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.