Like it or not a pregnancy described in its most base form is a tumor - a space occupying lesion - with some potential to become a person.

Some people welcome this tumor but a whole lot do not - So I am not surprised at all when a bunch of people come up with new was to eradicate these types of growths.

The foundation for Tankard Reist is her unsubstantiated argument that women will not be adequately informed prior to use of Methotrexate.

Using emotive language like ‘tumour’ in place of pregnancy is an insult to the intelligence of women. It is transparent that her agenda is anti-abortion – she just lacks the honesty to admit it.

In seconds I was able to discover the facts on this treatment and the methodically of its use.

This method is not as effective as RU-486, it would not even need to be used if not for the suspicious delay in import of RU-486.

The facts are as follows:

1.In a Methotrexate Abortion, embryonic cells are stopped from dividing and multiplying and is a non-surgical method of ending pregnancy in its early stages. Within a few days or weeks of an injection of Methotrexate, the pregnancy ends through an experience similar to an early miscarriage.

2.It has been successfully used since 1982 in a single dose to treat ectopic (tubal) pregnancies (where the fertilized egg is embedded in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus).

3.When used in early pregnancy Methotrexate safely and effectively induces abortion 90-97% of the time.

4.Possible side-effects of Methotrexate include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, sores in the mouth, headache, dizziness, insomnia, and vaginal bleeding. Except for nausea, THESE SIDE EFFECTS ARE UNUSUAL FOR THE SINGLE DOSE GIVEN TO INDUCE ABORTION.

Studies show MTX abortion has a failure rate of 1-10%.

Eligibility for MTX

• Less than six weeks gestation by ultrasound
• Willing and able to give informed consent
• Have access to reliable transportation and telephone
• Live no more than two hours from emergency medical care
• Agrees to come back to the clinic for two to three follow up visits
• Agrees to have surgical abortion if the drug does not induce termination
• Agrees to avoid sexual intercourse until abortion is complete

Full info available at: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/mtxinfo.htm

No doubt this thread will degenerate into an anti-choice rant, rather than a debate over safe, effective and suitable methods for all women to control their fertility.

if it has to be a part of society, this way is the best way but it should not be an over the counter drug, it should be enacted in a supervised abortion clinic.

This should never be done lightly and in most cases i am sure it is not. why cant we transfer the unwanted future child instead to incubators and grow them for adoptive parents. everyone wins then.

The word Tumour is a perfectly accurate way of describing a pregnacy - emotion does not come into it - while many definitions of tumor refer to it as an abnormal growth of cells many just refer to a "growth" of cells - it is a perfectly good synonym - particularly if you are keen to have it purged from your body.

and the author has every right to be sceptical about the level of information women might get about the treatment - informed consent is not the strongest suit of health professionals.

In response to sneeke:
A lesion is a wound, injury or disease causing change in body tissue.
Alternately it can be any visable,local, abnormality of skin tissue.

An embryo or foetus is not a lesion.

Lesions can be caused by tumors but they are not the same thing.

A Tumor is a progressive *unregulated*, cell growth. The growth of a foetus is *highly regulated*. Hence a foetus is not a tumor either.

I don't want others to be misled by misuse of these terms.

Here is a New Zealand government health site, because people should be informed. It's a New Zealand site, but a bit closer to home than scouts American link.
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/l/Ledertrexatetab.htm

This discussion is not about whether abortions are right or wrong.
This is about whether a medical abortion is preferable to a surgical one. I'm yet to be convinced it is.

Husmusen.

Husmusen is correct.

Please do not use the word Tumor'. Parasite may be a better word.

Thanks for your informed comments Sneekeepete and your research Scout.

When will the tiny moral minority stop trying to force their beliefs and lifestyles on the majority of Australians?

Surveys show that 75% of Australians support the availablity of abortion. Most medical practitioners, including the Department of Health, believe that medical abortion is safer than surgical abortion so let's import RU486 and use the most effective medication.

Melinda

I must take you to task when you state that methotrexate is "one of the most dangerous anti-cancer drugs on the market". Sorry you are talking rubbish.

Methotrexate is hardly ever used to treat cancer, except rarely in acute myeloid leukaemia. It is almost exclusively used as a disease modifying anti rheumatic drug (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and sjogrens. It is is safe drug with many people taking it for many years without side effects.

A recent paper published on PubMed:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of methotrexate plus misoprostol regimen as a method for early medical abortion < 49 days L.M.P. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 50 mg methotrexate was administered orally to 20 women < 49 days L.M.P. followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginal and oral administration 3-7 days after the methotrexate. RESULTS: 19 Successful medical abortions (95%). One woman chose vacuum aspiration for termination of the abortion on day 3 of the induced bleeding. No serious side effects were observed after administration of the drugs. CONCLUSION: Medical abortion with methotrexate and misoprostol is safe and effective and can be offered to practicing gynecologists.

Check your facts before writing emotive twaddle.

Melinda
you failed once again if you don't want a abortion don't have one. Try living your life to everyone else's.

The inconsistencies in the case of the pro-abortionists are well illustrated in the consecutive postings of "sneekeepete" and "scout".

One lamblasts Melinda for evoking emotional language by referring to the developing baby as a "tumor", and the other confirms that that is exactly what these people think by going even further to specify it as a "space occupying lesion".

I met one of these "space occupying lesions" the other day. He was a much loved, happy bouncing two year old. Less than three years ago when he was the "lesion" of a single young girl, the advice had been abort , abort. Thankfully neither the girl or her mother saw the pregmancy as a "space occupying lesion", but a life to be valued.

The reality is that it doesnt matter whether we see this "lesion" as welcome or not Sneekeepete, it remains a life, and a caring society will welcome and nurture it,

Two Bob

It seems that most of those opposing Melinda's article are not prepared to consider the real facts. People can waffle on and claim that "embryonic cells are stopped from dividing and multiplying" in a medical abortion, but they choose to ignore the fact that it is the BABY's HEART that was still beating 14 days after the injection of methotrexate. The baby's heart starts beating less than 4 weeks from conception.
See the baby's development at http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage16.html
This is not a tumour or clump of cells. If more women were properly informed about both the development of a baby and the consequences of abortion, we would all be better off.
And especially the women, like Ellen, in Melbourne, who was not properly informed, suffered emotionally after her abortion and subsequently received a compensation payout through the courts.
The thought of promoting as DESIRABLE a method of abortion that takes WEEKS to complete the killing of the child is beyond belief!
Jenny Stokes, Research Director, Salt Shakers.

Melinda is correct - methotrexate is a cytotoxic product. Steve Madden is incorrect in his outline of what it can be used for, it is also used in the treatment of non-AIDS related primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), which is a lethal brain tumour if left untreated.

I find it incredible that the abortion providers are trawling medical therapies to identify some of the most highly toxic treatments usually reserved for life-threatening cancers. Methotrexate has a mid-range observable and quantifiable toxicity but, as with most anti-cancer drugs used for the treatment of terminal coniditions, little attention is given to the long-term effects. In cancer treatment you are often concentraing on an extension of survival with a good quality of life.

Welcome to the brave new world where an unborn baby equates with a malignant neoplasm.

Denis

Whoever said this thread would turn into an "anti-choice rant" needn't worry. It appears to have already turned into a pro-choice rant complete with euphemisms ("tumour" "parasite") and the cold heartedness typical of most militant "pro-choicers" I've come accross.

Melinda is right - pregnancy is not a disease. Treating a pregnant woman as "diseased" and an embryo or fetus (human being) as a "tumour" or the latest pc buzzword "parasite" is dehumanising and degrading to us all. This ideology of "pregnancy as disease" already present in our society, even affects women who continue their pregnancies, as they are subject to invasive and often unecessary tests on themselves and their baby.

Where is our human dignity? If we treat women's babies as rubbish, what does that say about her own humanity? Sadly, the fact that we are willing to push (sorry,..offer "choices") even more chemicals on to women to solve the very real issues they face, with little regard to the long term complications (did anyone read the part about the drug being found in the egg follicles of women or did everyone just skip over that part?) says that we as a society don't care much about women and their health at all, let alone regard them as human beings with much value and worth

Denis.

If you would like to debate me on current cancer therapies go ahead, but you are wrong. Methotrexate is not used to treat lymphomas of any kind anymore or if it is, the physicians are not following NCI guidelines. Monoclonal antibodies like Bexxar and Rituxan are now used in combination with CHOP. (If you have a subscription to Blood, the Journal of the American Heamatological Society I can let you have the links).

Methotrexate is cytotoxic, so are T lymphocytes and NK cells found in most peoples immune systems. But it’s a good “nasty” word for you to use to defend the indefensible.

I find it incredible that a safe well tolerated drug that has been studied for over fifty years and is very effective in autoimmune disease is suddenly demonised by the pro-life lobby. If the author of this article needs emotive clap trap to push her point of view then it shows me there is little substance to her argument and as a person living with incurable cancer I find it offensive.

“Welcome to the brave new world where an unborn baby equates with a malignant neoplasm” Is this the new mantra of “Salt Shakers”? You lost on RU486 and are looking for your next fight. Get your facts correct ,after searching the medical databases I can find no abstracts that match any of the statistics given by the author of this article.

Salt Shakers has obviously sent out an alert, I welcome the peanut gallery to OLO.

Steve

I am happy to debate cancer / brain tumour treatments with you, I know more about them than I ever wished to know. You have got it wrong. I am referring to non-AIDS related PCNSL, I think you have confused this with lymphoma. No one in their right mind would use prednisone for a PCNSL, as opposed to dexamethasone. CHOP is used for lymphoma, not PCNSL.

The latest treatment for PCNSL involves methotrexate and BBB (blood brain barrier) disruption.

Anyway, my comment still stands: "Welcome to the brave new world where an unborn baby equates with a malignant neoplasm" despite your derogatory reference to the "peanut gallery".

Steve, you obviously meant the comment about Salt Shakers as an insult! However, I take it as a compliment that you think we have that much influence. [By the way, I haven't sent out an alert!]
It always seems to me that when people stoop to calling people names and throwing insults they haven't got any real arguments.
If you're concerned about peanuts, perhaps you should really be looking for the elephant in the room ....
The rest of us can see it.
Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers.

The question arises, if this drug is so bad, then why is Melinda
not supportive of the speedup of RU 486? She mentions ideology,
well no one is more guilty of that then the Catholic Church and
its followers. Is Melinda a Catholic perchance?

Family planning, how many children that parents want to raise,
should be the right of every woman on the planet. A foetus is
easily created, most women could create about 400 of them in their
lifetime. Reality prevails, you can't keep them all.

Perhaps its time to focus on the suffering of the many starving
babies that already exist, rather then get carried away by
religious ideology. The problem is, the Catholic Church does
not seem to have a problem with suffering, so perhaps its just
their ideology that is flawed.

If Melinda is concerned about ethics, would she please justify
her reasoning for unneeded suffering in the world, as is inflicted
by Catholic dogma. If she disagrees with Catholic dogma, I would be
happy to hear it.

Elke, Husmusen, Two Bob and Denis:

Before replying to sneekeepete and narcissist's characterisation of any pregnancy as a malignant tumour, space occupying lesion, parasite, etc. please check Wikipedia's article on internet trolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll. Abortion is too important an issue to devolve into a troll-feeding exercise.

Steve and Denis, the current use of methotrexate in oncology is important, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to this debate.

Realist, no one is suggesting methotrexate should be an over the counter medication. I don't know where you get that from.

Melinda is trying to bolster her anti abortion position by confusing it with important scientific questions about the safest and most effective clinical procedures for procuring abortions.

Issues of informed consent and the pressures women experience in deciding about abortion are very important. By all means lets discuss these.

Jenny Stokes, describing an embryo as an "unborn baby" or a "child" is the same as decribing a seed as "an ungrown plant" or a "sapling".

Scout, my guess is that your contribution to this string might be wasted given the current quality of postings

I have been thinking that advocates for abortion services are keen to see a new method of abortion that doesn't involve invasive surgery - pills to take at home, for example - so that termination of pregnancy can be removed from the control of a clinic and placed in the woman's control, at home. Maybe it's thought that a day will come when women can take a tablet in the privacy of their own homes, a drug publicly funded and easily accessed, that will safely terminate a pregnancy. Then women wouldn't need to seek a doctor's approval for abortion.

In this sense, would pro-choice advocates accept a higher risk in order to achieve more control over abortion for women? Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Ruby, women don’t need to seek “doctors’ approval” for abortion. It is unfortunate if some women feel this way, and abortion providers and others in the medical profession possibly need to look at the way they are communicating with women if this belief is prevalent. There are laws in all states and territories about under which circumstances a woman can seek an abortion. Doctors and others involved in the provision of abortion services have a duty to ensure that the services they provide are safe and effective, and to ensure that the client has the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about all, repeat all, her options. I doubt very much that any responsible practitioner would compromise safety for the sake of convenience, as you suggested.

Ruby, while I have no doubt your question was a bona fide one, my experience is that some people with an ideological opposition to abortion under any circumstances will sometimes adopt a seemingly pro-abortion stance that invites attack because of specious arguments and irrelevant hypothetical suggestions. Narcissist and Sneekeepete (now isn’t that a Troll name?) have, I believe, already tried this tack.

The author of this article tends to try and inflame a controversy.

“Will the Sydney women be told what they could be in for? My research on abortion over a long period gives me no cause to hope they will be fully informed.”

Research has shown that people retain very little of the information provided to them, particularly when it is complex and outside their sphere of knowledge. Secondly, not everyone is blessed with the same level of intelligence quota.

It does not matter which way you look at “all drugs have the potential to cause harm” even drugs that we consider to be safe and use everyday.

There are some pharmaceuticals in use today that are used in the treatment of disease outside their primary purpose.

“Thirteen per cent experienced bleeding up to 56 days.”

Bleeding can be a complication of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or when surgical abortion is performed and this is usually due to retained conception products such as placenta.

How often have we seen medical research published supporting a particular course of action, only to find further research which disputes the original claim?

It wasn’t that long ago when silicone implants were blamed for many diseases occurring in women and an enormous amount of junk research was published to support these claims.

Now once the dust has settled silicone breast implants have proven to be totally safe!

Ruby, I think safety is extremely important, but it has to
be compared with the statistics of the dangers of childbirth and
pregnancy. In that kind of comparison, products like RU 486
come away looking extremely safe in comparison.

Next thing is that clearly abortion is a traumatic event for some
women. They should be able to make an informed choice, without
having placards waved in their faces by members of the godsquad,
without having godsquad members with a religious agenda, posing
as unbiased councillors, which seems to be be happening more
and more, particularly in the US and I gather now in Australia.
Next thing these people will be applying for Govt funding, to
push their religious agenda on others.

Give women choice, give women unbiased information, give women
products and services that are safer then the alternatives. Then
let them make the final decision. The role of the church should be
to preach to its flock, not to enforce its agenda on others, often
by quite devious means.

Jenny Stokes

Interesting job you have.

I have seen some of the cruelty in reasearch of animals so you guys can play god.

So listen up/

If God sat back and gave us a choice then who do you think you are.

Sure I read your crap but most of these terminations are done early and the morning after pill is sensible.

You cant inflict the pain on something the size of a grain of rice which is what it is in most cases.[actually its not even that]

Thats not the case in the reasearch as you call it with animals however is it Jenny?

The most that might happend is the mother might get a gut ache.

[ Please note I said the women]

Whenever people start telling others what to do the public need to stand up and be counted.

As for your morals and your fellow reasearch buddies experminenting on defencless animals you make me sick.

Just let people make up their own mind and leave the poor animals alone.

shame on you.

The use of abortion as fertility control is openly abusive of women's dignity. By condoning invasive medical and surgical procedures to support the belief that fertility can and should be controlled after conception denies every fact known about women and their reaction to pregnancy. So what is the argument here? It would seem that it is a lose/lose situation for the mother and baby and win/win for the drug companies and those who surgically prey on vulnerable mothers.
As a member of a 'caring profession' I find it abhorrent that no real attempt is being made to institute care based on the truth, that women deserve to be treated with dignity, that fertility is best handled by education before the occasion for intercourse arises and that women's innate sense of motherhood is a reality that cannot be ignored.
all the methods of termination are bad for the mother, her baby of course and her family - and in the long run, society. We cannot ignore the long term effects of choosing to kill rather than support life, the evidence is inescapable. The vulnerable in institutions from child care to retirement homes are daily under threat of being judged less than worthy of life, every day there are more abuse victims in once happy families. Members of caring professions are losing their way as they are being sucked into the 'life choice' game. I can't believe it doesn't affect them because I know it does. This issue is about more than choosing between different weapons it is about how we have allowed ourselves to become complicit in such murderous decisions without having recourse to conscience - and it won't stop there. In this 'Lucky Country" we have more than we need for ourselves and others to share - our heritage is founded on mateship and caring this is so unaustralian.

Melinda raised the following points:

1. Woman are being mislead into thinking their foeti are ‘tumours’.
2. An ‘unsafe’ drug is being used to procure abortion.
3. Import of RU486 is being delayed.
4. Women suffer emotionally after abortion.

Point 1: Melinda is treating women as infantile by claiming they are ill-informed into believing their foeti are no more than tumours.

She tries to hang her entire argument on the basis of misinformation. I have already established this as an untruth. The very foundation of pro-choice philosophy is INFORMED CHOICE. It is only anti-choicers who attempt obfuscation in order to mislead and emotionally manipulate women.

Point 2: Methotrexate has been used with a 97% success rate for the termination of pregnancies since 1982. It results in miscarriage. It is not as safe as RU 486. But it poses no more risk than a natural miscarriage.

Point 3: Why is RU 486 being delayed? Melinda offers no reason. I can make an astute guess as a result of the difficulties in having RU486 released for use in Australia earlier this year – again the anti-choice movement.

Point 4: Women who make informed choices about their fertility suffer no more emotional difficulties than in any other area of their lives. Women aren’t helpless little creatures unable to make decisions about themselves. This is again treating women as infantile.

See: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_emotional_issues

In fact, women are more likely to suffer emotionally from a natural miscarriage as they have no control over this and may well have wanted to continue the pregnancy.

Finally, I reiterate: The issue of abortion is about using the safest and most effective means of assisting women in their choices about their bodies and future life. Misleading information results in poor decisions by women; amplifying the need for constant vigilance.

(Snout – again I appreciate your support on these forums).

No one asked the question : "what is so unwanted about a pregnancy"?

How can people (women) be so selfish to even entertain the thought that a future baby can be discarded like a cytologically diseased lump? This ideology is so repugnant that it’s making the scum of the earth look like a pool in a five star resort.

What we are discussing here is the best criminal way to intentionally kill a living organism that is a potential person - just like you and me. Not a tumour for heaven’s sake!

Perhaps if women were more interested in a loving relationship within the sanctity of a marriage, and took their motherly role more seriously to cherish family values instead of simply enjoy lustful sex; we wouldn't be having these debates.

And before you crucify me - I am neither a catholic nor a liberal voter.

Remember Coach, that it takes two to create a pregnancy. If you wish to castigate 'lustful' women, make sure you also rail against the actions of 'lustful' men

Coach

Thankyou for your thoughts.

I read it and appreciate you have a right to think, run and act by them..
just dont try to change my thoughts or anybody else who does not agree with the way you think.
Ok Coach.

Thats the point we dont wish to be forced to agree with you.
i do not wish a young girl to be forced! to give birth because shes made a mistake and slept with some eaqually young boy..
It happens its life but no need to let it desroy peoples destinations.
People DIE in childbirth > Quite often.
So you live by your ideas and let others make up their own mind.
Ok

Coach,

That is the point. You may find the idea morally repugnant, but others may not. Should you impose your morality upon others, or accept that there may be differing views and opinions?

For you it appears that there is no such thing as an "unwanted" pregnancy, but tell that to a woman that falls pregnant as a result of rape, or there is a high likelyhood of chromosomal disorder or infant/mother fatality.

Different people have different life-experiences and expectations. They will therefore see the "wantedness" of a child differently.

People should not draw any conclusions about my take on abortion simply because I have said that the word "tumour" is a useful synonym when describing a pregnancy - I have seen countless definition of the t word - some refer to abnormal growth and some simply refer to a growth of cells - it all depends on your perception of them how you view them and therefore how you describe them.

As for Space occupying lesion I take the point that lesion is not strictly applicable - however - in general conversation - and some times colloquial use becomes the true definition over time - SOL is often used to describe a pregnancy - usually in the manner of gallows humour amongst health workers - and then it is most appropriate given our propensity to rid people of that particular cluster of cells under discussion.

If I have said anything at all about this subject other than that a pregnancy can be and is described in numerous ways - and how you refer to the phenomenon may well depend on how you feel about the condition of pregnancy - its was that the notion of genuine informed consent is as much under question as is the mode of abortion.

And informed consent is a problem - or lack there of.

From the article:

"the clinic will combine one of the most dangerous anti-cancer drugs on the market with an anti-ulcer drug, to induce abortion in women up to seven weeks pregnant."

Yeah, don't you just hate it when abortions disrupt an otherwise bountiful malignant tumour or ulcer?

Seriously though, why do you think these medications are so totally attached to cancer? Were they picked from a tree with "cancer drugs here" emblazed on the bark?

"so hazardous it is given five pages in the US Physicians Desk Reference - most other drugs get a half page"

Couldn't this equally indicate that we know more about it than most other drugs?

"Its side-effects are so “severely toxic” they are only considered justified to fight cancers and “disabling disease”. Yet it is to be inflicted on healthy pregnant women and healthy embryos."

Only considered justified by whom? Obviously not by the qualified medical researchers who designed and tested RU486!

You'll need to do better than that to disguise your own ideological bias.

Shame shame shame. If we are going to condone and discuss murder in such clinical terms we could not criticize the Nazis or the Arabs or the Israelies or the Americans or the Communist or anyone else for that matter. I pray one day the medical profession will see their role as saving lives not destroying

Runner - "If we are going to...we could not criticise ...anyone else". Ah, mate, we SHOULD not criticise anyone else in any case. If discussion of this topic leads to less homophobia, mysoginism, chauvinism and intolerance then discuss away - let the thread go on until it becomes clear that NOTHING gives us the right to criticise other people. What is open for debate and, yes criticism aplenty if you so desire, are ideas, ideologies, theories, - not people. Therein lies our shame.

Given that no woman is “forced” to have an abortion or take any medication against her will, the issue is a non-starter.

Why do anti-choice advocates need to interfere in the lawful choices available between cognitive individuals and their doctors?

What right of interference do they claim?

When these busybodies stop trying to interfere in other peoples affairs , then they will be free to get on with what really matters, which is working to fulfil their lives in a productive and constructive way, instead of wasting time and energy on pretending to tell others what they must do.

Certain tribes have used particular plants to induce abortion.

It is still murder!
How do you justify that?

“And informed consent is a problem - or lack thereof.”

Very true, sneekeepete. My issue is that the use of emotionally manipulative language (as Scout points out) represents an attempt to compromise the ability of women to make informed decisions about their own lives and health. Unfortunately such language is frequently part of the modus operandi of some in the anti-abortion movement, and several examples of this can be seen in Melinda’s article as well as the previous posts.

Women facing the difficult situation of an unplanned pregnancy have a right to be supported through the process of their decision making without having to deal with button pushers with their own agendas. Not all arguments against abortion are presented this way, of course. Any decision about abortion involves confronting important bioethical issues about how we see our own bodies, our relationships with others, and what constitutes human life itself.

I agree with the Right to Lifers’ position that women who choose to continue a pregnancy deserve better practical support. I would also like to abortion rates falling. The most effective way of achieving this is to ensure that women (and men) are better able to avoid unwanted pregnancy. The credibility of opponents of abortion would be higher if they also supported improved access to, and education about, contraception, rather than simply focusing on abstinence and restricting sex to marriage (as if that prevents unwanted pregnancy). Unfortunately, many anti-abortionists appear to be motivated more by a desire to impose their own beliefs about sexuality and reproductive health on others than supporting the autonomy of women.

Incidentally, in my years as a health worker, including in reproductive and sexual health I’ve never heard the term “space occupying lesion” in any context other than referring to an intracranial tumour or bleed. Certainly not about a pregnancy. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life.

Rnrofe.

Its not often I get inloved with this sort of stuff because frankly I consider each person to have some right to privacy.

However you have enspired me.

I will seek a urgent application for a bill to be passed to stop such outragous comments and the people who make them such as you.
talk about racism and discrimation!.
your comments are a discrace.

Woman have a legal right to choose what they wish to do without you calling them murders.

How dare you make such comments.
You can do real damage to a girl who has been raped for eg or even just a woman who has chosen for personal reasons not to be FORCED to give birth.

If we have discrimation against gays etc we certainly require a law to stop your evil mouth.

Mind your own business and stop trying to enforce your strange idea on others.
I have my own beleifs thank you and seeing kids have kids for 4 grand by the hundreds does nothing for me.

If I had my way THEY would not be supported to give birth.

China had the right idea.

Your sick get help.

rnrofe said "...... As a member of a 'caring profession' ..... fertility is best handled by education before the occasion for intercourse arises ......... all the methods of termination are bad for the mother, her baby of course and her family - and in the long run, society. ...... complicit in such murderous decisions ........ unaustralian."

Surely in your role as a member of a 'caring profession' you have seen families struggle to care for and rear badly disabled babies who have no possibility of good quality of life. Caring for a severely disabled child is so hard that 80% of family units break up which is a tradegy for mum, dad and the other siblings.

The editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday said that Australia's current population growth was too high to be supported by the environment, Sydney is running out of fresh water, the city is so large its outgrown its transport infrastructure, the air quality is deteriorating etc. So Sydney doesn't need every foetus to grow to adulthood.

As fertility is best handled by education before fertility arises I hope you permit access to effective contraceptives for all fertile women.

Got to agree with Wendy Lethwaite that its inappropriate for a member of a 'caring profession' to call abortion murder. Since the early 1960s its been unacceptable for community leaders like priests to use such intemperate language.

rnrofe...if it is "still murder", surely Melinda's article is a distraction.

For those who believe, as some do, that abortion is murder, surely it does not carry any more heinous an outcome if the method used is different.

For people with a genuine concern about the health and wellbeing of women and their reproductive health, there will always be a vested interest in ensuring that the services provided (counselling, pregnancy support, and pregancy termination services where they are sought) do not excessively threaten the health of the woman concerned.

I am not a pharmacological expert, and neither is Melinda. All either of us can do is to collate a series of evidence that supports or refutes our point of view about this particular drug.

Many pro-choice women will need to be convinced about the safety of this drug, but they come to the argument with the central tenet of women having control over their fertility, not looking for ways to discredit the activities of a particular service provider. For those with an anti-abortion framework informing their consideration of this issue, there can be no positive outcomes of this drug or medical abortion per se, just ways in which it is easier to sell to a public less informed than they are.

For those who believe abortion is "murder" (as opposed to those who wouldn't personally seek an abortion themselves) there should be no grey area.

I've considered my view and stand by my beliefs, I'm not sure why anti-abortion campaigners can't do the same.

Rnrofe “The use of abortion as fertility control is openly abusive of women's dignity.”

Duh? – women are not and cannot be forced, blackmailed or coerced into having an abortion. I fail to see how anyone’s “dignity” is abused by giving them right of unfettered choice to abort or not.

“and in the long run, society.”

Society does not vote. Society does not have a voice. Society does not have rights.

However, “Individuals” do vote, do have voices and do have rights.

The strength and quality of any society is reflected only in its ability to reflect instead of repressing the choices of the individuals who comprise it.

The rest is just bilious rant and not worthy of comment.

Except

Rnrofe “it is still murder”

Wrong! "murder" is an action which terminates the life of an autonomous individual. An embryo / foetus is not autonomous and has yet to aspire to a state to be considered “individual” (viz marked and celebrated as the moment of “birth”, not conception).

Check out the dictionary (at dictionary.com), look up abortion and then murder. The most significant thing you will notice is in both descriptions, whilst being full and detailed they refer not to the other in any way.

Thus “Abortion is not murder and murder not abortion”

Its great Wendy that you were so inspired.Maybe we who are vehemently opposed to abortion need to be charged alongside Mother Teresa for agreeing that 'the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me is for me to kill you and you to kill me.'

Amazing that those so vicously in favour of abortion wants the likes of the late mother teresa to be silenced. Locking up rednecks like her would surely ease the conscience of many.

Runner.
I support women in making an informed choice.

My god are you really suggesting we FORCE women to give birth.

You talk about the muslims not respecting women but thats beyond the pale.

I think your bringing mother Teresa is only showing how far you are out of touch with todays world and women.

How dare you disrespect women so much you feel they have no right to make up their own minds.

You wish to take over others lives.

Well get this . Its not illegal to choose.

Its illegal for you bunch of nutters to call young girls and ladies murders!

Well it SOON will be because it bloody well needs to be stopped.

Shame On you!

Col, great points as usual, but they are clearly over most of their
heads....

Runner, a foetus is not a child. It seems you don't understand the
difference.

Mother Teresa I'm sure was a lovely old lady, but she was also
a Catholic religious fanatic. When the crunch came, she sought treatment in the West, not in her own clinics, where people suffered.
She never did account for the huge amounts of money donated to her
charities.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s266592.htm

Nobody is saying that abortion should be mandatory. The point is,
women should have a choice, free from religious interferance!

Unless of course you want suffering, as happens where the church has
an overwhelming influence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

runner,
If you are male you are not likely to have a sensible defense so STOP!
You ought to recognise this is chemical warfare on the innocent and women are allowed to perform such acts of violence without question. It is their choice, it is their right, it is their child. You are forcing your views upon those that want to engage freely in the destruction of inocent human life. We have about 100,000 innocent being put to death each year in Australia alone. Get over it, it is reality. Women want choice and they do not want any moral conscience defying them. They have the power of life and death and they will use it without the likes of you trying to impose your thoughts upon them.

They hate the thought of men killing innocent children as it reduces their power to control life. Men must not have that power. Note their rantings about the death of innocent children on other threads. Totally irrational behaviour, no logic no sound reasoning. They do not deserve the title 'mother', which means 'to nurture life'. They are the new agents of human destruction using chemical toxins.

One of the most puzzling things for me as a peripheral participant in these debates, is that while women’s health has been extended to include psychological and financial aspects of having a child, no such logic can be applied to men. While around a third of the pregnancies are terminated for so called health reasons, men’s health can never be measured using such criteria. Even if we were to exclude the female specific health considerations from the equation, we’d still end up with at least 80% of currently applied criteria that is of equal value to either gender.

I must be one of the few declining remnants of the old school who contrary to all rational thought, still believes it takes two to play the parent game. Silly me.

Col, “Duh? – women are not and cannot be forced, blackmailed or coerced into having an abortion”. Neither can they be forced to have sex – but they do.

Seeker I enjoyed your twee little post about taking men's health into consideration or "What about me?'

Have you gents forgotten that until recently women died in childbirth. Even 100 years ago families often consisted of man, children of first wife, second wife and children of second wife.

In Australia today few women die in childbirth but many women have their health impaired by pregnancy. So if a woman doesn't intend to rear the child then termination should be an option.

Today we heard that the Salvation Army has been paying compensation to children who were abused while in their care in the 1960s and 1970s. So all church organisations in Australia failed to protect children in their care from abuse.

And its debatable whether Australia needs to grow its population when
- all manufacturing jobs are going offshore and
- increasingly youths must complete year 12 to get a trades apprenticeship
- we can't provide enough fresh water for our future growth

Again, the abortion argument raises its ugly head.

Really, it’s simple. The point, at which you believe the zygote/foetus becomes human, is the point at which you choose not to have an abortion. If it’s not you or your partner who is pregnant, then butt out.

How much clearer can it be?

Reason,
I agree chemical abortion is certainly ugly as the woman gradually destroys the new human life begun in her. The very genetic state of the foetus is not ever in any other state than human. Deliberately terminating the life begun is always destroying a human. The foetus did not just get there it has involved a male in some way. If he was refused imposing his butt in the first place no human life would have begun.

There are Court rulings on the genetic state of the foetus, identifying it as human. Genetic science would clearly identify it as the beginning of human life - not any other species.

"The point, at which you believe the zygote/foetus becomes human, is the point at which you choose not to have an abortion. How much clearer can it be?"

Seeker said “Neither can they be forced to have sex – but they do.”

Duh! Seeker – rape victims would disagree with you.

However, rape victims aside, for many of us “coitus” is engaged upon with the anticipated intent that it not result in impregnation of the female.
Unfortunately, condoms are not fool proof, nor is the pill.
Even Catholics, who apparently rely on the something called the “rhythm” method more than occasionally fall foul of “nature”.

That said, when the intention of having sex was “coitus sans procreation”; should pregnancy ensue, it is perfectly reasonable for a woman, equipped with cognitive competency to decide, for herself, whether to continue the pregnancy she did not intend or to terminate.

Her choice is hers to determine and bear the consequences of alone. It is not mine and not yours. Nor is it a matter for the rabid anti-abortion Nazis who take it upon themselves to terrorise legal clinics.

It is a private matter and not the concern of any other party (except possibly her coital partner – and then his view takes second place in the decisions process, because we are not talking about things which might only effect his emotional state or wallet, not his body).

Reason “If it’s not you or your partner who is pregnant, then butt out.”

Succinct and accurate, I agree, no one else’s business.

Philo, you miss the point again as usual. Sure a human foetus is
human, so is a human piece of skin tissue. That does not make either
of them a person. Neither of them suffer or think.

Foetuses can be created in virtually unlimited amounts, thats the
easy bit. Most women could create 400 in their lifetimes. The hard
bit is the feeding, clothing, caring for 20 years etc. So its a basic fact that not all can survive.

You should put down that bible for once and read Darwin's Origin
of Species. Your religious beliefs are not beyond the laws of
nature.

Dear All,

If a tumour is just a group of cells, then everything that is a group of cells is a tumour including you and me. Now if anything can be killed simply because it is a tumour, that would be setting a fairly dangerous precedent.

A parasite? Find one example from any other species of a animals own progeny correctly being termed a parasite and I will be impressed. It might be clever semantics to call a foetus a parasite, but to my mind this is agenda driven emotive language that is not applied to any other species and is therefore misused in this case.

As for the study with methotrexate and medical abortions on pubmed. It has ONLY 20 participants. Stastically speaking, this study means NOTHING. If you have a sample size of 20, the chance of finding a particular effect one way or the other is absolutely stupendous. For example, you could trial a drug that kills one in ten users but with a small sample size, you could get no such complication in that group - or you could get 5 out of 20. Both results would be misleading as is the use of this study in the previously posted comment.

I am a doctor with a degree in parasitology and I think that most of the comment on this post is extremely superficial.

Hey Badger.

I prefer a peer reviewed article from a prestigious journal than the opinion of a parasite doc.

Clinical trials of drugs have different phases, of course you don't use high numbers of people in early trials. The trial I mentioned had the LOWEST incident free response rate (95%), subsequent trials show 97% incident free response rates.This is exactly what they are doing with methotraxate in this TRIAL getting better data. When you combine data from multicentre trials you have very valid statistics. Ever notice the (P < .001) ?

Don't get me started on clinical trials I could bore you senseless for hours.

Reason

I wouldnt worry about seeker and his mates or try to have a sensible debate with them.

Its clear they suffer from that disease where men '"get"
"off" on talking about womens personal health.

Its actually got a name but I cant recall it now.

It was in a book I read.

They are closely related with cross dressers.

Many are from over religous backgrounds and often sexual abuse as we saw throughout the good Churches childrens homes.

If you note the comment about women [dont have to have sex >] [But they do,] from seeker thats a common aggreshion hardley concealed.

These guys are often rapists and offenders themselves.

You can track them by their posts on forums with anything to do with women.

For some reason they in particluar '"get off" by "discussing "women pregancys and abortion.
The other sign is of course the "control."

Mind you its not just men who suffer from this condition.

That I guess ought to be clear after reading some of these
bullies calling women muderers etc.

Many of these were other women.

I only come in these sights to relax a bit from my very political job but every now and then you trip over something that needs fixing.

Calling a women a MURDERER who chooses not to give birth should and will be an offense.

My God all the poor ladies who have had a termination.

What evil people with evil minds and mouths say.

How Dare you.

Reasons YOU ARE correct. Mind our OWN business IF YOUR NOT THE LADY WHO IS PREGNANT.

Honeybadger, I thought we dealt with the furphy about "parasites", "tumours" and "space occupying lesions" quite a few posts back. I'm not sure what your intention is in bringing these deliberately provocative terms back in when we are discussing what is a very sensitive issue, for both camps (pro/anti choice/abortion/life - there is no neutral mutually acceptable term for either side).

Steve, thank you for resisting the temptation to fill us in about clinical trials. We may need your expertise later, though!

Col,

Of course rapists force sex! My comment was not about rapists, but referred to the one third of ALL pregnancies being terminated for “health reasons”. Your spin on what was said suggests 100,000 rapes every year.

C’mon Cole, I know it’s tax time, but chill out mate - I’m not stopping you from having an abortion -quite the opposite. Fact is, I support men’s reproductive equity. This includes abortion.

So, in the interests of procreation equity, I suggest Methotrexate be incorporated into breakfast cereals. These should be clearly marked in fine print and use names such as Metho-Bix that would adequately distinguish it from the standard product, but ensure retention of brand loyalty.

This way, we can all enjoy our daily doses of cancer fighting agents, without feeling unnecessary guilt. Murder? No silly, it’s just breakfast!

Seeker.

Its not often I will agree with you but in this case I will make an exception.

Pehaps there should be a anti you reproduction drug after all.

Look for the breakfast pack with your name on it .

Its called '" SEEKERS BUTT OUT OF WOMENS AFFAIRS BREAKFAST

SBOWAB.

We certainly dont want any more of you.

Seeker, you made a grand-standing statement which contained certain inappropriate presumptions. I merely corrected your errors.

I am never going to need an abortion but if were I female and ever pregnant, I alone would decide if I would carry to term or if I would terminate, using whatever method I decided based on the advise of my doctor.

You might support reproductive equality, I prefer to acknowledge that men and women are biologically different and that is part of the “attraction” (and presumably why I was endowed with a liberal allocation of testosterone and the necessary equipment to impregnate any lucky lady who happens to share my bed).

As for the rest of your post – I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, pretending to be funny or just plain obtuse, either way your final 2 paragraphs were not worth reading and do not merit further comment.

I read somewhere:

"Children are culturally optional, economically burdensome & technologically avoidable"

but that was too much to put on the sign of our door mantle, so my wife just put "This house is full of kids & love"

Much easier for the six cellular constructs of ours to understand...and value.

Wendy Lewthwaite,

this is really offensive;

"They are closely related with cross dressers.

Many are from over religous backgrounds and often sexual abuse as we saw throughout the good Churches childrens homes.

If you note the comment about women [dont have to have sex >] [But they do,] from seeker thats a common aggreshion hardley concealed.

These guys are often rapists and offenders themselves." Wendy Lewthwaite.

Few things I noticed is that when women are unhappy with the posts made by men, references are made to something generally of a sexual nature, either the guy must have a small penis or as you alledge that they are "rapists".

Or they accuse the man of hating women etc etc.

Of course there are some who women may think this is funny, but is nothing but a underhanded perverted manipulation.

From the nature of women posting here it is evident of those who enjoys their children and those that find children a chore and hinderance. It does reflect on the state of society and the value and love of the children and essentially how we view life.

Someone made a claim earlier that women abort 400 times in their life this is such nonsense. If a woman fell pregnant everytime she ovulated her menstrual cycle would be so irregular that she should seek medical help. Ovulation is not abortion as seems to be the suggestion. If every possible ovulation was a pregnancy a woman could not have more than 40 full term pregnancies. I have yet to meet such a woman. I once knew a woman who has 26 children and that seems about the full length of her childbearing years. No! she was not Catholic and that was before contraception. She lived in country NSW.

James

The only thing that is offensive is your crude langauge.


I will try to dig up the book and post you the name.

I beleive it was actually a man for memory so you cant claim the ladies are ganging up on you.

He also said if confronted with these facts some become outraged.

what is it that really draws you James to this debate.

Is it the control,/ religion? or are you one of these men.

Somebody posted that the women in tribes many years ago used plants to ensure they did not carry an unwanted pregnacy.

I think it was actually meant to be insulting.

In fact it showed that sensible choices have been made by women for thousands of years.

Secret womens business from the begining of time.


My reference to the churches and sexual abuse that has followed them

was simply a matter of record and not meant to personally offend anybody.
Its really Simply none of your business James.

Thats the point.

I appreciate you dont agree with me and respect that.

Likewise please respect not all women want kids and if they do they

will decide when to start a family,

not you or anybody else.

I guess it does have a funny side James however to you it would be water over the '' head.

This drug is used as a morning after pill.

Your compashion for something smaller than a grain of rice is typical of the church position.

You have no such compashion for the cries from the unbeleibale cruelty of live exports and intensive farming.

They just sit back and ignore it.

It would be hard to enflict equal pain and suffering on something smaller than a grain of rice James.

Dont talk to me about right and wrong
.
What a joke!

The higher moral ground of your lot makes me sick.

Philo said " I once knew a woman who has 26 children .............. and that was before contraception." My goodness Philo you must be old, I think contraception has been widely practised since the 1920s.

billie,
That was in the 1950's and the eldest child was then in her late 60's.

Col, somehow I just knew you would only read the paragraphs that were about you. Put away the red dress – you had me at Doh?!

Grand-standing was totally unintended and regretful - I’ll leave that in your very capable hands in future, and sincerely hope the lucky ladies never stop queuing for you;-)

Philo, it was me who put forward the argument of the 400 and clearly
its gone above your head yet once again!

Yup, most women could produce around 400 little zygotes, so creating
life is easy peazy, nothing magical about it. Fact is the hard part
is the raising, feeding and educating and doing it well.

Having children is not about production line creation, whether its
15 or 30 etc. Whether you love children has little to do with that too. Fact is that modern technology has enabled women to decide when to have children and how many they would like to have, feed, educate and nurture. They should have that choice and its in fact
a win win situation all round!

One of the major differences between us and the third world is
exactly due to that choice. In the West, women can limit their
kids production to 2 or 3, give them the attention, resources, education etc that they need in today's world. In the third world,
where catholic politics still matters, hundreds of millions are
denied that choice. The result is hunger, unneeded suffering
and much misery.

Your problem is really a philosophical one. You have yet to get your
mind around the fact that people can love children and decide to
only have a couple of well educated ones, rather then be forced to
breed like rabbits, a whole lot of hungry, uneducated, starving ones.

My point is clear. If your partner flushes eggs down the toilet every month, all which could have turned out to be cute kids, there is little difference to flushing zygotes away. Neither feels pain,
neither suffers, its just the realities of life and as Darwin pointed out, far more potential beings will be produced, then can
ever survive. Ignore the laws of nature at your peril.

Dear Wendy,

The original article was about the use of chemicals to induce a termination of a pregnancy.

"Canadian scientist Dr Ed Napke has observed: “One must remember that chemical surgery, namely exposing the body to chemical products, is more intrusive than physical surgery.”

Then there are the emotional effects. Some studies report chemical abortion as more psychologically harrowing. Significant numbers of women report the anxiety caused by the long wait for the pregnancy to pass too difficult and that the bleeding was 'emotionally difficult to see'."

I merely stated an observation that some tribes had used in the past herbal remedies to end a pregnancy. In response to the above section of the article.

At no point did the article discuss either, live exports or intensive farming.

"You have no such compashion for the cries from the unbeleibale cruelty of live exports and intensive farming."(sic) Wendy Lewthwaite

Nor did the article discuss the abuse of children by members of the clergy (including nuns).

Again I will reiterate labelling a person whose post you disagree with "a rapists or a child abuser" is really offensive and abusive!
This is not an uncommon tactic used primarily to try and take the high moral ground and to play the victim

James

I pointed out that its insulting for any man to want to discuss what is clearly no persons business, other than the lady who is taking the pill because she does not wish to become pregnant.

As if that were not insulting enough but to top it off you have extream people calling any women who has used this tablet a murderer .

The rest was quoted from a book I read years ago and found interesting.

Its a simple fact that child abusers and rapists seem to enjoy this type of conversation. Just ask any shrink.

I am sure the facts about different treatment and medication are available to all Drs to discuss with their clients and I am just as sure they dont need your help.

So are you saying that a operation is less of a problem than a pill.

I dont think most women would agree with you especially considering the cost involved.

Tony the Pony cant find enough beds now.

So James tell me what is it that makes you keep on about ladies business?

Are you one of these extream church People? Or a control freak?

I mean fair dinkim mate its hardley a blokes topic is it?

As for my comments on people with their so called concern for life, I simply pointed out, that this drug is used on something not even the size of a grain of rice.

Steve Feilding and most Catholics etc dont care about suffering animals due to live exports and the hundreds of torture chambers like the one owned by Amanda Vanstone.

I think it very relavant James to outline the extrorinary double standards by these fanatics.

You think you have the right to force women to have children because they had intercourse the night before.

In the same breath you dont give a dam about animals that are already here and suffering terribly while your type turn a blind eye.

I know you dont see that as relavant or hypocritical.

Thats the point.

I see no connection between fanaticism and Catholicism. Perhaps there is more of a connection between atheism and fanaticism! I am referring to those people who are so belligerent in their belief that there is no God that they are willing to attack one who has the gift of faith. I call for more freedom here - freedom from prejudice.
Also, a note on vocabulary. Pro-choice, anti-choice. Since when has choice been an absolute condition of human morality?

To overemphasise our freedom to choose is to fail to see the reality. We are not islands. Neither man nor woman can be completely self-reflexive in their judgement.

A better image of humanity is a 'royal priesthood'. Throughout the ages priests have ministered to the people, raising signs of God for them to see their own reflection in. Also, in Australia, the Catholic Church has been in effect a kind of government in opposition to the status quo of enforced secularism. My people have needed the freedom to profess their faith; otherwise they perish.

Remember the book of Kings in the Bible, and King Solomon's famous dream at Gibeon. When he could have asked for anything in the world, he asked for the mental faculties of decision-making. "'..give your servant a heart to understand how to govern your people, how to discern between good and evil, for how could one otherwise govern such a great people as yours?' 'Since you have asked for this,' God said, 'I give you a heart wise and shrewd ... What you have not asked I shall give you too: such riches and glory as no other king can match. And I shall give you a long life, if you follow my ways, keeping my laws and commandments.'"
[The First Book of the Kings, chapter 3, verses 9-14]

Why do we imagine man and woman as 'opposite' in their sexual selves? A better way is to conceive of them as 'other' to oneanother.
A child knows a confused or frightened adult is one who tends to take themselves very seriously and repels them by their rough blindness.

The bottom line is. there is right and there is wrong.

Good and bad.

God is good..

For example real followers of the lord just do good.

They are kind to all creatures and people.

They are usually the unsung hero's the ones you dont here about.

They dont preshume to know better and many dont even go to church.

They certainly dont get about calling ladies who are not breaking any laws murderes.

Gandi said you can judge a nation and the type of people by the way they treat their animals, and if they treat their animals with compashion this is then taught to the children which flows through humanity.

Cathlic Churches and others have NEVER speak out about this.

Its their job if nothing else to lead .

I have first hand knowledge of the attitude of heads of churches after travelling from QLD to melbourne with the CEO of RSPCA to show Steve Fieling the horifying facts regarding live exports and intensive farming.

90 percent of the public want this cruelty stopped so if nothing else one would have also thought that to listen would have been a smart political move.

He also thinks something less than a grain of rice or termination if you like is more important.

Shame on them.

Stop worrying about something the size of a grain of rice thats not even born or here and start having some compashion for ALL living beings.

From a distance the lord is watching all of us and everything.

Something tells us hes not real happy about these fanatics that cant get the basics right.

He who throws the first stone etc.

Thats ok just keep on ignoring the facts.

You people are so good at it as you have been doing for millions of years.

The no comment only re confirms that.

We will continue to do gods work while you lot grand stand.

I wonder which the lord prefers?

I like your questions, Wendy. Yet I believe that God is not only 'watching from a distance', as the song lyrics go.
The sense I have of God relates to what is happening in my life. God 'is'. Living each day in constant prayer and awareness of how God is here makes my notion of God quite fluid. Not that God is simply conjured by thought. God is beyond thought, and resides in the heart of things, from which human-centred and loving ideas begin. The saints are also present in this day. For instance, the presence of Mary the mother of God can be sensed by simply feeling a need for her comfort.
God wants us to come to faith like a child trustingly asks her parent for bread, knowing that she will receive it. It is prayer also, to ask a saint to intercede for me to God. In the Catholic tradition, saints are not only those announced by the Church leaders. All of humanity, past, present and future generations are called to belong to the Communion of Saints. Such that relatives who have passed on can provide us with a 'talking point' to God.
The Church believes that it is the 'little ones' (called the anawim in Jesus' language) alive today that best express what God is about. These are the young and the old, and those who are uncomplicated by fears, money or demons.
Through caring for the vulnerable in our community, including pregnant women and the unborn, we are called affirm their worth and value. Their devotion to the sacraments (especially to the daily Eucharist) is a sign of God's presence in the world.
Freedom for anawim is to relate and to be related to. To simply dwell in another's company, or, if they are not welcomed, to shake the dust off their clothing, and move on.
Thereby we understand what Jesus meant when he said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."

Renee.

Thanks for your comment.

The truth and the life are> The proof is in the pudding.

The sad fact remains nobody wants to answer the question.

I do beleive god is watching from a distace each any every one of us.

I beleive that when he comes back to earth it will also be because he is really angry as to how his creatures have been treated.

And there iS no comparison between a grain of rice and a living suffering creature.

Until we teach our children that through all churches we are not
doing gods work.

There is more in the Koran about treating animals kindly thean the bible.

I bet hes angry about that too.

As far as the morning after pill its a pity it wasnt used in Africa and a few other places to save millions of kids starving and suffering.

All in the name of religion.

Its time to face facts .

Common sense and common decency must provail.

I am discusted at these posters calling women murderers.

There no exuse for that with their uneducated ravings.

Its fair to say some cathlic Churches are involving themselves more with the blessing of the animals but there are NO animal Welfare groups run by Churches.

Nor do they speak out about the cruelty of live animal exports or intensive farming where the animal cant even turn around!

If its anybodies job surley its theirs.

They are all too scared to loose their Government funding.

Some of the most cruel people on earth donate to the Government to allow many ministers and media gaints like Murdoch and Packer and Amanda vanstone with their conflict of interest to continue their hidious crimes of gross inhumanity.

Shame On Them

and

shame on all churches.

All this concern about a women who is [possibly] possibly[ mind you

twelve hours pregnant. p p please!

"God said, 'I give you a heart wise and shrewd ... "

Clearly your god is confused Renee, for the heart is simply
a pump that pumps blood. We could do heart surgery and
give you a baboon's heart, it would not make you any
smarter or less religious it seems :)

Col,

You point out that men and women are 'different' yet you presume to know what you would or would not do if you were a woman. It is that very difference that makes it impossible for you to say what you 'would' do: 'Ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' have no bearing on reality. Your hypothetical analogies mean little when discussing the prospect of abortion.

Since your argument is a 'biological' one, please explain why you have failed to leave out the biological 'fact' that the conception of a baby is made from the unison of sperm and egg - sperm provided by the male who, in that respect has a certain degree of ownership over any biological circumstance from which that sperm may play a part in generating.

A sperm is a living structure that is, in essence, a part of the man. By a woman consenting to having sexual intercourse with that man, then she is also consenting to the possibility that she may come into contact with his biological property - the sperm. Since the sperm is owned by the man and the egg is owned by the woman, then any subsequent zygote is jointly owned by both parties, even though the woman plays an obviously more significant role in its future. This is biological fact. My opinion is based around this fact through the eyes of a male and not the assumed position of a female.

i am probably misquoting her, but I particularly liked Helen Garner's quote in response to the RU486 debate. She said something along the lines of; "Nothing will change a woman's adamantine determination not to bring a child into the world that she knows she cannot adequately parent."
This is the part of this argument that is consistently forgotten. It is one thing to give birth and quite another to be a good parent. There are worse fates than not being born and all of us recognise that fact. Women are not simply birthing machines, they are mothers, and they therefore fundamentally understand the importance of putting their heart and soul into any child they bear. if they become pregnant and feel they cannot do so - for whatever reason - they usually choose what they see as the lesser of two evils and decide not to continue the pregnancy.

By the way, the Marie Stopes clinics are named after one of the first female doctors in Britain who wrote a book called "Married Love" one of the first to inform women about their sexuality and the facts of life. The letters she received from readers were published in another book and the stories they told were horrifying - of women who would die if they had another child, but whose doctors refused to give them info about contraception and so had to cease sex with their loving husbands or risk death. And they were the lucky ones, some women knew it was useless to refuse sex - remember (this was 100 years ago) at that time, women in britain had no legal right to refuse their husbands sex. Marie Stopes responded by writing a controversial book about contraception, she was a hero.

Essentially as a Christian we believe life for a human begins at fertilisation. Being responsible sexually means avoiding fertilisation, and once fertilisation has happened nurturing the human life begun; being irresponsible means not avoiding fertilisation or having to destruct another human life.

The article identifies toxic chemicals that are introduced into the reproductive system to destroy a life begun. Such acts indicates that life is cheap and destructible and we can act without consequences.

Tubley, “Your hypothetical analogies mean little when discussing the prospect of abortion”

I express my view, acknowledging the physical limits of my gender (ie lacking a womb = unable to carry a baby and thus never likely to require an abortion of any sort).

That sorted out, without any knowledge of the feelings I might experience, were I female and pregnant, I would nonetheless demand the right to decide how my body was to be deployed and not have my right of choice subjugated to the demands of rabid and hysterical anti-abortionists.

The point of reference I make is a humane one, not simply biological. You can deflect and divert argument all you want into the whys and wherefores of sperm and ovum. It makes no difference.

What ultimately matters is the sovereignty of an individual over their own body’s, be they male or female. You might be happy to surrender your independence to the whims of others but I am never ever going to surrender mine and I will always support that view as it is expressed by others.

Philo, “Essentially as a Christian we believe life for a human begins at fertilisation.”

Speak for yourself – you do not speak for all Christians. As a Christian I believe God gave us free will. How we exercise it is between the individual and God, it has nothing to do with the view of any other third party, regardless of their religion.

Grave risk in having an abortion Charles Francis QC- Herald-Sun, 24-July-2006
Having acted for women damaged by abortion, I-have learned it-is always very bad advice to refer any woman for an abortion because there are many medical risks.

Yet Senator Natasha Stott Despoja complained on these pages last week that some pregnancy counselling services do not refer women for abortions, and that they tell women of their increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and psychological trauma after abortion.


In 1997 I acted for "Ellen" who suffered very significant psychiatric problems following an abortion. At the time it was already well known abortion could cause psychiatric problems, but "Ellen" was never warned. The Australian High Court found in Rogers v. Whitaker that before any operation, the doctor has an express duty to warn of any material risk. "Ellen" sued on the basis of failure to warn and her case was settled out of court (Herald Sun, 29/9/98). In a similar case in NSW, "Cynthia" won a settlement for $200,000 for psychological damage following abortion.



Following "Ellen's" case, I was asked to act for or advise a number of women in relation to psychological problems resulting from abortions. I came to know these women personally and realised how dysfunctional they can be. One woman was still highly dysfunctional three years after the abortion, with no indication she would ever be able to work again.



In May 2000 I acted for "Meg", who sued on the basis the abortionist did not warn her of psychiatric problems and also her increased risk of breast cancer. In 200l her case was settled, and although it received no publicity in Australia because of a confidentiality agreement, it was publicized in the UK and USA. A case in Pennsylvania was successfully settled, but far more significant was a case brought to trial in 2005 in Oregon, USA, against All Women's Health Services abortion clinic. In January 2005, the clinic conceding there was a link between abortion and breast cancer and that it had failed to warn the Plaintiff, agreed to a judgment against it for damages.
cont:

Philo are you the counsel who acted for these women or are you quoting some esteemed personage?

My immediate reaction is CODSWALLOP and I am speaking from a personal rather than theoretical view point.

Jonathan Clark, attorney for the 19-year-old Plaintiff, says he believes the judgment "makes a pretty powerful statement about the science, indicating the clinic was not willing to argue against the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer".

It has taken the World Health Organisation decades to warn that the contraceptive pill is a Class l carcinogen, in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, and no doubt it may take decades for WHO, wedded to the ideology of population control, to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer. However, women need the truth NOW, and especially on facts about which there is no scientific dispute: that the younger a woman is when she has her first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer. Conversely, women who have no children or only have children after age 30 are at increased risk. One wonders why our Cancer Councils have not used the high-profile case of a celebrity who had breast cancer, to advise women to give priority to having babies over career, especially when breast cancer is the major killer of pre-menopausal women, and the third major cause of death in post-menopausal women.

There was a 40% increase in the incidence of breast cancer between 1987 – 1997, twenty-eight to thirty-eight years after the de facto legalisation of abortion following the Menhennitt and Levine rulings in Victoria and NSW.
There is no space to cite all the studies linking abortion with infertility, but there are many well-known cases such as Germaine Greer.

In my view pregnancy counselling services would be derelict in their duty if they did not warn women of their increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and psychological trauma following abortion.

Charles Francis AM, QC.
Honorary Legal Adviser, Endeavour Forum Inc.


Col,
To claim to-be Christian but reject the plain expression of scriptures that: “human life begins at conception” doesn’t give your position verifiable Divine authority to make the claim that it represents an orthodox Christian position. Person’s identifying themselves as Christians but holding variant positions to Scripture cannot claim it’s Christian orthodoxy

Philo - You can pretend “exclusivity” by suggesting “Person’s identifying themselves as Christians but holding variant positions to Scripture cannot claim it’s Christian orthodoxy” but you cannot enforce it by either moral of statutory means.

Just as you cannot enforce or inflict your will on women who choose to exercise the free will which God gave them, against your personal wishes.

It is simple. The “Orthodoxy” which you claim does not actually "define" or "describe" a Christian. If it did, you might be on to something but until it does, you are simply using a form of pretentious “exclusiveness” protect your view, instead of a (far superior) “quality of reason”.

In short “dogmatism” just don’t cut it (except with the insecure and easily intimidated)

Philo,

Interesting situation we have here where a purported clinical risk is “established” through tort law, rather than through science. It’s yet another tactic used by the anti abortion lobby to harass abortion providers and their clients. At least they’re not rocking up to clinics with guns (usually).

I might have read your cut and paste wrong, but none of the cases went to court. The fact that the cases were settled in favour of the plaintiff says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the case. Medical indemnity insurers frequently choose to settle cases because it’s substantially cheaper than winning them (let alone taking the risk of losing them), as there is no way of recovering costs from an impecunious plaintiff with a pro bono QC and an axe to grind. And you can bet these would be a very expensive actions to defend, given the lack of precedent and the emotions involved.

In reality claims of causing psychiatric damage are very difficult to prove or deny in a court setting, and generally boil down to who can get the best hired gun expert, and the luck of the day. The clinical evidence is pretty clear: see, for example, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/10/980 , but that’s not, unfortunately, how our legal system works.

As for breast cancer, the risk is lowest in those who get pregnant as teenagers. Are you suggesting this is what we should recommend as an optimal health strategy for girls?

Philo, if I followed your holy book, I'd have to kill my neighbour
for working on the sabbath. My neighbour is actually a really nice
fellow, I have no intention of following your scriptures!

You really should put down your so called holy book and pay more
attention to the laws of nature. Life of any species will always
be created in far greater numbers then can ever survive.

Human life is worth what it is, to the beholder. A woman who has
had 8 kids and is denied the snip by the lobbyists of the Catholic
Church, finds that yet another life is a threat to the wellbeing of
her previous 8 offspring. A couple of have never had a child, may
well think that a new human life is something special.

You and your wife have no doubt flushed many potential human lives
down your toilet, even you realised that you could not keep them
all.

Lives of any species will always be created in far larger numbers
then can ever survive. Ignore nature at your peril. IMHO its far
more important to focus on concious suffering. If you really care
about people and other species, do what you can do reduce suffering,
not be obsessed about so called holy books.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die

sorry being silly ;)

Does anyone consider adoption anymore?

Excluding exceptional circumstances (rape/incest), because we must never base a rule on an exception to it, where consenting parties are engaging in a behaviour (sex) that has risks of pregnancy regardless.

It is a choice to have sex, and choices of sentinent adults have responsibilities attached. Now, if a new life is created then surely there is a responsibility to that child who has been created. If this is inconvenient (!?!) to the consenting, and thus responsible, adults then why not consider adoption as an alternative to the cessation of life in a brutal fashion whether with cytotoxic chemicals or surgically.

Steve Madden: Please note... it is fortunate then that Christians are not under the Old Mosaic Covenant to which you refer. God bless.

"Does anyone consider adoption anymore?"

Grace, I'm sure that would be a solution for a few kids. OTOH,
if 80k people a year (those who abort now) threw their offspring
onto the adoption market, the market would be flooded and unable
to cope.

If we look at history, many of those kids landed up in Catholic
orphanges and the history of Catholic orphanages suggests that
I would not want by worst enemy to go through that process,
let alone a child of mine.

I'm sure a few Catholic paedophiles would love to see an increase
of children in Catholic orphanages, but its ceraintly not a
solution, for any person who considers themselves a humanist

Yabby Col Billie and others.

Dont worry about philo and Grace like Rain

Strange.

Where does this person get off telling other women to go through a full term pregnacy, pay for it, take time off work, feel like dirt loose their jobs, risk a difficult birth even death spoil their figure[yes it counts], suffer extream pain just to mention a few things to give a child to a stranger.

Who in the hell do you think you are.

Yes sex is by consent most times but so what its a normal part of life dizy rainy not some immoral act that woman are soley reasonsible for.

Men also should not be forced to have a child and pay for the reast of their lives after a one night stand.

It happens its life. This is 2006.

What about the rape cases? Ah?

Do you think its good for a womans mental health to be fORCED to have some kid after being raped! or according to you doesnt that matter. Oh Gee You would find your peace with god. What a weak miserable spineless cope out. If i were raped i would want the bastards kid that for sure.

To have a kid knowing the father raped you.

You think girls should be punished twice who are raped do you.

Thats your almighty belief.

Well Rainy lady until you are able to except that its none of your business what others do your going to stay in your own strange small world.

Its a pity the drug is not available in africa isnt it.

Might save a few million suffering.

Oh but I forgot thats your gods will too according to you.

Well our god does not want people to suffer like that and he wants women to repect themselves.

You cant respect yourself if you are treated as a peice of crap breeding machine.
We will decide IF? and WHEN we want to start a family
.
Not You.

Go To that place your so scared of.


Guess What>

It doesnt exist.

When you are dead there is nothing

Hi Yabby,

I can understand your point. I certainly am a realist regarding this regardless of my pro-life position.

Abortions, unfortunately and tragically, will always happen regardless of the legality or not of the proceedure. Whether that is my own preferred outcome or not probably effects people not a jot. I wasn't exactly aware of the statistics in Australia (80,000 is very sad - so many lives affected), thanks for filling me in.

However, the seriousness of the act of abortion must still be considered. The impact both physically and psychologically to the mother (and perhaps, her partner) is huge - even excluding the moral issues of ending the life of a growing child (not that they should be excluded IMO).

Adoption seems to be a road rarely travelled and I think that is sad. It seems so disposable. Choices do have consequences and responsibilities and these must be taken into account. I do know at current rates it is very difficult to adopt a child and that we have a shortage of infants for adoption here. It should not be so unheard of that people take responsibility for their actions, even if this means that they do not keep the child as their own.

Making life and the creation of it so cheap and disposable is hardly humanist either.

Hi Wendy,

I'm not sure what to say to your angry outburst except that is actually not my intention to sit in judgement over others. I merely am bringing back an important point - personal responsibility. Do we so easily forget in a disposable world?

Also, I expressly excluded exceptional cases of rape and incest first up because I don't beleive that we should make rules about terrible, traumatic incidents in the same way as we do about the more 'normal' cases of consentual sex and subsequent conceptions.

Please note that respect for one's self and avoiding responsibility are two very different things.

God bless

Grace.

You have no right to expect any women to have kids with HER body just because you feel it would be nice to be able to pass out kids to childless couples.

My girlfriend many years was in that position.

She was young frightended and kicked out of home because her parents were [good] church people.

She had not wanted to have a child but could not get a termination unless three Drs said she was crazy.

How insulting.

She even begged them.

How dare they tell her what to do with HER body and life.

How selfish you are with no consideration for her to be free to choose.

Feel free to have a hundred kids with your body but dont tell

others what to do.

You simply have no respect for others right to decide.

Your a fanatic and a bully.

You think you can Jam your extream view down others throats.

We are not telling you that you cant give birth a hundred times if thats what turns you on.

Your lot dont consider the damage they do to women inside when they stand out the front of Drs and clinics with their arms holding murder etc do they.?

Shame on you.

Oh and my girlfriend I mentioned.

Shes dead.

She died in a forced childbirth.

So much for your pro life!

Grace,

I’m a bit troubled by your last couple of posts. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and then relinquishing the baby for adoption is a fine and admirable option for a few, and those who freely choose to do so deserve all the support we can give them. But I would hate to put pressure on any woman to have to make that choice. There are many women alive today who have had that experience from the bad old days when abortion was not an option, and in many cases the pain they’ve had to carry has been devastating. (Let alone the horrendous story of Wendy’s friend) See http://www.smh.com.au/news/Adele-Horin/Dont-airbrush-cruelties-of-adoption/2005/02/25/1109180105480.html

I agree: 80 000 abortions is far too many, and a major part of the solution is to promote the access and use of safe and effective contraception. I hope that’s part of your position too.

I’m very uncomfortable with making a special distinction for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. It carries the implication that an unwanted pregnancy resulting from consensual sex is a punishment that a woman might deserve, as opposed to a pregnancy resulting from being victimized. Talking about unwanted pregnancies in terms of “good” or “bad” women is, to say the least, a very unhelpful way of approaching the issue.

80,000 abortions per year is 80,000 too many. Who would disagree with that? But what do we do about it? Preaching chastity doesn't work. So what does work?

Holland has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the world. And this is how they do it:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

Unfortunately, the same religious idealists who oppose abortions usually also oppose sensible sex education. And successive Australian governments are stupid enough to be led by the nose by assorted religious extremists instead of using their common sense.

Snout and Rex.

Your both absolutley right.

Grace the [other] counter argument for adoption is the laws have changed regarding privacy.

Most people who have adopted want it put behind them.

Now days u get a knock on the door twenty years later and that has destroyed even more lives all over again.

That means the mother cops it all over again because she has no rights.

Its all very well to say she can block contact but she cant.

They can only request that agencies do not give her info out but u cant block people from finding u if they really wish.

People then argue that the child has a right to know about their history medical etc.

It seems to me the morning after pill is the most practicle way for women to use if they are not on the pill and dont wish to start a family.

To be able to choose is a basic right.

They are making a pill for men I hear so cheer up.



The more men take half the reponsibilty the better.

You clearly do not have any idea of the deaths through back yard aborsion Grace and the curruption .

Re your comment about the low life men just P off.

Well there is an old saying.

Why buy a book when u can read it at the library.

Whats supposed to happen is U date u fall in love> u Marry> u decide together when or if u have kids.

If u sleep with someone outside marraige there is a greater risk of it not lasting.

These ladies certainly need a supply of this drug.

There is no excuse these days to be living off welfare.

That is no example for any child.

Its certainly not good for the country.

Wendy,

I'm truly sorry for the tragic circumstances of your friend. That is extremely sad.

I have friends who have had abortions, I love them dearly, we have discussed it and my love does not change because of their decision. However, I cannot say that I agree with their decision - but again, it's not my job to sit in judgement either, but to love them and be their friend.

As for the rest of your posts regarding welfare etc, I wasn't quite able to follow your logic. I do think it's incredibly important that men/fathers are considered also in decisions, as it is not solely the woman's decision.

Snout,

Thanks for your reply. Please understand I wasn't categorizing women into 'good' and 'bad' women.. as a sinner myself it would possibly be the pot calling the kettle black. Such distinctions are useless and profit no one.

However, there IS a difference between consentual sex and rape/incest. Sentinent adults make consenting choices knowing the consequences and risks involved. With choices come consequences. Babies don't deserve a 'whoops'.

It is a complex issue, but referring to babies as tumours or parasites somehow implys that they got there through no decision of the woman, and that they are an alien invasion into her body. This arguement is ludicrous and a denial of the reality of sexuality.

God bless

Rex you make some good points! Once again, religion is part of
the problem, rather then a solution.

Not only sex education, but IMHO ethics and morality should be
taught in schools, from a philosophical rather then a religious
perspective. Threatening people with burning forever just doesent
work anymore like it used to.

Sadly it seems that Govts have been holding this one up, because
of old agreements with religions, who of course want to claim
the ethics/morality patch as their own. Clearly public opinion is
changing and politicians should take note.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/parents-want-class-teaching-secular-views-of-morality/2006/08/04/1154198329014.html

Grace, the problem is that the religious still have the belief that
if people have sex, they should be forced to have any resulting
children. Why do you think that they should have the right to
make this compulsory?

Assuming abortion at the current rate of 80,000 Australians have been aborted each year for the past 40 years would mean an extra 3,200,000 Australians under the age of 40 and 2,000,000 of those would be working in creative jobs supporting an aging population now entering welfare. The population balance and the economic balance of our Nation would not have the threatening state that now exists. Start meddling in social engineering and natural consequences are the result. We have had to import mature labour from in some cases nationalities that do not hold our values and loyalties to National security. They do not abort their children so have large families that will change the demographics of our values.

Grace..

Thank you for your kind words.

Its not just sad Grace its criminal.

Its the result of people like you who cant mind their own business and want to tell others what to do.

Those people in my mind should have been charged.

You seem not to know what underground terminations to to a soceity in general.

Cant you see how unreasonable you are trying tostop women having this tablet if THEY want it?

No man married or otherwise has the right to force a woman.

That would be slavery .

I think you are lucky to have nice friends and I do hope you kept your personal thoughts to yourself and did not dump on them.

At the risk of annoying people especially philo I find it sad you worry about something less than a grain of rice in size and turn your back on the mass animal cruelty of live exports.

Its pathetic.

Ah Philo, sounds to me like you fear the great Islam invasion...

Islamic countries are actually addressing population control,
including abortion, unlike the old Catholic Church, which still
has their head in the sand as usual.

The point is, if your end of the religious spectrum had a say
in the running of things, abortion would be banned, women would
be forced to have children they didn't want etc.

Society would be intolerant, constant references would be made
to some so called holy book, as guidance. In fact the Christian
Taliban are nearly as fanatical as the Muslim Taliban, if you
weigh it all up.

Luckily the Christian Taliban are just noisy, but small in
numbers, the majority of society does not want the Godsquad
to rule. Lucky that, or alot of us would have to pack our bags
and try and find a tolerant place in the world to live, much
like people from other countries, who come to Australia for
that very reason.

I am not going to take part in a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong because that’s not on the menu here.
My first impression of the article:

I agree with the author that these drugs should not be administered to women who choose to have a chemical abortion because they have not been approved for abortion and might not be safe.

Her concern that women will not be fully informed may be valid or may not; but she seems to speak from experience. If she’s right, then I am concerned about a few things as well.

Firstly, if her experience is that women seeking abortions are usually not being told what they are in for, I wonder what else has been going on at clinics in her opinion for her to say this. I obviously haven’t read any of her other writings; perhaps she has talked about these other experiences in other articles? What else don’t women know about?
Is she being genuine or trying to scare women out of having abortions at all?

Secondly, if her concern is valid and women will not be fully informed about the drugs, the danger is that women may view these drugs simply as an alternative to the abortion drug RU486, while in reality these drugs are not approved abortion drugs.

Finally, abortion clinics are supposed to be pro-women. Withholding any facts and information about the drug is fooling women and is disrespectful.
I find it scary to think that women and girls, who trust and rely upon pro-women organisations can't trust these. If abortion clinics would withhold important information and facts from women and use them as guinea pigs, what might they experiment with next? Hmmmm...is she trying to scare women again, or is this a genuine concern?

If Melinda is not right about the women not being informed: Even if women were fully informed, it is also not pro-women to inject women, no matter how informed they are, with drugs that haven’t been approved for abortion and might endanger their future health or that of future children.

Celivia

The fact that the drug has not been approved for the purpose of abortion in Australia is one of the reasons for the clinical trial. Clinical trials have to be conducted in this country before any medication can be approved for a particular purpose by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This is the case for all new drugs or new indications for old drugs. Methotrexate is approved for a number of other medical purposes (and has been used for nearly half a century) so its overall safety profile is well known.

The question of how well women will be informed is not a trivial one. I don’t doubt that there have been times in the past when the quality of informed consent to participation in clinical trials has been inadequate, but I would bear in mind Melinda’s partisan views in her assessment of what will happen in this one. My guess is that given anti abortionists are now using tort law (centred on issues of consent) as a weapon to harass abortion providers, those conducting this trial will take pains to be absolutely scrupulous on this issue (not that they wouldn’t be otherwise). See a couple of Philo’s posts on 3rd August above (and my reply).

Grace,

It was Melinda who brought up the “tumour” reference, carried on by a number of posters who I suspect were trolling (see my first post on 24th July).

The consensual/non consensual intercourse issue ought to be problematic for anti abortionists as well. If an embryo or foetus has an absolute right to life, then whether it resulted from rape or a consensual act of love is really immaterial.

My insistence on calling an embryo an embryo and a foetus a foetus and not a “baby” is not just scientific pedantry, unless you are going to argue that taking the morning after pill is of equivalent moral seriousness to infanticide.

The issue of consent is particularly interesting. Consent is required for sex, abortion, medical treatment or trials, contact with children etc. etc.

Assuming women are appropriately informed, the trial declared a success and Methotrexate is approved as a safe drug for this purpose by the Therapeutic Goods Administration - where does it leave this concept of unilateral consent only women ere required to give?

I note the arguments for adoption are immediately dismissed as uncomfortable for the woman, both physically for the remainder of the pregnancy, and psychologically for the rest of her life. They want to be spared the constant worry, possible regret a couple of years later, or the embarrassment of an adopted child turning up to their door some 20 or 30 years later. Fair enough.

Women want the ability to decide whether to become a mother at this particular time, with current partner, or to this very zygote – potentially just one of 400. OK, no arguments there.

So we have 80,000 to 100,000 safe abortions per year. So the discomfort may be no more than a visit to a dentist; health benefits no less beneficial than a good boob job. All good clean therapeutic fun. Fine.

A couple of posters have warned against categorising ‘unwanted pregnancies in terms of “good” or “bad” women’ or forcing women to become unwilling parents as in "Nothing will change a woman's adamantine determination not to bring a child into the world that she knows she cannot adequately parent." I second those sentiments.

But, why does the same logic not apply to men? If people argue that ownership of genetic material is deemed transferred at point of ejaculation, then why should ex owners bear responsibility for its subsequent use or disposal? If this is a basis for consensual transfer of ownership, then why should it be any different then selling a car or house? With those, we are no longer responsible for future running costs, maintenance or alterations. Nor do we expect to borrow these items every other weekend.

On the other hand, if we are not discussing inanimate objects or material possessions, we’ll need better arguments to justify such male marginalisation to inconsequential status as parents. Until then, Methotrexate is just another drug in the armoury of secret women’s business and no different to any other form of paternity fraud.

Because I came into the discussion rather late, I first wanted to give my impression of the article itself before reading any comments.
I’m glad that there are some balanced views in this discussion from people like Yabby, Snout, Col and some others. Some people sound like they have some of their body parts superglued to the bible.

Snout, I think you’re right – your tort law weapon point makes sense
I had the impression from the article that using methotrexate as an abortion drug was a pilot experimentish program, but apparently this method has been used by Marie Stopes clinics and others in about 50 counties where RU486 is not available and is believed to be safe and effective, albeit not as effective as RU486.

In the USA it has been used as an abortion drug since 1993 and is said to be safe. http://www.medicationabortion.com/methotrexate/index.html

However, medical abortion using methotrexate remains the least effective option out of the three abortion methods (the others being abortion pill RU486 and surgical abortion).
If RU486 will become available in Australia in about 12 months or so, there might not be a need to go through a lengthy process to approve methotrexate as an abortion drug.

I feel quite relaxed now about this methotrexate/misoprostol regimen now. And about misoprostol- this is also used in combination with the RU486 drug which means it’s here to stay when RU486 is widely available.

One thing I want to say is that while the government is spending millions of dollars on making counseling available for pregnant women in an attempt to prevent abortion, I’d rather see the government spending these funds on more sex education in schools and free contraception. The fact that teenage girls have to pay for contraception is preventing them from using it. Even John Howard said that he thinks that the counseling is probably not going to make a huge difference in lowering the abortion rate. I believe making contraception free will make a big difference.

Celivia, I think the whole problem comes back to the religious
lobby. They are small in number, but in some things have quite
some influence.

They complain about 80k abortions a year, but when better
sex education, free contraception, follow the Holland method
etc are put forward, they would rather stonewall all that.

At the end of the day, they would like all of us to cross
our legs for Jesus, and its just not going to happen!

On the other hand, I know plenty of secular people who are
involved in loyal, faithfull relationships. However their
reasoning for being so, has little to do with religion,
more with philosophy etc. The religious lobby just can't
get their minds around that, sadly.

The problem with RU 486 is that none of the big drug companies
want to get involved with the hassle of importing it, as sales
are relatively minor and of course they will have to face
placards on their doorsteps etc, if we go by what happened
in other countries. This drug being tested now, is already
here, for other reasons, so all that falls away.

BTW Wendy, the live sheep trade is a huge saviour for WA
farmers and sheep at the present time, as we face drought here.
Boats have improved and are better then most feedlots that you
have over there. We don't have the meatworks here, neither
people who want to staff them. We have a minerals boom, there
are better jobs around then meatworks. Trucking sheep East,
as has been happening, is in fact far more cruel, also hugely
costly. Inform yourself on the live trade from WA, its a long
way from what it was and today is a win-win for all, including
the sheep. For WA it certainly matters hugely, especially now

Yabby .

I run the RSPCA QLD PALE Ban Live Export Programe.

Here are the facts .

www.halakindmeats.com

www.livexports.com

Dont forget to look at the pictures.

After up the three months crambed on ship going blind because of the acid and urinating from the 4 tear ships they >the tendons of their legs, smash their knees with sledge hammers stab their eyes then the throat is cut without stunning.

For cattle the suffering is much longer.

There are no knocking boxes .

The smell of blood a their mates being slaughtered in full view naturally creates extream stress while they scream out with their last bit of energy for someone or something to help them.
Do Not post to me again.
If you support that you are evil.

Dr Hugh Wirth the President of RSPCA has made this material available to all farmers and there are plenty of other outlets apart from live exports.
Shame on you.

I apoligise for being led off post to others.

I watched a story on 60 Minutes tonight, of a Canberra couple who
have adopted two Ethopian kids. It was a joy to watch, as these
kids have a chance in life and become little Aussies!

It beats me how people can become emotional about zygotes and
embryos, when clearly there are these many feeling, suffering, thinking,
little people out there, who need all the help they can get.

Wendy, you can publish all the websites you want, if the info
is out of date, then its worth zilch. Things have changed, you
need to update yourself.

Cameron Morse of the Countryman (WA farming paper) just did a
trip to Jordan on the Becrux. The sheep were well looked after,
they even used stun guns when slaughtered in Jordan. Not that
many years ago, that was not even the case in WA meatworks.
Go to any shearing shed, animals throats are slit with no
stun guns, as shearers and farmers kill their own meat.

Given that sheep are starving in WA paddocks, lambs are being
shot by the tens of thousands right now, feedmills cannot
provide fodder either, the live export trade, having moved
700'000 sheep in a couple of months, is providing a vital
service to both sheep and growers. Update your information
Wendy, you are way out of date with the reality of today's
live sheep trade from WA.

Yabby

I said I would not reply to your utter garbage.
Others are trying to post about the topic at hand.
We are well aware of what has gone where and how they are treated and slaughtered.

As we speak we have agents right throughout. The footage is shocking.

When you export a animal alive you export it in its most vaulable form ie wool on its back and those jobs bi products and the small goods not to mention the abattoirs and the meat.

AFIC the Australian federation of Islamic council themselves have come out with two media releases asking for the animals to be slaughtered here in Australia and to re open the abattoirs.

If the Muslims themselves are screaming about the cruelty I think that is clear.

There is NO REASON they cant be slaughtered here Halal where we have some laws regarding animal welfare and provide jobs for Australians.

The footage we have gained AGAIN in the last couple of months shows there are no stun guns used in most plants.

Surley Australia is not so desperate for an extra twenty dollars it must subject animals to be sent alive where they have no respect for human lives or laws let alone animals.

oh by the way Yabby Two of our people returned friday after five months of gainging evidence.[again]

Is that up date enough for you.

You clearly just shoot off at the mouth trying to misinform the public for reasons known only to you.

If you wish to carry on click on my email address and do so privately. Or email Dr Hugh Wirth RSPCA President. I am sure he could put you straight.

Now why dont you let the others get back to the drug to introduce abortion and have some manners.

I probably should not have replied however as this is my job I hope others will understand we wont tolerate people trying to misinform the public about this barbaric trade thats not run by farmers rather corps and low lifes.

Wendy, perhaps you would like to make a worthwhile contribution to the comments of this article: Legal Abuse of Animals- http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4594#45126
Oh I tried the link to your website out of interest but it doesn’t work; can you check it?

Yes, LOL, Yabby, true that they complain about abortion and also lecture about pre-marital sex, but they don’t realize that by doing this they’re achieving the opposite.

For religious anti-abortionists to think about:
I believe I’ve discussed this on OLO before, but in short, I'll just say that countries with liberal abortion laws do not even need to use this service as much because of the widespread, freely available sex education and contraception http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html

If you, as a religious group, really want to help reduce abortion rates do something about preventing abortions other than complain, pray, bore and lecture 21st century teenagers and people about outdated morals and lobby for or at least discuss contraception to be covered by Medicare.

Wendy, I mentioned the live trade, because you have mentioned
it, on numerous occasions. You clearly have no idea
of the situation in West Australia. The two subjects are in fact
related. I guess I'm just getting
tiered of arm-chair idealists, thousands of Km from the coalface,
usually badly informed about a topic, spruiking their misinformed
opinions, so in that case I point out why they are misinformed :)

There are no meatworks in WA waiting to be reopened, no workers to
staff them either, not even operating meatworks can find staff, they
have headed for the mining boom. You Eastern Staters really know
ZILCH about our great State!

A feedlot is a feedlot, if it floats or not is not an issue.
Fact is that modern live sheep ships have far better standards then
most Aussie feedlots.

If Hugh Wirth wants to debate the issue, I am sure that Graham
would accept his contribution and we can all discuss it here on OLO
in public.

Philosophically I am against suffering of any kind, if it can be
avoided. Be that the Catholic Church in the 3rd world, forcing
women to have children that they don't want and can't afford to
feed, or sheep dying in a drought, because there is no food to
feed them and no meatworks in WA to process them. Trucking them
East is a cruel solution, not a kind one.

However I refuse to be a hypocrite. Many of the idealists who comment about the live sheep trade, clearly don't have a clue as
to what is happening in our own country. Most sheep from that trade
are slaughtered in abattoirs in the Middle East. A few are sold
at markets and the odd one is popped in the boot, legs tied, by the
owner. A big deal was made of this. Do you have any idea as to what
goes on in the Aussie Outback? Shearing teams regularly buy the odd sheep from farmers for meat. Those sheep have their legs tied,
are popped in the boot and taken away for meat supplies.

Yabby

Celivia was kind enough to direct us to another post which is about Animal Welfare.

Why dont you go on there and I will be more than happy to continue to post to you.

Dont believe everything people tell you or the papers for that matter considering the conflict of interest in ownership of live exports and media giant, ministers etc.

There is no reason plants cant be re opended.

I am sure the country areas can use the jobs.

Packers and others have been employing people from overseas when they cant get Aussies.

We also have a programe to establish joint ventures with overseas live importers and aboriginal regional farmers.

This includes cosmetics [ non animal tested] vegetables, Roo Ranches and tourism.

The farmers are happy to sell so long as they get a good price.

I personally have a MOU with AFIC the Australian Federation Of Islamic Council and Councils.

I have met with Malaysian Government and Middle Eastern Reps.

If you have sheep or any other stock to sell we would be happy to speak with you.

Please see www.halakindmeats.com

To everybody else I apoligise for being off post

The intake of drugs not natural to the human body that have toxic effects do have side effects. We learnt today of studies done on breast cancer where their mothers used DFS to avoid natural abortion that the effects of the drug stimulated cancer in the breast in the daughter.

No Wendy, no need to apologise. Live sheep exports are performed by nasty, cruel, evil men, while abortions, by pretty little princesses who would not harm a pea, let alone something the size of a grain of rice. I’m now equally convinced these same men perpetrate the wrongful pregnancies.

Sheep abuse? Australia says NO.

Philo “The intake of drugs not natural to the human body .. blah .. that the effects of the drug stimulated cancer in the breast in the daughter. “

So What !

One of the most tragic pharmacological drugs was thalidomide.

Except for those suffering Leprosy and multiple myeloma (yet another form of cancer), for which it was approved in 2003 by the TGA and is currently being tested for use to battle prostate cancer, glioblastoma, lymphoma, and Crohn's disease.

The point, any “drug”, by definition, is “not natural” to the human body but that does not mean they are incapable of producing benefits,

Even though, with thalidomide, the side effects for the unborn, can be almost as devastating as abortion.

Philo “The intake of drugs not natural to the human body that have toxic effects do have side effects. We learnt today of studies done on breast cancer where their mothers used DFS to avoid natural abortion that the effects of the drug stimulated cancer in the breast in the daughter.”

Yes, indeed a scary thing about that DES drug :(
The prescription and taking of drugs in pregnancy must be administered with extreme care. Drugs that have harmful effects on the foetus are of course clearly categorised as such and easily avoided.

What is more concerning are drugs that are vaguely suspected of having a harmful effect on the foetus and drugs that haven’t been shown to have an effect because of the lack of experience with these drugs.

But the methotrexate drug used as an abortion drug is found to be safe for women to use, and there seems to have been sufficient experience with it in many countries.

Of course, pregnant women also should avoid tobacco and alcohol use- these substances can have a negative effect on their unborn child- let alone the effect illicit drugs can have. It angers me to know that some pregnant women (binge) drink and smoke. There is no excuse for smoking, drinking, using illicit drugs while pregnant (unless the woman is planning to terminate the pregnancy) - everyone knows by now that taking these drugs can be hazardous to the foetus.

Smoking around a pregnant woman is not OK either- that counts especially for the woman’s partner. Passive smoking can also harm the foetus.

I was administered a dose of methotrexate in a country town hospital to 'resolve' an ectopic miscarriage in 2002. It was my second miscarriage and because it occured in a fallopian tube, no amount of bleeding was going to complete the process of spontaneous abortion.

I bled for weeks, was subjected to blood tests every couple of days to see if hormone levels were falling and was emotionally a wreck as there seemed no end to the misery of losing yet another desperately wanted life. When it was apparent that things were not resolving naturally, my gyno told me about methotrexate treatment and I agreed. I had one injection, and I felt quite off for about two weeks afterward but the relief that I felt at finally getting closure on the trauma was some consolation in a time of grieving.

I believe that this drug should be able to be used for proper therapeutic purposes such as in my case. I don't know that it would be appropriate for aborting healthy embryos or cytoblasts (or whatever they are called when they are still a bunch of cells) because if it is true that death occurs slowly, this would constitute inhumane treament in my opinion. If a woman wants to rid herself of unwanted progeny, let it be done in the quickest, most efficient manner possible in respect for the life that is being taken.

In terms of women not being informed, I think the author insults the intelligence of the women involved. After my talk with the gyno, I went home and googled 'methotrexate' and found out all about it. I went ahead with the procedure fully informed. It is not just the responsibility of the doctor to inform the patient, but the patient should also take steps to inform themselves.

Col

Celgene now have the patent to thalidomide and have renamed it Thalomid and its cousin Revlimid, a drug that cost $5 now costs $300 per pill.

Revlimid is a drug looking for a disease, it is in 30+ clinical trials.

Maybe it will replace methotrexate.

Wendy

Go gettem girl (sorry)

I don't agree with all your opinions but I do admire your drive :)

Steve, the problem with Wendy is that she is trying to apply
Eastern States ideas to the situation in West Australia,
a State which she clearly knows little about. Armchair
idealists are all very well, if they have their facts
straight.

Anyhow, I've left a post for Wendy to answer on the animal
welfare thread mentioned earlier. Farmers and sheep in
WA need practical solutions, not fairyfloss dreaming, to
solve their problems.

Ok back to pregnancy, sorry about the diversion :)

Media Release Yabby from The Arm Chair

24 February 2006

Australian Muslims Are Against Animal Cruelty

The President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Dr, Ameer Ali
Today called on the Australian media not to act irresponsible in misinforming the
Australian public about the real reasons for live exports.

Dr. Ameer Ali said that Muslims are primarily concerned to ensure that the
Animal is slaughtered in accordance with the Islamic Shariah, ad that can be
Done in Australia under the Australian Government supervised Muslim Slaughter
Program (AGSMS) and we want the Australian public to know that we do not
Agree to animal cruelty.

He further said that Muslims in the Middle Eastern countries readily accept
frozen and chilled lamb and mutton from Australia, once it is Halal certified
under the program. Last year Australian lamb meat exports to the Middle East
was up 36% to a record 14,052 Tonnes, and Australian mutton meat export to
the Middle east was up 24% in the same period to 36,051 Tonnes (ref. Farmonline
News 1 Feb 2006). This represents the equivalent of more than 2 million sheep
which were slaughtered in Australia for Middle Eastern Muslim customers.

Dr. Ali said that the Australian Muslims does not support the cruel treatment of
animals prior to slaughter. That has been documented in Egypt as the Qur` an
dictates that animals should be treated with kindness.

I'm not sure why you posted that here Wendy, given that you
asked me to post on the animal welfare thread, which I have
done, to which you have yet to respoind.

I'm sure that the local Islamic community would love to
have more halal certified meat slaughtered here, for AFAIK
they are paid a fee, so no doubt would love for the cash
register to ring even louder for them in Australia,
which does not happen with live exports.

Clearly the argument has gone above your head however.
Yup animal cruelty is not accepted by Islam. So if it
should occur in the Middle East, the place to report
it is with the religious authorities in Islamic countries,
where Islam is fairly strictly enforced in most of them.

I am sure that incidents occur over there, as they do over
here, which are not acceptable. If they do, ok report them.
If I were to take a video camera and look around a bit,
I could go to any Aussie saleyard, meatworks, old people home,
hobby farmers, etc. etc and film incidents that would shock
viewers.

The point about armchair idealists is that they can become
quite fanatical, when they get a bee in their bonnet about
some issue. Wether that be abortion or the live trade, for
some reason it seems to me, their ability to think rationaly
seems to go clean out the window.

Personally I prefer to make judgments based on good evidence
and my ability to reason, not fairyfloss dreams.

Wendy, you really should not be using this thread to discuss animal rights issues.
And by the way Wendy you didnt get back to me on that question I asked you before.

I believe that the rights of women in the abortion debate are first and foremost, it has to be.

We cannot and should not force a woman to give birth to an unwanted baby no matter who and which groups are offended by it.

Philo is very rigid in his veiws and sends a chill down the spine of compassionate christians who do not spew forth fire and brimstone to drive home a point.

When men are responsible for fertility,by either using adequate protection, or indeed ever find themselves in a position where they are suddenly the birthgivers on this planet, then I think we would find a complete back flip in this whole debate.

Come on guys,Id like to see you step into our shoes for a bit AND THEN come back and at least put forth a an arguement based on something other than hot air.

Steve

Thanks

Try not to let you down.

What are you doing on this post anyway havent you read about my cross dress theory.?[grin]

Seeker thanks for your comment.

Oz girl I agree with your above comment.

As Celiva pointed out however I think its supposed to be more about the actual drug.

People like me tend to jump the gun thinking its all a ploy from the Church trying to ban abortion again.

The last thing we need is for things to go back to backyard abortion with its coruption deaths and cover ups.

All terminations and this drug should be covered by medi care.

I met with Steve Fielding who is one of sixteen kids to discuss dare I say live exports.

It was clear to me he was more interested in terminations than anyone, or anything, thats already here on this earth like you and I.

We need to all be very careful that Tony Abbott does not get his way down the track through the Family first vote.

That would be really Scary.

Somebody should have told his and Tonys mums about this pill so we didnt have to put up with them trying to force us to have children we either cant afford or simply do not want.

Now I will duck for cover for the next twenty hours while I am attacked for my comments from the bible bashers.

PS Oh and Senator Fielding I am still waiting for a reply from you.

I know its only been two years.

The God I know has compassion and he wants the Church to teach that to others.

He told me that people of the Church who dont do that are hypocrites.

Its not too late to lead the way instead of being a puppet to
Howard.

Surely the fund raising ball didnt leave you that obligated.?

Respect womans rights to make up their own minds, surely that is the most basic right of every human being.

Respect ALL life and creatures and stop living behind the Vaile.

OZGIRL,

In today’s modern world where mothers are not forced into motherhood just because they become pregnant, men should not be forced into parenthood either - financial or otherwise.

If abortion is permissible on the grounds that it may negatively impact one’s education or career aspirations, marriage plans, mortgage repayment schedule, or in the prevention of psychological trauma such as may be caused by worry or even embarrassment, and the abortion is readily and safely accessible to the tune of one third of all pregnancies, why should it not be also an option for men?

Men could file for wrongful pregnancy, the court could order an abortion using (methotrexate, RU486 or as preferred by the defendant – let’s retain free choice). If the court order is ignored (as most of the family law court orders are, by women), the plaintiff is automatically absolved from all future responsibility.

Similarly, men should be able to sue for wronful life, any time up to the child’s 18th birthday, if for any reason they did not think of it earlier, or in cases of paternity fraud.

Seeker, you are missing the point altogether..its not about men and their rights in any way shape or form.

My point is that once a child is conceived, under any circumstance, then it becomes entirely about the rights of the baby and the expecting mother.Noone has any right to place undue pressure on the mother to keep her child unless she herself wishes to do so.

What happens for instance if a mother were forced to keep her child?
In most cases she would resent it and most likely would abuse and neglect that child.A lot of pregnancies are the result of rape and coersion by brutal husbands and the choices are ripped away from women.I would never carry a child as the result of a rape, that would be my choice.Women carry the burden of most families, single or married.The burden of responsibility lays with them..so if men are happy for this to be the case, I feel they have no right of reply when the tough decisions need to be made.

Most women do not take lightly the decision to terminate a pregnancy, no matter what you may think.
In some cases,such as gender selection, mothers should be counselled to ensure she has thought it thru to its fullest extent.But no matter
how any one feels about it, the right or wrong of it, its her decision and she must be respected and given support.

Wendy I am in full agreeance with you on this.

When I say 'carry the burden' I mean that women are the backbone of most families,not to be confused with women carrying the financial burden,although some do that as well.
In most cases if the woman leaves, the glue that holds the family gives way, so the burden of responsibility is hers in that way, the most important way.

OZGIRL,
Could you identify for me on what occasions I have threatened brimstone to prove a point. This identifies your imagined paranoia rather than an honest assessment of my position.

You said, "Philo is very rigid in his veiws and sends a chill down the spine of compassionate christians who do not spew forth fire and brimstone to drive home a point."

Wendy also shows her paranoia and obsession rather than honesty about the views of those that respect human life; with this. "We need to all be very careful that Tony Abbott does not get his way down the track through the Family first vote. That would be really Scary. Somebody should have told his and Tonys mums about this pill so we didnt have to put up with them trying to force us to have children we either cant afford or simply do not want."

We well recognise your hatred of children because it interferes with your career and your despising of those that love family.

OZGIRL,
Another 4 posts on one topic in a 24 hour period. How do you do it?

Philo,

Condoning a womans right to choose, does not equal 'hatred of children'..

If I hated children I doubt I would be here doing the hard yards alone,would,nt it have been easier ,if there was any truth in what you say, to leave them to foster carers or family.

Comments like that make you look very unbalanced.

Keep harping on about posts again..?A life would be nice buddy.

It seems that noone wants to respond to my post about my very personal experience with this drug.

My point is this: Women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, no doubt about that. BUT, there also needs to be respect for the life that is being terminated and this may be shown by using the quickest, most efficient form of termination available. I don't know if methotrexate abortion meets this criteria.

Jacqueline

I take your point, however, if you check earlier posts you would find that the reasons for the use of methotrexate currently has already been discussed. Please see

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4702#48829

It is vital that women be able to maintain control over their fertility, in fact the issue is even bigger than that, we also must be able to sustain our future populations. It is deeply disturbing for the religious right's anti-contraception, anti-choice stance. I have to wonder why, when the world is facing overpopulation.

The following is an extract from an article about the USA’s burgeoning population:

"(Brian Dixon, Population Connection's director of government relations).. cited research showing that one-third of all pregnancies in this country (USA) are unintended. "And our teen pregnancy rate is almost twice that of the next-highest industrialized nation. Yet we're wasting hundreds of millions on abstinence programs that have been shown never to work, and in fact can be quite harmful."

He doesn't believe abstinence proponents are really interested in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases: "They want to punish people who act, in their view, immorally. You got pregnant?
It's because you behaved badly. You got an STD? You should've thought about that before you had sex. They want bad outcomes."

.... askek Dixon about a May 6 article by Russell Shorto in The New York Times Magazine that created a national stir by exposing the religious right's efforts to restrict access to contraception. He said the threat is very real, and it's nothing new: "That's been pretty obvious around Washington for a while."

The full article is available at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/39920/http://www.alternet.org/story/39920/

It makes for disturbing reading and (with the rise of the religious right) Australia is headed in a similar direction.

Yes, OZGIRL it is all about the females who live for, and off, their children.

“My point is that once a child is conceived, under any circumstance, then it becomes entirely about the rights of the baby and the expecting mother.” And then immediately following, something somewhat understatedly contradictory: “Noone has any right to place undue pressure on the mother to keep her child unless she herself wishes to do so.” As if not keeping a child, should ever be considered in negative terms… (shame on you’s).

And Jacqueline, “My point is this: Women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, no doubt about that. BUT, there also needs to be respect for the life that is being terminated and this may be shown by using the quickest, most efficient form of termination available.” Very humane.

Scout then goes on to say, “It is vital that women be able to maintain control over their fertility, in fact the issue is even bigger than that, we also must be able to sustain our future populations.”

So, there you go folks. Only women can effectively control populations through pregnancy terminations (without the evils of men and their preoccupation with ownership of assets, availability of resources, maps, borders or wars). Only mothers can decide to have children without the fathers’ consent – be the father biological or social – it matters none, as far as the law is concerned.

So what’s in it for men, you may ask. I urge you all to do your own maths, but to me, a couple of years of trauma-free sex (if that), does not seem to reconcile with the $200,000+ bill to raise each child. Unless you’re a himbo without assets, living in a nanny state.

Ahh Seeker! Sounds to me like you would be best to stick to the
el cheapo fantasy, at least it won't get you into any more
trouble :)

Seeker, how you do sound like Basil Fawlty..too long on this forum I suspect..listening to all the raving loonies ie:other moronic posters who just dont get it.This is debate and this topic in particular is very contentious and has been since the year dot.

A nice lie down and a cuppa for you.

And Philo,I hope your still counting every post I put up..it is you that does,nt have a life if I remember correctly.
You must have a whole days to wile away counting my posts and adding up the minutes between them.

Yabby, yes I dream of yabby and sheep farming.

Seeker, you sound angry that women have so much control over this. But that's just the way it is until the day that men can get pregnant.

I can see your point that if there’s a way out for women through abortion, there should be a way out for men as well, ot by having a say in the woman’s decision to have an abortion but perhaps by discussing with the woman that he wants no responsibility at all for the child if she decides to have the baby. She can then decide if she wants to raise the child alone or have an abortion. If she decides to have the child then hthe man will have to sign away all his responsibilities as well as his rights, perhaps officially at a lawyer. Would that be possible, by law? I have no idea about that, just making a suggestion for the sake of the discussion.
Would you agree to something like that, so that you would be free of your responsibility and the girl you got pregnant would be free in her decision as well?
I mean, it’s rather barbaric to force a woman to have an abortion or to force her to have a baby she doesn’t want.
Women should remain boss in their own belly in any case.

Celvia

I like the way u think outside the square on many issues.

Thats a good idea, but you probably would not get it past the Senate.
They would say, what about the childs rights, to know its parents, including the Dad, especially for medical background etc.

Children may have a Mum and a Dad but only if they are children.

We are not talking about children here.

Something so simple as the morning after pill is really nothing to do with any man.

Its part of womans personal health for herself.

It should be left that way.

We have already voted on it and the Australian public have enough respect for Women to be able to make up their own minds about their own bodies.

All this carry on about something less than a grain of rice and something thats not a child and never will be unless its born gives me the willys.

I suggest he finds something else to do such as helps the street kids the homeless.

Help the ones that are already here instead of trying to force woman to have more unwanted to add to the population.

I think the stuff should be put in the water in Africa personally.

Oh and to the person who wrote I show I hate kids.

Dont be so childish.

I do hate spoilt brats even though I know its the parents fault rather than the kids.

Our family run schools the education of children on several levels.

You dont do that if you hate kids.

I do however prefer bush and country kids who are still removed from the idea that you dont have to work.

I do not beleive however that a womans place is only to have kids.

We are all free to choose our own lives.

Just like the men are.

End of Story.

Abortion was legalised for a reason, because backyard operators were killing our wives and daughters thru unhygeinic practices and lack of medical knowledge and yet women still took that risk and still they died.This fact overpoweringly forced parliament to legalise it.

NOONE thinks abortion is "OK",and to say otherwise is just plain stupid, and to be honest there are a very small percentage of women who do undergo procedures for 'frivalous' reasons ie:gender selection and birth control, but these are a very small minority of uneducated women,but the overall population of women are responsible women who try to make informed choices.
As was pointed out, this is not an issue for men and quite frankly it does,nt feel right debating this with them.I would never appoint myself moral guardian over your testicles (balls) and how you choose to manage your little swimmers.
This is a womans issue and unless your a woman you just dont have a clue.
As one poster pointed out(Wendy) there are so many children and babies, unwanted and unloved,out there and it would serve your energies and good intentions far better to champion a cause for those already here whom noone wants.Too many unwanted kids, we dont need any more.

“As was pointed out, this is not an issue for men and quite frankly it does,nt feel right debating this with them.I would never appoint myself moral guardian over your testicles (balls) and how you choose to manage your little swimmers.
This is a womans issue and unless your a woman you just dont have a clue.”

No, OZGIRL. This is not just a women’s issue, regardless of attempts to exclude men as evident in the language of your posts. Your reluctance to anonymously debate this with men, shows you preference for continuation of secret women’s business that includes unilateral decisions to terminate a wrongful pregnancy (wrong partner, wrong time). This of course includes the right not to terminate an equally wrongful pregnancy if both partners’ views were to be taken into account.

There are no laws to protect men from unwanted fatherhood. Worse than that, even paternity fraud is relatively easily foisted on men through routine legal obstacles obscuring any notion of justice for them. Unless they walk away immediately, they become responsible by default; otherwise Family Law may not grant a paternity test other than exceptional circumstances. Spare us the sop stories of backyard abortions and dangers of birth – let’s have more abortions, not less.

Faith, Lacy Dawn's best friend, wouldn't tell anybody what her daddy did to her every time mommy went shopping because she knew that nobody would believe her.

"Rarity from the Hollow"

OZGIRL, well said that most women are responsible and making informed decisions about abortion.

However, I think that this issue does not necessarily only concern women. I don’t feel that men should be left out of the discussion as some men do have an open mind and something worthwhile to say, and sometimes from a different angle. Everybody is free to have opinions on any issue and share them.

A pregnant woman can take into account what her partner has to say about abortion, but men should also accept that women naturally have the last say and the final decision is her’s.
Both men and women can give their opinion on the use of this pill.

My personal opinion remains that the surgical method is preferable because it is more effective, cleaner and quicker, but that the methotrexate methode is OK for women who prefer this.

Seeker, I hope there will be an article to be discussed about the points you are raising and I agree with you that paternity fraud is disgraceful. If there’s going to be an article and discussion on this, I’d be happy to join in. I’m not sure if this is the right place to have this discussion.

Seeker, if you have sex with a woman there is always the risk of pregnancy. Both the man and woman must take responsibility. Even if contraception is used, there still is a small risk. It’s just one of those things that doesn’t seem fair but still happens- one would call it ‘life’ and we just have to deal with life the best we can. A man over 30 who never wants children can always choose to have a vasectomy.

Robert, I had no idea who you were or what you meant so I googled you. Good on you that part of the proceeds of your book are designated to prevent child abuse. It’s nice to make us curious about your new book which sounds interesting, but do you also have an opinion about the use of methotrexate for the purpose of abortion?

Wow what a great discussion, full of heat and passion and so much more besides. I'd like to know what the forum thinks of Bill Clinton's take on abortion when he said it sould be safe, legal and rare.

Celivia,

Thanks for the Google. Except that I was once a member of NOW, as a man I have no medical (or other) expertise that should influence a woman's decision. My main interest is the prevention of child abuse, and, as you noted, my novel, which will make you cry and laugh, is a means to this end in West Virginia where I work as a therapist in a children's mental health program. Sadly, some of my kids would have been better off if ...fetal alcohol syndrome, unloved, or confiscated by the State because mommy built a meth lab....

Abortion is always a controversy in my group therapy session with teens. As with this newest procedure, I abstain from acting like I know crap. I know what I know. Otherwise, I'm a dumbass willing to learn only what I'm convinced is truthful. You sound like a good source to start with.

BTW, a satirical essay about self-promotion of my novel is at www.wingspanquarter.com. The online is free.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"
robert_t@charter.net

Celivia,

Hi you raise some interesting points and whilst you believe that men should be allowed to enter the debate, thats fine, as long as their not telling women how to feel and how to act..the last word does rest with the woman and so that effectively goes back to my point, it is a womans issue.
Tony Abbot is one example.
Their is mens and womens business wether we like it or not...been around as long as mankind.
Thats is the way it should be,women in the kitchen 'pregnant and barefoot'(thats how the guys wanted it, and it still to a large degree is the same,times havent changed that much), men go to work and all the blokey stuff surrounding that..women are not invited into that world, generally speaking of course.
So why should a woman, who's voice in the male wilderness is so small and inconsequential, comparatively speaking that is(we dont start and drive wars for instance), give men rights over the most sacred part of her life..her capacity to nurture life.The one right a man cannot take from her.
You are quite correct about my position here..i make no apology.It has always been a mans world and so far , the managers(heads of goverments) have allowed their testosterone to do the talking..wars ,destruction.
Now you say you guys want to manage our uterus?thats hilarious.

If men were responsible for their own fertility,instead of leaving it in the hands of women who may exploit this, they have nothing to fear..paternity tests exist..be responsible..why should all the burden of responsibility lay with the female..?You guys leave it all up to women, of course these things will happen, human nature.
No place for gullibility.

Seeker, 'more abortions not less'..i can only glean from this that ? is this correct...u do have a slightly different take on this as opposed to the other males on this forum,but more abortions is not the answer...men being responsible for their own fertility is absolutely the answer..mothers and fathers teaching their sons to protect themselves from unscrupulous women and accidental pregnancy. As always the solution comes back to education, for whatever issue is before us.I teach my son now and hes only 10.

Seeker, i accidentally 'edited ' my last post..I meant to say that men are not hapless victims in the paternity problem.If they feel they are it is a weak excuse.
As I said,if they were not so complacent,educated themseves,they would not find themselves victims.
And your quite right there are some compelling arguements for abortion..fetal alcohol syndrome etc..but not because men cant be accountable for their actions.It takes 2 to create a life.
And ,as for 'spare us' the rubbish about backyard abortions etc..some do forget(not you) why abortion was neccessary in the 1st place.

Lairymoo, sounds reasonable what Clinton said: it should be safe, legal and rare. Contraceptive is better than abortion!

Robert, I tried your link- can you check it, it didn’t work and I’d love to read it. Perhaps it’s temporary; I’ll try again tomorrow.
Aww, indeed very sad about the poor little kids with addicted mothers. I once knew a little girl with a heroine addicted mother, too- what a mess!

OZGIRL, My whole point was that welcoming men to debate this issue this is a good idea because women can take their opinion into regard in making the final decision. Men and women should work as a team rather than treating each other like the enemy.

You are defending imaginary statements. You’re saying this: “Now you say you guys want to manage our uterus?thats hilarious”
I have always maintained that women are ‘boss of own belly’.

OZGIRL, there are a lot of men out there who are nothing like the men you are describing and are concerned about women’s issues, too. I welcome their participation.

Above all, there are women that behave pretty disturbing as well. Danna Vale, for instance.

“If men were responsible for their own fertility,instead of leaving it in the hands of women who may exploit this, they have nothing to fear..paternity tests exist”.
Well said, we agree on this one then, since I suggested that men and women both are responsible for contraception. If a man wants to be 100% safe, there’s vasectomy.

The fact is, that there wasn’t much choice for men in contraception. Just the condom (and vasectomies that were not reversible). There were/are more options for women, like pill, IUD etc.
So in all fairness to men, they mostly had to rely on the female taking care of contraception, since the condom is certainly not 100% reliable.
But now they’re still researching this contraception pill for men- there’s hope that men too can have the chance to take more responsibility.

It’s all teamwork, OZGIRL- men and women working together, not putting each other down.

Spot on Celivia!

It takes two, while the final decision (to abort) is for the woman, men can and do offer support and take responsibility for their own fertility.

On the topic of paternity, the following is an informative and fact based article at:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1646546.htm

There is a lot of misinformation and exaggeration about paternity fraud - those who are interested in learning more should check out the above link.

The only men who should be involved in the decision are the partners of the woman considering her options, that is husbands and boyfriends in steady relationships.
I still dont think that the male community as a whole should presume that the majority of women welcome their input simply because men cannot empathise with their position .The complexity of emotions experienced by a pregnant woman/girls in this matter are way beyond the comprehension of most men, that is why men are only too happy to leave it to women the majority of the time ,men dont feel comfortable with handling deep emotional issues...some perhaps but my experience has shown most do not.
If they cant relate on that level..how can they understand the issue from a womans perspective?and it is from her perspective that they have a problem as far as I see on this forum.

Sorry I dont have a link to refer you too to support my arguement everyone, but I think my opinion could stand on its own.
Links dont make one an expert on every topic..life experience should account for something.

OZGIRL,

Sorry about my typo. The essay is at: www.wingspanquarterly.com
I left the "ly" off before.

The novel is at: www.fatcatpress.com.

Thanks for asking.

Well chosen article from Scout. The title says it all – it immediately sets out to discredit claims the practice is rampant. Just like we don’t know the abortion rate or how much, is just right. A percentage of abortions result from uncertainty of paternity, but many survive to “misattributed paternity” (hence my argument for more abortions, not less).

Scout and others may prefer not to know, just like many of the victims of paternity fraud. Yes, many of its victims are unaware and only a small proportion of population test for it. Laws that restrict the use of paternity tests can cause paternity testing statistics to underestimate the rates of non-paternity.

“It is quite possible, and should certainly be investigated, that in intact families where the man is suspicious enough to have a motherless paternity test, the rate of misattributed paternity really is the 10% or so revealed by these results, at least in Australia.” http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/aabb.htm

Why not also try http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/ while you’re at it. Here you will find some judgments such as “Fact that mother had, whether consciously or inadvertently, deceived husband into believing that children born into marriage were his biological offspring is irrelevant - What matters is bonding relationship that existed at time that family was functioning as unit where husband had treated children as his own rather than whose DNA is lodged in children's genes”.

But if you don’t feel like spending too much time on the subject, at least read “Mommy's little secret” at http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/news/Globe_and_Mail_Mommys_Little_Secret.htm

And also from the same web site:
‘A British survey conducted between 1988 and 1996 by Robin Baker, a former professor at the University of Manchester, confirmed the 10-per-cent figure. That seems high to skeptics such as Dalhousie University geneticist Paul Neumann, although even he admitted that "my colleague, who's a woman, tells me women have no trouble believing it. . . . It's the men who can't."’

Scout, thanks for the link; fancy that! Shows how willing people accept myths and how much power the media has. I believe that most people can be made to believe anything.

Robert, thanks, don’t worry about the link and my name change; sounds like an entertaining book. I was wondering why you came into this topic though- is it because this book discusses abortion as well as child abuse?

OZGIRL, I have, in this discussion, said what my concerns and opinions about this pill were and that I was against the use of this pill just after reading the article.
Later, after taking part in the discussion, I said that I changed my opinion and came to a new conclusion; I accepted the pill although still preferring surgical abortion.
This change took place because I had more accurate information about it and because of discussing it with people who came with new facts, ideas and links about the pill. It wasn’t relevant to me whether the ideas, info and links came from men or women. Crap ideas go on the crap heap- good ideas I consider.

For example, about 40 people participated in this discussion so far! I figure that just over half are male. Most had new, interesting facts or links to add to the conversation that were relevant to the topic. That’s my point- conversations are richer, not poorer, when all interested people can take part, rather than banning about half of the population.
Saying that men should stick to male issues and females to female issues is a pre-sixties idea. We can all work together now, fortunately.

The bad old days (1965):

Found a young girl, who suited him nice
Went to his papa to ask his advice
His papa said son, I have to say no
That girl is your sister but your mama don't know
Wohohoho, it's real, shame and scandal in the family...
Went to his mama, and thought what he said
And told his mama, what his papa had said
His mama she laughed she says, go man go
Your daddy ain't your daddy, but your daddy don't know...

And now …

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like
It's better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge

I know you want it,
The thing that makes me,
What the guys go crazy for.
They lose their minds,
The way I wind,
I think its time

La la-la la la,
Warm it up.
Lala-lalala,
The boys are waiting

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like
It's better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge

I can see youre on it,
You want me to teach thee
Techniques that freaks these boys,
It can't be bought,
Just know, thieves get caught,
Watch if your smart,

La la-la la la,
Warm it up,
La la-la la la,
The boys are waiting,

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like
It's better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge

Oh, once you get involved,
Everyone will look this way-so,
You must maintain your charm,
Same time maintain your halo,
Just get the perfect blend,
Plus what you have within,
Then next his eyes are squint,
Then he's picked up your scent,

Lala-lalala,
Warm it up,
Lala-lalala,
The boys are waiting,

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like
It's better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge

Thanks for the question: what brought me here?

There two reasons: First, abortion is typically an option considered when pregnancy results from incest. Faith, Lacy Dawn's (the protagonist) best friend, was beaten to death by her father when she told him that she wanted one (the pregnancy comes out in the sequel that's not yet finished). He had to change underwear after the beating. I'm becoming a more complete writer by your contributions.

Secondly, my kids in group therapy sessions are vocally prolife, but often consider abortions in private sessions if pregnant or if they've gotten a girlfriend pregnant. After an abortion (14 and older without parental notification if a doctor signs a statement that it is in the child's best interests), they tend to express even more prolife views.

I expected to benefit from coming here and I have. Thank you. I want to consider as many perspective as possible on this highly charged issue. One of my jobs is to help the kids make rational decisions about their situations -- decisions which balance beliefs, feelings, and actions; and, with self-predicted consequences. Therefore, I'm also here for that purpose -- to become increasingly competent in my job.

Although I'm prochoice, I cannot let that view dictate my service to the kids or limit my role as a writer.

Robert Eggleto

Thanks Robert E. for explaining your reasons for being here. Your response emphasizes Celivia's point about the importance of men contributing to debate.

Alienating men from the discussion simply because pregnancy only happens to women is not going to solve anything. We already have enough gender apartheid - this lack of communication is what results in much unhappiness between the sexes.

There are those on OLO who rarely have anything positive to say about women, however, banning them from contributing to debate is not going to help them from moving on from their perceived injustices. Everyone has a right to an opinion, that is what OLO is about. We may not always agree, but there is always something to learn.

Regards to all.

To me Scout, its not about men not having anything valuable to contribute, but there are some males on here(seeker not one of them) that are out of their depth on the whole issue..

There is no room for a religous based arguement(tony abbot) nor indeed political, this is an issue of human rights(male and female and seeker does have valid concerns re paternity etc)and majority of men just cant relate...

I realise I have,nt backed up my comments with links etc, anyone can do a quick search, but does everything have to sound like a thesis?cant people just talk?

So of course I am not suggesting that men are not entitled to an opinion, but I think in this instance men should just take this as an opprtunity to learn, not to base wild inaccuracies based in religion or their own ignorance because they are'nt women.
None of us are experts after all...we Google and Google some more.

Celivia

" there should be a way out for men as well, ot by having a say in the woman’s decision to have an abortion but perhaps by discussing with the woman that he wants no responsibility at all for the child if she decides to have the baby. She can then decide if she wants to raise the child alone or have an abortion. If she decides to have the child then hthe man will have to sign away all his responsibilities as well as his rights, perhaps officially at a lawyer. Would that be possible, by law? I have no idea about that, just making a suggestion for the sake of the discussion."

Nicely said. The other factor is that the parents could agree at that point to the parental responsibilities if the child is carried to term - shared parenting (after age?) or other parenting options, maybe dad raising the child if mum is opposed to abortion but does not want to raise the child etc. There are a lot of posibilities. In the end of it the mother is the one who makes the choice about what is done with her body, in everything else both parents should have fair representation.

R0bert

With teens, I've found that including the father in the decision just makes a bad situation worse. I hate to bash males, since I am one, but, typically, the father's hormones are racing, and this influences his thinking. In my experience, the father is almost never an asset to the child's life. The mother, with whatever resources are available, usually limited and state funded, finds a new boyfriend after being dumped when she was too pregnant to find attractive, and the maternal grandparents raise the child. Over and over....

"Rarity from the Hollow"

Robert E, thanks for sharing. I’m glad that this discussion gives you a wider perspective- that counts for me as well.
I didn’t even have the very young teenage father’s hormones in mind when discussing the issue. The parents I had in mind were around 17+, I suppose. I find it very hard to even imagine a boy of say 14 or 15 becoming a father! Poor kids; especially the boys are still so immature!
What’s the sex education at schools like in the USA? I figure much in need for improvement? Sex education in Australia also leaves much room for improvement! It's laughable that there’s still the existence of abstinence sex education in the 21st century!

Any religious people on here- what do you think about improving sex education? Good sex education WILL prevent many abortions.

RObert, very sensible; if the parents-to-be (well I'm talking about 17+ parents now) can manage to come to an agreement of sharing responsibilities this may well prevent the need for an abortion.

OZGIRL, I don’t like the religious views either; usually they are very much anti-choice, but just because I don’t like their view I won’t want to ban them from the discussion either. I just dump their ideas if I find them useless, lol.
The pro-life religious people on here might also wish that my opinion or that of others with a pro-life view were banned. In the end we’d all be too busy gagging each other instead of having a discussion.

I agree with Scout when he said: “We may not always agree, but there is always something to learn.” Very sensible. Nobody should be able to tell someone else to shut up- this is OLO and we should ALL be able to express our opinion. Oops, I even invited the religious to express their opinion ;+)
BTW it’s not only the religious-right men who are pro-life, the women from that corner have the same view.

Hey Guys

You forgot something.

This is not about parenting or even abortion.

Its about a womens right to decide if she wishes to take a tablet to ensure she does not become pregnant.

I am not going for all that cock and bull about something less than the size of a grain or rice being a baby.

What a load of bull dust.

All this energy would be better helping the already unwanted homeless.

Many years ago you would not find a bloke dead talking about such things even with his mates about a personal involvment.

Somehow it was nicer that way.

Womans bodies are not there for every Tom Dick and Bloke to disuss , screw this so called new age it stinks.

Some things have gone too far , just like those dam womens hygine adds for ladies shown at prime time.

Give me a break.

I wonder who came up with making that pubic for god sake and why do we ladies put up with it.

Its demeaning and very private just the same as it to decide if u will go to the chemist and get these pills, or pill.

It really is not up to even another woman to tell another woman what to do with her own body let alone a strange man.

Get a life u weired blokes.

Ladies as u wish however to continue these very public converations will only feed these so called mens ovious problems.

I challage the wisdom and intentions of the aurthor of this post as well.

Hey There the votes been had.

The Australian People have spoken and thank God realise it iS the ladies PERSONAL choice.

Note I said WOMENS!

Hey Wendy, I appreciate your gutsy posts, and your points about women’s privacy are well taken.

I don’t believe that women’s rights to decide how they use their own bodies should be up for grabs, and I am conscious of how hard won (and recently) this fundamental value is. I haven’t seen too many posters down this end of this discussion who would challenge this.

I'm conscious of the sensitivities of many women on this issue given the forces which would deny women's autonomy over their own lives.

But I think it’s shortsighted to leave men out of the picture. I work mainly with teenaged boys whose startling fertility is matched in many cases with a depressing lack of capacity for coming to grips with what is involved in choices about parenting – continuing a pattern many have grown up with. Many don't even know where to begin.

Robert E’s experience with similar kids in the States that “the father is almost never an asset to the child's life” sadly reflects the experience of many of the kids I work with, and my guess will also reflect the futures of a lot of them with their own offspring.

I reckon this is a serious problem, and we have to find a way to break what is becoming a cyclical pattern. Further alienating males from responsibility for, and investment in, discussions around parenting and reproductive choices is not the solution.

Celivia, Scout is a female no 1. and I dont think that I can get much more out of this discussion anyway.

It is clear certain posters have their agendas and has not a lot to do with heartfelt opinion.And I feel there is no place for that in this very important discussion,( that does not include wendy)..even though we didnt see eye to eye when I 1st posted it is clear that at least she does stand by her convictions and that is admirable, and I see theres not a lot of that on here.(standing by ones convictions i mean)..a lot of agreeing for the sake of not wanting to usurp anyone.

Guys

Celivia would have to be my favouite poster but even she thinks its

a good idea for men to get down and gritty talking about womens biz.

no Dear Keep them in their place.

We will say how many babies we wish to have and when.

I am delighted to have made contact with you off the post.


To the men I just want to go slap, mind your own business you creeps[smile]

One day I hope they find a way for the men to give birth then I will be back with bells on AS A WOMAN telling them they MUST give birth.

I look forward to that.

Then lets see how they handle it.

Snout I get what you are saying but the young boys would be best taught about boys things, like not getting a girl pregnant in the first place.

They like talking about sex so there is the chance to teach them how not to get a girl in trouble and the results if they do.
.
These boys need to know there is worse than this pill and its called maintance for the rest of their lives because some young women get pregnant on purpose.

Thats a big call for a 16 or 18 year old boy. Too Big and enough to reck their lives/

Maybe they are the ones who should be handed out this drug to keep in their back pocket.

Possibly someone could make a man pill for them to take before they have sex/ Now theres a thought.!


Ozgirl thanks for your posts. Keep the studies up and be careful what you watch on Teli[just kidding] feel free to contact me through here. You too Snout.[cool name]

www.livexports.com

I guess your correct there doesnt seem to be much use in us just going on and on about what we think does there.

Hey its been fun mixing it with you girls and I hope to see you on another page sometime.

note I said Girls!

And to all you cross dressing men out there.

Break A leg guys

Having said that , let me say this, lets all agree to disagree and

respect each others veiwpoint anyway?

Scout tries to be balanced and fair in her arguements and Celivia I

have not had a chance to interact with you before but you also have a

a similiar line to Scout.

Wendy tells it like it is and comes from the heart.

A topic well debated.Diversity of opinion is a good thing..Cheers

Snout,
“Further alienating males from responsibility for, and investment in, discussions around parenting and reproductive choices is not the solution.”
Well said, I totally agree.

OZGIRL,
Diversity of opinion is indeed a great thing, agreed.
Do you have an opinion on methotrexate as an abortion method?
Did you, in the heat of the discussion forgot to mention what your opinion is or haven't you an opinion on this yet? Just curious.

Wendy, hi!
“Its about a womens right to decide if she wishes to take a tablet to ensure she does not become pregnant.”
This article was not really on contraception, although the conversation went off-topic a few times so nobody can blame you for the confusion; it was about the drug methotrextate that is being used in the treatment of cancer, but that an Sydney abortion clinic now uses as a trial to terminate pregnancies.
So this is not a topic supposed to be about prevention/contraception, which is no doubt only a woman’s right and decision; the basic topic was whether this chemical drug, methotrexate would be safe as a prescription drug for women to take to terminate their pregnancy.

So the topic actually was on abortion, but basically on the safety of this chemical drug- it was really more a women’s health issue than a women’s right issue because the question was not on ethics of abortion but on the safety of a drug to be used for pregnant women.
There was also the underlying question whether the writer of this article, rather obviously a pro-lifer, just wanted to scare women out of having abortions by writing about the danger of this chemical and the danger of women being mislead by their abortion clinic into informing them that it is safe.

“Possibly someone could make a man pill for them to take before they have sex/ Now theres a thought.!”
Wendy, lol, your wish may come true, read this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/ about male contraception!

Celivia, please give me strength-post to Seeker to placate a particularly long dummy spit-..'would you agree to something like that?.....' 11/8/06-11:/8/06 -11:36 pm..who gives a toss what he would agree to?he had no credibility in his attempt to have us all cry for poor 'victimised' men (get out the tissues and a little something for his PMT) a nauseating rave.He just tried to contemptously discredit 3 female posters ,who are much more authoratative in this subject simply because they are, by their gender, the subject of the debate .

He was trying to make the issue about men, just as men have always done.
We have to have a veiw either way ,a little bit pregnant means not much really.(pardon the pun)

Celivia, I wish you'd posted that link over on the Catholic/gay thread. Zero sperm count - the answer to concerns about gays wasting sperm, a massive quandry solved for some who want to be loving but just can't cope with that wasted sperm.

Seriously though a great idea, some will be reluctant to use it - these things take time but once it's available that's one excuse gone.

I take your point that the thread should be about the use of a particular substance as a form of abortifact but then when does any discussion that touches on abortion in any form avoid becoming yet another discussion about the wider issues.

OZGIRL while men are held accountable for a decision that they have no involvement in making then it is our business. See Celivia's point about one aspect of that and my follow up. If you buy into the idea that the guy gets his choice when sex occurs then I don't see many pro-choice people spouting that line in regard to women, thats the no-choice argument. We are not all deserters, wife beaters, cheaters etc. Please don't let what seems to be your own bad experience colour your whole view of men, there are good ones and bad ones just as there are good and bad women (and some in the middle).

R0bert

I don't think any drug (or food, air, water, etc.) should be promoted as "safe." The best anything we consume can be regarded is as the safest alternative and/or preferred option given the circumstances. The same is true for a medical procedure. I've never referred a girl to our Women's Health Center and who later had a medical problem because she chose to have an abortion, but I alway worry about it when making the referral to their counseling component. Heck, recently, a healthy female softball player died in a local hospital during a minor procedure. Further, subsequent findings frequently announce additional risks of drugs, such as the recent caution that antidepressants can cause suicidal thinking when prescribed to adolescents.

BTW, my novel has held a five star rating by Mobipocket for the last three days. Of course, such goes up and down as readers vote.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

Rob E, of course “safe” in a medical context is always a relative concept: such decisions always involve weighing up the relative risks of one course of action over another.

Your concerns over pregnancy counseling suggest a lack of confidence in the quality of the service you refer to. Good counseling is not about promoting one outcome above another: it’s about providing the space for the client to make an informed choice and to fully explore the ramifications of each of her possible options. The best outcome is one that the client is most happy to commit to. This is not always the choice we would make ourselves. Good counselors are very clear about this, and aware of how their own personal views can potentially scuttle the process.

OZGIRL, I hear your discomfort with having this topic opened up to any Tom Dick or Harry with their own agenda, and if you look through my posts on this thread I’ve tried to be vigilant to challenge anyone I thought was being disingenuous. But I’d be very uncomfortable with having restrictions placed on posters based on their (often assumed) gender, race, life experience or whatever. If people say things that are irrelevant or stupid then they should be challenged on that basis. Diversity of opinion, as Celivia says, is a good thing. It helps us to refine our own views and arguments and sometimes helps us to open to new ideas.

Thanks to all who’ve contributed: you’ve got me thinking.

RObert,
I might save that link till later (never know when I’ll need it most) or you can snatch it and run away with it for your entertainment, lol.

“…then when does any discussion that touches on abortion in any form avoid becoming yet another discussion about the wider issues.”
Fair enough, you’re right – perhaps I was a bit too focused on the drug itself and became frustrated when some people didn’t touch the issue about the drug at all, totally ignored it. Hope nobody took too much offense!

Robert E,
I'm glad that your novel is a popular one!

OZGIRL,
oh well we'll have to agree to disagree on the input of men in this discussion.
I’m feeling very strongly that all members of the same opinion forum should have the same rights to contribute, so I just think we’d have to disagree on that one. Never mind!

We had some points of agreement as well, not only disagreements.
We agreed on probably the most important thing: that a woman without doubt should be the one who decides on whether she is having an abortion- that the decision is hers.

Snout,
I can’t imagine anyone finding you disingenuous- you come across as very thoughtful and sensible.

Thanks to all, I found this discussion was informative and enjoyable.

Wendy,
Your wish has been fulfilled already. Today we do have men with wombs: they are called wombed-men. Abbreviated to women.

Quote, "One day I hope they find a way for the men to give birth then I will be back with bells on AS A WOMAN telling them they MUST give birth. I look forward to that. Then lets see how they handle it."

From all the above discussion obviously they do not handle it all that well, they seem to prefer abortion rather than giving life to a child.

OK, here are my initial thoughts on the Ute "R" Us device (Copyright, Worldwide Patent Pending, all rights reserved by Seeker Corporation - incorporation pending).

Backpack model in your favourite colours and styles.
This model will be favoured by those expectant perents wishing to be close to their Ute "R" Us device at all times. Extremely mobile and practical unit that is fully shock proof and allows unrestricted movement while shopping, commuting to and from work, for general office or light housework duties. This unit offers the best of both worlds - feel the weight and the kicking, but save your body and lifestyle.

Capsule/Cradle model - perfect for the home or car.
This model is for active fathers who don't feel the need to be with their Ute "R" Us device, don't need social welfare, seats on buses etc., but who may want to take their fetus on weekends away. The capsule/cradle model is a wireless network device with its own IP address anabling remote monitoring over the internet. The device can also sent SMS messages to 3 different numbers, if any of its enviromental variables reach predefined limits. Comes with rechargable 36 hour battery and car charger.

Both units guarantee you will never again have to compromise your reproductive rights, or debate cynical feminists over the internet. Just pick up your Ute "R" Us device and visit your nearest IVF clinic. Easy instructions allow anyone to implant test tube material, then perform the weekly bio topups. The capsule/cradle model will even make your Doctors appointments automatically. Guilt-free and painless birth guaranteed.

Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 15 January 2005 1:33:38 AM

Unfortunately at the time, venture capital on OLO was a little scarce. Might be worth another try though ... promise not to use Dell batteries.

Melina

Did say a drug to introduce abortion.

I guess thats why to post got off to abortion.

Phil - Who said you were a bore. There is even a touch of humour there.

Seeker Thats the whole point that people are free to do as they wish.

You see guys we have already had the vote on this issue.

Finally Ozgirl gets her answer.

I dont have kids by choice So personally I couldnt care less but I support the rights of women to have control of their own body.

My friend was forced to go through with a pregancy years ago.

She Died

Your extream lot killed her..

When I was very young I looked around me at the elderly that are neglected the aboriginal people and the animal cruelty and decided I would make my life about helping those.

That does not make me less of a person.

There are other things to do in life than change nappies. [thankgod]

I try to be nice I really do but I get so angry with these nut cases telling women what to do.

Open your eyes and see the suffering of starving and unwanted kids world wide.

I know I annoy the other posters when I mention Animal cruelty but honestly you anoy me going on about something less than the size of a grain of rice while the church REMAINS silent on animal cruelty.

Yeh it IS relavant!

The fact you dont get that is your shame.> AND THE CHURCHES.

We will say when how IF? and we decide to have kids.

Ozgirls is right its just not comfortable speaking of this with men.

You know several women have told you guys that before on this post so why dont you respect their wishes?
Is it because you feel Men are superior to women.
I beleive so.

Correct me if I am wrong guys but I bet you are against birth control such as the pill or any form of birth control> Arnt You?

Wendy,

"You know several women have told you guys that before on this post so why dont you respect their wishes?
Is it because you feel Men are superior to women."

If several farmers ask you to stop talking about animal crulety do you feel that you should respect their wishes and shut up about it or do you take the view that the issue is not just about the farmers feelings.

Whilst I disagree with the no-choice mob I think that they see the issue in a similar manner to the way you see the animal crulety issue. To most of them that grain of rice is a human being with a soul (given by their god) which they think needs protection and a chance to be born. When we deny those saying things we don't like the opportunity to have a voice we are heading down a dangerous track. Substitute the words "animal cruelty" for "abortion" and you should get the picture.

For most of us it's not about men feeling superior, rather we are part of the human race and the community and what happens in the community impacts on all of us. The use or otherwise of this particular drug should be a matter for health regulators, the woman involved and her doctor. The public policy issues surrounding abortion and parental responsibility if the pregnancy proceeds is a matter for all of us.

R0bert

Hello Robert

You can hardley compaire farming of animals that are here with a ladies right to either use her own body or not to reproduce now can you.
I am not telling farmers what to do in their bedroom.

This is not about the rights of parents either.

Its about womens choice if they wish to become a mother.

I know you are trying to be fair to everybody.
I get that.
I appreciate that.

However these guys wont except that women have the right to choose as they are the ones that have to carry a full term pregancy and change their whole lives.

As far as a grain of rice having a soul we are not alive until we are born.

Give me a break.

Still I hear you saying well they beleive they are doing the right thing preaching to us women.

I get that Robert and Thanks for your thoughts.
So what do you think ?.

Do you think a women should have the right to say what happens to her own personal body and life?

Or do you think we should be under the thumb of these godly ones protecting the souls of a grain of rice?

Or do you think women should make up our own minds which was my point in the first place.

Still reckon its NOT a mans topic because we are not talking about raising kids but birth control.

Over to you.

33 years after Australian women got legal access to terminations the Catholic Church is still trying to control the fertility decisions of all Australian women, not just their own flock.

The Federal government only funds pregnancy counselling services run by Pro-Life groups. Surveys show that 75% of Australians support womens right to access legal terminations. I thought that a democratically elected government respresented the views of its electorate so why are my taxes being used to support the agenda of a religion I do not belong to and whose views are diametrically opposed to my welfare.

Personally, I don't think it's any of a man's business that a woman is pregnant unless she has an interest in telling him, including: blame for not wearing a condom; to foot or share the costs of an abortion, or to make plans for raising the child. It is entirely her decision unless the pregnancy was planned and there are established expectations to which each person has committed. Even then, I believe that the woman has a right to change her mind after conception, but has a duty to explain why -- i.e., "I didn't realize you were such an a__hole when we decided to do this."

Wendy,
I suppose I can state my personal position on contraception. I have two natural children after my wife went off the pill. I have had a vacectomy though my wife wanted it reversed after we had fostered eight infant children. I prefer the preventative methods of contraception as being most responsible rather than dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Though my wife had to deal with a natural abortion at three months [our third child] - it devistated her emotionally.

"Correct me if I am wrong guys but I bet you are against birth control such as the pill or any form of birth control> Arnt You?
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite"

I believe sex is for committed relationships where love and nurture are present, otherwise it is selfish and detramental to wholesome human relationships. I have worked on Crisis Counselling on night shifts 11 pm - 7 am and you would be surprised how many women ring during those hours having been used or abused sexually, with distress of becoming pregnant to someone outside the marriage.

Using toxic chemicals to destroy a natural organic event in the womans body is not good science. However the use of the pill is using naturally occurring substances already found in the body.

Snout..It was I who referred to 'diversity of opinion' not Celivia if you go back and read the posts in order...so lets clear that up.

Celivia..do i have an opinion on the drug being discussed? no not yet, havent read the article but i dont really care...whatever method of abortion is used it all ends in the same way..

Philo, you dont know what ur talking about.

We all understand that noone agrees to ending a pregnancy without realising that it carries with it deep personal pain.But it has to be said that some posters on here were almost saying that women in some cases should be forced to carry to term..this is barbaric and inhumane.
Doctors will voluntarily end a quite advanced pregnancy if it threatens the life of them mother ,so somewhere in there has to be lines drawn and decisions made and doctors are trained professionals, unlike us.

To all you anti abortionists,if you had to make a decision between saving the life of your wife or an unborn baby...which would it be?

Please , this is an important ...brings us back to the crux of the question..could you choose and why?

So if a woman has to choose for her own reasons, and noone is privy to what those reasons are,and we cant just assume thats its because its for career or other lightweight reasons,as has been suggested here,why should she be questioned.
Some girls are raped by fathers ,uncles, brothers ..when you say abortion is wrong..where does one draw the line ..you cannot police this..its an assault on the basic human rights of women the world over.
As Wendys example of her friend showed,how tragically wrong we can get it when we let our heart rule our head,that was just criminal.

Diversity of opinion is good, we all know that, and we cant really change the mind of people who do stand by their convictions.

Stand for something...or youll fall for anything.

Billie, you make some excellent points..once again the insidiuos cold talons of the church reaching out to stifle and control, as you said not only its own flock ,but all of us...enter Tony Abbot.

You are completely correct and doesn'nt it just make you sick?

I have Jehovah witness knock on my door one day and tell me that if their child ever needed a blood transfusion for a life or death situation, they would not allow it because 'blood tranfusions" were not permitted according to their faith...
Only goes to show the cold,chilling 'love' the church espouses to their flock, that they woulkd allow their child to die rather than go against their religions teachings, insanity.

So when they enter the abortion debate Im afraid I just stop listening.

Philo,

Good on you for choosing what I reckon is the safest, easiest and most effective means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy for monogamous couples who have completed their family. As you are no doubt aware, its main disadvantage is the unreliabilty of its reversibility if you change your mind or your life circumstances change.

I take issue with you about the oral contraceptive being "natural" and therefore good. The hormones in most OCPs are actually synthetic. The "natural" vs "unnatural" argument is also a furphy: just about everything we do in medicine (including vasectomies) is arguably "unnatural". The "natural" state of human life is a life expectancy of 20 or 30, women dying in childbirth a common rather than a rare outcome, and infant mortality the rule rather than the exception.

Wendy, I believe that the choice to carry to term or not belongs with the woman who would have to do the carrying.

I don't however believe that it helps society to close off discussion of the broader issues to some sections of the community just because they are not "directly" impacted by the issue.

My point about what the no-choice mob are doing was not just about being fair to them (I think Philo can vouch for my failings in that area), it is also about the kind of risks we take as a society when we keep topics behind closed doors. It's the kind of thinking which used the other way kept women out of the "important" decisions because they were mens business. I still think the comparison between your campaign and what the no-choice crowd are trying to do is valid even if I don't agree with them on this issue. We may have to disagree on that.

Robert, should the father of an unplanned child have any responsibility for that child? That is an area where this discussion gets pretty murky. I know of at least one case personally where a women kept the existence of a child secret from the father right up to the point where he got sent for a DNA test as a precursor to the large bill for child support. NOt only did he miss out on involvement in the formative years of his childs life he has also been hit with a significant financial penalty. I've heard of others in a similar vein.

R0bert

OZGIRL, sorry about misattributing your comment to Celivia. I'll try to be more careful in future. Must say, I still agree, though!

Phil

Woo. Too Much Info, but thanks for pointing out your not against birth control[I guess].

I mean dont you have something else to do?

Why are you so drawn to what is clearly a womens issue AND not one for public debate anyway.

Robert good answer.

I guess in this day and age it would be fair to say if the guy didnt want a child then he should have an out as well.

Its only fair.
.


Someone should really start another post on that.

One way to fix it would be to cut unmarried mothers pensions and make them pay for their own way.

In this day and age there is no excuse.

Children should only be raised in a stable home of married couples who have planned to have them raise them and pay for them themselves.

This drug should be supplied free to everybody else along with the pill.

Bring on the drug for the man as well as the women.

Bille and Snout Ozgirl Celivia keep up the good work.

Ozgirl before you bite my head off about the single mother thing its a general approach to stop these young girls having two four an five kids to different dads at the tax payers expence.

I think the Government should run some[uncool adds like smoking aimed at umarried young girls with kids]

This drug looks pretty good compaired to that.

We are the largest nation of unmarried mother in the world.


Thats truely shameful.

I dont know about this writers words > Pregnany is not a diseaese, Its getting that way.

We should not encourage our young ones to think its cool and ok to have kids outside married with no means to support them.
Its not cool , its totally uncool.

Tony Abbott should be able to see that.

We are loosing our reputation as a nation.

Bring on the drugs but test them on child rapists and murders and leave the animals alone

Wendy,
I think that the single mother situation is in itself a subjective issue..that is, not all single mothers are created equal..
I can only say that I am not a goverment statistic and I do what I believe is ehthically right in my case.
We need to have an open mind.I do not take offence.

In this case I think that banning pro choice for women in relation to single mums or what ever is a bad thing , if men are so against it they should stand up and be counted instead of leaving females pregant with life they helped create to endure a lifetime of scorn and being degraded by society for being fallen women to raise alone children who are wonderful and bright...Wendy that is the REAL DISGRACE...that society does,nt take a baleanced veiwpoint.

Wendy,
The raising and nurturing of children is not a secret womans issue; It is a whole of society issue. We must guard our society from irresponsible social attitudes that sacrifice children to the gods of pleasure. Present society has become obsessed with personal pleasure rather than responsibility for the health and wellbeing of sound and secure families. Since the advent of the pill many women have become sexually liberated, permissive and adulturous, abandoning their children for immediate self gratifaction.

The pill was introduced to free women from unwanted pregnancies and child abuse. Never in the history of man have we seen so much child abuse and neglect by irresponsible women and their lovers. Government must step in and act to reverse the trends. Government has a responsibility to make sure our society stays strong with children and their nurture. It would appear that many women on this thread treat ants smaller than a grain of rice and their eggs higher than children, and they step on them everyday without thought.

Philo,

That's some extreme thinking that's captured you. It's called moral anger. To free yourself, I recommend that you challenge your findings about life until you turn them gray, instead of black and white, good vs. evil, etc.

"Rarity from the Hollow"

Philo'
'sacrifice to the gods of pleasure'.... that has a fire and brimstone feel about it as I see, but in some respects u have a point.
Society does need to get a bit of perspective on this and other issues.It is not,as Robert says, a black and white issue..there are many shades of grey here, so many different sets of circumstances and I realise Wendy is talking about silly young things that think its a doddle having kids and then not stepping up and being a good mother and all that that entails, education in schools would be a good start...in a lot of cases parents dont have the skills to properly guide their young women, and dont care hence the problem in a lot of cases..children having babies to have someone to love, because they didnt have a loving home themselves.

Like I said this problem is highly subjective and one can't lump indivduals into a common collective.,simply not that easy.
Whilst I dont think that losing our reputation is something one can measure or should matter, and if it did in what context?

cheers

Philo, "The raising and nurturing of children is not a secret womans issue; It is a whole of society issue. We must guard our society from irresponsible social attitudes that sacrifice children to the gods of pleasure."

Well said on that first point. On the second point the danger is that most of us tend to define "irresponsible social attitudes" based on what does not fit within our own viewpoints. There are some parts of that which are failry widely agreed on (leaving the kids in the car in the carpark for a few hours while you play the pokies) and other parts which are not - I think a parent moving away from the other (and taking the kids) for any reason except substantiated ongoing violence is very irresponsible but our governments don't appear to share that view point (CSA and Centerlink still pay them the same or better). Some people might think placing a kid in a church school is very responsible others of us deplore it. We do need some common standards for society to work but we do need to be carefull that those standards are a genuine set not one group imposing itself on the rest.

Wendy, I'm waiting to see what happens with the new General facility on the forums. Hopefully it will be suitable for some of those discussions - there is plenty of scope for a discussion on the pro's and con's of the way we deliver help to the "needy" - can we do it(or are we already doing so) in a manner that helps those receiving it to change the types of decisions which contribute to the need for welfare? What can we do better? What should we do with those who refuse to help themselves? Access to abortion is one of the mechanisms which can help people move past a mistake.

R0bert

Robert,
you are close to the mark when u say that i have been subject to bad treatment by men(male to be exact) but I try very hard not to let that colour my experience of the general male population, you made that observatiobn a few posts back.

When I post on here I recognise that to go down that path my veiwpoint maybe does not have much of a resonance to other people.
But there is a very large population of women married and single who have walked in my shoes,severe domestic violence and other that I dont care to mention here ,so I am very representative for those women if I did and in some small ways I obviously do, but even so that cant be a bad thing...for if that were so, I am representative of that large section of women, and we all come from our own experiences.Many women on here cant perhaps comprehend my life and I am not lucky enough thus far to have had the privelidge of a normal life , mum dad kids.I do not intend for that to be so for too much longer.I call it a privelidge because it feels that way to me.

I value the presence of men and their contributions in my life very highly, in this one instance, we will get a lot of wires crossed because none of us knows the other and compexities of each personality, it is a very personal subject close to the hearts of us all.

So lets say the guys on here have defended themselves vigorously and rightly so...and we do have the right to disagree until the next time.

Please check out my novel. It was written to empower, a percentage goes to prevent child abuse, and it's a cheap ebook. All you need to do is: www.fatcatpress.com. You will cry at first, then get strong enough to leave that a--hole you must be living with. He doesn't represent men -- he's a p--s-s-y, colloquially speaking, and deserves his a-- kicked. You are too good to hang around. Life is short and you can do better, way better based on your comments here. Your're smart and that's the main thing to attract a good man.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

OZGIRL, thanks for the response. I may be a bit paranoid on that issue because of the training as a social worker aspect. My perception of doing the rounds of those who work on the fringes of family law is that a significant proportion of those in that area are women who got into the field in part because of their own bad experiences. I've probably made that point before as well. One of the concerns about the new family relationship centers is that they will be staffed by the same crowd. I've not seen anything to indicate that men deal with their personal hurts in the same way.

Good luck in finding what you are looking for. My impression is that it takes a determined effort not to keep repeating our mistakes - some of the things which attracted us to the wrong types in the first place may be part of the problem. Something I've struggled with.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert.E.

Thank you for your kind words re my post..I have now left him and on my own with my 3 children, even though life is hard now,at least we are at peace in that sense.
Your readings sound interesting and I will find time to take a look soon.

Robert I do fully intend to be aware of any red flags that signal another dysfunctional personality coming my way.As you say,the silly thing to do would be to go headlong into a relationship and not have my wits about me.

I seemed to have collected some wisdom and a lot more tolerance on the path that has been my life thus far...I hope I am able to make balanced,ethical and compassionate choices in my work,whoever is before me, male or female...since giving birth to my son I have quickly changed my mind on a lot of issues Id previously had been quite one eyed about regarding the human experience for men.

I know women do it tough regarding issues of equality in a men dominated world, but I also see that males have their own burdens quite unique to them...the teaching of 'Society and Culture'and gender issues contained therein and Psychology that I am now studying ,fascinating stuff all have opened my eyes..

I think men are unique and should be celebrated in their'maleness' as women should in turn celebrated in their 'femininty'.Essential for true human understanding

OZGIRL,
Though our views might be from opposite positions; I do pray you will find your life fulfilling and rewarding and you will see your children mature as great citizens.

Robert.

How do I find your novel?

I agree Ozgirl, has something.
Ozgirl love to u too.

[ speaking of vibes]

Ah Philo.
u have caught me out at last.

I have my weakness , looking for Church nuts.

Any oportunity to expose bible bashers.

Do u know that song telephone to Glory?

We are running TV adds.

Video footage of live animals jammed 6 tear packed on ships screaming in fear , going blind from the acid of their own urine, dying while u church lot turn your backs.

Particular mention of Churches lack of responsibilty was made at a press address recently by RSPCA President.

Trying for TV add in time for the next elections, especially for Family First.

Two years we have waited for some reply from Steve Fielding.?

Dont talk to me about your fires of sacrifice.

You lot have turned your back for years regarding this barbaric cruelty.

So why should we want more of you? Seeds of Sin and evil if u ask me.

Anyway where is this women who wrote this article?

How come they never have the manners to reply to any comments.

I would love to take her on.

Oh and by the way its up to a women what she does with her own body.

Or did I mentioned that before.

Philo u dont have a divine right to stick your nose in my business.

You have a wife and kids so why are u so worried about what other women do.

You have come on here and told us u are married with kids.

So whats your exuse for posting very personal things about your wife on here.

Or do u think thats your divine right too.

Its an insult to her and all women.

I have worked in jobs where I had to make a dudgement in order to protect kids.

There is more to you than just this.

You know what I mean. You cant wipe out your sins by preaching to others.

God is watching all of us. Even u church Hypicrits

Get help

Wendy,

Thanks for asking how to buy "Rarity from the Hollow." If this link doesn't work: www.fatcatpress.com Google it and you'll find the publisher.

I can also be bought from another site, but that's the cheapest. If you like it, please tell people about it, but please don't pass it around. Since a proportion of any profits I receive go to a program for maltreated children, it would be like ripping them off. My deal with the agency is zero administrative costs. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

Thanks again,

Robert

Wendy,
Too much alcohol not good for the brain, addles the spelling capacity of the brain. You are fighting a cause with obsession to cover a felt lack in your own inner problems. Tell me about your children and your marriage. This seems to be where your real sublimated hostilities are focused.

Philo

Your most recent post epitomises your arrogance and judgemental nature - just who the hell do you think you are?

Clearly Wendy, speaks from the heart, she is sincere (which you are not), while I find her frequently too reactionary, I do know that she is not telling you, Philo, how to live.

Are you so without sin, Philo, that you can cast stones at people like Wendy? I know you are full of sin - just look at your behaviour on OLO.

You are guilty of Pride, Judgement of others, failing to turn the other cheek, personally insulting others, telling others how they should live their lives; and this is just on OLO, how do you behave in the real world?

I shudder to think.

What does OLO mean?

Robert Eggleton

Robert E, OLO= On Line Opinion

Heya, Scout and Wendy :)

I was not going to respond to these posts anymore, but I had to make an exception.

Philo: I am concerned about one of your statements:
“The pill was introduced to free women from unwanted pregnancies and child abuse. Never in the history of man have we seen so much child abuse…”

Philo, do you have proof that the contraception pill is the cause of so much child abuse? I would have thought that not having contraception available would be a more likely factor to contribute to child abuse- the more unwanted kids there are the more chance there is of abuse. You can’t abuse a child that was never conceived, lol.

Don’t forget that child abuse is being reported nowadays; in the old days a case would have to be severe for it to attract any attention. It was actually quite common to belt or cane kids, give ‘m a flick around the ears, send them to bed without food etc- all these things are now seen as child abuse. What about child labour- that was also child abuse and now, at least in Australia, it is illegal.

I think that there are many factors that can contribute to child abuse, such as stress, depression, personal, financial problems and of course drug or alcohol abuse, isolation, and yes, sick communities too. There are probably many more but this is off my head. Oh and don't forget that there has been a quite large population increase sinds pre-contraceptive age- what was it, about 40 years ago?

BTW women are not the only ones to abuse children- men abuse children AND women. Perhaps it would help to tie every person on earth to the kitchen sink? Now that would solve all problems!

If you took away contraception from women now and took their freedom away- well I can almost guarantee an increase in child abuse cases.

Philo, on at least two previous threads on abortion, I posted websites on how the Dutch and some other European nations had much lower abortion rates than, for instance, the US. The reason appears to be that the nations which are enlightened in this respect teach young people about sex and the responsibilities which come with this knowledge. And various types of contraceptive are readily available to these young people.

http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[Contains a small amount of non-sexual nudity.]

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

This strategy obviously works, whilst the chastity before marriage and religious guilt strategy obviously does not.

I repeatedly asked you to comment on these websites and you repeatedly either ignored my request, or dodged the issue. Are you afraid to confront anything which does not neatly fit in with your preconceived beliefs? If so, may I suggest that you provide some solid, verifiable reasons for continuing to talk down to others. And no, quoting the Bible is not a verifiable reason!

Somehow I dont think anyone will change Philos mind and whilst some of us may not agree with him, I guess he is standing by what he believes to be the right thing..his own convictions..

Thank you Philo for ur kind words even though as u say we may not see eye to eye in some respects,that was very magnanimous of you.

This is an issue that is bottomless in its complexities and myriad of 'spin off' arguements...so far its been deffered to single mums, the right to terminate or not and child abuse issues among others...not a lot on the actual topic itself.

Wendy u seem to think that u may be the only one outraged by animal suffering in the world but believe me I have deep hurt and concerns about many issues regarding same.

The plight of sun bears ,bile extraction,seals skun alive for their fur...u are absolutely singlehandedly championing the cause for animals on here, and lets face the world is doing precious little to correct the problem. There can never be too many Wendys in the world when it comes to this.

I only comment because from time to time some of us have dismissed the isuue to a certain extent and it is an important issue..
Can we lobby perhaps to begin threads more relevant to concerns of posters?

OZGIRL, I think thats what the recently introduced general tab is for. I just checked and there are some threads there already.

R0bert

Everybody I apoligise,

" Philo gets up my nose."

Im off post,I took his bait. It was like a red flag to a bull in my work.

Its about drugs, pluss a womens right to choose "if" she wants children, not Churches and Bibles . I responded because he uses the bible.

I should pity him[brainwashed]. Anything else I could, but I will never forgive the Churches and good Christians.

Theres "other" symptons. Hes a sick Rooster and no gentleman would ask such questions of women.

Ozgirl dont tell him more. Look for this type in your work as a social worker especially at their children.
You will make a good Social Worker, you care, like Robert and the others.

Philo Im not answering your personal questions.

Help with Roberts book like I intend to, instead of asking ladies personal questions about their birth control methods to get your kicks.

You didn't comment to my counter argument. Proves your the same as the two thousand Churches and good christians we asked WHY they felt no responsibilty to stop barbaric cruelty to Gods creatures.?

Surley if its anybodys job its theirs!

Your preaching about something thats not born or even formed that cant feel pain while living creatures suffer.

hypocrites

Not one answer from two thousand letters. [sickening]

Ozgirl, Robert, Celivia, Scout everyones been tolerant so for their sakes lets stick to the forum.

You should you not submitt to the sin of trying to call me a uneducated drunk.
Thats not very Christian now is it?
Your surposed to be better than me remember.
I may been one of those unwanted neglected children you want to bring into the world.

Im working sixteen hour, seven days a week for NFP doing Gods work.
Errors are just plain exhaustion, anger trying to make for the thousands of good christians neglect.

Its a priverledge to post . Even the aurthor deserves better.

Anyway I wouldnt mind a few words with the lady to be honest.
Perhaps you know her.

By the way are you related to Tony Abbott or perhaps Steve Fielding?

Wendy,
Try not to take Philos comments personally, although that can be hard sometimes especially when ur best does,nt seem good enough..
and especially when its close to ur heart and one has to live it..it can cut deep..so remember the only one that matters is what you think of yourself, we are our toughest critics in the end and if you measure up to who YOU want to be thats all that matters.

Sticks and stones remember?

The only thing that matters at all is that u passed thru someones life and left them feeling better for having known you.

Ozgirl

Thank you for your kind words.

Your very Sweet.

Truth is its not Philo that really upsets me.

Its the knowledge of have and the footage I have and the silence from the good church people.

He just rubs it in because god forgive me I am starting to hate these type of people.

I sit here and look at this stuff daily that is not allowed to be shown on TV to the public because its so bad!.

Not to Mention run by people like the Le courts Murdock ,Packer Amana vanstone all media gaints Ministers and plenty more in poositions of power.
Talk about conflict of interest and pulling the wool over the publics eyes.
Then I read this bloody concern for something thats not even born and complete lack of respect for womens rights for something less than the size of a grain of rice and I just loose it.

I dont care what people say or think about me Ozgirl.

I would gladly cop the worst critisim from every person in the world and lay down my life this second if i could only make the church people see it iS their responsibility instead of carrying on over a womens right to have or not to have children.

The Good news for everybody I wont post on this page anymore Ozgirl out of manners towards the ONO and the other posters.

they are all a nice bunch.
Did you read roberts book?

If you have a moment please let me know?

You can click on my email address here.

www.halakindmeats.com
[ dont even think about it Philo]

.

Wendy,

That would be a shame as I like to read your contributions..and it seems most of the girls on here do as well...

I felt a bit out of place and came under a bit of fire when I 1st started to post but I just plugged along regardless as I felt my opinion, even if not popular was still valid as another way to look at an arguement..All our opinions are valid and deserve equal measure of respect.

Wendy and Ozgirl,

Don't quit! You two are the most reasonable commentors here.

On adoption: My daytime job is as a therapist in a children's mental health program. During evenings, I also review and approve or not home studies of West Virginians (U.S.) interested in adopting children from China and Vietnam, mostly. As a summary statement: orphanages are filled to the brim, children residing therein do not receive the love needed to possibly become healthy kids or adults, and about the last thing the world needs at this time is more kids waiting and hoping for a real family to love them because that usually never happens. I don't know about where you live, but in the U.S., a very high proportion of incarcerated adults were abused, neglected, and/or abandoned as children. And, it's generational -- adults maltreated as children are more likely to abuse, neglect, and abandon their own children. In short, with some privately arranged exceptions, adoption is not an alternative to abortion.

BTW, did the link to my novel work?

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

Wendy
Fully understandable when you lose it with religious people- I think no-one blames you for speaking out. If you hadn’t written about it I wouldn’t have known about the total lack of interest from churches about animal abuse. They should be ashamed! Would make a good point too in the Animal Abuse article thread!

As I am an atheist, I cope with my deal of criticism from religious people.
Anyway, the bible is full of violence, sexual misconduct, murder, slaughter, disrespect and it’s not only the ‘people’ in the bible who act violently, God himself I think, and I wrote that in another thread as well, needed anger management badly.
I am not saying that I disagree with all doctrines or commandments in principle; some may be reasonable guidance for people without a concious (Like you shouldn’t kill your parents or something) and match my own view (from my own conscious I already knew that I should not kill my parents). But opinions I reject because I disagree- for example the view on abortion, or on gay issues. None of the church’s business.

Wendy, OZ-Girl, if you’re in the mood, read this article about how wonderfully compassionate religious people are.

If you want to read it: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4768 for the article or

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4768 for the comments.

Robert E this is a really good point you are making that adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Great reasons to support that opinion.
Even in some of these orphanages or Christian institutions that look after children waiting to be adopted, child abuse is an issue.

Celivia,
You wouldnt have a clue. How many Christian adoption agencies and child welfare homes have you lived or worked in? My wife cared for eight children waiting foster care or adoption, all were very well treated. They came to her sich and and affected by drugs, because she was a nurse and a mother she was able to give them the appropiate care and love. I have a close friend who has cared for 158 children abused by their family removed by DOCS and placed in her care while waiting permanent placement [she was employed by Dalmar Children's Home].

It was not as illinformed Celvia posted, "Christian institutions that look after children waiting to be adopted, child abuse is an issue."

Christian institutions do not abuse the children it is their parents.

Philo, I admire the work of looking after these children you/your wife are doing. I truly mean that, good on you!

But you read over the word SOME and quoted only the last part of my sentence. Let me quote the first half: "Even in some of these orphanages or Christian institutions..."

Of course, it would be wrong to state that abuse of children happens in every care home or institution! I never said that.

It was not my intention to personally attack anyone, but we all know that abuse can happen in places where children are being looked after. Until we admit that this is happening in SOME places, things won't improve.

Same goes for pedophiles in churches who sexually abuse children.
It has to get out in the open- so it can be stopped! Not a good idea if churches protect pedophiles. I'm sure you agree with me here, Philo, if you have the best interest for children at heart.

Celivia Ozgirl Robert.

Not going anywhere , learnt ages ago not to try reasoning with sinners.[grin]

Celivia YES we should start a post about the lack of reasonsibilty of the Church regarding Gods creatures.

If you wouldnt mind perhaps you could start it off. Would you mind?

please. pretty please / I am not much good with this OLO.

Yo! note his WIFE looked after the kids.

Get that?

Celivia[wouldnt have a clue] ummmm.

I still own State Sercurity and Investigations.

Worked this type of stuff gathering evidence for enquiries.

Think we have a live one.

Those places he claims dont abuse kids are the biggest offenders.

Men work their way to being respected in the Church and swap kids to ones they KNOW they can trust.

The wives never know.

Ring Any bells.?

Note the support for Roberts book!

Preaching to others is a sympton.

No cure

I knew a guy who I swear was the best looking smartest bloke you laid eyes on.

I started getting uncomfortable when he refered to the bible all the time.

He looked after kids sent to him by the Church.

He was charged finally but he still does not see he did much wrong.

They delude themselves. .[ Cast no stones]
Just chuck a few in the right direction]

Dont do that type of work anymore[lucky for some]

I am happy to keep in contact with all of you via my email address and perhaps we could help Roberts book.

Ozgirl has great protential and Celivia should be hosting her own OLO.

I feel guilty posting here because I dont have any more to say about this pill.

No, not Philo, but the pill the writer posted about.

Yo! Philo next time I share a Bundy with the Lord out in the field when he is helping me save his creatures I will ask him if we can pray for you.

When women want help with birth control they go to A Doctor.

We will introduce a bill to stop people calling women murders for a drug thats legal.

End of Story.

Wendy perhaps you could begin to look at living creatures smaller than a grain of rice as being equally the Creation of God. The beginnings of human life for instance. The Earth has more volume of living creatures smaller than a grain of rice than it has of sheep, goats, bovine, horses, elephants, fish, whales etc, many of these are also endangered because of human ignorance and chemical pollution. Of course you prefer to pour toxic substances into the feotus of humans to eradicate them.

You have demonstrated your emotive hostility toward parenting and men, which identifies you as socially unbalanced. May you never have the responsibility to care for children until you can heal your own social paranoia.

News from the U.S.

If you haven't heard, finally, yesterday, the "morning after pill" was approved for over-the-counter sales to those 18 or older. Younger people have to have a Rx, but women's advocates are still working on correcting this flaw.

Robert

Once again Philo PRESUMES to judge others.

He completely misses the point that Wendy cares passionately about ALL life forms;

he misquotes Celivia to distort her message to the humble readers of OLO;

he denys women control over their own fertility;

he claims moral superiority because of his religious beliefs;

he misses the point that we all contribute to the health and well being of those around us;

and he forgets his bible when he casts stones.

Philo, please treat others with respect, you may not share their views but they have as much right to express them as you.

Robert and Scout.

Robert that is good news.

Scout I admire your effort but theres nobody home.

You can talk to him until the cows come home.

Lets examine your thinking shall we.?

You I will be cursed by not raising children.

Praise the Lord.

Thats the point not every body wants to.

In regards to seeds of life if I could get my hands on enough drugs to stop these poor creatures being born to suffer I would.

By George I think your starting to get it.

It is! The churches fault Philo. They are MEANT to be an example.

I love people especially the ones in need.

I wish them dignity and understanding and love to teach their WANTED children the same part of that is compashion to fellow creatures.

Children deserve to be wanted planned, loved.

Not here because you said so.

You think you are superior to women and Animals.

Ask yourself Can you Fly? Can you give birth? Can you talk unde water? [ Probably]

We all have something different to give.

Although In your case I must say I am having difficulty finding a good use.

But Wait! I have found it.

Had you not have come along and annoyed me several people probably would not have stopped to about the fact it iS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE CHURCH.[So I thank you]


Clearly YOU dont think Churches are reasonsibly as you have made no comment.

What is my Crime?

If the good Lord called upon me to help his beloved creatures who are you to argue with him.?

Each Person has a destiny in life.

Mine is to help Gods other Creatures.

With Gods help I will make a difference for him and them.

To serve God is the greatest gift of all.

He just doesnt want every women to do the same thing Philo.

Please pray for the suffering animals Philo in Gods name and help us in asking the Churches to stand up to their responsibiltys.

Let me tell you a story about the first time I ever heard my grandma curse:

I grew up really poor. My first pair of brand new socks was in the ninth grade. We always wore hand-me-downs, or Goodwill. My shoes typically had holes in the soles.

My grandma was the most religious person I'd ever met. She went to church every time the doors were open. We didn't talk about school dances around the kitchen table because the way she read the Bible, it was a sin to dance. She didn't cut her hair her entire life, because it was a sin for a woman to cut her hair. It was worn in a bun, and when let out, it flowed down her back to the floor and kept going -- bright silver.

One day, my younger brother and two younger sisters were at grandma's house. One of my little sisters stormed through the front door crying "her eyes out." Some boy up the street had made fun of her about the clothes she wore.

Well, I knew my job. I was the big brother and I had to kick his a__. I slammed the screen door on the way out, and on the porch, holding onto the rail, was my grandma. She looked down at me and said, "Bobby, don't let the assholes get you down." It was the first time I'd ever heard her cuss and it stopped me in my tracks.

Grandma was right. The kid who'd made fun of my sister was a rich kid -- I would've been locked up (again) for sure. My sister (and mother) needed me to make some money. I wouldn't have done anybody any good from inside another juvenile facility.

Wendy and all, grandma's advice is applicable here. Using religion as a cover for sexism is another rich kid making fun of my little sister. Put them in their place, but don't let them get you down.

Robert Eggleton

Sorry, still can’t shut up about child abuse.
This article is from 2004 but still worth reading: “More than 500,000 Australians spent at least part of their childhoods in orphanages or homes run by churches, welfare agencies and state governments. Many of them were abused.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/30/1093852183041.html

Philo, I understand that you are either not aware or you deny that this happens in some Christian places but it DOES happen.

I am not stressing this because I’m a b**ch who wants to be right, but because philo, you are in a position to keep your ears and eyes wide open to look out for these dangerous environments. Be strong and brave and blow a whistle if you suspect abuse happen.

All this abuse happened to children who's mothers did NOT use contraception, btw.

Wendy, your posts are so full of energy! You make a very important point when you say that children deserve to be wanted and loved.
What child deserves to be born in a family that don’t want it there?

Robert e, loved your story about your grandma. I have actually never heard my grandma swear, even though she wasn’t religious. I’d have loved to hear her swear just once!
I’m not sure yet if I can read your book at this stage. I read "A Child called 'It' ” (does you know that book? Probably by David Pezler).

I’ve had regular nightmares since I read that book a couple of years ago.
Every time I hear about a child abuse case, this book is in my mind and I shiver.
Or is this book a bit lighter than A Child Called ‘It’?

Scout, thanks for your witty summary, loved it ;)

I said at the beginning that I was ONLY going to talk about this new abortion pill. You know what? I lied!

Oh well, we have probably said all there was to say about this pill, anyway. And there is a lot to say about child abuse.
Children and animals are so helpless- we all need to look out for them!

Celivia,
Institutional Orphanages have not existed in Australia for many years. Children are now placed in foster care families, if no relatives are able to care for them.

Robert E

Thanks for the parable and I get your point, however, Philo and I are long time posters to OLO - while I can generally turn the other cheek when he judges me, I have difficulty when he attacks others. He is one of the bullies on this site - if I have a weakness, it is a complete and utter loathing of bullies and hypocrisy (Philo manages both - such talent!). While I often let Philo's own words condemn him, I believe it is worthwhile letting him know when he has gone too far, such as his assumptions about Wendy. Believe me, I don't waste too much time on the likes of Philo, but it doesn't hurt to remind him to pull his head on occasion.

Celivia

Thanks for getting it.

Thanks for the relationship info.

I do want to point out, however, that "Rarity from the Hollow" is an outrageous and fun read. Sure, it starts out harsh, but that's to set up the empowerment. I don't want folks to think that my novel drains emotions-- it doesn't--nothing comes from dwelling on victimization unless it invigorates action. My novel is a fun read.

Robert E.

Robert E.. I really enjoyed your post..our childhood experiences shapes us as adults and helps us to be appreciative of lifes small pleasures..ie I can experience great joy to wake up and find a beautiful day, soft grey skys and gentle rain,a beautiful beach, the smell of rain on hot dusty earth...theyre all free and the most beautiful gifts from nature..as a child growing up very poor like you this beauty was my mostly all I could expect but to be honest I still havent found anything that can replace it in my life.

Unfortunately my grandmother died when I was very young and the fact you have those great memories of yours? I feel very jealous.

You are such a nice man and now I see why.

cheers

Celivia

Your sweet to stick up for us new chums.
Robert, Scout, Ozgirl Its great talking to special people.
Robert I also loved the story about your Grand Mother.
Ozgirl how wise you are.
Sometimes doing it tough makes people hard but the smart ones learn to appreciate whats important.
Robert where do people BUY your book? I have some ideas.
Philo you dill, foster carers are just people, like people who run homes. There is much trouble about foster carers abusing kids for sexual favours.
Not All! homes are closed either.
You dont have to call people evil and wickard because they choose not to have kids.
Thats quite unbalanced. .
Look at Ozgirl shes done it hard in the past and now with all her understanding shes raised hers, put herself through uni and is studying to be a social worker.
She tried to tell you nicely that you cant force women to give birth.
How would you like it if someone said you cant read or Quote the bible anymore.?
You choose to read the bible and go to Church.
Nobody is stopping you.
Stop now and really consider how angry you would be if John Howard introduced a law blocking you from reading the bible.
You would be rightfully outraged.
Its freedom of Choice.
Please consider you cant MAKE people think like you just because you have your veiw pont.
Thats what starts wars.
Speaking of religion.
Try to find it in your heart to understand God made us all different.
There are many stories out there by women who have chosen not to have children at that particular time or the other.
Do not judge people.
Think about what I said regarding the Churches lack of responsibilty towards helping us stop this evil Live Animal Export Trade and those terrible small cages they stuff animals into all their lives that cant even turn around or spread their wings.
In gods name why>? Do you lot carry on about life when you show no concern for lives of the suffering?

"Rarity from the Hollow" can be bought online at Fat Cat Press: www.fatcatpress.com. It's $6.99 U.S. and you have to have a credit card the site accepts. There's a sample and some blurbs, etc. It can also be bought on the Mobipocket site for $2 more and where it's rated five star by readers. Please vote if you like it.

My grandma always gave me a birthday present, never costly, and she still does even though she's been dead for thirty years or so.

Robert E.

I’m glad, philo, that most children now are cared for in Foster homes. Are you sure, I thought there were a couple of orphanages (QLD?) still there, but I might have been wrong about that.

I’m very pleased to know that all these horrible orphanages have disappeared- if they really have disappeared. Foster homes are so much more natural and loving. The kids your wife (and I suppose you do your share of workload as well) cares for are very lucky to have her.

But still- Although foster carers, I expect, are adequately selected and monitored, and therefore child abuse in foster homes might be minimal, it’s still good to be alert. There must be nothing worse for a child who goes into foster care because s/he was abused by her/his own parents, to find that their foster parents abuse them as well! Be quick to report child abuse when you suspect it is going on ANYWHERE.

Are there enough foster homes available to accommodate all children who can’t go to relatives? Can you keep a child until it can go to a permanent home and is there a maximum time you can keep a child? I think it must be very hard emotionally for both the child and foster parent to see a child go to a permanent home.

Robert E, thanks, just wanted to make sure about your book- needs to be Celivia-rated ;)

Celivia,
It is now 20 years since we fostered infant children waiting for adoption or permanent foster placement. Most of the babies we cared for were between three days and 6 months while young mothers determined if they were going to adopt. Some were adopted, others taken in by grandparents, some were children of drug addicts, or temporarily accomodated to give stressed single mothers time to recover.

From my experience I refer to the closure of orphanages, when experience showed children prospered better mentally and emotionally in smaller families . I remember in the 1960's one Church orphanage in Sydney trialled family homes of not more than six - eight children in a home with live in house parents. It was so sucessful it set the course for the abandonment for large institutions.

In 1978, my wife and I founded Turning Point, a professional foster home that housed six teens at a time. During the five years that we lived there, I was the foster father for 36 kids, several of whom I still have a relationship with. There were no environmental indicators, such as signs, posted rules, etc., that it was not just a house on the block. Except for one teen prostitute who was murdered, all the kids ended up okay, and a few are financially well-off now. Turning Point was replicated and still exists.

After that, I started small emegency shelters for children around the state. Unfortunately, the experience was opposite. They were soon filled with kids who had bounced from one foster home to another, never achieving a sense of permanency.

Today, as a therapist, I always give each kid my work phone number on discharge, and tell them that they can call me for as long I live. Most don't call, but several do and have for years. Mainly, we chit chat. I think its a sense of belonging and having permanent positive relationships that helps kids who were birthed by a parent they can't count on being there for them.

Some kids were not wanted when conceived. Some others were a manipulation to qualify for welfare. Some are so damaged by abuse and neglect that their births represented just the first cruelty of their lives. Despite advances in out-of-home child care concepts, abortion has a place in a civilized society as an act of kindness, some pregnant women recognize it as such, and anybody who makes them feel bad or discourages them from doing the right thing should be ashamed. It's not solely a matter of women's rights. It's a children's rights issue as well, as a living hell is much worse than having never been born and, frankly, many more kids are still damaged by the child welfare systems than will be freely acknowledged

please Answer the question Philo.

Why dont your lot speak up Against Animal cruelty?

Better still pop over to Scouts Forum.

Its interesting even when people go to the trouble of starting a forum about the lack of action from you lot they all hide behind their bibles.

The Forum is noticable absent of all you good Church People.

Oh and Just for the record we run a school for underpriverleged kids as well as international students.

The children that were raised by our family are all either studying law or medical.

They are happy well educated almost audults.

Hope To See you on the other other forum.

Thanks Robert I will buy some.

Hope to see you and Ozgirl there also, and the others.

Thanks Robert Eggleton for your post from the child care front and for the time and effort you have put into these children.

Thanks, but I've benefited as much as the kids from my "contributions."

Robert
"Rarity from the Hollow"

Philo

I notice you are not interested in Celivias Forum.

I notice none the the church Leaders or People Are Interested.

"noted." Not even a comment apart from David B

Thanks because I am doing a televion doc soon on just that point.

No Interest from Church people at all.

Its sure to be a success.

Just Keep reading your bible while millions of gods creatures suffer.

I Will Keep a cold one for you in Hell, that place your so scared of.

Just think you might even see my there.

Now thats scarey Philo.

Wendy,
I note you take a literalist physical view of the afterlife. However this is not what I believe. Obviously you live in a mental hell [torment] already.

As far as animal cruelty is concerned Ive bred thousands of head of dairy stock and none have been ill treated as you claim. Most of them end their days at the local abbitors. I could say that you have never feed a nation from your garden but rather expect people to live on grass. Animals best turn grass into high grade protein - perhaps you should try it.

philo
I have only just started with this OLO thing the last few weeks and was just hunting around.
Read all your stuff and others.
You make it clear mate you dont like this Wendy.
I reckon shes pretty on the money.
You know when I first started reading I thought Oh no here we go again. After reading some more I thought to myself yeh shes right about that.
Then I read some more peoples comments about the lack of church Leaders interested In Animal Welfare and i thought its true.
So I find myself getting drawn in to this with more interest.
Dont knock someone for trying to do something decent then call yourself a Christian mate.
Actually I think that was her whole point really in the first place.
The Churches do have a clear responsibilty and your too gutless to post on the subject I noticed.
Shes not telling people to eat grass.
I think shes got you pegged and you just dont like it.
Thats my two bobs worth.
Yeh and maybe you should think about sticks and stones and all that stuff.
Especially Casting Stones

BennySampson,
I suppose you kill ants, I don't! they are allowed in my kitchen because they are living creatures too in need of a feed.

I didn't know we were talking about animal cruelty, but on that issue -- here in West Virginia, U.S. -- hunting for food is common. I don't hunt, but most in my extended family keep their freezers stocked with wild game, mostly deer. This culture is explained better in my novel, but a "clean kill" is highly regarded. And, a person's pet dog is as much a part of the family as a human relative.

The deer are so prolific that here in Charleston, a small city, an ordinance was passed last year allowing persons to hunt within city limits if their property was a certain size, etc. Personally, while I have no trouble taking down a pimp to protect a teenage prostitute, I don't think I could shoot a deer. They are soooooooo pretty.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

Robert

If all goes well I think you will be happy with what we are trying for the book.

I apoligise for being off post but saw this and wanted to repond.

Take the time as we did to look at our work too.

There is no reason we cant support each others topics.

You got the wrong handle on the issue re animal welfare.

We are not the anti eating meat lot.

Your family if they kill clean should be able to eat the meat.

After having said that I am with You In so much as I couldnt kill

one either.

Especially looking into there beautiful eyes.

What we are protesting is putting those same wild creatures into crates and trucks then ships and exporting them wild.

It is THE most cruel thing anybody could ever do.

Live Cattle and sheep by the millions.

Your family are right.quick clean.

We are demanding church leaders in Australia and everywhere take a stand against cruelty to God creatures.

They turn their backs because they dont want to stand up to the government and risk loosing their grants. SHAME.

The Silence is deafening. The only way to get the church leaders to do their job, because it is their job to speak out about Animal cruelty is to point out to church goers they really need to raise this issue at their Church.

Philo Saw your comment for Ben.

Just consider these are god creatures too. You have got to admitt its pretty slack the church Saying noithing with this live export issue.
When in the living memory has 60 minutes ever done five segmants on the same issue.[never]
The Silence rom Church Leaders IS Shameful.
Your absense is also noted on the forum Philo.
Sorry Robert Couldnt resist

Talk about beautiful eyes -- how about a cow?

One time, I was driving back to the city from my farm (I never got enough money together to develop it.). A bunch of cows had escaped and were in the middle of the one-lane road. I was exhausted, having hand-dug a hole for a septic tank. We crept behind the cows in my 66 Dodge truck that I still own and am redoing for the final time. Finally, the cows moved over to the side. I slowly went forward until the leader was beside the truck. She turned her head and banged my front fender. "You hit it!" my wife accused. "No I didn't. She hit me," I corrected. We went up the road, got out of the truck, and walked back to the cows. They were grazing on the road's shoulder. Cow eyes may be beautiful, but they're not all that bright. Afterward, I didn't eat meat for six months.

Wendy you go girl.

Philo

Your credibility is again in question - I do not believe for a nanosecond that you tolerate ants in your jam or honey - that formic acid bites! And then, every time you across a paddock you crush insects, have you not considered this? - better not walk outside in future!

Robert E

Thank you for your considered posts on this forum. I respect the work you do for people - offering support; withholding judgement. That is the best we can do.

Robert

[ Smile]

Ah dont know about cows not being too bright mate. She got you with thise big eyes didnt she,? and she probably meant to shove your truck out of the way too! by the way.
After all as you said you didnt eat meat for six months.
Your wife sounds like a Sweety.
Nice Story and thanks for sharing.
More important thanks! for walikng back to see if she was ok.
Thats the sort of thing that we like to hear.
Its also what makes children learn from the example of their parents.

Robert I am not going on too much about what I have in Mind For your book and children and education re Animal Welfare all in one.

I am so busy I am scared I will say something I cant carry through on.

As it is posting on top of PALE< HKM is a challange.
I have put a proposal to Ozgirl and if she is interested we might all just really work together.

Ok phil rattle those pots and pans because this is up your alley as well..
I will post about it as soon as I get a moment.

thanks Again For Sharing the story about the cow.
[Not Sure Philo! would have stopped.] grin?
Just kidding cant resist.
Come On philo dont Be A pillo.
oooopps Sorry I forgot we were talking about the pill or something wernt we.
[oh dear Forgive me father for I have sinned]

Apoligies Robert I wont do it again I just Wonder if your mate has any sense of humour

CHURCH LEADERS
Seriously Please help us speak out against barbaric cruelty through our churches.

.