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.