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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for decriminalising abortion is not so simple > Comments

The case for decriminalising abortion is not so simple : Comments

By David Palmer, published 4/7/2008

There is an ever expanding database of women having an abortion and paying a terrible cost.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All
David, no-one is asking you to have an abortion. Kindly mind you own damned business and get your nose out of other peoples.
As mentioned in a previous post "The Issue of Dying", David seems determined to mind everyone's business as well as his own, and further, to enforce his morals on everyone else. You may well deny it, David, but you are an unfeeling, bigoted, bully who has decided what is right for the world, and everyone else can go to buggery.
Posted by ianbrum, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
80% of the Australian population believe that women should have access to abortion, only 10% of the population oppose abortion. As there is one abortion for every 3 live births in Victoria abortion, access to RU486 would reduce women's reliance on surgical abortion. Abortion will clearly continue irrespective of its legal status and if we criminalise abortion then, extrapolating from pre 1970 figures, there would be 2 women dying every day of sceptic abortions.
Posted by billie, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David does appear to be a busybody.
How much of each woman's stress is due, if she decides an abortion is the best choice for her, to the ridiculous indoctrination during her childhood that we are all sinners and that what she has chosen is a sin. Each woman in the reproductive part of her life undergoes about 350 periods. It should be her choice which of those should produce a child, if any, particularly on a overcrowded planet.
As defined in John Ralston Saul's book, The Dobter's Companion, "Moral crusades are public activities undertaken by middle aged men who are cheating on their wives or didling little boys. Moral crusades are particularly popular among those seeking power for their own pleasue, politicians who can't think of anything useful to do with their mandates and religious professional suffering from a personal inability to communicate with their god."
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:12:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although it is obviously his style, Mr Palmer has not quite developed the requisite skill of appearing to make objective and rational statements while supporting minority, conservative views of morality and subjective dogma.

Women have fought hard over many decades to have the rule of law support their human right to control their own bodies and to exclude the intrusive, institutional claptrap of right-wing religious Inquisitionists - and the law does just that.

Although there is ongoing debate about the moral status of the foetus, in Australian law a foetus is not a person [“Foetal Welfare and the Law”, Australian Medical Association Report, Commission of Inquiry, 1995]. It follows that it does not have the rights possessed by a human being. It is also clear in UK law that the foetus does not have any separate legal interests capable of being taken into account by a court [Re MB (medical treatment) [1997] 2FLR 426]. Although it had been suggested that the right of everyone to have their life protected by law, under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, could extend to the unborn, this was rejected in 2004 in the case of Vo v France [Vo v France (2005) 40 EHRR 12]. In that case the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 2 did not confer a right to life that extended to a foetus.

I can do nothing more than suggest that Mr Palmer follows the advice of ianbrum, supra.
Posted by Doc Holliday, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:38:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David has presented a quite well argued response to the VLRC's Report. As a social worker who has had to deal with the emotional pain and suffering that many women, young and old, experience following an abortion, I can understand where David is coming from, my opinion being from a humanistic perspective and not a religious one. In many cases those women are coming to terms with a decision they subsequently come to feel was made with insufficient guidance and a lack of information about alternative options. The women I have counselled haven't been suffering out of 'indoctrinated guilt', but out of what they come to see as a desperately sad experience of having separated themselves from a life that had been growing within them.

Those experiences brought me to a realisation that abortion is a much more complicated procedure than simply exercising a 'right to choose' or removing a foetus from a woman's uterus. People who present that simplified view do women no good at all, as David argues, as it tends to lead to a culture of thought where the emotional component of abortion is ignored or minimalised.

I had a personal example about four years ago when my daughter experienced a complication during pregnancy. When she was told she would need to go to Melbourne for tests, the somewhat throw away line from the medical practitioner was 'you need to consider there might be a need to terminate'. This blew us all away, as it was at a very early stage in the intervention, before anything clear was known other than there was a problem with the foetus' foot, and subsequently caused my daughter unnecessary mental anguish as her husband was serving overseas at the time and could not be contacted. Fortunately, our story had a good outcome.

It is unfortunate that as soon as people like David raise questions around issues like abortion they are villified and accused of being meddlers, unfeeling, bigoted, or bullies. I'm inclined to think those shoes might in fact be on the other feet!
Posted by Ian D, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bitter vile responses to David confirms that you are on to the truth here David. Only the most callous can kill their own and not be affected by it. Many of these women do suffer guilt later in life. You would think that a few more would have the honesty to want to prevent others from going through this trauma. Then again abortion is mostly done for selfish reasons so why should we expect otherwise.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again the venom of those opposing any kind of debate is clear. Seems to me all David wants to do is find ways to protect women. The VLRC report does to seem to be "purpose written" to protect abortion clinics rather than women.

Mermac.
Posted by mermac, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:13:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The palpable grief I see on the media following the violent death of a young child, contrasts to those who think killing a human being in waiting, is acceptable.

Post 32 weeks, we have to ask those who take an oath to "at least do no harm" for a decision.

Tenderness, love, compassion and understanding seem to go out the window in this debate.

We have to live with our decisions for eternity; which is a fairly long time.
Posted by miss_allaneous, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apart from the obvious civil liberties issues, it is essential that all means to control runaway population growth that threatens our future, including the right to have an abortion, be made available to women. This is even more desperately urgent in Third World countries where lobbying form the Catholic church and other religious right organisations effectively prevents many Industrialised nations from providing birth control aid.

A related article "Why is the UN so complacent in the face of over-population peril?" at http://candobetter.org/node/631 may be of interest.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm greatly encouraged to see by some of the responses to this article that not all commentators here are hostile to an approach to abortion that considers the welfare of both the mother and the unborn child, and seeks to extend the love of God to both. I was beginning to think that the rationality-free, venomous,and ad hominem responses of ianbrum, Foyle and Doc Holliday constituted the Forum's house style. Foyle's alleged quotation of John Raulston Saul in particular is infamous, implying that Mr Palmer must be a child-molester or an adulterer, and I shall be complaining about it to the forum administrator.
Posted by Bearbrass, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can never understand those folk who demand to impose their will over the sovereignty of another person.

I fully accept that some women will, with varying degrees of grief and emotion, regret a decision they may have made to abort.

Such feelings are among the consequences of taking responsibility for the decisions we make.

Such feelings are insignificant compared to living with the pain of a decision imposed upon us by strangers, in this case, enforcing women to endure a pregnancy against her will.

However, when every anti-abortionist is complaining about the thousands and thousands of abortions undertaken every year, a book annotating 18 individual events cannot be called “significantly representative”.

I see no representation for the views of the thousands and thousands of women who, knowing their own circumstances and aspirations, which presumably did not include or embrace pregnancy at that particular moment time, had an abortion and believe it was the right thing to do.

I discount the sensitivities of the religious minded. They are entitled to pray for a different world and even work towards it but they are not entitled to impose that “world view” on the secularly minded citizens of this or any other country, any more than the secularists are entitled to outlaw or ban a religious creed.

I trust all will find my post completely deviod of any ad homenins, venom or a bitter vile response to anyone.

Daggett whilst I share your sentiment, I do not agree the issues of abortion and world population are or should be considered as in any way related.

Of the two, world population is serious but the right to abort a pregnancy and individual sovereignty is far more critical.

World population issues ultimately affect the style in which we live.

The right to make sovereign choices affects not the style in which we live but whether living is reduced to mere existing.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 July 2008 12:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got a few friends who have had an abortion (or maybe more) and they've never felt so relieved. It was one of the best days of their lives. And now they have recovered from that hideously depressing time, put it behind them and are now enjoying their current work and relationhips.

I don't argued with anti-abortionists anymore. I used to but there's not point. I am now in favour of tactics which make opening their mouths a less than pleasant experience.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 4 July 2008 2:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"discount the sensitivities of the religious minded. They are entitled to pray for a different world and even work towards it but they are not entitled to impose that “world view” on the secularly minded citizens of this or any other country, any more than the secularists are entitled to outlaw or ban a religious creed."

This is a banal moral philosophy. Society imposes its will on individuals for all sorts of reasons and deliberately curbs their behaviour. To say an anti-abortionist can't outlaw abortion just because it imposes on the will of others flies in the face of current practice.

An anti-abortionist would no doubt argue it was abortion's supporters who were disregarding the interests of the individual - in this case the foetus.

If they believe the interests of two people are at stake (mother and child) they are especially entitled to argue for abortion to be outlawed, by the logic of your own "secular" code. Religion does not even have to come into it.
Posted by grn, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:04:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ladies I hope you are listening...stop killing unborn babies...or laws in future will become draconian...as in severe sanction against you and the tool you used to get pregnant...

now that I have offended about half the population...allow me to explain...
http://www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Background~Stats
http://www.popline.org/docs/1294/140692.html

so since abortion legalized a dramatic jump in numbers...then a plateau...albeit some fiddling to hide increasing figures from individual studies...and that has a strong message...

and law increasingly has allowed women to 'my body my choice' power over unborn child...and now push for 'absolute power and no accountability/identification' effect of laws...

but science has been cathing up...now there is much in common between unborn and 'just born'...so lesser difference to killing 'just born' and which 'murder' at current law and 'unborn'...they are both just beautiful babies...

and the general population wants an end to this...as in shift the point of action to time of sex...not after impregnation...meaning laws must start strongly address responsibility/accountability at the time to parties who choose to engage in sex...avoid pregnancy or face severe consequences...like driving...dont drink/drugs/tired...full stop...for its an innocent life with no fault at risk here...got that...and since women organized themselves as an effective force the power of terminating the unborn into your own hands...its primarily your responsibility...any reasons eg drunk, too young, contraceptive failure becomes of much less value...

yes, the reasons for abortion from one extreme of severe foetal deformation that reasonable life unlikely...to other extreme of 'rite of passage' a women has to do to become a sista...(dont ask...too sick...)...and inbetween reasons...and so abortion should and must exist...but currently its severely abused and should not continue...and note septic death from illegal abortion will be considered 'intentional self harm' at law if current abuse does not stop...

and for those who see beyond the immediate to the bigger picture...killing our unborn is a society that is 'dying'...for it reflects our driving forces of our society...'unbalanced self interest' than 'balanced self interest' where it should be...think about it...

Sam
Ps~and guys help out...your sperm is your total responsibility...make sure not one goes near there...during and after...not matter what she says...
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody _wants_ to have an abortion, any more than anyone wants to have their appendix taken out. But sometimes it is by far the lesser of two evils. When David and the church groups he represents have shown their capacity to adopt and raise every unwanted child in comfort and security, then he will have earned the right to criticise a woman's (or couple's) choice.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The bitter vile responses to David [Palmer] confirms that you are on to the truth here David."

Joseph Stalin evoked some bitter responses. It didn't mean he was onto the truth (although he did make abortion illegal in the Soviet Union. Resrictions on reproductive rights is a typical feature of authoritarian regimes).

It is a very old tactic to revel in victimhood when someone opposes your argument. But a few hostile responses to an article does not a martyr make.

It maybe true that people have abortions for selfish reasons. So what? People have children for selfish reasons. And people who choice not to have children at all a labelled 'selfish'. At any rate, this is not the Soviet Union and people do and should have such options.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, David Palmer,
If you care so much about the women who have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy and abortion, perhaps you should ask the religious right to lobby for comprehensive sex education and gang up during the World Youth Day festival with the libertarians who are planning to educate the Pope and the devote Catholics about the c-word: condoms.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The majority of Australians support the legal availability of abortion, but are concerned about the number of abortions.

The two are related, but restricting the access to abortion is purely reactive.

What about being pro-active instead? That means not focussing on the situation AFTER conception has occurred, but BEFORE.

As IanD points out, David has a valid point by raising awareness that abortion is not experienced as the easy option by many women.

Col argues that if regret sets in 'so sad, too bad-take responsibility for your decisions', but that still focusses on the situation after conception.

Celivia points out what the debate really should be about.

It is good that abortions are no longer relegated to secret procedures affordable to those with the money or to the back-yard.

But it is truly shameful that though we argue back and forth about the number of abortions it is not coupled with a demand for comprehensive sex education for our young people.

This will not only reduce abortions, but will also halt the frightening rise of sexually transmitted diseases. Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are becoming very common.
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 4 July 2008 10:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only the amoral have abortions.
Posted by beaumonde, Saturday, 5 July 2008 7:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yvonne, very well said.

I find it difficult to cut through the spin regarding the post abortion distress factor. Those pushing that line are often strongly against abortion for other reasons such as religious beliefs and their impartiality is suspect. Ian D's comment is interesting as he claims that his views are humanistic not religious but then that's one persons experience and I don't know the context of his experience.

Likewise material from the strongly pro-choice side of things is likely to be coloured due to concern that any admission of a downside will be seized upon by those opposed to abortion.

Far better to avoid abortion by avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

As I think I mentioned in another post the out of pocket costs of a vasectomy seem very high for an in surgery procedure for someone paying a lot of money for both private health cover and to support the government run schemes. That's an area where we could perhaps make significant gains in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies with little effort.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 5 July 2008 8:22:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're so right Robert. The option of vasectomies should be strongly encouraged. It is a simple day procedure. I'd prefer money spent on this than the baby bonus.

I agree with you re the spin on how much and how many women suffer from regret or relief after an abortion.

Recently in Time I read how automatic trauma counselling post an event has actually been discredited. It appears on the numbers and follow ups over a number of years to worsen symptoms. It is still very popular, but that seems to be because there is a whole industry catering to this now.

I found this very interesting. I've always instinctively felt that by 'preparing' people by counselling for possible effects from psychological stress would make symptoms appear.

How many women, certainly not all, experience themselves and their decision because of influence by outside suggestion and opinion?

Nevertheless, making tough decisions is a part of life. What really irks me is this increasing tendency by adults to blame others for the ramification of their own decisions. What is happening to people's self confidence: that they know they made the best decision for themselves at that time?
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 5 July 2008 11:26:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David you are entitled to follow them be they philosophical or religious providing they don*t harm others. But the problem with your argument is the bogus assumptions/arrogance you use to justify them being enshrined in law.
You state that yours is a Christian view supported by most churches.
I would more realistically argue that the views are that of the Hierarchies not necessarily all “Christians” or “nominals” Churches inaccurately claim to represent otherwise why churches are diminishing in attendee numbers?
Using Eire as an example a catholic (Christian) country which bans abortion why there 10’s of thousands of Irish abortion tourists each year to England? How many people actually follow dogma when their circumstances are faced with a conflict? Not that many.
Organisationally speaking, the first objective of any organization is to its own continuance. People being what they are all hierarchies are likewise primarily engaged in personal power/prestige rather than true representation. Hence the Reformation and the continual fragmentation of Christianity.
Constitutionally Australia is a secular country so arguments strictly on religious grounds are pointless, what counts is those prepared to vote.
Religiously I am reminded of the line “Give to Caesar…. et al”
Where does it say impose Christianity on others? Then ask yourself how Christian is it to punish a woman/girl and or the child both physically, emotionally, socially for something that may not have been their fault. Particularly if they don’t subscribe to your views?
Why should a victim of say naivety, rape/incest be forced to suffer and bear a child they neither want nor able to cope with? Naivety and education are not necessarily synonymous.
Evidence suggests that there can be long-term harm caused to both by single parenting and adoption. How do you assess suitable parents? If you don*t believe in abortion then don*t have one but as a minority to impose your religious views on others whose circumstances you’re not living is hubris if not insensitivity at its worst. This not a matter of religion but rights of others if there is a sin/victim let it be the mother's choice not yours.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 5 July 2008 1:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David and others from the religious right are fighting a rear guard action as only 10% active oppose the right to abortion in spite of the continuous indoctrination of the church.

The pro lifers have lost the ethical and moral argument in that the secular world has deduced that the right of the individual cannot be over ridden by the rights of others, the state or the church.

That having an abortion is a difficult and traumatic experience cannot be denied, but stopping abortions for the handful of people who have regrets afterwards is insane.

The further proposal that "Humane" proposals like enforced counselling or a cooling off period be enforced are anything but humane, as all they do is extend the trauma for those who choose to proceed.

All I can say is I am very grateful that "Big Brother" or the Church with its hypocritical teachings is no longer a substantive influence in our lives.
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 6 July 2008 12:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thank everyone for taking the time to engage with my article, although I noted some such as ianbrum, were so filled with malice toward me they were unable to get past spewing bile, omitting to engage the argument.

Billie’s logic is wrong. There is no point in using 1970’s figures as back then the rate of seeking abortions was far lower as people seem to have a better understanding of the value of the human life developing in the womb, and besides there was a lot less sex outside of marriage. In fact a reasonable argument can be mounted that the post 1960’s rejection of the notion that in order to engage in sexual activity, love and commitment preferably within the bonds of marriage were required has been the main reason for the ballooning rate of abortion through the 70’s and 80’s, though not the only one.

In response to Foyle, as “a middle aged male moral crusader”, I have never cheated on my wife nor been didling little boys.

I find it interesting to observe all these men rushing in to defend a woman’s right to abortion and cannot help wondering if they are the same kind of men who say to the unfortunate women they impregnate, “It’s your choice”, as they walk way.....

I refer Doc Holliday to the most recent study of Australian attitudes to abortion, the Sexton study, which found only 42% of the community hold that a human foetus is not a person.

I find interesting that while I’m prepared to acknowledge that a clear majority of the Australia support a woman’s right to an abortion, my opponents on this thread (Yvonne is the honourable exception) are unwilling to acknowledge Australians disquiet at the numbers occurring. The Sexton Marketing research cited in my article shows that Australians are clearly deeply conflicted on the abortion issue: 87% of Australians would like both to reduce the rate of abortion and retain the right of women to legal access to abortion. 73% say outright that the rate is too high
Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:40:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thank Ian D for sharing his pastoral experience. I find it very interesting to be attacked by people who wouldn’t lift a finger to help a young girl caught with an unplanned unwanted pregnancy with “the father” totally lacking in moral scruple, pressing himself upon the girl but unwilling to accept the responsibility of his own actions.

I mean to say, who is there to assist a woman suffering psychological and other damage through an abortion – certainly not the feminists, the Emily list types. I know the organizations and apart from the previous Government’s initiative, the National Pregnancy Support Helpline, they are all Christian based - Caroline Chisholm Society, Pregnancy Counselling Australia, Pregnancy Help Line, etc – I can name 9 organisations in Victoria all run by Christians.

Col what makes you think 18 women sums up the case for damaged women? The book runs to 280 pages with each woman giving her story. Anne Lastman’s book is based on her counselling of in excess of a 1,000 women – just how many women have got to be damaged before you notice?

Jon J says “When David and the church groups he represents have shown their capacity to adopt and raise every unwanted child in comfort and security, then he will have earned the right to criticise a woman's (or couple's) choice.” But this is exactly what the churches have always done – how can you be so blind? The problem today is not nearly enough children are available for adoption (one of the major drivers for IVF) because of abortions. My wife and I adopted two children.

Celivia, in our submission to the LRC we listed better sex education as one action. Why do you limit yourself to this one action.

Robert I suggest you go and get a copy of Melinda Tankard Reist’s book, and then if you have the stomach for it, you might like to have a look at Lastman’s book (having been warned, I haven’t, not having the stomach)
Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David I think I've already expressed my views on spin and I've seen enough of Melinda's work to get an idea how helpful a book by her would be.

In an earlier post you made a couple of points which I think are more worthy of comment.

"cannot help wondering if they are the same kind of men who say to the unfortunate women they impregnate, “It’s your choice”, as they walk way....." - do you find it difficult to understand that some will stand up for the rights of people to make choices that they are unlikely or would not make themselves?

Should a woman have a choice about continuing an unplanned pregnenacy - yes.
Should the father have a choice about further involvement following an unplanned conception - yes.
Would my personal choice be to walk away - not under any realistic circumstances I can think of.

"my opponents on this thread (Yvonne is the honourable exception) are unwilling to acknowledge Australians disquiet at the numbers occurring" - I've not paid enough attention to the flow on that aspect of the debate on this particular thread but my impression overall is that across the numerous threads about abortion many who support choice don't particularly like abortion (myself being one). That many have expressed a preference for lower numbers by reducing the number of unplanned pregancies.

Better sex education, improved access to contraception, promoting more open attitudes to the human body and human sexuality being some of the points which come to mind.

So for the record I'd rather see no abortions required. How I'd like to see that occur, no unwanted pregnancies because people have the knowledge, resources and freedom to make informed and health sexual choices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 July 2008 4:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again, let's become proactive rather than reactive.

Let's not focus on what happens after conception, let's focus on preventing conception in the first place.
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 7 July 2008 7:31:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you said,
“Celivia, in our submission to the LRC we listed better sex education as one action. Why do you limit yourself to this one action.”
Can I assume that you define ‘better’ sex education as ‘more effective’?
I’m glad that you’ve changed your mind since last year. Sex education needs to be explicit/comprehensive to be effective.
Abstinence-only sex education is about as effective as no sex education at all.

I just wish that all school children and teenagers were given the knowledge that they needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sex education. Boys as well as girls need to be educated about the risks that are involved for them and for each other. Women’s risks are obviously different and greater than men’s risks, but both have risk when having sexual intercourse especially when they don’t use contraception.

I’m not limiting myself to this one action; as you may remember from last year’s abortion debate, I’m also pro free contraception and agree with RObert and Yvonne about vasectomies and being proactive.
I hope you have submitted to the LRC free contraception as well- it would be a shame if you limited yourself by not including this very effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the submission.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:16:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Palmer “Col what makes you think 18 women sums up the case for damaged women? The book runs to 280 pages with each woman giving her story. Anne Lastman’s book is based on her counselling of in excess of a 1,000 women – just how many women have got to be damaged before you notice?”

I do not think 18 women is representative.

I do not think 1,000 is representative

As for “damaged” women; how many women were “damaged” by being forced to endure a pregnancy and possibly redirect their lives in the days when abortion was illegal and just for the sake of someone else’s sensitivity?

I fully recognise and acknowledge the negative effects which may come with deciding to have an abortion andthat is why only the woman herself should make that decision, only the woman herself can therefore bear the burden of it if she feels she has made the wrong choice but that is still better than denying her the right to make that choice.

The other point regarding making choices and exercising rights, without people accepting responsibility (which includes the consequences), there can be no rights.

However, denying people the right of choice absolves them of responsibility.

A stunted life is the one where people are denied the opportunity to make decisions which effect them and thus are not allowed to grow through the process of accepting responsibility for the outcomes.

More women would be seriously deprived and damaged through being denied the right to exercise their sovereign right to choose whether to abort than are damaged by the consequences of making that decision.

Not that it should concern you or I. what decisions private individuals make for themselves is entirely their business and not something which should be a primary concern of you or me. In fact, speaking personally, I do not think about or take responsibility for the decisions those ladies seeking abortion make. I will however, continue to defend their sovereign right to be the sole arbiter of those decisions.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:41:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Ian for your real life observation of the effect of abortion. I wonder if those oppossing those who speak for life, realise the total of side-effects to the woman who has the abortion? People still today bleed out, faced with down the track never being able to conceive again, and if it is a first time pregnancy there is a 50% increased risk of breast-cancer later in life. Yes, these are medically backed facts. So who is the community really hurting when they allow abortion?
Posted by iwonder, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert,

Thank you for your carefully considered argument – the ratbags seem to have cleared off.

You say, “do you find it difficult to understand that some will stand up for the rights of people to make choices that they are unlikely or would not make themselves?”

No, I do understand this – in fact it is my point.

I believe men and women should accept the consequences of their own actions. If a man and a woman engage in sexual activity and a child results, then they should both accept responsibility for that child (if underage children are involved then the upbringing of the child becomes a family responsibility).

That is what our forbears understood and why sexual activity was understood to belong properly to the commitment of marriage. And this is still the way we understand it in the church – our young people generally (though not always) marry young and generally it’s not too long before children appear.

Celivia,

Re sex education, this is what we said in our submission to the LRC:

Sex education for school children should be revisited to ensue that a) parents are fully consulted in the development of programmes, and b) the biology of reproduction and matters of reproductive health are not taught without reflecting on the dignity of the human person, human love and supportive relationships. Sex education under no circumstances should serve exploitive purposes, but be holistic, containing information, values and behavioural components. Furthermore, we believe that children should be taught that sex belongs exclusively within marriage. It is this failure to uphold marriage as the place for sexual love that has led to the explosion in abortion and historically, this is a very recent phenomenon.
Posted by David Palmer, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:25:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

You challenge me, so I challenge you. Why do you not agree that a referral from a GP be required, counselling be offered pre/post abortion, that if abortions are performed they not be done in day procedure centres but in a hospital, that late term abortions be outlawed as an abomination cases where delivery of the baby can be safely secured.

Why do women seeking an abortion have to end up with second rate care? Why do you support this?

Ask yourself why the obstetrician who safely delivers a 24 week old baby is the hero of the dinner party why the abortionist keeps quiet.

For the record, in my submission to the LRC despite our basic objection to abortion, I left open the final say to the woman to have an abortion, I just want to see her properly supported, and every child allowed life a matter for celebration. Abortion is a sad commentary on the state of our society and one abortion for every three live births a national disgrace. No wonder the figures are not disclosed. Everything to do with abortion is shrouded in secrecy because everyone knows it is a bad thing – there just are some things that you can’t not know, no matter how hard you try to hide them.

Col,

You say, “I fully recognise and acknowledge the negative effects which may come with deciding to have an abortion andthat is why only the woman herself should make that decision, only the woman herself can therefore bear the burden of it if she feels she has made the wrong choice but that is still better than denying her the right to make that choice” – such a male cop out!

You say, “denying people the right of choice absolves them of responsibility”.

Two things:

1. It takes two people to make a baby, so it has to be a shared responsibility

2. As it is, the evidence is that many women caught with an unwanted pregnancy feel they have no choice – deserted by their partner and often by their parents.
Posted by David Palmer, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Palmer “1. It takes two people to make a baby, so it has to be a shared responsibility

2. As it is, the evidence is that many women caught with an unwanted pregnancy feel they have no choice – deserted by their partner and often by their parents.”

Actually I thought you would come up with more objections than that, so simply put:

Your point two tends to mitigate against your point one.

It comes down tho this

Her body is the body at risk or being used to host the pregnancy, not her boy friends or her parents.

It is, therefore, her ultimate responsibility, regardless the wishes or expectations of the contributing male or her parents or the wider community.

Regardless if she decides to abort or continue the pregnancy, that she may later regret that decision is her burden to endure. The price of freedom of choice is the responsibility for the consequences.

Forcing her to face the consequences of a pregnancy because she got herself pregnant is not a reasonable limiting condition because we can perform abortions with an acceptable degree of safety (but like all medical procedures, not completely devoid of risks).

Of course, if the pregnant woman does decide to continue the pregnancy, the contributing male partner does bear a responsibility to and for the child.

Either way, responsibilities do not fall at your feet nor mine and any right you feel is yours to object, if she decides to abort, is null and void.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iwonder,
Yes there are risks involved with abortion, but breast cancer is not one of them. That has been successfully refuted.
“Abortion and Breast Cancer- A Forged Link” http://www.abortion.org.au/breastcancer.htm
“Many reputable organizations have released position statements or articles discounting the ABC link, and citing the Danish cohort study and other reliable studies in support. Such groups include the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, National Breast Cancer Coalition, World Health Organization, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and others.”

Besides, there is more risk involved with pregnancy and childbirth then there is with abortion.

David,
There seems to be a misconception about what I support/don’t support.

Counseling:
I support pre/post abortion counseling if women want that.
A woman who has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy should be able to make a well-informed decision.
My problem is only with the kind of counseling that does not include abortion as an option.

Procedure centres vs. hospital,
I’m not convinced or even aware that these clinics provide 2nd rate care. 1st term abortions aren’t a major medical procedure and I doubt that it would require hospital stay. I haven’t made up my mind about this, as I’m not well informed about these centres.

Late-term abortions,
I am in favour of RU486 - these pills are used in the earliest stage of pregnancy to induce abortion by mimicking miscarriage.
After the 8th week of gestation it’s too late for RU486 but surgical abortion is safest in the 1st term (before the 13th week of gestation).
Part of comprehensive sex education involves teaching women/girls to recognise early, subtle signs of pregnancy so that they can have an early abortion rather than a later one if they decide to terminate their pregnancy.
Late-term abortions should only be performed when medically indicated.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 5:18:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col and Celivia, well posted.

David, I'm pleased to note that there is acknowledgement that sex education is required.

I have problems though with the underlying values that you require be taught.

One the one hand there is requirement that parents are informed what is taught, but than there is no acknowledgement that those values may not be the same as the parents'.

Whether, for instance, marriage is required has nothing to do with sex education, but much with values of a particular group of persons. What are the many kids to think of their unmarried parents? Disobey them and show them disrespect even though they are good parents?

Sex education is about all contraception, when exactly conception occurs, what sexually transmitted diseases are and the lasting consequences of both.

The numbers of abortions will only fall when both boys and girls are fully informed in how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Promoting particular morals and a particular lifestyle of marriage and abstinence is a totally separate issue. This is primarily the role of parents to pass on their values to their children.

As a Christian you my regard a person engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage as immoral, but how do you think limiting the access of abortion is going to increase the numbers of people living a moral life according to your values?

Which immoral act is greater, having sex 'immorally' and preventing conception or having an abortion?

I would have thought from a Christian's point of view it would have to be the latter. That's why I cannot understand why the churches are not supporting proper effective sex education more strongly.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 7:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good questions, Yvonne.
I’ve always wondered why it would be more sinful for African soldiers to have sex with prostitutes with the use of condoms than without.

David, my posting limit was up- continuing now.

Unsupported women and responsibility.
Yes, it’s quite sad that women, who don’t feel supported, feel that they have no choice other than abortion if they otherwise would have welcomed a baby.

Col recognises the risk involved for women as well as for men. Very well said.

David, comprehensive sex education teaches not only girls/women about their risk and responsibility, but boys/men too.
I just want to add that I DO find it sad, but it’s the reality some pregnant women are facing.
That you aim to offer these women help and advice is a good thing- as long as abortion remains one of the options.

I must say that I’m pleasantly surprised that you have ‘left open the final say to the woman to have an abortion’.

The times, they are achanging.
Most young people today have no desire to rush marriage and start a family ASAP.
Live and let live.
I lived with my husband for years before getting married.
I can’t imagine marrying someone without even knowing if we’re sexually compatible. What if I found out on my wedding night that he’s heavily into wearing grey socks as an aphrodisiac and I’d find that rather soporific?

But abortion DID happen in ‘the old days’, it went on secretly, and was often reserved for those who could afford it.
My grandmother’s much older sister was urged to have an abortion by her boyfriend’s father, a doctor, who arranged for it. He, a ‘catholic’, didn’t want his own and his son’s reputations destroyed.
My grandmother and the majority of her friends married because they became pregnant. My grandmother didn’t even know where babies come from; let alone how they got there, until she was 4 months pregnant at 20!
The good, old days…

Fornication and abortions have always happened- it just wasn’t announced all over the Internet ; )
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

There are lots of things about abortion that are bad, however, there are also many bad consequences of stopping abortion, and the world in general has decided that a woman should have the choice of what occurs within her own body, much in the same way that she should have freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

The world of our fore fathers allowed a woman none of these, and no one actually wants to put the clock back.

The catholic church no longer holds the moral high ground, condemning abortion and contraception while covering up homosexual paedophilia within its ranks (re the Pell incident). The old case of do what I say and not what I do.

2/3rds of unplanned pregnancies are due to the failure of contraception. Their choice in the first place was not to have a child, yet more than 50% still choose to carry the child and not abort. That only 1% give the child up for adoption shows that it is not the easy alternative choice touted by the pro lifers.

Abortion is not a choice easily undertaken, but needs to be available in today's modern world.
Posted by Democritus, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 6:01:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its interesting that the same old arguments are continually trotted out by the religious right.

There is no biblical or religious basis for opposing abortion. Christianity did not historically oppose abortion this is new in history so basing an argument on that premise is wrong.

Melinda Tankard-Reist was an advisor to Senator Harradine and is associated with the Southern Cross Bioethics Centre a catholic think-tank and strongly opposes abortion.

No independent reseacrh has confirmed that women suffer post-abortion syndrome. It is not recognised by any legitimate medical or psychiatric peak bodies, only by those associated with religious organisations. It is a made-up condition by the religious right. Some women may suffer mental stress after abortion but many suffer post natal depression after birth, so this argument is a furphy.

The religious right are not pro-life. The only time they care about any form of life is from conception to birth. They could not give a damn about children after birth. Not for them the welfare state that redistributes wealth to the poor as Jesus mandated in the new testament, to help children living in poverty. Their concern is not life but control over other peoples' minds and bodies. Theirs is a deep seated narcissism that must impose its values on other people, it does not reflect the values or humility of Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus was not overwhelmingly concerned about sexuality or abortion nor did he whip himself into a frenzy over the consensual sexual behaviour of other people, his primary concern was social justice and the plight of the poor. The religious right have totally distorted christianity.

Anne
Posted by Lititia, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 1:54:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia,
The same old arguements for abortion are being trotted out (eg a woman's right to choose, the fetus is not human etc), but it would be interesting to know if you would like to see an incresae or a decrease in the number of abortions being performed.

1 abortion to every 3 live births does seem a very high ratio, particularly in a country with so much contraception available.

It would also be interesting to known if any university academic has researched ways to reduce abortion, and has drawn up a list of ways to reduce the number of abortions (preferably in order of priority), or are university academics too scared to do so.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 10 July 2008 10:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi HRS
I’m not sure whether you’ve read all of our comments or just Lititia’s, but we’ve discussed ways to reduce abortion rates.
IMO, the answer lies in legal, easily accessable abortion combined with comprehensive sex education and freely available or easily affordable contraception.
The availability of counseling for women who are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, so that they are well informed of all the options, may also help.
The ultimate decision the woman makes ought to be respected.

http://tinyurl.com/5e2k8y
“The legal status of abortion does not predict its incidence
The lowest abortion rates in the world—less than 10 per 1,000 women of reproductive age—are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available.
By contrast, in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, where abortion law is most restrictive, the regional rates are 29 and 31, respectively.”
“Abortion rates have fallen worldwide, but primarily in developed countries “

“1 abortion to every 3 live births”
I’m quite sceptical about that.
We simply cannot know because there are no statistics kept by hospitals or Medicare in Australia.
I believe that the abortion rate in Australia is lower than 1 to every 3 births.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 11 July 2008 8:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
I'm assuming that as a university academic who is funded by the public, Lititia does not want to give out too much information to the public (at least regards abortion).

But are you sure that lower abortion rates are due to "easily accessable abortion combined with comprehensive sex education and freely available or easily affordable contraception."

The average woman having an abortion in Australia appears to be a single woman in her 20's (who must know something about sex by that age) and there is freely available or easily affordable contraception in Australia.

So what else creates high rates of abortion?
Posted by HRS, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS
Aha; I hope that Lititia will spill, too :)

Yep, I’m pretty sure that sex ed and affordable contraception plays a major role in lowering rates of unwanted pregnancy because all the evidence points to this.
For example, abortions in the Netherlands (who in 2005 experienced the lowest rate in the world) were for the vast majority performed on Turkish and Moroccan immigrant women, who had missed out on comprehensive sex education.

If we look at countries that do not have easily accessible abortion, we see that these countries have higher abortion rates than countries with liberal abortion laws.
But I don’t deny that other (re-active) aspects can play a role, too, like support from partners and family, even the economy.

Yes, you’re probably correct: women in their 20s are the most likely to seek abortion.
European countries with low abortion rates (lower than 10 per 1000 women) are simply better at preventing unwanted pregnancies, which result in fewer abortions.
Why won’t we prevent unwanted pregnancies at this level in Australia?

Firstly, the religious right believe that fornication is a sin. Sex education in this country is therefore ludicrous.
Hence, half to two-thirds of pregnant women who were using contraception didn’t have a clue about usage and risks.
Men also blindly rely on their partner’s contraception because they have no clue.
People in Australia leave school without knowing all that much about sex/contraception. They learn as they go- that’s why we have a higher than necessary abortion rate “if” the numbers are a guide.

Secondly, contraception such as the pill are not free or Medicare funded (the govt. rather spend it on baby bonuses) so students, who barely have enough money to survive on, cannot afford to spend their money on contraception.

Thirdly, even working women in their 20s who are single and have only sexual intercourse occasionally, often rely on condoms only. If they were educated, they'd not make that mistake.

If men as well as women were well informed about sex and contraception, if that contraception was freely available, then we could prevent many more unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 12 July 2008 4:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
If as you say, sex education and contraception do lower the abortion rate, then how our brilliant Germaine had a number of abortions without ever knowing about sex education and contraception is beyond comprehension (or perhaps not).

If abortion clinics were highly moral and ethical, and contraception and sex education do lower the abortion rate, then why don’t abortion clinics have ads for contraception? There are now frequent ads on the radio for erectile dysfunction, so why not ads for contraception?

I would think the main consideration of abortion clinics is their profit margin, and more widespread use of contraception could reduce that profit margin.

Of all the words written by academics in favour of abortion, they have rarely written anything about contraception, and I’ve never heard any of them questioning why abortion clinics don’t run ads for better use of contraception.

Putting the 2 together, these academics must have had no sex education themselves, or they must have shares in abortion clinics.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 12 July 2008 6:22:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL HRS,
Have you ever been inside an abortion clinic?

Most offer a large range of services, from contraception and pap smears to counselling, even for the woman’s partner if he needs it. Many are not-for-profit.
Look at the Marie Stopes site, for example. http://www.mariestopes.com.au/services_for_women/contraception_faqs

Abortion clinics offer FAR more advice to women about preventing unwanted pregnancies than the anti-choice brigade do. We have the anti-choice brigade to thank for the mediocre sex education that Australian schools have to offer.
The ones who are opposed should stop whining - why aren’t they pragmatic and pro-active- then they may achieve what they want: lower abortion rates.
You can blame the pope and the Religious Right for many unwanted pregnancies. They are the ones against advertising contraception, not feminists.
Thanks to the feminist movement we have contraception at all! The government has been urged by Marie Stopes, not by the Religious Right, to put the spotlight on contraception: http://tinyurl.com/6gddbn

And re taxpayers funding abortion, an abortion costs taxpayers far less than the birth of a baby.
Taxpayers would be even better off if our taxes would fund a large range of contraception.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 13 July 2008 12:58:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia
I didn’t think the Pope had much to do with Australian laws. In fact, most people probably wouldn’t even know his name.

Many abortion clinics continuously break the law, by offering abortion with no recommendation from a doctor, when the law requires that the woman must be under serious risk before an abortion can take place.

A number also carry out no type of counseling or contraception education services, either before or after an abortion, while at the same time saying that abortion is low risk. Try telling that to a very prominent Australian feminist, who had so many abortions she could no longer have children.

It would be interesting to know how many feminists have had abortions. I tend to think more than average, but feminists keep placing emphasis on the education system to teach children about safe sex, when the reality is that the education system can hardly teach children to read and write.

The emphasis on reducing abortions must come from those who know most about abortions, which are the abortion clinics. At present they don’t seem to be doing much of a job in that regard, or seem to have much interest, while at the same time feeding taxpayer funding into their own bank accounts.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,
” I didn’t think the Pope had much to do with Australian laws.”
The pope does have something to do with Australian laws because we have the Religious Right who are influenced by the Pope and we’ve been stuck with several Catholics in our government who are in a compromised position when voting on issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

If the government were not influenced by the pope, why do you think that there are going to be protests on World Youth Day, and why are our Australian Libertarians (bless them) protesting against the annoyance law?
The annoyance law means that non-Catholics cannot annoy Catholics while Catholics are totally free to annoy non-Catholics. How double standard!
Non-Catholics are expected to shut up about their issues with the Church while the pope can spread his nonsense about sins freely- hmmmm me thinks that Catholic priest are among the most illustrious sinners in the world.
Gagging people is pretty evil stuff.
Especially since non-Catholic taxpayers will have to fund their own gagging.

“Many abortion clinics continuously break the law”
Only in WA, women need a referral from their GP.
Laws vary from state-to-state, even two-thirds of GPs find the abortion laws very confusing. Women’s risk is not only classified as physical risk only. Mental risk, psychological risk, even financial risk can be taken into account.
The physical risk of giving birth is 11x greater than that of an abortion. Unless you’d want to go backward to backyard by restricting abortion, of course.
The risk of backyard abortions is much greater than birth or safe, legal abortions.
Anyone who hates women would like to see them have to resort to backyard abortions.

Anyway, he idea is to repeal outdated abortion laws.
The Qld abortion law is over 100 years old.
The vast majority of the Australian population support abortion; it’s a matter between the woman and her doctor. It’s nobody’s business. Laws simply will have to reform.

There are NOT too many abortions in Australia, there are too many unwanted pregnancies and the Religious Right are guilty of that.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 13 July 2008 4:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
If a woman does not need a referral from a doctor (or even a psychologist), then who decides if the woman is under serious risk from the pregnancy, and can legally have an abortion?

And if abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, then how come she doesn’t need a referral from a doctor to have an abortion?

I guess the abortion clinics love these little flaws in the abortion regulations.

With no referral required, and some abortion clinics now advertising no waiting period, Australia would probably have some of the most lax abortion regulations anywhere in the world, and I doubt that any politician in Australia is holding back abortion, regardless of their religion.

The vast majority of the public only accepts abortion under certain circumstances, and do not accept wholesale abortion, which is something abortions don’t mention much.

However this is rather like a circular arguement, and none of it actually decreases the abortion rate (or rate of unwanted pregnancy), and I doubt very much whether teachers in schools will either. Increased pressure on the abortion industry to reduce the abortion rate is much more likely to reduce the abortion rate than teachers in schools, if feminists actually do want a decrease in the abortion rate.

While the cross is central to Christianity, abortion definitely appears to be central to feminism, and I somehow doubt that feminists really do want to see a decrease in the abortion rate.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 13 July 2008 6:34:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'm assuming that as a university academic who is funded by the public, Lititia does not want to give out too much information to the public (at least regards abortion)".

The absence of logic in this statement amazes me. The fact that I or any other academic or member of the public generally support a woman's right to choose does not mean we have to come up with plans to cut the abortion rate. There is not a connection between these two things.

Legitimate research on abortion by academics is all publicily available, the idea that academics don't want to give out information to the public on abortions is ridiculous, and points to the conspiratorial perspective of those making the suggestion. On the other hand, churches and religious organisations are also funded by the public and indeed tax exempt yet they are able to distort their research by making spurious links between abortion and breast-cancer which has been proven by legitimate peer-reveiwed research not to exist.

I note none of the religious right ever take up the religious point made such as the lack of emphasis by Jesus on abortion. The fact that the Bible does not mention it. It is really a cover for people who don't wish to challenge their own values regarding materialism and consumerism, they can conveniently ignore all the messages about the poor and social justice because that would mean they have to do something or question their own commitment to Jesus' real message. Much easier to focus on abortion, because it is something tthat does not challenge them personally but convinces them they are good people living according to the Bible, despite the fact it has no legitimacy in the Bible.
Posted by Lititia, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia, well said!
The Religious Right should spend their time on helping the many unwanted, neglected, abused children who live in hell.
There are too many unwanted and at-risk children for our child protection system to cope with, yet they want more.
How many children are anti-choicers like HRS fostering?
Credit to David though, for having adopted children, but the vast majority of anti-choicers don’t put their money where there mouth is.

HRS
“who decides…”
The pregnant woman herself, of course!
Only she is capable of making a decision since nobody else carries her embryo and nobody else knows her situation. Others can advise her if she wishes.
Why is everybody else’s moral judgment valued more than the woman’s?

What if some moral high-grounder decides that a woman should be forced to give birth and the woman resorts to a backyard abortion and dies?

It’s so easy to tell others what they should or shouldn’t do if there is 0% chance that you’ll ever end up in that situation yourself!
If men could get pregnant, don’t you think that some of them would want to terminate their unwanted pregnancy as well?

“Increased pressure on the abortion industry to reduce the abortion rate is much more likely to reduce the abortion rate than teachers...”
Abortion clinics deal with pregnant women- sex education they offer happens post pregnancy.
Teachers deal with young people- sex education they offer happens pre pregnancy.
Which do you think is more effective?
And why do you think that countries, like Holland, that do offer comprehensive sex education in schools have lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancies and lower child poverty rates than countries that don’t?

Circular argument?
No wonder if you keep repeating an already refuted point.

You only want the abortion rates reduced when feminists are vilified and controlled in the process.
You don’t want to see the real cause of high abortion rates.
The Religious Right want the abortion rate only reduced by controlling women.
That’s why all anti-choicers refuse to be pragmatic and pro-active about sex education and contraception.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 14 July 2008 1:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia, the bible does not mention abortion by name but does describe a procedure which sounds very much like an abortion - the section around Numbers 5:21

There is an interesting coverage of the topic at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

I found a similar coverage from what appears to be a christain evangelical writer looking at the biblical coverage of abortion at http://realevang.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/the-bible-and-abortion/

As is the norm people read into their sacred texts what they want and ignore the bits that don't suit.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia,(and where did you think of that name)?
The Bible is a book that doesn’t mention abortion. Probably because abortion was not very common when the Bible was written. Similarly, the Bible doesn’t mention obesity, peak oil, nuclear weapons proliferation, global warming, or various other problems and ailments that currently beset our society.

You haven’t given out any information regards reducing abortion, and if legitimate research has been carried out by other university academics into reducing abortion, then where is it and what are the results?

There are about 10 abortions per hour in our country, but I can’t even find a list of ways to reduce the abortion rate, although such a list would mean that legitimate research into reducing abortion has been carried out, and consensus has been reached amongst researchers. The development of such a list would also constitute basic level risk management.

However I can remember seeing a study showing a correlation between the abortion rate and female media celebrities. If a number of female media celebrities had babies, then other women had babies also, and the abortion rate declined.

If women’s “choice” is so easily swayed by the media, (and in particularly women’s media), then women’s ability to choose does appear to be very capricious, and dependant on what is currently chic or fashionable in women’s world, similar to cosmetic surgery, or whether to wear high heels or lace ups.

If desertification and environmental degradation are not decreasing, you don’t make it easier to chop down forests.

If green house gas emissions are not decreasing, you don’t encourage the driving of cars.

If the inflation rate is not low or decreasing, you don’t reduce interest rates.

If the abortion rate is not low or decreasing, you don’t make abortions more readily available.

All very sensible, and all very basic level risk management, and I think it is a sign of just how unreliable and feminist our universities have become, when they teach risk management in some courses, and then turn a blind eye to what is happening in the abortion industry.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 14 July 2008 6:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

Finally someone who acknowledges that the bible has no guidance for today's society.

The motivation for having children is the fantastic joy they give you. The negatives of having children is that it is a risk to a woman's health and crippling both financially and career wise to a young single woman.

As it is a life time commitment no one should have the right to decide for the woman. All these road blocks suggested by the religious right wing, are merely attempts to erode a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body.

If the religious right wing had any intention of reducing the number of abortions then they would put their weight behind decent sex education instead of the worthless "abstinence is best" drivel they push.

As the majority of unwanted pregnancies in Aus are due to the incorrect use of contraceptives, decent sex education would prevent the pregnancies in the first place.
Posted by Democritus, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 6:13:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus,
How do you know that the majority of abortions are due to incorrect use of contraception, and that sex education is the answer to reducing the abortion rate?

Did you read it in a women’s magazine, or you hear it from a feminist?

Both sources of information would be as reliable as each other.

Compare the following: -

[pregnancy is] “constricting, suffocating, an enemy of the liberated woman’s larger hopes”

"I still have pregnancy dreams, where I'm a huge domed abdomen floating in the warm shallow sea of my own childhood, waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen. And my life is full of baby surrogates, animals and birds that need nursing."

Both pieces were written by the same author.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

See Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male amongst the little ones.

1 Samuel 15:3 - slay both men and women, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;

Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb,

Ezekiel 9;6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children

Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed to pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

These passages from the Bible tend to suggest that no special emphasis is placed on the foetus or children for that matter. At best, the religious right could argue that these passages apply to non-christian but accepting that would mean that religious interpretations only apply to Christian thus those of us who are not christians should not have christian values imposed upon us.

To HRS - abortion was common during biblical times. It was also practised in the ancient world, Greece, Rome, Middle East, etc. There is nothing new about abortion, the fact that the Bible ignores it suggests it was not an issue of importance.

Finally I do not have to give information about reducing abortions nor does any other academic. This suggestion assumes that I think abortion is wrong I do not therefore I am not concerned about the numbers. The evidence which I stated in my last post is that if you are concerned about abortion then you need to support liberal sex education as that is the only thing that appears to reduce the number of abortion. Primarily I don't think its yours or anybody else' business if someone has an abortion. If you oppose abortion don't have one but you are not entitled to stop others from doing so.
Posted by Lititia, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus, glad you agree with me that abstinence-only sex education is completely worthless. HRS still doesn’t get the importance of education even after I reiterated it. He thinks it’s a fairy-tale made up by the evil feminist conspiracy.

RObert conjured up some links to fantastic information. I’ve stuffed them up my sleeve just in case I bump into Philo, Boaz or Runner.

HRS,
I guess you haven’t looked at the Marie Stopes site I provided a link to or you would’ve praised the ‘feminists’ at the ‘abortion clinics’ just this once for supplying condoms that are being distributed via the centre’s network to all registered WYD pilgrims during this week, even though Marie Stopes contacted WYT organisers a few months back to offer the condoms but their proposal was ignored!
Ignored! What does that say about the RR?

Aren’t you pleasantly surprised, HRS, given that you accused feminists and abortion clinics for doing nothing about prevention?

I only hope that the pilgrims ignore the pope and not the condoms- we don’t want more STIs and unwanted pregnancies.
But wait, there’s more!
Their free 24-hour hotline will provide World Youth Day pilgrims with 24/7 access to sexual health help and advice as their not-for-profit service.

Oh and why don’t you also have a look at RObert’s links; they’re really worth it if you want to ensure yourself that the Religious Right carefully tiptoe around some Bible quotes and cherry-pick others.

I’m not sure why you insist on ‘a list’ that has to come from academics persé.
Ideas and facts of reducing abortion rates are plentiful and easily found. David Palmer and others and I have provided ideas on how to reduce the abortion rate (or rather, unwanted pregnancies).
Some of these ideas are pro-active, others reactive (mainly David's).

It also helps to have a good social network for children in place such as childcare services, health care, and even parental leave…
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

Please refer to this link:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unplanned-pregnancy-study-sparks-call-for-safesex-campaign/2008/01/29/1201369135964.html

Unless you consider the age newspaper as a feminist mouthpiece. It quotes 60% of unplanned pregnancies are due to contraceptive failure of condoms or the pill. (did not include any other types) and makes exactly the case I was.

The religious right chooses ignorance and enforce pregnancy.
Posted by Democritus, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 5:43:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia,
I think you are not giving out information on how to reduce the abortion rate because you don’t have any.

Normally very little progress is ever made in any area unless risk management principles are being applied, and the idea that abortion should be made more readily available in Australia when the abortion rates are not currently low, or are not significantly decreasing, is against all principles of risk management.

Your remark that if someone doesn’t like abortion then don’t have one is a totally flippant remark, and well below the standards of what should be required of a university academic.

I can imagine your method of “liberal sex education”.

If you don’t like abortion then don’t have one – Class dismissed.

Celivia,
It doesn’t matter that much what the Marie Stopes company is doing or has on their web-site. The real question is, is it reducing the abortion rate or not?

If you can’t answer that, then it is probably not.

Democritus,
The Marie Stopes abortion company is one abortion company only, and their survey in Australia was quite localized (as they well know).

Broader research is necessary, preferably by a completely independent and non-biased organization (and I wouldn’t include a university in that).
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 6:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lititia,
"... thus those of us who are not christians should not have christian values imposed upon us."
Exactly, very well stated!
There's no reason why Christian morals should set the standard rules.
They are free to believe whatever they please but their beliefs should not interfere with other people's freedom.

HRS,
Oh so first you say that ‘abortion clinics’ don’t do enough. Then, when I show you that some at least do quite a lot to prevent pregnancies, you say that it doesn’t matter what they do because there is no evidence that education and contraception reduces the abortion rate. You disregard all the evidence from other countries, too.

Well, I suppose I’ll have no choice but to let you keep filtering and selecting the information that support and maintain your irrational beliefs, just like the religious right always do.
Just like them, you ignore what you don’t want to believe and cherry pick what fits in with your view.

Don’t you acknowledge, in general, that when people learn and have knowledge about defense, protection and anticipation in their everyday life, they reduce their risk?
For example, people who have been instructed on how to safely drive a car are much less likely to cause accidents than people who know very little about road rules.
Similarly, people who have been instructed on how to have safe sex are much less likely to cause or end up with unplanned pregnancies than people who know very little about contraception and safe sex

Doesn’t this sound logic to you?

I can tell you from experience that my adequate knowledge about contraception and sex has prevented unplanned pregnancies for me.
There is much reason to believe that this knowledge would also help other women to prevent pregnancies.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 10:52:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear HRS

First, I am not representing the university or speaking as an academic in my postings. My article was as Vice-President of Liberty Victoria - the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties. Online Opinion and I disclosed my employment in the interest of transparency.

Secondly, in all postings addressing your comments you ignore anything others say in response if they are not suited to your blinkered view.

Robert, others and I have posted comments on the Bible and abortion which undermined your arguments completely as such you then conveniently ignore them as if they were never written.

Thirdly, none of us are obliged to reduce abortion rates. That is your particular obsession. As others have pointed out, if you want that information it is out there publicly available but if you don't like the group releasing the information you choose to ignore it. I am not concerned with the numbers of abortion as I have already stated therefore I am not posting information on how to reduce the rate of abortion others have provided that information for you.

Stating that you can choose not to have an abortion if you oppose the process is not flippant it is a fact. As someone who cannot get pregnant you need to exercise a bit more restraint, you can control your own fertility but not others. This is an inherently intimate part of an individuals life and should not be controlled by others, man or woman. Seeking to control the body and fertility of others is the most insidious form of authoritarianism.
Posted by Lititia, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 12:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a sad thing when assumed that anyone standing for the unborn, is against contraception, education and choice. Of course we can not enforce, or wipe out abortion - would not everyone be happy with that in an ideal world? But, more information (unbiased - not like sites such as abortion.org), about the risks (physical and emotional), ultrasound of the baby for the woman to see before deciding (that is not manipualtion - just showing her what is there - not just "matter" as the abortion web site states), and exact information on how the procedure would happen (maybe even one of those actual footage ones like they show in College to Bio students). Once again, not manipulation, if it was indeed just "matter", it shouldn't upset them at all. Though, last time I noticed, "matter" didn't kick, have a heart-beat, and depend on it's mother for life. Indeed, better education of how a woman's body works (ovulation, cycle, egg-life etc.) and use of other contraception with that etc., is always a neccessary thing. Women should be the ones to teach their daughters, but mothers need to learn it first. I think the womens movement has sadly pushed that away. It has now become easier to pop a pill, than care how it works or how their bodies work etc. I will be teaching my daughter as soon as she gets to that age. Also, people need to understand, that sex means more than instant pleasure. No form of one contraception can fully protect from conception. That is why it is better in marriage. But there's another topic!
Posted by iwonder, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 2:49:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
Education can be used to help control a risk, although education is not normally very reliable. Eg. People have been educated not to smoke, but they still do, and the rates of smoking are actually increasing in some sections of society.

Education is normally mid-range in usefulness when controlling a risk, and ultimately there has to be something more reliable, more tangible and more foolproof than education to control a risk.

The enormous amount of money spent on a war in Iraq could have been spent on developing alternative forms of fuel, and countries wouldn’t need Iraq.

The enormous amount of money spent on abortion clinics could have been spent on developing better forms of contraception, and people wouldn’t need abortion clinics.

Abortion clinics have been around for many decades, but have done minimal towards reducing the abortion rate, and the feminist insistence on abortion means that there will be less likelihood that better forms of contraception will ever be developed, for both men and women.

Lititia,
Your whole argument and attitude is not based on science, or even risk management, and yet you believe that children should receive so called “sex education”.

What concerns me, is what will they be taught in this so called “sex education”.

If you are anything to go by, they will not be taught facts, statistics, or science, but will be taught to like abortion (or else).
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 3:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why does everyone disagree? Would those that stand for abortion, happily be the ones to throw those babies in the trash can? I know just that thought, and those precious gorgeous ones being torn apart makes me weep. I read on another site one pro-abortionist say "Those in the religious right can cry themselves to sleep - I don't care." I would rather be one who weeps for them, then one who is angry trying to protect that "right" to harm the unborn and their mother. Yes, you do know, even if it's buried far beneath, that abortion is wrong. How can someone be arrested for killing their baby, and everyone is disgraced, yet not blink an eyelid when a baby is harmed legally, when it could have survived? It is just sad. So sad. We know better than that. It is in every one of us. I do not hate any one of you, I just want to save those babies. Some one gave you all a chance to live, why can't we give them the same?
Posted by iwonder, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 8:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People only exist as workers or consumers for industry.

The number of births/abortions should therefore be determined by economic conditions only.

One should therefore require a permit from a business council to reproduce.

If you get pregnant without a permit, you should be forced to abort.

Any illegally birthed children should be the property of the business council, to sell to the highest bidder.
Posted by Stuart Walker, Thursday, 17 July 2008 6:22:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stuart Walker,
Your scenario may be just around the corner.

If abortion is completely liberalised, then the unborn have no rights. From there it is an easy step to say that parents have no rights, and already fathers have no rights but responsibilities only.

God or ethics don’t exist of course, so a further step is to say that babies should be born to meet demand as consumers and workforce fodder.

Because few statistics are being kept, the dumbed down public will not know what is occurring, and a university academic would automatically get the sack if they said that they were not feminist and didn’t like abortion.

And if someone questions it, then they should be told that they are a part of the “religious right”, they are “misogynist”, and its “none of their business”.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 17 July 2008 9:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stuart,
I don’t know what’s funnier, your post or HRS taking the bait.

Iwonder
Such emotive language.
I could, if I wanted to, ask if anti-choicers would happily see even more unwanted children live in abusive, poverty-stricken or neglecting environments.
But I won’t, because I think that the anti-choicers don’t like child abuse and neglect, either, just like pro-choicers are not ‘happy’ about abortion.
Each group has different priorities and values.
Pro-choicers value personal freedom and choice more than the anti-choicers do, while anti-choicers value the life of embryos more than freedom of women and don’t find it as problematic if women lose their freedom over their own body.
You also confuse embryos/fetuses with babies.
No ‘baby’ has ever been aborted- embryos/fetuses are. Unborn babies don’t exist; they are not babies/persons until they’ve been born.
Before about the 26th week of gestation, the foetus has no developed human brain. It’s impossible without a complete nervous system to have consciousness of anything.
There is a limit in (almost) all countries that have legalised abortion, a limit that is well before the brain is developed.

HRS,
“… there has to be something more reliable, more tangible and more foolproof than education to control a risk.”
Agreed that education is only one, albeit the most important, approach to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Education only, without easy access to a wide range of contraception would not be a reliable risk reducer.

I think that you don’t see the value of comprehensive sex education as much as I do because you don’t have a proper concept of what is being taught, while I have experienced it.
Even though sex education has changed since I went to school, I can tell you that this education is far beyond just ‘lessons’ like we see with anti-smoking etc and are far more effective.
It involves years, throughout the last year of primary school and all of the High school years, of regular, very explicit and realistic education.
Gory details about everything from diseases to abortion to birth.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
It doesn’t take long before the real truth comes out.

So now you want “gory details” in this so called sex education, and it should begin in primary school.

I supposed if someone didn’t want to watch it or hear about it they would receive a Fail mark.

This so called sex education is sounding more suspect in time.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 17 July 2008 7:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How did you receive your clearly superior sex education, Timkins/HRS?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 17 July 2008 8:19:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,
perhaps he learned his lessons from a dominatrix.

HRS,
don’t let the word “gory” scare you; if sex education is to be effective it needs to be realistic, which sometimes means unpleasant.
Abortion and STIs ARE unpleasant and gory details need to be discussed, why lie or cover up reality?
Sex Ed is quite age appropriate. Don't worry, an 11 or 12-year-old child won’t get to watch an abortion procedure or birth on video or go to an abortion clinic on excursion. These are 14-15+ subjects.

Topics I remember were:
Anatomy/physiology/biology aspects.
Birth control methods, the usage and where to get it. How to talk to the doctor, what you should ask.
Pathology- learning all about STIs and prevention.

Abstinence is discussed, too, but also how to have sex without intercourse.

Much of the material was about social/sexual behaviour, real life situations and relationships and was presented through discussions, film, and role-playing/acting.
There were excursions, too- to hospitals or abortion clinics.
And we had guest speakers- women or couples who decided on abortion, or the ones who decided to adopt out or keep the child.

It’s all very down-to-earth and realistic.
For example, teenagers of around 15 start to go out to parties, and it’s possible that they experiment with drugs e.g. alcohol and sex.
This side of the program is about anticipating what teenagers can get up to and discussing the choices they have in all kinds of different situations.
It teaches them about anticipating and minimising their own risk and that of their close friends.
Sex education should not just focus on telling teenagers to just ‘don’t do it’. Because teenagers don’t work like that.
We have to anticipate that it’s a real possibility that teens DO experiment with these things.

Pupils are not ‘tested’ about what they got out of the discussions- one just participates or listens.
The real test, however, is life itself.
And with one of the lowest abortion rates and teen pregnancies in the world, I think people generally must’ve passed.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 18 July 2008 9:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stuart Walker – not sure if you are an agent-provocateur or just have a lend of us.

One thing, you made me laugh

because if I thought you were serious, you must be so depressed, it is pushing you close to suicidal.

HRS more fool you for thinking it was a seriously intended post.

Celivia, I see you have the same take on SW as I

I find it interesting, sex education is, I believe, very important.

The hard part – how do you explain it without seeming to encourage it?

Re “Pupils are not ‘tested’ about what they got out of the discussions- one just participates or listens.”

Exactly

and there is no ‘practical’ exam either : - )
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:01:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
I think if someone showed “gory details” of anything to young children, then that person would quickly find themselves on some type of child abuse charge.

This so called “sex education” seems more like a means or an excuse for feminists to get into schools, and quite probably a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent elsewhere. The US spent nearly $1 billion on a whole range of sex education programs in schools in 10 years, and the rate of teenage pregnancy is now increasing at the end of that period.

Universities are now so heavily compromised and feminist that they have become a waste of space and taxpayer money regards reducing the rate of abortion, (and becoming a waste of space and taxpayer money regards most other things also), but if pressure is placed on the actual abortion clinics to reduce the abortion rate (or they lose their license to operate) then I am sure that the abortion clinics will take much more interest in reducing the abortion rate, and the abortion rates would decline.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 18 July 2008 11:06:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There’s a good article about sex education in The Guardian today. See: http://education.guardian.co.uk/sexeducation/story/0,,2291616,00.html

Sex education does not encourage kids to go forth and fornicate. Teenage children are biologically programmed to be obsessed with sex, and our lot also live in a sex-saturated culture, so good sex education should teach children how to say “no” to sex and be responsible for their own sexuality. It teaches children that real desire differs from machismo or insecurity or the need to please. It teaches them to question the sexual battering they get from culture.

HRS, I find your arguments odd. Firstly, why should Australian women be having fewer abortions? We should certainly have fewer unwanted pregnancies, but surely we need as many abortions as there are unwanted pregnancies — no more, no less. Unwanted pregnancies always occur, because, while contraception may be reliable, people are not. Especially not with sex on the brain.

You appear to agree with feminists that we need to develop better, safer, more reliable contraception. This will decrease the unwanted pregnancy — and hence abortion — rate. Most abortion clinics, such as Marie Stopes — which is a non-profit organisation — provide cheap, reliable contraception. You also agree with feminists that no one should ever feel pressured to have, or to not have, an abortion.

Abortion clinics do not sell a marketable product — i.e., no one tries to get pregnant in order to have an abortion. They do not “promote” abortion, they provide it. Women and couples contact abortion clinics AFTER they get pregnant. Most abortion clinics also provide contraception, of course, but preventing pregnancy needs to start earlier. High school is the best place to teach kids about contraception. Studies show 14 is the optimum age.

Pregnancy rates in the US are increasing because the religious right has taken over sex education and pushed the rational, scientific and empathetic out. The result — abstinence-only sex education — does not affect teenagers’ decisions about having sex, but it does mean they use less contraception. Hence the increased pregnancy rates.

See: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/comment/story/0,,1214047,00.html
Posted by Veronika, Friday, 18 July 2008 11:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika,
The US government spent 12 times more money on promoting contraception and safe-sex education than it spent on abstinence sex education, and yet the rate of teenage pregnancy increased.

There is an extremely good correlation between teenage pregnancy and the high rates of fatherless children in the US. A teenage girl is about 7 times more likely to become pregnant if she has been removed from her father. Having the father in the house is by far the best way of reducing the chances of a teenage daughter becoming pregnant.

Father ~~ What do you want?
Young Stud ~~ Can I see your daughter?
Father ~~ Why?

Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy, but it is something no feminist has ever mentioned to my knowledge, and something university academics will only mention occasionally.

Feminists and university academics are no friend of teenage daughters.

Education is not a very reliable way of reducing risks. The most reliable and foolproof way of reducing a physical risk is to have a purposely built physical gap or physical barrier placed between the person and the risk. Contact anyone in the safety area for verification of that.

Abortion clinics have done minimal towards reducing the abortion rate, and Marie Stopes is not a completely non-profit organisation, as the doctors, nurses, anesthetists etc are being paid, and most of that pay comes from the taxpayer’s pocket.

The record keeping and general research being carried out into abortion is probably the worst of any medical research being carried out in Australia, and yet abortion is one of the most common operations being performed.

I think this clearly shows how much interest abortion clinics actually have in reducing the abortion rate, or rate of unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 18 July 2008 8:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

"The US government spent 12 times more money on promoting contraception and safe-sex education than it spent on abstinence sex education, and yet the rate of teenage pregnancy increased."

I find that hard to believe. Can you provide the reference?

"There is an extremely good correlation between teenage pregnancy and the high rates of fatherless children in the US."

That I'm not surprised to hear at all. Children from stable families do better in many respects than those from broken families. I agree that keeping fathers at home with their children benefits society in many ways.

"Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy..."

While I'm sure fathers make a huge difference, I find it odd that one could provide such a definitive statistic. Again, could I have the reference?

"Education is not a very reliable way of reducing risks. The most reliable and foolproof way of reducing a physical risk is to have a purposely built physical gap or physical barrier placed between the person and the risk. Contact anyone in the safety area for verification of that."

In the case of contraception, I completely disagree. Unless you calling "physical barrier" a condom.

"Abortion clinics have done minimal towards reducing the abortion rate, and Marie Stopes is not a completely non-profit organisation, as the doctors, nurses, anesthetists etc are being paid, and most of that pay comes from the taxpayer's pocket."

Marie Stopes provides comprehensive information about contraception and contraception itself. Its services are excellent. Non-profit does not mean the staff don't get paid, it means the company does not seek to make profits for the benefit of private shareholders. Marie Stopes is completely non-profit.

"The record keeping and general research being carried out into abortion is probably the worst of any medical research being carried out in Australia..."

On what do you base this claim?
Posted by Veronika, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
Heeeheee glad that you enjoyed SW’s post, too.
Veronika and her article answered your question about encouragement well.

HRS,
Sex-ed is age appropriate, quality information. You seem to gain great joy from deliberately cultivating erroneous concepts about sex-ed merely because you’re paranoid about feminist conspiracies.

Re wasting taxpayers’ money on sex-ed; abortions, counselling, treating STIs and especially having an unplanned child costs taxpayers extra money, too.

Beware of the Authoritative man about the house!
What a patriarchic approach!
My son, for the first time, went on a week holiday with 3 friends from school- all of them girls. His male friend had to drop out at the last minute. My husband and I fully trust him, so do the parents of these girls. I’m glad that my son wasn’t approached in such authoritative fashion by one of the girl’s fathers.

Child abuse?
Sex-ed helps children to be less vulnerable because they learn to respect their own and other people’s body and space and they learn what is appropriate behaviour or not.
They can therefore sooner identify inappropriate behaviour by adults and know where to go for help if they feel that someone threatens to intrude their personal safety zone.
Often, child sexual abuse happens gradually, by someone the child knows, rather than a one-off unexpected rape. If children don’t know their right about their own space and privacy, they cannot defend it.
So, instructing children about the facts of life including their body, their space, is not at all child abuse, on the contrary!

I’m quite curious to know what exactly you find abusive about sex-ed.
Is it… learning about menstruation? …the reproductive system?…hearing the proper names for their body parts?
Do you agree with the Exclusive Brethren who, at their schools, tear pages about the reproductive system out of biology books?

“The most reliable and foolproof way of reducing a physical risk is to have a purposely built physical gap or physical barrier placed between the person and the risk.”
Like a condom?

You got your biased info from a site that advocates abstinence.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 19 July 2008 12:35:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika,
Marie Stopes appears to be fashion of the week. I’m beginning to think that there could be a connection between Marie Claire and Marie Stopes. Both are designed for the mass consumer and modern woman, and neither will ever mention some type of spirituality.

You say that you are feminist, but you seem to have a very large number of questions. This doesn’t say much for your feminist education.

I can provide lots of links and sources of information to answer your questions, but perhaps it is best that you practice searching for information yourself, and don’t rely on what a feminist tells you to believe in a feminist education class (whether it be a sex education class or any other type of class).

After you have practiced searching for information yourself, and know something about the subject, then I will gladly answer any further questions you may have.

In the meantime, I wouldn’t be placing too much reliance on a condom to guard against unwanted pregnancy or an STD, particularly if Young Stud has left the condom on the dash board of the car, or Mary Jane has kept it in the bottom of her hand bag.

While it may be easy to hop down to the abortion clinic, it is not so easy to overcome an STD, particularly those that are now immune to all forms of treatment.

Celivia,
Out comes the word patriarchal. Everything that does not revolve around abortion or a condom is patriarchal.

Looking at the situation from a purely risk management approach, abstinence places a physical barrier between the person and the risk. Certain groups want abstinence until marriage. That is acceptable, because that is how societies were able to contain STD’s. We don’t know much about societies that practiced the opposite, because they died out so quickly
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 19 July 2008 11:13:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS. You cannot prove your points, so you insult me.

Think I'll leave you to Celivia's intelligent patience.
Posted by Veronika, Saturday, 19 July 2008 12:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika, I think I should abort myself from this discussion, too :)

*Celivia rolls her eyes*
HRS,
If you’d received any sex-ed you’d know that it’s emphasised repeatedly that condoms need to be replaced regularly.
While condoms are not 100% reliable it’s less risky to always have fresh condoms on you even if you don’t use them than to insist you won’t need them and be without in the spur of the moment. People are not perfect, especially not teenagers with overactive hormones.
Sex-ed is not about pushing teens to have sex- it tells them how to prevent accidents if they DO. Sex-ed accepts that.

By nature, teenagers especially boys, take more risk than older people; it has biological and neurological reasons. That’s why we see far more young people, especially boys and young men participating in extreme sports than older people and girls.

You think that you know more about feminism than Veronika, but you have no clue about the fact that feminists are not clones of each other and don’t think exactly alike.
I call myself a feminist because for me feminism just means agreeing that women should have equal rights to those of men. Difference in biology should not mean unequal value.
Veronika questions some things about feminism- so what? That only shows that she has an open mind and does not blindly follow some doctrine.
Everybody should have questions about what they believe in- one cannot know everything, we should all be constantly learning in life.

Look, I really don’t mind that people disagree with me in these debates, but at least they should come up with some reasonable arguments.
You are not able to do that, and rather than telling me WHY you don’t agree you come up with the same old same old feminist-conspiracy argument.
*Celivia yawns*.

For that reason I’m so bored out of my mind debating you that I won’t reply to you in this thread anymore.
Perhaps you can be more logical and reasonable on other topics- I’ll have to wait and find out.

*Celivia waves*
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 19 July 2008 1:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika,
It appears that I’ll have to supply information for you.

The hierarchy of controls for reducing risks or hazards is required in nearly all government regulations.

1/ Eliminate the hazard.
2/ Substitute with a lesser hazard.
3/ Use engineering controls to reduce the hazard
4/ Administrative controls such as workplace procedures
5/ Personal Protective Equipment.

http://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/policies/safety_risk_management_procedures__guidance_note

In terms of unwanted pregnancy, STD’s etc: -

“Administrative control” is basically sex education classes.
“Personal Protective Equipment.” is basically a condom.

They are at the bottom of the list (4 and 5) in terms of priority or reliability.

“Eliminate the hazard” is at the top of the list (1), and is basically abstinence.

Any sex education course or abortion clinic that is not recommending the most reliable method of risk control, but instead recommends the least reliable method of risk control would be operating outside of government regulations.

Guess what Marie Stopes does the most?

Celivia,
See above.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 19 July 2008 9:09:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1/ Eliminate the hazard. - That will be interesting. What do you do - reversable vasectomies for boys at about 6 years old?
2/ Substitute with a lesser hazard. - Teach teenagers to use oral sex!
3/ Use engineering controls to reduce the hazard - Chastedy belts all round.
4/ Administrative controls such as workplace procedures - Quality sex education.
5/ Personal Protective Equipment. - Condoms

Any other suggestions? Abstenance works well for number one when it actually works but the failure rate is too high to trust it to eliminate the hazard.

If the hazard can't be removed, substituted or engineered out of existance then the last two become vital and history has made it clear that we need them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 19 July 2008 9:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, I didn’t appreciate the way you turned our discussion into personal insults about my education, so I’m reluctant to answer this, but you misread my last post.

The information you gave me is for health and safety for a university, and obviously inappropriate for preventing pregnancy. I’m unsure if you’re joking or not, but not only is it relevant, it is also not the proof I asked for. The information you can’t verify is:

"The US government spent 12 times more money on promoting contraception and safe-sex education than it spent on abstinence sex education, and yet the rate of teenage pregnancy increased."

"Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy..."

"The record keeping and general research being carried out into abortion is probably the worst of any medical research being carried out in Australia..."

You say that you “can provide lots of links and sources of information to answer your questions”. I don’t think you can.
Posted by Veronika, Sunday, 20 July 2008 9:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika: << You say that you “can provide lots of links and sources of information to answer your questions”. I don’t think you can. >>

I see that Timkins/HRS is amusing himself with yet another forum member who is erroneously taking him seriously. I agree with Veronika that he won't provide any reliable evidence to support his spurious claims, because that would spoil his pathological game.

Veronika (and others who don't know), "HRS" is a sock puppet account for former user "Timkins", who was banned from OLO some time ago for his tiresome antics. Look up "Timkins" under Users in the menu in the top left of this page and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 20 July 2008 9:56:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I’ve seen such arguments many times in industry. If a company is focused entirely on personal protective equipment and training, its accident rate will not significantly decline. Eventually they are given improvement notices from the government.

The companies that try for something better than personal protective equipment and training will eventually achieve a greater reduction in accidents, and are less likely to receive an improvement notice.

In the case of abortion, many abortion clinics and other groups are focused entirely on condoms and sex education, where the so called sex education inevitably becomes “you can have lots of sex, and at a younger age, as long as you use a condom”.

They place no emphasis on abstinence, and condoms are not very effective at reducing abortion or STD’s, with some belief that condoms are not much more effective than using nothing at all.

A number of STD’s are now incurable, and the only medication available is morphine. The belief that someone can safely have lots of sex with different partners, as long as they use a condom, is a false and highly dangerous belief, particularly if children are brainwashed with that belief.

Veronika,
I think you should first gain some practice in searching for information yourself, and then you can ask me for further information, and I will gladly supply it.

With all the talk about “safe sex”, it becomes important to identify what is involved in risk reduction.

Search through any code of practice involving safety, and you will normally find a hierarchal list of recommended control measures to reduce risks and hazards. I have yet to see any code of practice that places training and personal protective equipment at the top of the list.

In terms of safe sex, training is sex education classes, and personal protective equipment is condoms. They occur at the bottom of the list in reliability.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 20 July 2008 11:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, I'd agree that condoms don't provide absolute protection. They can fail and if used the wrong way the risks are much higher. My impression is that quality sex education is not telling kids to have sex with lots of people and all will be well as you seem to be implying. I do think it's a load of bollocks that condoms are no better than no protection at all - please show me the links to independant research which backs up that idea.

The reality is that regardless of call for abstenance people have been having sex outside of marriage through out history. The stats I've seen on the issue suggest that cultures which teach sex education with a wide range of strategies including PPE rather than putting the primary focus on abstenance have lower rates of unplanned pregancies and lower abortion rates.

Teaching people to have genuine respect for themsleves and others, to know what their options are and allowing them to feel in control of their choices works better than promotion of body taboo's and attempts to limit options.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 20 July 2008 12:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS/Timkins

Proof is required for your claims:

"In terms of safe sex, training is sex education classes, and personal protective equipment is condoms. They occur at the bottom of the list in reliability."

Evidence?

"Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy"

Provide statistical evidence - and not from some Male supremacy site.

"Certain groups want abstinence until marriage. That is acceptable, because that is how societies were able to contain STD’s. We don’t know much about societies that practiced the opposite, because they died out so quickly"

Which societies are these that died out so quickly? Names, dates, places. Evidence of STD plague required here.

And finally your most absurd claim of all:

"While the cross is central to Christianity, abortion definitely appears to be central to feminism, and I somehow doubt that feminists really do want to see a decrease in the abortion rate."

Why would anyone want to continually have abortions? Answer, no-one does. This is as lacking in substance as it is a complete fantasy on your part.

I have no intention of responding to you at all unless you provide
IRREFUTABLE PROOF for ALL of your above claims.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 20 July 2008 12:10:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS writes: "I think you should first gain some practice in searching for information yourself, and then you can ask me for further information, and I will gladly supply it."

Please quit being nasty. Clearly the onus is on you to support your claims, not on those who disagree with you. If you can't provide evidence, I can only assume your claims are invented. Anyway, surely it's better to be honest, rational, and use evidence to argue your point, rather than putting others down?

While you're providing this evidence, perhaps you could also tell us who argues that "condoms are not much more effective than using nothing at all". As you may know, abstinence-only sex education programs in the US have given misleading information about the effectiveness of condoms. Some peddle downright lies — one abstinence only course suggested that HIV can pass through condoms because latex is porous. The Government Accountability Office conducted an audit into inaccurate material — you can see that report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0787.pdf

Also, two independent reports to the US Congress recently found that "abstinence-only programs have no effect on teenage sexual activity and do not meet a basic scientific standard".

See: http://washingtonindependent.com/view/assessing-abstinence

I can direct you to reports about research into abstinence-only education. Studies in the US show that: "the upshot [of abstinence-only sex education is] that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France."

Please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&position=
Posted by Veronika, Sunday, 20 July 2008 2:50:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,

You are fighting a rear guard action here.

Promoting abstinence as an alternative to contraception is ludicrous. Nearly all of humanity's existence is tied up with sex in one way or another.

The "good old days" involved restricting a woman's rights so severely that she could do nothing without the permission of a permanent man.

No woman wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it is the last option between freedom and servitude to the dictates of her biology.

Anyone who suggests turning the clock back to the Victorian era is either seriously naive or deliberately deluding themselves in the way the creationists convince themselves that science is wrong.

If your beliefs are based on religion, then there is no serious discussion here only the mutterings of doctrine.
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 20 July 2008 5:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
You are arguing with government regulations. The recommended list of risk control measures is written into nearly all government safety regulations. The government rates personal protective equipment (eg condoms) and administrative procedures (eg sex education classes) as the least reliable ways to reduce a risk.

Veronika,
It is pleasing that you are now looking for information yourself. If you want information concerning teenage-pregnancy and fathers, try searching “The association between father absence and early teenage sexual activity and pregnancy has long been noted” and then search for more information regarding that.

Sex education classes are not reliable.

eg
“Doctors who developed a sex education programme for schools throughout Britain have concluded it is no better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than traditional approaches.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/21/health.sexeducation

This failed course was called Share, for "sexual health and relationships: safe, happy and responsible".

As you possibly know, the age for sexual activity is decreasing in many countries (and going below the age of consent I might add), while the reliability of condoms generally decreases with the age of the user. It becomes totally improbable to somehow get children of a younger and younger age to effectively use a condom, or any other form of contraception. Most children won’t even eat properly unless forced to.

Even when used correctly, a condom is not effective against all STD’s.

eg
[The condom] is not very effective at all against diseases like the Herpes Simplex Virus strains 1 and 2, HPV the cause of Genital Warts and Cervical Cancer, Genital Crabs or Pubic Lice, as well as Body Lice other wise known as Scabies.
http://yourstdhelp.com/condoms_and_stds.html

Interesting how I could not find such information on a number of abortion company web sites, even though they encourage the use of condoms. I think this shows the ethics and reliability of abortion clinics.

Fractell,
“Why would anyone want to continually have abortions?” I have no idea, but find one feminist organization that does not support the removal of abortion laws. Next feminists will want to remove all traffic laws, and replace them with driving classes, seat belts and more hospitals.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 20 July 2008 9:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, in a former career I worked in an ocupation which required me to do potentially very hazardous tasks. We could not always remove the hazard, replace it with a lesser hazard or engineer it away so we trained regularly and wore PPE. That's life in some cases.

I had driver training when I was younger and wear a seat belt (PPE) when I drive my car, by the logic you are using the government should be focussing on stopping me driving rather than ensuring that I wear a seat belt and drive within the road rules.

When I ride a pushbike I wear a helmet, again by your logic the trick would be to just tell me not to ride a pushbike ever and all will be well.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 20 July 2008 9:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,

The link to The Guardian article you posted was about how the Share sex education program was no more effective than traditional sex education classes. Nowhere did it say “sex education classes are not reliable” — it's point was that a new sex education program that should have been more effective than the old method turned out not to be.

You wrote: “[The condom] is not very effective at all against diseases like the Herpes Simplex Virus strains 1 and 2, HPV the cause of Genital Warts and Cervical Cancer, Genital Crabs or Pubic Lice, as well as Body Lice other wise known as Scabies.”
Because these disease spread via skin rather than sexual contact. Herpes in particular is a major worry. This is EXACTLY why kids need sex education — to learn how different diseases are transmitted, and to protect themselves.

As the website you link to points out, condoms are very effective at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. It's the best we've got. And as you said earlier, we should also be working toward finding better methods of contraception.

I note that you didn't provide proof for the questions I asked. To be honest, I’m pretty sure you don’t have any.
Posted by Veronika, Monday, 21 July 2008 10:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
Exactly. To carry out a hazardous task while relying on PPE and training to significantly reduce the hazards means that you have to be highly trained, the training has to be continuous, and the PPE has to be in perfect working order. Unfortunately such training is normally very expensive and time consuming, and PPE is not often in perfect working order.

That is why the better companies stop focusing on PPE and training to reduce hazards, and try for something better. It is either that or go out of business.

"Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game." Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators.

Applying risk management principles to abortions and STD’s, you have to minimize the amount the amount of sex, significantly decrease the number of partners, and be using something more reliable than a condom. It is either that or be dead, and people spend a long time dead.

Feminists have tried to get around all this by saying that the fetus is not human. Next feminists will be trying to brainwash people into believing that anyone who dies of an STD was not human.

Veronika,
If you have so many questions, I think it doesn’t say much for the reliability of your sex education. Keep searching, but in the meantime, don’t rely on the condom.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 21 July 2008 11:42:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

Your posts are becoming increasingly nonsensical:

"Next feminists will be trying to brainwash people into believing that anyone who dies of an STD was not human."

Rather than provide clear evidence for your opinion, you either demand that others do your work for you or, as in the above quote, make simply absurd, generalist and defamatory claims about groups of people.

There have been many valid links to conclusive evidence regarding the benefits of sex education and easily available contraception, by most if not all other posters to this thread.

Whereas you cannot prove anything you have posted. As I stated previously, I am not prepared to debate you until you do.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 21 July 2008 12:54:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,
You don’t have to debate me.

You can convince yourself that sex education and the condom are reliable, and then have sex with many different people, (because anything else could be patricidal, or belong to the religious right).

However I wouldn’t advise it, and I don’t think many STD clinics would advise it either
Posted by HRS, Monday, 21 July 2008 9:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, I've never read anything from Fractille to suggest that she is personally promiscuous (not our business anyway). Support for better sex education to cut dowon on the number of unwanted pregnancies does not imply large numbers of partners as you seem to be suggesting.

History shows that people make bad choices sexually. Thats a given, as someone who would rather have less unwanted kids around and would also like to see less abortions the best option is for me to support moves that decrease the likelyhood of a bad sexual choice turning into dirty nappies and or an STD.

Sex education and ready access to contraception are two of the simpler to implement parts of that strategy. I also support better access to vasectomies (the out of pocket expenses are way to high at the moment) and reversal if tried later is far worse.

You seem to think that using a condom requires extensive and regular training. Perhaps you should buy a condom and try putting one on. It's not that complex when done sober - perhaps practice with a suitably shaped piece of fruit if it seems difficult. I expect the process is more difficult when you are tanked with booze, thats probably where most of the failures occur and definately not the time to be learning. It also helps to put environmental awareness aside, don't recycle other peoples condoms or reuse your own. A new one for each sexual encounter (and I don't know the etiquet for threesomes).

Preach abstenance if you like but a plan B is good to have especially where plan A has such a high failure rate.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 9:35:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert: << Perhaps you should buy a condom and try putting one on. It's not that complex when done sober - perhaps practice with a suitably shaped piece of fruit if it seems difficult. I expect the process is more difficult when you are tanked with booze, thats probably where most of the failures occur and definately not the time to be learning. It also helps to put environmental awareness aside, don't recycle other peoples condoms or reuse your own. A new one for each sexual encounter (and I don't know the etiquet for threesomes). >>

Too funny. However, I suspect that your words of advice are wasted on Timkins/HRS. Sex of any kind seems to be far too risky for him.

Probably just as well, I reckon ;)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:15:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I don’t know what fruit has to do with it, but the failure rate for condoms in real life varies between 10% to 30%, and even if used correctly, condoms do not eliminate all risks (such as all STD’s) . If any type of personal protective equipment were similar, then it would be best to look for alternatives (if not required by government risk management legislation to look for alternatives).

The rates of STD’s and the rates of abortions are linked, and while feminists and others can try and hide the abortion rate by saying that the fetus is not human, or by not keeping proper statistics, or by saying that abortion is only a matter between a woman and her doctor etc, the STD rate cannot be so easily hidden.

I’m wondering how so many societies survived when they did not have condoms and sex education. STD’s for humans have probably been in existence for as long as humans have (100,000 – 200,000 years), so what did so many societies do to contain the abortion rate and the STD rate, and will this be told during a sex education class?

C.J Morgan,
You would probably be the No1 poster on OLO for flaming and name calling of other posters. Rarely do you debate anything with anyone or even mention the topic.

A typical example of your posts is here. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7669

As an ex university lecturer, you seem to think that using words such as “twaddle”and “poor old fellow “ shows high levels of articulation, debating ability and intelligence. What you learnt or taught in a university as a taxpayer funded academic is beyond comprehension, and it begins to concern me what children will be taught in these so called sex education classes.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 11:53:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For male and female condoms, failure rates fall as users' experience grows." http://www.popline.org/docs/1625/290037.html
"Male and female condoms have fairly low rates of slippage or breakage, and such failure declines as users’ experience with the method grows, according to findings from a large observational study of women attending two Alabama STD clinics in 1995–1998. For example, 3% of all female condoms slipped out of the woman’s vagina; the rate was 11% at first use, but it fell steadily to less than 1% if the method had been used 15 times or more. Similarly, 3% of male condoms broke during use— 7% among first-time users, compared with 2% among those who had used male condoms 15 times or more. Multivariate analyses confirmed the association suggested by these rates."

"Adolescent Abstinence and Condom Use: Are We Sure We Are Really Teaching What is Safe? " http://heb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/43
"Latex condoms effectively prevent pregnancies and most sexually transmitted diseases or infections (STIs), with method-failure rates between 0.5% and 7%, but with user-failure rates between 12% and 70%. Total abstinence presumably has a method-failure rate of zero, but research on periodic abstinence indicates user-failure rates between 26% and 86%."
and
"Abstinence-only curricula evaluations have demonstrated changes in adolescents’attitudes but little change in sexual behaviors. Comprehensive sexuality education curricula have demonstrated attitudinal changes and delays in adolescents’sexual activity."

There is a range of interesting material at http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/

Some results on a study into condom failure for male to male sex at "Correlates of condom failure in a sexually active cohort of men who have sex with men." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225233

The common themes - better education and plety of practice equals lower failure rates. Abstenance education does not change sexual behaviour, sex education does.

“so what did so many societies do to contain the abortion rate and the STD rate”
They died of STD’s, they shipped their daughters off to distant relatives for a few months and forced those daughters to give up their unplanned offspring. They sent their daughters to backyard butchers with the risk of permanent harm or death to the daughter.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 12:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, HRS, I find suggesting that I've had a bad education and Fractelle should "have sex with many different people" far more insulting than calling an argument "twaddle". The fact remains that you insult anyone who asks you to demonstrate where you statistics come from. Again, can I ask you to refrain from insults and to prove your points.

As Robert points out, condoms are less effective in the real world than they are in theory. Comprehensive sex education classes teach this, along with the different diseases condoms protect you from, and those that they don't protect you from. But there is a corresponding difference between how effective abstinence is in theory — 100% — and how effective it is in reality.

Many studies show that abstinence-only education produces children who have sex around the same time and with the same frequency as children who have no education. That is, in the "real world", encouraging children to be abstinent doesn't affect whether they have sex AT ALL. Children who have comprehensive sex education, on the other hand, often delay having sex until they are older.

Abstinence programs have been disastrous in some African countries, like Uganda, where they're pushed up the HIV rates dramatically. See an good discussion here: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/05/abstinence_uganda_hiv_rates_su.php
Posted by Veronika, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 12:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

You have just made a woman feel real good, your advice to HRS:

"You seem to think that using a condom requires extensive and regular training. Perhaps you should buy a condom and try putting one on. It's not that complex when done sober - perhaps practice with a suitably shaped piece of fruit if it seems difficult. I expect the process is more difficult when you are tanked with booze, thats probably where most of the failures occur and definately not the time to be learning. It also helps to put environmental awareness aside, don't recycle other peoples condoms or reuse your own. A new one for each sexual encounter (and I don't know the etiquet for threesomes)."

The above has given me the best laugh I've had in ages, thank you.

But there was further hilarity to be had with HRS' response:

"I don’t know what fruit has to do with it...."

Kinda says all there is to say about HRS' understanding of sexuality, knowledge of contraception and imagination.

Cheers to all for making my day.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 1:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia Part 1.
You said "Pro-choicers value personal freedom and choice more than the anti-choicers do, while anti-choicers value the life of embryos more than freedom of women and don’t find it as problematic if women lose their freedom over their own body."

Every action has a reaction - positive or negetive or sometimes conflicting - such as sex. Like smoking, drugs, driving too fast, murder. Maybe a positive feel at start, maybe an adverse reaction down the track. Yes, women choose to have sex (most times), so they should take the consequences (like a baby!), not abort. As abortion ALSO has consequences of it's own (risk of breast cancer, injury, illness, future reproduction, death, psychological sequelae etc. "Abortion, Information and the Law"- Doctors Legal Safeguards group (yes this is a real document given to Doctors who perform abortions in hospitals where I live!)). And what is freedom anyway? No one has the freedom to do what they please, when they please - can you imagine the chaos if we did? Are we really looking for a society like that?
Posted by iwonder, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:14:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia Part 2
You said "You also confuse embryos/fetuses with babies.
No ‘baby’ has ever been aborted- embryos/fetuses are. Unborn babies don’t exist; they are not babies/persons until they’ve been born.
Before about the 26th week of gestation, the foetus has no developed human brain. It’s impossible without a complete nervous system to have consciousness of anything." (actually the brain at 26 weeks is fully developed as a newborns - Dr M Stoppard). Tell me, what'll you say to those babies that are born from 21 weeks? When they're adults, will you tell them they had no right to live, think, breathe, vote, make choices, or show "personal freedom", because technically their brain wasn't/isn't developed until 26 weeks - they weren't even a human being? Sigh! I know you are not that heartless. You are after all, a person that was given a chance at life. Pity about the primary school a day that is wiped out of Australia.
Posted by iwonder, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
So someone has to practice using a condom before they get it right, and it takes about 10 attempts to get it right. That is high risk, and it doesn’t say much for a reliance on condoms.

“I asked 800 sex educators if they knew that a person carried the HIV virus, would they have sex depending on a condom for protection. No one raised their hand.”
http://www.iefinternational.org/ppt/06_FLE.swf?id=14,20,0,0,1,0

Rather says it all.

Many societies do not die out. Proof of that is the fact that you are here and alive. The societies that do last invariably practice marriage, which significantly reduces the number of different sexual partners that people have. That pair bonding is the natural way of reducing STD’s, and occurs in many species in the natural world. Look out your window if there are any birds that are prepared to nest near your house.

I think you are aware of the high rates of child abuse that are occurring in certain types of families. Have you ever considered the rates of STD’s, abortions and teenage pregnancies that are also occurring in those same families?

Veronika,
Having sex below the age of consent is illegal, and should remain illegal, and this law cannot be replaced by a condom.

As a part of your sex education, perhaps you should search for information on communities that have very high rates of STD’s, and then correlate this with their rates of marriage or their rates of extra-martial sex. You will find a number of such communities in Australia.

Fractelle,
So you like to talk about people and not to them?

Are you a gossip feminist?
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:26:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS has shown that her ideals are formed by the church, and part of her belief system. As such they cannot be swayed by facts or reason.

Further discussions can only be circular.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:11:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had a look at HRS's iefinternational site.
A very one sided advocacy site. They are against teaching about contraception because they think it undermines the abstenance message. They quote failure rates for contraception but not failure rates for abstenance. They focus on the disease risks for contraception users but ignore then completely for those relying on abstenance when it fails.

I don't often travel by aeroplane, when I do I'd like them to abstain from crashing. I pay attention to crash rates when I consider the price differences between airlines. Regardless of my views on crash abstenance for airlines I still want to have safety system in the airplane to cover contingencies.

The failure rate for condoms improves with experience by the users. That spells out the need for better education not less.

One of the papers I referenced yesterday spoke about the need to put a special focus on education for specific groups where some of those issues are worse.

I don't think anyone is claiming that condoms are perfect, they fail and people use them poorly. What we are saying is that the failure rates are lower than for abstenance only based programs (there appears to be no evidence that abstenance only programs make any difference). That kids are more likely to delay early sexual activity based on comprehensive sex education than based on abstenance only programs. That if people do make poor sexual choices they have a better chance of minimising the associated risks if contraception is in place and they have been taught how to use it and the limitations of it than if they are praying that she does not fall pregnant and that the other party does not have an STD.

HRS, do you have any objective research which shows that abstenance only programs have a lower failure rate than comprehensive sex education programs? Everything I've seen by way of research seems to say the opposite.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:33:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"“I asked 800 sex educators if they knew that a person carried the HIV virus, would they have sex depending on a condom for protection. No one raised their hand.”
http://www.iefinternational.org/ppt/06_FLE.swf?id=14,20,0,0,1,0

Rather says it all."

It says nothing. If I asked 800 road safety engineers if they would take their car to work tomorrow knowing they would have a collision, and depend on a seatbelt to protect them, how many do you think would raise their hand?

You're arguing that if condoms aren't perfect, then they're useless. Truly, I invite you continue using such feeble arguments to back your case. It means abortion and contraception will always be available to Australians, and your church will continue to be seen as a blinkered anachronism.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

For the third and final time, I remind you that I have nothing to discuss with you until you offer concrete evidence for your opinions.

Therefore, when you make statements like the following:

>>"Fractelle,
So you like to talk about people and not to them?

Are you a gossip feminist?
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:26:07 PM"<<

AND

>>"You can convince yourself that sex education and the condom are reliable, and then have sex with many different people, (because anything else could be patricidal, or belong to the religious right)."<<

You are merely outing yourself as a troll with nothing to contribute to the issue of unwanted pregnancies.

That R0bert actually bothered to give a considered response above is far more than you deserve.

Further, to reiterate R0bert's point:

There is no single perfect answer for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

As with any of life's challenges, we can simply try to do the best we can with the knowledge and technology we have and pass on our learning and experience to our children. That is all anyone can do - apart from loving each other and being there for each other when we inevitably stumble.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
Before you embark on your adventures with a pocket full of condoms, I think there are some questions you should find the answers to, as some type of advanced level sex education.

1/ If it does take 10 attempts to learn how to use a condom, then is this with 10 different people, or with the same person?

2/ If most condom failures occur when people are drunk, then do sex education classes teach people how to use a condom when they are drunk?

3/ Most abortions and STD’s occur outside of marriage, so do abortion clinics recommend marriage or not?

4/ Also, do abortion clinics give condoms to people who already have an STD, or only give condoms to people who don’t already have an STD?

Also, did you find out how many abortions, STD’s and teenage pregnancies occur in your favorite family type, the one with the highest levels of child abuse.

Fractelle, (the feminist gossip)
Next you'll probably start saying that you've been abused, but I’ll tell you a joke to help cheer you up.

How many feminist sex educators does it take to change a light bulb?

Feminist sex educator : - “Is a light bulb a condom?”
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 1:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent posts, everybody from the feminist conspiracy club!

Fractelle,
I had a good laugh about RObert’s fruity argument as well!
Practice makes perfect. I remember we practiced putting on condoms in sex-ed classes.
Stop gasping, HRS, it wasn’t on anything perishable.
We practise resuscitation on dummies. Dummies can be used for learning how to put on a condom, too. If you practice that 10x it reduces risk of failure.

Great research, agent ROO7bert,
“Abstenance works … when it actually works..”
I wonder how many ‘celibates’ it didn’t work for during the World Youth Day celebrations.
The media said that the sex industry anticipate a strong growth during WYD- but that this growth would be due to ‘tourists outside the Church’.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

HRS,
Using safety equipment incorrectly can increase risk. Education about correct use reduces incorrect use.
With condoms the failure is mainly due to incorrect use. Go figure.
Do you think that Medicare is a feminist organization? If Medicare had a separate item number for abortions, statistics would be more reliable.

BTW I don’t deny that embryos/fetuses are human. They have human DNA just like nail clippings. But they are not persons, only potential ones.
“do sex education classes teach people how to use a condom when they are drunk?”
Actually, yes. My sex-ed classes discussed having sex when drugged or drunk. It was very good and realistic advice.
D’you want the gory details?
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 2:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iwonder,
Still spreading the breastcancer myth?
At best, it’s bad science, at worst, a lie.
Abortions are 11x safer than giving birth.

“women choose to have sex so they should take the consequences (like a baby!), not abort.”
Says who?
Women take the consequences of their own choice, not the consequences of YOUR choice.
“what'll you say to those babies that are born from 21 weeks?”
After birth, the baby has rights.
No embryo/foetus has rights unless it’s given rights by the pregnant woman.
What do you say to neglected/abused/malnutriced children that were not wanted?

There are also less obvious cases.
A mother at the school once said to me, within hearing distance of her two children, “I hate kids, I wish I’d never had them.”
I found that heart-breaking. How many kids out there are physically cared for but psychologically suffer because they know or feel that they are not wanted?

Every child should feel wanted and loved.
Children are far more 'sacred' or precious than sperm and ova.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 2:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, so many questions. You really don't need to pretend that you need all this info for a friend. It's OK to admit that you don't know but are willing to learn.

I've already suggested that you practice on your own first. That might save some embarrasment. If you can get a friend (or 10) to help that might be a lot of fun but don't get distracted. If you can't work it out and can't find a friend who knows what to do then perhaps seek the help of a professional. Again use a reputable firm as they are more likely to have experience and less likely to pass on an STD. Do you still need some explaination of the suggestion regarding fruit or veges?

I'd really suggest you avoid getting drunk. You seem to find the idea of putting on a condom difficult enough without adding alcohol into the mix. Once you have mastered the basics then consider moving onto more advanced scenario's. If you really need to be drunk the issue of informed consent has been discussed elsewhere.

I'd consider getting your marriage counselling from a trained marriage counsellor rather than an abortion clinic. Marriage issues really are not their field.

I'd avoid seeking out freebies when it comes to condoms (especially if you ever try and use one for the intended purpose). They are not that expensive and come in a variety of sizes, textures, colours and flavours. If it helps shop assistants don't generally laugh out loud if you buy a size smaller than XXXL.

I appreciate that you've built this image of me as so virile and sexually appealing that I would invaribly have large numbers of women seeking my participation in social occasions. (A male equivalent to Fractelle or Celivia so to speak). That said my own tastes tend to be quite modest, no setting off on a merry jaunt with a pocket full of condoms and a stick to fight armorous women off. Rather the returned love of a good woman, friendship, mutual respect and faithfulness is more my thing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 8:03:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I’m quite aware of how a condom works. My concerns are the reliability, and quite a lot of concerns about people using condoms if they already have an STD.

I also have significant concerns regards these so called sex education classes, particularly after one aware and loving feminist has called the fetus a toe nail, and they did attend a sex education class.

I suppose all the medical texts will have to be rewritten to adhere to feminist theory. Except for medical texts on IVF of course, which will be allowed to call a fetus a fetus.

But if aware and loving feminists want to keep aborting all these “potential humans” (as one feminist has described it), then eventually there won’t be any more feminists either. I’m uncertain if feminists have realized that.

Probably not.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 24 July 2008 1:06:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,

Using your simplistic approach to sex education could be used in other areas.

Fat people, you can lose weight by eating less,

Drug addicts can kick the habit by just stopping,

Jeez why didn't I think of that before.

Condoms work most of the time, and while I would like to think of my self as smarter than the average, I don't think that using a condom correctly the first time is going to convince anyone of my genius.

Your concern with regards their effectiveness is a transparent religious attack on the use of contraceptives.

In South Africa, a couple of religious nut jobs running around preaching abstinence and warning of the failures of condoms has made a large no of youth think that there is no real benefit of using condoms.

With 1000+ people dying of HIV a day in that country alone, I think that these cretins should be tarred, feathered and shipped out on a rail.
Posted by Democritus, Thursday, 24 July 2008 5:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus wrote: "With 1000+ people dying of HIV a day in that country alone, I think that these cretins should be tarred, feathered and shipped out on a rail."

And how. Promoters of abstinence programs know they don't work — the evidence is there in the form of HIV infection rates in Africa and teen pregnancy rates in the USA. Yet they continue to push them, mostly, I assume, for religious reasons. It's an outrage.

HRS, I note that you are sarcastic to everyone you address ("Fractelle, (the feminist gossip)Next you'll probably start saying that you've been abused" and "Veronika... I think it doesn’t say much for the reliability of your sex education" and ""Robert, Before you embark on your adventures with a pocket full of condoms").

I had a look at your comment history. I see that the vast majority of your posts are sarcastic and aggressive attacks on feminism. Can you explain why?
Posted by Veronika, Thursday, 24 July 2008 6:33:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert: << Do you still need some explaination of the suggestion regarding fruit or veges? >>

Timkins, a suggestion for you: don't practice your condom skills on a pineapple or a cabbage. You never answered my question - where and how did you receive your sex education?

Here's another one - do you actually have a sex life, or is it all abstinence, frustration and bitterness for you?

Veronika: << I had a look at your comment history. I see that the vast majority of your posts are sarcastic and aggressive attacks on feminism >>

If you look up his previous incarnation as "Timkins", you'll find much, much more of the same. This is one very sad troll, as far as his attitudes to women go.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 24 July 2008 6:42:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you look up his previous incarnation as "Timkins", you'll find much, much more of the same. This is one very sad troll, as far as his attitudes to women go."

Ha. I always think of HRS as a woman because the handle reminds of HRT - hormone replacement therapy. How unsurprising that he's just another religious misogynist who wants to control women.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika,
For about 99.99% of human history, there have been no condoms. So what did people do to contain STD’s?

Most species of animals also get STD’s, so what do most species of animals do to reduce the risk of STD’s?

If you have ever had experience in trying to get people to wear personal protective equipment, then you begin to think of something better than personal protective equipment to eliminate risks. Sometimes personal protective equipment works for a short time, but eventually something better system has to be found.

There are plenty of condoms available in Australia, and they can be cheaply and easily obtained from a supermarket anytime someone does their shopping. But consider the family types in this country, who not only have the highest rates of STD’s, but also the highest rates of child abuse, poverty, drug taking, abortions, underage sex and teenage pregnancy.

Also consider the family types most admired by those who want to call themselves feminist (and please, don’t give me the mantra that feminists believe in equality).
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 24 July 2008 2:56:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh RObert, you’re too funny!
Bugger, Fractelle, there goes our plan to pickpocket from RObert’s “pocket full of condoms” .
Thanks CJ, I checked out Timkins and agree that HRS is his clone.

HRS,
” …has called the fetus a toe nail”
Not true. I just want to point out that it doesn’t make sense for you to say that feminists are denying that the foetus is human. I agree that if it has human DNA it’s human.

But ‘human’ merely means having human DNA, not the DNA of another species. There are no special rights for human DNA alone.
I just wanted to make clear to you that we lose DNA everyday. Our nails are merely an example of DNA, so is skin, ova, and sperm… it’s all human DNA, and we lose some of our DNA every day. Not to forget about the very many zygotes that are flushed down the loo every day.

So the DNA argument by itself is not valid as an argument against abortion.

Extinction of the feminists.
That's actually quite funny, HRS. Would make a good movie title.
There are over 6 billion people in the world, HRS- there is no danger of the human race becoming extinct because of abortion.
Wars, pollution, unsustainability are examples of a greater thread to the human species than abortion.
Women have always used contraception and abortion ever since ancient times. Parents also killed their newborns if they couldn’t provide for them. Killing newborns was not considered a crime.

If you were serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies, when are you going to admit that using condoms in combination with another form of contraception such as IUD or contraceptive pill is the most reliable way to prevent pregnancies? I never relied on one form of contraception only.
Do you agree with RObert et al that vasectomies should be more affordable?

Like Sancho, I wonder if you’re more concerned about the sexual behaviour of people than about preventing unwanted pregnancies, just like the pope and the other religious, unrealistic nutcases mentioned by Democritus and Veronika.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 24 July 2008 3:00:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, I'd assumed that you knew how they worked. What I don't understand is why yuou play that silly game rather than debating honestly. If you are a rebadged Timkins then I know that you are capable of better (quiet CJ). If you are Timkins then you are capable of adding well researched and thought through input to the debate rather than a constant stream of red hearings, unbalanced criticism and attacks on other posters.

Condoms are not perfect, if used properly they are good and most of te failures are usage failures rather than manufacturing faults.

I think most of us are supporting a multi-tier protection system. Equiping kids with the information they need to make healthy sexual choices including delaying sexual activity till they are better prepared for it and helping them to understand the risks.

I don't recall anybody here advocating bonking anybody who will say yes. If the stats are correct comprehensive sex education leads to kids delaying starting sexual activity, abstenance only education does not.

Be concerned about the risks of failure with contraception but if you ignore the failure rates for abstenance you are kidding yourself. If kids mess up on the abstenance bit to you then want them completely exposed to the risk of disease and or pregnancy or would you rather the extra layers of protection that come from appropriate use of contraception?

To focus only on the failure rates of contraception whilst ignoring the failure rates of abstenance is dishonest.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 24 July 2008 7:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS

You write "For about 99.99% of human history, there have been no condoms. So what did people do to contain STD’s?"

That's easy, they died.

Life for most of human history was short and brutal with life expectancies in the 30s. If this is how you would prefer to live, then please do so but leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 25 July 2008 7:36:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
There are minimal statistics being kept on abortion in Australia, so I wonder what they tell children about that during sex educations class.

“Now children, you have to become aware and loving. But don’t ask any questions about abortion, because its none of your business. So use your condoms and don’t ask questions”.

Shadow Minister,
If you are a fetus in an abortion clinic, life can be very short and brutal. It is now much safer to be a fetus in a test tube in an IVF clinic, and your mother has selected your father according to what has been written on a piece of paper.

Welcome to femworld. Step this way.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 25 July 2008 10:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, RObert and Shadow Minster.

HRS,
” It is now much safer to be a fetus in a test tube in an IVF clinic”
Actually, it would be quite hard to cram a 3-5cm foetus into a test tube. IVF clinics work with zygotes and blastocyst embryos, which are tiny clusters of cells, smaller in size than a pinhead.
About 3 in every 24 of such embryos survive, the rest are disposed of.

If you think being an embryo or foetus is risky, you’d hate to be a sperm!
Only one out of billions becomes a survivor, just like you and I.
Because ‘you’ won the race, the runner-up and millions of his mates were left to die. How did you feel about that?

”If you are a foetus in an abortion clinic…”
Just like when you were a sperm, you wouldn’t be aware of anything because you’d be at the stage where you don’t have, and never had, a developed nervous system and brain.

BTW, the right to information is a fundamental human right. Deliberately keeping children and teenagers from having access to information about their own body is denying them that right.

While we try to avoid car crashes, we still want to teach our kids to wear a seat belt in case we do end up in a crash, even if some of the seat belts may fail.

"comprehensive sex education leads to kids delaying starting sexual activity, abstenance only education does not."
I had some space left and wanted to use it wisely by repeating what RObert said in case you failed to notice it the first time.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 25 July 2008 4:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
I wonder if IVF will be taught in sex education classes. Every sperm and ovum would be sacred in an IVF clinic. Could be worth money.

IVF may become the only way that the country can produce children.

“Welcome to Femworld. Please have your Medicare card readily available. Thank you”
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 26 July 2008 3:25:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
- It's been shown from the bible that the christain god does not place any special value on fetus's.
- It appears that the christain fundies who make such a big deal about abortion are out of step with their god.
- It's been shown that abstenance only education does not reduce the likelyhood of abstenance actually occuring.
- It's been shown that comprehensive sex education does delay when teenagers start sexual activity.
- It's been shown that cultures with more liberal attitudes to sexuality and the body have lower unplanned pregnancy rates than those more focused on sexual sin.
- It's clear that condoms and other forms of contraception are not perfect but their success rates improve with education and usage.
- Using a condom even with the failure rates is far more likely to provide protection from an unplanned pregnancy or STD than not using one.

So those who want less abortions and less STD's will support comprehensive sex education possibly in conjunction with an appeal to abstenance if thats important to then.

Those who just have a mantra and refuse to reevaluate their stance will continue to oppose the very steps which will help reduce the abortion and STD rates.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 26 July 2008 7:25:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
“Today, one child in three is born out of wedlock. Only 14 percent of these births occur to women under the age of 18. …Thus, giving birth control to teens in high school through safe-sex programs will have little effect on out-of-wedlock childbearing.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm

I think you will find a similar situation in Australia, so sex education classes are just an excuse for feminists to get into schools.

What happens to children born out of wedlock. Probably about 50% will loose a parent (normally the father) by the age of 5. These children are much more likely to live in poverty, much more likely to suffer child abuse (normally from mummy or mummy’s new boyfriend), become runaway children, become involved in crime, become involved in drug taking, get STD’s, become a father or a mother as a teenager, and for the daughters: have an abortion.

That is the family type that feminists so much admire.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 26 July 2008 11:09:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins/HRS: << What happens to children born out of wedlock. Probably about 50% will loose a parent (normally the father) by the age of 5. These children are much more likely to live in poverty, much more likely to suffer child abuse (normally from mummy or mummy’s new boyfriend), become runaway children, become involved in crime, become involved in drug taking, get STD’s, become a father or a mother as a teenager, and for the daughters: have an abortion.

That is the family type that feminists so much admire. >>

Oh put a sock in it Timmy. You just make this crap up, don't you?

You really need to get a life.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 26 July 2008 11:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, that article is by Robert E. Rector (Erector- hmmm misleading name). I’d already discovered that you get most of your opinions from him.

Robert E. Rector is the guru of abstinence policy, member of the conservative, Bush-adoring think-tank, Heritage Foundation, which fires people as soon as they think. John Hulsman was fired for criticising the Bush administration for their Foreign policy.

Anyway, Erector says, “Teenage sexual activity is a major problem confronting the nation… Abstinence education programs for youth have been proven to be effective in reducing early sexual activity.”
I don't get it. The USA has been teaching abstinence-only programs for ages, costing millions of dollars p.a., so where do all those sexually active teenagers come from?
Erector doesn’t use proper research, makes up his own stuff just like you, HRS.

Haha sit down everyone, something funny coming up.
In the 90s, Rector said that there is no poverty in America. Lol!
And how did he come to that conclusion?
Because so-called poor Americans are fat and have a TV, and they wouldn’t be fat and able to afford a TV if they suffered from poverty.
Hilaaaaarious, are you sure that he’s not a comedian? It’s really worth sussing this guy out, for a good laugh.

OK back to being serious.
Fact is, women (as well as men) today marry at a later age than in the past and it’s just unrealistic to expect everyone to remain celibate until they get married.

Some religious people such as David Palmer encourage people to marry at a very young age and they’re welcome to preach that.
But there’s no reason, other than an obsession to control other people’s sexual behaviour, to impose their beliefs upon people outside their religion.
Perhaps they can get counselling for their obsession.

The fact that they encourage their children to get married young may well account for the higher divorce rate amongst the religious than amongst atheists.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 26 July 2008 1:59:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PRESENTING:

>>>>>>>>> HRS WORLD <<<<<<<<<<

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHHoVQn5tI&feature=related

Back in the real world:

"Teenagers need sex education. And they need to feel comfortable about translating their knowledge into action, whether that action is successfully rolling on a condom or confidently saying no to sex."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/31/1093938920407.html?from=storylhs

Happy weekend everyone!
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 26 July 2008 4:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Timkins/HRS everyone needs sex education so that they know the basics of human anatomy, reproductive biology so they can identify when their body is not behaving normally, as well as for the boy + girl = baby and use of contraception. Because its compulsory for students to attend school until 15 years it makes sense to do sex education at school. Imagine how Timkins/HRS would tackle puberty. menstruation with his 10 year old kids - a classroom teacher would be preferable.
Posted by billie, Saturday, 26 July 2008 5:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, thanks for the links. I'd seen stuff on them before but did not realise how big the trend is.

There might be some opportunities in those balls. Young guys who want an almost sure thing could focus their attention on girls who are wearing purity rings - the only hassle is they may have to take some time and explain what the condom is. Possibly they could claim that a condom prevents genital contact so it's not really sex and the vow is not being broken.

Probably some good business opportunities to sell porn to the dads as well.

On the other hand having 9 year old girls involved in something like that is in my view child abuse. Parts look funny from outside but when you think about it it's rather sad.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 26 July 2008 5:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aware and loving feminists must be using the same cue cards.

If someone even questions why 1 in 4 pregnancies results in a visit to an abortion clinic, then that person must belong to the religious right, they are misogynist, they have never had sex, they don’t know how to use a condom, they don’t understand human anatomy, and besides all that, its none of their business because a fetus is no more human than a toe nail.

Billie,
You were the aware and loving feminist that wanted to harvest males for their sperm, and carry out all reproduction through IVF clinics. I don’t know what type of sex education class you would run.

Robert,

Have you researched your favorite family type yet?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

I suppose they won’t be teaching children about that in these so called sex education classes.

Celivia,

I have a joke for you to help cheer you up.

Did you hear about the condom designed by a feminist.

It had an arrow on it pointed towards the boy with the words “I’m with a stupid, patriarchal, misogynist, rapist, abusive and name-calling male” .
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 27 July 2008 9:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins/HRS: << Did you hear about the condom designed by a feminist.

It had an arrow on it pointed towards the boy with the words “I’m with a stupid, patriarchal, misogynist, rapist, abusive and name-calling male” . >>

Amazing that Timmy could read what must have been incredibly tiny print.

Little wonder Timmy hates condoms so much, if that's the kind his unfortunate sexual partner gave him. Maybe she was trying to tell him something?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 27 July 2008 10:11:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert,

Thanks for your comments. I find the whole "purity pledge" thing disturbing and more than a little creepy. But what is really sad is that abstinence only programs produces worse results than states where teens are fully informed about their bodies.

See how well it works in Texas:

http://www.alternet.org/sex/91749/progressives_to_confront_bad_sex-ed_policies_at_%27netroots_nation%27/

“What state has the worst teen birth rate, the 10th highest AIDS rate and the 7th worst syphilis rate in the country?
Hint -- it's the same state that brought us George Bush and spends more on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs than any other state.
That's right -- Texas.

In June 2008, federal statistics showed that the majority, 52.9 percent, of Texas students in ninth through 12th grades had sexual intercourse. That's compared to 47.8 percent nationally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported that young people in Texas are less likely to use condoms.

Yet, Texas actually spent $17 million last year on abstinence-only programs to promote virginity until marriage. Talk about denying reality!....

...Yes -- the democratic-controlled Congress is part of the problem. Just last week, Democrats voted to extend funding for these ineffective Title V abstinence-only programs for 12 months. And last year, the House of Representatives, in total disregard for a congressionally mandated report that showed the programs don't work, tried to increase funding for abstinence-only programs by $28 million. That's right -- increase!”

Scary, ain’t it?
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 27 July 2008 12:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C. J Morgan,
I do not find it that difficult to understand how you were once a university lecturer.

But the other thing that must be on the cue cards for aware and loving feminists is to say that if someone does not like the current state of abortion in the country, then they must have a small penis and are sexually inept.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 27 July 2008 1:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,
These tiny condoms with the small print come boxed with a magnifying glass.

Fractelle.
Very scary indeed! What do you say, HRS?
The purity club is so much focused on daughters, what about sons? I suppose they get away with it more easily.
An acquaintance of mine has a 17-year-old son who became a ‘dad’ about a year ago. His girlfriend and he both attended Catholic schools.
He doesn’t want any responsibility for his child and has refused to see his baby son at all.
The teenage ex girlfriend lives with her parents who help her care for the baby as abortion was no option for her as a Catholic, but she had to drop out of school, whereas the teenage boy’s life did not change and he’ll be graduating from High School this year.
On World Youth day, he went into the city with family to applaud the pope.

HRS blames feminism for promoting sex education to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
HRS blames feminism and individual women for having an abortion.
HRS blames feminism and individual women for being single parents.
HRS denies that sex education and contraception reduce unplanned pregnancies by ignoring facts.
HRS stigmatises single mothers for raising their children, but call them murderers when they have an abortion.

I wonder if there has been research done about how children are doing when they are forced to grow up in a warzone where two parents make each other’s lives hell.

IMO, children are far better off living with one parent peacefully than having to grow up in a hostile environment with both parents who don’t love each other.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 27 July 2008 1:08:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If someone even questions why 1 in 4 pregnancies results in a visit to an abortion clinic, then that person must belong to the religious right, they are misogynist, they have never had sex, they don’t know how to use a condom, they don’t understand human anatomy, and besides all that, its none of their business because a fetus is no more human than a toe nail."

Not at all. It's a good question to ask about a worrying statistic. But rather than investigate matters factually with the aim of developing realistic approaches, you've simply trotted out the ideological line of the religious Right, ignored facts where they're inconvenient, made up your own facts where it suited you, demonstrated a reactive and unexamined loathing of women, and accused everyone who disagrees with you of being motivated by a perverted desire to increase the number of abortions, divorces and single mothers.

However, I can't comment on your anatomical accuracy.

The reason you make people angry is because you're switching your brain off and undermining progress on a complex, difficult social challenge by reducing it to "the world would be perfect if everyone was a right-wing fundamentalist like me".
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 27 July 2008 3:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beautifully put Sancho.
Posted by Veronika, Sunday, 27 July 2008 4:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed Sancho. However, I don't think Timkins is actually a fundamentalist Christian - rather, I think that he's a deeply damaged man who latches on to any misogynist ideology available, in order to avoid examining his own problems.

I agree with this particularly:

<< The reason you make people angry is because you're switching your brain off and undermining progress on a complex, difficult social challenge >>

Which of course makes the poor bugger your classic Internet troll. We shouldn't feed trolls, but I acknowledge that this one manages to get around that general principle - probably because he can either be used to actually articulate sensible ideas like most recent posters have in this thread, or just because he provides a kind of schadenfreude amusement for those of us who are on to him.

Strangely though, Timkins has been around OLO for that long now - under various personae - that he'd be missed like an absent bleating sheep in the back paddock if by some miracle he chose to cease participating here.

At least for a short while :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 27 July 2008 7:25:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,
I don’t think an average abortion is all that complex. There are now abortion clinics advertising a no waiting period, so abortions are not complex, and have been made quite routine.

With a shortage of dentists, it is possibly more difficult to have a tooth extracted than it is to have an abortion.

But if abortions have been made quite routine, its only a small step away from certain people encouraging pregnant women to have abortions. These people would do that, either for profit, or because abortion was a part of their politics.

And that would be a concern wouldn’t it.

CJ Morgan,
I’ll tell you a joke to help cheer you up.

Did you hear the one about the ex university lecturer who became the number 1 name caller on OLO, and would call other people everything from odious to troll, and if someone disagreed with him, he would routinely call them insane, and would even say that they had a small penis and were sexually incapable.

Feminists thought he was wonderful of course, but it doesn’t say much for the quality of his education, or the quality of the university he lectured at.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 28 July 2008 10:42:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS,
Abortion is a simple procedure if done in the first term of pregnancy. The safest and simplest way by far is by the RU486. That’s why it’s so retarded to ban these abortion pills.

After the 13th week, the risks are higher as the surgery is more complicated.
That’s why it’s important that abortion clinics don’t have a long waiting list.

BTW I’m dying to find out the punchline of your last joke- puhleaaaase, don’t keep us in suspense any longer,
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 28 July 2008 4:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, there is great value in the opportunity not just to exchange useful information but also the numerous opportunities for a laugh. I'm still having some great chuckles thinking about some of the tee-shirts shown on the Utube video Fractelle linked to.

HRS, you keep refering to favourite family types. Mine - one where people have respect for one another. Where the adults pull their weight, giving and accepting in their place. Where roles are not defined by gender nor necessarily by ability but by best fit for the needs of the family.

I happen to be in a single parent family at the moment, that does not make it a favourite type, rather a better alternative than rushing into something that may be worse. Kids are involved and rush decisions do them harm if it goes wrong. Single parent families are not the best, it's just they are better than a home with disharmony.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 28 July 2008 6:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins: << Did you hear the one about... blah blah whine whine >>

Don't give up your day job, Timmy. You're actually much more amusing when you're not trying to be funny.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 28 July 2008 7:39:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,
If you can’t understand the joke, ask C. J Morgan.

Robert,
I would think that there is always some type of disharmony occurring in any family, and the belief that there could be a perfect family is an unobtainable belief.

However the family type where there is not only the greatest levels of child abuse, but also the greatest levels of poverty, depression, STD’s, run away children, teenage pregnancy etc would make one somewhat reluctant to enter into that type of family.

The decriminalization of abortion leads the way for certain individuals to start encouraging women to have abortions. That is the next step I would presume.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 12:35:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. All

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