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