"God said, 'I give you a heart wise and shrewd ... "

Clearly your god is confused Renee, for the heart is simply
a pump that pumps blood. We could do heart surgery and
give you a baboon's heart, it would not make you any
smarter or less religious it seems :)

Col,

You point out that men and women are 'different' yet you presume to know what you would or would not do if you were a woman. It is that very difference that makes it impossible for you to say what you 'would' do: 'Ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' have no bearing on reality. Your hypothetical analogies mean little when discussing the prospect of abortion.

Since your argument is a 'biological' one, please explain why you have failed to leave out the biological 'fact' that the conception of a baby is made from the unison of sperm and egg - sperm provided by the male who, in that respect has a certain degree of ownership over any biological circumstance from which that sperm may play a part in generating.

A sperm is a living structure that is, in essence, a part of the man. By a woman consenting to having sexual intercourse with that man, then she is also consenting to the possibility that she may come into contact with his biological property - the sperm. Since the sperm is owned by the man and the egg is owned by the woman, then any subsequent zygote is jointly owned by both parties, even though the woman plays an obviously more significant role in its future. This is biological fact. My opinion is based around this fact through the eyes of a male and not the assumed position of a female.

i am probably misquoting her, but I particularly liked Helen Garner's quote in response to the RU486 debate. She said something along the lines of; "Nothing will change a woman's adamantine determination not to bring a child into the world that she knows she cannot adequately parent."
This is the part of this argument that is consistently forgotten. It is one thing to give birth and quite another to be a good parent. There are worse fates than not being born and all of us recognise that fact. Women are not simply birthing machines, they are mothers, and they therefore fundamentally understand the importance of putting their heart and soul into any child they bear. if they become pregnant and feel they cannot do so - for whatever reason - they usually choose what they see as the lesser of two evils and decide not to continue the pregnancy.

By the way, the Marie Stopes clinics are named after one of the first female doctors in Britain who wrote a book called "Married Love" one of the first to inform women about their sexuality and the facts of life. The letters she received from readers were published in another book and the stories they told were horrifying - of women who would die if they had another child, but whose doctors refused to give them info about contraception and so had to cease sex with their loving husbands or risk death. And they were the lucky ones, some women knew it was useless to refuse sex - remember (this was 100 years ago) at that time, women in britain had no legal right to refuse their husbands sex. Marie Stopes responded by writing a controversial book about contraception, she was a hero.

Essentially as a Christian we believe life for a human begins at fertilisation. Being responsible sexually means avoiding fertilisation, and once fertilisation has happened nurturing the human life begun; being irresponsible means not avoiding fertilisation or having to destruct another human life.

The article identifies toxic chemicals that are introduced into the reproductive system to destroy a life begun. Such acts indicates that life is cheap and destructible and we can act without consequences.

Tubley, “Your hypothetical analogies mean little when discussing the prospect of abortion”

I express my view, acknowledging the physical limits of my gender (ie lacking a womb = unable to carry a baby and thus never likely to require an abortion of any sort).

That sorted out, without any knowledge of the feelings I might experience, were I female and pregnant, I would nonetheless demand the right to decide how my body was to be deployed and not have my right of choice subjugated to the demands of rabid and hysterical anti-abortionists.

The point of reference I make is a humane one, not simply biological. You can deflect and divert argument all you want into the whys and wherefores of sperm and ovum. It makes no difference.

What ultimately matters is the sovereignty of an individual over their own body’s, be they male or female. You might be happy to surrender your independence to the whims of others but I am never ever going to surrender mine and I will always support that view as it is expressed by others.

Philo, “Essentially as a Christian we believe life for a human begins at fertilisation.”

Speak for yourself – you do not speak for all Christians. As a Christian I believe God gave us free will. How we exercise it is between the individual and God, it has nothing to do with the view of any other third party, regardless of their religion.

Grave risk in having an abortion Charles Francis QC- Herald-Sun, 24-July-2006
Having acted for women damaged by abortion, I-have learned it-is always very bad advice to refer any woman for an abortion because there are many medical risks.

Yet Senator Natasha Stott Despoja complained on these pages last week that some pregnancy counselling services do not refer women for abortions, and that they tell women of their increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and psychological trauma after abortion.


In 1997 I acted for "Ellen" who suffered very significant psychiatric problems following an abortion. At the time it was already well known abortion could cause psychiatric problems, but "Ellen" was never warned. The Australian High Court found in Rogers v. Whitaker that before any operation, the doctor has an express duty to warn of any material risk. "Ellen" sued on the basis of failure to warn and her case was settled out of court (Herald Sun, 29/9/98). In a similar case in NSW, "Cynthia" won a settlement for $200,000 for psychological damage following abortion.



Following "Ellen's" case, I was asked to act for or advise a number of women in relation to psychological problems resulting from abortions. I came to know these women personally and realised how dysfunctional they can be. One woman was still highly dysfunctional three years after the abortion, with no indication she would ever be able to work again.



In May 2000 I acted for "Meg", who sued on the basis the abortionist did not warn her of psychiatric problems and also her increased risk of breast cancer. In 200l her case was settled, and although it received no publicity in Australia because of a confidentiality agreement, it was publicized in the UK and USA. A case in Pennsylvania was successfully settled, but far more significant was a case brought to trial in 2005 in Oregon, USA, against All Women's Health Services abortion clinic. In January 2005, the clinic conceding there was a link between abortion and breast cancer and that it had failed to warn the Plaintiff, agreed to a judgment against it for damages.
cont: