In many ways I find the discussion of abortion to be interesting, in that nearly always the discussion fails to link cause and effect.

Prior to the 1960s and the contraceptive pill it was naturally assumed that there was a link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. Even today, for males, though the mechanisms of the Child Support Agency, men are held accountable for children that they have sired, whether they wanted to have children or not, the general consensus being that if they didn't want to have children they should not have had sex. Even if the woman has lied about her being on contraception or the like, the man still pays.

However there appears to be a double standard, that is that a woman is not held to the consequences of having sex. Maybe this is the right way to look at it, that sex and consequence should not be linked.

However, arguments about 'its my body, keep out' maybe should have been applied prior to conception, that if men have to accept the consequences, so should women. Of course this does not apply to rape or other coercion, or in the case of foetal abnormalities.

The very question of "should sex be consequence free, for the first time in human history?" surely must be at least considered, even if the answer is that sex and consequence should not be linked.

Hamlet,

Certainly, many men are held accountable for children they did not intend to have; many more are not. It's not a perfect system, and I feel for all parties who feel wronged by it.

However, in terms of the double standard you mention, the reproductive consequences of having sex which leads to conception involve either miscarriage, abortion (surgical or chemical), carrying the child to term and adopting out or carrying the child to term and raising him/her.

These consequences, whatever their measure, are all ultimately borne by the woman. Sometimes some of them are shared by the man, in varying degrees. Abortion should not be seen as an 'easy way out'.

Tracey

My post was not specifically about the double standard, I used the illustration of men paying to raise children only as an example of consequence of sex.

My main question, and I shall repeat it in maybe a slightly different form, is:

Should the idea of the consequences of sex be simply left out of the debate entirely? That is, if a person choses to have sex, should the possible consequence of conception simply be ignored?

The past 50 years or so is the first 50 years where this consequence has been taken out of the equation. Our society no longer links sex with reproduction. It is linked with power, money, pleasure, pain, lingerie, cars, food, drink and everything else that the advertising agencies can think of, but sex is no longer linked to reproduction. Indeed reproduction is linked to a lower economic status, to servitude and (horror!) not being able to satisfy the needs of'self'.

Is it any wonder that in the face of society's denials that sex and children are linked that there are so many unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, women bear the overwhelming burden of reproduction.

There should be informed choices, but perhaps the first informed choice that should be addressed is: "Do I choose to have sex now when this may lead to conception and its consequences?"

That is the question that men are expected to ask themselves, and they have less of a load to bear. For women this question should, therefore, be blindingly obvious, but often, it appears, never asked. And this is the question that is never asked in discussion on abortion.

I am asking the question, not suggesting an answer, because each person must be responsible for hers or his own answer to that question.

Crikey Hamlet, you should try being an average sexually active woman some time.

For the first 10 years of my adult life I spent all my time trying to avoid getting pregnant. I was always aware sex could lead to pregnancy and always used contraception, still I had scares, as has everyone, and once (just once) after being taken off the pill for medical reasons, a condom tore and I got pregnant. I had an abortion and have never regretted it, all I felt at the time was relief.

Then, some years later, being in a stable relationship, I wanted to get pregnant. Given my past history, I thought it'd be easy. It wasn't, 6 months later I was pregnant and overjoyed, then I had a miscarriage and grieved bitterly. 3 months later, pregnant again and this time a gorgeous daughter. 3 years later, another much wanted daughter.

And ever since, you guessed it, I've dreaded the idea of getting pregnant again, but I'd still like a sexual life with my partner, so we use contraception and so far, so good. But I promise you, I never take it for granted and if my period's late, I break out in a cold sweat.

Women are way more conscious of the consequences of sex than men, it is so much part of our everyday life. Most of the women of my age I know (late 40s) acknowledge that if they haven't actually had to consider abortion its been more by good luck than anything else.

Yes, women are VERY aware of the potential consequences of sex. A period more than a day late and every woman I know starts to wonder.

Enaj, Laurie count me in as well.

As women we are constantly reminded of our fertility - once a month! To imply that we engage in sex without that niggling worry of pregnancy is an implication only those who don't get pregnant could posit.

I have had 2 abortions and have never regretted either (once in my teens and once when married to a violent husband). Have used contraception - it doesn't always work. Abstinence is only something I do when not in a relationship - I have to be honest I love sex.

Therefore the more options available the better. I would consider RU486 the penulitmate choice to abortion and neither are desired. When will they perfect the male pill?

Cheers

PS may all men reincarnate as sea-horses. (look up your natural history if you don't get this)