I don't see any place in this article where Babette has attempted to dictate to others. She has made some points about what she considers to be the other side of the issue.

I will admit to a degree of scepticism regarding research used by religious anti-abortion advocates to support their case. I've not looked into the particular research mentioned here and others may be far better versed in issues around the claims made.

Babette does have a right to raise her concerns as others have a right to rebut the arguments she makes.

I'm very tired though of the double standard applied by most vocal pro-choice feminists, the woman should have absolute say over the choice to proceed with the pregnancy or not regardless of the circumstances of conception. The father is locked in if she decides to proceed and should be subject to child support regardless of his desires, his choice stopped at the act that lead to conception.

There is a line between raising concerns about the impacts of private choices and vilifying those who make those choices, I don't think that Babette has come anywhere near that line with this piece.

If the research is in fact showing an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as breast cancer that should be clearly publicised, if the research is advocacy research or does not say what's being claimed then there is opportunity here to make that argument.

R0bert

Abortions are bad and harmful, but killing animals is no less bad and harmful. In most cases, the animals being killed for their meat are more developed - physically, mentally and emotionally then a human fetus.

Why then is one murder condemned, the other not?

The author should be commended for acting in the national interest by addressing the side of abortion that is invariably swept under the carpet. This comes about because the abortion industry and its hangers-on do their best to deny any link between abortion and breast cancer and other after-effects, and go out of their way to hide or deride studies of such links.

The pro-abortionists show how one-eyed and selfish they are by completely ignoring consideration of the life of the second party involved, the conceived baby -- the life so violently terminated by the abortion. It is ironic that they then expect the rest of society to subsidise the cost of the abortion, thereby effectively rewarding the aborting mother for the termination of that life.

If we are talking about abortion under 3and a half months I have no objections to it, I have even less objection to the morning after pill if this is prescribed by a doctor, because it is only effective in the first 72hours after sex at which point the fertilized egg hasn’t done much mobilization. Eggs are expelled every menstrual cycle as a matter of course anyway.

This article talks a lot of emotional rubbish. Nuns also get more breast cancer because they never have children, maybe we should oppose Nuns. Any woman who has more exposure to estrogen because they have less pregnancies is in danger of breast cancer.
Age also puts women at more risk of getting breast cancer, perhaps we should ban old age. Drinking alcohol also puts women at more risk of Breast Cancer, maybe we should ban all women from having a glass of wine.

If the writer of this article wants to have 6 to 8children to save herself from Breast cancer, then let her go ahead

*The author should be commended for acting in the national interest by addressing the side of abortion that is invariably swept under the carpet*

If it was just abortion that this was all about, it would be simple.
If the Catholics wanted less abortions, they would not be bannning the snip or the tubal litigation from all of their hospitals, but they would be encouraging them, as the result would be less abortions.

Fact is that the church wants to control peoples sexual habits and
wants to deny them the right to treat their sexual organs as a fun
thing to do.

All that their weirdo attitude to sex has led to, is people leaving
the RCC in droves, joining Christian cults and sects which are a bit
more reasonable, when it comes to sex. Even 80% of Catholics simply
ignore church teachings on this one.

Trying to deny what is normal and natural, has of course landed
up costing the church billions in compensation claims, as members
of the church, whilst in denial about their sexual needs, have adopted strange ones which eventually surfaced.