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.