was due to your own statements where the ails of pregnancy were reduced to stretch marks and vaginal stretching.

[Serenity]

The potential human does not outweigh the actual human and it is up to the actual human to assess the benefits vs the risks of any pregnancy.

I agree with you, but weighing up the risk of pregnancy is not given a chance when I believe most abortions are done before 23 weeks on the grounds of failed contraception.

Makes no sense.

There is a real risk of death with carrying a pregnancy to term and birthing. There is sometimes very little indication that this may happen to the mother before it already has. Why should a woman, unwilling to be pregnant in the first place, place her own life at risk to carry a potential human to term instead of aborting it while it is a mass of non-sentient cells?

[Kid]

Why does the woman have to carry the pregnancy to full term, even if it could endanger her life? Answer: Cos the big man says she has to.

At first I thought Peter was a fundie plant, but I'm thinking now that he thinks women's bodies are merely there for him to fill with his seed. She has no rights to terminate what HE puts in her body. That is it in a nutshell. Pregnant women have no rights to terminate what a man puts inside her. it is HIS seed, HIS baby, HIS right to see that baby born. She is merely an empty vessel, waiting to fulfil her role as child-bearer to the male. This was the way women were viewed all through history; merely empty vessels to be filled with the male seed, to bear his sons. This sounds to me more like Peter's rights to have his children born, to have all the children born of men, and that the woman has no rights to stop that. This is a male versus female issue at its root cause. not the rights of the unborn child. the unborn foetus does not have any rights and neither should it. A foetus cannot make decisions concerning its own rights, so therefore, someone else must make those decisions on its behalf; and that is the male in Peter's case, and in the pro-life case, its them. They remove the rights of the woman, a grown human, not a potential life, but a life with family, friends, work, or not, etc...

I'm seeing Peter as very much a man who thinks he owns the body of the woman he impregnates with the sacred male sperm, thus ensuring the survival of his genetic material. So reading between the lines of his posts, this is all about him. and lady, you don't get a say in it. :mad:

[Kerri-Lee]

I would like to see some proof of that, given maybe 100,000 abortons take place in Australia in a year, if the clinics were to close down and the tax payer hospital abortions stopped, then thats alot of women to go and find a backyard abortionist.

The loss of one existing human being to a backyard abortionist is criminal and a waste of life.

I was actually curious about your opinion on what else I had to say but it appears that you have chosen the non-emotive part, much to my disappointment. It's a tad easier to deal with numbers and not individuals. There are maybe 100,000 lives here, how will this impact on them and the people around them? I doubt they make the decision to abort lightly in the first place . Once again, blanket rules and condemnation, should be avoided. Compassion not censure.

[davo]

the idea suddenly occurred that the whole attitude was an act designed to attract attention, and may reside beneath a viaduct somewhere, if you catch my meaning.

Not necessarily : http://www.godlessprolifers.org

[Cruel_Heartless]

The way people view Abortions these days sicken me. Most women view it as an easy option to distance themselves from responsibility and potential consequences.

You have a one night stand and get pregnant; you get an abortion, you are not ready for motherhood; you get an abortion, you are vain and superficial and do not like what pregnancy will do to you; you get an abortion.

It's a no guilt service that is frequently exploited by women of all ages, just ask Clementine Ford.

These women that get abortions also need to consider what message they are sending to women and men in society. Women that get abortions, or more accurately cop out, are either directly or indirectly glamorizing abortion. Abortion is frequently presented as an easy, uncomplicated medical procedure, thus making it appealing for future generations to exploit the service. That worries me because it will make abortions trendy and the next big craze among the teenage population and make sure teenagers do not face up to their reckless behaviour.

Another thing that makes my stomach turn is the way abortion reduces women to being nothing more than a bit of fun for men, to use and make sure there are no lasting consequences, thus effectively giving men an easy ride home after they have had their fun. It reduces women to nothing more than a piece of meat to have sex with and then move on, it degrades women everywhere.

I am all for women having control over their body, but abortion is not about control, it’s about not dealing with repercussions and getting rid of complications in your life, which is pathetic.

However, making abortion illegal is disgusting. Some women are raped and as a result the option of an abortion should be left open to them. Though only if it can be medically determined they were raped.

[davo]

Those are common fallacies Cruel_Heartless, 54% of women (at least in the States, so I assume similar here) WERE using contraception, it's not 100% infallible!

Some facts here :

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Abortion isn't something any woman takes lightly, your seem to think it is "Most women view it as an easy option to distance themselves from responsibility and potential consequences" -> where do these facts come from???

And a 12-week-old foetus does not qualify as a baby.

Obviously you are male, and that makes it OHH so much easier to condemn.

[Serenity]

If an abortion may be permitted for rape victims, why not for everyone? Same sort of cells being removed, after all. Why the special treatment in that case? Because the conception wasn't fun?

Potential consequences of being forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy (apart from the whole host of complications and consequences I have mentioned) is being left with an unwanted child. There is a tendency to romanticise motherhood, telling women that they will grow into the maternal side when they see their babies, telling them it's the most wonderful thing in the world. The number of abused and neglected children across the world would speak otherwise, no?

Giving a child away for adoption is riddled with social stigma, particularly if you already have children. Mothers have abortions, too. A significant number of them. How do you go about explaining to your family that the baby wouldn't be coming home with you? That's aside from the emotional blackmail that women would have to face from other family members to keep the baby within the family.

What exactly is wrong with the convenience of abortion? What's wrong with aborting because you don't want to have a baby? Why are you insistent on punishing women for being sexually liberated?

Women aren't stupid. They can think for themselves and decide whether abortion is a "glamorous" option. I'm nearly 30 and never, not once has it occurred to me that they were. I know many women who have had abortions and never has being glamorous been a factor. No teenager will ever go in for recreational abortion. They will have an abortion when they don't want to be pregnant - that's it. Not because it tickles.

Abortion doesn't reduce women to anything because ultimately it is the woman that has the power to continue the pregnancy or to abort. If she continues on with it, the man has to pay child support. If she doesn't, then it's dealt with. It's her that has to sign the paper, her that is the patient - a man cannot force an abortion without the existence of abuse and if she is being abused, it's not abortion that is reducing her, it's domestic violence.

What abortion does is liberate her to enjoy her sexuality without hindrance. She can be sexually active and still maintain the life of her choice whether that is being childless (because there are many women that just never want a baby) or pursue her career until a point she is ready to entertain notions of motherhood.

[Cruel_Heartless]

Those are common fallacies Cruel_Heartless, 54% of women (at least in the States, so I assume similar here) WERE using contraception, it's not 100% infallible!

Some facts here :

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Abortion isn't something any woman takes lightly, your seem to think it is "Most women view it as an easy option to distance themselves from responsibility and potential consequences" -> where do these facts come from???

And a 12-week-old foetus does not qualify as a baby.

Obviously you are male, and that makes it OHH so much easier to condemn.

Dave, you’re right, contraceptions are not always reliable, but if you are willing to have sex with that individual, no matter what, then expect the consequences, however unlikely they are.

No offence Dave, but I want be quoting from your sources as they are biased on the issue, a pro choice website with an obvious axe to grind is not where I want to get information.

Sadly David most of the women I know do take it lightly and my friends that have had an abortion have never understood the depth or gravity of their actions. I realise it may sound presumptuous to say such a comment, but when no remorse, nor grief or even a hint of regret is evident to an extremely close friend it seems to me that the decision was taken lightly and the potential outcomes or ramifications were not thought through.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that some women are against abortion? Another typical man assuming that women stick together and must pander and be two faced to rest of our population even if we disagree with them.



If an abortion may be permitted for rape victims, why not for everyone? Same sort of cells being removed, after all. Why the special treatment in that case? Because the conception wasn't fun?

Potential consequences of being forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy (apart from the whole host of complications and consequences I have mentioned) is being left with an unwanted child. There is a tendency to romanticise motherhood, telling women that they will grow into the maternal side when they see their babies, telling them it's the most wonderful thing in the world. The number of abused and neglected children across the world would speak otherwise, no?

Giving a child away for adoption is riddled with social stigma, particularly if you already have children. Mothers have abortions, too. A significant number of them. How do you go about explaining to your family that the baby wouldn't be coming home with you? That's aside from the emotional blackmail that women would have to face from other family members to keep the baby within the family.

What exactly is wrong with the convenience of abortion? What's wrong with aborting because you don't want to have a baby? Why are you insistent on punishing women for being sexually liberated?

Women aren't stupid. They can think for themselves and decide whether abortion is a "glamorous" option. I'm nearly 30 and never, not once has it occurred to me that they were. I know many women who have had abortions and never has being glamorous been a factor. No teenager will ever go in for recreational abortion. They will have an abortion when they don't want to be pregnant - that's it. Not because it tickles.

Abortion doesn't reduce women to anything because ultimately it is the woman that has the power to continue the pregnancy or to abort. If she continues on with it, the man has to pay child support. If she doesn't, then it's dealt with. It's her that has to sign the paper, her that is the patient - a man cannot force an abortion without the existence of abuse and if she is being abused, it's not abortion that is reducing her, it's domestic violence.

What abortion does is liberate her to enjoy her sexuality without hindrance. She can be sexually active and still maintain the life of her choice whether that is being childless (because there are many women that just never want a baby) or pursue her career until a point she is ready to entertain notions of motherhood.

Rape is not about choice Serenity. Women that are raped are violated; they are humiliated and degraded as women and as human beings. No female should have to suffer the indignity and pain of having to live and be reminded of the fact that they were raped. It is not human decency.

Serenity have you never heard of adoption. If the baby is unwanted then you adopt it out so another family or person that could not have children could love and cherish it. It is so easy for people who are able to have children to take such a privilege and take it for granted.

If any women feels compelled to be emotional blackmailed then she is a weak person indeed and really will get no sympathy from me whatsoever.

See the very fact that you posted convenient and abortion in the same sentence should be sounding alarm bells. Deciding to terminate a life or a potential life should not be trivialized in such a frivolous manner. No abortion is not about punishment only sluts view it as punishment, abortion is about living with the choices you have made in life and accepting responsibilities and consequences.

Unfortunately women can be easily persuaded, especially younger women. You are almost middle age, and no offense it has been over ten years since you were a teenager and times have changed. I have never said women go through with it because it tickles, that is a highly offensive suggestion, one which you have twisted. The media and pro choice have made it easily for abortions and have glamourized the whole medical procedure. It is no longer used as a last resort, but usually whenever a baby is not wanted or if it will ruin the changes of future sexual partners, body perceptions and the possibility of losing the baby’s father.

Abortion should not be a power struggle or a voice for women to express their liberated attitudes, it’s a matter of preserving life, living with consequences and cherishing something that all too often is taken for granted. Also, a woman chose to go through that the moment she agreed to sex. As much as I hate how men can take a back seat in this issue the female needs to accept responsibility.

If taking a potential life gives a woman a chance to feel liberated, then I am disgusted and ashamed to be a woman, likewise reducing a potential life as a hindrance so a promiscuous slut can enjoy her escapades without remorse or regret is nauseating to say the least.

[davo]

Those sources referenced international studies backed by various reputable international agencies like the world health.
And no the assumption i think all women are against abortion is wrong, whether your friends skirt the issue and appear to take it lightly is also a common defence to any hard issue, and the women i have known that have had abortions did not take it lightly at all, the decision may be clear, but it's not an off the cuff one.
What other adults do with thier body is not our business. To not be put in the situation makes it a lot easier to judge it, however we want too. Unless you personally are in the situation, it's not any one elser place to judge.
Effectively my arguement is that women have the right to do as they wish with thier body, and those not in the situation find it a lot easier to judge those that are.

[atomac]

It is the ending of a human life the core issue that most people have with abortion. To some, such as the Catholic Church and other pro-lifers, life begins at the moment of conception. While it would be impossible to argue from a scientific stand point that this is untrue medicine generally defines 12 weeks as the cut off for an abortion (as far as I know) indicating that it this stage the feotus is not just alive but also "human".

My personal opinion of late term abortions (i.e. after the baby could be born alive and survive) is that it is similar to homocide, and therefore should be avoided unless absolutely necessary i.e. not freely available. Prior to this point in the pregnancy it is surely a matter for pregnant woman whether or not she has the baby.

Regardless of our own moral code to control the actions of another person and control their body is completely unethical.

Women considering abortion should be counselled. If the pregnancy is the result of rape then appropriate action should be taken. If it is as the result of promiscuity then education about contraception and "safe sex" should be provided. If it is an "accident" as part of a relationship then a through explanation of all of the options should be provided.

The moral considerations such as promiscuity, "murder" of an "unborn child" etc. are for the religious to worry about. Our concern has to be the welfare of the woman.

In short I am advocating informed choice for women with unplanned pregnancy, support for whatever decision they make as it is their right.

[Cruel_Heartless]

Those sources referenced international studies backed by various reputable international agencies like the world health.
And no the assumption i think all women are against abortion is wrong, whether your friends skirt the issue and appear to take it lightly is also a common defence to any hard issue, and the women i have known that have had abortions did not take it lightly at all, the decision may be clear, but it's not an off the cuff one.
What other adults do with thier body is not our business. To not be put in the situation makes it a lot easier to judge it, however we want too. Unless you personally are in the situation, it's not any one elser place to judge.
Effectively my arguement is that women have the right to do as they wish with thier body, and those not in the situation find it a lot easier to judge those that are.

Can you please not assume to know how my friends would have reacted, trust me I have known them a lot longer and on a more personal level than you.

I am not saying every single women in the world takes abortion lightly, I’m evidence of that, but abortion is now more than ever regarded as some decision to be taken with a pinch of salt and ramifications are rarely thought through.

When the women that use abortion clinics regularly and then boast about it, saying how easy it was it makes me and the rest of the female population look bad. These women are disgusting role models.

As for the judgement thing, people judge each other everyday on every single issue imaginable. I am not going to change my personal belief system because it makes some slut feel ashamed. I want them to feel ashamed, I want them to feel guilty I want them to understand that due to their selfishness they have cost a potential human life.

Women should have every right to their human body, but what people fail to understand is the moment a woman learns she is pregnant her selfish desires must take a backseat and she must realise her body is now someone else’s as well.

[peterthames]

Serenity I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this with you, you appear to be a master of mis- interpretation with what I say and continue with statements of fact that are not true. I bow out and agree to dis-agree

[davo]

That's where we differ, it has the potential to be a human life, but it's not.
No, not presuming your friendships, just stating that many women hide, not from thier friends, but from themselves, thier concerns after making the choice.
If it was human life, shouldn't there be a punishment for taking of it? If not, why not?

[Cody]

Not necessarily : http://www.godlessprolifers.org

ha:D He describes abortion as genocide!? And claims women use it as a substitute for birth control. All in the first paragraph too.

[davo]

Hehe looks as tho it's up to date and really active .... NOT

[Serenity]

Serenity I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this with you, you appear to be a master of mis- interpretation with what I say and continue with statements of fact that are not true. I bow out and agree to dis-agree

If I misunderstood, show me where and I will endeavour to correct my understanding on what you said.

[peterthames]

Why does the woman have to carry the pregnancy to full term, even if it could endanger her life? Answer: Cos the big man says she has to.

At first I thought Peter was a fundie plant, but I'm thinking now that he thinks women's bodies are merely there for him to fill with his seed. She has no rights to terminate what HE puts in her body. That is it in a nutshell. Pregnant women have no rights to terminate what a man puts inside her. it is HIS seed, HIS baby, HIS right to see that baby born. She is merely an empty vessel, waiting to fulfil her role as child-bearer to the male. This was the way women were viewed all through history; merely empty vessels to be filled with the male seed, to bear his sons. This sounds to me more like Peter's rights to have his children born, to have all the children born of men, and that the woman has no rights to stop that. This is a male versus female issue at its root cause. not the rights of the unborn child. the unborn foetus does not have any rights and neither should it. A foetus cannot make decisions concerning its own rights, so therefore, someone else must make those decisions on its behalf; and that is the male in Peter's case, and in the pro-life case, its them. They remove the rights of the woman, a grown human, not a potential life, but a life with family, friends, work, or not, etc...

I'm seeing Peter as very much a man who thinks he owns the body of the woman he impregnates with the sacred male sperm, thus ensuring the survival of his genetic material. So reading between the lines of his posts, this is all about him. and lady, you don't get a say in it. :mad:

Sorry to say but your not reading between the lines correctly, and what you say above about me is completely wrong, it may be right about other men but not me, just ask my wife, in fact I feel a little insulted about what you have said about me but I'm big and ugly enough to that go to the keeper, I will say though it takes 2 to tango and the a baby once conceived is both part of the father and the mother she is not an empty vessel she is very important as her egg is as important as his sperm and he does not put the egg there, if there was no egg needed just sperm then I could understand your thoughts about the man wanting his seed to complete and bear a son, you however seem to me to be under valuing the role of women, demeaning women, the one's I know who value life have the utmost respect for life and the unborn baby and like me want to see the results of their union to grow and live and replace them when they die.
By the way if an unborn baby has no rights " the unborn foetus does not have any rights and neither should it" Then when does it? cos after birth it still can't make decisions concerning its own rights until he/she is 16/18 years old

[peterthames]

If I misunderstood, show me where and I will endeavour to correct my understanding on what you said.

To be frank I don't have the time I spend to much time on this computer already and I have a job to go to and a wife to spend my time with, if I was preaching to the converted that would be less painful but getting though to you and your ilk is taxing my resources.
I do appreciate your imput, I have learned alot
Thanks

[Serenity]

Rape is not about choice Serenity. Women that are raped are violated; they are humiliated and degraded as women and as human beings. No female should have to suffer the indignity and pain of having to live and be reminded of the fact that they were raped. It is not human decency.

I am aware of what rape is. My point is that regardless of the way in which a cluster of unwanted cells arrived to be in a woman's uterus, they are still the same thing: a cluster of unwanted cells. It must certainly be traumatising to carry the product of a rape to term but it is also traumatising to carry the unwanted product of a willing sexual encounter, too.

It is not human decency to make any woman succumb to a parasite.

Serenity have you never heard of adoption. If the baby is unwanted then you adopt it out so another family or person that could not have children could love and cherish it. It is so easy for people who are able to have children to take such a privilege and take it for granted.

Adoption doesn't really mean much if the woman is dead on the operating table having birthed an unwanted child. Better to remove the potential child before it gets to that stage.

Also, it is not the responsibility of people who are able to have children to provide them to those that cannot. I sympathise with the infertile, I have seen the heartache that goes with IVF first hand but saying other women should have unwanted babies to appease that is as ridiculous as forcing someone to finish a plateful of food because there are starving children in Africa.

See the very fact that you posted convenient and abortion in the same sentence should be sounding alarm bells. Deciding to terminate a life or a potential life should not be trivialized in such a frivolous manner. No abortion is not about punishment only sluts view it as punishment, abortion is about living with the choices you have made in life and accepting responsibilities and consequences.

I have no issue with using the two words in the same sentence. Termination of lives are a daily occurrence - you terminate skin cells every day, you step on ants every day. Why is the termination of this cluster of cells different?

I don't understand what you mean by sluts viewing abortions as punishment. Or is that meant to mean that sluts view unwanted pregnancies as punishment?

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to become pregnant. It's choosing to have sex. Choosing to get pregnant is choosing to get pregnant. There's a difference.

The media and pro choice have made it easily for abortions and have glamourized the whole medical procedure. It is no longer used as a last resort, but usually whenever a baby is not wanted or if it will ruin the changes of future sexual partners, body perceptions and the possibility of losing the baby’s father.

Where has this been glamorised? I see no such thing and in fact see a whole bunch of glamorisation of motherhood: look at all the pictures of celebrity pregnancies, teen celeb pregnancies and so forth. The rates of pregnancy in teenagers (in America) is increasing as the rates of abortion amongst that age group is decreasing. So your theory is wrong. They aren't flocking to the abortion clinics.

Abortion should not be a power struggle or a voice for women to express their liberated attitudes, it’s a matter of preserving life, living with consequences and cherishing something that all too often is taken for granted.

Prove the value of this life beyond a parasitic entity.

If taking a potential life gives a woman a chance to feel liberated, then I am disgusted and ashamed to be a woman, likewise reducing a potential life as a hindrance so a promiscuous slut can enjoy her escapades without remorse or regret is nauseating to say the least.

So just because someone's lifestyle isn't to your taste, you have the right to sit there moralising about it? Multiple sexual partners isn't anything to be ashamed of - explain why a woman should be ashamed of that. Explain why a woman should be ashamed of that while it's not a matter of even remote shame for men.

The point is that it is a "potential" life. That is the whole point. It isn't a human being, it isn't infanticide, it is taking action to prevent dire consequences.

[peterthames]

You may be judging Peter a little harshly. I was quite insulted by his refusal to actually debate the issue using facts or research (and I could see why you may have taken him for a fundie on this basis), but his post (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=2527&postcount=99)about his being "a fun way to spend a day off work" or similar, gave me the idea that, as the Python sketch (http://www.mindspring.com/%7Emfpatton/sketch.htm) so aptly put it, "I could be arguing in my own spare time": the idea suddenly occurred that the whole attitude was an act designed to attract attention, and may reside beneath a viaduct somewhere, if you catch my meaning.

On the other hand, if you're even halfway right, there is a family deserving my pity.

Mr Black you make me laugh, are you sure your not a comedian, but please don't pity me I don't need that, I will be the first to admit I'm no intellectual so I struggle to keep up to you and your posts, anyway what is a fundie plant?

[Lee]

If any women feels compelled to be emotional blackmailed then she is a weak person indeed and really will get no sympathy from me whatsoever.Women are emotionally blackmailed by the Right to Lifers? Pro-choice people give facts not emotional clap-trap. From the stories I have read about guilt and abortion it is often because of the attitude of anti-choicers that make some women feel guilt.

And to call a person 'weak' shows a total lack of understanding of humanity.

It is extremely disheartening to see the word 'slut' used in this forum as though it has some real meaning. That is 1950's talk.

SadLee

[peterthames]

A fundie (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:Fundie&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) plant? That's a different sort of vegetable, Peter, but equally fruitful.

Yeh that's me a fundie, thanks for that, but also you know the saying from the movie the 6th sense "I see dead people" well "I see reality" and a lot of people here do not (in my opinion);)

[Duffy]

Yeh that's me a fundie, thanks for that, but also you know the saying from the movie the 6th sense "I see dead people" well "I see reality" and a lot of people here do not (in my opinion)

You see reality? Really? Your misogynist view versus my abortion experience...hmmm. That's so rich it's making my tummy hurt:(

[His Noodly Appendage]

Okay, my three cents.

On what grounds might we consider abortion to be morally wrong?

It's infanticide - the taking of a new life!

Sperm are alive. Ova are alive. Therefore, life does not start at conception, and abortion is not killing 'new life'. The cells are just the mother's own cells, that started dividing madly after being reprogrammed by a passing sperm.

Can you say HPV?

But if nature is left to take its course, this will result in a new, separate human being!

Leave me in a room with Serena Williams and Parminder Nagra, let nature take its course, and there'll be babies all over the place. Would it be wrong for them to intervene?

(I'd actually be very happy with a 'yes' here :D)

A percentage of the time, leaving nature to take its course will result only in death of the mother, or in a stillbirth/miscarriage. Net gain: 0. Can someone explain why we have to do this the hard, horrible way, and why the mother gets the short straw?

But the unborn child is innocent! It's not their fault!

Do people have the right to defend themselves from a mentally incompetent attacker? If a severely retarded individual attempted to stab you in the uterus, and you had no recourse but to shoot them, would you be ethically justified in doing so, or would it be wrong because they were 'innocent'?

But the unborn child has so much more life ahead of them, they deserve a chance!

So older people have no right to defend themselves against younger people, now?

But life-threatening cases are rare. Most of the time, both survive.

Okay - do you have the right to defend yourself from rape?

Nine MONTHS of rape?

I can think of few more hideous forms of torture than forced birth.

Especially when that birth (and the pregnancy preceding it) were the result of sexual abuse.

Imagine it. Growing inside you like a fucking tumour. Taking over your body, sucking the very calcium out of your bones, wrecking your menstrual cycle (okay, I can't directly imagine that), doing weird things to your genitals, to your breasts, leaving you nauseous and heaving your guts out day after day, hypersensitive to the slightest odour, suffering horrible sciatica so that every waddling step is pain, swelling and stretching your belly to the point of pain and beyond, reducing your bladder capacity to a thimbleful and squeezing other internal organs out of the way, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, dietary restrictions, bugger-all chance of restoring a normal sex life for the duration, and perhaps the worst, fucking your emotions with a cheesegrater, leaving you crying and buffeted by waves of feelings you can't predict or even understand, forcing you to fall in love with it, though not precluding hate, in a bizarre and hideous form of Stockholm Syndrome.

Part of your rapist living inside you (and indeed, kicking you in the belly), for NINE FUCKING MONTHS, 24/7.

And then there's the birth - hours of indescribable agony, with a likelihood of getting torn halfway from vagina to rectum, urethra damage, spinal damage, torn pelvic ligaments - or having your uterus cut open to preclude these.

And of course, once it's out, a wash of hormones further betraying your emotions into loving that which has abused you so.

You want to know the last word in final soul-destroying humiliation?

For those that want it, the symptoms can be worth the result, and the emotional vortex only reinforces the happiness therefrom.

For those that don't, just as with sex, it's a whole 'nother story.

Even without an initial rape, a truly unwanted pregnancy isn't something I'd wish on my own worst enemy. And if someone were to kill to avoid that, I'd support them every step of the way. Even if I counted a cluster of cells smaller than the amount you scrape off the inside of your cheek when eating a piece of toast as 'human', even if I saw no difference between that and an adult or child, I'd still support it.

But foetuses are people!

You think so? Here's a test:

You're in a fertility clinic that has just caught on fire. The place is really going up. At one end of a long hallway is a rack of petri dishes with newly-fertilised embryos. At the other is a three-year-old child. By the look of things, you'll only be able to save one or the other before the roof caves in.

Which do you leave to burn?

Well. If she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex.

And if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn those clothes, right?

Bugger that. That's just leftover patriarchal crap. As Serenity said, choosing to have sex is choosing to have sex. Choosing to get pregnant is an entirely unrelated decision.

That'll do for now , I think.

Of course, that being said, I probably would have issues with someone choosing to abort (except under truly dire circumstances) at say, 39.5 weeks. If you've kept it that long, you've pretty much taken responsibility for it already - you've accepted the role of parent, and as such, it counts as your child.

Where do I draw the line? I don't, really. It's a smear of cells at the beginning, and a baby at the end. In between, there are only shades of grey.

[/walloftext]

[peterthames]

Peter, I have not called you a fundie. Read the thread for once. You will find (if you could be bothered to look) that was somebody else.

I provided a definition. Your passive-aggressive stance and real or feigned failure to notice the most basic things is either due to innate stolidity or it is volitional and with purpose.

If you see reality, it may be with cataracts.

Yeh I know you did not call me a fundi, I never said you did, I said thanks for that as you provided the definition, see how misunderstandings happen, and these words you use I have never seen before, you make it hard work replying cos I have to look them up in the dictionary, what happened to plain English?

[peterthames]

You see reality? Really? Your misogynist view versus my abortion experience...hmmm. That's so rich it's making my tummy hurt:(

misogynist /mI"sQdZ(@)nIst, mVI-/
· n. a man who hates women.
– DERIVATIVES misogynistic adj.

This is not me, I love women, really.

So you had an abortion experience, and now your mad and want to blame men and me?

[Serenity]

No Peter, she doesn't blame anyone for her abortion. It was a choice she made. She's angry at you because of the misogynistic attitudes you have repeatedly offered in this thread.

And wanting to sleep with women does not preclude misogyny. Treating them as slabs of flesh for pleasure, to impregnate, and then to deny any bodily autonomy (as is the case which anti-choice crowds) is misogynistic.

[peterthames]

No Peter, she doesn't blame anyone for her abortion. It was a choice she made. She's angry at you because of the misogynistic attitudes you have repeatedly offered in this thread.

And wanting to sleep with women does not preclude misogyny. Treating them as slabs of flesh for pleasure, to impregnate, and then to deny any bodily autonomy (as is the case which anti-choice crowds) is misogynistic.

I'm so sorry that she is angry at me because she thinks i have misogynistic attitudes, but that is not me, you are very mis-understood, I have a view on abortion and I post it here, you truly don't know me.

As for Treating them as slabs of flesh for pleasure, to impregnate, and then to deny any bodily autonomy This is very harsh to accuse any man of this, at best a bad generalization, maybe you do because you were treated like this, I don't know, but I repeat that is not me.

[davo]

Relevant, considering how some appear to think birth is always so straight forward a thing based only on their own experiences

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

I start to think about the abortion debate. About pro-lifers, in particular. I think about all those meddling politicians that would want to interject themselves into everything that just happened to me, interject themselves between me, my wife, and her doctors. And then I had a strong, visceral reaction. I wanted the mutherfuckers to die. I wanted to rip off their heads and tear out their hearts, because how DARE they play politics with my wife's life? The baby was fine until the end. I wondered if that would have meant they'd force us to let my wife bleed until almost death before they'd let us abort, because well, if she's not near death, then it is just a 'health' exception, and we can't have that! Fuck them. Fuck them all. They can fucking die, as far as I'm concerned. This was what went through my mind as I sat there, waiting to see if, after my baby died, my wife had died as well.

[peterthames]

Your homage to circular reasoning is up there with your photoshop-fu, sir.

http://rynosseros.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/newpete.jpg
Hey I try Mr Irreverent.

[davo]

it isn't life Peter, it's potential life.

If you think it is life, you therefore assume that the woman is committing murder, and should be punished the same.

If it's life, and you don't think a woman should be punished the same as a murderer .. for what reason, and at what point do you define the value difference between the two lives?

[Duffy]

So you had an abortion experience, and now your mad and want to blame men and me?

I have read many of your comments with the regular notion of...'you don't know me' then you presume that I am mad and want to blame men.

That just confirms to me that your knowledge about abortion is limted to the mechanics of child birth because you saw it happen. You continue to ignore scientific facts presented to you about cognitive and consciousness of cell tissue, you have been presented with the opportunity to learn about the emotive and rational side of abortion from those experienced and you still prefer to dwell in your assumptions.

I called you a misogynist because you have totally dismissed the rights of a woman to make judgements on what happens to her own body. You do not have any rights to the guardianship the embryo/foetus inside her. Just as I do not have any rights to your person or what you choose to do to your body.

[Serenity]

I'm so sorry that she is angry at me because she thinks i have misogynistic attitudes, but that is not me, you are very mis-understood, I have a view on abortion and I post it here, you truly don't know me.

Again, your various attitudes on this thread are what have led both Duffy and I, entirely separate people who don't know each other at all, to that same conclusion of misogyny. If we are both seeing this, perhaps the misunderstanding isn't our fault but rather (at best) your expression of your position or (more likely) your position.

As for Treating them as slabs of flesh for pleasure, to impregnate, and then to deny any bodily autonomy This is very harsh to accuse any man of this, at best a bad generalization, maybe you do because you were treated like this, I don't know, but I repeat that is not me.

On an individual level, no, I haven't been treated like meat. As a woman in patriarchal society, yes, as a group that is exactly what women are treated as. Plastered across billboard ads, semi-clad for the purpose of selling everything from beer to cars, reduced to nothing but their bodies which are exploited for the sole purpose of providing men with a sexual thrill.

When you say you love women, what exactly does that mean? I don't say "I love men" as a blanket statement. There are some men I love, just as there are some women that I love. I don't group an entire gender together. It's as reductive, as alienating and as silly as saying "I love black people."

The accusations of misogyny come from the denial of women as autonomous, thinking, non-homogenised beings that are capable of making their own decisions regarding the uses and the contents of their bodies.

[Serenity]

I suspect he'll just ask me to use shorter words.

[peterthames]

I called you a misogynist because you have totally dismissed the rights of a woman to make judgements on what happens to her own body. You do not have any rights to the guardianship the embryo/foetus inside her.

As I said in the very beginning to Mr Black the foetus, cells, embryo or whatever you want to call them is a human on the journey of life, started at conception and ending 80 odd years later, It is not part of the women's body, so other's have an interest, the Father being one, even the grand parents have an interest, it is their genetic material too that helped make the life. You can do what you wish with your body, sell a kidney, have a sex change, even end it if you feel you want, that's your choice but the body within is not yours it belongs to it's self it came from you and the father and if left alone will continue to grow to replace you one day when your 80 years is at an end. No one said life was meant to be easy, so help it on it's journey like your parent/parents did for you.

I have no right to the foetus with in you, true, but I can air my views about what I think you want to do to it, and if enough people with my views get together and change the law, then so be it.
This is opinion and advise, please (Duffy, Mr Black & others) don't ask me to prove anything here. Just take it at face value, it's my simplistic view and that's how I like it.

[Duffy]

This is opinion and advise, please (Duffy, Mr Black & others) don't ask me to prove anything here. Just take it at face value, it's my simplistic view and that's how I like it.

So you would support a law making abortion illegal based on your simplistic view? Sorry i was giving you credit for having thought for opinions through?

[Serenity]

You don't have a smidge of evidence for what you have said, Peter. That's why people are frustrated. You come in with sweeping romantic notions of life but are entirely unwilling to back any of it up, instead focussing on (and generating) peripheral arguments here and there.

Your claim that an embryo is a human being to be given the same rights as other human beings because it shares human DNA is simply an untenable position. It doesn't have the same rights nor the same value as there is not one sound-minded person in the world that would save a petrie dish of "potentials" instead of an actual living child.

A fetus is a part of a woman's body, a parasite that is feeding from her, attached to her by the placenta, being nourished by the foods she eats, and when that is in small supply, by her body as it leeches calcium from her very bones. It is a part of a woman's body in the same manner as digestive bacteria are a part of a woman's body: they are inside her, effecting her, therefore part of her.

[peterthames]

So you would support a law making abortion illegal based on your simplistic view? Sorry i was giving you credit for having thought for opinions through?

No, not on my simplistic view, that would be silly but the reality of not allowing other fellow humans from dying unnecessarily.

[peterthames]

A fetus is a part of a woman's body, a parasite that is feeding from her, attached to her by the placenta, being nourished by the foods she eats, and when that is in small supply, by her body as it leeches calcium from her very bones. It is a part of a woman's body in the same manner as digestive bacteria are a part of a woman's body: they are inside her, effecting her, therefore part of her.

I am aware of this but with your attitude like that, treating it as a leech and a parasite no wonder you don't respect it's life, until you want to when you want to have a child, being a leech and a parasite just goes to show that it is a life and it strives to be alive and finish it's journey.

[davo]

Again, is it murder and should it be treated as such? If not, how do you define the point of difference?
It's all very well having an opinion, but refusing to expand it after making it is worse than lazy. It's stubborn ignorance taking such a simple statement as truth, without facing the results of your claims.
I assume therefore, you agree it's murder and the same penalty should apply?

[peterthames]

Well then, you'll understand how other opinions backed by superior knowledge are going to assist you in your quest to appear silly.

The word "superior" before knowledge, hints that I'm missing something, knowledge is knowledge, facts are facts, whether some can be superior or not is a matter of opinion I would think.

And this debate seems to be turning into a person attack on me, I can handle that, but I think people's resources and thoughts would be better invested in debating the subject of abortion, not whether I'm silly or if I can come up with evidence, the evidence is there for all to see, you just have to open your eyes and your heart.

[Serenity]

the evidence is there for all to see, you just have to open your eyes and your heart.

Now let me see, where have I heard these words before ... ?

[peterthames]

Again, is it murder and should it be treated as such? If not, how do you define the point of difference?
It's all very well having an opinion, but refusing to expand it after making it is worse than lazy. It's stubborn ignorance taking such a simple statement as truth, without facing the results of your claims.
I assume therefore, you agree it's murder and the same penalty should apply?

OK here is something to debate, if a women has an abortion and wilfully agreed to it and it was illegal then that is murder so the punishment will be that she will be sterilized so that she can never have a baby again.

Note I raise this question, it is not necessary my view so don't go bashing me cos I raised it.

[peterthames]

What you believe and feel are not only matters of common record on this forum, their very mention has replaced the use of ipecac in some households.

I'm honoured to think my words could replace ipecac in some households.
If this is the meaning:

ipecacuanha /%IpIkakjU"an@/
· n. the dried rhizome of a South American shrub, used as an emetic and expectorant drug.
– ORIGIN C17: from Port., from Tupi-Guarani ipekaaguéne ‘emetic creeper’.

[Serenity]

I am aware of this but with your attitude like that, treating it as a leech and a parasite no wonder you don't respect it's life, until you want to when you want to have a child, being a leech and a parasite just goes to show that it is a life and it strives to be alive and finish it's journey.

I never said it wasn't alive, Peter. I just dispute its value. It is certainly a live cluster of cells that has exactly as much value as a leech or a tapeworm to a woman that doesn't want to have an embryo, a leech or a tapeworm in her body, all of which a striving to be alive and finish their journey.

I treat parasites as parasites: an embryo is a parasite by definition. That you choose to romanticise it makes no difference to that fact.

[peterthames]

I just dispute its value.

Thank you for that Serenity , as I may not have facts or evidence to support my claim, neither do you.
If you dispute something then that is a belief.

[Serenity]

No Peter, dispute doesn't mean lack of evidence, it means argue against a position.

I have backed my position up with reason all the way. The same cannot be said of you.

[davo]

That is harsher than murder wraps peter, when you start operating on someone and desexing them for abortions don't you think?

[peterthames]

No Peter, dispute doesn't mean lack of evidence, it means argue against a position.

I have backed my position up with reason all the way. The same cannot be said of you.

I have too
Reason all the way

[Serenity]

I have too
Reason all the way

Where? You have made broad statements and, when questioned you have effectively said "because I said so" "it's just a fact" and indeed "don't expect me to back any of this up, it's just what I think".

You have not given any reasons that hold up under the lightest of scrutiny.

[peterthames]

That is harsher than murder wraps peter, when you start operating on someone and desexing them for abortions don't you think?

Life is everything it's all you've got, better to be alive and not be able to conceive than dead before your time

[Serenity]

Funny how the men in the unwanted pregnancy scenario are getting away scot-free. Misogyny? Nooooooooo ...

[peterthames]

Where? You have made broad statements and, when questioned you have effectively said "because I said so" "it's just a fact" and indeed "don't expect me to back any of this up, it's just what I think".

You have not given any reasons that hold up under the lightest of scrutiny.

Ok I can't express myself as good as I could as I'm not an intellectual but I am 100% sure that there are many many people out there (pro life) who agree with me and could argue with you non believers till the cows come home, I just wish there was some here so I'm not here to battle alone.

[Serenity]

It's not about eloquence, it's about basic premises. If you can't back those up, and thus far you haven't been able to, the whole argument falls apart.

And you really want someone else to come on here to tell you what you believe? Because that's what they'd be doing if they were defending the points you are floundering on.

Between the wanting someone else to explain your beliefs to you, the "non believers" comment just above and the "open your hearts and your minds" comment previously, I am seriously suspecting a Christian plant.

[peterthames]

So... when you have a wank in the shower and kill all those potential humans, should we sterilize you?

Seriously though, I can't believe anyone but a theistard could even write these words...

A sperm is not yet started it's life, it needs to join with the egg, then that combination is the beginning, no facts or evidence needed here it is the blatant obvious!

[Serenity]

But you are denying that life the chance to progress by not having it meet a fertilised egg and go on to live 80 more years. That must be at least negligent manslaughter.

[peterthames]

I am seriously suspecting a Christian plant.

NO way Jose`
I'm all atheist, just have a slant to save lives of the innocent who have no say.

[peterthames]

But you are denying that life the chance to progress by not having it meet a fertilised egg and go on to live 80 more years. That must be at least negligent manslaughter.

Hey come on you have to draw the line somewhere and that is where evolution has drawn it.

[Serenity]

Bollocks. Evolution drew no such line and indeed draws no lines at all.

Why draw the line at the point where the woman has to cow tow? Why not draw the line where the man has to be responsible for each and every one of his living seed? Why are two cells suddenly magical where one cell had that "potential" you keep talking about?

[peterthames]

Where? You have made broad statements and, when questioned you have effectively said "because I said so" "it's just a fact" and indeed "don't expect me to back any of this up, it's just what I think".

You have not given any reasons that hold up under the lightest of scrutiny.

"The earth revolves around the sun" that's my broad statement
and I say so
Do you think the earth revolves around the sun? it's just a fact is it not?
don't expect me to back any of this up, it's just what I think

All true dispute that!

[peterthames]

Peter, speaking as one sense of justice to another, just for a moment, it seems to me your regime of punishment would create far more pain, both physical and psychological, than one could even imagine those little clumps of cells would feel via those undeveloped neural networks or perceive in those largely-unconstructed brains.

You would be causing women pain and anguish, often for circumstancer which they had no control.

Is that fair?

your regime of punishment
I only asked the question do not associate that I agree with the question, but I have a view, I can only offer a simple answer the little clumps of cells once an adult would I think be happy to be alive and could not forgive the mother if she killed him/her, so a bit of physical and psychological pain to the mother would be a price to pay for not doing it again, if you know what I mean. And women who had no control over her abortion would not be subject to any punishment.

[Serenity]

Peter, you are making absolutely no sense. Why would I dispute something I agree with? I'm not disputing your position on abortions because I am Serenity the Disputer, I dispute them because they are hogwash. Basic astronomy proves that the Earth revolves around the sun. There are sources that are plentiful and accurate that agree with that premise and I accept it as fact.

There is no proof that a cluster of cells are human life forms. There is no basis for allocating to these cells the rights and privileges of a real, sentient human being. There are no credible sources that back up that viewpoint and as such I don't accept it as fact.

Just because you happen to think one thing that is actually (surprisingly) accurate, evidently not EVERYTHING you think is accurate.

[Donna]

but I am 100% sure that there are many many people out there (pro life) who agree with me and could argue with you non believers till the cows come home, I just wish there was some here so I'm not here to battle alone.

What battle is it you are waging? Please clarify. Think about this...the morning after pill, is that the same as abortion?

You "non believers" of what exactly? Can you clarify so I can get a clear picture of what you believe?

Surely basic human rights come into this? A woman’s body is her own, no one else should decide what happens to that woman’s body except her.

In my opinion, the reproductive rights of women should include the right to control one’s reproductive functions. She should freely have the right of access to quality reproductive health care, the right of access to legal and safe abortion and the right of access to education in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination and violence.

[peterthames]

Bollocks. Evolution drew no such line and indeed draws no lines at all.

broad statement if I ever heard one, come on Mr Black ask for facts/evidence. Cos I do?

[peterthames]

But, Peter, if you don't understand much about how that "earth revolves around the sun" stuff works, you're eventually going to run out of solid ground on which to base your argument.

Imagine if I was to come along arguing the relative badness of the Thames 400E-or-whatever-it-is against the Bedford of the same year, and it became plainly obvious that, although I knew some basic things, I did not have a lot of the facts and figures at my disposal.

Now imagine I kept holding forth about the Bedford being superior, to the point that the Thames was a huge mistake, was unstable and dangerous, and that all remaining models should be taken off the road and cube-crushed immediately.

During the course of the argument it became apparent that I had owned neither a Thames or a Bedford, but I had once driven an RH11V Hi-Ace.

What course of action do you prescribe?

You don't need to know how the earth revolves it just does that's fact, black & white very simple, as for the Thames versus Bedford well there is many variables to consider and you should then come up with evidence for specific things, but whether you like one or the other it's a personal choice in the end and I may like one for any obscure reason not understood or liked by the other person.

[davo]

Your drawing the line at a clump of cells, with potential or not (no one can tell yet) and saying it is human, but it is far from it. We are saying at that stage it is totally up to the woman to abort or not, but you say it's murder.
It's far from it, there is nothing close to human there at that point. The ONLY reason someone could say there is, is to claim that potential has a soul, which as atheists we know it doesn't.
Your points don't make sense based on potential, as living sperm and living eggs have the same potential, and a condom by your standards is standing in the way of that, therefore is murder. Your argument makes as much sense as that does .... Not really am argument at all, based on 'potential'

[Serenity]

You claimed the line's existence, Peter, not me. It is up to you to prove the existence in the same manner as it is up to a theist to prove God's existence.

Prove that evolution draws lines and supply even a tiny amount of reason for why, should a line exist, it exists at that point. From what I can see, evolution doesn't give a damn. It isn't sentient, it doesn't care, it doesn't draw lines. It's a scientific theory of origin that espouses survival of the fittest. Prove that wrong.

[peterthames]

What battle is it you are waging? Please clarify. Think about this...the morning after pill, is that the same as abortion?

You "non believers" of what exactly? Can you clarify so I can get a clear picture of what you believe?

Surely basic human rights come into this? A woman’s body is her own, no one else should decide what happens to that woman’s body except her.

In my opinion, the reproductive rights of women should include the right to control one’s reproductive functions. She should freely have the right of access to quality reproductive health care, the right of access to legal and safe abortion and the right of access to education in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination and violence.




tteyes your not paying attention The body with-in the women is not part of her but a new life in the making, she can do what she wants with her body
Morning after pill, any deliberate act that ends the life after conception is abortion
non believers that is people who do not believe in saving the life of the unborn when their mother wants to end their life (manly for cosmetic reasons)

[peterthames]

You claimed the line's existence, Peter, not me. It is up to you to prove the existence in the same manner as it is up to a theist to prove God's existence.

Prove that evolution draws lines and supply even a tiny amount of reason for why, should a line exist, it exists at that point. From what I can see, evolution doesn't give a damn. It isn't sentient, it doesn't care, it doesn't draw lines. It's a scientific theory of origin that espouses survival of the fittest. Prove that wrong.

Put a sperm in one hand and put an egg in the other, now swing them around bring close, take far, do what you like to them, send one to the moon and bring it back, nothing will happen, no life will come forth, there is no line to be seen, however bring together and touch one another, that's the line. another blatant obvious am I the only one to see this around here? and since we all believe in evolution where else could it come from.

[davo]

Mainly for cosmetic reasons?!
I really pity your wife mate, no offence, she must be a rock to put up with your sweeping generalisations and concepts of women.
You almost round as tho you are trying to strike out at them for some reason... I can't see any other reason for ignoring all the points raised over abortion, and focussing the way you are, other than to try and score an emotional response.

[Serenity]

Ah but by leaving the sperm in your hand or in your shower drain you are denying that sperm the potential to become life and denying an egg fertilisation. If the sanctity of life extends to two celled organisms with the potential to become human life, why not one?

[peterthames]

Your drawing the line at a clump of cells, with potential or not (no one can tell yet) and saying it is human, but it is far from it. We are saying at that stage it is totally up to the woman to abort or not, but you say it's murder.
It's far from it, there is nothing close to human there at that point. The ONLY reason someone could say there is, is to claim that potential has a soul, which as atheists we know it doesn't.
Your points don't make sense based on potential, as living sperm and living eggs have the same potential, and a condom by your standards is standing in the way of that, therefore is murder. Your argument makes as much sense as that does .... Not really am argument at all, based on 'potential'

Please read my previous posts
but I will repeat a little now
The journey of life starts at conception that's the line, then if uninterrupted by the abortionist and all go's well the human will grow, be born and grow old, apart from natural causes he/she will die of old age, that's life, all we have, there is no other,(Atheists believe that) so if the abortionist and any knife wielding thug don't get to you first, then grow old and enjoy.

[davo]

But why is that the line? If you put the line at the condom it's the same thing, your stopping a potential life.

[peterthames]

Ah but by leaving the sperm in your hand or in your shower drain you are denying that sperm the potential to become life and denying an egg fertilisation. If the sanctity of life extends to two celled organisms with the potential to become human life, why not one?

I may be denying that sperm the potential to become life and denying an egg fertilisation. but that is all, that's no crime, they still are potential but here is the point they are not life until they come together.

[peterthames]

But why is that the line? If you put the line at the condom it's the same thing, your stopping a potential life.

That's the line because you can't go back once over that line, the life has started, while sperm in the condom and egg in the uterus life is only potential not yet started.
Stopping a potential life that has not started beyond the point of no return is of no concern at all in my opinion.

[Serenity]

By what parameters do you define "life"? Sperm are alive. Isn't that life?

And zygotes and embryos aren't human beings - you've already stated that they are potential human beings, that they can become human if given the right conditions. As such, the potential human life that could result from the sperm should be just as sacred.

Either that or neither is sacred.

[peterthames]

Mainly for cosmetic reasons?!
I really pity your wife mate, no offence, she must be a rock to put up with your sweeping generalisations and concepts of women.
You almost round as tho you are trying to strike out at them for some reason... I can't see any other reason for ignoring all the points raised over abortion, and focussing the way you are, other than to try and score an emotional response.

No need to pity my wife, she agrees with me on everything I say, and I can't help that, she thinks for herself I can't do that. we have a lot in common.:D

[peterthames]

Let me repeat, Pete.

You may remember the story of my kid brother. Okay, the poor little chap was a mess and died after as long as it took for the merciful Sisters to starve, smother or whatever him.

Mum would have had an abortion if the choice had existed. This was a number of years before Dr Wainer made such a thing safely possible, so it didn't happen.

If my brother had lived, he would have been in no position to experience any quality of life as we know it. Sensory impairment every bit as bad as Helen Keller, plus brain damage and mobility handicaps, would have made sure he lived in residential care.

Ask any truthful person who's worked in residential care for the disabled, especially the older large institutions. Inmates get better treatment in prisons than helpless, disabled people do. (I am speaking from work experience here, Peter, although it was brief.)

Anyway, I take issue with your " ...if the abortionist and any knife wielding thug don't get to you first, then grow old and enjoy."

My brother would have been better unborn, and Mum would have recovered sooner if the whole gestation process had been interrupted early. The idea of him deaf, blind, helpless and gormless, in care for nearly fifty years? Not "grow old and enjoy".

Yet you would wipe away the right of any woman to choice, even in these circumstances?

No Mr Black, I feel for this situation I know there is always an exception and what you describe is the exception to me

[davo]

If a woman gets raped and is pregnant, you said abortion is ok. Why? It's still a life?
Should she be forced to have the baby? Why not if no?
I'm trying to work out some consistancy in your position over there things ...

[peterthames]

By what parameters do you define "life"? Sperm are alive. Isn't that life?

And zygotes and embryos aren't human beings - you've already stated that they are potential human beings, that they can become human if given the right conditions. As such, the potential human life that could result from the sperm should be just as sacred.

Either that or neither is sacred.

And zygotes and embryos aren't human beings
If they are conceived then they are on the journey of life, whether in the womb or test tube, in the womb you can just leave them alone to grow but in the test tube if you want them to live then you really need to do alot to keep them alive, as for wiggling sperm and whether they are life I don't know the ins and outs of that, I only know the bit about when the sperm meets the egg.

[davo]

If a sperm doesn't join with an egg it dies, same if an egg doesn't join with a sperm.
According to catholics for example, no contraception is allowed .. 'Every sperm is sacred'

[peterthames]

If a woman gets raped and is pregnant, you said abortion is ok. Why? It's still a life?
Should she be forced to have the baby? Why not if no?
I'm trying to work out some consistancy in your position over there things ...
I don't remember saying that, I understand why the women would want to abort but I still think she should not abort as even the rape is horrendous as it is and I pity any women who are raped and believe the offender should be castrated we are still taking a life of an innocent human who has no say in the matter, rape is bad enough why add to it by killing a life already started, it would be very uplifting and maybe forgiving if a good could come from a very bad deed, and a good is giving life. when I say forgiving I don't mean forgiving the rapist for what he has done but to forgive for the purpose of healing and trying to get over it for the victim.

[peterthames]

If a sperm doesn't join with an egg it dies, same if an egg doesn't join with a sperm.
According to catholics for example, no contraception is allowed .. 'Every sperm is sacred'

I don't believe that about contraception and the sacred sperm and I don't believe in religion, that sounds very odd.

[davo]

The victim has to live with it for the rest of her life, in her face.
How would you feel this happening to your own? I wouldn't think it fair someone with your opinion, should be able to say 'you have to deal with it, pay for it, for the rest of your life'. That would just add immensely to your pain, day in day out.
I wouldn't presume i had the right to comment on your partners choice. It's none me my business.

[davo]

Darn predictive text on my phone, keep spelling things incorrectly, stuff like me instead of 'of' etc

[peterthames]

The victim has to live with it for the rest of her life, in her face.
How would you feel this happening to your own? I wouldn't think it fair someone with your opinion, should be able to say 'you have to deal with it, pay for it, for the rest of your life'. That would just add immensely to your pain, day in day out.
I wouldn't presume i had the right to comment on your partners choice. It's none me my business.

Hey no ones perfect some women would cope and others not, some would be glad in hindsight they gave birth some in hindsight not, all could try adoption,
and it's a free world (well in Australia) last time i checked so comment on anything you like I won't mind, about my wife to be sure I just asked her if she was raped would she keep the baby and without hesitation she said yes, it's not the baby's fault, and I feel the same

gotta go now goodnight

[M0381U5]

No need to pity my wife, she agrees with me on everything I say, and I can't help that, she thinks for herself I can't do that. we have a lot in common.:D
Don't get me wrong. but i thought some of the earlier comments about being misogynistic were a little over the top, I thought maybe its just misinterpretation, but this is what really got me. I do think there is at least an inclining in there.

I have trawled through a lot of the repetitive opinions of this subject, and as biologically motivated this subject could be, reproduction, and all the associated choices involved in such, is very personal and should not be dictated by one to another. if you don't like it don't do it. just like radio station with obscene language, don't like it don't listen to it, tune out.

I am interested as to weather peterthomas is anti-euthanasia as well???

I do believe men have a place amongst the decision, but it is hard for me to define, really if he wants an abortion and she doesn't, there isn't a lot he can do about it. however there was a case in england i think, were a couple had had eggs fertilized and stored in a freezer bank, for future IVF.

After time the couple separated for what ever reason and the lady developed some kind of Ovarian disorder, disabling her ability to produce or release eggs. She wanted to have children and the only way she could was to thaw out some of the frozen FERTILIZED eggs. As expected there was a long drawn court case that from both donors, as the man did not want the embryos, that had been fertilized by him, to become reanimated. His choice was considered to be as equal to hers. and the embryos were destroyed.

I wonder if peterthomas is against IVF embryonic termination???
with out a Surrogate host, there isn't a lot of potential viability.
I assume he is.

There are many cases like this, from both sides, the female not wanting the eggs kept and the man wanting them. In this amazingly advanced and intellectual world we live in today, It has come to a point were Choice is the only way, the legislation of such decisions over such a personal and PRIVATE matter is against most Human Rights issues. Once again, if you don't like it don't do it or use it, and don't enforce you ideologies of others. yes you have the right to express you opinions, but not in a way in which you are proselytizing or antagonizing some one about the choice that they may well have, with great difficulty, come to.

As for legislation. the biggest case i think about abortion is that of Roe Vs Wade in the united states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
From what i can deduce of this case, two essential points are made;
1. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb", albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health

This second point however makes me a little squeamish, but for those the don't have a problem with it, it is their right to proceed.
This case is 30 yrs old, however the foundation of the decision have not changed a bit, the only thing that may affect this is the Patriot Act, in effect after 9/11, basically removing all privacy rights to the individual, and therefore a possible prosecution of Terrorism to the aborting female. (this is just a joke, with Obama in now, that surely wont be possible :o ah hum, we'll see about that.)

As far as i care people can have them hacked out and sell them for Embryonic Stem cell research, imagine the number of lives that can be saved or dramatically improved or even cured, with the information we could aquire. if people should choose to make this decision it is theirs to make.

This is just my opinion and how i see it.
I have been in this situation, when i was younger. We were both just having fun and had no intension of breeding. She was on the pill, but that was the only precaution we took, it failed. The situation and inevitable decision destroyed our relationship and didnt last long after that. She said she would do what ever I wanted and I said I would do what ever she wanted. Neither of us were competent or willing to continue. I never wanted to be in that position and never want to again.

Anyway... just to finish on a light note.....:D

47P59ha9k9s

Dang Davo you beat me too it!!!

[Fiery]

Peter- Let me see if I understand you correctly. (These aren't quotes, just my summation).

When a sperm fertilizes an egg it constitutes a human life.

Egg+sperm should be helped along its journey to completion (ideally death due to old age). With only 2 exceptions*, egg+sperm must be given a chance to exit the birth canal.

Removal of egg+sperm should be illegal as it is the taking of a human life.

The punishment for the woman who aborts egg+sperm at any stage of its prenatal development is jail time and forced sterilization.

If a woman doesn't want to have a child her only alternative, once egg+sperm occurs, is to give the baby up for adoption.

* The only abortion exceptions you allow is if the pregnancy will endanger the mother's physical well-being. (Her emotional, psychological health is not a consideration, nor is the effect of a pregnancy on her family.) Or perhaps if the egg+sperm is so malformed that it would have no genuine life. (i.e. Mr. Black's situation).

1. Does your position go on to deal with the ramifications of all these unwanted children on the family, community, state, nation? How many children are currently waiting for adoption? Can the orphanages and foster care system handle the addition that all of these egg+sperm combos would place on it?

2. How about the long term effects of the unwanted pregnancy on the woman hosting the egg+sperm combo? Do you believe tax dollars should be spent in providing her with counseling, medical care, etc... to help her cope with the aftermath of having brought an unwanted child into the world?

3. How about counseling for the child when he/she finds out he was placed for adoption or raised in an uncaring environment and was never wanted from day one? And what of the long term psychological damage and social consequences for unwanted children raised in potentially abusive environments?

4. Are there enough families to adopt all of these egg+sperm combos? Are there enough social programs in place to provide food, child care, education, medical care, etc...?

5. And what of counseling for the children already present in a family where Mum and Dad decide they can't emotionally and financially afford to raise another child and so the new one is given up for adoption? Or perhaps the new child is kept and an older child is adopted out because the new one looks like a better specimen?

[peterthames]

I am interested as to weather peterthames is anti-euthanasia as well???

For the record I am not against euthanasia, which strengthens my case for not allowing abortion. because you as are not an infinite life you can decide what happens to you at any time in your life, that's your choice, I just want the unborn protected so there right of choice is not taken away prematurely.

[davo]

what about people who are total vegetables? That there is no real quality of life at all?
Should the families have to support them?

[peterthames]

Peter- Let me see if I understand you correctly. (These aren't quotes, just my summation).

When a sperm fertilizes an egg it constitutes a human life.

Egg+sperm should be helped along its journey to completion (ideally death due to old age). With only 2 exceptions*, egg+sperm must be given a chance to exit the birth canal.

Removal of egg+sperm should be illegal as it is the taking of a human life.

The punishment for the woman who aborts egg+sperm at any stage of its prenatal development is jail time and forced sterilization.

If a woman doesn't want to have a child her only alternative, once egg+sperm occurs, is to give the baby up for adoption.

* The only abortion exceptions you allow is if the pregnancy will endanger the mother's physical well-being. (Her emotional, psychological health is not a consideration, nor is the effect of a pregnancy on her family.) Or perhaps if the egg+sperm is so malformed that it would have no genuine life. (i.e. Mr. Black's situation).

1. Does your position go on to deal with the ramifications of all these unwanted children on the family, community, state, nation? How many children are currently waiting for adoption? Can the orphanages and foster care system handle the addition that all of these egg+sperm combos would place on it?

2. How about the long term effects of the unwanted pregnancy on the woman hosting the egg+sperm combo? Do you believe tax dollars should be spent in providing her with counseling, medical care, etc... to help her cope with the aftermath of having brought an unwanted child into the world?

3. How about counseling for the child when he/she finds out he was placed for adoption or raised in an uncaring environment and was never wanted from day one? And what of the long term psychological damage and social consequences for unwanted children raised in potentially abusive environments?

4. Are there enough families to adopt all of these egg+sperm combos? Are there enough social programs in place to provide food, child care, education, medical care, etc...?

5. And what of counseling for the children already present in a family where Mum and Dad decide they can't emotionally and financially afford to raise another child and so the new one is given up for adoption? Or perhaps the new child is kept and an older child is adopted out because the new one looks like a better specimen?

Yes Fiery, you have it right you understand it correctly

As for your point 1
I quote the Atheist & Agnostic Pro-life League “Because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the
life of an innocent human being”
Protect life first then worry about the ramifications, it would come as second nature to us all if we all cared for the unborn more

2. How about the long term effects of the unwanted pregnancy on the woman hosting the egg+sperm combo? Do you believe tax dollars should be spent in providing her with counseling, medical care, etc... to help her cope with the aftermath of having brought an unwanted child into the world?

Simple Yes

3 & 5 Yes counselling for the child at tax payer expense and include psychological damage if it occurs.

4. Are there enough families to adopt all of these egg+sperm combos?
I don't know, all the answers, but with more eduction on contraception and if the silly church did not outlaw it then maybe we could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies
Are there enough social programs in place to provide food, child care, education, medical care, etc...?
Well if not then we need to focus more on that and less on other government handouts of money, like on defence and space exploration, tighten the budget a lot more, increase taxes, even at the expense of some quality of our comfortable living, remember there are people in the world who don't know where their next meal is coming come, people die of hunger all the time, nearly as bad as that is the death of people in religious wars, if we got rid of religion altogether, then we could focus on looking after each other protecting life at all stages in their journey, prosperity would follow that. In my humble opinion. It could not be worse than it is now surely?

[peterthames]

what about people who are total vegetables? That there is no real quality of life at all?
Should the families have to support them?

How many would there be? before abortion what was the % of the population that were born like that?
Not so many I would think that we could not afford the state and their families to look after them. It's a hard one I don't have all the answers again (but someone else may) but the family could decide for the "vegetable" as to whether it had quality of life or should slip away gracefully. Quality of life is a very important factor, and being in pain is to.

[peterthames]

Peter I hear what you're saying. "this debate seems to be turning into a personal attack on me"! I don't believe this is the case. It is merely an opposition to your views. Please provide the evidence that is there for all to see.

Please explain in detail your signature line "and abortion destroys the
life of an innocent human being". When does it? at what time into gestation are these cells human?

Also I'm confused by your statement "you just have to open your eyes and your heart." What does opening your heart mean? Mine pumps blood and has no effect in my normal ability of reason unless it stops.

I don't think you've thought all of this through and you feel backed into a corner. Concede or provide evidence and rational argument!

Please provide the evidence that is there for all to see.
Why are you an atheist? Because all the evidence is there for you to see.

Please explain in detail your signature line.
I don't need to I just agree with it, just go to them and ask if you want.

When does it? at what time into gestation are these cells human?
Conception

What does opening your heart mean?
You know dam well it's not about your blood pump, it's about your conscience and having compassion for the less fortunate, knowing how fortunate you are to be living, and then know there is others who do not make it to live in this world cos they were aborted

[Kerri-Lee]

Please provide the evidence that is there for all to see.

You know dam well it's not about your blood pump, it's about your conscience and having compassion for the less fortunate, knowing how fortunate you are to be living, and then know there is others who do not make it to live in this world cos they were aborted

I think it's interesting that you are using the word compassion. I'm yet to see it. All I see is judge, jury and executioner.

[Fiery]

Kerri-Lee, he already established quite clearly. The ONLY human that deserves compassion is the sperm+egg combo. It doesn't matter what the presence of an unwanted baby will have on the mother, the father, their family, their other children, their extended family, their careers, their lives, their dreams, their hopes, their future. NONE of it matters. Only that the little blob gets a chance at life. Nothing, he reiterates, NOTHING else matters.

Yay for the sacred blob!....not.

[Freedee]

Just saw some of the abortion discussion and wanted to have a say. I think abortion is an ethical issue not a moral one. The decision to abort ultimately lies with the impregnated woman, no one else. She is the one mainly responsible for the maintenance of a growing human, unless the father stays home and she continues to work. If she cannot cope then society takes charge and the child is thrown around from home to home. All this expectation of maternal desire is just a myth. It was obvious that my mother's mental problems were the direct result of having to bring up children and the demands that entailed. She would have been happier childless and continuing in her career as a hairdresser where she could meet people, converse and generally feel happy. Instead her unhappiness caused much sadness to many other people around her.

[davo]

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11754

No kidding, this is a real press statement, tho found it a bit late :


Washington, DC (15 January 2009) – The following is a statement from American Life League president, Judie Brown.

"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand – including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.
The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday:



Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.


Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.
President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.


Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts – only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion – is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.


A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom.""


As of Thursday morning, Communications Director Brian Little could not be reached for comment. We challenge Krispy Kreme doughnuts to reaffirm their commitment to true freedom – to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and to separate themselves and their doughnuts from our great American shame."

American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.

[Duffy]

A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom.""

This stuff gives me the irrits. When is the 'freedom of information' going to mean 'accurate' information. As long as the pro-lifers are allowed to use the term 'children' in reference to embryo/foetus the lazy thinkers of the public will continue to have their conscience tweeked by misinformation.

Yummy and with a social conscience, love you Krispy Kremes:p

[davo]

I'm just astounded they made the association of having your choice of Krispy Kreme donuts = supporting abortion

[Duffy]

I'm just astounded they made the association of having your choice of Krispy Kreme donuts = supporting abortion

Hmm yes that is a bit odd. Risky business decision too when you consider the pro-life communities in the fundy south.

[Duffy]

We challenge Krispy Kreme doughnuts to reaffirm their commitment to true freedom – to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and to separate themselves and their doughnuts from our great American shame

Interesting take on 'true freedom'. Doesn't every woman deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without an unwanted pregnancy?

[eclectic]

Abortion is a tricky one philosophically - to draw the line of when a living being gains a moral status in its own right. If some pro-lifers are correct and the moment of conception is the moment - because a life has been created - then to be consistent, a whole gamut of lesser life forms must also be given inaliable rights to life. If the "potential" human life is what gives the embryo rights, then a slippery slope emerges in which we may have to, for example, disallow contraception - to avoid the loss of the "potential" life of the egg and sperm. Going the other way, if we decide that a being must gain certain qualities - such as consciousness or an interest in its own welfare - to gain a moral standing, then we may allow a different gamut of allowances, such as infanticide being acceptable. Now I'm not attempting to present a hole-proof treatise here, or to argue that these consequent allowances might not be acceptable to some, I'm just giving a rough outline of some of the dilemmas philosophers face on this issue.

I therefore think to make a moral decision on abortion, we need to make a judgement call, by weighing the rights of those involved, along with considerations of the best outcome.

For me, I find the right of all children to be raised by parents who want to be parents, and who are prepared to care for their children emotionally and physically, plus the societal benefits that I believe having such parents raising the next generation would have, all outweigh the possible right that an unborn child may have to life. I am therefore pro-choice without compunction.

[Duffy]

I therefore think to make a moral decision on abortion, we need to make a judgement call, by weighing the rights of those involved, along with considerations of the best outcome.

I think it comes down to who makes the judgement call. The pregnant woman? her partner? a stranger with pro-life views? the government? the bible? my dog?

Answer: the pregnant woman

[eclectic]

I think it comes down to who makes the judgement call. The pregnant woman? her partner? a stranger with pro-life views? the government? the bible? my dog?

Answer: the pregnant woman

yes, good point. I guess my answer was rambling on about what I personally think, which happens to be fine with abortion as a concept. But I have always been pro-choice most simply because I believe in choice. Especially with something as private and life-affecting as whether to keep a life in one's womb.

[Serenity]

The basic premise of pro-life from a non-theist perspective fails for one simple reason: the assumption that a cluster of human cells are more important than the life of any other organism. Even Peter wouldn't consider the removal and, therefore death, of a tapeworm murderous or ethically wrong (perhaps because men as well as women are susceptible to tapeworms) but the cluster of unwanted cells that result from sexual intercourse are apparently special.

The fact of the matter is human life isn't important. It simply isn't. It's a fluke that we're here at all and that we happen to be the most intelligent of all the species on earth is another fluke. That doesn't make us special or our offspring any more deserving of living to 80 than a tapeworm. We're sentimental and emotional, we have to be to ensure the survival of the species, as is a driving motivator of human life. We have laws and rules to govern our societies, moral and ethical codes so that we might progress and might (perhaps) evolve or (more likely) even just continue to exist.

But that doesn't make us special.

Therefore as human life is actually really not all that important in the grand scheme of things (even if it is all we have), the value of a few cells that might turn into human life are certainly not all that important.

[peterthames]

yes, good point. I guess my answer was rambling on about what I personally think, which happens to be fine with abortion as a concept. But I have always been pro-choice most simply because I believe in choice. Especially with something as private and life-affecting as whether to keep a life in one's womb.

What about the choice for the life in one's womb?
like execution it's to late to bring them back if later found innocent
I myself and I'm sure lots of others would say No don't abort me. I don't want to die now or ever by human hands.

[peterthames]

The basic premise of pro-life from a non-theist perspective fails for one simple reason: the assumption that a cluster of human cells are more important than the life of any other organism. Even Peter wouldn't consider the removal and, therefore death, of a tapeworm murderous or ethically wrong (perhaps because men as well as women are susceptible to tapeworms) but the cluster of unwanted cells that result from sexual intercourse are apparently special.

The fact of the matter is human life isn't important. It simply isn't. It's a fluke that we're here at all and that we happen to be the most intelligent of all the species on earth is another fluke. That doesn't make us special or our offspring any more deserving of living to 80 than a tapeworm. We're sentimental and emotional, we have to be to ensure the survival of the species, as is a driving motivator of human life. We have laws and rules to govern our societies, moral and ethical codes so that we might progress and might (perhaps) evolve or (more likely) even just continue to exist.

But that doesn't make us special.

Therefore as human life is actually really not all that important in the grand scheme of things (even if it is all we have), the value of a few cells that might turn into human life are certainly not all that important.

but the cluster of unwanted cells that result from sexual intercourse are apparently special.
Well they are special because they will grow to be like us, we dominate the world because we are intelligent probable to intelligent for our own good because we will destroy the earth (well religious nuts may anyway) and we dominate the animals, we eat them so we can live, killing a tape worm is good because if you don't it may kill you one day. Evolution has evolved us in the last 500 years to be clever enough to aim for the stars, we are evolving to move away from earth and settle on far away worlds. (once we know how to get there)

[peterthames]

Abortion is a tricky one philosophically - to draw the line of when a living being gains a moral status in its own right. If some pro-lifers are correct and the moment of conception is the moment - because a life has been created - then to be consistent, a whole gamut of lesser life forms must also be given inaliable rights to life. If the "potential" human life is what gives the embryo rights, then a slippery slope emerges in which we may have to, for example, disallow contraception - to avoid the loss of the "potential" life of the egg and sperm. Going the other way, if we decide that a being must gain certain qualities - such as consciousness or an interest in its own welfare - to gain a moral standing, then we may allow a different gamut of allowances, such as infanticide being acceptable. Now I'm not attempting to present a hole-proof treatise here, or to argue that these consequent allowances might not be acceptable to some, I'm just giving a rough outline of some of the dilemmas philosophers face on this issue.

I therefore think to make a moral decision on abortion, we need to make a judgement call, by weighing the rights of those involved, along with considerations of the best outcome.

For me, I find the right of all children to be raised by parents who want to be parents, and who are prepared to care for their children emotionally and physically, plus the societal benefits that I believe having such parents raising the next generation would have, all outweigh the possible right that an unborn child may have to life. I am therefore pro-choice without compunction.

those involved
The collection of cells on the journey of life is involved, let live first and ask questions later, like when 18 years old, would you like to have been aborted?...... I'm not serious about the question but you know what I mean, or you could ask yourself that question.

[davo]

a foetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being, that has the potential to be a human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings, and you are removing the rights of the woman not to be a slave to a potential human being ..

and it's ridiculous to ask 'would you like to have been aborted?' as you would not exist, you wouldn't care, and the statement is a very religious based one based on the concept of the soul, and surprised you are using it.

I foetus whether live or dead does not even comprehend it's existence.

[Serenity]

Peter, what you are doing is teetering at the brink of worship. You have replaced one deity (Yahweh) for another (Evolution). You are treating evolution like a thinking entity that cares: it isn't and it doesn't. Evolution is the process that led us to be where we are and it doesn't give a stuff about where we go or what we do: it doesn't have the capacity to do so.

Why is the life of a tapeworm less important than the life of a human being? Is it any less alive?

[Serenity]

those involved
The collection of cells on the journey of life is involved, let live first and ask questions later, like when 18 years old, would you like to have been aborted?...... I'm not serious about the question but you know what I mean, or you could ask yourself that question.

At 18 years old my answer would have been yes. That doesn't mean that at 18 years old I was willing to take my own life and put the people that had developed meaningful relationships with me through unnecessary pain - better that it had happened before I got the chance, before I could feel, before I could know, before they knew me.

[peterthames]

Peter, what you are doing is teetering at the brink of worship. You have replaced one deity (Yahweh) for another (Evolution). You are treating evolution like a thinking entity that cares: it isn't and it doesn't. Evolution is the process that led us to be where we are and it doesn't give a stuff about where we go or what we do: it doesn't have the capacity to do so.

Why is the life of a tapeworm less important than the life of a human being? Is it any less alive?

OK that sounds fine about evolution, but what about us we are living, thinking beings, we love one another and have sexual urges, we evolved like that so we can still care for those who might be aborted, knowing what life has instore for us, wanting that for the pre aborted too, remember this as Atheist"s we have but one life, darkness nothingness before and nothingness after. at conception a new life is started, and that life will never be again, or the same person as we will never be again after we die, I find that very amazing and life should be left to progress without human interference.
This may sound funny but I come to this reason because and I did not tell anyone this before, call me something stupid I don't know but I don't have a brother only an older sister, and I longed for /wished for a brother and I wonder if I had one but it did not make it in the very early stages of life, or even if that was not the case, I can see myself still wondering about a brother who was not ever or even conceived, I think I must have a physiological problem here. but that aside I still stick to my reason about life starting at conception.

[Serenity]

The nothingness before and the nothingness after holds true for the tapeworm, too. Why are you willing to accept that as a fate for the tapeworm but not for a cluster of cells?

[peterthames]

I foetus whether live or dead does not even comprehend it's existence.

True, but we are alive and we think and learn and know life is but once, so we can decide for the pre aborted that it would want to live and not die, surely? If the pre aborted could think it would want to live, even a bunch of dividing cells just continues to go on.
If there was a heaven and the aborted went straight there and bypassed life and could live forever then maybe you could have a reason, but as that is not the case and it only will ever have only but one life, why cut it short for at least cosmetic reasons or for not being "wanted"

[peterthames]

The nothingness before and the nothingness after holds true for the tapeworm, too. Why are you willing to accept that as a fate for the tapeworm but not for a cluster of cells?

I'm not sure what frame of mind you are in Serenity, but I can't see where your coming from with this, surely you hold human life above that of all other creatures, you eat them don't you, would you let the tape worm overtake your life, is this what you want to here, they are simple beings without the thought we have, a tape worm is not a thinking being at it's prime in life it is just a advanced form of a cluster of cells, but not as complicated as human cells in adult form.

[davo]

We are not deciding for it because it cannot decide, it has no ability to comprehend anything, the same way a sperm doesn't comprehend. You stop it, or stop a sperm, and you stop a life from starting.
I don't see why you make fertilisation such a powerful thing, that the concerns of a living breathing comprehending person, come second to it.
To me, you arguing that the woman should be a body slave to it. An uncomprehending blob.
You are putting power into it that is just not there based on am arbitary choice of biological function that leads to comprehension.

[Serenity]

Peter, the point is that if you can concede (as you do) that lesser live creatures are fit for the whims of fully fledged human beings (whether that be to remove them from the habitat that is the human body or to consume them), then you must concede that other lesser lives are not as important as human lives and are indeed subject to manipulation by them without ethical quandaries.

The cluster of separating cells that may or may not become a human being is not any more or any less alive than a tape worm. The removal or retention of this life form is entirely up to the host of the parasite, the being that sustains them. If they are willing to give up whatever it requires to live, then fair enough but by no means should a person be required to feed a parasite in order to preserve the sanctity of life when life isn't sacred and when the value of that life is so very arbitrarily defined.

[peterthames]

We are not deciding for it because it cannot decide

And why not?
We know it does not

We sent kids to school to learn because they don't know something and hopefully after school they do know something, we decide it is good that they should learn.

There is no reason why we cannot decide for the unborn to live

[peterthames]

Peter, the point is that if you can concede (as you do) that lesser live creatures are fit for the whims of fully fledged human beings

Yes I can concede that but not the human embryo or cells because if left to it's own device it will grow to be one of us. I don't know what more I can say.

[davo]

No one is saying it doesn't peter, they are saying you are putting something with no comprehension, less than a tape worm, before a grown woman, irrespective of her life, body and situation, based on that.
You are giving that potential rights, and also above those of a comprehending person.

[Fiery]

Peter- This got missed in the shuffle. Please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong about your thoughts on this.

The chance for life of the sperm+egg combo is more important than the pregnant woman.

It doesn't matter what the effect of this unwanted baby will have on her, the father, their family, their other children, their extended family, their careers, their lives, their dreams, their hopes, their future. NONE of it matters.

Only that the fertilized egg gets a chance at life.

Is that a fair assumption of your position on the matter?

[Duffy]

Peter, I have been in the unfortunate position of witnessing motile segments of a flea-vectored tapeworm, marching in single file out of a cat's bum.

Piccy here (http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/parasit06/website/images/Lab%207/A.perfoliata.jpg). Now an embryo cannot do that. Just thought I'd enliven your supper.

MR BLACK!!!! I put my cursor over the 'piccy here' but changed my mind. Maybe there are some things I can leave to my imagination:D

:rolleyes:a fluffy little kitten with happy disney style worms marching out of bum like seven dwarfs heading off to work...hi ho hi ho:rolleyes:

[Duffy]

This may sound funny but I come to this reason because and I did not tell anyone this before, call me something stupid I don't know but I don't have a brother only an older sister, and I longed for /wished for a brother and I wonder if I had one but it did not make it in the very early stages of life, or even if that was not the case, I can see myself still wondering about a brother who was not ever or even conceived, I think I must have a physiological problem here. but that aside I still stick to my reason about life starting at conception.

I may have said this before in the thread but to me your position still sounds like a story you have attached to the idea of abortion.

Nature happens because of programmed cells. Don't ask me why or how it works. But, even without a scientific bone in my body, I can get that. Cells will multiply and if all the conditions are right, evolve into a life form. If any of those conditions are not right, end of deal. It happens all the time as evolution. It makes sense that woman that can not provide a quality of life for a child, ends the continued growth of the cells as the conditions are not right. To me that is very unselfish and very practical.

Harsh as it sounds we need to take the 'Rockefeller' romance of family out of the equation. Because it is not reality and only causes heart ache and guilt to the pregnant woman.

[Duffy]

If ever the nice folks who make Droncit want to make a cartoon advert, I think they better contact us. But they can wear gloves when we shake hands.

LOL:D

[peterthames]

Peter- This got missed in the shuffle. Please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong about your thoughts on this.

The chance for life of the sperm+egg combo is more important than the pregnant woman.

It doesn't matter what the effect of this unwanted baby will have on her, the father, their family, their other children, their extended family, their careers, their lives, their dreams, their hopes, their future. NONE of it matters.

Only that the fertilized egg gets a chance at life.

Is that a fair assumption of your position on the matter?

The chance for life of the sperm+egg combo is more important than the pregnant woman.
Well not really, we are all equal, I'm just saying give the sperm+egg combo a go at life and don't kill it, or interfere let it be, I can't understand how a woman could do that to their own flesh and blood off-spring as with the father too.

It doesn't matter what the effect of this unwanted baby will have on her, the father, their family, their other children, their extended family, their careers, their lives, their dreams, their hopes, their future. NONE of it matters.
It does matter but the best interest of the child should be taken into account first, and if there is negative outcomes for the mother, the father, their family, their other children, their extended family, their careers, their lives, their dreams, their hopes, their future, then they need help to cope, adoption or other remedy to house the child, yes even state run orphanages.

[peterthames]

It makes sense that woman that can not provide a quality of life for a child, ends the continued growth of the cells as the conditions are not right. To me that is very unselfish and very practical.

The conditions are right and if left alone will continue to grow, what you refer to is the condition of the woman's affairs and her life that will be interrupted by the unplanned pregnancy, as I have said many times before that life of the cells which will grow to be one of us will never have a life again, that's it chance and you want to end it before it can defend its self, and that brings me to this, society has agreed that a new born baby killed is murder, so why not murder for that same baby in the earlier stage of it's life, granted a bunch of cells and an embryo can not think and know anything about it's exsistance, but neither can a newborn baby, get my drift?

[peterthames]

Admitting that, may be the beginning. Surely, Peter, you have seen the effects of rules made by people who do not understand what they are trying to regulate.

There are many who have survived state-run kids' institutions, who would say they would have been better dead. I have met a few, including one who was a dear friend until his pain took him away from us. That pain was due to a children's home, and what happened there.

Peter, while your concern is laudable, perhaps it's time to put down the broad brush, and realise there are some problems that can't be fixed by hitting them with the big stick of prohibition, then madly scurrying around to sweep up the hundreds of little messes that follow.

I mean, look at all the penalties, changes, concessions, policing and governing bodies, and injustices you yourself have admitted would follow from the Peter Plan Of Prohibition.

If you think about it, if you dare to think about it before you reflexively jump in to say I'm wrong, you must admit that your position has nothing to offer, and your refusal to argue on anything but an emotional basis does not actually defend your standpoint.

Mr Black, I accept your views as relevant and what you say makes sense, but sometimes we can do better, the institutions you talk of I pity for the residents and the effects that applied to them, however I think we could do better in this more modern time, saying that though you know of many who have survived state-run kids' institutions, who would say they would have been better dead, what about the others who who made it though and became upstanding citizens in society, for a balanced view consider all the residents.

[Godless Ray]

Mr Black you have nothing until you have seen one slide out alive and wriggling from the anus of your silky Terrier asleep beside you on the lounge. It was bigger than Ben Hur. Anyone like a picture?


Godless Ray

[Duffy]

Mr Black you have nothing until you have seen one slide out alive and wriggling from the anus of your silky Terrier asleep beside you on the lounge. It was bigger than Ben Hur. Anyone like a picture?


Godless Ray

No picture, struggling enough with mental one, Thanks anyway Godless;)

[Duffy]

Hi Peter, this is not meant to be leading question but rather a simple observation. Your comments don't appear on many other threads. Is your only interest in atheism the abortion debate?

[heartbomb]

I have to say this:

What about in cases of rape? Say for example the Saudi Arabian girl mentioned in the other thread - gang raped and left pregnant by her rapists...

Should she not have the right to decide whether she aborts the child? Aren't we destroying one life to save another 'prospective' life?

Foster homes are MESSED UP (generally, so to speak) and I know many people who have been in foster homes.

There are too many orphanages and not enough parents willing to adopt, so kids put into adoption homes are often there without parents for a long time before they find a family, if they do find one willing to keep them from long enough. Otherwise they get handballed from one foster family to another. Is that really the quality of life they should be living?

[peterthames]

Who hurts more, Peter? A brutalized six-year-old or a six-week cell cluster?

Are you saying the six year old was unwanted? horrendous as that brutalization of the child is, it is alive and can be helped, it must be helped to continue it's life in a reasonable manner as is with the cell cluster also. It's life has started, as has the 6yo

[peterthames]

Hi Peter, this is not meant to be leading question but rather a simple observation. Your comments don't appear on many other threads. Is your only interest in atheism the abortion debate?

No it is not, but I feel very strongly about abortion because I think it is wrong, and when a thread started and I saw the words from Mr Black saying that a woman has the right to do to her own body what she wants, then I saw red and had to respond, other wise I have an interest in all things Atheism, but I'm a busy man and don't have the time to sit here and debate to many other things while abortion is on the menu.

[davo]

there's already heaps of unwanted kids around the world peter, to the point they form gangs on the street and are shot by cops (honduras, brazil, india etc)

'UNICEF'' UK reckons there's around 100 Million street kids world wide, that doesn't even touch on unwanted or abused children in families.

So, before talking about solving all these issues with 'supporting the unborn' peter, can you see in any way that what you are asking is already proven to be impossible? And you just want to add to the problem by giving a cluster of cells a chance to be among that number?

[Godless Ray]

In debates about abortion, it is common to get a result that it is pretty much the females decision. Now if the female were to carry the baby to full term the male partner would have a financial and social obligation by society. Shouldn't the termination decision be a two party decision?


Godless Ray

[peterthames]

there's already heaps of unwanted kids around the world peter, to the point they form gangs on the street and are shot by cops (honduras, brazil, india etc)

'UNICEF'' UK reckons there's around 100 Million street kids world wide, that doesn't even touch on unwanted or abused children in families.

So, before talking about solving all these issues with 'supporting the unborn' peter, can you see in any way that what you are asking is already proven to be impossible? And you just want to add to the problem by giving a cluster of cells a chance to be among that number?

Sure there is heaps in the third world, If the west could help them raise above poverty then their may not be so many, and then you can blame religion on some of that because of their stance on contraception, parents have more kids in these places cos there is no social welfare so the kids grow up tp help support the parents, and some parents are so poor they send the kids away cos they can't feed them.
Proven that's a big statement for a little word, where change can happen nothing will stay the same, so may be proven now, can be not proven later.

[Duffy]

No it is not, but I feel very strongly about abortion because I think it is wrong, and when a thread started and I saw the words from Mr Black saying that a woman has the right to do to her own body what she wants, then I saw red and had to respond, other wise I have an interest in all things Atheism, but I'm a busy man and don't have the time to sit here and debate to many other things while abortion is on the menu.

Fair enough.

[Duffy]

In debates about abortion, it is common to get a result that it is pretty much the females decision. Now if the female were to carry the baby to full term the male partner would have a financial and social obligation by society. Shouldn't the termination decision be a two party decision?


Godless Ray

Having sons, I think about what would happen if any of the girlfriends fell pregnant. Ideally they would decide together what to do but it is still untimately the womans decision. If she decides to keep the child then my son would be and should be financially liable and responsible for the child's upbringing (no, no shotgun weddings). I tell them if they aren't mature enough to ensure protected sex then they shouldn't be doing it. Play the game, face the consequences.

[Godless Ray]

Duffy,

Mind you I have never encountered this scenario before but the question occurred to me in the car today, my wife thoughtfully suggested the other partner should be allowed to weigh in. I kind of agree also. It may be "her body" but technically at least the child is jointly owned. (failing here with proper discription but you know what I mean) The woman would carry it and the other party take custody I guess. Just putting this out there..

Godless Ray

[davo]

off on a tangent again .. but peter open family say there is 36,000 homeless kids on the street on any one night in Australia, but I reckon there is way more as a lot are 'organised', when I was younger in my teens/early 20's I lived in squats in Melbourne, as well as travelling up the east coast and Adelaide, and seen a lot of kids from really badly broken homes, and a lot that did stay at home, but escaped any time they could as it sucked big apples.

So when people tell me poverty and despair 'sure there is heaps in the third world' I wonder if they are blind. First world poverty is just as bad, keeping you on the edge of surviving, and a lot of kids don't.

I've been in squats where kids were found 2 days after an OD, and they were 12. I've met young girls that paid for sleeping a night in a squat with sex, because it was the only thing they had, and youth that would exploit that, and the cycle continue as they don't get a chance at the option to abort due to circumstance. I've had friends commit suicide because of the situation at home, or get into self mutilation, cutting and beating their legs till they are massively bruised. I worked with other homeless (we started food kitchens, (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/7729/fnbpage.htm) and organised large warehouses we tried doing up, but you end up forced back on the street in the end (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/7729/squat.htm). I never saw these people you talk about that are gonna step up to the plate and take all these people in, it just doesn't happen. People don't want to know about it.

The sad thing is religious groups put on a show of helping the homeless and in a lot of ways they are doing good, but there is more effort in actual change coming from grass roots groups giving people actual life options, showing them they can organise themselves better and understanding the situation they are in, that no faery is gonna help them, except themselves.

I don't see many people stepping up to the plate as you say they will, and it's only getting worse. Society doesn't help, the only way I ever saw actual movement from desperation was to fight back against the despair and organise. So nice idea, but I just see more homeless and destitute.

DaCdlzSx86U

[His Noodly Appendage]

No.

"If you didn't want a kid, you should have kept it in your pants" is a terrible argument against abortion, and it's exactly as bad an argument for forced child support. The decision to have sex is the decision to have sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

If a woman decides to have sex, and pregnancy occurs, she can choose whether or not to become a parent as a result. As it damn well should be, and I'd never have it any other way. The right to reproductive freedom, to be able to have recreational sex without wrecking your life, is the bare minimum dignity that ought to be accorded to a human being in a civilised society.

But if a man decides to have sex, and pregnancy occurs, oh, suddenly it's another story. He should have kept it in his pants, the irresponsible little slut, well this'll teach him, ha ha.

No, fuck that.

Of course he doesn't get a say in the termination. It's not his body. But he should damn well get the exact same choice that the woman has, whether to become a parent or not. If he wants to walk away, he should be able to do so, forfeiting any future claim to the child. A share of medical costs and/or adoption fees is a reasonble liability depending on the circumstances, but beyond that, the decision to continue with the pregnancy and raise the child belongs to the mother. If she wants to, that's her decision, not his problem.

Of course, if he makes any claim to parenthood, then he deals himself irrevocably into the game.

[Duffy]

Duffy,

Mind you I have never encountered this scenario before but the question occurred to me in the car today, my wife thoughtfully suggested the other partner should be allowed to weigh in. I kind of agree also. It may be "her body" but technically at least the child is jointly owned. (failing here with proper discription but you know what I mean) The woman would carry it and the other party take custody I guess. Just putting this out there..

Godless Ray

Yeah it's a tricky one. If my son wanted the child i.e was capable of providing etc (and of course I'd be there to help) then that would give the girl another option. But it can't be something forced upon her. Very few women just pop babies out, pregnancy and childbirth shouldn't be something she goes through against her will.

I think Davo has provided a great demonstration of what happens as a result of a disfunctional childhood. Why would anyone think 'life for the sake of life' and not consider the appalling consequences of being neglected. :(

[peterthames]

Davo, you've hit on something there.

Peter says that people should not have abortions, people should do this, that, the other, and it does not cost him one erg of effort.

Somebody else's problem, but Peter's will be done.

I go to work and pay my taxes that"s an effort, I even get up at 5am and I'm not a morning person, use that and yours to help the needy, I already support needy and hungry folk in the 3rd world as well.

[peterthames]

Where are you taking away the taxes from, to raise the army of kiddies across the globe, who will now live because of Peter's Edict?

Please specify, and include estimated cost.

ah if only i had the power of the edict!
our taxes would help us and some others and other western countries would help themselves and other 3rd world countries, if we spent less on defense that would be a start, just think too if the US did not invade Iraq and gave the money they spent on that entire exercise to help world poverty what a difference that would make, how many billion was it?

[Duffy]

But he should damn well get the exact same choice that the woman has, whether to become a parent or not. If he wants to walk away, he should be able to do so, forfeiting any future claim to the child. A share of medical costs and/or adoption fees is a reasonble liability depending on the circumstances, but beyond that, the decision to continue with the pregnancy and raise the child belongs to the mother. If she wants to, that's her decision, not his problem.

Following the line that a cluster of cells is not a child...I agree with abortion. But a child, at the time of birth, is a very different subject. If a man can walk away from his child then I have very little respect for him. I don't care if he ends the relationship with the mother but the child didn't ask to be born into the situation and in my opinion anyone worth knowing would do the right thing and be the best damn father they could be. The child at the very least deserves that.

[Godless Ray]

Duffy I am sure your right. These issues never end up simple. I was just thinking of a general set of "rights" for want of a better term and the pecking order. It's always amazed me how often men deal themselves out of all kinds of equations because they don't think about themselves.

Godless Ray

[Godless Ray]

29 pages.. 285 plus comments. Gotta be a new record?

[Duffy]

Duffy I am sure your right. These issues never end up simple. I was just thinking of a general set of "rights" for want of a better term and the pecking order. It's always amazed me how often men deal themselves out of all kinds of equations because they don't think about themselves.

Godless Ray

Sad that a lot of the time the awful decision to abort is place on young shoulders. I wonder if young men are ever offered counselling? Or at least included in the abortion counselling. They may not have the final say in the decision but their opinions are still valid:(

[peterthames]

They may not have the final say in the decision but their opinions are still valid:(
Yeh but they should do because it is there flesh and blood just as much as the mother.

[peterthames]

Peter, I was hoping you would come to our Perth Atheist picnic today. It was a lot of fun and we had Michael Tan of The Secular Party of Australia (http://www.secular.org.au/index.php) give a talk on Darwin.

I listened for a V8 Thames van all day...had a nice German brew ready :)

Yeh thanks for that, I bet your were anxious to met me and give me grilling.
I'm away overseas for 6 weeks soon, but will see what I can do at a later stage.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Duffy:

Bearing and raising the child is the mother's decision, 100%.

As such, if she knows the father isn't around, and chooses to go ahead anyway - then it's her making it a single-parent child, not him.

Of course a father walking out, after he's taken on the role of parenthood or made any kind of agreement, is another question.

It's somewhat akin to witnessing an accident. If you take pains not to get involved, then you're not responsible. But if you come over and help out, the you've called it, and you're morally and legally responsible for seeing it through.

If a man were to laugh in your face and say "tough, you're going to devote the rest of your life to raising the child I just impregnated you with, and you don't get a say in the matter", you'd take an icepick to his face.

I find it utterly deplorable that people feel women have the innate right to make the equivalent decision for men.

Nobody is responsible for the decisions of another. Claiming necessity for the poor defenceless child's sake, when the option not to have the child in the first place is on the table... is passive-agressive bullshit.

[heartbomb]

Peter, I was hoping you would come to our Perth Atheist picnic today. It was a lot of fun and we had Michael Tan of The Secular Party of Australia (http://www.secular.org.au/index.php) give a talk on Darwin.

I listened for a V8 Thames van all day...had a nice German brew ready :)

I missed it because I was sick :( Next meet I will be there I promise!

[Duffy]

It's somewhat akin to witnessing an accident. If you take pains not to get involved, then you're not responsible.

I guess that comes down to an individual's character :( I wouldn't avoid helping in an accident for fear of being held responsible. And I like to think my children would feel the same.

[Godless Ray]

Bearing and raising the child is the mother's decision, 100%.

Why?

Godless Ray

[His Noodly Appendage]

Because it's her body.

[davo]

But raising the child it isn't.