I am firmly of the belief that 'abortion counselling' or 'pregnancy counselling' should take place well and truly before sex even takes place.

Perhaps as early as primary school the basic nature of the human foetus should be placed before children.

In early high school, as well as 'sex education' involving the biomechanics of reproduction and contraception there should be further examination of what constitutes a human life and what will be both the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and the options for dealing with that pregnancy.

In an ideal world there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy.

At the same time, in an ideal world, if a foetus is simply a parasite until it is born, then either the mother OR the father should have the choice of having the pregnancy terminated. After all, if a woman gives consent to sex, then surely the man should have the right to consent to what happens to any parasite that results from that sex? Why should women be able to decide not to be a parent, but men be denied that choice?

Or is that too much for the pro-choice lobby to bear? Should parenthood or non-parenthood only be a choice available to the mother?

Let me get this straight, Hamlet: are you suggesting that a woman who is pregnant and wants to continue the pregnancy ought to be forced to have an abortion if that's what the alleged father wants?

No, I don't think that's what is meant by pro choice.

What a peculiar suggestion.

Snout, so you believe that men should be responsible for paying child support for a child that they did not consent to until that child is at least 18 years old, and in some cases, such as if the child goes to university etc, for up to around 25 years old or older?

If women can opt out of the responsibility of parenthood, though abortion, or by giving a child away for adoption, then why not men?

Actually I firmly believe that neither should be able to opt out of that responsibility: when both have the sex, then both bear responsibility for the outcome of that sex.

Then you look at the ridiculous situation where a male under 16 has been 'seduced' by an older woman who becomes pregnant. The woman has committed a crime and can be punished, yet the male is responsible for paying child support for long after the woman's short gaol term, or more likely good behaviour bond, has long since finished.

And I love playing devil's advocate, but just think re the abortion issue, why shouldn't males have the right to a place in the decision as to whether their DNA reaches viability or not?

probably hamlet because men dont actually have to subject their bodies to having an abortion.

Women face a harder joice on whether to actually have a child or not as it is a lot easier for a man to just walk away when the child rearing gets tough and it is a twenty four hour a day job with young children. It is usually the mother who is left holding the baby.

Recent government statistics showed that a big percentage of men are still not giving their partners enough support when it comes to the actual hands on care required by young children.

If the men who have to pay mantenance had to pay for all the extra child care hours that the women put in like having to walk around the shops for two hours trying on shoes for the children and all the rest of it the money wouldnt cover those hours.

Having said that I really dont much like the idea of abortions, but maybe the community and the people who condem a woman with four children who feels despair at having a fifth could step up to the plate and give that woman more financial and practical support in caring for the child maybe they could organize some kind of support organization that does more than just talk or counsel.

Its easy to force the woman to have the child and then just walk away and go back to your world of only two children or no children where you dont have the overwhelming workload or financial burden.
What I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is.
Sacrifice some of your hours comfortably watching TV and organize some sort of helping hand for this mother who falls in to bed exhausted at midnight after coping with her workload only to wake up again when the baby wakes up for a feed at
12.30am, 3.00am and having to get up at 5.30am every day when the baby wakes up and wont go back to sleep.

Numbat - fair enough you want to argue your point, but if you're going to keep calling others judgmental I suggest you analyse the content of your posts. No offence, but they come across being far more judgmental than all the others I've seen.
That argument cuts both ways.

You keep drawing attention to the notion that innocent babies are being killed. This is where pro life and pro choice advocates see things differently.

Pro choice people see a foetus, that has yet to experience life, yet to take it's first breath.
Pro life advocates see a living baby, probably with a name.

Now I guess you'll want to argue your point, using all kinds of emotion laden arguments, labelling it murder, an atrocity, a holocaust of sorts. Possibly even labelling pro-choice advocates 'fascists' which I see as a refusal to even consider that the other perception is worth considering.

The thing is, pro life and pro choice advocates see it very differently. What really annoys me about the debate, is the unwillingness on both sides to even see the other side's point of view. That is the height of being judgmental.

Some women have to work out of pure necessity, however many choose to work and do not need to.

Many abortions are pre-destined to occur because young women have been imbued with traditional feminist dogma through their education and by the media that motherhood and family are secondary roles to the pursuit of status, power and materialism. Staying at home is frowned upon and ‘homemakers’ are seen as stupid traitors to the cause.

The feminist establishment tells us that our lives are only meaningful and worthwhile if we have broken down barriers in the patriarchy and are driving a ‘Beamer’ (BMW); going to restaurants and weraing ‘name’ labels.. So we feel obliged to have a successful career before having children. But climbing the greasy pole takes time and sacrifices have to be made. Sacrifices include delayed fertility and perhaps, an abortion or two.

In the feminist zeal to liberate women from suburbia it was exaggerated how long biologically women could wait in order to conceive. However it is now known that many women are not able to conceive if they wait until their late 30's or their 40's. The twenties are optimal.

Further, there is a biological difference between men and women. Gender is not a social construct. This is evidenced by the fact that in virtually every other society and culture, women also play the role of nurturer and care giver. Why should young women be made to feel inadequate because they choose to sacrifice status and conspicuous consumption for the greater joys of motherhood?

It is sad that through our education system and our universities we are funding feminist establishment propaganda aimed at young women when they are most vulnerable and that those messages are not balanced by positive and constructive family studies.

It is also very sad that we offer so little encouragement and practical support to young mothers and families.