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'.