Yes, yes - and I drink Smirnoff double black. The point is it doesn't matter that you do - the vast majority of the Australian working class do not drink Fosters. For example, in Tasmania it's Boag's all the way.

Well there you go. Western Australia doesn't really consider themselves part of the country anyway.

Like this: umop episdn

By that same logic, it is then in the USA's interests to keep him alive.

Yes it is a strawman. It is merely attempting to invoke an emotional response on the basis of a preconceived premise. Suddenly you're not arguing about whether or not you're dealing with a human life, but diverting attention to the regretfulness of the situation. There is no denying that rape is horrible and that the situation is a very difficult one - but that is no reason to let emotion guide your decisions. Nor is it a reason to let an emotional situation change an argument's point. (when I am saying 'your' here, I'm not reffering directly to you, sjames)

As I stated before, I think the important point in these situations is the question of life - is this a human we're talking about, not the difficulty of the circumstances - that is the sideshow. Put it this way: in the case of rape the question is not "can I abort since I've been raped" but "can I abort if this is a human".

Again, the question is whether or not it is called for.

The question for me has never been about what God says to me, but what God says to us. If I were to discover that my interpretation of what God says in the Bible is incorrect on the topic of abortion, then I must change what I think.

This is essentially a strawman argument. The child didn't choose to be the result of a rape either. Circumstance doesn't change whether or not the baby is a human or not.

Again, a strawman. What has miscarriage got to do with it?

My response to that would be, "there is no denying it will be". As you alluded to, the line has been drawn - one second they're not, one second they are. It's not a defendable stance, in my honest opinion. It is a person, it is a completely unique individual - just because it isn't a fully developed human doesn't mean it isn't a human.

There is no denying these are hard questions, for sure. My opinions on this are directed by my belief in the bible and God. Having said that, I don't think the bible has much directly to say about these matters - therefore overarching principles are where a Christian tends to turn in these circumstances. For me, one of those overarching principles includes trusting that God has my, my wife's and my unborn child's best interests in mind.

One thing I would like to highlight is this though: it is never a choice between both mother and child dying or just child. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. The most you will get out of any doctor worth their salt is 'high probability' - anything more is conjecture at best. This is a very crucial point when faced with these questions. We cannot construct arguments and decisions off a false premise.

Lastly, I would be wary of not taking a stand on this because of a lack of certainty on the answers to your questions. I submit to you that you will never have a certain answer to many of the most hard of these questions. However, if you take the most basic of these questions through to conclusion - that of human life - I believe even those without a belief in God or any other religeous belifs can see clearly the result of these choices.

Yes, that is where the disagreement lies. I do not understand how people can think they can draw a line in the sand and say "At this second, you're a human - we can't kill you. The second previous you aren't a human and we could kill you.". Because when you do decide it's fine, you've drawn that line - it's unavoidable.

Equally, I can't understand how we can be so protective of children - who are essentially undeveloped adults and who are unable to protect themselves - and in the same breath, support abortion which is extinguishing the life of what is exactly the same as a small child - essentially undeveloped adults - and to top it off, they being even more unable to protect themselves. People love breaking it down to an easy to dismiss "bunch of cells" (which, ironically, we all are) - which is just so easy to dismiss because you're no longer talking about what is truly, essentially, and undeniably the beginning of what will become an adult human.

I firmly believe that generations to come will look back on this time in disgust of the human race, and how they so confused themselves that they thought it was fine to kill growing humans for reasons that are essentially selfish.

That doesn't make sense. You say anti-life advocates killing, whereas you're really just talking about the 'choice' to kill? In the end, you're advocating for the same result, no?

How about pro-choice-to-murder and anti-choice-to-murder then? Or pro-choice-to-kill-an-unborn-child and anti-choice-to-kill-an-unborn-child?

Conversely, I find the idea that one human has the right to destroy another because they could be disadvantaged to be utterly repulsive. I get the strong feeling that this whole ordeal is going to be looked back on in the future as a horrific time when the world believed that ending the lives of unborn children was fine.

So basically, until you run into a plank?

Exactly, the common denominator that is passed from generation to generation is language. But even then...

I wholeheartedly agree!

Cool story, bro!

Actually, this one is true! Of course, I have no way of definitively proving that.

It does sound like it should be a common joke, doesn't it. We grew up in a very small country town in outback Australia. Total population of 25. I was one of eight kids. My cousins down the road were an eight kid family too. Together we made up most of the population of our town. =D

The internet wasn't a thing in this town - too remote. So no, 13 - 14 year olds in the middle of whoop-whoop belonging to a Christian family did not know the meaning. Our teacher did know the meaning - so did some of the more 'connected' high-schoolers. My brother did most certainly ask for a "mass debate" completely innocently. =P

I was there to observe said events because I was doing year 11 and 12 of high-school via distance-learning (learning with books and ringing teachers in cities for 'lessons' over the phone). Since our school consisted of two rooms, I could see and hear everything that was going on.

Anyway, hope you enjoyed hearing about my past. =P