"-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!

“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).

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.

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.

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.

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.