Great another person trying to tell other people how to live. The great divide in this debate is not between Pro-choice and anti-choice groups, but between reality based laws and faith based oppression.

I'm all for non-directive, supportive counselling for women (or couples, for that matter) who want more information about their options.

But if the stated aim of the extra money being ploughed into counselling is to reduce the number of abortions in Australia, this is surely at odds with a service that Tony Abbott and John Howard are claiming is "non-directive".

I agree with Nicholas that a strategy is required to address the issues of sexual and reproductive health with young people, one that includes the somewhat amorphous concept of "values".

But let's not forget that some people's values are still "sow your wild oats, wa-hay!"...at least when talking to teenage boys. As the parent of a boy I want to do everything I can to prevent he and a partner coming to me or his dad teary-eyed due to a sexually transmitted infection or an unwanted pregnancy. That, as I see it, is partly about good education by parents, extended families and the education system.

A system of education that presents all the options (including abstinence AND "should you become sexually active, these are your responsibilities") has a values system: that people's sexual and reproductive lives are complex and different. Either way, both systems would argue as their central tenet: prevention is always better than cure - this is a value we can surely all share.

I note that Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini is a member of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference Natural Family Planning Board of Management. In other words, he is associated with a faith based so-called family planning method, which has a high incidence of failure, and still expects to be taken seriously by logical people who prefer more reliable forms of contraception.

On the topic of sex education, I posted the following link, together with a warning for those who have psychological problems regarding the human body:
http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[NB This website is nudist. I don't know what the attitude of On Line Opinion is to such things, but if you are offended by a very small amount of non-sexual nudity, then don't go to it.]

This is an article showing the comparative lower rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in some Western European countries, compared to the US. And isn't that what we all profess to want in Australia too?

There's a pattern here which Australia could easily follow, provided we had politicians and bureaucrats who refused to be led by the nose by religious extremists and instead used their common sense.

here, here

The new abortion laws implemented in South Dakota recently emphasizes the control that the religious right now have in USA.

"South Dakota touched off a national tempest with its strict new abortion ban, but the law also fomented a local grassroots movement and opened a schism in the state's dominant Republican Party.......

......The new law--intended to set up a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling legalizing abortion--makes it a felony for anyone to help a woman end her pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest or when the woman's physical or mental health is at risk. The law only permits abortion when it is necessary to save a woman's life."

read on at:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/35787/

The author uses the label of 'Pro-life' - this is inaccurate so-called 'pro-lifers' care only about the foetus, nothing about the care or lack thereof of children already alive in this world and no consideration at all for the lives of women.

The correct label is Anti-Choice.

It is not rocket science to suggest that young people need assistance, support and education in sex and other life skills. However, what is not needed is a one sided religious doctrine which ignores all aspects of sexuality and promotes only that which fits its narrow dogma.

We, in Australia, need to be constantly vigilant or we will end up like many states in the USA, where women will have NO Choice but to seek backyard abortions.

Scout,
You are so ill informed on what agencies are assisting the children and women of the world that you make wild unfounded statements that have no bearing in fact. Your posting is based upon your ignorance and attitudes. Get educated in reality.

Family Law in Australia is fundamentally based on the best interests of children and it usually grants proxy rights to mothers to determine those interests.

There should be no doubt that this process begins no later than conception and ends no sooner than well into adulthood.

Maybe you could tell us specifically what Scout has got wrong, Philo. And at the same time post the websites of those agencies who, in your opinion, are getting it right, so that we can assess that for ourselves.

And how do you suggest that Scout gets "educated in reality"? Perhaps by reading some unsubstantiated ancient documents, or listening to the opinions of the boss-man of the local cult.

Rex,
For your benifit:
To quote Scout, "The author uses the label of 'Pro-life' - this is inaccurate so-called 'pro-lifers' care only about the foetus, nothing about the care or lack thereof of children already alive in this world and no consideration at all for the lives of women.The correct label is Anti-Choice."

Scouts values lie not with a decision to produce a human life, but through the bad choice by a woman; and thus the felt need to destroy that life. This she claims as "womans choice", the choice to terminate a human life by surcical, or pesticidal means.

Her claim that the Christians don't care for the already born children of this world is absolute nonsense. Most of the well known charities of this world originated or are organised by the Christians. I am involved with Compassion International and support children in India and Africa. World Vision is equally sponsored by Christians. She makes wild unfounded statements, in defiance of the truth and reality.

Most of the support given to women come from people who care beyond receiving a payment for performing a surgical abortion. We have woman in my church that work from Funeral Parlors assisting women dealing with grief who want proper burial of their feotus. One young woman turned up at the Pastors residence with a 6 week old feotus in a plastic bag and asked for a Christian burial.

It is Church agencies who give counselling to women whose grief from an abortion disturbs them psychologically. Having an abortion is not the end of the matter for most women, the emotional, and physical affects leave permanent scars that no abortion clinic will heal or follow up.

Most young women are forced by a boyfriend a spouse or through the destroyed status of their relationship with the father of the child to have an abortion. So their choice is not free of other social pressures and that has nothing to do with religion. Her choice in most cases is not her choice; but a choice made under pressure [and that pressure not from the Church]

Philo has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of a woman’s right to choose.

Choice is the right, the power and opportunity to decide what is the optimum decision for her life and wellbeing.

Good choice can only be made when fully informed.

If she is advised by those who have a single agenda – whether it is pro-abortion or anti-abortion then this is not good choice – it is coercion.

Philo is blatantly anti-choice. This means the ‘counselling’ he offers has only one objective – the right of a foetus over that of a woman.

He clearly blames women with his statement “bad choice by a woman; and thus the felt need to destroy that life" A judgement statement.

He regards women as easily manipulated when he says “Most young women are forced by a boyfriend a spouse" A minority of men are this reprehensible. But women can decide for themselves.

Over 80,000 women have abortions each year, while this may be considered too high, the fact is this the majority of women do not fall into deep depression or are traumatised.

See

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_emotional_issues?OpenDocument

• Most women who have an abortion don't suffer any subsequent psychological or emotional problems.

• It is not true that all women who undergo abortion experience guilt, grief and shame.

• Studies show that the vast majority of women who have abortions (around 98 per cent) feel they made the right decision.
Even more astounding is Philo’s claim that I am ignorant of this subject.

I have been pregnant. Philo will never be.

I have had to make painful decisions regarding pregnancy. Philo can only ever be an observer. He can never know. He will never have to decide.

To be continued....

Continued:

Philo claims that the Church does not have an agenda this is false and misleading. Not all faiths are anti-choice. Those that are, such as Philo’s do not give assistance to women seeking abortion. They do not counsel, they coerce. These are not ‘wild’ accusations.The link I made previously regarding South Dakota’s draconian laws is very real. There women who are raped or incest victims can not obtain an abortion. Women’s well being is placed second behind that of a foetus. This is not pro life when law offers no choice and results in women seeking a back yard abortionist.

There are many welfare organisations that help people all over the world some are Christian, some are nondenominational and some are secular. Many do fantastic work. I am pleased to hear that Philo is involved in helping living people and not just focused on foeti. However, I am correct in questioning his agenda. For example, what would he advise a rape or incest victim to do if pregnant?

In an ideal world all children would be wanted. This is not an ideal world. The best we can do is to be fully informed, educated and only then can we decide what our choices truly are.

It's good to see a more balanced counselling proposed, where people are informed not only of the immediate way out of a situation, but a life approach. It's the same with weight loss. Crash diets are not the answer, but more healthy and sensible lifestyle choices, like learning to exercise self-control and awareness of consequences, which is all part of responsible living.

However, people who are somehow unable to get their lives in control need extra help, support,and encouragement, especially when they are young. It often takes a while to develop the required maturity, which is why a more lifestyle rather than crisis approach would be more helpful in the first place.

On the other side of the coin, in view of the enormous amount that is spent on IVF programs, it's a pity that more help and support isn't available for girls or women who would agree to offer their child for adoption. The waiting list has always been so long and never anywhere near supplying those seeking to adopt.

It seems that even though society in general now seems to support abortion, yet the cry is still "how could you give the baby up?", which seems incongruous to me. It appears that whilst women are not judged for aborting their baby, they are still judged for giving it life and allowing a childless couple to receive this gift - it just doesn't compute.

I'm sure that there are many ways in which this issue can be better approached, to the benefit of the individual, society in general, and the use of taxpayers' money as well.

Scout has shared with us that she has had an abortion by choice. Is she saying she made an informed CHOICE to become pregnant so she could make an informed CHOICE to abort her child? Is she then fully informed on how pregnancy occurrs, or did she discover this by mistake?

Where was her informed and responsible choice as an adult in the first place to avoid a pregnancy? The pill and condoms are readily available in every Pharmacy if she choose not to abstain to avoid a pregnancy. She chose to become pregnant so she could make an informed choice to abort the life of her child. There is a glareing lack of responsible behaviour and informed choice evident, it is only in dire straits that this secondary choice is made. Hardly at an optimon time to be well informed and wise, if wisdom and information in choice making is not normal practise. Was she in the first place really making decisions for her optimum life and wellbeing?

I wonder how many children she has sucessfully reared to maturity by choice? From reading her post it would appear she suffers guilt from her choice for which she transferrs blames to the Church. In other of her posts she despises the right of a woman to have children because in her view the world is overpopulated.

Unless she has had a sucessful family and has given hope and vision to her children of a future then all her guilt and despair is merely a smoke screen of blame toward people making responsible life decisions.

"Philo has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of a woman’s right to choose. Choice is the right, the power and opportunity to decide what is the optimum decision for her life and wellbeing. Good choice can only be made when fully informed."

How did you become "fully informed" on your religious beliefs, Philo? It's a matter of personal opinion as to whether the Bible is really God's word. It's personal opinion as to whether the Bible should be regarded as literal or allegorical. [Or please yourself to suit the situation.] Some of it could be regarded as very sensible advice indeed, such as "Love your neighbour as yourself". Other parts are absolute nonsense and are carefully avoided by those who want to push a literal interpretation onto everyone else.

I'm not going to try and put words into your mouth, or accuse you of psychological feelings which you may or may not have. Just a straight question, how did you become fully informed?

Have you had a look at my link regarding young people in some Western European countries having a significantly lower incidence of unwanted pregnancy and abortion than young people in the US? And the suggested reasons as to why this is so? If not, then why not? After all, it's great to be fully informed, isn't it? If so, then I would appreciate your comments.

Philo,
Seems you just can’t help yourself sometimes….

Scout has written a number of times in the past that her abortion was due to an abusive relationship. Her decision was to not bring a child into the world while that relationship continued. That she fell pregnant is no reflection on her ability or attempts to avoid the pregnancy. For all you know (and may even not particularly understand all that well) is that she was assaulted by her then husband and forced to partake in the event leading to her abortion.

That you cannot even conceive of circumstances under which a woman falls pregnant without their ‘choice’ being involved just goes to show how ignorant you are of women and their world at times.

I too work in areas dealing with assisting many people and I have come into direct contact with raped and abused women, mistreated and manipulated women and other victims which resulted in pregnancy. For the most part their first concern was ‘am I pregnant? I don’t want that man’s child’. Can you not understand this?

If dealt with at an early stage, even the most extreme doctor would have to agree that a termination deals with a grouping of non-specific cells. Yes they may become a human – but not for some time. As rex states, you may have your view but do not judge others who do not follow your creed.

I am more saddened by your personal attacks on Scout – something decidedly less Christian than you claim. And if you want to try the ‘she started it’ routine, how about that often stated Christian trait of ‘turning the other cheek’?

Rex,
On topic, I learned two principles:

1. All life is sacred and must be respected as creatures designed by God. All species play a part in ecology and must be respected for their part.

2. That a new life begins at the time of conception. That taking a breath was merely an independent step for the new life apart from the mother. Their brain functioned and heart began beating only weeks from conception. This was part of their life journey; even as they cannot procreate after taking a breath is also a part of their journey. That breathing oxygen is not the beginning of their life journey.

Farm raised I've seen chickens hatched, dogs, cats and pigletts born and knew they began their journey from the time of fertilisation by their male parent. Before eight was involved in breeding calves with Junior farmers. I knew a calf began when the bull was united with the cow, or similarly the boar with the sow at their heat. That life began at conception was my natural conclusion from observation.

That the bull be restrained from mixing with immature heifers so they didn't become pregnant. I've bread and assisted in the birth of many thousands of calves over years.

I can tell you in every case the mother protected their young vigorously. This taught me they respected life and protected offspring with passion.

I've seen a large brown snake disturbed as we approached it in a thunderstorm open her mouth so seven or eight young could dive down her throat. She cared for her young with sacred devotion to allow them entry till the threat was past.

I've watched the devotion of a nest of ants move every egg in a nursery to better protection from some threat. They believe their offspring is sacred and valuable even to the last unhatched egg.

It seems only humans destroy their offspring for some more personal dream. I learned responsible restrains must be placed on immature so unnwanted pregnancy did not occurr. This is the basis of my opinion and how I draw my conclusion.

Thank you Reason and Rex

All I have gleaned from Philo's attacks on me is that he eschews empathy and understanding in favour of self-righteousness and judgement. What really chills me is that Philo claims to counsel women in distress. He reminds me of the doctor who confirmed my pregnancy. I suffered because of the judgemental attitudes such as his. However, I have never regretted my decision to have an abortion. BTW while I had very extenuating circumstances for my decision this is beside the point; every woman has the right to decide what is best for her. We have more than enough abused and unwanted children as it is.

I am unsure why Philo is drawing analogies between animal behaviour and human - all mother's defend their babies; we are not discussing babies. Many species of animals absorb foeti into themselves when times are hard, for example kangaroos. The difference between animals and humans is that we can make conscious decisions regarding our fertility.

Philo still hasn't answered my question regarding the pregnant victims of rape or incest. He prefers to cast aspersions.

Given rigid attitudes of people like Philo, I don't see how Anti-choice proponents can ever work with Pro-choice people. It is an oxymoronic argument to make. For Pro-choice proponents women can choose whether or not they want to continue their pregnancy, whereas anti-choice give only one option.

Suggesting that a fully informed choice is to abort, because the mother feels if it lives will destroy her life, is not an informed choice. She has no clue what the alternate outcome is if the child be allowed to live. Mothers who made the choice to give birth to the child rather than abort have no regrets. The joys of sharing life together far outweigh the possible loss of lifestyle.

In cases of rape, pregnancy is rare but if immediate action is taken to spermicide the possibility of pregancy is zero. In the case of a husband raping his wife to make her pregnant without mutual planning she ought to be responsible by being on the pill. To not be planning children but having sex without methods to avoid pregnancy is irresponsible.

It's equally self righteous to be imposing upon society what I believe is poor values about life and death. It is equally abhorent to me as was child sacrifice to Molech. I'll always condemn an attitude that treats the taking of a life as a right of choice. The normalising of a set of values that I find abhorrent I will condemn. If the right to take a human life is enshrined in law I will always find unnaccetable. In fact in NSW abortion is not legal unless it is the save the life and health of the mother.

You might feel it is your right to condemn my attitude as abnormal, that is your right; but please demonstrate the principle to take the life of an unborn is established in natural creation. The Spirit that designed the life of all species we are answerable to in how we have lived our lives.

If there is already a precedent set by some mammel, other than man, that they choose to destroy in the womb their offspring then please bring it foward. The foetus of a kangaroos shrivels up because the mother has insufficient nourishment to produce nourishment for the infant. This is not the same as a healthy mother deliberately destroying the life attached to her.

Philo

Pro-Choice is about deciding whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. You appear to have the idea that Pro-choice is only about securing an abortion. It is not. It is about considering ALL the consequences of pregnancy/parenting/adoption and so on. This is about informed CHOICE. This is not dogma. Dogma is imposing a single set of beliefs on another. Forcing women to term, limiting options is self righteous and all about control - nothing about life. The majority of women who have abortions also have children - healthy happy children which is what life is all about.

This topic is about co-operation between opposing view points. All that Philo is doing is pushing his Anti-Choice dogma without any thought or consideration to the topic at hand. He has demonstrated yet again the oxymoronic situation of proposing that NO choice can work with freedom of choice.

Philo it is fine with me that you do not approve of abortion. However, that is your CHOICE. Mine is about finding as many solutions as possible with abortion being a last resort.

You still haven't responded to the plight of pregnant victims of rape and incest. Why not?

Also why not propose ways in which both the Anti and Pro choice can work together? I don't think it is possible. However, maybe you do. If so please enlighten me.

* “Mothers who made the choice to give birth to the child rather than abort have no regrets.”

Not true. There are many ‘mothers’ out there who have many regrets about having a child – some even from relationships that last and are for all counts, normal. The fact is not every one has the same attitude to children that you do and as strange as it seems, there should be nothing wrong with this.

* “In the case of a husband raping his wife to make her pregnant without mutual planning she ought to be responsible by being on the pill. To not be planning children but having sex without methods to avoid pregnancy is irresponsible.”

So you state that the woman should be mindful of a husband who may rape her and take precautions to avoid the pregnancy? And the man? No responsibility? How chauvinistic, dare I say misogynistic. Condoms are a legitimate precaution – so ‘honey, can you hold off the rape while I place this condom on you please…?’ – one word – fool.

* “It's equally self righteous to be imposing upon society what I believe is poor values about life and death.”

No one is imposing their beliefs on you. In fact it is the opposite. The key words here – ‘what I believe’. As always respect your beliefs and respect others. You don’t have to agree with them but you should let them have their own point of view. And that means allowing them to live as they wish – as long as it doesn’t impact on the rest. If you claim that abortion hurts another and takes a life, then we are debating an entirely different subject.

* “The Spirit that designed the life of all species we are answerable to in how we have lived our lives.”

This is a religious point of view and completely outside the topic of debate. Again, feel free to have your own beliefs – but do not use them to decide another person’s beliefs.

Cont....

Cont...

* “You might feel it is your right to condemn my attitude as abnormal”

No one has said that your beliefs are abnormal. In fact that they are yours is all they are. I think it safe to say that you beliefs come from your own reasoning and that is a good thing. But that you cannot accept another’s reasoning as different is sad as it just shows the limits of your own self.

As Scout has said, choice is not about right and wrong – it’s about avoiding hypocrisy and giving people the opportunity to have the freedom of beliefs and basic rights we claim this society allows them. No one should impinge on another’s beliefs and no one should force a person to act contrary to those beliefs.

Thank you Reason for tackling Philo over rape. How utterly absurd that he should blame a woman for getting pregnant after being raped. I took the pill - still got pregnant! And this man claims to offer succour and counsel. Philo blames women and excuses men.

He still avoided the question of pregnancy after incest. I suppose our little daughters are to blame for not using contraception when daddy or big brother are feeling "affectionate".

Philo blames women and excuses men.

Anti-choice proponents are simply anti-female and Philo has made this very clear.

Scout,
I can understand your anger towards Philo. He’s not the most logical or level headed when it comes to matters close to his beliefs. But perhaps anti-women is a bit strong (though given his implied background, perhaps not! Amazing what religious indoctrination can do). LOL… I like your take on the incest angle. Philo, a response?

As to anti-choice being anti-women, I won’t agree there. I had the pleasure of debating with an anti-choice person some time ago (on OLO actually) and they were very logical in their arguments. I didn’t agree but they were much more reasonable to discuss the matter with.

I think that there is a basically simple question to ask, when all is reduced (irreducible complexity! oh oh!). When does human life begin? Or – at what point is the fertalised egg/sperm not a child? All very hard and to me but this is the part where choice becomes important.

No one (I believe) would agree that terminating at 8 and a half months is acceptable. However an early termination (say 3 weeks), which for all purposes is a grouping of non-specific cells, can be reasonably seen as not to cause any pain to anyone (excepting what the woman goes through emotionally of course). However, if some choose to believe the nature of these cells is different, I am happy to accept their beliefs – as theirs. Just as they should be happy to accept my beliefs.

Much more could be said but word limit and the lack of the ability to have interactive discourse make it difficult to remain succinct.

Take care and I’m sure I’ll ‘see’ you around the forum Scout.

Cheers all (over to you Philo!)

Thanks for that link, Rex, it saved me having to look for one;) I agree with you also.

I grew up in the Netherlands (Amsterdam) and have experienced A LOT of sex/drug education and contraceptives have been available freely (covered by medicare, even about 35 years ago). It is just so easy for teenagers to get their hands on contraceptives there. Whenever I got my packet of my anti-baby pill, the pharmacist asked: "Do you want condoms with that?" Reminds me of Macca's: "Do you want fries with that?"
There is no reason as why this can't happen in Australia- if we really want the rate of unwanted pregnancies to decline, isn't this the easy option? It'll save heaps on funds for counselling. What good would the counselling do anyway, if there are only up to three sessions available for pregnant women? I mean, if you are being talked into going through with having a baby, I'd say that perhaps a lifetime of counselling would be a better offer.

Also, Countries that have the most liberal abortion laws actually have the lowest incidence of abortion. Making/keeping abortion illegal does not prevent women from having them, just making the abortions more dangerous.
(See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/1/gpr090102.html)

Can you please give me some figures on pregnancies resulting from incest or rape! Arguing a social decision from exceptions caused by a criminal act cannot be established as normal social practise.

The conception of a child should be a planned act by a couple intending to spend a lifetime caring and building relationship with that child.

The problem we now encounter is a social problem of illicit behaviors exploited by media promoting no restraint or responsibility when it comes to human sexuality. Having children is totally ignored in the whole equation. But the results of indulging in sex seems to be ignored when it was designed for pleasure in procreation of our species. The result of irresponsible sexual behaviour results in many social dilemas that we as a society must act upon. Christians are attempting to identify the social problem as lack of restraint and responsibile behaviours that is being condemned as outdated dogma.

Many despise Christianity because it teaches chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. This principle has served us well as a secure society, but throwing it off has resulted in many diseased, hurt and disfigured lives.

We must stop allowing second rate behaviours becoming acceptable principles upon which to build a society. You may not like the principles of best practise for society, but they are the only ones where fewer people get hurt. Unrestrained and pomiscuous sex has been tried before in ancient society that has finally resulted in the destruction of that society. It breeds disease and produces conflict that ultimately destroys that society [eg Africa]. That is why rape and incest is held as evil and criminal by Christians, even though it apears by some NT aboriginals as normal practise in their society.

We must encourage and teach best practise and not excuse bad behaviours to be accepted as normal social practise. This is judgmental - too bad! It is the only principle upon which to build a secure and healthy society.

The question is raised:

Is the choice to abort an optimum choice for life and society? Or is it merely a choice resultant from bad choice and behaviour? It rather indicates to me that lust, fornication, adultery, violence, rape and incest against the young and women are to be expected as normal human behaviour that we must accept. Therefore we must accept violence against the unborn as normal and acceptable behaviour by abused or used women.

Therefore in this case abortion is the 'optimum' answer to the resultant consequence / problem. It rather indicates to me we sanction a violent act against an unborn on the journey of life because he / she is the consequence of our bad behaviour, impulsive decision or rageing lust.

It indicates that it was unplanned and resulted from an act of lust or rape. We as Christians are expected to accept these as normal behaviours, therefore we must butt out of peoples lives and allow it to happen.

We as Christians expect in our society purity, justice and committed love as the basis of behaviour, and we will continue to condemn behaviours that push the boundaries exploiting other persons to gratify lust, selfishness, power.

The crimilisation of Christians as oppressive for outlawing these behaviours is presented as primitive dogma; because it enforces restrictive laws upon unrestrained behaviours and is seen by the present society based in the values of the "days of our lives" as unintelligent and oppressive.

Many christians are pro-choice, pro-education, pro-contraceptives. This certainly doesn't mean that they endorse rape, incest or infidelity. However it does mean that they acknowledge the reality of human (mis)behaviour.

It is only the fundamentalists (of any religious stripe) who are despised for forcing their rigid beliefs on everyone else. Fundamentalists are always about control over others.

I notice that Philo has avoided answering whether abortions should be an option for the victims of incest. Once again he has blamed women for what HE assumes are their bad choices. Rape is not a bad choice it is a crime.

The ideal situation is that all children brought into this world should be loved and wanted. As Celivia stated "....I mean, if you are being talked into going through with having a baby, I'd say that perhaps a lifetime of counselling would be a better offer (than 3 counselling sessions)."

The issue is about a womans's autonomy over her body. No man ever has to make such decisions. The best they can do is support the women in their lives and trust them. I don't see that Philo has much in the way of respect or trust for women. But then Philo doesn't represent the mainstream christian who are generally more enlightened.

Clearly education and easy access to contraception is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Abortion remains the last resort and while unpalatable to many, it must remain legal otherwise we go back to women dying in agony from botched back-yard abortions.

Note to Reason

I do believe that attempts to control women's fertility is anti-female and disagree with you there. My body: my decision; as a man, Reason, you will never have to deal with such a question and it is easy for you to indulge in an intellectual debate without ever having to deal with the reality.

Philo, our legal system certainly might not be adequate enough in dealing with these crimes and problems (rape,incest etc), but that doesn't mean that these crimes are viewed as acceptable behaviour.

Putting aside crimes; we do not live in lala-land where nobody has sex before marriage.
We live in a modern society where sex is an intimate part of getting to know and appreciate a partner in developing a relationship.
This does not mean that we are exploiting each other, gratifying lust and power, and does not mean we are selfish. In a healthy sexual relationship there is a lot of giving involved.

I still stick with what I said before, that through sex education to teenagers and their parents, through providing free contraception and protection, we can greatly reduce the incident of 'catching' a sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy, as well as educating teenagers to think before they act and to take responsibility, which also will reduce the age and frequency they have sexual intercourse.

You cannot put boundaries on people's sexual behaviour just by 'forbidding'it. People need to be educated and agreeing with facts. Just like you cannot 'forbid' people to smoke- it's the anti-smoking campaign that influenced people to stop smoking, to make them agree that smoking is bad.
The same with unwanted pregnancies- education in schools and through campaigns will be most beneficial as they sink in and change attitudes and behaviours.

Who says what people are designed for anyway? People have free wills and free minds... and Christian views and values can be very influential and be taken into account by those free thinking people when they make up their mind in which way to live their lives, but it's not the one-and-only way for everybody to live their lives.

We cannot go back to the middle ages; we need to adapt to these modern times and we might as well adapt with as much information from as many different value systems or views as possible.

Celivia,
You have assumed sex in uncommitted relationships is the sign of an evolved modern society. This isn't modern society this was the way society was outside of the revealed truth of the Creator. Revealed best practise is; one young man - one young woman committed to each other to raise and teach children for life. That's the definition of marriage. It's the welding [bonding] of the two different sexes to produce a product of their own kind. Your definition of the role of sex for intamacy is exactly what I uphold but within the committed relationship, and it works.

Quote, "We live in a modern society where sex is an intimate part of getting to know and appreciate a partner in developing a relationship.This does not mean that we are exploiting each other, gratifying lust and power, and does not mean we are selfish. In a healthy sexual relationship there is a lot of giving involved."

You talk about sex in developing relationship, but in practise if there is no committment [bonding], then there is every opportunity for males to exploit women merely for gratification and power. Beside that type of relationship deliberately ignores the ultimate purpose of human sexuality - the procreation of children. Having multiple partners increases cross infection and the spread of disease.

I agree with you here: "People need to be educated and agreeing with facts." That is why education by family, the Church and school should be correct, informed, ideal, and best practise. But then you degenerate into an ill informed comment that places no principles or boundaries for behaviour. Every person is free to live as he / she chooses. So you capitulate to accept degenerative consequences as socially normal.

"Who says what people are designed for anyway? ... but it's not the one-and-only way for everybody to live their lives. We cannot go back to the middle ages; we need to adapt to these modern times and we might as well adapt with as much information from as many different value systems or views as possible."

Philo, thanks for your opinion.
Sometimes definitions can go past their use-by-date though and need reviewing. The marriage definition is, in my view, overdue.
I personally know many couples who have been in de facto relationships for 20+ years, have a family, have been committed to each other from start, and have successfully raised a family together. So marriage is not a requirement for a happy, committed long relationship and neither necessary to successfully bring up children.
Also, the divorce rate is increasing and shows that marriage is no guarantee for a long and happy relationship.
Some people marry and get divorced 5 times or more, how is that different from having a few de facto relationships?
The law, or marriage, has no connection with the love and commitment couples feel for each other. I think it is supersticious to think that love and marriage are synonymous. These two concepts have nothing in common. Some marriages spring from love, others don’t. Think about arranged marriages!

I am not sure that I understand what you mean that unmarried women in a relationship (not marriage) can be exploited. Are you saying that marriage protects women from being exploited by their partners?

As for diseases, people can protect themselves- that’s why I mentioned promoting birth control and condoms in my last post.

I want to add that I am not at all against all marriage, I just want to have an open mind that it is not the thing for every person. I have been married for almost 25 years and we are still raising a family. I just don’t want to judge anyone who makes the decision not to get married.

People can be in a relationship that doesn’t work out for them so they don’t get married, but they enjoyed having sex together when they were in that relationship.

Philo, I think that there are some points that we will never agree on, but that’s fine, I still respect your opinion.

I think we have strayed a little off the track of the original article about counselling too! Oops! ;)

Thank you, Philo, for your answer to my question on how you became fully informed. Please correct me if I read it wrongly, but I saw your answer as explaining to me your feelings of spirituality when you saw various wonderful things happening around you. I can certainly relate to this, the world is full of amazing things.But your answer did nothing to explain how you came to hold your particular religious and religiously related moral beliefs.

So we are no wiser as to what being "fully informed" means to you, or what, in your opinion, we should do to achieve this for ourselves before we are qualified to debate various matters with you.

I am still waiting for your opinion on the website I posted regarding young people in some European countries having lower rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion than their counterparts in the US. One of the points was that in Europe young people are given the known facts, without religious overtones. It is accepted that most of them will have sexual experiences before marriage and they are taught how to handle these likely experiences in a responsible manner. Trying to enforce chastity before marriage on religious grounds has a high failure rate and unwanted pregnancy often results, because young people who have been subjected to this kind of mental conditioning are not prepared.

You keep falling back on your unproven religious beliefs, but most of us, including perhaps most Christians, don't see it that way. On something as important as reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions we need to be realistic and use methods which have been proven to work. Come on, force yourself if necessary to read the website and tell us what you think.

What Mr Tonti-Filippini forgot to mention is that he and pro life organizations are also strongly opposed to contraception:

http://www.actrtla.org.au/abortion/bookab/tonti.htm "The pro-life concern is that the effect of mini-pills such as micronor, because they are unlikely to suppress ovulation, are much more likely to be abortifacient. The lining of the uterus is altered so that if the effect on cervical mucus fails to prevent the passage of sperm, then embryos created are likely to be unable to embed and develop in the lining of the uterus. The mini-pills do carry a significant risk of loss of human lives at an early stage." Nicholas Tonti-Filippini

"By outlawing contraception, you're closer to outlawing surgical abortion..."So if, as the pro-life community, you're trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldn't the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception?..We're trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here," Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point... hurt the anti-abortion cause" Matt Sande, director of legislative affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm76/news/Press%20Articles%20and%20Speeches/Articles/2005/The%20Capital%20Times1.htm

If the motive of the pro life lobby was simply to prevent abortion, why are they opposed to every method of reliable contraception?!?

Not only are they opposed to contraception, they are also opposed to sex education, condoms, HPV vaccine and even childcare:
http://www.abortion.org.au/prolifeagenda.ht

Maryan,
I am a prolife activist and in no way support your claim. Quote "Not only are they opposed to contraception, they are also opposed to sex education, condoms, HPV vaccine and even childcare".

Stop sprouting one isolated opinion as common place among pro-lifers. The pro-life group I belong to; teach contraception, in their sex education and are one of the largest providers of childcare. In fact my wife is an employee in Childcare run by her Church