Yvonne, I want to assure you I do not "blame" anyone. I have entered this debate keeping in mind a general view, that of any laws or rules or rights be open to all involved and not become a policy of sexual exclusion. I'm talking about abortion in general, not specific or exceptional cases. People keep bringing up rape but, it is not statistically valid since births due to rape are 4.7% of all cases. Of greater concern with rape is the transmission of STD's at 56% of all cases.
Family court is as it is because children are considered the womans not the husbands.(that's a feminism) Which is why after a DNA study 23% of married men have been found to be raising children they had thought their own but, are not. And why right now there are legal discussions on whether or not to allow prenatal DNA testing. (which the feminist are fighting tooth and nail) Accordingly men who find they are not the fathers are being held financially responsible regardless. The courts will make no distinction. The man pays. In one case already the man took the child and had a DNA test done which proved the child was not his and the courts asked if he had the mothers permission. He said no I did it on my own. The courts said, sorry no permission, no right, you pay. He's not allowed any contact because the child isn't his. Don't think men are angry at women. They're not. They're angry at a system that has always marginalized them while telling them to accept women as equals but, that they must also allow them special considerations.
I have no doubt things will work themselves out. Especially now that women have the same potential wealth as any man and there is now a greater incidence of deadbeat moms. The more women prove they wont behave any differently than men given the opportunities the better for the men. kinda sad when you think about it.

Danielle,
I’m absolutely horrified; I assumed that there would be ‘some’ deaths and some problems with very young women giving birth, so I feel quite ignorant that I didn’t realise how serious this is.
I’m so glad that you posted this, it’s a real eye-opener, not only for me but I imagine for the pro-lifers in this discussion as well.

Aqvarivs,
If you think that it is tragic that a father has to financially contribute to the welfare of his child, then think again- there are worse things, such as children and sole mothers living in poverty.
The only difference between your opinion and mine is that I am child-focused and you are father-focused.
If you can show me how it is in the child’s best interest that the sole parent runs off with his/her financial support, then I am happy to agree with you.
I already agreed with RObert and you that the law should be revised to suit cases where men are sole parents, and I also agree with you on the DNA testing. It is not fair to say that I am promoting sexual apartheid.
Although many women have the same ‘potential’ wealth as men, the reality is that wages are still not equal and that the biggest group living below the poverty line is sole mothers.

Yabby,
Thanks for the amusing link- and for being so tolerant ; )
I am still hoping that one of the pro-lifers will show me where in the Bible God refers to abortions as ‘murder’ and where it says that a soul enters a zygote right after conception.

As I mentioned, Saint Augustine said (if my info is correct) that this happens after the 13th week.
This is the point of the article. God would have been clear about this if he thought abortion was an issue.

RObert,
Do you know how this museum was funded? Donations? I read that about half of the USA population believe in creation! The museum amuses me, but I also find it terrible that this museum will be used to show children these “facts”.

Celivia, its been set up by "Answers in Genesis"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/27/1180205124107.html

Andrew Denton did some coverage of the museum during construction in his "God on my Side" film which was mostly based around discussions with delegates at the 63rd National Religious Broadcasters' Convention held at (this is good) the Gaylord Convention Center.
http://origin.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200705/programs/LE0515H036D21052007T213000.htm and for more direct info http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/

you might have some fun at
http://tribes.tribe.net/189be8fb-b353-4620-8fd7-812104a604b6 (Fun with Fundies)

I found a claim that the bible is pro-choice there refering to Numbers 5:11-31 which does not seem by my reading to have much to do with choice but the footnotes in the NIV study bible do suggest a miscarriage and barrenness for unfaithfull wives after a certain ceremony. A telling point is the closing verse "The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin."

yvonne, I don't blame feminists (although some have been involved). In my view paternalists have had a major role in creating the mess. Those who think women make better parents than men, those who see the male role as supporting women and children, those who see women as less able to take responsibility for themselves and their choices than men. I do think some feminists have provided aid to the mess out of solidarity for other women and possibly as part of fightback at what they consider injustice. Others such as Patricia Pearson have done some good work speaking out against double standards.

I consider traditional views about male and female roles a much bigger threat to equality than the excesses of some feminists.

R0bert

Earlier in the thread I posed some questions as to the implications of what would happen if our definition of a person was to be stretched to the point of conception - nobody answered, so I'll post the logical answers and kindly ask pro-lifers if they believe this is an acceptable outcome for society.

If all foetuses are classed as people, then they have the same rights as anyone else. Thus, if abortions are banned it would logically include pregnancies caused by rape.

If not, it would be sanctioning murder of the child on the basis of the actions of the father. This clearly wouldn't be acceptable under law.

Aborting would have to be classed as murder. Therefore, if a woman has made her intention clear, all efforts would have to be made to prevent her, such as incarceration.

Women who undertake an abortion, regardless of whether it was rape, would have to be sentenced for murder.

Those who do 'backyard abortions' would be risking death to themselves.

There would of course, be some provision of risk to the mother which permits an abortion - if the birth was likely to kill them both, then of course it would be allowed. This of course, could encourage women to harm themselves in some way, so they qualify for an abortion. Determining what level of risk is acceptable would be a nightmare.

If I'm wrong - by all means, say so, but clarify how. I'd like to see these issues accepted as truth by those who are determined to change the status quo, or at least, have them provide persuasive arguments to the contrary.

As a pro-lifer trying to engage those who oppose my views I genuinely ask the pro-abortion advocates here the following questions to help me to understand your point of view:-

You make a lot of claims about rape victims, teen-pregnany, women in poverty, somehow unacceptably handicaped childen etc as justifications for abortion, am I correct?

What about a perfectly healthy woman, with access to enough resources to feed, house and school their children (the govt ensures this for every child in Aus), who consented willingly to the sex which inpregnated them, who neglected to use the virtually fool proof contraceptive devices, potions and actions available and simply decide they don't want a child?

The reason I ask is that the above category makes up the overwealming majority (90%+) of the 100,000 abortions each year.

You can bang on about rape victims all you want, but they make up only a tiny fraction of pregnancies - get to a doctor within 24-48 of rape and pregnancy is totally avoidable.

Not that I think rape, teen-pregnancy, or handicap justifies murder, but I am willing to listen to those arguements with an open mind (I can at least understand the sentiment) - I can not however see how the example I have given above is even remotely morally acceptable and yet it makes up for around 95,000+ murdered human lives a year in this country alone!

Daniel, the basic difference here seems to be the difference in understanding of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I've not seen any convincing evidence that a fetus in the early stages exhibits enough characteristics to set it apart as a human being.

Potential human but not human, a step on from the bit where a fertile male and fertile female at the right time of the month represent a potential human. If it's not human then it's not murder.

As to your question, abortion without "need" is not something I'd be keen to waste effort on and I'm not desperate to have my tax dollars used to support it but then I've not seen the evidence to suggest that over 90% of abortions actally fall into that category. As suggested earlier independant research is needed so that we can find ways to reduce the "need" for abortion.

For those interested in the biblical treatment of the issue.

I found an interesting article at http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Position:Republicans_are_unbiblical_on_abortion Some of the links off that page are also interesting such as the article at http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

I've done a bit of scouting around regarding the Numbers 5 material I referenced earlier. Most commentators appear to suggest that the wording describes an induced miscarriage (amongst other things) if the woman has been unfaithful - if so then god appears to support termination on the basis of unfaithfullness. Not exactly the pro-life position and not pro-choice (for the woman).

Another reference Numbers 3:15 tells how to count the Levites - "every male a month old or more" sorry for the sexist approach, they are not my words.

R0bert