Suseonline, "As it happens, there are many women who never tell the donor of the sperm that they have fathered a child, as well as many women who don't want the father to have any involvement in the accidental pregnancy, financial or otherwise."

What about any rights of the child to know and have contact with her father and to know the medical history of her biological parents?

Nothing much has changed since men went into state-terrorism overdrive to prevent women from obtaining the vote – a prospect widely viewed as an abomination and major threat to the natural order, i.e. the right of all men to enjoy a free combination housekeeper, nanny and bed-warmer for life.

At least 100 years later, we are still portraying ‘the women’s vote’ as some mystical angry-goddess thing that could get completely out of control and reap a Kali-like destruction on all men, destroy their vital organs and kill their potency. Fairly typical retribution fantasy for men (and women) stuck in a mental rut that equates all women with sex, reproduction and naughty bits. No wonder abortion remains their No. 1 gynaphobic fantasy of choice.

It must be tough for male politicians and their hollow men to have to chase the women’s vote, while at the same time being scared witless that it might one day shrivel their balls off.

Joanofarc72,

Hi and welcome.

In an earlier post I was wondering what effect the economy and some other factors were having in forcing women into the choice of abortion, especially those in the 25-35 age group where there is a spike in the number of abortions. It isn't the 'foolish, adventurous' young who are responsible for the much higher than forecast abortion numbers.

To take an example, where temporary and casual employment has largely replaced permanent full- and part-time employment, women and men may not be able to plan children for their best childbearing and child-raising years. It is known from government reports that young couples are forced by financial reality to defer the children they want and may not have the children they desire. But such things as abrupt, unecpected changes in employment fortune can make abortion the unfavoured byt forced outcome.

It appears that the federal government would much rather take the apparently easy way out by continually setting new reords for immigration than examining why what Australian couples are not having children and why abortion numbers are so high, especially for certain age groups. It is likely that poor government policy and lack of planning could be contributing to the number of abortions.

RObert "Why is it so hard to accept that men to have lives, dreams and that the cost of an unplanned pregnancy might well be to high for them as well."

I have never said I don't accept that RObert.
Please don't put words into my mouth.
I have plenty of male relatives who I support in many ways.

What I want to ask you is, who do you think would be worse off?
The accidentally pregnant woman who has no money, but wants to keep the baby because she feels it is part of herself, or the father who has no money, and would prefer that she had an abortion?

I support choice, and so does the Government.
Any other system would involve women either being forced to abort a baby she wants, or else being forced to go through pregnancy and labour with a baby she doesn't want.

Sounds like a much worse scenario for the mother, whichever way you look at it.

Onthebeach, I never said it was good to deny a father the right to know the existence of a baby, I was merely trying to point out that not all women are out to 'get' the father of their baby financially.
Of course all kids should know both their parents if possible.

"The accidentally pregnant woman who has no money, but wants to keep the baby because she feels it is part of herself, or the father who has no money, and would prefer that she had an abortion??

Those words betray once again the strange and confused status of the foetus: a mass of cells versus a 'baby', and the unlimited power of the woman. From conception to full term delivery the status of the foetus relies on the woman, who can change its status at will and even back and forth. For instance, birth can even be induced when the foetus is a viable baby, but destroyed as a mass of cells, perhaps by destruction of its brain. Unwanted by the woman it is mush to be destroyed at will. That applies right up to the very point of full term delivery. Presumably the skull could be crushed by an abortionist as the baby crowns and no human has been interfered with, just 'cells'.

However the man must also be accorded the same right to regard it as a mass of cells unless he feels it is part of himself (men do experience such feelings) and declares his choice to be a father if the woman chooses to go continue with the pregnancy.

Just as the woman can disregard the 'mass of cells' at will and to suit her convenience and lifestyle choices, so too should the man be accorded the same right. Otherwise unfair discrimination exists.

The woman's right to do whatever with her body and the 'mass of cells' is not reduced at all by allowing the man his rights too. She always has the final decision anyway.

I see that Juliar's raising of the gender issue has lead to a collapse in her support, and has further boosted Abbott as preferred PM.

The collapse has been entirely from male voters who saw the attack on "men in blue ties" as purely opportunistic politicking.

The chance of Gillard being replace with KRudd (who was wearing a blue tie) has dramatically increased.