Wowee,
We get the most horrible or horriblist headings that can give galloping consumpion in swallowing our Christmas ham whether it was GM or not.
No, we don't eat babies like dingoes are supposed to.
What we get is "The STATS" when the subject should be about "feelings" of Love, Sex and Emotion of what happened to conceive a baby.
How do we feel about aborting a fetus. Does it offend us?
How does it feel for that mother?
How does it feel for that father. How does it feel for that baby that was never born?
How does it feel for the family that a baby may live and another his or her sister or brother may be aborted?
What the numbers are does not compute with those who care.
There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics and it does not matter what the statistics are.
It does not matter that there are 84,214 abortions.
Is that any less a crime on humanity that if there were 84 million abortions.
It matters that there is one abortion. What if Jesus Christ was aborted?
There would be no Christmas.
It matters that there is one abortion!
What if you the reader was aborted. You would not be reading this.
How horrible that would be.
How horrible it would be that you yourself was aborted and that decsion was left up to the mother!! No it is not only the mother's decision.
I am a father! And bloody proud that I am.

When I read Rebecca's honest and clear account of her abortions I was impressed by her ability to write about what is unquestionably an incredibly confronting, difficult and emotional experience without peppering the telling with sensationalist emotion or self-conscious defensiveness. I also found myself wondering whether I would have piped up with my abortion story (for the record I was 23, it was neither an easy decision nor one without implications, and it is not one I regret) had I been at one of the dinner parties she mentioned. After all, we live in an enlightened society, we freely acknowledge that an individual can and should be able to make informed decisions about their lives and their bodies and that there is no shame in doing this. Then I read GlenWriter’s response. And it made me desperately sad. For him; for his children – let’s just hope its not dad they turn to when the cookie cutter existence he clearly envisages for them doesn’t quite work out the way he planned; and for every young woman who, when faced with one of the most confronting decisions they may ever have to make might potentially bump up against such ignorant, insensitive, ill-informed and non-constructive views when what they really need is love and support.

Two can play that game, GlenWriter. What if Pol Pot had been aborted? What if Stalin had been aborted? The sum total of living beings of the time would be greater, if that's a good thing. What if Mao had been aborted? And don't think I'm going to fall prey to Godwin's Law. So what if there were no Christmas? We might still have Saturnalia (same feast, different word, approximately the same day). And if we didn't have Christmas, we might have fewer seasonal suicides - dead entities who knew they were dying, not more or less (depending on gestation) undifferentiated cell clumps.

I'm a proud father too with eight grandchildren. I do understand the feelings and I hasten to add I supported my wife in having a termination in 1976. We subsequently had one more child in 1984. I know my wife would have much preferred a medical abortion if the option had been available at that time.
I also supported my daughter at age 19 to have a termination whilst she was in an unhappy engagement. The only impediment was the hostile prospective Mother-in-law who tried to claim rights to the fertilised egg. My daughter is now settled with four children and discussing vasectomy with her husband.
I congratulate Rebecca in sharing her personal perspective in contrast to the one-eyed Pro-lifers who ignore the feelings of the woman and attempt to heap guilt on them for their decision.

It is interesting that Rebecca recognises, yet does not challenge, the stigma some place on single mothers. She recounts the difficult circumstances that led to her deciding against having the baby, but does not challenge why there wasn't help for her to change those circumstances. Why there was not for instance more assistance to help her complete her studies while pregnant or parenting. That's where I think the community has to work.

The reference to public support for abortion doesn't acknowledge that while people don't want to restrict access to abortion, they would prefer there were fewer abortions (see: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3489).

I was also interested that she wrote " pro-life advocates are more than happy to speak for us, to attribute us with the worst motives and character - lack of morality and maternal instinct, stupidity, callousness, avarice, you name it." I'm sorry that's her experience, but I regularly read about abortion in the media and I don't recall seeing that. Pro-life advocates are much more likely to recognise the difficulties and offer women assistance to have their child, so they don't feel forced to have an abortion.

Of course abortion is a very difficult decision for a woman. So shouldn't we look for better alternatives rather than continue unquestioned support for a surgical solution to very real social problems that confront so many of us?

Hi Rebecca,

To me it is men mainly that want to deny women the right to decide for themselves in a world where science does allow such decisions. It is not for misguided people like Tony Abbott to cry about abortion when he himself has demonstrated an even worse approach, giving an unwanted child away. Even though he didn't. He thought he did and accepted that for many years.

I am male but believe strongly it should be the role of men to support the choices their women make about children, not moralise.

For those wishing retrospective abortions there is certainly one which would have allowed Australia to be a better country than it has become over the last decade. But that's not reality.

Rebecca is indeed brave to write about this issue but I have to admit I find it difficult to believe that any twenty yeard old does not know how babies are made. The media is full of it and has been for decades. That's a copout Rebecca.

Mmm, I don't know RobbyH- the media is full of sex and sexiness, but not of 'boy + girl + sex can sometimes = baby'. And school sex ed is focused (at least for girls, at least at my co-ed school) on how to deal with periods etc, not how not to get pregnant. It seems naeive, but everyone sometimes thinks "oh I'll be okay" and takes risks.

I do think we need to be doing more to support young women who decide to continue with their pregnancies, but I cannot see it happening any time soon- returning to work is hard enough for many women after having a child (in terms of sheer logistics of child care etc), trying to return to high school where you would be shunned for "being a slut" would be even more challenging.

I empathise with the author for what must have been a tough time in her life and the mixed feelings she must still go through over her decision. I also admire her courage for writing the article.
As a male, I support the woman's choice in most cases, but i hesitate to support any efforts to make the choice any easier or less "weighty" on the conscience of the woman making it. At the end of the day it is a very heavy decision that involves two lives, not just the mothers but also the potential life of the unborn, and i think it necessary for the woman making the choice to think very sincerely about that.

RobbyH -

How on earth is adoption worse than abortion? In my mind to be able to love a child enough to give it life and a family is the most selfless act imaginable

Great article..I'm a man, but the idea that anyone has the ability to force someone to have a child when they don't want to makes me absolutely sick, and people who would try to make people feel bad about making that choice make me sick too.. these are mostly people whose own personal beliefs mean that they are unlikely to ever face the problem of an unwanted child ie no sex out of wedlock etc, I think many might see the other side of the coin a bit more clearly if the tables were turned. Until contraception (and the humans that use it) are perfect, abortion is a necessity. And until men grow babies in their bodies themselves, they need to recognise that their feelings come a long distant second in this debate.

The abortion debate is a debate about ethics and morals purely because any rational discussion has already run its course and concluded that abortions should be safe and legal; death to large numbers of women as well as unwanted children at the hands of an incompetent abortion practitioners not being acceptable. Its is about statistics, but not the statistics of the number of abortions carried out, rather of the number of women that would die if abortion wasn’t legal.

Instead of continuing to bandy about rhetoric on this dead end I would like to see a debate on the rights of men and women in abortion, with a focus on disagreements between interested parties on the issue. Can a prospective father demand that the prospective mother have the child? Should the prospective father have the right to demand an abortion or must he settle with the decision of the prospective mother?

The mother obviously bares the greater share of consequences if there is an abortion, but if she has the child there are family law provisions which make the consequences for each party comparable, if not always exactly equal. Thus to the first question I suggest it is the soul choice of the mother and to the second that there be an opt out of father status option for the male involved.

In defense of this suggestion I ask; is it better to have an unwilling father or no father? And my answer; fatherhood is not biological, both options are the same.

Hellothere, I'm with you mate, I am a Christian, a Catholic, but still think a woman should have control over her own body. It is the lunatic right that want to limit this, and seek to impose Government control. Strange I haven't noticed anyone from the lunatic right advocating for higher taxes to support single mothers. They have a completely irrashionable ideology, which say's don't have an abortion, but we don't want you to be on social security either, welfare-to-work. I am anti-abortion personally, however I still maintain the woman's right to decide what happens with her own body. Abortion or adoption, she still has to live with the ramifications for the rest of her life. If she adopts, her child will have an uncertain future, perhaps going to lovely childless parents, and having a great life, perhaps not. There are too many variables to say one way or the other, it must be the mother's choice. At the present time when single mothers are being penalised for staying home to look after their children, perhaps through no fault of their own {an irresponsible husband } it defies logic to go full term and keep the child. Though religous zealots continue to lobby for abortion to cease, you can't have it both ways, either allow abortion, or increase taxes on the wealthy to provide a sustainable pension for single mothers to have a real choice, to bring tomorrows workforce into being. The Howard Government keeps telling us about our ageing population, at the same time providing a disincentive for single mothers to raise children, just think what 1/2 of the abortion stats {40,000 } children could provide in terms of contribution to the future of our nation. There again we would need to provide adequate health and education for same, which the Howard Government refuses to do with our present population, I can see why single mothers feel that they don't have a choice, reduced pension, reduced Federal expenditure on Public Education and Health, why would any mother go ahead with a pregnancy with this knowledge.

Every woman on this planet should have the right to family planning and abortion in the first tremester. It should be considered as one of our human rights! Sadly that is not the case, as those old farts
in Rome do what they can to prevent it.

Sadly religion and its claims still have a large influence on our
society, despite their lack of evidence. We need freedom of religion,
but we also need freedom from religion!

Rebecca

An interesting, yet cold article from my emotive perspective. Even so, straight to the point and well written - which is most times uncommon re abortion articles.

Prior to being diagnosed with infertility, I was always on the band waggon for women's choices about abortion. Emotion set in. I became angry with women who conceived, and who did not want a child. I became very angry with, in my view, their lack of responsibility.

I entered one of the first IVF Progams in Melbourne. Finally, my number came up in another state, some 5 years later (and many dolars on my part). I withdrew from the Program. My husband was a violent alcoholic. It would have been my luck to get pregnant under the circumstances. I could not bring a child into this world knowing that.

I was raped when I was 45 years of age - stranger bashing and rape by two men.

I was then glad that I was infertile.

I cannot pass judgement. I will not pass judgement. I have no idea what it is like to have a growing human being in my body - and the surrounding life circumstances.

Regards
Kay

Pregnancy is a private matter which significantly affects 1 person, the pregnant woman, insignificantly effects the contributing male (father) and not forgetting a glob of cells which might start to develop into an embryo then foetus and ultimately, if left unchecked, be born a as person.

It is not a public affair or issue. Plenty of women fall pregnant every day and it is their private event, not mine or anyone elses, except possibly to a far less significant degree, the father, if he even knows.

Pregnancy, being a private matter, it is only logical that pregnancy termination, abortion is also considered a "private" matter and not a reason for public acclaim or public criticism.

Numbers of abortions are merely numbers of private decisions made and therefore not something which could ever be considered as a matter of public concern.

Rebecca, you knew your circumstances and did what you needed to do in light of those circumstances. Your body, your responsibility and your decision.

Regardless of any compelling argument a prolife advocate might bring to the debate, I can guarantee that no prolife advocate will

Experience morning sickness, on your behalf
Risk the health issues associated with pregnancy, on your behalf
Risk the emotional issues associated with pregnancy, on your behalf
Undergo the social upheavals and life changing consequences associated with bringing a child into the world, on your behalf.

So, I for one will never understand how a prolife advocate can ever demand to make the decision as to not abort on someone else’s behalf.

Pro-Choice is about people exercising their freewill to make their own way in this world. Anything which demands to fetter that freewill represents what amounts to an obsessive controlling trait or a matter which reeks of co-dependency and as such should be actively resisted by cognitively competent people.

Magella – the matter of alternatives to abortion – if you mean surgical abortion – the alternative is RU486.

Huntley,

I have no respect for you on any level.

Abortion = Amoral.

Umm Friederich, you should have mentioned that's your subjective
opinion, no more. So no need for you to have an abortion :) Leave
others the choice. There is no objective morality, get used to it.

Abortion is the easy way out.

No excuses, take it on the chin, you dont have the guts to accept the consequences of your actions and at least allow the child life, you are stomping on the hearst of the growing number of women who are infertile, and on the rights of your child. there are plenty of people who will embrace the child, to kill it is a pure selfish decision.

Go and kill your child, then go back to uni or whatever and dont learn your lesson, and know just how easy it is if you make a mistake to correct it.

I understand it is a stressing and emotional time for the mother, but shouldnt it be? look what they are there to do.

I was unwanted, my mother would have certainly got rid of me if she could. Thank god i am here, at least realising my opportunity and right to exist once i was created.

For extreme (eg. rape) or medical reasons only, perhaps abortion could be a discussed option. not because it will interupt your precious life for nine months.

Stop this selfish streak, in 2005 you have all the support you need, and the options you need.

For the writer to say she was glad etc, how does she know? she does not have crystal ball and i bet if she kept it, or if she adopted it, it would be a much loved child indeed.

I really don't think we should be blaming women who abort for the difficulties faced by those who find themselves infertile. Should we not then also blame women who have many children for making infertile couples feel bad?

"without learning their lesson"- what a horrid reason to bring a child into the world, to punish their mother, and possibly father, for the rest of their lives. Even if they give up the child for adoption, and suffer no mental anguish, having seen "The Human Body" last week, about pregnacy, I cannot condone making any woman having to go through those physical changes against her will. It is not 'inconvenient' for nine months- it is often difficult and painful, as is the birth. Forcing that on a person is a horrid suggestion.

Hey JoTre,

Admittedly neither choice is good but on balance I see less misery in abortion.

For example, how many adopted children are abused? How many adopted children end up moving from family to institution, to family and so on? How many yearn their whole lives to know " who they are ". That suffering lasts a lifetime, for all concerned.

And what of the parents? To have a child and give them away is an act I cannot fathom. Once the child is born there is a bond that must be continued. The love you refer to exists in either case but once the child is in your arms, breathing then it is unimaginable for me to give that child to strangers. For a mother to give birth and walk away must be a dreadful thing to do, even by choice.

Even the likely outcome of a happy adoption with a good, cared for life still leaves holes in all concerned. The original parents, although many men may not even know they are a parent, cannot forget a living baby and it is a rare person who can ignore that bond.

Is abortion a good choice? No I don't think so but it's how I see it.

Yabby,

Likewise you get used to my opinion.

I repeat that Abortion=Amoral.

Women who have abortions are nothing to me.I don't hate them nor do I like them. They cease to exist.

Friedrich,
Some people are Ostrich with their head in the sand.They will never know the anguish experienced by a woman faced with making the decision to either abort or carry to term.
people who profess to feel compassion for an aborted fertilised egg but condemn a woman faced with the decision are Ostriches

maracas,

I can't absolve anyone from their sins. Look no further than God.

If anyone thinks that God condones the taking of life then become an atheist.

Maracas do you have a special interest in the subject? Have I hit a raw nerve? If as you have said in a different forum that the debate is over why are you becoming emotional now? I'm not here to debate. I state the truth. God's truth. Thou shall not kill. There is no debate.If you think you're better than God that is up to you

Maracas you won't even start to convince people like Friederich to think along those lines. Just like Osama bin Laden, he is convinced about his god, despite the lack of substantiated evidence. So we have wars, religious tyranny etc and people suffer in the name of
religion all around the world. Sad really.

Yes Freidrich,
I have an interest in the subject..... I strongly support a woman's right to choose.

I post comments expressly to offset the ravings of fundamentalist bigots who have convinced themselves that Religious edicts have any relevence.

I respect peoples rights to believe in a religious faith but that right does not extend to forcing their beliefs onto others.I am polite to Mormons , Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah Witness door knockers but hasten to tell them I am not interested.

Rebecca Huntley has shared her decisions with us to give us some insight into abortion for which she deserves credit. She has not committed a crime and she has not sinned. I congratulate her.

Maracas

Your post is to be applauded for your understanding of a very difficult decision that ultimately can only be decided by a woman.

Having been through 2 abortions myself I know how important it is to have a partner who supports you. On both occasions, hormonal surges added to the trauma and emotion such decisions evoke. I know I did the right thing. I have no regrets.

I am disgusted that people who claim to be pro-life place more importance on a foetus than the welfare of an adult human being and their abilities to bring a child to term.

To impose a pregnancy upon an unwilling woman is another form of rape. It is about control. It is not about humanity.

Abortion is legal. And it will remain that way. To reduce the numbers of abortions men as well as women need to take care by way of vasectomies, condoms as well as the chemical array of contraceptives that women have to ingest.

I think fredrich has read the bible closely. My advice to you fredrich is to not have ana abortion if you don't like them.

Thank you Rebecca for your thoughtful article. I myself have become a little tired of the dominance of guilt/shame rhetoric that seems to dominate the public recollection of women's experiences with abortion. And, as you point out, it's hard to share a story like yours without it being mirrored in the experiences of other women: which is something that comes out often only in a highly confidential environment: it takes only a few harsh or ill-considered words from a friend or acquaintance to make anyone who has had to make this difficult choice think twice about sharing their story.

What you have done in adding your personal account to the public dialogue is very brave. Thank you for your candour and openness.

Always an emotional issue, and these posts are testament to that.

Most people how dislike abortion, myself included, have either never shouted "abotion = amoral" (if we had, we would have said "immoral"), or attempted to get a change to the legal status of abortion. A strict reading of the laws which allow abortion when exception circumstances exist - such as inability to support a child, danger to physical and mental wellbeing, and other such conditions - would be appreciated by us... however we have, effectively, abortion on demand. Those who are too loud over abortion should show some meekness, as often they know not the damage they do.

"Ravings of fundamentalist bigots" is what is heard from the other side, to quote a previous post. The intolerance of those who accuse immediately after hearing an anti-abortion position opens up them also to be labelled "bigots". To act as though abortion is "one's right" which should be enshrined is to lack the necessary humility before making a decision regarding life. This radical fringe, which celebrates abortions or denegrates the life of the "parasite" which they see in the womb, they too know not the damage they do.

One recent move by Tony Abbott has impressed me greatly. I remember hearing his first speech as health minister... he stated his opposition to abortion, said he has no power regarding its legality, but wishes to lower the number of abortions without coercion. His recent move to begin maternity payments in pregrancy is a practical step to support pregnant women. I hope he, like many of us who supported or would have supported (had we been alive) the DLP and Santamaria, remember that as a conservative, predominately Catholic party, it supported maternity leave, maternity allowance, and other such women-friendly positions... as well as being the first party to oppose the White Australia policy.

1. Sex education must explains the process of getting pregnant, avoiding pregnancies, but not encourage a permissive sexual ethic as current ones do. Contraception, as already noted, is not perfect, and thus the best protection is abstinance. A thing cannot be "moral-free", as in attempting to do so, it becomes simply amoral.
2. Adoption should be encouraged over abortion, both in class and in general society. The adoption rate has dropped from 10,000 a year about 25 years ago to less than 500 a year. That is the worst bit about abortion in our nation, that the obvious alternative is ignored.

Thus the stigma around adoption must be lifted. Men who abandon women should be condemned. The idea that this is just a "woman's issue" should also be abandoned, men partake equally in the process of creating life, and have an equal right to debate issues of the common good as women. The first response to a woman saying that she is pregnant should always be an affirmation, as it is at that point when many women guage how well supported they shall be.

What I fear the most is the "consumer perspective". It is strange that those on the left who oppose materialism when it comes to material goods, support it when it comes to people. They have pilfered the "social justice" of Christianity whilst ignoring the bits of its social teaching that require some effort.

maracas,

Is it a support of other women to choose or is there more?

There is more or otherwise you would'nt be getting shall we say all emotional. I do hope it is not a sense of regret. That would be awful indeed.

I for one enjoy your posts. They are rational.

But how do we reconcile the women’s right to chose with gender equality? Is gender equality merely an equalisation scheme, where women get to legally do whatever they like to men, in some strange reciprocation for perceived historical cross-generational injustices instituted against them?

I see no difference between the genders when it comes to raising offspring. If women have the right to terminate post conception, why would men not have the right to opt out? Anything else, tends to support the idea that gender equality is a social engineering sham that will soon have to fail.

I fully understand that the majority of people want abortions on demand whether by suction or RU486. Good luck to the majority.

What I don't like is this abortion pride business. Why can't women do all this stuff in dark corners where it belongs and then the so called "God squad" such as myself wouldn't start preaching.

Rebecca Huntley writes about "consumers" as if it's like buying flowers or bringing joy into the world.

I wish I was one of the majority who don't have a conscience, that way I could take the easy way out on a daily basis instead of having to face up to life as it is and not the way I would like it to be.

aaah, Such is life Friedrich.

The assumption that pro-life people have no understanding of the complexities of this issue, and what women go through, is false. Personally, I have spent hours upon hours studying all the difficulties associated with this issue. I have met people who have been through abortion. Many of my fellow workers in the pro-life movement have devoted countless hours to pregnancy centers. We know how compelx it is, becuase that is why it is so difficult to solve. When trying to assist women and address the root causes that lead to abortion, the complexity of it is simply overwhelming and it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps that is why most people prefer to repeat tried and true mantras like "its her right to choose". It is easier than trying to address what would cause her to feel she had to make that choice

Sherrin Ward:
Are you saying a woman should not have the right of choice ?
You refer to i as a Mantra........ It is the bottom line.....!!

maracas,

You won. You are the winner. RU486 will be available one day. Suction and RU486.

Why berate someone who believes in life? Someone who walks around in the daylight.

With any luck the death penalty may be reintroduced. Does that appeal to you maracas?

As a young teenager, far too young to become a mother, I fell pregnant. I realised that I had had german measles around the time of conception. There was extreme pressure to abort. Whether from christian belief, faith or naivity I fought to have my child.
Almost 30 years later my daughter is always a pleasure. She suffers a little deafness, a minor heart murmur and eysight problems, but is the most wonderful person. Her intellect is high and her nature is very sweet.
I have never regretted having her.
Abortion is a sad topic, it is so sad that a woman feels the need to terminate a pregnancy.
I have 4 adult children and I believe that all children are precious.
Although there have been times that have been hard, I am a fortunate woman. I am very proud of all my children, they are fine young people.

Sherrin I nearly fell of my chair laughing at your comment about
mantras. Compared to the mantras and dogmas of the Catholic Church,
which the true believers follow will zeal, a woman's right to choose is common sense and should be considered a human right.

You are free to believe all those mantras and dogmas of the Church,
but I hope that you don't expect the rest of us to take them in anyway seriously....

Yabby,
I am a Catholic, who is against abortion. However I believe in the right of the woman to make her own descion, concerning her own body. Only she knows her circumstances, whether or not she is in a position, emotionally, economicly and a hundred other factors, I support Abbott's notion to introduce benefits during pregnancy, however he also supports a lowering in those benefits, without compensating factors such as public health and education funding increases, thus making his suggestions a political stunt. I do not agree with Friedrich's interpretation of the Bible on this matter, this is far too complicated for one line from the holy book to deal with. I feel extremely compassionately toward Kay, I too was diagnosed as infertile, and tried IVF without success, untill in 1999 at the age of 42 I became a father for the first time. I have tremendous pride in my daughters achievements, and thank God for her every day, children can be such a joy, however if circumstances had been different, I most certainly would not have kept going with the process, which produces the same result {no child} so as much as I love being a father, I think it is an individual choice, one that cannot be made for you and should not be made for you by any other party, be it Church or Government, however I would really like to see a pregnant mother given a "real" choice by the Federal Government. Keep or increase benefits to single mothers especially in the pregnancy period, and till the child turns 16, so the mother can nurture the child to become a productive and responsible citizen.

Aka “. There was extreme pressure to abort. Whether from christian belief, faith or naivity I fought to have my child.”

You made your choice and by the sounds of things fought to make it.

You should, therefore, understand the value of choice more than most and vehemently resist inflicting an “imposed decision” on someone else.

Sherrin Ward “It is easier than trying to address what would cause her to feel she had to make that choice.”

Making a “personal choice” is one of the fundamental differences between living and existing. Cattle and lower orders of animals “exist” without “choice”, driven only by biological imperatives. Humans have “freewill” and can, thus “choose” and make decisions which are beyond the cognitive capabilities of lower orders.

Reducing women to the “lower orders” by refusing them the right to make cognitive decisions represents the subjugation of the gender and something which, since the end of the inquisition, reasonable minded people have progressively grown out of.

Shonga “I would really like to see a pregnant mother given a "real" choice by the Federal Government. Keep or increase benefits to single mothers especially in the pregnancy period, and till the child turns 16, so the mother can nurture the child to become a productive and responsible citizen.”

How and when we procreate is of no concern to the federal government.

The federal government is not there to nurture us from cradle to the grave – it is there to provide for those things we cannot provide for as individuals like an army and road networks and other infrastructure.

Socialist meddling is dead and buried and all the misguided and asinine notions of some state sponsored sheltered existence is buried with it – thank goodness. Socialist bureaucracies only work to relieve individuals of their freewill and choices, not to enhance them.

Rebecca,

Thank you for a great article, your bravery and a very good point. How can we publicly discuss such an issue when the voices of women who have abortions are silenced by shame? We're making decisions based on a partial picture.

Pro-choice does not equal anti-life. Abortion doesn't mean a woman doesn't want a baby. I imagine it most often means a woman wants her children to have good lives and she's unfortunate enough to have fallen pregnant when she's unable to provide that.

How often do women abort while they're unprepared and go on to have families later?

It's not a black and white issue and treating it like one is promoting ignorance.

Col
real choice is very rare. A woman can face real pressure from social opinion, such as the berating of single mothers, and family status and expectations. A current trend that I have heard often, is that it is cheaper for a man to pay for an abortion than to pay maintenance! The pressure and influence of others on a woman at a very vulnerable time in their life does not create 'choice'.
When you consider the hype that appears regularly about single mothers , note not single fathers, and the punitive and negative way they are portrayed, a woman is not always free to make a choice.
For real choice, a single parent or caregiver should be supported by the community for it is a very difficult job that they are doing.
Col I did have to fight against those who thought of the shame I would cause them, the medical profession who finally gave me accurate figures on the risk, teachers who were focussed on my education, and others who thought that abortion was the only moral choice to make.
I was fortunate that my dad, a single parent, stood by my decision.
Real choice needs to be real.

When I wrote about mantras, what I meant was that most people don't want to think deeply about abortion. They prefer to go with the easy things that everyone says. That is also probably true of a lot of people on the pro-life side, who have not thought through what they believe.

I am very sick of people assuming I am Catholic when I speak out about abortion. I have attended one Catholic service in my life, and I hated it. I am a protestant. However, the Catholic church has done a huge amount deep thinking about these issues (as some leaders in the pro-choice movement have done).

I think it is fairly obvious that for most people, it is easier to support a family member or friend to have an abortion than it is to try to help her though pregnancy and parenting in less than ideal circumstances. Offering to take care of the child, or pay for medical expenses, or look for housing, or help with the many other needs that might arise, would potentially take up much more time and energy. Can there really be a lot of debate about that? Some people have posted saying pro-life people live in a simplistic world. However, it is far more complex to address the reasons women resort to abortion than to advocate abortion as a solution to their problems.

Sherrin, as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck etc. Fact is that most of the anti abortion dogma is catholic based, with a few hangers on from the fundie movement.

I googled your name and up came a blog with lots of religion and a list of anti abortion people. Most of those seem to have associations with the catholic church, so you are preaching catholic theology basically, even if not a member. I assume thats your blog.

The real problem for Rome is that since one pope came up with all this anti abortion, anti condoms story and decreed it, the Vatican now has to plod on with it regardless. Otherwise of course the whole papal infallability story comes crashing down and they don't want all that egg on their faces. Nevermind, it took them about 400 years to admit that Galileo was right after all, so there is some hope
that one day they will come to their senses :)

The article on changing abortion laws in Australia has figures inside of it saying that though 92% of people identified circumstances under which abortion could be permissable, only about 30% thought that abortion of demand should be so. About 2/3 of people have reservations over abortions, allowing them when a woman's life or health is at risk, or she is unable to raise that child. Most of Australia, though they wish to have abortion legal, do not wish to have ALL abortion (that is, abortion on demand) legal.

The question was asked in WA when abortion was legalised, only perhaps in simplified terms. ie. should women be allowed to have an abortion in the first trimester or not. About 90% said yes, the rest were mainly devout catholics who said no.

I have yet to see any reasoned arguments against abortion, which do not involve theology. So this raises an interesting question regarding democracy. If 60% were against abortion based on theology, should that opinion and law enforcement prevail ?

If so, lets say the demographics of Australia changes in the future.
Muslim voters, who make up 51% of the population at that point, vote to have the Koran as Australia's new constitution, as it is in say
Saudi Arabia. Would you then accept that vote as democracy or claim it to be religious tyranny, which is what I am claiming today?

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.:" Buddha - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta

That quotation pretty much describes my outlook on life. I have arrived at a position on the issue which I repeat is I ABSOLUTELY believe the decision to have or not have an abortion is the RIGHT of a woman.It is not a matter of her being ALLOWED to by predominantly male politicians, many of whom are influenced by dogma that has been drummed into them as God's will. We have lurched out of the dark ages and as long as people rely on their own capacity to think and reason without resorting to dogma, we are not going back.

Friedrich “What I don't like is this abortion pride business. Why can't women do all this stuff in dark corners where it belongs and then the so called "God squad" such as myself wouldn't start preaching.”

I guess women would be “happy” to deal with abortion in a private manner.
The problem is their is a lot of so called “God Squad” zealots who block the shaded path to the abortion clinic and noisily berate wome choosing to use those clinics, forcing them to stand their ground and make a noise in response.

So Friedrich, if you want to dump, dump on “pro-life”. They are the ones who want to rule by decree and force their illegitimate demands on others.

Aka – you made your “choice”.

How would you feel now had someone elses choice prevailed?

Why would you demand other women accept less (making their own decision) than that which you exercised for yourself?

Regarding your family’s issues with “status and expectations”. With family like that I would move interstate, change my name, pretend I was an orphan and see my revenge as having a better life without them in it.

Individuals know best their own circumstances and what is the “right” response for them in those circumstances. Individuals dealing with whether to abort or not invariably make a decision based on the self perceived abilities and priorities and not upon some religious or social mantra laid down to maintain fealty to a particular creed.

If an individual, by following their own conscience, “gets it wrong” so be it – they can blame themselves instead of being in a position to blame someone else for a decision forced upon them.

Since, in the matter of abortion, one woman’s decision will not effect the lifestyle, expectations or responsibility of others, those others should have no influence in what choice that one woman makes.

The number of abortions is irrelevant. Every abortion decision is a single decision made by one person, the woman involved!

Col Rouge,

"trite".

maracas,

Lord Buddha?.

Are you serious?.

Buddhists don't kill anything.

Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. I forget the other one. Monks/Nuns have ten rules. I know buddists.

You are dreaming mate.

Friedrich,
I,m not your mate and I'm not Bhuddist. I quoted Buddha on thinking for oneself and not believing what you read in old books, bibles,and what you are told by others.
Of course if you do not have the ability to think and reason because of your adherence to dogma, thats a problem you need to address

Freidrich “Trite”

Trite – definition per dictionary.com

“Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.”

Maybe you could display where I have repeated myself or anyone else’s statements in suggesting the self-obsessed forces of Pro-Life interfere in other peoples free and legal access to abortion clinics and berate women who choose to pursue their lawful choices.

However, since no "repetition" exists I am forced to assume, from the words of your own post, that your vocabulary is so seriously limited, maybe to the point of registerable disability, that you believe using one word “trite” justifies response to dismiss the fair, accurate and reasonable observations which I made.

So here is a second chance, Freidrich, to show us that you are not afraid to debate with me the points I make.

This is your opportunity to disprove to us all what you have established as your debilitating “credentials” – that of the ineffectual and intellectually limited. That of the bully who hides behind an asinine sense of self-righteousness from which you assume authority to tell women, who you do not know, that they have to follow the dictates which you prescribe for them.

Such a posture (using that word in the loosest of sense) is malignant and twisted. It would, however, conform with the views of those afflicted with low self esteem and craven need to control the actions of others.

Now, bring it all on Freidrich, respond to my challenge –

or will you just scurry off like some low vermin, back into the darkness from where you can prey on the vulnerable at a time when they need our greatest support and absence from the judgemental prejudices which Pro-Life espouse.

maracas,

It is true I am not your mate. I do hope I am not making you cranky. I could not live with myself if I was.

[Deleted for flaming]

Col, slight disagreement with the following

"Since, in the matter of abortion, one woman’s decision will not effect the lifestyle, expectations or responsibility of others, those others should have no influence in what choice that one woman makes.

The number of abortions is irrelevant. Every abortion decision is a single decision made by one person, the woman involved! "

True if the abortion is paid for privately, not true if the taxpayer is footing the bill. I'm not aware of the level of funding for abortions but assume that it is not trivial. If so the number of abortions is relevant. As with health care for illnesses caused by or complicated by overeating, smoking, lack of exercise, risk taking and the like the taxpayer has some right to try and reduce that cost.

Probably a trivial point in the overall debate, the cost to the taxpayer of the child being born will be higher but there is scope there for preventative action. I'm not generally a big fan of means testing but maybe abortion funding is one place where it might really serve societies interests. We might also be better served in a pragmatic sense by increased funding for sterilisation procedures for men and women, free condom vending etc.

R0bert

Col,
it is interesting that you pick out small points, such as some family members concerned about status etc. You assume an awful lot. You didn't note that my father was supportive and that other family members were also.

I note that you were not prepared to comment on the issue of men putting pressure on women to abort as an abortion costs less than maintenance.

I believe that many women are being coerced into abortion, being convinced that it is their only real option. Many women suffer emotionally and mentally after abortions, of course some do not, but I reiterate, women need REAL choices. For at the moment I see that too many abortions are carried out for convenience, and often for the convenience of the males.

Robert – I keep all issues of costing and tax payer funding out of the abortion debate simply because such judgements are subjective and comparative to other health negatives like smoking, obesity etc.

To be honest, if abortions were not available as a public health service, I think 2 things would happen

1 women would borrow to undergo them.
2 abortion clinics would adopt deferred payment schemes.

I do not believe it would not affect, either way, the number of abortions performed.

[Deleted for flaming.]

Col
It is interesting that you are able to have a hissy fit about the semantics of others, but are not commenting on my response to you.
I get the impression that you are rather shallow and not an intellectual.

Col Rouge,

Learn to put two words together and I will debate you. Your posts lack clarity. In other words you are all over the shop.

I will however comment on your posts as I feel you may learn something.

Col I am here to help you. You do not have to thank me.

Your Mate,

Friedrich

Aka - Check the times of my posts.
When I posted last I had consumed the 2 posts per 24 hours and could not make new entries for some time.

I do not live for your approval. So I do not give a stuff about your views regarding my depth or intellectual prowess. I had however, already drafted a post which I enclose verbatim as prepared.

“Aka – I cannot comment on women being coerced and men putting pressure on women to abort.

I believe, ultimately men and women are responsible for themselves and their own bodies. Any women coerced into an abortion has my profound and sincere condolences.

I believe, absolutely, that the only way people grow is by dealing with the adversity of their lives. That means they must be free to make the decisions they see fit and live with the consequences.

Thus a woman, pregnant who does or does not want to be pregnant should be entirely and solely responsible for any decisions to terminate or not.

Regarding family – I interpreted what you said, maybe harshly. I did see where you said your father supported your decision. I would do the exact same for either of my 2 daughters, likewise, support them in whatever decision they determined.

How many abortions are carried for “convenience” does not matter.

What does matter, I repeat, is people being free to make decisions for themselves instead of having the decision imposed upon them (women coerced).

Pregnant women might be coerced by unsupportive or paternalistic boyfriends and that is wrong.
Woman being coerced by the harassment and berating of Pro-Life activists is, likewise, wrong.

Two “Wrongs” never make a “Right”.

I certainly was not evading the issues of coercion, just not considering them in my response.”

Freidrich ”Your posts lack Clarity”.

There is nothing opaque about “People have the right to choose for themselves”

Mono-syllable posts like “trite” lack clarity – as your previous 2, this one qualifies as “trite” and likewise “banal”. It confirms your standard =
Unfit to make or impose rules and decisions for others.

Col,

If "trite" lacks clarity why then did you chuck a "hissy fit"?

Your posts have no beginning, middle or end.

By the way it's great you can only post to this thread twice in twenty four hours. Two "hissy fits" is enough.

I await your boring reply or better still why don't you actually debate with someone. I would debate you if I thought you were good enough. Others may show you more compassion.

Col,
there are times when abortion is between a woman and her god. I also acknowledge that I would hate a return to backyard abortions.

I am not a pro-life activist but I do believe that abortion kills a child and that it is too easy to attain. It is a bussiness set up to make money for doctors and investors. Abortion clinics, from what I have been told, are a bit of a process line and often leave the women feeling emotionally violated by the experience. Specialist support services for post abortion counselling are swamped by the demand.

Recent advances in technology show babies smiling and sucking their thumb in the first trimeseter of gestation. Scary stuff!!
It is interesting that many of the posts are by males.

Freidrich “I would debate you if I thought you were good enough. Others may show you more compassion.”

Those two sentences are nonsensical but from your posts when was sense ever a concern of content?

I have replied to your comments with clarity and directness.

That you continue to respond in monosyllable statements to obfuscate the absence of merit in what you write leaves me and anyone else reading these posts, to conclude you have are a coward who only makes demanding statements and cannot deliver a reasoned argument to support your views.

Like

“Rebecca, I have no respect for you on any level.”
no explanation. Does Rebecca care? I would think not.

“Women who have abortions are nothing to me. I don't hate them nor do I like them. They cease to exist.”
No they do not cease to exist Friedrich, they continue to live their lives and hopefully develop as people, a shame you have not.

“If anyone thinks that God condones the taking of life then become an atheist.”
Now that is not for you to decide but from your posts and cowardly posture, would I be right in assuming you are a Catholic Priest ? I could certainly understand if you were, no empathy for women, intolerant and incapable of arguing from reason because all you know is dumb dogma.

“I wish I was one of the majority who don't have a conscience,”
Oh so “special” and you come here to visit with us mortal’s.

Friedrich, regardless of your cowardly ways, I will not let you off the hook.

If you want to post please go ahead. However, expect me to post responses to your drivel and when you simply churn out trite and banal edicts and quote dogma, expect me to challenge you. Because that is who I am and that is my “choice”.


Aka
“....abortion is between a woman and her god.”
Yes and not for anyone else to decide when it is otherwise.

As for the experience – I have always assumed abortion comes at some “cost” to the woman.

[Deleted for breaching forum rules and poster suspended for a week.]

[Deleted for flaming, poster suspended for a week.]

Yabby wrote: "I googled your name and up came a blog with lots of religion and a list of anti abortion people. Most of those seem to have associations with the catholic church, so you are preaching catholic theology basically, even if not a member. I assume thats your blog."

It may have been, but since I link to no Catholic blogs it seems doubtful. That is, unless you don't know the difference between Catholic and protestant. I link to several protestant blogs and sites.

I am a Christian, but I was anti-abortion before I was converted.

It is not true that anti-abortion arguments come solely from religion. Those may be the only ones you have heard, but if so you may not have talked to many people or read widely. Many people have deep seated concerns about abortion. Reading a book on the early development of a child, or seeing an ultrasound, would be enough to cause such concern.

These two sites demonstrate the diversity of approaches to this issue:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/

Sherrin you can search around the net and find every kind of argument imaginable on just about any topic and some group of people who hold certain views. Last I heard even the flat earth society were still around somewhere and all those picture of earth are just a big conspiracy theory according to them.

Yes some people have reservations about abortion. No worries, nobody is forcing them to have one. A few people think that we should not eat meat either etc, so they don't.

The fact remains that the worldwide drive to take away womens right to an abortion is largely catholic driven, with a few fundies thrown in. Worldwide fundies don't matter, thats mainly American, with a few Aussies etc.

All the surveys I have seen in Australia, are that about 90% of people accept a woman's right to an abortion, the few % that don't are largely catholic, plus your odd fundie, or Christian Taliban
as I call them.

Frankly most people have other things to get on with in their lives.
It is usually the devoutly religious who actively go on a campaign
to remove other peoples rights.

A question... are you Sherrin Ward from Tasmania, the teachers aide?

I think Yabby is engaging in intimidation against Sherrin Ward and should be subjected to post deletion and/or account suspension as per the Forum Rules :

"You must not ... post any material which:

* violates or infringes the rights of others (including their privacy rights), is threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, or which may harass or cause distress to, any person.

* restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site

Yabby has twice tried to violate the privacy of Sherrin Ward presumably to intimidate her(?) and is is thereby inhibiting the use & enjoyment of this site by others who do not wish to be intimidated in this manner.

Please suspend Yabby from this forum.

Jersey

If you wish to recommend a post for deletion, you may click on the red cross icon at the bottom of each post and place your reasons there.

However, I suggest you read more of this forum if you actually believe that Yabby's post is in anyway intimidatory - many posters are outright rude and insulting. Yabby's asking about Sherrin's indentity hardly can be construed as such - she is under no obligation to answer.

As for the rest of his post - he is expressing his opinion which is what OLO is all about. You are free to disagree.

Abortion is indeed an emotive issue and many people hold strong views about it.

For myself I believe it is up to the woman concerned to decide what to do about her pregnancy.

Many people disagree with this opinion and would impose their beliefs on women, either for philosophical or religious reasons. This results in a form of control over an individual. You may disagree with me if you wish - I will not in anyway feel intimidated.

Cheers

Jersey I'm sorry you feel that way, but in fact I had good reasons for asking Sherrin and she has nowhere stated that she has a problem with that and seems quite able to defend herself and her views.

It seems that Sherrin has used her own name as her Nick and has openly discussed her blog on OLO. Clearly she has displayed no sign of wanting to keep these things private, in fact she is openly publishing them on the net, as part of the pro life movement.
People openly publish things, normally when they want others to read them, not when they want them kept private.

What I did feel was that is was only sensible to verify that in fact the Sherrin on the net and the Sherrin on OLO are one and the same person, as its not unknown on the internet for people to use somebody elses name as their nick.

If anyone feels intimidated by the abortion debate, its women
who might lose their right to decide about their own bodies, if the pro life movement has its way. I'm a bit older then Sherrin and have seen the other side of this debate in Africa. Women using coathangers in desperation to get rid of their unwanted foetuses and the trauma they go through when those methods fail and medical complications get out of hand. Its not a pretty sight I can tell you.

Yabby:

Yes, my blog is the same one you have found. I deliberately use my full name on the Internet because I have no interest in hiding my identity. On my blog, all the blogs I link to are evangelical Christians – probably what you refer to as fundies or the Christian Taliban. None of the arguments in any of my posts have been based on my religion. f you prefer to address my religion than my arguments, that is your business. My religion is very important to me, but it is not the primary reason I am actively pro-life.

Most abortions before legalisation were “safe” in the sense you would refer to it. Referring to coat hangers and dying women is very effective as a lobbying tool, but it has little basis in fact, as Dr van Gend’s article Abortion Distortions demonstrates: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2741

Before I read this article, I went and researched the Commonwealth Records of Maternal Deaths for myself. I have viewed and photocopied the primary source documents that show what Dr van Gend has pointed out. However, the situation in Africa may be worse because of their lack of access to antibiotics and other medical care. To me, that is an issue of lack of medical care rather than abortion services specifically.

The state imposes all kinds of controls over individuals. However, I think all kinds of efforts should be made to reduce abortion in ways that have nothing to do with laws. My major efforts in regard to abortion are not legal. They are centrally related to education, support and resources. Most people I know in the pro-life movement operate the same way.

If you really want to know why I do this, you can read my next post which is part of a letter I wrote to the University of Tasmania magazine Togatus in reply to letters about an article I wrote.

Sherrin the anti abortion movement is a worldwide movement, principally driven by the Vatican. Here is their ridiculous
view on the whole issue, including their contraception policy.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Yes coathangers apply in Africa, because people don't have the money to pay for illegal medical services, which are far more expensive then if done legally. So its doctors for the rich there, coathangers for the poor. In Australia there were always doctor of reason who would perform a d/c, no questions asked. If abortion was made illegal in Australia and the legal risk for doctors increased, Australians would just have to fly overseas, or those that can afford it.

Holland has shown that increased and correct sex education in school can dramatically drop teenage pregnancy and abortion rates. The US has shown that preaching abstinance is a dismal failure.

You might be keen on non legal means to deal with abortion, but that is not the case with most of the anti abortion lobby. The Catholics would even have condoms banned, if they had their way.

The State needs good reasons to impose controls over individuals. The days are over where they can do as they please. Religion is not a good enough reason to impose controls on the non religious.

Rebecca's wise words are refreshing and inspiring.

New anti-choice reports (which are interestingly now focusing on women, not the foetus) are repeatedly filling our daily front pages.

Perhaps a little more attention to sexual education and the increased availability of contraception is what we need before we start mandating what others are allowed to do with their bodies.

Let’s hope that sanity and the real welfare of women (and their families) not fundamentalism takes the lead in public debate before the decision to legalise RU486 is made

Yabby:
An atheist doctor who lives half an hour from me is pro-life. A friend of mine was strongly pro-life and did a class presentation on it before she was a Christian. This is because there are many rational reasons for being pro-life.

Since I last posted, I have become unhappy and worried about hostile people from this forum being able to easily look up my blog and see pictures of my niece and nephews. Due to this, I will probably change my username to Sherrin. I will continue to be open about my religion, and anything online that does not involve my tiny family members.

This is my last post on this thread. Here is my explanation, from my letter to the University of Tasmania magazine, of why I am actively pro-life. I hope it gives you some understanding, if not acceptance, of where I am coming from.

“Many people ask me why I am actively pro-life, rather than “personally”. My central reasons are that abortion harms women and kills human beings. If would be selfish of me to say, “I don’t want abortion to happen to me, but I don’t care if it happens to lots of other people.” Many women do not want to abort, but feel pressured to do so. Abortion is a tragedy I would not wish upon anyone.

Those who work to normalise the oppressive practice of abortion, calling it “freedom”, need to be countered. They think telling women an abortion will “remove the lining of the uterus” (Moonah Fertility Control Clinic brochure) is adequate informed consent, and they commonly dismiss women’s abortion grief.

“Pro-choice” activists have worked to downplay adoption as an alternative to abortion, instead of working to make adoption easier for women through counselling and support during and after pregnancy. This shows that maximising choice is not their main goal.

Advocating other choices is more complex than accepting the status quo of accessible abortion, but it is well worth it. Pro-life people need to work and think hard about how to do so, addressing issues such as housing, childcare and income.”

Sherrin, I am sorry to hear that you are alarmed, but I think its without reason. People might be hostile to your opinion, but not to you. Taking peoples rights away, as the pro life lobby want to do,
is a serious issue with huge ramifications on peoples lives, so I don't blame people who strongly disagree with your views. Your family has nothing to do with that.

You say your arguments are not religion based, but you clearly don't understand the secular argument. Most women can create about 400 human organisms in their lifetime. Everyone could be a cute baby, clearly they can't keep them all. Read Origin of Species to understand natures laws.

Having is child is not just about an organism. Its about a lifetime
of care, huge resources, an education etc. Its a huge commitment.
Women should be free to make that commitment, when they feel ready for it.

The world is full of starving, unwanted babies, that have already
been born. Lets start looking after them, before we get carried
away with potential babies. A few dividing cells, without a functioning brain, unaware, are not a person.

If a woman wants to carry a foetus to term and adopt it out, that should be her choice. She should not be compelled to carry it for 9 months, if she does not want to.

The reason feminist groups are fighting so hard is that the anti abortion lobby will not see reason. They want to take womens rights away, largely for religious dogma reasons.

Sherrin, you can save 3 starving babies in Africa tomorrow, if you sell your computer and send them the money. So what is your choice?
Self interest or pro life?

Sherrin Ward "Since I last posted, I have become unhappy and worried about hostile people from this forum being able to easily look up my blog and see pictures of my niece and nephews."

I would not worry about that Sherrin.

Pro-life are the ones identified with “intolerance”.
Pro-Choice has the market in “tolerance”.

If you were not of the ProLife camp, then I would suggest you might have something to concern yourself.

The ones who harangue women attempting to get legally available abortions, try to kill doctors, bomb clinics and shoot security guards claim to be acting in the name of their "Pro-Life” cause.

If you were "Pro-Choice", I would suggest your family might be at risk from "Pro-Life" but the evidence of historic events suggests, not the other way around.

That displays the one of the differences between the two opposing poles. One pole insists in telling everyone else what they have to do, the other pole is content to let other individuals exercise their own discretion in matters which effect only those individuals.