Danielle,
I am very impressed with your posts, you sound like a very open-minded person- no wonder you felt you had to leave the Church.

‘Brains like peas’- however ludicrous and insulting this is, it’s not surprising that such things are being said. No religion treats women like equals, no religion has an equal number of female leaders- ordination of women is still a controversy. Why should an intelligent woman accept lesser status than any man- especially the really dumb ones?

Aqvarivs,
Well, I interpret what you said as “wiping their hands off responsibilities”.
A man ‘must’ not be a father because his partner made the decision not to abort the embryo but primarily because he had sexual intercourse without contraception or contraception failed. The father needs to look after his offspring as much as the mother does.

Warren Farrell should encourage men to take responsibility for their own fertility rather than depend on the woman to take precautions and then nag about enslavement of men when she has a baby.
Taking responsibility for their own contraception will give men as much control over their fertility as women have. If both look after their own fertility, then the incidence of unwanted pregnancies can be reduced significantly. That’s what everyone wants.

The vast majority of men throughout history have never been interested enough to take responsibility, so pharmaceutical companies did not see profit in the developing and distributing male contraceptives apart from the condom; so men only have themselves to blame that women have more options to control their fertility than men have.
If you want something, you got to demand it or nothing will happen. That’s why women have options- they craved contraception by the truckload and the market supplied their demand.

Luckily, today we can see more interest in male contraception, and in the near future men will have as much control as women. Much progress has been made on developments of male pill, IVDs etc.

PeterD,
The difference between human beings (including sleeping drunks and little Chinese girls) and embryos is clear to people who haven’t been brainwashed or mislead into believing that they are the same.

Fancy you talk about ‘being off with the fairies’. Many anti-choicers have been indoctrinated to believe all kinds of fairy tales, from Noah’s ark to resurrections. To believe that zygotes are human beings is just one more fairy tale added to their collection.

And before you go on about people's reading skills, I have never denied that zygotes exist; existing as a zygote is not the same as existing as a human being.

The woman decides whether her embryo will turn into an actual human being, or it can be determined by nature; natural abortions happen, something that the anti-abortionists are not at all concerned about.
Embryos have no rights; women, who are actual human beings, do have rights.

Yvonne is right to say that it is interesting to see different faiths and non-faith people to explain their position and why.

Makes me think of a question for the anti-choicers:
If you believe that zygotes and embryos are human beings, then why should human beings have the right to live inside other human beings without their permission?

Yabby, no fear. I don't think any less of the mentally challenged or the physically disabled. And certainly would never consider them less than human or suggest they could be killed because they didn't develop or can't articulate or communicate as others. But then again I don't want to kill them and don't need to justify such behavior as a right. Same with healthy children developing with in the womb. I don't trivialise their existence nor champion their death in the name of feminine empowerment or a twisted political correctness.

Danielle, thanks for your character summation I can see now that you are indeed a superior individual. I should have picked up on that after your first character assassination.

Celivia, naturally that is your prerogative. I'm not trying to change you or your opinions. However if you are going to purposely misrepresent what I do write I will continue to take exception.
Both myself and Farrell strongly advocate men manage their contraceptive needs with great diligence. It may surprise you to know that Warren Farrel was thrice named to the board of the New York chapter of NOW.

Thank you all for this lively discussion and I hope to see you with in the new threads as they appear. Cheers.

Just a few points after reading these posts:

*Roe v Wade 410 US 113 (1973) is a US court case. The decision was based on the US constitutional right to privacy. The reasoning in Roe v Wade doesn't apply in Australia.

*As ChrisC pointed out, the law on abortion varies from state to state, and it has only been formally legalised in the ACT.
Because all other legislation refers to 'unlawful' abortion, the courts have determined that there are circumstances where an abortion is not 'unlawful':
Basically, it is up to the qualified medical practitioner to have an honest and reasonable belief that the woman's life or health would be detrimentally affected, taking into consideration her physical, mental or economic circumstances.
(CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 47)

*I believe that laws must exist to protect women from 'backyard abortionists'. I don't believe that banning any form of abortion will ever stop women from having abortions. If they are going to occur then allow them to be done safely and ethically. This includes education and counselling and being offered alternative, viable solutions.

*I was faced with the 'abortion conundrum' when I had 2 small children and a lousy marriage. An unplanned pregnancy left me depressed, but I did not even consider an abortion... Until I was diagnosed with a disease that had potentially damaging effects on the foetus. Luckily, I had a normal healthy baby, but shortly after, I did become a single mother of three.

*Objectively, I am pro-choice, because without choice, the black market is dangerous and exploitative. Subjectively, I found that I just could not terminate my pregnancy, regardless of the ramifications. But I did have plenty of family support and adequate finances. Without those, I may have felt and chosen differently.

We’ve used logic, let’s try poetry.

This was written by Phil Keaggy.

Who will speak up for the little ones?
Helpless and half-abandoned.
They've got the right to choose life
They don't want to lose,
I've got to speak up, won't you?

Equal rights, equal time
For the unborn children.
Their precious lives are on the line
How can we be rid of them?

Passing laws, passing out
Bills and new amendments.
Pay the cost and turn about,
And face the young defendants.

Many come and many go,
Conceived but not delivered.
The toll is astronomical,
How can we be indifferent.

Little hands, little feet,
Tears for Him who made you.
Should all on earth forsake you now,
But He'll never forsake you.

Forming hearts, forming minds,
Quenched before awakened,
For so many deliberate crimes
The earth will soon be shaken.

Who will speak up for the little ones?
Helpless and half-abandoned.
They've got the right to choose life
They don't want to lose,
I've got to speak up, won't you?

P. Keaggy

Whilst not Christian, I think that the historical figure of Jesus was interesting; he was insightful and had important things to say, much of which was part of his heritage as a Jew.

At that period, the foot on Rome stood on its subjects and I am sure many women would have been raped. As I recall, Jesus did not mention anthing at all regarding
this issue, and whether women had to accept childbirth under these circumstances. I
would be interested in what Christians and/or pro-lifers can contribute to this observation.

In fact, I cannot recall that Jesus even touched on any issues of pregnancy and childbirth;
albeit it is many, many years since I have looked at the gospels, which indeed were written long after his death