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.