@Liz45, my last post was not referring to abortion. It was referring to the killing of infants and new born although I regard abortion as killing also. We can define words however we like just as is the practice in the domestic violence industry...that way we can come up whatever stats that we like in this business. Just make society believe that domestic violence is years of repetitive battering of wives with the neigbour's baseball bat, not the rare push or shove or critical comment that gets picked up in the DV industry stats. But one thing is for sure and that is that your gender is not as innocent as you and your ilk would like to have society believe.

Liz45:"I'm currently on the board of a women's health centre."

BINGO!

Liz45:"I was also in the late 80'searly 90's. I've been involved in women's health and work safety issues for over 27 yrs."

And we've hit the trifecta, folks.

I thought you were a poor battered wife, who was powerless in the face of her bullying husband's violent assaults?

You know Liz, I reckon you've never had a husband at all. You're nothing but another parasite with her hand out. I bet you've not done a real day's work in your life, but have spent all your time with your mouth firmly clamped to some form of Government teat or other.

The thing you "know" about is scab-picking as a form of begging. It's as low as it gets.

Liz45:"I have been to many seminars about women's and children's health over this time. "

Yes dear, we know you have: we taxpayers paid for them.

Liz45:"These deaths are only a very small number of infant deaths"

And yet they are babies, murdered because their mother wanted to preserve a lifestyle, according to the research. It's nice to see you support their decision.

On the subjject of numbers, the French study showed that this crime occurs at least 5 times more frequently than previously thought and probably much more frequently than that, because the death of an infant with no onvious injuries is often put down to SIDS or similar. I've often wondered how many women who claim to have had a baby die of SIDS are actually getting away with murder. The French study suggests there may be quite a few, but that's OK, eh, Lizzy? It's just a few, after all and it WAS their Mums, they were probably trying to save them from an abusive father or something...

At least we know now that Lizzy is just another shill with her hand out - it explains a lot

Anti:”And yet they are babies, murdered because their mother wanted to preserve a lifestyle, according to the research. It's nice to see you support their decision.”

That horse is lame Anti, that article didn’t only say lifestyle or even explain what it meant by “lifestyle”.

A scared young female is likely to do the wrong thing. A young woman wanting to carry on with her career or “lifestyle” would make use of an abortion rather than disrupt any lifestyle and go to full term.

“I've often wondered how many women who claim to have had a baby die of SIDS are actually getting away with murder.”

You aren’t the first.

“A former pediatrician, Roy Meadow, from the UK believes that many cases diagnosed as SIDS are really the result of child abuse on the part of a parent displaying Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a condition which he was first to describe, in 1977). During the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of mothers of multiple apparent SIDS victims were convicted of murder, to varying degrees on the basis of Meadow's opinion. In 2003 a number of high-profile acquittals brought Meadow's theories into disrepute. Several hundred murder convictions were reviewed, leading to several high-profile cases being re-opened and convictions overturned. Meadow was struck off in 2005."

@Antiseptic - What a pathetic little person you are. Next year will be 49 yrs since I met my ex.I've been divorced for over 20 years - the said years that I was involved with a women's health centre, that saves womens' lives from breast and cervical cancer, among others!Next yr is a program re diabetes and heart disease - still the greatest killer along with strokes of women in this country.

You have a mother don't you?A sister, perhaps even a daughter? It was women involved in women's health, or women sufferers like Jane McGrath who raised awareness re breast cancer! Who knows,we might save the life of someone close to you? I spent 10 yrs in the workforce until I was forced to leave with a preventable injury/disease!My employer was found to be responsible - twice!By two Judges!They were male as were my barristers!

The seminars etc I go to are run by either federal or state bodies. I went to one this yr which was paid for by the professional woman who couldn't go - she deemed me a suitable person to represent her!

This topic is not about SIDS or neonacide this is about male violence towards women, of which you're engaging at this stage. You misrepresent my anger as "shrill"(usual sexist rubbish)while you engage in direct accusations of fraud and other criminal matters.

Along with your misogynist mates, you deliberately 'cherry pick' your so called modes of proof, with very selective bits of just a few articles. You blame all women with a sense of self and exhibit this right to assert themselves as "shrill" but of course, being a bloke, you're entitled to engage in whatever bits of gutter talk you wish!

What about those women who have male workboot imprints on their pregnant bellies? Or those who present to have a termination covered in bruises! How about those blokes?

Jewely, I've not mentioned Munchausen by proxy, I'm talking about simple suffocation. A baby dead from having a pillow held over its head is pretty hard to distinguish from one that died from burying its head in a blanket or similar.

I'm sure that Munchausen by proxy exists, but I'm also sure it's not a huge problem.

The article mentioned two main reasons - avoiding family disruption and preserving lavish lifestyles, IIRC. It also said most perpetrators were either married or in stable relationships and that their husbands or partners had no knowledge that they were even pregnant. Some women have done it many times.

Liz45:"You have a mother don't you?A sister, perhaps even a daughter?"

Nope, I have a dead mother, four surviving sisters out of six and a daughter. I can't see that anything you've posted here is of any benfit to them or gains any legitimacy by your claims of being involved in women's health. It sounds more to me that you found yourself a nice little bandwagon to ride and rode the life out of it. Now you're trying to ride another one. At least you're consistent.

Liz45:"The seminars etc I go to are run by either federal or state bodies."

Yep, paid for by the taxpayer, as I said. Sweeeet...

Liz45:"you deliberately 'cherry pick' your so called modes of proof, with very selective bits of just a few articles."

I'm surprised you hold the MJA in such contempt, with your vast experience in health matters...

You see, Lizzy, I give references for what I say and I quote from the articles, I don't offer my opinion as though it were gospel from the Mount - no further discussion will be entered into. Nor do I rely on emotionally-loaded and dishonest polemic in preference to evidence-based conclusions.

You might try that sometime.