Helen Pringle is right that the abortion debate won't result in any change. That's because a parliamentary enquiry into the prevalence and scope of abortion is required, as well as a review of abortion legislation in the states. Neither current Liberal or Labor MP's will do this. Howard has a great opportunity for an inquiry and a review of legislation, but chooses not to pursue it. Besides, he's funded abortion for nearly 10 years now, so why would he change? State Labor governments generally do not see a "moral problem" with abortion, therefore would not initiate any such review.

Helen Pringle, however, seems to be as blind as most people as to what is 'driving the abortion debate.' As a woman who's had an abortion, and now strongly advocates against it publically and politically, I know that this debate is driven because abortion is morally wrong. The scale of it in Australia is detrimental, and the effects of this scale on women is spiritually, emotionally, and socially damaging. 'God in heaven' is driving this debate. I am talking from experience.

Sam Said,

Quit the emotive claptrap - or alternatively - try imagining the screams of a woman forced to self abort with a knitting needle.

Ta.

Ringtail,
“Timkins - I have never called you names - check all my posts. I have criticised your perceptions”.

Ringtail, said
“Timithy. You poor old sod” , “I doubt very much you have even met a woman let alone fathered one”, etc, etc

Possum, if my child is imagination only, then I have spent much of the weekend driving imagination from one event to another.

There has been some research into reasons for abortion in this country. The article at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm describes these results.

General results to date for reasons for high rate of abortion:-
1. Slow rate of usage of more reliable modern forms of contraception (almost 100% reliability now)
2. Differences between ethnic groups regards use of abortion.

This second reason been found in research elsewhere also http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/abortions-Sep01.htm)

It is known that these things are occurring, but the reasons “why” they are occurring is not accurately known, so more research is necessary. Until that research occurs, it is likely that the abortion rate will stay as high.

So the reasons for abortion in the country have very little to do with violinists, or male politicians from the 1970’s, or men denying women their rights to have an abortion etc,etc,etc. as this author seems to state in her articles. One can only assume that these articles are simply attempts to malign males, create myth, brainwash people, create fear mongering, distort and confuse, and politicise the issues.

Is this the essence of feminist literature? (see “Lying in A Room of One's Own:- How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students” http://www.educationreview.homestead.com/2002WomensStudies.html)

But there is evidence that women can grieve for the lost baby after an abortion, and the father can grieve too. So because abortion can affect the father, the fathers should be included in research into abortion also. Failure to do this would result in gender-biased research, (but feminism would not use biased or distorted research and statistics would it?...hush)

Brazuca – interestingly enough Nazi Germany made it illegal for "Aryan" women to abort – under penalty of death – maybe you support the right of the state to force a pregnancy to continue against the will of the pregnant – but I do not – I support the choice of every person to pursue their own destiny – regardless of how that upsets the sensitivities of Fascist and ProLifers alike.

Ronvanwegen – I am not interested in the teachings of any organisation which follows the Papal dictatorial edicts, continues to ban the use of contraception and to this day maintains an office of the inquisition. Somehow I get the impression Papists have more blood on their hands than Hitler’s Fascists.

Even when Pro-Lifers are prepared to accept responsibility for imposing their decisions regarding pregnancy and abortion by giving UNLIMITED and TOTAL emotional, material and financial support to all pregnant women who wish to abort – then they will still not have the right to interfere in what is and always will be an individuals decision.

Quick note does anyone else who is posting here realise why the laws were enacted in the mid-nineteenth century? – it was to protect the women from the exploitation of charlatan abortionists and had nothing to do with protecting the embryo / fetus.

Oh – I edited out my response to ringtail – you “provocateur” - how refreshing – rt – If I wore one, I would take my hat off to you. You had me I must admit (ROFLMAO)

Hmmm, I would have expected a much more personal response. This is dinner party debate without any of the contributors interested in cooking the risotto. So much blah de blah about whether jews, nazis or knitting needles have anything to do with abortion. Peripheral issues that can lead the debate away from the core. (or would we rather go non core?) The fact is, women HAVE always have abortions, and in any society, will need to have them, regardless of how utopian that society may be. Abortion subsidies may not (on a medicare card) be up there with the way I think dental care should be (after all, both males and females have at least teeth in common). Morally, regardless of whether you think western society is going to hell in a handbasket, I think I have the right of the option of a safe, clinical abortion than doing the knitting needles/gin in a bathtub job in a back alley because some people in parliament said it was illegal and immoral. You may say that it's immoral that I can make that choice? Well, we can go immoral about church, religion and politics till the cows come home. At the end of the day, it's about a woman and her choice and bugger the rest of what you think. She'll do it whether it's a knitting needle, a gin and tonic bath, or whether her boyfriend/lover/husband knows about it or not. That's the way the world is baby!
Di

Di,
You seem very concerned that a woman should have an abortion and be damned what anyone else thinks, but I get the slightest sense that you think abortion should be used by a woman as a kind of tool to show how powerfull she is (a bit like chest pounding, or growling in a low voice by a male), and the actual abortion is somewhat secondary.

So why do you think modern forms of contraception are not being used by women as much as they could be in Australia.

In some countries, the use of these forms of contraception has reduced abortion by 1/2. Do you think this good or bad.