school mam’ish: Danielle that is so sexist. Why aren't I surprised?
"Girls are notoriously romantic and giving, responding to “if you loved me...” - often impetuously." and "As to divorce, much blame can be laid at the feet of fairy-tales in which frogs turn into princes. Perhaps stories should also warn that princes often turn into cane toads with unspeakable addictions, or are violent, or with police records."
It don't get any more sexist than that. If you were a man Yvonne and Celivia would be tearing you a new one.

Col Rouge, so your opinion is valid and everyone else can bugger off. And if you declare yourself the majority in order to attack and misrepresent, and then outline a life style and proactive contraceptive practice of the minority I'm in the wrong to call you on it. What part troubles you the most? Your obvious inconsistency, the lie, or that I caught you out? No lack of judgment or lack of substance on my part. Lack of forethought on yours before you began to type. The MJA stated that 98% of Australian abortions are for social and or economical reasons. It's not something I twisted to my POV. The divorce rate of some 50,000 each year is from the GVT's statistical gathering not something I twisted to my POV.
Too bad you can't accept a differing view and an honest persons take on the totality of the "excusable society" and all the reasons we have come up with for not being held accountable for our actions and decisions. I don't attack anyone for their choice. I defend choice. What I'm suggesting is we look at some of those choices and see if things haven't gone too far the other way. As in abortion as contraceptive. The profile I offered earlier suggest such a possibility. If your afraid to look at it ok. just don't demand no one looks in case it may be happening. As a society we can not afford to become complacent, especially on the subject of terminating life.

"Young women get pregnant, not due to a maternal desire for children, but overwhelming romantic feelings; young men seek sexual conquests and often die proving themselves.
- a malthusian principle, and seen throughout nature?"

Well basically yup! But of course many try to deny all that,
forgetting that hormones affect behaviour. Free will is not
as free as they often kid themselves. The Tabula Razza theory
was thrown out long ago.

To some extent its stereotyping, like saying that men are taller
then women. Basically thats correct, but there are always exceptions.

Aqva, if women have abortions and no person, no suffering is involved,
frankly thats their business. Many surveys show that the marjority
of Australians agree with me. Try to stop first trimester abortions
in Australia, you would have riots in the streets, politicians are
aware of that.

I'm a little perplexed at your concern about the divorce rate. People
get married with all sorts of good intentions. People change,
things change, they move on. The idea of life is to be happy.
Why stay married if things aren't working out? To satisfy some
old fashioned dogma by some old fashioned church? Think again!

Your little moral lines in the sand are simply yours, no more. Others
decide otherwise, thats up to them. Respect their rights to live
their lives, as you want to live yours. Personally I would admire
any woman who puts up with you for life, she'd deserve a halo :)

Aqvarius,
from your link: “Federal Government frontbencher Ross Cameron … proposing financial inducements for couples who stay together, as a contentious response to Australia's growing fertility crisis.”
I am not a proponent for offering married couples inducements to stay together. Couples should stay together because they both want to be together, not because of some financial ‘inducement’. BTW, did you know that atheists have a lower divorce rate than Christians? I agree with you and Yvonne about the pre-marital counseling, excellent idea.

I have to agree with Col that there is no evidence to back up your statement that “The majority of couples don't want that or contraceptive education either. It kills the spontaneity”.
In many European countries realistic sex ed is expected and a compulsory part of any curriculum. We don’t have good sex ed in Australia because a minority of religious zealots seem to have some power, not because the majority don’t care.
I understand that you probably mean that the high abortion rate (for social and economic reasons) is evidence that the majority doesn’t care about sex ed., but it merely shows that sex ed. In Australia is not as good as it is in many European countries where abortion rates are low. I find it doubtful that the majority of Australians would want to remain ignorant while Europeans want education.

Yvonne,
thanks for unraveling these knots in PeterD’s post; I thought I’d need to consume at least three glasses of wine to be able to make sense of what he was trying to say.

Even after 295 posts, I still can’t see why abortion is such a big deal for anti-choicers. Blastocysts and embryos have no nervous system or brain, no consciousness and are not able to suffer or feel pain. Besides, zygotes and blastocysts are naturally aborted most of the time and the occurrence of naturally aborted embryos is quite high as well.
Anyway, there are not too many abortions; there are simply too many unwanted pregnancies.

Danielle,
Pheeeew, just in time with your post- perhaps aqvarivs will let you off the hook : )

Celivia, I only posted that link as another example of "wait, I was rash and now want to change my mind. Gimme my way out" A little more of that school mam'ishness that sexist Danielle accuses me of :-).
There are feminist who advocate the State paying for women to be stay at home mothers. I guess if it's a mans idea it doesn't carry the same sexual cache. Not that I agree to any such thought. As to events regarding abortion or divorce or most any other topic I keep it with in Australia and Australian societal outlook. Even the police and courts wont allow ignorance as an excuse. If Australian youth or the twenty-somethings are ignorant, I would place the responsibility at the foot of the parents before blaming the "system", whatever that is. In my earlier post I made the mistake of not identifying the majority I was typifying. My apologies for that. (see prior sentence for clarification) As to evidence, there is all kinds of it out there. It just needs to be viewed and discussed openly and not hidden by those who have a political or social agendas.

Your too right Yabby, my little moral lines are drown in sand rather than cast in stone. I've been refining my personal morality for 50 years now and hope to be working on it for another 50. I have my own thinking and execute personal thought openly and feel no need to hide with in the fog of "what everyone else says or does". I've never, even as a child, held a opinion for the benefit of social acceptance or to satisfy some religious dogma. I stand on my own two feet as a responsible human being, raising three children with in a society that preaches excuse over reason and forethought and social and economic gratification over responsibility and personal fortitude.
I say what I actually think. I take the concept of On Line Opinion at face value. I didn't read it as, regurgitate the politically correct.

The problem with your question, Celivia, is that it is not a serious question from somebody seeking honest answers to serious ethical problems. It is transparently obvious that you see your question about embryonic stem cell treatments as a trap for pro-lifers from which there is no escape. You sit at your keyboard, trembling fingers poised to type the words “murderer” or “hypocrite”, depending on my response. You will probably use them anyway, but I won’t give you any valid reason for doing so. Your own “choice” argument will be down around your ankles before you take a step.
I’m more than happy to give an honest answer to a person capable of understanding the serious ethical and moral issues raised, and capable of giving an honest, considered response. That means an honest, moral person, and you clearly are not that person.
Suffice to say that I am morally obliged to reject in all circumstances the curtailing of one human destiny in order to prolong my own existence. The only embryo which owes me life is the one from which I derived my present being. I am able to say this only because that embryo was not aborted or turned into spare parts for somebody else. Consequently, accepting or rejecting treatment made from another human being, regardless of size or appearance, would be one of the easiest decisions I ever had to make.
As for the second part of your question, what would you do if your child was dying, and the only treatment that could save your child’s life came form the organs of, say, a three-year-old Chinese girl who had been raped and killed by officials after they discovered she was illegally alive under that country’s ‘one child’ policy? I give you credit here, against my better judgment, that you recognise a serious ethical / moral issue when you see one. Nevertheless, I wonder what your decision would be. No doubt, you would act in a way consistent with your principles (if any), just as I would be bound to be consistent in my own beliefs.

Aqvarivs,

In an earlier comment you stated: ” I'm a man. I'm not anti-abortion. I believe it has it's medical value and support the pro-choice line. I most definitely am not pro-abortion.”

You have not responded to my question as to what should happen to surplus embryos from IVF programs ...

Perhaps you should be aware that the majority of women who undergo abortion do not do it lightly; and only after much agonising. In fact, many women feel residual guilt and grief all their lives. Do you think that the males involved feel this way? You make it seem as if the decision to abort was like selecting a pair of stockings.

In another comment you state “God given nature”. If so, then your g-d must be very capricious as so many fertilised ovum, which you identify as human beings, are discarded naturally. Perhaps the biologists on this group can provide the % or estimate.

Furthermore, formal marriage was only introduced in the 16th century, at the 24th session of the Council of Trent (MDLXIII) which set out the requirements of marriage - the placing of wedding banns on the church door (seeking impediments to the coming marriage) , an officiant of marriage (also a witness), and extra witnesses.

Prior to this, a man and woman exchanged private promises/vows. However, the church found that too many men were promising too many different women in too many different places the same thing. The parishes were left supporting the many babies. The sanctity of marriage, as stated in the ceremony, was largely a consequence of parochial, pragmatic economics.

Council of Trent: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

Aqvariuvs, I think a little bit of compassion and reality would not go amiss. People can never be slotted neatly into pigeon-holes. Statistics are blind.