The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[*Minka*]

no matter how perfect a girl is, i am just wasting my time if she doesnt want kids later down the track.

Minka, whats the difference between you now and you when you were at 26 weeks? either way if your mother decided to abort you its murder.
You are the one who keeps bringing up the unlikely scenarios "but pregnancy CAN occur if shes on the pill, uses condom has an implant and no ovaries!" and the other more likely but still in the minority examples " what about rape, incest, medical complications!"
If you dont want to deal with my issues, fine we can deal with mainstream of cases which is simple

Girl gets pregnant through careless use of contraception.
Girl gets abortion at 8 weeks because she decides a baby will ruin her life. Father is no consulted.

It happens all the time, i think i remember the telegraph running a story a few years back about a woman who uses abortion as her contraception and has had 5 so far....as it is i cannot see an 8 week abortion being moral... i dont beleive life begins at conception like those diehard christians, but i dont think its moral to terminate a pregnancy after say a week or two.

Maybe we should start bringing in those hardcore pictures of aborted babies body parts sitting on a coin? when i saw those pics it basically made the issue more concrete in my mind. Abortion is murder.

It is your opinion if you believe you are wasting your time with a girl because she doesn't want kids.

That woman who uses abortion as her sole form of contraception is foolish and should be using condoms and the pill to prevent pregancy. The thing with terminating pregancies at a week or two is that most women don't even have an idea that they are pregnant until the missed period - which is about two weeks later and then they may leave it a few days thinking it might jsut be out of whack.

Not all women are that careless with their contracpetion - please do not assume that. However, contraception can fail so please stop saying it is far fetched.

I have said before many times that I believe there is a difference between late and early term abortion. Howevber the difference between me and when I was a fetus is that I am now a human being while I was a fetus I was potentially a human but not one yet. And as I have said before, having me was my mothers CHOICE. I am so sick of people using the 'What if your mother didn't want kids' arguement because I wouldn't have knwon any better and my mother had the right to make her choice about children as I do. Simple.

If you thinky ou can shcok me into changing my mind with a sad poem and a few pictures with a bit of blood, think again. I have seen my own leg after been shot, my brothers leg cut off with a chainsaw, blood and bodies everywhere and thats the start of it. You won't make me change my mind.

 

[*Minka*]

Don't feed me that shit. Go grow up where I did and see how you come out of it.

 

[Generator]

Don't feed me that shit. Go grow up where I did and see how you come out of it.

That adds nothing to the debate, minka.

Edit: We also cannot be sure as to who it is that you are talking to.

 

[withoutaface]

I think bshoc might be interested to know that there have been incidences where women who've had their tubes tied have fallen pregnant.

 

[Generator]

Neither does bshoc or serius' personal attacks and religious proselyting but they haven't been censured for that.

They have been censured time and again, Malfoy, but I can only bang my head against a wall so many times till I'm forced to give up and just act whenever it is necessary or whenever someone else from the forum is still to respond.

Don't just assume that because I pulled Minka up about a pointless and apparently direction-less post that I am condoning whatever arguments others may think are appropriate. If a post contains an argument, however warped some may consider it to be, I will let it stand provided that the post falls within the NCAP's rules. If there is an aspect of the post that doesn't, I will edit the post accordingly. If an entire post is free of content or if one is completely unacceptable as determined by NCAP's (and BOS') rules, I will either delete it (and PM the member if its necessary) or ask the member to respond constructively, and in such cases the particular course of action will be determined by the nature of the post and/or the member's history.

 

[bshoc]

I'm all for killing people of all kinds for economic gains.

I'm not kidding. Abortions will always happen, there's nothing you can do about it, you may as well give up trying to legislate the actions of others.

Bshoc, your nanny-statist bullshit is just regurgitated inanities. Cease

Thats nice, I'm sure you have a wealth of economic and social knowledge to back that up too. I guess what I'm trying to say is - I dont give a shit about what your opinion is on anything I should or should not do, I've already proven the economics, the social aspects, the bioethics aspects, you're entitled to your opinions, not to fact.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I've already proven the economics, the social aspects, the bioethics aspects, you're entitled to your opinions, not to fact.

That is probably the most narrow-minded sort of statement someone can make - You haven't proven nothing or even come close. I'd say the exact same thing to anyone pro-abortion that makes such a pathetic claim as you did.

 

[wheredanton]

Wipe the tears off you face and pay attention, when somebody evokes a personal aspect of their lives to justify a point, that point is fair game, in any case Minka doesen't care.

Also stop being a groupie, I'm not taking you seriously until you at least address the rather long reply I made a page or two back, not that you can ofcourse, and as far as I'm concerned you've thrown in the towel already, so why are you even bothering?

Tell us all about yourself bshoc!

1. Are you a virgin?

2. Do you get on well with the opposite sex?

3. Do the females that enjoy your company know your strong views towards women and abortions?

4. Are you a homosexual?

5. Do you plan to procreate, one day, by fertilizing a comely lass?

 

[bshoc]

I knew you'd say that because people like you are just so easy to predict.

Right back at you though, ever feel like you're repeating yourself?

It is not the same because Abortion is not murder as you are not murdering another person. You are merely removing a fetus (potential human) from the uterus. There is a difference between POTENTIAL human and ACTUAL human. At the point where most abortions occur, the fetus is a POTENTIAL human and therefore not murder. Ditto with rapists - they are marning other people and thus infringing on their liberty and wright to saftey. An abortion does not harm anyone as once again, the fetus is not a person.

...

... I am sure that not every bioethics specialist would agree with that, nor would every doctor or medical professional. If it was drafted by an ethics committee, they must already have pre-conceived notions on the issue. Not everybody sees a fetus as a human.

Um yes it is

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

As quoted before: "an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ..."

Who defined it? These people, well not exactly, but an earlier manifestation, precursor board made up of much the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Council_on_Bioethics

Note none of these people are doctors, doctors have no place in a such a debate, this board is made up of biologists, geneticists, and others who are actually concerned with medicine as a hard science, rathen than a mostly observational one.

Now I have provided a list of very smart people in direct relation to your "fetus is not a person concept" who's opinions matter more than most (and who's scientific and legal opinions are in direct opposition to your garbage), certainly yours (or mine), you have failed to find any sources by equally qualified people who say differently, and you wont becuase none of them would want to ruin their career preaching the kind of ignorant stupidity you are. Thus your entire belief that a fetus is not human or a person is wishful thinking at its best (or perhaps, worst), and for the purposes of this debate, I'm not going to be debating in your dream world where fetuses aren't human, but rather in the real world where they are, on the terms of science, not yours, understand?

What I am saying is that accidents do happen. It is possible to get pregnant on the pill and for condoms to split. I firmly believe that all reasonable precautions should be taken to prevent pregnancy (the use of condoms and the pill) but do not believe a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy if the reasonable precautions fail. They did take their actions seriously, something beyond their control happened, they have the right to the abortion. Likewise, even if someone had sex without using contraception, well, they still have the right to an abortion as do all women but I have far less sympathy for them in that case.

Contradiction, if contraceptives are used responsibly, there is no chance of preganancy (unless you consider 1 in 30 million a viable point of debate), thus by allowing abortion we allow those who did NOT take responsibility to have abortions, since any woman taking preacautions would not be falling pregnant in the first place. In this case you have once again, no grounds for that kind of argument.

Reproduction is a choice. My mother and father had children because that is what they chose to do. My mother wanted children, I do not. Simple. They also respect the right of others to choose to do with their own lifes in regards to reproduction. And to make this clear, I have no desire whatsoever to give birth to children. If I choose to have children in the future, I will be adopting. I have no desire to naturally have a child when there are abandoned children in the world with no homes or future. If others want to have children anturally, they can do so, but that is MY choice.

Sure, but making life/death decisions for other people (fetuses are people, see above) is not part of any sort of reproductive choice or freedom.

It may be a fatc of history where women were treated like shit, but that is NO LONGER the case and for you to say so is an insult.

Yes women were treated like shit, becuase they were weaker and were less inclined to contribute academically or inventively to society, lots of men were too by the way. Blaiming men is a poor excuse for the plight of women, afterall strength is a virtue, and weakness is a submission, nature rewards only that first one.

(I know this is a little too much reality, sorry)

I learnt that some loving god can not exist because if he did, he would not have sat back and watched the Yugoslavian Civil War and the astrociities that went on there. I also have no time for people using religious arguements against me because they mean bollocks. I have learnt that WAR is senseless, but WAR and ABORTION are two totally different things.

Fallacy, Both involve the mass slaugher of innocent people for personal ends.

(by the way we're assuming there is no god for the sake of this argument ie. your territory)

I have learnt that respect means respecting both men and women.

Silly girl, repect is not something that is simply given to you a birth, or plattered all over ones life, its something that is earned.

I learnt a lot from my life, don't be an asshole about the way I grew up and assume it means I should be super religious.

Well you see, like you I am not religious, and like you I came from roughly the same climate (lets just leave it there), I'm acurately (and was personally) aware of what happned to slavic peoples that time and place. I'm just pointing out that one of the reasons war happens is one persons life is filed under someone elses control, and that it is contradictory for you to oppose war and on the other hand support abortion (just becuase abortion is out of sight doesent in any way "make it better")

I don't believe that fetuses become human beings up until a certain point. it is really that simple and you are totally missing it. I think there is a large difference between an abortion carried out at 6 weeks and one done at 36 weeks because of the point in which the fetus becomes a human.

The you are burying your head in the sand and denying reality, its not really a viable way to argue.

 

[HotShot]

I agree that the life of the mother should always come first and foremost. The mother should also have complete control over her reproductive rights and to me, this includes the choice whether to not or have children and abortions. If someone does not support abortion, they should not have one, but they do not have the right to take that away from others.

Not every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy is a whore. Accidents happen, contraceptives fail, yet the woman does not deserve to be trapped as a result. Secondly, just because a woman enjoys sex does not mean she is a 'promoscious bimbo'.

There is no need to say that a woman who does not want children is worth less to the country or to men. Many man do not want children and woman who are working full time are making valued contribuitions to the economy and giving tax that pays for those completely fucked up baby bonuses. I don't want to give birth to children - that is my decision.

Not everyone believes a fetus is a human. A two week old fetus is in no way a human. You can have your own religious beliefs, but science will back me up on this one.

How many women have had more than one abortion? Accidents happen no shit, but they can be minimised and fixed. An abortion is not a solution in my opinion (in extreme cases it maybe). I think many women take abortion to lightly they see it as ' oh i am pregnant, i better have an abortion'. Life is tough, it was meant to be tough, deal with problems rather than taking the easy way out. I am sure many women out there have had 'accidents' but they havent taken an abortion , and instead brought up a child.

the mother to some extent has some control over a decision abortion , but the father has equal rights as well - after all its his baby as well. destroying a life exceptionall a human life, should not be taken lightly let alone - if it cant defend itself.

ultimately - if it was unplanned the fault lies with the mother and father. it is up to them to bring up the child at all costs? why the should the child pay the price if its someone's else fault. Of course sometime it may not just be possible the mother could be total slut, and have cancer and watever an extreme case, then abortion would be the only the choice.

an abortion should be the last thing to do.

 

[kami]

Contradiction, if contraceptives are used responsibly, there is no chance of preganancy (unless you consider 1 in 30 million a viable point of debate), thus by allowing abortion we allow those who did NOT take responsibility to have abortions, since any woman taking preacautions would not be falling pregnant in the first place. In this case you have once again, no grounds for that kind of argument.

Incorrect. When used correctly, there is still a significant failure rate - which decreases when real life variables are introduced. See here for a table demonstrating the average failure rates for both method effectiveness and actual effectiveness. So women who use contraceptives, and even those who are sterilised may still fall pregnant at a considerably greater rate than 1/30 000 000.

Sure, but making life/death decisions for other people (fetuses are people, see above) is not part of any sort of reproductive choice or freedom.

You may be able to state that foetuses are genetically homo sapiens[which I wouldn't dispute], but you have not demonstrated as of yet that they are people..:

The concept of personhood (who is a person within a society) is the fundamental component of any selective concept of people. A distinction is maintained in philosophy and law between the notions "human being", or "man", and "person". The former refers to the species, while the latter refers to a rational agent (see, for example, John Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding II 27 and Immanuel Kant's Introduction to the Metaphysic of Morals).

Silly girl, repect is not something that is simply given to you a birth, or plattered all over ones life, its something that is earned.

Then why are you respecting a foetus' right to life?

 

[HotShot]

Then why are you respecting a foetus' right to life?

I dont think it matters if you 'respect' a foetus right or not, because lol its his/her right anyway.

respect is simply a form acknowledgment really.

btw the table is fucked it makes no sense whatsever, such figures i wonder how he/she came up with.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Ahhhh bshoc, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Just on minor point before we get in to this Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

You seem to be of the opinion that women make little to no contribution to the economy and even go so far as to presume that this is a historical fact. Forgive me for being curious but would you be so kind as to offer some proof of this? Some facts and figures perhaps? Anything that will show that this statement is indeed 'historical fact'.

Now to all this business about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - an act that only applies to the USA. Oh, looks like you're in trouble already. The definition of an unborn child is only applicable in the US, thus it's relevance to Australia is greatly diminished seeing as no such conference has been conducted here. Further in this regard the said definition is only enforceable within the US:

"The Act applies only to offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, namely crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states."

But wait, there's more.

"...the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child".

Wow, looks like you're fucked now, the law doesn't even apply to abortions that occur under the guidance of medical professionals and with the consent of the mother.

Still haven't finished yet though.

I fail to see how the definition of an unborn child in relation to violence against pregnant women in the US has to do with a debate about the definition of life in an abortion debate in Australia. The linguistic distinction between 'unborn child' and 'human being' is important. 'Unborn child does not necessarily imply life - technically a blastocyte is an unborn child but it's certainly not alive.

 

[*Minka*]

Yes women were treated like shit, becuase they were weaker and were less inclined to contribute academically or inventively to society, lots of men were too by the way. Blaiming men is a poor excuse for the plight of women, afterall strength is a virtue, and weakness is a submission, nature rewards only that first one.

(I know this is a little too much reality, sorry)

Women were not given the opportunity to contribute to society becaise they were ruefsed to the right of an education and treated as their fathers property and married off by their fathers before they could make a life for themselves.

Please stop being so sexist.

 

[bshoc]

Oh Brucemaster, you fail before you even begin, such a sad fate is yours.

You seem to be of the opinion that women make little to no contribution to the economy and even go so far as to presume that this is a historical fact. Forgive me for being curious but would you be so kind as to offer some proof of this? Some facts and figures perhaps? Anything that will show that this statement is indeed 'historical fact'.

Historical fact, I'm not saying anything about modernity. Look at the founders and adherents of any field that relates to human development, economics, atomic physics, space travel, sewage and water systems, whatever, you're in denial if you think otherwise.

Now to all this business about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - an act that only applies to the USA. Oh, looks like you're in trouble already. The definition of an unborn child is only applicable in the US, thus it's relevance to Australia is greatly diminished seeing as no such conference has been conducted here. Further in this regard the said definition is only enforceable within the US:

Well historically speaking the Australian legal system has always taken after the US on things like capital punishment, abortion, affirmative action etc. That said what does it matter in which countries these experts draw their conclusions? Do we drive cars even though they were invented in Germany? Or not eat pizza becuase its Italian? Or only listen to the expertise of local academia? NOPE .. Lets continue little Brucemaster, your angry self still has much to learn

"The Act applies only to offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, namely crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states."

But wait, there's more.

Um that was supposed to be something bad for me? Lol

"...the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child".

Wow, looks like you're fucked now, the law doesn't even apply to abortions that occur under the guidance of medical professionals and with the consent of the mother.

No, its becuase you dont understand the legal ramifications of the bill, if the law states that killing a fetus is muder, killing any fetus becomes murder, whether the bill allows abortion it or not. The original draft actually didn't have this attached clause, it was added later not by the bioethics council but by the draftees themselves to get it past the pro-abortionists in the US senate (so they could use it against a man named Scott Peterson). Also notably after this and the PBAA was passed, there has not been one successful pro-abortion motion in either federal or state arteries given the clauses and legal ramifications of the bill. I guess the lesson here is not to get caught up in the politics, but rather pay attention to the original verdict of the bioethics council which was made quite clear (bioethics councils dont draft Bills bruce, thats why we have congressmen, or in our case, house seats)

Still haven't finished yet though.

Oh no, continue being a moron, I insist.

I fail to see how the definition of an unborn child in relation to violence against pregnant women in the US has to do with a debate about the definition of life in an abortion debate in Australia. The linguistic distinction between 'unborn child' and 'human being' is important. 'Unborn child does not necessarily imply life - technically a blastocyte is an unborn child but it's certainly not alive.

"an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ..."

How don't you get that? A child is human, if it were not the wording would be different (ie. "fetus"). You really are just spitting into the wind here. Can you reasonably say you have more authority to rule on this than these people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...l_on_Bioethics

 

[*Minka*]

How many women have had more than one abortion? Accidents happen no shit, but they can be minimised and fixed. An abortion is not a solution in my opinion (in extreme cases it maybe). I think many women take abortion to lightly they see it as ' oh i am pregnant, i better have an abortion'. Life is tough, it was meant to be tough, deal with problems rather than taking the easy way out. I am sure many women out there have had 'accidents' but they havent taken an abortion , and instead brought up a child.

the mother to some extent has some control over a decision abortion , but the father has equal rights as well - after all its his baby as well. destroying a life exceptionall a human life, should not be taken lightly let alone - if it cant defend itself.

ultimately - if it was unplanned the fault lies with the mother and father. it is up to them to bring up the child at all costs? why the should the child pay the price if its someone's else fault. Of course sometime it may not just be possible the mother could be total slut, and have cancer and watever an extreme case, then abortion would be the only the choice.

an abortion should be the last thing to do.

I do admit it is a shame that father's have little say in whether or not a pregnancy is continued or not, but the fact is that it is not is his body. Therefore the choice must remain with the women as she is the one who is has to be pregnant.

What part of Contraception can fail despite the most responsbile use do some people fail to understand?

Secondly, I see having an abortion as dealing with the consquences - each choice does that whteher it be keeping the child, having and abortion or adoption.

 

[bshoc]

I do admit it is a shame that father's have little say in whether or not a pregnancy is continued or not, but the fact is that it is not is his body. Therefore the choice must remain with the women as she is the one who is has to be pregnant.

No its the body of the unborn child. It neither belongs to the man or the woman.

 

[HotShot]

I do admit it is a shame that father's have little say in whether or not a pregnancy is continued or not, but the fact is that it is not is his body. Therefore the choice must remain with the women as she is the one who is has to be pregnant.

What part of Contraception can fail despite the most responsbile use do some people fail to understand?

Secondly, I see having an abortion as dealing with the consquences - each choice does that whteher it be keeping the child, having and abortion or adoption.

IT may been in her body, but it is the father's baby just as its the mother's baby. so they both have equal rights to it. its not physically possible (i hope not) to have the baby in the father.

an abortion should be the last resort rather than the first. having an abortion is a quick solution to the problem, its the easy way out. its not the dealing with consequenes, its basically putting it aside. wats to say if she pregnant again - another abortion? where does it end?

 

[Serius]

Ahhhh bshoc, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Just on minor point before we get in to this Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

You seem to be of the opinion that women make little to no contribution to the economy and even go so far as to presume that this is a historical fact. Forgive me for being curious but would you be so kind as to offer some proof of this? Some facts and figures perhaps? Anything that will show that this statement is indeed 'historical fact'.

I was hoping you wouldnt bring this up because i really dont like to argue about this, but the facts do indeed speak for themselves.
1.) Women are physically weaker than men in almost every way. Historically, when thinking wasnt as important as hard physical labour such as tilling the land, this made men far more valuable to the ecconomy than women.

2.) Due to the brain differences between males and females, males have enhanced spacial recognition and logic processes. This is most likely an evolutionary holdover from where fast thinking, well aiming hunters brought the meat home and got to reproduce.
As society evolved men completely dominated every intelectual field, part of this was because women were not in charge and uneducated, i admit... but there had to be a reason they werent in charge? i mean they controlled the sex right? surely they could have taken power somehow.


these two facts mean that even today in the modern world, males completely dominate every intelectual persuit known to man. Sure there are the odd females in some fields, and usually they are pretty good to be there in the first place. lets look at some influental people thoughout history.

Steven Hawking
Edward Witten
Thomas Edison
Einstein
Newton
Plato
Thucydides
Socrates
Aristotle
Gregor Mendel

I would put these 10 people among the elite who have vastly contributed to human knowledge. Notice something? they are all men. Also who are the richest people in the world? all men.

I hate ever bringing up this arguement because i am all for equality. The thing is that if we are going to talk about the ecconomic importance of women... well the subject is a joke and its why most historicans avoid the topic like a dead gazelle.

so where do we go from here? am i supposed to say how important women are socially? i am not sure. Its all well and good to say " its a shame men dont get a say in abortion..but well... ITS HER BODY!"

Once i was swimming in a deep lake, and out of nowhere a drowning child clings to my back because he wants to live, am i allowed to push him off because its my body? afterall i dont want to exert any extra effort to swim to shore, and with that extra weight it could take 9 months! i will be out of work, my clothes wont fit me oh the inconvenience!
better to crush his skull and make the brains split out or pump him full of this here needle of acid acid i keep in my pocket. and anyways, its kind of my fault he is clinging to me because i wore a big sign saying "lifeguard" [i.e no contraception] and i wasnt swimming responsibly.

 

[KFunk]

Um yes it is

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

As quoted before: "an "unborn child" is defined as "a member of the species Homo Sepiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb ..."

Who defined it? These people, well not exactly, but an earlier manifestation, precursor board made up of much the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Council_on_Bioethics

Note none of these people are doctors, doctors have no place in a such a debate, this board is made up of biologists, geneticists, and others who are actually concerned with medicine as a hard science, rathen than a mostly observational one.

Now I have provided a list of very smart people in direct relation to your "fetus is not a person concept" who's opinions matter more than most (and who's scientific and legal opinions are in direct opposition to your garbage), certainly yours (or mine), you have failed to find any sources by equally qualified people who say differently, and you wont becuase none of them would want to ruin their career preaching the kind of ignorant stupidity you are. Thus your entire belief that a fetus is not human or a person is wishful thinking at its best (or perhaps, worst), and for the purposes of this debate, I'm not going to be debating in your dream world where fetuses aren't human, but rather in the real world where they are, on the terms of science, not yours, understand?

Contradiction, if contraceptives are used responsibly, there is no chance of preganancy (unless you consider 1 in 30 million a viable point of debate), thus by allowing abortion we allow those who did NOT take responsibility to have abortions, since any woman taking preacautions would not be falling pregnant in the first place. In this case you have once again, no grounds for that kind of argument.

- Contraceptives have a natural failure rate, they are not perfect. Your statistic is wrong.

- The 'unborn victims of violence act' in no way acts as a proof that everyone is of the view that an embryo/fetus is human. Consider this: the president's council on bioethics is made of of individuals appointed by the president. Biased much? It would be interesting to find out their religious attitudes and determine whether that played a part in their being chosen. N.B: It is inevitable that members will be chosen so that the view of the comitee will tend to side with the views of the party in power.

- As pointed out, the act is an American one with little bearing on Australia. Do you also embrace the American capital punishment approach?

- You speak of fallacy and yet you're willing to argue that a small bioethics comitee chosen by the american persident believes something so we should therefore accept what they believe to be true???

- You talk about the 'authority' of 'hard scientists' on the issue but should you really? Whether something should be afforded the right to life, or any right for that matter, is NOT, in itself, a biological or scientific question. It is an ethical philosophical one. Whether such a right has a place in governing our society is a legal (and ethical) decision. Scientists only come into the picture if the rights are ascribed on the basis of a scientific definition - they can then judge how such a definition applies. The abortion issue is still a major philosophical debate.


You have unreasonably rejected arguments based on the embryo not being a human being so I want to pose the following questions to you:

1. What is it that makes someone a human (being/person etc.)? i.e. what are the defining qualities of personhood?

2. Why should people have a right to life, in particular why should an organism that is a human have a right to life? (proper argument, please)

3. (in connection with 2.) What is it that an individual looses in being killed? (i.e. what is it that they loose that makes it wrong to kill them).