Whether a feotus is a life or not depends not on science, psychology, phylosophy, theology.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only... what the parents) intentions is(are).

If its going to term, then it is a human life and bundle of joy. If its unwanted then its just a mass of cells.

Case in point.

l am driving my 4 mths pregnant girlfriend to a doctor to have the feotus terminated. On the way a drunk driver hits the car and my girlfriend losses the feotus.

l am driving my 4 mths pregnant girlfriend to the shop to buy a cot and items for the nursery. On the way a drunk driver hits the car and my girlfriend losses the baby.

She can know bring a charge of manslaughter... in both cases, if she chooses and depending on her perspective. Same facts, different rationales.

What (if anything) is wrong with this picture?

Trade,
The only difference would be if the mother wants the child or not. If she wants the child, then it becomes “my baby” etc. If she doesn’t want the child, then it’s a “bunch of cells” etc. Of course the baby (and often the father) get no say in the matter.

Remember that only 10% of abortions in Australia are for "physical" reasons, (or continuing the pregnancy will adversely affect the physical health of the mother). 90% of abortions are deemed necessary for “emotional" type reasons, so choice of words becomes important in abortion literature.

It is being found that if words such as "woman’s rights", "choice", "doctor”, "her physician" ,"medical reasons," "health.", etc are used in text or in opinion polls, then people are more likely to become sympathetic towards abortion.

If words such as "abortionist", “rights of the newborn”, "social or economic reasons” etc are used, then people are more likely to be anti-abortion.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_39.asp

So use of emotional type words becomes important to convince someone that the present abortion system is acceptable.

This article uses many emotional type words (eg “respect”, “choice”, “support”, “coerced” etc), but take out all those emotional type words, and there are very few facts about abortion incorporated into this article.

Indeed reliable facts about abortion are very difficult to come by, and as in my last post, many doctors don’t even understand the legal aspects of abortion. Abortion can become a legal minefield, and if someone makes a formal referral or recommendation to a woman to have an abortion, then they are stepping into that legal minefield.

So a reason why pro-life type groups do not make referrals, can be for legal reasons, and not just for moral type reasons.

Trade,
I guess what you're pointing out is that the pregnant woman has the right to make the choice of the value of the foetus to her. No one else has that right. In my opinion the drunk driver should be charged with manslaughter in both circumstances. Unless the woman consents at the time of the termination (car accident), the drunk driver should be held accountable. Quite simple reasoning I would suggest. And the driver was drunk after all... Can't see any excuse for this.

Timkins, why are you constantly pestering this forum with discussions about reducing abortion rates, reducing unwanted pregnancies, talk of the man's rights... The bill is about providing women, who are pregnant, access to information about and procedures that they are legally entitled to, in an unbiased, "non-directive" manner. I don't believe it is about making it easier for you to sleep at night because women choose, accidentally perform or are forced to have unprotected intercourse and the consequences this creates. If you are seriously concerned about this, then perhaps you should take this issue up somewhere else - where it would be more relevant.

This bill is about the rights a woman has to determine the outcome of HER pregnancy. Men do not get pregnant. Period! So stop preaching around the rights women have to control the outcome of their pregnancies. Provide advice, yes. Encourage discussion between man and woman pre and post conception, yes. But this nonsense about rates, surveys, men's rights – be clear about your position and that you want to have control of something that is not yours.

You know, if more people had your attitude, we'd be living in the dark ages - where women would be forced to abort using macabre, often fatal techniques. I come from a country where this was the norm. Or where just-born children were dumped into sewers. Grow up and stop preaching what you don't understand the consequences of.

Confused,
You are constantly pestering this forum
You are not seriously concerned about this issue.
You should take this issue somewhere else
You are not relevant.
You preach around the rights women have to control the outcome of their pregnancies.
You do not provide advice.
You talk nonsense.
You are not clear about your position
You want to have control of something that is not yours.
Your attitude would mean that we'd be living in the dark ages
You should grow up
You should stop preaching what you don't understand the consequences of.

You throw accusations, and they can be returned.

You say abortion is all about “choice”, but the word “choice” is not included in abortion legislation.

You say there should be “access to information”.
So what information can be given, and how likely is it to be reliable.

Few people understand the legal aspects of abortion. Many doctors don’t, and doctors give out referrals. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html So asking for legal information about abortion, is quite likely to result in highly unreliable information.

Statistics and studies into abortion in Australia are very few, so information on statistics or study results is likely to be highly unreliable also. Australia is now well behind other countries in studying abortion, and no one even knows how many abortions are being carried out. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/182_09_020505/cha10829_fm.html

So overall, there would be minimal reliable information to give, and anyone who gives a formal referral for an abortion, can be stepping into a legal minefield.

“Men do not get pregnant”
Using this philosophy, there should only be female counsellors, female doctors, and female abortionists, and only women should pay for abortions.

The article doesn't mention the words “men” or “fathers”, and the author’s entire web-site does similar http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/. But of course men have to be concerned about the female gender, although there is the most minimal evidence to say that this is being reciprocated.

However there is the most extensive evidence to say that men are being treated as sperm donors and pay packets by many women, and at all levels of society and government.

Confused,

wot you are saying is that you believe in a double standard, a clear contradiction. What Orwell would define as double think. You hold two blatantly contradictory notions without apparent awareness there of. Or you are aware of it but dont care. Fair enuff. Your response clearly demonstartes that. You then go on to sugar coat that double standard in the rhetotic gogma of (gender) political dogma.

Essentially you say that men have no place nor part in the life that he also creates unless the woman says so. That seems a bit totalitarian.

You summarily dismiss a man's place in the creation of life. You have a very unilateral view and it exposes your obvious devaluation of men on a most basic, fundamental human level. It really is sad to hear that sort of thing.

Confused seems about right.

What on earth is rhetotic gogma? And where is the double standard? The drunk driver example? The woman provides consent to the doctor to perform the abortion. She does not provide the consent to her husband/boyfriend, nor the drunk driver, nor anyone else to carry out the abortion. She should have a legal right to prosecute the drunk driver if it results in the termination of her foetus - after all, she could change her mind at the last minute before the abortion is carried out - but this way she has NO CHOICE. Having stated this view, I understand that it cannot be made real in the current system - for the drunk driver to be prosecuted, the foetus would need to be considered a legal human being, which would undermine her rights for termination. Pity.

I understand biology quite well. And hey, lo and behold, I am a MAN. Guess what.. worst nightmare.. we play a very minor part in this process. What little sperm we provide to fertilise an egg is so insignificant and can be done without today in any case. We can't give birth! Pity women don't have a more direct way of controlling sperm reaching their eggs - what would you do then? Come up with a way to break this? You think my option devalues men? I hope not - I hope men aren't valued by the sperm they provide. I hope men are valued by what they do, what they stand for and how they help their fellow humans (and other living creatures).