Scout, far from trying to stifle discussion, I am trying to make you face up to what abortion really means. You are seizing on one word to try to side step the issue. In fact, some women do boast about their abortions. At a public meeting some years ago, women were jumping up shouting "I've had five abortions - I've had three abortions, I've had seven abortions". Read my post again, watch that documentary "My Foetus" and try to deny that abortion is barbaric butchery. Nothing can justify this. Nothing.

I don't know how women who have had abortions can avoid the anguish of wondering in the small hours of the morning " what would he/she have looked like if I had given them a chance at life instead of destroying my own flesh and blood".

There must be alternatives, giving pregnancy and motherhood the respect and practical support they deserve.

I can't speak for all women, but I never wondered in the small hours or at any other time, anymore than I wondered about who the foetus I miscarried would have turned out to be. I grieved the miscarriage, certainly, until I became pregnant with my daughter and then, I guess, I was grateful for the miscarriage because without it, I wouldn't have had her. The same is true of my abortion, without it, I wouldn't have had the two daughters I have. The only thing I wish had been different is that I hadn't got pregnant so young.
After miscarrying at about the same gestation as I had my abortion, graphic pictures fail to shock me, because I saw what I lost and it looked like a slightly heavier than normal period.
Life is difficult, Big Al, and it is useless to wonder about what might have been, far better to celebrate what is. Most women who have had abortions also have children, far better for them to concentrate on being the best parent they can for the kids they have.

Big Al, you stated that nothing is worse than abortion. Well that's silly there are a number of situations when abortion is clearly better

1. when you know the foetus is deformed - in fact as enaj said mother nature spontaneously aborts foetuses upto 12 weeks for know discernable reason. Foetuses that die in utero are also very often deformed

2. when the mother knows the environment is such that the baby can't thrive like if China hadn't enforced the one child policy 25 years ago the country would not be able to feed itself

3. than allowing child to be subjected to the horrific abuse toddlers like Daniel Valerio was subjected to in his short life.

Big Al no one is saying you are not permitted to carry your pregnancy to term. And when your baby is born, I am quite happy that my taxes support a high quality health care and education system so that your child grows into a happy healthy adult.

The debate is about 'choice'. No one is stopping women who want to have children from having them if it is right for them, the right time for them or their circumstances are such that they want to have children.

Just as they have the right to chose we should also respect the choices that other women have a right to make. If they chose an abortion then it's right for them.

We are all women whether we chose to wear our hair long or short, wear skirts or trousers, stay at home with children or pursue a career. It's the right to be ourselves and have some control over our lives and destinies that leads to a full-filling life.

We should respect each others right to chose and right to be ourselves. Be yourself and no-one can tell you you're doing that wrong.

There is nothing that endangers a woman's rights or health more than to have other people make their decisions for them or tell them what they should or should not do. Motherhood is simply not for every woman. It is not always nessarily the right thing depending on circumstances.

Mifepristone does not endanger the lives of women any more than any other medication does - they all come with a risk of side-effects. Greater risks to women's lives (if you want to look at it that way) can result from childbirth given statistics on maternal deaths in Australia.

Hamlet, perhaps you are correct and you just see things from
an old fart's perspective :) The thing is, I think that people
who limit the number of kids they have are being very responsible,
if you think in global terms. 80 million added a year is enough
IMHO. That does not mean that they should not enjoy healthy
sex lives for the rest of their lives. If there are simple and
practical solutions available, if contraception fails, then women
should be empowered to use them, it comes down to choice.

My take in response to Al is that perhaps we should be more
concerned with all those starving babies and people that already
think and feel pain, rather then potential people. Every one
of those flushed eggs, could have been a lovely person. Sadly
reality prevails and they can't all survive, as Darwin made
clear. So Al, if you really care about the starving babies and
its more then just rhetoric, you are free to sell your computer
and send the money to Africa!

Yabby, strange that you should introduce Darwin...

One of my views on sex has been moulded by reading such books as "Why is Sex Fun' by biologist Jared Diamond. I won't try to summarise the whole book here, but the thrust of the book is that sex is fun so that humans will reproduce.

I find it interesting that so many people pick as their partners for sex a person who part of their brains would chose as being the ideal partner for reproduction, and then they use contraception. Something of a biological contraction here.

We are nearly all attracted to 'beauty' for sex, the interesting thing is that beauty, if placed in a pre 20th century situation, would be indicative of the prime characteristics of the person that we would want to share our genes (genes, not dreams) with.

Few of the women here, who say that they enjoy sex, would consciously pick a technically good lover with outstanding communication skills, but an unattractive body and face and high pitched voice, who is balding, over a 'hot' guy with a great bum, broad shoulders, six pack abs and the ability to communicate that is exceeded by the average gorilla, with an IQ of a puppy.

Even today, when we seek our partners for sex, we choose those that biology and evolution would have us choose for their genes, even if we don't intend to actually reproduce with them.

Evolution and natural selection run deep in our bodies and minds. Is it any wonder that so much contraception fails?

We are at nature creatures of evolution, seeking to perpetuate our 'selfish genes' (reference to John Dawkins). As I have said before we have had just about 50 years of practical contraception and 'free sex', as opposed to about 20,000 times that time as humans seeking mates for reproduction, and 2,000,000 times plus as part of the evolutionary tree. Humans cannot change that fast, as much as we would like to think that we can.