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.