Until recently I was as much interested in politics as in urbanisation of Antarctica, but seeing so many "framing" attacks on our PM and her, often far from the best, response choices under the circumstances - if I was allowed to vote with both hands I'd give her 2 votes. OK, many have left this post at this moment, but for those who are still here for whatever reason - a few details just in case you might find them relevant: I was born in Brezhnev's USSR where politics was as free as lions in Taronga zoo - dangerous even to think about! Of course we had elections - they still do in North Korea, China and Cuba! In 1998 I emigrated to NZ where the PM was Jenny Shipley and the Beehive (NZ Parliament building) was female-dominant. A year or so later another female, Helen Clark was elected a PM and the government was, again, mostly female - shock! Horror! It worked just fine! (I think at least)... Guillard proposed Malaisian solution to stop the boats, Abbott bullied her to succumb to Nauru - which kind of makes Christmas Island a bit more enticing; every comment of hers is taken as a political stance which would be taken as "a critical "A" issue to the election", and her attempts to refute stupid questions are treated as vindications of journalists' freedoms - how else do you stop the idiots asking idiotic questions? Aha, I have a solution: hire KGB/Putin's helpers and those journalists will just be very quietly gone never to be found! Easy! Somebody famous and wise or wise and famous said "Every country deserves the government it has" - so tuck your heads in bro's! Gulia, my students and I are standing by you! Send Tony and others to hell and relax, meditate, do yoga (not necessarily with the Lama!) BTW, my crystal ball says your next opposition will be Eddie McGuire when he joins the coalition after his counselling, so beware! Well, at least he is better looking than Tony...

Suseinline, "I would suggest that if they don't want to make a baby but still want the sex, then always wear a condom.
An easy solution....right?"

Wrong.

This may come as a surprise but condoms have a failure rate too and not because of any idiotic claims that men might interfere with them.

If abortion is a legal right, it should be a right shared by both biological parents. Why shouldn't the man have choice too?

The father should be advised of a pregnancy within 7 days of the mother becoming aware, whereupon he should be required to advise the woman of his preferences. This means that the woman always retains the final decision and all of her rights. It also acknowledges the right of the man to protect his own mental health, wellbeing and security as well, to say yes or no.

Where both agree on a continuation of a pregnancy the man as well as the woman have the usual responsibilities at law. Where the woman exercises her choice to continue with a pregnancy but the man doesn't, the man should not have any further responsibilities, even though the woman has in effect stolen his genetic material.

Barack Obama, Clinton and others are right to say that abortion should be legal, available and rare. They are right. However abortions are in high nymbers which indicates that policy and support are not right somehow. As well, the evidence is that it is not young women who have boosted abortion numbers. In fact young pregnancies dwindle with the availability of contraception and continue at that low level. It is women in their mid-twenties and later who are having the abortions. Why is not known and statistics may be 'problematic' to obtain. It is not the very small number of women who were startled by a pregnancy late in life.

It is possible that many women choose pregnancy, but are then not able to progress thorugh financial or other problems. Unfortunately that could go a long way towards explaining many of the abortions after three months or so. This is likely where women are caused by choice or circumstance to put off the children they want until later in life (and so often too late for the hopeful woman).

If so and it is very likely, it is a tragedy for the parents and Australia. It is very possible that Australia could be far better off giving young parents the support they need so they can have the children they want, rather than maintaining the very high immigration targets that have been a feature of Australia post WW2.

Rubbish Onthebeach , condoms have a 95% success rate if used correctly.

As far as I am concerned, if a couple choose to have sex without employing all possible contraception methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then they both need to take responsibility for it.

However, no matter how much many men want to control what women do with their own pregnant bodies, women obviously have a far higher physical investment in the pregnancy than the men.
Thus, it should be their choice whether to abort or not.

But wait, that's right, women already DO have that choice in Australia, so I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

The least people that should be able to have a say in that choice are unrelated men...

Suseonline,

I agree with most of what you say, but I do have one question - and it is a question, not a veiled contradiction or an attempted attack.

The question is: do unrelated women really have any more right than unrelated men to tell women what to do with their bodies?

As you point out, women currently DO have a choice in this matter. the Coalition has ruled out changing laws in that area (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/gillard-under-fire-from-opposition-over-abortion-claim/4747738), though it is worth remembering that Gillard also ruled out a carbon tax before the last election - I'd imagine promises from both side are as transient as each other.

Suseonline, "condoms have a 95% success rate if used correctly"

B.S. The typical use of a condom delivers far less effectiveness than the hypothetical success rate based on ideal use. It is nowhere near 95%. The same could be said about disease prevention, where its use is heaps better than nothing especially for gays but not a guarantee by a long shot.

Typical use of the female contraceptive pill will result in pregnancies whereas ideal use should not.

You go on about "men want to control what women do with their own pregnant bodies", disregarding the fact that women vote too and some may not agree with you. However, women are opposed to late abortion for example. What is 'late' though? Few women might support abortion from 20 weeks on for example.

While I am on record as saying that I support abortion and I have already said that the woman affected should have the final say, there still remains obvious discrepancy and unfairness affecting men which you have not addressed. Could you address the points I raised?

Similarly you have not addressed the other policy considerations raised in my second post, Saturday, 15 June 2013 6:40:58 PM. It is not enough to dismiss a wrong because it suits you and you 'don't know what the fuss is about'.

In your final paragraph you are claiming that the child is not related to the father. Interesting spin.

Another objectionable thing you infer in your last para is that a woman's relatives should have a say. Say what?! Outside of a minor, most would be opposed to relatives being involved and rightly so. We should not be importing those traditions, no way!