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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.