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

>>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?

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.

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).

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.

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