My understanding of the reproductive process is fine Meg. What you flushed down the toilet were potential babies, just lacking the odd sperm. If your ova met up with some sperms down those sewers, are you responsible for murder ? :) Thats exactly how ridiculous your
argument is...

I have checked my facts. A bunch of dividing cells is not a person, not a baby, has no brain, does not feel or think. The emotionally challenged perhaps don't understand the science, but we can't help it if some people lack an education.

You have distorted my words Meg, good Christians should not be deceptive and liars :) I never claimed that the Catholic Church plotted to support the eating of bonobos and chimps, that is simply the result of their fanaticism to create even more little Catholics.

Natural family planning is rejected by 80% of Catholics Meg.
Even 50% of Catholic priests disagree with Romes views on this one.
There is a detailed article in the Economist Jan 25th 2001.
So even your religious buddies do not share your views by a factor of
4-1.

Your Respose philo... was

"This indicates your attitude toward children. When have women not had to carry and give birth to children? How did you get here? When have children not lived with their mother?"

Philo, philo ,philo!
do u think that im stupid or somethin?
I have a positive attitude to children thankyou very much!OOOh i didnt know women carried babies.... and gave birth to children! thanx for enlightenin me!(sarcastic)and thats how i got here wow!(sarcastic)Do kids live with their mother?(sarcastic)

You r so rude !

My point to my first posting was that women should have the right to choose!

Why should the government decide wheather a woman can abort or not? its not as if every woman is aborting and we are going to have a population crisis!

there are a lot of women that are having kids and good on them! Im not condemning kids im condemning the government for trying to control womens choices and rights!

Moni,
Now you are blaming the Government that if you became pregnant and decided to abort you couldn't because no RU486 was available. So your unwanted child is the Federal Governments fault, because you wanted it to die in your womb. Especially John Howard and Tony Abbott because they would have stopped the readily available distribution of RU486.

Obviously you show lack of personal responsibility and discipline in your sexual activity. There are very good methods of avoiding pregnancy in the first place consider finding out about them. A child does not have to die because of your lack of self control and self disipline. Remember you are talking about a womans choice. With teenage pregnancy the youth is not capable of making a mature decision and other adults or boyfriends place pressure upon the girl to abort - and it is clearly not always her choice.

You claim it is a womans choice to abort - are our women so sexually irresponsible that they choose to abort one in every four babies in Australia. That is every fourth woman who falls pregnant now aborts her child. Abortion greatly increases by 16 times the womans chances of developing breast cancer than any other trigger of breast cancer.

I've had 2 middle age members of my extended family die of breast cancer before they had grandchildren and I can tell you this affected more than just the victim. With natural abortion the body closes down narurally any prepatory developments occurring in the mammary

Philo, you state "Abortion greatly increases by 16 times the womans chances of developing breast cancer than any other trigger of breast cancer". Would you like to back that with some reliable empirical evidence? I suggest that you cannot. I suspect that your statement rests on the fact that breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and given the high incidence of abortion it is likely that there is a correlation between breast cancer and abortion. Note well -a correlation is not a causal relationship. There will be 100 other correlations between breast cancer and other variables; not one of which is a KNOWN cause of breast cancer.

Please look up a Danish study of 1.5 million women born between 1935 and about the late seventies. You will note that all the women were registered with both an abortion register and a breast cancer register. There was no evidence to link abortion with breast cancer. If you look at the variables controlled for in that study, the sample size and other controls you would have to concede that it is pretty powerful evidence. Of course that is one of many studies that do not support your aforementioned comment. For another try a meta-analysis out of Oxford university that again found no evidence to support that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

No, But it does show a dramatic increase in Cervical Cancer rates, very steep climb indeed.
Stuffing around with Natures creation, then expect the basic principles of Quantum Physics to apply also , and it does

Sorry All-, I cannot agree with you. There is no consensus on the abortion-cervical cancer link; it has not been firmly established either way. For every study showing a causal link there is another showing there is not. There are too many confounding variables that researchers have had trouble separating. Some of these are: the twofold higher incidence of cervical cancer in smokers; low exercisers have increased cervical cancer rates; individuals (yes men get breast cancer too) whose diet is low in fruit and vegetables have a higher rate; having multiple partners increases rates, usually because of contracting a HPV (100+ viruses come under this umbrella). HPV is the No 1 cause of cervical cancer. The risk factor for cervical cancer also increases with each childbirth, in a number of studies showing 2.6 times the risk after 3-4 children and nearly 4 times the risk after 6+ children.