“I think the idea that we have to manufacture all kinds of justifications for abortion are absolutely rubbish. There is absolutely no evidence that allowing an unwanted pregnancy, resulting in a child being born, will jeopardise the health or sanity of a mother…I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. No. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to abortion There is a lot of money to be made out of it. I believe that this a perfectly valid career for some girls, especially those who have no other prospects in view.”

www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm

David Skinner, UK

All the most common ‘pro-choice’ arguments are shown to be unthinkable when applied to for example a 12 month old baby instead of the baby in utero.

Indeed so. Or for that matter a two-year-old toddler. Suppose that a 2yo is so disruptive and causing such heartache for his solo mother that she wants him killed, and people support her “right to choose” to kill her own child in the following ways (paralleling many “pro-choice” arguments):

How dare you pass judgment on the woman, when you have no idea what she’s going through?

You’re a male, so you have no right to comment.

It’s the right of every 2yo to be wanted.

No one’s forcing you to kill your own 2yo.

Keep your church out of my home!

We’re not pro–killing-2yos, we’re pro-choice.

We want to make 2yo-killing safe, legal and rare.

If we make laws against this, then those who are rich enough will be able to hire a hit man to kill the toddler, while the poor could not afford this, so such laws would discriminate against the poor.

Unless you are prepared to adopt this child, you have no right to tell the mother that she should not kill her.

If we don’t make it possible for the mother to kill her 2yo safely, then she’ll do it unsafely and possibly put her own health in danger.

Laws against 2yo-killing would violate the woman’s right to privacy, which judges tell us is in the US Constitution.

It’s speciesist to give a Homo sapiens 2yo so much more protection than a chimpanzee 2yo.

You’re opposed to killing 2yos only because you’re a religious fanatic.

The child was conceived by incestuous rape, and her existence is a continual reminder to her mother of what happened, so she should die because of her father’s crime.

Stem cells could be harvested from this 2yo that could help cure many horrible diseases and disabilities—you religious fanatics want to stop this scientific research and cut off all hope of a cure for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s, quadriplegia and diabetes.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

However, if you believe that life starts at birth, then listen to this: I was sitting in on a testimony of a man named Bernard Blessing, a man born in a poor slum in Africa. His mother felt her situation was too dire to care for a baby so she threw him in a rubbish bin still alive. It just so happened that he was found by an orphanage worker who plucked Bernard back onto the pathway of life. Today, Bernard Blessing is a world renound prophet of God, who consults Presidents, Prime Ministers and various other world leaders. His mother had no idea of the potential that baby had, she was just living for her own “here and now”. She did not have an abortion but her motive was just the same. Her method of killing actually gave Bernard a slim chance to live, abortion does not. Who knows what a baby will grow up to achieve? All I know is that the opportunity for the gift of life that we so take for granted, should not be waged upon a set of circumstances.

Adrian Marriott

In terms of justice, abortion is clearly the most important and urgent issue facing this generation, and in terms of the sheer weight of causalities is certainly one of the most pressing of all time. Those churches that ignore the crucial issue of abortion in favour of the trendy non-issues like climate-change, are effectively straining gnats whilst swallowing camels. It is my conviction that in this shameful hour when legislation to legalise abortion has this very day been introduced into the Victorian parliament, those churches (and especially the leadership) that remain silent will be held to account by God and found wanting. I would not like to be in their shoes when that day comes.

Ewan McDonald.

But the issue is not whether it is a baby or not, but whether is it a living, human being with the right to life. Viability keeps moving back with improvements in technology. In Victoria they are talking about open slather on abortion up to 24 weeks, when, as you rightly say, viability is now well before this period. Thus we will have in one hospital wing doctors doing all they can to save a 21 week premie, but in another wing doing all they can to kill a 24 week baby.

Assuming medical technology continues, and babies can be viable at ever younger ages, will the pro-aborts move along with these shifts? But viability is just one of many arbitrary marking lines. Why make viability the dividing line between a life that can live and a life that should die?

As I mention in the above article, from the moment of conception we have a new, genetically unique and distinct individual, which only depends on mum for food and shelter. A two- year-old toddler also depends on mum and dad for food and shelter. But no one (except for some infanticide supporters like Peter Singer) would argue that because the toddler is dependent on an adult, it does not have a right to life.

Any standard embryology textbook will tell you quite clearly that human life begins at the moment of conception. There is no scientific or biological debate about this fact. But the pro-aborts will continue to insist that it is just a blob of cells or a clump of tissue. They are so determined to allow adults to have the right to kill their own offspring, that they will disregard science (and often, their own consciences) to push their pro-death agenda.

Of course slave owners 150 years ago were no different. Today we look upon the enslavement of another human being as abhorrent and repulsive. When will we wake up from our moral blindness and hardness of heart and realise that abortion is equally barbaric and inhumane. We have more concern for whales than we do our own unborn babies.

And a zygote is not potential life. It is life. It is human, It is from conception onwards part of a continuum, developing from earlier stages to later stages, but always a living, human being. Again, this is basic biology, but we have allowed the pro-death camp to complete hoodwink us on these basic facts of life.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Sorry Bill, the comment I made “I guess at the end of the day we cannot nor should we force people to have children they do not want.” could have been worded better. I was of course referring to pregnancy. I in no way wanted to infer that killing your own teenage child because you do not like them is acceptable.

You do bring up an interesting point though. When does life start. Of course if you ask many people you will invariably get many different answers. I did find it very disturbing when I heard on the news tonight that abortions are ok up until 23 weeks and can be even longer if approved by 2 doctors. That is just sad and any two doctors that signed such a request should be ashamed unless of course it is based on some extenuating medical problem. Thing is, many babies at 22+ weeks of gestation are quite capable of survival with some help.

For me, life technically starts when the baby is born. While the baby is in utero there is only a potential for a baby. Of course as the trimesters tick over this potential grows but as we know so many things can go wrong. Even during birth. Life outside the uterus is really not viable given current technologies with babies under 21 weeks or so. This of course is in no way an excuse for terminating pregnancies. I am just trying to put a mark on when a viable life can really continue ie we have a baby. So yes potential for life does start at at the zygote stage but it is not yet a baby. There is a difference for me.

Ben Green

Ewan McDonald.