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.