´óÏó´«Ã½

I'd like to congratulate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for finally assembling a blogging system that works as well as has for the past five years. :-)

Seriously, the system is working very well and it'll be nice from now on, especially for the long-term contributors like myself and many others who've found an enjoyable place to exchange ideas online.

I agree. I've had a much easier time leaving comments.

John
Could you please point me to info. on inserting links like 'mine' in your post 1?

Ordinary www.etc.com doesn't seem to work in the new software!

and I think we're still on BST as I'm posting this at 11:43

A

I meant of course GMT in the last post!

Hi allybalder,

If you save this webpage and look at the html source code around where John wrote 'mine' with the link, you can see how to insert links like that.

testing

Oh, that link to my blog in there must have been a complete mistake, I would never deliberately provide a link, I'm much more classy than to link to my own blog, never would I want to make it seem like I am plugging my site, so please disregard the mistake of where it says "" in the first comment... aww man, there it is again!, does anyone know how I can prevent it doing that since I'd never want anyone to click on my blog, that link was inadvertent, guys, sorry...

Indeed John to provide such a link to www.john-wright.net is an exercise in shameless self-promotion. Despite www.john-wright.net being an excellent source of libertarian commentary, I would never plug it by way of providing a link to www.john-wright.net. It's as if you're trying to get a few ´óÏó´«Ã½ punters to have a look at www.john-wright.net.

G.Da

Absolutely, I apologise. Now, back to the original topic.

Regards,

The debate if the 1967 Abortion Act should be extended to NI. was excellent . Dawn Purvis spoke courageously.We SHOULD have the same rights as UK citizens. All feminists are not for whole sale abortion. Feminists bring to the debate as much careful thought and ethics as others. ALL life is sacred - that means ALL - not what humans think is important to them. We have to recognize that life comes and goes - either naturally or by interventions. It is interesting to note that when humans want to take life - or destroy anything they do so quite indiscriminately - like the destruction of environment and animals - the sources of our very existence.
When it comes to life emerging and developing in the womb it has to be protected - in law - there must be a presumption in favour of life - HOWEVER - we must gage where that developing collection of cells is at in its development.A small collection of cells alive yes but not yet human (with human potential accepted) can and indeed often is terminated by nature. Any medical intervention must happen as early as possible as new developments in science reveal foetal viability has increased. What then must be the creteria for being allowed to terminate - surely the mother's mental emotional - social and economic circumstancs and that of her other family must take priority ? Surely the viability of the foetus? Who else can make the decision about one's own body but oneself ? We are allowed to make decisions about the medical treatment we choose to receive or not receive ? Who carries the life ? No one decides to abort carlessly but surely improved sexual education - better contraceptive knowledge and a faster response time if a woman chooses to opt for a termination might cause less stress all round.What or who is more precious - the collection of cells with the potential for human development or a viable person - or who has more rights? Surely a citizen has more rights . ( I do not deny foetal rights in the last trimester)
Finally I suggest men ( as priests - lawyers - law makers in tradtional societies) have been the arbiters and constructors of moralities and then often changed the rules when it suited themselves or changing historical circumstances demanded. Even the most religious of them can contemplate the ending of life if it suits them. See Abraham and Issac - a story which horrifies me. See Heroshima - see Uganda and all the murders and suffering of living children whom no-one protects nor gets into a state over. High Risk life endangering sports are applauded and encouraged ..... even if people are killed - it is not condemmed but if a destraught woman for whatever reason wishes to terminate a prenancy all hell breaks out.
I think the law must protect the child and the viable foetus but it must allow for terminations preferrably early,locally and without trauma or high cost.
No group has ethical superiority to legislate for the rest of a diverse society - ignoring our civil rights to participate - be listened to and indeed be accomodated should our ethics and morality differ on points. In no other area of society would that kind of domination be tolerated. While we must respect conscience we can not have this kind of spiritual fasicsm in our community which denies the rest of us our spiritual and ethical judgements. Legislation on this matter must reach ethical common denomenator. redWoolfie.