One issue that really hasn't been discussed is the issue of IVF. Obviously a number of embryos will be destroyed; if not stored, and later destroyed.

What is the thinking on this with pro-lifers. Incidentally, I think this is a dreadful term ...

If we ban medical abortions, abortions will still occur, often with the loss of woman's life as well.

In the best of all possible worlds, everyone would be responsible and well informed about reproduction, contraception would be safe and foolproof, and abortions would be performed only when absolutely necessary. But this is not a perfect world.

Incidentally, it is only men who are fertile all the time, not women. It really should be up to the men to take responsibility. Even if this means having a vasectomy, with a later reversal when men are in a committed relationship and want children. A vasectomy is definitely safer, easier and quicker, than an abortion.

Yabby, "Most of society seems to agree with me, thats why
the first tremester abortion ruling has become so common around
the world."
There is no trimester ruling. Abortion for the sake of abortion is illegal in most countries and has been left to an open understanding of medical necessity pronounced by a physician. That in most countries such an interpretation is lax and not challenged does not constitute a ruling.

I'd suggest you revisit your human biology and foetal development, but anyone comfortable with 80,000 plus yearly abortions is past caring about the reality of the subject being terminated.

Danielle, yes, heaven forbid women hold any responsibility for allowing men to have sex with them. I'd say since it is the womens choice whether she has sex and not the mans, she holds ultimate responsibility, and should take all measures prior to having sex including ensuring that her chosen mate wear a condom. Forget impregnation. STD's pass with greater occurrence than does pregnancy.

Aqvarivs,
There seems to be an increasing number of men who’d agree that contraception should be the responsibility of both men and women.
Sociology professor, William Marsiglio, is one of the many (male) researches studying fatherhood; he researches and explores men’s perspectives on several topics including contraception and abortion. He is the author of “Procreative Man”, in where he shows that men who see themselves as procreative beings take fatherhood more seriously and make better partners because they show more respect towards their partner.

The future of contraception will change- men will need to share contraceptive responsibilities as their options increase; and men who try to escape the new social movement will be left on the shelf.
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/marsig/pro-descr.htm

Danielle,
About IVF, if anti-abortionists truly believe that a human being is created every time fertilisation takes place, then they should strongly object that the majority of zygotes/ blastocysts are destroyed for the sake of creating one or two babies. I am curious about the opinion of anti-choicers, too.
Although I think that IVF should be available as an option, Yvonne said something I can agree with as well: “The world is full of unwanted and neglected children. Only when all children are safe and cared for should something like be IVF considered” For that reason, adoption should be strongly encouraged rather than IVF.
Adoption should be an option for homosexual couples as well as IVF should be made available to lesbian women. Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones eligible to offer a home to children in need?

Adoption can be a long process especially for obese people. My neighbour applied for adoption over six years ago and was told she wasn’t eligible until she loses weight. She has been trying to lose weight for years unsuccessfully and recently had a gastric bypass operation to help her lose the weight.
I’m not sure how difficult or lengthy the process of adoption is on average, but if this is an obstacle for many couples then perhaps we need a smoother and more efficient system

Delighted to have such a quick response, Celivia, and I agree with everything you say ... makes for a dull debate between us though doesn't it?!

Logically, in the case of IVF, "pro-lifers" should be lining up in queues to offer their bodies to bear the excess embryos.

What with women of childbearing age having to suffer many conditions associated with menstrual cycles etc., not only the pain/discomfort approximately 1 week in 4, but often the pain of mittelsmitz; the latter I have been told can also occur with bleeding that it is
mistaken for a light period. Then pregnancy, labour and birth. I think some of the chaps could take up some of the slack. I am sure a lot of women would prefer not to have to be constantly reminded by their body, and also worry about being "baby-making machines" all the time. Thanks for the article.
Great!

The monumental irony with adoption, local or overseas, is that the requirements to be deemed 'suitable' as parents is quite phenomenal. Yet if this same 'unsuitable' person falls pregnant, but is in no way inclined to carry their pregnancy to the end she will be coerced to do just that.

There seems to be agreement that though a woman, or man for that matter, is able to procreate does not mean that they are psychologically or emotionally capable of being parents.

Anybody who comes with the facile line, but at least the child is alive has no idea about the level of self destructive behaviour, the self harm and the depression that is amongst our children right now.

A happy child with a sense of self worth is not inclined to vandalism, abuse of drugs, stealing, muggings, etc. Anti-Choicers, do something for these children before they are teenagers, then come back about them being glad they exist.

If only all anti-choice people had just an inkling of the numbers of neglected and abused children you would FIRST do something about this, THEN look at implementing contraceptive education, and only THEN start fretting over the numbers of abortions. There is not a children's services anywhere that is not severely overstretched.

Maybe start seeing abortions as colatoral damage. Don't like the damage, then do something about the cause.

The only way to reduce the numbers of neglected and abused children, Yvonne, is to stop neglecting and abusing them, not kill them. Child abuse, like abortion (pre-natal child abuse) is a choice. Nobody is compelled to make such a choice. Did you not know that?
You say the world is "full of unwanted and neglected children". You might have said as truthfully that the world is "full of" abused and raped women. Should they, too, have been aborted to prevent them from becoming victims, or do we take the civilized view in all these cases that the real problem in all this is the rapists, the abusers and the unwanting parents? There is no such thing as an "unwanted" child. That is a subjective term devised to shield the perpetrator.
Abortion is a choice. So are all other forms of child and adult abuse. Take your pick.