Neo - You keep bringing up this non-vaginal sex thing - I would be interested to know how many males would be into this? I have to say, I doubt many would....
What's wrong with vasectomy? It doesn't 'cut your balls off' or anything of the sort - also - doctors will normally perform it without too many questions on any male who presents, regardless of whether they are currently fathers or not, unlike female sterilisation.
Getting rid of the stigma that vasectomy = emasculation would really help. Also - providing female sterilisation on demand would be a big step.

Deauc makes a good point that pg is not a cake walk - it is a permanently altering physical challenge which impacts a whole range of things which seem to have slipped by unconsidered.
For eg: Considering the physical scars of pg which chances do you consider better of finding company post unwanted childbirth, the female or the male?
Hell - the male *could* be in a new relationship DURING the pg! Good luck to the heavily pregnant woman trying to attract a new mate....or for that matter the recently post-baby woman.
And who do you think will be disadvantaged financially and career wise by the time taken to have the child, the female or the male?
As if there isn't enough of a 'glass ceiling' with promotion at work - not that I blame employers - how can you take seriously someone who has a doctors appointment every three days? (strictly termed - pregnancy should be a Lost Time Injury....very bad for productivity!)

I agree it is unfortunate that men can't have more of a say - I do feel it is unfortunate for all these 'oopsed' men to have to pay child support for children they clearly stated they did not want.
Perhaps they should look at carrying human foetii to term in pigs or something? Then your equality thing would make sense.

Seriously though - You can't see that female is far more disadvantaged by the birth of a child than male?

Well said, Newsroo.
As many posters keep saying, no-one wants to have an abortion but sometimes it seems like the lesser of two evils.
The alternative is to force unwilling women to go through pregnancy and birth. I cannot imagine anything more cruel and appalling. And I don't compare the suffering of the foetus, particularly as the vast majority of terminations happen before 12 weeks, most before 8 weeks, when the foetus really is a bunch of cells. I miscarried a foetus of about that gestation, it was impossible to tell from a period. Indeed, if I hadn't known I was pregnant, I would simply have thought it was a late period. To compare that with 9 months of pregnancy and labour (having done that twice as well) is, well, inconceivable (if you'll excuse the choice of words).
Interestingly, talking about when a foetus becomes a baby, the response of the world to my miscarriage was minimal, some were mildly sympathetic, but most regarded it as just one of those things, a minor mishap at most. When my first daughter almost died at 13 days, the world (and I) responded completely differently. Society knows the difference between a potential life and a life, we demonstrate it all the time in our responses to miscarriage versus still birth or death of a child. And any parent who has experienced (or almost experienced) both knows the difference too. We feel it in our heart and soul.

Timkins,
Reasonable questions put in a reasonable way. I will do my best to answer with respect.

Regarding your question “Do abortion clinics require a formal referral or not, and if not, then why not?”

I suggest that it's simply that the law does not require a referral in most States. As to why not – Perhaps it is the perception of the current legislators/society that this is not required/their business.

As to whether this is moral, ethical or ‘good for society’ - this is a separate argument.

With respect Timkins, I suggest that just because a person does not mention fathers or men in web-sites, documents or articles does not mean that they don’t recognise a man's value or worth. It could simply be that the perception of abortion is that it is – after all is said and done – finally laying at the woman’s feet as to her decision. Whether she chooses to involve the male or not is, ultimately, her choice. Good or bad is not for me to say, it just is.

I do agree that the current Family Law system needs change. Men have been, for a large part (though not entirely) undervalued. I know this from personal experience from the child’s point of view. I do not disagree on that point. However, I would disagree that many/all/the majority of women don't value men. Most do.

My point in my previous post was to suggest that perhaps all pregnancy counselling services should make it clear where they stand with regards to abortion. Perhaps your comment could extend this to abortion clinics to make it clear whether or not they require a referral before consulting or could provide recommended counselling services prior to any procedure

I know you may be cynical regarding motivations for an abortion clinic recommending counselling but I believe that for the large part most people involved in the field would be happy to encourage women to seriously consider the procedure prior to action, including some counselling.

Have I been fair?

OK, I need a break from this… see you all soon.

Newsroo - You keep bringing up this non-vaginal sex thing - I would be interested to know how many males would be into this?... Not many…

Maybe, maybe not that’s where sex education comes in.

>What's wrong with vasectomy? >
What’s wrong with getting your tubes cut?

My brother did it and now has broken up with his partner, too late if he hooks up with someone else who wants kids isn’t it? Given the divorce rate & that non-vaginal sex would do the job.

>providing female sterilisation on demand would be a big step.

Good idea but same problem for a woman.

>Deauc makes a good point it is a permanently altering physical challenge which impacts a whole range of things which seem to have slipped by unconsidered.
Seriously though - You can't see that female is far more disadvantaged by the birth of a child than male?

I countered this point is that if you willingly enter a situation where negative consequences can eventuate you have taken responsibility for it you don’t whine about it to avoid that responsibility. This undermines the whole concept of personal responsibility.

Duec’s counter is that no responsibility it effects only the woman who has situation to fix and which abortion does. First there is another party involved another human life –not a potential life-, next how about any carer/parent who thinks they are suffering kills their child or senile old aunt; you are only responsible ultimately to ones-self?

That certainly fixes those situations doesn’t it?

>And who do you think will be disadvantaged financially and career wise by the time taken to have the child, the female or the male?

I’ve already said unless government comes to the fore with legislation and funding to address the consequences then keep abortion as is except don’t make the male pay child support.

>I agree it is unfortunate that men can't have more of a say…..
Just unfortunate? Fine if equal consideration and treatment aren’t so important to you don’t whine if in the future you get the short end of the stick.

Nothing wrong with getting tubes tied - I finally convinced a doc (after asking about 6) to clip mine (after an 'are you sure you know your own mind?' 6mth delay and taking my mother along to the appointment - I was 23....).
The problem with it is that everyone thinks that having kids is for everyone (sorry - every WOMAN...docs don't ask questions of vasectomy seeking males....).

Deflection doesn't answer - what's wrong with vasectomies?

You should know - both procedures are reversible within a five year window....

And anyway, so what - you can't have kids then - how about adoption? You seem to be pretty keen on that plan for unwanted babies...?
But in reality and honesty you know that people don't want other people's kids, they want to have their own, even if it means an abomination of a litter through IVF. (which IMO should definitely NOT be covered by medicare - can't have kids? get a dog, take up tennis...there are other hobbies!)

Yes - unfortunate.
Men have just as much option to protect themselves from impregnating someone as women have of protecting themselves from impregnation, therefore why should no responsibility lay with the male? Granted he doesn't always get to choose what happens to the product of conception - if the baby could be carried without negative impact to the female then I think he would - go work on how we can implant foetii in pigs...
I guess a female deserves it (permanent disfigurement through pregnancy) because she was stupid enough to choose to be born with the ability to carry a foetus - obviously.

Oh - hang on - that wasn't a choice....

"But understand that many people, quite reasonably, don't consider a foetus to be a human being. You may disagree, but since you are not supreme overlord of the universe, you can't tell them who's right and who's wrong, and therefore can't stop them! K?"

A fetus is undoubtedly human and anyone who denies this is simply sticking their head in the sand.

But back to the article at hand........

Firstly, Natasha refers to pregnancy organisations that don't refer for abortions as "anti-choice." What she really means is "anti-abortion" she should be upfront about that. It is ironic that Natasha claims to want "transparent advertising" yet she herself engages in deceptive language to paint anti-abortion groups as "anti-choice."

Natasha claims she has not met anyone who is "pro-abortion." Women who are pregnant often experience pressure to abort from family/friends/boyfriends. Are we to believe that these people are "pro-choice?" (I suppose if "choice" means abortion like Natasha seems to think it does than I guess they are.)

Natasha makes reference to a woman unhappy with the counseling she received from pregnancy help geelong. The woman apparently wasn't too happy to hear about the risks associated with abortion. No doubt the Melbourne Clinic would have been only too happy to gloss over those very real risks with an assurance of "safe legal abortion."

Of course Natasha thinks those risks have been disproved with research. Would that be research funded by abortion providers?? Women need to know that some studies have shown a link between abortion and breast cancer in order to make an informed decision. Why are the abortion providers so against that? (oh that's right, they make money from abortions, silly me!)

This suggestion by Natasha is clearly a way of stigmatising pregnancy support services who don't refer for abortion, as though they are doing something wrong. I would suggest that Natasha target the abortion providers who provide counseling, this is a clear conflict of interest. Kind of like asking a car salesman whether you should buy a car from them.