Aqvarivs, “…if mens only choice is to pay then men should be left out of the equation…”
But won’t that put even more pressure on the woman to opt for abortion?
Isn’t the threat of financial distress even a greater ‘encouragement’ to opt for an abortion than the encouragement feminists you say are guilty of?
Or don’t you think that the partner of the pregnant woman is not guilty of manipulating her into having an abortion when he says: “If you have the child, you’ll totally be on your own!”
Why is it OK for a man to intimidate or encourage a pregnant women into having abortions but not for feminists?

For all the women who belong to the poorer group, this withdrawal of responsibility of her partner would mean that there will be more abortions, rather than less. These women who otherwise perhaps would have opted for a child, are now expected to have the child in poverty, and they opt for abortion.
Are these women selfish for ‘disposing’ of her embryo? You clian they are. Are the men selfish for running from their obligations? You claim they aren't.

Your figures show that there is a rise of financially strong single mothers, but there is still a significant group of single mothers who live in poverty.

Nobody has yet explained to me why it is in the best interest of the child if fathers are allowed to shed all their financial obligations.

Women are often dragged through the mud.
Why are women who choose to have an abortion selfish,; as well as women who, regardless of poverty conditions, have a baby; as well as career-minded women who want to have a child alongside their career; as well as stay-at-home mums; as well as women who expect payments of the fathers of their child?

Why is it not selfish when a man runs away from his responsibilities because… ‘he doesn’t wanna’?
Pregnant women cannot be ‘left out of the equation’, ever; they neither want an abortion nor a child; they simply HAVE to choose- whether they ‘wanna’ or not.

yvonne, "the fact that a financially independent woman would no longer be financially independent when she has a little baby" is from your post. It would also mean that a financially independent man would no longer be financially independent taking up his responsibility as father to that child of a financially independent woman who has a baby. Damn few people are financially independent and we still manage to raise our families and meet our other obligations to society. Actually the very idea of becoming a couple excludes any independence. I am pro-choice. I would just like to see that choice of selecting abortion to be as rare as medical necessity dictates. I'm not pro-abortion and would like to see more effective potential mother/father counsellings, especially in the very early stages, and I would like to see a more responsibility orientated sexual education in the schools. We all want that elusive perfect life chocked full of our favorite material goods and that perfect job that demands all society bow to our magnificent and envious height. However, sometimes you get the life you think you wanted or should have. And sometimes you get the life your supposed to have. That's the one where you take up your responsibilities and face your trials and tribulations as a mature adult. We are gradually turning away from disposable goods in order to protect Mother Earth. let's also begin turning away from disposable life and protect baby, mothers, fathers, and grandfathers and grandmothers.
I think the nuclear family model has had it's day, and a more inclusive family model needs to be incorporated into our social think and how we express our values and what is to be valued. Materialism isn't new but, it sure has taken hold.

Celivia,"But won’t that put even more pressure on the woman to opt for abortion? Isn’t the threat of financial distress even a greater ‘encouragement’ to opt for an abortion than the encouragement feminists you say are guilty of?"
Maybe it will. And maybe then women would consider men an integral part of the pregnancy and not just a wallet sitting on the side lines. I don't deny that there are men who opt out for the quick fix of abortion. No where did I say I supported such behavior. There is two sides to the manipulation game and often women use pregnancy to catch their man.
"Why is it OK for a man to intimidate or encourage a pregnant women into having abortions but not for feminists?"
For the simple reason that feminist are encouraging abortion as freedom and children as enslavement to a patriarchal mold. And secondly feminist have no real concern for other women but, use them to achieve their politicalization of the sexes. I would be just as much against a masculinist group that exalted men and mens "rights"(?)over and above womens rights(?). I don't support socially divisive structures. If an intended couple question the validity of starting a family and all precaution has been taken and failed and one or the other after discussion is adamant about not taking up the duties of parent, then abortion would be a necessary evil. This scenario is a long shot from womens right/womens body/men shut the f up and pay up, approach of the fembots. Having a child and making the fellow pay isn't freedom of choice. It's enslaving a man to fulfill your choice from which he was excluded. It's a two faced approach fembots want enacted into family law.

Col Rouge, Your post Thursday 24 May, 11.42am, accuses me of being unloving and intolerant. Look at my post. “Mercy” was in my list, which is very close to what you want. (And we’d already agreed about compassion for the woman earlier.) Remember, my point was simply that we can do better than the law, so don’t wield the law here for persuasive purposes:- it seldom gets things right.

You ask, “How about more Respectful of the rights of others to exercise both free thought and the Free-will God gave them.” I have a high level of respect of this kind, and I don’t wish to impose my views on others just as I believe God himself does not impose in this way. The problem here is that I believe the foetus also has rights.

To use your language, I say that the pregnant woman should be “more respectful of the rights” of the foetus. Just the right to live, nothing more than that. Then, she can give the child to someone else. She loses 9 months, the child gains a whole life. It’s a good deal.

Yabby, in response to my polemical suggestion of a general slaughter, you remind me that “the secular society in which we live, is more compassionate, more generous to the poor, then any society before us”. I agree. You know from my post that I wasn’t really suggesting a slaughter, but saying that killing tiny humans, as I regard them, is not the solution. If it is, we might as well kill big ones. We have to find a better answer than death.

Celivia, you ask: “Why don’t you target IUD’s instead of abortion?” I would, in this discussion, target anything that takes out a human life, post-conception. As the IUD is contraceptive, it is not relevant.

Earlier, you say, in the parenting discussion, “The focus should be on the child”. You should qualify that: “The focus should be on the child if he or she is fortunate enough to have survived its mother’s magnanimous deliberations about terminating.”

Pax,

Yvonne, Thankyou but I am also lucky with the daughters I jointly raised. They are a source of pride since they have grown into individuals who know their own minds and now function as independent adults. They too share my values of “self determination”.

Goodthief What I posted on 24th May accuses you of nothing. It merely questions certain human qualities which were missed from your list of attributes.

Re “The problem here is that I believe the foetus also has rights.”

But any such “rights” do not subordinate the woman’s own rights of choice, otherwise her role and rights are diminished to the role of “life support system for an embryo”.

As for “She loses 9 months,”

You or I do not know what she might lose.

She might lose significant opportunity in a 9 month period.

But what she will certainly lose is her right to self control, her right to determine her own destiny, her life direction and thus her right to exercise the free will which God gave her.

Here we get to the real point of respecting other peoples choices.

You and I do not know what she might lose, maybe an education, maybe an career opportunity, maybe anything. All I do know is the woman herself will know far better than you or I her circumstances, capacities, abilities, plans and expectations and therefore she is a far better informed to decide how and if to abort or not.

I am not (and never have) promoted “abortion” as a system of convenience or expediency. I do, however, support, absolutely, a woman’s right of choice to choose abortion if she wishes and is prepared to bear the responsibility for the decision.

As for “so don’t wield the law here for persuasive purposes:- it seldom gets things right.”

Maybe you should illustrate your concerns regarding other “errors” in our current criminal and civil codes if you reckon it so seldom gets things right.

(one I would change is to make the death penalty mandatory for second offense drug dealers but that is a seperate debate).

"You know from my post that I wasn’t really suggesting a slaughter, but saying that killing tiny humans, as I regard them, is not the solution. If it is, we might as well kill big ones. We have to find a better answer than death."

Goodthief, I don't see why one should lead to the other. You refuse
to accept the difference between cells and people. Cool, if you want
to become emotional about a cell, thats your philosophy, not mine.

I accept the laws of nature. As Darwin noted, far more potential
beings of any species will be created, then can ever survive.
Resources will always be the issue. I try to see the big picture,
at some point we have to.

IMHO, given limited resources, its best to focus on suffering
people and other species, rather then get bogged down about cells.

Without biodiversity and sustainability, there won't be a humanity
to enjoy living at all. An interesting theory was presented on
"Crude" the other night. They reckon that we've had carbon cycles
before, thats how we landed up with today's crude oil. Once we reach
4times today's CO2 levels, the whole system basically heats and crashes,
bacteria in the world's oceans change and living things
become the next locked up carbon, at which point it all cools again.
Perhaps all those Catholics might one day become the next lot of
crude oil :(

I guess thats judgement day for you :)