Celivia, "many men love being involved in ‘women’s’ things as well, and luckily they can now come to pre-natal classes, be part of the birth process and child raising;"

This my dear is the mind set I'm battling against. How do you exclude men as in "babies are womens thing" knowing that it (the pregnancy) was initiated by semen, the male gamete, and the issue, whether carried to full term or aborted carries half it's genetic information from the man involved. Abortion is not a womans right. It is an available couples choice but, not hardly one I should think championed in favour before all else.
IF I was a woman I wouldn't be arguing about abortion services that are available and aren't likely to disappear. I would be questioning my fellow female citizens on the reliance/use of abortion and why 1/3 to 1/4 of all Australian pregnancies are terminated through abortion. Surely one doesn't have to be a man to see this as desperately urgent.

I have questioned a number of men informally during counsellings and many men have given their reluctance to carry the relationship further on the unfairness of family services and the blatant disregard shown them in the courts. I compare what I have learned there with the profile provided by http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia?
The unfortunate reality is that while feminist see it as a victory over men, real women are left to carry the burden of what is not equal nor fair at all in the final analysis, for men nor women. Not fair nor equal for families and not fair nor equal for the future child.

Daniel06 “The UN clearly states that everyone has a right to life regardless of weather they are born or not!”

nice misrepresentation of what was written!

The whole statement reads

“Article 2 : Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

“Birth” refers not to the physical process of the “birth” of the individual but the “inherited rights” or "status" also referred to as “birth rights”. Thus, “birth” into a particular caste or social class does not entitle one to rights distinguishable from people of another caste or class.

It has nothing to do with inclusion of the unborn or preborn.

If you want to get pedantic, I would further note that Article 1 says

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Notice the word used is “Born” used, not the word “conceived”.

Clearly Article 1 does not apply to those still in the womb.

Article 13 “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”

The pre-born cannot be included here. They physically lack the ability to exercise “freedom of movement”, as intended by the article.

Article 15 “Everyone has the right to a nationality.”

“Nationality” will depend on conditions which include where someone is “born” (eg automatic right to US citizenship if born on the territory of USA). “Nationality” therefore, cannot be defined, in the case of the “pre-born”.

Article 25 “ . . All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”

Does not refer to the “pre-born”.

It seems to me your statement

“This is a clear protection of the unborn human - so by your standards the UN must be a bunch of religious kooks and woman haters/bigots?”

is a mythical crock of doggie doos

Peter, treat it as nailing my colours to the wall - given the rest of the content of the post I did not wish to be misread. You might also consider runners earlier "pro death" comment regarding pro-choice supporters.

As for the point "If we opposed every choice a woman makes, we would be targeting hairdressers, gymnasiums and shopping malls as well.". On that basis all pro-life supporters would also be strongly against capital punishment, war etc and that is just not the case just as pro-choice advocates are not always pro-choice on other issues.

Life is complex, few of us fit neatly into stereotypes or sit at the extremes. I sit on the pro-choice side because I don't see a better alternative currently available to us. As with some other posters I would like to see abortion a measure of last resort. I would like to see independant research regarding the numers of abortions, why they are sought, who is having them etc.

I do think that the issue has gained symbolic status for some on both sides of the debate. Those who cannot and will not listen to the other side of the argument, who will not give any ground.

I believe the issue to be complex with no easy solutions, one where we should work towards best case solutions rather than the dictates of dogma.

R0bert

Celivia, you have made some great points, but many of them
far too rational for this thread :)

Yup, Holland has shown how abortion rates can be minimised
with great school education, free availability of contraception
etc. If we look at say teen pregnancies in Holland compared to
say the US, where abstinence is preached, they are like night and
day!

But I doubt if you'll get a response from many in the so called
pro-life lobby. All the investigations that I have done show that
yup, there are a few inviduals who claim to be anti abortion for
non religious reasons, but that does not apply to most of the
pro-lifers, who are mainly Catholics, with a few fundies thrown
in.

The extreme end of Catholic dogma (unlike most Catholic churchgoers)
is into no condoms, no snip, no pill, no abortion either.

Check out this website for prolife Philipines, to see what I mean.

http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control

As if the Philipines isn't already overcrowded, they want more
babies! Perhaps they really want more little Catholics to outbreed
the Muslims?

Luckily the pro lifers are a very small but very noisy part of
Australian society. Last I read the data, only 8.8% of Australians
bother to go to weekly church. Of the Catholics, only 17% are
committed to the Church vision, so if you work it out, thats
a teensy weensy part of Australian society. What they lack in
numbers, they make up in noise lol.

Fact is abortion in the first tremester is now spreading to country
after country, as people realise that killing women in the third
world, (70000 a year die), is not about compassion or caring for
other people, its simply about flawed religious dogma.

If they really cared about people, they would welcome them to
have the snip tomorrow!

Goodthief, Yabby’s rape comment’ was to illustrate a point about moral absolutes not an opinion about rape.

Re late trimester abortions. There’s a vast difference between a 10 week old embryo and a 24 week old foetus. Disregard PeterD’s lurid descriptions. He’s stuck on the wrong pictures. Many women have had miscarriages in the first 12-14 weeks of pregnancy (and seen what it looks like) and view pregnancy this early in the piece much differently than when a pregnancy is well established.

In this debate we are talking about unwanted pregnancies. This would be determined well before 4 months (16weeks) are up don’t you think? There may well be some who think that late trimester abortions should be freely available, but no means by most who are in favour of legally available abortions. This would be another area of discussion all together.

Oh Aqvarivs, you’ve got such a bee in your bonnet about feminists. Most of us love men, find them on the whole much more fascinating than women. Women are so easy to understand - pragmatic and rational. Do you really think the majority of feminists are men hating dragons who want to destroy men? Men are the other side of the human coin. We really don’t want a world without you.

As Celivia points out, everyone at least wants a reduction in the number of abortions, this can be done.

How many of the abortions performed are done at the behest and coercion of the father? Many men do feel very hard done by because they have to contribute with the upkeep of a child. Men tend to be focused on their hip pocket; they forget it is inevitable that the mother also pays. Financially, emotionally-day to day care of child, job opportunities and relationship wise.

Abortion should never be seen as a form of family planning taking the place of contraception. Not because of moral reasons, but because it is a surgical procedure and will always carry risks. As Robert said: an option of last resort.

The issue of abortion is extremely emotive. However, I have noticed that the issue as presented here involves adult women, and presumably with no mental defect. There are other circumstances which should be addressed. This alone, widens the debate ...

I believe that when children are raped and become pregnant, and there is the other factor of rape and incest resulting in pregnancy, that no child should be forced to undergo a pregnancy. Today, girls as young as 12 yrs are menstruating and undoubtedly could be able to give birth. Some writers above would prescribe counselling and permitting the pregnancy to go ahead. However, I do not believe counselling under such circumstances would alleviate the trauma that rape and pregnancy would cause a child. Also, there is the issue of young women who, through mental incapacity, are vulnverable. I would be interested in what others have to say.

I had five children within seven years and although told that I was undergoing considerable risk, still did not contemplate an abortion. However, this was my choice! I firmly believe that all women should have right of choice whether to abort or not. Not so long ago, women used a herb "to regulate their menstrual cycles". As this herb had to be taken within the time a period was missed, it was often a euphemism for abortion. Many of these women were devout, understanding the implication of what they were doing, but did not even consider that they were committing a "sin". One woman told me that she had been "cleansing".