heh, you could have summed up that post with just two words. "Too bad."

I know the law. To continue to fall back on the existence of the current law shows your reasons for justifying it are not very good reasons.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Ok, so viability isn't your only reason. Location is your other reason and I don't agree with it. If that's considered extreme, well so be it but in my opinion it isn't. So people like myself that oppose treating our unborn as chattels will always try to persuade others that they shouldn't. Abortion practices of today have devalued life. Whenever we teach our kids where they come from and then they learn about abortion, they do realize that at one point, their life had no value and was not protected.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

No in law that is how it is all or nothing. It is never alright to rob people in some circumstance. It is never alright to rape under some circumstances, and it should never be alright to kill under any circumstance.

Well, mostly I dispute that a fertilized egg is a "child." I think there's more to being human than simply being a human cell.

As is your right. I agree that "life" begins its journey as a fertilized egg. I simply disagree that a fertilized egg constitutes a human for the purposes of granting it legal rights. There is more to being human than that.

Why not grant legal rights to bacteria or other single-cell organisms while we're at it? It's not about "is it life." It's about "does it deserve legal protection that trumps the rights of the mother?" I do not believe that an egg, blastocyte or two-week-old embryo is sufficiently "human" to override the mother's interests.

That's a classic antiabortion fallacy. Even in its purest form it's simply a nonsensical dictionary argument, and confuses the distinction between being physically unable to exist outside the womb and needing a caretaker to avoid starving to death. But in this case, it's simply irrelevant. I didn't use the word "dependent." I said, "capable of having an existence independent of the mother." Meaning able to breath on its own, etc. You know: viable.

And that is your right. The problem is when you think it's your right to force everyone else to conform to your standard, when reasonable people can disagree on that standard.

No. Another classic slippery-slope fallacy. For one thing, it fails the "reasonable people can disagree" standard: reasonable people would not make such an argument. But mostly, once you're born you're entitled to full legal rights, and murder violates that.

It should definitely be restricted, and as rare as possible. But I find it equally unacceptable to take away a woman's right to control her reproduction without major cause. A fertilized egg is insufficient cause, IMO. A 26-week-old fetus, on the other hand, is sufficient in most cases.

And abortion should be legal in any case for three reasons:

1. To avoid back-alley procedures;
2. In cases where the mother's health or life is endangered
3. In cases where the baby is dead, grossly malformed or suffering from a birth defect that will kill it soon after it is born. In such cases, it is simply inhumane to force someone to carry that baby to term. If they want to, great; but it should be their choice.

That's because there are no mitigating factors, no legitimate competing interests in those cases, unlike with abortion.

But even so, such things are not cut or dried. Was the ownership of the stolen items clearly established? Was it rape or consensual sex? The line between the two can be hard to determine. What constitutes "consent", for instance?

Oddly, though, the law recognizes multiples shades of killing, with penalties ranging from death to no penalty at all depending on the circumstances (first-degree, manslaughter, self-defense, accidental).

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

I justify abortion because it is right to allow women to make their own choices.

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered

At the expense of others.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Only because it just so happens that at this stage it's legal for them to do so.

I suppose that if women got to legally choose whether or not to kill their babies after they were born (because it's very hard work and they might find it easier to get rid of them) - say, up until they are one year old - and that was legislation, that you would agree with that too?

Also, I've been meaning to ask. Since you have finally admitted that your imaginary differences between `human' and `human being' and `live and not alive' and `dependent but not dependant' are actually because that's what the law says - does that mean that if the law changed then you would change your mind, too?

If the law all of a sudden said that a foetus had rights prior to birth would you just as quickly decide that everything you've been claiming has been bogus?

Or do you actually have some of your own ideas?

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins

I've just done a bit of looking up myself actually, and in Australia by no means is abortion just blithely legal. There are criminal statutes governing abortion in most states - and very strict criteria for the most part.

Tasmania is the only state that does not have specific laws pertaining to late-term abortions, but in all other states it is illegal to perform abortions after a specific gestational age unless one or more doctors agree that continuation of the pregnancy would pose a severe risk to the health of the mother.

In fact the case in 1998 where the two Perth doctors were prosecuted (one of whom performed my abortion) was the herald of a change in abortion laws in WA. I'll also check with my brother (who is a lawyer) about the nitty-gritty of it, but it appears that Ms Tate's assertion that abortions are available to all and sundry whenever they feel like it is - like many of her other claims - ill-informed and factually incorrect.

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins

If you bothered to research some more, you would know that technically, abortion is a crime under Victorian law. However, it is allowed if the mothers physical or mental health is at risk. Women have been getting around this law since it was passed. No woman has ever been prosecuted for aborting, no abortion doctor charged.

I never said that women can have abortions whenever they pleased. I am well aware of the laws in my own country, thank you very much.

And pity to you for being so dense as to not being able to grasp the difference between 'human' and 'human being'. Most people are intelligent enough to know the difference.
My opinions are my opinions, and I do not believe everything the law says. If the law said that it was legal to kill babies after they were born, I would be against that, because to me, when a breath has been taken, personhood is established. You know that is the law here, honey, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, move to America. South Dakota sounds like a fun place to be.

__________________
Sharon Marie Tate: January 24 1943 - 9 August 1969
Forever Remembered

I would have `bothered' to research some more but some of us have jobs. You may note that I did say I would ask my brother - the lawyer - about the more nitty gritty aspect of it.

And - I'm sorry - but you are just too funny to be true. I'M the one whose dense for not believing your imaginary distinctions? Well, that's just fine! Thanks for giving me the first good laugh I've had in this forum for a while.

You're just a little girl, Sharon. I remember being your age - full of ideals and thinking I knew it all. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Thank goodness people forgave me my youth for all the silly and embarrassing things I really believed in back then. Sigh. Oh to be young and stupid again.

I'm pretty sure I'll be saying that about myself again in another 10 years. Age changes lots of things. But don't be embarrassed. We're all a bit silly in our 20s. You'll mature - hopefully.

__________________
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs, but we still can't just behave ourselves. Even if to save our own lives, we are a brutal kind. The Shins