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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.