Interesting article, I think it shows how abortion defines western civilisation.

Tour attitude can be summarised in the one sentence where you write "making every woman 'choose' ".

Your kind has been forcing women to do what you want for too many years. Now they are freely choosing to do what 'they' want and not what 'you' want, you are crying foul.

Get over it, you lost. Women can chose to have a baby, or not. You are simply "anti-choice". Now go away.

"When the nature of abortion coercion has become so insidious"? No evidence of any coercion in this article, just a couple of anecdotes and a whole lot of unsubstantiated allegations. Author might like to look up the definition of 'coercion' - providing information or even a recommendation isn't included. Asking someone if their pregnancy is wanted merely provides an opening for the woman to discuss her situation if she wishes and explore her options.

What a strange article. It is almost as if the author believes that doctors are forcing women to have abortions when they don’t want to. Perhaps this is just the author projecting their own views of wanting to force women to maintain the pregnancy when they don’t want to.

It is also odd that someone who wants to take choice away from women keeps banging on about choice.

And then there are the unsubstantiated assertions: “Doctors behave as though abortion is the default response to every pregnancy” Uh evidence needed Debbie.

“With evidence of harm from abortion growing as more and more research is undertaken” citations required here

I agree with Stezza.

Thanks Stezza and Candide for reading the article, however your comments typify the kind of ideology that fails to hear the real experiences of women.

Stezza, not all women experience 'choice' when it comes to freely choosing to have children, just as they don't all experience 'choice when it comes to abortion. When a woman is told she will not be supported if she continues a pregnancy, and sees abortion as her only option, that is not choice. If abortion advocates such as yourself are going to ever demonstrate concern for all women, you need to stop dismissing the stories of women whose experiences have resulted in grief and trauma. They have a right to be heard.

Candide, the fact that you see no coercion in the examples in the article is the very reason why we need to keep presenting them. When a woman is told she cannot continue her education unless she an abortion, what would you call that? When a parent withdraws support for their daughter unless they have an abortion, what do you call that? The 'anecdotes' are real women's stories.. only 3 of hundreds.

Both of your comments highlight exactly my point. Thank you

Debbie Garratt

"When a woman is told she will not be supported if she continues a pregnancy, and sees abortion as her only option, that is not choice"

Yes it is. She clearly has a choice to continue the pregnancy without the support of whatever person demands otherwise, or, to not continue the pregnancy. There are consequences for either choice, but a choice none the less.

Seeing that you are actually responding to comments (I respect that). Could you please answer the following simple question.

Do you support the right for women to chose to have an abortion in any circumstance?

Stezza, you stated that women are 'freely choosing'. I am stating that they are not all 'freely choosing'.

I believe the prevalence and 'normalising' of abortion for any reason has been unhelpful to actually putting supports in place for women.

I have heard abortion advocates cry out that women will be thrown back to the 1950's without abortion access, and perhaps they will. But only because abortion advocating feminist groups spend all their time and energy on the accessibility of abortion, whilst ignoring the needs of women who do want to 'freely choose' pregnancy and not then be discriminated in their social, educational and professional endeavours.

Do I support abortion in any circumstance? Absolutely not. Too many of those 'circumstances' do not involve a woman expressing her autonomy; they involve a woman caught in a trap deciding which leg to gnaw off so she can feel the least amount of pain. As you so clearly state, both choices have consequences. Rare is the story of a woman holding her newborn baby in her arms saying she wishes she had aborted him/her. That doesn't mean they don't face a struggle often... some do... my point is that they shouldn't. We should be putting every possible support in place so that women can parent and achieve their aspirations.

When we stop receiving calls and emails from women devastated because they had an abortion they didn't really want, were uninformed about all their options, or are currently experiencing subtle or overt coercion, then perhaps 'choice' becomes an appropriate discussion. Until then, our brief is advocacy for these women. That shouldn't be considered radical by any standards.

I am very happy to respond to comments and have some respectful discussion. I believe there is a lot of common ground to discuss that often goes untouched and needs to be worked on.

Perhaps I phrased the question wrong. What I meant was: is there any circumstance in which you would support abortion?

There are women whose stories include that they are thankful abortion was available to them and that it was not a negative experience.

For the most part even those involve an objective level of perceived or real lack of support for the parenting option.

‘I wanted to continue my education and it would have been too hard with a baby. Having an abortion meant I finished my degree.’

‘I thought I might lost my job, having an abortion meant I got that promotion.’

Whilst each of these is a valid experience for the individual woman, it could be reasonably argued that a woman should not find it ‘too hard’ to continue her education or be denied a promotion just because she has is pregnant or parenting. These are issues that should be addressed in educational and professional settings, not in abortion clinics.

I do support and feel enormous empathy for any woman who feels for any reason that it is simply too hard to accommodate a pregnancy or child. However I do not feel that the availability of abortion serves the best interests of women when it is sold as a solution to helping women be full participants in the social world.

I do not choose to lobby or be an activist on abortion availability.

I choose to lobby and be an activist for the unheard voices of women denied choice, within their own experience and to ensure that the social world actually changes to accommodate women, as opposed to offering surgical and medical solutions so that women fit into the world as it is

I don't see a problem here!
In too many cases, that's the very first question a woman needs to ask herself?
There are just too many marriages, where men can and do enforce so called conjugal rights, and consequently, pregnancy follows!
A close relative lived in such a situation and produced some thirteen children, which the state had to support, before a doctor, with considerable courage, offered her surgical sterilization!
One simply cannot tell, just by looking, if the pregnancy is the product of rape, date rape or incest or may cost a highly paid person/sole income earner, her lucrative career, and therefore, the question, do you want this pregnancy, should always be asked.
And if any person is offended by such questions, then there are nearly always surgeries in almost every town, where this very question is never ever put!
So, there is an element of real choice, even for those, who could be offended by this particular question!
Rhrosty

What rubbish! Short of the threat of her own life, any woman joyfully pregnant and even the vast majority with some ambiguity will vigorously oppose any suggestion they abort their pregnancy. Indeed a good many who for reason of their own health or because the foetus they carry has extreme abnormalities SHOULD opt for termination either refuse or are extremely reluctant.

As for doctors asking "Is this what you want?" - This is legitimate and appropriate though should be done tactfully. For example: Yes - you are pregnant! So is this happy news? He/she will quickly get the picture without causing distress or offence. It may be a question asked not for the purpose of getting the mother to an Abortion Clinic as the writer suggests, but to refer her to sources of help or counselling. It all depends on the answer and further consultation.

Even though I personally find terminations sad at best and wrong at worst - this sort of fictional balderdash is unhelpful to any anti-abortion movement. The only ppl who will embrace it are those whose mindset is already concrete.

Not too hard to continue an education or employment, when pregnant!
[What about with a baby sucking on a teat?]
Surely you jest Debbie, or just don't live in the real world.
That said, abortion should never ever replace contraception as family planning.
And the choices are many and include condoms, which nearly everyone can afford, and are on most supermarket shelves, and should be used, by all consenting adults, if only to prevent the spread of STD's/HIVAIDS.
Then there is the pill! Or in any emergency, the morning after pill, which should be available over the counter!
The morning after pill I prefer, simply prevents ovulation, during that period of time, where and when, any sperm might remain viable.
And it certainly must be available to naive trusting young women, who are date rape victims!
So there are many choices, the very first of which, given all the aforementioned choices, is not to get an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Rhrosty.

What absolute rubbish that women are denied choice and compelled to have abortions - and it is wilfully misleading to represent pro-choice as pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, and I would be very happy if better sex education, no coerced sex and access to contraception meant that every pregnancy was wanted and there were no abortions at all.

Divine_msn says:
'As for doctors asking "Is this what you want?" - It may be a question asked not for the purpose of getting the mother to an Abortion Clinic as the writer suggests, but to refer her to sources of help or counselling.'

I have not suggested the question comes with an intent of referral for a termination. Doctors themselves have stated a sense of professional pressure to offer termination even before discovering whether a pregnancy is considered a joy or a trauma to a woman.

I am suggesting that the very fact that we have moved to a situation where it is standard practise for every pregnancy to be considered a potential problem as opposed to being a natural and positive state, which it is for the majority, is an issue.

Divine_msn says

'Indeed a good many who for reason of their own health or because the foetus they carry has extreme abnormalities SHOULD opt for termination..'

It should be of concern that any person would apply the pressure of 'should' regarding termination, a judgement that I thought was to be made only by the woman herself? An example of my argument. Having said that, only around 3% of all terminations are undertaken for reason of foetal abnormality which include those which are easily surgically correctable such as a cleft palate, through to those which may be life limiting.

Only 50% of all late term (post 20wk) abortions are undertaken for reasons of foetal abnormality, with the other 50% for psychosocial reasons.

Rhrosty said:

'Not too hard to continue an education or employment, when pregnant!
[What about with a baby sucking on a teat?]
Surely you jest Debbie, or just don't live in the real world.'

What I said is that these women should not find it too hard.. in the sense that it should not be made difficult for them..supports should be provided.

Yes, I live in the real world thank you. I'm just trying to make it a better one for all women.

Discussion is crucial to improving the social world. thank you

Not much point arguing with someone who cannot even comprehend there might be a rational case for the negative. Clearly religious indoctrination has done its job thoroughly here.

Debbie Garrett, you keep making these assertions without evidence. What is the evidence that: “we have moved to a situation where it is standard practise for every pregnancy to be considered a potential problem”?

I dispute such a situation exists.

If you cannot support this assertion with proper factual evidence, rather than anecdote, I am not going to believe anything else you write.

"Not much point arguing with someone who cannot even comprehend there might be a rational case for the negative. Clearly religious indoctrination has done its job thoroughly here."

That's funny. I have only read rational, respectful comments from the author and not a religious reference. It is interesting and predictable that when the radicals fail to bring forth anything rational, they fall back on marginalising on the basis of anything but the facts.

The author has acknowledged and been respectful about the range of women's experiences, unlike many self proclaimed 'pro-choicers' I've heard. I've seen women devastated by abortion be publicly bullied, ridiculed and shamed by prochoicers.. so much for caring for women.

@Jo59: If you can find more 'pro-choice' advocates who are not actively engaged in religious activities than you can count on the fingers of one hand, I will be very surprised. The overlap is virtually complete, and exactly the same tactics -- anecdote and innuendo -- used here to attack legal abortion are also used to attack the other great bugbears of the church, euthanasia and gay marriage.

By no coincidence at all, all of these depend on giving people the freedom to do what they want with their bodies; but this of course is anathema to the church, which considers itself to be the rightful owner of everyone's body and the only proper arbiter of what they should be allowed to do with it. Scratch a 'pro-lifer' and you will find a zealot.

“Rare is the story of a woman holding her newborn baby in her arms saying she wishes she had aborted him/her.”

It is very common for older children as soon as they are able to comprehend to be told by their mother “I wish I never had you!” This can have a devastating effect on a child to hear from its own mother that it is not wanted. Most advocates for anti- abortion who are not religiously aligned come from this background. They are not fighting to protect a child or a pregnant woman – they are lashing out at their own mothers who rejected them.

There are no good reasons to deny the right to abortion so there must be bad ones. It is much easier for women like this to attack the whole option for abortion than it is to confront their own mother for the pain she has caused them.

It's interesting that an opinion advocating for more supports for women is copping so much negativity.
It makes me wonder, whose ideology is really showing here?
I know lots of women who were put off by the negative response of their doctor to a pregnancy announcement (even when the doctor had been giving them advice on increasing their chances of falling pregnant!), and a lot of them decided to find alternative care. As is their right. But these mums were surprised that doctors were assuming that all pregnancies must be questioned, and it surprised me too. If anyone knows of any research or statistics in this area, can you post some links? All I have to go on is these experiences, but I’d like to find out more.
I also know women who have successfully combined paid work and motherhood, usually due to a very supportive workplace and family. And you can keep breastfeeding; why the "sucking on a teat" remark was made before I really don't know?? Were they saying you can’t breastfeed and go back to work?? (You can you know, but it takes extra effort and may not suit all mums and situations. And some workplaces make it hard, which is wrong and there are discrimination laws about that, but that’s a whole other issue). Anyway, surely wanting mothers to have good support and be able to more easily make the choice to return to work or study if they want to is a good thing?
Some commenters are asking the writer to defend what she’s saying. Are you really questioning coercion occurs? Really? Maybe we don’t have fully “forced” abortions like in China, but I’ve known many women who experienced very real and strong pressure to abort. Then someone said she didn’t define coercion. I though that was part of the point? That coercion was difficult to define, because it’s not always obvious, or recognised as coercion.
Why isn’t wanting better support for women greeted with better support? I think it’s strange.

Disregarding the pros and cons of abortion, the overall number of abortions in Australia does seem to be significantly higher than either its supporters or opponents would ever have predicted.

Why is it so?

It is a national tragedy that so many women find that they must delay until it is very late for their biological clock, and they face serious risks and costs they would have planned to avoid if they could. However the social and financial changes wrought in the name of progress - unintended negative consequences of 'Progressivism' - and poor planning by government, have forced them along a path they would not have taken otherwise. Then there are the flow-on imposts on the budget from fertility interventions and negative outcomes of late pregnancy.

Why is there an open checkbook for promotion of immigration and for endless 'diversity' and multiculturalism with both public and private agencies gobbling up taxpayers' money doing that, when so many of the taxpayers themselves are putting off children and not having the children they want because of social and financial pressures?

Why should young women and couples be working so hard to pay taxes for infrastructure for a 'Big Australia' and Centrelink forever for economic migrants when they themselves are effectively being excluded from choosing the children they want and when they want to have them?

Again, to be very simple and plain so there is no easy misinterpretation of what I am asking, I am not opposed to birth control or abortion and nor do I have any religious interest.

It is simple enough: women who want children themselves must pay higher taxes for immigration and policies associated with it such as the millions spent every year on multiculturalism and in promoting 'diversity', but they themselves are not being encouraged to have the children they want and in fact logs are being rolled in front of them.

K8TIE

‘It's interesting that an opinion advocating for more supports for women is copping so much negativity.’

Read those comments again. The ‘negativity’ the author has copped is not directed at her arguments for more pregnancy support; it’s directed at her sloppy, unsubstantiated and deceitful examples/quotes from supposed real life.

Not only that, she goes out of her way to state that the situations she describes are ‘typical examples, not extraordinary scenarios’. Peppered throughout the essay are words/phrases like ‘commonplace’, ‘are routinely told’ and ‘the default response to every pregnancy’ to build a very dubious scenario of coercive officialdom.

No matter how much pregnancy and child-rearing support is available, every child born to a woman will cost her – and her partner if he is around – at least $150,000 to raise, and will significantly compromise her life goals and plans for at least the next 20 years. Of course, the significant people in her life (along with the medical staff she encounters), are going to express their concerns and opinions about how the pregnancy is likely to affect both her and them.

Any woman who chooses to view this as 'coercion' seriously needs to toughen up

I agree, when pregnant with my son, the first words out of my GP's mouth were "I'm assuming you want this?" She has known my family for years, knew we got married and that we aren't in our 20's...of course we were trying and had been so for 6 months we were over joyed!
A friend of mine wasn't so lucky, she wanted very much to keep her unplanned baby, but her husband refused. Said he couldn't cope (they only had a 4 year old at the time) she was gutted and went through with the termination to please him. That's not choice! She fell pregnant again a year latter and she stuck to her guns...had a little girl, but their marriage has suffered not because he doesn't love his children or isn't a good father, he is. But she deeply resents him for making her go through with the abortion!

Dear Pat,

<<Interesting article, I think it shows how abortion defines western civilisation.>>

The characteristic of western civilisation is wilfulness: abortions are only a symptom. That the women in question went to see a doctor for their pregnancy is in itself a property of western culture. They were not coerced into it, I presume, so had they not visited a doctor they would not have been offered an abortion. If you take going-to-a-doctor for granted, it's only because you would be part of western culture.

Are you suggesting Debbie that when a Doctor recommends termination of pregnancy for the reason of grave danger to the health of the mother - such as the discovery of an aggressive neoplasm or in the case of a foetal condition not compatible with life - such as anencephaly - he/she is "pressuring" the patient?

In case it has somehow eluded you in your seemingly tunnel visioned quest to eliminate the scourge of surgical abortion from the face of the earth, medical professionals are obligated to provide their patients with full disclosure regarding their condition, all choices available to them and the likely consequences of each choice based on knowledge, experience and results of investigative procedures. He/she may express an opinion as to the most favourable course/s of treatment but ultimately the final decision - and responsibility for the outcome, rests with the patient.

No Doctor is likely to EVER ask a healthy pregnant woman if she wants a termination unless the patient is obviously distressed about her condition and discussion leads down that path. Whether that Doctor has a personal pro or anti choice stance is too bad. He/she has a professional obligation to leave the choice with the patient without attempting to pressure her - as you yourself point out.

So in your efforts to make the world a better one for all women - is there a place for termination of pregnancy at all? I'm sure a lot of women who have been in situations where it's been the best, in fact their only choice for survival, and those who faced the prospect otherwise of carrying a baby to term to give birth to a stillborn or watch it die within hours or days and their families would like to know.

DearMe

‘Said he couldn't cope (they only had a 4 year old at the time) she was gutted and went through with the termination to please him. That's not choice!’

Yes, it is. Abortion is not just about the woman. Men are mostly left out of the pregnancy/abortion equation. If a man wants a woman to have an abortion, he’s personified as a selfish bully, even downright evil, when he is probably just a man who feels he is not ready for fatherhood or extended fatherhood. Why should a woman force a man to take on a fatherhood he doesn’t want and feels unprepared for?

I doubt if your friend went through with the abortion simply ‘to please him’. I’m sure that much of her decision was based on doing the right thing for all concerned. Regardless of her later regret and resentment, her decision to terminate showed maturity.

Of course, if you see every foetus as sacred (and I don't just mean in the religious sense), then any choice other than proceeding with an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of how either the father or mother feels, is the WRONG thing.

So to summarise, for many many years, women were not given a choice whether or not to continue their pregnancy, and were undeniably pressured by society to take their pregnancy to term.

Women now have the right to chose to continue the pregnancy or not. However now these pressures exist for both choices. There are those like the author and others that will pressure a women to keep the baby, and others that may pressure a women to have an abortion. These are facts I accept.

What I don't accept is that women are somehow irrational, utterly dependent people who are incapable of making important life decisions. As others mention, no woman who wants to have a child will decide to have an abortion if someone presents this as an option. Perhaps the authors attitude on this is influenced by her experiences successfully pressuring women who want an abortion to not have one.

I personally support any women that makes either decision. Do you Debbie?

Killarney, Stezza great posts.

R0bert

What the author appears to want is women to have the choice to have or not have a child free of the consequences of their decision.

Babies are wonderful when they are wanted, but require lots of money time, and attention, and a first year student without a huge support network is unlikely to be able to complete her degree, or follow the career path she wanted.

The boyfriend, parents etc also have the choice to provide that support or not. All these factors need to be considered by the woman in making her decision. This is not coercion, this is real life.

@divine_msn Doctors DO ask healthy, happily pregnant women if they want a termination all the time. Ask women. With 96% of all abortions occurring on healthy women and babies, your use of the rarest examples is a way of changing the subject. This is a case of your ideology, not my own. Having nursed women who have lovingly cared for their 'less than perfect' babies even when they lived briefly, I can assure you none of them wished they had not had the chance to meet and love them.

@killarney. Men have no legal right to a say about abortion. How is it a sign of maturity for a woman to succumb to another person's pressure to abort when she wants the child?

@stezza. I have never pressured a woman into continuing a pregnancy. I am working with a young desperate woman right now who very much wants her baby and is facing withdrawal of support from her parents if she does. Coercion much? We are putting supports, both practical and financial in place for her so that she can make the choice SHE wants. That is not pressure. It is responding to her stated need.

@Shadow Minister, I would suggest that every decision we make in life comes with consequences. It is comments like yours that women are 'unlikely to be able to' do something that undermine the rational, independent decisions that I believe women are capable of (and that stezza makes reference to above). What on earth is the problem with providing a support network around women or men for that matter? We are social beings and nobody should be isolated and told they have to manage on their own, or not at all.

Debbie,

I agree with your sentiments. The mother to be should be able to count on the caring and support of parents and partner but as this support require sacrifice, it cannot be enforced.

If my teenage daughter fell pregnant and wished to keep the child, I would provide all the support and care I could, but with the best intentions in the world, the likelihood of my daughter completing the medical degree she is working for would be remote with a baby, as it is hard enough without.

This is reality. A woman has to consider her options based on her circumstances. That is choice.

Debbie "Men have no legal right to a say about abortion."

Really? When was that restriction on free speech enacted.

As I understand it there is generally no legal restriction on expressing an opinion or preference. No legal right to control the womans choice on the matter but thats quite difference to having a say. In a similar way that a doctor ensuring a woman is aware of her options is different to coercion.

My grief with many in the pro-choice camp is that they refuse men the same rights to choice when it comes to ongoing responsibility. Many of the same reasons for not wanting to take on responsibility for a child apply, generally the choices regarding contraception are more limited for men than women and yet some are adament that if the woman choose to have the child the man pays regardless of his needs or wants.

That particular double standard annoys me intensly but it's no reason to take choice away from women.

R0bert

@R0bert, sorry, this was poorly expressed. I did not intend to imply an opinion that fathers should have no rights, but that as the law stands, they only have a responsibility to support a child if a mother decides to give birth, however no right not to if they don't 'choose' the child, and no right to parent if the mother 'chooses' otherwise.

@Shadow Minister. Parents are not required, nor should it be enforced that they support their parenting children. I have not suggested this support can only come from parents or family. In fact this support can effectively be provided by lots of different people.

I agree that as things currently stand for many university aged women trying to parent, it can be incredibly difficult. My point is that it shouldn't be made more difficult by withdrawal of, of lack of necessary supports.

As someone who was both a teenage parent, and went back to university as a single parent of 2 to earn 3 university degrees, I can assure you that all things are possible. As a grandmother, I can assure you the joys of loving, nurturing and supporting parenting children and their children far outweigh any perceived sacrifices.

In fact, whilst there have been challenges and changes necessary at times in order to be of assistance to my children, they have all been worth it, just as the 'sacrifices' I made along the way for my children were worth it. It is all a matter of perspective.

I understand and respect that others may have different experiences. However that does not change the fact that women need not be isolated from the support that can be offered and made to feel that it will be too hard and they are on their own..a not uncommon experience amongst many that we hear from.

This article is not about abortion it is about maintaining a woman’s undeniable right to support when she decides to have a child. Such an undeniable right should never exist.

Those who are in control of funds to distribute – be they government, council, church or whatever are free to distribute those funds however they best see fit. They may simply use their power of choice to send these funds in other directions than towards the support of women who want to pursue a path to motherhood. It is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that this is what they should do. Governments may decide to spend the funds on an increase in migration or support for refugees or overseas aid. These are human beings as well. Women who have everything else in life but a baby are doing pretty well compared to refugees in Syria where they are starving to death. No woman needs a baby – what we’d like and what we need are two entirely different things. Ask a Syrian woman on the side of a war torn road whether she’d prefer food in her mouth or a baby and you would soon learn a thing about preferences.

I think it is a sign of maturity that a wealthy country like ours reaches out to other human beings and helps them achieve basic needs instead of wasting our good fortune on pandering to the desires of someone who may not get a university degree if they go through with their pregnancy.

This article is not an advocacy for supporting women who want to have a baby it is an article of someone trapped in a belief that motherhood is the most sublime value to aspire to. For her, it far outweighs the value of justice and compassion. She writes to convince herself.

Debbie

‘How is it a sign of maturity for a woman to succumb to another person's pressure to abort when she wants the child?’

I was challenging your assumption that the woman did indeed ‘succumb to another person’s pressure’. Your whole essay treats women as if they are child-slaves to other people’s needs and demands.

We’ve been conditioned by an abortion-hating culture (despite all you say about it being the other way round) to believe that a woman is heroic and sublimely courageous to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of how unwise that would be.

Often women who decide to abort may do so for unselfish, mature reasons, while women who proceed with an unwanted pregnancy may do so for selfish reasons without any concern for the needs of their significant others.

As a Grandparent, youngest 11 mths, being part of a large extended family where numerous junior relatives have young families - plus 2 nieces, one with a 6mth old (single mum), other about to have baby#3, I decided to put the Debbie Garret assertion: "Doctors routinely offer terminations to healthy pregnant mothers carrying normal foetuses" to the test.

My 7 young women include daughter, nieces and 4 from extended family aged 19 to 39, total of 13 children aged 9 yrs down to 6 mths and a 37 week pregnancy. Some had received ante-natal and maternal care through Public Hospital systems, others through Private Drs & Hospitals.

Question I texted each one: At any time during your pregnancy/s - but particularly when you visited family GP or hospital clinic to have pregnancy confirmed and/or 1st ante-natal appointment: Were you ever asked directly "Do you want this?" or similar question which you took as a blunt query as to whether you wanted an abortion?

6 out of 7 replied with answers like "No. Why do you ask?" "What sort of question is that? I would have told u if that happened" (Daughter) It was only my niece - the 19 year old solo mum who answered: "Dr said was I happy to go through with it I said yes, I wanted to."

Then asked her if that was the end of it? Replied: Asked do I want refer to social worker. If decide don't want baby return to clinic asap. Told him don't believe in abortion he said OK.

If that exchange with a teenaged girl with limited close family support is deemed "Coercion" then actions of many zealous pro-lifers must rate as "terrorism" ...

However the other 6 mothers with the 12 children and one advanced pregnancy between them say "No" and "Not that I can ever remember" which for my money makes Debbie guilty of more than a little fervid exaggeration ..

Anyone else tried asking pregnant or recent mothers in their family?

Debbie,

As a single parent of 2, going back to university and getting 3 degrees is a great achievement, but one I guess by being unencumbered by a full time job, and having access to grand parents to baby sit. Something many if not most pregnant youngsters don't have the advantage of.

Not having these supports is not coercion, and for some the choice to keep a baby means losing out on a career and freedom.

Reason never entered the baby murdering debate. How dare anyone judge the feminist dogma. No one just no one will tell me i cant murder mybaby. Dont u know its all about the 1% or less of woman seeking abortions who have been rape.Well that is certainly what the academics told us inthe 60s and 70s. No point arguing logic. The regressives dont believe in it.

@Shadow Minister, Actually no, it was not that simple. My parents were only in their mid 30's when my daughter was born, having only been 16 and 19 when they had me. They both had full time careers and didn't sit around being babysitting grandparents. I also worked my way through university and in fact was rarely out of work at any point when raising my children. It wasn't easy. But then it isn't easy for some married 30 year olds when they have children either. There was nothing special about me either that I did it. I simply knew I could.

What this taught me though is that just because something (like pregnancy) might bring with it some challenges and sacrifice, doesn't make it impossible or not worth it. We need to stop telling women they have to choose, and make our communities places where they don't have to. We certainly need to stop telling young women that having children means they can't have educations and careers as well, because it simply isn't true.

Debbie,

I am really trying to understand what point you are trying to make?

I am glad that you managed to overcome adversity, however, if you could go back in time to when you were 15, would you have voluntarily chosen to be a single parent of two as a teen, or would you have chosen an easier more conventional path?

Giving women the right to control their bodies means that they can choose to follow your path, or another whatever their motives based on what they want from life. Other people including family choosing their own path and level of involvement does not constitute coercion.

@Shadow Minister, It is an interesting choice of words you use 'would you have chosen an easier more conventional path'. I would choose both of my children. Becoming pregnant was an occurrence in my life that created a detour that I adjusted my life to, just like when I've lost a job, been offered a different job, had a child get sick and die. Life isn't always about choosing 'easy'.

A parent telling a pregnant daughter that they will only continue to financially support her if she has an abortion = coercion. I'm not suggesting it is a parents responsibility to become a fulltime babysitter.

A women's health centre in regional NSW lamented the lives of parenting teens saying it was impossible for them to finish their educations and get jobs. Their solution? More abortion services. When I suggested that another solution might be to increase access to education for the women through flexible study options and on site childcare, I was accused of trying to 'force girls to have babies' (as has been stated in comments here as well).

How does the concept of women's autonomy and control over their own bodies and lives fit there? In abortion discourse, the only 'autonomy' that is supported, is that of seeking abortion, not of parenting. You can see that happening every time I write an article that represents the voices of women for whom abortion was not experienced as a choice at all, or when we suggest that more can be done to meet the needs of women than to offer surgical and medical solutions to their social problems. Both these women, and our discussion of alternative solutions are dismissed, ridiculed and marginalised and usually without any reasonable rationale.

All that does is demonstrate a personal investment in a radical ideology that doesn't allow for actual discussion or genuine concern for women. Abortion advocates are so concerned that a woman might be 'forced' to have a baby, yet deny the claims of the many who say they were 'forced' by a lack of choice to have an abortion they didn't want.

The threat of withdrawal of support for a pregnant teen by the parents is coercive, and while unfair it is not illegal. It is also very rare.

Similarly the cost to an education facility to provide free care and class flexibility is enormous, and with tight budget is unreasonable to expect a educational facility to subsidise. Making termination easier is one if not the only method of assisting a teen in trouble, and is not by any means a radical ideology.

My suspicion is that you have an ulterior motive.

I've been pondering the use of the word Coercion in terms of a threat to withdraw support if an action is not taken. The word coercion carries a fair bit of emotional loading and sometimes legal consequences but appears to cover a pretty wide range of activities in this discussion.

I hit that source of all knowledge (Wikipedia) it get it's version of the definition

"Coercion /ko&#650;&#712;&#604;r&#643;&#601;n/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim can't escape, for example: a bully demanding lunch money to a student or the student gets beaten. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

The tricky part in all of this is what options does a person have if they don't give into the pressure/suggestion/question someone else brings.

In the case of the use of the word coerced in the article, plenty, it's a question, not a threat either in real terms or in any implied terms.

In the case of the parents threatening to withdraw financial support from a pregnant teen (assuming that the teen is old enough for that to occur without other legal constraints coming into play) the teen will generally in our society have other options, they may be very difficult but I struggle to see that as coercion.

There are a whole bunch of ways people bring pressure to bear to try to get others to make a particular choice, some are not decent and don't reflect my values but I'm not sure coercion is the right word unless there is a threat to harm another.

The misuse of the term looks like more of that approach we see all to often of broadening the meaning of a term to leverage the emotional impact of the term which in the long run harms those to whom it genuinely applies.

Anybody who is genuinely coerced to have an abortion deserves all the help the law can bring.

A reduction of the number of options while options still exist is not coercion.

R0bert

This is a very strange article.

The chain of logic is thus:
Women are presented with the option to have an abortion. Because some women are in difficult circumstances, they may choose to have this abortion. Thus, the option should not be presented to them so bluntly.

This is very poor logic. In follow-up comments, Ms Garrett has indicated that her goal is that women should always have the support they need, thus abortions would not be necessary.

Unfortunately, there will always be difficulties. Life is full of uncertainties. There will never ever be a world where every woman can have the future mapped out safely, and have all the support she needs to raise a child.

Whilst I would agree wholeheartedly for maternity leave policies and other options to aid young parents and provide further support, that is not what the article appears to be advocating for. Instead it takes this very strange route of criticizing the fact that women are presented the option to abort.

Which is very depressing, because to improve the situation facing women, and yes, to provide them with the support the author claims she is advocating for, one must first and foremost respect the women's right to choose what they want. Be it abortion or not.

It is also very weird to focus on the fact that some women are pressured by their parents to have abortion. Surely the guilty party here are the parents, not the people offering abortions.

So if you really want to advocate for more support for women, I would suggest that instead of trying to curtail their ability to make choices for themselves, a more productive approach would be to focus on issues that improve their situation - such as maternity leave, reducing the cost of childcare, reducing employment discrimination for single parents and increasing access to contraception such as the morning after pill.

Debbie Garret,

I agree somewhat that our culture has gone too far into trying to make women into the same individual and free thinking self-maker that many males are seen to be (but are really not this) when we should realize that biology and thousands of years of culture where gender roles ere fixed will take some time to overcome.

But forget this problem for a moment which is sorting itself, and spare a thought for non-western cultures and for how they still treat women and even worse, how the women in these cultures themselves see themselves as not oppressed.

For instance, while we complain that 'my daughter is too young for a kid' or 'how dare that GP mention abortion' another family in a very traditional culture (which is basically everywhere no-west) such as Sri-Lanka or Iraq the pregnant daughter first must be married before pregnant or at least soon after second the girl and family nor anyone in community thinks abortion as an option to consider (as westerners didn't in 19th century) and the pregnant women better not have any "west inspired" dreams of being an individual career women since nobody in her family nor her husband will ever contemplate such madness and instead she will be at home raising kids (more coming) and taking care of husband for eternity.

If by some miracle a women in such a culture managed to grow a mind independent enough to try to escape, the likely result would be that her entire family is shamed by her and so disowns her completely. The same would happen to her had she dare to marry a man not of parents' approval such as a man from a different tribe or even race or religion.'

It is not uncommon in cultures like this to find these disobedient women ending up killed by either the husband, a brother or their father since the male feels the shame the most apparently.

So forget our little issues and problems in our nation