The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The abortion debate: what a fizzer! > Comments

The abortion debate: what a fizzer! : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 11/3/2005

Helen Pringle argues that on the basis of recent history the abortion debate won't result in any change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All
I would like to see more than just a “debate” on abortion, but a proper public enquiry, where many issues can be fully examined, and better solutions to problems of unwanted pregnancy can be found (or at least trailed).

Many question remain unanswered or minimal information is known:-
How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

However I think the issue of abortion is actually secondary to the author, as she mentions none of these important questions or issues. I think the author is actually using the abortion “debate” as an attempt at fear mongering amongst women, by trying to convince women that “men” are out to take away their rights(ho hum). If this is true, then abortion is actually secondary and political only.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 11 March 2005 12:16:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly, the author didn't mention Emily Maguire's piece in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago which basically told anti-abortionists to lay it on the line. It's a pity Helen Pringle omitted any reference to Maguire's article because she made some pertinent observations (http://smh.com.au/news/Opinion/If-terminations-are-really-murder-there-should-be-no-abortion-debate/2005/03/08/1110160822226.html?oneclick=true)

Maguire noted that the likes of Margaret Tighe and other outspoken opponents of abortion focus on Medicare subsidised abortions. They seem less worried about child killing (as they describe it) per se and more worried about taxpayers' money. This shows how unprincipled the anti-abortionists really are. If they had a backbone they would come out with draft legislation outlawing abortion fullstop. No ifs or buts. If they really believed in Biblical commandments they would say "thou shalt not kill" and produce policies based on those very principles.

As Maguire states, abortion is either murder or it isn't. Make up your mind. And if it is, why aren't anti-abortionists urging the Commonwealth to jail women who avail themselves to abortion services and the service providers as well?

I suspect that for anti-abortionists, abortion isn't much of an issue so long as it's not too much in their face.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 11 March 2005 1:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Give it a rest Timkins *yawn*
Posted by mscobina, Friday, 11 March 2005 1:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, not yet another demand for an enquiry. Curious and perverse that they come mostly from those, the men like Timkins, for whom there is absolutely NO PROSPECT of pregnancy and for whom the option of abandoning an unplanned parenting role is so easy and so prevalent among his sex.
Posted by Fiona, Friday, 11 March 2005 1:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Timkins. These others have no hearts, but perhaps they see those little faces in the middle of the night.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 11 March 2005 3:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's so incredibly and utterly stupid. We spend squillions of dollars and medical hours on IVF programmes so couples can have children. Then we spend sqillions of dollars and medical hours killing healthy normal lovable babies because, in many cases, they are inconvenient. Then constantly we hear women bleat&peep ad-nauseum - "It's MY body I can do as I like with it" or "It's alright for you men/fathers you do not have the carry the little sod" (maybe the little sod bit was mine) Never hear them say "well I am now responsible for a new life and regardless will have to go through with it if only for my child's sake" Then [not finished yet]we spend squillions of dollars importing unwanted babies from o/seas for adoption. As I said so incredibly and utterly stupid. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 11 March 2005 3:50:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Big Al,

Sounds like you are pretty unsupportive of women.
Perhaps a lack of REAL midnight faces in your immediate vicinity has lead you to fixate on this issue a little too much?

Hmmmm?
Posted by mscobina, Friday, 11 March 2005 4:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Embryo is Sacred
The baby can be adopted, its just a minor interruption to a woman’s life.
The forever torment of wondering where her adopted child went - happy or not? - The embryo is sacred.
Too many children already, not enough to feed them – the embryo is sacred.
A husband watches the swelling belly of his wife, not his child – his wife was raped – the embryo is sacred.
Interrupts her education – the embryo is sacred.
Interrupts her career – may be that promotion – the embryo is sacred.
Too emotionally unstable for pregnancy – the embryo is sacred.
Hormonal imbalance, post natal depression – the embryo is sacred.
Millions of abused or starving or exploited children across the world.
The embryo is more sacred than anyone.
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 11 March 2005 4:33:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS and Emily Maguire don’t seem to understand the basics of abortion in this country. Abortion is federally funded, but governed by the laws of the states. So pro-lifers in a national abortion debate are naturally going to talk about funding. Its one of the main things the Federal Government can address. Pro-lifers sensibly leave any talk of abortion bans for debates in state parliaments.

The real question is doesn’t everyone believe that it would be better to help women avoid unwanted abortions? Doesn’t everyone believe it would be better if abortion was rare? If so, how are we going to help women who would prefer another choice to abortion? That’s where an inquiry would be helpful.
Posted by magella, Friday, 11 March 2005 4:36:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're driving the current controversy over abortion.
Posted by Penekiko, Friday, 11 March 2005 4:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail: The unborn are sacred, the unborn did not ask to be where they are in a womb. The unborn did not vote or agree to a painful undignified death and to dumped in pieces somewhere, probably a rubbish bin.The unborn would like to live and grow experience life just as you have. The unborn, if asked, would love to eventually have a family of their very own. YES! the unborn are SACRED, they are pulsating with life no different from you and I, they would want to fulfill their destiny whatever it is.
Woudn't it be better if there were a system to give ALL mothers ALL the help they require to give birth. Then a system to allow adoption. A sad, painful life as an adoptee would be better than just to be thrown away as a piece of stinking garbage surely!! Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 11 March 2005 5:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, numbat, I knew I'd reel in at least one G.B. I find it extremely perverse that you believe embryos are more important than starving, abused or exploited children.
Regards
Ringtail
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 11 March 2005 5:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, your back.

Where have you been, you possum.

So what would be your opinions regards the following questions:-

How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

Do you think such questions should be answered, or left unanswered by politically suppressing the issue of abortion.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 11 March 2005 5:17:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am the author of this article. I would like to reply to the second comment by DavidJS, who remarks reasonably enough that I omitted reference to Emily Maquire's opinion piece on abortion (SMH 8 March). This is a fair comment, but I should note that the first version of my article was sent to opiniononline on 9 February this year, and I was asked at that time if I could add to its length a little. I did so, and the longer present version was sent to opiniononline on 1 March this year. (By the way, the piece was actually begun 3 years ago, as a defence of Billy McMahon against a comment by Phillip Adams, in the Weekend Australian, 9 March 2002, that McMahon was “brief but amusing”.) So I am afraid that my omission of any mention of Maguire's article is about publication lead-times rather than anything else more interesting. I also did not read the Maguire article until today: I am a bit behind with newspapers because of some pressing deadlines this week, plus an unexpected, and unwelcome, flood at home stemming from renovations. Thank you for the comments!
Posted by isabelberners, Friday, 11 March 2005 6:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It won't go away, will it? And it fascinates me that Timkins considers it worthwhile to produce a long list of demands, without actually stating what the objective of the "enquiry" would be?

How will answers to these questions contribute to anything but the satisfaction of his own prurient curiosity? It has been clear for some time that if you believe that "life" starts at conception, you are highly likely to describe abortion as murder. If, on the other hand you consider life to begin when a foetus can sustain itself outside the womb, you have an entirely different viewpoint. And those who haven't decided yet, or see themselves somewhere in between, are by far the most confused.

One thing is crystal clear, asking dumb questions about contraception contributes nothing to the debate.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 March 2005 9:30:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read Emily Maguire's piece. It struck me as poorly-written and vague, but maybe that's because I felt her comments were naive. Perhaps it has never occurred to her that the "kind of hazy, euphemism-filled non-stance" on abortion recognises we live in a society where individual rights are paramount. While many people find abortion repugnant, it is recognised that it is a ‘compromise’ made to satisfy the liberal worldview.

Australia recognises legal personhood at birth. A foetus has not even the right to be born. While she's OK with this, some people are not. While the law ‘agrees’ with her, the law also ‘agrees’ with the detention of asylum seekers, and the sale of socially, physically and environmentally destructive products. Not exactly a rock-solid validation of an ethical viewpoint.

But what I find most disturbing is her desensitisation to living beings: that upon seeing a picture of a foetus at 11 weeks gestation, she recognises it not as a human being, but as a "mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body".

Her reference to a foetus as a "cell cluster" is a hazy euphemism itself. It’s just offensive that she uses it in the same way one would refer to a cancerous growth.

To have a debate which addressed what social groups of women utilised abortion most frequently would do much to understand how we, as a society, are not supporting them. (Timkins, yes, the fathers *are* important, I'm just writing about women now because they're the ones who physically have abortions.)

To prioritise abortion over the reinforcing of social support structures and addressing the fundamental factors contributing to abortion is, I feel, doing few women any favours. While many women may say, 'my uterus, my choice', what about the women who are saying, "I'd never make this decision if I had another option"?

Here is where we can *start* to support the women and children we are currently failing.
Posted by Tracy, Friday, 11 March 2005 10:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

The objective of the “enquiry” would be to help us understand the problem – or at least to confirm whether or not one exists. You may not think so Pericles, but many others are looking up the number for Houston, as we speak.

I also seek the answers to Timkins’ questions, for they are not just his own. We are not mushrooms, Pericles - even if some choose to describe the early foetus as a blob of cells no different to a fungal growth.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 11 March 2005 11:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is a Jew a human being? Who decides? And if he is a human being, does he have an inalienable right to life? Or is it not inalienable but instead granted? But if granted, then clearly the Jews in Nazi Germany never had a right to life, since this right had not been granted them by the society in which they lived. If this is the case, then the Nazis cannot be censured over their treatment of the Jews, since they did not deny the Jews any rights to which they were entitled.

Who decides? All a matter of subjective opinion? But in a roomful of subjective opinions, which one's the right one? His who is the strongest? A might-makes-right world, in other words? But then where would that put women? Would women, with their famous upper-body strength, have even any rights in such a world totally dependent on might for any enjoyment of rights? They would be at the total mercy of whatever men they happened to find themselves surrounded by, subject to their whims and predilections. Their rights would be given them by their menfolk -- the crumbs that had fallen off the table of brute strength. How women lived would then totally depend on the convenience of their men. How ironic.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought you might like to know what the Catholic Catechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm) says about abortion:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

Abortion is not "just" a religious issue. The Catholic Church has moral prohibitions against stealing too but no-one then claims that stealing is a "religious" issue.

As regards "debate", one doesn't debate abortion/muder as one doesn't debate slavery or genocide. One seeks to end it. And I will no longer pay to have my brothers and sisters killed.
Posted by ronvanwegen, Saturday, 12 March 2005 1:05:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clear there is no possibility of getting to any kind of consensus in this debate. Too few participants with too much time to spend churning out dozens of posts on the subject, and who conspicuously and repeatedly ignore the fact that the impact of unwanted pregnancy falls on women in a way and to an extent that it does not fall on men. Men are entitled to many things on this planet, but merely having sex does not entitle them to control the destiny of women who experience the real consequences over their lifetimes, if unplanned pregnancy results. In this there is no gender equality; there is absolute difference and always has been. Get used to it.
Posted by Fiona, Saturday, 12 March 2005 10:42:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

Yes, it maybe just mere Timkins who can’t understand much, and I did have difficulty undersanding the first two lines of the article:-

“It is unclear exactly what is driving the current controversy over abortion in Australia. The major proponents of the controversy, almost to a man,”

So it is “unclear” and “man” at the same time, like “dumb” and “male like”

I also had trouble understanding how a violinist was related to abortion in a previous article, and I have some trouble understanding how Billy McMahon (remember him) who said something in 1979 (remember then) is all that relevant to the subject of unwanted pregnancy in 2005.

For someone actually about to undertake a sexual relationship, then I tend to think that a 1970’s politician would be rather irrelevant to him or her, but it is much more probable that contraception would, particularly reliable contraception.

If after the sexual relationship, the woman discovers herself unintendedly pregnant, then again I don’t think a 1970’s politician would be too relevant also, but access to information and counselling would, for both the mother and the father.

However my thoughts that the author only wants to create confusion about abortion, politicse it, and divert away from more important issues (eg. “I thought you said you were on the pill”?), are of course my opinions only.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 12 March 2005 1:10:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same old same old.
Ps Catholic Church has moral prohibitions against has issues with comdoms to does that means condoms for catholic is not a religous issue? As one person has already pointed out timmy can't have a abortion even if he wanted to.
Posted by Kenny, Saturday, 12 March 2005 4:16:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail:What is a GB is it good or bad to be one and how do you know I am one - been reading my mail? Steel yourself Ringtail but embryos ARE human babies, children and eventually adults. Embryos at an early age suck their thumbs,their little hearts are pumping, move their fingers and toes. All this to prepare them for their birth - hopefully!. Embryos are ALIVE HUMAN BEINGS!! I was conceived 'out of wedlock' (as it was quaintly put in those far off days)My parents, and this was during the depression did the right thing , married and kept me. Yes I was a little afflicted yes I managed to pick up almost every disease and sickness around. And it was during the 2nd/World War as well. Diptheria [spelled wrong?],mumps, measles, celebral meningitus[spelled incorrectly?] twice, ear abcesses. We were a very poor family perhaps why I was so sick. After all that boy! I am glad my Mum didn't flush me down the toilet as I have had a ball. Now 70+ and still glad to be able to breathe, cuddle my wonderful wife.Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Saturday, 12 March 2005 4:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?"
Timkins, I'm fairly certain that the answer to this question will always be "no".

Likewise, the common substitute "Was the abortion performed as a means of birth control?" will always end up with the answer "yes".

"Had a decision been made to abort in the future rather than use contraceptives?" is what I think you want to ask.

I agree that statistics should be compiled but only in so far as is necessary to assist in improving women's health. Which means that the questions should be optional and that those particular questions about the father are not needed. No questions should be asked just to give ammunition to any side of the debate. I think the research brief link in Helen's article answers your first question well enough and I also doubt any new data will tell us anything we don't already know.
Posted by Deuc, Saturday, 12 March 2005 4:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put Fiona.
Posted by mscobina, Saturday, 12 March 2005 4:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Numbat G.B. are simply the initials for God Botherer – I judged from your posts that your objection to female sovereignty over their bodies is due to your religious affiliation – to place greater import on an embryo over the well being of men, women and children already living and breathing is the height of irrationality and only religion can explain such an absence of logic. Steel yourself numbat

Timkins: this is the first and only time I will rise to your bait. Note you asked for my opinion and you do remember what an opinion is now, don’t you?

How many abortions are carried out? - I don’t know how many abortions are carried out. In an ideal world there would be none. This is not an ideal world.

Why were they carried out? - For as many reasons as there are people.

What contraception was being used? - A wide variety of contraception is available, unfortunately none of it is 100% effective 100% of the time.

What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon? - I believe everything can be improved on.

Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)? - I understand that abortion is usually a last resort.
There are better ways to spend your time than undergoing a general anaesthetic. Which ethnic groups?

Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion? - There is a wealth of information available for people from their doctors, the internet and family planning clinics.

Was the father included in that counselling? - Some men want to be involved and some men don’t.

What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father? - May be there were some positive effects too, don’t forget.

Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc? - Most people do.
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 12 March 2005 5:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, Duec

Ringtail,
Thankyou for answering my questions. Your one of very few to have ever done so after calling me lots of names previously. However I think you called numbat a “great burk” (when you called him a G.B) you little possum (or perhaps snake).

I cannot answer your questions, because I don’t accurately know the answers, as there has been minimal research carried out into abortion or unwanted pregnancy, (which also means that any related problems cannot be solved accordingly).

Duec
“I agree that statistics should be compiled but only in so far as is necessary to assist in improving women's health.”

This is interesting. The terms of reference for an enquiry, or for any further research into abortion or unwanted pregnancy, should be worded around “women’s health”. So this will exclude the father, as he is not female. Very novel.

I have noticed a lot of literature that is in favour of continuing with the present abortion system tends to use certain terms and words, and not others. For example:- “father” becomes “partner”, “foetus” becomes “a few cells”, abortion becomes “planned parenting” etc. Perhaps we are seeing the emergence of a whole new language.

However I don’t have a problem seeing such words as “father”, “mother”, “children” etc.

I fully agree that more research is necessary to solve the problems with unwanted pregnancy, but I don’t have a problem with fathers being incorporated into that research
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 12 March 2005 7:54:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins - I have never called you names - check all my posts. I have criticised your perceptions and will continue to do so where I differ with you and am concerned at how you have arrived at your opinions. I had a laugh at 'great burke' good to know you have a sense of humour.

Abortion looks like the debate we have to have - sad but true. However, I am optimistic that reason shall prevail over hysteria.
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 13 March 2005 8:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has any one of you ever spoken to a woman/girl who has had an abortion and what made her make that decision? And how effective her contraception was? My mother told me in my twenties that she was seriously considering aborting me as she had a toddler and a screaming six month old baby and there was no contraception. Her doctor counselled her and she decided to go ahead and have me. Lucky for her I was a good baby. I was not insulted, I could totally understand her situation as I have never wanted children. Where I (in spirit) would have ended up instead is something that I sometimes muse about (much as is there life on Mars?)but there's no answer at hand. I had an abortion at 19 and have never regretted it as I did not ever imagine myself with a baby/child/teenager. Life may be sacred, but let's get our priorities straight. Abortion is never going to go away and is always a last resort. What is needed to take on board is that even in this wonderful world of contraception, human error/ignorance will always be tantamount.
Di
Posted by Di, Sunday, 13 March 2005 9:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note in terms of voices there are loud and clear screams from the pro-abortion side with amazingly some self confession but the loudest of silent screams are coming from the unborn baby who's voice is not being heard enough even during the ultimate moments before those screams violently stop. Unborn baby please let people like us be your voice.

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 13 March 2005 10:51:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen Pringle is right that the abortion debate won't result in any change. That's because a parliamentary enquiry into the prevalence and scope of abortion is required, as well as a review of abortion legislation in the states. Neither current Liberal or Labor MP's will do this. Howard has a great opportunity for an inquiry and a review of legislation, but chooses not to pursue it. Besides, he's funded abortion for nearly 10 years now, so why would he change? State Labor governments generally do not see a "moral problem" with abortion, therefore would not initiate any such review.

Helen Pringle, however, seems to be as blind as most people as to what is 'driving the abortion debate.' As a woman who's had an abortion, and now strongly advocates against it publically and politically, I know that this debate is driven because abortion is morally wrong. The scale of it in Australia is detrimental, and the effects of this scale on women is spiritually, emotionally, and socially damaging. 'God in heaven' is driving this debate. I am talking from experience.
Posted by Teresa van Lieshout, Sunday, 13 March 2005 1:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam Said,

Quit the emotive claptrap - or alternatively - try imagining the screams of a woman forced to self abort with a knitting needle.

Ta.
Posted by mscobina, Sunday, 13 March 2005 2:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
“Timkins - I have never called you names - check all my posts. I have criticised your perceptions”.

Ringtail, said
“Timithy. You poor old sod” , “I doubt very much you have even met a woman let alone fathered one”, etc, etc

Possum, if my child is imagination only, then I have spent much of the weekend driving imagination from one event to another.

There has been some research into reasons for abortion in this country. The article at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm describes these results.

General results to date for reasons for high rate of abortion:-
1. Slow rate of usage of more reliable modern forms of contraception (almost 100% reliability now)
2. Differences between ethnic groups regards use of abortion.

This second reason been found in research elsewhere also http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/abortions-Sep01.htm)

It is known that these things are occurring, but the reasons “why” they are occurring is not accurately known, so more research is necessary. Until that research occurs, it is likely that the abortion rate will stay as high.

So the reasons for abortion in the country have very little to do with violinists, or male politicians from the 1970’s, or men denying women their rights to have an abortion etc,etc,etc. as this author seems to state in her articles. One can only assume that these articles are simply attempts to malign males, create myth, brainwash people, create fear mongering, distort and confuse, and politicise the issues.

Is this the essence of feminist literature? (see “Lying in A Room of One's Own:- How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students” http://www.educationreview.homestead.com/2002WomensStudies.html)

But there is evidence that women can grieve for the lost baby after an abortion, and the father can grieve too. So because abortion can affect the father, the fathers should be included in research into abortion also. Failure to do this would result in gender-biased research, (but feminism would not use biased or distorted research and statistics would it?...hush)
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 13 March 2005 3:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca – interestingly enough Nazi Germany made it illegal for "Aryan" women to abort – under penalty of death – maybe you support the right of the state to force a pregnancy to continue against the will of the pregnant – but I do not – I support the choice of every person to pursue their own destiny – regardless of how that upsets the sensitivities of Fascist and ProLifers alike.

Ronvanwegen – I am not interested in the teachings of any organisation which follows the Papal dictatorial edicts, continues to ban the use of contraception and to this day maintains an office of the inquisition. Somehow I get the impression Papists have more blood on their hands than Hitler’s Fascists.

Even when Pro-Lifers are prepared to accept responsibility for imposing their decisions regarding pregnancy and abortion by giving UNLIMITED and TOTAL emotional, material and financial support to all pregnant women who wish to abort – then they will still not have the right to interfere in what is and always will be an individuals decision.

Quick note does anyone else who is posting here realise why the laws were enacted in the mid-nineteenth century? – it was to protect the women from the exploitation of charlatan abortionists and had nothing to do with protecting the embryo / fetus.

Oh – I edited out my response to ringtail – you “provocateur” - how refreshing – rt – If I wore one, I would take my hat off to you. You had me I must admit (ROFLMAO)
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 13 March 2005 5:31:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, I would have expected a much more personal response. This is dinner party debate without any of the contributors interested in cooking the risotto. So much blah de blah about whether jews, nazis or knitting needles have anything to do with abortion. Peripheral issues that can lead the debate away from the core. (or would we rather go non core?) The fact is, women HAVE always have abortions, and in any society, will need to have them, regardless of how utopian that society may be. Abortion subsidies may not (on a medicare card) be up there with the way I think dental care should be (after all, both males and females have at least teeth in common). Morally, regardless of whether you think western society is going to hell in a handbasket, I think I have the right of the option of a safe, clinical abortion than doing the knitting needles/gin in a bathtub job in a back alley because some people in parliament said it was illegal and immoral. You may say that it's immoral that I can make that choice? Well, we can go immoral about church, religion and politics till the cows come home. At the end of the day, it's about a woman and her choice and bugger the rest of what you think. She'll do it whether it's a knitting needle, a gin and tonic bath, or whether her boyfriend/lover/husband knows about it or not. That's the way the world is baby!
Di
Posted by Di, Sunday, 13 March 2005 9:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di,
You seem very concerned that a woman should have an abortion and be damned what anyone else thinks, but I get the slightest sense that you think abortion should be used by a woman as a kind of tool to show how powerfull she is (a bit like chest pounding, or growling in a low voice by a male), and the actual abortion is somewhat secondary.

So why do you think modern forms of contraception are not being used by women as much as they could be in Australia.

In some countries, the use of these forms of contraception has reduced abortion by 1/2. Do you think this good or bad.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 13 March 2005 10:07:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Di for letting us know how the world is, and the women’s attitude and position.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 13 March 2005 11:47:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can any pro-abortionist give me a legitimate defence of the termination of a healthy 32 week old fetus? Termination at this late stage is certainly being done in this country. it's one thing to talk about abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, I think it's quite another issue entirely when a fetus is this advanced.

We've just had a "man" in Brisbane sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a newly delivered baby. He delivered the baby at home and then murdered it and buried it in his back yard. Maybe he should have taken the woman to a clinic and got the doctor to do it a couple of days before birth, might have been OK then.

I think Timkins has a point when he says that abortion has more to do with power than anything else. It's a two-edged sword. I just wonder how many women are forced or coerced into having abortions against their will by boyfriends and lovers. Not much power or control of one's body there.
Posted by Cranky, Monday, 14 March 2005 1:21:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of whether Tracey thinks the Emily Maguire piece is vague or badly written she still raises a key point that anti-abortionists do not address. That is, is abortion murder or not? If it is not, if it is simply a form of contraception then what is the problem? If it is murder, then what are anti-abortionists doing to change legislation so abortion service providers and their clients are thrown in jail?

As Maguire said, the attitude of some anti-abortion politicians ("I disagree with abortion but I don't want it made illegal") would be obviously outrageous if they said "I disagree with child molestation but I wouldn't want it made illegal".

Abortion is either murder or not. Make up your minds and stop hiding behind weazel words.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 14 March 2005 8:04:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidjs, if abortion is murder then a woman is not a sovereign human being but a mere receptacle for a foetus - is that not a form of murder - murder of a woman as a human being? Protection of the unborn at the expense of the living is slavery and ignores the plight of abused and starving children around the world.

The obsession anti-arbortionists have with the unborn, over the well being of the living borders on the insane. I wish anti-abortionists would put as much energy into helping abused children as they do with their rants over what is more an attempt to control women than any real concern over the well being of children.
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 14 March 2005 9:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cranky

I wouldnt think there are too many abortions that are indeed termianted at 32 weeks, and if this is performed then perhaps the reasons behind them are related to the health of the pregnant women and not as a form of late-term contraception...
just an idea that seemed quite reasonable to me.

generally,
it is still good to remember that medicare subsidises the procedure,but does not pay for it entirely. Women, and perhaps their partners still have to pay at least $200, not to mention if they wanted to receive councilling.
Posted by julied, Monday, 14 March 2005 10:13:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS, be careful what you wish for.

"Abortion is either murder or not. Make up your minds and stop hiding behind weazel words."

To equate abortion with murder is undoubtedly the aim of pro-lifers, and in the current political climate - both here and in the US - they might just make a push for it soon. Fortunately, politicians are notoriously expedient, so the present "don't touch, it might bite" approach should hold for a while, but don't underestimate the rat cunning of some of the more virulent opponents of personal liberty.

One of the aspects of the current debate that I find particularly interesting, is how the various conservative governments around the world have come to the conclusion that the nanny state so beloved of the socialists is in fact a very neat idea, and perfect for retaining power. And we happily go along with each individual erosion on the basis that it sounds like the right thing to do, without looking at the big picture. Sad.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 March 2005 10:20:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS – My mind is made up - Abortion is not Murder!

Abortion is a procedure a woman may authorise to be performed on her own body. It effects an embryo/fetus which is so joined to the woman that it is not “separate” and thus not “individual”.

Murder is an action by one individual (of group there of ) against a separate individual (or group there of)

Separation and sovereignty distinguishes the difference.

Cranky maybe you can tell me what medical credentials and insight you have to interpret the requirements of women who have to undergo an abortion at the 32nd week – if you do not, I guess, giving you a reason will be like offering food up to a stone idol – a waste of resource in pursuit of superstition.

As for the “man” and the delivered baby – simple – the birth enshrined the fetus with “individuality” it achieved by separation from the mother. Further – the man, even if he is the father, was not the mother.
Such crass attempts at analogy displays very limited insight in to the reality of issues surrounding such matters and the anguish which a woman faces when making a decision on later term abortion. Consider yourself lucky it is not you struggling with such a dilemma.


Ringtail – agree – the “woman” is consistently portrayed by anti-abortionists as either “nothing” (a life support system for the fetus) or worse – some selfish witch who indulges her whims by having abortions.

The reality is completely different.

She is a person possessing cognitive reasoning skills and generally quite capable of undertaking her own research on which to make her own decisions. Without assistance from interfering strangers dangerously obsessed with inflicting their “decision” upon her.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 14 March 2005 11:26:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thesis of her opinion....That the abortion debate is a waste of time as it won't change anything.

I have one question to ask. If it is a waste of time, why is she wasting her own time talking about it?

Clearly, she feels that it is not a waste of her time to discuss it, as this is her second article on the topic.

Perhaps she merely seeks to shut down any discussion of the topic, and calling it a waste of time is just a pitiful attempt to do that. Stiffling free debate and discussion is not exactly what we would expect in a free, democratic country, but I guess as long as Helen is happy with the status quo, we are not allowed to question it.

Finally, one quote sticks out

"Notably, even some supporters of abortion maintain that it is “technically illegal”, a meaningless category in law."

Is it really meaningless I wonder? If, for instance, in Queensland when the law seems to ban an abortion of convenience, the politcal party in power decides to direct the law enforcement people to start actually enforcing the law (Strange concept I know), then they already have a law in place to do so. If there was no law in place, one would need to be legislated (and then law enforcement would be directed to enforce it).

Clearly, there is a meaningful difference between the two. I am suprised Helen can't see it. Or maybe I am not....
Posted by Grey, Monday, 14 March 2005 11:56:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the author is getting at is this plain and simple.
The Polly's that are pushing this issue into the spot light these day's are not saying they want to make abortions illegal. So if they don't want to make them illegal why bring it up? The answer to that question is easy to. They do want to it is just they don't want to publicly fly their colors.
PS BOAZ_David as I’ve said before if you wish to show me some “proof” that slavery is ok then setup a webpage and share with all of us.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 14 March 2005 12:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Er? it has been said that some see the mother as a life support system only. Well go to the top of the class you "genius?" because that is just what a mother's body is - a life support system for a one only unique human being. That is there will never be a person quite like the slain unborn - NEVER! The mother can choose because it's her body and the child is part of her body - garbage! The child is a separate entity, totally separate. So much so that in some cases if the mother's and child's blood intermingles then death could result for either or both. So without a trial or charge an innocent child is sentenced to death, rather brutal eh?
What in 'blue blazes' are you, ringtail, jabbering and blabbering on about, do you know? Because children are abused then kill them to stop the abuse. The execution and I may add a horribly and extremely painful execution of an innocent, unique baby is THE ULTIMATE in child abuse I should think. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Monday, 14 March 2005 12:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel sad for a man who thinks he wants to be a parent, but who can't find a woman who feels the same AND has enough confidence in him to enter into such a huge commitment. The trouble is that merely having sex does not make a bloke a father and this "debate" is the wrong place for such men to be venting their rage about no longer having absolute control over siring offspring, which is just a fact of civilised life. The days of the caveman are over, after all.

Merely having sex does not entitle men to control the destiny of women who experience the real consequences over their lifetimes, if unplanned pregnancy results. In this there is no gender equality; there is absolute difference and always has been. Get used to it. Some many posts later and this critical point remains unanswered. No surprises here.......
Posted by Fiona, Monday, 14 March 2005 1:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, don't put up your psychic shingle just yet. Typical innit? that if a woman has a strong opinion on something and feels she has the right to have control of that particular situation, then it's seen as a power thing, with all the tired old male equated cliches being trotted out. As stated before, contraception is a marvellous tool but unfortunately, bar vasectomy, is not 100% all of the time. Not to mention that there are some ill informed females and males that haven't quite got the handle on contraception even in this informed day and age. We can all fine tune the legal and moral arguments ad nauseum, but it won't change the fact that there will be some women who will want an abortion, no matter what country, financial or emotional situation she is in. No legislation or burnings at the stake are going to stop that. It's an individual's issue, not a collective one. 32 week old aborted fetus talk just sensationalises the issue (that would be extremely rare and for very sound medical reasons I would assume). This is chicken and egg stuff - (or sperm and egg). Hmmm, the euthanasia debate's looking interesting on the other page.
Posted by Di, Monday, 14 March 2005 1:18:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS,
you raise a valid point in your question about "murder". I suspect though that your motives have more to do with wishing to inflame sentiment than with seeking truth.

I'm kind of in the middle of the debate at the moment, I am not currently convinced that an early stage foetus is a distinct human being but am dismayed at the double standards applied in other aspects of the debate (women who want all the say regarding the choice to continue with a pregnancy or not yet expect men to be financially responsible if they choose to proceed - and no I am not personally impacted by that scenario).

It appears from the sidelines that the "pro-choice" lobby are very difficult to engage in detailed debate on this issue. They appear to prefer emotive loadings and the use of language which inflames the situation.

Maybe the "right to life" crowd are searching for less explosive language in order to have a better chance at debating the issue on it's merit's or maybe it is expediency in a world where the "pro-choice" crowd appear to hold the upper hand.

There is also the possibility that some might see it as wrong but not in the same degree of wrong as murder. We have plenty of other situations where people allow for killing not being murder.
- manslaughter
- official execution (not current in Australia)
- killing in self defence
- war related killing
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 March 2005 3:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona, Di,
I haven’t actually heard of an abortion clinic going out of business, so maybe abortion clinics could be defined in six words:- “Money, Money, Money….Money, Money, Money”. (and possibly abortion clinics couldn’t really care if their clients are female or male, as long as they have a Medicare card, or preferably private health insurance).

Now maybe I’m being too pragmatic about it all, by regarding unwanted pregnancy as a type of health issue, but why is it that there is such a comparatively high rate of abortion?

This seems to be a mystery, but clues can be found at
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

IE
“Since 1994, we've had three long-acting, very effective, forms of birth control, which have been available to the rest of the world – the Western world – but not Australia. We're very slow at taking up these issues, or these forms of birth control, so that that's why we appear to be lagging the rest of the world in abortion rates comparatively”

“And for instance, in 2000, from about 2000-2003, or 2002, the abortion rate began to rise again because of net overseas migration. In other words, the Federal Government were bringing in large numbers of women, in particular between 20 and 30, to bolster up the workforce, and these women, particularly from northern Asia, have a high uptake of abortion as a preferred method of birth control, as a back up to failed condom use, etc.”

So high abortion rates maybe a matter of not using more reliable forms of contraception, and differences in attitudes towards abortion by different ethnic groups

Will these issues ever be properly investigated, and any problems solved, if these issues become totally confused and distorted by politics (either political politics, or gender politics being advanced by people who appear not to want these issues properly investigated at all, but instead like to make generalised, maligning or “castigating” comments about “men”, “fathers”, “blokes” etc).

Probably not.

PS. I think feminists like to try and manipulate and exploit women, and castrate men. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3116#3999
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 14 March 2005 3:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, I don't know you and I don't know "Di", but I do know that you haven't responded to a single thing I have said.
Posted by Fiona, Monday, 14 March 2005 5:19:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question posed by the article related to why bother raising abortion as an item of public debate and that any outcome is likely to be a fizzer - this moves to the fact that Fed Parliament only controls Medicare payments & that state courts have established the stalled application of existing State abortion laws (abortion = murder / women's rights over unborn) etc etc.

The likes of John Murphy feel compelled to raise this matter as it is fundamentally important - do we wish to promote (and subsidise) a culture of death. The fact that such a principled position needs to be spelled out to the community is in itself a worry, as is the fact that people lampoon such a view.

This debate need not be a fizzer - people need time to assess & re-evaluate events and place 'new' ideas/ practices in a historical context. If we re-examine this issue & find the outcomes wanting could we adopt a different position? Just what is the message? Is life merely a commodity that can be chosen according to economic value (cf intrinsic?) or does medication & medical procedures make life, marital bonds and families irrelevant?

Reality Check
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 14 March 2005 5:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's see if I can get some answer to these questions. A bit of thinking will be required of y'all.

1. Is a Jew a human being?

2. Who decides?

3. And if he is a human being, does he have an inalienable right to life?
Posted by Brazuca, Monday, 14 March 2005 6:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Yes
2. Other human beings living in a civil society (and their prospective mothers)
3. Yes, unless he/she is proved to be a serial killer in a civil society where there is capital punishment.

But what has that to do with “abortion debate won't result in any change”?
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 14 March 2005 10:59:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona
“The trouble is that merely having sex does not make a bloke a father and this "debate" is the wrong place for such men to be venting their rage about no longer having absolute control over siring offspring, which is just a fact of civilised life. The days of the caveman are over, after all.”

You seem to be saying that the woman should attract a male, have sex with the male, and then if she finds herself pregnant, she should dispose of the child, and probably dispose of the male as well and then find another male.

One could judge this type of thinking acceptable, and one could think that it is highly hedonistic, and lacking in almost every human value. It psychologically castrates the male, kills the child (or some prefer to refer to it as “a few cells”), and eventually it mentally kills the mother.

However it is a type of thinking that has been advocated by feminists in the past, and they have lived by what they advocated. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3090#3817

Being unintendedly pregnant is not entirely “liberating” for a woman, and it is noticed that in this article, the author never mentions possible reasons why there are so many unwanted pregnancies, or suggests possible ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but instead she does tend to point the finger at men, this time male politicians.

So basically, this article does nothing towards reducing unwanted pregnancy, and my statement still stands:- “I think feminists like to try and manipulate and exploit women, and castrate men.”
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 9:25:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Often ignored or dismissed out of hand: the father has no rights to a say in whether his child should be aborted.

Before you chastise me with, "Her body, her choice!" let me ask, what of "His body, his choice"?

What of the case where the mother chooses not to abort and raise the child alone?

That man must pay Child Support for the next 18 years. Eg. $120,000 on $30,000pa. She places her body on the line for 9 months, then is pretty much guaranteed the benefits of raising the child. Why would a woman unilaterally choose to have a child, go through the pain of childbirth, and then keep it for herself if there were not compelling benefits to do so? Ethical considerations? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

He is forced to pay large sums of child support or choose poverty on the dole. His body is used to financially support a child that he had no legal say in having.

The father has no legal rights to see the child. This does cause fathers ongoing psychological pain. We grant DVOs for less than "psychological pain"!. Hence earlier death, suicide or illness. His body, his choice?

The Feminist argument will go as follows:

1. He had a say when he had sex with her. (She also had a say... and had access to the numerous types of contraception not available to men. Condoms slip!)
2. Men are bastards and don't care about their children anyhow. (incorrect sexist comment)
3. Fathers don't have as strong emotional ties to children as mothers. (incorrect sexist comment)
4. Women should be the "primary" (Newspeak for "only")caregiver for their children. (assumptive sexist comment, kind of like "Men should be promoted above women at work, because they are men")
5. Who cares about men? (sexist comment)

I speak out for men who are in this situation. I now await the rebuke for daring to do so.

Even if I speak for a minority of men, we speak out for other minorities! Why do we so rarely speak out for men when women are also involved?
Posted by Andyman, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:38:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman,
more likely that you will be ignored. I am not aware of any post by a "pro-choice" supporter which attempts to address the conflict between a woman's "choice" and a man's "responsibility".

My impression is that there is a determination to focus on the issue of choice and avoid at all costs discussions about the consequences of choice. It is possible that I have missed a brilliant piece outlining a consistent rational for what appears to me to be massive double standards - I look forward to seeing it if that is the case.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:53:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Questions:

1. Is a Jew a human being?

2. Who decides?

3. And if he is a human being, does he have an inalienable right to life?

Posted by Brazuca, Monday, March 14, 2005 6:10:40 PM

Answers (so far only from Seeker)

1. Yes
2. Other human beings living in a civil society (and their prospective mothers)
3. Yes, unless he/she is proved to be a serial killer in a civil society where there is capital punishment.

But what has that to do with “abortion debate won't result in any change”?<<

So you believe that "Other human beings living in a civil society" determine whether a Jew is a human being? And you believe that said Jew has an inalienable right to life unless he is a serial killer living in a society employing capital punishment?

Now, tell me, are these merely your subjective opinions or is this the objective truth? If the former, then how would one know which one is the right one in a roomful of subjective opinions? And if the latter, what is the source of this objective truth, and what makes it objective?
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men have choice too.

If a man is not comfortable with the fact that their partner may choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - they can choose not to ejaculate.
Posted by mscobina, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 12:13:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca, I'll take the challenge.

If you are able to define "objective truth" convincingly - and without mentioning religion - then you will deserve an answer.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 3:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman - as a male and a divorced father let me advise you on this – at no time was it my “body” involved in the pregnancy on any scale comparable to the mother.

As a divorced father I made sure that despite the vengeful attitudes of the Ex (since abated) and the wrongful bias of the Family court I made sure my daughters knew I loved them – and as they are now adult, express their understanding of that by us being integral parts of each others lives.

Now abortion – yes the woman’s body – and that woman’s choice – not yours or any other persons (male or female).

Brazuca – I thought your original post about Jews was pretty pointless – now your rant about subjective opinion versus objective truth proves it.
The vast majority of circumstances which influence our daily lives are subjective opinions – they form the body of knowledge called the “Arts” and some of the sciences. Objective Truth exists only in the absolute and provable facts of some science –

Law is formulated on subjective opinion.
Financial Accounting Returns are subjective opinion.
Theology is a subjective opinion.
The right to abortion is a subjective opinion – the demand to deny people that right is another subjective opinion.

My personal set of subjective opinions are based on a set of fundamental moral values, which I will not bore you with, other than to say – I believe a person has “sovereign right” of choice over how their body will be used and that “sovereign right” is something which neither the state or any other person has authority to interfere with.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 3:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sovereign rights? Divine right of kings? Sounds pretty much the same kind of nonsense.

Unless we are prepared to accept a common bunch of inalienable rights (such as the right to be born?) and adopt a culture that promotes these rights, then you can shove your sovereignty in as many peoples faces as you like, but, someone is always going to have a bigger sovereignty than yours...
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 3:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mscobina:

They can choose not to ejaculate? Male physiology being as it is, there is significant sperm in many men's pre-ejeculata. I would rather suggest, don't have sex or get a vasectomy (which is rather permanent). It's about the only 100% safe way to avoid a call in nine months sentencing a man without trial to hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support.

As for women's choice, let me see... hmmm... the pill, the pill-injection, IUD, abortion, adoption... Does this seem an imbalance of choice to you?

Why don't we have a male pill after 40 years of the female pill?


Col Rouge:

I am a man duped into pregnancy by my ex-wife. She chose to have the baby, and I love him dearly, but I am sentenced to 18 years of additional child support but no rights to see him (Those I fought long and hard for through the Court). Where is my choice for the next 18 years? Why do men not have choices?

Why should no one else have a choice in whether a woman gives birth to a child? Why?

I really cannot understand the sudden turnaround from "We are not baby incubators" to "I choose to have a baby and hit the father for thousands of dollars in support payments."

If a "baby incubator" is all some women consider it to be, then why such an enormous protection of a woman's "right to choose" abortion or not and the insistence of the man's "total lack of choice" in the outcome?

Double standards abound. If women have unassailable rights to abortion, then men should (but don't) have unassailable rights to whether they financially fund a child who is born "against their wishes". They should also (but don't) have unassailable rights to have a relationship with the child.

Or is fairness not a consideration in these matters? Even if unfairness leads in some cases to male suicide, depression and poverty?

I consider men to be important too, evidently an unpopular stance even amongst men.
Posted by Andyman, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 5:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If males are not allowed ejaculation, then females should not be allowed ovulation (but of course that would be blamed on the male)
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 5:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mscobina,
there are two perspectives your post could come from.

Pro-Lifer who has prased a fundamental issue more restrictively than necessary. If that is the case maybe it could be phrased
"A person has a choice. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse or not. The consequences which follow are not something which they should have a choice over."

Pro-Choicer who thinks that women are somehow less responsible for their actions and need more opportunity to choose than men. Eg "men have to get it right first time, women are not capable of acting as responsibly as men and need additional leeway". If so what a pathetic sexist attitude. Women are capable of making rational decisions about their lives, to suggest otherwise indicates a very out of date view of the world and women.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 6:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was a very simple point.

If you don't support women's right to choice - don't put her in a position where she may have to exercise it.

Oh, and Timkins - You have already wasted more of my valuable time than you deserve to.

I think the best way to deal with people like you is to simply walk away.

Something tells me that i'm not the first woman to do so, and I very much doubt that i'll be the last...
Posted by mscobina, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 7:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ironic, isn't it that an article on abortion turns into bitching about the ex and the child support? I'm with mcsbina and fiona on this one. But comparing jews and serial killers with the abortion issue is a tad beyond the pale. Get your point about legislation and such but talk about lumping it in one basket. Guys, there are three kinds of contraception from day one. No, No and No. Get over your sperm and get yourselves a collective vasectomy. It may even be available on medicare, just think of the money you'll save on never having to pay any extra child support to that bitch!
Adios
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 9:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Brazuca, I'll take the challenge.

If you are able to define "objective truth" convincingly - and without mentioning religion - then you will deserve an answer.<<

---------------

So you'll take the "challenge" but at the same time won't take the "challenge"?

Make up your mind. Either you're gonna attempt to answer the questions or keep offering endless qualifications.

But for what it's worth, I define "objective truth" as the opposite of "subjective opinion", that is, what is true independent of anybody's opinion.

Any more qualifications?
Posted by Brazuca, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:26:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women need abortion as an option. Here’s a couple of scenarios where contraception doesn’t work too well.

Scenario 1 - woman is trying hard to conceive with her husband. She accidentally gets knocked up by her lover (his fault obviously, for not keeping it in his pants). This leads to two more choices 1. stay with the husband for the time being, and 2. have an abortion without telling him.

Scenario 2 – after many years with a love-of-her-life, commitment-phobe, woman decides to take decision-making into her own hands (as is her right), and announces to him she is pregnant with his child (yes HIS, and yes, CHILD - her words, not mine -I would have called it a foetus). He in turn announces he is not in love with her, but is really bi-sexual and is in love with Gavin (her words again – he was probably a decent straight guy who just wasn’t ready). She then chooses abortion, and a make-over.

Brazuca,

A roomful of subjective opinions often reveal an objective truth about that room. A civil society as a whole is as close as we come to objective truth outside of hard scientific fact such as 1+1=2. Of course in marriage these days, 1+1=1.5 so I don’t know – you may have a point …

I guess an objective truth would be if a woman came up to me and said, I’m pregnant with a foetus which you may or may not have contributed to – let’s go and get it tested, and then we can make some choices together.

Timkins,
You just saved yourself 100’s of thousands on mscobina. Well done, I just knew it would never work.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:05:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman – that you were “duped” shows some serious limits in your ability to read people (but love does that).

Make no mistake, I believe the family court is completely wrong in its one sided support of women in the matter of marriage breakdown and responsibility for children - who ideally need both parents and – when it came to my daughters – got both parents – regardless of what the court orders said.

I “paid” for the 10 years from the end of the marriage until my younger daughter turned 18 but, in hindsight, my life has been better apart from their mother than with her.
I suggest you be a man and deal with it – don’t whinge about being duped – you too will end up better off than if you hung on in a resentful and loveless marriage.

Don’t look for fairness in life – at best expect some general equality between the individuals (of any gender, race etc) – but you are deluding yourself if you expect life ever to be “fair” – it just does not work like that.

I don’t rely on other people to tell me I am important – at one level, my own “life” and the lives of my friends and family, I am very important and fairly important, respectively.
At another level, society in general, I am a piece of dust or worse – a statistical “consumer”.

Seeker – your post is not worthy of comment – other than to say it displays the cynicism of the poster. Your scenarios are fatuous and puerile.
Obviously, you have no experience at all in what happens when someone has to face the serious dilemma which precedes a decision to have an abortion.
In future - wait until you have the experience.
Then is the time to make a post on the matter – and not before (postings based on ignorance make the poster look, rightly, ignorant).
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins:
I would restrict the statistics (note: not an enquiry) to women's health simply because that is all that could reasonably and unobtrusively be obtained from the woman who is having the procedure. (The grandmother's health details would similarly be unnecessary).

Confusing abortion with planned parenting, or foetuses with "a few cells" (or embryos as numbat did) is certainly wrong, but it shouldn't be suprising that some people who don't view a blastocyst, embryo or foetus as a person don't use terminology that implies otherwise.


Andyman:
I rebuke you not for speaking out, but for blaming the situation on women. (And more specifically, feminists.)

Perhaps the father should not be forced to pay child support for a child he did not want. It's a reasonable position that I'm inclined to agree with, but then the cost will need to be spread out among the taxpayers. Many will take issue with that for a variety of reasons; including expectations of men as providers, notions of individual responsibility. You are welcome to lobby for a change in the law or to promote research into a male pill, but it has no relevance as to a woman's right to abort.

"They should also (but don't) have unassailable rights to have a relationship with the child."

"Unassailable" goes too far, as an abusive or dangerous father should not have access to a child, nor should a custodial parent be obligated to remain in one location for 18 years. But the child does have the right to a relationship with its parents. The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, fairness comes later and is restricted by whatever natural barriers exist. Necessarily, that often means that either the status quo should not be disturbed or that the child should reside with whatever parent has a closer relationship to the child, so usually the mother.
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 12:18:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it ironic we have our say on our beliefs, morals, ethics. So we think we are right, ours is the correct way. There is no doubt in my mind that in the past and since we are talking about abortion and child support thats where the forum has headed. Women were not given a fair go, but todaythe pendulum has swung completely the other way. It is not a fair system, I have no problem and do pay the prescribed contribution under the CSA system. Yes these were little accidents I am resposible for my actions. I didnt bagger the other person for an abortion. Now I am given no entitlements whatsoever. Please don't write and tell me I have avenues and so forth I am well versed in what is supposedly available. But let me have some rights too. Make it fair and equitable and each partner contribute equally. Please do say well the custodial parent has to look after the child their choice and there are many parents both single and two parent families that all go to work. If I decide to go and try to make up for some of the short fall of the monies I am paying out dont take more out. The only increase in costs to a custodial parent is having the childs expenses both parents have the same basic requirements. The payments should be then divided equally. If I want to see the child I have to get court approval, find them and then pay to see them. Look you have all heard it before I am sure. Instead of bashing each other around and preaching to each other lets BE FAIR MINDED AND HAVE A FAIR PLAYING FIELD> HAVE A NICE DAY ALL
Posted by fairgo4all2005, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 1:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fairgotoall, Di, Miscobina

Fairgotoall,
It is interesting that there was a court case in QLD (from memory), where the father wanted to stop the mother from having an abortion, so that the child’s life could be saved and he could raise the child. The court overruled the father, and granted the mother her “choice” of abortion. So much for the rights of the father and the child I guess.

Di, Miscobina
You both seem very charming, caring, and intelligent women, who like to have many facts and information available, so that you can make informed decisions regards an issue.

Unfortunately and rather disappointingly, the author has provided very little information regards abortion, despite two articles now on the issue.

I have provided some links to information concerning abortion and unwanted pregnancy in a number of forums

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/abortions-Sep01.htm

http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5435&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12340287%255E32522,00.html


So can either of you provide any information or verifiable facts regards the following:-

How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

Do you think such questions should be answered, or left unanswered by politically suppressing the issue of abortion, or by making a series of un-referenced, un-substantiated remarks?
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 10:19:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc,
we probably have crossover from the other current thread on abortion. The starting point being that pregnancy is something which only effects women so men should butt out and have no say in the abortion issue.

The concept that the person who wears the consequences should have the choice appears reasonable.
What is ignored by proponents of that view is that men may be very significantly impacted by a choice to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy.

Whilst a woman has to deal with the issues of carrying the baby for 9 months and the delivery process none of which are trivial I do not believe that it is reasonable to discount the impact on a C$A payee of child support payments over a period of at least 18 years.
Thanks for being fair minded on this issue.

Some such as mscobina argue that men have a choice about the act that led to conception and that she views pregnancy as something men do to women - "If you don't support women's right to choice - don't put her in a position where she may have to exercise it."
If we are talking about rape cases they have a point, for every other situation I fail to see why their argument applies to men but not to women.

I agree that children need protection from dangerous parents. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "Unassailable" goes too far, as an abusive or dangerous parent should not have access to a child."
Substantiated abuse and neglect statistics don't single out fathers as the cause of harm to children. The tactic of blaming harm to children on males is reasonably routine but not justified by the statistics.
Two government web sites are worth a look at if you think that comment is difficult to believe

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp# - Qld Child Abuse and Neglect Stats. Previous studies have had the "single female parent families" rate at about 42%, I don't know what has changed in this study.

http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf - NSW Child Death Review (Page 48 Table 4.3 is of particular note).
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 12:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Brazuca,

A roomful of subjective opinions often reveal an objective truth about that room. A civil society as a whole is as close as we come to objective truth outside of hard scientific fact such as 1+1=2. Of course in marriage these days, 1+1=1.5 so I don’t know – you may have a point …

I guess an objective truth would be if a woman came up to me and said, I’m pregnant with a foetus which you may or may not have contributed to – let’s go and get it tested, and then we can make some choices together. <<

---------------------

Let's forget about any talk of a room for a second, Seeker. If there's more than one subjective opinion -- say, two -- how do we know which one's the right one?

Let's say one individual makes an arbitrary, subjective value-judgement and another individual makes a different arbitrary, subjective value-judgement. Which of these arbitrary, subjective value-judgements is the correct one, or "objective truth"?
Posted by Brazuca, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 3:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mscobina, Di: Consensus is not the goal, rather to allow a disaffected person to see both sides. mscobina, Di and others jeopardize their case. They have failed to argue their position, they merely imply: "get over it and move on; mind your own business, men." Using an identical argument, in the fight for female supremacy in the workplace I might suggest, "Get over it and move on". Ladies, you are clearly intelligent individuals, please show it by arguing your case, not just dismissing the opposition.

Vasectomies are not through Medicare except day-surgery. Insurance prevents most day-surgery vasectomies. Hospital is about $1000. Little assistance for men to control their procreative activities, lots of help for women. Thank you for further demonstrating this point.

A woman does not have the un-questioned right to do as she pleases. She may not rob a person's bank account or commit murder, because it adversely affects other human beings.

So we argue whether a foetus is a human being.

Another, undisputed, human being who's drastically affected is the father.

My claim is not, "Does this affect him more than her?" The issue I've raised is, "Can this affect him?" If we accept the affirmative, men have a legitimate claim to be heard.

Col Rouge: Yes, I failed to notice that she'd deliberately stopped taking contraception. Trusting fool that I was, I should have known to look in the bottom drawer under the pile of used tissues and New Ideas. I opposed the abortion, I suspect her threat was a bluff. I guess my son will thank me one day. I'm not whinging, I'll leave that to the Feminists.

"The Court shall do everything to ensure that complete justice is done in every cause and matter before it" - Judiciary Act 1903 S31. I don't expect fairness, but I expect us to try.

Deuc, you conceded that I "specifically" blamed Feminists. Not all women. A subsection of Feminism claims that women should have a right to behave as they please no matter who that hurts. I like women, women like me. Extreme feminists hate my guts.

Cont'd...
Posted by Andyman, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 3:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Cont’d

Deuc: The male pill is a real equivalent to choices which have been available to women for 40 years. When finally available much of my argument is satisfied: men would have a justifiable case to answer for a pregnancy they could have easily stopped. Vasectomy is a permanent option that younger men baulk at. Vasectomy is miles from the convenience, inexpensiveness and reversibility with which a woman may largely control her choice to conceive.

"Unassailable" goes too far, and I used it for impact; identifying that that’s what some people expect for a woman considering abortion. I stand corrected. "Assumptive" is a better word.

If we give women "right to choose", that Feminist cornerstone: "equality", demands we must also give men “right to choose": that is, right to choose a relationship with the child, and to choose whether to give financial support to the child. Unless, of course, Feminists admit to having moved beyond equality to lusting for supremacy.

The taxpayer argument is appealing, but should the person making the choice, and not the taxpayer or another person, face the full reality of that choice, including financially and in the relationships that child is entitled to have? Give the father a legal say, well then it all changes, and if he is allowed a choice, then of course he must also face the consequences. That's called personal responsibility. Give one person the choice and not the other: that's called discrimination.

"Ultimate power and control over women"? Men have rarely had that, it's just more Feminist propaganda which most persons now thoughtlessly accept. With the current imbalance of choice, a person can take thousands of dollars from another person, and place him at increased risk of illness and suicide. (The universally hated CSA was self-implicated in 4,100 gender-unspecified deaths in 2003. 90% of payers are male…)

She may choose. He has no choice. No one, man or woman, should be unilaterally given that power over another human being.

It's all about the right to choose, on both sides. Or are life-choices just a girl thing?
Posted by Andyman, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 6:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again, it has gone over your heads.

I'll try it one more time, and very slowly...

EVERYONE should have a choice.

I never said that men should not have sex.

I said that men who don't respect their partners right to reproductive choice should not participate in a sex act that has the potential to result in an unwanted pregnancy.

Now. Repeat after me:

P r o - C h o i c e
d o e s
n o t
m e a n
a n t i - m a l e.

Thank you.
Posted by mscobina, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 6:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking back through comments in the different forums on abortion, and in other literature, then I think the following beliefs (in 350 words) are now much in evidence from feminist supporters. There is minimal evidence to say differently.

-Marriage, husbands and fathers are of no positive value.
-Females should have ad-hoc, temporary relationships only with males.
-Love is not important, and males should only be used for money or sex.
-If the female becomes unintendedly pregnant, then this is the male’s fault.
-The pregnancy is an imposition on the woman’s life, with abortion the only option.
-The mother owns the foetus, and the father is irrelevant.
-The decision to terminate the child’s life is the mother’s only, and the father need not be involved in that decision.
-If the mother keeps the child, the father must provide money (currently called child support)
-Apart from money, the father is an imposition on the mother’s life.
-Because the mother owns the child, she need not discuss with the father how any of that money is spent, or how she is raising the child.
-The mother need not allow the child any contact with its father, or she may allow token gesture contact only.
-Fathers will abuse the child, or will make the child harmfully masculine.
-Any objection to these general principles by another female is to be ignored.
-Any objection to these principles by a male, and he is to be labelled “misogynist”, “ignorant”, etc or told to ”grow up”, “get a life” etc, or it is inferred that he has never had sex with a female, is not a real man etc. (ie. Attempt to psychologically castrate the male)

The feminist will try to hide the above issues behind smoke screens such as violinists, 1970’s politicians or whatever else can be found. The feminist will also imply that any objections or changes to the above system will be taking away the rights of women. The feminist will also program women into believing that she need not answer any questions asked by a male, as males are inferior.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 9:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mscobina, perhaps your arguments have gone over my head. Typing them slowly probably does not help (in the same manner as shouting at people who don't speak english does not help). I am not one who see's them as anti-male, rather as double standards based on the idea that women should get special treatment. I hope you don't think women are less capable of making decisions than men :( .

If I have understood you and others correctly you believe (I may be putting words into your mouth, sorry if that is the case but nobody seems to want to put the bits of the argument together in a coherant manner)
- Women should have freedom to choose an abortion or to carry the fetus/child/lump of cells with the choice being entirely a matter between the woman and their doctor. The woman also has a choice to be involved in the sex act in the first place.
- Men have the right to choose not to partake in the sex act. If you don't want a baby then don't risk sex. If a man chooses to be involved in the sex act and a pregnancy results then he should willingly wear the consequences and not expect to have any further say in the matter.

Please feel free to spell out what I have got wrong (type at any speed you like). If I have it right please try and explain in a logical and consistent manner why the rules should be different for men and women. I don't buy the argument that the burden of bearing a child for 9 months is so gigantic that the impact on a father of 18 years of child support can be totally discounted (just to give you a chance to avoid basing your case on that idea).
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 9:29:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To answer your questions (Once and for all)...

***"Women should have freedom to choose an abortion or to carry the fetus/child/lump of cells with the choice being entirely a matter between the woman and their doctor"

Um... Yes.
Is strapping her down till she delivers an unwanted child a better option?

****"The woman also has a choice to be involved in the sex act in the first place"

What a spoiled tart!
(Do you think it unreasonable to offer her such a "comparative smorgasboard" of choice?)

**** "Men have the right to choose not to partake in the sex act"

Unpopular as it would be for many men AND women, yes.
If they don't like it - they can bloody well - um, lump-it.

**** "If you don't want a baby then don't risk sex"

You can have sex, but you might (both) be confronted with an unplanned pregnancy.

I myself always establish the pro/anti stance of sexual partners BEFORE horizontal folkdancing (Interestingly - most attractive, bonkable types are pro-choice)

**** "If a man chooses to be involved in the sex act and a pregnancy results then he should willingly wear the consequences and not expect to have any further say in the matter"

He can certainly "have a say" but not be able to strap her down untill she produces an heir, or march her to a church with a sawn-off rifle buried into the base of her skull.
(Yes Timkins, i'm talking to YOU)

****************************************************************

I am always amazed at the tenacity of anti-choice crusaders.

If they are so dedicated to protecting and preserving "life" why don't we see them picketing James Hardy, Military Bases, Gun dealers, or Tobbacco Manufacturers?

Why?

Because it's really about controlling women ;)
Posted by mscobina, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 10:17:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Room from hell. Disguised as subjective opinion or objective truth. a bowl of fruit on my head and you guessing whether I'm Carmen Miranda or a Froot Loop. Stop posteuring - no-one knows what you're saying. Gathering statistics on websites? It's not about stats. As stated, I don't care who wants one in what circumstance, it should be a legal and safe entitlement. Women on the whole don't use it carelessly. If you think it's wrong that women should have this particular right, stand on a political/local platform in your electorate and see how far you get. The "good old days" where women had to cope/deal with unwanted pregnancies are gone.

Andyman - i have not jeopardised/failed my case. I was the one that was pregnant and aborted as I was 19 going on 15; boyfriend didn't know; never wanted a baby; no support from family; no financial means of MY OWN; absolutely terrified and sick every day. Not a luxurious postion. If not my decision, whose should it have been? Comparisons with females in the workplace busting your balls for supremacy is superfluous and churlish. Methinks the HR manager may have given you a hard time in her powersuit?

I have an unquestioned right to do as I please within the law - without pissing off the populous. I don't walk slowly over pedestrian crossings then pretend to stumble in the middle. I don't pretend to forget my pin number in a supermarket queue. I will not rob a bank or commit a crime, unless it becomes outside a law that violates my rights. One is different from 19 than 42. As someone who practices contraception more carefully I do feel more morally responsible about the decision, but would make the same one.

Andyman,regarding sussing out your ex-wife's drawer is probably a good reason why she is no longer there. Change your moniker to Sick Puppy.

Col - life not being fair, I think Mark Twain said " Expecting life to be fair is expecting not to be charged by a bull in his paddock because you're a vegetarian".
Posted by Di, Wednesday, 16 March 2005 11:05:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brazuca, when you pose provocative questions about Jews I think it is only reasonable to understand the frame of reference.

"Make up your mind. Either you're gonna attempt to answer the questions or keep offering endless qualifications."

I don't consider seeking an understanding of your frame of reference - "objective truth" - to justify the description "endless qualifications". There is no such thing as an objective truth, and you know it, which is why you can't define it, and which is why no-one will answer your stupid question about Jews.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 17 March 2005 7:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No-one should assume that women who believe in their right to decide their own destiny are "castrating feminists" any more than one should assume "all men are rapists". The body politic has moved on since the 1970s. People with something thoughful and worthwhile to say don't need to fall back on such tired old stereotyping - which is intellectually lazy, immature and disrespectful.

You know who you are.
Posted by Fiona, Thursday, 17 March 2005 9:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"-Love is not important, and males should only be used for money or sex."

-----------

Whoa, wait a minute -- men can be "used" by women for sex? Wow, feminists are fantasists of the highest order!
Posted by Brazuca, Thursday, 17 March 2005 11:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Gathering statistics on websites? It's not about stats”

However, the author uses statistics a number of times in her article (eg she gives dates, refers to a web-site that contains some vague and indefinite statistics about the number of abortions being carried out etc).

However much about abortion is left out of this article. This is despite the fact that the author works at a university, and would have ready access to databases and research material. Maybe the author believes in “selective” data, or even “advocacy research” where only statistics or data that will support a particular case will be made known to the students or the public.

Another way of describing this is “brainwashing” which appears quite common in feminist text and feminist teaching (ops “Gender studies”) courses at universities.

From http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/lopez/lopez032702.asp

"Remember that revolutions often wind up devouring their own children," Stolba warns. Seeing what the children of this revolution believe and what they're feeding their ideological daughters, perhaps that might be best.”

Maybe Helen Pringle can write a third article on abortion, and perhaps this time she could include some statistics related to the following :-

How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

Or would inclusion of statistics relating to the above not allow someone enough “voice”, or enough “choice”, or it would not be all a male's fault (somewhere, somehow).
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 17 March 2005 11:23:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am the author of this article. I do not produce articles at the command of the discourteous and the uncivil, and I have written at length elsewhere on various aspects of abortion. In regard to father’s rights, there is a well-developed case law. The foremost Australian case is K v T [1983] 1 Qd R 396 (Supreme Court), where a man sought an injunction to prevent a woman from having an abortion following a casual affair. Justice Williams denied that the man had standing to bring his action; on appeal, the Queensland Attorney-General was added as plaintiff, but the man’s claim was again rejected: A-G (ex rel Kerr) v T [1983] 1 Qd R 404 (Full Court). At the High Court, Chief Justice Gibbs (a man not usually characterised as a castrating feminist) rejected special leave to appeal and an interlocutory injunction, based in part on consideration of the position of an unborn child as specially protected by the court: A-G for QLD (ex rel Kerr) v T [1983] 57 ALJR 285 (High Court). Gibbs CJ reiterated that the determination of whether a serious crime is about to be committed is one left by law to a jury, but otherwise thought it unnecessary to consider the lawfulness or otherwise of the woman’s proposed course of action. And citing the English case of Paton v BPAS [1979] 1 QB 276, and C v S [1987] 1 All ER 1230, the Gibbs CJ denied that the unborn had any rights enforceable at law. Chief Justice Gibbs concluded: “There are limits to the extent to which the law should intrude upon personal liberty and personal privacy in the pursuit of moral and religious aims. Those limits would be overstepped if an injunction were to be granted in the present case.” Another related case is In the Marriage of F (1989) 13 Fam LR 189 (Family Court), in which a husband applied for an injunction to prevent his estranged wife from terminating her pregnancy. Personal liberty and personal privacy are cornerstones of the rule of law, and we disregard them at our peril.
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 17 March 2005 12:25:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, why don't YOU write such an article? Why don't YOU lobby to have the inquiry you're after? Why don't YOU do the work you are asking others to do within the framework of your ideology? Why should Helen Pringle or anyone else do research coming from YOUR standpoint?

Various writers have produced articles you disagree with but you are asking them to adhere to your views. They are not likely to so it is time to produce your own work under your own name.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 17 March 2005 1:35:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, thankyou for pointing out the other thread, I may jump in if I have the time.
Of course either parent can be dangerous, I was continuing from Andyman's statement, not meaning to imply otherwise.

Andyman, this comment from one of your original posts:
"I choose to have a baby and hit the father for thousands of dollars in support payments."

and to a lesser extent this more recent statement:
"With the current imbalance of choice, a person can take thousands of dollars from another person, and place him at increased risk of illness and suicide."

The tone of both (eg. "hit the father") is slanted against the woman involved, with the implication being that the mother is purposely taking the money away from the father, rather than simply requesting support. This is why I considered you to be blaming women, as neither statement can be limited to feminists.

From my previous post it should be clear that I have no problem with the father choosing between having a relationship with the child or being free of any financial obligations. But if the father chooses to give up both the taxpayer still needs to pick up the other half of the burden. And if possible, I think that in some cases the father should be estopped from making a choice to give up the financial burden.

As for equality, I think it should be pointed out that artificial choice is not always possible.
Posted by Deuc, Thursday, 17 March 2005 4:39:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isabelberners, DavidJs

isabelberners
“at the command of the discourteous and the uncivil,”

There was no command, and nothing to say what is “discourteous” or “uncivil”, so this could mean anything.

It’s noticed, (even in this forum), that feminist supporters or male bashers will seldom use substantiated facts or information, and their world is normally “dog eat dog”, so it is unlikely that the meek, (or even the unborn), will last long in their world.

The reason for this article is uncertain, because the article only asks a question at the end. There are now two articles on abortion; with no mention of whether you believe the current rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion are too high or not. But to provide information on unwanted pregnancy, abortion etc, I have previously posted links to various pieces of information.

Within one article:- “we appear to be lagging the rest of the world in abortion rates comparatively” at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

From this, Australia’s rates of unwanted pregnancy are unnecessarily high on a comparative basis, and reducing these rates may not be too difficult (technically anyway).

However, some people may actually prefer this unnecessarily high rate of abortion for whatever strange reason.

It also appears to be of minimal concern to some, that a father has minimal say in whether a mother can abort their child, but he will be compulsorily required to pay money to the mother if she keeps their child. Research now highlights how little say the non-custodial father has regards the raising of their child, or even contacting their child http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&docId=l:258901397&topicId=13929&start=4&topics=single ).

So the father is normally a payer of money to the mother, and not a father to their child in actual parenting terms. There is minimal “gender equality” in this, nor is it normally in “the best interests of their child”.

DavidJs, who has previously said he doesn’t care if someone gets their “noses out of joint”. (How caring and sensitive of you, and a declared feminist supporter as well)

Family Law rule S121 says that I cannot identify myself, and you would know this also.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 17 March 2005 9:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Helen Pringle for daring to come into this vipers nest again. Thank you Fiona for your level headed debate. I'd love to have a chardonnay or five with you. Timkins and co. and the rest driving the (and i'll use this term loosely) "abortion" debate. Don't you think that discussing wives (ex more than likely), child support, family court issues that you are all no doubt experiencing through this MenRUs forum is a bit of A GATE AFTER THE HORSE HAS BOLTED debate. How much of the energy expended goes back to the abortion debate rather than your own diatribes about loosely related issues. Timkins, I look forward to you posting an article online about family court issues with fathers as it is a forum that I am sympathic to and is heavily biased against the father. But it is such a loose thread in the abortion debate. Reality Check, as i have said before - LOSE THE MONIKER. It is so not you.
Posted by Di, Thursday, 17 March 2005 10:35:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Timkins – you still don‘t get it

These are the only one significant “statistics” you need to focus on –

how many people are intimately effected by the abortion – one (the woman)

How many people should have the authority to make a decision – one (the woman)

How many women decided to have an abortion – it just does not matter – because it represents individuals making personal decisions which effect them significantly, the father possibly and the rest of society – not at all.
Collecting statistics translates into a lot of numbers which mean nothing when the exercise of choice is not vested in a single of several centres of authority / bureaucracy who act unilaterally for any “supposed” benefit to society.

And as for male v female – I support the right of everyone to exercise absolute authority over their own body – that I am male merely means I do not have to worry about becoming pregnant against my will – but if I did need to, I would fight and protest to demand the right to have the final say over the disposition of the body in which I reside.

Isabelbirners “Personal liberty and personal privacy are cornerstones of the rule of law, and we disregard them at our peril.”

I agree.

Most of the wars of the 20th Century (including the Cold War) were fought to preserve this notion. I find it hard to comprehend how some would so readily abandon such ideals and the respect for other individuals, which is enshrined – other than to suggest, in the words of the song – some “will never understand what they got ‘til its gone”.

Di - I think we follow similar precepts – the abortion issue and the family law issue are both “skewed” by those who would demand to control or expect their view to prevail because of either gender or emotion, abandoning any ideals which hint at “respect and consideration for the rights of others”
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 18 March 2005 1:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There will always be people that defend the status quo, without taking into account the frequency of incidence, or whether new technological or scientific developments allow for other alternatives or outcomes. That is why people are sometimes concerned by outdated laws that do not sufficiently reflect society’s sense of justice, or in fact violate certain perceived rights. That is why laws change from time to time.

I don’t think anyone here is calling for criminalisation of abortion – perhaps not even arguing for making it harder than it may already be.

I for one support an inquiry into abortion, so that we better understand it. I don’t know what an acceptable incidence rate should be, but believe there is a huge difference between 10% and 90%. In those terms, 20% doesn’t sound like much.

If you look at incidence of murder and specifically that committed in self defence (which is legal), and please don’t think I am comparing abortion to murder, I for one would be concerned if 20% of murders were being committed in the name of self defence. Have a read of a news item in SMH this morning – “An American beauty queen who shot and killed her two-timing boyfriend was acquitted of murder after claiming she acted in self-defence.” http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/17/1110913739752.html

“Only, in America”? Where the gun laws allow such thinking?
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 18 March 2005 9:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di, Your situation wasn't pleasant, you exercised the legal choice to abort. I don't dispute that right. If you had decided to continue with the pregnancy, would it be just to allow the father some choice in the matter IF to keep the baby meant he had to involuntarily pay hundreds of thousands with no rights to choose a relationship with the child? If not, should law be changed so a man could choose not to support a child born against his will and presumed as entitled to see the child?

"The ex's drawer": tone was black humour... I didn't go through her drawers, although she went through mine regularly. Is my ex a "Sick Puppy" for doing so?

mscobina, "everyone should have a choice", that means dads too?

isabelberners, "Personal liberty and... privacy are cornerstones of the rule of law". Yet all the quoted Court rulings removed personal liberty from fathers to determine their own destiny, subjected them to 18 years of financial burden, their private life scrutinized microscopically by the CSA, with no say: specifically because they had no legal say in the consequences of an abortion decision. Do you mean, "Personal liberty and privacy of women..."?

Deuc, I said "A woman can choose to..." Not every woman does. Is my comment untrue? Child Support is NOT legally a "request", the father does NOT have legal choice to refuse.

Most women are both decent and trustworthy. They don't unfairly insist upon child support, do discuss abortions with partners, do let dads see kids, etc. But in choosing not to abort, single mothers must claim child support if they want family benefits.

My issue is the minority of women who do deliberately trap men are legally supported. These men are imperiled because they have no choices either regarding an abortion or the consequences thereof.

Col Rouge, see: http://www.warrenfarrell.com/ . Dr Farrell supports both mainstream Feminism and the role of men. Described by both sides as "groundbreaking".

I would have thought 18 years of legal financial responsibility for a child would be an "intimate" impact on a man's life.
Posted by Andyman, Friday, 18 March 2005 9:38:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is with the obsession some of you have with finding out Timkins real name? How about focussing on supporting/rebutting/ignoring his arguments rather than finding out just who he is.

Are all of you who are calling on Timkins to supply his real name likewise identifable (frankly I don't want to know your real names, your comments are what I want to see).

He may be doing the lobbying, writing to Politicians etc under his real name elsewhere.

Please remember that all us involved with C$A and other parts of the Family Law structure are dealing with individuals with fairly wide discressionary power and who often give the appearance of coming at it from a significant personal bias. Who can guarantee that individual C$A staff might not use that discressionary power unfairly against an individual known to be openly critical of C$A. Maybe that is paranoid but then when you have dealt with some of these bodies and heard some of the stories of others there is reason to be cautious. C$A as an organisation certainly do not appear to take criticism well although I doubt that they would be silly enough to keep any kind of formal hit list of payers who have criticised them.

As previously mentioned there are other reasons for keeping a low profile with real names (causing further strife with vindictive ex's etc).
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 18 March 2005 11:52:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear I. Berners,

Thank you for your case law studies to show unborn child not given due civil status as a born human. Please note the age of these cases 1973, 1989, 1987, 1989 and the one you missed was the precedence case on the right of a women to abort in the USA to which I do not have the details but be able to obtain them if you fail to.

At the time medical technology could not show the daily life picture of the living unborn child as we can now and it shows how 'living' the unborn child is including ability to sense, process and respond to stimuli, smile, grasp, sleep patterns etc.

This evidence now dramatically changes the legal landscape to this matter and I state the precedence cases would have had a totally different outcome in 2005. So I hear you ask 'So new precedence needs attention to'.

Answer yes! Picture the following question put to the high court made by Crown itself.

'DOES THE UNBORN CHILD BEHAVE AS A BORN HUMAN BUT IN A SPECIAL ENVIRONMENT AND IF THE ANSWER IS YES THEN DOES THE UNBORN CHILDS CIVIL STATUS NEED URGENT REINSTATEMENT TO THE BORN'

My prediction to the outcome is a argument on pain, being one of the first modalities to function meaning the unborn child feels pain when its life is sucked out with a vacuum probe or broken to pieces with forceps, will achieve success.

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 18 March 2005 12:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman:
I did not specify the father as the target of her request; as you said, many single parents are required to apply for child support or lose their Centrelink benefits. If I believed there were many women having children just to hurt men, then I might accept that your comment wasn't blaming women for the imposition of child support, but I don't.

"These men are imperiled because they have no choices either regarding an abortion or the consequences thereof."

Should I take this and your "broad" interpretations of the judgements to mean that you want the father to have a right to abort the child? How could that possibly co-exist with a woman's right to choose? This is an example of what I meant by artificial choice not always being possible.


Sam said,
US cases are not binding on our courts or of particular significance to them (especially constitutional ones) - so there is no "precedence case" from the US that would be relevant here.

My prediction to the outcome would be that no member of the HC would allow the question to be reserved. Cases from 1989 or 1973 are not old. If it was considered by the Full Court, I have little doubt that they would accept the previous cases and leave the matter to the legislature.
Posted by Deuc, Friday, 18 March 2005 2:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, SamS

Col
I fully appreciate your concerns regards the rights of the individual, but people develop their beliefs or perceptions of what is “right” or “wrong” over time, and quite often they develop these beliefs from other people, from education, and from the media.

It is a fact that in some countries, life is cheap, while in other countries, life has more value. Why is this?

Too much abortion can cheapen life, so abortion in society should be reduced where feasible, and it does appear that Australia’s rates of un-wanted pregnancy can be reduced by simply using better forms of contraception, which is now available for women, but unfortunately it may be some years before there are better forms of male contraception that are developed and then approved. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s11171.htm

In the mean time I am concerned if someone tries to brainwash other people into believing that contraception is no good, abortion is just great, fathers are irrelevant, children are an imposition on a woman’s life, or there is “evil patriarchy” hiding in the closet, under the bed, down the hall, or in the ceiling.

Information should not be hidden or distorted, or there can be all types of myth and weird beliefs amongst people, and feminists have definitely be known to suppress or distort information so as to manipulate others.

You will notice that in two articles on abortion, the author has not mentioned whether or not Australia’s abortion rate is too high, reasons for our current abortion rate, or possible ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy etc. However one would think that type of information to be relevant or meaningful.

Sam Says,
I agree with your sentiments. The foetus in the womb does undergo a number of transformations or changes, but when the baby is born, that human undergoes many transformations also (eg baby, toddler, child, youth, adult, parent, elderly etc).

So development or changes in the womb are just a part of a set of changes or transformations that will take place throughout the person's life.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 18 March 2005 3:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc,
some good points there (I don't agree with everything but that is part of the fun of this).

It may be difficult for the right to post conception choice to be available to both men and women. It does get very tricky when you start looking at the variations on that theme. Some idea's to consider, none of which would satisfy everybody but which have some relevance.

1) We accept non discriminitory version of mscobina's argument that people have a choice to engage in the sex act. Choice stops there except for maybe the option of putting any resultant child up for adoption. Not likely to happen.

2) We accept mscobina's that men have a choice to engage in the sex act, their choice stops there and they wear all consequences without further choice. Women for reasons unspecified get two other goes at the choice thing - abortion and adoption.

3) Implement some kind of system which takes the choices of both parents into account and manages consequences and responsibilities as well as possible based on the situation both have allowed themselves to get into. Acceptance of the idea that both had a choice to engage in sexual activity in the first place is required for this to make sense. If both want an abortion then it happens, if either disagree then no abortion but post birth responsibility is divided according to who wants the pregnancy to continue. Possibly some compensation to a mother required to complete a pregnancy she does not want (subject to the father having custody after birth). Could get complex but gives both choice and responsibility for their choices.

4) A variation on the previous item which leaves the choice regarding abortion with the mother but gives the father a choice to opt in or out of the childs life. Opting out cuts out both parental role and financial responsibility for the child, opting in means an ongoing parental role and an equal share of overall financial responsibility for the child.

Clearly none of the above is ideal.
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 18 March 2005 3:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc,

You have many good points.

In respect of abortion, there are two issues; the abortion act; and the consequences.

My first issue is that by choosing to have a baby against a man's will, the birth (as a consequence) may, or may not, force the man to have heavy, obligatory, long-term financial responsibilities.

My second issue is, in the case of a woman who says she is on contraceptives, for example, and nevertheless is NOT, and conceives; I view this to be a theft of genetic materials, or at the very least a misappropriation of genetic material resulting in a child being borne by the woman.

This second situation happens quite a lot. I'll find the appropriate research, from a reputable source, that shows this and post it soon.

The first argument would be satisfied merely if the man was given a genuine choice of financially supporting the child, post birth. In order to obtain this choice a man would have to have shown 1. A genuine opposition to the continuation of the pregnancy; or 2. Evidence that the pregnancy was concealed from him until too late to abort.

The second argument would be satisfied by allowing the man reasonable access to the child, if desired and appropriate (ie. rape, etc. excluded).

If both these conditions existed, I would have no problem with a single woman having final say on abortion.

However, I feel strongly that a husband should have some say. Unfortunately this may infrequently result in a legal fight, but the alternative is an unjust, sometimes emotionally damaging situation where one partner (the man) feels completely disempowered regarding the potential child he might have had, or the child he was forced to have and pay for.

It is 50% his child, 50% hers. Nature demands that she must physically bear the child. Nevertheless, he as husband may well financially bear that child until adulthood and beyond. Most husbands, I feel, would want to do so. To be given no say, disempowers the husband from this decision entirely, making him subservient to his wife's sole desire.
Posted by Andyman, Friday, 18 March 2005 5:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure if that's an accurate take on mscobina's posts. They seem directed at the specific argument made by anti-abortion men that their rights are being denied by partners who abort. Her response to their continual complaints: don't get involved with pro-choice women. If they choose to have sex with pro-choice women then they have no grounds to complain.

Such a view doesn't require anti-abortion men abstain, or speak of the parental or economic consequences, or prevent anti-abortionists from claiming that abortion is murder, but it is meant to show how absurd it is for anti-abortion men to be outraged if their (ex-)lover aborts or for them to claim that their rights are being abused. And if my interpretation is correct, it is no suprise that she hasn't specified the reasons for the woman having the choice.

1 is the basic pro-life position, 2 is the basic pro-choice position. 3 might have been aimed at a middleground, but it won't be satisfying to either side of the abortion debate and significantly favours the man.

He is never put in a negative position but the woman may be forced to carry the child subject to the man's will. It may consider the wishes of both parties, but it effectively removes her choice and that makes it unacceptable. The biological differences between the sexes make complete equality impossible and for that reason I think 4 is the best option. Since they are not clear to me, can you please point out the deficiencies in #4?
Posted by Deuc, Friday, 18 March 2005 5:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert - seems option #4 makes the best of a very difficult situation. I have noticed that many men gripe about financially supporting a child they don't want and feel trapped. I would like to point out that apart from the obvious biological investment, women also contribute a huge financial investment as well and the emotional demands of raising/caring for and loving their children. This point has not been a feature of much of this forum. Basically - if you are going to have sex be responsible for your actions.
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 18 March 2005 6:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen, you titled your piece "The abortion debate: what a fizzer!".

It has now generated over a hundred Forum contributions.

Some fizzer!

Keep up the good work. It is probably worth reminding ourselves of the broader context of Wendell Phillips speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in 1853:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity."
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 March 2005 6:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a question: Legal foetal viability is determined by the ability of the foetus to survive outside the womb – usually at 28 weeks. So, how does this cut-off date and its partial-legal status affects the foetus’ status as human being?

If ‘pro-choice’ proponents commonly argue that a foetus is just ‘a clump of cells’, when does that ‘clump of cells’ become a human? If an abortion is performed at 28+ weeks, is that then murder? What about 20 weeks? 12 weeks? What is the significant foetal milestone turning a ‘clump of cells’ into a human being, if not legal viability? Is it their size? Resemblance to a human being? Birth?

Recently, I had someone tell me that “‘pro-life’ women don’t exist”. Do they? How do women feel who have had a completed pregnancy, and then an abortion? Or the other way around? Of the many friends I have who have had abortions, the ones who have ‘psychologically survived’ the abortion were up-front about taking another’s life (“I know this is wrong, but it’s the only option I have.”) The ones who have been unable to disconnect from their bodies have been haunted by their decision. This is only my experience.

As a woman who has been through pregnancy, birth and beyond, and who has engaged with their baby’s development in utero, I know how I was thrilled to engage with how my baby’s organs were developing, that it was already kicking although I couldn’t feel it yet, my baby was smiling or frowning (all while it was legally ‘non-viable’).

This is not meant to be an accusatory spiel. I really want to know how people find their moral position on this.

Do we accept some forms of murder to protect individual liberty? Whose individual rights are paramount and why? Does a human being’s ‘viability’ all depend on whether someone wants it or not? Whether its life is convenient for someone else? When is that distinction drawn? What implications could that have on human rights in the future/in the present? Why are these aspects of the debate seldom addressed?
Posted by Tracy A, Saturday, 19 March 2005 12:25:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles – your comments regarding the number of posts exactly mirror my thoughts before I got to this article –will the comments exceed 100?

Helen title was deliberately provocative. Is the abortion Issue a fizzer? – No - it is a barometer of social tolerance and "societies" ability to respect and defer to the right of individual to exercise personal choice.

As you quote “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few”.
It is too easy for “the few” of Pro-Life to demand to have their “choice” be universally inflicted upon the “many” of society in general.
Let Pro-lifers exercise a personal non-abortion policy for themselves – and may they develop to find the tolerance needed to respect Non-Pro-Life women in exercising what might be a non-pro-life choice for themselves too.

Tracy – that you had a fulfilling time in pregnancy is wonderful. You made your choice.
Now please respect the rights of other women to make their choice.
Whatever their choice may be, it will not effect you, your children or your family’s rights.
However, denying them their choice (and imposing your choice) places a responsibility back on you.
I want to know how you will live up to your responsibilities to finance and support those women through their pregnancies and then the children through to age 18? How many of your own children will you not be able to afford because you are looking after someone elses?
What price are you prepared to pay for the right of having your choice the only one allowed
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 19 March 2005 9:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Author again. Col Rouge, I laughed (very good naturedly of course!) when I read your comment about my choice of title. Over the years, I have never written anything that has gone out with the title I used. In fact, I have yet to meet ANY writer whose title has not been changed by editors. My own title for this piece as sent to the editors was "Mr Lusher's Amendment" (rather dull, I'm afraid...). I'd suggest not spending any time on the title of your opinion pieces; the editor(s) will always choose another, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
Posted by isabelberners, Saturday, 19 March 2005 10:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
“Basically - if you are going to have sex be responsible for your actions.”

I tend to agree somewhat, in that there are women around that definitely should be avoided.

Basically there are two people about to become involved in a sexual relationship. A MM (Mere Male, regarded as neanderthaloid, non-emotional, inarticulate etc) and a GP (Grrrl Power, regarded as all knowing, emotional, articulate etc). Now there is a tendency for GPs not to answer questions asked by MMs, so a GP would have to tell the MM about how she expects the relationship to be.

Looking at some statistics, then on average, GP would have to inform MM that she wants the relationship to be temporary or throw-away, and she is mainly interested in MM for money and sex. She would have to say that either she doesn’t use contraception, or any contraception she is using is not greatly reliable, and if she does become pregnant, then she will most likely have an abortion, but not necessarily talk to MM about it first.

If GP does decide to keep the child, then she will expect MM (and the government) to provide her with money, although MM will have minimal say in how the child is being raised, and in 76% of cases, MM will only see the child every second weekend or less. This will occur until the child is 18.

Now after MM has been told this by GP, then there should be a cooling off period for MM to consider the matter, and maybe discuss it within his circle of friends next time they come around to watch the footy.

This would be fair and reasonable, particularly for the child.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 19 March 2005 1:52:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mscobina, if I've misunderstood you sorry :(.

Deuc, clearly 2,3 & 4 ignore the views of the pro-life group.
I disagree with the view put by some that the debate is about tolerance etc. Our society has a long history of people protesting and seeking change to prevent harm to entities other than themselves where some believe an action is harming that entity (environment/animal protection etc). The same argument could also be used to suggest that non-indiginous people should butt out in relation to racism issues where indiginous people suffer - eg OK for them not to be racist but don't try and force it on others. Sometimes I agree with such groups, sometimes not but I do believe the right to seek change is fundamental to the overall health of our society.

My main reason for concern about proposal 4 is that it ignores the needs of a father who on discovering he has contributed to a collection of cells decides he really likes that idea and would like that to continue.

I suspect that not all pro-choice women upon discovering that they are having an unplanned pregnancy decide to terminate - some might say Wow, I'm, going to be a mum. I also suspect that there are reasons women would object to forced abortions other than that it is happening to their bodies. Sometimes the mere knowledge of conception changes our plans and priorities etc. Some of those reasons are equally valid for men. I may not have stated that clearly, it's the best way of putting it that I can think of at the moment.

As you pointed out in an eatlier post it may not be possible to get that balance (artificial wombs maybe in the future). I do like to differentiate between core stuff and practical necessities.
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 19 March 2005 2:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some ethical questions regards whether or not the artificial womb should be developed, but from the perspective of “the best interests of the child”, then there would be a very good case for it to be developed.

If the parents are not in a very stable relationship, then the child’s future is very grim indeed. Either the child will be killed within the mother’s womb, or it will likely face a future without a father, and looking at a whole range of studies and statistics, then that future without a father is very grim also.

At present, the child’s life is almost completely dictated by the mother, and the results have been generally disastrous, so perhaps the artificial womb should be developed, in “the best interests of the child”.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 19 March 2005 3:22:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman, you - and I quote - mentioned " a theft of genetic materials". Is anyone genetically compromised by abortion? Some certainly are by birth! Hundreds of thousands of dollars my ex boyfriend saved? This is so not abortion debate. But you guys are just enjoying it it bigtime. By the way, you are the one that mentioned going through yor ex wife's drawers. The main thing is, you guys have taken this debate down more back alleys than a Melways. And I don't wan't to know the real TIMKINS. unless he writes a much promised article. He could always use a pseduonem. (That's not a contraceptive by the way).
Posted by Di, Sunday, 20 March 2005 12:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman, apologies for my last post - did not digest your question before I shot of my previous riposte. About whether it was a question? of abortion or the dollars? Dollars didn' t enter into it. Nobody gets rich from having a baby unless one gives birth to a future stockbroker (and who want's to bet on that?) This was the eighties and i was 19. IT's not who wants to be a millionaire. My boyfriend (and he was my best man at my later wedding, but that's another story) never knew I'd been pregnant! It wasn't that sort of relationship, after all, we were just friends and having SEX. He and I were hardly Mike and carol Brady. You talk about women having children to get squillions of dollars out of the "donor". I haven't met any single mothers that are raking in the moolah. And I haven't met too many ex- husbands that have been keen to throw in their share of child support either. The shoe is on two feet. But it's hardly an abortion debate is it.
Posted by Di, Sunday, 20 March 2005 1:00:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di,

When child support is greater than the amount directly spent on the child, when the mother has all the choices, but no accountability, and the father has no say in how it is spent, then regardless of whether she is “raking” it in or simply collecting her “entitlement” – it is just not fair on the child, or the father.

I don’t agree with the assertion that somehow the mother is less financially responsible, because she is providing “emotional care” (especially after being granted so many prior choices). After all, the father has no choice in having minimal contact and playing insignificant role in his child’s development. The notion that mothers are the only parent capable of providing emotional care to their children, is fraudulent.

If the state legislates away father’s rights, adjudicates on family matters and insists it is always acting “in the best interest of the child”, then perhaps it should also desist from avoiding a more significant financial responsibility for its own “choices” in policy-making.

Why should fathers have a greater financial responsibility than the state, or the mother, while the mother is encouraged to discard the foetus or the father whenever she so wishes (with society and state so eager to assist)?
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 20 March 2005 1:27:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman: We pretty much agree, but I don't think marriage should require a woman give up her choice; it's still her body.


Tracy A:
Could you please provide me with a reference to some information on "legal foetal viability"? I'm curious as to the context.

"Human being" is a vague term. If it means a human life "in being" - then legally a human being is one that is born alive and I would agree, for the reason that the life has never before been an individual surviving on it's own. Defined that way, human being is not a particularly useful term when it comes to abortion, I prefer to use "person". I also draw distinctions between a human life (an individual human organism) and something that is human (has human DNA).

I reject viability as a point from which to determine personhood, mainly because if the issue is separate survivability, then the birth (premature or not) is when that occurs anyway. Regardless of when personhood attaches I still think that attempts should be made to deliver most viable foetuses, as I do consider a potential person to have some value.

Here are eight points in human development at which I believe it is reasonable to believe a person is created; most are untestable and the order may not be correct.
1. at conception
2. upon the implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall
3. when brain activity begins
4. when the brain can handle sensory input
5. upon perception
6. at birth
7. at the formation of abstract thought
8. at self-awareness

My ordering would be 7,8,5,6,3,2,4,1. Only conscious beings have thoughts or complex emotions, and those two things are what I think deserve protection. The biological viability of the foetus is not directly related to that.


R0bert:
I'm also in agreement with you, but I'm certain many pro-choice women choose not to abort. #4 does ignore the wishes of a father who wants the child, but as has been discussed, I think it is necessarily that way.
Posted by Deuc, Sunday, 20 March 2005 4:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc
The work you put into your posts is appreciated, but they raise an important issue, which I tend to harp on probably too much. You listed a whole lot of criteria that could be used to determine the legitimate beginnings of a 'human' child. What this shows, is that depending on who was doing the assessing, EACH one of those could be used just as effectively by 'n' different people. I've called this 'make it up as u go-ism' in other posts. i.e. moral relativism.

While this reasoning does nothing to 'prove God', it abundantly illustrates the problem of a society which has no unchanging reference point for its decisions about human life.

I heard on the news 2nite about some 'scam in human eggs' and without even knowing the background, it occurred to me that it may well be the harvesting of eggs from people with 'desirable genetic traits' and marketing them to others. This is just one of many possibilities that the 'no God' social foundation (or non-foundation) could lead to.

Our buddy Neitzche was not far off the mark when he waxed eloquent about the catastrophic consequences for society now that we have 'disposed of God'.

In terms of the topic, and abortion, womens choices etc. I would simply emphasise that from the moment of conception, a child is the product not of one, but 2 people. The father and the mum. How this can be relegated to something as cold and unloving as 'womens choice' is beyond my comprehension.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 20 March 2005 7:55:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di, I don't know what Andyman intended with the reference to "a theft of genetic materials" but it may be a tie to one of the arguments put to oppose men being able to initiate paternity testing without the mothers consent. My understanding is the Australian Law Reform Commission mostly oppose such testing on the basis of privacy issues (not much concern when it comes to forcing disclosure of post seperation financial details though).

Most of us don't think anybody is getting rich from child residency but it can make a substantial difference for someone with few employable skills or a distaste for paid work.
- a bigger share of assets at property settlement.
- Child Support Payments - CSA have an online calculator, pop on and try some scenarios.
- Family Tax Benefit A & B
- Single Parents pension (or whatever it is called)
- Rent Assistance.

Much better money than the dole.
For reference one recent study put the cost of raising a boy at about $6,300 per year. I am familiar with one case where with a single child and doing almost 50/50 shared parenting the mother is receiving over $9,000 a year from the above sources (including $5,000 a year from the father of the child).

Fathers may be happier about child support when it relates to the cost of raising a child rather than relative incomes and when the choices both parents make about earning an income are taken into account. At the moment it is seen more as a privately funded suppliment to the welfare system.
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 20 March 2005 8:09:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
$6,300 pa to raise a child? $17.25 per day? I assume this is predicated on free labour and no consideration of opportunity costs (eg. wages the parent might have earned had s/he not been caring for the child, etc). What a bargain. No wonder Australians in their millions, especially the men, are walking away from their paid jobs to become their child's carers for $17.25 per day.

Mmmmm. Not.
Posted by Fiona, Sunday, 20 March 2005 8:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put Fiona!
Posted by mscobina, Sunday, 20 March 2005 9:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona,

This is a big part of the problem. Ever since degrees in early childhood education became a “requirement” to take care of children, mothers want to be paid an hourly rate for taking care of their own. I’ve heard some commentators ask – where is the love?

Presumably the mother had considered all opportunity costs while deciding on her many choices. Once she’s made them, she should be equally financially responsible for raising the child and not expect payment for being mother.

Fathers would never object if they were asked to contribute half the cost – they would contribute even more if they were given some choices of their own, but fathers supporting “a clump of cells” for the next 18 years without any choice, seems a little one-sided in this choice debate.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 20 March 2005 9:33:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Childcare workers get paid less than telemarketers, and have to pay enormous HECS fees for the "Privilege"
Posted by mscobina, Sunday, 20 March 2005 9:49:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona, you might try reading the post again.

No one should be paid to look after their own children. I do support "loss of income" compensation where a parent is left with kids by the other parent walking away.

No support for the idea for someone who has done everything they can to cut the other parent out of the kids lives though. Start with 50/50 shared parenting and equal financial responsibility and there is no basis for child support except when one parent renegs on that responsibility. In context with the abortion debate (and the pro-choice stance), if the male contributer to the bunch of cells does not want kids to result where is his financial responsibility to a child if the mother decides to proceed with the pregnancy.

Think of the dollars in terms of difference to dole payments for the payee and in terms of money taken out of income after tax for the payer.

In the case I mentioned previously - shared care so the dad is already paying half the costs of raising his child and then pays the mother more than the child is costing her to raise. The govt then tips in extra. She chooses to work part time (until recently only on a day when her son was in her care). If the father found a way to cut back his hours (maybe to allow him to interact better with his sons schooling) and has a consequential drop in income C$A continue to assess him based on previous earnings. If he finds a way to earn more they take more.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 21 March 2005 9:17:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isabelberners / Helen Pringle – I guess Editors do have a valued part to play.

To all fathers and future fathers out there -
As a father I can guarantee – at no time was my body exposed to anything like the same risks, procedures, discomfort or changes as my ex-wife was – the nearest to pain and risk was when her finger nails gouged my hand and she threatened retribution upon me during labour pains before the epidural kicked in

BOAZ-David – if dispensing with self assumed authority of a hypocritical, repressive and corrupt the “priest-class” which has manipulated the intercession between the faithful and God for centuries – a view such as Neitzche would seem to be a sham.

Oh and childcare workers v telemarketers – life is a market – no one sees the challenges which face telemarketers when they are “hung-up” in a day more times than a child care worker changes a nappy in a week.

To those who think this is or ever should be a matter of child-support payments, money, property rights or any other matter of the fiscal or commercial realm – you have missed the point entirely – I suggest you focus on “understanding” before you succumb to “preaching” or “linking”.

The abortion issue is solely about the fundamental right of a person to exercise the choice over how their body will be used, without interference from God-botherers, Do-gooders, Pro-Lifers or anyone else, including the “father” who is not pregnant as a consequence of private and intimate activity.

So I will repeat my request –

Who from “Pro-Life” claims the wisdom which authorises them to decide, for a complete stranger, bearing in mind you have no knowledge of that strangers’ circumstances, desires, expectations, abilities or motivations, what that stranger should do?
I fully expect no one on this earth has such insight – but would anticipate some deluded / manipulating souls (likely of some fundamentalist / religious persuasion) to claim such – So please only post an answer if you are prepared to produce / present your evidentiary credentials.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 March 2005 10:40:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forgive my poor writing above, if poor writing it was.

My point was not to champion wages for caring for your own child, or to raise issues about qualifications for child care work. I do not need red herrings introduced to my otherwise quite specific post, so I guess I need to explain what I mean by mentioning opportunity costs.....

My point was consider for a moment how many men "choose" to give up their salaried jobs to look after their child, in comparison to women. The vast majority of men do not give up their salary to become a full time parent, nor are they expected to. If all things are supposed to be equal once there's a baby around, why not that?

And Seeker, there is a world of difference between a "clump of cells" as you call it, and a baby with the capacity to grow apart from its mother for the next 18 years and hopefully beyond. Very important point, and glad you (sort of) raised it.

Why don't you write an article that stands on its own for comment, about the issue of financial support for children whose original parents are not together anymore. That seems to be your real beef.
Posted by Fiona, Monday, 21 March 2005 11:43:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But BOAZ_David, a "make it up as u go-ist" moral system need not adhere to moral relativism. And while people having a variety of positions is an indication of a lack of common morality, it is not moral relativism, whereas an equal acceptance of the validity of such views is. As someone who believes that the best means to remove imperfections in our morality is by being exposed to and examining other people's morals, I find such diversity helpful.

For a counter-point, let's not forget the horrible consequences of Sharia law as an illustration of how a society that does have an unchanging reference point for its decisions about human life operates. Perhaps if Christianity was not so open to interpretation, or had the Gospels been less critical of legalism, western morals would be a travesty of what they are now.

Since there were plenty of immoral acts and immoral institutions when the "God foundation" was very strong, I doubt this is anything more than new technology allowing for new evil. You may see a general moral decline, but I see the opposite. (Except for consumerism & al, that's certainly worse now.) When there's a significant growth in the nihilist ranks I'll start concerning myself about our impending doom.

I consider any rigid moral system to be quite cold and naturally prone to taking unloving positions when new or complicated situations arise. And in my opinion, removing a woman's control over her own body, her very self, because of a mere potentiality, is quite demonstrative of that. I understand the good intentions, but there seems to be an emotional disconnect on the anti-abortion side regarding the troubles of the mother. I'll try to explain why I think that is, do you agree that most people's morals are reflective of their own actions and interests? What proportion of pro-lifers could imagine wanting to abort? How many would (subconsciously) consider the woman morally defective for wanting to abort and be less sympathetic, open minded because of it?

R0bert: 50/50 often doesn't work too well, much more so with parents that litigate.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 21 March 2005 12:13:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge seems to think that the abortion debate is about the rights of women. Well Col it is and it isn’t. If a woman wants to have an abortion up to the point where the fetus cannot survive independent of her, well that’s fine, that’s a womans’ choice. But what about when the fetus hits 25 or more weeks and can survive without the mother? Don’t bother telling me that these abortions are rare because they aren’t. Don’t bother telling me that they’re done for the health of the mother because they’re not. Go to a hospital and have a look at some of these premature babies and tell me that they have no right to life. These babies are fully formed human beings with as much right to life as yourself. Be honest with yourself Col – how would you have felt if your ex-wife had come to you when she was seven months pregnant and informed you that she was going to have an abortion? Would it still be a “womans choice” issue then? Would you have been happy with this, knowing that there was not one thing you could do about it? If you can honestly say that you would have been happy for your wife to abort then you are a human being sadly lacking something in your nature.

Not all pro-life people are “God-botherers”. I don’t believe in God yet I don’t think women have the right to act like God over a life that could survive very well without her.

So Col, could you clarify your position on late-term abortion for me please? Here’s my position on the debate: A woman has a right to abort up until the time the fetus can survive independently. (I realize that this is whole new debate). After this time the woman has no more right to murder the child as she would have after it was born.

Col, how can you justify the murder of a late-term fetus? Sure a woman has a right to choose, but surely that right must stop at some stage?
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 21 March 2005 1:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Samsaid, You note that the cases in my article are old, and precede new medical technology. As you probably know, the old age of a case is not an argument against its vitality as precedent (indeed, sometimes quite the opposite!). I am not sure how medical imaging transforms the status of the foetus itself one way or another.

In another sense, however, you are right to draw attention to the old age of some of these cases. It used to be that questions of fathers’ rights emerged in judicial deliberations on abortion in the context of efforts by men to prevent women from having abortions. I have no knowledge of any such proceedings in Australia since 1989 (I would be happy to be corrected). Increasingly fathers’ rights are a topic in courts in regard to a reluctance to become fathers, manifested in often deadly assault on women and their unborn children. The most noted of these cases involves the assault of Phillip King on Kylie Flick and her unborn child: R v King [2003] NSW CCA 399 and [2004] NSWCCA 444 (King noted, "I don’t care about the consequences – I would rather go to jail than have a kid.”) This case, inter alia, led the NSW government to commission a review of the law of manslaughter in NSW: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/clrd/ll_clrd.nsf/pages/CLRD_manslaughter/

Similar cases include R v Lippiat, unreported, District Court of Queensland, 24 May1996, Judge Hoath (Asked why he assaulted his girlfriend, Lippiat replied, “I don’t know, I just hoped the baby would die”); R v Molo (see Mark Oberhardt, “Girlfriend slain over advice on motherhood, court told”, Courier-Mail, 8 December 1999, p. 3: Molo had been trying “to make her a good mother” but she had kept “crapping on”); Q v Smith [2000] QCA 169 (9 May 2000); R v Rinley Martin, Supreme Court WA, 21 November 1995.

Despite the virulence of some of the comments in this discussion forum, I think there is room for some common ground between pro-choice and anti-abortion positions, and this is one area: a shared opposition to forcible abortion. That's my hope anyway!
Posted by isabelberners, Monday, 21 March 2005 3:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie – firstly you distinguish between viable and non-viable fetus.

So I take it you approve of abortion in the first trimester? And are thus not committed to an “absolutist pro-life” view of the world.

That you do not approve of abortion beyond that is up to you but you have still not answered the question I posed –

Which was –
What special insight do you possess which entitles you to intervene in the private decisions of other people who do not know you (and probably do not care about you or your opinion)?

On the matter of late terms abortions – They are a tiny minority of all abortions. They are not “commonly applied” and only in circumstances where the Doctor attending the mother holds concerns for the mothers health or the life quality of the fetus. In these matters I presume that attending Doctor has greater insight and knowledge than you.

Telling me you disagree with late term abortions does not answer the question I asked – So please, before blathering on again, produce / present your evidentiary credentials.

If you cannot, I suggest you contain your desire to interfer in medical decisions and subordinate your view to those who have some knowledge of the individual issue / case.

I wait with baited breath........
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 March 2005 4:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, here is the answer to your question (I thought I answered it before): the killing of a viable human being is not a private matter for the individual.

We are not talking about babies who have spina bifida or other severe abnormalities. That is a totally different debate. It doesn’t matter if late-term abortion is the minority. It happens and must be addressed.

In relation to abortion in South Australia:
“There were 377 late-term (post-20 weeks) abortions performed in South Australia from 1998 to 2002. Of these 171 were for fetal abnormalities, 10 for a medical problem with the mother and 196 (52%) on "mental health"grounds. The "mental health" ground, provided for in South Australia’s abortion law which dates from 1969, is generally accepted to cover any psychosocial reason that is to allow effectively for abortion on request.”
The link to the above quote is http://www.ksca.org.au/Action%20on%20Abortion.htm
So as you can see most late-term abortions (in South Australia at least) are performed for “mental health” reasons.

The murder of a baby is not a private decision any more than the murder of a born baby is. A delivered baby places much more restriction on the mother than a baby in-utero, yet I don’t hear cries for mothers having the right to kill their 3 month old babies, (Philosopher Peter Singer excepted). 3 month old babies are just as dependant on their mothers as a 7 month old fetus, so let’s hear your support for the disposal of them as well.
You don’t need any special insight Col to believe that the killing of a viable fetus is wrong. By the way, my opinion in this matter is just as valid as yours. The only difference Col is that the women who’s right it is to have an abortion can stick up for themselves, they don’t really need sycophantic males to ride in on a white charger and blather on in their defence. Near full-term babies however have no voice whatsoever.

You never answered my questions either Col, my turn to wait with prawn on tongue.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 21 March 2005 5:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di, No-one gets rich.

Example: a selfish teenager I once knew had five kids in five years to four fathers. She then received Family Benefits, Child Support from four dads, and Rental Assistance. Total: $1100pw. Child Support: noone said "squillions of dollars", but $100000s is accurate on an average wage.

The point (I say again): Abortion affects fathers too... why don't they have SOME legal input EITHER to the abortion, OR to the financial and emotional consequences of abortion?

Fiona, separated fathers "choosing" to care for their children is no option for many fathers in a Court System where the mother wins 70% of the time and Legal Aid gives 80% of Family Court funds to the mother. That's not choice. But that's not about abortion.

In the case of married fathers: If more women wanted men to stay at home, then more men would do so! But that's also not about abortion.

"Theft" of genetic materials refers to the case where a woman deliberately lies about contraceptives to conceive without the man's consent (and maybe Child Support later, certainly no rights for dad to see the child). It's a very specific case, but not all that uncommon. Allegorically, I recall five cases without thinking too hard.

Col, I'm also a separated father. I worked 12hrs, 7days for many years... using my body... and experiencing aches, back injury, burns, respiratory problems and circumstantial depression due to the long hours, heavy lifting and stress at work. I did it to provide for my wife and children. All power to you if you have a desk job. These injuries and depression will be with me for the rest of my life.

So I... voluntarily... put my health and body on the line for my kids, in the same way my ex put her body on the line... necessarily... in pregnancy and labour.

It is myopic to underscore the hours of pain and months of discomfort a woman selflessly experiences for her children yet dismiss and exclude the years of discomfort and pain that many dads selflessly experience... voluntarily... for their children.
Posted by Andyman, Monday, 21 March 2005 8:39:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
isabelberners, count me in on opposition to forced abortion. If you have spent time on the issue would you mind outlining your reasons please. I have some views which are not well put together and would be interested to see coverage of the topic.

Deuc, I would be heading way off topic to spend time on the 50/50 debate. I'll limit myself to a couple of points.
- The view you expressed is common, I have not seen research to support the view especially when put in context - is a child better or worse off in shared parenting which is not going well than in the prime care of someone who goes out of their way to make sure it does not work.
- It might work better if there was more support for it and less maternal bias in the courts (I think that is improving but a way to go yet).

Fiona, there are a lot of reasons why men don't choose to become the stay at home parent.
- A percentage of women who perceive themeselves as gatekeepers would never accept the idea.
- A percentage of men would never do it.
- For a variety of reasons (and not necessarily sexism) the man often has a higher income hence a greater impact on the families finances if he stops work.
- Workplace support for women taking time off to care for children is more common than for men.
- Men don't come equiped with mothers milk.
- Less social support for fathers caring for their children - try being a dad at a mothers group, getting a mother to bring a kid over to play with yours or invite you over to her place etc.
- Cultural perceptions. Stay at home dads are still the exception rather than the norm.
Hopefully over time a lot of these items will change (I don't know that it would be wise to fiddle with the mothers milk thing). As more men become the stay at home parent it will be easier for others to follow.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 21 March 2005 9:23:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Deuc, infanticide should be the new legal cut off point for women making reproductive choices (personhood attained in “7. at the formation of abstract thought”).

Col Rouge (is that redneck in French?) - Bozzie is absolutely right.

Andyman, fathers do seem to allow their bodies to be used in ways women would not. Perhaps it has something to do with that “choice” thing. Yes, even desk jobs can break dads.

R0bert, keep up the good work.

And finally, a question: If Abbott 'child' is another man's son - http://smh.com.au/news/National/Abbott-child-another-mans-son/2005/03/21/1111253947678.html, then how often do we think this happens, and how can we be more scientific about it, in future.

You may think this has nothing to do with a womans right to choose abortion – in my mind, it is core to the choice debate. Can men get any dumber?
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 21 March 2005 11:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, was this thread ever on topic? I don't think it makes sense to compare those two non-best case scenarios, since it ignores the probability of each. Of course, if bad shared parenting were shown to be better for the child than average single residency parenting, then it would be wrong to not make 50/50 the rule. But that's a fact I seriously doubt is true.

The question I think needs to be asked is whether the average (median) shared arrangement is better for the child than the average non-shared one, when it has been legally imposed as per the legal rule and when both parents wanted custody.

Voluntary shared parenting arrangements are clearly more likely to be successful than those imposed. Those imposed under the current system would also be more better because they only occur when the Judge believes it will work. Only where it is a rule can the full differences be seen, so it would be necessary to look overseas. The fact that the parents needed to resort to litigation (plus the effects of the process) would usually mean that cooperative, conflict-free shared parenting isn't possible. (For any number of reasons.)

One must also consider the side effects, eg. attempts to apply for full custody just to reduce child support, more legal battles over the other parent's responsibility and other disputes that arise. Every parenting question could become an issue of contention, rather than being in the hands of the parent whom the child resides with. (For better or worse).

Given social conditions, a natural disparity in favour of women is to be expected; not a bias though. I think such a disparity would not be unlike those Andyman claims. On the other hand, I think the law should provide greater initial flexibility for fathers who decide to give up work so that they can care for their children post-seperation.

Seeker, thankyou for that fascinating distortion of my statements that potential people have value and that most points are untestable and possibly out of order.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 5:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc good response :)
when it comes to Christian principles verses Sharia Law, there is an insurmountable gulf between them. Sharia would try to make an actual law for each circumstance and in the process become like the Jews with their 632 or thereabouts additions to the 10 commandments.

Jesus went the other way, he simply said the 'law' is fulfilled in 2 principles. Love God first, and love your neighbour as yourself.
If all other laws are at least based on the 2nd of these, u can't go far wrong. Its better to go with a principle than a whole set of (as you said ) 'rigid laws'. Jesus spoke in parables to give a lasting idea of what the kingdom of God is about. Parables had many aspects, but one central truth. They all pretty much just goto show those 2 major guidelines.

I'm not a believer in Theocracy apart from the individual level. I am a firm believer in the prophetic role of the real church to call humanity back from the brink of moral permisiveness, in humility and in recognition that we speak as sinners to sinners. I say the 'real' to differentiate it from some of the rather large and human like structures (both architectural and beurocratic) we see around us.

TOPIC so, when it comes to the topic, I would feel constrained to call people away from the virtual 'exposure' of babies thru abortion.
The practice of exposing female children is an indication that peoples concience can be so dulled by economic or social pressure, that precious little lives can be disposed of as inconvenient.
This had led in China to the rampant abduction of the scarcer fairer sex to be forced wives to far off bachelors.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 10:20:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isabelbirner “forcible abortion.” – is no different to “enforced pregnancy” – both represent the unwarranted intrusion upon the sovereignty of the individual.

Oh bozzie (maybe that should be Bosie – at least you would never have to worry about any issue of pregnancy if you followed dear Alfred Douglas’ predilections) – I asked what special insight you claim to possess which entitles you to interfere in the private decisions of strangers – so far all you have demonstrated is a presumption, without having met me or possessing any knowledge of how I interact with ladies that I am a “sycophant” to some feminist agenda – maybe you can give us a basis for such “judgement” along with whatever excuse you are prepared to spew up which does answer simple question which I asked.

Pro-Lifers seem to hear only the bilious expulsions of their own pitiful rant, against which the dissenting opinion of the competent people, quite capable of making decisions for themselves matters not. Your insulting attempt to drown out a voice of opposition adds nothing to the merit of your cause – quite the opposite.

Andy – this debate is not about you or your circumstances. The matter of “parental responsibility and rights” are an equally shared experience in every respect and if you are looking for someone to champion the equal rights of fathers in the family court you will find no one more disposed than I but such issues refer to the interaction and responsibilities to children only after they have been “born”.
Whilst a child is still developing within a woman’s body – comparing the father’s “role and risks” to the mother’s “role and risks” is farcical.
The last time I looked – "pregnancy" did not place any risk on the fathers body.

Seeker – after using the “CR” moniker for the past few years, please accept some credit - you are the first to crack it – now maybe I should change to “Collo Rosso”!
As for Bosie – his and your subjective opinion are not absolute – and no more valid than mine.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 10:51:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col says “Whilst a child is still developing within a woman’s body – comparing the father’s “role and risks” to the mother’s “role and risks” is farcical.”

Comparing a lifetime of risk that men undertake, to the nine months of pregnancy, is a little disingenuous (especially when it comes from our objective, all knowing, all seeing, Col).

This supposedly greater risk in pregnancy and childbirth probably also explains the differences in life expectancy between men and women. The risk averse males do not compete to mate, to protect and provide for their family, to build and protect their community and country. No, women of course do all that from their hospital beds with an epidural in their backs, and their fingernails in their perpetrators’ arms.

Or is it perhaps all due to the natural, risk taking of reckless redneck males competing in the annual Darwin Awards?
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 11:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz baby, 'carved me up?' In your dreams. For someone who has their head buried in a bible you sure have trouble with a metaphor - 'women hold up half the sky'. You're the one who see this as a competition. My view is that men and women (and couples in general) are halves of a partnership based on friendship and respect. However, any chance you get, B D, you just love to have a go at me. But that's OK I love the sport.

The irony here is that overall we agree that the metrosexual is a media construct.

Ciao
Posted by Ringtail, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 7:35:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh is my furry lil face red - previous post wrong forum. Ooops, laugh on me I guess. Still I expect that Boaz has enuff intelligence to figure the above post was meant for 'men in mascara'. Too early in the A.M.

:-))
Posted by Ringtail, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 7:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc, thanks for your comments. A bit more nitpicking/looking at the other side. Sorry to all for getting so far off topic with this but there is a relevance based on the way the discussion has flowed.

The topic of child support comes into the abortion debate due to the current massive impact on fathers in not having any choice post sex about assumption of the responsibilities (compared to the opportunity for women to have abortions or give children up for adoption).

- We need more studies into shared parenting (including failure points).
- It only takes one parent to create a litigation situation if their demands are really unreasonable. One parent can bust their boiler to make shared work and that has little meaning in terms of keeping things out of the courts if the other is determined not to shared parent. All they have to do is move far enough away to make it a no go for the courts and you have a problem.
- Your comment "attempts to apply for full custody just to reduce child support" might be better stated as "attempts to apply for full custody to improve the overall welfare package". The financial gains for a low income payee (FTB, pension etc, child support, rent assistance) are much greater than the reduction in child support to a payer generally. The way the formula is structured someone who works may have to pay child support to the other parent even if they have the child/children most of the time.
- Many of the big issues are big issues regardless of the living arrangements. The concept of shared responsibility means both parents should have a say in significant decisions about the childs life regardless of who the child primarily resides with. Sometimes they are the sticking points, not the day to day items.
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 9:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker – the “risks” life present, in a healthy relationship, are experiences to be shared between the parents, not endured hopelessly by the man alone.
If you existence is thus then all I can say is your “life experience” must be a shallow and pathetic thing, when compared to mine.

Simply put, I believe men and women are Equal and to be treated so except, when I look at a “pregnant mother” and I look at the “pregnant father”, only one of them seems to possess a uterus and only one will experience the “risks” of pregnancy.
Thus during a pregnancy, of the couple, the woman has a significantly different level of “involvement” than the man.
The rest of the relationship, bringing up babies and families is a responsibility shared.
Of course you might be the “type” (you know the ones high on inferiority complex and low in real character) who feels entitled to impose their physical presence and “paternal authority” to be first to use the bath water.

As for you describing me as being “all-seeing and all-knowing”, I guess what you thought of as “sarcasm”, when consider with what I have written above, actually reads true and reflects a parody of our relative states of emotional, social and intellectual development.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 11:10:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps all can be simplified into an equation:-

Mother + Fathers + Children...[Femisism]...= Abortion + Family Law

In this case Feminism acts as a type of catalyst in the reaction.
Minimal research has been undertaken into abortion or unwanted pregnancy.
The laws relating to abortion are superficial in that they are based on almost no research.
Recent research into the affects of Family Law now shows it has devastating consequences on family.
The child has a grim future in nearly all circumstances.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 2:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Col, I didn’t expect an answer because there is no way your silly “rights of the individual rule over all” philosophy can be reconciled with the absolute trampling of the rights of viable, unborn children. I’ll answer your question again for the third time. The decision to murder an unborn child is not a private matter or an individual choice! Just follow your warped logic through to its logical conclusion.

In relation to your charge of pro-lifers spewing bile to silence opposition – I thought pro-lifers were the opposition! Doesn't our enlightened society decree it's OK to have late term abortions?

Col, you might have a right to your point of view, but that doesn’t mean your points are anything other than cold and shallow. In as far as you being a sycophant – anyone who runs around saying that a seven month old fetus has no right to live if it inconveniences the mother, and that fathers have absolutely no right to an opinion about whether their child lives or dies, that sounds pretty sycophantic to feminism to me. Nothing wrong with being a feminist Col, just don’t make any claims to being a humanist.

Now Red, your turn. Don’t dance around the subject any further, no spruiking off on different tangents, no changing the subject, no turning the question back onto me, no more ducking and weaving. Would you have supported your wife if she had come to you and said she was going to abort your 7 month old unborn child? And can you confirm that a seven month old unborn child has absolutely no right to life if the mother so decrees?
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 4:40:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, a redneck with intellect ... tinged with oxymoron, devoid of a sense for irony, who pays inordinate amount of attention to his own arguments (and learns from them) … but always, ALWAYS ready to pounce on those of lesser intellect, including 7 month old foeti.

The paradox that is your “life experience” Col, may well require your women to make YOUR choices. For the rest of us - well frankly, we are not blinded by your intellectual brilliance, and may have valid opinions of our own. This is not just about you Col. OK?

Now if you could just admit you suffer from a yet to be diagnosed psychological condition of uterus awe (forgive my ignorance if your condition is already in DSM-IV), we can all focus on more worthwhile endeavours, like maybe saving a few foeti that don’t really have to die.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 10:59:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie – a woman’s body, an embryo/fetus might use it to develop in but only one entity can be paramount and that should always be the permanent resident, never the one who is simply “passing through”. To give an embryo / fetus a priority of right above that of the mother, debases the mother to second place and as second place, she is a slave to the embryo / fetus. You might be happy with that as a standard but I am not and will never be.

As for "sycophant". I would rather be called “sycophant” than a “self appointed zealot and control freak demanding to interfere in the private decisions of strangers”. I will always be pro-individual choice because, without choice, life is debased to mere existence.

Seeker - I can see my last comment hit a nerve.
If you stop making your posts about me I will stop responding in same. Keep up the sarcasm and I will be happy to shred whatever you say.

Oh “uterus awe” too feeble.
I personally see people as “equal individuals”, male, female, black, white, Christian or atheist, to me it does not matter, the “common element” is their “individuality and uniqueness”. I will always defend my opinion and the right of all individuals to exercise sovereignty over their own body.

Regarding yourself and “uterus awe”. It sounds like the opposite of “misogynist” and since we seem to hold opposing views I suggest I have found the name for you.

Misogynist – “a misanthrope who dislikes women in particular”

It does fit with what I said earlier, about you seeming to be high on inferiority complex and low in character, typical misogynistic deficiencies, hate what you cannot control, maybe “misanthrope” would be more appropriate.

Oh and the “redneck” just remember it is my original little joke. You are now overplaying your hand to keep mentioning it but you probably have so few successes in life, you cannot help wallowing in the little ones when they do so rarely happen.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 March 2005 7:53:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

You must be drawing these conclusions about me from your own posts – they are only convincing to you.

I have been arguing for fathers to have equal choice not only on reproductive choices like abortion, but on wider family issues, particularly those after divorce. I believe in equality, but am disappointed by the seemingly wide gaps in what people say they believe in, and practical implementations of these concepts in our society.

Now get over it. I am comfortable with who I am. For your benefit Col, misanthrope is a more apt label for people promoting abortion in narrow-minded ways such as yourself. You are no defender of women, or anyone else for that matter.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 24 March 2005 9:11:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

It is indeed true, the greatest enemies of men are other men.

You are living proof.

Have you looked up Dr Farrell's books yet?

There is little point in asking you anything more, since you ignore the "bigger picture", which evidently demolishes your argument; an argument which seems to repeat the same thing over and over, with little grounding in anything other than your own opinion.

In the abortion issue, the surrounding interested persons (including the mother) are also affected by abortion decisions, whether pro or non, and they are affected for many years or decades.

Abortion is not just about pregnancy, it is also about the short- and long-term consequences: for the mother, the father, the child and the community. Giving one interested party the sole, unassailable legal right to determine whether or not abortion should take place, to the detriment of all others, and in all circumstances, is appalling.

Col, have you ever asked how many women did get abortions, and then so deeply regretted it that they required psychiatric counselling?

Have you ever asked how many men have deeply despised the fact that they were trapped into the consequences of having a child by the simple act of a woman lying about contraception, or the fact that their partner unilaterally decided to abort the child?

Have you ever asked about the women who were, tragically, abused... even killed... by their partners, because the partner was so disenfranchised from the decision to have or abort the baby, or the repercussions thereof?

No, Col, I doubt that you have, because you will "always" remain of the same opinion, which is sad because it indicates that you will never learn anything new.

Do you want to protect women? Then protect men. And make women responsible for the consequences of their actions. Anything else contributes, ultimately and inevitably, to discrimination against women.
Posted by Andyman, Friday, 25 March 2005 8:58:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andyman, only the mother can be trusted with the choice to abort, some men are just not capable. You are living proof. And I don't mean that as an attack.

Since the bulk of the consequences affect the mother she certainly *should* have the right to make the choice, to the relatively minor detriment of anyone else. Choosing to abort is taking responsibility, choosing not to abort is taking responsibility. Blaming the victim is not taking responsibility. Taking away women's rights to appease some psychotic men is not taking responsibility, it's an irrational and deplorable non-solution. Don't try telling me you aren't blaming women this time, it's obvious to any reasonable person.

"[T]he greatest enemies of men are other men." Where to start?
Col, might I suggest leaving this thread to die? Not much point sticking around for ad hominems, misrepresentations and reiterating arguments.

BOAZ_David, you are quite right that there are huge differences and that there are many rules in Sharia (IIRC interest payments are illegal for many Muslims) and that's the point -- when you have a truly absolute reference you must base everything on it and there is no way to change the "precedent". I still think that the Xian concept is less absolute because different people can apply the principles in different ways. Where extremist/fundamentalist Xianity does exist the interpretations seem to be held as absolute truth, including the anti-abortion view.

R0bert, again I agree mostly, but I do think you missed my point re: side effects. As you rightly said many would seek custody for the benefit of the child, but they already do so, and my point was that there would be more applying for custody who don't actually care about the child. Big issues are certainly of larger concern and are dealt with by the courts, but with shared parenting the day-to-day issues are of increased concern/dispute.
Posted by Deuc, Friday, 25 March 2005 11:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deuc says “Choosing to abort is taking responsibility, choosing not to abort is taking responsibility. Blaming the victim is not taking responsibility. Taking away women's rights to appease some psychotic men is not taking responsibility, it's an irrational and deplorable non-solution”.

Unconditional abortion, no-fault divorce, child residency and property settlement laws do not exactly show women to be responsible or accountable. If we also examine the outcomes in single parent families headed by mothers, responsibility does not come to the forefront of such families’ attributes.

“Psychotic men” should never be “appeased”, but according to Deuc, there are either no such women, or if there are, appeasement is the only “rational” option.

How does Deuc and her co-hort, justify men being held responsible for things they have no choice over. Yes, both men and women have an equal choice on contraception and sex. Men have no further choices. How does this group reconcile their stand with recent events relating to Kathy Donnelly and Tony Abbott?

We need more research (and debate) on this type of reproductive behaviour (and others, such as abortion) – my subjective opinion is that this is not an isolated incident, but that it occurs in significant numbers. If we must only make fathers accountable, then let’s do it in more rational ways. Let’s have paternity testing at each birth, and let’s note on each birth certificate whether “father” means biological. Let’s also give some leeway to men who do not wish to become fathers. I’m not talking about enforced abortions here – let the mother make her choice in accordance with her current freedoms. Let’s just not be irrational about forcing men into fatherhood, just as we do not enforce motherhood.
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 26 March 2005 8:11:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Psychotic": what Deuc thinks of men is irrelevant. My argument isn't.

Deuc's "Some men are just not capable": by logical implication "some men are capable". Should capable men be given some input? Not "domination", "total control", "taking away women's rights" as variously misquoted to bolster weak arguments... just INPUT?

Not even into the actual abortion, _IF_ the man has options regarding consequences! He currently has no legal choices.

Are some WOMEN "just not capable" of deciding about abortion?

My concern remains: the specific case of a deceptive mother generating financial or emotional penalties against the father.

"The bulk of the consequences affect the mother": by her choice. Very significant consequences exist for others: they have a legitimate right to be heard, even if they were silly enough to have sex with a woman.

Deuc's argument, only bulk consequences should be considered, suggests that we shouldn't support minorities because the community at large suffers the bulk of societal problems.

Double standard: women have their choices, men take their chances.

An even-minded person will see I do not blame "women"... just some women (and some men). The genders are to blame in probably equal numbers; and usually BOTH parties are to blame to some extent.

The issue is the different reaction when a woman vs. a man is to blame. I've merely focussed on circumstances where women have behaved badly. It is especially these cases that are neglected and need examination.

This doesn't imply that I discount women in difficulty, it merely reflects the350wordlimit.

"Blame the victim"? Deuc apparently means the woman. Why does Deuc think the woman is a victim when she can choose one or the other path? Does this attitude (female victimhood) denigrate women in the same way that patriarchal societies have in the past?

Does equality of women mean they must abandon their "victim" status?

Victims have no choice. By this definition, is it sometimes the father who is the real victim?
Posted by Andyman, Saturday, 26 March 2005 4:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isabellberners,
“Increasingly fathers’ rights are a topic in courts in regard to a reluctance to become fathers, manifested in often deadly assault on women and their unborn children”

Now judging by the number of court cases regards this, then these types of assaults must be extremely rare, considering the approx 250,000 children born each year.

However your statement can of course be looked at in another way, which occurs up to 100,000 times per year in Australia alone (ie called abortion):-

“Increasingly mothers’ rights are a topic in courts in regard to a reluctance to become mothers, manifested in often deadly assault by women on their unborn children.”

So if the mother has reluctance to be a mother, she simply has an abortion, and some believe that right paramount, although the father could assume full custody of the child if it was born, and the mother may never need see the child again. I say could, but the courts have never granted it.

Also
“a common ground between pro-choice and anti-abortion positions, and this is one area: a shared opposition to forcible abortion. That's my hope anyway!”

Is this really? I can’t see you mentioning this in the article.

But how much forcible abortion actually takes place, and if it does take place, who is forcing whom? I would think no one knows, as so little research has been undertaen into abortion, and the only way that research can be undertaken reliably, is for the mother and the father to be both involved.

But iwbhmb waiting for the mother and the father to be included in that research, if Social Science research into fathers is anything like it has been in the past.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 26 March 2005 5:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's very interesting, coming back into this debate after a week of chocolate. Col, regardless of what the others are saying, it's not uterus awe, it's just plain speaking. You are the only one making any real sense whilst the others bang on about aborted toddlers, murderers and single millionaire mums and blah blah blah. You got to the nub of the matter about it and the other can choose not to pick up on it. I think Col Rouge is French for "tres, tres succint". Let's meet on the euthanasia page! And I don't want to find out Timkin's real identity. The nightmare could be that I may know him!
Posted by Di, Monday, 28 March 2005 5:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is remarkable how people tiptoe around the Kathy Donnelly debacle. One night’s protected sex with Bill, against Vatican Roulette with “the love of her life”, Tony.

Ladies, this is where abortion holds a distinctive advantage over relinquishment – you will be answerable to no one - ever. You can tell your own story in which you are the heroine-victim, and can rest assured that your integrity and that of motherhood will remain safely intact. No chance of ever being found out, neither any of subsequent infanticide. You will not be burdened with thoughts about how this child is doing from day to day, no worries about someone turning up at your doorstep at 27, 37 or 47. No need to involve Bill.

The father not having a choice to raise the child on his own will ensure that you retain that higher moral ground. You can legally force the abortion onto him and the child and you can still call him a bastard. Your life-style and/or career will not be disturbed. You will not have to pay child-support (although that is no different to relinquishing).

Case closed. Abortion wins.

As for other valid reasons for abortion, perhaps another time.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 28 March 2005 9:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker,
I am in agreement with this. Abortion has little to do with the “best interests of the child”, as the child is killed. If born the child could be handed over to the father for full custody, or adopted out (and there is a huge waiting list of childless couples).

It is all about the woman. The woman wants the child killed so that it is out of her life as much as possible, so she can avoid responsibility (NB. most women who have abortions are not teenage women) It is about giving a woman “choice” of “responsibility”. If she wants no responsibility, then she can kill the child and no questions are asked.

Of course the father has no such choice of responsibility.

It is also noticeable how the strongest supporters of abortion on demand “for the woman”, also make the most maligning comments about others, but refuse to substantiate those comments. Again avoidance of responsibility.

It is also noticeable how the strongest supporters of abortion on demand “for the woman”, also refuse to answer questions that are asked of them. Again avoidance of responsibility.

It is also noticeable how the strongest supporters of abortion on demand “for the woman”, also seem to want no more information to be gathered regards abortion, or no more research undertaken, or only limited research undertaken. Again avoidance of responsibility.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 9:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are we not so over this one! The last comments by Timkins and Andyman just say it all. In the fifties, if we got preggers it was tough cookies if we were stuck with a baby. If we had a shotgun marriage we had "trapped him". No win. Most of the time (seeings how we are now a collective damnation of What Women Do When They Find out They Are Pregnant?!) you guys just took off or didn't pay. Now women have the (and getting to the CRUX of the issue,) safe and legal right to an abortion and you guys are all bitching about child care, access and maintenance. Which, by the by, has nothing to do with abortion. The flavour seems to be that you just can't stand the fact that women now have the call over a very important issue after millenium of having no choice or control. The very thing you guys are bitching about. Choice and control. To do that on this issue, you will need a uterus.
Posted by Di, Sunday, 3 April 2005 7:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy