The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Women voters deserve more than the 'A' word > Comments

Women voters deserve more than the 'A' word : Comments

By Mary Broadsmith, published 14/6/2013

The Prime Minister's Office seems to be under the impression that voting women can be wooed by references to 'men in blue ties' and the magic 'A' word.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Once again Juliar makes the mistake of assuming that most women are stupid. Abortion is not a policy on the table by either party and has not been for decades, and notably this vacuous stunt was pulled off with a dredged up handbag hit squad in the back drop, and the media excluded from asking questions.

Women should be insulted.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've noticed a significant change in the attitude displayed by women of my acquaintance toward the read-headed witch. Whereas they tended to do the female sheeple bit by regarding everything the witch said as gospel truth, all of them have twigged to the fact she's full of **it.
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes the 80000 to 100000 baby slaughters each year under the Howard years does not seem enough for the Emily's listers. Nothing short of disgusting. National shame.
Posted by runner, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, hatred on full throttle here this morning. Shadow Minister, don't tell women to be insulted. Some will be, some won't, but all of them will make up their mind without your input. Someone who thinks it is funny/clever/appropriate to consistently refer to the Prime Minister as a liar really has no credibility.

The witch, sheeple stuff say more about the poster than anything else. Are you in the army and under investigation perhaps?

Back to the article - I've been convinced for some time that everything JG says is deliberate, and often designed to attract maximum press coverage, even if it is adverse. Anyone heard much about Kevin Rudd in the last day or so? Its a desperate measure, but these are desperate times for the government.
Posted by Candide, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide - consistently refer to the Prime Minister as a liar really has no credibility.

What planet exactly have you been residing on for the past few years ??
Even her most devoted disciples admit the witch doesn't have as much as a fleeting acquaintance with the truth !!
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:57:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mary is course a right-wing "catholic" and probably a member of that deeply misogynist charming power-and-control-seeking cult opus dei.

While all the time pretending otherwise the "catholic" church is also deeply misogynist too. This is signalled in stark terms by the fact completely irrational prohibition against women becoming priests.

Her last essay on this site tried to tell us that the bumbling fool George Pell has been misunderstood.
Opus dei does of course have a list of banned books which its members are not supposed to read. Which is quite odd because you cant even begin to understand the modern humanly created world unless you have a working familiarity with most of these banned books.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 14 June 2013 9:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daffy you're a dead set goose.
Posted by Jazzy Jeff, Friday, 14 June 2013 9:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daffy Duck - completely irrational prohibition against women becoming priests

The church of rome (ostensibly) regards the bible as inspired. 1 Timothy 2:12 clearly prohibits women from having authority over men. As such, prohibition against female priests is actually quite rational .... provided of course one regards the bible as significant. Note however in a secular society there is no compulsion to follow any religious franchise, let alone the catholic one. Anyone who doesn't accept the rules / doctrine associated with a particular franchise is quite welcome to start their own.

Whether or not the church (in general, church of rome in particular) practices what it preaches is another issue entirely. There in fact numerous examples where catholics are in breach of their supposed beliefs (call no man father / thou shalt have no graven images / thou shalt have no other gods / there is one God & one Mediator etc etc), so its not unreasonable to ask what difference does another one make ?? We are talking about the false prophet after all.
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 14 June 2013 9:37:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gillard, a female impersonator of Gough Whitlam, has set back the cause of women by several centuries. She has also given the old saying about 'promoted to a level of incompetence' a whole new meaning.

But, like a typical women, she will argue to the death and completely ignore the demolition job that she is doing on her Party.

If there are any people left in LABOR, men or women, who have a conscience or a brain, they will join together and dispatch Gillard immediately.

If they don't they will sink with her and LABOR may never recover.
Posted by David G, Friday, 14 June 2013 10:07:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Praxidice
Would you consistently use the term liar every time you mention John Howard's name? He has a far more dishonest track record than Julia Gillard. But of course, he was a he-witch and a Liarberal, so perhaps that excuses him. Or do you perhaps have double standards?
Posted by Candide, Friday, 14 June 2013 10:08:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide I don't personally like the name calling as I think it takes away from the actual arguments people are putting.

I don't however think the Juliar thing is all that different to the Lying Rodent tag that was in common use for a long time by many opposed to Howard.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 14 June 2013 10:22:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candida,

Juliar's complete inability to do what she promises, or in some cases deliberately do exactly what she has guaranteed she won't makes her lying appear pathological, far worse than any other minister in living memory.

"The sun should rise tomorrow". I am not telling the sun to rise, just as I was not telling women what to think. I was predicting what intelligent people would most probably think of Juliar's falsehoods.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 June 2013 10:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry but Ms Gillard was right. Most women don't want to head down the path that America is, with reproductive rights being threatened and curtailed by the mainly male ultra conservatives.
Posted by Carz, Friday, 14 June 2013 11:11:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carz,

Most women don't want Australia to be invaded, but neither the invasion nor the banning of abortion is going to occur under the coalition as Juliar indicated.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 14 June 2013 1:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide - Would you consistently use the term liar every time you mention John Howard's name?

Most definitely, as you'd know if you'd taken the trouble to check my posts re any politician. My attitude, for what its worth, is that the word 'politics' was derived from the latin 'poli = many' & 'tic(k)s = bloodsucking parasite. I don't give a rats what colour jersey they wear, I consider them all bottom-feeding parasites until / unless they show they are different. As far as I'm concerned the RAbbott is the lowest lifeform that has ever walked planet earth & the red-headed witch a close runner-up.
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 14 June 2013 7:28:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Gillard ignores in her impassioned talk about abortion is that it is a matter governed by state governments. Whether Abbott and his deputy (Julie Bishop, who rarely if ever appears in public in a blue tie; what she wears in private is anyone's guess) get in or not, abortion laws will not necessarily change. If it's an issue she's planning to take up, she should probably sharpen her state government-wrangling skills beforehand. She hasn't had much success to date.

The abortion issue aside, I think the article has a fair point. Ms Gillard may well be an intelligent person. She may even be a good leader. If that's the case, she should consider showing us that side of her skill-set before September, rather than crying 'misogyny' whenever she is criticised and bleating about matters that are outside her sphere of control. I don't relish the thought of Tony Abbott as PM, but I think this is one of the few occasions on which the phrase 'better the devil you know' is wrong. I find it very hard to believe that a bit of new blood in Parliament could worsen the state of our federal leadership.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 14 June 2013 8:55:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the article has missed the point, which was one that no less a feminist icon than Eva Cox made and that is that we, as a nation, need good policy and we need to know that our political leaders are thinking about good policy all the time. We, as a nation, men and women, single or married, catholic or protestant or calathumpian or atheist or any other identity we choose to wear or find ourselves draped in need a government and a leader who is concerned about all of us.

For too long we have allowed ourselves to be driven hither and yon by silly, simplistic one-sided, shallow characterisations that are at odds with our basic drives. Women have been told that men are not good, that we are "patriarchs" and want to "control", "oppress", "own", keep all the fun stuff for ourselves, are violent, abusive, unable to be trusted, and so on, etc, ad infinitum.

And that worked for a while, because those terrible men paid lots of taxes that were used to pay women not to be in a relationship and the men who had so oppressed women as to force them to have babies were forced to hand over money directly.

But after all this time women are starting to recognise that having to work ain't a lot of fun and that it doesn't make up for a lack of male work boots under the table, or male farts in bed.

Gillard's desperate attempt to play to the crowd is playing to a rapidly receding set of backs. And about time too.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 15 June 2013 12:14:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of what Gillard hasn't said or done during her time in the too job...the job she won over the holy Abbott, the fact remains that Abbott is on the record as saying he is anti- abortion rights and anti-choice .

I, and many others, are not convinced that Abbott will be able to 'allow' women to continue to have a choice over whether they will be allowed to abort their pregnancy if they want to, or not .

I don't trust him, and neither do many other women...
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 15 June 2013 5:00:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, apparently approximately 75,000 abortions are performed in Austrlia annually, which includes those for medical reasons to do with maternal health and those which are essentially elective.

In other words, even if an Abbott government was to make elective abortion illegal and reduce it to zero, it would be a problem for only a small number of women. In fact, so small that they are electorally negligible.

Now, I can't see that happening, but I can see efforts made to make extensive counselling and cooling-off periods mandatory, which would not be a bad thing, because the last thing needed is such a serious decision being made on impulse. Now, if he also made it possible for fathers to choose to sever all parental rights and obligations if an accidental pregnancy was to occur, then the number would no doubt skyrocket.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 15 June 2013 5:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not convinced that any gubmunt should buy into the abortion issue, least of all because of any perceived religious reasons. The RAbbott and / or the church of rome have lost all claim to credibility through their unwillingness to clean up their own acts re pedophile priests. In any case, the cavalier attitude displayed to their supposed beliefs disqualifies that particular franchise from making moral judgment on ANYONE.
Posted by praxidice, Saturday, 15 June 2013 8:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's obvious some women have found abortion to be a genuinely traumatic experience, even when it is done in surgical surrounds. My ex-wife had a 23 week foetus that was anencephalic induced (not surgically aborted) and I am confident it was the trauma associated with that for her that was a significant factor in her later anger toward me. That was a clear-cut case, because the foetus would never have been viable and she chose to have it induced rather than to undergo surgery, but it was still traumatic for both of us, although much more so her, for obvious reasons.

It's because of that and because abortions have historically been economic decisions (see Anne Summers on her own experience, which has obviously shaped her life), it makes sense to ensure the woman/girl is properly aware of the demons she might face later as well as to offer her alternatives, such as adoption.

We don't do anybody any favours by pretending it's no different to getting a tooth filled, all we do is add a likely sense of failure to cope when the emotional response rolls in. Of course, some women sail straight through with no problems. A former girl friend claimed she'd had 3 and was almost prideful. She was determined that she had a program for her life that was not going to be changed by an unwanted pregnancy. Last I heard she's been quite successful in carrying that program out and has 2 children to her husband.

Either way, I don;t think it's a huge issue. Contraception is getting better all the time and women and men are more assiduous in using it. the birth rate is declining and will probably continue to do so.

It's a storm in a kidney dish.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 15 June 2013 9:19:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm the furthest thing possible from a feminist sympathizer, however I don't believe any male (other than husband or partner) has any right to dictate what women choose to do with their own bodies. Abortions probably aren't exactly 'good', but other than the individuals involved in particular cases, its none of anyone elses business, least of all meddling do-gooders & politicians with whatever agenda.
Posted by praxidice, Saturday, 15 June 2013 9:34:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I, and many others, are not convinced that Abbott will be able to 'allow' women to continue to have a choice over whether they will be allowed to abort their pregnancy if they want to, or not . '

I Hope you are right Susie. At least more people including those like yourself will get a say before being butchered in the womb. You just happen to be a lucky one.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 15 June 2013 11:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, don't you think there are already many help organisations for pregnant women in crisis, and an incredible amount of information for and against abortion on the Internet ?

Contraception is widely available and easy to use, so I don't think a lack of support or effective contraception is an issue. Decisions about abortion are so much more complex than that in many cases.

As for your little extra comment about men not having to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy/baby, I would suggest that if they don't want to make a baby but still want the sex, then always wear a condom.
An easy solution....right?

Runner, believe it or not, I totally agree that the abortion rate should be nil.
I believe that one day it will be, but not at the expense of women's rights.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 15 June 2013 12:55:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Until recently I was as much interested in politics as in urbanisation of Antarctica, but seeing so many "framing" attacks on our PM and her, often far from the best, response choices under the circumstances - if I was allowed to vote with both hands I'd give her 2 votes. OK, many have left this post at this moment, but for those who are still here for whatever reason - a few details just in case you might find them relevant: I was born in Brezhnev's USSR where politics was as free as lions in Taronga zoo - dangerous even to think about! Of course we had elections - they still do in North Korea, China and Cuba! In 1998 I emigrated to NZ where the PM was Jenny Shipley and the Beehive (NZ Parliament building) was female-dominant. A year or so later another female, Helen Clark was elected a PM and the government was, again, mostly female - shock! Horror! It worked just fine! (I think at least)... Guillard proposed Malaisian solution to stop the boats, Abbott bullied her to succumb to Nauru - which kind of makes Christmas Island a bit more enticing; every comment of hers is taken as a political stance which would be taken as "a critical "A" issue to the election", and her attempts to refute stupid questions are treated as vindications of journalists' freedoms - how else do you stop the idiots asking idiotic questions? Aha, I have a solution: hire KGB/Putin's helpers and those journalists will just be very quietly gone never to be found! Easy! Somebody famous and wise or wise and famous said "Every country deserves the government it has" - so tuck your heads in bro's! Gulia, my students and I are standing by you! Send Tony and others to hell and relax, meditate, do yoga (not necessarily with the Lama!) BTW, my crystal ball says your next opposition will be Eddie McGuire when he joins the coalition after his counselling, so beware! Well, at least he is better looking than Tony...
Posted by OChambers, Saturday, 15 June 2013 5:59:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseinline, "I would suggest that if they don't want to make a baby but still want the sex, then always wear a condom.
An easy solution....right?"

Wrong.

This may come as a surprise but condoms have a failure rate too and not because of any idiotic claims that men might interfere with them.

If abortion is a legal right, it should be a right shared by both biological parents. Why shouldn't the man have choice too?

The father should be advised of a pregnancy within 7 days of the mother becoming aware, whereupon he should be required to advise the woman of his preferences. This means that the woman always retains the final decision and all of her rights. It also acknowledges the right of the man to protect his own mental health, wellbeing and security as well, to say yes or no.

Where both agree on a continuation of a pregnancy the man as well as the woman have the usual responsibilities at law. Where the woman exercises her choice to continue with a pregnancy but the man doesn't, the man should not have any further responsibilities, even though the woman has in effect stolen his genetic material.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 15 June 2013 6:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barack Obama, Clinton and others are right to say that abortion should be legal, available and rare. They are right. However abortions are in high nymbers which indicates that policy and support are not right somehow. As well, the evidence is that it is not young women who have boosted abortion numbers. In fact young pregnancies dwindle with the availability of contraception and continue at that low level. It is women in their mid-twenties and later who are having the abortions. Why is not known and statistics may be 'problematic' to obtain. It is not the very small number of women who were startled by a pregnancy late in life.

It is possible that many women choose pregnancy, but are then not able to progress thorugh financial or other problems. Unfortunately that could go a long way towards explaining many of the abortions after three months or so. This is likely where women are caused by choice or circumstance to put off the children they want until later in life (and so often too late for the hopeful woman).

If so and it is very likely, it is a tragedy for the parents and Australia. It is very possible that Australia could be far better off giving young parents the support they need so they can have the children they want, rather than maintaining the very high immigration targets that have been a feature of Australia post WW2.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 15 June 2013 6:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rubbish Onthebeach , condoms have a 95% success rate if used correctly.

As far as I am concerned, if a couple choose to have sex without employing all possible contraception methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then they both need to take responsibility for it.

However, no matter how much many men want to control what women do with their own pregnant bodies, women obviously have a far higher physical investment in the pregnancy than the men.
Thus, it should be their choice whether to abort or not.

But wait, that's right, women already DO have that choice in Australia, so I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

The least people that should be able to have a say in that choice are unrelated men...
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 15 June 2013 7:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

I agree with most of what you say, but I do have one question - and it is a question, not a veiled contradiction or an attempted attack.

The question is: do unrelated women really have any more right than unrelated men to tell women what to do with their bodies?

As you point out, women currently DO have a choice in this matter. the Coalition has ruled out changing laws in that area (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/gillard-under-fire-from-opposition-over-abortion-claim/4747738), though it is worth remembering that Gillard also ruled out a carbon tax before the last election - I'd imagine promises from both side are as transient as each other.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 15 June 2013 8:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "condoms have a 95% success rate if used correctly"

B.S. The typical use of a condom delivers far less effectiveness than the hypothetical success rate based on ideal use. It is nowhere near 95%. The same could be said about disease prevention, where its use is heaps better than nothing especially for gays but not a guarantee by a long shot.

Typical use of the female contraceptive pill will result in pregnancies whereas ideal use should not.

You go on about "men want to control what women do with their own pregnant bodies", disregarding the fact that women vote too and some may not agree with you. However, women are opposed to late abortion for example. What is 'late' though? Few women might support abortion from 20 weeks on for example.

While I am on record as saying that I support abortion and I have already said that the woman affected should have the final say, there still remains obvious discrepancy and unfairness affecting men which you have not addressed. Could you address the points I raised?

Similarly you have not addressed the other policy considerations raised in my second post, Saturday, 15 June 2013 6:40:58 PM. It is not enough to dismiss a wrong because it suits you and you 'don't know what the fuss is about'.

In your final paragraph you are claiming that the child is not related to the father. Interesting spin.

Another objectionable thing you infer in your last para is that a woman's relatives should have a say. Say what?! Outside of a minor, most would be opposed to relatives being involved and rightly so. We should not be importing those traditions, no way!
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 15 June 2013 9:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko <"The question is: do unrelated women really have any more right than unrelated men to tell women what to do with their bodies?"

Yes , in a general sense they do. Only women really understand female body issues as such.
Regarding unrelated men, I really only meant other men besides the father of the foetus. Obviously, the father should have a say, but in the end it should be the mother's decision about what happens to her body.

Onthebeach, why are you targeting me to address all your 'issues' on this subject?
It is an opinion forum, not a lecture theatre.
There are many times you haven't answered my queries on this forum.

In any case, you agree that abortion is ultimately the woman's decision, so I have no issue with you on that account.
Your problem with the women 'stealing' the fathers genetic material is odd, given that I'm assuming he gave it away freely during the sexual act?

If he had worn a condom, there wouldn't have been a problem...
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 June 2013 12:02:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, it's pleasing to see you s committed to the obligations of those who may otherwise choose to try to avoid responsibility for their role in interpersonal matters.

Presumably this heralds a new approach. For example, I'm sure you'll agree that the nagging wife who refuses to heed the warning to be quiet has no cause for complaint if her husband hits her, after all, if she didn't want to be bashed, all she had to do was keep her mouth shut.

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with many other instructive situations. I applaud your keen ethical insight.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 16 June 2013 12:28:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "If he had worn a condom, there wouldn't have been a problem..."

It has already been established that contraception can fail and it is by no means a rare event.

It has also been established that women can choose to be mothers or not. That is the sole purpose of abortion.

Why shouldn't men also have the choice to be fathers or not?

The man would not be telling the woman what to do with her body. He would only be saying that he does not want to be made into a father by her decision to incubate a mass of cells. Up to her if she goes ahead and no further role for the man unless he elects to be a father when first advised of the pregnancy.

That is reasonable and fair. Exactly how could it hurt anyone? After all, the woman gets what she wants either way. You do regard the man as only the donor of semem and not the father.

She does not get automatic access to his wallet though. Is that the main problem?
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 June 2013 3:01:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll assume that Suse, intelligent woman that she is, has seen the ethical problem with her proposal vis a vis contraception and paternal responsibility.

Many men, myself included, find condoms inconvenient and messy, while they reduce the sensations of the act to such an extent that I rarely end up actually needing one, having put it on. I have been told by my female partners that they also experience a reduced sense of intimacy. Since penetrative sex is all about the sensations, it is unfair to demand that men must accept either a loss of sexual enjoyment or a non-negotiable risk of assuming a large personal obligation. On the other hand, female contraception is so unobtrusive at the moment of passion that a man has no way of knowing whether his partner is using it, or in the case of hormonal forms, whether she has been assiduous in keeping to her dose schedule. That means he is again in an unfair position and has to trust her diligence and even her honesty, which may be unwise when she is feeling passionate.

If it turns out she conceives, whether through accident or because of lack of care in using the contraception, she still has a choice, which is to abort or carry the pregnancy and once again, he is bound by her decision and even attempting to influence it may leave him subject to accusations of being abusive.

We need laws to make it possible for men to enjoy some of the same rights around reproduction that women do. The current situation is untenable ethically and is derived from an earlier time when sex was something between husband and wife in the eyes of the law and procreation was an assumed purpose or at least a reasonably satisfactory outcome that produced a shared burden and a shared joy.

In today's world, where a pregnancy may mean a man faces an 18 year commitment of financial support and may have no contact with his child at all, it is a very one-sided proposition.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 16 June 2013 11:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, you have the choice to use a 'messy' condom, or face the consequences of a possible pregnancy, abortion or 18 years of financial responsibility....your choice.

As it happens, there are many women who never tell the donor of the sperm that they have fathered a child, as well as many women who don't want the father to have any involvement in the accidental pregnancy, financial or otherwise.

Then there are the many men who will go to many lengths to not have any responsibility for their children, financial or otherwise, even if they had previously been married and had wanted the kids originally.

So there you see the many scenarios of bad men and women in the circus of life.

However, the fact remains that it is a requirement by law for both parents to contribute to their child's financial upbringing following their birth.

If that law were to change, and the father was absolved of financial responsibilities if he was annoyed at the mother, then the Government knows it would have to up the family payments and other benefits to help with the child.

So you know you have a snowballs chance in hell of that happening...
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 June 2013 11:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, The Feminine Mystique was published 50 years ago. In the ensuing period the social contract has been torn up and rewritten. The most significant change has been the empowering of women to self-determine whether they participate in a pair-bonded relationship or not. Today we are still in transition, with many women effectively now wards of the state in financial terms,but otherwise free to make their own way. Some men are too, although fewer. In years to come women will be expected to be genuinely independent except for the same safety net that men have in the dole and disability benefits. I would like to hope that women of good intent will argue the case for paternal reproductive choice, just as men did for women.

The CSA transfers just $3billion a year, mostly between couples who were in committed relationships and in some cases still are, but choose to keep finances separated, as one of my friends exemplifies. That's less than 1% of government revenue and male reproductive choice would barely affect it. I suspect that the number of men who would take advantage of such a choice might be initially high but would level off at a smaller number than the women who elect abortion for purely financial reasons. We are, after all, driven to want to reproduce.

The ethical argument demands it and there are no financial or other grounds to justify not doing the ethical thing. It is only the fact that we have few women of good intent in politics that prevents it, because a man could not be successful in carrying the public argument.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 16 June 2013 12:31:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic < " I would like to hope that women of good intent will argue the case for paternal reproductive choice, just as men did for women."

As a woman of good intent, I would be happy to go out and chant with the men, while they burn their jocks, when we all have a level playing field as far as pregnancy goes.

When men can be forced to carry a pregnancy themselves for nine months, or have to make a choice about aborting the child from their own bodies, we can have this discussion again.
Until then, I am happy with the current laws.

And no, I don't want to discuss the CSA......ever again.....!
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 June 2013 1:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, you're determined to try to take an "us against them" position, which is not indicative of good intent, but that's OK, I expect that on this topic.

Why are you so determined that men should have no right to choose whether they wish to be a parent in the event of an unexpected and unplanned-for pregnancy? I am not suggesting that a man's right to choose should impact on the woman's right to do so, in fact it should be subordinate and only able to be exercised if she has already chosen to proceed with the pregnancy. She would still not be constrained from changing her mind and aborting at that point, so her rights are not impacted in any way.

It seems to me that you find the idea threatening in some visceral way, which is a common response among women I've observed and is why I suggested that a man could not carry the argument, he would just be abused. Could you try to explain it for me? Why do you feel so strongly that it is right and proper for a woman to have the right to choose to carry a pregnancy, but a man should have no choice at all? I don't want an ethical argument, I think the situation is pretty clear cut, I'd really like to understand why women obviously feel so strongly. It seems almost a hardwired response.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 16 June 2013 2:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article, just wondering why the restaurant incident wasn't mentioned? Regardless it is absolutely repulsive what the PM and the shock jock said. A kinder class is better behaved then the majority of our politicians and media circus on both extremes. At least the circus performance is for free in the capital, though it is at the expense of the tax dollar.

On a separate note, not all Labor members are into the A word garbage including myself. You can join members of Labor for Life to give the unborn a democratic right to life. To find out more about Labor for Life email laborfor@live.com.au or facebook https://www.facebook.com/LaborforLife.
Posted by Joanofarc72, Sunday, 16 June 2013 7:29:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joanofarc72

'You can join members of Labor for Life to give the unborn a democratic right to life. '

thanks for that. Its good to see their are some on the Labour side whose hearts aren't calloused in regard to stealing life from the unborn.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 16 June 2013 7:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And no, I don't want to discuss the CSA..

Yeah I'd noticed. Wish there was some way you could experience the pain of a that system they way many have. Perhaps then you might be a little more interested.

It's a brutal system administered by people who don't seem to care how much harm they do or how unjust it can be.

I can never experience pregnancy, something denied to me by nature but something a lot of women seem to consider to be one of the highlights of their lives even with it's discomforts and pain. I respect a woman's right to chose if the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are more than she is willing to bear. Why is it so hard to accept that men to have lives, dreams and that the cost of an unplanned pregnancy might well be to high for them as well.

Why do you consider the freedom and control over their own lives of women to be untouchable and that of men not worth any concern.

Why for that matter do so many other women who claim to have an interest in equality consistently fail to defend the rights of men to choice?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 16 June 2013 8:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic "Why do you feel so strongly that it is right and proper for a woman to have the right to choose to carry a pregnancy, but a man should have no choice at all?"

Sigh...I think I have explained my position on this subject hundreds of times before on this forum Antiseptic, but seen as you asked so nicely...

The answer is because the woman IS the one required to physically carry the pregnancy, so it is her body, her choice.

I assume you are coming at this question from many men's point of view though, in that why should they pay for the upkeep of a baby that was unplanned and unwanted by them?

That's easy...because that's what the male politicians in the Government many years ago decided should happen. I imagine that came about because of the many kids and single mothers who required Government help, and their reluctance to cover the costs, when Dads were out there happily going on with their lives, having had their sexual fun and moved on.

I also imagine you are asking why the fathers can't insist the women do have abortions if the fathers don't want the baby? Well, that DID happen quite a bit back in the good old days, and it wasn't too good for the mothers health to force her to abort against her will.

If I was wrong, can you rephrase your question to ask what you actually meant?
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 June 2013 8:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "As it happens, there are many women who never tell the donor of the sperm that they have fathered a child, as well as many women who don't want the father to have any involvement in the accidental pregnancy, financial or otherwise."

What about any rights of the child to know and have contact with her father and to know the medical history of her biological parents?
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 June 2013 10:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing much has changed since men went into state-terrorism overdrive to prevent women from obtaining the vote – a prospect widely viewed as an abomination and major threat to the natural order, i.e. the right of all men to enjoy a free combination housekeeper, nanny and bed-warmer for life.

At least 100 years later, we are still portraying ‘the women’s vote’ as some mystical angry-goddess thing that could get completely out of control and reap a Kali-like destruction on all men, destroy their vital organs and kill their potency. Fairly typical retribution fantasy for men (and women) stuck in a mental rut that equates all women with sex, reproduction and naughty bits. No wonder abortion remains their No. 1 gynaphobic fantasy of choice.

It must be tough for male politicians and their hollow men to have to chase the women’s vote, while at the same time being scared witless that it might one day shrivel their balls off.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 16 June 2013 10:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joanofarc72,

Hi and welcome.

In an earlier post I was wondering what effect the economy and some other factors were having in forcing women into the choice of abortion, especially those in the 25-35 age group where there is a spike in the number of abortions. It isn't the 'foolish, adventurous' young who are responsible for the much higher than forecast abortion numbers.

To take an example, where temporary and casual employment has largely replaced permanent full- and part-time employment, women and men may not be able to plan children for their best childbearing and child-raising years. It is known from government reports that young couples are forced by financial reality to defer the children they want and may not have the children they desire. But such things as abrupt, unecpected changes in employment fortune can make abortion the unfavoured byt forced outcome.

It appears that the federal government would much rather take the apparently easy way out by continually setting new reords for immigration than examining why what Australian couples are not having children and why abortion numbers are so high, especially for certain age groups. It is likely that poor government policy and lack of planning could be contributing to the number of abortions.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 June 2013 10:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert "Why is it so hard to accept that men to have lives, dreams and that the cost of an unplanned pregnancy might well be to high for them as well."

I have never said I don't accept that RObert.
Please don't put words into my mouth.
I have plenty of male relatives who I support in many ways.

What I want to ask you is, who do you think would be worse off?
The accidentally pregnant woman who has no money, but wants to keep the baby because she feels it is part of herself, or the father who has no money, and would prefer that she had an abortion?

I support choice, and so does the Government.
Any other system would involve women either being forced to abort a baby she wants, or else being forced to go through pregnancy and labour with a baby she doesn't want.

Sounds like a much worse scenario for the mother, whichever way you look at it.

Onthebeach, I never said it was good to deny a father the right to know the existence of a baby, I was merely trying to point out that not all women are out to 'get' the father of their baby financially.
Of course all kids should know both their parents if possible.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 17 June 2013 12:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The accidentally pregnant woman who has no money, but wants to keep the baby because she feels it is part of herself, or the father who has no money, and would prefer that she had an abortion??

Those words betray once again the strange and confused status of the foetus: a mass of cells versus a 'baby', and the unlimited power of the woman. From conception to full term delivery the status of the foetus relies on the woman, who can change its status at will and even back and forth. For instance, birth can even be induced when the foetus is a viable baby, but destroyed as a mass of cells, perhaps by destruction of its brain. Unwanted by the woman it is mush to be destroyed at will. That applies right up to the very point of full term delivery. Presumably the skull could be crushed by an abortionist as the baby crowns and no human has been interfered with, just 'cells'.

However the man must also be accorded the same right to regard it as a mass of cells unless he feels it is part of himself (men do experience such feelings) and declares his choice to be a father if the woman chooses to go continue with the pregnancy.

Just as the woman can disregard the 'mass of cells' at will and to suit her convenience and lifestyle choices, so too should the man be accorded the same right. Otherwise unfair discrimination exists.

The woman's right to do whatever with her body and the 'mass of cells' is not reduced at all by allowing the man his rights too. She always has the final decision anyway.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 17 June 2013 2:26:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that Juliar's raising of the gender issue has lead to a collapse in her support, and has further boosted Abbott as preferred PM.

The collapse has been entirely from male voters who saw the attack on "men in blue ties" as purely opportunistic politicking.

The chance of Gillard being replace with KRudd (who was wearing a blue tie) has dramatically increased.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 17 June 2013 5:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, I've read all you've submitted here and I think I'm getting a handle on your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

1. You are rightly insistent that a woman must have no compulsion in her choice to carry or abort an unplanned conception

2. You are of the view that gestating a foetus is a great personal burden for a woman, so great that there is no comparable burden contemplable in the obligate role of fathers.

3. You are fearful that allowing men a choice to rescind their paternal rights and obligations means a loss of autonomy for the mother vis a vis point 1

4. You are of the view that a man's responsibility to pay for a share of the costs of raising a child conceived accidentally is absolute, while a woman's responsibility to carry a pregnancy is optional

5. You're happy with the law as it stands, so you defer to it and would like the discussion to just go away.

I hope I have that right.

On point 1, I agree.

On point 2, I disagree. A father who impregnates a woman during a casual liaison, or even in a defacto (uncommitted) relationship has a huge financial and potentially emotional burden to face over 18 years, at least. That burden is so great that it causes him, in many cases, to be unable to pursue life ambitions, or even to be able to commit to a relationship with another woman with whom he actually WANTS to have children. In some cases, an indeterminate number because our Government refuses to release data on it, men take their lives because of that burden and its effect on their ability to participate meaningfully in our society. In others, men lose the will to work and once they become unemployed, they remain that way. Some 80% of all unemployed men 20-49 in Australia are fathers who are clients of the CSA.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:22:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst feminists have sought to inflame this red-headed witch thing into a female vs male World War 3 event, I wonder what would happen if the players were a female with some fleeting semblance of charisma like Julie Bishop & a very average male opponent like Shorten ?? I'm not at all convinced that Australian male voters in general abhor female politicians purely because they are female .. JuLIAR is a special case because she is not only more full of **it than most of her bottom-feeding ilk but she has intentionally attempted to gain herself power by way of her sexist attacks on men. The latter alone has lost her what little male support she ever had but also ensured moderate females will continue to regard her with the contempt she so rightly deserves.
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:27:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister - The chance of Gillard being replace with KRudd (who was wearing a blue tie) has dramatically increased.

The witch won't go easily, it wants the higher retirement perks
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:29:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great summing it up in a nut-shell comment by Killarney.

Because, to me at least there is no difference between right-wing so called conservative "catholicism" and fascism I did another browse on the topic opus dei and catholic fascism and I came up with this excellent truth-telling website:
http://www.catholicarrogance.org

A site which thoroughly deconstructs all of the dogmas and lies of the "catholic" church. And its horrific blood-soaked applied politics.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:26:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sry for the delay, I hit the post limit.

On point 3, I think you misunderstand the proposition. The woman always retains her option to choose abortion, with no change to the current situation. All that changes is that if she chooses to carry the pregnancy, then the putative father has the option to choose to revoke all claims to paternity, within a reasonable period consistent with the mother's ability to retain an option to abort. Let's say 2 weeks from the date he learns of the conception, unless the mother doesn't inform him before the pregancy becomes too advanced to terminate, in which case he might be given longer to adjust to the situation. In any case, within a sensible timeframe consistent with the one that the mother has imposed biologically. If he does so, the mother still has the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy. There is no compulsion on her to do or not do anything at all.

4. I hope I haven't misrepresented you in this. If I haven't, would you be able to explain your ethical/moral reasoning?

5. Sorry, it's not going away. I believe it is a serious imbalance in gender rights that has been avoided for too long. The Pill has existed for over 40 years and it has given women the capacity to both control and conceal fertility. That means a woman has the ability, if she chooses, to deceive a man into unprotected sex (which he has an incentive to believe because of the disadvantages in condom use) in the knowledge that he will be committed to the financial support of any offspring, while he has no certitude that she will even permit him to participate in parenting.

If you were buying a home, would you accept that having paid a deposit you were committed to the mortgage, even if you chose not to proceed with the purchase and someone else got to live in the house at your expense?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article reflects the feelings a lot of women have about the state of politics at the moment. It has been reduced to the lowest common denominator and it would be hard to see how the state of play could get any worse. Given the LNP has no plans to change the abortion laws in this country the speech came across as desperate.

I don't know why the PM does this, she has a lot to offer and would be better reinforcing the positive than the negative. Following in the footsteps of the LNP is a mistake. It is not a good look and people are realising that the Coalition is failing on any real policy detail other than to just throw mud at the ALP. Labor should not step into this murky pool. Develop good policies - that is all people ask of their governments. The rest is the stuff of media gossip and flim flam.

The gender card being used in this divisive way is too contrived and the spin doctors surely must be out the door on this one. The PM should stop contriving and just start being herself, speaking from the heart unconcerned about producing media-ready sound bites. Come on JG, let's hear some unifying messages.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes it's time for the real real Julia pelican;-)

I liked her more when she was herself, before the puppet masters got a hold on her. She used to show up Rudd when he was overseas, with plain talking, and a less robotic performance than the Rudd-bot. But then when she became leader she...

a) Became a monotone slow talking School Headmistress.
b) Stated after a month or two that she was faking that, and was going to now be the real Julia.
c) Continued to be a monotone slow talking headmistress, and added in an obsession with divisive instruments in class and now gender.

To me it comes across as a weakness, that I imagine she must be nodding her head and taking advice from f'ckwits. Perhaps her hands were tied by some obligation to the Queen makers, but I cant imagine Keating giving a sh't what they think.

She's played into Tony's hands and bitten every bit of bait form the Right wing propagandists, when she should have ignored them as Howard did the Howard-Haters. She would have had so much more respect from me if she had refused to even acknowledge the simple slogans of Abbott, but this blaming everything on Tony, and playing the Gender card, well, she really is showing she has no actual vision for the country. Not that Tony has either, but he's not supposed to be governming the country.

To me the ALP never really, in 6 years, got out of opposition mode. Good governments don't care what the opposition says, they get on with it. They don't yell Tony said this, Radio Shock Jock said that, it's all so unfair!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 17 June 2013 12:47:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW:

'The overwhelming preference for male babies across many cultures, all of which are represented in Australian society, means that the tolerance of sex-selection abortion could send us back centuries regarding the recognition of the value of women in this country. '

In Tanveer's article there was a link to the US culture, which is closer to ours than say, Afghanistan, and the overwhelming majority of sex-selections are for female babies.

'A newer method for sperm selection, called MicroSort, is currently completing Food and Drug Administration clinical trials. The girl requests for that method run at about 75 percent.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 17 June 2013 1:01:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley

The Real Julia was a fiasco. What gets me is that the PM takes on board so easily the hype dished out by their media advisers. Maybe they get so involved in the moment and become so out of touch from reality they forget about plain old commonsense. The Real Julia was a prime example of the disconnect with reality.

What is happening is the spin doctors are pushing the line that they have been taught. Regardless of what Joe public says about being fed up with the nonsense, they are in their still spouting their ideology based on PR, marketing and psychology, hence the mundane repetition.

I was listening to Senator Hansen-Young the other day and blow me down if she wasn't talking in sound bites, each sentence carefully scripted with repetition. Tony Abbott does the same, it is like politicians are afraid to talk frankly and dare I say - normally. One might blame the media but the solution is to keep speaking like a normal human being. The media seem to respond positively to honesty as well (if we ignore The Australian or the Bolt Report for a moment).
Posted by pelican, Monday, 17 June 2013 1:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you seen that UK series 'The thick of it' pelican. It classically takes off these media advisers.

This guy is classic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmE9Bc3F9Ss

And this is what Juliar needs to do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vnx4QDXj7I
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 17 June 2013 1:36:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What I want to ask you is, who do you think would be worse off?
The accidentally pregnant woman who has no money, but wants to keep the baby because she feels it is part of herself, or the father who has no money, and would prefer that she had an abortion?"

There are sp many other scenarios in that mix. Why stop at just the one that suits you.

The accidentally pregant woman who chooses to abort the fetus or the man who embaced the idea of being a father when he found out the woman was pregant and has no say in the abortion.

The accidentally pregnant woman who keeps the child and has access to money without working or the man on a good income but who was left with few assets in the divorce and is trying to rbuild his life (or start again with a new partner).

The woman who gets to decide if a male is just a sperm donor or he also becomes a long term major financial contributor to the womans choices or the man who finds himself required to pay far more than he can afford to maintain the mother and child whilst being excluded from a meaningful role in the childs life.

The list could go on and one. The simple reality is that the existing system and the one you support relies on double standards that treats men and women very diffrently well beyond the biological necessities and or the practical issues around early childhood.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 17 June 2013 7:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ha Ha Houlley.

Lets toss the red ball around for a bit. Could be a new technique for Cabinet.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 17 June 2013 9:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, "The simple reality is that the existing system and the one you support relies on double standards that treats men and women very differntly well beyond the biological necessities and or the practical issues around early childhood."

Well said.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 17 June 2013 9:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Antiseptic, I too hit the post limit on this topic.

Regarding your 'point 2 ' above, I have already said before that if a man doesn't want to have children, but still wants sex, then he should be very sure of the contraception, or not have sex.
If there is an 'accident', then he accepted that risk when he had sex, so if the pregnancy goes ahead, he shares in the upkeep of baby.

Point 3, same answer as point 2

Point 4, no, I believe both parents should provide equally for the baby. Obviously the Government believes this too, but there are so many different family scenarios that you can't or shouldn't have a one size fits all. I don't believe you can compare a womans decision to abort or carry on with a pregnancy, with that of the man's decision about whether he can or should pay for the upkeep of his child.
The pill has allowed 40 years of sexual 'freedom' for women, after thousands of years of the same for men.

Point 5...I don't know enough about the CSA to comment fully, but from what few people I knew who were in the system, both parents had wanted the kids, but the fathers were so angry that the wives left them, they were 'punishing' them by becoming unemployed so they didn't have to pay much maintenance.

This thread is about abortion...and therefore unwanted babies...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 1:33:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, I don't know, nor need to know, enough about 'the system' to argue with you about the financial side of bringing up babies of separated parents.

I have said how I feel in my answer to Antiseptics post above.

Are you suggesting there are lots of men who are forced to pay for the upkeep of babies they didn't want?

Even if they were deceived into thinking their sexual partner was on ironclad contraception, with a resulting pregnancy, how on earth could the men prove this to a court?

Wouldn't all separated fathers who didn't want to give money for their kids then say they didn't want them in the first place?

I would suggest that all men who really didn't want a baby, but want the fun of sex, look after their own contraception...just to be sure.
If they don't, then they are agreeing to pay for the consequences.

If their partner decides she wants to abort the baby, then what other choice does the father have? He can't 'force' her to go through with the pregnancy.

Julia Gillard is silly to bring up the abortion topic now, because it makes her look desperate, but I don't trust Abbott as far as I can kick him...so I won't be voting for either party.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 1:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I have already said before that if a (wo)man doesn't want to have children, but still wants sex, then (s)he should be very sure of the contraception, or not have sex."

Think I've heard that somewhere before, wonder where?

"I don't know, nor need to know, enough about 'the system' to argue with you about the financial side of bringing up babies of separated parents." perhaps then you should spend some time listening rather than arguing and ignoring the issues men have raised on this site and elsewhere for a long time. Its a brutal destructive system that in my view by its unreasonableness makes it far harder for seperated parents to work together.

My own passion is not particularly on the didn't want the child issue, rather on getting a saner child support system overall. Its the sexist double standards that get to me on this issue whe a womans right to choose at various points is regarded as untouchable and men are deemed to have no rights.

I tend to not like abortion at all but also believe in personal autonomy enough to support both parents rights to choose at the appropriate time.

In my own case whilst I would have liked more children thats not the way my life panned out. When I reached the point where I started to think about the age I'd be when any further children were in their teens I got the snip.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 5:28:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, I see that you are less complex than I realised. Your position is very simple: you support bonded male servitude or slavery for a period of around 18 years, solely at the discretion of a woman, based on some weird idea that if a woman makes her vagina available for sex that the man must rescind all right to personal determination to her. Do you really think your vagina is that special?

What a nasty way to think.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 7:12:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, suse, just to pick up on your rather silly little resntful comment above:" contraception has allowed 40 years of sexual freedom for women after thousands of years of the same for men", men were responsible for creating social structures that bound them to women. They CHOSE to be bound when they didn't have to, because of that eusocial drive to protect. It wasn't because they were simply wanting a vagina to call their own, but because procreation is an uncontrollable outcome of sex without contaception and tjhat means the children have to be cared for.

Now that women have an ability to control their own fertility, including after conception, in the form of abortion, the situation has changed.

In domestic violence law a great deal of emphasis is placed on the idea of "control" as a motivation for abusive behaviour. If a man argues against a woman choosing to go out with girlfriends or shopping or getting her hair done or gets upset because he has come home to a sink full of dishes when she's been home all day, he is being violent, definitionally.

But you want to control a man's right to have any choice at all in being a parent after he has recreational sex for the mutual pleasure, leaving his fate for the next 18 years entirely in the hand of the woman.

Over the time I've been posting here I've never seen such a blatantly oppressive point of view put forward by anyone, male or female. You're a violent abuser, Suse.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 7:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I would suggest that all men who really didn't want a baby, but want the fun of sex, look after their own contraception...just to be sure.
If they don't, then they are agreeing to pay for the consequences.'

Nice trolling.

Why don't you have the same attitude to women and abortion? Why aren't you saying to women if they have sex and don't want a baby, they should look after their own contraception? Why aren't they agreeing to pay for the consequences? Why should they be allowed a way out and a man not?

Suze I think it's hard for these guys to comprehend that your position is...

Contraception fails:

Women should have reproductive rights
Men shouldn't have any

In the end your general tone makes me a bit sad for you. I think it exposes the fact that you don't really like sex, and rather resent men 'getting' sex from women in general. Your attitude is that women get nothing out of sex, so why should they have to suffer when contraception fails. Sex is for men, and women don't get as much out of it. You need to find a better lover me thinks.

'Wouldn't all separated fathers who didn't want to give money for their kids then say they didn't want them in the first place?'

As has been discussed, men would have a similar window after finding out about the baby to reject the responsibility of the baby. There is much social and financial support for single mothers, if the woman really still wants to have the baby and bring it up her own she can, if she thinks it will affect her lifestyle too much (which is somehow invalid in your mind if the guy decides the same), then she can abort. I don't see the problem.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 9:40:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh alright then boys, I'm a nasty, sex hating, man hating feminist !
I'll bet all that ranting and raving made all you guys feel smug and superior hey?

I give up.

I think I have said all I want to say, and yet it is still not right, or enough for you guys.
I guess I just have to continue to be happy communicating well with my husband, brothers, father and nephew.

But then again, none of them have been as badly hurt by women as you all have been,
and I really am sorry for how you seem to feel about women.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 10:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie, why not deal with the isssue rather than the rant?

You support a position which can only be defended on the basis of sexist double standards and continue to avoid addressing that issue.

You may well get on well with the men in your life or possibly they have learned how to avoid your ire, neither makes the sexist position you support on this site any more credible.

The double standards you support may currently be the law, that does not take away our rights to argue against them.

Simple request, tell us why the contraception test is not sufficient for women (other than cases of rape or serious physical risk) yet it is for men.

You've not attempted to do that in any way that actually addresses the issues yet. One simple contrived case and an appeal to a subjective hardship test does not cut it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 5:07:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry RObert, but I don't know what you mean by 'contraception test'?
I really do hope that an effective male contraception medication could be found, and then they could avoid unwanted pregnancies, and thus less abortions.

The only problem with that is that many women may not trust their men to take the medication properly, just as some women don't always follow the instructions correctly.

In any case RObert, I'm sick of the personal attacks on me re this subject eg "You may well get on well with the men in your life or possibly they have learned how to avoid your ire..." . It happens a lot on this site, which seems to have far more male posters.

I'm a bit disappointed in you particularly, as I always found you the more moderate of the men on this site who are very obviously full of 'ire'.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 9:25:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To 'Antiseptic'. My name's Christina. I'm keen to chat to you about an issue you raised late last year regarding public housing. I haven't used this site before - is there a way I can private message you to give more detail? Kind regards.
Posted by Loislame, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 11:44:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Cristina,
Feel free to ask Graham Young to pass on your details and your interest and I'd be glad to take a look at it.

What was the thread? Perhaps you could start a new thread, or add a post to the one you're interested in?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 1:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think one has to be hurt by women to be flabbergasted at someone who refuses to consider, without any real reason, a logical appeal to fairness.

We are all just astounded that you see no problem with women having reproductive choice when contraception fails and men not having the same opportunities, even when it has no effect on the woman's choice.

We have suggested a mechanism that would have no significant bearing on a woman's ability to choose, but added in the right for a man to also choose whether or not to be a parent.

Couple have protected sex.
Woman still gets pregnant.

At this time the woman has the choice to abort or not.
All that is suggested that at the same juncture, the man can also metaphorically abort, abort all responsibility for the child, baring in mind the state supports the woman in her decision 100%, and if money is the deciding factor, why is the woman's right to have an abortion on economic grounds valid but the man's right to not.

But you reject the idea that the state should also support the man's decision to abort.

The man and woman each get an identical timespan to make a decision on their future, and the woman still has total control over what happens to her body and child.

All we really want to understand is based on what do you reject this appeal to equality.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 2:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In any case RObert, I'm sick of the personal attacks on me re this subject eg "You may well get on well with the men in your life or possibly they have learned how to avoid your ire..."

Susie, its you who often refers to the men in your life as though that somehow removes any possibility that you have some fairly deeply ingrained prejudices against men. We know nothing about how those relationships actually work but if the dismissive attitudes you show towards mens well being on this site are a reflection of your actual values then that defence seems somewhat constructed and or blinkered.

You often express some very sexist attitudes on this site, you have been called to explain one in particular in the basis of fairness.

Rather than retreating to an appeal to your relationships with the men in your life how about trying to construct a logical defense of what you espouse.

The contraception test is a reference to your support for the idea that if a man does not want the responsibilities of a baby he needs to ensure that the contraception is in use and working while seemingly exempting women from the same accountability by your support for abortion on grounds other than life threatening situations.

I can respect positions on either side of that argument but not the double standard that says only men should be forced to live with the consequences of the same mistake.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 5:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Missed a point which added to my willingness to make the comment Susie objected to "But then again, none of them have been as badly hurt by women as you all have been, and I really am sorry for how you seem to feel about women."

Perhaps a little less willingness to dish it out might help if you don't like receiving it.

Some of us have been hurt fairly badly by specific women and or by organised feminism. That does not necessarily translate into a general bad feeling about women. It does in my case taslate into very little tollerence for those who demand special treatment based on gender.

I suspect that for others this is just a stance against double standards and unfairness - the same reason I generally try to stand against homophobes and others who advocate policies that hurt innocents for the sake of their own prejudices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 5:21:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq
"At this time the woman has the choice to abort or not.
All that is suggested that at the same juncture, the man can also metaphorically abort, abort all responsibility for the child, baring in mind the state supports the woman in her decision 100%, and if money is the deciding factor, why is the woman's right to have an abortion on economic grounds valid but the man's right to not."

Yes, you have asked that question in a better way than most, by saying that men should be able to 'metaphorically abort ...all responsibility for the child", a child he doesn't want, or want to pay maintenance for?
(As long as no man is suggesting he should be able to force his partner to abort his unwanted child, as others have suggested.)

I can see the reasoning behind that, but is there much call for that kind of problem/situation?

In my experience, even if a man doesn't want the child while the woman is pregnant, or even when the baby is very young, they often change their minds later.

Would you like the laws to change so that biological fathers can say they want no part of their child's life, financial or otherwise, and are thus cut out of their offspring's life until they are at least 18, even if they might change their minds later?

Or would you want the law to say it's ok not to provide financially or emotionally for your child until such a time as you change your mind?

That wouldn't be fair on the child now would it?

Do you honestly think any Government is going to agree to provide more welfare payments to support single mother's children because they enacted laws to absolve the fathers of any responsibility, simply because the fathers say they don't want to provide for their child because the contraception failed?

Not a snowballs chance in hell of the Government agreeing to that!
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, the only men I have 'dismissive attitudes against' are men who speak out against all women and feminism as if they are all tarred with the same brush.

I usually don't consider you as one of them, but I realise there are others on this site who fire each other up on these issues such as abortion.

At least I am one of the few female posters left on this site still willing to ( foolish to?) argue against such ingrained opinions.

Who on earth would you all have to vent to, if all the continually dwindling numbers of female posters decided to ignore them?
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 10:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, You're full of it.

I gave you my specoifc reasoning and you came back with your view that men "should make sure they're wearing a condom". As it happens I agree, because it's clear that far too many women think like your do, which is that if you're lucky enough to get one in the oven, whatever you do don't let the one who put it there get away without paying for it if you decide you want to keep it. Sop let's get down to brass tacks, Suse: what's a night of sex with you worth? What's your price? After the sex act has taken place you make all the decsions, so there's obviously no further role for the man. How much will it cost him for you to let him get away from your control if that's what he wants??
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 20 June 2013 5:35:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie the proposition thats been put is the right to do a virtual abort of the fetus. Some mey change their mind, I suspect some women have a change of mind after abortions as well.

Nothing in this issue is without its pains and conflicts.

I've not noticed anyone seriously calling for men to be able to force an abortion. That proposition seems to be one of the standard ploys to misdirect thenargument. The realities of being financially responsible for a choice rather than being able to pass that (and then some) onto someone else may place some women under more pressure to abort, welcome to the adult world.

Let me highlight yet again criticism of the views of some women, believing that women should face the same legal rights and limitations as men, critisism of what appear to be widely help feminist views do not equate to criticism of all women or bad views of all women.

On the other hand a general willingness to treat one gender differently under law does suggest a dislike or patronising attitude to one or both of those genders.

I do try pretty hard to ensure my views have balance. I am also extremly tired of feminists who use feminism as a guise for special treatment whee none is credibly required.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 June 2013 5:42:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, I wanted my baby, and so did my husband, and here we are both still together 25 years later...

"Do you honestly think any Government is going to agree to provide more welfare payments to support single mother's children because they enacted laws to absolve the fathers of any responsibility, simply because the fathers say they don't want to provide for their child because the contraception failed? "

RObert, disregard for the moment what you think the feminist conspiracy has foisted upon the poor male population, and answer the above question?
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 20 June 2013 9:06:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe I'm not reading the other posters comments enough Suze but I don't see anywhere they suggested making a woman abort. It is an exercise in logic, ethics and equality. I don't think you can refute the logic, and it's always interesting the reaction by feminists who state they are all about equality, but only it seems for women.

"Do you honestly think any Government is going to agree to provide more welfare payments to support single mother's children"

Well, years ago many people would never have believed a government would support single mothers, or abortion. Women (and men) fought for these things, and it's a bit much for feminists to be lamenting a lcak of 'reproductive rights' (ie abortion rights) for women but so against men aborting their financial responsibility. Seems it's ok for a woman to kill the unborn baby, but not for men to let it live but have nothing to do with it.

Anyway, the government is absolving women from all responsibility when it allows abortion. Women aren't providing for their aborted children.
The government might end up better off because there are more abortions.

'In my experience, even if a man doesn't want the child while the woman is pregnant, or even when the baby is very young, they often change their minds later.'

Too bad. Women cant undo abortions, so men shouldn't be able to either. Unlike feminists I agree with equality.

I'm also not keen on this idea of the rights of children to see their parents, even at 18. I cant believe they retrospectively changed the law on all those sperm donors. Some guy does a nice thing to help other parents have children, then he is confronted by some child he never knew about out of the blue? What a joke.

The thing is suze, nobody actually knows for sure who the real father is of any baby. The father is who the mother says it is. Aborting fathers should not even be on the birth certificate.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 20 June 2013 9:59:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie, perhaps you should answer the valid questions that have been put to you rather than all the diversions.

I think there is a difference between the matter of principle and the issue if actually getting governments to act fairly. So it does not matter how likely I think governments are to enact a fair law in the near future, I can still fight against mindsets which promote different treatment in law.

I doubt that any of the major parties will enact laws in the near future which give seperated and or divorced dads fair treatment. The left because they are tied to feminist ideology, the right because it costs and by hitting the dad hard they can balane some of the other pressures in the too hard basket. I don't intend staying silent on the issue until there is a change of view by either side.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 June 2013 12:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm pleased you wanted your baby, Sue. It seems you had a shotgun wedding though.

Would you have kept it if he'd not wanted it, knowing he had no choices?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 20 June 2013 4:26:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If two lesbians can have a father's name expunged from a birth certificate and one of the lesbians entered instead, why shouldn't a man have the legal right to refuse being made into a father by a woman who wants a child herself but also wants a wallet for financial support?

Feminists see the man as only incidental, a provider of sperm, with no rights whatsoever, not even the right to know if the child bears his genes. Unfortunately some women have inherited long traditions of preveiving men this way.

Is it any wonder that parental alienation is rife, extends to all of the man's relatives, where grandparents can and are excluded from contact by the mother despite the father being gladly accepting responsibility, including financial accountability, for their care.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 June 2013 8:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My 'preveiving', should be 'perceiving'.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 June 2013 8:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, I asked you a simple question. Any chance of a simple answer?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 21 June 2013 4:02:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse, I'll take your unwillingness to respond as a "yes, I'd have kept an unplanned baby even if my then-boyfriend had said he didn't want to be a father, in the knowledge that my decision would mean he was going to be committed to support the child for the next 18 years and he had no choice to refuse".

So let's look at the other side of the coin. What if he had wanted the baby and you didn't? Would you have kept it?

What if he had been able to opt out and you wanted to keep it, would you have kept it without his child support money?

Feel free to answer any time.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 22 June 2013 3:13:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy