kaetien,
given that the discussion is not focussed on pregnancies resulting from rape I suggest the approach you suggest for men is relevant for women as well. If women can't live with the consequences, don't take the risk.

>> On the subject of men and their choices, there is no easy answer.
>> Except, perhaps, that in having sex, they took a risk – as did
>> their partner. Can’t live with the consequences? Don’t take the
>> risk

I'll just add, that when a woman falls pregnant, it is NOT suddenly 'about women and choices' its about 2 human beings who have come together intimately, and have TOGETHER conceived a child. From that point on, its about THEM !! The two of them. Both their lives are intricately bound up in the conceived life that the woman happens to be carrying. Even a child conceived as a result of rape, would be a good candidate for adoption, he/she didnt ask to be created, but now that he/she is, why punish he/she by killing her ?

A predictably circular debate about abortion. And a very long one. It's strange how fascinating we seem to find abortion and homosexuality on this website. Being gay myself I can tell you that homosexuality isn't actually all that interesting. And yet I encounter opponents who serve me longwinded diatribes based on what they've read (but not experienced). And abortion should not be a point of contention. It should be a routine operation without any guilt attached to it.

I'd like to add to my previous point that countries which restrict women's reproductive choices AND oppress gays tend to be undemocratic overall. Totalitarian regimes love controlling people's sexuality. Fortunately, there seem to be fewer of those regimes than in years gone by. And if there really is a trend towards worldwide democracy, it should follow that there'll be a trend towards greater reproductive choice and freedom of sexuality. Perhaps it's because for capitalism as an economic system these issues are really non-issues.

Legally speaking equity should apply here, meaning the woman and unborn child have equal rights to the outcome and father have a determinate right. However, legal practice has urshed unborn childs rights allowing termination by woman as only 'right of choice' that matter to situation. However, when one studies the unborn baby in detail anatomical and physiological terms it becomes clear that human features and responses are seen even early as 9 weeks old (this includes responding to stimuli and soon after smiling and sleep patterns.) and so flawed and needing urgent address to upgrading civil status of unborn child.

As to the termination that have occurred to date, well... difficult but eventually needs society resolution.

To individual opinions in particular women who now have the only say needed to terminate or not... I do not fear any adverse response from this hotly polarized area and say put yourself back when you were in the womb, just because you cannot remember does not mean it did not happen Anne but are you not glad you were allowed to have the 'gift of life' by your parents? As a doctor I have refused to terminate and many of my collegues have done the same, thats my choice.

doctor of what?

Anne O'Rourke, you haven't been paying attention during the 'debate' on abortion. Alan Cadman was possibly the only person to make a public statement denigrating women who have an unintended pregnancy. I don't recall anyone characterising women as "frivolous, promiscuous, post-termination basket-cases" or as "vessels". That might be what you would like to hear people say, so that you can continue to slam anyone who questions abortion.

Hardly anyone has defended or attacked the practice of abortion on religious grounds. In fact I can't recall even one. Although, in our apparently tolerant society, it would be fine for them to do so, right? Where did you get your idea that abortion only upsets religious people? Most people don't like abortion very much. I think it's a "necessary evil" to most Australians. Most people want less abortion because they know that abortion is traumatic for a woman and lethal for a baby.

There was also no talk of determining what women can and can't do with their bodies (I spose you mean banning abortion). Nobody has mentioned that once, at least in public. Are you sure you're not thinking of the debate that was had in the early 1970s?

This piece tended to be a rehash of the same old tired stuff: caricaturing, defensive, angry. It's not very productive to misrepresent your opponents, because then the debate goes nowhere (although I think that is what the most extreme pro-choicers want: no debate because they're happy with one abortion for every four or five pregnancies). You really ought to include quotes in your piece to support your arguments.