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.