While one can and does agree and empathize with your position Wendy!

Nowhere is it written that you or any member of the "Christian Lobby." Has any right to decide what another human being will do with her body! Including being forced to incubate a child not wanted/expected nor perhaps afforded!

A Daughter, a single mum could have opted for the easy way out, but instead and due to a strong material instinct not only went full term but gives as much love and care to those kids as possible, or like my own sainted mother, regularly goes without food and other essentials so her babies want for little, even in the face of huge economic disadvantage!

Nowhere do I see the "Christian Lobby" at work here helping her pay exorbitant rent nor an even more exorbitant power bill.

The father of her first child committed suicide, when he seemed to have the world and success at his fingertips, the father of her second and the stand in dad her first daughter craved! Used her most cruelly, then deserted like the nassistic arsehole he really is, but only after the aspiring doctor/anaesthetist, had conned his way into their now hopeless lives!

And all while the do gooders patrol the clinics, where underage mums, rape and incest victims, and those with incompatible tissue types, get their enormously sad lives handed back to them!

And all treated exactly the same by the abysmally ignorant, banner waving control freak crowd, merely pretending to be genuine "Christians?"

At the end of the day we all of us face final judgement, including the same folk who know with the same absolute certainty, that homosexuals choose their life style and sexual orientation!?

To them, well might we say, it must be such a comfort to know you're always right! Even so, get a life, one of your own!
Alan B.

How does the most civilised society in history, carry the the statistic of the highest rate of infanticide in history as a normalit?

People wince when confronted with infanticide by bucket of water, during the one child policy in China. Double standards abound.

Infanticide is infanticide, what matter the degree of sophistication, when considering the method.

It is a state of the inconceivable, with a waiting list for adoptions forcing couples overseas and into nebulous, and at times dangerous situations, to achieve a successful adoption, that abortions are not factored in to the adoptions “mix”, by law.

Diver if an underage, incest or rape, date rape produced pregnancy, if carried full term , cost a kid her degree, her promising career and dramatically superior pay packet? Why should any of the above be forced to go full term just so some orphanage can get their hands on a few more adoptable children.

You and your comment tells us you completely lack normal human empathy for the mothers?

It'd be a very different story if these orphanages emptied as quickly as they filled! And what about mums and bubs with incompatible tissue types that would likely kill both of them if the pregnancy went full term? No get out of jail free card, there either?

Simply put, it's just not as black and white as you make out to be! And sometimes the product of alleged consent, but only with a condom, and where the condom is knowingly not used?

Surely those who make women pregnant have to take some responsibility for whole of life outcomes, instead of simply whining, she didn't want my baby? Wouldn't let me near my baby? And perhaps with good reason?

It's surely hard to be completely objective and fair, with so much skin in the game?

Or are you just another, hiding behind a bible, deadbeat dad, trying to blame all else for your own very obvious, shortcomings?
Alan B.

Alan B

Our civilisation, State sanctions the "murder" of babies.

Does that NOT ring an alarm bell with the CEO, in the head office of your Chinese cracker factory?

So extrapolate that out. What other unwanted group of the unwanted and unclean, should we murder? The homeless maybe?

I'm a bloke, and I know that. It's amazing that a woman doesn't; but then, all the ignorant blah we get from media hacks is amazing (as in totally out of whack). The best way to educate yourself is to stop reading newspapers, including The Australian, which has lately overlooked the fact that it is supposed to be conservative.

I'm not sure of the numbers involved in the authors “most women” (abortion decision), but it seems to me that a lot of females use it because they are too stupid to take preventative measures. Those who do this are not only stupid, they are totally amoral; and, perhaps, it is just as well they that don't get to have children.

I'm please to see DD using the word 'infanticide', because that's exactly what abortion is. Yes. While it is, I believe, valid to save the life of a woman – in very few instances – abortion is now a matter of convenience for females not wanting their unnatural competition with males to be hindered by children.

before I respond I'd like the term 'murder' defined beyond,

'Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'

'cos if the law of the land says killing, terminating,....pick any other word, under certain circumstances is permitted, then it's permitted.

Now if we are going to use 'social morality' then as morality changes from year to year so to are the permissions, so as usual it's always the minority telling the majority how to live because they know better.