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.