Timkins,
You don’t know “what information can be given, and how likely is it to be reliable.”
You do not “understand the legal aspects of abortion”
You don’t understand “studies into abortion in Australia “
You are “likely to be highly unreliable “
You are “well behind other countries in studying abortion”
You do not know “how many abortions are being carried out”
You have “minimal reliable information to give”
You can’t help but “mention the words “men” or “fathers””
You are not “concerned about the female gender”
You were once treated as a “sperm donor(s)” and a “pay packet(s)” by a/many “women”

You “throw accusations, and they can be returned”
(Wow, that was fun!…… not…)

trade215, while I will always believe that the woman has the last say in what happens to her body, I do disagree with the position you have raised. A definitive frame of reference should be given as to the status of the foetus/blob of cells (or whatever a person chooses to call it). The law should not be subjective as it then leaves room for moving the goal posts. As our justice system, already rife with abuses, needs to qualify the position, not shade it with more greys. So, if the law changes and criminalises abortion - though I will hate it and fight against it - at least we will have a clear definition. As it remains legal, again, at least the definition is still clear.

What I do not get is the position some posters are holding, that society is ‘promoting’ consequence-less sex. Really? I’ve been around a few years now and have some quite young friends. They seem well informed and concerned with a great many issues regarding sex – pregnancy, disease, emotional and public issues. Perhaps what society could do is not demonise a natural part of life. Let people feel comfortable and they are more likely to discuss it openly.

Reason,
You don’t know what information can be given, and how likely it is to be reliable.
You don’t understand the legal aspects of abortion.
You don’t understand studies into abortion in Australia.
You are likely to be highly unreliable.
You don’t know how many abortions are being carried out.
You have minimal reliable information to give.
You don’t mention the words “men” or “fathers”.
You are not concerned about the female gender.
You treat men as “sperm donors” and “pay packets”.

You give anecdotal evidence (eg. “I’ve been around a few years now and have some quite young friends ”etc). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable, and anecdotal evidence would be highly unreliable information to provide during pregnancy counselling. No pregnancy counselling service should ever receive accreditation or government approval based on it’s ability to provide lots of anecdotal evidence to vulnerable men and women.

The Senator’s proposed bill is totally lacking in details and facts, but her article is big on emotional type wording, and includes anecdotal evidence also. But take all that out, and her article has very little left in it.

When the Senator and other women in Government start to mention words such as “men” and “fathers”, then they may have some respect for “men” and “fathers”, but a very common occurrence is for feminists to have no respect for “men”, “fathers”, or “children” either.

That’s why so many feminists like abortion so much, and want to talk about it so much, and write about it so much, and advocate it so much, but will rarely speak, write or advocate such things as reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy, or adopting out the child (i.e. thereby preserving the child’s life).

Another recent article on abortion in OLO is very similar to this one. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3814

Much emotional language is contained in that article also, but few verifiable facts, and of course fathers, reducing unwanted pregnancy, and adoption are never mentioned in the article. It appears almost universal, that feminists believe fathers are irrelevant, and find the thought of abortion highly attractive.

confused,

rhetotic gogma... is a spelling mistake.

The double standard... Indifferent feotus or bundle of joy is a function of personal interpretations and intention. The facts are absolutely identical... intention varies and and the morality or logic becomes situational. Treating an identical situation completely differently on the basis of an individuals arbitrary rationale is the essence of a double standard.

If not a double standard, then its a clear contradiction.

In any event, it really matters not how you spin it (which you do quite well) the actions speak for themselves.

l have no problem with any of this stuff, because as a man, it does not effect me. As you intimate, men are inconsequential, by degree. You measure the degree in a way l dont agree with. Life is created when two sets of genes, equally contribributed by BOTH parents, unite. That is where it starts and finishes for me.

l understand that you are looking at the physical aspect of pregnancy yet lm not sure that weighs upon the contribution to the CREATION of life. l think that goes to the heavier physical burden the a woman bears in GROWING the life. That burden, in this society, goes well beyond pregnancy. And to that end l have no real personal issue with abortion... like you said, we are men and its not our (physical) burden.

l pretty much feel that the physical burden/responsibility for a woman trumps the emotional/metaphysical burden for a man, when a child is aborted.

Yet, l have a faint, niggling doubt about so much regarding this matter. That is context in which l offered the 'accident with a drunk driver' scenario. l think its an interesting question that gets people really thinking about the ideological, political and practical collisions going on in this 'debate.' What interests me the most is the types of emotional responses a question like that can get, as well as the way rationalisations are constructed one way or the other.

Double standards are a reality of life, they are inescapable and l dont have a practical problem with that

Reason did you come up with some thoughts on my use of/ killing non-person humans thought experiment?

Trade215 double standard or inconsistent take your pick.

My line of argument was that if you extrapolate the logic of pro-choice you should be able to have abortions right up until birth as well as experimenting or using the pre-natal as body banks if they are given pain killers.

Nor should you have any ethical problems with abortions based on sex or for cosmetic reasons as the pre-natal non-persons don’t have any value/rights.

I also raised the thought experiment for those that use the pre-natal aren’t persons you should have no problem treating the anti-natal non-persons eg the severely mentally handicapped, infants and some impaired elderly because they are functionally not persons the same way as the unwanted pre-natals.

But thought experiments were beyond many of the rabid pro-choice and I was summarily flamed.

BTW the other interesting point is their inconsistency on equal consideration of parties and responsibility for women when consenting to an action when they know full what the consequences are. They are quite willing to force men to pay child support but not will to give the consideration in the birth of the child. Reason if I remember rightly was the only odd one out from pro-choice on this point.

I had to change my stance to be consistent with the fundamental moral precept of not taking human life unless in self-defense and now would not allow abortions even if they had a severe genetic disease-they would have the best palliative care- if that meant that viable human lives were saved. Being logically consistent with ones morals is important to me unlike many of the pro-choice I see posting.

It will be interesting what happens in the future when 33% of the Australian population are childless singles living alone, with a large elderly population. Unless we want to have plenty of immigration ladies and gents to keep our economy going the choice of the female to have abortions may no longer be considered viable.

Neohuman,
The question of whether the embryo is “human”, is referred to in a press release by the author.

"The cloning of a human embryo is a watershed in medical research. The implications of this milestone in therapeutic cloning are both exciting and terrifying," said Senator Stott Despoja.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/?press_id=1666&display=1

So the embryo is considered to be a “human embryo”, as the author did not refer to it as a “non-person embryo” etc. However there would be a difference between being “human”, and being of “value”.

When it comes to abortion, the human embryo is no longer considered to be of any value, and is disposed of. The father is also considered to be of no value (and fathers do not even get a mention as being worthy for counselling, or get a mention in the article, or even get a mention in the author’s entire web-site). So guess who this leaves left as the only person considered to be of value.

However up to 40% of human embryos within the womb, are either being stabbed to death with needles, poisoned with drugs, dissected, or sucked through vacuum tubes. No anaesthetic is usually provided beforehand to the valueless human embryo, and no wonder so many feminists love abortions.

Few studies have been conducted into the reasons for abortion in Australia, but economics seems to play a major part, and maybe the “choice” part of it really depends on how wealthy the father is. If he is thought wealthy enough, then the mother can choose to dispense with the pregnancy counselling service, and dispense with the abortion, and simply have the child.

The father is then considered to be of "value" as he is required to pay the mother money, should she choose not to adopt the child out (ie. "It's easier for me to kill you than to wave goodbye" type of thinking http://www.abortiontv.com/Choices/otherways.htm)

"no wonder so many feminists love abortions" WHAT?! No one would "love" to have an abortion. It is a horrid thing to even contemplate. I do not see any feminists out there advocating that women should hurry up and get pregnant, so they can go and have the fun times that abortion brings.

Perhaps in this discussion it might be useful if people are able to identify where they stand on abortion, how they respond to the following scenarios?

Do posters believe abortion an appropriate OPTION in any/all/none the following scenarios, and should the father be involved in any of these decisions?:

a) a fourteen-year-old girl is raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant

b) a fourty-two year old woman becomes unexpectedly pregnant to her husband. The couple's other children are 18 and 16. The couple do not want any more children.

c)a twenty-five year old woman has a one-night-stand with a guy she met at the pub.

d) a thirty-year-old woman becomes pregnant to her fourty-year-old partner. He desperately wants a child. She has never liked children, and does not want a baby.

e) an eleven-year-old becomes pregnant to her uncle.

f) an engaged couple, the woman twenty-four, the man twenty-eight, find the woman pregnant. They were not planning on having children for five or six years.

I would support abortion as an option in all of these situations, although I struggle most with that in scenario f and d. I feel that the father should be involved in the decision making, although not the final decision maker, in scenarios b, d and f.

I think women will always be the final decision maker, as no matter how much the father cares, he does not go through the physical situation of being pregnant.