33 years after Australian women got legal access to terminations the Catholic Church is still trying to control the fertility decisions of all Australian women, not just their own flock.

The Federal government only funds pregnancy counselling services run by Pro-Life groups. Surveys show that 75% of Australians support womens right to access legal terminations. I thought that a democratically elected government respresented the views of its electorate so why are my taxes being used to support the agenda of a religion I do not belong to and whose views are diametrically opposed to my welfare.

Personally, I don't think it's any of a man's business that a woman is pregnant unless she has an interest in telling him, including: blame for not wearing a condom; to foot or share the costs of an abortion, or to make plans for raising the child. It is entirely her decision unless the pregnancy was planned and there are established expectations to which each person has committed. Even then, I believe that the woman has a right to change her mind after conception, but has a duty to explain why -- i.e., "I didn't realize you were such an a__hole when we decided to do this."

Wendy,
I suppose I can state my personal position on contraception. I have two natural children after my wife went off the pill. I have had a vacectomy though my wife wanted it reversed after we had fostered eight infant children. I prefer the preventative methods of contraception as being most responsible rather than dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Though my wife had to deal with a natural abortion at three months [our third child] - it devistated her emotionally.

"Correct me if I am wrong guys but I bet you are against birth control such as the pill or any form of birth control> Arnt You?
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite"

I believe sex is for committed relationships where love and nurture are present, otherwise it is selfish and detramental to wholesome human relationships. I have worked on Crisis Counselling on night shifts 11 pm - 7 am and you would be surprised how many women ring during those hours having been used or abused sexually, with distress of becoming pregnant to someone outside the marriage.

Using toxic chemicals to destroy a natural organic event in the womans body is not good science. However the use of the pill is using naturally occurring substances already found in the body.

Snout..It was I who referred to 'diversity of opinion' not Celivia if you go back and read the posts in order...so lets clear that up.

Celivia..do i have an opinion on the drug being discussed? no not yet, havent read the article but i dont really care...whatever method of abortion is used it all ends in the same way..

Philo, you dont know what ur talking about.

We all understand that noone agrees to ending a pregnancy without realising that it carries with it deep personal pain.But it has to be said that some posters on here were almost saying that women in some cases should be forced to carry to term..this is barbaric and inhumane.
Doctors will voluntarily end a quite advanced pregnancy if it threatens the life of them mother ,so somewhere in there has to be lines drawn and decisions made and doctors are trained professionals, unlike us.

To all you anti abortionists,if you had to make a decision between saving the life of your wife or an unborn baby...which would it be?

Please , this is an important ...brings us back to the crux of the question..could you choose and why?

So if a woman has to choose for her own reasons, and noone is privy to what those reasons are,and we cant just assume thats its because its for career or other lightweight reasons,as has been suggested here,why should she be questioned.
Some girls are raped by fathers ,uncles, brothers ..when you say abortion is wrong..where does one draw the line ..you cannot police this..its an assault on the basic human rights of women the world over.
As Wendys example of her friend showed,how tragically wrong we can get it when we let our heart rule our head,that was just criminal.

Diversity of opinion is good, we all know that, and we cant really change the mind of people who do stand by their convictions.

Stand for something...or youll fall for anything.

Billie, you make some excellent points..once again the insidiuos cold talons of the church reaching out to stifle and control, as you said not only its own flock ,but all of us...enter Tony Abbot.

You are completely correct and doesn'nt it just make you sick?

I have Jehovah witness knock on my door one day and tell me that if their child ever needed a blood transfusion for a life or death situation, they would not allow it because 'blood tranfusions" were not permitted according to their faith...
Only goes to show the cold,chilling 'love' the church espouses to their flock, that they woulkd allow their child to die rather than go against their religions teachings, insanity.

So when they enter the abortion debate Im afraid I just stop listening.

Philo,

Good on you for choosing what I reckon is the safest, easiest and most effective means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy for monogamous couples who have completed their family. As you are no doubt aware, its main disadvantage is the unreliabilty of its reversibility if you change your mind or your life circumstances change.

I take issue with you about the oral contraceptive being "natural" and therefore good. The hormones in most OCPs are actually synthetic. The "natural" vs "unnatural" argument is also a furphy: just about everything we do in medicine (including vasectomies) is arguably "unnatural". The "natural" state of human life is a life expectancy of 20 or 30, women dying in childbirth a common rather than a rare outcome, and infant mortality the rule rather than the exception.