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.