Celivia, no we are not talking about calling women murderers. No where have I even remotely suggested such a thought. This thread is about abortion and your stated position is that it is a womans right and men should butt out until it's time to hand over the cash to raise the child, after the woman alone makes the choice. Naturally, I can understand how you would come to the conclusion that I'm arguing mens rights when your only concerned as a woman with dominating by "right". However, I am not arguing mens rights but, rather suggesting that singularity of "right" ends when two individuals come together and initiate a life, a third individual. I have no where suggested that abortion should be denied. I believe it should be freely available, just not so freely abused as it appears to be, going by the numbers and the profile offered several times by myself on the typical woman using abortion. I would much rather see a active (proactive) contraceptive education and practice, early relationship counseling, and the adherence to moral and ethical responsibility above the quick fix of abortion as a solution. I am talking about couples. I am not talking about exceptions but the general rule. You and others may post all the exceptions as you please. I'm discussing the use of abortion in general from a pro-choice point of view. The choice reached by the couple involved, as a couple, and hopefully with some counseling via a third party not advocating a political position. Some one professionally mature enough to remain neutral and unbiased. I understand how such a platform is threatening to your desire to divide the sexes and achieve empowerment through social disharmony but, I just can not help but offer a more socially unifying position. I very much dislike socially divisive political structures and think it is counter to nature to encourage sexual divisive ideologies. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for disagreeing with you.

Sam, I am not a frog and I do not sit in a well.

As for fathers of children who challenge the women they impregnated, bearing in mind I am a father –

The decision remains the prerogative of the pregnant woman and always should.

As to the father, his bodily resources are not utilized (beyond his sperm contribution),
his physical safety is not put at any risk,
His body is not altered.

His rights to make the decision are, therefore just like the embryo’s, subordinate to the decisive rights of the pregnant woman.

Regarding my “real agenda”. Simple, I believe in the supremacy of the individual. I believe all ideas and developments which affect mankind have originated from an individual. I feel that socialism, monarchy, class, religious dogma and indoctrination and similar forms of institutional constraints are yokes which hinder and impede the development of the individual.

Since a “pregnancy” most profoundly effects one existing human being, the woman (ignoring the embryo which is not a separate or functioning individual). I see the sole authority for decisions in terms of maintaining that pregnancy as the woman herself.

My underlying “agenda” is to actively support and express the ideal that individuals are paramount. Therefore, I can only support a woman’s right of choice and acknowledge that whilst she might later regret her current choice, we only grow as individuals through dealing with the process of making serious life choices and living with the consequences.

All the pro-life/religious meddlers are nothing more than that, meddlers, hindering the progress of other individuals, to assuage their own overdeveloped sense of narcissistic importance. They would deny a woman the right of decision and sovereignty over her own body. They would reduce her individuality and class her as nothing more than a life support system for an embryo.

Bugsy, my initial basis for human life has stood up to every single attempt made to de-humanise the un-born (see the 1st post to this thread). Why would I acknowledge any such claim that it is substandard? So far it is the most robust and solid case put forward.

RObert, you are missing my point - I have never claimed that killing a "potential" human as you put it is murder. The fact remains that an unborn child is totally, clearly, 100% a human life! (and therefore ending it is clearly murder) - don't try to confuse the topic by comparing egg and sperm seperately to the clear massive difference that conception is.

Seperate human DNA in the form of unfertilised sperm and eggs are not human - no one has ever claimed that so don't be silly and please stop claiming that anyone has.

A fertilised egg is the clear scientifically proven point of the inception of a new human "organism" (as you put it) - and therefore the start of a human life. Ending the life of a clearly defined seperate human entity is murder. You may think that it is justified murder, but it is murder all the same.

Yvonne, I am a male, a human, a person of conscience, and an agnostic/athiest and I can assure you that I support the protection of human life through the system of law globally and locally. Abortion is actually illegal in all nations including Australia (accept where the unborn child poses a direct risk to the mothers life) - it contraviens the Declaration of Human rights and is morally abhorant. It is a flagrant exploitation of some very minute loopholes that have lead us to this mess. Besides the law does not equal morality - that is a lame and tired arguement.

Col Rouge,

Firstly I am an atheist.

Secondly I think that murdering a baby could be considered as meddling with another persons life - don't you?

Daniel06 and goodthief, I respect your viewpoints, as I do other pro-lifers on this site. Oh, that life was as fair and tidy so as your ideas could be adopted. However, life is not, and we have to struggle and make decisions according to how things are at a given time.

Daniel06, you mentioned that rape victims could be helped if they reached a doctor within
24 - 48 hours. However, the pill they are given, the "day after pill", is not a contraceptive, but an abortificant. Based on your principles, society is thereby killing an unborn innocent who had done no crime, other than to be the product of rape. Unfortunately, rape with resulted pregnancy is a great deal more common than reported.

Every day, science laboratories in creating life in IVF programs, are also disposing of the unwanted embyos.

A very caring mother has just told me that she is putting her 12 yr old daughter on the pill - the child not only attends an all girls school, but has shown no signs of interest in boys what so ever, but the mother wants her daughter to be "safe". I can't but wonder what the effects of the pill on the development of such a young child is going to be. Scientists are now predicting that with better health care and food, in a few generations girls as young as 9 will be menstruating.

I have often heard: "well if the girl is old enough to conceive, she is old enough to be a mother". I am sure none on this site would agree that boys and girls as young as 12 yrs are in any way capable of being fathers and mothers; and if this should lower to 9 years ...!

In "The Weekend Australian Magazine, June 2-3, 2007, pp.30-33" an article "Secrets & Lives" reports that in the 1940's every fourth pregnancy ended in an abortion and sometimes a maternal death. Admittedly today's society has sophisticated birth control methods, however, these are either not used for a number of reasons, or fail, or even unsafe. Yet how many men are prepared to have a vasectomy when their family size is finished, or those who "might" marry but want to make merry beforehand; the procedure is safe, simple and can be reversed, unlike the tubal ligation women have to undertake.

The Catholic church forbids contraceptive use, relying on the quite unreliable rhythm method. A girl who conceives out of wedlock is in "mortal sin", if she uses a contraceptive she commits "mortal sin", if she has an abortion she commits "mortal sin". When I was at Catholic school, albeit many, many years ago, a girl was held responsible if the boy become roused, and again considered in "mortal sin".

As many pro-lifers are Catholic. I would be interested to know if, along with the abolition of abortions, do they also want the abolition of all contraceptive methods. Unwanted pregnancies have always occurred and, with the falibility of humanity, will always do so.
We don't want to go back to the 1940's of horrific backyard abortions, with the loss, often, of the ability to have another child, or maternal deaths.