Jaxxen, Col. Guys

I think it best to further analyses the article, and then look at actual facts.

The author tries to infer that women have minimal ability to control their own reproductive systems, and therefore they need ready access to abortion. However, all that was in the past, and certainly not now.

Female contraception is now readily available, extremely cheap, safe, and reliable. It gives maximum control to the woman, not minimal control at all.

A woman can now spend 15 minutes in a local doctor’s surgery, and for $20 she can have a contraceptive implant that will last up to 5 years. This type of contraception is reversible, safe and 99% reliable. She can use other forms of contraception as well, so combined they would reduce her chances of becoming pregnant to 0 %. (ie. no pregnancy “guaranteed”)

(see… http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open)

So instead of women having minimal control of their reproductive systems as the author infers, women can have maximum control, as they have ready access to highly effective taxpayer funded contraception. The necessity for taxpayer funded abortion should be very minimal.

Then why is there so much abortion? That is a good question that still remains unanswered.

The article also contains characteristics of feminist literature.
Eg
- It does not contain technical or scientific data (so it becomes more difficult to question)
- It portrays males negatively (eg. the male is portrayed as a being a kidnapper who uses the woman’s body for his own purposes)
- It does not incorporate fathers (so they become irrelevant)
- It portrays women as being oppressed (eg the woman is portrayed as being a type of slave etc)

These general characteristics are regularly found in most feminist literature.

So basically the article is written in a feminist style, and it attempts to mislead the reader. This can be verified by reading other feminist literature, and by talking to a doctor about currently available female contraception.

Questions about why there is so much abortion, (when there is such good female contraception presently available), still remain unanswered.

Timkins you have missed ther point - as Helen wrote and I concurred with,
The issue of "Choice" has nothing to do with comparative medicine or contraception. It in fact has little to do with abortion, although that is where "battle line" seem to be drawn.

The issue is "Choice" and it has everything to do with the individual and that individuals right to make decisions as they effect that individual’s life and body.
As I have tried to illustrate in my posts, we are more autonomous today than at any previous time in history.

We have moved beyond the authority and "Divine Right of Kings".

The "professional theologians" of every denomination have shown themselves to be too corrupt to pretend to have any "moral authority" in the secular society in which we live (more revelations of manipulation of children by bishops under Hollingsworths "responsibility" being aired tonight on the ABC). and thus secular society has moved on.

I personally believe the outcome of all this will be stronger, more capable individuals and thus a stronger, more capable society. Where people accept responsible for their decisions, instead of being given "placebo crutches" to excuse their bad behaviour (eg stupid notions of absolution from guilt after confession and saying 10 "Hail Marys" on the orders by a priest).

The number of abortions just does not matter - be there one or a million.
The relative “safety performance” of contraceptives does not matter – although it should result in fewer abortions. I would also note that the Roman Catholic propagandist, behind many anti-abortion campaigns, would have contraception denied to us too.

As a father, I had nothing like the “involvement” in the “pregnancy” as the mother of my daughters had and thus never expected the “final say” in the choices which were hers and hers alone.

I am not a “feminist” and oppose many “feminist” notions. Abortion is not a “feminist issue”. It is an “individual sovereignty” issue. It is the “sovereign right of choice” a woman has over her own body which is the issue and the "topic” of Helen's article

Col,
There would be "choice", but any action by an individual also has "responsibilities"

Having sex is a choice, and it would be a statistical fact that the more often women (in general) have sexual intercourse, the more likely pregnancy can occur.

Now if a woman (as an individual) does not want to become pregnant, then she should use contraception. That is her "responsibility" and not just "choice".

There now is very good contraception available as compared to the past, and it is often subsidised by the taxpayer. For a woman to use that contraception is to show responsibility to herself, to the unborn child, and to society which pays the cost of unwanted children.

So nothing is free, and individuals have responsibilities for almost any action they carry out, including sex.

High rates of sexual activity without contraception leads to high rates of abortion, and personally I think our present rates of abortion are not acceptable in any society,

One interesting thing, testing of 23 commonly used condoms in the US found the worst condoms were being issued by Planned Parenting, which operates many abortion clinics throughout the US. http://cfacr.org/issues/pp/05-01-25-pp-condoms.htm

Other studies have shown that condoms were not very reliable as a means of pregnancy prevention, so until better forms of male contraception are developed, the female will have most responsibility for contraception (particularly because of the fact that the foetus develops in her womb)

"...until better forms of male contraception are developed, the female will have most responsibility for contraception (particularly because of the fact that the foetus develops in her womb)"

So, suddenly you allow that women have more responsibility in the matter? How nice, all the responsibility and all of the risk?

Personally, I find that the best way to ensure that the majority of Australians remain pro-choice is to ask them their view before a relationship develops. Anti-choice? Then keep your pants on!!

One obvious fact that is always overlooked is that two consenting human beings, if fact, made this situation come about. The conception happened because two people had sex! And in making that choice, all people of sound mind know that it could result in a pregnancy. And so the "choice" has already been made! After that, there should be no choosing. They already chose! They chose to make love and that "love choice" should continue through carrying that little baby to term, through the birth and through the whole of its unchosen life.

I’m keeping my pants on. The foetus and the man have equal rights – none. The women have the right of choice they do not abuse. Scary.