Melinda raised the following points:

1. Woman are being mislead into thinking their foeti are ‘tumours’.
2. An ‘unsafe’ drug is being used to procure abortion.
3. Import of RU486 is being delayed.
4. Women suffer emotionally after abortion.

Point 1: Melinda is treating women as infantile by claiming they are ill-informed into believing their foeti are no more than tumours.

She tries to hang her entire argument on the basis of misinformation. I have already established this as an untruth. The very foundation of pro-choice philosophy is INFORMED CHOICE. It is only anti-choicers who attempt obfuscation in order to mislead and emotionally manipulate women.

Point 2: Methotrexate has been used with a 97% success rate for the termination of pregnancies since 1982. It results in miscarriage. It is not as safe as RU 486. But it poses no more risk than a natural miscarriage.

Point 3: Why is RU 486 being delayed? Melinda offers no reason. I can make an astute guess as a result of the difficulties in having RU486 released for use in Australia earlier this year – again the anti-choice movement.

Point 4: Women who make informed choices about their fertility suffer no more emotional difficulties than in any other area of their lives. Women aren’t helpless little creatures unable to make decisions about themselves. This is again treating women as infantile.

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

In fact, women are more likely to suffer emotionally from a natural miscarriage as they have no control over this and may well have wanted to continue the pregnancy.

Finally, I reiterate: The issue of abortion is about using the safest and most effective means of assisting women in their choices about their bodies and future life. Misleading information results in poor decisions by women; amplifying the need for constant vigilance.

(Snout – again I appreciate your support on these forums).

No one asked the question : "what is so unwanted about a pregnancy"?

How can people (women) be so selfish to even entertain the thought that a future baby can be discarded like a cytologically diseased lump? This ideology is so repugnant that it’s making the scum of the earth look like a pool in a five star resort.

What we are discussing here is the best criminal way to intentionally kill a living organism that is a potential person - just like you and me. Not a tumour for heaven’s sake!

Perhaps if women were more interested in a loving relationship within the sanctity of a marriage, and took their motherly role more seriously to cherish family values instead of simply enjoy lustful sex; we wouldn't be having these debates.

And before you crucify me - I am neither a catholic nor a liberal voter.

Remember Coach, that it takes two to create a pregnancy. If you wish to castigate 'lustful' women, make sure you also rail against the actions of 'lustful' men

Coach

Thankyou for your thoughts.

I read it and appreciate you have a right to think, run and act by them..
just dont try to change my thoughts or anybody else who does not agree with the way you think.
Ok Coach.

Thats the point we dont wish to be forced to agree with you.
i do not wish a young girl to be forced! to give birth because shes made a mistake and slept with some eaqually young boy..
It happens its life but no need to let it desroy peoples destinations.
People DIE in childbirth > Quite often.
So you live by your ideas and let others make up their own mind.
Ok

Coach,

That is the point. You may find the idea morally repugnant, but others may not. Should you impose your morality upon others, or accept that there may be differing views and opinions?

For you it appears that there is no such thing as an "unwanted" pregnancy, but tell that to a woman that falls pregnant as a result of rape, or there is a high likelyhood of chromosomal disorder or infant/mother fatality.

Different people have different life-experiences and expectations. They will therefore see the "wantedness" of a child differently.

People should not draw any conclusions about my take on abortion simply because I have said that the word "tumour" is a useful synonym when describing a pregnancy - I have seen countless definition of the t word - some refer to abnormal growth and some simply refer to a growth of cells - it all depends on your perception of them how you view them and therefore how you describe them.

As for Space occupying lesion I take the point that lesion is not strictly applicable - however - in general conversation - and some times colloquial use becomes the true definition over time - SOL is often used to describe a pregnancy - usually in the manner of gallows humour amongst health workers - and then it is most appropriate given our propensity to rid people of that particular cluster of cells under discussion.

If I have said anything at all about this subject other than that a pregnancy can be and is described in numerous ways - and how you refer to the phenomenon may well depend on how you feel about the condition of pregnancy - its was that the notion of genuine informed consent is as much under question as is the mode of abortion.

And informed consent is a problem - or lack there of.