OZGIRL,
Another 4 posts on one topic in a 24 hour period. How do you do it?

Philo,

Condoning a womans right to choose, does not equal 'hatred of children'..

If I hated children I doubt I would be here doing the hard yards alone,would,nt it have been easier ,if there was any truth in what you say, to leave them to foster carers or family.

Comments like that make you look very unbalanced.

Keep harping on about posts again..?A life would be nice buddy.

It seems that noone wants to respond to my post about my very personal experience with this drug.

My point is this: Women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, no doubt about that. BUT, there also needs to be respect for the life that is being terminated and this may be shown by using the quickest, most efficient form of termination available. I don't know if methotrexate abortion meets this criteria.

Jacqueline

I take your point, however, if you check earlier posts you would find that the reasons for the use of methotrexate currently has already been discussed. Please see

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4702#48829

It is vital that women be able to maintain control over their fertility, in fact the issue is even bigger than that, we also must be able to sustain our future populations. It is deeply disturbing for the religious right's anti-contraception, anti-choice stance. I have to wonder why, when the world is facing overpopulation.

The following is an extract from an article about the USA’s burgeoning population:

"(Brian Dixon, Population Connection's director of government relations).. cited research showing that one-third of all pregnancies in this country (USA) are unintended. "And our teen pregnancy rate is almost twice that of the next-highest industrialized nation. Yet we're wasting hundreds of millions on abstinence programs that have been shown never to work, and in fact can be quite harmful."

He doesn't believe abstinence proponents are really interested in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases: "They want to punish people who act, in their view, immorally. You got pregnant?
It's because you behaved badly. You got an STD? You should've thought about that before you had sex. They want bad outcomes."

.... askek Dixon about a May 6 article by Russell Shorto in The New York Times Magazine that created a national stir by exposing the religious right's efforts to restrict access to contraception. He said the threat is very real, and it's nothing new: "That's been pretty obvious around Washington for a while."

The full article is available at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/39920/http://www.alternet.org/story/39920/

It makes for disturbing reading and (with the rise of the religious right) Australia is headed in a similar direction.

Yes, OZGIRL it is all about the females who live for, and off, their children.

“My point is that once a child is conceived, under any circumstance, then it becomes entirely about the rights of the baby and the expecting mother.” And then immediately following, something somewhat understatedly contradictory: “Noone has any right to place undue pressure on the mother to keep her child unless she herself wishes to do so.” As if not keeping a child, should ever be considered in negative terms… (shame on you’s).

And Jacqueline, “My point is this: Women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, no doubt about that. BUT, there also needs to be respect for the life that is being terminated and this may be shown by using the quickest, most efficient form of termination available.” Very humane.

Scout then goes on to say, “It is vital that women be able to maintain control over their fertility, in fact the issue is even bigger than that, we also must be able to sustain our future populations.”

So, there you go folks. Only women can effectively control populations through pregnancy terminations (without the evils of men and their preoccupation with ownership of assets, availability of resources, maps, borders or wars). Only mothers can decide to have children without the fathers’ consent – be the father biological or social – it matters none, as far as the law is concerned.

So what’s in it for men, you may ask. I urge you all to do your own maths, but to me, a couple of years of trauma-free sex (if that), does not seem to reconcile with the $200,000+ bill to raise each child. Unless you’re a himbo without assets, living in a nanny state.

Ahh Seeker! Sounds to me like you would be best to stick to the
el cheapo fantasy, at least it won't get you into any more
trouble :)