‘A fetus is undoubtedly human and anyone who denies this is simply sticking their head in the sand.’
And what research, exactly, are you basing that on Elka?

See, it’s established medical fact that there are many stages you go through before you develop into a human. (Note: BEFORE you develop into a human. Before.) A foetus is one of them! So is a sperm.

Back to the article at hand…

‘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."’
But they are anti-choice, Elka. If you were only anti-abortion, then you would disagree with it but still accept that other people are free to make that choice. The people who are anti-choice do not accept that. Hence, anti-choice.

‘Women who are pregnant often experience pressure to abort from family/friends/boyfriends.’
They often experience pressure to keep the baby, too. So…we’ve established women experience pressure. Moving on…

‘Would that be research funded by abortion providers?’
Uh…no, because that would be a pretty huge conflict of interest…don’t you know how these things work? They take this sort of research pretty seriously. If you’re going to dismiss whatever research comes along that you disagree with, then what’s stopping the other side of the debate from doing the same? No one would get anywhere.

‘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.’
Whether or not you think they’re doing something wrong is irrelevant, the point is many keep secret the fact they do not recommend abortion. Wrong or no, people have the right to be informed.

See, you can disagree with abortion all you want, it doesn’t mean you know what’s right for other people. I believe driving a car is dangerous (to yourself and others) and polluting so I don’t do it. But I can’t stop others doing it, because we live in a wonderful free country! And hey, there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. Ever consider that?

spendocrat, while many anti-abortion people are being disingenuous they are (mostly) correct. Life = animate matter. Human = something with our DNA. Human life = living thing with our DNA. "A human life" = a human organism. Human being = means a human "in being" ie. fully born. Person = the real question.

Neo, your position:
If abortions were illegal then the man should pay a penalty, which is apparently different to child support. The difference appears to result from the ability for the woman to give the child up for adoption.

If the current situation continues then the man shouldn't have to be responsible since he has no say. The Government should support the child instead of the man because it supposedly brought about the imbalance of treatment. Rationale: Equal consideration is a fundamental rule of fairness/social justice/whatever, and either compensation must given or the other party must be burdened with more responsibility. A woman aborting is (supposedly) avoiding responsibility, so apparently he should be able to avoid responsibility too.

The preferred situation is the man being given an equal choice. If neither want it, each pay 1/2 cost of abortion and it gets aborted. If either want it then the pregnancy must continue. Previously if the man wanted it, then the woman would be compensated and if the woman wants it the man doesn't have to pay child support. Now it is unclear and the man might have to pay child support even if he doesn't want it.
---
This new version would be more equitable, butignores the main justification for allowing abortion in the first place, (liberty of the woman) and suffers from the inability to adequately compensate her. (So if the current situation is justified this version remains unnecessary.)

My views are more or less stated in the middle paragraphs of my posts from Friday and Saturday. Your re-statement is incomplete but is correct except for the claim that she has no responsibility (distinguished from obligations to others--addressed on Friday). She is accountable for her actions, but not much is required for that.

If the latter version was meant, and the father must pay support the child unless they both agree to terminate, then presumably the same is true for the woman. In effect, any compensation for carrying the child would be offset by those costs. In either version the woman's personal sovereignty is subject to the assent of the man, but of course the opposite is not true.

"BTW when discussing pro-life vs pro-choice sex and adoption are relevant as they are proposed solutions."
They are relevant to means of avoiding/reducing abortion, but that's not the question. The question is whether or not abortion should be legal and furthermore whether it is moral. Promoting birth control, non-coital sex and adoption won't get rid of abortion.

Let's take a quick look at what compensation would mean:
Loss of earnings:$20000 for approx 6 months off. (During pregnancy and recovery.)
Medical costs would mostly be covered by Medicare but add $10000 for lipo/plastic surgery, $2000 for therapy, $1000 since she has to eat for two and also get some assistance for transportation.
If this was a civil injury claim there would be restrictions on non-economic loss, but this is voluntary and there aren't any insurance co's so assume no limits. Wouldn't be a huge amount, so sum everything up to $40000. This would need to be provided as early as possible, because it is mostly replacement income and for security against the man not paying.

I'm not sure but considering interest, that's probably around half of what would be needed for 18 years of child support. If the woman has a well paying job the amount could rise drastically. And since it needs to be paid immediately, not many men would be able to choose it anyway.

It's quite bizarre that you claim to be against the killing of human life regardless of the organism's mental capabilities, yet you are so willing to argue for a system where said life can be killed as soon as two people agree, or on the choice of one if the other wouldn't have had to support the life.

SBMT>Deflection what's wrong with vasectomies?
Nothing if you want it but as I said given the divorce rates & many women do want children and you can have non-vaginal sex which makes it overkill.

> both procedures are reversible within a five year window....
It may be reversible but that’s not 100%

> how about adoption? You seem to be pretty keen on that plan for unwanted babies...?

You would think you’ve had kids before the cut and would allow those that haven’t first choice.& again unnecessary non-vaginal sex suffices.

BTW if abortion went so would IVF on similar moral grounds and stem cells from embryos so increased demand.

>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?

First its about equal treatment if a woman has no obligation than don’t force it on the man Stop asking for special treatment.

Again if a man gets a say he has to pay, not the same but the burden of child support makes many men suffer financial and mental anguish. BTW if given the same treatment afforded to females he should be able to kill the non-person infant.

That fixes the situation!

>I guess a female deserves it (permanent disfigurement through pregnancy).

First like a child funny how the same situation, if wanted is highly valued, but denigrated if not. An unborn child wanted a blessing and unwanted a parasitic bunch of cells. Pregnancy & having children while not pleasant is often makes many women feel compete or is praised in glowing terms, when not wanted it’s a disfiguring burden.

>-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....

How come you lot talk about choice but deny the choice you had to have vaginal sex in the first place?

You have a CHOICE you choose to disregard the consequences then you wear it.

Address this point.

The point is, non-vaginal sex isn't sex - it's (glorified) masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I think that's been said and ignored before....
To break it down - let's look at the alternatives:

Anal - not healthy. The anus was designed to have things repeatedly come out of it, not go into it. Common side effects from anal sex include loss of bowel control, anal bleeding and inflammation. This would cause a sh@t-load (pun) of health problems the country doesn't need.
Not to mention that the increased risk of bleeding = an increased risk of contracting disease.

Oral or Fingers - these are fine and fun but if they were satisfying, don't you think people would be foregoing vaginal sex for it now?

Toys - same as above.

And ignoring all of that - it's essentially the same point as abstinence - which isn't a good policy as we see from numerous perverted priests in the Catholic Church...

To address the issue of the 'choice' to have vaginal sex - wasn't that presumeably TWO people making a choice to have vaginal sex? Why didn't the man refuse to put his penis there? Or (as usual) were you leaving the issue of contraception entirely up to she who will suffer more from the consequences?
Do women *really* have to be the sex police?

As I said a couple of posts back - I would be interested to know just how many MEN would be into your concept of non-vaginal sex. My guess is - not many. So then (presumeably...) you are saying that it should be up to women to consistantly deny vaginal sex to every man until she felt ready to procreate...? I wouldn't be surprised - they are already asked to flood their system with hormones to enable 'bare back' sex, why not?

There's no denying that not having sex is the most fool proof way not to fall pregnant but it's just not based in reality

<'because there are 75000 being killed annually in Australia alone'

Is it that hard to not used biased words and say 'pregnancies being terminated'? You make it sound like a slaughter. If you disagree with it, then cool, don't do it. 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?

Oops, I hope Jose isn't supreme overlord of the universe. Boy would my face be red!>

Sorry, I should express myself clearer.
The point is, there are 75000 pregenancies being terminated each year. This means that the foetus, which if not removed would become human at some stage [if it is not already human]. Then the foetus will either:

(1) miss out on the chance of becomin human (if it ISN'T HUMAN)
or
(2) be murdered (ONLY if it IS human)

I don't mind whether it's 1 or 2.
BUT it's not both and its not neither of them. It is ONE of them. I think everyone will agree on that- IT'S EITHER 1 OR 2.

Now, at the end of either point, there are criteria in brackets. Science can determine which of these bracketed ones is correct. This will determine whether #1 or #2 applies.

(As for my latest decree as supreme overlord of the universe: All internet users are ordered to touch one of their elbows with their chins. However, this does not apply to those whose birthdays occur in April. They can have the day off. The punishment for disrgarding my decrees is to eat asparagus at breakfast for a month.)