Your position would have more credibility if you acknowledged that your organisation - Real Choices - is in fact an anti abortion front organisation.

'Women deserve better than a surgical solution to their psychosocial problems. '

Agreed and the unborn deserve much better than being at the mercy of feminist who have had their consciences seared.

Shalmaneser, thanks for taking the time to post, however your comment is the same tired dismissal pulled out by abortion advocates without any evidence to support it. Whilst we often receive such comments, we are yet to be provided with any specifics about where our information is less than truthful or factual.

Nor can anyone provide any evidence that we campaign against abortion, because there is none.

We work within a very specific brief to address a much needed gap in information provision for women about the potential of adverse outcomes from abortion. While we continue to hear stories of coercion and a lack of information, and see the misinformation that is provided, there will continue to be a service gap for us to fill.

Our aim is to ensure that women have access to both all the information they are entitled to, and all the supports necessary to make genuine choices about sexual health and reproduction.

There is substantial research supporting harmful effects of abortion and it should not be filtered through radical ideological agendas, otherwise, as stated, women remain victims, not empowered, autonomous decision makers.

so you're confirming that you are an anti-abortion front organisation. I have no problem with you holding your position but it's a bit rich to talk about choice when you have an entrenched position.
Why do you hide behind the word choice when you advocate for people to not choose abortion? Your use of "choice" is like the anti-vac lobby calling themselves the vaccination network.

Shalmaneser, I'm sceptical enough given the spin and misrepresentations from both sides of the abortion debate to concede the possibility that "Real Choices" may be more committed to the anti-choice camp than is admitted to. I too would prefer that authors admit to any overriding agenda if that exists.

For the record I consider myself pro-choice on the basis of personal autonomy but not pro-abortion (I'd rather reduce the incidence of abortion by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies in the first place). I'm also significantly bothered by the double standards of many who are strongly pro-choice, the apparent support for the idea that it's murder if someone terminates a pregnancy without the mothers consent (rather than a serious assault) and the idea often expressed that men had their choice at the sex act and should have no further opportunities to express choice about ongoing responsibility.

Having said that I took some time earlier to look at the material on the Real Choices web site including the submission on the Tasmanian abortion bill http://realchoices.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Submission-Tasmania-Reproductive-Health-Bill-2013.pdf

My overall impression was far better than I've got of most of what I've seen from those at the ideological extremes of the debate. The points made seem to be within the bounds of my limited knowledge of the topic fair. I was not seeing anything there suggesting either an extreme anti-choice agenda not the emotive arguments that so often typify the extremist position.

It seems to me to be a valid position to support informed choice with awareness of the risks. To be concerned with the a range of points mention in this article and or addressed in the submission.

Abortion is not something that should be treated lightly. It is a concern that sometimes the only professional help easily available to those dealing with an unplanned pregnancy can have either a financial or ideological vested interest in the outcome (the latter from either side of the debate).

R0bert

R0bert, shalmaneser, debbie

The main reason why the pro-choice side reacts so negatively to seemingly rational arguments such as these is because it doesn’t trust the anti-abortion camp – AT ALL.

The non-moral, non-religious ‘alternative’ arguments being put forward by the anti-abortion camp – i.e. access to information, consent versus coercion, post-abortion grief, professional opportunism and/or incompetence – are all valid. However, they fall on deaf ears because the pro-life camp has a long history of framing abortion as a moral-religious crusade and strongly indicating that nothing short of total criminalisation is their endgame.

For too long, both performing and procuring an abortion was a crime under the criminal code and technically they still are – only the wording has been made deliberately vague since the 70s in order to minimise the capacity for prosecution. In this context, all we need is a strong anti-abortionist to get into power – which is more than likely come September – and abortion can be very quickly recriminalised.

Unfortunately, the pro-choice camp cannot afford the luxury of dropping its vigilance. I too would like to see the two sides reach out and find a common ground, but I’m afraid history and religious fanaticism make that impossible.

Killarney, I agree with the points you have made. I'd add somewhat more weight to the negative impact of extremists in the pro-choice camp.

I'm not at all persuaded by the religious anti-choice crowd, I am reviewing my thoughts on the issue based on the extremes of many in the pro-choice side.

From the discussions I've seen around OLO and elsewhere there is almost universal dismissal by women with a strong pro-choice stance of the idea that the male involved in the conception should at any point after the sex act have the ability to opt out of financial responsibility if the woman decides to proceed with the pregnancy.

A lot less history to it for me but I was somewhat dismayed at the acceptance of the idea that it's murder if someone else causes the termination of a pregnancy without the mothers consent but not murder if the mother wants to end it. A thread in the general section.

Those two points have done far more to get me questioning my assumptions and views on abortion than all the religious rants I've been exposed to over many years.

R0bert

After reading this article, I wondered just how stupid the author thinks Australian women are in these modern times?
In these days of Internet communication and sex education at schools etc, just how much MORE information do pregnant women need?

One only needs to look up any one of many websites dedicated to showing us all about the evils of abortion, and how you can get help if you are pregnant.

Why not put all your considerable effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I'm not talking about preventing the ' sin' of fornication, but by more effective and affordable contraception.

There will always be rogue Doctors out there committing crimes in all areas of medicine, such as the one the author mentioned, but that doesn't mean all abortion doctors do the same.

We need to strive to greatly reduce the numbers of abortions in Australia, but we should also continue to provide safe, legal abortions as we do now.

'Psychosocial' reasons for abortion include women suffering from severe psychiatric disorders who may desperately need antipsychotic medication that would severely affect their pregnancy. Abortion in these cases are often unavoidable.

It is no one else's business but the parents and the doctor in any case.
Abortion needs to dealt with only by the medical fraternity, and be decriminalised all over Australia.

Tony Abbott wouldn't dare change his mind about ensuring women of Australia continue to have choice about abortions...it would be political suicide.

R0bert

Expecting men to take financial responsibility for a child regardless of whether they want the child or not is the law of the land and has been the general expectation placed on men for many centuries. So why single out pro-choice women for condemnation, when this is the stance taken by anti-abortionists, the law of the land and the general society at large?

And when it comes to 'pro-choice women', their main concern is reproductive freedom, i.e. the right to a safe, legal abortion if that is a woman's choice. Pontificating about the moral responsibility of a man to financially provide for a child born of a woman's decision to NOT have an abortion lies outside the frame of pro-choice advocacy. That's more a dilemma for anti-abortionists.

There are private legal agreements that parties can enter into to absolve a reluctant father from financial responsibility, which as far as I know a court will recognise. I suspect you are creating an issue here that is nowhere near as prevalent as you make out.

‘I was somewhat dismayed at the acceptance of the idea that it's murder if someone else causes the termination of a pregnancy without the mothers consent but not murder if the mother wants to end it.’

From my reading of this, it appears that you are attributing this argument to 'women with a strong pro-choice stance'. If so, then I’m very skeptical that you are interpreting what they are saying correctly, especially as pro-abortionists do not view any aspect of abortion as ‘murder’. That’s strictly an anti-abortion trope.

Suseonline

'Tony Abbott wouldn't dare change his mind about ensuring women of Australia continue to have choice about abortions...it would be political suicide.'

Wanna bet on that?

Killarney, you demonstrate exactly the sexist double standards that are beginning to sway my views.

The anti-choice crowd don't believe in choice so why should I expect them to make an exception for choice by men. On the other hand it appears that the committment to choice by many in the pro-choice camp is purely along gender lines.

As for the 'its the law' argument, it is the law but if you truly believe in choice rather than hiding behind it for the sake of womens advantage then its an unjust law.

And no CSA don't recognise agreements which involve less than their sometimes brutal assessments involve nor is there any reason for those who try to use kids as an alternative to work to sign one even if they were recognised.

The pro-choice lobby has far more to fear from the sexist attitudes of many of its own supporters than it has from the extremist anti-choicers.

R0bert

The so called "pro choice" lobby has no credibility so long as they continue to call themselves that. Their correct title should be "pro women's choice" as that is the only group whose interests they truly represent. Men and the baby/foetus are ignored...
Happy for people to rant and rave but doubt anyone can show me why I'm wrong.

Rationale debate,
There is no need to show you why you are wrong. You condemn yourself with your own words.

Shalmaneser, seriously?
Well let's assume I'm a simple little person who needs your words of wisdom to set me straight.
Give it your best shot.

Killarney, please don't upset me any more than I already am about the Abbott's almost inevitable shot at the big job in September!

As much as I don't trust a man like him, I doubt he would have the numbers behind him in his party to change the abortion laws.

He is smart enough to consider the possibility of a larger female backlash against him than is already there, if he tries to tighten hard fought for abortion laws.

Rational debates wants us to show him why he is wrong about pro-choice people.
We don't need to do that, because the law tells us we are right.
Abortion is legal, and will remain so.

Suseonline

Actually, abortion is NOT legal in Australia. Because of the vague wording of current abortion legislation, most people have been lulled into a false sense of security about its legal status.

The ACT is the only state or territory that has struck abortion completely off the criminal statute books. Everywhere else, the State/Territory-based laws (to varying degrees) allow abortion ONLY where the pregnancy poses a threat to the pregnant woman's life or her physical or mental health - which is widely open to interpretation.

The wording has been left vague, so that governments don't have to upset the still very active, wealthy and influential anti-abortion lobby.

In the absence of a conscience vote in parliament, a landslide victory to Abbot could very easily give him the numbers he needs to reword the current legislation to make abortion very litigation- and conviction-friendly again.

R0bert

It looks as if you were far too busy proving your own selective prejudices about reverse sexism to bother to even read my comment properly. I won’t waste my time addressing your every misinterpretation of what I wrote, as I’d be here all day.

Suffice to say that if men want to lobby for the legal right to reject financial responsibility for a child they don’t want, that’s their prerogative. It’s not the job of the women (and men) of the pro-abortion camp. That job is to protect and maintain the legal right of women to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Unfortunately, attitudes like yours – i.e. that women who struggle for the women’s rights are hypocrites if they don’t struggle for men’s rights too – is as commonplace as it is insufferable.

My advice to men like you is paddle your own canoe. Don’t expect women to fight your gender battles for you.

Killarney, an old excuse but not valid. Its not only a failure to support choice for both genders its an active rejection of the concept that sticks out as the hypocracy I refer to. They are quite different things.

Its really clear that for many the concepts of choice and personal automomy are words used to support rights for women and not concepts with any real meaning.

R0bert

Suseonline, you have not addressed my question at all, but I get used to that in this debate. There are myriad logical fallacies and philosophical contradictions in the so called pro-choice debate, but don't you dare be the one to point them out...
So resort to cheap shots and smart-alec comments to avoid the issues if you must but don't presume that makes you right.

Killarney you are right about the legal status of abortion in some states, but of course no one gets prosecuted for undergoing or doing a surgical abortion in a hospital or clinic.
I still don't believe Abbott can change this to further limit or criminalise abortions though, because he won't be 'ruling' in isolation, and it would definitely be political suicide.

Rational debate, I think I have made my thoughts on choices for pregnant women very clear many times before on this forum. I am pro-choice, but also want to decrease the numbers of abortions as much as possible by advocating safe and cheaper contraceptives .

Like Killarney, I really don't care about men's thoughts on women's choices, unless they are directly involved with the pregnant women.
The foetus is attached to the mothers body, not the fathers, so it is up to her what to do with her own body.
You, and everyone else, cannot force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, like back in the dark ages....

Suseonline - two problems with those statements.
Firstly. You say "I really don't care about men's thoughts on women's choices, unless they are directly involved with the pregnant women" and then go on to say "The foetus is attached to the mothers body, not the fathers, so it is up to her what to do with her own body." So which is it?
Secondly. While the foetus is indeed attached to the woman's body, the medical evidence is irrefutable that it is indeed a life in its own right. It then becomes a philosophical discussion as to how that life is viewed.
I know we can argue on and on and I doubt we will change each other's views. The reason I keep on, is that I feel very strongly about this, as, no doubt, do you.