Natasha’s article is very short on details

EG:-
What information should or should no be given during counselling?
Should counselling services become uniform in the information they provide?
Should counselling become compulsory before and after an abortion?
Who pays for this counselling?
Should the father be involved in the counselling?

And of course, what can be done to limit unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

As well, anecdotal evidence does not mean much when forming national legislation, and public opinion polls don’t mean much if the public does not have much knowledge on the subject, and the outcome of public opinion polls can be easily manipulated by choice of wording in the questions

This may be off topic a bit but Timkins' point about this dealing with stopping unwanted pregnancy in the first place is very important. (I would argue the most important)

I am all for allowing choice for the woman (and man) to have an abortion or not. But pro choice also means the choice of having unprotected sex, using a pill that is 99% effective (1% could be a big 1%), etc, and accepting the consequences. Is more education needed? Why concentrate solely on the abortion issue. (Forgive me if Ms Despoia has put forward bills on this I am not fully up with the history)

I hear the apparent large numbers of abortions performed, and ask, why? Not every one is a change of mind due to circumstance? Is it? What portion of this number is not in the realm of choice eg rape v condom breaking v pill failure v choice of unprotected sex. Do we not need to understand that to provide effective prevention. It is usually better than cure. Isn't it?

If anyone has this data I would like to see it.

Comments by Timkins and the Big Fish may indicate their concerns but have nothing to do with the issue raised by Natasha ie requiring pregancy counsellors who won't refer for terminations should b e required to state that in their advertisements. Can future comments stay on topic.
BTW, I fully agree with Natasha

Abortion [within certain guidelines] is a legal option in Australia [as it should be]. A large majority of Australians agree with this concept, regardless of how survey questions are phrased. Many of us feel somewhat uncomfortable that so many abortions seemingly need to be performed, but we respect the woman's right to choose for herself.

But this is not good enough for some elements of what could be referred to as the Religious Right. They carefully use every [legal] opportunity to frustrate the laws of Australia and force their unproven and unprovable religious based views on the rest of the Australian population.

I don't usually like quoting from the Bible, as many Biblical passages can be construed to mean almost anything or nothing [and are unprovable as the "word of God" anyway], but "Do not bear false witness" makes good sense and cannot be interpreted any other way. It means, "Do not falsely misrepresent a situation", or more simply, "Do not tell lies". It is recognised in law [and by common sense] that you can, in effect, falsely misrepresent a situation by omitting to say something.

The deliberate attempt on behalf of some pregnancy counsellors to avoid any reference to the abortion option is obvious. Someone who is basically opposed to a [legal] course of action on religious grounds can hardly be expected to discuss this option on level terms, but they should be forced, by law, to state this to a prospective client, before the prospect decides to choose them as a counsellor.

The way things seem to be now, at least some of the "Right to Life" counselling services seem to use the same methods as confidence tricksters and shonky sales people. "Tell 'em anything, as long as they buy!" Of course, this could be seen as "The end justifying the means", a concept beloved by totalitarian regimes and anyone else who wishes to frustrate democracy.

Thankyou Rossco,
But what constitutes a “referral”?
What constitutes a “pregnancy counselling service”?
What constitutes "advertiseing".
Can a doctor refer someone to a particular "pregnancy counselling service", and not another
Should someone have to shop around to find the “pregnancy counselling service” that suits them?
And why would someone go to a “pregnancy counselling service” when their mind is already made up.
And if their mind is already made up, then where did they get the information in the first place, to enable them to make up their mind.?

There should be answers to such questions if there is going to be legislation, but if there is one thing that would characterise abortion, it would probably be lack of reliable information, and that is possibly the main reason why the abortion rate remains so high, even though the general wealth of society has increased, taxation has increased, social services have increased, and contraception technology has improved.

Also the article mentions some anecdotal evidence, and mentions surveys or public opinion polls regards abortion. Neither are greatly reliable.

Natasha claims to be "all for women who freely choose to continue their pregnancies being provided with the support they need throughout the pregnancy and birth". But her own words show her up.

While agencies "which do not [refer for abortion] would be forced to advertise the fact" and therefore be officially stigmatised as biased, or lose their right to advertise, abortion referral agencies will be able to continue with business as usual. If you refer for abortion, your biases will be tolerated and even endorsed.

In fact Natasha says, with an apparent straight face, "If my Bill became law, women could assume all other organisations [ie those that refer for abortion] offered information and support on all pregnancy options."

Is she being naive or misleading? With very few exceptions it is the agencies that don't refer for abortion that provide the practical support for women to have their baby. They're the only ones that care enough about the outcome for the woman and her child.

Senator Stott Despoja's recent performance in the Senate in support of a Democrat Notice of Motion on the Millenium Development Goals which could have been interpreted as calling for universal abortion on demand was all bluff and bluster."Bring on the fight guys" she said. That would be right. A couple of hapless blokes in the Senate. She would never take on the pro life movement top heavy as it is with women.While she is grandstanding in the Senate branding her opponents as "anachronistic,outdated,conservative people ....who will deny women their rights and indeed will not put forward positive ways of alleviating poverty,death,disease,HIV," pro lifers are doing just that. Dr.Miriam Duggan,an Irish MedicalMissionary and founder of the South African movement Youth Alive has led successful AIDS prevention programs in Uganda. Canadian Dr.Robert Walley runs
MaterCare International specialising in fistula repair hospitals and improved obstetric services.

Third World women are not dying for want of access to abortion. They are dying for want of access to proper obstetric care. They have to walk too far in labour to get it. And for want of cheap vaccines, clean water and food in their bellies. Man and all a he is, Senator Boswell is right when he says:"It is not right for affluent Australians to use international poverty as a way to implement their particular social agenda on abortion ....the democrats wanted to use the world's poor to make political capital over abortion"

Denny

I've just checked the West Australian Yellow Pages directory on this subject. It's obvious what entries under the heading "Pregnancy Termination Services" are likely to offer [within legal guidelines]. But how about "Pregnancy Counselling & Related Services"?

Some entries, to their credit, are obviously pro-life or pro-choice. But several of them give no indication whatsoever. I would strongly suspect that at least some of these are the people who cannot offer a full range of legal options, but prefer to mislead potential clients by not saying so.

People who are considering using such a counselling service deserve to know if a full range of options will be discussed, in a balanced, non-judgemental manner, before they actually make an appointment.

Public opinion surveys have been criticised as unreliable. This depends on how the surveys are run. Short of a public referendum, with an extensive and widely publicised preamble, [which we're not going to get], what is reliable? Surely not some interpretation of scripture

I looked up Senator Stott Despoja’s bill. You can find it on the Parliament website here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/browse.aspx?NodeID=52

The Bill says “Telephone carriage service providers providing alphabetical public number directories in accordance with clause 9 of the Carrier Licence Conditions (Telstra Corporation Limited) Declaration 1997 may only include non-directive pregnancy counselling services on the 24 hour health and help call pages of each alphabetical public number directory.”

“Non-directive” service providers are only those ones willing to send clients for an abortion. So if you’re not willing to be involved in abortions, you don’t get listed. Who’s being misleading Senator?

Pregnancy counsellors should clearly state their moral leanings either for, against or either, in the best interest of a vulnerable person having to make a difficult choice.
Having said that, I have my own beliefs on abortion, and one of them is not to get all authorative on the subject as its a decision I'll never have to make on account of my gender.
It does disturb me that this serious issue is run by private enterprise, which by nature has profit as its fundamental objective.
I'm being sincere when I say I hope I havent upset anybody who's had to go through this process.

Rex
Your argument is flawed. You are not free from the same views you force onto others.
In fact you show yourself to have the same totalitarian views you despise in others. How can you consider your views have more rights than others in the Australian community?

You claim the religious right carefully “frustrate the laws of Australia and force their unproven and unprovable religious based views on the rest of the Australian population.”
Don’t you, as an even handed sort of chap, think all Australians have an equal place in our democratic political system?

You criticise abortion counsellors for not warning prospective mothers of their bias in helping them, you accuse them of the treachery of [quote] "The end justifying the means", a concept beloved by totalitarian regimes and anyone else who wishes to frustrate democracy. [unquote]

Clearly you value democracy by your two quotes above and it seems you have a healthy disrespect for the bible. I think that would be a fair assessment so far?
But you then also quote the bible, “Do not bear false witness”, to make your case against the religious people you do not think should take a part in our democracy you prize so much.

Now isn’t that, [quote] "The end justifying the means", a concept beloved by totalitarian regimes and anyone else who wishes to frustrate democracy. [unquote] to quote you?

Horrors! your worst fears have come upon you, you are behaving as a totalitarian. Was it Orwells "Animal Farm" that said, "All people are equal, its just that some are more equal than others".
Its hard to make laws gaining freedom, you extend your rights and extinguish others.
In light of this I ask again, "Why should you with flawed thinking and arguing be preferred for making laws on abortion over Christians?"

Freda,
My interpretation of the entry in Senator Stott Despoja's bill that you question is that "Non-directive" service providers are those that provide information on all possible and legal choices during pregnancy counselling. Such service providers also do not guide or mislead the client against certain options or towards other options based on the counsellor's philosophical grounds. That is they are neutral and not "directive".

It seems reasonable to expect a pregnancy counsellor to present all possible legal choices to people that need unbiased, medically sound advice, including but not limited to, pregnancy continuation and child rearing, abortion, adoption and all the issues that relate to these.

The Big Fish wrote " I hear the apparent large numbers of abortions performed, and ask, why?"

More that you could possibly imagine, in some city area statistics it reaches 1 in every 2 women.

Here is some stats from UK
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8648&More=Y

It just makes no sence with the pill availability. There must be other factors involved that diminishes the killing of a living but unborn life from being considered as paramount in these situations. We as humans are becoming more 'creatures' than 'animals' which dont kill their own.

Hope we can stop this soon.

Sam

Rossoc, Is it really off topic, Why should pregnancy counselling start when a woman is pregnant? Why not counsel young men that there is a potential risk if you due not have a condom during sex, is she on the pill. It is only usually 99% effective? whatever? Again prevention is better than cure. Should these organisations not be encouraged if they are balanced, or at least not a pressure groups. Might help alleviate the problem altogether.

Have not read seen Sam Said's statistics yet. Will be interesting.

Confused, your post actually seems the least confused of the lot.

This is the heartland of difference between those who are pro choice and those who are not.

As Natasha says, no-one is pro abortion. No-one wants to have one, we all prefer to avoid unwanted pregnancy. When we fail to avoid it, for all sorts of reasons including, contraceptive failure (by far the major reason I imagine), carelessness, a drunken encounter, irresponsibility, rape or whatever, those who are pro-choice believe such unfortunate women should be given the whole truth about all their options, without the counsellors personal beliefs coming into it. A good counsellor should be able to be opposed to abortion in her own life, but perfectly able to offer unbiased assistance to someone else who may not share her beliefs.

The trouble with some counselling services is that their agenda is first to push their own anti-abortion beliefs and second to counsel the woman. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are open about it. Having had an abortion myself more than 20 years ago, I can testify that the counsellor at the clinic I went to gave me all the facts and did not attempt to pressure me into a decision either way. Had I decided against termination, I am sure she would have helped me just as thoroughly and compassionately. That's as it should be.

Although the 'pro-life' camp don't like it, a strong majority of Australian voters are in favour of the availablility of safe and legal abortions to women who need them. As Natasha Stott Despoja and others have said, it is not a case of being 'pro-abortion', but rather a simple recognition that there have always been, and will always be, situations where women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies and will choose to have an abortion over the alternatives. Of course it would be better if unwanted pregnancies didn't happen, but the great majority of Australian voters have consistently supported the availability of safe and legal abortions for decades.

This may be why 'pro-life' activists have begun to resort to dishonest and unsavoury methods to further their minority agenda. These people are entitled to their views, but when they set out to deceive vulnerable women by disguising the anti-abortion philosophies or religious affiliations of their so-called 'counselling' services, then one has to question the honesty of their methods.

Worse is when they engage in actual violence against 'pro-choice' supporters (as occurred only last weekend in Melbourne), or force vulnerable women to run an abusive gauntlet when they try to enter abortion clinics. Worse still is when their more extreme members engage in actual murder (as also occurred in Melbourne) or in terrorist acts (e.g. bombing of clinics in the USA).

While I'm not a Democrats supporter, I think that Natasha Stott Despoja is right on the mark this time. Those who oppose the availability of safe and legal abortion should be honest about it, and promote their agenda by honest, peaceful and democratic means.

Either the pro-life people are under-represented on this forum, or they are a lot smaller a group than I (perhaps cynically) originally thought. That’s pretty cool.

Temperatures invariably run high on the issue of abortion and related issues, so it’s important to remember that abortions have been practiced by humans for a very, very long time. In fact one may go so far as to say that there is no reason to consider it an unnatural practice, but rather an unfortunate yet necessary fact of life.

Enter modern society, mounting pressure on young women to raise a family (not so much these days, but still an issue), and the relatively new concept of having an abortion being somehow on par with ending a life. Many young women have parents that would never understand, and therefore desperately need the sound, unbiased advice and help of a counsellor.

People promoting their agenda’s to someone in such a vulnerable position is just…well, I don’t have the words. It reminds me of missionaries promoting abstinence to poverty stricken Africans as a way to avoid AIDS.

It’s just insane, and I’m very relieved the majority of posters agree.

By the way, Natasha rules, and I would totally be all for the Democrats if Bob Brown didn’t rule even harder.

Trying to keep it simple, is the objective of this legislation to simply to let the client know from what ideology a service is counselling? This has a direct impact on the type and options of services available.

A counsellor (whose role is important to the abortion issue) can certainly have a personal opinion on it the issue of abortion. However, a counsellor should be clear on what basis they are providing advice. From what bias the advice is coming. We expect our advisers, in all occupations, to nominate their bias, if not actually succumbing to it.

That is what the issue is. It is not whether you agree with abortion or not. That is for the individual (we do live in a free democracy, right?). It is about a service being open about its ideology and the impact this has on its scope of service.

Imagine if our major corporation or political parties hid their true ideology through omission or … oh, wait…. damn…

Freda has done everyone a service by listing the relevant section of the proposed Bill. Of course if Natasha was genuinely interested in informing everyone about the real intentions of all the pregnancy counselling organisations she would be requiring ALL of them to spell out their position on abortion - so as well as requiring pro-life groups to say 'We don't refer for pregnancy termination' she should also be asking the 'pro-choice' groups to say that they DO refer for abortion. The clause in the Bill quoted by Freda would actually prohibit pro-life groups advertsing in that particular section, not just require them to make the statement on referrals for abortion.
Jenny Stokes

It is questionable as to whether pregnancy counselling services will remain neutral or impartial under Natasha’s proposed legislation.

Basically the abortion industry has no real competition or accountability at present.

EG:-
-adoption in this country is very minimal.
-rates of usage of more reliable contraception such as Implanon are below that of comparable countries.
-rates of female sterilization in this country are below that of comparable countries.
-many women rely solely on the male condom, which is not that reliable.
-only in WA is there a requirement for a woman to have a formal referral before an abortion can be carried out.
-except for WA, counselling is not compulsory either before or after an abortion.
-few statistics are being kept on abortion in Australia
-few studies are being carried out into abortion in Australia
-those who question the abortion industry are normally labelled various terms to try and silence them (eg “religious fanatics”, “anachronistic”, “misogynists” etc),

So the abortion industry has no real competition or accountability, and the abortion industry begins to act like a monopoly. Removing “pro-life” type organisations from the telephone directory, will reduce further any competition or accountability of the abortion industry, and makes that industry even more of a monopoly.

Considering the amount of money involved in the abortion industry, it is more than likely that the pregnancy counselling services would simply become shopfronts for the abortion industry, to direct women straight towards abortion clinics.

There will be minimal “choice”, or the term “choice” simply becomes a smokescreen type term that is used to hide the money making aspects of the abortion industry (see “Confessions of an Abortionist” http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392350f73712.htm

Timkins,

I don't believe the intention of the bill is to change what the individual counselling services do - more so to stop those counselling services that DO NOT PROVIDE UNBIASED advice from advertising themselves as pregnancy counselling services.

I think it is incorrect to refer to an abortion industry - which appears to be designed to be inflammatory - and to say that persons providing abortions are not accountable. Doctors, who undergo extensive study and training, perform most if not all abortions. Are doctors not part of the health care industry? Australian doctors are members of the Australian Medical Association and are investigated by state governments over complaints. How could they not be accountable?

You are possibly correct to say that more information about alternative forms of contraception should be advertised via mainstream media and this is probably a difficult subject. However, the bill as far as I am aware, is about ensuring that advice is available from the people that advertise they provide it. I do not understand what this has to do with the issues you raise.

Confused,
This would come back to what constitutes a “pregnancy counselling service”? What type of accreditation systems are in place to check that they carry out proper counselling.

Legislation concerning pregnancy counselling services would be unlikely to bring about a reduction in the abortion rate, or bring about a reduction in the rate of unwanted pregnancy. In fact, it could increase those rates.

Except for WA, a woman does not have to have a formal referral from anyone to get an abortion. All she needs is a Medicare card and a piece of paper confirming her pregnancy. She need not have talked the matter through with anyone, and this leaves the system upon to profiteering by people involved in the abortion industry. If a woman is hesitant or undecided as to what to do, someone can just say that it would be much easier just to have an abortion, and her problems will be solved (although the abortion industry makes money from that)

To say that abortion is not an industry, then what is it? There are a number of companies in Australia that operate a string of clinics, and there is one organisation in Australia that operates a number of abortion clinics, and operates in 40 other countries as well.

If these organisations “do” want the abortion rate decreased, then why don’t they make more public announcements about this. Why don’t they ask for better statistics to be kept, for better studies to be undertaken into the reasons for abortion or for the reasons for unwanted pregnancy, or make public announcements asking for better programs in contraception usage.

If federal legislation is to be introduced regards abortion, then perhaps that legislation should involve setting a national goal of reducing the number of abortions by say 25% every 5 yrs. In this way, the problems of unwanted pregnancy could be properly solved, and it would help ensure that what occurs in the abortion industry becomes more accountable.

Also read the tactics employed in “Confessions of an Abortionist” http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392350f73712.htm, and determine how often similar tactics are used in Australia

Timkins, your off-topic, deluded rantings are starting to get very boring. If you cannot come up with any comments to address the issue, then leave it to those who can.

It's very simple. Counselling services that provide truthful advice about all options are listed in the phone book for women to find them. Services that fall short of this mark will be required to make this clear, so that women do not waste time and money. (As an added bonus, women who find the concept of abortion abhorrent will also know which services to avoid, and ensure they are not unwillingly exposed to such information.)

This has nothing to do with:

a. the abortion rate
b. your view of the morality of abortion
c. the Family Court
d. the greed of the abortion industry (I don't see anyone accusing obstetricians of convincing women to get pregnant in order make a profit)
e. rates of female sterilization in this country
f. the choice of wording in opinion polls

In fact, as someone who appears to genuinely hate women, it has nothing to do with you at all, and I suggest that you get a life, rather than competing to be the first comment on any article that allows you to pursue your paranoid agenda.

Amanda, That is a bit much. What ever gives the impresssion that Timkins hates women. I do not know the bloke (I think a bloke) but his arguments may a bit off target (and mine)...... but hates women?. Am I missing something about him.....or you?

I support Senator Stott-Despoja's argument that pregnancy counsellors who won't refer for terminations should advertise the fact.

If Timkin wants to increase the live birth rate in Australia he would be better served improving support for families and single parents so that
1. women with children know they have financial support if the father departs,
2. there is affordable and accessible childcare
3. workers know they can find work that gives them time to be parents
4. children have access to good quality health services
5. children have access to good quality education and training opportunities

Amanda,
You’re “off-topic”
You carry out “deluded rantings”
You’re “very boring”.
You “cannot come up with any comments to address the issue”
You’re “someone who appears to genuinely hate women”
The issue “has nothing to do with you at all”
You should “get a life”
You’re “competing to be the first comment on any article”
You “pursue your paranoid agenda.”

I’ll try and explain the situation another way.

The article incorporates a private member’s bill, choice, abortion clinics, abortion referral, pregnancy counselling services, and public surveys or opinion polls on abortion.

However, a referral for an abortion, (together with prior pregnancy counselling), is only required in WA, and in all other states, it is not required.

The author writes “I am yet to meet anyone who is "pro-abortion"”, but there are minimal statistics and studies being undertaken into abortion in Australia, which makes abortion largely unknown and also unaccountable. I have provided a link showing people in the US, (including doctors), who were highly pro-abortion for monetary reasons, and without adequate controls and accountability in Australia, pregnancy-counselling services can easily become shopfronts for persons who want to make money from abortion also.

The author writes that women should have “control over their bodies and their lives”, but having an unwanted pregnancy is not control, (nor “choice”), and Australia has fallen behind in methods to control unwanted pregnancy. I have proposed a national goal of reducing abortions by 25% every 5 yrs, to help ensure that rates of abortion and unwanted pregnancy decrease, if that’s what people want, (or is it?)

Any statistician will also confirm that surveys and public opinion polls can be easily manipulated, and there is minimal knowledge about abortion in Australia for the public to give informed opinions anyway.

Most of this was mentioned in my earlier posts, and all involves aspects contained in the article.

However the word “woman” (i.e. the mother) was mentioned 14 times in the article, but the word “father” 0 times, and the father is likely considered irrelevant. This now appears to be the norm when female authors write about parenting.

In response to Confused’s question about my last post, perhaps I didn’t express myself very well. Senator Stott Despoja criticised Kathy Wolf for being “inaccurate and misleading”. Stott Despoja quotes Wolf as saying the bill would "force pregnancy counselling services to refer women to abortion clinics when requested".

But Stott Despoja has selectively quoted Wolf. What Wolf said was that the bill would “force pregnancy counselling agencies to refer women to abortion clinics when requested, or lose their listing in the White Pages.”

My earlier post quoting from Stott Despoja’s bill shows that Wolf is correct and that it is Senator Stott Despoja who is being misleading and inaccurate.

In broad terms, service providers are in two groups. The first group provide women with help if they wish to continue their pregnancy or if they suffer grief after abortion and the second group are primarily referrers for abortion. So the effect of Stott Despoja’s bill would be to censor service providers offering practical abortion alternatives from the health and help call pages of telephone directories.

Service providers that don’t refer for abortion would be excluded from the health and help pages whether they declared their position or not. And of course, groups that refer to abortion clinics don’t have to declare their position or that they won’t support women through pregnancies because if they support abortion they can’t be biased, can they?

TimKins,

Would you like your doctor to deny you referral to a specialist medical practitioner if that was your request? If I were pregnant and wanted advice about an abortion from a counsellor, I would be very disappointed post fact to learn that the information I had received was inaccurate and biased. I may in fact feel the desire to prosecute the councillor for providing misleading and inappropriate information in my time of need - or at least issue a complaint to a government body. I probably don't have the option to do this currently if councillors are not accountable for the information they provide.

Personally, I don't see what your comments about reducing unwanted pregnancy or abortion rates have to do with this bill. It seems like a smokescreen to scare others from supporting this piece of legislature, which aims to stop the misleading promotion of some counselling services that provide "biased" advice.

Freda, I also don't see the issue behind “force pregnancy counselling agencies to refer women to abortion clinics when requested, or lose their listing in the White Pages.”. If I wanted a referral for an abortion from a group that promotes itself as a pregnancy counselling service, then that is what I should be provided together with rational, medically sound counselling. If I did not obtain this I would go someplace else and I would want the uncompliant service to be de-listed. Having said this I would request information about all of my choices in that situation - not just abortion - but I would want to know that abortion is not ruled out. Perhaps the best way forward would be find a different label or classification for the type of service that doesn't provide this choice? Pregnancy Continuation Support Services perhaps?

Amanda, I don't believe TimKins hates women - I just think he wants to have control of their options. It's not "pro-life" - it's "anti-choice".

Freda - clinics wouldn't lost their listing. They would just not be allowed to list themselves as counselling or referral agencies - they would have to make it clear that they were only willing to offer support and advice about two of the three possible options. Just as abortion clinics are required to call themselves abortion clinics.

Timkins - this isn't just about referrals, it's about infomation and advice. See above - services that provide limited, biased or incorrect information about abortion cannot list themselves as unplanned pregnancy support services, without making it clear that they will not discuss one of the three possible options. This doesn't prevent a single person who doesn't want an abortion from using these services, it just means that people who want advice about all options can find somewhere that will help them get accurate and full information. And no, the article doesn't mention fathers, because I am fairly certain that fathers cannot, by definition, get pregnant. AGAIN, this particular article has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, parenting, child support, or any of your obsessions. It's about honesty in advertising.

Confused/ The Big Fish - you may be right that hate was an innaccurate word, but I'm at a loss to find a word to describe the attitude of someone who thinks that they have the right to dictate what half the population does with their body. Certainly not respect or affection.

Confused
You want to “control” women’s “options”
You are “not pro-life”
You are "anti-choice"

You wrote
“I may in fact feel the desire to prosecute the councillor for providing misleading and inappropriate information in my time of need - or at least issue a complaint to a government body.”

This relates to my first post (which some people believed was “off-topic”, but obviously it was very “on-topic”)

I.E
“What information should or should not be given during counselling?
”Should counselling services become uniform in the information they provide?”

So, who decides what information a pregnancy counselling service can or can not give, and who decides if a pregnancy counselling service is operating properly or not?

If the pregnancy counselling service is not operating correctly, then it cannot be accredited as being a pregnancy counselling service. So the senator has a accreditation problem regards pregnancy counselling services, and the senator wants to solve this problem by removing telephone numbers from a telephone book, which will not really solve the problem much at all, as a pregnancy counselling service can continue to operate, but still not be operating correctly.

But pregnancy counselling services, (and even abortion clinics), are not the main problems. They are just No2 problems. The No1 problem is the high rate of unwanted pregnancy.

The senators proposed bill does nothing towards trying to reduce the high rate of unwanted pregnancy, (the No1 problem), and the bill only tries to solve a problem with pregnancy counselling services, (a No 2 problem)

However I have not heard of any other politician or anyone from the abortion industry put forward any suggestions on how to solve the No 1 problem either. So maybe I shouldn’t be concerned about the high rate of unwanted pregnancies also, and just buy shares in an abortion clinic, and hope the rate of unwanted pregnancies increases as much as possible.

Amanda
You are “obsessed”.

The senator mentions “referrals” 5 times, but maybe the senator doesn’t understand that abortion clinics don’t require “referrals”, except in WA.

I still believe Natasha thinks fathers are unimportant.

Natasha must be really struggling to find political relevance. As the Australian Democrats spokesperson for the Status of Women, she seems even less effective than she was as party leader. Well, perhaps that’s what becoming a mother does to a woman, and precisely why we need the one-phone-call, no-mucking-about, one-stop-shop abortion clinics.

Natasha may have missed her chance for a Mark Latham exit from politics when she lost leadership, but for all I know, that may be just another one of those in-your-face, “I’m gonna stick around and make your constituent lives miserable” type of woman’s choice. To think that her dilemma of whether to embrace the home-parent concept as so eloquently espoused by Latham, or leave the bearpit altogether, could have been totally prevented by dialling the correct pregnancy hotline in a more honestly organised Yellow Pages, is frankly, a little sad

"My Body, My Choice" theme giving the final decision to abort a child to the mother and so can go on her own to one of these services for referral is what is now happening.

Unfortunately, under rules of assessing matters of particular importance in this situation, other particulars of equal or more value are discarded like the life of the child and the father's choice and society values. Once a woman becomes pregnant 'my body, my choice' rule of when non-pregnant no longer fully applies as she was fully aware of the consequences of pregnancy when she placed herself at risk of it. (If it argued then mistakes happen, yes but it does not go enough to justify taking of a life).

I think what is needed is a very strong deterrent to prevent pregnancy and which currently not in place allowing a pregnant women to abort and get back to her life without any consequences which is not right either. I think once it is in place then the unwanted pregnancy rates should fall dramatically. (illustrative example is that if there was no repercussion as deterrent to murder then the incidents of murder would dramatically rise).

Law makers time to rise and make a stand.

Sam

Stott Destroyer has come out from under her perpetually ineffectual rocks to dain us with her cliched political rhetoric. Not sure if she realises, given the termainal state of the Democraps and the present goverments senate majority, she is just yelling into the void.

Ah well, gotta keep up the practice, less she forgets how to ride that bike in the highly unlikey event that she actaully gets some real power in the future.

But it makes for a bit of fun internet opiniating cum entertainment.

I am uncertain why the Senator, or any reasonably intelligent person, would think a "Pregnancy Help" organisation would advocate abortion. There is little help to or with the pregnancy in ending it. There is no other medical procedure with a death rate of over 50 per cent of those undergoing it; fatal almost invariably to the baby & occasionally to the mother.
Much is made of 'choice' but it seems largely ignored that in making a choice I also choose whatever consequences, direct or indirect, short term or long term, come from that choice.Never do we have All the facts and rarely do we have the wisdom to act appropriately.
Despite the Senator's statement, there is NO proof, in any general use of the word 'proof', that breast cancer and/or mental illness are unrelated to a previous abortion. Failure to 'prove' such a link is vastly different from proving there isn't any such link.
Either the Senator was grossly misinformed, is ignorant of current research, or is indulging in semantics. That many within the Medical Profession stoutly deny even the possibility of any connection 'proves' absolutely NOTHING. There are any number of reasons why, for those who perform abortions or have recommended same, or have prescribed prolonged use of 'female hormones', fervent denial of any link is an action 'devoutely to be wished'.
Consequentless sex, favoured by most 'pro-choice' advocates has been a
social disaster; perhaps because sex without love leads to boredom, boredom leads to perversion which in turn leds to violence.
Overall abortion is no advantage to either sex; least to women.
Arthur. 2/10/005

I would agree with some previous posters that the term “choice” is probably just another term for “abortion”. Similarly terms such as “pre-birth life form”, ”product of conception”, “foetal matter”, ”clump of cells” etc are terms used instead of “human foetus”. One has to also suspect that the term “pregnancy counselling” can simply become another term for arranging an appointment for an abortion

Under the heading:-“What do I need to bring to my appointment?” one abortion clinic advises the following :-

· your Medicare card;
· personal identification (this can be items such as your driver's licence or two credit or bank cards);
· any notes you were given by your GP (a doctor's referral letter is required in the state of Western Australia);
· cash, credit or eftpos card; etc
http://www.mariestopes.com.au/frequently_asked_questions/abortion_faqs#bring

This organisation operates in Australia, but is a “UK-based registered charity”. However words such as “Medicare card”, “bank card”, “cash”, “eftpos card” etc are at the top of the list of essential items to bring, and obviously they don’t carry out abortions for free.

This organisation carried out a survey of doctors in 2004
http://www.mariestopes.com.au/.../823/4232/file/General%20Practitioners%20-%20Attitudes%20to%20Abortion.pdf

Some of the results of that survey were :-
-84% of Australian GPs believe all women should have access to termination services

However it was also found that
“-37% of Australian GPs do not feel they fully understand the abortion laws in their state or territory”

When this was actually tested, it was further found that of those doctors who believed they understood the abortion laws, many didn’t when they were questioned on it, and in the case of minors

-“Only 25% of GPs are aware of laws in their state / territory regarding the provision of abortion services to minors”

So, many doctors were not fully conversant with abortion laws, even though they gave out referrals. In terms of legality, those pregnancy counselling services which do not give out referrals for abortion are probably operating well within the law, but doctors and pregnancy counselling services that do provide referrals, may not be operating within the law at all.

Oh, Arthur, a foetus isn't a baby! So don't worry, an abortion is not the death of a baby. Geez, I can't imagine what it was like for you to have been thinking that...but now you know, so it's ok. Phew! Not a baby.

"Consequentless sex, favoured by most 'pro-choice' advocates has been a social disaster.."
Really? News to me. I must have been missing the newspapers that reported all of this disastrousness. And here I was thinking things were ok! Man, I must have been lucky to avoid (and not even hear about) all of this disaster throughout my years of sex without love.

‘Overall abortion is no advantage to either sex; least to women.’
I was unaware it was thought to give any ‘advantage’. It’s not vitamin supplements. It’s done, unfortunately, out of necessity.

And don’t worry Arthur, yes there are risks with abortion, but these days they are very low, as long as the practice is done in a safe, clean, legal environment. Which means it’s a good thing it’s legal, otherwise people would of course be forced to go to underground places which may not be as safe, right? Right.

Whether a feotus is a life or not depends not on science, psychology, phylosophy, theology.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only... what the parents) intentions is(are).

If its going to term, then it is a human life and bundle of joy. If its unwanted then its just a mass of cells.

Case in point.

l am driving my 4 mths pregnant girlfriend to a doctor to have the feotus terminated. On the way a drunk driver hits the car and my girlfriend losses the feotus.

l am driving my 4 mths pregnant girlfriend to the shop to buy a cot and items for the nursery. On the way a drunk driver hits the car and my girlfriend losses the baby.

She can know bring a charge of manslaughter... in both cases, if she chooses and depending on her perspective. Same facts, different rationales.

What (if anything) is wrong with this picture?

Trade,
The only difference would be if the mother wants the child or not. If she wants the child, then it becomes “my baby” etc. If she doesn’t want the child, then it’s a “bunch of cells” etc. Of course the baby (and often the father) get no say in the matter.

Remember that only 10% of abortions in Australia are for "physical" reasons, (or continuing the pregnancy will adversely affect the physical health of the mother). 90% of abortions are deemed necessary for “emotional" type reasons, so choice of words becomes important in abortion literature.

It is being found that if words such as "woman’s rights", "choice", "doctor”, "her physician" ,"medical reasons," "health.", etc are used in text or in opinion polls, then people are more likely to become sympathetic towards abortion.

If words such as "abortionist", “rights of the newborn”, "social or economic reasons” etc are used, then people are more likely to be anti-abortion.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_39.asp

So use of emotional type words becomes important to convince someone that the present abortion system is acceptable.

This article uses many emotional type words (eg “respect”, “choice”, “support”, “coerced” etc), but take out all those emotional type words, and there are very few facts about abortion incorporated into this article.

Indeed reliable facts about abortion are very difficult to come by, and as in my last post, many doctors don’t even understand the legal aspects of abortion. Abortion can become a legal minefield, and if someone makes a formal referral or recommendation to a woman to have an abortion, then they are stepping into that legal minefield.

So a reason why pro-life type groups do not make referrals, can be for legal reasons, and not just for moral type reasons.

Trade,
I guess what you're pointing out is that the pregnant woman has the right to make the choice of the value of the foetus to her. No one else has that right. In my opinion the drunk driver should be charged with manslaughter in both circumstances. Unless the woman consents at the time of the termination (car accident), the drunk driver should be held accountable. Quite simple reasoning I would suggest. And the driver was drunk after all... Can't see any excuse for this.

Timkins, why are you constantly pestering this forum with discussions about reducing abortion rates, reducing unwanted pregnancies, talk of the man's rights... The bill is about providing women, who are pregnant, access to information about and procedures that they are legally entitled to, in an unbiased, "non-directive" manner. I don't believe it is about making it easier for you to sleep at night because women choose, accidentally perform or are forced to have unprotected intercourse and the consequences this creates. If you are seriously concerned about this, then perhaps you should take this issue up somewhere else - where it would be more relevant.

This bill is about the rights a woman has to determine the outcome of HER pregnancy. Men do not get pregnant. Period! So stop preaching around the rights women have to control the outcome of their pregnancies. Provide advice, yes. Encourage discussion between man and woman pre and post conception, yes. But this nonsense about rates, surveys, men's rights – be clear about your position and that you want to have control of something that is not yours.

You know, if more people had your attitude, we'd be living in the dark ages - where women would be forced to abort using macabre, often fatal techniques. I come from a country where this was the norm. Or where just-born children were dumped into sewers. Grow up and stop preaching what you don't understand the consequences of.

Confused,
You are constantly pestering this forum
You are not seriously concerned about this issue.
You should take this issue somewhere else
You are not relevant.
You preach around the rights women have to control the outcome of their pregnancies.
You do not provide advice.
You talk nonsense.
You are not clear about your position
You want to have control of something that is not yours.
Your attitude would mean that we'd be living in the dark ages
You should grow up
You should stop preaching what you don't understand the consequences of.

You throw accusations, and they can be returned.

You say abortion is all about “choice”, but the word “choice” is not included in abortion legislation.

You say there should be “access to information”.
So what information can be given, and how likely is it to be reliable.

Few people understand the legal aspects of abortion. Many doctors don’t, and doctors give out referrals. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html So asking for legal information about abortion, is quite likely to result in highly unreliable information.

Statistics and studies into abortion in Australia are very few, so information on statistics or study results is likely to be highly unreliable also. Australia is now well behind other countries in studying abortion, and no one even knows how many abortions are being carried out. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/182_09_020505/cha10829_fm.html

So overall, there would be minimal reliable information to give, and anyone who gives a formal referral for an abortion, can be stepping into a legal minefield.

“Men do not get pregnant”
Using this philosophy, there should only be female counsellors, female doctors, and female abortionists, and only women should pay for abortions.

The article doesn't mention the words “men” or “fathers”, and the author’s entire web-site does similar http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/. But of course men have to be concerned about the female gender, although there is the most minimal evidence to say that this is being reciprocated.

However there is the most extensive evidence to say that men are being treated as sperm donors and pay packets by many women, and at all levels of society and government.

Confused,

wot you are saying is that you believe in a double standard, a clear contradiction. What Orwell would define as double think. You hold two blatantly contradictory notions without apparent awareness there of. Or you are aware of it but dont care. Fair enuff. Your response clearly demonstartes that. You then go on to sugar coat that double standard in the rhetotic gogma of (gender) political dogma.

Essentially you say that men have no place nor part in the life that he also creates unless the woman says so. That seems a bit totalitarian.

You summarily dismiss a man's place in the creation of life. You have a very unilateral view and it exposes your obvious devaluation of men on a most basic, fundamental human level. It really is sad to hear that sort of thing.

Confused seems about right.

What on earth is rhetotic gogma? And where is the double standard? The drunk driver example? The woman provides consent to the doctor to perform the abortion. She does not provide the consent to her husband/boyfriend, nor the drunk driver, nor anyone else to carry out the abortion. She should have a legal right to prosecute the drunk driver if it results in the termination of her foetus - after all, she could change her mind at the last minute before the abortion is carried out - but this way she has NO CHOICE. Having stated this view, I understand that it cannot be made real in the current system - for the drunk driver to be prosecuted, the foetus would need to be considered a legal human being, which would undermine her rights for termination. Pity.

I understand biology quite well. And hey, lo and behold, I am a MAN. Guess what.. worst nightmare.. we play a very minor part in this process. What little sperm we provide to fertilise an egg is so insignificant and can be done without today in any case. We can't give birth! Pity women don't have a more direct way of controlling sperm reaching their eggs - what would you do then? Come up with a way to break this? You think my option devalues men? I hope not - I hope men aren't valued by the sperm they provide. I hope men are valued by what they do, what they stand for and how they help their fellow humans (and other living creatures).

Timkins,
You don’t know “what information can be given, and how likely is it to be reliable.”
You do not “understand the legal aspects of abortion”
You don’t understand “studies into abortion in Australia “
You are “likely to be highly unreliable “
You are “well behind other countries in studying abortion”
You do not know “how many abortions are being carried out”
You have “minimal reliable information to give”
You can’t help but “mention the words “men” or “fathers””
You are not “concerned about the female gender”
You were once treated as a “sperm donor(s)” and a “pay packet(s)” by a/many “women”

You “throw accusations, and they can be returned”
(Wow, that was fun!…… not…)

trade215, while I will always believe that the woman has the last say in what happens to her body, I do disagree with the position you have raised. A definitive frame of reference should be given as to the status of the foetus/blob of cells (or whatever a person chooses to call it). The law should not be subjective as it then leaves room for moving the goal posts. As our justice system, already rife with abuses, needs to qualify the position, not shade it with more greys. So, if the law changes and criminalises abortion - though I will hate it and fight against it - at least we will have a clear definition. As it remains legal, again, at least the definition is still clear.

What I do not get is the position some posters are holding, that society is ‘promoting’ consequence-less sex. Really? I’ve been around a few years now and have some quite young friends. They seem well informed and concerned with a great many issues regarding sex – pregnancy, disease, emotional and public issues. Perhaps what society could do is not demonise a natural part of life. Let people feel comfortable and they are more likely to discuss it openly.

Reason,
You don’t know what information can be given, and how likely it is to be reliable.
You don’t understand the legal aspects of abortion.
You don’t understand studies into abortion in Australia.
You are likely to be highly unreliable.
You don’t know how many abortions are being carried out.
You have minimal reliable information to give.
You don’t mention the words “men” or “fathers”.
You are not concerned about the female gender.
You treat men as “sperm donors” and “pay packets”.

You give anecdotal evidence (eg. “I’ve been around a few years now and have some quite young friends ”etc). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable, and anecdotal evidence would be highly unreliable information to provide during pregnancy counselling. No pregnancy counselling service should ever receive accreditation or government approval based on it’s ability to provide lots of anecdotal evidence to vulnerable men and women.

The Senator’s proposed bill is totally lacking in details and facts, but her article is big on emotional type wording, and includes anecdotal evidence also. But take all that out, and her article has very little left in it.

When the Senator and other women in Government start to mention words such as “men” and “fathers”, then they may have some respect for “men” and “fathers”, but a very common occurrence is for feminists to have no respect for “men”, “fathers”, or “children” either.

That’s why so many feminists like abortion so much, and want to talk about it so much, and write about it so much, and advocate it so much, but will rarely speak, write or advocate such things as reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy, or adopting out the child (i.e. thereby preserving the child’s life).

Another recent article on abortion in OLO is very similar to this one. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3814

Much emotional language is contained in that article also, but few verifiable facts, and of course fathers, reducing unwanted pregnancy, and adoption are never mentioned in the article. It appears almost universal, that feminists believe fathers are irrelevant, and find the thought of abortion highly attractive.

confused,

rhetotic gogma... is a spelling mistake.

The double standard... Indifferent feotus or bundle of joy is a function of personal interpretations and intention. The facts are absolutely identical... intention varies and and the morality or logic becomes situational. Treating an identical situation completely differently on the basis of an individuals arbitrary rationale is the essence of a double standard.

If not a double standard, then its a clear contradiction.

In any event, it really matters not how you spin it (which you do quite well) the actions speak for themselves.

l have no problem with any of this stuff, because as a man, it does not effect me. As you intimate, men are inconsequential, by degree. You measure the degree in a way l dont agree with. Life is created when two sets of genes, equally contribributed by BOTH parents, unite. That is where it starts and finishes for me.

l understand that you are looking at the physical aspect of pregnancy yet lm not sure that weighs upon the contribution to the CREATION of life. l think that goes to the heavier physical burden the a woman bears in GROWING the life. That burden, in this society, goes well beyond pregnancy. And to that end l have no real personal issue with abortion... like you said, we are men and its not our (physical) burden.

l pretty much feel that the physical burden/responsibility for a woman trumps the emotional/metaphysical burden for a man, when a child is aborted.

Yet, l have a faint, niggling doubt about so much regarding this matter. That is context in which l offered the 'accident with a drunk driver' scenario. l think its an interesting question that gets people really thinking about the ideological, political and practical collisions going on in this 'debate.' What interests me the most is the types of emotional responses a question like that can get, as well as the way rationalisations are constructed one way or the other.

Double standards are a reality of life, they are inescapable and l dont have a practical problem with that

Reason did you come up with some thoughts on my use of/ killing non-person humans thought experiment?

Trade215 double standard or inconsistent take your pick.

My line of argument was that if you extrapolate the logic of pro-choice you should be able to have abortions right up until birth as well as experimenting or using the pre-natal as body banks if they are given pain killers.

Nor should you have any ethical problems with abortions based on sex or for cosmetic reasons as the pre-natal non-persons don’t have any value/rights.

I also raised the thought experiment for those that use the pre-natal aren’t persons you should have no problem treating the anti-natal non-persons eg the severely mentally handicapped, infants and some impaired elderly because they are functionally not persons the same way as the unwanted pre-natals.

But thought experiments were beyond many of the rabid pro-choice and I was summarily flamed.

BTW the other interesting point is their inconsistency on equal consideration of parties and responsibility for women when consenting to an action when they know full what the consequences are. They are quite willing to force men to pay child support but not will to give the consideration in the birth of the child. Reason if I remember rightly was the only odd one out from pro-choice on this point.

I had to change my stance to be consistent with the fundamental moral precept of not taking human life unless in self-defense and now would not allow abortions even if they had a severe genetic disease-they would have the best palliative care- if that meant that viable human lives were saved. Being logically consistent with ones morals is important to me unlike many of the pro-choice I see posting.

It will be interesting what happens in the future when 33% of the Australian population are childless singles living alone, with a large elderly population. Unless we want to have plenty of immigration ladies and gents to keep our economy going the choice of the female to have abortions may no longer be considered viable.

Neohuman,
The question of whether the embryo is “human”, is referred to in a press release by the author.

"The cloning of a human embryo is a watershed in medical research. The implications of this milestone in therapeutic cloning are both exciting and terrifying," said Senator Stott Despoja.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/?press_id=1666&display=1

So the embryo is considered to be a “human embryo”, as the author did not refer to it as a “non-person embryo” etc. However there would be a difference between being “human”, and being of “value”.

When it comes to abortion, the human embryo is no longer considered to be of any value, and is disposed of. The father is also considered to be of no value (and fathers do not even get a mention as being worthy for counselling, or get a mention in the article, or even get a mention in the author’s entire web-site). So guess who this leaves left as the only person considered to be of value.

However up to 40% of human embryos within the womb, are either being stabbed to death with needles, poisoned with drugs, dissected, or sucked through vacuum tubes. No anaesthetic is usually provided beforehand to the valueless human embryo, and no wonder so many feminists love abortions.

Few studies have been conducted into the reasons for abortion in Australia, but economics seems to play a major part, and maybe the “choice” part of it really depends on how wealthy the father is. If he is thought wealthy enough, then the mother can choose to dispense with the pregnancy counselling service, and dispense with the abortion, and simply have the child.

The father is then considered to be of "value" as he is required to pay the mother money, should she choose not to adopt the child out (ie. "It's easier for me to kill you than to wave goodbye" type of thinking http://www.abortiontv.com/Choices/otherways.htm)

"no wonder so many feminists love abortions" WHAT?! No one would "love" to have an abortion. It is a horrid thing to even contemplate. I do not see any feminists out there advocating that women should hurry up and get pregnant, so they can go and have the fun times that abortion brings.

Perhaps in this discussion it might be useful if people are able to identify where they stand on abortion, how they respond to the following scenarios?

Do posters believe abortion an appropriate OPTION in any/all/none the following scenarios, and should the father be involved in any of these decisions?:

a) a fourteen-year-old girl is raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant

b) a fourty-two year old woman becomes unexpectedly pregnant to her husband. The couple's other children are 18 and 16. The couple do not want any more children.

c)a twenty-five year old woman has a one-night-stand with a guy she met at the pub.

d) a thirty-year-old woman becomes pregnant to her fourty-year-old partner. He desperately wants a child. She has never liked children, and does not want a baby.

e) an eleven-year-old becomes pregnant to her uncle.

f) an engaged couple, the woman twenty-four, the man twenty-eight, find the woman pregnant. They were not planning on having children for five or six years.

I would support abortion as an option in all of these situations, although I struggle most with that in scenario f and d. I feel that the father should be involved in the decision making, although not the final decision maker, in scenarios b, d and f.

I think women will always be the final decision maker, as no matter how much the father cares, he does not go through the physical situation of being pregnant.

Laurie,

I believe the women in all these scenarios have the right to seek abortion to end their pregnancies. Whether the male has the right to an opinion in b, d and f is not (or shouldn't be) at issue. But the male should have no right in stopping or enforcing the woman's decision to terminate. In scenario (d), the male made the decision to partner with a woman that does not want children - she should not be subjected to his misfortunate.

I had a silly thought to share with some posters (probably too left field for this topic)- imagine a situation where men were not allowed (ie: prohibited) to engage in sexual intercourse with a condom or other contraception as this would result in the destruction of living sperm, which are SO important for the creation of life. Other activities that waste sperm would also be considered immoral. Vasectomies - outlawed. Destruction of a sperm that comes in contact with an egg - well that's just sacrilege. Oh, yes, some people do agree with this philosophy.

Confused, have you been watching Monty Python? :)

Hi everyone, how about this?
Every part of my body grows/operates/functions in response to the signals coming from itself (my body moves itself- life is self-movement).
(I am my body by the way in case anyone thinks otherwise)

Now a foetus grows/operates/functions not- I reapeat- not in response to the signals coming from the mother-organism but ITSELF (remember, life is self-movement)

A foetus is a human life (its DNA is human and it is self-moving/alive)
A society has hit rock bottom when the weak and defenseless are persecuted.

I have no opinion on abortion for or against, but I support a women's right to choose.

However, I disagree with NSD's policy because it is unnecessary. If there is an advantage in offering all options, then such organisations can easily advertise that they "offer all options" and people will go to those organisations. If an organisation that did not offer all options claimed that they did -- they could be sued for fraud under current laws.

The last thing our country needs is more laws. But then, it is the job of politicians to come up with laws to make sure they look busy.

Timkins,

I can remember when abortion was not legal in Australia. In 1971 the following conditions existed

The births of children born out of wedlock in Victoria were written in red ink and marked "illegitimate"
Unwanted babies that couldn't be adopted were placed in orphanages where the most terrible abuses occurred
Single women did not have access to the contraceptive pill
Poor women who had the "back yard" abortions ran the risk of grave complications
Rich women had access to abortions
I worked beside men who fled to Western Australia to avoid their child payments
There was no single parent pension
Women earnt 2/3 of the male wage for doing the same work
Up until in mid 1960's women lost their public service jobs upon marriage
Women could not take out mortgages
Still born babies couldn't be buried in consecrated ground because they hadn't been baptised thus they had no soul

I do not want to return to those times when women had no control over their bodies and could only secure their financial future through marriage.

I think that unless a man has committed to the woman through marriage he has no say in whether a pregnancy continues to term and he forfeits that privilege if he is abusive.

Laurie,
“It is a horrid thing to even contemplate”.

In all the texts by this author, I have never seen her regard abortion as being “horrid”, or anything similar. She seems to advocate more abortion, and most other feminists do similar, but rarely will they advocate more adoption, better contraception usage, better statistics or studies to be undertaken etc.

If feminists don’t love abortions, they certainly seem to want more abortions to occur. If the author writes another article about abortion, she could include details of how much abortion would constitute too much, as the abortion rate certainly seems high enough already.

There are few details in your scenarios, but you seem to infer that if a mother doesn’t want the child, then the child has no value, and should be destroyed.

This seems a very common misconception, because most abortion legislation stipulates that an abortion can only be carried out if the mother is in serious danger (ie. either physically or mentally). Not wanting the child is not the same as being in serious danger, and in our society, very few women are in serious danger.

Of course the mother can continue with the pregnancy, and then adopt the child out. There is a large waiting list of parents wanting to adopt children, although most feminists will rarely speak about adoption, but concentrate almost entirely on abortion.

There are no details in this article about what should occur during pregnancy counselling, but I think the author would agree that information about abortion should not be hidden or suppressed. So the parents could be shown a video of an abortion.

Eg
“The Silent Scream reveals (through ultrasound) the actual responses of a 12-week-old fetus being aborted. As the unborn child attempts to escape the abortionist's curette (abortionist's tool), her motions can be seen to become desperately agitated and her heart rate doubles in fear. “
http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/silentscream.htm

!2-week abortions would be common in Australia, so after the video was shown, the parents could be given further details regards adoption, abortion, keeping the child etc.

That would seem unbiased counselling.

Laurie simply no abortion unless it threatens the life of the mother, also I wouldn’t change the current laws unless funding was made available for extra services and incentives were given to support the unwanted children. But I would insist that under the current system men are no longer forced to pay child support and the community must pick up the bill.

Any Pro-life please feel free to argue otherwise.

I also no one from Pro-Choice have stepped up to the plate as far as your inconsistency on non-person humans.

Confused while the conservative Christians do weaken their own case by promoting abstinence as the only alternative or for Catholics the erroneous doctrine against contraception, your point on sperm is flawed. A sperm is a constituent cell of a unique individual on par with skin cells whereas even a zygote is a genetically unique individual who belongs in an individual human’s life cycle.

How about an analogy- a lactating woman goes to an island knowing there is a chance that she may become the only care giver of a infant. The childs mother is sick and it just so happens that she dies and the woman must choose whether she wants to feed it for a time until help can arrive to take care of the baby. She really hates breast feeding and decides that rather than feed it or wait a few months til help arrives she drowns the infant.

It is not a human being as it is yet to develop personhood and since the milk comes from her body and she owns her body she is under no moral obligation using the logic of Pro-Choice to feed the child and by drowning the infant has done nothing wrong.

The logic and morality of Pro-Choice.

Timkins she even if she considers the foetus as human she probably used the my body argument but like most Pro-choice will then degenerate in denigrating pro-lifers for merely raising the issue rather than arguing her case

Hi Neo.
Nice to see you again. I will respond to your nonperson argument soon. Just a bit down by the rampant stupidity going on in the race related articles. Sometimes I feel like ignoring issues and pretending I live alone in the world… but I will get to you soon. I think I have some valid points to make against your nonperson experiment (but in a respectful way – there doesn’t seem to be too much of that about this site lately..)

Neohuman,
I would agree regards the brainwashing, propaganda terms such as “my body”, “my choice” etc. They are used extensively within the abortion industry, but those terms also exclude the father. If the woman has the baby, then it becomes “a woman and her children”, and the father is again excluded.

Ironic that without the father, many women cannot afford the child, and the majority of abortions are also carried out on single, unmarried women. If Australia is similar to the US, then about 40% of abortions are repeat abortions, which means that any previous counselling has been ineffective in that woman using better contraception, changing lifestyle etc.

The senator’s web-site does not contain the word “father” at all, and also contains the word “abortion” more often than the word “children”.

Her text is similar to nearly all feminist text, and males are regarded as sperm donors and pay packets only. Her feelings towards children would be basically zero, because it is well known that the human foetus senses it’s body being torn apart through the abortion procedure, and that procedure involves no anaesthetic. It is one of the most inhuman acts being carried out, and that baby in the womb has no ”choice”.

Timkins Pro-choice has become as socialized cultural meme that is rationalized rather than reasoned. Just as past sincere moral people rationalized slavery or some women who thought they shouldn’t get the vote. I think it is a carryover from the suffrage movement that saw new political power for women and for many women they see it as a step back on this power if their abortion rights were taken away. This also carried onto the prohibition movement in the US but whereas this effected adults who could protest pre-natals have no such voice or political power to fight back.

This amply seen by the extrapolation of the core reasons justifying abortion, it’s inconsistency on non-persons, it’s sidelining of a fundamental moral precept that you don’t take human life unless in self defence and that you take responsibility for your actions. Further evidence is the emotive vindictive hysterics used that won’t even allow this topic to be debated in the first place.

The reasons such as poverty and social stigma that often forced women to have back street abortions have now gone. In a country where childless couples who do invitro these children could be easily be found homes locally or internationally.

Also the red herring of having to promote abstinence or sterilizing males is easily countered in that there are many ways two consenting adults can have a fulfilling sexual relationship without vaginal sex. If a man is encouraged to have enough restraint to put on a condom he has enough restraint to seek the pleasure else where.

The fact that they won’t even get to examining adoption really stands out as does their ethical rationale when the psychological pain of giving up the child for adoption outweighs the value of a human life.

As far as rape it then goes to do you visit the sin of the father on the innocent & punish them; like the woman on the island analogy wouldn’t it be better she was given counselling to overcome her hatred of breastfeeding until someone else could look after the child rather than her drowning it?

"There are few details in your scenarios, but you seem to infer that if a mother doesn’t want the child, then the child has no value, and should be destroyed."

No, Timkins, that is clearly what you read into them.

If you, or anyone else around here, believes a women should NEVER have an abortion, as you believe in the personhood of a fetus, and that abortion is therefore murder, then fine. That is, if nothing else, a easily defendable position.

But I have always felt there were shades of grey.

What I was trying to draw out was where people stood- do they believe in abortion simply if the fetus is unwanted? Or only in cases of rape and/or incest? Or, and I did forget to include this scenario, only if the mother would not be able to carry the pregnancy- what if she is undergoing cancer treatments, and continuing with the pregancy would only reduce her ability to withstand the treatment?

As I mentioned, I struggled the most with the senarioes of where the woman was in her prime childbearing years, and in a serious relationship- but even so, I did not say that in these scenarios people 'should' abort. Only that should be able to consider it to be an option. Amongst many.

Laurie,
Minimal statistics on abortion are being routinely collected and made known in Australia, and this allows for a lot of myths to develop. Maybe that is why the author rarely mentions statistics when talking about abortion. Either she is unaware of those statistics, or knows of those statistics but does not want to state them.

However she uses the term “choice” quite a lot, but the term “choice” actually means “abortion”, (and the killing of unborn children), like “collateral damage“ actually means “civilians killed”. She could say that up to 100,000 “choices” are being carried out annually in Australia.

To understand the nature of abortion, there are these statistics compiled by the US CDC.
Of women in the US who had abortions in 2001:-
-44% had no other children.
-82% were un-married.
-44% had at least one previous abortion.
-52% were less than 25 years old.
-1% of abortions were attributed to rape or incest.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/surv_abort.htm

From whatever statistics there are in Australia, the situation appears similar, with evidence that many women are not using sufficient contraception, or none at all.

In regards to the scenarios you have previously outlined:-
The laws vary between states, but in general, the mother has to be in serious danger, (either physically or mentally), before an abortion can be carried out by a doctor.

But with the vast majority of abortions, an adoption could have occurred, or the unwanted pregnancy could have been avoided through using more reliable forms of contraception, changes to lifestyle etc. That part is being overlooked, but it would become very important to incorporate into pregnancy counselling, (to be carried out either before or after an abortion), so as to limit the rate of repeat abortions.

Abortion is like capital punishment being carried out on the unborn child. In fact, it is far worse, as the child is innocent of any wrong doing, and it is known that the unborn child can feel the considerable pain of the abortion procedure. Most of this is know to feminists and abortion advocates also, but appears to make minimal difference to them.

How about this?
What if a 34 year old woman was raped by her brother and was prevented from having an abortion... Then when the embryo has developed, the birth has taken place, it is deaf, dumb and blind, then four years pass by... Finally the woman acheives independence, but she is financially bankrupt and she can abort the child (Remember, it's only four, so it hasn't fully developed mentally or physically, PLUS it was incest AND rape)

Do you support the woman in her FREE CHOICE to abort?
REMEMBER her offspring is deaf, dumb and blind, so it cannot express its choice to live any more clearly than it could when it was in the womb.

If you support the woman, I don't know what's happened to you
If you don't support her, there's no difference in supporting any of the more "classical" forms of abortion.

Timkins I had those two exact thoughts, that we do in fact have capital punishment in Australia and that 'choice' is like the 'clean warfare/surgical strikes' to sanitize killing. It's easy not to think that you are taking another human life when you never see the result or use neutral terms.

Jose thank you for the analogy as it has made me think further, but don't expect a thinking response from Pro-choice they have left the thread and you would have been flamed anyway if the rabid ones has stayed around. Logical consistency, you won't find that from Pro-choice.

To be fair to both parties if we take away a mans say in the abortion we shouldn't make him pay child support, it is only fair that if neither party wants the child -especially like the case you have provided- and the birth allowed to continue, then the state should take up the care of the infant. Remember we will need extra people to make up for the 33% childless singles and the large elderly popluation so the state looking after the unwanted may be a boom industry.

I wouldn't change the laws until that was made clear.

Jose: you forget the obvious difference between a feotus and a 4 year old baby. Namely one is a feotus, and one is a baby.

Want me to go through it again?

I can't believe that there are still people who think that a feotus is a baby. It's a collection of cells, it's a piece of flesh, it's not life. This is medical fact - accept it.

By your logic sperm is life - which means I kill about 16 million babies a day. Sorry to be graphic, but seriously. It's frustrating to think how far you can be away from a real debate when people can't even get the most basic, obvious, scientific facts correct.

Hi Neo.
Back and ready...

I feel the main problem with your experiment is that you classify a existing human with physical defects as a non-person and equate this to an unborn foetus. I'm not able to make the same leap.

For me, once a human is born, they are a person, irrespective of their physical status. The law sees it this way. Some extreme situations require guardians to make decisions – but they are required to act in the best interests of the person and do not require consideration for others.

As for the foetus, the main arguments that I have (not the pro-choice lobby) is that I don't see the foetus as a human at all. My main reasons:

* It is dependent on the mother. That is, up to a certain point, it requires the mother for sustenance as it has no properly formed gastric system.
* It, up to a point, has no cognitive ability. Now before some cry ‘silent scream’, etc, I said up to a point. For much of the early stages, there is not a fully formed brain – so it cannot have cognitive ability.

Comparing a partially formed creature to a formed but damaged human is, in my mind, no comparison. I do see where you are coming from but would respectfully disagree.

This is the crux of the argument. Where do we draw the line? As with most things in life, areas of grey always divide a community and it will be a long road before we find common ground.

Neo, I respect your opinion and understand your reasoning – which I respect even more for your honesty. Nevertheless, I do not agree with your position and hope you will at least give me the same courtesy.

I agree that perhaps abortions are too numerous but it seems more important to try reducing their number through addressing causes rather than stopping treatment.

One point – ‘Choice’ doesn’t equate to abortion. It simply means the ability to choose between the two. Plenty had the choice and continued with the pregnancy.

For those of you that equate born children (ie: after birth) to foetuses... would you consider a (born) calf, lamb, chicken or fish to be a lessor life than that unborn 3-4 month old foetus? Do you have any qualms in killing that animal to ensure your survival or someone else's? Just want to hear your thoughts?

And if you (if you're a man) had intercourse with a woman using a condom, which broke during coitus. Would you punish the woman for enjoying her body like that (with you), by forcing her to go to term? Maybe she should have known better and had her fallopian tubes tied? Would that make things much better for you? Would you be able to live with yourself then?

spendocrat Go to any embryologist site and see, that to them the life of a unique human begins at conception and start dealing with the scientific facts.

Reason
It would interesting to get the actual legal context but I shouldn’t have to point out the morality and law can be two entirely different things.

Now let get our definitions right don’t use human, a feotus is human –homo sapien- what you are talking about is a human being where most definitions have that as a human with personhood.

So no if you are saying they aren’t human beings you are exactly right. But as my non-person argument goes we give formal ‘personhood rights to post-natals that don’t have functional personhood.

>It is dependent on the mother. ……….it requires the mother for sustenance as it has no properly formed gastric system.

All my eg’s of non-person post-natals are dependent on survival for sustenance by carers so no fundamental difference.

> It, up to a point, has no cognitive ability…………… so it cannot have cognitive ability.

Again the fact that these non-person post-natals don’t have functional cognitive ability is why they are non-persons, if we granted it on cognitive ability there are many other animals that should have rights which is the crutch of Singer’s argument.

There so no fundamental difference so while I respect your opinion and the way it has be delivered I see no substance to your 2 points. Pls expand and respond to my replies and my other points in my other posts.

Confused
Your first point is interesting as it address some of the points raised by Peter Singer in his animal right argument but due post restriction I’ll leave that to my next post window.

>And if you (if you're a man) had intercourse with a woman using a condom, which broke during coitus.

Simple as I said there are plenty of other ways to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy ie oral, anal, mutual-masturbation, dry humping etc. As a responsible Pro-life I wouldn’t have vaginal sex period!

spendocrat, (and everyone)
you think there's a difference between a foetus and a baby? One's a foetus and the other's a baby. Very Clever, ten points.
Then the difference between an embryo and a foetus is just the same; One's an embryo and the other's a foetus! Minus ten points for spendocrat.
As for having "sex", "sex" that isn't vagina+penis isn't sex- it's masturbation, and sex with a condom is masturbation using the body of another person.
As for actually having sex- I'm not married so I don't. And I do not masturbate. Did you ever think that was possible?
I understand that I am not a beast. I am a man. I have dignity.

In terms of occurrence, certain keywords were used in this article
Woman 14 times
Pregnancy 19
Abortion 15
Choice (or choose) 6
Child 0
Foetus 0
Father 0
Adoption 0
Contraception 0

So the words woman, pregnancy, choice and abortion are grouped together and repeated often, so that they become synonymous. Other words are never mentioned at all, so that they do not impact on someone’s thinking, and the article itself becomes highly biased.

It is a much used propaganda and brainwashing technique, like grouping the words “terrorist” and “war” together and repeating them often, is used to try and convince someone that the best way to overcome “terrorists” is through “war”, (and “war” only).

Most of the articles in the author’s web-site are the same, and at this point, the only conclusion is that she is basically a propagandist for the abortion industry. She also has the most minimal regard for children, the foetus, fathers, adoption, contraception etc.

Reason,
Where do you “draw the line” when a foetus is human and not a “clump of cells” etc. If the author makes another speech or writes another article on abortion, then maybe she could address that question, (if she was honest, unbiased, democratic, was not trying to hide anything, or was not merely a propagandist for the abortion industry).

But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for her to make such an announcement in a speech, article, press release etc.

Hello Neo, we meet again :-).

You decry the pro-choice position for supposedly being inconsistent, but you aren't acknowledging any of the problems with your own position.

As you might remember, I have no problem with the mandating of induced birth as an alternative to abortion if there are no ill effects. Also, I think animals should have some rights, related to their thought capabilities (which are often still greater than that of a foetus). Three important properties: viability, independence and sentience. In terms of actual (as opposed to legal) personhood, sentience/abstract thought etc. is my criteria and the thing of value.

The issue then is when it is correct to impose on persons the obligation to maintain non-persons. With respect to non-thinking life I think that can only be done by willingly accepting such an obligation or interfering with someone else in their efforts to maintain it. Otherwise, who/what is the obligation to? I can see three distinct types of obligations: personal, social/societal and a priori moral obligations. Clearly no personal obligation exists (doesn't think). There is a social benefit in increasing the population and impressing beliefs as to the virtue of individual liberty and there is inherent value in sentience etc. But just because there is value in creating life doesn't mean there is an obligation to, eg. we don't force women to breed. The person's right to liberty outweighs the social benefit.

Viability and independence become important because they are points at which there is a reduction in the amount of imposition on the mother required to achieve the social benefit. At viability, independence may be available at minimal detriment to the woman and upon independence the entire imposition can be shifted to that which benefits: society. That's the difference, whether someone would be required to care for the non-person or not. The preservation of the non-person no longer conflicts with the person's liberty and so there is no downside to adopting the legal fiction of personhood at birth.

Timkins, couldn't that statistical analysis be explained more simply, by I dunno... considering what the article was about!?

"She also has the most minimal regard for children, the foetus, fathers, adoption, contraception etc."

What an absurd thing to say about someone you do not know, but whom you do know has recently had a child, and is married to the father of that child

As per usual, the 'pro-life' camp have hijacked the thread - which was about an article by Natasha Stott Despoja, concerning her Bill to require all pregnancy counsellors to be forthright in stating upfront if they refuse to refuse to refer women for abortions.

It's turned into an increasingly surreal talkfest between 3 blokes who all seem to have pretty strange attitudes to women and sex, on the basis of the comments published here - one doesn't engage in any sex at all, another avoids vaginal sex, while the third (and most prolific)... let's not go there!

Fortunately, the most reliable statistics available have indicated consistently for decades that the views propounded by these guys are very much in the minority. It's women who fall pregnant, who have to carry the foetus and undergo the process of giving birth, following which they are typically primarily responsible for caring for the child. If women choose to terminate a foetus for whatever reason, I agree with the vast majority of Australians that this should be their choice.

I also agree with Natasha Stott Despoja that this should be an informed choice, in which all options have been considered by the woman.

Deuce
You can look through the various articles, speeches, or press releases made by the senator regards abortion on her web site http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/. The author can be making a speech about abortion in parliament, or be referring to a pregnancy counselling service in a press release. It doesn’t matter as the same techniques are used.

Minimal reference to statistics or studies on abortion, much use of emotive type words (eg “equality”), much use of euphemisms (eg use of “choice” instead of “abortion”), much use of catchy phrases (eg “reproductive rights”), concentration on certain aspects of abortion and avoidance of other aspects ( eg “abortion” mentioned frequently without mentioning “adoption”), grouping together of certain words so they become synonymous (eg “women”, “pregnancy”, “abortion” etc), avoidance of other words (eg “child”, “father” etc)

Classic propaganda and brainwashing techniques used throughout the abortion industry.

Laurie,
If the Senator values children, marriage, fathers etc, then her speeches or texts do not show it. The word abortion is mentioned many times, but about the only time “children” are mentioned is in relation to child care places, and the words “marriage” and “father” have never been mentioned from what I have read. Classic feminist text.

MahatmaDuck,
You are usual.
You are anti-life.
You are camp.
You hijack the thread.
You are surreal.
You have strange attitudes to women and sex.
You are in the minority.
You use unreliable public opinion polls.

What is an informed choice? Oh sorry. You rarely answer questions ( I keep forgetting).

I wonder if the senator would ever be able to give an answer to a question on abortion, without using all the propaganda and brainwashing techniques she has so often used in the past. I doubt it very much. I think she is far to feminist to ever be honest about any social issue.

Hi Duec hope you are well. I would but I try to find out whether they will give any ground before I’ll do the same. A good litmus test is a Pro-Choice stance on making men take responsibility for the action by forcing them to child support when they aren’t given equal consideration in the choice of the child. The only just situation is that if we as a society take away that choice we should pick up the bill. While I can disagree with Reason on other things he has acknowledged this and so there is room for dialogue.

What say you mahatma duck is it a just situation to make men pay but take their decision out of the equation?

BTW please think of something original other than we need a womb to have input on this debate, what do you use on the feminists and women who are pro-life as an ad hom?

So you are one of those sex Nazi’s that wants to force men to have unnatural sex using those rubber thingee’s? So easy just to step in and denigrate & not put in constructive comments isn't it!

For you information I’ve no problem with Natasha’s bill but would go further and make all pregnancy counseling deliver both adoption and abortion info. To hijacking a thread-btw where have you been?- that would be like criticizing anti-apartheid protesters for not agreeing with any apartheid amendments that didn’t abolish it.

In regard to being in the minority as I said earlier pro-choice has become socialized into the majority and isn’t reasoned but rationalized. histirically slavery, women not having the vote, capital punishment homosexuality being morally wrong, were all at some stage majority views. We dissenters may well be in the minority at the moment but once you start to make people think rather than just trotting out the socialized rationalizations things can be made to change.

Shall we step back from a fruitless round of flaming and deal with points provided, or you putting forward your the premises behind you stance not just resorting to pro-choice mantras?

Dear Forum,
This is the first time I have participated in an Online Forum and I must say, I am gobsmacked! What longwinded dissertations on a a very simple issue viz that every abortion kills a baby! I know this from my years as a registered midwife. Never did anything but a baby arrive in a Labour Ward bed! Senator Stott-Despoja's move on the advertising of Pregnancy Counselling Services is a non-issue. Have any of the forum participants actually checked the White Pages of Telephone Directories? The services she is targeting freely admit their so called "bias". Underneath Abortion Grief Counselling is written "Does not refer for abortions". Underneath Pregnancy Counselling Australia (top of Senator Stott Despoja's hit list)is written Alternatives to abortion and post abortion counselling. Under Pregnancy Help Line is written Pregnancy Options and Alternatives to abortion!! Is everyone mad? What could be plainer?The Senator would be a joke if she wasn't so vindictive! What Senator Stott-Despoja is doing is just the latest in her long campaign to silence the prolife movement. She doesn't care that she is stopping women from helping other women through unexpected or difficult pregnancies ...while doing nothing but grandstanding on which she falsely claims is the right of women to pay doctors(with other taxpayers money)to kill their children in utero if they so wish. Talk about discriminatory! No man has the right to have another human being killed. Less I have prompted another round of esoteric discussion about abortion when it is clearly a child not a choice that it involved could I respectfully suggest a visit to the following website abortiontv.com which would be the best possible contribution that could be made to this discussion. I know of a little baby who has been born only a month ago because her parents visited this site before they went off to an abortuary.

Respectfully,
Denny

Denying natural justice to some 50% of the population is not a recipe for a healthy society. One of the primary principals of natural justice, is audi alteram partem - (“hear the other side”) ie a person whose interests will be affected by the decision should be given a hearing before that decision is made.

With abortion this violation goes way beyond that one principle, to the extent that a (prospective) mother also becomes the judge in her own case.

Forcing fathers to pay child support while being denied equivalent choice is just one element in a plethora of denial.

Well, I don't think it is a good test since I don't consider it relevant to being pro-choice. If you are trying to demonstrate inconsistencies then I would suggest you are making the mistake of looking at policy instead of principle. (And/Or you are using a responsibility-based system that relies on the anti-abortion notion that the mother is not taking responsibility for her actions if she chooses to abort.)

One view I don't quite accept holds that both are accountable for the situation, but that the woman is in a position to take responsibility in such a way as to relieve them from future burdens. It is morally wrong for her to be coerced into aborting, and the child still needs to be supported so what needs to be argued is why (even though the mother remains accountable through her support) the failure to mitigate justifies the father being made unaccountable at the expense of the community. (Which would effectively mean that the woman has total responsibility and the man none.)

The community wanting to encourage population growth is a good reason for doing that, and also for reducing the mother's burden too. But others may reasonably disagree by adopting a more libertarian standpoint or they may not want to encourage growth outside of the "traditional" family model. My current view doesn't depend on responsibility for the situation, but instead focuses on the overriding need to support the child. Either way it does not have a bearing on the pro-choice argument and there are reasonable but differing positions on policy, which makes it a poor benchmark.

If whether abortion should be allowed depends on the way society structures its welfare system, then the fundamental pro-choice concept has already been accepted and furthermore, considerations of liberty are taking a back-seat to attempts to compensate *men* for the alleviation of a biological imposition on *women*. Ie. "you can reduce the impact of pregnancy but I can't so you're not gonna be allowed to either."

Duec- Well, I don't think it is a good test since I don't consider it relevant to being pro-choice…… (And/Or you are using a responsibility-based system that relies on the anti-abortion notion that the mother is not taking responsibility for her actions if she chooses to abort.)

As Seeker has pointed out this is about natural justice and “audi alteram partem” if you take that way then you should be compensated & the beneficiary given extra responsibility. It is a fundamental foundation of social and ethical deliberations. If you want your side taken into consideration and be treated fairly you must be prepared to do the same for the other side, if not the other side must be compensated. If the other side isn’t prepared to grant a fundamental natural justice concept than you are wasting your time and more likely dealing with a person just parroting a socialized/cultural meme.

Duec- One view I don't quite accept holds that both are accountable for the situation, but that the woman is in a position to take responsibility in such a way as to relieve them from future burdens………… (Which would effectively mean that the woman has total responsibility and the man none.)

Simply put this is the tradeoff for the man having no input in the decision. Like a child who wants a puppy and is given preference over the other siblings who don’t have a say, that child is made to care for the puppy and not the other siblings. So when a situation where equal consideration isn’t granted then there must be some compensation on the side that loses consideration and onus or extra responsibility on the side that has exclusive consideration.

That does mean though that If say we grant that there are still abortions but the man has a say in it then in situation where the man wants the child and the woman doesn’t & we are forcing women who don’t want the child to actually give birth the state and the man should compensate the woman for going through labor.
Fairs fair.

While I disagree with Neohuman's 'born-again' right to life argument, I support his/her suggestion that, in cases where a man impregnates a woman who gives birth to his child against his wishes, then he should not be required to support the child. Of course, in such a case the man would be forfeiting any rights of subsequent access to the child.

As far as "unnatural" condoms go - no, I don't think anybody should be 'forced' to use them. For most people they seem to be the best of a pretty poor bunch of options. You blokes ought to agitate for the development of a male contraceptive pill instead of regarding responsibility for contraception as the woman's responsibility.

As for 'informed choice', in the context of the article I take this to mean providing the pregnant woman with information about all the legal options that are available to her with respect to continuing or terminating her pregnancy.

My objection to the 'hijacking' of this thread concerns the way that certain very prolific (one might say excessive) correspondents to these forums seem to have a habit of attempting to divert debates on certain subjects to their very narrowly-defined minority agendas, no matter what the specific article topic is.

The first post in this thread is a classic example of that tedious process. Instead of hijacking debates about other things, perhaps that person should submit an article expressing his opinions for publication. Indeed, one wonders why he refuses to do so, given the prolific nature of the convoluted nonsense he writes.

Mahatma Duck
You disagree with a right to life.
You impregnate woman
You forfeit any rights of subsequent access to the child.
You are a bloke
You ought to agitate for the development of a male contraceptive pill
You hijack this thread
You are excessive
You divert debates on certain subjects.
You have a narrowly-defined minority agendas
You are tedious
You should submit an article
You refuse to do so.
You write convoluted nonsense.

In your posts, you make many statements about other posters. Your statements are normally maligning, generalised and rarely specific. As well as that, you rarely answer questions.

The article mentions a private member’s bill, choice, abortion clinics, abortion referral, pregnancy counselling services, and public surveys or opinion polls on abortion.

The questions in the first post were highly relevant, as they concern pregnancy counselling services. The author (who has written various articles and given various speeches about abortion now) seems to be inferring that some of these concern pregnancy counselling services are biased, and wants their telephone numbers removed from the telephone book.

Subsequent examination of this finds that it is not necessary to have a referral for an abortion anyway, (except in WA), and those pregnancy counselling services that do not make referrals or recommendations for abortion may not be breaking the law, but instead, anyone who does refer a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic could very well be breaking the laws of that state, because the legal aspects of abortion are often misunderstood.

Further examination of abortion reveals that there is very little information to give someone about abortion in Australia anyway, because there are few statistics being kept, and few studies are being undertaken into abortion. Much is hidden and unknown about abortion in Australia.

Further examination of the author’s writing and speeches on abortion also reveals that she uses extensive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing techniques, and she is highly biased, (if not deceitful), in her attitudes.

As far a maligning the first poster, take the matter up with the forum moderators.

Neo, you don't seem to have actually addressed how this is related to the general validity of the pro-choice position.

In this context, the hearing rule would mean forcing women to listen to the man argue for/against an abortion, before she decides whether to abort. That's all it requires. Kinda pointless, and would probably do more harm than good, but if it makes you happy I'd allow it unless the specific woman can give a good reason against it. On a similar note the bias rule doesn't apply when it is necessary for that person to be the decision-maker. And natural justice doesn't apply to debates or politics: only where there is a recognised right, interest or legitimate expectation.

"Simply put this is the tradeoff for the man having no input in the decision."
Nonsense. What responsibility would the man have if he did have input? Effectively none, at most half the cost of an abortion, since (presumably) he can avoid financial costs if he doesn't want it. And the woman? Even if she doesn't want it her responsibility could be to carry it to term. Don't even try to argue that you can adequately compensate someone for that.

The alternative to providing welfare isn't the mother taking more responsibility, it is the child suffering. The man didn't have any input before abortion was a real option either, and now that it is the woman has more consideration due to the basic fact that it's her body being affected. You cannot create artificial equality here, one of them is going to be in a superior position of control. If you want to argue against that view you're going to have to come up with a better argument for why the man should be unaccountable. And again this is just policy and should demonstrate why it is not a suitable test.

Duec -Kinda pointless,……... And natural justice doesn't apply to debates or politics: only where there is a recognised right, interest or legitimate expectation.

Apart of natural justice not only being heard but being treated equally & if not being treated equally then compensation is given. Natural justice with equal consideration and treatment is a fundamental social consideration who do you expect social justice without it. I truly don’t see where you are going on that.

>"Simply put this is the tradeoff for the man having no input in the decision."
Nonsense. What responsibility would the man have if he did have input………..Don't even try to argue that you can adequately compensate someone for that.

I expected that once equal consideration was given and a man did in fact stop the abortion he would then be expected to contribute I didn’t think that had to be spelled out sorry.

As far as compensation first it is in the context of saving a human life ,and being help responsible & if there isn’t going to be an ‘adequate’ amount then don’t put yourself in that situation.

>The alternative to providing welfare isn't the mother taking more responsibility, it is the child suffering.
Sorry please expand.

>woman has more consideration due to the basic fact that it's her body being affected.
You cannot create artificial equality here, one of them is going to be in a superior position of control.

Yes currently that fact is acknowledged by giving exclusive consideration but the flipside of that and taking the man’s consideration away is to not make him financial accountable and making the state –since it is enforcing it- take it one. Artificial? Isn’t sophisticated social interaction artificial in some respect the creating of abstract concepts to try to bring about social order?

> And again this is just policy and should demonstrate why it is not a suitable test.
Again if you cannot get an acknowledgement of equal consideration, treatment and compensation for the loss of thee is no social justice and no point of debating

Deuc clearly shies away from any “responsibility-based system” as s/he refers to it in an earlier post. Even in the case where the woman, through a choice of her own (at the exclusion of the father), consciously takes on that responsibility.

“One view I don't quite accept holds that both are accountable for the situation, but that the woman is in a position to take responsibility in such a way as to relieve them from future burdens. It is morally wrong for her to be coerced into aborting, and the child still needs to be supported so what needs to be argued is why (even though the mother remains accountable through her support) the failure to mitigate justifies the father being made unaccountable at the expense of the community. (Which would effectively mean that the woman has total responsibility and the man none.)”

While it is morally wrong for the woman to be coerced into abortion, there appears no moral dilemma in excluding fathers altogether - the father is not even entitled to know.

By not having the abortion, the woman elects to take on certain intrinsic responsibilities. While I concede she should have the right to make this decision for herself, I strongly dispute her right to make decisions on behalf of the father. Even more abhorrent is state-sponsored false assignment of paternity, so if Natasha really wants to add transparency to the process, then inclusion of fathers is an essential ingredient. Making men responsible for the whims of women should be left in the last millennium where it belongs.

I would agree Seeker that there has been a process in place to exclude fathers, and to downgrade them as being “parents”

Abortion clinics will often advertise themselves as being “Planned Parenthood”, or “Planned Parenting” etc. This is likely done to help hide the fact that a human life is about to be "terminated".

But if the father is excluded from the decision making process regards "parenting", then he is not regarded as being a “parent”, and that exclusion would become a highly significant type of gender discrimination.

The majority of abortions occur to single, but employed women between the ages of 20 –30. Less than 1% of abortions are from rape, so about 99% occur from sex that has been agreed to by the mother.

However if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, then the options include:-
a) The foetus is killed.
b) The child is raised by the mother, with the father as a non-custodial parent.
c) The child is left in foster care until some time in the future.
d) The child is adopted out.
e) The child is raised under a shared parenting arrangement by the father and the mother.
f) The child is raised by the father, with the mother as a non-custodial parent.

By far, the most common options chosen at present are a) & b), and they appear to be chosen most often because the child is not considered relevant or of value, or the father is not considered to be a parent, so he is not considered relevant or of value also.

The person most often considered to be relevant or of value, is the mother, and this mindset has largely come about from propaganda.

A part of the author’s Democratic Party portfolios include “Status of Women and “Work and Family”, but nowhere in her web-site does she mention the word “father”, but the word “mother” is mentioned many times. Fathers are not acknowledged, and I would think that the author is very much a part of that propaganda system.

As for natural justice, Deuc now incorporates the “Audi” principle in his/her argument, but then proceeds to presume the woman should retain her role of judge and/or executioner – s/he forgets the second of the two primary rules:

Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa - (“no one shall be judged in his own case”) ie the decision maker must be unbiased.

The hearing and bias rules are part of the *legal* doctrine of natural justice relating to the review of administrative decision-making, not the popular reference to all things fair, as such it does not include notions of compensation etc. And Seeker, I already have referred to the bias rule, pointing out that it "doesn't apply when it is necessary for that person to be the decision-maker."

"...I didn't think that had to be spelled out sorry."
It didn't, you're missing the point. That's not responsibility, it's an option to accept an obligation. The man could choose to avoid all responsibility simply by deciding that he didn't want the child, but the woman is always accountable, potentially to an extensive degree.

"it is in the context of saving a human life ,and being help responsible"
No it's not, and you haven't put forth anything to demonstrate this. The woman has no responsibility to the man, only to take care of the situation. Forcing her to be pregnant against her will is not holding her responsible for that, because the situation can be dealt with by *not* forcing her.

"if there isn't going to be an 'adequate' amount then don't put yourself in that situation. "
Seeing as you're the one trying to paint this as the fair solution, you really undermine your case by saying this.

"Sorry please expand."
A child requires a lot more to raise than a puppy, that support has to come from somewhere: you can't just lump more "responsibility" upon the mother.

"Isn't sophisticated social interaction artificial in some respect..."
The problem isn't the artificiality, it is the cannot...here part. There can't *be* equality; there are too many conflicts. Whether or not it is correct to make the community liable for certain actions of individuals is an issue that is open to reasonable differences, thus a specific stand on it isn't a good indicator of openmindedness. But if you're not willing to accept that and get on with the propriety of allowing abortion, then perhaps it is a good test to determine whether the debate should continue.

Pt 1 mahatma duck
thank you, and I agree if the man should, then we forfeit any access rights. Whether that would preclude the child wanting access to the father is another thing.

Sorry to disappoint my 'born-again' right to life argument is actually from my own secular humanist strong atheist deconstruction of cultural and ethnocentric blind spots viewpoint. The same process that years ago turned a anti-homosexual teenager in to an enlightened individual accepting of sexual orientation differences.

The unnatural condoms was a tongue in cheek mischaracterization of how easy it is to put down another’s sexual viewpoint. What has happened in the past is that some pro-choice has suggested red herring’s to lower the number of abortions by either not having sex for pleasure –which is plainly unacceptable to the majority -or extremes like sterilizing males/cutting their balls off. Sorry even for sex, no, I’m quite attached to mine.

So as an alternative which I consider the best solution that needs the least amount cultural change to realize is that we encourage non-vaginal sexual activities that don’t involve the penis. This isn’t as silly as you have made out, I believe oral sex has been promoted to British teenagers to cut down on sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Everyone still gets what they want with only a minor concession. No unwanted pregnancies no abortions, sexual pleasure is still there in a myriad of different ways and if women need vaginal penetration more than digitally then there are always dildos or vibratos.

Seriously given that both sides don’t want abortions, why cannot this be a viable option? You will never have to put a woman through the emotional stress of choosing to have an abortion –which many do- , or worrying about the condom breaking or missing your period. If anyone loses out the more one would think it is the male, as not all women are into anal sex or oral sex for that matter.

A counter may be well what about the heat or passion or alcohol? Well even if there was a pill mahatma duck would-

Yesterday I had a couple of beers at my local pub, which has a tame cockatiel that hangs out in the public bar. This bird has a talent for mimicking noises that it hears in its environment, including swear words, people's names, common expressions and even the sound of the phone ringing.

It repeats these sounds that it hears in apparently random order, which provides much amusement, especially to newcomers to the bar. However, after a couple of hours of having their conversations interrupted by the mindless twittering of this unfortunate bird, punters begin to lose their senses of humour and begin to tell the bird to shut up, or simply leave and go to the other pub across the road that doesn't have a pea-brained parrot.

You'll never guess what name I've christened it...

What did you name it?
"Ducky"?

Deuce
The “forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will” propaganda, is basically “kill the child to save the mother from any inconvenience of being pregnant”, with at least 90% of abortions now being termed “convenience” abortions.

Most abortion legislation states that the mother has to be in serious danger for an abortion to be a carried out. If the mother is not in serious danger, and an abortion is carried out by a doctor, then that doctor can be charged, and possibly the mother also (if the abortion legislation was being properly policed)

With nearly 2 out of 5 pregnancies now resulting in an abortion, it is becoming totally incomprehensible as to why so many women in our society are in serious danger from being pregnant. Either something is drastically wrong in our society that endangers so many pregnant women, or very few proper assessments are taking place before abortions go ahead.

Added to that, there is minimal being suggested to women that they could adopt out the child, or the father could raise the child if the mother does not want the child. The first thought and set of actions appears to be “kill the child”, and the most dangerous place now for a child, is to be within the womb of its mother.

When all the aspects are fully considered, I would completely understand why some pregnancy counselling services do not make referrals for abortion. They don’t have to, and in many ways, they could very well be operating illegally if they did.

Mahatma Duck,
Most of your posts, (similar to the last one), have almost nothing to do with the topic, but the moderators accept that completely. Your posts are also filled with maligning and flaming of other posters, and the moderators accept that completely also. One would have to suspect that the only reason the moderators allow you to continue, is because of your pro-feminist attitudes, with almost no article ever published in OLO positive of a male, or positive of the male gender.

What to do when a woman discovers she has an unwanted pregnancy – not a planned and hoped for bundle of joy. – let’s explore ADOPTION

Australia has 200,000 live births and estimated 80,000 abortions per year (40% of 200,000). Its estimated about 10% of couples are infertile so lets assume the infertile couples all want to adopt. There is a demand to adopt 30,000 babies.

What do we do with the remaining 50,000 babies
1. Force their mothers to look after them
2. Force their fathers to provide, there are blood samples from all babies born in Australia since 1960 so we can check DNA
3. If parents are under 18 force the grandparents to provide for child
4. Let them die
5. Grow the babies for body parts
6. Use the kids for child labour
7. Put the unwanted kids in orphanages

I haven’t attempted to analyse the budgetary impact of increasing the school age population by 50% but its obvious the following would occur:

• The Australian budget would move from surplus to deficit
• We would be back in a baby boom
• Abortion would move underground
• Women would travel overseas for abortions

mahatma duck pt 2
- you trust a guy when he said he was on it, and aren’t women encouraged to still their passion and their partners to make him put on a condom? As far as alcohol it cannot be used as an excuse for a drink driving or murder case so if we are serious and want people to take responsibility for putting another human life at risk than enforcing a woman to have the child and the have it adopted while the man is forced to pay child support to me is a suitable punishment/deterrent.

As far as hijacking and who does what I don know that I’ve been in my own flame wars and what its like to be in the minority on other subjects so I cannot speak for other but say if I’m treated with respect even if you fervently disagree I will do the same.

Duec pt1 >The hearing and bias rules are part of the *legal* doctrine of natural justice relating to the review of administrative decision-making,

Sorry I checked, Natural law does come under what you say but there are also two different meanings of it in philosophy which apply to ethical/moral considerations which this definitely falls under-ok lets use social justice instead equal consideration, treatment and compensation of lost of those considerations.
With due respect Duec we have always seemed to be on different wavelengths but since when pressed I’ve got at least two Pro-choice to agree with me on this matter I’m more confident you are the one missing the point.

>That's not responsibility, it's an option to accept an obligation. The man could choose to avoid all responsibility simply by deciding that he didn't want the child, but the woman is always accountable, potentially to an extensive degree.

No, just as the man has the option of walking away so does the woman -after birth- and since she has been made to be accountable if abortions -unless for health reasons – are outlawed then the man should pay some sort –
Pt2 following

Not natural law, law as in legal system. Natural law is a broader, fuzzier and distinct concept than what has so far been referenced, which is the legal doctrine that contains the hearing rule. But anyway, you can't just gloss over differences in the subject matter/between the parties positions and then bandy around "equal consideration" and "social justice" while ignoring their application. Equality is not synonymous with justice or fairness in all situations, quite the opposite, eg. everyone being taxed an equal amount, or the family living next door to a proposed chemical plant having the same say as a family three km upwind. The key differences between the positions of the man and the woman need to be addressed in a manner that is not solely focused on pecuniary issues.

"I've got at least two Pro-choice to agree with me on this matter I'm more confident you are the one missing the point."
Two others have agreed that fathers who didn't want the child shouldn't have to pay child support, a position I give cautious support to, but that is a far cry from agreeing with you that those who don't hold that position are closed-minded, denying justice or not worthy of debating--which is what I have primarily been required to argue against.

"The point" was relating to a scenario where abortion is legal only if neither wants it and the man can get out of paying child support if he doesn't. The point itself being that the man can totally avoid being accountable if he chooses, but the woman is necessarily responsible. It's my point, I can't not get it. Maybe there's another point you're making that is unrelated to your equal consideration stance, in which case yes I am missing it.

"-after birth-"
Part 2 better be good because that's one hell of a qualification. (Sure the responsibility is equal, *if* you ignore the times when it isn't.) I'm willing to spend another post on this, if I'm presented with what's wrong with my argument or a thorough counter-argument. Anything else must be about pro-choice v anti-abortion.

Duc pt2
-of financial penalty.

"it is in the context of saving a human life ,and being help responsible"
>No it's not, and you haven't put forth anything to demonstrate this.

Fact it’s a human life. Fact a fundamental social rule, you are responsible for actions entered into willingly. Fact we value human life and don’t take human lives unless in self-defense.

>The woman has no responsibility to the man, only to take care of the situation

Yes but by terminating the life, like my senile old aunt analogy killing isn’t taking responsibility, its avoiding it.

>A child requires a lot more to raise than a puppy, …… you can't just lump more "responsibility" upon the mother.

Yes & a human life is immeasurable more valuable than a puppy and apart from the birth I haven’t, she invites it if she wants to be consistent on other core values.

The (missing) point on equal consideration that I’m trying to make is that -unlike now- if the man gets a say he has to pay child support regardless of his wishes or half the abortion fee if agreed to proceed. He doesn’t get away scot-free.

As far as the good test why I think it is that it is easily broken down; to questions of social justice where fairness, equal consideration and treatment and compensation are involved with no serious mitigating factors.

-equal consideration of all parties? -There isn’t a man doesn’t have a say.
-equal treatment ? Woman get to avoid responsibility if she doesn’t want the child whereas if the man doesn’t he still has to pay child support.

To be fair if one side gets the choice so should the other.

-when a party loses that consideration are they compensated in this relieved of responsibility when the other party has that choice –no instead the man keeps his “responsibility”

The government has brought this exclusive consideration situation into being therefore it must take responsibility for this imbalance of treatment.

If you still disagree lets move on I’d like to discuss non-vaginal sex and adoption.

Since I am tired of the cement-like, rabid and down-right evil at times views in minds elsewhere on this site, I find myself less enthusiastic to partake (I do not consider you in this light Neo). However, I would like to clarify a position.

My agreement Neo, with regard to men having to pay child support, was very qualified (if you will re-read it) and I would point out, overly simplistic (350 words is simplistic). I do agree that the legislation does need to change to reflect the ‘choices’ open to and made by each party involved – again this is overly simplistic but I do agree there is a bias in the current system (please, no ranting Tim).

Neo, I would delve deeper into your non-person experiment (which I enjoy the challenge of, if not agree with) but I am a little tired and we may have to wait for the next abortion thread. Suffice to say I appreciate your personal integrity and hope you accept that I do have mine and hold strongly to it – no matter that you disagree with it.

P.S. It is not yet ‘fact’ that it is a human life – this is central to the abortion debate. It is still argued when it becomes a human life.

Which is the point in my mind to the issue – though you disagree with it, in this ‘democracy’ you have to allow that others see things differently and abortion, though abhorrent to you, is a choice for those who do not hold the same moral position – which I think it the point of the article. Those that do not refer should simply say so.

Perhaps Natasha (if you are reading?) you could expand the Bill to state that all agencies should advertise their position, thereby giving the client the choice to avail herself of the particular service or avoid it…

Reason,
What is meant by a referral for an abortion?

The only place you need a referral for an abortion is in WA, and a formal referral would first require a physical and/or psychiatric assessment to be undertaken on the mother. For the abortion to legally go ahead, that assessment would have to show that the mother is in serious danger if the pregnancy continues.

But most abortion clinics outside WA do not require a referral from an outside party, (Eg this is how an abortion company advertises:- “To make an appointment phone the clinic closest to your area and staff will give you an appointment at a suitable date and time. It is not necessary to have a referral from your doctor however it is important that you have had a pregnancy test, have written proof of your blood group and Rh factor. If you don't have this, blood tests can be arranged by the clinic”)

If such clinics don't require a referral from a doctor, then why should they require a referral from a pregnancy counselling service.

Perhaps these abortion clinics carry out their own assessments, and fill in the paperwork accordingly.

Maybe the author could do her own research on this. Do abortion clinics require a formal referral or not, and if not, then why not?

And maybe the author should begin to think if she acknowledges fathers or not, as her web-site certainly does not indicate it.

Reason Ok or maybe another forum that hasn’t got a post limit. PS didn’t you read my point about the difference between a human and a human being?

Duec I’m giving you the last say then I’m moving on we don’t seem to be getting anywhere on the open-mindedness question.

Pt 1 sand between my toes thank you for raising the adoption question shall we expand on it?

BTW could you state whether you in principle could give up vaginal intercourse to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions?

>Australia has 200,000 live births and estimated 80,000 abortions per year (40% of 200,000). Its estimated about 10% of couples are infertile so lets assume the infertile couples all want to adopt. There is a demand to adopt 30,000 babies.

>What do we do with the remaining 50,000 babies

Since childless couples in developed countries is a widespread problem even if you restricted it to US or England one would guess you would easily have those babies snapped up.

>I haven’t attempted to analyse the budgetary impact of increasing the school age population by 50% but its obvious the following would occur:

• The Australian budget would move from surplus to deficit
• We would be back in a baby boom

You aren’t obviously aware of Australia's changing demographics where in the not to distant future 33% of the Australian population will be made up of childless singles living alone and an increasing elderly population. Now unless we raise the birth rate or have mass immigration we won’t be able to keep the economy going to afford to support our retirees. It would need a cost benefit analysis but on the face of it this would solve our problems. You could say well I’d prefer mass immigration.

Seems a bit strange claims that no ones wants abortions, yet no one seems to take a simple solution of non-vaginal sex seriously and when it comes to replenishing our work force we would rather have mass –I’d guess way higher than today’s levels- immigration than save the lives of unborn Australians. Pt2 following

Whether you or me or anyone else thinks abortion right, wrong, or somewhere in between, whether we think a foetus is a baby or an embryo, a joy or a nuisance, is not the bloody point.
Each of us will think differently, and each of us will make our own choices based on our own beliefs. We will then live with the consequences.
Banning abortion, like banning drugs won't stop it. It will simply make some self righteous people feel even more self righteous.
I have had two children and, years previously, an abortion. If I'd had the first child, I wouldn't have had the second two. Either way potential lives would have been lost. Do I regret my decisions? Not one of them. Do you have the right to hate me, disapprove of me, argue with me? Of course you do. Do you have the right to arrest me or force me to behave differently according to your personal beliefs? Fortunately, you do not.
Please God it stays that way.

Yes enaj, some self-righteous people will feel more self-righteous if abortion is prohibited. Also, if it is not prohibited, some OTHER self-righteous people will feel more self-righteous anyway.
It IS relevant whether or not we are talking about human lives because there are 75000 being killed annually in Australia alone. If abortion were to be prohibited- apart from having a number of people feeling feeling more self-righteous than they are today- this number, 75000, will plummet- I doubt, to zero, as you have said, "it will not stop it", but the closer to zero and the further away from 75000... use your brain.

Well I wasn't presented with what's wrong with my argument or a thorough counter-argument, but here is a small response anyway:

Responsibility is to take the care of the situation. Situation resolved => responsibility met.

Burden if other person does want child:
Man:
-cost of abortion.

Woman:
-forced to remain pregnant
-restrictions on diet
-restrictions on freedom of movement
-hormonal changes and corresponding emotional disturbance
-permanent marks & alterations to her body
-social embarrassment & psychological damage resulting from being forced
-greater risk of post-partum depression and suicide.

What wonderful balance of treatment you've come up with.

"If you still disagree lets move on I'd like to discuss non-vaginal sex and adoption."
No I said I'm only going to post on pro-choice v anti-abortion.

'because there are 75000 being killed annually in Australia alone'

Is it that hard to not used biased words and say 'pregnancies being terminated'? You make it sound like a slaughter. If you disagree with it, then cool, don't do it. But understand that many people, quite reasonably, don't consider a foetus to be a human being. You may disagree, but since you are not supreme overlord of the universe, you can't tell them who's right and who's wrong, and therefore can't stop them! K?

Oops, I hope Jose isn't supreme overlord of the universe. Boy would my face be red!

Neohuman - The mind boggles at the thought of live baby exports. Most Australians are not happy about live sheep exports but this is a totally unacceptable.

Neohuman asked . . .
“BTW could you state whether you in principle could give up vaginal intercourse to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions?”
Nah! hmmm, sounds kinky . . .

Ah! Demographics is a very inexact science. The Australian demographer in the 1950’s mispredicted the Australian population size because he failed to take into account the aging population.
If Australia wants to increase its population then it has to foster family friendly policies [My goodness I sound like a Steve Fielding supporter]. Young people are usually 30 before they move from their cocktail of part time casual jobs into permanent employment when they can pay off their HECS debt look for a life partner, leave mum and dad get a mortgage and settle down. Maybe when the baby boomers leave the workforce this will free up permanent positions.

Its better to encourage the desired behavior rather than legislate unenforceale prohibitions.

Is it that hard to not used biased words and say 'pregnancies being terminated'?

Spendocrat Don’t know about you but when a fetus is sawed up or has a hole drilled in its skull 'pregnancies being terminated' just doesn’t cut it either.

Sand between my toes. The mind boggles at the thought of live baby exports. Most Australians are not happy about live sheep exports but this is a totally unacceptable.

The mind boggles how the current international adoption practices sorry ‘trade of babies’ and children get away with such a disgraceful practice of making childless couples and orphaned or unwanted children happy. Totally unacceptable!

>Nah! hmmm, sounds kinky . . .
So you are a prude anything other than vaginal sex is kinky I wonder have you tried the other kinky positions other than missionary?

>Ah! Demographics is a very inexact science.

Yes planning now for an aging population is just a waste of time the developed worlds demographers and governments are concerned about nothing, great to be able to dismiss those qualified in their fields so easily without anything else other than they got it wrong in the past. Just the sort of reasoning used by creationists.

>Its better to encourage the desired behavior rather than legislate unenforceale prohibitions.

So then don’t have vaginal sex : )
BTW Murder and rape are unenforceable therefore we shouldn’t try.

Duec We seem to be on different wavelengths but if I understood you correctly -

Basically her body her choice, it happens to her alone so no obligation to anyone else. She suffers the mental physical burden whereas a man doesn’t so there is no equivalency or appropriate compensation and there is no obligation or responsibility anyway just a situation to be fixed, which with abortion is fixed?

How’s that?

Could I see you summarize mine? Cheers no hard feelings.

BTW when discussing pro-life vs pro-choice sex and adoption are relevant as they are proposed solutions. If you exclude such sub arguments there is no debate

Neo - You keep bringing up this non-vaginal sex thing - I would be interested to know how many males would be into this? I have to say, I doubt many would....
What's wrong with vasectomy? It doesn't 'cut your balls off' or anything of the sort - also - doctors will normally perform it without too many questions on any male who presents, regardless of whether they are currently fathers or not, unlike female sterilisation.
Getting rid of the stigma that vasectomy = emasculation would really help. Also - providing female sterilisation on demand would be a big step.

Deauc makes a good point that pg is not a cake walk - it is a permanently altering physical challenge which impacts a whole range of things which seem to have slipped by unconsidered.
For eg: Considering the physical scars of pg which chances do you consider better of finding company post unwanted childbirth, the female or the male?
Hell - the male *could* be in a new relationship DURING the pg! Good luck to the heavily pregnant woman trying to attract a new mate....or for that matter the recently post-baby woman.
And who do you think will be disadvantaged financially and career wise by the time taken to have the child, the female or the male?
As if there isn't enough of a 'glass ceiling' with promotion at work - not that I blame employers - how can you take seriously someone who has a doctors appointment every three days? (strictly termed - pregnancy should be a Lost Time Injury....very bad for productivity!)

I agree it is unfortunate that men can't have more of a say - I do feel it is unfortunate for all these 'oopsed' men to have to pay child support for children they clearly stated they did not want.
Perhaps they should look at carrying human foetii to term in pigs or something? Then your equality thing would make sense.

Seriously though - You can't see that female is far more disadvantaged by the birth of a child than male?

Well said, Newsroo.
As many posters keep saying, no-one wants to have an abortion but sometimes it seems like the lesser of two evils.
The alternative is to force unwilling women to go through pregnancy and birth. I cannot imagine anything more cruel and appalling. And I don't compare the suffering of the foetus, particularly as the vast majority of terminations happen before 12 weeks, most before 8 weeks, when the foetus really is a bunch of cells. I miscarried a foetus of about that gestation, it was impossible to tell from a period. Indeed, if I hadn't known I was pregnant, I would simply have thought it was a late period. To compare that with 9 months of pregnancy and labour (having done that twice as well) is, well, inconceivable (if you'll excuse the choice of words).
Interestingly, talking about when a foetus becomes a baby, the response of the world to my miscarriage was minimal, some were mildly sympathetic, but most regarded it as just one of those things, a minor mishap at most. When my first daughter almost died at 13 days, the world (and I) responded completely differently. Society knows the difference between a potential life and a life, we demonstrate it all the time in our responses to miscarriage versus still birth or death of a child. And any parent who has experienced (or almost experienced) both knows the difference too. We feel it in our heart and soul.

Timkins,
Reasonable questions put in a reasonable way. I will do my best to answer with respect.

Regarding your question “Do abortion clinics require a formal referral or not, and if not, then why not?”

I suggest that it's simply that the law does not require a referral in most States. As to why not – Perhaps it is the perception of the current legislators/society that this is not required/their business.

As to whether this is moral, ethical or ‘good for society’ - this is a separate argument.

With respect Timkins, I suggest that just because a person does not mention fathers or men in web-sites, documents or articles does not mean that they don’t recognise a man's value or worth. It could simply be that the perception of abortion is that it is – after all is said and done – finally laying at the woman’s feet as to her decision. Whether she chooses to involve the male or not is, ultimately, her choice. Good or bad is not for me to say, it just is.

I do agree that the current Family Law system needs change. Men have been, for a large part (though not entirely) undervalued. I know this from personal experience from the child’s point of view. I do not disagree on that point. However, I would disagree that many/all/the majority of women don't value men. Most do.

My point in my previous post was to suggest that perhaps all pregnancy counselling services should make it clear where they stand with regards to abortion. Perhaps your comment could extend this to abortion clinics to make it clear whether or not they require a referral before consulting or could provide recommended counselling services prior to any procedure

I know you may be cynical regarding motivations for an abortion clinic recommending counselling but I believe that for the large part most people involved in the field would be happy to encourage women to seriously consider the procedure prior to action, including some counselling.

Have I been fair?

OK, I need a break from this… see you all soon.

Newsroo - You keep bringing up this non-vaginal sex thing - I would be interested to know how many males would be into this?... Not many…

Maybe, maybe not that’s where sex education comes in.

>What's wrong with vasectomy? >
What’s wrong with getting your tubes cut?

My brother did it and now has broken up with his partner, too late if he hooks up with someone else who wants kids isn’t it? Given the divorce rate & that non-vaginal sex would do the job.

>providing female sterilisation on demand would be a big step.

Good idea but same problem for a woman.

>Deauc makes a good point it is a permanently altering physical challenge which impacts a whole range of things which seem to have slipped by unconsidered.
Seriously though - You can't see that female is far more disadvantaged by the birth of a child than male?

I countered this point is that if you willingly enter a situation where negative consequences can eventuate you have taken responsibility for it you don’t whine about it to avoid that responsibility. This undermines the whole concept of personal responsibility.

Duec’s counter is that no responsibility it effects only the woman who has situation to fix and which abortion does. First there is another party involved another human life –not a potential life-, next how about any carer/parent who thinks they are suffering kills their child or senile old aunt; you are only responsible ultimately to ones-self?

That certainly fixes those situations doesn’t it?

>And who do you think will be disadvantaged financially and career wise by the time taken to have the child, the female or the male?

I’ve already said unless government comes to the fore with legislation and funding to address the consequences then keep abortion as is except don’t make the male pay child support.

>I agree it is unfortunate that men can't have more of a say…..
Just unfortunate? Fine if equal consideration and treatment aren’t so important to you don’t whine if in the future you get the short end of the stick.

Nothing wrong with getting tubes tied - I finally convinced a doc (after asking about 6) to clip mine (after an 'are you sure you know your own mind?' 6mth delay and taking my mother along to the appointment - I was 23....).
The problem with it is that everyone thinks that having kids is for everyone (sorry - every WOMAN...docs don't ask questions of vasectomy seeking males....).

Deflection doesn't answer - what's wrong with vasectomies?

You should know - both procedures are reversible within a five year window....

And anyway, so what - you can't have kids then - how about adoption? You seem to be pretty keen on that plan for unwanted babies...?
But in reality and honesty you know that people don't want other people's kids, they want to have their own, even if it means an abomination of a litter through IVF. (which IMO should definitely NOT be covered by medicare - can't have kids? get a dog, take up tennis...there are other hobbies!)

Yes - unfortunate.
Men have just as much option to protect themselves from impregnating someone as women have of protecting themselves from impregnation, therefore why should no responsibility lay with the male? Granted he doesn't always get to choose what happens to the product of conception - if the baby could be carried without negative impact to the female then I think he would - go work on how we can implant foetii in pigs...
I guess a female deserves it (permanent disfigurement through pregnancy) because she was stupid enough to choose to be born with the ability to carry a foetus - obviously.

Oh - hang on - that wasn't a choice....

"But understand that many people, quite reasonably, don't consider a foetus to be a human being. You may disagree, but since you are not supreme overlord of the universe, you can't tell them who's right and who's wrong, and therefore can't stop them! K?"

A fetus is undoubtedly human and anyone who denies this is simply sticking their head in the sand.

But back to the article at hand........

Firstly, Natasha refers to pregnancy organisations that don't refer for abortions as "anti-choice." What she really means is "anti-abortion" she should be upfront about that. It is ironic that Natasha claims to want "transparent advertising" yet she herself engages in deceptive language to paint anti-abortion groups as "anti-choice."

Natasha claims she has not met anyone who is "pro-abortion." Women who are pregnant often experience pressure to abort from family/friends/boyfriends. Are we to believe that these people are "pro-choice?" (I suppose if "choice" means abortion like Natasha seems to think it does than I guess they are.)

Natasha makes reference to a woman unhappy with the counseling she received from pregnancy help geelong. The woman apparently wasn't too happy to hear about the risks associated with abortion. No doubt the Melbourne Clinic would have been only too happy to gloss over those very real risks with an assurance of "safe legal abortion."

Of course Natasha thinks those risks have been disproved with research. Would that be research funded by abortion providers?? Women need to know that some studies have shown a link between abortion and breast cancer in order to make an informed decision. Why are the abortion providers so against that? (oh that's right, they make money from abortions, silly me!)

This suggestion by Natasha is clearly a way of stigmatising pregnancy support services who don't refer for abortion, as though they are doing something wrong. I would suggest that Natasha target the abortion providers who provide counseling, this is a clear conflict of interest. Kind of like asking a car salesman whether you should buy a car from them.

‘A fetus is undoubtedly human and anyone who denies this is simply sticking their head in the sand.’
And what research, exactly, are you basing that on Elka?

See, it’s established medical fact that there are many stages you go through before you develop into a human. (Note: BEFORE you develop into a human. Before.) A foetus is one of them! So is a sperm.

Back to the article at hand…

‘It is ironic that Natasha claims to want "transparent advertising" yet she herself engages in deceptive language to paint anti-abortion groups as "anti-choice."’
But they are anti-choice, Elka. If you were only anti-abortion, then you would disagree with it but still accept that other people are free to make that choice. The people who are anti-choice do not accept that. Hence, anti-choice.

‘Women who are pregnant often experience pressure to abort from family/friends/boyfriends.’
They often experience pressure to keep the baby, too. So…we’ve established women experience pressure. Moving on…

‘Would that be research funded by abortion providers?’
Uh…no, because that would be a pretty huge conflict of interest…don’t you know how these things work? They take this sort of research pretty seriously. If you’re going to dismiss whatever research comes along that you disagree with, then what’s stopping the other side of the debate from doing the same? No one would get anywhere.

‘This suggestion by Natasha is clearly a way of stigmatising pregnancy support services who don't refer for abortion, as though they are doing something wrong.’
Whether or not you think they’re doing something wrong is irrelevant, the point is many keep secret the fact they do not recommend abortion. Wrong or no, people have the right to be informed.

See, you can disagree with abortion all you want, it doesn’t mean you know what’s right for other people. I believe driving a car is dangerous (to yourself and others) and polluting so I don’t do it. But I can’t stop others doing it, because we live in a wonderful free country! And hey, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. Ever consider that?

spendocrat, while many anti-abortion people are being disingenuous they are (mostly) correct. Life = animate matter. Human = something with our DNA. Human life = living thing with our DNA. "A human life" = a human organism. Human being = means a human "in being" ie. fully born. Person = the real question.

Neo, your position:
If abortions were illegal then the man should pay a penalty, which is apparently different to child support. The difference appears to result from the ability for the woman to give the child up for adoption.

If the current situation continues then the man shouldn't have to be responsible since he has no say. The Government should support the child instead of the man because it supposedly brought about the imbalance of treatment. Rationale: Equal consideration is a fundamental rule of fairness/social justice/whatever, and either compensation must given or the other party must be burdened with more responsibility. A woman aborting is (supposedly) avoiding responsibility, so apparently he should be able to avoid responsibility too.

The preferred situation is the man being given an equal choice. If neither want it, each pay 1/2 cost of abortion and it gets aborted. If either want it then the pregnancy must continue. Previously if the man wanted it, then the woman would be compensated and if the woman wants it the man doesn't have to pay child support. Now it is unclear and the man might have to pay child support even if he doesn't want it.
---
This new version would be more equitable, butignores the main justification for allowing abortion in the first place, (liberty of the woman) and suffers from the inability to adequately compensate her. (So if the current situation is justified this version remains unnecessary.)

My views are more or less stated in the middle paragraphs of my posts from Friday and Saturday. Your re-statement is incomplete but is correct except for the claim that she has no responsibility (distinguished from obligations to others--addressed on Friday). She is accountable for her actions, but not much is required for that.

If the latter version was meant, and the father must pay support the child unless they both agree to terminate, then presumably the same is true for the woman. In effect, any compensation for carrying the child would be offset by those costs. In either version the woman's personal sovereignty is subject to the assent of the man, but of course the opposite is not true.

"BTW when discussing pro-life vs pro-choice sex and adoption are relevant as they are proposed solutions."
They are relevant to means of avoiding/reducing abortion, but that's not the question. The question is whether or not abortion should be legal and furthermore whether it is moral. Promoting birth control, non-coital sex and adoption won't get rid of abortion.

Let's take a quick look at what compensation would mean:
Loss of earnings:$20000 for approx 6 months off. (During pregnancy and recovery.)
Medical costs would mostly be covered by Medicare but add $10000 for lipo/plastic surgery, $2000 for therapy, $1000 since she has to eat for two and also get some assistance for transportation.
If this was a civil injury claim there would be restrictions on non-economic loss, but this is voluntary and there aren't any insurance co's so assume no limits. Wouldn't be a huge amount, so sum everything up to $40000. This would need to be provided as early as possible, because it is mostly replacement income and for security against the man not paying.

I'm not sure but considering interest, that's probably around half of what would be needed for 18 years of child support. If the woman has a well paying job the amount could rise drastically. And since it needs to be paid immediately, not many men would be able to choose it anyway.

It's quite bizarre that you claim to be against the killing of human life regardless of the organism's mental capabilities, yet you are so willing to argue for a system where said life can be killed as soon as two people agree, or on the choice of one if the other wouldn't have had to support the life.

SBMT>Deflection what's wrong with vasectomies?
Nothing if you want it but as I said given the divorce rates & many women do want children and you can have non-vaginal sex which makes it overkill.

> both procedures are reversible within a five year window....
It may be reversible but that’s not 100%

> how about adoption? You seem to be pretty keen on that plan for unwanted babies...?

You would think you’ve had kids before the cut and would allow those that haven’t first choice.& again unnecessary non-vaginal sex suffices.

BTW if abortion went so would IVF on similar moral grounds and stem cells from embryos so increased demand.

>Yes - unfortunate.
Men have just as much option to protect themselves from impregnating someone as women have of protecting themselves from impregnation, therefore why should no responsibility lay with the male?

First its about equal treatment if a woman has no obligation than don’t force it on the man Stop asking for special treatment.

Again if a man gets a say he has to pay, not the same but the burden of child support makes many men suffer financial and mental anguish. BTW if given the same treatment afforded to females he should be able to kill the non-person infant.

That fixes the situation!

>I guess a female deserves it (permanent disfigurement through pregnancy).

First like a child funny how the same situation, if wanted is highly valued, but denigrated if not. An unborn child wanted a blessing and unwanted a parasitic bunch of cells. Pregnancy & having children while not pleasant is often makes many women feel compete or is praised in glowing terms, when not wanted it’s a disfiguring burden.

>-because she was stupid enough to choose to be born with the ability to carry a foetus - obviously
>Oh - hang on - that wasn't a choice....

How come you lot talk about choice but deny the choice you had to have vaginal sex in the first place?

You have a CHOICE you choose to disregard the consequences then you wear it.

Address this point.

The point is, non-vaginal sex isn't sex - it's (glorified) masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I think that's been said and ignored before....
To break it down - let's look at the alternatives:

Anal - not healthy. The anus was designed to have things repeatedly come out of it, not go into it. Common side effects from anal sex include loss of bowel control, anal bleeding and inflammation. This would cause a sh@t-load (pun) of health problems the country doesn't need.
Not to mention that the increased risk of bleeding = an increased risk of contracting disease.

Oral or Fingers - these are fine and fun but if they were satisfying, don't you think people would be foregoing vaginal sex for it now?

Toys - same as above.

And ignoring all of that - it's essentially the same point as abstinence - which isn't a good policy as we see from numerous perverted priests in the Catholic Church...

To address the issue of the 'choice' to have vaginal sex - wasn't that presumeably TWO people making a choice to have vaginal sex? Why didn't the man refuse to put his penis there? Or (as usual) were you leaving the issue of contraception entirely up to she who will suffer more from the consequences?
Do women *really* have to be the sex police?

As I said a couple of posts back - I would be interested to know just how many MEN would be into your concept of non-vaginal sex. My guess is - not many. So then (presumeably...) you are saying that it should be up to women to consistantly deny vaginal sex to every man until she felt ready to procreate...? I wouldn't be surprised - they are already asked to flood their system with hormones to enable 'bare back' sex, why not?

There's no denying that not having sex is the most fool proof way not to fall pregnant but it's just not based in reality

<'because there are 75000 being killed annually in Australia alone'

Is it that hard to not used biased words and say 'pregnancies being terminated'? You make it sound like a slaughter. If you disagree with it, then cool, don't do it. But understand that many people, quite reasonably, don't consider a foetus to be a human being. You may disagree, but since you are not supreme overlord of the universe, you can't tell them who's right and who's wrong, and therefore can't stop them! K?

Oops, I hope Jose isn't supreme overlord of the universe. Boy would my face be red!>

Sorry, I should express myself clearer.
The point is, there are 75000 pregenancies being terminated each year. This means that the foetus, which if not removed would become human at some stage [if it is not already human]. Then the foetus will either:

(1) miss out on the chance of becomin human (if it ISN'T HUMAN)
or
(2) be murdered (ONLY if it IS human)

I don't mind whether it's 1 or 2.
BUT it's not both and its not neither of them. It is ONE of them. I think everyone will agree on that- IT'S EITHER 1 OR 2.

Now, at the end of either point, there are criteria in brackets. Science can determine which of these bracketed ones is correct. This will determine whether #1 or #2 applies.

(As for my latest decree as supreme overlord of the universe: All internet users are ordered to touch one of their elbows with their chins. However, this does not apply to those whose birthdays occur in April. They can have the day off. The punishment for disrgarding my decrees is to eat asparagus at breakfast for a month.)

Duec
Just to correct if the man has a say he pays child support. The penalty is the child support. Many men would argue that having to pay child support for 18 years causes enough of financial and mental burden to exceed the 9 months of the woman.

On that point who was it that said freedom (liberty) without responsibility is anarchy?

>It's quite bizarre that you claim to be against the killing of human life ………., yet you are so willing to argue for a system where said life can be killed as soon as two people agree,

To me it’s all about being logically consistent within the particular circumstances, remember I’m a mete-ethical moral relativist.

Personally to be consistent with our core moral values you would have no abortion unless it has a good chance of threatening the life of the mother the mother is financially compensated by the state and the man pays child support for 18 years. IVF is outlawed as is any embryonic stem cell research.

To have abortion and be consistent, the man has a say but pays child support for 18 years, the woman may be compelled but is compensated by the state. Non-person post natals ie infants the impaired elderly and severely mentally handicapped & those in comas may be killed experimented on or used as body banks.
There can be no objection on abortion for sex or cosmetic selection reasons or late term abortions right up until birth.

I would be prepared to debate in more detail if we stick to short premise like arguments but I must admit this post limit is pissing me.

Newroo if a sex therapist saw read your post they would just shake their head and seriously suggest some therapy and sex education, what a shallow ignorant sexual world you must live in.

Why wont you address not being responsible for the CHOICE of having sex in the first place?

A Sydney jury of 9 men and 3 women, acquitted 3 young men on rape charges against an 18 year old woman. The woman in question was having consensual group sex with the 3 of them, but at some point in the proceedings, had asked them to stop.

As interesting as the case itself may be, I am more fascinated by its ramifications for this young woman and her unquestioning beliefs in her sexual prowess bordering on predation, armed only with “No” and “Stop”.

What essential ingredient was missing from this case that failed to make these charges stick? Was its connection to football more powerful than those special words in her armoury, or is there something about football groupies that makes them less reliable as witnesses - even worse, could it be a backlash of a more general nature?

Women’s power over sex, family and life itself is well documented within these virtual walls and elsewhere. It is not always responsibly exercised, and is far from being beyond reproach. The irony of course, is that the very people who needed all this legislative protection a relatively short time ago, are now themselves, predators.

t.u.s - So you ARE advocating either abstinence or sex only for procreation, eh?
I’m going to ignore your comments on my sexual psychology – it’s pretty rich coming from you I have to say….

Did you not read the tag line of my last post?
That I don’t deny NOT having sex is the best way to avoid pregnancy, it’s just not based in reality? I stand by that.

What this really comes down to is you’re asking me to concede the point that 18yrs of child support = 9 months of pg + 18 years of suffering through a pg ravaged body.
Sorry – that you will never hear from me. Money is only money – it will never bring back what a womans’ body was BEFORE pg & childbirth. And when the child turns 18 then (in your world) the mans ‘punishment’ ends….where does the woman go to pick up her new body and lost opportunities? Please collect at next window?

I know you are struggling to give men an equal say in what should happen to any possible ‘product of conception’ they father but frankly, if throwing money at the problem is the best you can come up with then you’re really at a loss.

I already said – I do think it’s unfair that men have to pay for a child they expressly said they DIDN’T want – perhaps a better solution is the re-vamp the current child custody/maintenance laws (which I believe is already happening) but that’s another topic.

Here’s my real curiosity…how come you prioritise the life of those not yet born over the quality of life of those already here? Do women contribute that little to the world in general that they are literally only incubators?
Also – if there were a method of abortion which ensured the foetus did not feel any pain would it make a difference?
(BTW – if the abortion is performed under general anaesthetic, logically the foetus would be as anaesthetised as the mother….(?) they share a blood stream…if my logic is wrong – please explain?)

Newsroo So you ARE advocating either abstinence or sex only for procreation,?

No but I have a compromise position for next post window.

>I’m going to ignore your comments on my sexual psychology – it’s pretty rich coming from you I have to say….

If I had the ability I would have deleted it on further consideration, but long these lines if its unrealistic and within the context too much to ask to save thousands of human lives being taken the you have no right to ask a man to wear a condom and give up the pleasure of unprotected sex furthermore to use pro-choice reasoning has no obligation whatsoever if she get pregnant her body her problem.

>….. you’re asking me to concede the point that 18yrs of child support = 9 months of pg + 18 years of suffering through a pg ravaged body….. Money is only money – it will never bring back what a womans’ body was BEFORE. ..child turns 18 the mans ‘punishment’ ends….

You mightn’t but many men who have to support two families would disagree.
BTW yes Elle Mc certainly has a ravaged body wonder how she can still keep modeling? & these women never want children that will ravage their body?

> give men an equal say,….., if throwing money at the problem is the best you can come up with then you’re really at a loss.

The money solution isn't perfect but it tries in the same way that suing for financial compensation tries to redress the problem. Should a person who lost an eye or partner through negligence say, well money won’t bring them back so there is no point in making the guilty party pay?

I already said – I do think it’s unfair that men have to pay for a child … better solution is the re-vamp the current child custody/maintenance laws..
Good first step.

>Here’s my real curiosity………

Deal with my avoiding the responsibility of the choice of having sex in the first place question & I will explain. Prefer premise form.

Ok Dr Lecter - quid pro quo.

1.I agree with whoever it was that said (parphrased) that making yourself un-pregnant IS taking responsibility. The situation is resolved (even sometimes at no cost to the father) therefore - responsibility met.

2.I believe that taking maximum precaution (either surgical or double up on contraception) is taking responsibility - if an accident happens - refer to step one.

Yes having sex is a choice.
What I'm saying is that the consequences are so hugely different for both partners.
In essence - the choice to have sex needn't carry the risk of pregnancy for the male - he will definitely never fall pregnant himself and has a range of things which MAY happen if she falls pregnant.
He knows about it or isn't told.
He is asked to pay for the abortion or child support or nothing.
He is asked to participate in the childs life or not and if so, to what degree?
Whether any or all of these things is good or bad depends on his feelings about the pg (if he's told).

I think the differences in our opinion are coming from you thinking it's a human being/life whatever and me feeling that that is inconsequential to the question

>Pt1
Newsroo1…. making yourself un-pregnant IS taking responsibility. The situation is resolved responsibility met.

Premise 1. Suffering is a problem.
Premise 1.1 Ending suffering fixes that problem
Premise 1.2 Ending a problem meets requirements of responsibility.
Premise 1.3 Non-persons can cause suffering to care givers.

Premise 2. Care givers have responsibility over non-persons.

Premise 3. A non person is inconsequential as it has no moral value/consideration
Premise 3.1. Living entities that don’t have moral value may be killed

Conclusion :
If I suffer & it is caused by a non-person & I’m its care giver, I can kill them as this resolves responsibility.

Ok lets allow the killing of post natal non-persons who cause suffering to their care givers, responsibility ended.

Relevant Factors?

Legal status of post-natals? - Relying on legality, sorry no, think about apartheid.

Is it relevant that the woman is bodily giving the caring? Don’t think so, whether the care/sustenance is internally from the body or results by work done outside the body the result is still the same. Looking after a post natal can cause just as much suffering to care giver, still impinges on personal liberty. There are suicides, nervous break downs by care givers or single parents to post natals.

But with post-natals an alternative caregiver could be found but for pre-natals not until a time period had elapsed it and since that time period would effect liberty and suffering a alternative care giver isn’t viable?

Therefore any situating where there is a time delay to alternative care & suffering, this justifies the taking of non-person lives by caregiver/s. Consider all the children or handicapped who cannot get immediate institutional care; it’s then justified to kill them instead of waiting for a place?

Taking adequate precautions absolves responsibility?

I sure you can think of inherently risky situations that no matter the precaution you don’t do or put another life at risk (speeding for one)& if you do do so become legally/morally responsible for. Or is it ok as long as they are non-persons put at risk?

Pt2
Newsroo>I think the differences in our opinion are coming from you thinking it's a human being/life whatever and me feeling that that is inconsequential to the question

The main problem inconsistency on treatment/value of non-persons.
We give personhood rights to post-natal non-persons ie infants severely mentally handicapped and some impaired elderly.

Using current abortion justification we should be able to kill, experiment and use as body banks post natal non-persons in the same way as pre-natal if they aren’t wanted and cause suffering to care givers.
Not only that, extreme late term abortions & experimentation body banks is justifiable and there can be no objection to gender or cosmetic abortions.

Also allows a man who be contributing financial care to kill infants if he is suffering.

>Here’s my real curiosity…how come you prioritise the life of those not yet born over the quality of life of those already here?

Being born is an arbitrary selection criteria no different from race or sex or post natal age.

Let us allow the killing of all unproductive non-person post natals unwanted orphaned infants, say male black babies (since they more likely to turn into criminals) the mentally handicapped and mentally self aware impaired elderly as they don’t contributed to the living and are in fact are either a drain or will be a future drain.

If a human life is only a commodity & valued arbitrarily then at least be consistent on it & use the unwanted post natals like you do the pre natals. The advances we would make from the body banks and experimentation would advance health care immeasurable saving and improving the quality of life for countless human beings.

>Do women contribute that little to the world in general that they are literally only incubators?

If we forced women to have children that did not involve them consenting to sex, then took them away from her just to increase the workforce they could be argued as just incubators.We aren't so no.
Are the responsibilities of parenthood nothing more than glorified 24 hour care givers?

1) Consenting to sex, particularly if precautions are taken, does not equate to consenting to bear a child.

2) Women are not the sex police. Although they have more to lose by falling pregnant (and that's why they get to decide whether they stay that way or not), it's unreasonable to expect them to be solely responsible for deciding when and how much sex takes place and therefore be solely responsible for any product of conception. I would like to think most sex takes place in a state of mutual consent.

3) The difference between internal and external care is immeasurable, mostly in that external care has at least some element of choice (as in, you are bound by what you can physically manage - and a lot of that is mentally willing, to do.) and an option to physically separate from your charge (a breather if you will). Internal care has no such perks.

4) While I can see where your logic is coming from, I don't see the real relevance as long as we lack the ability to transplant early term foetuses. And I still don't see the relevance because I can't imagine a man wanting to bring up a baby on his own.
You really trivialise pregnancy and childbirth in every argument.
One is never quite the same after, even Elle with her lipo and personal trainers.

This is not an argument about the value of diversity.

Do you think we'd be better off with all those pre-natal persons alive and here on the planet or are you just trying to say we should not be having sex?

PS - Was I right about the general anaesthetic? Anyone? Bueller?

NewsrooConsenting to sex, particularly if precautions are taken, does not equate to consenting to bear a child.

Not if you don’t care to take responsibility for your actions, and your solution is killing human lives to fix responsibility.

2) Women are not the sex police……. I would like to think most sex takes place in a state of mutual consent.
Do you think we'd be better off with all those pre-natal persons alive and here on the planet or are you just trying to say we should not be having sex?

If abortion became illegal both would bear responsibility birth for the female, 18 years of child support for the male. (again should we give up the imperfect financial compensation?) Society then becomes the enforcer. BTW I would imagine with multiple levels of protection, condom, spermicide, plus the rhythm method -that’s my compromise no vaginal sex during the fertile period- we wouldn’t have the unplanned pregnancies problem. I’d like to see a study into how many are failed contraception, how many use multiple contraceptives and how many is just see abortions as just another contraceptive method.

3) The difference between internal and external care is immeasurable, ……
Ad Hoc if people are suffering, many to the point of suicide then they have the same justification to fix the situation.

4) And I still don't see the relevance because I can't imagine a man wanting to bring up a baby on his own.

& you any idea whether men want to be single parents?

>You really trivialise pregnancy and childbirth in every argument. One is never quite the same after, even Elle with her lipo and personal trainers.

No you overplay it I don’t see women banging on the door of the medical establish to please God hurry up and develop artificial wombs so you don’t have to go through the ravaging experience of childbirth. Please tell me about all the cultural heritage that glorifies childbearing & about all the mothers who ‘glow’ during- childbirth & see it as afulfilling experience. Your argument would have legs if women were-

-foregoing this and & just looking for adoptions if it is such debilitating ordeal. BTW the other reason I think you are overplaying it is that when adoption is raised as an alternative this ravaged body isn’t the main objection rather women say I won’t because of the emotional pain of giving up the child. If your ravaged body was such a winner there would be no need for the selfish irrational ‘I don’t want to feel emotional pain & would rather kill it’ rationalization the ravaged body would suffice.

>This is not an argument about the value of diversity.
Didn’t say was, it was about arbitrariness and inconsistency.

>PS - Was I right about the general anesthetic? Anyone? Bueller?

Sorry forgot about that point, easy, would you be happy if we killed unwanted infants, the mentally handicapped or impaired elderly if it was done with anesthetics? PLS answer.

You haven’t addressed the non-person inconsistency , nor the killing of post natal non-persons to FIX responsibility. Nor the abortions experimentation on pre-natals extreme late terms.

You see what you are giving are socialized rationalizations to be consistent on your core justifications you would have to allow these actions to take place.

To be consistent first change current child support laws, then treat all non-persons the same killing experimentation body banks & lastly allow the killing of non-persons if it causes suffering to the care giver, to the point of suicide is easily a sufficient justification

Otherwise you are no different than any member of a morally socialized society that allowed slavery, human sacrifice, non equality for women in that you arbitrarily rationalize core values to suit your personal benefit.

Go figure many in western culture are more worried about not having genetically modified plants and animal rights but allow experimentation and the killing humans at the earliest stage of life.

Shall we play ‘beat my analogy’ you try to highlight the inconsistencies in the others core values want to give it a try?

Part 1
Yes - I am a believer in euthenasia - so killing of people BY THEIR OWN CHOICE, in a painless way is ok by me - the only thing is - what of people who have mind made of mush or a mind which hasn't developed enough to allow thought (and therefore no choice as choice implies reasoned thinking..?). Painless death is a nice wish to have for anyone - sounds funny but think about it. We all go one day.

I think the only thing you could say is that either way, you're playing 'god'. Whether you keep something alive that would never have survived 'in the wild' (severe disability, extreme age either way etc) or you kill something, it's all projecting what you THINK is right.

I do in some ways think it *is* more 'human' to do as the ancient Spartans did and leave the unwanted on the hillside for the wolves - we are only animals after all, survival of the fittest! But I also think the 'fittest' is sometimes the more co-operative and nurturing among us - that's what makes us 'humane'.
I also think there *is* value in the diversity which results from NOT killing everything which falls outside the 'norm'. Should someone be able to kill their charge because it is causing them pain? Not exactly, but they are able to get away from it and therein lies the difference.
They could certainly make a choice not to care for that (non) person anymore, which is the same reasonable choice available to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pg. currently.
The difference being - there IS another way for the external non-person to be cared for - by someone else who makes the CHOICE to. There is no other way for the foetus

Part 2
I would tentatively concede that women who want to have their baby don't use the same sort of language I have about pg, but if they spoke plainly and it was clear that their answer didn't make them a 'bad' woman, I wager they would agree that it's no cake-walk.
To inflict it upon someone who was neither keen to have OR keep the baby is in-humane. Even women who have enjoyed their pg's would agree to that.
I can understand why the most popular reason for preferring abortion over adoption is the 'can't leave you so I'll kill you' you keep carrying on about - abortions don't come back 18yrs later asking questions. It is easier to 'move on' from abortion like it never happened. You will probably disagree but I think that's a good thing.
But the SECOND most popular reason (and linked to the above) would be 'why go through all this if I'm not going to keep it?'. Even if you forget the discomfort, the pain and what the wrinkled little thing looked like before they took it away, your stretchmarks and skin tags and weak bladder will always be something left to remind you.

I don't really expect that all people can understand what goes on inside the head of a pregnant woman desperately trying to make a decision which will impact anywhere between 2 to 1000 lives, every circumstance is different - which is why it MUST be the decision of the person who has to live with it.

Getting back to the actual topic - with a sensitive time frame it is imperative that the time of these women isn't wasted by tricksters advertising advice when there is no intention of discussing one major option (or misinforming on that major option - even worse!).
I agree with Natasha.

Glad to hear my logic is sound regarding General Anaesthetic. Yay!

Newsroo I’m a meta-ethical moral relativist so if our society allows abortion on the current justification then euthanasia is viable choice both for persons & non-persons. Harder but not impossible from a Pro-life position

So are you saying we should be able to euthanase post natal non-persons & experiment on them?

As far as no immediate alternative care giver to a fetus ok fine but that means any caregiver who cannot get immediate alternative care can kill their non-person. If you use the ‘I cannot give them up’ rationale then that is another reason to kill them. One also wonders what this says for any situation were a person suffers by caring for a non-person ie lost , injured, disaster zone etc & has to wait until an alternative carer can arrive , are you happy that we allow them to die or in fact kill them to save ourselves distress? To make matters worse you actually caused that non-person to be in that predicament but to you there is no responsibility or obligation for doing so.

Our difference could be explained –if you are consistent of allowing the use of non-person post natals – is the prioritizing of our values. To me the value of a human life & taking responsibility for actions –however detrimental personally- willingly entered into takes precedence of any suffering caused to your body. Just because pregnancy is the suffering encountered by the woman & not the man does not excuse it.

What you are saying is if I suffer from the consequence of an action I knew & willingly took part in, if that involves a human non-person I can end any potential suffering by taking its life. Consistently apply it to all situations ie post natal non-persons or otherwise you are morally inconsistent.

BTW it seemed Denny’s post made Natasha’s seem superfluous

Not sure on your General Anaesthetic it’s a logical call to make but whether it is factually true I don’t know.

Anyway I’m falling behind in work thank you for the manner you have debated I’ll give you the last say

I had to make a decision to whether to have an abortion or not just over 30 years ago,the worst thing I remember about it is the pressure that I was put under to force me to have one.It seems to me that pressure is still just as pervasive today.Maybe even more than it was then.I feel that I was a victim of the pro abortion mentality,the negative attitude of abortion pushers.If Natasha really wants to do something positive,she can do something about making sure cases like mine don't happen. I. know that abortion clinics are complicit in an act of domestic violence ,I really wanted my baby,I wish I had known there were people who could have helped me at the time.To be treated badly because you don't want one isn't wonderfull.I have spoken to someone who said I was in a minority,well that is not at all comforting.Abortion has a really ugly oppressive side to it and it is high time something was done about it, it seems to me that to be oppressively pessimistic about being pregnant is what being pro choice is and that is my assessment of the debate.