Since when should decisions about family planning by a woman be the subject of "public opinion" expressed through the institutions of church, academia and government? Are we now supposed to undertake a public opinion survey before deciding on the size and timing of our families?

Family planning is about private choice, Ms Woolf. How is it that the "freedom" we're supposed to be investing in all over the world (hence we start wars in its name, right?!) - is essential for everyone else..... so long as you're not a woman or family who just want to manage our own lives, without interference from people who insist on inserting themselves into others' lives.

Secondly, the idea that a person who respects that right of choice axiomatically opposes the provision of more support for women who have children, is preposterous in any case. That kind of thinking is pitifully naive and plainly untrue. If you really are concerned about supporting women with children, join with the organisations that are defending the protections currently provided in law for parents in the workforce, that the Howard government is intending to pare down to bare minima.

When requested. When requested. Not even about requiring information on abortion be given out, just that when requested, a referral must me made.

I'd be suprised if there were any pro-abortion counselling agencies. Nobody wants high rates of abortion, but we can't magically put everyone in a position where they will want to give birth; try promoting responsible contraceptive use instead. Or does the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations oppose contraception too Kathy?

Do you really think that the Senator is doing this to increase profits for abortion clinics? I suppose that shows how much your position has control over your perceptions.

Kathy Woolf ends her article with the challenge to "think beyond the polarised public debate" while her article consistently characterises family planning and other pro-choice organisations as "pro-abortion" and implies some sinister agenda to prop up commercial abortion services, consistent with constant demonising of any person or organisation with a pro-choice approach from this side of the debate. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If we are to move beyond the polarised debate as she suggests, then recognition of the right to hold a pro-choice opinion has to be extended by those individuals and organisations who hold a right to life opinion. In my experience, pro-choice pregnancy counselling and support services are invariably focused on the wants, needs and interests of the women they support, and to suggest otherwise is an unhelpful, inflammatory diversion from the issue of reducing the need for abortions in the first place.

Oh, good, let's have public opinion guide everything. We can have the death penalty. How pro-life is that? We can have castration of rapists and paedophiles, no doubt leading to an increased murder rate to prevent witness identification. How pro-life is that? And please, when quoting "research" from the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, wouldn't it be fair to mention that SCBI is a Catholic Church institute? You can always find exactly what you intend to find - you just have to ask the question in the right way.

Timbo, to describe oneself as 'prochoice' is either meaningless at best or crazy at worst. To say you are 'prochoice' literally means that you are in favour of people having the freedom to choose. That's all very well, but does it mean that we should be free to choose about absolutely anything?

Would you accept the rapist saying that his actions should be excused because he was 'prochoice' and that he had simply made the choice to rape someone? I don't expect so.

When you think about it, none of us accepts that freedom of choice is something that can be accepted without any qualification. So merely to say that one is 'prochoice' is stupid.

Pro-abortionists try to hide behind the seemingly positive term 'prochoice' but it is just a cheap trick. If you are infavour of allowing abortion, have the guts to come out and say you are pro-abortion (just like people who are in favour of allowing the death-penalty are rightly called 'pro-death penalty').

For 1500 years, until 30 years ago, abortion was officially regarded by doctors -- and society -- as a heinous crime ; hence the Hippocratic Oath never to do an abortion or enable a woman to get an abortion. I guess we in the prolife movement have taken up the Hippocratic Oath which has been abandoned by so many in the medical profession who have swallowed the fashionable lie that somehow killing is not killing, wrong is right, evil is good, unborn babies are not really unborn babies but something else entirely (just what has never been defined).
All we need do is look at history and see that slavery was once fashionable, as was killing Jews, homosexuals and Christians in the Holocaust. Now it's the turn of unborn children ...
I cannot call you "pro-choice" because I have no concrete evidence that this means what is says. The hundreds of shattered post-aborted women I have tried to help (they got no help from anyone who helped them abort) all say they were conned by the abortion industry - told abortion would have no bad effects or not warned of how bad they would feel or of the myriad physical risks which can ruin a woman's health.
It would be amusing if it was not so tragic that the likes of Stott-Despoja are so fiercely determined to snuff out any attempts to offer pregnant women in crisis any choice whatsoever that does not involve killing their unborn children.

From what I understand of Senator Stott-Despoja's suggestions, they basically ensure that women know what service they will be going to. I would be deeply frustrated to not have all my options put to me, simply because during a stressful time like an unplanned for pregnancy, I did not realise I was going to a Catholic based pregnancy counselling service rather than to a secular group.

Further, people are always thowing stats around like "75% of women who attended this pregnacy counselling service then aborted". Of course they did. If they were happy and excited and wanting their pregnancy they would be out buying booties and looking up baby names.

Reducing abortion would be a good thing, because it would never be an easy choice. But this should be done through reducing unwanted pregnancies through better contraception, not through restricting abortion.

It is difficult to reconcile reading some of these comments with a fair reading of Kathy Woolf’s article. Her argument is basically that the general public – including women with unintended pregnancies – would prefer fewer abortions.

It doesn’t say abortions should be banned. It doesn’t call for more restrictions on abortion, though I imagine she would want them. What it does call for is very positive and compassionate changes to ensure women don’t have abortions they don’t really want. If we can increase support for women who would otherwise feel forced by circumstances to have an abortion, surely that is a good thing.

There are a number of agencies that support women in having their children. They’re not dishonest. If asked for an abortion referral they will say they can’t offer that, but can offer alternatives. For Senator Stott-Despoja to try to censor them from the White Pages for offering a service she disagrees with shows an intolerant, narrow-minded streak.

Contrast Kathy’s positive call for reform to the conservative position of Reproductive Choice Australia. When I had a look at their web page it called on people to “Express your opposition to any change to current arrangements regarding termination in Australia”. Not seeing there is room for reform, for doing things better and that it is better for everyone to have less rather than more abortions seems a little myopic.

Abortion, abortion, abortion. That is all I ever heard about when I was faced with pregnancy at 15. My family pushed abortion, my friends pushed abortion and then when I was taken to the supposedly "unbiased" 'family planning organisation,' they pushed abortion. The counselor actually argued with me!! Yes, I even got the famous 'it's just a blob of tissue' line along with an unecessary internal examination from a doctor who hardly spoke a word to me.
I welcome any organisation that does not have a financial interest in abortion and offers abortion alternatives and support for pregnant women and their families. Looking back, I would have loved to have spoken to someone who was prepared to listen to me, (rather than argue) and I'm sure my parents would have appreciated some support and guidance as well as information about services offered to women (or girls) who would like to continue their pregnancy.
The suggestion that pro-life organisations are 'biased' and abortion clinics 'unbiased' is completely ludicrous and illogical to the extreme.

I see a bunch of single issue posters just arrived, I wonder where from.

GP, "does it mean that we should be free to choose about absolutely anything?" This is asinine, do pro-life people support restricting our ability to kill plants? It's the name of the movement, and everyone knows it's about abortion.

"If you are infavour of allowing abortion, have the guts to come out and say you are pro-abortion" Umm no, because they're not encouraging abortion or in favour of abortion so much as allowing people to have them if they want. Just because a woman is pro-choice doesn't exclude her from deciding that she will never have an abortion if she gets pregnant.

Maryse Usher, "unborn babies are not really unborn babies but something else entirely (just what has never been defined)." You've never really sought out pro-choice arguments have you? But you know in your heart abortion is wrong, yes? Unless there is more than the article is telling us, the Senator hasn't tried to prevent attempts to offer alternatives.

Magella, if that is the main reason then why is it that she starts and finishes with an attack against Stott Despoja? What is the connection? The senator presumably would like fewer abortions, and would be against a women aborting if they didn't want to. We don't need a bunch of research by social conservatives to know that people want less abortions, proper education of risks & alternatives and more support.

"They're not dishonest. If asked for an abortion referral they will say they can't offer that,"
But they could, so they're lying, how is that not dishonest? If they falsely portray themselves as being disinterested groups then they are being dishonest.

What is gained through not providing a referral? Pro-life counsellors won't feel complicit in the abortion, and the already stressed woman has another hurdle put in her path. If counsellors say upfront (eg. in the white pages) that they can't provide a referral then I see no reason to force them.

Use of the term "pro-choice" is not a hiding gambit, GP. It's simply a way of naming the premise on which I, and I daresay many many others stand on this issue. I'm happy to admit that perhaps "pro-women's choices" would state my position with even more particularity - lest anyone mistake me for a pro-rapist supporter..... (cute sophistry, GP, but let's not be silly, OK!)

And since the naming of things seems to be what's important to you, GP, how come you're not insisting the so-called Right-to-Life re-badge itself more accurately as "ANTI-choice". Unlike pro-choice clinics and counsellors, RTL explicitly demands that there be LESS options for women. It's a case of carry-to-term and keep or adopt out - or nothing - as far as that noisy little group is concerned.

A bit of truth-in-advertising would be a useful and ethical starting point in all of this, and I reckon that probably just about exactly what the senator had in mind.

As a young woman I had an abortion, never regretted it for a minute. The pro-choice organisation I went to questioned me very carefully about my decision and gave me all sorts of other alternatives, but I knew exactly what my choice was. Having been taken off the pill by my GP for health reasons and using (as advised) spermicide and condoms, one (yes, one) condom tore and I became pregnant. I felt outraged, as if it had happened to my body and not to me. I hadn't been irresponsible, but there was no way I could even contemplate becoming a mother at that time in my life, not for financial or lack of support reasons, I had enough money and plenty of support. I was simply emotionally and psychologically unable to accept the idea.
Many years later I had two much loved, much wanted (and now teenage) children. Of course I do not regret my decision all those years ago. How could I? If I'd had that child I never would have had the children I now have. I have also had a miscarriage at one point and wept bitter tears over the loss, but over the abortion? No, I wept bitter tears then about being pregnant, all I felt when I woke from the aneasthetic, no longer pregnant, was relief.
Pro lifers may want us to believe most women who have abortions are coerced into them, but my experience plus that of all the women I know who have had them, is the opposite. No-one wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it is a less horrifying alternative for the woman involved, than the unwanted pregnancy.
You can judge me, if you like, but I am not pulling my punches. This is my plain unvarnished truth. You may wish that I and women like me were always happy to find ourselves pregnant, but we're not and never will be.

Melinda, Melinda, Melinda.

Senator Stott Despoja's Bill would in fact have made it easier for you to decide which counsellor to go to. It would mean that if you are offended by abortion, you would know which places would not raise it as an option. And if you are considering abortion, you would know which places would not make you feel in any way ashamed for making that choice. How exactly is this not a good thing?

And frankly, I don't want laws that assume that women cannot cope with the pressure of information, and so must have some options hidden from them lest it make them uncomfortable. I refuse to have my options limited because you have are weak-willed.

Why do we keep hearing about young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and are faced with public opinion that is always fiercly pro-abortion. Yet, we are also supposed to believe that public opinion is anti-abortion. Which is it?

And lastly, if I claimed that the "pro-life industry" was actively promoting unwanted pregnancies in order to increase their profits (Pregnancy = repeat business, and a much healthier bottom line) I would be considered highly offensive. So why is it OK for you to make such appalling claims about abortion providers

“Stott Despoja’s bill is an attack on the counselling groups that offer support to women throughout their pregnancy, but don’t refer for abortion. Will her bill call on pro-abortion counselling agencies to declare their bias?”

If this is true, then Senator Stott Despoja is showing hypocrisy, and her attitudes must be that abortion should always be the first choice. However this would be within feminist philosophies that encourage abortion, as an act of female empowerment.

The abortion industry would not attempt to discourage abortion, as there is so much money to be made from it, and there are quite a few abortion clinics that do not require a referral from a doctor, or carry out any counselling either before or after the abortion, (and from a viewpoint of making money, why should they). I have heard of no surveys being carried out by the abortion industry into whether or not people want options other than abortion.

I am somewhat sceptical when government or other organisations refer to abortion as a type of “family planning” when most abortions are carried out on unmarried or single women. The government knows that abortion is much cheaper than the cost of supporting a single parent family, but the costs of abortion must be having a significant impact upon the costs of Medicare as well (as abortion is one of the most commonly carried out surgical procedures).

As an act of bureaucratic incompetence, the government has not had any real programs to encourage the use of more reliable forms of contraception, (such as Implanon), when so many Australians still rely on the condom, which is one of the least reliable forms of contraception.

So there is a mixture of hypocrisy, feminist philosophy, abortion as a money making enterprise, and bureaucratic incompetence.

Add all that together, and no wonder 2 out of 5 pregnancies are being aborted.

We must remember that abortion is an industry, with profit motives and bottom line considerations. Can you imagine McDonald's opening a so called 'food information line', where they continually refer callers to one of their restaurants. I consider that to be a reservation line, not an 'information source'.

Most 'family planning hotlines' are just that, specialist booking agents for abortuaries. In any other business we'd call a spade a spade when there is a conflict of interest. But abortion is different, where feminists intimidate any counterpoint contibuters. Pro aborts have a sense of irony calling themselves 'pro choice', because the only choice and information they ever support is one leading to abortion. Once again remember the profit motive.

Natasha Stott Despoja's desperate attempts to dismantle support services offering alternatives for abortion is reprehensible. All these groups want to do is help women in a dark moment. Their altruistic aim is to prevent women from making the ultimate mistake in turning against their own child, seen as a threat, and removing them in a moment of profound tragedy.

Timkins, re Implanon, there are many reasons not to go down that path. I was recently encouraged to go with Implanon, but it is not all roses. 1 out of five women have no periods on it (how can you be sure you're not pregnant? tests every month do not sound fun), one out of five women have almost constant heavy periods (no thanks!), although three out of five have no trouble, and have a fairly regular cycle.

I'm all for better contraception, but methods where you have a 40% chance of unpleasant outcomes does not sound like a viable alternative to me! :)

A number of posters have suggested that public opinion has nothing to do with abortion and family planning. This is incorrect on a number of points:
1. Abortions are tax payer funded. Counselling agencies are tax payer funded. Therefore, the tax payer has every right to scrutinise where/how their money is being spent.
2. Abortions result in major health and psychological problems for women which makes it a public health issue. See:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/
3. Australia's is facing a demographic/population crisis. We are aging and we need more births to create a sustainable society. Societies that causally slaughter their unborn are committing suicide.
4. The argument from privacy implies that not only should the public keep out of abortion and counselling matters, but also that the government should keep their nose out as well. So why is Stott-Despoja introducing a bill to force counselling agencies to refer women to abortion clinics? In any case, if women can look up a counselling service in the white pages then surely they can look up an abortion clinic as well!

Isn't it interesting that all the people in favour of abortion have already been born...

Enaj, thank you so much for sharing your story, to me, it is it in a gorgeous nutshell. Abortion is an alternative to being a mother and going through a whole thing that often men do not have a window into. I made a choice years ago that I didn't want children and had one abortion, and at the ripe old age of 43, I would choose so again. However, any woman i know, if she was pregnant and wanted that baby, I would support it as I would as much as to whether she wanted to abort it. She would have my whole hearted support either way she chose. And it should be safe and supported either way. One could argue the morals and the religious stuff but at the end of the day, who ends up carrying it? Us women. That is why pro has two ends of the candle. For all the anti-abortion lobbyists saying what they do, they're not exactly lobbying for the single mother safety net welfare as well!

Amanda. I was 15 years old. If certain agencies had declared that they will not refer for abortion, my family would not have taken me there. I was not able to "choose" what place I was taken to.
Call me weak willed if it makes you feel better, I was 15 years old and incredibly fragile as I was pregnant to someone who treated me terribly. So yes, I was weak for good reason.
Amanda, any claims I am making are based on my personal experience.
You ask why we keep hearing about young girls being pressured into abortion? Why indeed!
There is no money to be made from women keeping their babies so how would the 'prolife industry' profit? The only logical reason for abortion providers to pressure women to abort is because they are running a business. If women leave the clinic still pregnant, no-one gets paid.
Why do women need a 'referral' from a counseling agency anyway? Check out the yellow pages. You'll notice that all the abortion clinics have plenty of money for flashy advertising. I wonder where they got that from?

A simple man’s view…

Is it really conceivable that a woman WANTS to undergo abortion? Can the pro-lifers really believe that women DON'T care what it takes, physically and emotionally? It seems that pro-lifer's think any woman capable of considering abortion has no moral or ethical standard and treats it like a day's shopping! What conceit on their part.

Just like some religious debates going on, the pro-lifers make assumptions of the women who choose a certain course of action, without considering the woman’s basis for making the decision and the highly emotional road they may have to walk. That they may choose to walk.

As Duec pointed out – the Senator’s Bill seeks to provide an “on request” clause. It's not a promotion of the service but, as when being interviewed by police and requesting a lawyer, it should be provided as a right, regardless of the personal position of the counsellor.

I was recently involved in a ‘scare’ (Turned out to be only that). We’re both consenting adults, using appropriate contraception and in our 30’s. But the final decision was hers. I gave my honest opinion and said that I would stand 100% by what she felt was right as far as she was concerned. I could not and would not force her into a corner that would more than likely make it a harder decision to deal with. It’s not my right or obligation and no one else’s either.

Yes, abortion may be getting out of control. Why don’t we look at the reasons for this rather than attacking the by-product of whatever is wrong? Education, support and provision of better options. And be reasonable about this. We’re living in the 21st century, not the 1800’s.

Most arguments against abortion, in my experience (and therefore only my opinion) come from some belief in the moral high-ground and usually of a religious bent. Well, as God gave you free will, you have an obligation to pass that on. Believe what you like but do not impose upon another. Each will carry the burden (or otherwise) of their choice.

Seems to me that the godbotherers and misogynists are trotting out their same old tired arguments against women's rights to make informed choices about unwanted pregnancies, which are easily refuted by anybody who actually has any experience of abortion beyond the covert Christian 'counselling' agencies.

About the only thing I find interesting about this thread is the sudden appearance of a bunch of first-time posters, all of whom seem to be from the disingenuous anti-abortion camp. There's a bit of a whiff of an orchestrated campaign about this thread...

garra,

I was wondering if you know any other words except “godbotherer” and “misogynist”, as you seem to use those words in practically every post you make.

Do you really know what these words mean, or did you just hear these words somewhere, and thought that they sounded “cool”, and would make you seem important?

Do you practice name-calling first thing in the morning?

Your posts rarely have much to do with the topic, you rarely present any new information, rarely reference anything, and add almost nothing to any debate except name-calling.

To summarise:- you just call other people names.

I would not support Natasha Stott Despoja’s proposal for one reason and one reason alone – it relies on “state / legal intercession” in what is a private transaction – the right of a listing in white pages when acquiring a telephone service (regardless that this service was once part of a government monopoly).

Such a process is no different to “the state” deciding who will be allowed to promote “a particular view” through yellow pages, magazine, billboard or television advertising.

I see no merit, need or moral right for the state to interfere in private transactions between people or private organisations and their service providers. I see such interference as seriously detrimental to general Australian held values and just “anti-democratic” (ironic when Natasha Stott Despoja claims to be a “democrat”)

I am pro-choice and willing to support that view rigorously with anyone – but “pro choice” respects others right of choice even when it is contrary to ones own held view – that is the “acid-test” of real democracy.

GP your analogy to a rapist is flawed – such an act involves two entities, the perpetrator and the victim, one exercising his “choice” and the other, having her “choice” denied.
An abortion involves one entity, the woman and a possible / potential entity, the embryo / fetus, which, quite rightly, has never been recognised as having the same “rights” as an autonomous individual. The only way you can force a woman to endure pregnancy is to deny her right of choice – just like a rapist.

Maryse Usher "For 1500 years, until 30 years ago, abortion was officially regarded by doctors -- and society -- as a heinous crime”

Total Rubbish – “abortion” was not criminalised until the around mid 19th century (exact dates vary from country to country) – start with accurate facts instead of emotionally loaded lies and garbage.

Re Public Opinion –
When anyone is making a “Private Decision”, “Public Opinion” is subordinate to an individual’s “Personal Opinion”. To Abort or not, is a Private Decision.

Respect Individual Rights and Opinion First, they might be yours.

I was just wondering about the long term emotional results of abortion, on both mother and successive children? I know of women who have had abortions for non-medical reasons and medical reasons and some time later the "non medical abortions" all exhibited the same relationship intimacy/affection issues, their relationships break down the exhibited the same behavioural "phases". As told to me by their male partners.
Comments from people around them (who don't know their history) are that they are "unstable"
I also notice that the children seemed to love being cuddled and touched, more so than other children, I presume because they don't have that from their biological mother.
Has there been any research discussing effects on the sucessive children? Or is this hard to do because not to many women discuss this with their successive children?

Sample size of your "study", Bek? Source of anecdotal evidence? And is it possible the women you refer to had had terminations because they were aware they really didn't like or want children, and weren't suited to being mothers? Could well lead to "intimacy issues" and "instability" when they chose to have, or were pressured into having children.

The argument being put forward by Kathy and others is that pro-choice counselling services should have to identify themselves as such, if anti-abortion services are required to do so. I would argue that this is unneccessary, as anti-abortion counselling services are the only ones not canvassing a full range of options available to women who are pregnant.

I also have some serious concerns about the so-called validity of the report by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute.

I don't believe that SCBI have been able to answer adequately questions about their: sample size; selection criteria for group participation; methodology (what questions were asked, what type of language was used); location of focus groups; who devised the research tool (was it the organisation)? We might also reasonably ask: who funded the research? Focus group research is expensive: was the donation conditional on an agenda?

Pro-choice activists aren't arguing that the Australian community is complacent about abortion rates, I would have thought Eva Cox made that clear. I don't think pro-choice activists believe that it wouldn't be preferable if there was better sex education and better provision of contraception which negates the need for surgical abortion. But in some places, even this isn't possible. Some doctors will not write scripts for the pill. Some pharmacists will not fill them. Some pharmacists won't even stock condoms...which not only prevent pregnancy but a range of life-threatening STDs.

Also, I can't help but wonder Bek: what about the women you know who haven't told you whether they've had an abortion or not. Do you imbue in (your assessment of) their lack of interaction with their children an assumption that they must have had a termination?

I also have to take issue with the assessment that people who argue a pro-choice position are pro-abortion. As a woman in her late 20s, I have friends with children, friends without, friends who want kids and those who don't. Taking the line being run to its logical conclusion, one might wonder if my first response to the observation: "I'm pregnant" wouldn't be "when is your appointment at the clinic?". What hogwash.

Melinda - I never called you weak-willed. I am merely arguing that I will never accept restrictions on my right to an abortion on the basis that some people may not be very good at making decisions for themselves.

I would never accept anyone been forced into an abortion - but that has nothing to do with requiring that anti-abortion clinics do not advertise falsely. If they are going to refuse to give you information about abortion, they should tell you before you make the effort to go there.

> > >
"There is no money to be made from women keeping their babies so how would the 'prolife industry' profit? The only logical reason for abortion providers to pressure women to abort is because they are running a business. If women leave the clinic still pregnant, no-one gets paid."
> > >

Crap. Pregnant women go to the doctor throughout the entire pregnancy. Paediatricians make more money from births than abortions. Is the pro-life lobby a conspiracy of the "forced-pregnancy industry" to stay in business and make a buck?

> > >
"Why do women need a 'referral' from a counseling agency anyway?"
> > >

Because the law says they have to.

Your experiences, terrible as they may be, have nothing to do with the fact that abortion is legal. If your parents forced you into a choice that you didn't want, while you were still a minor, then you need to work things out with them. But don't use your experiences as a reason to deny adult women the right to privacy and autonomy.

Hi Amanda, I don't believe I have seen 'pro-life' counseling services stating that they offer referrals for abortion when they actually don't provide them. Some state that they offer abortion information or abortion alternatives. There is nothing misleading about that.
How would a counseling agency not offering you a referral restrict your access to an abortion? Check out the yellow pages and then tell me how difficult it is. Did you know that you can "get your life back on track!" They make it sound so exciting.
I now understand what you mean when you claim that pro-life people have a financial interest in a continued pregnancy. This doesn't work for three reasons. 1. This would only make sense if all pro-life people were doctors, however this is not true. In fact, I have recently heard that most doctors (85%?)are 'pro-choice.'
2. I have not heard of abortion providers outside the public system also offering pre-natal care, therefore they have no financial incentive for a woman to continue her pregnancy.
3. The 'pro-life lobby' is not a business, if it was, it would be operating at a loss as many pro-lifers donate time and money to women who continue their pregnancies.
Amanda, I am not using my experiences to deny women 'privacy and autonomy' rather I am telling my story in light of the proposed legislation which requires 'pro-life' organisations to refer for abortions. My argument is that it is wrong to claim 'pro-life' agencies are 'biased' when the proposed legislation would require them to refer women to the even more 'biased' abortion clinics, who make money from abortions! I've noticed that only women who speak positively of abortion providers receive sympathy and respect, while those of us who go through similar experiences yet are unhappy customers, are subject to ridicule, by other women, "feminists" who claim to be representing us!

The term "where requested" only appears in bill in definition of "non-directive pregnancy counselling service".

Section 7 of bill provides that ONLY "non-directive pregnancy counselling services" will allowed a listing "on the 24 hour health and help call pages of each alphabetical public number directory". This is outrageous and totalitarian.

Why should a service be required to offer abortion referals when a woman can look one up in yellow pages?

Secondly, the whole point of seeking counselling is because the woman is confused and unsure. Natasha knows that if they instead get a referral for an ultrasound and see their baby moving around inside the chances of opting for abortion dive bombs. The thought of people rejecting the abortion choice is anathema to far left raving feminists like Natasha, so she wants to minimise effects of such counselling services by taking away funding (of which they receive precious little anyway) and their directory listings.

If Natasha wants to stop misleading advertising and notification then bill should require explicit notification of financial interests since virtually all of the "non-directive pregnancy counselling services" are owned and operated by abortion clinics or abortion advocacy groups. "Non-directive" - you got to be kidding! What a joke!

Natasha also conveniently leaves out the lack of post abortion counselling and care. I have heard countless women talk about the treatment they get when they go back to their abortion counsellors because of the anguish and depression they feel. Counsellors don't want to know them, and the women get told to get over it.

May I recommend Melinda Tankard Reist's book "Giving Sorrow Words" which give the accounts of 10 or so women (out of a pool of thousands she has talked with) of varying demographics and who have had abortions - some for abortion and some against. They tell of the pain they felt and the pain they still feel even after 60 years in one case. They all note the lack of support they got from their abortion counsellors. I didn't get through the first chapter before I burst into tears.

Re Southern Cross Bioethics Institute Study/Survey on Abortion

Critics accuse SCBI of being biased and "fixing" the results. This is total rubbish. Firstly, SCBI employed a professional marketing group, SENTEX Marketing, to help them design the survey. SENTEX have their own professional credibility to protect so would not allow any unethical or questionable behaviour/research.

The funding for the study was by a privite donor - NOT the Catholic church, or any other church for that matter.

Eva Cox (at time she wrote her article) had only read the Executive summary which did not discuss the methodology. The full report gives more info regarding this matter. Note also that John Flemming and Selena Ewing (the principle researchers) have replied to Eva Cox:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3489

The reason the questions have not been released at present is because this is only the first four stages in a multi-part study and SENTEX advised that the questions should not be released until everything is complete to ensure the questions do not exact any influence over future parts of the study.

Amanda,

Pro-life counselling agencies, I suggest, would be more than willing to give women information about abortion. They will tell them how it is done, what the significant health risks are (breast cancer, post-abortion trauma, infection, perferation etc etc), and how terrible you will feel afterwards - for years afterwards - and how you will more than likely regret it for the rest of your life. They will also tell them not to expect any help from their abortion doctors or counsellors if they decide to go through with an abortion, but that their door is always open and they will always be willing to listen.

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2042&TABLE=BILLS

Section 5: They can't engage in misleading advertisement.
Section 6: Those that don't provide referrals must say so in their ads.
Section 7: Non-referring services can't be listed in the 24 hour call section.

Either be willing to provide referrals, which doesn't require offering, or say that you don't. Neither choice is burdensome and it saves women time. No one is forced to advocate abortion, and no one will mistakenly go somewhere they think will be able to give them a referral.

Services that don't offer counselling, information, referrals (when requested) and support on all three options can't be listed in the 24 hour health and help call pages. I imagine that these pages contain simply the name, phone number of the service and possibly the location. Thus, there is no space to mention a lack of referrals. Notice also that groups which don't offer support and referrals for adoption and child rearing cannot be listed either. Ensuring that emergency call centres be able to assist with all options is common sense, would it really be better for stressed and emotional people to have to ring number after number searching for some comprehensive help?

You've got to love how hyprocritical the right can be. Here they are, outraged that someone wants to limit their ability to counsel women towards an ideological position, arguing that support services which do provide referrals are pro-choice and hence biased. (One second ago they were attacking pro-choicers for not doing enough to help pregnant women.) What, do they think that having to provide referrals will make them pro-choice? I thought this was about not being complicit, but since there is an out the only rationale is that it requires them to disclose their agenda to those they counsel. And they know that will hamper their ability to peddle false/misleading information about abortion and to make women feel ashamed for wanting one.

And the attack on counselling services connected to abortion clinics, amazing! Not a trace of mental effort to consider why counselling services might be located there for good reasons.

ColRouge - Regarding the history of abortion. You need to do more investigation of this as you are a lot further from the truth than she is.

The recent criminal abortion thing was propagated by a eugenicist pro-abortionist who ignores vasts amounts of history in trying to support his case.

That the hippocratic oath (circa 400bc) was against abortion is a good start at showing how misguided this view is.

Much of the difference between today and then is in the knowledge of the unborns life. Previous laws did not regulate against abortion before a certain time because that was when they thought life started and also it was impossible to prove the unborn had been aborted. This was also the catholic churches teaching. It was always a grave sin to take an innocent life, they just did not know exactly when that life started.

Since medical advances have made it very clear that the unborn is alive right from the start, and we can confirm pregnancy quite quickly (as opposed to having to wait for movement of the unborn), it is completely consistent with the history of the last 1500 years to argue that all abortions of convenience should be outlawed, and to state that legalised abortion is a recent phenomena (when considering the last 1500 years of history that is).

Laurie,

“Further, people are always thowing stats around like "75% of women who attended this pregnacy counselling service then aborted". Of course they did. If they were happy and excited and wanting their pregnancy they would be out buying booties and looking up baby names.”

Not necessarily. Even when a pregnancy is planned and wanted, there can be a great degree of uncertainty. Many women feel apathetic towards the foetus for at least some of their pregnancy, even when their personal circumstances are ideal. I have known of women who wanted their babies but at times during the pregnancy felt antagonistic towards the foetus. Add to that many women considering abortion are faced with a decision-making process in a crisis situation. Under that kind of pressure, making a decision that is consistent with your ethical perspectives is incredibly difficult.

Feelings during pregnancy aren’t as cut-and-dried as some would have you believe

As you said, Tracy. That goes just as much, if not more, for those being pressured into not aborting. Poor them , if they mistakenly hook up with a service which casuistically fails to mention it's an anti-choice service, and pulls out the whole gamut of emotional pressure to convince them to keep the foetus. Pity the mother, pity the child. And in these times, it's hard to find a child given up for adoption. Pressure from all sides. Given that around 75 per cent of all fertilised concepti fail to implant, and thus die, in the natural scheme of things, what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it. And spare me the screaming embryo stuff. There are recordings of carrots screaming as they're pulled from the ground. Or are they sacrosanct, too?

Anomie,

"That goes just as much, if not more, for those being pressured into not aborting."

I don't think you can categorise either situation as being more disadvantaged than the other, really.

"Poor them , if they mistakenly hook up with a service which casuistically fails to mention it's an anti-choice service, and pulls out the whole gamut of emotional pressure to convince them to keep the foetus. Pity the mother, pity the child."

Part of the problem in the 'abortion debate' is, as demonstrated by your post, is that both sides demonstrate a cynicism that the 'opposing' side could possibly have the welfare of the women at heart. It is ironic that 'anti-choice' is used as a synonym for 'pro-life' when many counselling services which identify as 'pro-life' seek to provide the woman with more, rather than fewer, solutions. This recognises that there may be problems in the woman's life which are able to be resolved with appropriate support. Certainly, many women who seek abortion want abortion. This is their legal right, and this should not be in question. However, many women who seek abortion are seeking a solution, not necessarily an abortion.

Are you aware of the social pressures women experience to abort an unplanned pregnancy? Such as withdrawal of social, relationship or familial support? Do these women not deserve consideration too?

"Given that around 75 per cent of all fertilised concepti fail to implant, and thus die, in the natural scheme of things, what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

This is your assessment and belief. Understand others have other assessments and beliefs.

"And spare me the screaming embryo stuff. There are recordings of carrots screaming as they're pulled from the ground. Or are they sacrosanct, too?"

Is this an example of your casuistic reasoning, Anomie? Dogma from either side of this 'debate' is counterproductive and deliberately offensive. Not a great way to advance your arguments

No, Tracy. The claim that 75 per cent of of concepti fail to implant comes from an impeccable source - a C of E clergyman and President of Queens College Cambridge, a scientist in his former life. Do not, please, try to dispute what I freely, happily, admit, is the view of highly-acclaimed scientists, who are also believing Christians, by dismissing them as my personal opinion. I, I fear, quote what is established biological fact. And, by the way, what do you understand the word "casuistic" to mean? It is not a derogatory term - casuistry has a far nobler background than you might suspect -it is a means of moral reaoning that looks at matters case by case, not in the hidebound way of those who dismiss all circumstances for the sake of a principle. On that path lies fundamentalism, and all its concomitants.

My apologies, Anomie. I figured you would realise my comment, “This is your assessment and belief” referred to your assertion that “…what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

My point is that others would disagree with your assertion. I understand you may have been confused over my response when you replied, but understand that you can’t learn anything about people who differ from you by resorting to condescending responses.

“Do not, please, try to dispute what I freely, happily, admit, is the view of highly-acclaimed scientists, who are also believing Christians, by dismissing them as my personal opinion. I, I fear, quote what is established biological fact.”

You assumed I was referring to your statistical reference. I wasn’t.

“And, by the way, what do you understand the word "casuistic" to mean? It is not a derogatory term - casuistry has a far nobler background than you might suspect -it is a means of moral reaoning that looks at matters case by case, not in the hidebound way of those who dismiss all circumstances for the sake of a principle. On that path lies fundamentalism, and all its concomitants.

I assumed you meant ‘casuist’ as defined by The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as referring to one who attempts to resolve cases of conscience by the application of general rules to particular instances, but frequently discloses a conflict of duties? Or the reference to casuistic as plausible but invalid reasoning? Isn't there a hint of derogatory there?…

You have a different definition?

I wasn’t really interested in discussing the etymology of ‘casuistic’, anyway. In any case, I’m glad you’re more interested in the means of ‘moral reasoning that looks at matters case by case’.

So you agree that every individual woman’s circumstances are different, and each case needs individual attention? That many women may seek abortion, and their legal right should not be in question, but many women seeking abortion may want a solution, not necessarily abortion?

At least you've abandoned your ‘screaming carrot’ analogy… ;)

anomie,

I don't think Tracy was disputing your 75% statistic. What she is probably disputing (and what I certainly dispute) is your rhetorical statement "what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

Firstly, what does conception failure have to do with abortion? Nothing!

Secondly, aborted foetuses do not merely "fail to be born" - they are actively killed (murdered). A suction instrument is used to literally tear the baby's body to pieces. I have seen with my own eyes ultrasound imagery of a baby trying like crazy to get away from the sucker.

Later abortions are performed by injecting various chemicals (eg. concentrated saline) into the womb to induce premature birth. I have vivid memories of a documentary made by TV/radio personality Dean Davis of a baby aborted in this way but was still alive, lying in a dish trying to scream because its skin was burnt off. BTW, under Australian criminal law, if the baby is born alive and then left to die this constitutes murder (or at least manslaughter). Aborted babies born alive are, I have heard from people in the industry, not that uncommon.

Still later abortions are partial birth. That's when then bring the baby out legs first (breach) until only the base of the skull is extruded, then they stab it in the back of the head/neck (head is too big to pull out at this age) and when it stops writhing around (ie. when it's for all intents and puropses, dead) then they suck the brains out and the head collapses and drops out.

We treat crazy dogs and stray cats better than this. What a civilised society we live in....

anomie,

Such barbaric behaviour (described above) never goes unpunnished. If we continue to slaughter our unborn we will become a nation of geriatrics with no-one to pay our medical bills.

We will have to bring in more migrants. Where from? The Middle-East and Asia - mostly Muslims. To their credit, Muslims do not slaughter their young and hence their population is growing.

In the coming years, Muslims will outbread the rest of us and they will sieze effective power of government through their population dominance and bring in Sharia Law (like they have done in certain areas of the Philippines). Muslim leaders have said as much. Europe is already a lost cause. It will be as Islamic bloc in 50 years. The demographics demonstrate that this is inevitable - there is almost nothing Europe can do about it.

Anomie, if we have Sharia law, let me assure you that abortion rights will be the very least of your problems.

Aslan's emotive and irrational arguments invite dismissal, if not along the 'screaming carrot' lines that anomie has suggested, then at least from the perspective of objective reason.

The 'screaming foetus' tactic deployed by the god squad, while effective, is entirely disingenuous since it relies on the attribution of humanity and consciousness to a bunch of cells that would otherwise constitute little more than a lump of meat. In objective terms, a foetus is about as human as is a wart.

As for Aslan's attempt to link abortion with our declining birthrate and anti-Islamism, this is an outrageously specious argument. The birthrate has declined for a complex of reasons, including that women no longer see themselves as equivalent to breeding cows and choose to define themselves via roles may or may not include motherhood. The thinly veiled racism in Aslan's anti-Islamist argument is beneath contempt.

I've noticed that Aslan's style of argumentation in these forums is often the expression of a particularly nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. [Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for one week.]

Kathy Woolf wishes Natasha Stott-Despoja was out of step with public opinion - that's why she has written this article. Definitely a case of wishful thinking.

Fact is individual women will continue to decide what is right for them, their futures and their bodies as they have always done. Despite the current swing towards right wing fundamentalism, there will always be a majority of women who will decide for themselves what they choose to do with their lives.

Aslan, who was talking about conception failure? Nobody!

anomie was probably referring to the majority of fertilised eggs that do not result in pregnancy. The relevance to an argument about the ethics of abortion comes from the well known pro-life claim that life begins at conception.

Is it too much to ask that posters confine their anti-Islamic sentiments to one of the many threads that have already degenerated into commentaries about such? Or even better, those threads that have some significant connection to Islamic teachings? Likewise for multiculturalism.

Of those threads with activity in the last two days, I count this as the tenth thread where someone has attacked Islam. There are only seventeen and that doesn't include the "speak out" thread or the "nutbags" threads. OK, they were mostly about Islam, terrorism or Iraq (unlike this thread) but such posts have largely been unrelated to the articles and are increasingly repetitive & vacuous. I'm not suggesting moderation, simply that those who do want to attack Islam en masse choose to do so in a single thread and in a manner that is forthright, even-handed and factual.

Let's just get over the late abortion freaky stuff, which does not happen on an everyday basis. The fact to me, should be, if this pregnancy is happening to my body, which is going to change my life regardless of Mr/s Perfect in the background, I have the right to choose whether I will be a mother or not. I will weigh it up regardless of whether it was a one night stand, bad relationship, great, gunna happen relationship, this is my choice. When i go to a clinic of my choice, I would like to be able to assess the choices presented to me (however, it's not like shopping for a new winter coat is it). Chances are, I may have already made up my mind. No woman or girl should feel pressured to have a baby by society, her family, et al. Just as no woman should feel pressured to have an abortion. In the same stance, we should have a freedom of choice both ways, whatever we choose. Not Mum and Dad, not the boyfriend/partner, not society. Legislation can only call for this choice. Who's bill would you prefer? Natasha's or Tony Abbott's?

Di,
If a pregnant woman excludes “Mum and Dad” and “boyfriend/partner” and “ society” then she will have to be very strong and independent, because it will be a very small world, with very few people involved. And of course, lets not forget the father or husband, or have those words become criminalized.

But if it does become compulsory to seek counselling, before and/or after an abortion, then the next issue is what type of information should be given to the mother and father.

From what I can understand, there are people who will say that abortion is totally safe for the mother, and it will have no negative physical or emotional affects.

Meanwhile, there are others who believe that abortion can be quite dangerous for the mother, both physically and emotionally, and can have very tragic consequences for the woman latter in life (not to mention the father) see http://www.lifeissues.net/sub_section.php?topic=pa&subsection=par

At least Natasha Stott-Despoja has begun to think about counselling, the next step would be for her to think about what information should be given during that counselling. That is, if she can get over the hurdle of “it’s the woman’s choice, so there ”, which seems to act as a major barrier to finding solutions to 10 abortions per hour which occur in Australia.

Garra,

My statements irrational? You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word.

The “screaming foetus” was fully developed baby (albeit premature) not a “bunch of cells”. A similar case occurred in Darwin. A 21 week old was aborted in 1998 by labour-inducing drug. An experienced midwife, was on her own for delivery of fetus, and placed it in a kidney dish. She then heard the baby cry. She put it in a warm rug and checked it every few minutes. The doctor responsible and her bosses didn’t want to know about it. The baby died 80 minutes later.
You said: “Aslan's attempt to link abortion with our declining birthrate and anti-Islamism, this is an outrageously specious argument”.

The link between abortion and lowering birthrate is pretty obvious. Regarding “anti-Islamism”, I actually applaud Muslims for disallowing abortion.

You said: “I've noticed that Aslan's style of argumentation in these forums is often the expression of a particularly nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. [Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for one week.]”

And you complain about my “style of argumentation”. The []s say it all…

Deuc,

I used the term “conception failure” equivocally to refer to pregnancy in general, not just to sperm entering ovum. Sorry for confusion.

Di,

You said: Let's just get over the late abortion freaky stuff”

Does it make you uncomfortable? It should.

You said: “if this pregnancy is happening to my body, which is going to change my life…I have the right to choose whether I will be a mother or not.”

If youre consistent, you should also endorse infanticide. This baby relies on your body and your care so it should be your choice whether or not to terminate its life if it becomes too much of a burden. But I suspect you wouldn’t want to go there. Why not? Yes, its against the law but laws can be changed. Let’s drop this “my choice” nonsense. No-one is free to do whatever they want.

BTW, what about the baby’s choice? The father’s choice? You’re being rather selfish don’t you think Di…

Aslan here you are again - as long as the topic is religion, abortion or homosexuals there you go pushing the self serving Christian Identity line. Reason or rational never enters your argument. Such as:

"BTW, what about the baby’s choice? The father’s choice? You’re being rather selfish don’t you think Di… "

And forcing a woman to have a baby is not selfish?

To those men who would force women to have babies against their will - when you men can have babies then you can enter into the debate.

I had an abortion while married - why? Because the SOB used to beat me black and blue. I suppose I was being 'selfish' by not wanting to bring a child into a violent household.

As I have previously stated women will continue to choose and the best that men can do is support their wives, girlfriends, sisters with one of the most heart rending decisions a woman ever has to make. Being judgemental is not helpful and there is no place for it when the ones doing the judging are not the ones who have to go through the pregnancy.

Trinity,
I think that the idea that the father should be excluded from a counselling process, or even from the decision making process, is quite a backward and inhuman approach, as there has been evidence to show that the father can grieve quite considerably over an abortion, particularly if he does not learn about it until after it has occurred. However this in not widely known about, as fathers are not often included into studies into families or child rearing.

Personally I tested this out sometime ago when I became interested in abortion, and I phoned up a local abortion counselling agency, and said that my live-in girlfriend had become pregnant, and she did not know what to do. They asked me if I wanted the child, and I said yes, and I also said that I wanted to marry the mother. The end result was that they said that they could make an appointment for the mother to receive counselling, but I did not receive an invite. I latter found out that this counselling agency was basically a “pro-abortion” type agency, and run predominately by feminists.

Prior to that I had also talked to some pro-life groups and learnt that a woman need not have any referral from a doctor, or have received counselling before the abortion. In some states, this may be illegal, but the authorities simply do not check these agencies. It has now reached the state where abortion clinics openly advertise on the internet, and state that no referral is required etc.

While some pro-choice supporters will now say that the abortion rate is too high, they tend to put forward few suggestions on how to reduce that rate, but also tend to exclude the father, while at the same time saying that the public should subsidise it. Eventually, the abortion rate does not decline, but remains where it has been for many years (ie. the status que remains, and there is no forward progress made in reduceing the abortion rate)

Interesting discussion, but not for the usual reasons.

First, a dig at stott destroyer. Of course she is out of touch. She has never been in touch. From the self serving cloistered sanctuary of student union politics straight into a political party, she has all but bypassed the tedium of a normal, in touch experience. Then again, she is a politician. An entirely ineffectual spin meister employed by the totally menaingless and irrelevant democraps. The poster boy, sorry girl, er l mean person of political pretenders in the iconic institution of political pretenders, the demo-you-know-wots. The only time in recent memory that the democrats had any effect is when one of them sold out to the GST in her personal quest of spotlight relevance. She got her 15 minutes l suppose.

Natasha the Party Smasher, shame on you for wasting time and money introducing bills that are going anywhere and have no chance whatsoever at being enacted. All for your own personal satisfaction of introducing a 'debate.' Nothing more than a personal affectation. Nothing more than a vain effort at self validation for you pointless existence as a politician who effects no substantive change because you actually have never had any real power.

To the discussion on abortion. l am a man so basically l get no real say in the realities of abortion. Whether l have a voice or not is purely at the discretion of those who make their choice about their bodies. As a man, l dont carry the physical responsibility, and from what l can ascertain from the generalised tone of abortion discussion, as a man, my opinion is basically irrelevant because essentially, as a man, l can never understand. Fair enough. lm pretty happy with that. As such l have no real opinion one way or the other. Basically do what you wanna do with your bodies, its none of my business. If you want to drink a bottle scotch every day or drink draino or do whatever to your own body, then fine. No opinion about what you do with your own body.

What interest me is the way people frame their arguments and rationalisations regarding abortion. Its not a life if it is going to be aborted, but it is a growing bundle of joy if its going to term. Its pro-choice if you think abortion should be available. Its pro-life if you think it shouldn't be. Early term ok, late term not so ok. Ok if for health reasons, not ok if not. OK irrespective of anything, and not OK irrespective of nothing. Too many emotive word playing factoids and not enough sanity or clarity.

Returning to this forum after some time doing other things, I am dismayed at some of the judgements being passed here.
Firstly, Bec Morcom's appalling assumptions about the kind of parents women who have had abortions then go on to make, based on nothing more than his/ her own (wishful) observations. He/she would like it to be true, so sees what s/hed like to. As I have already said I had an abortion and then went on to have two much loved and dearly wanted daughters, I cannot help but take his/her remarks personally. I will not attempt to justify or explain my love for my children here, suffice to say they are the dearest part of my life and even at the ripe old ages of 14 and 17, we hug, kiss and show a great deal of physical affection as a family. As someone else pointed out, an emormous number of women have had abortions at some point in their lives.Many parents Bec may admire as parents may, in fact, have had abortions and simply keep it to themselves. This is where pro-lifers like Kathy Woolf come unstuck when they try to argue others are out of touch. Unwanted pregnancy is the spectre that haunts all sexually active women all the time. If a woman has not had to make such a choice, she knows it is more by good luck than good management. Most women, therefore, do not pass judgement on others, because they have all had a scare in their time.
Second, late term abortions are incredibly rare. As an experienced obstetrician said recently, they do not do such terminations lightly. By and large, they are only performed when the mother's life is in danger, or the foetus is really, really severely deformed or when the foetus has died in the womb. Would pro-lifers prefer to see the mother's die in these cases? Or are they prepared to accept that sometimes abortion may be the better option? Nature can be cruel, but do we have to be?

By the time I finished reading this article in the Age I was in tears. Both for the author and his mother. He must have loved her a lot. He must have loved her in a way I can’t even begin to imagine.

http://theage.com.au/news/opinion/my-abortion-would-have-spared-my-mother/2005/07/24/1122143731007.html?oneclick=true

When I went through my abortion, I went through it alone. My then husband would’ve beaten me for being pregnant; he would’ve beaten me for not being pregnant. I had an abortion so that at least it was only me being assaulted. (Yes, I do get the irony in this – please don’t bother with a rant on whether or not I assaulted a foetus).

As a result of my personal experience and after reading the above mentioned article, my questions are as follows:

Where are the men who care so much for the women in their lives; their wives, girlfriends, sisters and, yes mothers, where are the men who love their women enough that they will stand by them and support them?

Where are the men who respect women enough to support them to make decisions that they (men) will never have to live through like women do?

It seems there are those more interested in spreading their genes than loving their women.

I know this is off topic but I have been wondering about the motivation behind men who do not respect their partner’s decisions and the reasons for it. I suspect it is about control.

The motivation for anti-choice women is probably founded in control over others also – there are plenty of anti-choice women who have, themselves, had abortions.

There are those who would argue that religious beliefs are involved – well from what I’ve seen of religion that is all about control as well.

A women's free will, (or access to guy's free willies in this context!) seems to be the key issue in this debate. Society, apparently, has no role in such decisions.

I've said it before: if we as individuals and as a society value people in a holistic way, then putting ourselves in situations where our sexuality is merely a recreational activity that has the potential to move people to the point where they are "emotionally and psychologically unable to accept the idea" - that is, motherhood, and agree that "abortion involves one entity" - excluding the father and the 'potential' child, then, sex and abortion is always about the self, rather than selflessness, an irrational concept in our modern society.

This is why family life is challenged, not for want of relationships, but for want of proper relationships. Anyone with the structural means to support a spouse and children is going on a journey of total selflessness and venturing beyond 'control' and into the realm of providence: another modern voo doo (or don't) in 'advanced' societies.

Sure, families are resource intensive, but, so are outrageous lifestyles of singles. Environmental footprints are not only determined by numbers.

Abortion is the by-product of a society with a lot of other problems. If we can't value life, blobs of cells or otherwise, then what value is anything else? Motherhood (and parental life)is the most noble of all possible vocations, but, we treat it like crap and seek to destroy it at every twist & turn. Society v. economy v. self interest?

All we can do is our best.

I’ve got to agree with you about the control thing Trinity, and you’re right, it is the woman’s choice. Many years ago I went with my then girlfriend to the abortion clinic. We were very young. When we arrived we were greeted at the entrance by a team of banner waiving anti abortion women who lectured us vigorously on the street about the evils of abortion - great counseling - and free – and very loud.

If it wasn’t difficult enough for her beforehand it certainly was after that. It’s a personal thing, we have talked about it once or twice since. I still feel some sadness about it. I’m just thankful that I’ll never have to go there as you have – or as others in here have. It’s probably something men don’t talk about much but hey, I just had to have a say before this thread becomes another extreme religion thing.

hutlen

You can't begin to understand how much your post means to me. I really appreciate your sharing of your experience. And I am impressed that you supported your girlfriend. Yes, it is a sad and traumatic experience.

No doubt the control freaks will take over this asylum very soon so thank you for a moment of compassion.

The self righteous sanctimoney of the 'selfless' parent knows no bounds.

l can think of nothing more selfish than projecting ones own genes into the future. Its as close to immortality as the SELF will ever get.

Intriguing that we have no say in the matter of life and that is entirely a decision of our parents, who made the decision for THEMSELVES, obviously without any consultation of us. Intriguing that after that SELF-invloved decision has been made and the life enters this world that parents all of a sudden become selfless. Intriguing that parents do not extend that selflessness to some strangers' kids over the hill and far away. Intriguing how that your selflessness is extended to YOUR children and not mine.

Interesting post Trade. I like to think that I thought carefully about becoming a parent when I decided upon an abortion. I decided that due to the psychopathic nature of my husband that I didn't want to bear his children. Is this selfless? Not really because at that time of my life (in my 20's) I also knew I was too immature and selfish to want to raise children then. I don't regret my decision although I often wish I had children now - but not his - never his.

We can make decisions about parenting. Many people become parents without a thought - this has always concerned me. I reliquished the opportunity because I knew I couldn't provide the necessary care. I understand what you mean about questioning your own parents motives for bringing you into the world - you're right we don't get any choice in the matter.

A bit more on topic, when I had my abortion I was fully appraised of the situation - in fact I had to change doctors because my then doctor did not approve of abortion - so believe me I had ALL the facts and then some. All that he achieved was to make a distressing experience even more so. I still went ahead with the termination. And I still don't regret my decision.

Kathy Woolf is hoping that the current swing to the right indicates that more people would relinquish control over their reproductive rights - not going to happen. It gets back to that word again - Control - who has it who wants it.

So the pro-life position is about religion and control?
After hearing pro-lifers for decades talking about how abortion kills babies, showing pictures of unborn babies having been aborted, this is a logical conclusion? If I, as a pro-life person, wanted to control women's bodies (which is absurd since I myself am a woman) I would be protesting against tubal ligation, the pill, condoms, breast augmentation, botox, tummy tucks etc. etc. Does any pro-life person do this? No, because none of these choices involve the deliberate killing of another human being. Ladies, make your choices, be prepared for the consequences but repeatedly replacing the word 'abortion' with 'choice' in your legal abortion campaign does not change the fact that every abortion kills a baby, some abortions, though legal, even kill a woman.

Oh Elka, some abortions kill women, certainly, but not if done safely with proper medical care, different if done in backyards, illegally, as happened in the past.
You can't stop abortion, however much you might like to, you can only push it underground and vastly increase the risk of losing 2 lives instead of 1.
You are opposed to abortion, good for you Elka. I applaud and completely support your right never to have one. I would defend your right to make such a decision about your own body and your own life vigorously. But I claim the same right for myself. A foetus neither knows nor cares whether it is born or not, that is why its rights, while important, can never weigh equally against the rights of the conscious human being most involved; the mother.
Are women merely portals through which other human beings enter the world or are they full human beings in their own right? If they are the second we must accept their ability to make such choices and decisions for themselves.

Hutlen, echoing Trinity here, thanks for giving that perspective. Enaj, as always making sense. Trinity, you are absolutely right in what you say. If I am selfish for aborting a baby, which to me and my way of thinking, is a blob of tissue until such a time as professional people (not pro lifers waving banners) advise me otherwise, I will consider that. If anyone wants to rave about souls coming into it from inception, well it's a religious debate, not a political one. Abortion is only a religious debate if the person affected chooses to bring her religion into it. Women, who happen to have a womb and the ability to have children - or not! should have the ultimate decision. Not god, not men, not politics, nor society. We are entitled, as over 50% of the voting, living, breathing population to have the ultimate choice over this. We are entitled to have safe and affordable access to birth control, medication, et al. with all facts, counselling without being prejudice either side.

Evolutionary wise, if guys had the egg lodged in their "host" bodies growing, rather than ejecting the sperm and going about their merry way, we wouldn't be having this argument. Financially, emotionally or morally. Women don't morally judge men on their decision to have a vasectonmy, which is 50% of the equation. Why is pregnancy always related to a women's choice to become pregnant, then blithely have an abortion?

Timkins I can see where you are coming from however. It's a different ball game if the man wants the baby and wants to support his partner. But I'm sure with such a big life decision, you would not want your partner to be the ultimate decider on your behalf?

A clear and consistent theme is an emtional and irrational response from pro abortions folk. It makes me sad. Around 4 out of every 10 girls my age (21) will have at least one abortion during their years of fertility. That's why i consider it so important to be pro life.

Four out of every ten girls i socialise with, go to university with and see out on the town will experience profound tragedy. Their lives altered because society turned them against their own child. Latent wounds which could open at any time. Abortion is doing horrific things behind closed doors to my contemporaries and their babies, and it brings me no end in grief.

Trinity,

You do talk a lot of rubbish. Men rarely 'force' women to have babies - they force women to have abortions! Even Germaine Greer acknowledged this.

You said your SOB husband used to beat you. Why didn't you leave him? Why take your misery out on the baby?

You think abortion is just about women. You're wrong. My wife has miscarried a couple of times early on. It filled me with grief. I have lost my child. Men suffer when their children die - we tend not to talk about it though. A friend's wife had 3 abortions. He was supportive the first time, indifferent the 2nd, and deeply hurt the 3rd time. Why was she killing his children for no apparent reason? They worked through it, eventually had 2 children and started a pro-life counselling service.

Re Control,

The only people who are trying to control women's lives are the pro-abortion folk. Suggest that a debate on abortion is warranted and they go ballistic. Suggest abortion counselling is too pro-abortion and they go troppo. When women go to pro-abortion counsellors they don't get talked out of having an abortion...

Pro-life or Pro-Choice?

Interesting how the pro-abortions like to label themselves pro-choice compared with pro-lifers who are pictured as being anti-choice. The reality, however, is that pro-abortionists are anything but pro-choice. The accounts of women in Melinda Tankard Reist's book demonstrate this. The only viable option they present is abortion, and they do not adequately explain the many possible complications. And yes women still die from abortions today in hospitals and clinics.

Pro-lifers OTOH, present ALL the choices but point out that abortions, although a quick fix, will likely leave them scarred for life, emotionally and physically. They do not, and cannot, stop women from seeking an abortion.

Let's cut the crap - abortion advocates are "Pro-Abortion". They are most definitely not "Pro-Choice".

Di,

You said: "Women, who happen to have a womb and the ability to have children - or not! should have the ultimate decision. Not god, not men, not politics, nor society. We are entitled, as over 50% of the voting, living, breathing population to have the ultimate choice over this. We are entitled to have safe and affordable access to birth control, medication, et al. with all facts, counselling without being prejudice either side."

Di, women have always had this choice. You can choose to have sex or not have sex. If you choose to have sex then you also choose to accept the risk that you may become pregnant even if you're on birth control since these do not always work.

Di, part of growing up and becoming an adult is that you accept responsibility for your own actions. People who do not accept this responsibility we describe as "immature" or "juvenile".

The same applies to men who get women pregnant. If they don't accept responsibility for what they have done then they too are juveniles.

Unfortunately, it appears we are breeding a nation of juveniles...

First, I empathise with all the pro-abortionist who went through the most traumatic experience in their lives and lived to tell their little secrets.
Then, for those other naive souls with skeletons in the lader, their excuses in political correctness, leaves me numb - morally and ethically.
Abortions per se, is a hienous crime against humanity. Whether you declassify the featus as blob or whatever, will haunt your conscience till the day you die. We gloss over this abberation with all sorts of lame excuses - reality, we consciously called the shot and despite all the posturing we females ad lib to provide subtefuge cover, it will never erase the criminality. We, in Oz carry out 8000 plus miscarriages annually which goes to illustrate conclusively all the sex education at High school,relegious classes,media counselling have done nothing - zilch, to stem the haemorrhaging. Further, the Catholic heirachy forbid the use of condoms in or out of marriage and it is to their detriment, the laughing stock of the Western World.
Peer pressure, lover's inducements, parents have a lot to answer for in aiding and abetting this oppresive stigmata on those wide eyed children whose bodies are defiled in the heat of passion, but whose brains are hardly matured enough to absorb the scenario.
The Feds are offering $4000 per child these days - hopefully this will encourage the pro-life protagonist to rue the day. If, ONLY we would collectively take full responsibility for lives and not resort to all those whimsical excuses to justify our RIGHT to decide the fate of another. Who knows, he or she may be another Einstien !

Dalma,
Do not assume you know how other people feel.
My miscarriage was traumatic, my first child stopping breathing in my arms and having to be resuscitated 3 times was traumatic. My abortion was not. It does not haunt my conscience, at all. I wish I had not become pregnant ( despite being responsible and using a condom and spermicide), but that is all. You might wish me to feel something I don't because it suits your personal view, but that doesn't make it happen.
The reason I call myself pro-choice and not pro-abortion is simple. No-one wants to have an abortion, we all hope we won't be faced with having to make such a choice. But some of us are not so fortunate and we choose what we see as the lesser of two evils. You may see it as a heinous crime, I do not. Unfortunately for you, most people are more pragmatic about abortion than you are. Perhaps because, as I stated in a previous post, they have had scares and know that if they haven't actually had to decide whether or not to have an abortion (and hundreds of thousands of women have), it was more by good luck than good management.

In this forum, it would do us all well to learn about 'the other side' of the 'debate'.

'Pro-choicers' should read Melinda Tankard Reist's 'Giving Sorrow Words' - the stories of around 18 women whose lives have been deeply and profoundly affected by grief over their abortions.

'Pro-lifers' should read Leslie Cannold's 'The Abortion Myth'; a thoughtful exploration of this issue from a 'pro-choice' perspective, which acknowledges our growing familiarity with stages of life in the womb, rather than deferring to extreme insensitivity over the foetus.

Both should be read with an open mind, accepting the possibility that there could be many different 'right' answers here...

There is nothing triumphant about the decision to abort a life. Some women are devastated with grief over their abortion, some women believe it was the right decision and feel little grief or guilt, some women feel ambivalent. I don't believe that any would go out and celebrate over it.

All parties, and the community, deserve correct, unbiased information so they can make the most appropriate decision possible for their circumstances. Women, their partners and their families deserve accurate, non-judgemental counselling that respects and incorporates their belief system. They deserve real support, regardless of their decision.

Both extremes need to get over their dogma - then maybe everyone's perspective could be heard and understood without fear of ridicule or abuse.

A simple man’s second opinion.

Seems to be 2 factors argued here:

1. When does a pregnancy involve a ‘human life’?
2. What does the woman feel as a result of abortion?

On the first:
From what I have read, there are two schools of thought. If you believe it’s from conception, then the resulting abortion (if it occurs) is taking a life. If you go by medical/scientific thought (which is also not settled) then you are removing a ‘growth’ for want of a better word.

The difference between the two is perceived in the mind. A woman’s (and if involved man’s) decision will first be guided by this belief. I would think that a person’s beliefs are, well, personal and no-one has a right or obligation to impose beliefs on others.

The second:
Seems to me that a woman’s feelings will very much depend on what they believe about the first – but will also be tempered by other factors (age, life situation, religion, economic position, etc). There is no guaranteed response from the woman (or man) as to what they will feel as a result of an abortion. Again to impose one’s feelings on another is not a right or obligation.

I believe Tracey had it right (and I’m sure other’s have said it) – No one would willingly undertake an abortion as a course of action, simply because the service is available. No woman (or man) would like to be put through that. That is why many use contraceptives (even against the will of their religion) – to avoid that particular situation.

However, it does happen. Sometimes after all the efforts to avoid – and sometimes with no responsibility taken. The end result is the same.

The only thing that is common in all this is that people will do as they believe is right. And no-one can judge another’s beliefs. That is for God (if you so believe to do).

That is why I believe it is a choice for the couple and ultimately the woman. No one else’s.

By the way, I was raised Christian.

Would each of you who believe that women should have access to abortion please state what you would say to those people who, incredibly, have survived being aborted?

Would you be prepared to say to their faces, you should be dead! If not, why not? After all, their mothers had attempted to do what you believe they had every right to do, ie end this person's life, but somehow the attempt failed.

So such people are supposed to be dead - would there therefore be anything wrong in saying that to them? I don't think though that any one would actually say that to them, but why not?

What if you were to find out today that your much-loved husband/wife/partner was a survivor of an abortion attempt? Could you honestly say to them, But you should be dead!

Some people find it easy to say of little human beings hidden in the womb that it is alright to kill them. But it is not so easy later to say to those human beings who somehow survive abortion that they should be dead.

Shouldn't this tell us something?

My attitude has always been that if you don't agree with abortion (or most other things for that matter) - don't do it. But don't lobby authority to restrict others' choices.

I also believe that the decision cannot be made by anyone other than the person in that situation at the time, and I am in no position to judge (one way or the other).

Better sex education would be helpful for some, better access to contraception for others. Sometimes though, you just have to accept that the person choosing to have an abortion cannot be pregnant at that point in their lives, or under those circumstances.

Well said Nomad. No one wants to have an abortion and no one is forcing people to have them.

I fell pregnant after being punched in the stomach, vomiting and consequently losing the efficacy of the contraceptive pill. I was also being pressured by my husband to have a baby (he thought he'd have more control over me then). Clearly I left the piece of human waste I was married to because I am alive today and able to make these posts.

To those who choose to judge - walk a mile in my shoes.

Hello Trinity and others

I am not pro or agin abortion. I think it is very sad that people take such strong emotional and political stands at the risk of compassionate and reasoned comment. But then, I have little to offer but emotional comment.

I guess I will be challenged for throwing in red herrings.

I was diagnosed with infertility 1979. Joined the Melbourne IVF in the early 80s - number came up in 1987 in Newcastle. I knocked back my opportunity for IVF - realised that child bearing is not a right - it is a privilege. I could have had a child in a very poor family environment - my ex-husband was an alcoholic and wife basher. I could not bring a child into the world knowing this - even though I thought and felt that my role in life was to be a mother and a teacher of children.

In 1993 I was gang raped. I was so glad that I was infertile. I still wonder what I would have done if I had been impregnated by those bastards if I had not been infertile. I was a mature age woman of 45 years at the time. What about young female children who are raped and impregnated?

Kalweb

Thank you for your post. On the subject of parenting I don't think an apology is necessary for being emotional. Clearly the topic effects us all deeply.

As you say parenting is a privilege and not a right. I too would have loved to have been a mother - but circumstances have prevented me from attaining that responsibility. I do not regret my decision to have an abortion when I did. Like you I was concerned about the environment into which a child should be brought. This is why fertility is about choice. The choice to be a responsible parent - even if that means not ever being a parent at all.

Much love to you

Dear GP,
There was a wonderful Op-Ed piece in The Age earlier this week, still on their website, by Michael Read. To prasee it (and not do it justice, I'm afraid) Michael is a man with a disability who has had a good and successful life and, from the compassion and thoughtfulness displayed in the article, is a wonderful human being.
In the article he says that his being born ruined his mother's life and that, really, he should not have been born. He argues that had she had an abortion he, as a foetus would neither have known or cared, and therefore the consequences to her, as a fully conscious human being, must weigh more heavily than the consequences to her foetus.
I, for one, am glad he was born as I am sure his mother now is, but that does not weaken his point. Many potential people are not born, through miscarriage or just no fertilisation taking place, parents may grieve over miscarriage (I did) but society does not, but any sorrow that is felt is for the parents loss, no-one feels sorry for the foetus. And why should they, the foetus doesn't know what it almost had so cannot mourn its loss.
In my own case, had I had the child I conceived in my youth, I would not have had the two children I have now. I am a much better, wiser and more loving parent to the children who were born much wanted, than I ever would have been as the immature person and unwilling mother I would have been earlier. To my mind, things worked out for the best. As I keep saying, my regret was about becoming pregnant is the first place. That is what I had hoped to avoid.
As they say, GP, one door closes, another door opens.

I have been interested reading in posts how many women contributing have been subjected to violence. I noticed Kathy Woolf has also written an opinion piece about the link between abortion and violence: http://www.righttolife.asn.au/opinion_pieces/op20050308.htm

Tracy:

I cant imagine (in my wildest night-mare) how you sleep at night knowing you contributed to the willful destruction of another human being ( blob ..in another's words )For that matter what of the other 8000+++ annual sausage sizzlers that churn out their 'waste' at the expense of ailing Tax-payers. The abortionist, and back-yard cronies, have created a thriving Industry at the expense of pediatrics,oncology, etc.. reality - ursurping other more demanding surgery and medicine which could meanfully be spent for the benefit of all Australians.
My point should not be lost on you. Your hubristic article classifies you among those who create the crime, but absolve yourselves with paltry innocent invectives apportioning the time to some other victim. Get REAL. I lived through the Vietnam debacle. Witnessed horror and bloodshed, but it dosen't make be any less sanguine. I bleed profusely for those innocents who had ABSOLUTELY no say in their demise. Would you want to know if your parents callously deposed of you in a vacuum cleaner. Have you No rights ??
Of all the Crimes against Humanity, there is in my journal, none more dispicable, diabolical and wanton. To think that the numbers lining up each year increases..to the point Tony Abbot voiced his concerned in Parliament..only to cop flak by the joint chorus of Fem-libbers,Women's Lobby, Anarchist, Hari-Krishna, and Byron Bay Marijuana Femenist grouppenhausers. OK already

Dalma,

I'm not sure how I'm contributing to the willful destruction of another human being, or who the sausage sizzlers are or, for that matter, the Byron Bay Marijuana Feminist Grouppenhausers.

Just for your reference, I avoided being faced with the abortion decision a few times, through luck more than good management, like enaj says. Though when faced with an unexpected pregnancy and little social support, but a man that stuck around, I opted to continue it and now have a beautiful four year old. This decision was due to my own belief system and the potential for the situation to turn out OK - not my morality.

You're welcome to interpret my posts as hubristic, and maybe they are. If hubris is advocating that we should all take off our blinkers and learn about the issue through the experiences of as many people as possible, then I'm guilty as charged. But I think it's pretty fair to feel that women should not be pushed into keeping a pregnancy if they have neither the means, support nor love to raise a child. Do you believe they should?

I hope you're contributing your passion for this issue to organisations who support women to continue unexpected pregnancies. It would do more for your cause than ridiculing people who express a view different to yours.

If we had a society that adequately supported pregnant women, new mothers and fathers and their babies, instead of marginalising and isolating them, the rate of abortions could probably be halved. And I think that’s something most of us would agree would be a good thing.

Dalma

I found your post to Tracy extremely cruel. We have not walked in her shoes. We do not know the many extraneous variables which combined, assisted her in making the decision to abort.

Pardon my ignorance - but what is the meaning underpinning the "sausage sizzle" anology?

If you have a daughter and she was gang raped and became pregnant - would you not allow her the choice of having an abortion?

It would appear that the Senators actions have little to do with the welfare of women and more to do with trying to draw media attention to increasingly irrelevant Democrats. When will the abortion argument stop being based around opinions and notions of womens rights rather than facts. The answers to the abortion arguments are simple. Is an unborn child a human being? – the answer that science gives to this question is an unequivocal yes. A developing child, though small is still a child. It is not just a part of a woman’s body. The only dividing line between a foetus and a baby is one that we have created, not one that stacks up in science. Do abortions harm women? – once again the results of studies say the answer is yes. The results are everything from infertility, to depression to breast cancer. As a society we need to be brave and pull back the curtain and look at what abortion really means and what it really does. Just because something is perceived to be popular, does not make it right. History has shown us this far to many times.

Aslan, you seem to think that I know every thing about abortion and nothing about contraception. Being a Gen Xer, I am savvy with both. You can certainly tell who the males and females are in this post. Firstly, I agree with another poster, Dalma, you are hysterical and disrespectful of what is being posted here. Also, miscarriage is a separate issue to abortion and one should not confuse the two and therefore judge them together about a woman's non/control over the choice. Let's just narrow it back down to abortion.

When males have the ability, responsibility and the dilemma with their bodies and their lives to be able to make the decision of whether or not to go ahead and go through a birth and the raising of a child, regardless of whether their partner is there for them or not, financially, emotionally and in respect to at least that child being born - (Men don't have the best track record of this, which may give an insight into why abortions are still sought after).

Men allegedly rule the world. At least give women the right to rule their own womb. The right I have for this has nothing to do with religion, politics nor society.

enaj

I respecfully request that you check the thread before making a post. I placed a hyperlink on 25th July to the article you referred to in your last post. I fully concur with your sentiments, however. It was a moving article and prompted me to ask where are the men who support their women during such difficult choices.

Di - yes you are right, you sure can determine the male posters from the females on this thread. Suspect it all gets back to "keep 'em barefoot & pregnant".

For the record I am not depressed, don't have breast cancer and at age 52 still have to use contraception - ergot not infertile. That applies to the majority of women have undergone abortions. Sure there will always be those who get depressed. I guess it would be better if women with a propensity towards depression refrain from abortions and become mothers instead. Thats just what the world needs more depressed parents.

Kathy Woolf suggest you read some Naomi Woolf and get in step with being a woman.

Trinity,
Fair cop, I did read your post and suspected your hyperlink was to the same article, but, as a technotwit, I just zip past such complicated stuff.
Dalma,
I didn't understand your post at all. The attempt to make people like Tracey and I feel bad is surely not a particularly admirable tactic? I always wonder about how such emotional blackmail and guilt-tripping marries with the oft-claimed motive of pro-lifers that they want to "protect" women from the misery of abortion.
Such misery, of course, exists, but I think it is relatively rare. Apart from my own experience, my belief that most women aproach abortion relatively pragmatically was confirmed when I appeared on 2BL's political forum a year or so ago at the height of Tony Abbott's abortion debate, with John Brogden and the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen. Our topics included the international situation, the abortion debate and our favourite recipes from the 70s. Both men spoke about abortion and women theoretically and philosophically. I decided, somewhat reluctantly, that I could not be a hypocrit and spoke about my own actual experiences, as outlined in previous posts. When I left the studio, I was terrified, I expected, at the very least to be abused and villified. Nothing like that happened. In fact, a friend rang to comment on what I'd said about Iraq, when I asked her response to my remarks on abortion, she (a mother of one) was very nonchalant, saying I was absolutely right and she'd had an abortion too and hardly knew a woman who hadn't but it was no big deal. Then I went to the P&C meeting at my daughter's school. The President said; "Oh, I heard you on Richard Glover, loved the bit about the apricot chicken."
As I keep pointing out, abortion or, at least the possibility of it, is part of the everyday warp and weft of every sexually active woman's life.

Having been banished for citing Gough Whitlam in my last comment on this thread, I'll endeavour to choose my words more carefully in this one. The following figures are derived from successive Australian Election Studies (AES) since 1987:

"On the issue of abortion, respondents are asked which of the following options they support: “Women should be able to obtain an abortion readily when they want one”; “Abortion should be allowed only in special circumstances”; “Abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances”; “Don't know”. The results over time have been:

OBTAIN ABORTION READILY: 38.6% in 1987; 50.3% in 1990; 56.1% in 1993; 53.5% in 1996; 50.3% in 1998; 57.6% in 2001; 54.2% in 2004.

ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 65.0%; 39.5%; 34.7%; 37.0%; 39.8%; 32.5%; 34.7%.

NOT ALLOWED: 6.4%; 6.0%; 4.8%; 5.5%; 4.6%; 4.1%. 4.0%

DON’T KNOW: NA; 4.2%; 4.4%; 4.1%; 5.3%; 5.8%; 7.3%."

It appears that Kathy Woolf and her supporters are out of step with public opinion on abortion.

For the record, Di, Trinity, enaj and others: not all men wish to control women's bodies - indeed, some of us are more inclined to the "warp and weft" approach so succinctly put by enaj :)

Garra, agree with you that not all men are out to control women's bodies, as put, but they are hardly the majority of ones posting on this site. Women get upset a bit when the body is used as the "politic". Agree with the post that says women are a bit more pragmatic about it. As we have learnt to be.

Hey Garra I know not all men are into the control thing - I just wanted to hear from you guys - the silence had become somewhat deafening. I thank you for your statistics, can only hope that Kathy had a good read of them.

Besides many women are anti-abortion also and, as a result, are controlling the lives of other women by attempting to impose their belief system on women who want to choose. One anti-choice poster actually wrote that she wasn't into controlling women because she was a women too (duh?!) and then proceeded to state that if she was into control she would be protesting plastic surgery - her logic lost me completely.

Anyway I hope Kathy has learnt alot from this forum and is having a reflective moment or too.

Grey – the hippocratic Oath – a pledge undertaken by some members of the medical fraternity – not by pregnant women

Law – rules to govern individual conduct – been around forever and was not until second quarter to the 19th century that any laws were enacted to control abortion and then repealed about 100 - 150 years or so later.

Just as the rule of the church has diminished over the past 1500 years, we have moved to greater individual autonomy and recognised the rights of individuals to exercise their personal choice progressively over the same time.

Whilst you might claim 'it is completely consistent with the history of the last 1500 years to argue that all abortions of convenience should be outlawed,'

It is also completely true to say

We do not burn witches
We do allow women and non-landowners to exercise a vote
We do not tip our caps to “our betters”
We do question not only the substance but also the rights of authority figures to impose their will upon us.

Therefore I would suggest that whilst you might claim that “history of the past 1500 years” argues that abortion of convenience should be outlawed”

I am living in today’s world

Women have the vote
Witchcraft is not a capital offence
The unquestionable authority of Church and the Social Order have (rightly) diminished almost to the point of extinction
And
Abortion IS LEGAL

Re Opinion Polls on abortion

“If the wording speaks of "woman’s rights," or her "choice", the majority will answer pro-abortion. If the poll asks about rights of the unborn, a strong majority will answer pro-life.

When "doctor," or "and her physician," or "medical reasons," or "medical decision" is used, pro-abortion answers are almost guaranteed. The same for "health."

But if "abortionist" is used, or if for "social or economic" reasons is used, then a large majority will answer pro-life.

"Terminate her pregnancy" brings a strong pro-abortion answer.

Combined Opinion Polls ABORTION APPROVAL
Life/Health of Mother . . . . . . . . 90%
Rape/Incest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
Fetal Handicap . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
Can’t Afford . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 40%
Too Many Children. . . . . . . . . . 40%
Emotional Strain. . . . . . . . . . . 35%
To Finish School. . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
Not Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
As Birth Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
Sex Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Note that the reasons approved of by a majority constitute only 1-2% of all abortions done, while those disapproved constituted over 98% of all abortions done
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_39.asp

The last line is important. Only 10% of abortions in Australia are for "physical" reasons, the rest for “emotional" type reasons and "emotional" reasons normally receive lower public approval.

Sorry, I couldn't give a rats what other people's opinions are about my personal decision about my life, my body, my future, my potential child. Opinion polls about whether others approve or not of my reasons - as they are defined by others - is a completely spurious argument.
I am a competent, intelligent, responsible, fully conscious human being, I will decide for myself.
If you don't like my decison, argue with me, but do it from a position of respect, not condemnation or judgement or because you presume to "protect" me. The idea of compelling a woman to have a child against her will because 56% of respondents don't think her reasons for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy are good enough, is appalling.

Sorry enaj but I have to disagree. You are not only making a decision about your body when you are making the decision to have an abortion. You decision affects the life of a defenceless human being as well. Although you may be intelligent and rational doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. To put it bluntly you made your decision when you had sex. Although it may be inconvenient for you to have a child it does not mean that you have the right to murder it.

Intelligent and competent people commit murder. We do not sit down and have an argument with them as to whether they should or shouldn’t have done it. The fact is that murdering another human being is wrong. Abortion is no different. Just because you don’t see the infants body writhing in agony as it is being torn apart piece by piece doesn’t make it any less murder. Sure opinion polls are just opinions, but wrong is wrong and facts are facts and our opinions don’t change that no matter how we justify them.

Boanerges,
Your argument relies on the premise that the foetus is a human being. Something that many educated, informed and very moral people do not believe is the case. If it's not, it's not 'murder'.

Yes but the grounds on which the argument is made that a foetus is not a child are becoming weaker and weaker. People who argue that a foetus is not child do not rely on science to make that assessment. They rely on the there own wisdom and judgement largely because the alternative to their own point of view can't be true because they do not want it to be true.

Also if it is open to debate as to whether a foetus is human or not why do we err on the side of death. Wouldn't we do better to err on the side of caution, the side of life? There has been many times in history when the masses have been told that something is ok but then later new evidence comes to light to show the effects of what they were doing was disastrous. We look at these events now and think ‘how could they have got it so wrong?’ yet we continue to make the same mistakes. Are we going to wait until someone produces a talking 3 week foetus before we accept that it is human, or can we be brave and choose life now.

Enay, Reason,
I’m sure that pro-abortion supporters use opinion polls, and if money or feminists are involved, I’m totally certain that they will attempt to misuse those polls, by “choice” of wording in the polls etc, as shown in a previous post.

But the ultimate in “choice” would be the woman who may have had 9 babies over a number of years, and then buried them in the backyard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5182321,00.html

I have also heard of a woman who had 6 abortions, and repeat abortions are on the increase in some countries.

While some pro-abortion supporters do think that the abortion rate is too high and should not increase further (ie. presently 10 abortions every hr in Australia), there are minimal suggestions on what to do to decrease that rate of abortion, or to decrease the rate of unintended pregnancy.

Normally the only thing suggested is that males “keep it in their pants” type suggestion, but glancing through some women’s magazines recently, sex was mentioned on nearly every page, together with articles such as “64 ways to be sexy” etc, so I think women are seeking more sex.

The other usual suggestion is that males should wear a condom, but looking through one of the web-sites suggested in this article, it appears that the condom is the only method of contraception being used 51% of the time (and condoms are not very reliable)

So what other suggestions are there for lowering the rate of abortions or unwanted pregnancies

Enaj, am with you 100%. Some men ( and I certainly don't mean all male posters on this site, because some have brought some great support and insights, sans judgement) have this thing about the womb and how we should wear it, that women have the responsibility, outside of contraception. Some women may have 6 abortions, some men have spread their seed too much, but never is it judged that they should have a vasectomy over self-enforced celibacy. Get over the moral thing about why women become pregnant and stop judging why we have abortions. If guys want to have more control over women having abortions, well start whacking on a condom! And taking a bit of responsibility over birth control before you want a say on the abortion issue. Women don't moralise about what you do with your joystick. Otherwise the premarital world would be full of head jobs!

Pt1
Somewhat disappointed that this thread has kicked on but “The semantics of embryo research and human cloning” thread ended up just being between Deuc and myself.
BTW I’m not a Bible basher I’m actually a secular humanist. Aslan we are on the same side on this one, go figure. I’m also an ethical moral relativist so I’m not saying either side is either morally right or wrong, just looking at to what degree they are consistent in their moral arguments.

To summarize we debated from my point of view.

In the West those that have legal abortions are inconsistent in that if they use personhood to decide whether a human entity has equal moral consideration but they also grant personhood rights to born humans with infants, the mentally handicapped and some elderly who don’t have functional personhood, but deny it to unwanted unborn humans.

If we experiment/use/kill them we should to be consistent, also be able to experiment/use/kill these born non-persons. This is not accepted by the Pro-Choice therefore they are inconsistent.

We value human life as a fundamental moral consideration, we don’t go around saying such-and-such just saved 10 human persons/personhoods we say we saved human lives.

When it comes to fundamental moral precepts we don’t accept ones that are arbitrary or aren’t universal. Saying I value this unborn and no one should harm it because I want it but if it weren’t wanted you can go ahead is plainly arbitrary.

We have limited right to even our own bodies (selling body parts etc) and what we do with our bodies he highly constrained when it involves harming others.

We give responsibility to individuals who knowing take part in an action even if the result has only a small chance of happening when it involves potential or actual harm to others.

This is the only situation I’m aware of where a healthy human life can be taken, only one side of the equation is given consideration and no responsibility for taking part in the action that was directly linked to the event happening is give to that party.

Pt 2
If fairness and equal consideration is applied to both the man and the woman either the woman gives up the sole right for the birth to be terminated or gives up the right to force the man to financially contribute.( Let alone any consideration for the unborn.) BTW if as a community we allow the woman the right to terminate that should allow the male to forgo financial responsibility and we as a community must pick up the tab.

My question for the pro-choice if we don’t want to be arbitrary on a fundamental moral precept of valuing human life (all things being equal) -which any parent who wants a child clearly shows to their unborn- why not give the baby up for adoption?

I’ve already conceded to Duec that I believe that I think moral decisions are largely non-rational with some objectivity throw in (infact I don’t think morality can be both complete and consistent) and that I would diverge with some strong pro-lifers in that I would terminate a human life it were with large genetic defects/diseases.

Enaj,

So opinion polls are irrelevant unless they happen to support abortion?

I don't know whether youre "competent, intelligent, responsible, fully conscious" but you do seem to be very selfish. Youre not just deciding for yourself - youre deciding for your unborn child, who didn't get a say.

The idea of a woman killing her (and her partner's) child because she decides that she doesn't want it, is appalling.

Reason,

Was the crying baby left in a kidney dish after an abortion at Darwin Private Hospital not a human being? Or the numerous others who have actually survived an abortion? See for eg:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/survivors.asp

If not, then when does a baby become a human being? Premature babies have been born around the time when many abortions are performed, and still survived.

Di,

Agree that men need to take more responsibility for their actions. Indeed, in many cases women seek abortions because their men refuse to support them in raising the child and/or pressure them into aborting.

However, I never "sowed my seed" before I got married and have never had any extra-marital affair, so by your own standard I have every right to speak on the abortion issue.

Re Not pushing one's own morals onto others

This accusation made by a few posters is silly. The idea that it is wrong to "push one's own morals onto others" is itself clearly a moral belief, hence the whole idea is self-defeating.

A true relativist can only say "I think it is wrong for ME to push MY beliefs onto others", but this does not exclude others from pushing their beliefs onto the relativist.

Problem is that the people who make this argument think that their views should be my views as well ie. they are want to force their views onto me. Indeed, Natasha's bill is doing exactly this! She is trying to legislatively enforce her morality on everyone!

BTW, free choice regarding abortion won't save these women from breast cancer. You can vote away laws but you can't vote away the resulting consequences...

Enaj – I agree with you

One thing we are is individuals.

We are not the chattels of some greater society.

An embryo is not an autonomous entity (individual), it is an extension of the mother, until such time as the mother gives birth. A child is post-birth and although helpless, is able to be cared for by someone else – an embryo is an exclusively dependent extension of the pregnant woman in whose body it is developing.

Neohuman –

“My question for the pro-choice if we don’t want to be arbitrary on a fundamental moral precept of valuing human life (all things being equal) -which any parent who wants a child clearly shows to their unborn- why not give the baby up for adoption?”

Simple – a pregnancy is not without risk, discomfort or stress. Most importantly, it may not be what the individual woman wants – and she is the one who matters – it is her choice to proceed or not – her body and her responsibility alone to decide – it is not up to some third party who gets their jollies from imposing their interpretation of morality upon her.

As for

“We have limited right to even our own bodies (selling body parts etc) and what we do with our bodies he highly constrained when it involves harming others.”

We have absolute right to do what we want with our body including abuse them with drugs (use of drugs is not an offence – possession is) or pierce of tattoo them as we wish – the matter of selling body parts is to prevent the commercial exploitation of those who might want to “sell” a kidney (or whatever), noting there is nothing illegal about a living person 'donating' say a kidney to someone else (surgically removed and relocated from the donor and into the recipients body) -

Curbing commercial exploitation was the reason for the criminalisation of abortions in the mid 19th century - nothing to do with the embryo.

Aslan, Boanerges
That is my simple point – when is a baby a new life? Some state at the moment of conception, some raise instances where there was breath taken when as some say ‘ripped’ from the womb.

I do not judge this as it is an impossible question to answer.

As to erring on the side of caution – life. Well that entails some individual choice. Who’s caution? That also depends on one’s point of view. All your examples notwithstanding, the point at which a life becomes independent and human is and probably always will be very contentious.

I am not taking a stand on this. Call me a fence sitter but it’s not my place to say. I believe that the only person to ultimately make that choice is the person carrying the ultimate burden – the woman. They are the ones who eventually live with the consequences.

I think it is very important for a man and woman to discuss the matter – both carry the burden of creating the situation. And a good man will stand by the woman once his input and opinion is known – but he will not and I believe should not force a position on her – as should no one else.

The pro-life lobby claim to be speaking for the rights of the unborn. If that be the case, perhaps the pro-lifers should be the ones who take on the child after birth – if it ever gets to that. When every unwanted pregnancy has a happy, reliable home to go to, then we can discuss the matter further.

Why is erring on the side of caution up to the mothers decision. If you can not categorically say that a child is not human why should we kill it? My isn't it up to the pro abortionists to prove that the child is not human.

There are plenty of loving homes for families there are simply not enough children. Australians wait for years and dish out thousands of dollars to go overseas to adopt because there aren't enough children in Australia. Adoption is a wonderful thing and should be honoured. It gives a child a future where they didn't have one and a family a child to love.

If any woman who is considering an abortion is reading this please think twice. Please consider having your child and putting it up for adoption as an alternative. You should not feel guilty for considering this. Your child will thank you. Its adoptive parents will thank you.

PT1 Col Rouge

“An embryo is not an autonomous entity it is an extension of the mother, until such time as the mother gives birth. A child is post-birth and although helpless, is able to be cared for by someone else – an embryo is an exclusively dependent extension of the pregnant woman in whose body it is developing.”

Not an extension, it is attached & is a unique human at the earliest stage of development. If it were an extension it would have the same genetic makeup as the mother.

”a pregnancy is not without risk, discomfort or stress”.

As far as risk I think most pro-life would allow abortions where it is know beforehand that the mothers life is at "serious" risk.

Next fine if you think a temporary discomfort outweighs the value of a human life.

“Most importantly, it may not be what the individual woman wants – and she is the one who matters – it is her choice to proceed or not – her body and her responsibility alone to decide –“

Again fine I maintain that morality is often a non-rational of emotional prioritization of values. You place the woman’s fertility rights and temporary discomfort over the value of a human life.

So to you whether or not it is a person is irrelevant a woman’s fertility rights supercedes all?

Others think that by consenting to an action that you knew may bring about a human life that you forgo that right, that the value of a human life supercedes fertility/body rights.

You would agree that if someone who assaults you and causes you to miscarriage they should only be up for assault and no more serious charge?

Will you be fair and give up the right to force a male to pay when he has no input in the decision whether the life is kept or not?

“it is not up to some third party who gets their jollies from imposing their interpretation of morality upon her.”

Poor ad hom, society is all about imposing group morality on it’s members whether they are-

I think someone could argue the moral right or wrong of abortion for a very long time, and this has been occurring for some decades now, during which time the abortion rate has hardly declined. So the real issue is what to do to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy and reduce the rate of abortion.

About the only suggestions that have come forward, (mainly from pro-abortion supporters) on a number of forums have been :-
# men should refrain from sex – however women seem to want more sex
# men should have more vasectomies –however Australian men have one of the highest rates of vasectomies in the world & the rate of serialisation for men is now 5 times that of women
# men should use a condom – however in 50% of the times when contraception was being used, the condom was the only form of contraception used, and the condom is one of the least reliable forms of contraception.

My thoughts to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and abortion would be.
# programs to study the reasons for abortion in Australia – minimal work done so far
# programs to encourage greater use of skin implant contraception and injection contraception for women – found very effective in bringing down unwanted pregnancy in a number of countries.
# programs to make adoption of children easier
# government to subsidise the cost of first abortion, then if there is a second unwanted pregnancy, government to subsidise the cost of that pregnancy to full term so the baby can be adopted out.
# counselling programs after the first abortion to get beter use of contraception
# three or more abortions and the woman is charged with a form of manslaughter – as she has had ample opportunity to limit unwanted pregnancy (including better use of contraception, sterilization, adopting out baby etc)
# any counselling to include the father where possible
# government or private companies to further investigate other types of male contraception – eg male pill, RISUG method etc.

The problem with a male pill, (which to some degree is the same as the female pill), is the issue of trust. Many women would be reluctant to trust that their partner is on the pill (properly, has not skipped any), mainly because, no matter who was sloppy with the contraception, SHE is the one that gets pregnant.

"but women seem to want more sex" WHAAAAAAT?? Those terrible women, out there coercing men to have sex with them!! how dare they!! *laughing* As you are always reminding us with your rants about fatherhood, Timkins, there are TWO people involved in sex!

Laurie,
Thank you for you maligning remarks regards myself, although they were typically generalised and unsubstainiated.

However, you have not made one suggestion on what to do to reduce the rate of abortion.

As far as women wanting more sex, go into any newsagency and look through all the women’s magazines, and you will find sex mentioned and advertised right throughout practically every magazine. I would think that a very good indication that women seek more sex, as I have never heard of any women’s group complaining about it.

Male contraception can be used as a skin implant, which makes it much more reliable, (like female skin inplant contraception) but to my knowledge, such male skin inplant contraception is still being developed.

You can also look up the RISUG method on the internet, which seems to have possibilities.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. If you want to flame another poster, your posts will be recomended for deletion each time in the future.

Oh Timkins, I was certainly not flaming you! The *laughing* should have clued you in on that!! :)

My first point is why the male pill has not been the focus of development as much as controlling female fertility. Which was in direct response to your suggestions, therefore I felt was on topic.

My second was just amused disbelief that in a discussion about the merits or otherwise of abortion suddenly you had to throw in that women were wanting more sex... it just seemed so.... random...

Anyway, no insult intended, I try not to be insulting, I was so overcome with amusement that I couldn't help but express my befuddlement. Unfortunately, my typing cannot always indicate emotion, and amused disbelief is rather difficult to 'emoticon'.

Laurie,
I think women had the pill first because they called for it, although there appears to be a lot of women who still don’t use any type of contraception, or rely on the condom only. However you have not yet put forward one suggestion on how to reduce the abortion rate.

Below is an updated draft of the proposed system.

1 Increased research into the reasons for abortion in Australia.
2 Public education programs to encourage greater use of more reliable forms of contraception.
3 Government programs to make adoption of children easier.
4 Medicare to fund abortions.
5 Medicare to fund the cost of the pregnancy going to term, if the mother and father agree to adopt out the child (for now, termed pregnancy/adoption).
6 Three or more abortions and the mother is charged with an offence (as she has had opportunity to limit unwanted pregnancy by the use of better contraception, sterilization, adopting out the baby etc).
7 Three or more pregnancy/adoptions and the mother is charged with an offence.
8 If the woman has had three abortions or pregnancy/adoptions with the same father, that father is also charged with an offence.
9 Compulsory counselling before and after any abortion or pregnancy/adoption.
10 All counselling is to include the known father where possible.
11 Counselling after any abortion or pregnancy/adoption is to include an education program for the better use of contraception by the mother and father.
11 Government or private companies to carry out increased research into other types of male contraception (eg male pill, RISUG method etc.)

Under this system, the mother and father are allowed 2 public funded abortions and 2 public funded pregnancy/adoptions, and any more and they are charged. Counselling is used throughout.

If that doesn’t decrease the abortion rate, then it is reduced to 1 public funded abortion and 2 public funded pregnancy/adoptions etc.

I hope the author is reading this list, to try and make something out of these endless forums on abortion on OLO. If she has read the list, (and agrees/disagrees) perhaps some comment.

Pt 2
-religious or humanist in origin.

Currently if the polls say that the majority of Australian want non-life threatening abortions than fine, I would just want to see a man being forced to pay for a child he didn’t want to be cancelled as it is fundamentally unfair.

& if we are poll driven and majority rules if Pro-life became the majority, your should give up your fertility “right” and be a good citizen.

”We have absolute right to do what we want with our body including abuse them with drugs (use of drugs is not an offence – possession is)”

Nitpicking you think the aim isn’t to stop people abusing their bodies? What is the whole euthanasia debate about if we can do whatever we like to our bodies?

”Curbing commercial exploitation was the reason for the criminalisation of abortions in the mid 19th century - nothing to do with the embryo.”

The only factor? What about poverty and social morals where the woman didn’t want anyone to know the birth so thought it necessary to seek the backyard solution in the first place? I would be surprised if that were the only reason.

Timkins I’d like to see research about what is said to mother, the reasons they feel it is necessary to have an abortion and what resources if any is their for counseling to have the child but give it up to adoption.

I’d also have an debate about sexual education that promoted non-vaginal sexual activities ie mutual masturbation/massage, oral or anal. I heard that the UK was promoting oral sex to teenagers to avoid teenage pregnancies

And

12. An offence if three or more pregnancies caused by itinernant males (Also known as 'spreading wild oats') with other women.

And yes I did note number 8.

Timkins how do you propose to enforce such draconian measures?

Seriously though, like it or not, women will continue to seek control over their fertility and make their decisions based on their unique circumstances and beliefs.

(Just for the record I have been taken off oral contraception as I suffer from migraines - too much risk with hormonal contraception - quite common.)

Hey Trinity, the pill is not just high-risk for migraine sufferers and smokers either - it has been declared a carcinogenic for women in general - heard it on ABC radio. Kinda puts the mockers on Timkins little system of retribution.

Anyway I agree w/you as it is still women who get pregnant - to have or not to have an abortion will remain with women.

Boo Hoo fellas.

Trinity, Zena
Still no real suggestions on how to decrease the abortion rate.

I get the opinion that some people are accepting of our present rate of abortions (about 40% of pregnancies) even though other countries have a lower rate. There is a limit to most things, so what rate of abortion do you think would be too much, 60%, 80%, 100%?

The normal thing for many people is to “blame it on the male” and say that “females are being perpetually victimized” etc, so if measures are put into place to try and curb abortion, then this is construed as males trying to control females, while it is ignored or hidden, how much abortions can negatively effect women both physically and mentally, or how it becomes unhealthy for society to have so many unwanted and discarded children.

Overall I sense that all this “choice” business, is simply a way of ignoring responsibility, while being able to point the finger at the male gender.

I would think the three strikes and you are out rule would be rarely applied, as most people would not go through 2 abortions and 2 pregnancy/adoptions with counselling undertaken after each one, without making quite significant changes to their life style or use of contraception.

(BTW, use of the male condom is much more common than use of the female condom, and male sterilization is 5 times more common than female sterilization, and women’s literature and feminism seem to be encouraging women to become highly promiscuous etc, as discussed in previous posts.)

The system proposed uses the three strikes and your out rule as a deterrent, but it also emphasises further research, counselling, contraception education, (and for both the mothers and fathers). It is ironic that so many people will try and say that abortion is all the man’s fault etc, etc, etc then want to exclude men from the counselling process.

Still waiting on some real suggestions on how to reduce the abortion rate (without saying males are always to blame, women can't use contraception, sex is rape, only men want sex etc)

Timkins, Timkins, Timkins always the reactionary.

“(without saying males are always to blame, women can't use contraception, sex is rape, only men want sex)”

I don’t recall any posters here stating the above – may be that’s simply your alarmist reaction to comments with which you disagree.

You failed to answer Trinity’s question – how do you propose enforcing these ‘offences’? What would be the punishment?

Another point, while lowering the abortion rate is preferable, no women uses abortion as a preferred method of contraception – it is the last resort. I do not see it in the alarmist terms that you do. I don’t see it as murder, therefore, I don’t see abortion as something that is criminal. Ergot not a punishable offence.

As for the rate of abortion – you are being absurd when you ask if 100% is acceptable. If you wish to be taken seriously then posit reasonable levels and don’t be so offensive.

You state that male sterilization is 5 times the rate for women. If true congratulations fellas! Well done! It is a much simpler operation for men than for women. I hope this stat is true. This is called taking responsibility for yourself.

We are, in general, better informed about our sexuality and reproduction than ever before. Still I imagine there are those who indiscriminately fornicate – I notice you had nothing to say about the ‘spreading of the wild oats’ – something which is encouraged among some men. Not ALL men, Timkins, no more with the >>she-must-be-a-man-hater-because-she-believes-in-equal-rights rant. We’ve all heard you before on that topic.

And just where do you get the idea that wanting ‘choice’ is yet another way at pointing the finger at men? Do you have a guilty conscience or what?

No! Choice is about deciding what is better – becoming a parent or not becoming a parent. MY body, MY responsibility; MY choice.

Xena,

You said: "No! Choice is about deciding what is better – becoming a parent or not becoming a parent. MY body, MY responsibility; MY choice."

No Xena, it's not just your body! It's your and your partner's child with it own body and unique DNA. It's also your partner's responsibility and his choice.

If you want the choice to become a parent or not, then you can choose to have sex or not to have sex. You know whether you're taking contraception, you know your own menstral cycle, you can choose to use a condom, you can choose to say "NO".

Stop being so b&$%@y selfish and start taking some responsibility for your own actions! That goes for guys who abandon their impregnated partners as well.

Wrong Aslan - the height of selfishness is to force a woman to term against her will.

Xena stated that abortion is a last resort. She may well consult with her partner but ultimately the decision is hers.

Mate, until we can have babies all we can do is offer our support, whether the decision our partners make is the one we would like or not is part and parcel of all relationships. There are many decisions apart from abortion where partners do not agree. However to force our loved one into a situation she is vehemently against - for whatever reason (health, age, whatever) is really one of the most apalling things one can do to a partner you (theoretically) love.

To become a parent is the most important decision of our lives and should never be entered into without serious thought and consideration.

To force someone to be become a parent is reprehesible in the extreme. Shame on you Aslan.

Xena,
Thankyou for your name calling (eg “reactionary”, “alarmist” etc). I have noticed in many forums you have called many posters many names, and I will be recommending your posts for deletion in the future if you continue to do so

“We are, in general, better informed about our sexuality and reproduction than ever before” . Is this true is it?

You knew little about vasectomy, and if you investigate abortion in Australia, you will find significant evidence of ethnic groups that use minimal or no contraception, and routinely use abortion as a type of contraception.

The abortion rate has hardly declined in decades, but the country’s wealth has increased, tax and government spending has considerably increased, and technology has improved. So something is definitely wrong somewhere in the system, and I think it has much to do with all this “women’s choice” smokescreen, and male finger pointing (eg male “spreading of the wild oats” syndrome) that so often occurs from pro-abortion supporters.

To answer some of the details in my proposed system (and a system is definitely necessary to reduce the abortion rate), a judge normally decides the penalties that are applied if someone is found guilty of an offence, but women generally receive minimal penalties in any court.

The system would probably require a registry, where abortions or pregnancy/adoptions are registered. If there are abortions or adoptions carried out and details are not entered in that registry, (ie “backyard abortions”) then severe penalties would apply to the persons involved when caught. The number of abortions or pregnancy/adoptions that someone has would therefore become known, and the system can be policed.

Who is the father is difficult to establish without DNA tests, and difficult to establish until after the birth or abortion.

But males who want to see a vast reduction in the atrocious rate of abortion in a supposedly civilized country, are not necessarily males trying to limit a women’s power etc, etc, etc. Abortion is not necessarily healthy for society.

Again “Still no real suggestions [from you] on how to decrease the abortion rate.”

Timkins - good on you mate! I don't always agree with you. But one thing is for certain - I respect the amount of research that you always put into your postings.

Cheers
Kay

Timkins: Again “Still no real suggestions [from you] on how to decrease the abortion rate.”

PLease read my previous post - I stated:

>>Another point, while lowering the abortion rate is preferable, no women uses abortion as a preferred method of contraception – it is the last resort.<<

I am not as obssessed about abortion as you Timkins, being a woman I know that I would always consider abortion as a last resort and consider it carefully. There appear to be those who believe that women are so stupid that they would use abortion as a primary means of contraception. This is offensive and completely erroneous. I am primarily concerned that women remain in control of their bodies and their fertility.

As for name calling - 'reactionary' responses is something you frequently indulge in, for example you failed to completely read my post before responding to it. This is not name calling it is an analysis of your responses. I'm sure that if you tried to have it deleted you would find that Graham would not consider it flaming. I have not ever been deleted for flaming. I simply disagree with you Timkins, that's all. People here call me names all the time - it is a part of posting upon this forum. I am more interested on the POV expressed. If you can't handle criticism then perhaps you should post elsewhere.

Thank you Ambo for your support - you are correct becoming a parent IS the most important thing we can do. It is far too crucial to our well being and the well being of our children to indiscriminately breed. It is not as if the human race is in danger of becoming extinct. Unless we nuke ourselves of course, but no amount of giving birth will save us from that possible scenario.

For the record, Aslan;

as I am currently involved with another woman - I am not having to worry about using any form of contraception. Of course I would consider using it if I was involved with a man.

Xena,
I have recommended your last post for deletion as you have once again indulged in name calling and flaming (eg this time calling me “obsessed”, which goes along with your previous name calling of “reactionary”, and “alarmist”, with an inference that I “have a guilty conscience”) You may think name calling and flaming of other posters is debate, but it is only name calling and flaming, and you have indulged in it on innumerable occasions.

The abortion rate has hardly changed since the oral contraceptive Pill for women was invented. I wonder why. Is it because there is minimal accountability within the abortion industry, where abortions can be carried out without any doctor’s referral or any counselling, and most abortions are being subsidised by the tax payer, but the tax payer cannot question the system, or even suggest alternatives to the “free for all” that is currently the abortion industry.

The latter is what I have done, offered up a 12 point package system, that if implemented, would most likely significantly reduce our atrocious rate of abortion within a few years.

You have not offered anything except name calling and flaming of other poster, while repeating the mantra of “women’s choice”, and inferring abortions are caused by males “spreading their oats”, and holding onto the erroneous belief that women are not using abortion as a form of contraception.

From an interview with an abortionist :-
“And for instance, in 2000, from about 2000-2003, or 2002, the abortion rate began to rise again because of net overseas migration. In other words, the Federal Government were bringing in large numbers of women, in particular between 20 and 30, to bolster up the workforce, and these women, particularly from northern Asia, have a high uptake of abortion as a preferred method of birth control, as a back up to failed condom use, etc.” http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1239275.htm

Still waiting for some “real suggestions [from you] on how to decrease the abortion rate.”

Timkins

Xena has stated repeatedly that she is not as concerned about the abortion rate as are you. Therefore, not offering 'realistic' ways to decrease rate.

I also agree with Xena that criticism is not name calling nor flaming - it is, as she said, 'a difference of opinion'. And I have to agree that you do appear to be rather obsessed with this issue - this is an opinion based upon the subject matter of your posts. It is not intended as flaming but does beg the question of your extreme reaction to differing POV's. And 'extreme' isn't intended as flaming either. Trying to communicate with you is like walking on eggshells - and that's not intended as flaming either.

No one is saying that ALL men are responsible for women having to have abortions as a result of 'sowing their oats'. In your little diatribe of offences you omitted to include promiscuous men. That's all.

And 'women's choice' is not a mantra - it is our lives and our bodies, you can either walk with us or walk alone.

I cannot take hormonal contraception because of migraines - I have to rely upon condoms. At age 51 if I should fall pregnant I would definitely consider abortion given the potential for Down's and other age related syndromes. I suppose that you would deny me that and force me to term. Would you?

Of course Asian women are coming here for abortions - decent contraception is more difficult to obtain in Asia. They are coming here as a last resort. Australia has safer methods of abortions and long may it continue. That's right, I approve of abortion as a last resort after careful consideration.

You may not agree with me - that's OK. I most certainly do not agree with you about your concerns regarding the rate of abortion. Would be nice if we didn't have to have abortions but to subject it to the type of scrutiny you propose is nothing short of totalitarianism and therefore unacceptable.

PS Be interesting to see if I or Xena get 'flamed'.

Trinity,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated maligning remarks about myself and my posts (eg “your extreme reaction to differing POV's”, “Trying to communicate with you is like walking on eggshells”

If someone has minimal knowledge of the subject matter, does not bother to research it much, presents POV’s but does not bother to substantiate them,(ie plucks POV's out of the air), presents no new evidence or data, relies on name calling and maligning inferences of other posters, (and in the case of Xena, once stooped so low as to make maligning comments regards my daughter on another forum, when she does not even know her), relies on tired old propaganda mantra’s, rarely reference anything, presents no suggestions on how to solve serious social issues, etc, etc, etc then I think they should just stay out of forums and let others have their say who do make more of a effort.

But the rate of abortion has hardly declined in many years, and I reject the idea that abortion should be publicly funded, while at the same time there should be minimal accountability shown by anyone involved in abortion, while at the same time no one can suggest anything different otherwise they will be called an "extremist".

It is odd how I can posts on other forums regards completely different topics, (eg from environment to international politics to weaponry) but if I post on something connected to issues such as abortion or family issues, I get called numerous names.

I think people are trying to protect the status quo, and in the case of abortion, the status quo is abominable.

So again “Still waiting for some real suggestions on how to decrease the abortion rate.”, and if someone has some suggestions, they can leave out any name calling, unsubstantiated inferences, attacking the poster and not addressing the topic etc.

Timkins, you are overly sensitive, if you think Xena and Trinity are flaming or defaming you, I suggest you get on the wrong side of say, a Col Rouge! I agree with Trinity's comment about forcing women to term is totalialism in the extreme. I am not surprised that abortion rates have not gone down since the advent of the Pill, rather I would have thought they would have increased, as it now being legal to have an abortion, accurate stats exist, as they would not have been in the dark ages when women were forced underground.

Re reducing the rate of abortion? Outside celibacy for men and women, continuing sex education in schools, free access to contraception for women and more research into reversible vasectomies for men may be a start. Encouraging men who have no desire to be a father to think about a vasectomy as a choice. Free condoms of course, more STDs and pregnancies have been transmitted because of a young man's embarrassment at having to front at a chemist and that's if they had the money to buy them. But not the special deluxe models, just your garden variety condoms.

"It is odd how I can posts on other forums regards completely different topics, (eg from environment to international politics to weaponry) but if I post on something connected to issues such as abortion or family issues, I get called numerous names."

I don't suppose that it's occurred to Timkins that the difference in response is most probably due to the content of what he writes, rather than anything about him as a person. Indeed, I've noticed that when he writes on other topics his comments tend to be quite reasonable and lucid, but when it comes to topics that are associated with women, families, feminism or abortion [deleted for flaming, poster suspended for 28 days for continually breaking rules].

[Flaming as well.]

To all posters

As a female I am sick and tired of hearing stuff along the lines of "men and their seeds". I am sick and tired of women blaming men for pregnancy. Women have their own seeds [presumably of joy]. They want to have sex with men. They choose to have sex with men (apart from rape). When they engage in sexual intercourse it is inevitable that they may become pregnant.

Women should stop their bs. Learn other and healthier ways of making love - and it does not cost a cent!

Spare me from this ridiculous blaming game
Cheers
Kay

I think the abortion debate is a load of bs. Women can choose not to have sexual intercourse - yet they can still make love with their male partner.

Di & Garra - I can only endorse what you say here. It appears that Timkins has confused opinions derived from his posts as personal attacks. It is true that only on topics of feminism, critiques of male behaviour (he interprets this as slurs), families and of course abortions, that Timkins receives the most challenging posts to his opinion. And that is as it should be. This is an Opinion Forum. Timkins you'll just have to develop a thicker skin mate.

Di

Good point about the Col Rouges on this site - now thats flaming. About condoms I've always fancied black myself - although my partner tells me black makes things look smaller.....;-)

Kalweb

I'm not sure I understand the overall point of your post. I don't see that women posters are blaming everything on men and I'm male - therefore likely to be more sensitive. If you are sick of reading about the abortion debate then just don't.

I agree there are others ways to have sex without penetration (if that's what you meant). However, humans being humans they will do what comes naturally.... oops.

I sense a certain hostility in the tone of your post. Are you anti-abortion then? Do you agree with Kathy Woolfs claim that Natasha is out of step?

I don't think our Tash is out of step - to make abortion an emotional coaster ride via intrusive and excessive counselling will not achieve anything - I doubt it will decrease the overall abortion rate and may in fact force some more easily manipulated women to term who would rather not be parents. These women may then take out their negativity on their children. Not a good result.

Cheers to all

kalweb I wouldn't call it BS, just rationalizations.

It's reasonably easy to spot, due to the degree of inconsistency, resort to mantras or name calling.

Fairness and responsibility become a one-way street for the some pro-life advocates, they want a man to shoulder all the responsibility for consenting to sex by forcing him to pay for an unwanted child but they are more than happy to let the woman sidestep any responsibility by giving her sole right to decide whether a life is taken or not.

If they were consistent on fairness they would drop the requirement for a man to pay child support.

BTW Trinity, Xena, you would agree that if someone who assaults you and causes you to miscarriage they should only be up for assault and no more serious charge?

Also since the unborn life does not count we should be able to have abortions as late as is medically possible, I’m sure that the unborn can be given painkillers before it is chopped up. Also think of the lives that could be saved if we experimented or harvested body parts from the unwanted unborn?

Surely Trinity, Xena since you still have ‘my body my choice’ you wouldn’t object if this was done?

If so what would be your objections?

BTW my first suggestions would be taking away the subsidies for abortions and putting the money into paying medical costs for having the baby, counseling for resources for adoption and better sex education esp for non-vaginal sexual pleasure.

Lastly you don’t need a totalitarian state just a ban and a similar legal status that we have with assisted euthanasia, insofar that anyone assisting be jailed.

As far as Stott Despoja I see it both ways if it is currently legal and a woman requests it then she should be referred, but they should also provide all the info including the negatives and other options including adoption. To cry that this is “intrusive and excessive counseling” I just plain bias.

Di,
Thankyou for your personalised lecture (eg “you are overly sensitive” etc). However your lecture is well off-topic, like Garra’s ENTIRE POST, which simply flamed another poster. Perhaps the Moderators should have a look at that, to maintain forum standards.

I noticed a previous poster suggesting that abortion would be necessary if the baby had Down’s Syndrome. But having Down’s Syndrome is not illegal, although killing someone because they have Down’s Syndrome definitely is.

It is for such reasons that proper counselling must be carried out before and after any abortion, and if a person doesn’t want children, (eg. because they are too old), then contraception options would be explained to them during such counselling, including information on sterilization. It does appear that Australian women are falling behind in that regard, (see “Australian Men Carry The Load For Contraception” http://www.amaq.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=1399&pid=

Unfortunately most of your suggestions for reducing the abortion rate are already occurring, but have had minimal effect in reducing the abortion rate. It is noticeable that you didn’t mention counselling, better use of contraception by women, female sterilization etc. If researched, you will likely find many women use no form of contraception at all, but rely totally on the male condom as the only form of contraception.

If you think my proposals are “totalitarian”, I think you overlooked the fact that abortion is a matter of life or death for the child, (and sometimes the mother), and I think you overlooked the fact that before a mother or father could be charged, they would have to go through 3 publicly funded abortions and 5 separate sets of publicly funded counselling beforehand, and they also had the option of having 2 publicly funded pregnancy/adoptions with 4 extra sets of publicly funded counselling as well. And even if they were charged, they could present evidence in court to show if there were extenuating circumstances. I would think such a system is extremely tolerant, cooperative, and of course sensitive.

Ambo,
I will get back to your post, after contacting the Ambulance Department, to see if your views are theirs also.

Dear Ambo

Thanks for your feedback. I re-read my post. You are correct. It does sound very hostile. On reflection, I wish I had not written it. I hope I did not offend anybody.

I am not able to be objective on this. I should have kept my mouth well and truely shut! Even so, I am not against abortion.

Thanks again and apologies to all posters
Kay

Ambo,
I have noted your continuous attempts to stereotype myself (even though you know very little about myself), and I will repeat these words again each time you do it.

I’ve contacted the complaints section of the Ambulance Services, (http://www.asnsw.health.nsw.gov.au/contact/feedback.html), and your posting under your current forum name, (which identifies you as an ambulance officer), and your views regards unborn children are being investigated.

“I doubt it will decrease the overall abortion rate and may in fact force some more easily manipulated women to term who would rather not be parents. These women may then take out their negativity on their children. Not a good result.”

So the child should be killed if the mother doesn’t want it. I’ve come across this type of thinking before, and it’s very similar to killing the child if it has Down’s Syndrome.

The rationality is:- “Kill The Child, To Save the Child”.

If the child is born, and someone then kills it because the mother doesn’t want it, or kills it because it has an ailment, then this would constitute murder. But the difference with abortion, is that the child is in the womb, (and voiceless), and if the abortion is carried out early enough, then someone could claim that the foetus is just “a clump of cells”. Although:-
-those cells are believed human enough to determine that it is a human foetus, and/or
-those cells are believed human enough to determine that it has a human ailment such as Down’s Syndrome.

Not much logic or morality there, and statistically, the most dangerous place for a child, is to be within the mother’s womb.

Also the people who advocate this type of abortion mentality, will generally overlook the fact that the child has a father who may want the child, and also overlook the fact that the child could be adopted out, as there is a long waiting list of parents wanting to adopt children.

So this type of thinking, would best be sorted out during counselling, (that is, if we were in a civilised world, that had some type of standards).

As a woman I am becoming increasingly embarrassed to be represented by certain ‘spokeswomen’ on this site. I cringe every time I read that line ‘MY body, MY responsibility, MY choice’- seems like Xena, Trinity and Di are stuck in the 60’s ‘liberation’ movement mentality…. They haven’t reached the stage where they have the maturity to accept that sex has consequences. Let’s move on!

Let’s accept that we know enough about the unborn child that it is ignorance to try and pretend it is not a human life. Let’s not pretend we are so daft that we can’t work out our own contraception issues… Let’s leave the prehistoric sexist mentality that denies a man any say in either the debate, or in whether they want to keep their own child alive. Surely we can give ourselves more credit than that!?

We live in a modern society- not in an individualistic vacuum. Let’s drop the farce of pretending that a baby is a commodity that we can create and destroy at will- how barbaric! Ladies, these arguments may have been ok 40 years ago, but please don’t insult our sex by trying to pass them off as answers now.

Don't worry Em - you're no more represented by the enlightened and emancipated women on this thread than I am by the misogynist and/or religious nutters who are the most voluble among male posters.

Speaking of which, I think that it's outrageous that Timkins should abuse this site by threatening Ambo because he disagrees with Timkins' extreme beliefs about abortion. Such behaviour undermines the practice of free speech, and should warrant some kind of disciplinary action by the forum Moderators.

Would any of the Pro-life advocates like to respond to my Monday, 8 August 2005 8:59:25 AM post?

I'd like to hear you defend the injustice of making a man pay child support when he has no say in whether the child is kept or not, or that since the unborn has no worth we should be able to experiment, harvest body parts or take it's life up until the birth.

Also if you are using the unborn is not a person defence we should be able to kill and experiment on, born non-persons ie infants, the handicapped and the the severly imparied elderly as they do not have functional personhood.

EM

-With many thanks to Garra :-)-

I live in the 21st century where a woman has control over her body. Unlike the preceding centuries where she was forced to risk her life to the ministrations of back yard abortionists. Barbaric indeed.

I notice from other posters that they wish men would be involved and supportive in the choices they have to make - hardly prehistoric.

You claim to be embarrassed by women holding a different opinion to yours - how peculiar, Kathy Woolf doesn't embarrass me and I don't agree with her.

I really believe that this thread has run its course when sub-human - sorry, I mean neo-human wants to argue about experimentation on disabled and elderly!

What kind of mind thinks up such horrendeous ideas - equating pro-choice with that kind of appalling scenario. Not on topic, not applicable and not worthy of further response.

Xena wrote.
“I really believe that this thread has run its course when sub-human - sorry,”

Ok cheap shot she is now open to my ridicule.

-“ I mean neo-human wants to argue about experimentation on disabled and elderly!”

“What kind of mind thinks up such horrendeous ideas - equating pro-choice with that kind of appalling scenario. Not on topic, not applicable and not worthy of further response.”

Now at least you have an understanding of where the Pro-life people are coming from, they find it equally appalling to use any human life in this way.

Xena it doesn’t surprise me that you lack the intellectual rigor to deal with a ‘thought experiment’ that deals with the fundamental arguments inherent in the pro-choice stance. Up to now you have had an easy time dismissing Bible thumpers and resorting to mantras and superciliousness.

It is along similar lines to along Peter Singer’s rights to sentient animals but that is probably beyond you.
BTW Deuc and I debated this, and while we disagreed at least he had the intellect to participate in a rational debate with arguments to back it up.

If the Pro-lifers like yourself went beyond ‘my body my right’ mantra you would and thought about the implications of your stance you would have some conception of the moral problems it throws up.

If you are relying on the pre-born are not persons argument then it is apparent that we give personhood rights to born humans that don’t have functional personhood. If we experiment, kill, use as body parts un-born human non-persons then to be consistent we should be able to do the same to born non-persons.

So it IS on topic and IS applicable.

Nor did you respond to the unjust situation that men have no choice in the keeping of the child but are forced to take responsibility for their part by paying child support, while a woman doesn’t have to take any responsibility. If we use the ‘my body my right’ with no responsibility for men as well, then men should not pay child support.

Garra,
Re Ambo and “freedom of expression”

The complaints section of the Ambulance Services were contacted and informed that a person was posting to a major forum and portraying themselves as an Ambulance Officer, and also suggesting that if a pregnant woman did not want a child, then that child should be killed. That complaint is being investigated.

As an individual, Ambo could use another forum name that doesn’t directly link him with the Ambulance Services, and say whatever he wants (within the rules of the forum). Directly linking himself with an organisation such as the Ambulance Services is another matter, as the Ambulance Services would have various Rules, Codes, or Agreements that their members must abide by.

I would think the general principle of most health and medical services is to “preserve life whenever possible”. In the case of a pregnant woman, there is the mother and unborn child, as well as the father, extended family and general community. The life of all must be preserved whenever possible. It appears that Ambo has shown minimal concern for the child and the other stakeholders, and hasn’t looked at the issue broadly enough to see that both the mother and child’s life can be preserved by having the pregnancy run to full term, and then the father raising the child, or the child is adopted out.

The mother may think the pregnancy inconvenient, but many people have to do things during their lives that are inconvenient, and killing the child is not “preserving life whenever possible”, as there are alternatives.

It could be that abortion counselling services should be required to rename themselves “Pregnancy Counselling”, and if a woman has an unintended pregnancy, then all alternatives must be talked through, so as to “preserve life whenever possible”.

With the abortion rate at 40% of pregnancies, it does appear that few attempts are being made to “preserve life whenever possible”, and people are now developing a very superficial or even lazy attitude towards abortion, regarding abortion as an easy way to avoid the more difficult task of “preserving life whenever possible”.

Timkins, no doubt you will wish to report me for 'flaming' or 'making comments about [you] when [I] do not know [you]', but I have to say I am utterly appalled that you would 'report' Ambo to the NSW Ambulance Service for his comments in these, or any other, forums. He has not claimed any authority for his comments through his tagname, and if you wish to ascribe such authority, than perhaps YOU should consider why YOU feel it nessecary to do so. Ambo has made reasoned comments without resorting to degrogatory comments (as we are all guilty of occasionally), and the very idea that you should seek to have him professionally reprimanded for sensible discussion in what is for all intents and purposes an anonymous online discussion forum is disgraceful. Had he called himself 'Doc', would you be reporting him to the Medical Practitioners Board? Had a poster called themselves 'Pope' would you be calling the Catholic Church?

*deep breath*

I apologise to the moderators, who are no doubt dealing with this issue anyway, and to the other posters who had to read this little rant of mine!

On topic- I think the original idea of the Senator's, to insist on full advertising disclosure of services offered, is a sensible one, which should be followed, really, in all advertising, no matter what issues a company deals with, be it pregnancy or paper.

Timkins you have just reached the lowest level yet. You deliberately distorted reasonable commentary by a fellow poster and then reported him to an authority. You disgust me. You whinge and whine about people maligning you - have you looked at yourself first?

I am disgusted by this latest piece of vilification from Timkins. I expect forum management to take appropraite action immediately and ban Timkins from further posts.

LAurie

I needed to take breath - and I guess I didn't. If I get flamed too - I really don't care I was just utterly dismayed by Timkins' actions. In fact apart from this post I don't think I'll bother with the rest of this forum tonight.

On topic, I think your point about full disclosure is reasonable.

My concern is the same as a point Ambo has made in that women should not be subjected to a merry-go-round of excessive and intrusive counselling at a very emotional and fraught time. What women really need is (as I and others have said) is love and support. Not much of that here.

It is only common sense that all people involved be fully informed as much as possible. However, there is a point where a decision has to be made and this can only be done by the person who is pregnant.

Dear all, I don't propose to do anything about Timkins. He doesn't appear to have broken any forum rules and from where I sit has probably only succeeded in making a fool of himself with the Ambulance Service. He's certainly made himself a fool on this forum - "I'm going to tell on you," is not an effective or serious form of rebuttal.

I wouldn't be too worried if I were Ambo. If he is an ambulance officer, I wasn't aware that it is an offence for him to be in favour of abortion. If he isn't then it is a waste of time, no matter what the circumstances, going to the Ambulance Service. No-one, apart from Ambo, knows who he is, so he's not going to suffer any personal embarrassment.

Can I suggest that the best way to deal with Timkins is to ignore him?

GrahamY,
Thankyou for your commentary on my posts, and as you have said, I have not broken any forum rules (and only once have I had a post modified for being off-topic, with no posts deleted for flaming etc) You have been critical of my posts, but without explanation, examples, evidence etc, and then telling others to ignore the posts. That is not debate.

The matter with Ambo has been addressed to the Ambulance Services, but I somehow doubt that he is an ambulance officer, and I also stated to them that I though he was someone masquerading as an ambulance officer, which should be of concern to them. I have worked with ambulance officers in the past, (when working within company Workplace Health and Safety), and I know that ambulance officers are specifically trained to refer members of the public to doctors for advice on health matters such as pregnancy, as their main training and priority is giving First Aid. It is drilled into them.

However doctors, nurses, paramedics, ambulance officers etc are also trained to follow the principle of preserving human life as much as possible, and this includes children (whether those children have been born or not), and if there was a doctor, nurse, ambulance officer etc even publicly suggesting that a child should be killed if one of it’s parents did not want it, then I would think it very necessary for the public to be reporting that.

It would be interesting to know how many abortion counselling services also have a general policy of preserving human life as much as possible, and how much their staff are trained to seek out or investigate possible alternatives to the mother having the abortion. (eg. Adoption).

Those abortion clinics that do not require a woman to have a doctor’s referral, or to have undertaken previous counselling before attending the clinic for the actual abortion, would be rather suspect regards this.

Go away for a few days and come back to a very interesting issue. Raised by the indefatigable Timkins.

A fact that appears to have been overlooked by Timkins is that abortion is legal and furthermore; it is performed by medical professionals!

Another truth is that in Australia, medical professionals are free to discuss their private opinions provided there is no breach of confidentiality. Therefore posters like myself and Kalweb are free to state whether or not we agree with abortion. And we have done so.

I am trying to imagine the complete and utter idiot Timkins made of himself in his feeble attempt at slander. He would have been informed that the opinion of an ambulance officer is his own private opinion and therefore nothing to do with the Ambulance Service. No further action would be taken or even considered.

I appreciate the comments from Laurie & Trinity, however I do not wish to have the claims Timkins made deleted. I would rather they remain on record for everyone to see.

This behaviour of Timkins illustrates clearly the need for anonymity on this website. Unfortunately there are posters who are very vindictive if they hold a difference of opinion.

Sad really because Timkins can be very erudite and informative on many other topics.

Thank you, GrahamY your comments are appreciated and correct. In fact I debated about even bothering to post this but thought I should point out how this underscores the need for anonymity.

Ambo,
I have noted your continuous attempts to stereotype myself (even though you know very little about myself), and I will repeat these words again each time you do it.

Perhaps if you want to keep portraying yourself as an Ambulance Officer, you should be prepared to state your name or Ambulance Officer number. Failure to do that would indicate you are possibly masquerading as an Ambulance Officer only.

When the fog, misinformation, and propaganda regarding abortion is cleared, probably the following becomes prominent:-

1. Many women do not use contraception themselves, despite the considerable range of contraception available to them, and many women rely totally on the male condom (which is not very reliable outside of clinical trials)
2. Abortions are very easy to obtain (and in most states do not require a doctor’s referral or prior-counselling)
3. Compared to abortions, the number of adoptions occurring in Australia is very minimal (and we have become a country of abortionists, not child adopters).

All these issues have a common characteristic:- Many women are following what is most convenient for them in the short term, and this is then hidden behind the mantra of “women’s choice”.

Dear Ambo

Thanks for your post and good on you. I think that others outside of medical, nursing, and paramedical professionals will appreciate it as I did.

You are of course, correct. As a nurse I am bound by a Code of Conduct, an Australian Code of Nursing Ethics and an International Code of Nursing Ethics. Even so, I have every right to speak about abortion outside of my working hours on the proviso that I do not breach confidentiality. However, say for example that I am anti-abortion (which I am not) and that I am nursing a woman who is going to have an abortion - I have no right whatsoever to berate the woman re her choice. I am bound to respect her decision - even if I do not share her values (such as religion) or viewpoint.

Ambo, you raised a really good point about anonymity in this Forum. Until now I had thought it was unnecessary. Mmmm, not so anymore.

I also concur with you re Timkins often erudite postings - even if I do not agree with him. He usually provides some interesting links and alternative viewpoints - and surely that is what good debate is all about?

Thanks again Ambo
Cheers
Kay

Timkins, looking at you in a kidney dish from now on. You have deteriorated from being overly sensitive to a tad paranoid. Expect that on on-line opinion when you decide to be totally vile towards the likes of Ambo. I know you're an AMBO,Ambo, but i also figured your moniker, after reading your postings on various sites also stood for something like "Articulate, Metrosexual, Brave, Orator". [Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for 24 hours.]

Interesting that no one has yet been able to disprove anything I have said regards abortion in Australia, but have just resorted to name calling, flaming etc.

I have updated the draft on the proposed abortion system. Due to some opposition to a charge being laid if someone had 3 or more abortions, I have incorporated a panel who will consider the necessity for 3 or more abortions, (similar to the panels who consider the necessity for late term abortions in some states), and no restrictions on pregnancy/adoptions.

1 Increased research into the reasons for abortion.
2 Public education programs to encourage greater use of more reliable forms of contraception.
3 Government programs to make adoption of children easier.
4 Medicare to fund abortions.
5 Medicare to fund the cost of the pregnancy going to term, if the mother and father agree to adopt out the child (for now, termed pregnancy/adoption).
6 All abortions to be registered, and an application for an abortion must be registered.
7 Compulsory counselling before and after any abortion or pregnancy/adoption.
8 All counselling is to include the known father where possible.
9 Counselling after any abortion or pregnancy/adoption is to include an education program for the better use of contraception by the mother and father.
10 If there is a desire for three or more abortions, then the mother (and father if available) must make application to an abortion panel
11. This abortion panel can order increased counselling, increased contraception education programs, or have persons charged with an offence if believed necessary.
12 Government or private companies to carry out increased research into contraception (eg male pill, RISUG method etc.)

The emphasis would be on reducing unintended pregnancy through increased research and better use of contraception, but if an unintended pregnancy does occur, then the emphasis is on preserving the life of the mother and the child, through increased counselling, adoption, and abortion review processes.

Should the abortion rate not decrease, then an application for an abortion will be considered by the panel when one previous abortion (not two) has occurred.

Timkins "It would be interesting to know how many abortion counselling services also have a general policy of preserving human life as much as possible,"

Why?

Preserving human "life" is first achieved by stopping attempts to reduce a womans "life" to a mere "existence" by enfoprcing her to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

As for the agenda for some "board of abortion" (I have incorporated a panel who will consider the necessity for 3 or more abortion) - total garbage - a political stunt aimed at humiliating women should they dare to disobey your social mantra about abortions.

Maybe we should have a similar panel for women who simply get pregnant - since the biggest issue facing humanity today is the ever increasing number of people on the planet.

Maybe the panel could test their suitability for motherhood - well recalling history - those things were popular in the 1920s-30s - it was called "eugenics". It was an unwarranted and immoral interference by a bunch of knowall, do-good, busybodies into the private lifes of those they considered, for whatever reason, "inferior".

Timkins, your proposed "panel" suffers the same limitations - it reads like a bunch of busybodies assuaging their own inferiority complexes by interfering in the private lives and decisions of other people.

The world has seen many advances in the past 80 years - respect for individuals and disgarding of "eugenics" as a crock of sh*t among them.

Your "panel" deserves "flushing" before it is ever implemented.

Col,
I’m rather suspicious of propaganda terms such as “woman’s choice” or other terms such as “war on terrorism”. Under the propaganda term “war on terrorism”, certain governments now feel it is their right to attack other countries, kill countless civilians and innocent people, while gradually confiscating the hard won rights of individuals within their own countries, so as to maximise their own power and control, (although there are moves now afoot to impeach both Bush and Cheney, for lying so much to the US public).

Similarly “women’s choice” can become a system whereby a war is fought against the voiceless unborn, and it becomes a war where there is minimal accountability or morality, but much brainwashing, propaganda, and exploitation.

If the smokescreen of “women’s choice” is cleared, it is found that up to 50% of sexually active women do not use any type of personal contraception, with many relying on the male condom only, while various studies have shown the male condom to be one of the least reliable methods of contraception. Similarly the rate of female sterilization, is now well below the rate in other comparable countries, and well below the rate of male sterilization.

The situation is now so warped that adoption in this country is almost non-existent, while 1,000’s of women are using publicly funded IVF to become pregnant, when IVF is quite expensive, time consuming and intrusive.

A totally warped situation, with almost no accountability, morality or even logical sense.

There is minimal research in this country into abortion, but studies in other countries have shown that the majority of women do not get to 3 abortions, although a minority will go beyond 3 abortions, (and expect the public to pay for it all).

My proposed system will bring some accountability into the system, and it also emphasises increased research into abortion and contraception, and also increased counselling and contraception education for both mothers and fathers, rather than increased use of brainwashing terms such as “women’s choice”.

How do you think the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortion should be reduced?

Timkins, I might use the term “Womans Choice” only in the context that “abortion” is a procedure which, biologically, cannot effect a man.

Where I use such terms, you are more than welcome to substitute the expression “Individual Choice”.

I am an absolute believer in the idea and ideal that the "individual" is pinnacle unit within society and social structures. Removing the right of individuals to express how their bodies will be used debases them to chattels of society or the state.
Deny a lady the right to determine whether she should remain pregnant or not and you diminish her and make her subordinate to the embryo which is developing within her.
Any rights you or anyone else thinks an embryo has are subordinate to the rights of the first-occupier of the body.

Continuing on this thread,

Your third-party personal demands are subordinate to the demands of the first-party (the woman).

Likewise, the right to Abortion has nothing to do with the desires of other parties to adopt or undergo IVF – your suggestion is a complete “furphy” .

Again you are subjugating the wants and expectations of the first-party, individual, to the demands of third parties within society for a supply of suitably adoptable children.

Research, analyse and extrapolate all you want, in the end the principle of “self-determination” and the sanctity of the individual overrides every and any “social expectation” which your statistics might reveal.

The problem with statistics – they reflect humanity, ignoring the need to interact with humanity.

“Individual Choice” is one of a few paramount measures which defines freedom and life-quality – that you cannot get your head around it and are suspicious of it does not mean others do not understand and value of it.

As for unintended pregnancies – I do not worry nor care about how they could be reduced – their incidence merely reflect the “chaos” which shapes human development but they are not material to that development.
Far more sinister are the meddlers and control freaks who recruit “emotional argument and manipulation” to impose their will, immorally, on other individuals.

Col,
I personally think that abortion is a form of human murder, as the foetus is recognised as being a human foetus, (and not some other type of growth), and also most women who undergo an abortion will say that they recognize the foetus as being a mini-human, but they undergo the abortion anyway. http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~an352208/TAH.html,

As highlighted in earlier postings, women are simply not taking enough responsibility for contraception, sterilization etc, and then trying to hide behind the mantra of “women’s choice”, which is simply a term that is used by women to avoid having to take sufficient responsibility, and avoid having to have any conscience or be accountable for the fact that another human being has just been murdered.

It is very noticeable that if a male does not want a pregnant woman to have the baby and causes her to miscarriage, then he will be charged with manslaughter, but the same woman could have walked down to the abortion clinic one afternoon and had her pregnancy “terminated”. The end result was the same:- the death of the foetus, but who is charged is quite different, all because of “woman’s choice”.

Also interesting is why the “best interest of the child” is rarely mentioned by pro-abortion supporters. Only what is in the “best interests of the mother”.

But perhaps the “best interests of the mother”, is what the “best interests of the child” has always meant.

Our abortion laws are a complete rort. Even pro-abortionists and feminists will say this, if asked over a beer.

To support Timkins ‘Board’, one step must take place prior to its commencement:

All persons who voted for the establishment of the ‘board’ process must register with the ‘board’. Then, when a child becomes available, the register consulted and the next person on the list delivered the child, on an adoption basis.

No person who voted for the establishment of the ‘board’ can refuse to take a child in and will be accountable for the raising of that child, including all the usuals: food, clothing, schooling and university if the child desires.

Once this equitable solution to the forcing of women to have unwanted pregnancies is in place, will we see a fair outcome for those who were forced to undergo the trial.

Timkins – “personally think that abortion is a form of human murder,”
what you “personally think” is not the topic of the debate.

Whether a woman is acknowledged as a thinking individual capable of making decisions for her self is the “issue” which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

Inserting html links to some control freak’s homepage in support of your view does not impress me in the least, try www.caral.ca they have a good range of texts which cover historical realities compared to the diatribes of emotional balderdash which permeates the pro-life sites.

“recognize the foetus as being a mini-human,” the foetus has never been considered a “mini-human” – either socially or in law. Hence the “best interests of the embryo” has now and always has had “zero” status

Re “As highlighted in earlier postings, women are simply not taking enough responsibility for contraception, sterilization etc,”
Who elected you to be the one to determine “the level of responsibility for contraception” etc?

As for suggesting “Our abortion laws are a complete rort. Even pro-abortionists and feminists will say this, if asked over a beer.”
I see no massed pro-choice campaign being espoused to change the abortion laws - which tends to suggest you are simply “firing emotional bullets from the hip”.

To be honest, the idea of a “panel” went out with the star chamber and trial by fire. Please accept this as a fact, social engineering and meddling in the private lives of individuals does not have broad acceptance it once might have had, “society” has moved on, I suggest you try to ”catchup”.

Your “Panels” would be as popular today as the practice of eugenics and if implemented would soon be found to be as corrupt and indefensible as that “lost art”.

Col Rouge you go on about the first party well pro-life people want EQUAL consideration of all parties.

If you were consistent about the ‘right’s of the individual you would be advocating that the man wouldn’t have to pay child support.

I notice no Pro-choice have commented on that, concerning rights of the individual and responsibility. So Reason if we are looking for equitable solutions then you would back that men should not pay child support.

Back to my thought experiment along these lines of the supreme importance of the individual born humans infants, the mentally handicapped or impaired elderly don’t have personhood and are not individuals in that sense, so if my right as a individual in a society of equals is paramount, I should be able to have them killed used if it suits me.

BTW a zygote is considered human in embryology and I guess in Ireland is also considered human in law, all it takes is a stroke of a pen. Again if you are assaulted and have a miscarriage of a child you wanted Col R you would only want the man up for assault nothing more serious?

Panels are a thing of the past, well I suppose we should do away with ethics panels they are such a waste of time.

You certainly have no shame Col R as you are quite prepared to say others are emotional when your posts are full of cheap shots and emotional put downs.

Lastly Timkins as far as a panel to decide unless it is to decide whether the medical evidence shows that the woman’s life is at stake it isn’t necessary just make it illegal and put the money in the things already suggested, and as a means to have a healthy debate people like Col R aren’t interested in such things.

Col,
If there is a plane crash, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “pilot’s choice”.

If there is a house fire, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “occupant’s choice”.

If there is a bank robbery, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “robber’s choice”.

If there is an abortion, then should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “woman’s choice”.

To repeat something earlier, only 50% of sexually active women are using contraception themselves (despite the range now available to them, and despite the fact that it is heavily subsidised and extremely cheap in this country, while in some other countries it is so expensive as to be out of the reach of most women), and the rate of sterilization is well below what it is in other countries and well below the rate of male sterilization etc.

Women are not taking enough responsibility for contraception and unintended pregnancy, (but anyone saying this very true fact will likely be called “misogynist”), and I think that there are abortionists who must walk to the bank ever day humming “Women’s Choice, Women’s Choice, Women’s Choice”. They are making very easy money from “Women’s Choice”

You have not produced any suggestions on how to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, or reduce the rate of abortion.

Neohuman,
I understand that panels are used if the intended abortion is over 20 weeks, but they seem to be held in secret, and I don’t know how often they agree with the abortion or not. I suppose they act as some type of deterrent for 20 wk + abortions, but I don’t think they are having much success in reducing the abortion rate overall.

“Women’s Choice” seems to rule, and tends to hamper any forward progress made in reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy, improving contraception, reducing abortion etc

Many couples use condoms as, when used correctly, they work quite well. Not as well as the pill or other methods, but quite well. The decision to use whatever method of contraception is the decision of the couple, but I dont see that failing to use a method where the chemical/hormonal balance of a woman's body is altered (in occasionally distressing ways) should be viewed negatively, so long as both parties are aware of what is going on. Naturally, I am not refering to situations where the woman says 'oh no, i'm on the pill', but is not. Although i suspect that would be rather rare.

Timkins, why would you WANT sterilisation rates to be higher? For men or women? I have seen you quote stats showing that men have more sterilsations than women, as though this is somehow shows women are being slack in their reproductive responsibilites? To tie a woman's tubes is a major medical procedure done under general anaesthetic. Vasectomies are day procedures, and, from what I understand, significally cheaper, and more possible to reverse. Sterilisation, for either party, is a huge step. It is mostly irreversible. Most people having abortions are younger women, who go on to later have children. Surely you would not be wanting them to reduce their chances of having a child later on?

Anyway, I'm just saying there are certainly no black and whites when it comes to sexual relationships

Timkin's golden shower of stats has become rather superflous to the reality of the argument/debate. Notice most women who have had their own experiences to share have now exited this forum. Little wonder Timkins. No point in arguing with someone sans womb and a rather large barrow to push for their own reasons. Thank you Col Rouge for your elucidite and sharp insights to this debate.

Neohuman,
Yes, I would in fact agree. Given the following criteria:
The couple had agreed to have sex, use contraceptives and avoid a child.
The couple had previously discussed the options if pregnancy occurred and they decided to abort.
The pregnancy occurs (obviously!) and the woman then choses to have the child

Under these conditions, the man should not really be responsible for something beyond his control. Yes, the pregnancy occurred with his input but then if the situation were previously discussed and a change in heart occurred outside of his control, I cannot see how he is to be held to task. If not previously discussed, then I would submit that some responsibility is still retained – to what degree is what the courts are for, if required.

As to the rest of your thought argument:
I do not see the similarity in comparing an embryo/foetus with mentally impaired or elderly humans. Could you please elaborate on the correlation? On the face of it, I would say that there is a world of difference.

Timmy-boy,
You really need to start with some solid ground. Women’s Choice, women’s use of contraception and their not taking enough responsibility for use of contraception is not part of the debate as to whether abortion is right or wrong. They are issues dealing with pregnancy and the begetting of such (to turn a biblical phrase).

The argument regarding abortion is a simple one: when is an embryo/foetus/zygote a human who qualifies for protection from harm?

All the other issues, though relevant to social concerns, have no direct bearing on the issue of abortion. If you want to discuss these in a forum regarding the need for social responsibility, I’m sure we can do so. But with abortion, can you produce some facts regarding the status of the pre-birth life-form to justify forcing a woman to carry it to term please?

Thank You Reason for acknowledging the unfairness of the current setup, by in large the pro-Choice ignore this which undermines their credibility on fairness and equal consideration for the parties involves.Again I notice Di, Xena,and Col Rouge didn't have the honesty to commment on or acknowledge this.

As far as my argument is goes along similar lines of Peter Singer’s argument for rights for sentient animals. In this he points out personhood (cognition and self-awareness) which is often used as justification is not met by many members that we give equal moral consideration to in our social group i.e. infants, those with extreme mental handicaps and those elderly with severe impairments. He backs this up by pointing out if we in fact used personhood as a criteria we should be able to experiment & kill these human non-persons as we do non-humans. He argues since we experiment /kill higher primates who have personhood and not human non-persons we are being speciesist like a racist or sexist. He goes onto the use of sentience but you get the basics.

Now actually there is no argument that a zygote or fetus is human or homo sapien as they are at the earliest stage of a human/homo sapiens development(not as in just any cell sex or skin etc as they are part of a human and are genetically unique like a zygote)

What is often used is that the unborn are not human beings/persons, well borrowed from Singer’s argument it has already been pointed out that we give personhood rights to members of our community that are not or don’t have functional personhood status. So the thought experiment equally applies here, to be consistent we should be able to do to born non-persons that we do to un-born no-person humans.

It should also be pointed out again that if we use the ‘my body my right’ and non-person justification then there should be no late term limit and that we could kill ,experiment, and harvest body parts from late term anesthetized pre-borns. Imagine the uproar if this happened.

Neohuman – your suggestion regarding parental responsibility for financing the upkeep of children is incomparable to sharing of a single body’s resources.

Re mentally handicapped and elderly. These are again, non-comparisons.
“Autonomy” of the individual as defined by separation from other individuals denotes their difference from an embryo/foetus, which has not achieved autonomous existence (it is inseparable from the mother).

Regarding acts of assault – these concern s the actions of a third party, not the first party. Ethics panels preside over the interaction between two or more autonomous individuals – your suggestion fails.

“I have no shame”? – who on earth do you think you are? Please produce the authority you hold to make judgements of me?

I resent your statement. It could, however, be anticipated, it is based on a flawed and defective values set, like the rest of your misguided post.

Your last paragraph does not merit reading – certainly I will not dignify it with direct response.

Your later post “credibility / fairness” A complete and utter red-herring – accompanied by more judgemental and ignorant pronouncements.
The embryo and the mother are in an “unfair relationship”. Mother is an independent individual and the embryo is not. Your emotive claim to pro-choice “ignoring fairness” is deranged garbage and stands as another example of a “pontificating and judgemental attitude”.

Timkins
The fire, plane crash and bank robbery all involve interaction between separate and unique individuals.

The abortion issue concerns the interaction between the permanent occupier of a body and the temporary user of the same body. The comparison / analogies you suggest are flawed and thus invalid.

Peoples choices are their own and nothing I would wish to influence.
Thus I do not care about the popularity of contraceptives.
“Abortionists” provide a legally approved service – I might not like chiropractors, I know many doctors think they should be banned but I cannot get excited about that either.

The rate of unintended pregnancy, read above re contraception
such matters are private and personal choices which do not directly effect you and thus nothing you need concern yourself with.

Laurie,
You are correct in that the majority of abortions are occurring to unmarried younger women, and the idea that most abortions are because of rape, incest or deformed foetuses is a myth. The vast majority of abortions occur when the woman doesn’t use sufficient contraception, doesn’t want abstinence, doesn’t want sterilization, and doesn’t want to carry the baby to full term and adopt it out.

However if a woman does want to have 3 or more abortions, then I think she should present her reasons to a panel, (similar if she wants an abortion after 20 or more weeks of pregnancy), and I think that panel could recommend further counselling on contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc.

Di,
It appears you cannot make a post without name-calling, flaming or making irreverent comments about other posters (eg “golden showers”). If you don’t like statistics, then complain about the articles published on OLO, as the majority contain statistics.

Reason,
Thankyou for your name-calling (eg “boy” etc). However that isn’t “reasonable” debate.

I am aware that it is uncomfortable for some people to learn about the statistics and facts regards abortion, and they would be much happier using anecdotal evidence to justify the high rates of abortion, and they would be much happier if they could exclude males from abortion issues so males can be used as scapegoats, and they would be much happier disguising abortion in terms such as “women’s choice”.

Is the foetus human? Someone can be charged with “manslaughter” if they cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. But why “manslaughter”, why aren’t they charged with “causing a loss of cells” or something similar?

It appears that :-
- If the woman wants the baby, then the foetus is regarded as being human.
- If the woman doesn’t want the baby, then the foetus is not regarded as being human, (and it can be called a “bunch of cells” or a “pre-birth life form” etc).

This type of thinking would make it much easier to carry out an abortion with minimal conscience, ethics, responsibility or accountability.

Col Rouge -
>your suggestion regarding parental responsibility for financing the upkeep of children is incomparable to sharing of a single body’s resources.

Didn’t infer it, Reason had enough intelligence and honesty to acknowledge that for the parties involved overall, -even if the woman is granted sole right to decide if she keeps the child- are not given equal consideration. You want the woman to have the choice, but have no responsibility while forcing the man to both be responsible and have no say.

>Re mentally handicapped and elderly. These are again, non-comparisons.
“Autonomy” of the individual as defined by separation from other individuals denotes their difference from an embryo/fetus, which has not achieved autonomous existence (it is inseparable from the mother).

These like a fetus don’t have autonomy, in that they rely on care and are not capable of self preservation. Have another go.

>Regarding acts of assault – these concerns the actions of a third party, not the first party.

To you there are only two parties so you must to be consistent consider it ‘just’ assault. Pls answer the question.

>Ethics panels preside over the interaction between two or more autonomous individuals – your suggestion fails.

BS animals and the impaired are not considered autonomous nor can they represent themselves and is exactly the reason ethics panels are involved. Try again.

>Please produce the authority you hold to make judgements of me?

Any person who sees another being hypocritical in their arguments. Sure we all get heated and do the occasional flame but an individual how doesn’t acknowledge their own and then mouths vitriol and emotive put downs on others reeks of hypocrisy

>I resent your statement. It could, however, be anticipated, it is based on a flawed and defective values set, like the rest of your misguided post.

Well I would expect that from you your posts have had nothing of substance. I’ve disagreed with Duec and Reason but they have shown consideration and argument to back themselves up which is sorely lacking in your posts. If you couldn't flame you’d barely have anything to say.

Posted by Neohuman “If you couldn't flame you’d barely have anything to say. “ – an inflammatory remark if ever their were one

I am not flaming - I am quite sure if I were, the moderator would intercede but, rest assured, if I wanted to, you would be the first to feel the heat.

Now I have purposely avoided your futile efforts to inflame and dealt with you and your sanctimonious assertions appropriately.

I note "Neo" in front of "human" would suggest your name alludes to you being “new” and “different” or perhaps “new” and “abnormal”. I will assume the latter –

I suggest you take your "new human abnormalities" and find somewhere else to try to inflame people. Your sort of rhetoric leaves me with a sense that your views represent the usual half-baked “know how everyone else should be forced to live” rabid opinion normally associated with proponents of shari law and thus completely and utterly reprehensible.

Reality is this – no one is going to turn the clock back to the days when people were obliged to fall into line with your sort of thinking. I guess a few words describe it – “yesterdays paternalistic attitudes” – in ironic contrast to what you might claim your name represents.

Timkins, only been deleted for flaming once, and kinda wearing it like a badge of honour. Your eyeballs would have curled up and died if they'd have let it through. Dr Goebells would have just lurved you. In your next life, I wish you a womb, an ex, a bad boyfriend, faulty contraception, a rather large mortgage, judgemental parents, AND A PANEL.

Hadn't really planned on returning to this meandering thread, but my partner noted a couple of posts from kalweb and Di.

Kalweb, thanks you your well reasoned and supportive response.

Di, now I'm really blushing, in fact I'm sure my LOL (Love Of my Life) is muttering something that is either 'fried liver' or tried living with'. Anyway thanks to the erudite, realistic and reasonable women on this website.

While I'm here, the fundamental reason for reducing abortion is simply that like any surgical procedure there is inherent risk (albeit small). For this reason we need to be sure that sex education starts with children. That young boys be encouraged to respect girls and vice versa (yes Timkins) although my reason for placing the emphasis on young boys is that with their raging hormones often leads them into premature (oops) sexual behaviour with equally immature girls.

As for this thread; star-chambers, 3 strikes you're out, foetal rights over the individual - I don't know how much more off course this thread could go.

Di - for everyone who would force a woman to go to term against their will may they return with a double womb, no contraception and a panel consisting of every pope who ever existed.

Ambo,
Your continuous posting under your name of “Ambo” means that you are portraying yourself as an Ambulance Officer who is on duty. To continue, you must produce your name or Ambulance Officer’s number.

You seem to have a belief that abortion is now the fault of “boys” who are impregnating 20 - 30 yr old women (which is the age group when women have the majority of abortions). This cowardly blaming of “boys” is quite common within feminism, as boys have less ability to defend themselves. For another example of it see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3682#11598

Your knowledge of abortion seems minimal (particularly for an Ambulance Officer), so I will repeat some issues:-

Contraception:- up to 50% of sexually active women do not use contraception themselves or rely totally upon the male condom. This is despite the considerable range of inexpensive contraception now available to them (and use of the female condom by women is basically zero).

Abstinence:- Women’s media heavily promotes promiscuity, with no real opposition from the women’s movement.

Sterilization :- Rates of female sterilization are much lower in this country than in others, and 5 times lower than the rates of male sterilization

Adoption:- Basically minimal in this country, and some of the reasons why women would rather kill the child than adopt it out can be read at http://www.abortiontv.com/Choices/otherways.htm .These reasons can be summed up by “I would rather kill you than wave goodbye”. So the mother kills the child for selfish reasons, rather than adopting it out and having it brought it up by other parents.

Most of these issues could be sorted out during counselling, particularly if the mother wants her third abortion. If the situation in Australia is similar to New Zealand, then only 10% of women who have abortions get to 3 abortions, so there would have to be concern that there is some problem, and that is another reason why counselling, a review panel and associated psychiatrists should become involved at that stage, similar to the panels that become involved if the mother wants a 20 wk + abortion.

Pt 2
>Your last paragraph does not merit reading – certainly I will not dignify it with direct response.

Yes it would need you to actually think things through and use rational arguments.

>Your later post “credibility / fairness” A complete and utter red-herring – accompanied by more judgemental and ignorant pronouncements.

If you didn’t have ad hom’s attacks and mantras you’d have nothing to say.

>The embryo and the mother are in an “unfair relationship”. Mother is an independent individual and the embryo is not. Your emotive claim to pro-choice “ignoring fairness” is deranged garbage blah blah blah.

Unfair? She with another consenting party put herself in that situation.
Deranged? Well one certainly might not agree with Singers stance but he does use considered logical argumentation. Borrowing the concept for the abortion debate doesn’t change that, and shows you aren’t capable of higher forms of reasoning.

>I am not flaming -…., the moderator would intercede

Flaming -An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another.

This forum is relatively heat tolerant I’ve seen plenty of threads full of nasty derisive posts let through, strictly speaking this thread is now just flaming.

Also I’d have nothing to fear from any of your flames, flames from bigots like yourself are empty of force and authority. You lacked in substance in this debate and any flame would instead just be a whole lot of hot air. Apart from Duec and Reason the rest have been nothing but a Pro-life cheer squad, there has been no debate. If Col R is the best they have to offer it is poor picking indeed.

I put forward arguments which others even though disagreed afforded them consideration, all you can do is resort insults and derision.

BTW if you had noticed the US and Aus is turning more conservative so don’t be to smug, but I’ll let you have the last say since you like to shrill so much. But I wont bother reading it :)

Neohuman “I put forward arguments which others even though disagreed afforded them consideration, all you can do is resort insults and derision.”

You pitch ‘em and I hit ‘em back to you as I saw fit.

“but I’ll let you have the last say.... but I wont bother reading it”

Scurry away back to the dark comfort of obscurity and the makeup your wannabe dictates and commands for all those individuals who will continue to ignore your very existence.

I thought you probably lacked the stamina. You will not be missed, whatever your name was.

Ambo, always prepared to support a rational, emphatic point of view and would be very happy to be in a major crisis and look up and see you as the ambo. Would hate to think what line of work the Big t is in. Must have something to do with rather short hours going by the time he puts into his posts, as he surely wouldn't be wasting the boss' time. Sorry! did i say something personal and abusive about what line of work we are in.

Col Rouge, you are at your most articulate best. Keep whipping the cat!

From Di, the insurance agent (and other hats - some of which I get paid for and some I just wear)

Geez there’s feisty stuff going on here! Quite entertaining – if not very informative. Actually, I find it a pity that Col and Neo can’t get along. You both seem intelligent enough. Just as long as it doesn’t come to blows, OK?

Ambo, love the reaction you get from Tim… makes me smile. And you say smart things!

Tim (apologies for 'boy'. Consider me admonished)… hhhmmm… what to say. I do not want to offend but…
Ambo using what he uses as a tag is not advertising anything. You are assuming. For all you know, he could be a bank johnny. So, just leave that alone. It does you no credit, really.

As to your 4 classes of consideration – contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption. Well, 3 of those things are none of anyone else’s business, involve choices by 2 parties (for those in a relationship) and ultimately are not the bottom line in this discussion.

If we’re talking about the ethics of abortion, we should be talking about when a human becomes, well, human. If we’re talking about the high incidents of abortion, the first 3 become relevant – insofar as they are used in conjunction with education. As to adoption, what are your thoughts on my suggestion regarding pro-lifers registering to be adopters? Fairs fair…

You do seem to be hung up a little on the ‘bashing’ of men. Sometimes we deserve it, sometimes not. Why not try to take it on a case-by-case basis rather than over-generalizations that cannot be supported?

Di, I hope I have been balanced in my views (from a woman’s perspective)? Ultimately it is a personal choice. I would just hope that the woman has a decent, considerate man who is willing to carry his share of the load and provide support, whatever the choice.

Neo… I’m out of word and will get back to you. Suffice to say I will have issues with comparing unborn with ‘damaged’ (to use a phrase) humans…

Reason
(the tag associated with what the writer is trying to gain through dialogue rather than ranting… no spurious claims attached)

Reason - you can engage me in some dialogue any day as it continues to be compassionate, thoughtful and understanding.

Hello Di - can't believe this thread is still running.

Timkins - on the subject of Ambo - it is one thing to remain silent and be thought a fool, it is quite another to make a post and remove all doubt (apologies to Oscar)

Ambo - I don't care whether you're an ambulance officer or not (it really doesn't matter) - you are caring, compassionate and this website would be the poorer without you. I understand what you mean about sex education starting young and starting with respect for one another.

Of course I chose my tag because I am one part father and one part son and one part holy ghost - I suppose Timkins should phone god and complain about me. Then again may be I chose it because my favourite number is 9.

Di,
Thankyou for calling me names (EG “the Big T). It appears you cannot make a post without name-calling, flaming, or making irreverent comments and inferences about other posters, and rarely do you stay on topic. None of it is debate.

Reason,
I understand there is a considerable waiting list of couples wanting to adopt children (and I personally know of a couple that waited 9 years, and had almost given up hope).

I believe I already answered your question as to whether the foetus is human:-

- If the woman wants the baby, then the foetus is regarded as being human.
- If the woman doesn’t want the baby, then the foetus is not regarded as being human, (and it can be called a “bunch of cells” or a “pre-birth life form” etc).
I think there would have to be considerable evidence to disprove this.

While pregnancy may be an inconvenience to the woman at times, it is not necessarily a danger, and I think too many people now confuse the 2 due to pro-abortion brainwashing. But being within the womb of a mother, is now a very real danger to the unborn, and it is now the most dangerous environment that children are exposed to in our current society.

You say that issues relating to abortion (IE contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc) are mostly irrelevant, and it all has to do with the pro-abortion brainwashing term of “choice.”.

I suppose if someone does not “choose” contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc, then they should pay for their own abortions, as why should the public be forced to fund it.

Maybe counselling can help those people make more responsible and informed “choices”, particularly if they want 3 or more abortions.

Trinity,
In not one post has Ambo ever referred to facts, but uses anecdotal evidence, gossip and hearsay. This is very unusual for someone from the medical area, but very normal for a feminist or pro-abortion supporter. Ambo has yet to prove he / she isn’t a total fraud.

Timkins, I didn't call you the big T, I called you the big t, don't flatter yourself with a capital letter. I do stay on topic, when the tread is making sense and add to the debate, just because you throw all the stats and hyperlinks around doesn't make you the King of Great Debate. And your treatment of Ambo has been reprehensible and very Pollyanna, I don't see how you can redeem yourself from that action. Pollyanna is a name BTW, so I guess you can add it to the list of insults you have perceived from me.

I find it interesting that the big "t" confines himself to attacks on Ambo and exempts Kalweb. Interesting.

As Di says this attack is beyond redemption and will certainly be in my mind when reading future posts. Also an informed opinion based on experience is worth more than any amount of spurious links and the always manipulable stats.

I don't wish to exclude men from the debate but when I read the draconian pronouncements from people who will never experience pregnancy and who clearly dislike women and their supporters, I really want to say that unless you possess a womb you simply don't know what you are talking about. That pregnancy should be regarded as a minor inconvenience and following that time with adoption as no more difficult than selling a car is utterly absurd and underscores the ignorance by people who would force women through such an experience against their will.

Therefore, is Natasha out of step with public opinion? Clearly not. Are the anti-abortionists - always.

Trinity,
Thankyou for the name calling (eg the big "t")

“Always” is a very big word, and of course women should be allowed to do whatever they please, (but not men), and everything should be in “the best interests of the mother”, (but not the child), and fraud is not rife throughout abortion.

However!

Excerpts from ”Confessions of an Abortionists” Dr. Bernard Nathanson

“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions….I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. …..It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one…..We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S...

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD
We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion...

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
…A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why…Simple arithmetic at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION”

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392350f73712.htm

Dr. Bernard Nathanson now supports life, not wide scale murder using fraud, or hiding behind brainwashing mantra terms such as “women’s choice”, or maybe call it what it is :- “abortionist’s choice”.

I had an abortion when I was 15 - too young.

I had an abortion when I was 25 - husband too mental.

If I was to fall pregnant now (51) I would have another abortion due to probable genetic abnormalities due to age.

Three strikes - I guess I'm out.

Well Timkins, I think we can all agree that if you ever got preggers you wouldn't have an abortion no matter the circumstances. Now! we can all get some sleep!

Trinity,
I would think the chances of a woman becoming pregnant at 51 are quite minimal, but if a woman of 51 is concerned about becoming pregnant, she should contact her doctor, (not an abortionist).

It is not illegal to have a deformity, but it is illegal to kill someone if they do have a deformity, as most people have some type of deformity. For example :- I am slightly deaf in one ear, and I also have to wear reading glasses.

If the stats were allowed to come out, I think it would be very surprising how many miscarriages and deformities in children are being caused because the mother takes drugs during the pregnancy (eg alcohol, nicotine etc), but if a woman does want to take drugs and/or does not want to use much contraception, does not want to have sterilization, does not want abstinence, does not want to adopt out children, BUT wants 3 or more abortions, then I definitely believe she should present her reasons to a panel, and that panel can order increased counselling into such things as contraception, sterilization, abstinence, and adoption.

But don’t just believe me, contact Dr. Bernard Nathanson, as he has had considerable experience in the area of abortion.

Really Timkins, then I can ignore my doctor's advice and throw away the contraceptives? Because at 51 I am unlikely to become pregnant? Does happen more frequently than you care to admit. My doctor does perform abortions. You seem to imply that there is a difference.

Men's sperm is also affected at a genetic level by drugs, alcohol, cigarettes but I noticed you only wish to cast aspersions on women - how unusual.

You give greater credence to a foetus above and beyond that of a living breathing human being. You would force women to term against their will. You would reduce us to being nothing more than baby producing machines. You do not revere life as you wish so much to control it.

You are out of step, out of line and out of this continuum.

Trinity,
If a woman does not want to be a baby produceing machine, then she should take contraception, use abstinence, become sterilized etc.

You have not produced the slightest amount of evidence that the feotus is not human, and abortion does not constitute the murder of a human.

It appears that while pro-abortion supporters will often say that abortion is "family planning", they seem to overlook the "best interests of the child", which is so often incorporated into Family Law (perhaps because the pregnancy is veiwed as an inconveinence to the mother).

Deformities in children can be because of males taking drugs, but most deformities that occur in children because of drug taking, occur when the pregnant mother takes drugs

Timkins the debate on whether a foetus is human or not is just another attempt to take control over women. For me, life begins at birth, until then I have autonomy over my body, my reproduction.

As for contraception - you are fully aware it is not 100% perfect. I trust that you have had the consideration to have yourself sterilised as it is an easier and safer procedure for men than it is for women - even you should know that.

It is not murder to have an abortion, it is murder to force women into a position where they have to seek back yard abortionists and die from the results. That is what would happen if abortion was once again made illegal. You are intelligent enough to know this, therefore I can only conclude that you are not pro-life if you do not value the lives of women.

It also occurs to me, because you are simply repeating yourself, that you simply desire to have the last word in this debate. How childish - no Timkins this is not an "unsubstantiated attempt to stereotype you" it is a conclusion based upon the tone and subject matter of your posts - you stereotype and malign yourself. For example your foolish attempt to slander Ambo.

Trinity,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated name calling (eg “childish” , “foolish” etc). Is calling a person such names, your “right”, or just your “choice”, and what happens if they object?

You, and nearly all other pro-abortion supporters have presented minimal evidence as to why the present abortion system should continue as it is, (other than repeating mantra terms such as “my choice”), and there have been very few suggestions put forward as to ways to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancy, or reduce the rates of abortion.

My last post on this forum.

Thank god for small mercies