Would termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which has been with us humans since the cave days, be so hotly debated if it were men who got pregnant and had to bear the risks of pregnancy?

Runner, I so hope you are not male. It would be such an unfortunate pen name in this debate. Very many women contemplating terminating a pregnancy would be precisely in that situation because a man has done a 'runner'.

What makes me so angry with this particular debate is the cavalier assumption that a woman sees a termination akin to a dentist's appointment. Some of the emotive language is horrendous.

Every abortion performed, not because of a medical reason, is because of failed contraception. Contraception in itself can be a controversial issue. I haven't seen any anti abortionists mention that abortion shouldn't be necessary because of available contraception.

The issue is, why are women still primarily deemed responsible for contraception and pregnancy? Why do we not have a culture that regards the man as responsible for an unwanted pregnancy as the woman?

It would be incredibly rare for a woman to take the step to terminate a pregnancy if she was in a loving supportive relationship.

We should never ever even contemplate going back to backyard abortions

"This is why they can't even see what a 2 year old can see when it comes to an unborn baby"

Runner, relying on the knowledge of 2 year olds for your wisdom,
just might be your thing, but may I suggest that there are
wiser options :)

Fact is that virtually every university on earth, along with their
various highly qualified staff, accept and teach evolution theory.
Even the old Catholic Church concedes on this point. Just a few
fruitloop fundies who disagree. But then last I checked, the flat
earth society still existed.

Next time you plan to go travelling, given your doubts about science,
perhaps best that you mistrust that 747 and rely on the magic carpet!

Maryse, grieving is a natural, normal, human experience. People grieve
when their partner dumps them, their pet dies, relatives and friends
die, etc. etc.

How we deal with trauma is another question. I was once involved in
a huge, community wide traumatic drama.( a gynormous fire)
How various people coped, was quite interesting to observe. Those
who had experienced various trauma in their lives before, had learnt
to cope, to find solutions, to deal with the problems. Those who
had led lives of relative bliss (spoilt kids etc), were far the
worst affected. They had simply never learnt to deal with these
kinds of stresses, so they needed the most assistance.

Life is one long learning trip. Dealing with trauma and hard times
is part of it. That is will always be about tippytoeing through
fields of flowering tulips, is simply not the case!

Sam said, abortion in the first tremester is today accepted as
standard in the Western World and increasingly spreading to the
third world, as the link between poverty and too many kids becomes
clear. If politicians tried to change it, there would be riots
in the streets and they know it. The silent majority would no
longer be silent, every survey shows that

Celivia, I take your point about risk but I think we differ on our perceptions of the level of risk taken. I'm assuming that both pregnancy and abortion are relatively safe under western conditions in Australia. There are risks but the risks associated with both are risks that women choose regularly and seemingly willingly (especially in regard to pregnancy).

I'm fine with both parties carrying some risk, in my view the risk to the male when he is left with no choice other than at the initial act is disproportionate. The proposal I make leaves the man with far less choice than the woman and less risk, I don't see an ideal way to even up that balance. Maybe a differentiated child support formula that takes into account the choices that the adults have made.

My views may be tainted by how ruthlessly I've seen C$A exploited by some who just don't like working and how devastating the impact of C$A's beloved formula can be.

R0bert

Col Rouge

“I believe we should accept that other people have rights to determine how their bodies will be used and if they decide not to be pregnant, that is their right and our moral duty to respect their choice.”

This is question-begging, as the foetus is only merely a part of the woman if it is not itself a human. What is the source of my duty to respect such a thing?

“Better that someone makes their own decision and lives with the consequences than a decision, with which they disagree, is forced upon them and they are stuck with the consequences.”

The consequences are nine months pregnancy and all the inconvenience that pregnancy entails. Then, adoption. Everyone gets to live!

Country Gal:

“Perhaps we need to recognise that there is no right answer to this question. The answer lies with the individual, based on their beliefs and values. How to combat the concerns of both sides of the debate? Make the compulsory counselling session prior to abortion a dual one, where moderate members of each persuasion both sit with the woman to discuss the issues.”

I’m one of the ones who thinks there is a right answer, and allowing people to abort if they wish is simply saying Yes, it's not being neutral. But, if abortion is still going to happen, I like the sound of your counselling idea. Just as pro-lifers have in the past shown too little concern for the woman/girl, the pro-choicers have certainly sought to deprive the woman/girl of the ability to make an informed choice.

Maryse Usher, rough ride isn’t it?

Yvonne, “I haven't seen any anti abortionists mention that abortion shouldn't be necessary because of available contraception.”

I’ll go along with the contraception idea. But, there will still be unwanted pregnancies. The numbers will change, but not the nature of the issue.

Pax,

Col Rouge
You asked me to check the dictionary for these words. I looked in my Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary (the only one I had in the house). It said,

abort - to bring forth stillbirth offspring

murder - the intentional and unlawful killing of a person

They are not the same but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. They both can involve people, they both can involve intention. Whether they are exactly the same hinges on the word ‘unlawful’.

Given that the law is intentioned to firstly protect the health interests of the mother, and given the incredible advances in medical science currently available making risks in pregnancy negligible in most cases, this means that in only the great majority of intentional procedures in this country do the two definitions coincide, but not all.

Goodthief. My belief: we are morally bound to accept the decisions of others in regard to the deployment of their own bodies (as in the pregnant woman deciding whether or not to terminate), regardless of our own individual belief.

Ultimately, for a woman who aborts, God will judge the actions of the whole of her life, just as he will judge you and I.

I would note the law and the dictionary, in distinguishing between abortion and murder recognise the difference and between a baby and a foetus and celebrates the transition which occurs at birth, the moment of "separation".

This moment of "birth" is what makes the difference, regardless of your attempts to obfuscate.

I repeat, the law and social morality (regardless of your religious convictions) recognise the moment of birth as the creation of the individual and celebrates that moment by issuing a "birth certificate". Social morality does not recognise the moment of conception or issue a "conception certificate", regardless of what you or "Pax" dictate.

The Salvation Army goes among the drunks and destitute not to judge them but to help them. I wonder if "Pax" holds similar moral values or do you prefer simply to judge from afar the affairs of strangers who do not share your dogma and for whom excommunication is a foregone conclusion?

I wonder if you would help a woman who has decided on abortion or would you turn away and deny her support or comfort? I know, for instance, the Catholic Church turns away its own for far less significant infractions than an abortion. Somehow the word "Love" got displaced by "Authority" and “Power to Command” in that religion, speculating on your persuasion, I would suggest the Church of Rome has little to offer by way of moral guidance for anyone, if their indulgence in inquisitions and the more recent cover-up of paedophile priests is anything to go by.

“The consequences are nine months pregnancy and all the inconvenience that pregnancy entails. . . “

Wrong, pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman’s body and is a “significantly inconvenience”