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