Aqvarivs,
I’m with Yvonne on this and I’m sure that most women in healthy relationships would consult their partner before making a decision about their future. I would.
Still, nobody should be able to force women to give birth against their will or to have an abortion when they want the baby. But I am repeating myself. In short, my opinion is that fathers gain their rights at the moment of their child’s birth, but before that it’s women’s prerogative right to make the ultimate decision.

Yabby,
I hope they finally see the light after a few reps of the obvious points on how to reduce abortion rates! How hard can it be; If they want to see a drop in abortion rates- prevent them. I really don’t find that the pro-lifers are helping to reduce the rates, and I find this quite frustrating. Even though they are aware that their God has given humans a free will, meaning that they are responsible for their own actions, they still want to impose their own beliefs onto others.
I remember that I read somewhere (sorry can’t give you a link it was in some magazine) that one of the Saints- it was St August or similar name- said that a foetus before 13 weeks isn’t a person yet and wouldn’t go to heaven. Perhaps this info was not reliable, but if it is, it would make a good point in this debate. I’m hoping that anyone here knows something about that Saint. Thanks for the link- and remember that Australian politician who also made the comment about Muslims overtaking Australia if non-Muslim women continued to have abortions? So you are probably right about that!

Danielle, welcome!
I also find teen pregnancies very disturbing- even if the emotional side can be looked after, there is the physical side as well as their bodies are still growing Would a pregnancy stunt their growth, or misalign the hips which are still forming and growing at that age?

RObert,
I am also very interested to see this kind of in-depth research done.

Yvonne, I know and can appreciate the difference between yesterdays feminism seeking inclusivity and todays feminist who want exclusivity(fembots). See Celivias argument that mens rights(?) don't start until it's time to pay for the up keep of the womans right(?) of ultimate decision. Enslaving men to the womans ultimate decision.
I'm intellectually stumped by anyone who suggest that life can be broken down into mens rights(?) and womens rights(?) when there is no life with out one or the other. My Mothers crowd fought for equality of the sexes and for women to be included as full members of society and not property. Todays feminist are demanding special rights and considerations at the expense of men. These are not feminist. They're fembots who have hijacked feminism so to have a righteous start point.

And the men only focusing on the money is out right misdirection used to marginalize men. The money has no meaning to men who will willingly spend all they have and work themselves to death for their families. It only becomes the focus of the issue when fembot dominated family services and family courts relegate men to nothing but "money" while denying them their family.

These women want to be treated as equals while demanding exclusive rights still expect to have the first seat in the life boat. We lucky men still get to go down with the ship.

RObert
I note the anti-creationist clichés that you trotted out a few posts previous. Firstly, I’d see this as a victory of sorts. Years ago, when I first got interested in the creation/evolution debate, people would say, ‘who or what is a creationist?’ Now we are getting insults. That’s progress!

A full on debate here is probably off the topic, as we are arguing the issue of abortion, and majoring on our religious differences is more likely to mean we have less common ground.

But a few of the posters have brought the subject up, and the original article writer did hint that our religious views will definitely come into this discussion at some point, so can I, please, respond a little to your worn out clichés.

The flat earth society does not exist and never did, except perhaps as a university day prank, and as a reference for those who want to throw insults or name call.

You say creationists ignore the evidence. I’d challenge you to let me know your best piece of evidence that proves evolution, or even strongly suggests that it is not a worn out 19th Century idea, coming close to its Used By date. Give it your best shot, and then see if I can ignore it.

I wonder why anyone would choose to believe such an unappealing worldview as Darwinian Socialism, or some similar variant, where ‘the strong out surviving the weak’ is an avenue to upward progress. Perhaps they believe it is based on science or some other set of facts. It is, after all, taught at university. I think you would then have to draw a long bow to justify commonly accepted morals such as ‘be good to your neighbour’, etc. But the idea of the strong not worrying too much about the weak would sit quite easily with letting those in the womb die. After all, there is no one more weak or defenseless as a baby in the womb.

Celivia,
I said abortions were largely unnecessary. You took me to task, saying women don’t have abortions for frivolous reasons.

However, I still don’t see why I should step away from my comment. Can you tell me what these necessary reasons are for the many tens of thousands opting for abortion?

Coercion from the boyfriend.

Misinformation from the doctor at the clinic who needs to make a payment on his fancy car.

Cases where the mother faces a serious health risk are marginally few in this age of modern science.

Rape is often mentioned. My understanding is that these cases are also extremely few due to the trauma associated with rape making conception less likely.

Incest (or similar abuse) is a possible reason for contemplating abortion. Yet usually it is the male perpetrator that pushes for abortion, as it will help to cover up his activities. A girl may be inclined to have the baby, as it will prove to the world the abuse she has suffered, and give her an object of love that will help to take her out her current situation. Possibly a win-win for everyone (especially the little one).

The most illogical reason for abortion so far is that the unborn will never be at risk of abuse from parents that didn’t want them. Huh? I was conceived when my mum was on the pill, but she never abused me.

I challenge this idea that free abortion makes us treat the kids we do have and did want any better. Rather it devalues kids in society as a whole. When we kill the unborn when we ‘cannot cope’ (your words Celivia), how consequently do we treat the kids we have when we struggle to cope. I would like to see statistics on child abuse after Roe v. Wade.

I will admit that I have never had to face the emotional turmoil of going through the decision. But outside of emotional reasons, if I have missed any ‘necessary’ reasons for most abortions other than convenience/inconvenience, please fill me in.

(By the way – ‘necessary’ implies no choice).

Aqvarivs,
I find it a shame that you feel that financial responsibility for one's own child equals “enslavement”. But the only alternative we have thought of so far is the one that supports the oppression of women combined with depriving the child; this is worse than just a financial obligation of fathers to their children.
We debated before why I don’t think that men should be able to walk away from their child if the woman doesn’t submit to his wishes and has an abortion. The welfare of the child should get priority. That is my only reason- not because I take pleasure out of ‘enslaving’ men.

I have also agreed that the law should change to allow more flexibility for special cases such as RObert’s. So I suggest that men follow the feminists example and call themselves ‘homminists’ or ‘hombots’ if you like and campaign for what you want..
Women fought hard for what they have, men are welcome to do the same.

MickV,
I’d have thought that the Flat Earth Society is real and serious. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm I don’t blame you for not believing they exist because it IS hard to believe.

I am not going to make a list in where I state what women’s reasons for abortion are or should be – I trust that every woman knows for herself. If she didn’t think that she had good reason, she would not have the pregnancy terminated. Women who opt for abortions believe that they have good reason. Who are we to criticise their judgment?
On the abortion-crime link, some evidence suggests there is a llink, google and you’ll find much info on this e.g. Donohue and Levitt's rsearch.

Religious pro-lifers:
I did some research and found this great site that points out that there is no evidence that the Bible is anti-abortion.
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

So where does this ‘moral’ anti-abortion stance come from if not from the Bible? Who then decided that abortion is murder?
If God had been as serious as our fundies about abortion, he would have been clearer about it in the Bible.

Thank you for your welcome Celivia.

I am submitting here some unpleasant details about childbirth. For those squeamish, I suggest they do not read this, however, this is a reality and has to be faced when discussing abortion. Society can't make a so-called moral decision based on very slim cohort of white middle-class women. No woman would easily decide on an abortion; the morning after pill, perhaps. But once a woman knows she is pregnant, psychological factors enter that neither men, nor women who have never had a child, could begin to comprehend. It should remain the woman's choice whether she abort a child, or not.

I draw on the evidence found in third world countries where child-brides, or female circumcision, botched abortions, or pelvic fractures, commonly lead to obstructed labour. Without medical intervention, these virtual children endure days of excruciating labour. The baby’s head, wedged into the mother’s pelvis, cuts off blood supply to the bladder, or rectum. The pelvic tissue rots, leaving a hole (fisutla). Only when the baby dies, and its body collapses is the mother is able to give birth. However, due to constant leakage of urine and faeces, these young women are found noisome are rejected from the community. In such cases a small hut is built for the girl and she remains from other isolated until her death. Even hospitals will not admit them.