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.