A very amateurish 'information' paper indeed!
The claim, under the section entitled “The need for change”, that “the current law…fails to recognize…women as competent and conscientious decision makers” is ideologically-driven nonsense. Such a claim elevates all women to sainthood, places them above the Law, deemed perfectly incapable of the crime of arbitrary deprivation of an innocent human life. Most women and most doctors(men and women) may be competent and conscientious decision makers, but the Law also recognizes that some women and some doctors (men and women) may not for a variety of reasons, some of them criminal, be competent and conscientious decision makers. Abortion law must remain as “a just and necessary deterrent to the taking of innocent human life.”
Under international human rights law, all governments have a solemn human rights obligation to provide legal protection for all children, "before as well as after birth" from arbitrary deprivation of life. Decriminalizing abortion is not just a domestic legal matter for Tasmania. As Justice Michael Kirby established, where there is a gap in the domestic law, international human rights law may be used to ensure human rights protection for any vulnerable group. To decriminalize abortion is to leave an immense gap—it removes necessary legal protection from a most vulnerable group—children at risk of abortion--a group with no legal representation against arbitrary deprivation of life.

Babette Francis wrote: "So before the Bill is passed and I risk being extradited and confined to the prisons of Port Arthur where previous generations of boat convicts were incarcerated, I will point out some flaws on page l0 of the euphemistically titled "Information Paper" which accompanies the Bill."

The author is all set to assume the mantle of a martyr. However, she does not cite why she would be imprisoned for criticising the paper.

A woman should have the right to decide whether she wants to continue a pregnancy. Neither Babette Francis, I nor anybody else has the right to decide for her.

Your opinion, David, that "A woman should have the right to decide whether she wants to continue the pregnancy" is contrary to international human rights law which strictly forbids any one human being having ownership or disposal rights over any other human being, no matter how small, or dependent or troublesome or 'unwanted'.
It is also contrary to the fundamental human rights principles of inalienability, indivisibility, equality and the non-derogability of the right of "all members of the human family" to legal protection from arbitrary deprivation of life.
Right from the first drafting of the foundation international human rights instruments, the legal language of human rights consistently included "unborn children" and "the child before as well as after birth" and accorded these smallest human beings equal and inalienable human rights to “life, development and survival”. In the 1947-8 negotiations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the first things agreed by Australia, with other members of the international community, was that the “innocent unborn child” was to be legally protected.
It is not valid now for the proposed Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill to pretend that the human rights of unborn Tasmanian children at risk of abortion are negligible, not worth mentioning or protecting.
The Bill violates the indivisibility principle which requires equal human rights protection for both the mother and her unborn child; and prohibits the state from abandoning laws that protect the unborn child on the grounds that it has a priority obligation to protect the "the abortion choice" of the child's mother.

Abortion "choices" as human rights violations by adults in positions of power over children in positions of dependency are incompatible with protection of the child before birth.
When the indivisibility principle is applied, the individual state’s misperceived duty to provide expectant mothers with abortion "services" cannot be performed at the neglect of the more fundamental duty to uphold the rights of their children to "special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth". The right to life is "the supreme right" and "basic to all human rights"

Dear Ritaj,

'Unborn children' is an emotive oxymoron. A fetus may or may not become a child. You and I are undead people. Eventually we will be dead, but at present we are not. A fetus may or may go to term.

You wrote: "Abortion "choices" as human rights violations by adults in positions of power over children in positions of dependency are incompatible with protection of the child before birth."

There is no child before birth. It is a part of a woman's body, and she should have the right to decide what to do with part of her body.

david f rejects Babette Francis's concern that she may be at risk of imprisonment for criticising the new draft Tasmanian "reproductive health" bill.

He should read the bill: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/126720/ReproductiveHealth_Consult_Draft.pdf.

Clause 9 of this horrendous legislation penalises any protest in relation to the killing of viable unborn babies within 150 metres of an abortion facility. The penalty is a maximum fine of $65,000 and/or one year in jail.

Right now many people are up in arms about restrictions on free speech in Senator Conroy's new bill to regulate the media. Why is there not even a whimper about Michelle O'Byrne's draconian legislation in Tasmania?

Dear Edmund Burke,

Incitement and harassment is a crime under English common law. Women who decide to have an abortion should be free from incitement and harassment. Those who hang around abortion clinics are inciting and harassing.

Babette Francis is completely free to protest or to take legal action against the bill. She is not free to harass those women who have made the choice to have an abortion. They should be free from that sort of thing after they have made their decision. They are under enough stress as it is.

''Unborn children' is an emotive oxymoron. A fetus may or may not become a child.'

yes David f and the Nazis changed the definition of human also. It was still murder no how some smart pseudo scieintist changes the defintion of a child.

>>Clause 9 of this horrendous legislation penalises any protest in relation to the killing of viable unborn babies within 150 metres of an abortion facility.<<

So in other words: people are free to criticise and protest the legislation as much they like as long as they're more than 150m away from an abortion clinic when they do so. That's hardly what you'd call a draconian clampdown of free speech.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear runner,

The Nazis were very much against abortion. Their idea for women was, "kinder, kirche, kuche." Children to grow up to be soldiers or producers of soldiers. Church to stupefy their minds. Cooking to provide sustenance for males of the master race.

Legislating against abortion protests on the doorsteps of abortion clinics is long overdue. No one would be prevented from conducting a civil protest in the town square or outside parliament house so what's the problem? The truth is that anti-abortion protests are purely and simply a blatant act of intimidation and harassment, primarily targeting the women who attend the clinic. Calling yourself a "sidewalk counsellor" and trying to preach, frighten, intimidate, and persuade women and their partners as they walk towards the clinic doesn't legitimise harassment either. You have to ask, is the protest targeting the general public, policy makers, or is it designed to upset individual women and turn them away from the clinic?

Civil protests are usually conducted against government or against corporations. A protest group specifically targeting a few private citizens is gutless and unlawful. The fact that the anti-abortion protesters are so upset about possibly being denied the right to stand at the entrance of a termination clinic clearly demonstrates that their motives are to intimidate and shame the women attending. How is this their "right"?

Yes, our right to conduct civil protests is important but our individual rights to go about our business in privacy and without interference is deserving of protection.

David, the terms "unborn children" and "the child before as well as after birth" are an irrevocable part of the legal language of the foundation documents of modern international human rights law. It is not valid now to replace these terms with the medical textbook term "the foetus" and then claim that "the foetus" has no right to legal protection under human rights law. Applying dehumanizing language to those human beings whom we want exterminated is a very old ploy, very cleverly applied in the pogroms of last century.

It is futile to pretend that procured abortion does not destroy a lively, growing new human being. Both reason and science confirm that the unborn child is already in existence, being protected and nurtured in his/her mother's womb. With astonishing accuracy, we can locate the child within definite co-ordinates of space and time. The child in his/her mother’s womb is not a generic, anonymous foetus. We can identify the child's father, and whether the child is a son or a daughter. We can ascertain long before birth that the child is a unique member of the human family, biologically, genetically, and genealogically.
The right to legal protection "before as well as after birth" remains one of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family proclaimed by the International Bill of Rights as the foundation of justice in the world.

No one may destroy that right, nor deprive any human being of that right, nor transfer that right, nor renounce it—that’s what inalienable means.

And when the International Bill of Rights goes on to say that it is essential…that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, it is clear that no one may remove the human rights of the unborn child from the protection required by the rule of law. The term "no one" means no legislature, no judiciary, not even those august personages, Tasmania’s politicians —none of these has the authority to de-recognize and then violate the human rights of any human being, big or small, born or unborn.

I find it fascinating that the Male post's on here are all Pro Choice. Why is that I wonder? And why is an unborn Baby's life worth any less than a birthed one? Do any of you actually know how an Abortion procedure is carried out? What they do to the unborn baby? Maybe you should all do some research it's horrific!! Maybe you should all go and thank your Mothers for not Aborting you!!
As for the misrepresentation of what actually happens at a 'Protest' outside an Abortion Clinic I think you've all been watching too much Television.
None of you are even considering the perspective of women who thought they had no other option's but to kill their baby's, but were lucky enough to be intercepted by one of these 'evil protesters' before they went through with a decision that would have ruined the rest of their lives and enabled them to realise that this is not the only option.
Sorry guy's but you are not the ones that have to go through the procedure and live with the consequences!!

This is a draconian bill right out of character with what one would expect in a liberal democracy like Australia. Even if one is "pro-choice" one should, in my view, demand that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be tolerated. Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to a free society. One has to recognize that some people will state facts or propositions that one finds anathema. Unwelcome as such expressions may be to some individuals it is essential that we all recognize that we censor such expressions at our peril. Eventually the people in authority, whether far right or far left, will use legislation of this character to stifle all dissent.

Well said Gadfly42!!

david f said: "Incitement [to violence] and harassment is a crime under English common law. Women who decide to have an abortion should be free from incitement and harassment. Those who hang around abortion clinics are inciting and harassing..."

Read the horrendous Tasmanian draft abortion law again, david f. A mere "protest" against the violence of killing of an unborn baby would be punishable by a huge fine and/or a year in jail. I could be arrested for standing 149 metres from an abortion facility, silently praying and holding a sign saying "Jesus loves you and your baby".

And if a woman approaching the abortion facility stopped to ask if I could help her because her boyfriend was pressuring her to abort her baby, and I gave her an information leaflet that referred her to pregnancy support but not abortion, I could be arrested and fined a huge amount for that "crime" too.

I would be interested to know if david f believes Greens supporters who harass and booby-trap legal loggers should face fines of up to $65,000 and a year in jail.

Sadly, hypocrisy features hugely in this debate.

>>A mere "protest" against the violence of killing of an unborn baby would be punishable by a huge fine and/or a year in jail. I could be arrested for standing 149 metres from an abortion facility, silently praying and holding a sign saying "Jesus loves you and your baby".<<

A mere "protest" against the violence of killing of an unborn baby would not be punishable by a huge fine and/or a year in jail. You could not be arrested for standing 151 metres from an abortion facility, silently praying and holding a sign saying "Jesus loves you and your baby". He doesn't BTW - if Jesus loved babies so much he wouldn't cause all that stillbirth and cot death. Apparently Jesus really hates babies.

Are you an idiot or do you just have some strange martyr complex? Just take two bloody steps to the right - if you can manage to get any further right. Lo and behold, your protest is now completely legal. You can pray and annoy women all day long and you can't get arrested for it. What on earth are you whingeing about?

>>I would be interested to know if david f believes Greens supporters who harass and booby-trap legal loggers should face fines of up to $65,000 and a year in jail.<<

If there is booby-trapping involved then $65,000 and a year in jail is too weak a sentence. That and a week in stocks and some electro-convulsive 're-education'. That'll teach the filthy hippies.

Cheers,

Tony

I have never read more of a rubbish article on this site before.
Where are the legitimate links to all these 'studies' that prove a link between abortion and breast cancer? Links that didn't involve the Catholic Church that is...

Upon looking further into the author's background, I knew I didn't have to go far to find the holy catholic link.

Linking abortion to breast cancer is a bit of a stretch, even for the pro life lot.
There are so many unknown reasons for breast cancer, and I am alarmed that the pro life people feel the need to spread these lies to further their cause.

What of all the poor women who died from breast cancer, despite having had multiple children and never having had an abortion? My two sister-in-laws for a start.

Breast cancer is bad enough without religious crackpots suggesting they must have had an abortion at some time in their past, and were now being 'punished' with breast cancer.
Even if they did, what the hell business of anyone else is that?

Gadfly42 wrote; "Even if one is "pro-choice" one should, in my view, demand that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be tolerated. "

Well, there are already limitations on freedom of speech that I'm sure you are probably in favour of. The law prohibiting telemarketers from calling you if you are on the do-not-call register comes to mind. Just as we have been granted the right to enjoy not to be disturbed by telemarketers (who would like to exercise their right to free speech), women entering a termination clinic also have the right to do so without intimidation or harrassment by those who are determined to stop her by any means. Whether by displaying posters of bloodied fetuses, by passive agressive "praying" on the doorstep, or by offering unwanted "advice".

Edmund Burke wrote: “I could be arrested for standing 149 metres from an abortion facility, silently praying and holding a sign saying "Jesus loves you and your baby".

Free speech is a noble thing. We can use it to say something worthwhile, something that challenges the powers-that-be, something that causes one to reflect, something that highlights a wrong or something else that make the world a little better or wiser. Even nonsense speech is protected as long as it does not harm person or property. However, the example you cite falls in none of those categories.

Invoking a deity who was a composite figure made of the pagan deities popular two millennia past is nonsense. Pagan deities such as Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth were born on or very near our Christmas Day of a Virgin-Mother in a Cave or Underground Chamber. They led a life of toil for Mankind and were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Saviour, Deliverer. They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness, descended into Hell or the Underworld, rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world. They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism and they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

Calling up such a deity and contending this deity expresses love toward a pregnant woman who does not have a baby but a foetus is nonsense speech and would ordinarily be protected. However, since that particular nonsense speech is used to harass a stressed woman who is going to get an abortion it is actionable under law. She probably doesn’t feel happy about it but has thought it over and decided it is the best course for her. She should be free from harassment. Don’t bug her. Why do you want to bug her? Are you a sadist?

She needs compassion not superstition.

In response to Susie, the fact that Babette Francis may or may not be a Catholic is irrelevant. In fact the first evidence that full-term pregnancy reduces breast cancer risk was available in the 16th century when it was noted that the incidence of breast cancer among Catholic nuns was high - much higher than among married women - because the nuns were childless.
Babette Francis has provided all the links to substantiate her information. The Journal of the American Medical Association is not a Catholic magazine, and the main researcher and Vice President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute www.bcpinstitute.org, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College, New York, is Jewish. All the 50+ studies linking induced abortion with breast cancer are available on this site. The British Geriatric Society, sponsors of the Dubbo, NSW, study, is not a Catholic organisation. And here are the four recent studies from a range of countries, Turkey, China, USA, Armenia showing that induced abortion increases breast cancer risk.
References:
1. Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al. Breast cancer risk
factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37.
2. Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009.
3. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative
breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
4. The study, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on
Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia,” was led by Lilit Khachatryan of the
Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia and included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (Robert Scharpf) and the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (Sarah Kagan). A 2.86 fold increased risk is statistical significant, not some mathematical artifice. Health Care for Women International Volume 32, Issue 11, 2011.

@Suseonline
"Linking abortion to breast cancer is a bit of a stretch, even for the pro life lot."
At present science still aren't certain that mobile phones can cause negative effects on your health. But if you happen to be a fan of mobile phones, do you simply disregard all the research that suggests there is a negative effect?

@crumpethead
"Well, there are already limitations on freedom of speech that I'm sure you are probably in favour of.."
Would you like it if someone decides to shut down your views, rights and actions, whatever they are?

@david f
"...something that highlights a wrong..."
Isn't it wrong to terminate an unborn baby? AFter all, there is official medical advice out there that tells pregnant women not to take alcohol to avoid harming the unborn baby. That presupposes the unborn baby is a life worth protecting.

"Invoking a deity who was a composite figure made of the pagan deities popular two millennia past is nonsense."
None at all, Jesus was/is real: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
By the way, isn't the Apollo moon landings a fictional event that was a composite of previous fictional tales of men going to the moon, such as Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", H.G. Wells' "First Men in the Moon", the Tom Swift story "Tom Swift in the Race to the Moon" and comic book heroes Tintin and Marvel's Fantastic Four, amongst others?

I'm not a big fan of restriction on freedom of speech but from what's been described by both sides in this debate the risk of having Babette "extradited and confined to the prisons of Port Arthur where previous generations of boat convicts were incarcerated" seems like poetic license rather than reality.

There does not appear to be any way that you can be in another jurisdiction and within 150 meters of a clinic located in Tasmania.

It's clear that anti-choice protesters have used the lack of such restrictions to hassle those who have chosen to have an abortion. Psychological bullying of people who may already be going through significant personal trauma.

Unless abortion clinics are really prolific in Tasmania I suspect that there are a significant number of locations where you can meet for a coffee and talk about the evils of abortion without incurring the wrath of the law or accidentally hassling passers by.

This isn't really about freedom of speech, I think most of you know that.

If you have a valid case to back the medical claims I'm open to hearing them. I've seen enough dodgy research and claims from feminists that I'm willing to consider the possibility that there might be a cover up of evidence that goes against their claims but I've not seen a credible case for Babette's claims yet.

I've seen how quickly the average feminist suggests that a males choice stops at the sex act to be less than convinced by their dedication to personal autonomy and choice but without a good case to support it I don't think the answer is further restriction on human choice.

R0bert

Dear RMW,

There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A foetus is not a baby. It is difficult to reason with or talk sense to one who insists on using emotive language. Sure, a foetus is worth taking care of. However, the interests of the woman who is a living independent person is more important than those of part of her body. As long as she is pregnant the foetus is part of her body. She has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. It’s that simple. It is not wrong to terminate a pregnancy. I think it’s a woman’s right to do so. Apparently you would deny her that right and think that it’s wrong for her to terminate a pregnancy. We differ.

Certainly a Christian site would deny that Jesus has anything to do with the pagan myths. However, it sure looks to me as though the Christian mumbojumbo incorporates a lot of the pre-Christian mumojumbo. It’s the stock in trade of people in many religions to say their wonder working figures are real and the myths aren’t myths. There are Muslims who believe in Muhammad working miracles, Jews who believe that Joshua stopped the sun, Buddhists who believe in Buddha working miracles etc. Why don’t you believe in Buddha and Muhammad and their miracles? Maybe you do. I see no reason to believe in the religious mumbojumbo of any religion. The religious beliefs of most people are simply those of their parents. You probably have Christian parents. If you haven’t I am mistaken. I don’t think anyone logically takes up a religion. They are born into it, or it fills a psychological need.

Jesus may have been a real person, but I think none of the accounts of miracles really happened. I also think that even if he existed we cannot be certain about the facts of his life. I don’t regard the Bible as a reliable source.

I think humans actually landed on the moon. If you don’t think so I see no point in arguing the subject.

Let us start off with a quote:
"There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A foetus is not a baby. It is difficult to reason with or talk sense to one who insists on using emotive language. Sure, a foetus is worth taking care of. However, the interests of the woman who is a living independent person is more important than those of part of her body. As long as she is pregnant the foetus is part of her body".
The foetus is not part of her body. It has a different physiological make up. There are fundamental differences in the two persons. He or she has a different blood group and there are other fundamental differences. HE OR SHE IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER'S BODY. Get some basic physiological knowledge because you are making a fool of yourself here. The foetus has brainwaves and a heart beat.
Another quote:
"She has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. It’s that simple. It is not wrong to terminate a pregnancy. I think it’s a woman’s right to do so. Apparently you would deny her that right and think that it’s wrong for her to terminate a pregnancy".
When people use the word "terminate" I say that it sounds OK unless you are the person being terminated.

He has jumped from flawed physiology to flawed ethics

Oh come on Gadfly. Have you seen the authors websites?

The Endeavour Foundation sounds like an advertisement for radical Christian groups.
She advocates anti abortion, anti feminist, anti euthanasia, pro-family, pro marriage, anti gay, etc
So you can't tell me that she and her followers don't have another agenda where abortion rights are concerned?

Childless women being more susceptible to breast cancer than those who have children is well documented. Maybe it follows that if a woman has an abortion, but then never has any further pregnancies or births, that she may also be more susceptible to breast cancer.
However, this is not because she had an abortion as such, but because she also never had any children.

How awful then that a god apparently 'creates' infertile women, who then have a slightly higher chance of developing breast cancer through no fault of their own?
How can this same god also request that nuns refrain from sex and children if this breast cancer is also more likely to happen to them too?

Babettes other site is abortionbreastcancer.com, another Christian based site that advocates a link to :
"U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Abortion-Breast
Cancer Link"

What on earth can unmarried, celibate old men possibly have to contribute to a debate like this, except to carry on about the Catholic church's 'teachings'?

Abortion is no one else's business except the parents and their doctor.

Dear Gladfly42,

Shouting does not make you right. My uncle had one blue and one brown eye. It results from a somatic mutation where the cell that is going to develop into an eye has a gene that mutates. This is not in a germ cell so it does not carry on to his descendents. Everyone else in the family had two blue eyes. However, both eyes were part of his body. In like manner a foetus may have a different blood type and other differences from the pregnant woman, but it is part of her body unless she gives birth or the pregnancy is terminated in some other manner.

The foetus does have brainwaves and a heartbeat once it develops that far. Nevertheless it is part of her body. I have studied both physiology and anatomy and have a good knowledge of both. I think it’s generally not a good idea to call another person a fool because you differ with that person. I see no need to call you names. I don’t think you are in a position to decide whether my ethics are flawed or not. I don’t agree with your view of right and wrong, but I do not think I can decide that for you. I also don’t think you can decide that for me.

I think it was a great advance in human rights when the US Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal in the US. Without making abortion legal women who needed an abortion would either go the coat hanger route or use the services of a backyard abortionist which could also be quite risky. A woman who wants an abortion should have the services of a medically, competent physician.

During WW2 my cousin had a boy friend who went off to war. Two months later she got word he was killed. She found she was pregnant and committed suicide. This ended her existence, and, of course, the foetus died with her. Part of what motivates me to support a woman’s right to abortion is her memory.

Susie has finally acknowledged that being childless increases breast cancer risk, but then denies that abortion increases risk! This is illogical - if the pregnant woman did not have the abortion, she would not have been childless and would have reduced her risk of breast cancer, and she would have reduced her risk still further if she breastfed her baby. One cannot breastfeed an aborted fetus.
But there is an independent risk factor associated with the abortion itself. Pregnancy causes breast cells to multiply and these are vulnerable to cancer, just like the breast cells of a childless woman, but a pregnant woman has more of these vulnerable breast cells. Breast cells do not become resistant to cancer until after 32 weeks of pregnancy, so a first or second trimester abortion, or a second trimester miscarriage increases breast cancer risk because the woman has more Type l and Type 2 cells which are vulnerable to cancer.
And I note that Susie has ignored the four recent studies I quoted from a range of countries which showed the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. The study from Armenia is particularly significant because the researchers noted that "any birth is protective.... and that each year delay in first pregnancy increased risk". Our Cancer Councils are culpable because they have known this for decades but are not informing women.
I do not mean to imply that every woman who gets breast cancer has had an abortion, but it is a significant risk factor, just like not every road accident is related to alcohol consumption, but alcohol does contribute significantly to road deaths.
Greg Byrne

Gadfly, you can believe what you like, as will I.

Why are you so concerned about women having abortions anyway?
Isn't it enough that you and yours can choose not to have an abortion?
You should leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions.

It is not ok to force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
If a woman is determined to have an abortion, she will do it, no matter what.
How would you force women to stay pregnant and give birth Gadfly?
Would you tie them to a bed until the labour starts?

Luckily, It is legal and safe to have an abortion in public hospitals in Australia.
This will never change, in a thankfully increasingly secular world...

My cousin who was pregnant and committed suicide cannot get breast cancer. She cannot get any disease, feel depressed or have any more ailments. That is because she is dead. If she had been able to get an abortion she would have lived on and would possibly have had children at a later date. I regret that legal abortions were not available at that time. I am glad that other women who are in similar situations now have the choice. I think it is most important that they continue to have that choice.

@david f
"As long as she is pregnant the foetus is part of her body."
Wrong, the unborn baby is separate from the mother: http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/separate.htm

"However, it sure looks to me as though the Christian mumbojumbo incorporates a lot of the pre-Christian mumojumbo."
It sure looks to me as though the Apollo moon landing story incorporates a lot of pre-existing fictional stories.

"I don’t think anyone logically takes up a religion."
Not sure exactly what you mean by 'logically' but this is a person who converted to Christianity via philosophic thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Karin_Monsen

"..but I think none of the accounts of miracles really happened."
What you think doesn't matter. It happened historically.

"I also think that even if he existed we cannot be certain about the facts of his life."
I don't think we can be certain about the facts of your life.

@Suseonline
"Why are you so concerned about women having abortions anyway? Isn't it enough that you and yours can choose not to have an abortion?"
If you oppose female genital mutilation, then don't harm your female genitals. It is none of your business however to tell other people, groups and cultures what they should do or not do to female genitals, particularly if they find it acceptable. Mind your own business.
If you oppose honour killings of women, then don't kill women. It is none of your business however to tell other people, groups and cultures that they musn't do honour killings, particularly if they find it acceptable. Mind your own business.

Rubbish RMW.
The practices you talk about are illegal in this country, so of course it is everyone's business if a crime has occurred.

Abortion is legal, and will remain so.
Pro life people should put all their considerable fervour into supporting new and improved methods of contraception, so women can avoid unwanted pregnancies.

To make sure of unwanted pregnancies, men should always wear condoms, unless both partners want a baby.

No one likes abortion, and I hope one day that no one needs to have one, but until then, it is a private matter.

suseonline

If you want to understand why pro-life people want to prevent abortions it is to save the lives of babies. Many members are religious and are motivated by religious beliefs but also want to save babies. That is what the debates and protests are all about. They also want to prevent women suffering the after effects and health problems from abortion. Some pro-life organizations go to great lengths to prevent any religious paraphernalia appearing on their premises or at their protest rallies even if some members are motivated by religious beliefs.

@Suseonline

"The practices you talk about are illegal..."
Wasn't abortion also illegal?

"No one likes abortion, and I hope one day that no one needs to have one..."
In that case, why allow it? You evidently don't like female genital mutilations and honour killings and you don't want them to be legal.

There is a simple 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancy: do not have sex in the first place. That goes for both guys and girls.

I would prefer that unwanted pregnancies never occur in the first place Gadfly.

Then we wouldn't have the multitude of problems that occur with unwanted children, adoptions and foster homes.

Either people use contraception if they don't want children, or they abstain from sex!
Many religious people don't want contraception available either though do they, so it's either abstinence or multiple pregnancies for them.

There will always be 'mistakes' though of course, and abortion should be safely available so we don't go back to the 'good ol' days' when women died after trying to abort themselves, or by non-medical abortions.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here Gadfly, although both of us would be happy if there were no abortions needed at all...

"No one likes abortion, and I hope one day that no one needs to have one..."
In that case, why allow it?"

I don't much fancy chemotherapy or a host of other medical procedures either. I'd love the world to be a place where no one ever needed those treatments. In the mean time they are better than the alternative.

I've yet to meet someone who was strongly anti-abortion who truly valued all human life. The ones who not only valued the foetus inside someone but valued those already formed and born humans dying from a lack of basics that we could provide. I've yet to meet an anti-abortionist who gives and gives and gives to those who are already clearly human lives with a passion you want us to believe you hold for a foetus.

I suspect most of you who claim to believe that all human and potential human life deserves the right to life still decide a coffee or a trip to the movies or some other day to day trivia is more important than the life that $5 or $10 might save in other parts of the world. You may give but very few of you give as though you really believe that all "human" life is sacred.

Any reason why the foetus inside someone else's womb is more important that the person dying in another country for lack of an injection or clean water (http://filterpurefilters.org/donate.htm)?

R0bert

Quite right RObert.

If we can't even manage to feed and house all the children already born in the world right now, what hope would we have of dealing with the forced pregnancies and unwanted babies you want to 'save' Gadfly?

Far better we prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place...

The Catholic Church is the largest group that opposes abortion. It has a very good record for helping people in developing countries. There is a Vatican Cardinal in charge of these works. This is a very important work of the Church. Many pro-life people are also contributors to appeals for the needy.

But regardless of these things helping the most vulnerable people in society (infants in the womb) is a very important work also. If you are going to accuse pro-life people of being indifferent to the plight of needy people in Australia and overseas you are making a big mistake.

It's easy to get off on the wrong foot here and get too concerned about the pregnant woman in dire straits. Many abortion candidates are materialistic people who put their own convenience ahead of the right of their unborn child to live. Very often it is the person in dire straits who is most determined that her child will be born alive.

It's a woman's own choice Gadfly, no matter what her circumstances.
That's why it was voted in as legal many years ago.
You need to move on.

@R0bert
"I don't much fancy chemotherapy or a host of other medical procedures either..."
This mentality sees pregnancy as a disease. Interesting.

"Any reason why the foetus inside someone else's womb is more important that the person dying in another country for lack of an injection or clean water."
All sorts of people need help. See this:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/pakistan/130310/arrests-made-pakistan-christian-neighborhood-atta

That word "choice" is a "catch all" in any debate about abortion. If a particular parliament can vote for "choice" now a future parliament can vote against it. Therefor one is in a "no man's land" where rights depend upon temporary majorities in a parliament. I think that it is best if one arrives at a position from fundamental principles. I believe that eventually a future parliament will vote to allow abortion as a last resort when there is some sort of serious physical condition in the mother. That may not satisfy both sides but be a compromise for both sides. Parliamentary debates are not decided by logic but by "the numbers". If you have "the numbers" you can do as you like. The late Senator Pat Kennelly said' "It's good to have the logic but better to have the numbers". In terms of any issue such a situation is a recipe for disaster. Any society that accepts that sort of situation for a long period will eventually get into serious trouble, morally, economically and militarily. Important questions of government cannot be resolved satisfactory if the outcome depends upon "the numbers"

Not even democratically elected "numbers" can guarantee human rights protection for vulnerable groups.

At the foundation of modern international human rights law is the recognition that “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” cannot be legitimately restricted through arbitrary exercise of governmental power or even through arbitrary exercise of the majority’s democratic will.

“In order to guarantee human rights, it is therefore essential that States’ actions affecting basic rights not be left to the discretion of localized or domestic governments but, rather, that they be surrounded by a set of guarantees designed to ensure that the inviolable attributes of the individual not be impaired.”

Extreme liberal abortion legislation (such as is proposed in this Bill) that permits lethal disrespect for the lives of so many children from conception right up until birth demonstrates just such a need for some system of subsequent control, when a localized majority seek arbitrarily to pass a law that has abrogated the human rights of these children at risk of abortion.

Neither public opinion nor common practice excuses human rights violation

It has never been valid under international human rights law to plead a defence that terminations of children's lives are legal and/or common practice domestically—the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not permit violation of children’s rights on the grounds that local or customary law or local common practice tolerates such violations. Cultural practices are frequently contrary to law. Relying on cultural practice to restrict or narrow established international law on human rights is not a sound basis for any novel domestic human rights legislation or amendment.

Dear Ritaj,

If the foetus were an independent living being which was not in the body of another human being you would be right. However, that is not the case. A foetus is inside the body of a woman. Her wishes should take precedence. Two rights conflict. The right of a woman not to continue her pregnancy and the rights of the foetus conflict. In my opinion the right of a woman not to continue her pregnancy prevails. I don't believe any other person should have the right to tell a woman that she has to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Women will continue to get pregnant. Some women will want to terminate their pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal that would bring back the days of DIY abortions, medically unsafe abortions, suicides by desperate, pregnant women and unwanted babies. Those are the alternatives to removal of abortion rights.

Five of my descendents are female. If any of them got pregnant and didn't want to go to term I hope they will have the option of a medically competent abortionist.

Hmmmm ... Evidently GOD doesn't consider an unborn baby a person in his/her own right.

Go to the Book of Exodus Chapter 21, verses 22 & 23.
22:"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

So the penalty for 'killing' an unborn child was a fine.

23: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shall give life for life" and so on with the eye for eye, tooth for tooth etc

Therefore should the MOTHER die as result or suffer other injury, the LAW in it's fullness would apply.

I have yet to find a reference suggesting otherwise that according to scripture, a foetus becomes a person when it emerges live from it's mothers womb.

Other than that - while I find the aborting of healthy foetuses sad and undesirable it's not my place or that of anyone else to force women into going through with unwanted pregnancy. Yes, by all means offer a service to provide advice, help and support to women (taking into account she may need this for 18 years not 8 or 9 months) but intimidation and bullying is way out of order. The behaviour of some of the anti-abortion brigade is abhorrent. After all - Judge not! Leave it in Gods hands for judgement is his.

As for Babettes "Health Statistics & Facts" - well .... I won't start.

Well done Tassie! 150 mt exclusion zone is good and fair policy.

How can anyone say that the rights of the foetus and the woman are in conflict and therefore the right of the woman to terminate prevails? Why is this the case?

Why not say that the right of Nazis to kill Jews was in conflict with the right of the Jews to continue living were in conflict so therefore the right of the Nazis prevailed. This is no less logical and we all know where such logic led. One can say that the right of slave owners to enslave was in conflict with the right of slaves to be free therefore the rights of slave owners should prevail.

Either we accept that some rights are "inalienable" or we accept an arbitrary human standard based on physical or military might prevails i.e. the law of the jungle.

Dear Gadfly,

This is not the law of the jungle. It is simply common sense. To equate a foetus with a woman is simply outrageous.

If abortion were made illegal that would bring back the days of DIY abortions, medically unsafe abortions, suicides by desperate, pregnant women and unwanted babies. Those are the alternatives to removal of abortion rights.

That would be the consequence of rescinding the right of a woman to have an abortion if she wants one. Apparently you support that.

Do you say that we should not equate a Nazi with a Jew or a slave owner with a slave?

You have adopted an arbitrary standard. Rights have to be argued from fundamental principles.

Let us suppose that what you say did happen? The net result would be that about 100,000 babies per year would be brought to term and born alive. I think that would be a good outcome.

There is an old saying "Hard cases make bad law". Start off from the premise that all people have equal rights to live and you can't go wrong David.

Dear Gadfly,

A foetus is not a person. You have gone wrong.

@divine_msn
Exodus 21:22-25 actually describes a pregnant woman going into premature labour (that's what the 'fruit depart from her' means) after being struck. If no serious injury occurs to the mother or the child, then the penalty is a fine. But if death occurs (to either mother or child or both) then the death penalty applies. So nothing about the passage says the unborn baby is viewed less.

@david f
"A foetus is not a person. You have gone wrong."
And what do you make of ethicists arguing that newborns shouldn't be viewed as persons either and can be killed off as well?
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

It doesn't matter what is in the Bible. Australia is not a theocracy, and laws do not have to conform to what the Bible says. If enough of you would repeal abortion rights and have the power to take us back in the horrible years before there were abortion rights then women will again have the choice of DIY abortions, backyard abortionists, suicide or unwanted babies. Maybe you can do it. For the sake of my granddaughters and other female descendents I hope you can't.

Hey Gadfly, you've been going on about equality but the Catholic Church dictate that society remains very un-equal for women with it's sexist interpretation of scripture. Women are denied entry to the priesthood. A woman's rights to autonomy rank below that of a non- sentient embryo or fetus in your view. The church will vigorously deny a woman who is gravely ill a termination which will save her life. The church fights for laws that forbid divorce, and some priests still counsel abused women to stay with their abusers.

Of all the examples that you cite about Nazis, Jews, slaves etc. these are all legally recognised, conscious, breathing, feeling humans, all who deserve equal rights and protection from injustice. However to suggest that a woman has lower status than that of a cluster of cells, and is incapable of making responsible decisions for herself and for her family, is disgraceful.

RMW - I believe you are wrong in this matter. Scripture seems to consider a baby a 'person' when it is born live ...

Which is a fair call IMO. Stillbirth and spontaneous abortion are often devastating but no-one said it is a perfect world

>>The net result would be that about 100,000 babies per year would be brought to term and born alive. I think that would be a good outcome.<<

No they won't. History has shown us over and over again that prohibiting things doesn't stop people from doing them: it just drives them underground. Women will still have abortions - just like they did when it was illegal - but they will not be carried out by doctors in sterile clinics with proper equipment. Women will die. I think that would be a bad outcome.

Given that women will have abortions regardless of its legality isn't it best that they do so as safely and with as little trauma involved as possible? Medical abortions might carry health risks but they're minuscule compared to backyard abortions.

Those pushing for the criminalization of abortion might as well stand outside abortion clinics saying 'Jesus loves you: please take a free coathanger' for all the genuine compassion they display for women.

Cheers,

Tony

Maybe I'd better understand opinions centred on no distinction between 'something' and 'someone' if they also argued for funeral or memorial services in all cases of miscarriage, including such things as blighted ovum and hydatidiform molar pregnancy – though being aware of the up to 50% of human conceptions that fail from blastocyst through the pre-implementation development is problematic.

Plus, if there is any consistency to concepts of 'individual human rights', then babies should be held accountable and probably charged with assault causing serious injury in all cases of complications from pregnancy or delivery.

It would be difficult to prove intent in the case of death or life threatening emergency for the mother during childbirth – and to call it manslaughter sounds silly under the circumstances, so our laws should be extended to encompass foetal matricide or attempted matricide.

I take comfort in three things:

Knowing I'll not have to cope with the personal choice the potential tragedy every unplanned and unwanted pregnancy represents…

That there are appropriate support systems available for whatever that personal choice is,

and that such a fraught topic appears to have received commenters' consensus that
'prevention is better than curette'.

@divine_msn
"Scripture seems to consider a baby a 'person' when it is born live .."
Disagree, passages like Gen 25:21-23 says the unborn are children - meaning persons already.

@Tony Lavis
"No they won't. History has shown us over and over again that prohibiting things doesn't stop people from doing them: it just drives them underground."
True, but then why do we bother trying to outlaw female genital mutilation and honour killings of women, particularly when there are people, groups and cultures that find them acceptable and will carry them out regardless of illegality. Should we eventually legalise these activities as well?

@WmTrevor
"Maybe I'd better understand opinions centred on no distinction between 'something' and 'someone'..."
Possibly, but where does this leave ethicists arguing that newborns shouldn't be considered persons either and can be killed off as well?
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

We seem to have got back to the basic dilemma facing our society i.e. a woman has the "right" of "choice" even if the unborn is a baby a living and breathing human being.

The "right" of "choice" overrides the baby's right to live.

The present state of public opinion is this: 80% of people say that a woman has the "right" of "choice" but 80% of people say that the unborn are living human beings as much as born human beings. There are many eminent doctors, theologians, ethicists and so on with impeccable qualifications who will attest that there is no difference between the two categories and that to sanction "choice" is to sanction killing of living human beings.

I put it to you that to advocate "choice" is to advocate murder.It's really that simple.

>>The net result would be that about 100,000 babies per year would be brought to term and born alive. I think that would be a good outcome.<<

Would that be a good outcome? Since the greatest environmental problem is the destruction of the ecosystem by uncontrolled population growth 100,000 babies more a year exacerbates the problem.

Unwanted pregnancies going to term result in harassed women with large numbers of children being more harassed. Women who been raped must look at a child and be aware that the child’s father is a rapist. Teenagers who got pregnant at a wild party must curtail their plans for university or other avenues of fulfilling their life. Maybe a new Hitler is born.

It is reasonable to ask what are the results of these additional births. One result appears to be evident in the US crime statistics. About 16 years after the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, legalising abortion the crime rate started decreasing in the US. We cannot be sure why, but possibly the court decision tells us. Women who were aware that they would have problems at that stage in their life in rearing a child had their pregnancy aborted. Children whose mother is not equipped to raise them properly are more likely to grow up to become thieves or engage in other antisocial activities. The pregnant women who chose to have an abortion benefited themselves and society.

I think that any unwanted child being born is a tragedy. I think those 100,000 additional babies can be 100,000 additional tragedies accompanied by additional social problems.

One of my co-workers was a Christian who was opposed to abortion. However, I respected him. If his group persuaded a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion to carry to term, they obligated themselves to care for mother and child. How many of you who harass pregnant women going to an abortion clinic are willing to take the consequences of your acts as he did? Damn few if any!

Don’t go back to the Dark Ages of coathanger, butcher, suicide and unwanted children.

The net result would be 100,000 happy mothers and babies. Very often abortions occur at the behest of the male partner who doesn't want any financial obligations. Women are pushed into abortions that they don't want.

People can adapt to financial obligations that they were not expecting. Where there is a will there is a way. BABIES BRING HAPPINESS NOT MISERY.

Gadfly , you are a bit naive if you think all babies bring happiness. They don't.
Maybe they bring happiness to you, but don't presume to know how others feel.

In a perfect world, no one would have to have an abortion, but that is just a fantasy world.

Many pro life people are against the 'morning after pill' aren't they?
If a couple have sex in a drunken stupor one night, and they forget to use the condom, then if the woman rushes to the chemist the next day and takes that pill, how on earth could that be considered murder?

Yet, all forms of contraception is banned by the Catholic Church.
In this day and age, having multiple children is not financially and environmentally wise.
Yet this church is saying no contraception and no abortion...

They are out of touch and out of date with the current modern world, and a group of supposedly celibate old men in the Vatican should have no say in anyone else's sex lives!

I can assure you that abortion will never be illegal in this country again.
I do fervently hope however, that one day a full proof contraception can be supplied to all those who don't want children...

Dear Suseonline,

You wrote: "I can assure you that abortion will never be illegal in this country again.
I do fervently hope however, that one day a full proof contraception can be supplied to all those who don't want children..."

I also hope for a fool proof contraceptive, but I do not share your sureness that abortion will never be illegal in this country again. If there are enough primitives and religious nutters they can take us back to the days of DIY abortions, the backyard butchers, suicides and unwanted babies.

My former wife was a visiting nurse many years ago. She was fired because she gave contraceptive information to a woman with eight children.

This whole thread is crazy. We are commenting on an article which objected to restraints on harassment of women. it is entirely reasonable to prevent harassment.

@Suseonline
"If a couple have sex in a drunken stupor one night..."
Then don't get drunk in the first place.

"forget to use the condom..."
One of the limits of 'safe-sex'.

"...having multiple children is not financially and environmentally wise."
Interesting you would say celibate priests should have no say on other people's sex lives, so who are you to denounce people who want many children. What business is it of yours? Are you going to lead some campaign against somebody like say octomom Nadya Suleman?
By the way, this is just a personal observation but it seems to me Muslim families seem to have more children than almnost anybody else (a few years ago I saw a Muslim family driving around in a van with at least 6 children inside). At this rate they might just outnumber everyone else in the long term.

RMW, I don't care if people choose to have many children, although it would be hard for them financially.
.
I care if couples have no choice but to have large families, because an old book and old celibate priests tell them what they can and can't do with their sex lives!

@Suseonline
"...what they can and can't do with their sex lives!"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that all societies have someone or other tell the people what they can do or not do with their sex lives.
If you believe people should have safe sex, contraception and use condoms, remember you already are telling them what they can do and not do. Age of consent laws again also tell people what they can do and not do. People who believe the world is getting overpopulated believe in setting their own limits on what people can do or not do.

The sensible thing to do is to abstain from sex until you are in a position to care for babies. Sex is designed to produce babies. If you don't want a baby don't start.

However if we are at a point where someone is already pregnant bringing the baby to term and arranging for someone to raise him or her properly (adoption) is making the best of a bad job and many situations in life come down to this. Our experience is that this is the least damaging of the options available. It leaves the mother to walk away from the situation relatively unscathed and the child safe and sound to be raised by people who will care for him or her.

Dear Gadfly42,

Sex is designed to produce babies. However, we do not have to limit sex to that. Sex is enjoyable so people will want to produce babies. We are able now to enjoy sex without producing babies, and there is nothing wrong in enjoying sex without producing babies. The sensible thing is not to abstain but to enjoy what we can. That is, unless you're a killjoy and a wowser which you apparently are..

Going through nine months of pregnancy and having a baby for someone else to adopt is not going away unscathed. Making the best of the bad job which is an unwanted pregnancy is abortion. That is especially true when the pregnancy is due to incest or rape

Contraceptives should be freely provided and instructions given in their use so unwanted pregnancies are few and far between.

Of course, contraceptives are not perfect. To lessen the chances of unwanted pregnancies sex education should include techniques of oral, anal and any other forms of sex which do not need contraceptives.

@david_f
"However, we do not have to limit sex to that."
Then you may be missing the whole point. Pregnancy is a natural consequence (one may even argue the goal) of sex. Maybe all people need to learn of this unalterable truth.

"The sensible thing is not to abstain but to enjoy what we can."
Some people find smoking enjoyable, some find racing down the roads at 160kmh enjoyable, some people find arson enjoyable, some find dismembering live animals enjoyable, therefore....

"That is especially true when the pregnancy is due to incest or rape."
Maybe the best to address this particular issue are people who are born as a result of rape: http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html
On a separate but closely related note: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16--I-love-baby.html
By the way, one US study discovered that rape and incest comprises less than 1.5% of the reasons for abortion: http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

"Contraceptives should be freely provided and instructions given in their use..."
I remember watching a Channel 9 60-minutes program a few years back about teenage mothers. Most of the young mums on the show said they did receive safe-sex advice when when the time came, they said they've completely forgotten about such advice. One young man on the show said he does know about condom use, but he said he actually hates them and won't use them. Another young girl said she and her boyfriend were using a condom, but it broke when they were having sex.

"To lessen the chances of unwanted pregnancies sex education should include techniques of oral, anal and any other forms of sex which do not need contraceptives."
Don't they have STD concerns?
The overall safest route to avoid unwanted pregnancies is still abstinence (for both guys and girls).

Dear RMW,

You are right. Abstinence is the safest option. However, in this world it is an option that doesn't work. Abstinence education has been tried in the US. It does not work.

I wrote: "The sensible thing is not to abstain but to enjoy what we can."

You wrote: "Some people find smoking enjoyable, some find racing down the roads at 160kmh enjoyable, some people find arson enjoyable, some find dismembering live animals enjoyable, therefore...."

Dear RMW.

Your equation of sex with all sorts of antisocial activities shows what you are. I feel further interaction with someone like you is completely pointless.

Agreed david f :-)

@david f
"Abstinence education has been tried in the US. It does not work."
What are you talking about?
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/02/study-teaching-abstinence-works-better-than-sex-ed/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinence-works/story?id=9731048

Dear RMW,

I am glad abstinence education can work. I read the article you referred to. I was only familiar with that type of education incorporating religion. According to the article superstition was eliminated, and the value of restraining oneself on rational grounds was encouraged.

However, I still wish no further interaction with you.

Not to mention that the bill will penalize doctors and nurses who are conscientious objectors and don't want anything to do with abortions. They can be fined up to 500 penalty units or the dollar equivalent of $130 x 500 = $65,000 ! What is the state of health care like in Tasmania and how will it be helped if there are resignations of doctors and nurses?

@David f
You can say that you wish no further interaction with someone but this is a public debate and if you don't like what your opponents are saying well bad luck. Debate is about covering all facets of a topic. Provided people don't say anything deliberately insulting they are allowed to put their point of view. This topic has been covered extensively from a number of angles. Inevitably people don't like someone's point of view on it. I have seen people indicate that as far as they are concerned a foetus has no rights. Some people are saying that a woman has an unqualified right to do as she likes with her own body. These are all legitimate points of view and I respect them although I don't agree with them. Sensible public debate calls for people to say what is relevent to the debate without any sort of acrimony.

Dear Gadfly42,

RMW can put forth his or her point of view. I am not telling RMW to shut up or restricting RMW's expression in any way. It requires more than one to debate, and no one is obligated to debate. It is RMW's right to express RMW's view. It is my right to respond or not as I choose. It is more courteous to tell RMW that I don't wish to interact any more than to let RMW post and expect an answer from me.

I am weary of the discussion with RMW. I don't know why you're lecturing me.

I read the article, what I'venot worked out fromit is the impact on unplanned pregnancies and STD's the two types of education had.

I suspect that most of us would see benefits in reduced sexual activity for younger teenagers. If that reduction comes at the expense of leaving those who do engage in sexual activity less equiped to protect themselves from the risks of unplanned pregnancy and or STD's its not a hands down win.

The difference between the two approaches and proportions of participants engaged in sexual activity seems to be around 1/6th but no mention is made of how many from each group who do engage in sexual activity are having serious unwanted consequences from that activity.

R0bert