OE
I think there are dangers involved in government subsidising pregnancies, particularly unwanted pregnancies.

There are between 80,000 to 100,000 abortions per year, (depending on the source of statistics). This is about 20% of pregnancies.

Now for government (read taxpayer) to finance these pregnancies through to the birth, so that the children can be adopted out is a significant cost, but it is a yearly cost only.

To finance the mother to keep the child and raise the child until it is 18 or older, is an enormous cost, and an ever increasing cost, as there would be 80,000 to 100,000 new children born each year to be subsidised. So over 18 years this amounts to subsidising up to 1,800,000 children and possibly their mothers also (ie over 50% of single parent mothers do not work). This would produce an enormous welfare state.

So, apart from producing this enormous welfare state, what would be the other options?

1. Government to subsidise abortion.

2. Government to subsidise contraception, and have education programs for the use of contraception.

3. Get couples together, and preferably get them married.

Unfortunately I think that there are people in society who are pro-1, anti-2, and highly anti-3.

Col, you claim that the rights of the child are "subordinate" to the rights of the mother. On what grounds do you make this claim? What do "cognitive ability" or "autonomy" have to do with rights? Are you suggesting that a man in a coma hooked up on life support has no rights? You mention the child is "invisible". Ever heard of an ULTRASOUND?

What does "priority discretion over her body" have to do with rights also? I have pointed out that if the woman is OBLIGATED to the child, then she simply no longer HAS these "rights" in the way abortion choicers imply. As Gella correctly pointed out, she has ALEADY EXERCISED priority discretion of her body by choosing to have vaginal sex. Because of that CHOICE, she has consented to the outcome - pregnancy.

I may have been the prior owner of a house, but if I sell the right of ownership to someone else, then my "prior discretion of ownership" becomes completely irrelevant.

Let me give you a relevant analogy. A woman and a small child are on a boat out on the ocean. The woman displays risky behaviour that results in the small child being knocked overboard into the deep ocean. The child cannot swim, the woman can. The child's life has been put at risk by the woman. Does this woman have an OBLIGATION to jump in and rescue this child or doesn't she? Suppose she doesn't like the child and wants the child to die. Does she have a "right to control her body" and NOT rescue the child, after the damage has already been done?

Col, I am not at all "ranting about how I feel". You are the one motivated by feelings here - you FEEL a greater affinity with a mature, sentient woman than you do an unborn child - hence your prejudice. But this is not a debate about feelings, this is a debate about RIGHTS.

I do not seek to "enforce my will" upon women per se, I seek only to see that JUSTICE is objectively done. The fact that a pregnant woman IS "intimitely involved" in the matter of her own pregnancy only makes her all the more likely to make a decision IN HER OWN SELF-INTEREST if she is given a "choice".

The fact that there may well be a CLASH between the needs of the woman and the rights of the child, again only makes her more likely to kill in her own self-interest. As it happens, women given a "choice" commonly abort pregnancies for all sorts of self-motivated reasons - (because they weren't in a relationship when pregnant, because of "financial reasons", because she wanted to focus on study or a career etc. etc.).

If on the other hand, there may be a justifiable reason to abort a pregnancy, then the law has a responsibility to allow for those situations - and I fully support that. But simply allowing open slather against the pre-born based on "choice" for the powerful party, simply guarantees much unjustified killing.

BigAl30 – Read my posts – “It is just her body” – not yours – so you don’t get to have a say.
I am not advocating anyone kills anyone else – so please do not twist what I say – I support “choice of the individual” – that you cannot grasp the difference is a matter of your lack of comprehension – suggest you acquire some before you make negative comments about what I write in future.


Jexxen – subordinate rights of the child – as the writer of another article here (Bill Muehlenberg), challenging this article, expressed – the embryo / fetus is a guest in the mothers body – the woman is the permanent resident. She also has “seniority of residence”. We cannot place the two sets of rights equal. Placing the embryo / fetus before the mother, reduces the mother’s status that of a chattel and I would never condone such a position. Simplistic analogies of with people in boats carries no credence.

I do not “FEEL a greater affinity with a mature, sentient woman than you do an unborn child”.

I am male and a father yet I see no way in which I am “equipped” to feel anything like a woman might feel when she knows she is pregnant – call it one of the men versus women differences.

I do feel a great affinity with how “individuals” feel because I am one.
I feel a great affinity for the right of individuals to determine and control, as much as possible, their own destiny.
I respect and defend their right to freedom of choice in a secular world - Just as I denounce socialism as a political myth which delivers nothing but ensures mediocrity because all it does is limits the potential of outstanding individuals to that allowed by the state.

That you conclude that women might act selfishly without knowing the full details of their circumstances, abilities, expectations or aspirations show you know nothing about her and thus are basing your assessment on ignorance. “Ignorance” is never a good legal nor debating foundation.

Col Rouge: Boy are you in denial! You keep repeating the old rubbish that "it's just her body" Haven't you seen the ultrasounds, the other images from the womb, the little faces? What do you think they are - rabbits?
Take your head out of the sand and your brains out of the freezer.

Abortion kills, and that's the choice you support. The baby has no choice. Abortionists and pro-choice women are playing God, deciding who dies by deliberate act. What hypocrites are the doctors and nurses who take the Hippocratic Oath "Above all I must not play at God" and then plunge the scissors into helpless babies' skulls.!

They have no right to decide that a tiny helpless human life conceived by the choice to have sex, is to be violently and cruelly ended. The child has human rights especially the right to be born. Pregnant women should be given more support so they won't even consider kiling their unborn child.
If they can't raise the child,at least give him/her a chance at life by adoption.

Timkins
For those who demand an abortion, they will go ahead. However, there is enough evidence about post abortion syndrome and greater proclivity to breast cancer, to warrant support for those who would rather not abort - mother and fathers. This is not to promote a welfare gravy train, but to help fellow Aussies who are in need, and I'm not grading the levels of need among the needy. Those faced with a child in womb are far from the lowest level of those in need.

OE