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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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........