It realy is simple Dave if you don't like Abortions then don't have one. Let your silly eithics based on the suposed teachings of a supernatural sugar daddy guide your life and lets others get on with theirs.

Man's heart is so corrupt now that we fail to call the murder of the unborn what it is. No wonder false religions like Islam are on the rise when they easily point to the immorality of the West where we murder babies simply for convenience. Soon we will be giving out awards to the participants. Thank God their is escape from our depravity in Jesus Christ (the only undepraved One).

"...most Victorians are concerned about late term abortions and if confronted with the statistic of more than one abortion for every three live births, would say 20,000 abortions each year in Victoria were too many."
Is there survey data to go with this claim, or is this the case of one man trying to project his opinion upon a whole state?

"...the general public ... will begin to think of abortion ... as morally right"
Changing the laws have nothing to do with morality. Given the significant public debate on the issue it's unlikely that there will ever be consensus on the morality of abortion. The purpose decriminalising abortion is to give the individual the ability to decide on the morality for themselves.

"One practical consequence of the change...would be that it will become much harder for a woman to resist calls from her boyfriend..."
It's unlikely that the legality would influence a woman's ability to think and act independently, however the threat of prosecution would add significant stress to an already difficult time.

"There is no requirement to make available to any woman considering an abortion, suitable material displaying colour pictures of the growing child in the womb, or better still an ultrasound view of the developing unborn child in the woman’s own womb."
Emotional torture is generally not encouraged in this country.

"There is no requirement for independent pre-termination counselling from someone who is not an advocate of abortion..."
The isn't anyone out there who is pro-abortion in that they want to see more unborn fetuses killed. The counselling should be done by someone who acknowledges all options as valid.

"...give the right for a doctor to refuse to undertake an abortion for the sake of conscience..."
People should not be in a job which involves doing things they consider morally wrong. If a doctor accepts the responsibility of providing medical care, then it is their role to make the medical decisions and leave the patient make the moral or ethical ones.

Of course their are to many abortions.

One of the principal legacies bequeathed to one and all by the "church" is widespread ignorance re EMOTIONAL-sexual matters and the fact that sexing has always been equated with sinning, and that the body is shameful, disgusting and dirty, and that even bodily pleasure is a "sin", and that should feel guilty about even being alive in and as the body, and that true "happiness" is away from here when we go to "heaven".

Despite our seeming sexual "freedom" these Puritan subscripts are still very, very strong.

This double-minded emotional-sexual script is the root cause of all of our seemingly intractable social problems including overeating, drug abuse, over-population and even warfare.

The only way to really do anything about is a comprehensive multi-dimensional program in EMOTIONAL-sexual education.

This is all addressed in an essay titled The Taboo Against the Superior Man 1. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2

We also live in an extremely pleasureless world in which the only kind of pleasure most people can get is via sexing. It is also the only activity (apart from drugs) which enables people to merge (however briefly) with something/someone greater than their usual solidly defined self.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, opinions and thoughts. My opinion is that it's horrible! I believe that it is murder. Babies are fully formed, in most cases,before the mother even knows that she is pregnant.

David Palmer: "Abortion is bad: there are far too many of them"

Says David Palmer, with absolutely no evidence beyond the usual emotive and hysterical claims put forward by the anti-abortion lobby.

I could just as accurately claim that abortions are good on the grounds that there are too many people already, and that there aren't enough of them because there are clearly many people born that our society would be better off without.

Except, I wouldn't - because such a claim would be as baseless and idiosyncratic as Palmer's claims on behalf of the rest of us.

Abortion is neither 'good' nor 'bad', and pontifications about how many there should or shouldn't be are irrelevant, because women will continue to have them at exactly the rate that they need. The only difference with this legislation is that it will clarify the lawfulness of their actions and provide enhanced legal protections for them and their doctors.

"... someone who is /not/ an advocate of abortion ..."

I have never met, nor even heard of, someone who *is* an advocate of abortion, Caligula and CJ Morgan above notwithstanding.

Murderous insanity is *not* advocacy of abortion.

Advocacy of population control is *not* advocacy of abortion.

Advocacy of a woman's right to choose whether to carry another life within her body and assume the responsibility of raising a child is *not* advocacy of abortion.

Carrying out abortions which are medically safe for the pregnant woman is *not* advocacy of abortion.

Choosing to have a pregnancy terminated is *not* advocacy of abortion.

No sane person approaches the killing of a living foetus in a woman's womb with eager anticipation, least of all those who are most intimately involved. I'm certain that everyone acknowledges it's a distressing thing to do.

Terminating a pregnancy is not a choice any woman takes lightly.

In suggesting that a woman considering terminating a pregnancy should be "counselled" by someone who -- by his lights -- is "not an advocate of abortion", Palmer is actually proposing that she be obliged to listen to someone who does not agree with her right to choose whether to be a mother.

I agree with Desipis and CJ Morgan- good posts.

Palmer sayd: >>Abortion is bad: there are far too many of them, and so the question to our politicians is, “what are you doing to reduce the number of them?"<<
I'd say Abortion is necessary as long as there are unwanted pregnancies which otherwise would result in unwanted children with crap lives, and likely higher rates of child abuse.

Don't you hate it when the anti-abortion brigade always say that "the number of abortions is too high": when they have no idea what the abortion rate is since there are no statistics on abortion numbers?

What are the anti-choice brigade doing to reduce unwanted pregancies? Promote free or affordable contraception for teenagers and young adults? Hmmmmm it seems they don't care about this.

Why don't they tell the politicians to improve sex education at schools?
I mean effective and realistic sex ed, not the kind of abstinence sex ed which does nothing to reduce unwanted pregnancies and increase abortion rates. Hmmmmmm it seems they don't care about this either.

If this anti-choice brigade would put effort in getting these essentials done rather than obstructing them, we might finally see a fall in the number of unwanted pregancies which will- like it or love it- reduced abortion numbers. Perhaps they'd care about that?

Well there is your problem, for a start you claim that abortion
is bad. I happen to disagree.

If people think that abortion is bad, they are free to improve
sex education, as in Holland, to reduce numbers. But religious
nuts don't want that either. So they preach abstinence.

The bad news for you is, that preaching abstinence ala George
Bush, has been shown to be a dismal failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6927733.stm

Decriminalised abortion has been linked to reductions in the number of abortions - particularly in Scandinavian countries which experience some of the lowest abortion rates in the western world.

Increased sex education regarding safe sexual activity reduces the number of abortions. I don't see an organised campaign on the issue of safe-sex (other than abstinence) emanating from the churches either.

Mr Palmer, if you don't think doctors can be trusted to advise women seeking their services perhaps we should make all surgical procedures the subject of parliamentary debate?

If an organisation like the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gyneacologists support this Bill, I wonder who are we (with limited personal experience) to judge what is best for the conditions in which they work - when providing an accepted procedure (abortion at 6 weeks) could see them jailed for ten years?

I believe that many women (and men) might feel personally that they would not want to have an abortion, but they certainly wouldn't want to see a woman in trouble denied the service of an adequately trained and supported doctor because they wouldn't themselves choose to have an abortion.

All pregnancies are bad, if the pregnant had not the sense of responsibility to take the protective measures available to keep them from that unwanted pregnancy. The pill, condoms and spermicidal used conjunctively stop it before it starts. With forethought and acceptance of personal responsibility unwanted pregnancies don't exist.
I for one, while not advocating criminalising abortion think the numbers are high and that any study into this situation might help down the road in reducing the numbers of abortions Doctors and women must endure for what ever reason today.

The only place abstinence has proven a failure is in those silly enough not to listen! It has worked very well for those with a moral conscience

Celivia said "Why don't they tell the politicians to improve sex education at schools? "

Well that would fit a common misconception that the young are the ones having abortions.

However the (unplanned) pregnancies in the young flattened out and then dropped years ago. It is still going down I believe.

Women aged 25-35 are responsible for the lions share of unplanned pregnancies and one can only guess at the reasons because there has been no research directed at this anomaly. Discounting those who arrived at post-secondary school age, those women (and their partners) would have received sex education in schools.

Explain that and you will get a large drop in abortions because few women would want to have an abortion in the first place.

If you can honestly say to yourself "my mother, parents and the world would have been better of without me," then you can logically support abortion. Suicide is not sanctioned, but it is difficult to punish successful adherants. However, accessories to a 'suicide' can be punished.

One abortion is one too many for the baby involved, and the failure rate for abortions doesn't see too many live babies around, nor too many prosecutions.

Unsuccessful suicides indicate a need for treatment, not someone to say 'here's X, now go and do it properly this time!' If one's mental capacity is despondent due to circumstances or future prospects, death is a rather direct and conclusive 'treatment' albeit cheaper for society. Terminations also need the persons to be helped.

A retrospective abortion would be referred to as murder, so placental imprisonment and 'abortion death row' are the reasons the Church doesn't support the prison death penalty, regardless of where you are. As to what the baby is guilty of, well, you be the judge...

We must address the desperation involved in any person being unwanted, be they a baby, or the old person next door who many don't want to bother with - it's obviously their decision to live alone and cut off from society. Why should I impose my concern on them.

O-oh. Another holy roller helping to take down the curtain between church and state.

Next time the pill would be outlawed and we'll be going back to the workhouse.

Well, we're an aware and literate crowd here, we're not likely to be sucked in by a bunch of backward fundamentalists.

I must notice the irony that most of the growth of the fundamentalism is in lower socio-economic groups rather than upper SES. I am an atheist, and was prior a long-lapsed catholic.

Religiously inspired twaddle. "unborn child" is begging the question, and David bloody well knows it. I can see no reason why I should respect the moral reasoning of someone who takes their moral instruction from a mythical being.

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I may not like certain provisions in our (Federal) Constitution (such as racial discrimination ) but accept that the Framers of the Constitution in their time.
.
Those men who are dead for over one hundred years with perhaps (as some claim) their outmoded views that one should look after the weak, the poor, etc obviously would be deemed to be held to be wrong, and people will now refuse their different kind of social security payments, their hospital funding, and whatever there is available on social services as who cares about the wellbeing and rights of others!
.
Or, is it just that those screaming the loudest about their right of Abortion are trampling over themselves to get first in line for social handouts because after all it is the plight of society to look after the vulnerable, the ill, the aged, etc?
.
I do not practice any religion and hence no one can accuse me of religious bias. When one of my daughters, many years ago asked me to abort her baby or not I gave her the fatherly advise that I could not make the decision for her but that I would respect her if she was to keep the baby. Years later, my daughter made known to me that because of what I had stated she holds her life is the better of it and so of the child. Yes, she decided not to abort, despite that most people were putting pressure on her to abort the child. Then again, I had previously had to visit another daughter in hospital when she was given less then 24 hours to live because (as I then discovered) an abortion had gone wrong. She survived but she regrets the day having had the abortion.
.
All those people supporting abortion just should keep in mind that they would not be alive today if it was done to them! As such their hypocritical conduct is that what was not good for them is good for others.
.
I-do-not-call "unwanted pregnancy" something-that-spontaneous-was-happening. I-would-accept-that-a-FEMALE-being-raped-may-in-certain-circumstances-have-no-option-to-abort-and-so-likewise-with-where-the-life-of-the-mother-is-in-serious-danger. Those-ought-to-be-the-exceptions-rather-then-the-rule. Any-other-time-I-view-ABORTION-is-no-less-then-MURDER!

Seether,
exactly: countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates and that’s why I don’t understand that fundies are so ‘factophobic’. Why are they ignoring this? I suspect their real agenda is oppression of women.

Aqvarivs,
I agree, however, no contraception is 100% reliable so abortion should always be free, safe and easily accessible.

Runner,
Yeah let’s all do what the morally gifted do, like...lemme see… Catholic Priests perhaps?

Cornflower,
yes you are correct that the figures appear to have moved. I’m not sure if these figures are reliable though; how can they get their figures if no proper data has been kept? I just doubt that where records are not kept one can come up with reliable statistics. I am taking any Australian abortion statistics with a grain of salt. Anyway, it doesn’t make a huge difference- education is still important in preventing pregnancies.

Reality check,
last time I checked babies do not get aborted- embryos and foetuses do- and more than 99% of abortions in the Western world happen during the early term of pregnancy.

Inner-city based transsexual,
good to see another atheist on this forum.

Bushbasher,
now that was funny and I totally agree with the use of the emotive term ‘unborn child’. Anti-choicers always use this term. An embryo is as much an unborn child as David Palmer is an undead corpse.

Mr. Gerrit,
thanks for sharing your experiences although I do not agree with you. Are you calling your daughter a murderer because she had an abortion?
Also, if my mother had chosen to abort a being without a brain or consciousness, (potentially me) it would’ve been her prerogative right as a woman.
I have two children and never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy but I respect women who have had to make this very hard choice that they didn’t want to make.

What are our politicians doing about this issue? Avoiding it, for the most part, because it's a difficult one. What might work, at least to a degree, is a change in our culture whereby all children are taught that while sex is enjoyable, and intimate, and part of loving, it is also the way babies are made, and that is one of the most serious acts any of us can undertake. It is also a way in which we can pick up nasty diseases. Therefore, we do our very best, each of us, every time, to practise safe sex, until we are in an apparently permanent, serious, long-term relationship and are desiring to make a baby that we are able to care for.

That won't eliminate abortions, but it ought to reduce their frequency. Yet I never hear anti-abortionists going down this path. It's as though they think people should simply put off having sex, like putting off buying a house. Life isn't like that.

David Palmer “Abortion is bad: there are far too many of them, and so the question to our politicians is, “what are you doing to reduce the number of them?”

Abortion might be “bad”.

I certainly see no reason to brag about any “abortion rate” statistic.

but I see the “abortion rate” as something no politician is responsible for doing anything to reduce the numbers thereof. Why?

Because the decision to procure an abortion is a private matter pursued by a private individual and not something that or should be at the behest of government or the “politicians” who are supposed to represent us.

Far worse than a “bad abortion rate” would be a legislative environment imposed upon women which would deny them the right to exercise sovereignty over their own bodies.

Far worse than an abortion rate is where women are reduced and demeaned by having to pursue a pregnancy against their individual will simply to appease the sensibilities of others.

runner “The only place abstinence has proven a failure is in those silly enough not to listen! It has worked very well for those with a moral conscience”

Nothing like the judgemental barking of the self-righteous echoing the cause of the anti-abortionists.

When I am personally responsible for the outcome or consequences of a pregnancy and / or abortion, I will want to exercise my right to manage that responsibility.

In the mean time, I will respect the decisions those individuals who are personally responsible for the outcome of a pregnancy, supporting their right of choice as priority above and before the moral anguish of the non-responsible bystanders, church leaders and politicians

Cornflower claims that the 'lions share' of abortions are sought by women between the ages of 25-35, their prime career years.

If anti-abortionists really wish to reduce the numbers of abortions sought by women in this age group they could put their energy into demanding the changes and improvements needed to maternity leave allowances, child-care access and women's pay issues, so that having a child is not such a fraught decision

Why is it so difficult for the anti-choice brigade to understand that when legal an abortion will not be forced upon them? YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Promise.

You can choose to continue with your pregnancy to full term, like the majority of women do. Bearing in mind of course that 1 in 7 pregnancies result in a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)anyway.

Cornflower, I'm not sure that abortion 'statistics' in Australia can remotely be relied upon. Many gynea procedures like D&C's are included. These would be more common in the age bracket you mentioned than with young women. Many women who have had miscarriages would have a D&C. Or if there is intermittent between menstrual cycle bleeding.

As Celivia and Yabby pointed out, legal abortion does not result in more abortions. Abortions are not reduced by making them illegal. Gerrit can attest to that with the heart breaking story of one of his daughters. Abortions are reduced by clear and explicit sex education.

Runner, in the USA abstinence is a big movement. It is a Western nation with a very, very high rate of single underage pregnancies AND abortions. Wouldn't you rather reduce the number of abortions and underage single mothers? Leave it up to your God to deal with those who have 'sinned' by being unchaste, at least it would be less likely that they 'killed'.

Xoddam, great post. The most distressing issue with these discussions is always the implied opinion of some that women would undertake a termination of a pregnancy lightly.

Celivia, yvonne

Numbers are available from the Health Insurance Commission. Quoted here:

www.fpq.com.au/factsheets_brochures/student_info/Abortion_statistics.pdf

"The only place abstinence has proven a failure is in those silly enough not to listen! It has worked very well for those with a moral conscience"

Lol runner, clearly nobody is listening, or it would show up in
the figures, despite the hundreds of millions of $ spent by the
Bush regime, preaching it. Come to think of it, he can't even
keep his girls off the grog, let alone preach to the masses.

Come to think of some more.. All those priests and preachers whom
we know about, who according to you have no moral conscience, despite
years of religious seminary attendance, IMHO would only be the tip
of the iceberg. How many cover ups are going on, that we don't know
about?

Ignore nature at your peril. Sex is normal and natural. When people
try to pretend its not, what you land up with is a disaster, as
the evidence shows.

Time to rethink things runner, clearly you are barking up the
wrong tree.

Palmer is so desperate to show that abortion is immoral that he resorts to teaming with ancient Greeks (all men?). Hmmmm I could zoom back in time as well and team with all the ancient women who thought that abortion was necessary and not immoral. And guess what, despite abortions there are 6 billion people now. Abortion has always been around and always will be as long as there are unwanted pregnancies.

Palmer pretends to care about women by warning that there’s risks associated with abortion. He forgets that there’s risks associalted with pregnancies and giving birth as well. He also forgets that backyard abortions are even riskier.

I’d rather see someone staple a condom to the Bill than a warning about risk. I’m sure women are well informed of risk by their doctor prior to the abortion.

Deddy,
your post is a fresh breath, thank you.

Col,
in a previous abortion discussion I disagreed with you when you were not in favour of statistics because I thought if there are reliable facts and figures, then at least the anti-choice brigade can’t constantly overestimate abortion rates.
Also keeping track of the numbers can show us how we compare with other countries, and how well we are doing in reducing the rates.

For example, I find it interesting to know that in the US, abortion numbers were steadily decreasing until Bush came in; ever since Bush the number of abortions have been on the increase.
Now I can agree with your perspective also- I don’t really care about abortion rates and it is indeed a private matter. I can see positives for both sides and am sitting on the fence on this one.
What do others think?

Yvonne
Funnyyyy…I felt like shouting also but you beat me to it! Your D&C point is a very valid one, thanks.

LOL, Yabby, now I want statistics of cover-ups also.

Cornflower,
I can’t get the link to work, will try again tomorrow. I suspect that these figures are either guestimates though, because no proper data have been kept.

David Palmer might wonder why most Presbyterians joined the Uniting Church leaving a small rump of conservatives to battle on as the Presbyterian Church. Newsflash David, perhaps its because people respond poorly to the emotional blackmail that your article recommends.

When women are able to control their fertility they have fewer unwanted children which leads to a reduction in the juvenile delinquency rates 18 years later. Monty Python questioned whether "Every sperm was sacred" and I have no problem with a high abortion rate. I do have concerns over children being born into environments without the opportunity to reach their full potential due to parental poverty, parental disinterest or parental incompetence.

If David Palmer wants to increase the fertility rate then he should promote policies that
* enable people to look to the future in confidence
* enable people to buy their own housing or rent accommodation for a reasonable portion of their incomes,
* ensure that workers have control over their hours of work,
* guarantee minimum wages,
* ensure that workers don't have 1 hour commutes from home to work, ensure adequate child care
* ensure children and mothers have access to good quality health care regardless of income
* ensure that good quality education is accessible.

Demographers have pointed out that in times of Depression, like the 1930s, the Australian birth rate falls.

There is a number of posters demanding that others make sure all is perfect in the world before they have children. I'm assuming this must be the major reason behind those having abortions since the attitude seems prevalent with the pro abortion crowd. I don't really care what your personal opinion is on abortion, whether you have one or not. My sympathy is with the Doctor's having to perform some 100,000 each year. I'm only ever so happy that my parents didn't have such an attitude wanting everything laid out for them before they had their family. I remember having to go with out but, I also remember the joy of contributing, helping my family through the bare times. The yin and yang of life. The utopian world never arrives and while waiting, not willing to act before perfection, life will have passed you by

We are all glad our 'parents' didn't put off having children till every thing was perfect, but to assume that 'parents' is a useful term in describing the relationships of the women seeking abortions is a flawed assumption. It may be the model that is still held to be 'normal', but that doesn't mean that it automatically reflects the reality.

aqvarivs you are right that utopia will always be elusive, that in itself is precisely the reason why issues of financial security for women are important

aqvarivs said "There is a number of posters demanding that others make sure all is perfect in the world before they have children."

No, women are often faced with a stark choice of have an abortion or rear this child in poverty. In Australia we are not talking about risking life and limb searching through minefields to collect dung beetles, grasshoppers and frogs for your daily protein. No we are talking about insufficient food in the house for breakfast for the kids, or missing other meals, kids going to school in greying hand me down uniforms. School children are very cruel towards those with disability, those with fragile egos, those who wear tattered clothes and those who smell. Research shows that poverty in Australia relates strongly to poor health outcomes, higher rates of mental illness, lower school retention rates, higher reliance on help from outside agencies, lower income as an adult. Poverty is also strongly related to solo parenting

Some people are resilient and will overcome any adversity thrown at them but why should people who know they are not resilient be forced to struggle to rear children into a poorer childhood than they themselves enjoyed. Australia has returned to a Malthusian society where parents can no longer assume that their children will have a more comfortable life because we have draconian IR laws and we are outstripping our food, energy and water supply.

When you remember that 80% of Australian households are 1 month from being plunged into poverty you have a clearer idea why women chose not to proceed with pregnancy.

Well billie, As one of the 80% poor my wife and I manage to raise three children, feed, clothe, nurture and love with out wearing the latest in fashion, or having all the latest hip gadgets. We aren't trendy and cool perhaps but, what we do have we take care of and don't treat everything as disposable. I drive a 13 year old second hand vehicle, maintain it myself, and she runs like a top. My wife and I buy the best value clothes for the cheapest prices we can get. You wont find us on the cover of the latest trend mag but, I've never caught anyone sneering at our dress yet either. Not that I'd probably notice. And my youngest daughter wears clothes (hand-me-downs) from her older sister as she grows into them. I haven't seen too much evidence of emotional and physical scaring. We manage three home cooked meals a day. Would never manage by eating out on junk food or restaurants. Then again my wife and I live life as each day arrives. Teach our children values and self-discipline that will see them through life. Manage to pay our bills in a timely fashion, aren't in debt, and put away a couple of dollars for a rainy day. We do all this on poor. There was never any question of waiting till we had everything before we began to live.
I'm not saying everyone should have children but, I don't think abortion is anything to be pro. I'm more in favour of self-responsibility and education.
I saw a homeless man the other day pushing around two carts of junk. Not recyclables, just junk. I suppose he thought he had a full life. There is a number of single and married people just the same. Their junk is just more expensive. Of course if they had children they would have to relate to them, care for them, nurture them, and that is probably the real issue with the "type" of people having abortions in an affluent Australia.

Celivia “I disagreed with you when you were not in favour of statistics because I thought if there are reliable facts and figures,.... Also keeping track of the numbers can show us how we compare with other countries, and how well we are doing in reducing the rates.”

I look upon it this way

Abortions are no one elses business.

Asking for incidence of abortion is as invasive to the privacy of a person as asking the incidence of sexual coupling or "bedroom preferences".

Whilst it might be nice to know the rates and frequencies of couplings, it is really no one elses business but the couple who do the coupling or similarly the woman who seeks the abortion.

Inter-state / international comparisons to frequency of abortion or coupling might be of some use to sociologist but since they are in no position to "influence" such frequencies, it becomes of prurient interest only.

I guess, what is private, is private and best not presented as a matter for public inspection, analysis, critique or concern.

Billie presuming “economic circumstance” as the driver for abortions is deceptive, especially when you use it to simultaneously badger the IR laws (which merely reflect the contractual arrangements which I have practiced for myself over the past 20 years) and which have been enacted by the duly elected government who govern for Australians as a whole and not just for the union bosses.

Whilst I a sure the rate of abortion might decline if every woman seeking one was financially secure, abortions would not be eliminated simply because, the prevailing reason for abortion is a product of individuals exercising their individual right of choice and preference. The wealthy and secure woman might decide she does not want to be pregnant at a particular time or be tied by any bond to an accidental or involuntary sperm source. So it remains her choice, to carry or abort and I only hope she is happy with the result of what she chooses, because she will no recourse to anyone else if she finds herself dissatisfied with the outcome.

"it is really no one elses business but the couple who do the coupling or similarly the woman who seeks the abortion."

Exactly, well said! Its part of the core of this argument.

In a secular democracy, tolerance is the key and I'm becoming
intolerant of the intolerant. Nobody is forcing anyone to
have an abortion. Nobody is denying anyone the right to believe
in whatever God, Yahwee, Jehova, Allah, witchcraft, ghosts,
or whatever other supernatural powers they wish to believe in.

Believe whatever you want, but your rights don't extend to
forcing others to believe the same. Without that kind of
tolerance, we'll land up having the same religious wars as have
gone on for centuries, all in the name of the supposed gods.

Some people will want to have children, some won't. Let people
decide what they want, keep the State out of it.

Celivia,
After my first marriage (3 children) I became married again to a woman who had a 1 year old son. I had him then as my biological son (albeit he now knows I am not-in fact I took him to his biological father-who passed away three months later due to illness- but my son still let me know that for him I am his real father.) My second wife then had out child and thereafter she became pregnant from who knows, but I never even considered an abortion. To him I am his father. I then was going to divorce my second wife but discovered she was pregnant again, With the likelihood that it could be my child I withdrew the divorce application, but after the birth of the daughter divorced my wife and she no longer got herself pregnant.
While I was on my own I happen to get a woman pregnant, who according to the court was neglecting the child as a baby so I ended up bringing up this daughter since she was a baby.
To me all my children are equally to me, regardless if not biological connected to me! I never contemplated any abortion as after all my parents gave the right to live and so who am I to deny any other child to have the same right?
It is nonsense to argue that 50,000 or so a year abortions are all unwanted pregnancies. I take the position that an unwanted pregnancy is where a female is raped, there is a real danger to the mothers life or where despite all kinds of precautions taken there was still a pregnancy. Even in those circumstances I view not all of those unwanted pregnancies should be terminated.
My daughter who kept the baby was in fact raped! And, she made clear about everyone was pressing her to have an abortion but she held I was her rock of Gibraltar!
Too many women are pressured to have an abortion because it is so cheap, rather then for a man having to pay child support

On a moral basis, the person who should decide whether or not is the person who is pregnant. Everyone else should just butt out. And no, don't give me that nonesense about a feotus having rights. They're not persons.

On a functional basis, abortion may be bad, but it is less bad than the individual and social effects unwanted children.

Lev (adopted in my first year)

Just checking in with some responses, though ignoring comments that are abusive or fail to engage with my argument.

Part 1

Desipis

Re my claim abt public perception of late term abortions and sheer numbers of abortions, I’m not quoting particular surveys but remembering reports of such surveys – you are at liberty to quote surveys disproving my assertion – however I think it is correct – though of course survey results do not drive my objection to, indeed abhorrence of abortion.

I think you are all together too sanguine about a woman caught with an unwanted pregnancy “to think or act independently”. There is considerable anecdotal evidence to support my contention re the input of boyfriends, etc.

You speak of emotional torture showing images of the unborn child, but I will assert that we are meant to protect that which cannot protect itself. I thought that is what it means to be human, and not necessarily just a Christian conviction. Furthermore it is a fact that wrongdoing can cause emotional torture for the wrongdoer, for no one is without a conscience, however inconvenient a conscience can be.
I see you are not a tolerant person for I see you advocate 1) pro life people should never become doctors and 2) doctors are not entitled to possessing ethical principles, especially if they run against those of the patient. Ummmm..

Ho Hum

Too self indulgent by half with too many easy straw men to knock down!
You obviously are not familiar with the bible and some of its purple prose.

My wife and I (and we virgins when we married and thank God neither of us have strayed) rather enjoy our sexual life together. However sex is not a commodity like drugs or alcohol – it is a binding together of two lives, in what the Bible calls a one flesh male female relationship, open to children, a most wonderful glorious thing.

Part 2

V Amberlee

We agree!

CJ Morgan

We disagree.

Xoddam

I don’t believe I suggested anyone approaches the killing of “a living foetus” aka an unborn child with eager anticipation. I in fact comment on the widely recognised stress many women suffer as a result of an abortion (and could have commented on that of some men as well (interesting how men are out of the equation, but I will come back to this point shortly)

Celivia

I think you are my main opponent. Greetings.

You have your head in the sand over the abortion numbers. In citing more than one child aborted for 3 live births I was in fact quoting Lachlan J de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu in their MJA 2004; 181 (4):201-203 article.

We have had sex education in schools for years and years and it has proved an abject failure in getting the level of abortions down.
You ask what the anti choice brigade are doing to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

This question lies at the heart of the issue and arises from the breakdown of the taboos that once prevailed in our society not all that long ago - - not always observed to be sure, but nevertheless overwhelmingly observed – no sex outside marriage!

These taboos, moral values grounded in the Judeo Christian tradition and evident in Islam as well, had great consequences, most notably marriages and often but not always early, children desired and loved, children overwhelmingly brought up, nurtured by a father and a mother (war, disease and the occasional divorce permitting. I commend to you Gertrude Himmelfarb’s “The Demoralisation of Society”.

To be continued

"However sex is not a commodity like drugs or alcohol – it is a binding together of two lives, in what the Bible calls a one flesh male female relationship, open to children, a most wonderful glorious thing."

What sex is to you, does not mean it applies to everyone else
David! You are free to live your life by your definitions.
Please respect that others might agree to disagree and choose
to live their lives differently.

Over the years, I have had some wonderful sexual experiences with
close friends, the memories of which I will always cherish. They
were filled with emotion and love. The bible had nothing to do
with it, for to me and the marority of others its irrelevant.

The bible says that I should kill my neighbour for working on the
sabbath, I happen to like me neighbour, so refuse to comply.

Fact is that sometimes we want different things from life, so no
matter how much we love somebody, we want to follow our dreams.
That certainly does not make the sex wrong, it just means that
we don't see the world through your narrow Xtian glasses.

Unless you Xtians learn a bit of tolerance, the feuding will go
on forever. The difference is that now we secular people can
express ourselves, unlike a few hundred years ago, when the
Xtians used to burn people like us at the stake! So much
for the "Jesus loves you" story.

Obviously David Palmer has never heard of Alfred Kinsey. While his data may not have been perfect it has certainly shown that David's view of sex is not a reality in society at large.

And Yabby, I believe that you are incorrect, Jesus does love you it's just the Christians that don't.

Mr Gerrit,
You seem to have a big and loving heart. I only hope that you showed love when your daughter had an abortion. For whatever reason a woman decides to have an abortion, it’s her personal reason.

Col and Yabby,
I have to agree, from that perspective abortion figures are no one else’s business.

Lev,
You’re correct- a foetus or embryo is not a person and rights pertain only to an actual human being, not to a potential one.

David Palmer,
You have a good point that the input of women’s partners may influence her decision. I can imagine that some women don’t want to continue their pregnancy without the support of a partner.
Are you suggesting that her partner should be able to get advice and support also, to put him in a better position to support his pregnant partner if she chooses to continue her pregnancy?

I would agree that pregnant women should have access to an unbiased counselor who would show her all her options. After consideration, her decision should then be respected.
David, but how did Crespigny and Savulescu arrive at these numbers when accurate data haven’t been kept by Medicare and hospitals?

Sex ed aint sex ed! In the Netherlands, sex education is excellent- I know because I went to school there. My children at Australian schools have received laughable sex ed. Also, when I came to Australia I was surprised that I had to pay for contraception!
I wondered if students had that kind of money?

To be continued

“no sex outside marriage!”
That’s a bit unrealistic, even my grandmother and almost all of her female friends got pregnant before marrying the boyfriends!
Except her older sister, she had an abortion by her boyfriend’s father who was a GP and didn’t want his church to know! This was in the early 1920’s.

I lived with my husband for about 4 years before getting married and starting a family.
Did I have sex during these four years? Of course!
Did I get pregnant? No, we used contraception wisely.

Why is sex before marriage wrong- it’s just one other aspect of getting to know someone.
In a relationship, partners try to find out many things about each other, and sexual expression is just part of it all. It’s natural.
I'd hate to marry someone only to find out that we were sexually incompatible.

The latest stats show that Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists; perhaps that’s because they don’t try before they buy, who knows. Divorce is unfortunate but necessary- why stay together if partners don’t love each other?

Yabby
You are not a very good Christian that you don’t kill your neighbours for mowing the lawn on the Sabbath!
This is an excellent example of how Christians just pick and choose what they want to accept from the Bible and ignore the rest.
Perhaps one of the differences between Christians and atheists is that Christians ignore some things the Bible instructs them to do and atheists ignore the rest as well.

Celivia, I am neither pro or anti life, so to say, just that I value the life of any unborn child but do accept that in special circumstances an abortion may be needed, such as to safe the life of the mother, like in emergency operations. With my daughter who had the Abortion, I had no contact with her due to the divorce with her mother, and the first contact was when I was called to the hospital as she had been given less then 24 hour to live. She had the abortion and complications and given up the will to live. I then, so to say, lectured her that no man is worth to risk her life for and she better get over it and a man who went as far as to force her in the circumstances to have an abortion wasn’t worth to have. My daughter was initial upset about this but later admitted that she was glad I spoke to her as she realised I was right. She is now happily married (Not to the coward, who claimed not being allowed to have children before marriage because of his religion- to me a nonsense as it is more likely not to have sex before marriage!). but the price she is paying she can never conceived children and that is to her a burden as she would like to have children.
As for my daughter who didn’t abort, she knows that she herself was the product of rape, where as a man I was in fact raped by her mother (Yes, this does happen also, strange but true) but it never affected my parental care to my daughter! I did bring her up as a single father and I view it was one of the best parts of my life. My personal view is that no married woman should be forced having to go to work for financial reasons as the income of the husband should be sufficient, as the care of children is far to important to leave it to others. I-cared-at-one-stage-full-time-for-up-to-5-of-my-children, with-two-teenagers-having-been-home-schooled-by-me! They-are-all-adults-now,-but-no-one-can-rob-me-of-the-years-of-enjoying-parenting.

Bugsy wrote:
"Obviously David Palmer has never heard of Alfred Kinsey."

It seems that Bugsy also has not heard of Kinsey otherwise he/she would know that he has been largely discredited in recent years for scientific fraud and criminally derived data involving child sexual abuse. For example, Kinsey's research into human sexuality included gathering data about sexual arousal in infants, toddlers and children, which involved prolonged sexual stimulation of same. As Kinsey associate Paul Gebhard revealed in an interview, in some cases the data was gathered by nursery school personnel.

One of Kinsey's most prominent disciples was Dr.John Money, a leading sexologist at Johns Hopkins University. He wrote of the need to legalize sex with children in the "Journal of Paedophilia"

Continuing my post from yesterday

Celivia,

My observation in the Presbyterian Church is that our young people marry young and don’t waste too much time starting a family. I think the same applies in other branches of the Christian Church, and according to many reports the same is true of Muslims. If the non religious and atheists are so keen on abortion rights, doesn’t that raise questions about their long term survival several generations down the track? But maybe the non religious and atheists are so focussed on themselves, they don’t give a thought to future generations……?

The point I readily concede is that for traditional views to prevail, it appears you need religion.

Bushbasher

You object to my descriptor, “unborn child” – I suggest you get hold of the National Geographic book, “In the Womb” and see if you can still object to my use of “unborn child”.

Col Rouge

You speak of women having the right to exercise sovereignty over their own bodies and yet fail to understand that “the problem” has only arisen because, actually, a man and a woman did something together, and the man did so without any commitment to the woman so that that living growing thing you may call a foetus and I an unborn child indeed becomes “the problem”, for it was not the anticipated outcome of mutual love between the two, and therein I suggest lies the heart of the matter as far as this discussion is concerned.

Bye for now

David, I'm not sure how many previous abortion threads that you
have followed on OLO, but rest assured that its been discussed at
length, you raise no points previously not raised.

The debate has also progressed well past pictures in National
Geographic. Fact is if it hasn't got a a functioning human
brain, then its not a person, so not yet an unborn child.
You are confusing say week 5-10 with say week 30, a big
difference! Sorry, but at week 5-10, its not yet an unborn
child, so emotive rhetoric won't make your point.

Given that the world population has gone from 1.5 billion
to 6.5 billion in the last 100 years and is still increasing
at 80 million a year, I hardly think that Australia is
about to be short of people in the future. Fact is that
if the lot of us died, the rest of the world's increase
in population would replace us in just 90 days.

But then as we see with Pete's baby bonus, a few bucks
and they can't keep up with all those babies at the
maternity hospitals.

The secular movement certainly has nothing to fear, when
it comes to numbers. It is true that the better educated
have less children. What is also true is that with advances
like the internet, people are becoming far better informed.
Better information also leads to more rational thought,
some of that brainwashing of children by the religious
wears off for most, once they can inform themselves.
Given that only about 8-9% of people bother to go to
churches at all, no matter how fast the religious breed,
we will re educate them once they are out of your clutches :)

You might well be bogged down in believing in tradition.
To me it matters not a hoot, for I have long ago realised
and accepted that the most permanent thing in life is
change. Ignore it at your peril

apis, you can calm down now and stop being such a rabid nitwit. Whatever Kinsey's faults I'm pretty sure that he did not advocate child molestation. And whatever conclusions that he may have made, however erroneous, there was one irrefutable observation and contribution that he has made. He has shown that there are are a very wide range of sexual practices and attitudes to sex out there. And subsequent surveys on sex have shown that whatever your attitude or view on what sex is, is unlikely to be shared by a great majority of people. Thus it is irrelevant what you think sex should be, and its bearing on abortion.

I see we are back to fine descriptors of what constitutes life in order to justify killing. "Abortion is fine cuz we're kill'n nothing."

Mr Gerrit
I’m feeling for your daughter that the abortion has caused her to be infertile. She was very unfortunate; one wouldn’t expect an abortion to go wrong when it’s done by a doctor in a clinic or hospital; childbirth generally carries more risk than abortion.

David Palmer
“…marry young and don’t waste too much time starting a family.”
I am sure that a young couple wouldn't ‘waste time’ by being together; it can be very enjoyable time for a couple to spend a few years together before changing nappies. Some couples remain childless- are they wasting their lives?

“…non religious and atheists… don’t give a thought to future generations……?”
As Yabby pointed out, people are getting more educated; it will become harder to fool them with incredible stories from the Bible. Gods, throughout history, have always been disposable; it’s just a matter of time that this one will be disposed of as well. Science is constantly contradicting the Bible; even after 2000+ years, nobody has actually come up with any evidence that the God of Abraham actually exists.


“…for traditional views to prevail, it appears you need religion.”
What traditional views from the past can you think of that you are happy to have lost?
It’s all in the zeitgeist- you can’t help that the zeitgeist changes. I’m sure that even fundamental Christians wouldn’t want to go back to the traditional view that stoning homosexuals to death was the right thing to do. That cutting off your own hand as Jesus advised is the right thing to do for people who are tempted to steal. To beat up your ‘servants’ if they didn’t work hard enough would also not do very well as a traditional view today.
Once, these were the traditional views. Now, they are gone, despite what scripture says. Good riddance!
Seems to me we don't need religion at all.

Why should religion have the monopoly on morals while it’s obvious that many of the morals of the Bible are outdated and deliberately ignored by Christians as God or Jesus were obviously wrong about these 'values'.

Consider this;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
.
Let everyone have their religion for themselves and consider that regardless of religion or non-religion we are all human beings.
Those who cannot manage their own lives and tired of it should not use this as an excuse to justify abortions to take place.
.

I view that when a couple engage in sex they are aware a pregnancy can eventuate from this and both must be held accountable. Not just that the woman can pursue a man for maintenance but has all the rights to terminate the baby. It was a joint efford! A woman who engage in sex by this accept no longer to be the boss over her own body if she conceives, as she accepted the consequences for the child and its rights. Neither can the man get out of it!
.
It is not an issue of the mother or fathers right but that of the (unborn) baby's rights!

David Palmer .. your farewell suggests you are merely a hit and run merchant, having a say but not hanging around to defend your position or the weaknesses in your argument.

Regarding “for it was not the anticipated outcome of mutual love between the two, and therein I suggest lies the heart of the matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”

The debate is not about the outcome of sexual congress. Most times the outcome is nothing more than a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction, occasionally preceded by much screaming and gasping.

When condoms fail, pills malfunction etc. then the outcome might be an unrequired pregnancy.

So what? It is nothing to do with you. You are not obligated to wear sackcloth and ashes.

However, just as copulation is a private endeavour, so to any pregnancy is a private endeavour,

The copulation would have involved two people. The pregnancy however, involves predominantly one person, the woman (as a father I can vouch, the “duress on my body” was limited to practically nothing throughout the gestation periods of my daughters).

That you are not one of the copulating participants leaves your opinion and authority right out there in the cold.

Your view just does not matter and you should try to avoid interfering or attempting to impose your moral decisions into the lives of people who you do not know.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “It is not an issue of the mother or fathers right but that of the (unborn) baby's rights!”

(Borrowing what I have just written on another post)

The rights of the unborn are the same as the rights of the un-conceived. If an unborn’s or unconceived’s rights were to prevail over the woman’s, you are declaring every pregnant woman a slave to her biology.

You are reducing her to being merely a vessel for procreation and production of the next generation

and that is a heinous position to debate from

Bugsy wrote:

"Whatever Kinsey's faults I'm pretty sure that he did not advocate child molestation."

Bugsy, instead of having a fit of mental convolutions why not just do your homework and get your facts straight. Or are you afraid that factual evidence will shatter your comfortable illusions?

However, you musn't expect those who have a genuine concern to take seriously your suggestion that the likes of Kinsey and the other scoundrels in his entourage should be put on a pedestal from there to dictate to the masses what their worldview should be on important matters concerning their humanity.

Sheesh, you will have to do better than that.

Col Rouge,
Re “(Borrowing what I have just written on another post)” I had not read that post of yours and as such did not borrow it, otherwise I would have acknowledged it.
As for “You are reducing her to being merely a vessel for procreation and production of the next generation and that is a heinous position to debate from”, that I view is inappropriately stated. If I did not take part in the conceiving of a child then the persons doing so themselves are binding themselves to, so to say, a contract that the (unborn) child has rights, neither-party-can-disregard.
Why should it be that the moment a woman is pregnant the father can be held legally accountable for cost associate with the pregnancy and a person who harms the unborn child can be legally held accountable but somehow the mother can harm the child without responsibilities? Come on. If a woman doesn’t like to be some incubator for a child then she can ordinary avoid it in the first place. I have made clear I have no religious views in that regard and neither oppose the abortion of a child where special circumstances exist that might jeopardise the life of the mother but to take it that 50,000 or 1200,000 or more abortions a year all are special circumstance is absurd. I taught my sons that if they get a woman pregnant then they have to accept responsibilities for this. Likewise I expect women to likewise accept responsibilities for getting pregnant. It is not relevant that the woman is the incubator (so to say) for the child, as she knows that from onset. That is the part she plays in the human evolution process. I do not demand women to procreate at all, merely state that if they take the decision to copulate they know the risk. If they don’t like to have the risk then it is up to them to avoid it in the first place! Simple as that.
A woman's function is not to procreate rather it is her ability to do so. As-such, if-she-makes-the-decision-then-she-must-be-bound-by-it-and-accept-the-consequences-as-much-as-a-man-has-to.

"I do not demand women to procreate at all, merely state that if they take the decision to copulate they know the risk. If they don’t like to have the risk then it is up to them to avoid it in the first place! Simple as that."

Hang on, sex is not exactly illegal! Why should a woman not have
choices about her life, how many children she has etc?

The issue here is the so called "holy zygote". Thats a religious
concept. You might not be religious, but it seems you are promoting
it.

People flush live sperms and ova down the world's toilets every
day, without giving it a second thought. When they want to do
the same with zygotes, you have a problem. Why at this point?

Most people respect the sanctity of life in terms of other people,
not in terms of organisms. Zygotes are organisms, not yet people.
An acorn is an acorn, not yet an oak tree!

As is often stated here, you personally are free to do as you like,
free to teach your children whatever you like. But you are not free
to force others to live by your rules. If a woman wants to have
an abortion, that is her business, not your business.

The issue here is not feminism, as aqva always likes to presume.
Its about peoples rights. Zygotes are not people.

Excuse me yabby, but why pull a punk stunt like that and drag me into your 'I hate God rant'. It's one thing to misconstrue Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka's post to justify your attack on religion. It's another to drag someone who isn't even connected into the argument only to slander them as part of your justification. Aren't you the one always lipping off about how moral and ethical you are. It would be nice to see an example of it sometime.
For the record. I'm neither pro nor con. I believe the answer lies with personal education and personal responsibility. I don't think there is anything about abortion to be pro about. There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is being abused. In this day and age medical science has fine tuned prenatal and delivery care to the ninth degree. A women in jeopardy from being pregnant is very rare. Now a women deciding to not want to be pregnant in all honesty should have taken the necessary steps to ensure a new life wasn't initiated.
With rights comes responsibility. Not something preached by the pro abortionist. Or you yabby.

Seems that there is a need for the invention and manufacturing of artificial wombs which the anti-abortion male brigade are welcome to take along on their missions to abortion clinics.
They can then have a newly aborted embryo implanted into this womb to take home, care for, love and keep off the streets for the next 21 years.
Perhaps in the future men can even have an artificial womb implanted in their body and be pregnant ala Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie “Junior”.

Females from the anti-abortion brigade can offer their wombs for implantation today- and if there is a law against that, they can always lobby to change it.

Aqva honey, no "I hate God" rants at all, as you foolishly
presume. It's "I object to people who claim to be in touch
with the claimed Gods, trying for force others to live by
their agenda"

Given that you are posting on both abortion threads, where is
the stunt? So yup, you are certainly connected with the argument.
You rant against feminists. You rant on about the statistics
of which white women have abortions.

If some women want to be feminists, with or without hairy armpits,
its
their business, not your business. If some career women want
to have an abortion, its their business not your business.
If they happen to be white, brown or green, its their business
not your business.

Lead your life as you see fit and according to your values,
but please give others the same rights to live theirs.

Yup, some women land up pregnant, they made a mistake somewhere.
You don't make mistakes? Why should they be forced to live
by your moral agenda, because they happen to be human and
made a mistake?

The "holy zygote" is purely a religious concept. Why should
any of us take notice of others religious concepts?

Its time that you learned some tolerance Aqva. Tolerance of
feminists who want to be feminists. Tolerance of white career
women who prefer to be career women. Its their business how
they lead their lives, not your business

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “had not read that post of yours and as such did not borrow it, otherwise I would have acknowledged it.”

I know, I was referring to myself and me using similar text on two posts.

“If I did not take part in the conceiving of a child then the persons doing so themselves are binding themselves to, so to say, a contract that the (unborn) child has rights, neither-party-can-disregard.”

Beware, you are on dangerous ground

1 any contract can only be enforced between two parties who are both in agreement with the terms and conditions.

2 the individuals must be of an age to understand the implications of the “contract”.

3 The courts have always recognized the nature of many human exchanges and interactions as not being bound by contract law, example a will or bequest.

I could go on about the inane application of contract law, almost forever but those three will do.

As for “are binding themselves to, so to say, a contract that the (unborn) child has rights"

when you can produce the "contract" to support that assertion, then you can enforce it, until then you are merely “blowing air”.

Re “the moment a woman is pregnant the father can be held legally accountable”

That is reasonable

Regarding

“somehow the mother can harm the child without responsibilities?”

In the case of abortion, the mothers own body is the vehicle at risk during pregnancy, not the fathers. It is reasonable that with such risk comes the right to decide on action.

Re” As-such, if-she-makes-the-decision-then-she-must-be-bound-by-it-and-accept-the-consequences-as-much-as-a-man-has-to.”

I would note, you, as an observer, have nothing at risk either physically, paternally, financially or contractually and thus should not get to have a say in what does not concern you or your own welfare or sensibilities.

Finally, since you would not be a participating signatory in any "contract", you would have no right of redress or to demand specific performance under that contract.

Celivia, love the idea of artificial wombs. Methinks the whole anti-abortion debate would then deflate like a balloon!

Gerrit, did your daughter with the botched abortion have it done by a qualified doctor in a clinic? Her story at any rate belies the theory that an abortion is an 'easy' option without risk that women would flock to if legalised.

David, as Celivia pointed out, sex ed ain't sex ad. What passes for sex ed in Australia is excruciating in its inaneness. It is totally illogical not to connect the occurence of abortions with the need for education on responsible sexual practices.

It is also not reasonable to quote 50,000 abortions from whichever source for the simple fact that there is no specific 'abortion' procedure. The gyneacological procedures that are done to procure abortions are also done for other reasons.

For those who think that an abortion would only be allowed to 'save' the mother's life. Why do you then think a woman's life takes precedence (has more rights) over the new life? Either a life is of equal value and has equal rights or you agree it doesn't. Why should the unborn baby be killed just because its mother might die?

And save in which circumstances exactly? Is she allowed one if she needs chemotherapy for Cancer? Is she allowed one if she has a mental illness which could mean self destruction if she stops medication? And who is to decide on the severity of the threat to the woman's life? Another person? Very likely not somebody who actually knows the woman.

Acknowledging the fact that there is a man involved, the carrying through with a pregnancy remains the sole burden of a willing and able woman. There is no getting around from that until the artificial wombs are available. Till such time, it remains mainly a woman's 'problem' to deal with. It is unreasonable with the medical knowledge that we have that a woman can be forced to risk her life because there are some who disagree with her decision that she cannot carry through with a pregnancy.

Yabby, if you want to respond to a posting on another thread click on that link. It's not that tough and a you'll find with a little practice others will be able to follow your rants and demands that every one should be allowed to do as they please with out consequence or responsibility.
Most women posting are forever whinging about their rights, while in the year come September that I have been posting to OLO very few ever admitted to their responsibility before or after the fact.
I was never anti-abortion, always pro-choice hoping that initiatives other than abortion would be put forward by the feminist that constituted real empowerment. However the easy way out has prevailed. Thinking, planning, using protection is way too complicated and requires forethought. And I guess for some forethought is anti-freedom. Must be why AIDS is now spread by women and not gay men. The gay community caught on to using protection.
Oh well. AIDS, abortion. In the end it's all the same thing really. A body is killed due to lack of forethought.

'Most' women, Aqvarivs, whinging about their rights, but neglecting their responsibilities? I almost choked on my wine! Most men are whinging about their rights not to have to pay child maintenance if not involved in deciding to continue a pregnancy. Or they are insisting a foetus has the same rights as a woman. Rights?!

Women have on the whole tried to point out that maybe, just maybe they also have a right to make a decision regarding a pregnancy seeing it involves their bodies. Not only men and foetuses.

The vast majority of children born are born to women who are very aware of their responsibilities. In fact the majority of the 'selfish' women who have abortions do so because they are fully aware of the enormous responsibilities of bringing a child into the world.

There remains this underlying tenor amongst many men, that if a woman falls pregnant she deserves whatever is coming to her. A man gets of scott free, no risk to him of any kind whatever. Though he has his irresponsible bit of fun he will still loudly complain, whinge and carry on about child maintenance because this irresponsible woman tricked him into a pregnancy. Completely focused only on any financial burden. But if a woman is to do that. Dear me, the selfish b..h, how dare she be so low as consider financial security and her job.

Men have equal responsibility for every single unwanted pregnancy. Women do NOT bear more responsibility.

There are very few men who are anti abortion who admit to any responsibility on their part. Responsibility about the pregnancy occurring in the first place or freely accepting the responsibility to bring up the child.

aqvarivs: "Most women posting are forever whinging about their rights"

I think you just gave the game away, old son.

Do women have rights!!??

Oh my gawd! when did that happen?

Aqvarivs,
I believe that there is no shortage of whining men on OLO as Yvonne pointed out. Looked at the Australian men in prison debate?

“Must be why AIDS is now spread by women and not gay men. The gay community caught on to using protection.”
Oh dear, women are spreading AIDS all by themselves. First Gay men were the cause (note: not lesbians), then women. Straight men are all innocent bystanders of course and have the sole right to whine about the spread of AIDS by others. "I didn't do it" syndrome.
According to Amnesty International, mass rape and sexual violence in conflicts drives the HIV pandemic.

Yvonne
“Celivia, love the idea of artificial wombs. Methinks the whole anti-abortion debate would then deflate like a balloon!”
Yeah, we can repeat our excellent and logical points of education and contraception till our fingers are blue at the tips, but the anti-choicers seem immune to these facts. They obviously do not want to hear it.
I was just wondering whether an artificial womb would be easier to swallow than sex ed and contraception.

Bugger, no demand after all; nobody placed an order... there goes a business opportunity down the drain (the hole in the market was a false one, call it a holy hole) which leaves me thinking the issue is more about controlling women than about saving embryos!

Col Rouge,
Stated;

“I would note, you, as an observer, have nothing at risk either physically, paternally, financially”

While I didn’t like to bring this up, all taxpayers are paying for abortions, regardless their opposition to it!
.
What the pro-abortion brigade seems to ignore is that about 100,000 a year abortions hardly can be deemed to be just mistakes.
.
From the horse his mouth, so to say, I heard from women themselves how it was cheaper to have an abortion then to spend their money on protective items. Just one example that we are not referring to mistakes but calculated intend to have abortions if they were to become pregnant.
.
As with any medical emergency a doctor having presented a pregnant woman may have to decide to abort a child to safe the woman’s life or just let them both die. I for one see no issue with a doctor then trying to save the live he deems save-able rather then let both die.
.
However,-having-abortions-such-as-to-have,-so-to-say,-a-designer-baby,-because-the-gender-of-the-unborn-baby-is-not-acceptable-in-my-view-is-sheer-and-utter-nonsense. No,-so-to-say-designer-baby-rejects killing!
.
We have women arguing about their right to their own bodies and they have this to a point. For example, my wife has this unquestionable rights as at 74 she isn’t going to have any more babies. However, a woman who engage herself in activities that she knows she can fall pregnant, and so does, then I view she has by this consented to-give-up her sole right to her body and accepted the unborn child has also rights. She cannot on the one hand claim financial contribution from the father (as is legally enforceable) because he took part and so (rightfully) must be also held responsible, but then if she doesn’t like to continue with the pregnancy then somehow she can kill of the unborn child. With the legal right (to sue the father for cost) there are also obligations. The fathers obligation having to pay also gives him a right to have the child, and not that suddenly the baby is aborted.
.
Avoid pregnancy if you don't want to be pregnant!

I dare you to go into any ultrasound clinic and tell the pregnant women that what they are seeing in their scan is NOTHING.

yvonne, you should have choked on your whine after that rewrite miscarriage to serve your purpose. "Most women posting are forever whinging about their rights, while in the year come September that I have been posting to OLO very few ever admitted to their responsibility before or after the fact." is what I wrote. Your rewrite. " 'Most' women, Aqvarivs, whinging about their rights, but neglecting their responsibilities?" Isn't even close.
Men should have a share in the responsibility for the woman they impregnated, but feminist think that is too much power over a woman so have reduced mens responsibility down to a cash transaction and the implementation of laws to ensure the mens responsibility remains soley suppling the cash. Instead of abortion first why not offer to sell the child to the man. Surrogacy laws need some refinement and clarification but would be a viable solution for some. Single fathers do very well and their children are healthy and happy. It's not like women are of any value after the delivery and can go on their merry way after the pay off. Womb rentals. Think of the boon that would be for feminist empowerment. And the end of unwanted children and any need for abortion.

My apologies for having gone missing a few days:

Celivia

I notice you stray into the topic of the Christian religion.

If you wished to do so, you need to understand what you are talking about. No Christian has understood Jesus having proposed that they cut off their hand when they are tempted to steal. I can’t recollect seeing too many people in church minus hands. It is always amusing to those of us that get tarnished with the label “fundamental Christian” and the like to observe our opponents in their approach to the Bible become the strictest of literalists like Celivia in this instance – bit of a larff really.

Contra Celivia I assert that the morality taught by Jesus has never been surpassed. Try his saying: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” Matthew 5:43,44.

Col Rouge

You say, “just as copulation is a private endeavour, so to any pregnancy is a private endeavour”. This is not quite right is it, when people use the public health system for abortions.

You say, “That you are not one of the copulating participants leaves your opinion and authority right out there in the cold”. This is nonsense where an abortion results and I suggest you know it.

We applauded the lawyer and Dutchman who went to the aid of the woman attacked outside the night club in King St and yet you propose we continue to accept without question (and really I’m doing little more than protesting) the abortion of more than 1 child in 3.

And don’t give me all that claptrap about it only being a foetus like it is a piece of garbage. 21 days after conception there is the beginnings of a heart pumping blood through its own separate closed circulatory system, his or her own blood type, 42 days after conception brain waves can be recorded, the skeleton is complete and by 7 weeks the unborn child can suck its thumb.

It seems to me (and no surprise) that my opponents, apart from their cheap shots on my account of being a professing Christian, focus all their opposition on the rights of the woman caught with an unwanted pregnancy. I accept that as a legitimate concern but want that situation tested by counselling which does not have an abortion as its natural and purposeful destination. There are other options, thus children offered for adoption have no trouble finding a home.

What I would like to see from my opponents is some honest grappling with the issue that from the moment of conception we have the start of a human life, which rather quickly takes on very human shape and characteristics - I mentioned earlier thumb sucking at 7 weeks.

We love to talk about human rights - in this case the right of the woman to "control her own body", but what about the rights of the inborn?

The cultural revolution of the 1960's and those who foisted it upon us have a lot to answer for. Because ultimately it was a death dealing revolution, it will run its course, if only because those who espouse it will have failed to produce sufficient children to guarantee it a future. I repeat my earlier observation that it is the religious who are today producing enough children for the future and that future will increasingly be religious because the non religious, having no hope, have given up on the future.

"by 7 weeks the unborn child can suck its thumb."

David, because you keep repeating things, it does not
make them so! Any chimp baby will suck its thumb, that
does not make it a person. Reflex actions are just that.

Put down your religious books for once and start asking
yourself what constitutes a person. No functioning human
brain and its not a person. It might be a corpse or it
might be an organism with potential to become a person,
but it does not think or feel, or have a developed,
functioning human brain.

You'll have to wait until week 25, until the basics
of what could be called a person, start to emerge.

You are free to draw your little moral line in the sand
wherever you like, but its simply your subjective opinion,
no more. The "holy zygote" is very much a religious
concept. Given that there is no such thing as objective
morality, you have given no good reason as to why your
little line in the sand is the correct one. Others agree
to disagree. Feel free to live by your little line, others
can live by theirs.

As to the human population, the increase from 1.5 billion
to 6.5 billion, has happened on the back of cheap oil. Once
that runs out, we have yet to find a sustainable solution.

So we have yet to show that these kinds of numbers are sustainable.
If you know anything about biology, you would know that if its
not sustainable, eventually it crashes with a fast thud. Food
for thought.

David Palmer: "I repeat my earlier observation that it is the religious who are today producing enough children for the future and that future will increasingly be religious because the non religious, having no hope, have given up on the future."

Scary though this thought might be, the dire prospect rests upon the assumption that children born to "the religious" will invariably ape the delusions of their parents. I'm not aware of any stats about this, but I do know numerous rational people who have grown out of the various fairy stories and imaginary friends that characterised their childhoods.

I'm not religious, but I certainly haven't given up on the future. On the other hand, I've noticed a generalised tendency among many of the religiously deluded to be uninterested in issues like the environment, overpopulation and resource depletion.

Since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® dealing with people contemplating suicide/murder even mass murder. When then I have a person contacting me that she is pregnant and unmarried and contemplating suicide because she wants to rather die if her baby has to die then to have an abortion, where people around her pursue she has an abortion then such cases always made clear to me that those freaks who are pursuing women’s rights to the extreme are in fact by this causing young women who do not want to have an abortion but pressured to have one to contemplate suicide. Not uncommon young women having become pregnant gave me the understanding that in particularly other women are placing undue pressure upon them to have an abortion because it as all right, as she has the right over her own body and so can have an abortion. This, even so the young women herself want to have the baby. Like religious freaks you have those freaks about women’s rights who in fact cause far more harm to what is right and proper for women then they are pretending to do. Those freaks are becoming a dangerous pest to other women but in their mania do not even realise let alone comprehend this.
Hello you women, if a young women is pregnant then do not bother her about her right to be the boss over her own body and to abort the baby because you women consider this to be the right thing to do, but leave that young woman to have the baby she desires, as she will be the one who will remain emotional scared if she aborts.
Having a young woman committing suicide because of the pressure put on them isn’t benefiting the so called women’s movement.
I am glad that at least I have been able to assist those young women to understand that their child has as much a right to be born as any other person had when they were born. Had-it-not-been-those-young-women-would-have-been-dead-as-much-as-their-(then)-unborn-babies-and-this-is-the-dire-consequences-those-freaks-do-not-realise-can-result-from-all-their-egoistic-conduct.

CJ,
a scary thought indeed, and since the divorce rate of Christians is higher than that of atheists, one can only figure that there will be many more children growing up in broken homes, and single parent families is an issue which Christians are not supposed to be proud of. Better they to do some damage control and get the contraception out of that dusty drawer.

David,
I do realise that abortion is a complex topic to discuss and that both sides have some reasonable arguments, but I am in favour of decriminalization of abortion because the arguments that are used to defend this view far outnumber and outreason the arguments that are in defense of criminalisation of abortion.

Fact is that over 99% of abortions are being performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. Many miscarriages have occurred within the first trimester, and about 15% of miscarriages occur after the 6th week.
Not a word from the anti-abortion brigade about this. They could shine some light on this fact- perhaps encourage more research into this area and focus on prevention of miscarriages that affect women who desperately want a child.

Fact is that an embryo is not an autonomic human being and has no human rights. We can’t give rights to a potential person, only to an actual person. An embryo completely depends on the working of a woman’s womb (and I’m hoping in the future, an artificial womb). An embryo has no consciousness.

Fact is that not until week 12 has the foetus reflex responses to its brain and not even until the last term of pregnancy, the foetus’ neurons start to grow into distinct parts of the brain and this process won’t be finished at birth. Brain connections that determine how we think, who we are etc develop after birth. There is no reason or indication that a foetus will in any way, suffer or know about its existence.
Women who are forced agains their will to give birth, will suffer!

Gerrit.... maaaaate

I guess being christian means never having to be honest or accountable or even responsible.

Your last post as a prime example of christian 'values', apart from holding women solely responsible for pregnancy - you also managed to cheat the word limit by your final paragraph as follows:

"I am glad that at least I have been able to assist those young women to understand that their child has as much a right to be born as any other person had when they were born. Had-it-not-been-those-young-women-would-have-been-dead-as-much-as-their-(then)-unborn-babies-and-this-is-the-dire-consequences-those-freaks-do-not-realise-can-result-from-all-their-egoistic-conduct."

Hyphenating words to trick the word limit rule is cheating and not playing by the OLO rules, maaaate.

Blaming women for pregancy; last time I checked it still took two - not counting virgin pregnancies of course ;-)and then forcing these same women to bring their babies to term is dictatorial, controlling AND judgemental, Mr Gerrit, maaaate. Are you so free of sin that you can tell others how to live?

And calling people freaks is just plain rude.

If you want to lead people into your faith, how about living by example? I know this may be a little radical for you to contemplate, but telling others how to live and cheating your way to do so is simply sick, sad and pathetic.

You are an embarrassment to your faith, maaaate!

Schorel-Hlavka “all taxpayers are paying”

All tax payers pay for single parent pensions.

I do not defend my position by qualifying how government should spend my tax dollars but I will match every example of such inane debating practice which you can muster.

“100,000 a year abortions hardly can be deemed to be just mistakes.”

"mistakes" made by 100,000 individuals.

A better result than a small lobby of opinionated fascists who insist on forcing those 100,000 women to go “underground” to use unsafe abortion practices.

“how it was cheaper to have an abortion then to spend their money on protective items”

So too, parents who spend their dole cheques on drugs and booze instead of feeding their children.

I am not responsible for the poor moral standards of some cognitive individuals and would not expect all people to qualify to be so judged with them.

“The fathers obligation having to pay also gives him a right to have the child, and not that suddenly the baby is aborted.”

As a male and a father, I would disagree with you. It was not my body which was tested in gestating my daughters into this world but my ex-wife’s. The risks the mother faces in pregnancy are far more serious than any the father faces, which gives her an overwhelming precedence in any decision on abortion.

David Palmer “foetus like it is a piece of garbage.”

I have never referred to a foetus as such. That such rhetoric is within your vocabulary says more about you than it does about me.

My position, regarding abortion, is simple,

We all have sovereignty over our bodies and their functions.

If, to suit your demands, a woman is denied the right to make her own sovereign choices over her own body, it means her place and stature in society, for the term of her pregnancy, is reduced to being the life support system for a uterus and the foetus which it contains.

You might be happy with disrespecting all womens’ individual sovereign rights in such a way but I certainly am not.

Here's how its all hanging in Victoria.

Premier Brumby is looking towards decriminalising abortion - finally.

A giant step for women's autonomy. Despite Gerrit's spurious assumptions, women can and do think for themselves. here's a little excerpt from an Age article from Liberty Victoria.

"Liberty Victoria's position on this issue starts from a number of basic premises. First, that women have the intellectual and moral capacity to make decisions about their own fertility"..............and
Third, Liberty Victoria supports freedom of religion and a person's right to make free decisions in their choice of religious faith.

However, Liberty does not believe that personal religious belief should govern public policy. Ministers do not have a right to impose their religious views on the public nor should Parliament allow them to do so.

Coercion has no place in fertility and reproduction decisions.

In a free and democratic society it is not the proper role of government to intervene in the most personal decisions of families or individuals about their consensual sexual activity. Neither should government interfere in decisions on how many children couples wish to have or how often they should have children. Such interventions are more commonly found in the family policies of totalitarian regimes and have no place in a democratic society that respects the human rights of all its citizens."

For the full article click on link below:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/abortion-give-women-the-power-to-decide/2007/08/20/1187462164340.html

Cheers

Dears

Johnny Rotten, first of all I do not practice any religion and as such my views are not based whatsoever on religious doctrines.
.
Also, while it is unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to make any religious laws it is another thing for the states. They are permitted to outlaw any religion if that is what they desire to do so. They can outlaw any religious practice if they desire to do so. That was specifically left as legislative powers to the States. Thereby any cruelty customs by any religion could be prohibited by a State!
.
A simplified example;

If you own a car then you can decide to use the car as you like. No one can force you to drive the car outside your property. In side your property you can use it as you like, however the moment you drive it of your property there are different set of rules. You become liable to road rules,. Liable for passengers, liable for pedestrians, animals, etc. by taking the car outside your personal domain you by this decided to be willing to submit yourself to the rights and obligations of others also. Likewise so with a woman, when she takes her body outside and use it with another person to conceive she has bound herself to his rights and so any child conceived.
.
Aborting children because of being of a gender different then wanted, because the child might have some disabilities, etc, is going the path of HITLER to seek to build a superior race!
.
Too many unborn babies were already aborted only to discover that they were after all not suffering as what was assumed, and so wrongly for this also aborted!
.
Children (including unborn babies) should not be judged upon their abilities, etc, as many parents can say that no matter what problem such a child has they are no less a child and loved then other children.

Col Rouge says “My position, regarding abortion, is simple, we all have sovereignty over our bodies and their functions….. You might be happy with disrespecting all women’s’ individual sovereign rights in such a way but I certainly am not.”

But it is not really as simple as this, is it?

Question: Why does a woman wish for abortion?

Answer: Because she was impregnated by a man.

So you are saying her sovereignty includes an action and a consequence she regrets so much she seeks an abortion? This doesn't make sense to me. We aren’t just that sovereign, as demonstrated by her "sovereign action" having led to an unintended consequence.

The thing you miss and to me it is perversely so, is that if anyone wants to claim rights then they must accept responsibility, ie the consequence of their action – in this case a most wondrous thing, a developing human being in that most perfect of (temporary) homes, the womb.

Where I sympathise with the woman is in the failure of men to accept their responsibility which means making a commitment to a woman before expecting to share her bed and make a baby. Amoral modern day men by and large are either barbarians or wimps. Take your pick. Barbarians take what they can get with the woman as a victim, whilst the wimp seems to support the woman, “talks the feminist talk”, but is no better because when a pregnancy results he wimps out.

I notice that you object to my expression, “foetus - like it is a piece of garbage.” – but of course that is exactly how the unborn child is treated after his/her removal from the womb.

Celivia,

Thank you for your response. I’ve had a busy day and will get back tomorrow to your post which I would like to interact with.

"Likewise so with a woman, when she takes her body outside and use it with another person to conceive she has bound herself to his rights and so any child conceived."

Hang on whoah. If a woman agrees to have sex with a guy, thats
all she has agreed on. Having children is another story.

Stop trying to turn women into your broodmares with no rights.
The world has moved on a little, thankfully.

POINTS to use in this discussion:

David P,
With the Jesus example of cutting of hands Mark 9.43,47. I wanted to get across that Christians pick and choose what and how they want to take things from the Bible, either literally, symbolically, or totally ignore. An example of someone who took Jesus’ words literally. http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=401939 “…man…plucked out his own eye and then quoted from the Bible…” I’ll leave it at that as it is off-topic; just wanted to make a point.

Mr Gerrit,
I must agree with Col that your point that taxpayers pay for abortions is a non-issue; so what? Taxpayers money SHOULD pay for loads of things that taxpayers can benefit from.
Indeed, if the money didn’t go towards abortions, it would go into other things to do with the child: like hospital costs for giving birth, family payments, baby-bonus, baby’s immunisations, child care allowances, health checks, baby clinics, education etc, which would work out far more expensive than an outpatient abortion.

You are telling us that your views are not based on religious doctrine, but you seem to have adopted all the Christian values and want to impose them on others.

Johnny R,
that was an absolutely refreshing and promising article, thanks.
The only thing I was tripping over in this article was the following: “Ministers do not have a right to impose their religious views on the public nor should Parliament allow them to do so” I wonder how the Parliament would stop that. I doubt if in reality that’s ever going to happen.
Some time ago, there was a discussion (I think by RObert) about the compromised position that our Catholic ministers are in, such as Abbott and Pyne.
Benedict XVI warned about the way Catholic ministers should vote on abortion (and I assume on other life issues as well); can we trust these ministers with their portfolios that include abortion and euthanasia?
We had "The Peaceful Pill" banned by the government- what next, and where do we draw the line?

Why should tax dollars be spent on hospital costs for giving birth, family payments, baby-bonus, baby’s immunisations, child care allowances, health checks, baby clinics, education etc, we are not responsible for your decisions. Abort your children or take the responsibility but, don't foster it off on society. We're not responsible for your sex acts. Jeez. There is just no end for some women to pass on the duty and responsibility of parenthood. Taxes. Who cares if your brat lives or dies. You could have aborted it and done the world a favour, because you didn't, isn't societies job to pick up the bill

Yabby,
You did state;
“Hang on whoah. If a woman agrees to have sex with a guy, thats
all she has agreed on. Having children is another story.”
.
Let me give you an example to contradict what you were stating. There was this case in the Family Court where a man obtained the services of a prostitute and paid her for the service. He left. Later she gave birth to a child and she took the man to court for child support. His response basically was “GET LOST, I HAD SEX WITH YOU FOR WHICH I PAID YOU AND THAT IS IT.” Obviously he didn’t contemplate to have sex with a prostitute to have a baby!
Well, the Family Court took a different position. It held that the man failing to prove he was not the biological father therefore was deemed to be the biological father and paying he shall!
.
So, here you have it, that the Court wasn’t interested in that he paid for the services and neither intended to have a child with her, all it was concerned with that as he did not disprove to be the biological father he was deemed to be it.
.
Well, if this is good enough for the goose then it likewise should be for the Gander!
.
There are plenty of men who had a one night stand never intending to have a child with the female but being lumped for 18 years with child support! There was this woman who pursued child support and the Court even made an order she had to list all men she had sexual intercourse with at the time the child was conceived. She refused to comply, and didn’t get the child support orders!
.
Again, once you take the car out then you lumber yourself with responsibilities, duties, etc and no longer have the right to decide it all for yourself.
.
As for the financial issue, I did not raise this in the first place, merely responded!

"There are plenty of men who had a one night stand never intending to have a child with the female but being lumped for 18 years with child support!"

Yup that is true, yup it can be unfair on some males, but let me
explain to you the way the courts see it. Child support is paid
for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of the mother.
If no child support was paid, those ultimately losing and suffering
would be the children.

Where I have a problem is when males are forced to pay child support
but are denied access to their kids, which can happen.

In the case of abortion, no children suffer as that child does
not exist yet. It is a potential child, not a child. So no point
trying to compare apples with oranges, as you are doing.

David Palmer “But it is not really as simple as this, is it?”

Yes it is!

“So you are saying her sovereignty includes an action and a consequence she regrets so much she seeks an abortion?”

If it were your body, I would support your right to exercise your choice.

“…they must accept responsibility,”

Why do you presume I have ignored responsibility?

An abortion requires a conscious decision and planning. It may later produce feelings of guilt etc.
I have no doubt many women having chosen abortion later experience such feelings.
That “guilt” is theirs to deal with.
I would speculate many women who have endured pregnancy and childbirth reflectively consider that they would have better chosen an abortion when they could.

The point, people only “grow” through making their own decisions and accepting responsibility for the outcome of those decisions.

Their Body, their Choice.
Not your body, not your choice.

What you seek is to limit women’s opportunity for personal growth through denying them the right to make material decisions for themselves.

Better that some may experience guilt and regret; than all resent being forced to conform with the demands of strangers to endure a pregnancy against their own will and better judgement.

RE barbarians and wimps. How crass and stereotypical.

We men are “individuals”. (this attribute we share with women).

Some men may choose to be “barbarians”, others “wimps” and a lot more will be honest, considerate, caring and compassionate.
Your simplistic labelling of some individuals inadequately characterises the infinite combination of qualities of all individuals.

If you were big enough to see men and women all as individuals, you might understand why they want to make their own decisions, rather than being force fed your decisions.

“foetus - like it is a piece of garbage.”

They were your words. I can only presume they sadly, reflect what you really think and feel.

Certainly you rhetoric is insistent of treating women’s “right of choice” like garbage

Celivia

Thank you for acknowledging that those of us on the anti abortion side have “some reasonable arguments”. For my part I do realise the dreadful quandary a woman can get into with an unplanned pregnancy with a man who has no commitment to her or the prospective baby. This of course doesn’t cover every potential abortion situation.

I am unconvinced by the first trimester argument. A lot has happened in the first trimester as you no doubt know (see http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112 for example). This is a baby on the way, a unique human being, no question, deserving of all the protection possible.

I think the point about miscarriages is that for whatever reason, they occur naturally (and as you point out causing great distress for a couple seeking a child - not just the woman!), whereas an abortion is a deliberate cognitive act.

You are technically incorrect to claim the embryo (I think you mean, using your language “foetus”) has no human rights. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognised the child before birth as having human rights to be protected by the rule of law and this was reaffirmed unanimously by UN General Assembly on Nov 20th 1959. Further the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Clause6(5)) says the pregnant woman by virtue of carrying a child is entitled to special protection from the death penalty.

You speak of facts that not until week 12 does the foetus have this and that but as the Mayo Clinic site I referred you to above demonstrates, the 12 week old foetus’ sex is known, at 9 weeks movement begins, at 6 weeks the neural tube along the foetus’ back is closed, etc. I note you want to define when pain begins, you may or may not be right, my concern is when life begins.

Would you agree to no abortions after the first trimester? I would see that as a step in the right direction.

Col Rouge

You say, “What you seek is to limit women’s opportunity for personal growth through denying them the right to make material decisions for themselves”, but this cuts both ways, doesn’t it. A woman has “opportunity for personal growth” through choosing not to have an abortion.

You say, “Better that some may experience guilt and regret; than all resent being forced to conform with the demands of strangers to endure a pregnancy against their own will and better judgement”

You are tough on women, Col Rouge.

A major, the major reason why a woman chooses an abortion is that she is not in a loving relationship with the whole hearted support of the man who has made the baby with her..

You appear sensitive to my descriptors “barbarians” and “wimps” claiming we men are “individuals”. If so, how come so many men want the sex but don’t take the responsibility for their actions. Sure there are honest, considerate, caring and compassionate men and now doubt you and I fit the bill, but there are an awful lot of barbarians and wimps out there, no good at all to any woman.

You still don’t get my point about “foetus - like it is a piece of garbage.”, just try thinking about it, it shouldn’t be too difficult!

David, you don't need to be convinced of the first tremester
argument. Given that your focus is a religious one, ie when
life begins and you are convinced of the holy zygote argument,
so that makes it simple, don't have an abortion.

The point is, your religious argument should be yours,
not enforced on others by law. What you have not addressed
is when an organism becomes a person, which to people like
me, is the key point. Your Mayo clinic website does not
go into that.

You really are arrogant in your definitions of both men
and women. Let them decide what they are and what they
want. They are each individuals.

There is an interesting series of programmes over the
next three nights on CNN, discussing religious warriors
of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/

Sounds to me that these kinds of people, trying to force
their religious views down the rest of our throats by
political means, pose a far larger risk then people making
decisions about their own lives.

Yabba,

The Courts can lump a man with pre natal cost, regardless if in the end the baby is born dead or alive!

As for anyone to suggest that a woman would abort a child because the biological father has split, then this would be sinister on the part of the woman. The love of a parent to a child is totally different then the love of a parent to its partner.
Surely a child (born or unborn) is more then merely some tool to keep a man?
The child has not only been created by a man and a woman but carry with it biological heritage of both parents. The fact that the woman is, so to say, the incubator does not mean she can take it upon herself to kill of an unborn child that is part creation of another person. So what she may not have any further contact with the biological father (for whatever reasons) this hardly can justify to kill of the unborn child. The unborn child is not just some appendix that can be disregarded as being an inconvenience as to take this you must be low in morals.
You are not talking about a woman getting rid of a limb because she feels better without it, you are talking about a unborn child that for all purposes is a person in its own rights.
I for one take the position that while a woman has the ability (ordinary) to conceive no one can in anyway force her to conceive. However, if she participate voluntarily in a conduct that she knows may result to conceiving a child then she had knowingly given up her sole right over her body and must consider the unborn child (regardless what state the unborn child might be), unless in extreme emergency circumstances a doctor deems that in lifesaving exercise the child needs to be aborted.
So to say, if a woman doesn’t want to take the risk to take the car out then she should leave it at home. The same for a man!

David Palmer wrote: "“what are you doing to reduce the number of them?"

Actually, the number of terminations performed each year over the last 10 years IS decreasing. The Medicare statistics for Victoria shows;

1994: 21,131
1995: 20,834
.
.
2005: 17,692
2006: 18,232

The last time that the total number was over 20,000 was in 1998.

Consider too that the population is increasing significantly each year, so actually the abortion rate IS DECREASING.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, your attitude towards women is amazing and shows where you rank women in society. You said:

"As for anyone to suggest that a woman would abort a child because the biological father has split, then this would be sinister on the part of the woman."

Are you implying that if a woman's partner leaves her upon having an unplanned pregnancy, that woman should abandon her career or studies, go onto a single mother's pension and become a stay at home mum? If you really are a constitutional lawyer, would you have abandoned your studies and career to become a stay-at-home dad? Get real.

and you also said;

"The fact that the woman is, so to say, the incubator"

and

"if she participate voluntarily in a conduct that she knows may result to conceiving a child then she had knowingly given up her sole right over her body and must consider the unborn child "

So you refer to woman as "incubators" and consider that the rights of the woman are outweighted by the rights of the embryo or fetus. Remember that the woman may already have to support an existing family, so this fetus is actually impinging on their rights as well. I don't think that fetuses are without rights, but the rights of the mother (or incubator) must always come first.

Aqvarivs,
You spoke like a true automatically excommunicated Catholic. The only thing I could find to agree on with you here is the baby bonus. These should be means tested or scrapped- this money could be better spend elsewhere, e.g. (shared) parental leave or child care. Someone has to take care of the children; preferably, someone who loves them.

Well said, Crumpethead; Gerrit sounds like a misogynist.

David Palmer,
“Would you agree to no abortions after the first trimester?”
While I would agree that abortions should take place as early as possible, (the earlier the safer) I haven’t discovered a valid reason why abortions should not be legal until around 20-22 weeks. This should be an acceptable limit because it adequately cushions the line at which the higher functions of the foetus’ brain become active at 26 weeks. Before that, the foetus has no consciousness, is not aware of anything, and is not able to sense its environment. At that point there is no ‘person’ and the foetus, except for human DNA, is no different from any other animal’s foetus. It’s only because of adults’ emotions or religions that human embryonic or foetal cells are regarded sacred, or more valuable than animals’.

The problem with ‘no abortions after the first trimester’ is that women will be pushed into make rush decisions, possibly the wrong ones, either way.
The key is to educate women, from an early age (e.g. in Highschool) about pregnancy and abortion. Some women don’t realise that they’re pregnant until way into the first term especially when they experience irregular periods or use contraception. They need to learn how to recognise early symptoms of pregnancy.

If two beings share one body, they can’t both have the same rights. The autonomic being, as a person, would have superior rights. The depended being has inferior rights. A foetus may be unique, but I don’t understand how ‘uniqueness’ of an embryo/foetus should be able to cancel out the rights of the ‘unique’ pregnant woman. A unique autonomic unique ‘actual’ person surely should have more rights than a unique ‘potential’ person

David, I can agree that an unsupported woman is more likely to opt for an abortion than a woman who has the full support of a partner or her family.
It can be very scary for a woman to find out that she’s pregnant and all alone.
Also, women in violent relationships are more likely to have an abortion.
I can imagine that a drug addict also would see an abortion as a solution.
Anyway, the reason for having an abortion is the woman’s business.

Accepting that some women have trouble making up their mind about their pregnancy makes your point of counseling a reasonable one- as long as the counseling service presents ALL the options, is unbiased and is not promoting one option over another. The woman then should be free to make up her own mind without pressure one way or another.

One of the causes that later than first term abortions happen is that some women have problems making up their mind- perhaps she is trying to find support first, trying to find out how she would cope on her own with a child. When she can find no adequate support, she may decide to have an abortion.

I wouldn’t want to judge either partner though- many people enjoy sex just for the sake of sex without the intention of sharing a future together.
Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant, let’s just look at it as a reality.

Early education is important. Relying on one partner’s contraception (except vasectomies or female sterilisations) is unwise. Both men and women need to take responsibility for their own contraception if they are serious about preventing fertilisation.

The religious anti-abortion lobbyists seem to obsess over the fact that sex happens between non-committed partners.
Instead they should promote, and lobby for, free contraception and elaborate sex education including all the gory details on contraception, pregnancy and abortion.
If they'd focus on this rather than being obsessed by people’s sexual ‘sins’ they would see the results they always wanted: fewer unplanned pregnancies resulting in fewer abortions

Celivia,

Those are two great posts. We need to shape a culture in which men and women are taught from an early age that sex is part of life for nearly everyone, that it is intimate, enjoyable and full of consequences — emotional as well as physiological. They will have to learn about it as they learn about other parts of life. But because sex can produce babies, they must also learn the basic rule: do not bring unintended and unwanted babies into the world: it can be disastrous for the baby and very difficult for the mother. If that culture were widespread, we wouldn't have many abortions. That might not be Mr Palmer's preferred option, but then one needs to ask what exactly his priority is.

I am reminded of the old joke that Presbyterians are opposed to sex because it leads to dancing...

"The religious anti-abortion lobbyists seem to obsess over the fact that sex happens between non-committed partners."

You hit the nail right on the head there Celivia! If one follows
the thinking of religious warriors in the US, they want to stop
all that so called evil fornicating. As their kids are taking
no notice of all the abstinence preaching, they want the
big stick of forced pregnancy, to enforce their agenda.

Educate kids about contraception and allow abortion and there
is no big stick to wield, to threaten then with.

The figures are clear. Good contraception and education
can massively reduce abortion rates, but then it does not
deal with their main concern, ie. all that so called evil
fornicating. IMHO that is what this whole argument is really
about, as the evidence shows.

Yabby,

You say, “The point is, your religious argument should be yours, not enforced on others by law”.

But your non religious viewpoint can be forced on me, by law if possible. We live in a democracy and in a democracy we have free speech and the religious and non religious can and must jostle over issues.

It never ceases to cause a wry smile and shake of the head to realise just how intolerant the non religious are! What would you like to see done to a country Doctor who refuses to undertake an abortion because of his moral scruple?

Again you say, “What you have not addressed is when an organism becomes a person”.

I do think personhood is a post birth thing but I challenge you to say what you mean by “an organism”. 24 weeks after conception that so called “organism” has a better than 50% chance of survival and as you would say, better than 50% chance of survival "as a person". The point I’m making, which you and others like you seem unwilling to accept (and for no good logical reason other than prejudice), is that that “thing” in the womb is a human person in the making and you would allow it its life to be taken from it. We Christians believe the weak and the defenceless, including the unborn are to be defended.

Yes men and women are individuals, but they do not exist in isolation – they live in communities and must get on with one another. We are inter-dependent individuals. We can never just “decide what we are and want” – this is not the reality of our lives. We are always conforming to societal, communal and family norms, and you are no different to the rest of us. You object to me allowing my religion to shape my attitudes. On the basis of what you have written, I object to whatever is motivating you to write as you do and I won’t be put off by your intolerance

I'll try again. I agree with David Palmer that he has as much right as anyone else in our deomocracy to state his point of view. And he has as much right as anyone else to try to persuade others that his view should prevail. If he is successful enough, MPs and Senators (and their State equivalents) will legislate his way. Later, things may change, and he will have to put up with that, while he continues to try to persuade us otherwise.

He may think that abortion is somehow more important than other kinds of 'killing', if he thinks that abortion is indeed the killing of a person. The trouble is that there is such ambiguity about killing. We kill 'enemies' in battle, and quite possibly a majority of Australians would approve of killing murderers of certain kinds. If there is something special about abortion, in this context, I would like to hear what it is, and when and how a foetus becomes a 'person', in his opinion, and why his opinion should be taken very seriously.

My own view has been expressed already, and Mr Palmer doesn't persuade me to abandon it. The person who has to bear the child and look after it is the potential mother. I can't see why anyone else is in a position to tell her what to do. For what it is worth, the women I know with whom I have talked about this issue strongly dislike the notion of abortion in principle, but accept that it may be necessary in certain cases. I think (but cannot prove) that this is close to the majority position in Australia now. My preferred position is to educate everyone to accept sexuality and sexual behaviour as completely natural, and to guard against unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. We will never be completely successful, but this strategy ought to reduce the number of abortions. And that is what, it seemed, Mr Palmer wanted to do. It would be nice if he commented on that possibility.

Eloquently posted Celivia!

David, why would a non-religious view be forced upon you when the laws on abortion are changed? Just like when the buggery laws were changed it doesn't mean you are forced to have sex with another man or that you even have to condone homosexual behaviour in others.

Why should a woman not have the last word on what happens to her being? There is lots of talk about rights. That's why I cannot understand why an autonomous female being suddenly has fewer rights than a potential human when she is pregnant. Somehow, when pregnant, she must suddenly put herself last, disregard her own rights or needs. Show willingness for any sacrifice.

Many of you have a romantic notion of the sacrificing 'mother'. The Madonna complex. And if she is no Madonna, society with its Christian morals will force her to be a 'real' woman. You wanted sex, you wanton trollop and now you are not going to honour your God given duty to bear children. The feminists have a lot to answer for for this unwomanly behaviour!

Gerrit even thinks that rape is not reason enough for a woman to want a termination. A woman must always love her baby. This subjugation of women is still used today. In Dafur for instance and Burma just to mention two countries.

Men are just going to have to accept that women have wombs and that no man can understand or know what this means. Just as there is something called penis envy, womb envy comes to mind when I read some posters opinions.

An unborn human must have fewer rights than an existing human. They cannot be equal.

I find it hard to keep up with all of you when we are only allowed 2 posts a day and there’s just so much time. I will comment on Don Aitken’s posts tomorrow night.

Yvonne,

As a Christian, I find the concept of an autonomous female or male morally repugnant. We are our brother’s, our sister’s keeper. Not only are we to love God, but our neighbour as well and who could be closer than that developing foetus with every potential for birth and a long and fruitful life before it?

Talk about rights leads in the wrong direction, because it is all about “me first”.

You talk rights, I’ll talk responsibility.

We have responsibilities. The man and the woman have a responsibility toward the developing child the woman carries, to love and cherish it. The problem is that the child was made without love and commitment present between the woman and man (yes I know there are exceptions and some of them are a lot worse). Because of this failure abortion is the fallback for the women left carrying the consequences. I understand this. But do you understand an abortion is the taking of human life, not some undefined human life, but a unique human being in the making with its own unique DNA, with every potential to love, to joy, to bring happiness, maybe even to be a pain in the backside.

I can assure you I would never say “You wanted sex, you wanton trollop and now you are not going to honour your God given duty to bear children.” I would say you wanted love and commitment from a man you considered worthy to share your life with and that sex was to be part of the wonderful glue to cement your relationship and from which a family can be built. That is what I would say. My wife and I waited for marriage and because we waited we married young and my wife of nearly 40 years is more precious than I can ever describe, and we still find the sex is good

I might suggest that everyone take a good hard look at David Palmer's last post, because this is where he really is. It appears that David would love everyone to have the same attitude to love an sex as he, however, we don't.

But to be very serious here David, you cannot legislate for moral behaviour, it just doesn't work. They tried that in the '20s with prohibition and look where that went.

You can have your attitude, I don't think it's wrong, but it isn't shared by a lot of the population, and that's what really upsets you isn't it?

Celivia refers to me as a “misogynist” (women hater) and crumpethead seems to argue why should a woman give up her career for an unwanted pregnancy if the boyfriend split.
Lets make it very clear, if a woman get pregnant then giving up her career has nothing to do with a boyfriend splitting or not as if this is the criteria then this would degrade a woman to using a pregnancy to try to keep a man and if she cannot then the unborn baby can be calculated killed off, is that what you pretend a woman stands for?
Lets make it clear that I did put everything on hold when my daughter was to be ordered into home, as simply I, so to say, dropped everything and cared for her since she was one year old!
I grew-up that men and woman are equal and neither are above the other in marriage.
In principle I take the position that a family should be a one-breadwinner family where if the woman “chooses” to have one or more children then she should not be forced or obligated to work in the workforce, as tending to the needs of children itself is a major task. Once the children grow up the woman (mother) should be entitled to enjoy family life without the need to go to work, however, if she desires to work then that is her option. It is regrettable that in current society women generally are forced to work and leave caring of children over to strangers.
While I do not accept that a woman is a better carer then a man, because circumstances dictate the level of care provided, it must be recognised that over the centuries many brilliant minds were arising and yes they were all cared for by their mothers! Anyone who were to argue that women are dumb and can only care for children simply hasn’t got a clue as to what childcare is about. I for one always have had and still have great respect for woman and the role they play in society.
continue...

I oppose any repression of women as certain cultures use.
However, the abortion issue is a total different issue and cannot be swiped under the carpet by labelling me to be a “misogymist” or whatever!
.
I am one of those men who still open the car door for my wife and bring her a cup of coffee in bed. I respect women in an appropriate manner and as such the usage of “misogymist” is totally misconceived. It is sad that when a person cannot succeed in their ranting then they lower themselves in name calling as if this address the real issue which this tread is about and that is the abortion of so many unborn children.
If a woman can decide to abort, then why should a man not have the same right that the woman is forced to abort if he didn’t want her to conceive in the first place? Ample of men have been tricked into paternity they didn’t want. But, as I have always made clear, if you took the risk to play the game then you must accept the consequences. If this applies to men then equally this should apply to woman!
.
I do not oppose “all” abortions, as I have all along accepted that in certain extreme medical circumstances it may be appropriate. Celivia and crumpethead simply seek to be like G. W. Bush, you are either with us or against us. I am neither!
.
I cannot deny the very birth right to others I have enjoyed!
.
I take the position that no woman should ever be forced to conceive, but once she takes part in a conduct that she conceives then whatever self-rights she had she must be accepted to have place second class to the right of the unborn child.
.
Aborting children because they are not of the desired gender, underlines the gross-abuse of abortions and anyone who cannot understand this in my view lacks some education in what society is really about.
.
Again, I cannot deny the very birth right to others I have enjoyed!

David, what I am is intolerant of the intolerant. Religious
fundamentalism looms as an ever larger problem in many
parts of the world, as they try to force others to live
by their agendas.

Nope, I cannot force my viewpoint on you,as we have freedom
of religion, for those who choose so. But we should also have
freedom from religion, for those who choose.

Now I am sure that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others
think that their holy books are the best. Society should be
able to cope with all, not religious tyranny by the majority.

So you are free not to have an abortion, free to wait until
you marry with sex, free to do whatever you please, I won't
object. Just not free to force me to do the same, because
of your holy book.

If you are interested in the neuroscience, the neocortex
is what is different in us humans, compared to other
species. The fundamentals of that are in place at around
week 25, so that would be the first time you could think
of calling a foetus a person. Thats when there is actually
what can be called a human brain, is finally in place.

The thing is, women have around 400 chances to create
another human. Clearly they can't all survive, so why not
just let women decide, when and how many they want to
spend the next 20 years taking care of.

You are free to fuss over those little zygotes, yet
clearly don't give a hoot about the millions of sperms
and ova that die every day. It makes no sense to me
as to why you draw your little line in the sand where
you do. Thats your business. We should not be forced
to live by it.

David,
Your Christian beliefs might be compelling reasons for yourself and other Christians not to have abortions so as not to conflict with your beliefs, however even in conservative Christian societies, it doesn't stop abortions from occuring. Christian women or couples still sneak away to have terminations in secret owing to the lack of support that they know they will receive from their family and friends.

(read "The only moral abortion is my abortion" http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)

Despite everything that you morally believe in about abortion and your opposition to it, I can assure you that it is a different story when you are confronted with a real life issue that effects you personally, or your own family. Practicing Christians attend abortion clinics and tell the counsellor that "my case is different because... I'm not like those other girls.. " The reality is that their reasons for wanting an abortion ARE just like "those other girls".

Both yourself and Gerrit apear to be in a long term, stable and happily married situation. This does not place you in an ideal situation to know what women with unplanned pregnancies actually experience. Anyway, why is it always Christian males who are the most vocal in the anti-abortion debate?

Perhaps this thread has just about run its course.

Bugsy

I think you misunderstand me. I understand that while so many women unexpectantly fall pregnant without the support of her sexual partner and so long as a majority of the population consider abortion the lesser of two evils, then abortion will not be legislated against.

I am nevertheless saying that abortion is a great moral evil, we have far too many of them including ca 100 late term abortions each year; society in general and Parliaments in particular should focus on creating the conditions for reducing them, certainly not approving of them, which is precisely what decriminalisation of abortion does,

Crumpethead

Thank you for your post. I can assure you women are vocal in the pro life movement.

I accept your statement, “This does not place you in an ideal situation to know what women with unplanned pregnancies actually experience”.

Don Aitkin

I don’t think abortion is “more important than other kinds of ‘killing’”. The point is, we send killers to gaol for lengthy terms but we permit the abortion of 20,000 unborn children without so much as a rap over the knuckles. We (rightly) get stirred up over child abuse so long as the child has not escaped the womb. Total hypocrisy.

You say, “My preferred position is to educate everyone to accept sexuality and sexual behaviour as completely natural, and to guard against unplanned and unwanted pregnancies”.

I say that sexuality is a wonderful gift from God to be celebrated in the context of an exclusive life long union of love, companionship, help and support between a man and a woman. In other words, sexual behaviour does have some boundaries and is placed in a larger context. The basis of our civilisation is the family inaugurated as the Bible says when “a man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife and they shall become one flesh”.

The problem at present is that Western civilisation is dying and the most visible sign of that death is birth rates well below replacement levels.

For David Palmer

Yes, it has been plain that the Bible is important for you, and I accept that. But with great respect it is not enough for you simply to point to it as the source of authority for others, as you seem to do. I don't see that sexuality has to be confined to marriage, and indeed marriage is no longer the characteristic form of adult partnership for Australians. Regular churchgoers now constitute about 10 per cent or less of our society. If you want to persuade others you'll have to move away from the Bible and argue.

I think the same is true for locating abortion as a form of killing: you do have to consider whether we should be killing anyone at all (that would be the safest and easiest — totally against any killing of humans or foetuses with human potential). But if you accept that some killings are OK, then you have to locate abortion on some sort of continuum — better than X and worse then Y.

You've ducked my question about the way forward, as I expected. I see no reason why people should not become sexually active as they grow older and feel that they would like to (this is actually what happens now). I also think that sexual experience is a useful precedent to marriage or long-term partnership. I can argue the reasons if you want me to. But if you insist that people should not be sexually active until they are married to someone who will be with them through and through — then you have an awfully hard ask. Those days are gone. Our task is to develop a new ethic, not to reach despiairngly for an old one which doesn't work any more (and only worked within the middle class, I should think).

Don,
You said that the women you know don’t like abortion but accept it and I think that would be the view of the vast majority of pro-choicers. Even though nobody likes abortion, people generally accept that access should be available because the alternative would be horrific. The risk of death from unsafe abortion is 100 to 500 times higher than if the procedure is performed under safe conditions.

David and Gerrit,
Abortion, ideally, should only have to happen rarely, but must be safe and available nevertheless.
Keep in mind that the risk to women of safe, legal abortions is very low; much lower than maternal deaths. Also, countries with liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates.
In contrast, think about countries where abortion is illegal and we see that these countries show high numbers of illegal abortions; e.g. in Brazil, 1 out of 5 deaths of women is caused by illegal abortions.

For you who fight against decriminalising abortion to fit with the perfect picture of the ideal moral world of your mind, it’s time to either upgrade your outdated mental software and take a bigger view of the world, or create a “Stepford Wives” world by using force and see if that pleases you.

David,
On hypocrisy: read the link that Crumpethead provided.

You agreed that before birth, a foetus is not a person “I do think personhood is a post birth thing…”
So I don’t understand why you keep insisting that abortion kills ‘children’? If it’s not a person, it is not a child because children are persons. Abortions kill embryos/foetuses, not children.

You started talking about God’s word?
What about the Vatican with its ban on the use of condoms because of blind acceptance of the words of God? I dare say that the Vatican has been partly responsible for large numbers of AIDS deaths, especially in Africa, and the Vatican ignorantly keeps RESISTING realistic sex education, contributing to the spread of the HIV virus. How many kids died from AIDS? How many became orphans?

Continued…

Benedict XVI is finally, in slo-mo of course, realising that condoms might not be such a bad thing after all, and graciously allows it to prevent AIDS (but not pregnancy!) and...within the marriage only.

And, unless the Bible is wrong, God himself has slayed or ordered to slay many infants- the Egyptian first borns, I vaguely remember.

David, you also said: “your non religious viewpoint can be forced on me, by law if possible”.
I wonder how? Decriminalising abortion is not making it compulsory to have an abortion as Yvonne pointed out.

One reasonable point you made is the one of country doctors who are not willing to perform abortion. I’m sure some creative thinkers will come up with solutions for those little country towns that are stuck with anti-abortion doctors. An abortion pill may come in handy, here, too. I agree that these doctors should not have to perform them if they don't want to. This was an interesting point in the debate but not an argument you can use to justify outlawing abortion.

In short:
Everybody who opposes elaborate sex education and the use of contraception is partly responsible for high numbers of abortions and AIDS deaths.
Everybody who opposes decriminalisation of abortion is partly responsible for female deaths due to unsafe backyard abortions.

Everybody who supports realistic sex education, contraception and legal abortion is helping to prevent many unnecessary deaths, diseases and many unplanned pregnancies. They contribute to a reduction in abortion numbers.

David and Gerrit you claim that you want to see a reduction in abortion numbers: now pick what side you are on.
Exclude God and sex for a moment in making your decision- think only of all the aborted foetuses you claim you care about and make a dicision.

I have all along made clear my stance against “most”, not all, abortions has nothing to do with religion. Here we have people claiming that if a woman loses her sexual partner then somehow this justify the abortion of an unborn child. Does this not itself indicate the absurdity of abortions in that regard?

After I divorced my first wife, (we had three children of the marriage) I had later a woman moving in with me and she had 4 children. Actually, my first wife then was blaming me for having fathered those 4 children because of how the children were towards me. She could not believe that non-biological children could adore me as their father within such short time. The truth is they were not biologically my children at all. I didn’t know the mother of the children until after I divorced my first wife.
The point being that a woman isn’t ending up on a scrap heap, so to say, merely because she ends up with children! While later I did break of with this woman I remained friends with her and her extended family, even more then 25 years on.

My position is that if a man gets involved with a woman then he can only do so provided he accept any child or children the woman has. You cannot separate the woman from her children.

Hence, any woman contemplating an abortion because of the fall out with her sexual partner is a fool, as there is bound to come along (if she desires this) another man who would accept the child as being part of her package.

If a man is not willing to accept a child of the woman then to me the woman does better not to get involved in the first place with such a man.

Women should understand you do not abort a child so the woman might be acceptable in future to some man, as if this is the way a woman is to conduct herself she makes her self to be very cheap and a man will treat her accordingly.

Yesterday, one of my adult daughters phoned me wanting to meet-up for a cup of coffee as she wanted to discuss something but didn’t want her mother (my ex-wife) or siblings to knew about it. I immediately responded that she likely was pregnant. She confirmed this. She didn’t want anyone to harass her about having an abortion, etc. Now, here we have a young woman trusting me as her father more and able to talk to me without any fear that I am thumping upon her about having a child and that she should have waited, etc. She knows that my wife (not her mother) would also give her a hard time and will argue about abortion and so just want to keep it between me and her.
While-Celivia-refers-to-me-as-a-“misogynist” it is rather remarkable that all my daughters are finding it far better to be able to talk to me when they need to talk about being pregnant then their mother or siblings. It is because they know I am open minded and not one, so to say, coming down on them like a ton of brick to give all kinds of moral lectures.
Even my daughter who is about to finish her studies at Universities in psychology sought my assistance as to subjects and asks me to set out my views. In fact, one subject she handed in very much reflected what I had written to her albeit she had done all the back up research to compliment the assignment.
My daughters can talk to me even about any special female health issues as they know their dad id precisely that, their “dad” and seek to support them as much as possible in that regard.
They also know that in principle I am against abortions, other then for extreme medical issues, and they rather find this a strength. Regretfully the women movement is talking to much about abortion being some right then to address the real issue in that regard, that not-having an abortion is a woman’s right, and should not be subjected to undue pressure to have an abortion

Gerrit,

it is admirable that you are taking the time to speak candidly with your daughter about her unplanned pregnancy.

You speak repeatedly about the "womens movement" and their frequent lobbying for right to access abortions. Actually, there is no official "womens movement" but there IS an increasing number of women, their partners, friends and families, who have either had abortions themselves or know a close friend or relative who has had an abortion over the last 30 years since abortion has been lawfully (not legally) available. These are people who may previously have had no opinion about abortion, or even been against it, but having personally known someone who had compelling reasons to have a termination, they now understand that it is a necessary service which needs to be protected.

There is a big difference between being chivalrous and genuinely supporting equal opportunity. Opening car doors for your wife is nice, as is making your wife breakfast in bed, but it goes deeper than that. Before your wife fell pregnant with your first child, did you discuss how childcare would be managed or did you assume that she will be a stay-at-home mother? Did you give her the option of continuing her career while YOU stayed at home?

You said a few posts back;

"Lets make it very clear, if a woman get pregnant then giving up her career has nothing to do with a boyfriend splitting or not as if this is the criteria then this would degrade a woman to using a pregnancy to try to keep a man..."

It’s rarely anything to do with trying to “keeping a man”. If a woman is mid-way through her studies, or her career has just started to take off, unless she can afford childcare, continuing the pregnancy would usually require that she abandon her career hopes and go onto welfare. How would she pay the rent or mortgage? Abortion is often the only option that won't require the woman to surrender her plans and become a single mother on welfare.

Gerritt, your reasoning might not be based on religious grounds,
but you certainly seem to attack the topic with what seems to me
to be akin to what is called religious fervour.

You are quite dogmatic in whom you call a fool, how women or
men should behave etc. We have religious freaks, but we also
have control freaks, who want to control how others should
behave.

Thankfully much of the West has moved on from this narrow minded
world view. Today there are all sorts of people doing things for
their own reasons. The law is there to set the limits, not
to force people to live a certain way, based on narrow minded
dogma or opinions.

A woman will have an abortion for her own reasons. I would not
be so arrogant or judgemental to call her a fool, as I don't walk
in her shoes. Main thing is that she has all the options to think
about. Setting up so called "helplines" who don't provide for
that option, is clearly not what is required by these women, yet
it has been happening.

Just remember, that you are here, by sheer coincidence. Had your
mum had an extra cup of tea, some other little sperm of those
millions might have won the race, you would not be here. Thats
ok, some other indivdual similar to you, might have had a life.

Fact is, nature will always create far more potential beings of
a species, then can ever survive. Humanity is certainly not
threatened by too few human individuals, more like too many.
Without biodiversity on this planet, there won't be a humanity
to fuss over.

Listen folks, I might have a little break over the weekend. One against four (Gerrit and I aren't quite on the same wavelength) is a bit of challenge especially when my opponents are not all necessarily exactly same position, so if you're still up for it I might come back Monday

Nice to see you back Celivia. You say of me "you agreed that before birth, a foetus is not a person “I do think personhood is a post birth thing…”"

You are being a touch naughty here - go back to what I said. I did not speak of "a foetus" not being "a person" Foetus is your word, my expression is "unborn child" or "a human person in the making".

My use of personhood was probably clumsy - I think who I am as a person is really a product of what my parents gave me (unique DNA) plus interactions post birth, ie my environment(s) from the day I am born until the day I die. In other words in my thinking the kind of person I develop into is highly contingent upon my life's experience which is 99+% post birth. However, I may give more thought to this point.

crumpethead as to making prior child-care arrangement, etc;
When I grew up it was simply that in my family a woman when she became married she became a home-maker and no longer would work. It was not relevant if she did or didn’t have children. The husband was the breadwinner. As such there was no issue to get child care as mothers would themselves bring up their children and not leave it up to strangers. When I became married my wife stopped work. After she had the second child she wanted another but as it was placing her life at risk, according to medical advise I rather had a two children and a wife then perhaps three children an no wife. . However, ion my birthday in June 1975, while I was driving in traffic, my wife suddenly flipped out she was pregnancy. I was so shocked that I hit the brakes and a bus run in the back of me. Hardly something I would forget. I didn’t believe it and she made clear she expected it and had already made an appointment for me to speak to her doctor, the next day. The doctor advised me that the baby was due in December 1975, he explained that obviously something had gone wrong as my wife was pregnant, but he assured me that he would monitor my wife’s health. Well, my first born daughter was born in May 1976! Moment, that was 11 months after the doctor claimed my wife was then already 3 months pregnant! Simple, my wife and her doctor had conned me pretending my wife was pregnant and my wife knowing I would check it out had the doctor on her side. I had been set up by them. Then, after the daughter was born my wife then wanted her to go into childcare, the very girl she always wanted, because she wanted to earn moneys. Well, she could get a job from me and so went about my back via a superior and ended up working under me. She was working some 12-hours-a-day,

Continue...

but I for one never wanted any moneys from her nor it to be contributed to any household income, and as such my wife was earning moneys she was spending on her family. Working up to 12-hours-a-day, meaning that the daughter was mainly in childcare and the boys were after school by their grandmother or home alone. Finally I sacked her (as her work performance was not sufficient), and so she became a stay-home-mother but not having the monies to spend, I discovered after we split-up, that she had been borrowing monies left, right and centre as to continue to spend monies on-her-family. At that time, all I took a week was one dollar to buy lollies for the children and the rest of the monies I left to my wife to deal with. Being in management I earned a darn good income but was unaware my wife was buying items such as an electric dryer, etc for her mother and as such wasting a lot of money.
I never forced her to have children, as she was the driving force, yet, once the daughter was born she changed totally and wanted anything but to care for the children, but spend money on her family. While I personally would prefer a woman to be married when she has a child, however, I do recognise that the quality of care by a single mother may at time be far better then that a married woman may give, and as such on that aspect consider it foolish for a woman to abort a child merely because of a break-up with a sex partner. I do not oppose women to work, just that I view children should be a priority by a mother!
And, if the father desires to stay home instead I accept that in modern times this is an acceptable alternative. Just that too often both are working and no one to care for the children! And then people wonder why children grow up in crime.
At least I had a fultime-mother, one who was always there when we needed her!

Gerrit, I have no doubt that you’re a great support for your family, but the way you support your family is irrelevant to the situation that many women outside your family find themselves in. We cannot imply our own morals upon others.
Yes, family responsibilities have changed and that’s why I’d like to see the introduction of shared parental leave- both parents who choose to share the caring for their child will be able to do so while not losing their connection to the workplace- but this is a topic for a different debate.

Think about why it is that women seek abortions in countries where they have access only to unsafe, life-threatening backyard abortions. It’s like playing Russian roulette; nevertheless, women are so desperate to end their pregnancy that they are willing to risk their lives rather than give birth.

I’d say that the only people who are foolish are the people who think that they are able to assess a woman’s situation better than the woman herself and dictate what she should do; not the woman who is forced to make a choice between two evils: abortion or giving birth.
Don’t forget that they don’t want to make a decision at all; they simply have to.
The article that Johnny Rotten posted highlighted the fact that women are able to make their own decisions and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I agree with you that it is wrong to push a woman into having an abortion if she doesn’t want one, but it’s just as wrong to push her into continuing a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

I’m glad that your daughter came to you for support, but it seems like your daughter wants support for a decision she already made: to continue her pregnancy.
What if your daughter had decided to have an abortion, would she have come to you also, or would she then have preferred to talk to someone else to find support for her abortion? She simply chose the person who would best back up her decision- you.

Celivia, suppose you had a son and he came to you and told you his girlfriend was pregnant and she was going to have the child. Suppose your son admits he is neither financially or emotionally capable of being a parent and wants her to have an abortion. What way out have you got planned for him?

David,
Unborn child or blastocyst/zygote/embryo/foetus? I prefer to use the technical terms because of clarity and they point out the stages of development.
I view the term ‘unborn child’ as contradictory: a foetus becomes a child after birth.
If a blastocyst/embryo/foetus is an ‘unborn child’, then a grass-seed is an ungrown blade of grass, an acorn an ungrown oak, a pile of bricks an unbuilt house, and we are all undead corpses.
I prefer to stick to the here-and-now and call things the-way-they-are, not what they potentially can be.

Aqvarivs,
The question you should have asked is “Would you plan a way out for him? The answer would have been, “No.”

Do YOU plot with your children to find a way out for their actions so they don’t have to face responsibility? I teach my kids to take responsibility for their actions.
I’d hate to be one of those parents who always find excuses for the irresponsible behaviour of their kids. Do the crime and face the time, as to say. No emotive victim-stories impress me as excuses for irresponsible behaviour.

Kids need to be taught that they are responsible for their actions or we end up with the poor little rapists who are protected by pathetic parents, and rock-throwing no-hopers bailed out by ignorant parents.

If my son happened to get a girl pregnant, he’d have to accept any decision his girlfriend would make. He’d need to support the child, ready or not, if she decides to continue the pregnancy, even though it might mean that he’d have to change his lifestyle or future plans.

I would be there for emotional support, but I wouldn’t accept my children to escape their actions.
My children have been taught that if they have sex, they must use contraception themselves and make sure that they choose a partner who also uses contraception.
If they fail to do that or if contraception of both partners fails then they know they have to accept responsibilities. I will be there for advice and support, or help find them the support they need.
No victimisation crap.

Celivia, the way it ought to work in an egalitarian society, and not our female dominated family structure would be for the woman having found herself pregnant, go ask the man if he wants to go on to the next step. Yes or no answers only. Then the woman returns home and makes up her own mind how she wants to go forward. Whether that is to carry the child or to terminate the pregnancy. If she had a yes response from the man, they may want to commit to some civil or religious union. If the man answered no, then she could make any choice freely, according to her own wish.
You see I'm part of the pro-choice movement that includes men and women. Not the feminist limited-choice, pro-abortion movement that enslaves men to the female decision making process.
Along with contraceptive education we encourage people to speak openly about their future plans and to make known prior to any sexual relationship any lifestyle expectations they may have. In this way we feel more people will not be sand bagged by unexpected events and will feel more in control of their lives and less likely as mature adults to be blaming the opposite sex for their situation. We also believe that if both men and women are free to choose and not compelled to, or to be with out choice, that more men and women will do right by each other and the propagation of man vs.women will disappear from the political stage.
We represent true equality and freedom for both sexes and find that the laws as they stand are socially reactionary by nature and not proactive or designed to represent people with out discrimination.

So we all want to see a reduction of abortions albeit for different reasons; and we all know the best way to achieve that.

David,
Why don’t you do a good deed and write an article about the importance of comprehensive sex education and free contraception to show that you primarily care about embryos rather than about sins of pre-marital sex?
You either want to see a reduction in the abortion rate as your priority or you don’t.

Aqvarivs,
I think we had this discussion about men’s right to escape responsibilities elsewhere.
You need to understand that once a woman is pregnant, two people are responsible. Men are just as much responsible for contraception as women are. If contraception has failed, then the woman, who didn’t want to be pregnant in the first place, has the task to choose between two evils.
If she chooses to carry the pregnancy full-term, of course the child needs to be provided for by both parents.
If men can just walk away from responsibilities, the chances are that we see an increase in the abortion rate.

Men might not like to support their children, but in the interest of the child, they should share financial responsibility with the partner.
The child’s welfare should come first- why should the men’s rights have to come before the child’s? Because they want to maintain their life style over the welfare of their offspring?

There are a lot of single mothers living just below the poverty line. Children shouldn’t have to suffer just because their father is an irresponsible person who wants to get his rocks off without any responsibilities whatsoever.

Even if the woman has a job that pays as much as her partner’s, this won’t be the case anymore after she has the baby. Even if she manages to get back to work, there needs to be money for child care and everything else that comes with having a child.
Hate the thought of having to provide for a child? You’re welcome to have a vasectomy and be risk-free.

I would like to recap where we have got to, from my perspective.

1.On the basis of Christian pro life conviction, I oppose abortion as the taking of human life, whether in the form of blastocyst, zygote or a discernible, developing human shape.

2.The pro choice side and I take Celivia as a thoughtful, cogent exponent of it, argue that it’s the woman’s business alone, a necessary safeguard for an unwanted pregnancy and therefore should be allowed, even better decriminalised.

3.Other arguments advanced in favour of the pro choice side are largely furphies: death from backyard abortions went into rapid decline once antibiotics made available, Lesley Cannold could only cite three instances of doctors facing proceedings over a 20 year period Australia wide in which 1.5 – 2 million abortions occurred.

4.My own position has been misrepresented on this thread. A number of entries have asserted I want Governments to ban all abortions. It is perfectly true I would like to see no abortions occur, but I don’t demand that no abolition occur (and I will come back to the reason for this, for it is also the same reason why prohibition failed in America).

5.What I argue for is a community wide acceptance that the absolute number of abortions is far too high, that not only is the taking of human life involved in an abortion, but women undergoing abortions are themselves damaged, and in particular that action should be taken (Governments can help in this) to reduce the number of abortions (and of course late term abortions, especially by virtue of how undertaken, are an abomination).

To be continued.

6. Such action could include leaving the Menhennitt common law ruling in place (other States, other rulings), provision of pre and post abortion, independent counselling which can include placing ALL options on the table, abortion and adoption included and a requirement that the woman (potentially a mother to be), be required to view ultrasound images of the foetus/unborn child.

7. The bottom line for me remains that abortion is a barbaric life destroying practice with the must vulnerable member of the human race, the unborn, being its victim.

8. The reason why I cannot, as much as I would like to, call for the outlawing of abortion is that it has become a safety valve for our society’s disregard for the purpose of sex, a most wonderful gift of God, viz the joining of two lives together in love, male and female, in a life long union to the exclusion of all others, a union open to and welcoming of children.

9. Until our society is willing to turn its back on the sexualisation of the young, until women refuse to offer themselves until vows are made and until young men become willing to make the necessary commitments, abortions will remain, even though better alternatives, not least of which is adoption, exist, and God knows there are more than enough childless couples longing to adopt such children.

10. My challenge to Celivia and other pro choicers on this thread is, “do you agree that there are far too many abortions (more than 1 to every three live births), and if so what are you prepared to do about it?”.

11.There are of course other reasons for abortions like the baby will be deformed, sex selection, economic decisions, which are all highly questionable if not downright repugnant, but I’m running out of words.

Celivia, you have just posted a good question to me - I will give it some thought. I have done my dash for the day.

"My challenge to Celivia and other pro choicers on this thread is, “do you agree that there are far too many abortions (more than 1 to every three live births), and if so what are you prepared to do about it?”."

Nope, I don't agree, with you, I simply believe that your philosophy
is flawed.

The world is full of thinking, feeling people, starving babies
etc. Other species are being wiped out, in the name of ever more
humans.

Given the limited resources, why should I become emotional about
diploid cells? Much better to help those already starving, then
create ever more problems on this earth, for the proplem will
simply otherwise keep perpetuating itself.

I care more about the suffering of thinking, feeling beings, then I do
about cells. All quite straight forward and prioritised, as we
must do at times in life.

I've met too many people from the last generation, whose parents were
forced to have them. They remain scarred for life, by parents who
did not want them and kept reminding them that they were the cause of
all the parents problems. Irrational as that may be, thats humans
for you. If you think that with some magic you will change human
behaviour, think again.

So I think that the world would be a better place, if children were
actually wanted, loved and not starving. Forcing people to have
children that they don't want, only leads to more suffering.

If I were not here, I would not know that I was not here, so why
would it matter?

A world with a bit less suffering and a bit more happiness is
a lovely thought, but clearly its not going to happen. All these
people read their particular holy books, follow their religious
agenda and we land up with the mess we have now. All very sad
really, but clearly humans are not the rational creatures they
are often claim to be.

Not when the woman can just abort it. Your whole focus on men is monetary, nothing else. Men ought to have the same choice as the woman. To be a parent or not. You claim any man not wanting to be a parent as running from responsibility, yet any women who has an abortion rather than be a parent is exercising her right to maintain her lifestyle and future plans. Your so bound by your politics you can not even see your own two-faced approach to what you profess is human rights. No, that's woman only rights. Yes, men can have vasectomies, and women can have radical hysterectomies. Those are also choices. You never suggest women get a hysterectomy though, so I find the comment closer to your opinion of men than any actual addition to the conversation. I believe men and women can communicate prior to the sexual relationship and be mutually respectful of each others decisions. And I don't think single mothers or single fathers are a bad thing. I would like to see more fathers allowed to have the children they want. Single people should be able to adopt. If the woman doesn't want to be a mother why can't she have the baby for the man if that is his wish. There are many ways things can go. Choice can be more than limited choice of abortion. Women have to step back from the sexual punitive attitudes they carry as part of their sense of empowerment fed to them by feminist man haters. Pro-choice means multiple choices. Not either or. Times are a change'n and so are the ways and means of human relationships. Feminist and the Courts are way behind the curve. People want more diversity than the Church wedding and the missionary position. People are coming together in diverse ways and for diverse means and the old mother/father/baby image is only going to be one of the many. Laws and people have to change to accommodate as single male parents, single female parents, gay parents, lesbian parents, transgendered parents, becomes more the norm.

I honestly don't think you should read this thread independently from the stories by Bernie Matthews.

Bernie Matthews tells the stories of children institutionalised in NSW in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1950s and 1960s effective contraception was not available to single women and abortions were only available to rich women. When girls became pregnant they were yanked out of school and disappeared while they had their baby. The lucky babies were adopted and the unfortunate babies were bought up in institutional care. Now not all children in care would have been brutalised but there is ample evidence that many children were treated far more harshly than their contempories who lived with mum and dad.

Women who had babies adopted out would never recommend adoption ahead of aborting unwanted pregnancies.

Aqvarius complains that women look at a man's ability to provide monetary support for his family. Well there is nothing new in that! Statistically, Australian men with low earning capacity or low status jobs are less likely to be married or be fathers and well educated high paid women are less likely to have children.

Surveys show that children growing up in poverty in Australia have worse health, do worse at school, are more likely to leave school early. People living in poverty are more likely to suffer mental illnesses like depression and schizophenia. The major cause of children growing up in poverty is that they are growing up in sole parent families. The Australian government defines subsistence income in Australia as an income under $13,000 per annum. At the moment I can't remember the number of children growing up in poverty but its at least 25%.

So whilst fertile adults have sex for recreation, to gain approval, to be part of the group as well as to make new humans then unwanted pregnancies will occur. The social cost of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies is too high for the individual women, the baby and the society that grudgingly rears the child.

The old feminist chant used to be "EVERY CHILD A WANTED CHILD"

Some years ago, my wife and I attended to a seminar that was educating people how to invest the net value of your house into buying other properties and make a lot of money in the process. All people attending, other then myself, were quickly in discussions as to how to get involved, even my wife, however I wanted no bar of it. For weeks my wife kept berating me for having wasted this good opportunity of investment, etc. Years later, those who invested lost their homes, because the entire investment scheme was a con. Now my wife realise, I wasn’t a fool to risk our properties. Excuses by others that they didn’t realise the consequences isn’t going to get their homes back!
With sexual intercourse you likewise take a risk, no matter how you may plan everything and whatever protection you may take. If you never the less get involved in it then you simply must face the consequences as you cannot make undone the deed.
By hindsight most people would not have done some conduct if they had known how it ended, but they did and suffered the consequences if it went wrong.
With sexual intercourse it is even worse as it is creating another human being, who was in a sense the unwilling participant, or the victim.
A woman who has a hysterectomy obviously can do as she likes, but if she doesn’t (have a hysterectomy) then she takes the risk and if a child is created then she should accept the consequences and not cowardly have an abortion. Let her then give the child to the father or if he doesn't want the child adopt-out the child to a couple who failed to be able to conceive. Then the child is still wanted!
Women who have abortion after abortion hardly can claim it is an accident. Again, why not have the baby and then decide to keep it, give custody to the father, or to have it adopted out to a couple who so much unsuccessfully tried to conceive.

Billie,
thanks for your info on child poverty; it’s far too sad that, in a country that boasts about surpluses, so many children (and adults) are living in poverty. Yabby is right: focus on people who are suffering.

David, these are some interesting points.

Too many abortions?
I think that there are too many unwanted pregnancies; when these are prevented as much as possible the abortion rate will come down proportionally. How many abortions are “too many”? All I know is that we cannot put a limit on the number but we can try to minimise numbers by utelising the most effective methods we know of to prevent pregnancies, which are, atm, education and free contraception (both partners!).

What am I prepared to do about it?
Persuading people from the anti-abortion side to realise that ignoring contraception and sex-education will do nothing to reduce abortion numbers. I’m prepared to constantly repeat myself ad nauseam: )

Backyard abortions
True, that antibiotics reduce the risk of dangerous infections, but should we expect Australians to undergo operations under inferior conditions?
Imagine that there was some religious group believing that it was against God’s will to have tonsillectomies and not wanting to decriminalise these operations; would we accept to have our tonsils taken out in backyards because antibiotics will fix infections anyway? Why should pregnant women have to accept lower medical standards than anyone else just because of the beliefs of certain groups?
Besides, I can imagine other things going wrong apart from infections- for example women could become infertile from a faulty procedure and won’t be able to start a family when they’re ready later in life.

Requiring pregnant women to view ultrasound images?
Including women who have been victims of rape and incest? Whoever thought of this idea must have no heart.
Is that supposed to be Christian compassion?
As if pregnant women are not going through enough emotions without adding this guilt-trip.
A bit of love, compassion and understanding won’t go astray.
PERHAPS, women could be offered this as an option only if they need it and ask for it.

billie, try a little harder. Use cut and paste to tell what other say rather than have your own thinking on a subject override the original post.

Poverty in Australia is $23,000pa or less and single men make up the greatest proportion, followed by two parent families of three or more children with a household earnings of $426.00/wk

Sole parents remain the group "most at risk" of being in poverty because loss of employment has a greater impact than in two parent families where both parents are employed. As a representation of the general population single parent families are not by virtue living in poverty.

At least 12 methods are used to measure poverty, all of which reach different results.

I suggest people read Poverty edited by Justin Healey (ISBN 1 876811 79 X)

David Palmer “but this cuts both ways, doesn’t it. A woman has “opportunity for personal growth” through choosing not to have an abortion.”

What ProLife would see is all “choice” removed and an intention of a full-term pregnancy imposed on every woman who fell pregnant, regardless of what her individual wishes might be. There is no opportunity for individual growth in the circumstance of an imposed limit of choice to “No choice”.

I wish to see respect for the right of all women to choose, regardless if they choose to abort or continue with the pregnancy.
You are wishing for something which denies them that respect.

“You are tough on women, Col Rouge.”

I have never assumed that the burden of making a decision is either easy or without regret. I merely wish for every individual to make as many of the material decisions in their life as they can, rather than their right of choice and sovereignty being usurped by the state or , worse, usurped by a the demands of a minority lobby groups who focus on pressuring the state to gain disproportionate and unrepresentative influence.

“but there are an awful lot of barbarians and wimps out there, no good at all to any woman.”

Some might say that the “lack of character” of some women qualifies them for nothing better than a barbarian or wimp.
Certainly such women will not develop greater “character” if they are forced to comply with the demands of strangers, rather than learn to shoulder the burden of decision for themselves.

Btw as an individual, I am not responsible for either the barbarians or wimps. I am responsible for my own behaviour and actions.

I believe we are all responsible for speaking up in the face of tyranny.

I would be less than the person I aspire to be if I were not to stand up and challenge the tyranny of ProLife, when they seek to impose “their absolute will” upon others who do not share their beliefs and to inflict an outcome which they do not bear any responsibility for.

Gerrit,
Agreed, adoption or giving the partner custody are options women can take into consideration. In addition, even if YOU don’t agree, others DO want abortion to remain an option for women who do not want to give birth.
You say that you are not religious so I assume you don’t believe in souls.
So what do you believe is so special about an embryo without a soul that they should be allowed to override women’s rights?

Aqvarivs,
I don’t believe that single men make up the greatest proportion because I have never come across evidence of that, do you have a link to an article or figures so I can have a look?

“Men ought to have the same choice as women”
Would be nice but it’s impossible I’m afraid; unless men can get pregnant, men simply cannot have the same choices as women about reproduction for obvious biological and natural reasons.

Men have some pre-pregnancy control such as contraception but all the post-pregnancy control can only be the woman’s. That doesn’t mean that she won’t take into account the wishes of her partner, but the ultimate decision is hers alone. I know many women who acted upon their partner’s wishes, whether it was having a baby or having an abortion. Don’t forget that women don’t have 100% autonomic control over their fertility either unless they’ve been sterilised.

Not wanting to repeat our previous discussion elsewhere all-over again, I concluded there that I would agree with you and RObert that the law could do with some changes regarding child support so that it can allow more flexibility to handle individual situations appropriately.
Men are welcome to lobby for a change in the law. Women have had to fight hard for their rights, and there is no reason why men can’t do the same if they feel that the law is unfair.

Good to see you back, Col.

Celivia, as much as you would like to make my posts about men controlling whether or not women have abortions I wont let you. It has nothing to do with the womans choice, she is free to make her choice. Just as the man ought to be free to make his choice, and have that choice with out it being countermanded by the courts or the womens choice to keep the baby. Or stale accusations that men having a choice will increase the amount of abortions because you say men will not willingly accept the responsibility of their choice. Rubbish. Sexist drivel perpetuated by feminist who don't really want anything to do with equality under law. "If men don't pay for our decision not to abort our babies women will just have more abortions." Why? Giving men full choice over whether or not they want to be parents at any particular moment is no more less valid than a women having an abortion because she does not want to be a parent at that particular moment in her life. Women should consider whether or not they can afford to raise a child before they engage in a sexual relation and have a full understanding of the mans position. The man has no choice in abortion. Don't make men a slave to a womans decision not to abort. That's just one more unwanted baby who will have to face abuse from a father trapped by a lovers decision. There are a lot of single women having children for the increase in welfare. I don't think they got the pro-abortion message. They got the pro-welfare message. Every child gives them more money and access to larger social housing. Also, most of these relationships are filled with anger and violence and the women end up in safe houses. Their victims. They never did anything but, MAKE a lover become a father to unwanted children.

Look up Spinney Press. They publish all kinds of social material. They then edit the material and publish a diverse range of perspectives on the issues.

"Women should consider whether or not they can afford to raise a child before they engage in a sexual relation and have a full understanding of the mans position. The man has no choice in abortion. Don't make men a slave to a womans decision not to abort."

Ah, so sex only for the rich, who can afford it! Too bad
for those too poor. Let them watch tv instead.

Aqva, if you want to understand this, you need to go right back
to observing nature. We are natural beings after all. Pairbonding,
or marriage as you call it, is common in various species. Usually
in species where a large investment and resources are required
to rear the offspring.

In some species, its males that do all the hard work, the female
simply lays an egg and pisses off. Those males are highly
particular as to who can lay an egg in their nest!

The point is, whoever makes the largest investment, gets to
call the shots. Given that the female makes a huge commitment,
whilst us males invest little more then an ejaculation, its
only fair enough that they get to decide. Thats not sexist,
its basic biology.

Besides my own daughters many young women asked my views about abortion, it has nothing to do with them being put under pressure, rather as one women explained to me years later, I showed her the light in a dark tunnel.
With about 20% of children born in a marriage not being the biological children of the husbands then obviously a lot of women have extra-matrimonial-affairs. After all not every sexual encounter result to a pregnancy.
Often a woman is torn between aborting a child or husband, who isn’t aware his wife became pregnant of another man, to keep the baby and keep it secret from the husband she had an extra-matrimonial-affair or keep the baby and fess up to the husband how the pregnancy came about.
Ample of men have extra-matrimonial-affairs but they just are shielded against falling pregnant. Hence, we cannot just lay the blame onto women having extra-matrimonial-affairs.
Over the decades I have come across men who’s wife simply admitted having had an extra-matrimonial-affair and not knowing if the child born subsequently is that if the husband, and they made clear to me they do not even desire to know if the child is biologically their or not as all they know is that the child is their and part of the family. I have also come across men who asked me to assist as to somehow find out if there was a way to cast doubt about paternity so they could stop paying child-support. Actually the McGill case was where two out of three children were found not to be his biological children and I recall he then gave me the understanding that it was a shame he could not prove the third one neither to be his child. So we have the rot on all sides. Consider the unborn-baby as the “victim” and primary consider what should be done is the best for the unborn child! Killing an unborn baby is like we had the Federal Government saying we liberate-to-death people by the invasion. Yes, we did alright, by killing them in the bombardments!

Celivia,

I think the difference between us, and it really is a bridge too far, is that you argue (and you make excellent points!) on the basis of how things are: boys and girls get to play and we just need to try to give them some rules (use condoms, etc) and if the girl gets hurt (as they all too often do) we have to ease their way out of it as best able.

My position, on the other hand, sanctioned by Christian understanding and until fairly recent times practiced by and large in Western society (and other societies according to their religious beliefs) is that sex properly belongs within the marriage bond (with its protections), and when this happens a lot of the present day mess disappears (not all though, because as Yabby points out, humans just can’t help themselves when it comes to making a mess of things). Because this is the reality today, no Government will legislate to outlaw abortion. I understand that.

All I can say is that in the church we will continue to follow the time honoured ways and my observation in my local church is that our young people are doing just that, including my newly engaged son and fiancée, and my observation is that children are very welcome with families of 2, 3, 4, 5 children.

One day the tide will turn on the current permissive state of affairs once the mess becomes unbearable. It make not be in our life time. But if it doesn’t, our society will find itself in terminal decline (just check out the current European birth-rates). Without children in sufficient numbers there is no future. I am only in this discussion because I care about that future and because for the umpteenth time, the taking of human life (not just a bunch of cells!!) is so repugnant.

"But if it doesn’t, our society will find itself in terminal decline (just check out the current European birth-rates). Without children in sufficient numbers there is no future."

David, I'm curious about that comment, for the following reasons:

The rapid rise in world population, from 1.5 billion to 6.5
billion in a hundred years, has been largely possible on the
back of cheap and plentiful oil. We haven't yet come up with
an alternative. World population is still increasing at
80 million a year, so I'm not sure what you are concerned about.
The case could be easily made that a Europe with only half
the population, would be a little more sustainable and less
overcrowded. If they want extra people, there are plenty
of volunteers from elsewhere, who would live there.

Usually, when I dig a bit deeper with people, I find other
concerns. Lots of so called tribal instincts emerge.

They want to keep the European race white.
They don't want Islam to outbreed Christians.
etc etc

As there is clearly no shortage of people, what is it
that you are really concerned about?

Yap, what a load of pretentious rubbish. It's very simple, make a man support a child he does not want and you have an angry, and potentially violent man waiting to explode for being compelled to support a women he doesn't love and a child he never wanted. Have a woman who has trapped herself in a relationship with a man she has no love for and a child she had for the wrong reasons and she becomes a bitter, angry, potentially violent women. This is not speculative theory based on what ifs and feminist power plays. Nothing complicated here and nothing against women per se. We are talking about a course of law that allows a women to abort a child she does not want and another course of law making a man support a woman and a child he does not want. I spend the entirety of my working day dealing with both men and women who have not been in a position to make the choices they would have, IF they had been free to decide for themselves. Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, mental and spiritual degradation are not aspects of familia ignesco (the passionate family)but rather, familia iactura (the family discarded). All this frustration, anger, and violence does not take place in a vacuum. It's people reacting to the lack of choice in their lives. It's not about being pro-abortion. It's about being pro-choice for both men and women and equal treatment under law.
The resulting effect is the demand for crisis accommodation for both men and women is extremely high. If you doubt the veracity of what I'm saying give the hard worked folks down at the Homeless Persons Information Centre at the Sydney City Council a call. It would be nice if you feminist donated some money and goods. They are overwhelmed by the needs of 50,000 odd men, women and children seeking refuge from all associated ills each year, and the State and local governments can not keep abreast of the demand.

Aqvarivs I think you should start more of your sentences with "I would like" because that is all we can do give our opinions.
Do you hate the fact that women can have children? I am nonplussed by this "Oh woh is the male species, we are getting less important because women have been allowed to vote for the last century.

How long? let me remind you. A little over a century.
How long were women allowed to leave a marriage with the children?
How long were women allowed to be given work over a man because she was equal to him?
How long since women were allowed to have sex out of marriage and not be called a whore and black listed?

I am not a feminist. I am an Australian citizen I have the right to vote and I have the right to have respect.
I am not a feminist because I was designed to become pregnant and give birth.

You are stating that if a man impregnates me with or without my consent and wants that child, he should have the right to have control over my body for not less than 40 weeks. That is not equality of the sexes but control of human rights.

I can not force a man to have a vasectomy, I cannot force a man not to impregnate 5-10 more women within a 24 hour period after myself.
If he could force me to carry a baby in my uterus, and force other women to also do so which would be his right in your opinion then why am I allowed to vote.

It seems that this has nothing to do with feminism, calling our society feminist controlled would be laughable if it was not unsettling that men believe women are getting to powerful.

lol It like the old joke..Women get a Cold, men get pneumonia

cardine, the only thing I'm sure of is you have a serious comprehension deficit. Nowhere do I state men ought to have control over a womans body or uterus. That women are achieving social position is no threat to me. I for one am all for equality. If you are suggesting women are getting power "over" men and have a sense of victory. Be very afraid. The fall will be very painful. If you were to come down off your cross you might have gleaned an egalitarian philosophy from my post and my continual call for equality in law and social decree. Nothing happens in a vacuum and nothing happens independently. You can barrack for your own little sense of sexist empowerment but, if your doing it on the back of someone else don't be surprised if you get a slap in the mouth. Male or female. Abortion is not really the issue. Choice for both sexes to determine whether of not they will become parents is. Men to decide if they will be fathers and women to decide if they will be mothers. Compelling either sex to be something they have no wish to be is the major factor behind alcoholism, drug abuse, Child abuse, domestic violence, mental distress and broken spirits. When a butterfly flaps its wings...

Aqva, you are free to shoot the messenger, but reality does not go
away, when we close our eyes and wish it would. Biology is biology
and the investment of an ejaculation does not equate to the investment
of 9 months pregnancy!

It is a nonsense to suggest that many social ills are caused by
the fact that men cannot force women to bear them children.

The environment that you work in sounds a bit like the environment
that a friend of mine works in, ie. a jail. He tells me that no
criminal has ever admitted to him that he made a mistake. They will
blame everything and anything, but themselves for their situation.
It seems to be a common human foible. It takes a bit of thought and
wisdom to realise that sometimes we are the problem, not the rest
of the world. But people are experts at rationalising away just
about anything.

Yes some feminists go to extremes, as some men go to extremes,
there are faults on both sides, its not black and white.

Child support paid by fathers, is for the benefit of children,
not the mothers. Of the 140$ billion collected from individuals
in taxation, 90$ billion goes for social security payments, so
us taxpayers are paying heaps to raise those kids. Its only fair
that fathers pay something too and cannot just impregnate any
amount of women with impunity.

The many social problems that you list, have many causes. Desmond
Morris was correct, when he wrote "The Human Zoo" When you
cram people into cities, all those apartments etc, they start
to become neurotic, a bit like animals in a zoo, each in their
little cage.

I agree with you, choice matters to people, but the question always
is, at what expense to others. If males really want children, there
are plenty of clucky females out there who would love kids, go find
one and live happily ever after.

Aqva, in some ways you are a bright fellow. In this case, you are
letting your hatred of feminists cloud your better judgement.

"I would like to see more fathers allowed to have the children they want. Single people should be able to adopt. If the woman doesn't want to be a mother why can't she have the baby for the man if that is his wish.
"Women have to step back from the sexual punitive attitudes they carry as part of their sense of empowerment fed to them by feminist man haters"
This was just part of my reading experience and you were only one of many opinions that I read.
I did not say I believe females were more powerful you created that opinion. You have stated in other sites that you want men to have the right to say whether a pregnancy proceed or not.
Also, It seems that If I have confusion by your words you also show confusion by my words. "If you were to come down off your cross you might have gleaned an egalitarian philosophy from my post and my continual call for equality in law and social decree" I take offence at that considering I have not shown any pro female anti male attitudes. It is similiar to your comment that "I can have all the abortions I want". If you believe you are equal that is your right to your opinion to believe how you wish to be perceived. Not the fact of how you are perceived.

Yabby,
Strongly agree with you about the birth rate, and thanks for your interesting info on birds as a support of the money point.

An interesting article by the Head of the British science museum who would also agree with what you said on the birth rate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/22/climatechange.climatechange
“… if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate - by improving contraception, education and healthcare - we will stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.”
My word!

David,
Yes I can see where we differ; it just frustrates me that although you, as a Christian, care about the foetus, your religion is more or less barricading you from supporting the very things that would reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies.

I sense that you can see my point of view, but that you feel you must resist acting upon these facts because of the things that are expected of you by your church. You’d be criticised by your Church if you’d go around handing out free contraception and encouraged elaborate sex-ed even if this proved to reduce abortion numbers significantly.

I can only hope that Christians realise that their religious view is contributing to higher abortion numbers than necessary. Without religion holding us back, these things would have happened quite some time ago.
I suppose it is up to the humanists and atheists to fight for these things, while the Christians can focus on, as Yabby said so eloquently, ‘evil fornicating’.

As a negotiation, I'd like to see the two sides work together or alongside and not prevent one another from applying their chosen method.

Atheists will have no problem with preachers trying to encourage their young adherers such as your son (Congratulations!) to get married young and start a family and not have pre-marital sex. They’re free to take that road.
Christians, in turn, will need to let others take their own road and not barricade it with their dogma; remember both roads lead to a common goal.

Gerrit and Aqvarivs, I'll reply to you next time.

Cardine, welcome!

Gerrit,
I still don’t understand why you are such a strong opponent of abortion while you don’t view the foetus from a religious point of view. If it has no soul, no developed human brain, and no consciousness, then what exactly is it that makes you think it should have rights and priority over the woman’s rights?

Aqvarivs,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/australia-scores-poorly-in-efforts-to-reduce-poverty/2007/08/29/1188067192177.html
“Almost 2 million Australians in 2004, including 365,270 children, were living at or below the most austere poverty line …“
And this happened/happens at a time when men ARE paying child support; I can imagine how many more children would be living in poverty if their fathers refused to help pay for their offspring. Children should have priority.

I DO understand that it doesn’t seem fair that fathers who didn’t want children still have to pay support, but does it seem fair that mothers have to make the hard decision that they did not want to make?
Does it seem fair that children have to grow up in poverty?
The child support payments a father makes go towards the CHILD, not the mother.
You don’t seem to understand that some women, like many anti-abortionists, love their ‘unborn babies’ from the moment they find out they’re pregnant. I know because I felt like that too, even though I realised that they were nothing more than a clump of cells. For them, abortion is not an option, so they have as little choice as the father in this matter.

I am not against a fairer system where every individual case is looked at separately.
When men have sex with women they need to realise that there is a risk of fatherhood.
As Yabby tried to explain: that’s nature. All animals in nature have evolved in such way that their young have the best chance to survive. For some species, offspring are not too hard to look after and need one parent. For many species, the effort of both parents is required or they would become extinct. Watch “March of the Penguins”.
Men becoming violent? There’s always jail.

I don’ believe Yabby has got the population thing right.

Without hunting down references, I believe demographers are saying they expect the Earth’s population to peak around 9.5 – 10 billion and then trend down, in part due to rising affluence forcing down the need of families for children.

I am of European stock, 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation Australian, worked in UK in the 1980’s and therefore interested in Europe. The sharp decline in native European birth-rate (interesting topic: Why?), well below replacement level (1.1 in Russia, 1.3 in Spain and Italy, etc cf the required 2.1 to maintain population) means rapid ageing of the population. You mention Muslims taking up the slack. However, in the face of their own increasing numbers and the decline of native populations, Islam will be demanding Sharia law (and is already succeeding to some degree). These two factors combined will mean the death of European civilisation as we know it, and probably not without serious conflagration along the way. I care deeply about a dying civilisation particularly one that I was born into. But perhaps the fate of Europe is of no interest to you?

If this makes me tribal, then so be it, though I also delight in the present day multi national complexion of the Presbyterian Church – Australians, Scots, Dutch, Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Arabic speaking people from the Middle East, Sudanese, Samoans and Japanese

Celivia,

Clearly I am not going to hand out contraception devices to unmarried people when I don’t believe they should be having sex. I would be a hypocrite. But I don’t think me or the Church turning around doing as you ask would make one iota of difference. It might even worsen the situation because we would be saying to our own young people, who to a degree that may surprise you practice abstinence before marriage (and generally marry young), “don’t wait, go for it, and try out a few different partners while you are at it”, thereby inevitably increasing unwanted pregnancies.

I think you demonstrate naivety over sex education – we have had that for years in State Schools without too much interference from the churches (and one reason why so many Christian parents invest money time and energy setting up their own schools). All that sex ed has done is increased sexual activity and therefore unwanted pregnancies. I see you now want “elaborate” sex ed – well what’s stopping you through the State system?

I think it would be an interesting survey to check the abortion rate from those going through/having gone through the State, Catholic, big independent schools and the religious schools.

You talk about two sides working together, not blocking each other. But in fairness the atheists and their fellow travellers are just as keen on seeing their agenda win as any Christian.

Richard Dawkins in the “God delusion” on the grounds of his dogma (your word) wants us Christians to lose the right to bring up our own children. How dogmatic and intolerant is that!! Overall, atheists and co seem to be having the greater success in their “evangelism”.

From what I hear the new TV show, Californication is setting a new standard in depravity, adding no doubt in time its bit to the unwanted pregnancy debacle. Are you willing to oppose such programmes?

You challenge me over condoms, etc, I'll challenge over what comes onto our TV screen, what can be seen at the movies or sitting in front of a computer screen.

Yabby, if you continue to deliberately misconstrue what I post to further your own pro-abortionist stance I can not truly answer. No where do I suggest men force women to have children or to have abortions and it is disingenuous of you to state so.

Women are not in a social position where they are forced to have children. If all else fails, they have access on demand to abortion. Men however, if all else fails have no choice and are compelled by the courts to support the womans decision to have the baby. Women have freedom of choice men have no choice. Very simple. Until such time as men have a choice in whether or not they wish to become parents men are enslaved to the womens choice. The mans choice does not impinge on the womans choice.

I can find no implication or statistical evidence that suggest fully consenting parent families suffer from drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, domestic violence, suffer mental distress or are broken in spirit. Quite to the contrary, they are happy, healthy, self actualised people with close familiar bonds who have no need for legal or social intervention. The police do report regularly to unhappy, unhealthy and discontented environments on calls of drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, domestic violence, for those suffering mental distress or are broken in spirit because they are struggling to live up to choices they have not freely made of their own will and desire.

Not counting my professional career, I have a close, albeit secondhand knowledge of this because my brother married a woman who has two children from a failed marriage and I have a sister whose first marriage failed. Both women married men initially who didn't want to be fathers or parents. Neither couple were honestly and openly communicating their desires for their future but, rather struggling to live up to imposed expectations surrounding that lack of communication. Both women and men subsequently learned to better communicate their desires and found men and women who share that thinking. They are now happy homes.

Aqva, the differences between men and women, are as they are, because
of the difference of investment in a pregnancy, based on biology.

One cannot force a women to have an abortion, yet the child needs
to be provided for, for its benefit, not for the benefit of the
female. Men invest nearly nothing in a pregnancy, so have little
to lose, unlike women. Thats why the different treatment. Fair
enough, I don't see why that should be a problem. Now if somebody
invents an artificial uterus, then I'm sure that the male could
obtain the right to the zygote, that would make it a whole
different matter.

I am sure that the abortion rate is far higher in disfunctional
familes, then in those where everything is going fine. People in
that case have good reasons to abort. But its a long shot to blame
the causes of that disfunction on the fact that one partner has
decided to abort. These days we don't lock mentally unstable people
up in institutions as we used to. They are all part of society.

There are some great programmes that have been developed for
schoolkids, to teach them better communication, people skills,
conflict resolution etc. The kids go home and sort out their
parents arguments :) Quite amazing, these things should be taught
in every school, there would be a great deal less violence in
homes. Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence is a good read and
contains some of the details of what happens.

David, the best form of contraception is making housing unafordable.
No point building a nest for the family, if it can't be done.
Would I bring up kids in Europe, in one of those apartment estates?
No way, thats where all the social problems start.

If the world can't live sustainably with 6.5 billion, what makes
you think that things will get better with 10 billion?

Of course I care about Europe, but IMHO it is inevitable that
most of the world's population will eventually land up light
brown. Eurasians make some of the most beautiful women :)

Celivia, if women knew before hand that men would not be compelled to pay child support against their wish not to be a parent, much fewer single women would be having the child. And many fewer children would be supported by society. Understand this is not in reference to married or common law relationships that have gone bad and involve children. Again your willingness to strong punitive measures against men while excusing women who allow themselves to become impregnated shows a distinct bias and anti-male outlook. So too when women have sex with men they must realise the risk of motherhood. And women can be imprisoned too. Neither incident would better the social condition. Women who have had children to improve their monetary situation exist because the laws support the exploitation of men as a financial resource. The idea that child support goes to the children is an admirable view. However, experience shows that child support payments directly enrich the mother and little makes it's way to the children. Far too many children experience poverty and it is not due to a lack of child support. Again another ugly attack on men. There is about in equal proportions per capita deadbeat mothers and fathers reneging on support payments.

I wouldn't use animals as an example for human behavior unless your willing to concede that that diversity be allowed in human society with out the sexual punitive arguments put forward by those who fear most a lack of control over the opposite sex and general social influence. Advocates of yesterdays male role and feminist who advocate female social dominance wear the same attire. Jackboots.
Hopefully in time society will mature to the point where all are treated equally under law and individual choice will be respected by all.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”
-Thomas Jefferson 1789

agvarivs: "Until such time as men have a choice in whether or not they wish to become parents men are enslaved to the womens choice."

Of course, men could avail themselves of condoms, vasectomies, abstinence etc if they don't want to take that risk.

"I can find no implication or statistical evidence that suggest fully consenting parent families suffer from drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, domestic violence, suffer mental distress or are broken in spirit."

Yeah right. Like to quote some reliable and verifiable stats to that effect?

David Palmer: "from what I hear the new TV show, Californication is setting a new standard in depravity..."

I suppose that's an example of your church's doctrine of "total depravity" in action? Why do those who know least about sex purport to set standards for those who actually do it? Next you'll be giving dancing lessons.

aqvarivs: "Hopefully in time society will mature to the point where all are treated equally under law and individual choice will be respected by all. "

I agree. And a good place to start would be by treating women equally, rather than as repositories for men's sperm, and by respecting their choices as individuals.

The more you anti-choice people rabbit on, the less credible you are.

Celivia, first of all I do not view it has to do with religion for a person to have a “soul”. You can give it any other name but in the end, so to say, it is what makes us different from the animal world.
While my children are all adults, there was the time I was caring for up to 5-of-my-children and spend ample of time between women in playgroups, etc. and, from there I learned how women were coaching each other about how to split up and get financially better and how child support was being used for purposes other then the children. Sure, it were not all women doing so, but ample of them!
We have a civilised Federal compact in the constitution where even “old age pensions and invalid pensions” are included. Not that we say that if a person is old and frail, and may have list their marbles (mind) then we simply kill them off as they as like unborn babies do not have a proper usage of their facilities on their own and would more then likely die if they had to care for themselves.
Over the decades I came across many people who in litigation were arguing that “they” had “rights” but when it came to the opposition” then they argued they could not care less about their rights! It just doesn’t work that way. We are living in a society that has a constitution and principles are embedded in it. One of them that a marriage is between a man and a woman, that paternal rights are applicable. As such, paternal rights are not for a man to be concerned about paying for pre-natal cost but not being permitted to have any pre-natal involvement but that with rights comes obligations and entitlements.
If an unborn child is meaningless, then are you going to accept that woman forced to abort by a State and refusing to do so are subjected to having it compulsory aborted is all right? Or is then the “unborn” child somehow having a certain value?
Continued..

Are you saying that if a pregnant woman is in a public transport vehicle we can all ignore it as after all why should anyone offer up a seat for the woman to be able to sit down if the “unborn child” is without any value?
Is it then that if any woman is cased the loss of the unborn child the Courts then can argue there is no case because after all you do not accept the value of an “unborn child”?
Why indeed should taxpayers have to pay towards pre-natal cost because a woman is pregnant if she can at any moment decide to abort it?
Why should employers have to be burdened with giving time of work merely because a woman is pregnant, if she might in any event abort it and seemingly the unborn child has no real value as being a human being?
I could list a host of other argument but merely seek to make clear that you cannot have that on the one hand a woman can argue she can do what she likes because the “unborn child” is no ones business but the woman herself while on the other hand she can argue that she has rights and entitlements because of the “unborn baby”.
Pregnancy itself is not a medical illness, keep that in mind!

I view we should respect the “unborn child” to have rights as a human being and not being delegated to the trash can whenever it may suit a woman. After all, society need to keep respect for pregnant women and hardly could do so if pregnant women themselves lack the dignity to show they deserve this respect.
My arguments are not based on religious grounds but what I consider “common and civilised decency”.

"if women knew before hand that men would not be compelled to pay child support against their wish not to be a parent, much fewer single women would be having the child. And many fewer children would be supported by society."

Aqva, frankly thats a lot of nonsense. I'm a male and I know the
stories that men tell women, to get into their knickers. Lets
be honest here.

I know of a few guys who became real experts at pushing female
emotional buttons, kids everywhere were the result! Paying child
support was the only thing that stopped them from spreading their
genes even further around the countryside.

To suggest paying child support is descriminating against men,
is a heap of hogwash. If he lands up with the kids and she
goes to work, she has to pay him as well.

It costs one hell of a lot more to raise a child, then what
most pay in child support. Its simply a contributioin and to
say that it doesent benefit the kids, is more hogwash.

There was one post I loved by an aboriginal man in a previous abortion debate: He stated that Aboriginals never debate abortion because the men don’t interfere in women’s business. Women decide. Seems that they practiced 21st century thinking thousands of years ago while we’re stuck with a government that still practices ooga-booga style thinking about some issues.

David,
I am not ‘against’ religion as such; it’s none of my business what others believe or what choices they make. I am just against people who try to impose their beliefs upon others. The pope is a good example.
The only reason that atheism is getting more attention is because people are more educated and are fed-up with religious, backward views interfering in their lives.
Christians are over-represented in the government and impose their Christian values, e.g. discrimination against homosexuals or forcing very ill people to die a violent, scary and painful death.

If church communities would stick to their own members as they are supposed to they wouldn’t encounter opposition. If religions aren’t kept private then don’t be surprised if religions will be criticised and scrutinised just like any other organisation and institution.

In the Netherlands the abortion rate is the lowest in the world and the vast majority of the girls who do get pregnant are the immigrants who have missed out on sex education. This should tell you that proper sex education and free contraception reduce abortions.

Also, In the USA, when Clinton introduced better sex education, abortion numbers decreased. When Bush came into office and stopped these sex-ed programs, focusing on abstinence only, the abortion rate went up again. That should tell you that abstinence education is not the best way to reduce abortions.

Your religion’s priority is to control others, not the ‘unborn’ you claim you care about so much. These come second on your list, obviously.

I see your point about Europe, but I don’t share your anxiety about it. Over the next few thousands of years, things are bound to change. Change happens.
Does it really matter?

Continued later.

Gerrit,
Humans differ from animals because their brain has evolved more than those of animals. Without a human brain there can’t be a ‘person’. Until about 25 weeks, the foetus’ brain is undeveloped. There is no evidence of souls. You either believe, without the backup of any evidence, that blastocysts have souls, or you don’t. If you do, then you have a religious belief.

Forced abortions?
*Sigh*
You obviously don’t get what this debate is about: WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE over their body.
Forced abortion is just as no-choice as forcing a woman to give birth.

Standing for some time is very uncomfortable when pregnant especially in a wobbly bus. Feeling like a roly-poly, she can lose balance and fall or suffer from giddiness or vomit.
Have you ever experienced your stomach being forced up into your lung space while on a wobbly bus?
It has nothing to do with the value of a foetus and everything with considering other people including pregnant, elderly or disabled people.

Pregnant women deserve medical attention. That’s how our system works. That’s why elderly people or the poor receive pensions. I'm glad.
Why shouldn’t a wealthy country like Australia have a good, social and welfare network and support one another? People are social beings.

If a woman decides to have a baby of course she should be entitled to her rights. If she decides to have an abortion she also should be entitled to her rights- just different ones.

Aqvarivs,
I’m with Yabby on this. I know all too well that men can put the pressure on! I’m glad a man pointed this out.
I‘ll keep saying: financial arrangement simply has to be in the best interest of the child. The child’s welfare should be given priority, no matter which of its parents is the worse victim. The non-custodial parent should pay support, point.
I DO like men, just not violent ones :)
Men are cute and interesting and can read maps.
YOU started talking about violent men; I have zero tolerance for violence from either sex.

Yabby, I'm a man with three sisters and a long history as a single man prior to my marriage. I'm well aware of what some men like your self may get up to for sex. I'm also well aware of what some women get up to for financial gain and to get their man. And the laws as they stand today support that exploitation of men. Celivia has it worked out in her little sexist fashion that regardless of circumstance the man pays. Not only can I not agree with that, or the emotionalism of saying but, the child comes first. Considering this thread deals with abortion so obviously the woman comes first. (Not that they would ever admit that:-))
Celivia says abortion is a womans right to determine whether she becomes a parent or not(after impregnation). All I'm asserting is that the man have an equal right to determine(after impregnation)whether he wants to be a parent or not. Are we not supposed to be working towards an equality of rights for all. Women have abortion. They are not compelled by law to be a parent. It's fundamentally wrong to mandate by law that the man be subservient to the womans choice. It's like going back in time. It may excite the feminist sense of revenge but, it is still as wrong as a women being subservient to mens choice.

aqvaris

If a man with children becomes a divorced man, why shouldn’t he pay for the upkeep of his children, if they continue to live with his former wife and their mother? Shame if the mother siphons off money from the children. Surely the more important point is that the husband and wife do everything possible to guard and enrich their marriage.

Regarding your comments about your brother and sister, what right does a man have to a marriage, if he does not want children? Seems a very selfish position to take. In particular why did your brother marry a women already with 2 children?

Yabby,

You are still on the wrong track with respect to population. The world today is living more sustainably than at any time in the past (huge improvement in India, SE Asia and China, even some improvement in Africa)

With respect to my comments regarding Europe and your response, I’m not on about skin colour (a trivial matter) but about culture. By trivialising the matter to skin colour you fail to take up the challenge I offered you.

CJ Morgan

So you know more about sex than I do? But may be you’re just talking about depravity?

Like Yabby, your response fails the challenge I offered.

Me, dancing lessons? Your joking!

Celivia,

I have found you a worthy debating partner and already acknowledged that you make good points.

Firstly, a comment about Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka. Like you I was puzzled by his objection to abortion while claiming not to be religious. I suggest he grew up with a religious background either directly in the family or from the surrounding culture. The thing that religious culture left him with was (Christian) morality, hence his position on abortion. Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka will correct me if I’m wrong.

Celivia some honesty please.

You wish to impose your views upon others, your view of the world, your view of abortion and no doubt many other subjects (I note you also refer to euthanasia and homosexuality). I acknowledge your right to do so, and I have to say your views are commonplace, actually in my judgment the majority view in Australian society.

But you do not wish to accord me (and Christians generally, whether singly or as the Church) the same right. Why the intolerance? I see you have not distanced yourself from Richard Dawkin’s assertion that the children of believers should be removed from the care of their parents so that they can not pass on their religious beliefs to their children. Are you that intolerant?

I responded to your challenge over sex education even if not to your satisfaction, but I note your failure to respond to my challenge, explicitly made because of your interest in sex education, to what appears on our television screen, etc (eg Californication, etc).

Regarding your comments about the success of sex education, I would need to see the research. I believe that when the State of Texas introduced a requirement that those contemplating an abortion were required to view images of the unborn child, the abortion rate fell.

My religion doesn’t wish to control others, but to affirm the sanctity of all human life, and we will do our best to protect the orphans and widows and the aged, the young, the poor and the unborn as we have done the past 2,000 years.

David Palmer, I have not suggested that married or common law men NOT pay child support. Careful reading of my post speaks directly to single men/single women relationships where the womans choice to have the child in lieu of abortion over the mans choice not to be a parent and the laws as they are, compelling the man to be a parent while having offered the woman the choice to be a parent or to not be a parent vis a vie abortion. The woman can have her baby when and if she finds a compatible partner.
Yes it is a shame that many mothers do siphon away the child support. It's also a shame that some women are in it for that game and abuse the children something awful. It is equally shameful that some men behave in the most selfish and abusive of ways. I'm not pitting men against women to see who can be the nastiest. Both have won blue ribbons. While I am in full agreement that husbands and wives ought to do everything to guard and enrich their marriage. Many marriages are not given mature consideration from the get go. Quite a number of people get married because they feel it is an expectation they must live up to.
As for my brother, I would say he married the woman because he loved her and wanted her children to be safe, secure from want and raised in a proper nurturing environment. Of course now, after so many years they are his children by law, financially anyways. They are two boys and he has had them keep their fathers name even though both would willingly change that in a heart beat. My sister married the love of her life, knowing his short comings, and hoping if she worked really really hard, that she would be enough for him. I don't think the fellow ever gave her a moments thought or saw the effort she put forward. His mind was solely on himself. Her second husband can't see anything but her. Like night and day in comparison.

Aqva, you keep overlooking the different biology, in your quest for
so called equality. The same law applied to unequal biology would
not produce equality, but a distinct disadvantage for females.
To me that is not what justice is all about.

David, I ran out of words, when responding to your question, so had
to cut most of my reply last time. Ok so its culture that you
are concerned about, Christian culture I presume. Culture changes
constantly, ie does not stay the same. Today Europe has very much
become a secular culture, not too many people bother with religion.
Christian culture used to burn people like me. Thankfully they can't
do that anymore :)

As to our ever increasing population living sustainably, nonsense.

We have moved a great deal of pollution to the third world, as our
own economies rely more on services. But take a look at fisheries
and the worlds oceans and tell me what is sustainable about that.

Africas forests are being cleared empty by the bushmeat trade,
to feed the ever rising population. People in Rwanda turned to
genocide in their fight over less and less land for more people.

We simply keep cutting into the habitat of other species. There are
more tigers in zoos now, then in the wild. Bonobos are down to a
few thousand, chimps, gorillas, orangs, all heading towards extinction. The list goes on.

We still have no answer to replace cheap oil, which drove the
population increase in the first place. Just remember, without
biodiversity, there won't be a humanity.

So we are not living sustainably at all, just exploiting a larger
% of global resources, for ever more people

David,
Thanks, you’ve made good points also.

I see a difference between ‘imposing’ a view upon others and ‘expressing’ a view and trying to convince others. How could I impose my view upon others by wanting an option to be legally available? I am not forcing anyone to undergo an abortion.
Religions however, especially the Catholic Church, DO impose their beliefs onto others. Outlawing euthanasia because of religious doctrine is a good example of interference with people’s freedom.

“… Richard Dawkin’s assertion that the children of believers should be removed….. Are you that intolerant?” No, just running out of words. I am not aware that RD made this statement. I might or might not agree with everything that Dawkins says; I am not a worshipper of anyone, I merely like some things some people say.
I have been an atheist from birth (just like any other child unless indoctrinated), not because of RD’s influence.
Anyway, if he did say that, I don’t agree with taking any children away from their parents because of religion.

However, removing religious children from their homes is a very mild idea compared to what God has in mind for unbelievers. We should all be stoned to death- I guess this includes our children.

About sex ed, I didn’t ignore your ‘challenge’ deliberately, I’d never heard of Californication until you mentioned it, I don’t have pay-TV... After googling it, it seems an adult show? I’m not sure what you’re challenging me about. I would agree with you if you’re saying that children shouldn’t be watching adult shows. Isn’t that why they are rated R or 18+ so they can be kept away from children?

Sex education has nothing to do with watching sexy shows but everything about information and facts of life.

Sex-ed is always age appropriate. In Kindergarten, children should be taught what their private parts are and that it is worng for anyone to touch them, They are being taught what to do when someone touches their private part.

To be continued

High Schoolers should learn about every contraception method available including abstinence.
They need to know the details about every option.
They need to be well equipped to protect themselves from STDs as well as pregnancy. What methods of contraception they can choose from and how to use them.
Older High Schoolers need to know about falling in love and sexual responsibility.
If they choose abstinence and find this difficult they need to know ways of having sex without penetration, or love without intercourse, and masturbation.

They need to talk to pregnant teenagers, single mothers, young married couples, women who’ve had abortions, alcoholics, drugs users and AIDS patients; they need to learn what the cause-effect is of the choices they make. Not in one lesson but over a period over ALL of their school years.
They need to see pictures/clips of abortions at different stages, about the difficulties of pregnancy and birth and parenthood, and the responsibilities that are attached to it.
They eed to know that looking after a baby is different from looking after their tamagotchi.

Teens who party need to know dangers of drugs and how to prevent having irresponsible sex when under influence of drugs e.g. alcohol. Ignoring this during sex-ed won’t prevent pregnancies.

They also need to know what to do when things went wrong. Plan B, which is the morning-after-pill.
Good sex education it’s based on real lives of real teenagers but the knowledge will serve them for much of their lives.

About forcing pregnant women to watch pictures of their embryo, just for some balance I hope you also show them pictures of neglected, unwanted, or abused children that mothers were pushed to carry full-term.

Aqvarivs
“Celivia has it worked out … that regardless of circumstance the man pays.”
Untrue! I have said all along that I agree that the law needs to be more flexible so individual cases can be handled differently if required.

“….the woman comes first. (Not that they would ever admit that:-))”
I would, and I have. Abortion is a woman’s right, not a man’s right.

David,

My mothers family was Jewish and my fathers Protestant. I was baptised Protestant. I remember as a child going every week to a church until I was about 8 years old and then we didn’t go anyone. Still my parents put me through a Christian primary school and the more they went on about the religion the worse it was. The fights between the school children was no less if worse then that on a non-religious school.
I do not practice religion and when one of my daughters wanted to be baptised the minister told me that he would only do so if I forced the other children to attend to church. I made clear that if I had the right to force a child to go to church then I also had the right to deny my daughter to go to church, and I viewed that it simply was not my rights either way! If they wanted to pray in a field then so be it.
I do not practice religion, but obviously have kept what I consider to be the good values., not because of religious basis but because I simply like the values.
My wife (74) and a practicing Catholic, when asked by me if she agrees with abortion, she made clear that when a woman marries and fall pregnant she has absolutely no right to abort a child! I also asked her view when an unborn baby could be deemed to have a soul, if at all, and her view is that it commences at conception! Her view is also that a woman should wait until she is married before having children.
Actually, while she was engaged for many years and then broke off the engagement, she ended up first finishing her university studies, then worked for a few years before she then became married to her (now) late husband and she-was-a-virgin at the time of marriage.
To me, this so called de-facto-marriage is utter and sheer nonsense, as it allows a person to be married to one person and have de-facto-marriages with many others.

Thanks yabby, now I know what you and Celivia are talking about. Special rights and considerations under law governed by biology. So I guess in the future we will have a bipartite courts system. One for females and one for males. I know a lot of men who are going to be very pleased that their biology will now extricate them from difficult issues. You know men can't help being violent. It's their biology. Testosterone is a very aggressive hormone. Men are driven to procreation with multiple partners and it goes against biology to force men into monogamous relationships. Men shouldn't have to curtail their natural biological drives. And those men who don't exhibit such drive are probably estrogen dominate hormonally and natures culling factor in the perpetuation of the species, like gay men, simply not meant to breed and contribute to the future of the gene pool. if you don't agree with us check your estrogen levels. Oh man. I've had a lot of fun on this thread but, this takes the cake. Not to forget the animal kingdom analogy where a male bird keeps nest. What if you see yourself a little more masculine. Like say a lion. With this last post I'm off. Thanks again.

Aqva, attempts at ridicule, don't make your point, just show
you up as ridiculous :)

Clearly there is a difference between hormonal fluctuations and
being or not being pregnant.

You know I'm right of course, but as you have shown before,
you just enjoy arguing for the sake of it, not because your
arguments make any sense lol.

Dear One and All,

Thank you for being my conversation partners. I appreciated being tested by you.

Yabby, I think God has given resources to the earth far greater than you allow for, just as I think, as capable of mischief as the human race is, there are limits to that mischief.

Celivia, I agree that in wanting abortion to be legally available you are not imposing your view. My problem has always been that abortion means the taking of human life regardless of the circumstances under which that life came about. I have acknowledged in current circumstances no Government will ban abortions and there is nothing that any church or individual christian can do about that. But surely we can still protest a barbaric practice and call on Government to take actions to minimise the number of abortions.

Your answer to reducing the number of abortions is better sex education. I wish you well. My answer is that young people should come to Jesus Christ and follow his way of life with his enabling (I know this may sound daft, but I know it to be true!), and so recognise that sex as a wonderful gift of God to be celebrated in marriages open to and welcoming of children.

The problem with sex education per se, is that the issue of sexual relations is fundamentally a moral issue. If you believe the sexual act is not inherently, or of necessity, tied to marriage, given human propensity to mess things up, unplanned, unwanted pregnancies will always occur and with men unprepared to commit to the woman, an abortion becomes her last resort. I recommend Gertrude Himmelfarb’s, “The Demoralisation of Society”. (Check out www.bookfinder.com on availability). The people who have lost out big time from society’s acceptance of sexual relationships outside marriage have been the poor.

I believe Californication is showing on Channel 10 and no doubt watched by young people with or without their parent’s approval. I suggest on the basis of what I’ve heard about it, it unravels all your elaborate carefully thought through sex education.

David, we can be pleased that all prefer to see a reduction in abortion numbers. Thanks for the interesting article.
As you said, we have different answers to reach the common goal.

I still think that the two sides can work in harmony; all that is needed is respect for one another’s method and to not barricade that road for the other party to get to their end goal. Each of the two groups is distinct and the method that works best for them is the method that will prevent unplanned pregnancies.
One method won’t fit all!

I have no problem with admitting that your method (call it method 1) may be the perfect answer for people who have faith and ‘want’ to come to Jesus Christ and want to marry young and start a family.

But what you (and by ‘you’ I mean the group you stand for) fail to understand is that it is common sense to repeat the success of other countries that have shown HOW to reduce abortion numbers significantly by using the sex-ed and contraception method (call it method 2).
The countries that use method 2- good sex education and free or affordable contraception- in place have much more success in lowering abortion numbers than countries that use method 1.

Because of your idealistic though unrealistic expectation that all people should conform to YOUR standards, the ‘unborn babies’ you are so concerned about are unnecessarily being created and aborted.
What is more important to you- How people sexually behave, or how many ‘babies’ are being ‘killed’?
You KNOW that when you protest against the method that best prevent abortions, you are contributing to unnecessary abortions. Then why do you not stop opposing method 2?

If I saw 2 year-old children unnecessarily being taken into child-killing clinics by parents who didn’t want them, and I could choose from two methods to prevent this, I would surely opt for the method that would be more successful in preventing this, even if it wasn’t my preferred method.
I don’t know about you… but WWJD?

Celivia, while I would prefer that children are born within a marriage, I accept that this is never going to be attained. For those who practice religion they have to recognise that “Jesus” was, so to say, born out of wedlock! As such people preaching religion and confining sexual relationships to a marriage and yet accepting “Jesus” who was born outside a marriage to me is hypercritical.
However, those seeking or practicing “abortions” do not confine this to children born out of wedlock but those also born within wedlock. As some women made known to me (when I asked them about their position about abortion, why worry about getting protection and wast money when you can get for free an abortion if you happen to fall pregnant. As such, “abortion” is used for a variety of reasons, including the so called “designer babies” that if they are not of the right “gender” then have an abortion, and try again until they may happen to get the right gender, that any “sex-education” would not make any difference to those type of women!
The danger being that in a country where they have a one-child policy the “abortion” issue would mean that many would abort an unborn child if she is a female because they are not worthy for them to have. This promotion of “abortions” would play in the hands of those who are interested to have only male gender babies because in their society it would be financially better. Just that a generation later insufficient female may be at hand and then you can have severe consequences.
As my youngest (adult) daughter made clear to me she doesn’t want to know the sex of the unborn baby, as she takes whatever comes. She is more interested in having a healthy baby. If just all women accepted it this way!

Hi, Gerrit.
“For those who practice religion they have to recognise that “Jesus” was, so to say, born out of wedlock” That’s funny, I never thought about that one!
It’s true that some married women opt for abortions, especially the ones who are in violent marriages and don’t feel it’s safe to bring a child into it.

My married ex-neighbour was pregnant with her fifth child and because of difficult previous childbirths and the fact that she had crap husband made her want to have an abortion. But her husband threatened her with divorce if she went through with the abortion. She finally agreed under conditions that they’d get marriage counseling. She had the child, which nearly cost her her life.
Guess what? When the newborn was three months old and she wanted to start the counseling, he refused and left her and their five kids.
She couldn’t cope with the baby (who had health problems) and her other kids by herself and I helped her look after them so that she could have some time away from the children whenever she needed to, for a year or so, which is how long it took for her to get out of a postnatal depression. She even took some time to see her family overseas without the children; she had no family in Australia and felt isolated and suicidal, sometimes.

They divorced, sold the house, she moved away and he is not the slightest bit interested in seeing his children. He lives with another woman and has a child with her. Some never learn.
She got herself sterilised- wise decision.

I have never known a woman using abortion instead of contraception.
All the more reason why contraception should be freely available.

I agree with you about ‘designer babies’.
Don’t put all the blame on women though; in those countries there is a lot of pressure on women to produce boys- ironic when it’s the male who decides the sex of the foetus.
Best to leave the sex of the foetus to nature and the distribution of girls/boys will be about right.

Yabby, it's not ridicule. Cling to your feminism but, even feminist must recognise that there are two biologies. Under law if the biologies are treated as separate and unequal than we have a bipartite legal system which allows exceptions by gender. Any exception to the laws given to one biology will in turn allow an exception to the other biology in order to maintain legal equilibrium. We will then not have equality for all under law which early feminist fought for but, an endocrine system of law.
The law should not support the exploitation of single men by single women to determine when or if that single man becomes a parent. The law is wrong and needs review and adjustment. Single women have access to abortion and if they are not determined to raise the child independently should have an abortion as is their right. Single men should have the right to determine whether or not they become parents and the law should enforce that right. When this happens single women will think twice about bringing unwanted children into this world. It is not men who bring unwanted children into the world. Men can not 'force' a woman to have a child or 'force' a woman to have an abortion. Women have been aborting their children for centuries whether they have been wanted or not. How would a man ever know if the child he hoped for was aborted or not? When a man wants his woman to have a child it's because he wants the child, it is not unwanted. Unwanted children by women/relationships constitute the violence in forced family situations.
As Celivia says, abortion is the right of the woman not the man. So woman finding the man not wanting children should exercise that right of abortion or be prepared to raise the child alone. Not trap the man into a situation opposite of his choice. The woman can have her child when she finds the man who wants children. Then we will have an end to unwanted children. And a lot less domestic violence too.

Celivia, your married ex-neighbour had other choices and other resources for help and assistance. She was not compelled by law. There are more than 50 womens shelters in the greater Sydney area alone. I don't know where you live but, judging by those numbers I'm sure there would be at least one shelter available to assist that woman. There was no need for her to be a victim of that situation. A simple call to the police would have had intervention.

Aqva, my views have nothing to do with feminism, everything to
do with what is fair and just. They are laws which apply today,
voted on by males in various parliaments, who perhaps don't
carry your anti femimism chips on their shoulders.

Lets look at what is fair and just:

1.Nobody should be forced against their will to have an
abortion. Anything else would for good reasons, create
an outcry.

2.Both parents should contribute to the costs of raising
their offspring, if they are in a position to do so.
The taxpayer is already paying more then their fair
share in Australia.

Both fair and just laws. I rest my case :)

Have been away for a while. Am not surprised to read the same arguments going around and around.

I've read the word equality being bandied around. Am a bit puzzled what this has to do with pregnancy. Men do not have wombs and will never be pregnant. Whether men want to continue with a pregnancy or not does not require them putting their bodies to service for this.

Financial consequences on the birth of any baby, both desperately wanted or unplanned, till at least adulthood applies to both the father and mother. Single mothers still make up the largest group of financially struggling people. It is NOT only men who pay financially. Women pay a price as well. To suggest otherwise is mischievous.

Women have the babies. We just can't get away from that fact. It is their bodies that can bring a potential human being in this world. It is only with the cooperation of a woman agreeing to this that a baby can be born. It seems resentment about this is a big stumbling block.

I just can't get away from the feeling that the objection to abortion is also driven by the fact that it is a woman's prerogative to make this decision, a man can't make this decision. That just can't be helped guys. He ain't pregnant. She is. And at least in our society, a woman is not owned by any man and cannot be forced to carry anybody's child if she does not want to.

Therefore, particular moral beliefs by another on the status of a foetus contrary to that of the woman, is of little relevance. A foetus does not have, cannot have, the same rights as a living person. A foetus is not a person before the law. Is not a person in fact.

Abortion must be legally and safely available in a society like ours. Why they occur and in what numbers is another discussion altogether.

Who of you anti abortion position holders is going to enforce an unwilling pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy?

Celivia, I for one can only respect you for providing the assistance to your former neighbour. Regardless of how it ended, at least you proved to care!

Yvonne, as for a foetus (unborn-child) not being a person-in-law, does not alter the fact that legally a men is financial responsible for pre-natal cost, etc. Seems your tunnel vision avoids you to consider this and other legal issues!

Aqvarivs, Little-Bindi-Irwin had her show about her late-father Steve-Irvin and she made known she doesn’t know what it is like to live in a city or in an apartment as she has grown up in the bush! Now, it seems to me you seem to demonstrate the opposite, that you know what it is living in a city but not in the bush! Firstly, I for one do not accept that any parent should have to flee their home with their children to seek sanctuary! I may dislike the abuse of Intervention Orders (because of the gross misuse and abuse of them) but hold that violence of other partner must be deplored and never be tolerated. Further, if you reside in the country then “refuges” for either a father or a mother may not be available for hundreds of kilometres, even in Victoria. Now, if you rely upon public transport and need to travel to a large city to seek refuge, it can mean that if an incident occurs, say, on Friday morning at 7am then the next buss out might not go until 5pm on the Sunday! And, by the time you then get to the “refuge” it can be about 9pm at night. If then you have to take children along of tender age then this trip alone can be horrific.
The simple rule should be that no parent should be violent at home. Or better to say, no partner, as even if they are not a parent there still should be no violence!
Neither do I view it was wrong for the woman to have her 5th child. What appeared to me wrong was the reported conduct of the husband.
Continued..

A few weeks ago, I received a phone call from a person telling me how his eldest son now is 21 years old and how pleased he is that he has grown up. Yet, some 10 years ago he was the same person then contemplating to kill his son, as he gave me the understanding, because of that he felt it was immoral for his son to live with his mother while she became married to another man.
As this man now acknowledge he was really crazy for having this intention to kill his son, but he made also known that he then saw it as being the best for his son. At that time he asked my assistance, and as I am opposed to any form of violence I was able to get him to understand that harming his child was not his right, regardless of his views that as he had created the child he had the right to end that life. I do not accept this of women and neither of men.
We all have our ups and down at times and we learn to live through it. We need to help our fellow man (included in this term are women) to get through times of difficulties and give them the appropriate support we can provide!
I for one would rather have that there is no need for any “refuges” and rather we avoid violence in the home altogether. The home should be the sanctuary for all members of the family!
I grew up in The Netherlands with never having witnessed any violence between my (late) parents in their 56 years of marriage! It can be done. Aborting a child because of violence in the family is not the solution!

Yvonne,
Sensible post, as usual!

Gerrit, thanks.
But aren’t the pre-natal costs the responsibility of BOTH partners? My prenatal expenses were covered by Medicare.
I’d have to disagree that in case of violence abortion is not a solution. It depends on the situation; it should be left up to the woman to decide.
I do agree however, that nobody should be in violent relationships. But that’s not the reality, I’m afraid.

Yabby,
My crystal ball predicts that Aqva won’t agree with your points; he’ll maintain that it’s OK for men to have 365 one-night stands annually without having to take responsibility whatsoever, while women take on full responsibility for a consensual act between her and partner.

Aqvarivs
We’ll have to agree to disagree about some things.
‘Biological different’ means that both are physically different: women worry about wombs and men about prostrates. Women don’t play Rugby in the same team as men because of physical differences; we need to accept our differences when it’s something that probably not even a sex-change can fix.

Just need to clear up that in my former neighbour’s case her ex wasn’t physically violent but emotionally.
Even though she might have had other options living near Sydney, I believe she made the right choice for her kids. As Gerrit says, much better for her children to be looked after by a neighbour than having to drag the five of them to different addresses; especially with a small baby and two of her kids with severe asthma.

Seems that women not only have to battle against the anti-abortion brigade, but also against the ‘Father Scrooge Brigade’.
Two opposites: the anti-abortion brigade pressure her to have a baby (or else she’s a murderer- and the ‘unborn baby’ a victim); the Father Scrooge Brigade pressure her to have an abortion (or else… the kid won’t get a cent from HIS hip pocket- and the man is the victim).

The woman, however, is never the victim. She has so many wonderful choices when she faces unplanned pregnancy as a womb-owner: sole-parenthood, adoption, or abortion

Celivia, the woman is a 'victim' of an unplanned pregnancy so is justified to attach herself financially to a man, who is to be enslaved to the womans lack of foresight and planning but, not to be considered a 'victim' because it's his fault she's having this unplanned pregnancy. Nice blurry reality you have so heavily invested in. No wonder your so intransigent when it comes to men and demanding they're accepting of the womans choice to have a child out of casual sex rather than have an abortion as is their stated 'right'. Your listed choices for women only include, when she faces unplanned pregnancy as a womb-owner: sole-parenthood, adoption, or abortion but, have conveniently left out abstinence, contraceptive use, or even any mention of taking responsibility for her actions as an adult woman who ought to know that there are repercussions in having casual sex, and by right and to be just any pregnancy should be aborted. It's called casual sex because no one is committed to anything further than the act. It is unjust to want to have the power to change the rules midstream for not having taken necessary precautions, failed precautions or to not have an abortion, and change a casual sexual encounter into a life long commitment because 'it's her choice'. That kind of petulant feminism is hardly an answer to unwanted children. And if that is your idea of empowerment I fervently hope you are not in any position to influence young women of such a 'victim mentality' that will do nothing more than increase the amount of unwanted children and domestic violence. Your idea of justice is no different than the old method of a shotgun wedding.

Mr Gerrit, in a perfect world people are perfect. In an imperfect world lies imperfections. We are imperfect people living in an imperfect world of our own creation. Some of us are struggling to create a egalitarian social experience while other want power. Feminist do not want balance they want control. And they don't want any argument.

"so is justified to attach herself financially to a man, who is to be enslaved to the womans lack of foresight and planning"

Hang whoah Aqva. Its his child that attaches itself to him financially with good reason, not the woman. Give me a good reason
why both parents should not have financial responsibility for
that child.

No point talking about abstinence and contraception, when he's done
his best to get her so drunk, that she is not sure of what she is
doing. It happens in every pub.

The thing is, if a pregnancy happens, both parents are responsible,
not just one. Both have the option to use contraception or to
abstain. Men can't go getting her drunk, then claim it was just
casual sex and run away, as you seem to think would be ok.

My two points remain unanswered, but of course I did not expect
anything different :)

Cevilia, I think you will find that if you say its blue, Aqva will
say its green. I think he just loves to argue for the sake of it,
or is bored at work or something..

yabby, my apologies. I had no idea that was a question directed towards me since you gave no suggestion in your post. All the better for you to claim victim though eh!

1) "Nobody should be forced against their will to have an
abortion". No one should be forced into anything. Especially parenthood. Single women have free and ready access to abortion. There is no need to subjugate a man to the single womans choice not to have an abortion. Single women should only have children with willing parental partners unless they are willing to be the sole parent and sole supporter of that child.

2) "Both parents should contribute to the costs of raising
their offspring". Single men in a casual sexual relationship with a single woman in a casual sexual relationship is not a parent. It's two people getting laid and just because the single woman chooses to have the baby does not make the single man a parent unless he so chooses to escalate a mutual one night stand into a life long commitment. How many women want that? So why have the few dictate the laws for all. Single women engaging in casual sex must own their womb and not blame men for their pregnancy. If the man is not using protection why is he inside her? Why has the woman allowed such an act against her best future interest? And why would any woman want to enjoin in any commitment/relationship with that type of man? Power. Revenge. Money. Escape. Manipulation. I can find no good practical reason, nor any good reason to have that child. Freedom of choice is not sufficient when it impacts on the future of a child, especially an unwanted child. It's abusive.

Your arguments are suspect. And your examples even more so. You must really need Celivia's praise.

Aqva, indeed I have praised both Cevilia and Pericles for being
IMHO some of the best posters on OLO. OTOH, history of our posts would
show that where we agreed to disagree, we each stood our ground.

One of the benefits of being free from chips on our shoulders,
is that we can say what we think, based on the issues, not some
devious motive. Your posts display how your mind must work :)

Nobody in Australia can be forced to be a parent, if they do not
wish to, all have choices. Yet they need to be held responsible for
their actions. Clearly compulsory abortion would not be acceptable
in our society. Would you agree or not?\

Your second point implies that its ok for men to use every deviant
tactic to bed down a woman for the night, then walk away scott free,
free of any responsibility, as it was all "casual". Yup, its good
old Darwinian evolution theory that men want to spread their genes
as far and wide as they can. Given that children might arise,
both parents should accept their responsibility and pay for a share
of the childs expenses. Society in general agrees with me on this
one Aqva, so you are out on a lonely limb here.

So my arguments on both these points are not suspect at all, but
standard thinking within society, as the law shows. OTOH your
arguments are suspect, for we realise that to pass the time you
simply enjoy arguing. Perhaps you need a hobby or something :)

Celivia,

It continues to be a pleasure to debate you.

You ask, “What is more important to you- How people sexually behave, or how many ‘babies’ are being ‘killed’?”

Good question, but you know my answer.

Both are important. However, the second question only comes into play because “the rules” for family and the male-female relationship, that make for happiness between a man and a woman are almost universally being flouted these days, ie sex outside the loving, child welcoming, vow encompassed institution of marriage (a relationship which I will never deny involves plenty of hard work, compromises, give and take, forgiveness, fresh starts, etc). It is the flouting of these God given humane rules, that is the reason for your second question. Without this destructive flouting your second question falls into inconsequence.

BTW, I think you are prepared to rush into offering an abortion far too quickly when there are so many childless couples who would gladly ditch IVF (whether or not it would work for them) in order to adopt a child that a mother couldn’t keep (that a woman with an unlooked for pregnancy chose not to abort).

I agree with your cruel but fair assessment of aqvarivs.

Yvonne,

You ask, which “Who of you anti abortion position holders is going to enforce an unwilling pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy?”.

This in fact is a red herring, certainly with the use of the word, “enforce”.

From my earlier posts you will find that I have conceded that I am in no position, let alone desirous of “enforcing” a pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy, though I freely admit to want her to undergo independent counselling before an abortion in which all options are on the table including continuing with the pregnancy and having the child or adopting out and abortion (but note an abortion clinic is a totally inappropriate place/body for providing such counselling, as is medicare fee doctor’s surgery), and to understand precisely who it is, who is be aborted - ie view ultrasound images as occurs with a “wanted” child.

Aqvarivs,
Yabby explained very much what I was going to say to you in reply, e.g.: “Its his child that attaches itself to him financially with good reason, not the woman. Give me a good reason why both parents should not have financial responsibility for that child” Excellent point, so yes, I praise Yabby because his posts on life issues are empathic and logical. I might agree with your opinion on other topics perhaps- just not on this issue.

Even David, whose POV on abortion I oppose, I still respect for his debating skills and patience.
I can even imagine that in HIS community, his view is valued and his ‘method’ (1) would work.
While I can see that, the only reason why I oppose him is that he shouldn’t expect ALL people in Australia to agree with his beliefs or those of his community, and for outsiders a different method (2) would work better to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is no reason why both methods shouldn’t be applied by different groups simultaneously.

I have no problems with people having faith in anything they choose, as long as they don’t interfere with other people’s freedom.
Abortion happens to be such topic where I see religion interfering with other people’s freedom, as is euthanasia and homosexuality.

Anyway, contraception is the responsibility of BOTH partners.
It’s only for biological reasons that women have all control AFTER fertilisation. THEY OWN THE WOMB.
I've been reasonable in allowing for special, individual situations.

You said, “I hope you are not in any position to influence young women of such a 'victim mentality'”
What I taught my children is to respect themselves and others, and to take responsibility for their own actions. If they make mistakes, to try to correct them. Both my son and daughter get the same advice. Teaching a child how they can possibly get others to mop up their mess without having to take responsibility will turn them into litigators who blame others for their dramas.

Continued

Both my children were the recipients of the Citizenship Award at the farewell at their primary school, which proves to me that they are responsible people.
I won’t accept my kids to come home with “Boo-hoo I’m a victim” sob story. They come to me when they need advice and give me facts: “I did blah-blah, it was probably the wrong choice because it caused blah-blah to happen, and I didn’t realise…” or similar. Then we think of ways to fix it or do something positive.

There is one more thing I don’t understand about your opinion, aqva:
While you’ve blamed feminists for persuading/manipulating women to have abortions, you're perfectly happy for men to manipulate/persuade their pregnant partners into having abortions by threatening to withhold child support if they don’t have an abortion.
Have you thought about the possibility that if a woman cares enough about her foetus to want to continue the pregnancy despite becoming a single mum, she may also care about its future?
As a mother, I can understand that it’s a very unsafe feeling to not to know whether she’ll be able to adequately provide the basics for a child.
And have you considered the fact that not all women feel right about abortions or adoption?

Let us, for a moment, imagine that men DO have the right to do a runner if he finds his partner is going to have his child against his wishes.
Then what? I’ll be generous and give you a chance to paint me a picture of this ideal world where women have ALL the responsibilities and men have none whatsoever.

David,
You do have a good point if you’re indeed saying that counseling for pregnant women has to be an unbiased service providing information about ALL the options a pregnant woman has.
I don’t agree with the pictures, but if I had to settle with this idea I’d also negotiate that she’d be informed about the gory details of children living with mothers In comparable socio-economic circumstances as she would be In after having the baby. Fair is fair.

Celivia, I'm talking about freedom of choice and responsibility for those choices. It's a shame you don't think exercising the freedom not to have a child as a single woman is equally empowering as choosing to have a child with out support. Kind of a limited freedom I'd say. Single women who have children with out any supporting partner directly influence three(3)lives. The woman who is now singularly tied to that child and who is effectively stunted emotionally and intellectually and in employment. Real success is the exception. The young man who by her decision also becomes effectively stunted emotionally and intellectually and in employment. And the child's future which invariably is emotionally and intellectually stunted as well as it's employment prospects. Again real success is the exception. The out come of this one woman's decision is a negative impact on three(3)lives. And while who-who hurray, she got to exercise her supposed 'right' or went home empowered is your highest ideal. The reality is three(3)more people just entered the world of domestic violence, child neglect, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, etc.,etc..
The happy ending is a fairy tale. While not being PRO-abortion. I do think it has it's purpose as a tool in regulating the disadvantages of contraception or indiscretion. Especially drugs like mifepristone. Single women need to be taught to be judicious when it comes to exercising their assumed 'rights' and think on the long term.
We have few married women with children visit our refuge. Only one all last month. Sometimes two or three at once. More single women in bad relationships, and the majority, young single mothers with child or children with no fathers. Some have more than one child with more than one father. This is the reality. Something like 60 odd womens refuges with in the greater Sydney area chocked full of single mothers. I'm afraid I can not share your ecstatic joy in feminist empowerment. I'll wait until it is constrained by judicious forethought. And the numbers of single women with children in crisis centres experience a sharp down turn.

Though silent for some time, I have been following the debate. Celivia has said it all, as I see it, and I have nothing useful to add to her well-presented arguments. But it puzzles me that so many red herrings have been thrown in, and that so many posters do not go to the central point. I also thank David Palmer for his courteous and consistent attention to the reactions to his essay that began this particular debate.I am glad that he accepts that his position can only apply with any force to those who follow his religious beliefs. The rest of us have to construct an ethical position for ourselves.This is not easy to do, and we are not likely to arrive at a common position on this or any other 'moral' question. But fortunately, we live in a society where differences on these issues are proper, and debate about them essential.

Aqva, to claim that everyone becomes intellectually "stunted" because
fathers have to pay a share for their children, is certainly
pushing the limits of credibility!

David, your worldview to me, seems to be a very narrow focussed,
biblical one. I challenge you to think beyond that for once.

Anthropology has done alot of study in the field of human relationships
and IMHO the findings are quite interesting.

Helen Fisher, an anthropologist of some repute, summed up some
of these findings in her book "Anatomy of Love- a Natural History
of Mating, Marriage and Why we Stray".

Life long marriage seems to be a relatively recent phenomena in
human history, more tied up with agriculture and the advent of the
plough, then anything else. Go back 500 grandmothers, not long in
genetic terms, our ancestors still lived in caves and hunted for
a living. Through agriculture, via marriage, women then became
basically mens possessions, but things were quite diefferent
before that time.

Polygamy is in fact more common then monogamy, if you look at the many
cultures on earth. Serial monogomy happened, but in terms of 7 years,
ie. long enough to raise a child, not lifelong monogamy.

Sexual straying has always been around, because it actually has some
genetic benefits. So it will always continue to be around.

So there is nothing "magical" going on, similar trends are evident
in various species, we are just yet another of them.

Anyhow, its up to you, if you want to stay biblical and closed minded
or open your mind to inform yourself beyond that limited worldview.
All I can do is mention it to you.

Who's paying for that womans right.
Currently, 20-30% of all DNA paternity tests conducted in Australia are coming back negative.

http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p12

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/08/1070732140728.html

In Canada research has shown 1 in 6 children are victims of identity and paternal fraud.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm

In the United States the numbers are as high as 33%.

In Britain 1 in every 25 live births are found fraudulently represented by the woman.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Telegraph_1_in_25_men_victims_paternity_fraud_11AUG05.htm

Yes. Lets not look too closely at our feminist politics and the CSA. The main thing is that there is a man paying out a minimum of 18% of his gross earning per child so that single woman can exercise her 'rights'.
Any decent person would shed a tear for the hard working prostitute. At least her intentions are up front and honest.

Dear All,

With this outbreak of congenial expressions of regard for one another, I think the time may have come for me to bow out. I am so appreciative that we could stay the course together and debate without rancour. I feel I have benefited from your contributions, especially Celivia, but also Yabby. Thank you.

I promise to be back. I have been asked to write an article around the issue of legislating morality(?) for my denominational magazine, Nov edition. I'm sure Graham Young will consider posting it on Online Opinion.

So I need to put my thinking cap on, it is an issue that has lain close to the surface of this debate.

Cheers for now, God bless

David

Don,
Thank you, and well said.

Aqva,
Perhaps it’s you’d like to start your own general discussion on this topic so that you’ll have a wider range of people to debate this with rather than the ones who are obviously more interested in debating the right of the ‘unborn child’ or women’s rights than about fathers’ wallets.

Yes, women stray; so do men. I’m sure that there are many family men who have fertilised other women’s eggs.
I have said all I wanted to say in this discussion and won’t spend more posts on this issue here because I can see no valid reason why women should have to carry all the responsibilities and men should have no responsibility at all for cpmtraception; I won’t change my mind about this, except for special, individual cases perhaps, as I have said.
There is plenty of space on OLO to discuss this elsewhere and with others.

Yabby that book sounds like an interesting read. I will put it on my to-read list along with the title David recommended.
I also saw an article about studies that found women are more likely to cheat during ovulation, the most fertile part of their cycle, but only when their mate was less sexually attractive than ‘the other man’. Women seem to have evolved this way.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1469078
But today cheating still remains a choice for either partner.

David,
I lacked the space before to mention that you’re right that adoption should not be overlooked as one of the options that pregnant woman can take into consideration.
I think though, that the adoption process should be made a smoother one because right now it’s a rather lengthy and rather difficult process and the rules are so strict that it can put applicants off.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss this and especially for taking part in the debate yourself; it usually doesn't happen that the author of an article participates in the debate.

I look forward to reading your next article, which should be an interesting read.

Cel, I see you have now taken to referring to the foetus as 'an unborn child with rights' rather than your previous position of a foetus as 'a clump of cells with no rights'. Though I do note that it's still womans rights and mens wallets, not mens and womens rights equally under law. The battle for an egalitarian society continues. One hopefully where both men and women have a say in becoming parents and the laws represent both men and women equally and where no laws support the exploitation of men as wallets. I'd add here, or woman as wombs but, we have no such laws and a woman has many many choices and is not compelled to be a single mother. I see no valid reason why a woman should choose to raise a child knowingly dependent on the future income of an non existent father and on the State for the next 20 years. To cling feverishly to 'its her right as a woman' does not mitigate the misery inherent in that choice nor make it the right choice for any young woman with their future ahead of them, nor morally or ethically right to drag an innocent child into that desperate existence. Womans empowerment (if that's the real reason)needs to become more the exercise of good judgment or common sense, and practical. Your overwhelmed, heady exercise of raw power is proving dysfunctional and entirely selfish and the child has become a tool and a victim in that exercise of power before and/or after it is born.

Aqva,
‘Don’t torture yourself, that’s my job.’ Noticed the quotation marks? That means that Morticia Adams said that, I was quoting her. Perhaps I should’ve used double quotation marks.
For the same reason, I put the term ‘unborn child’ in quotes- to make clear that I was using the term that David’s side rather than my own, which would be embryo or foetus.
Anyway, the attempt to make this clear obviously failed, giving you new ammunition.

Anyway, you missed your next shot because I can dive. I told you that I’m not going to continue debating your excuses for dodging fathers’ responsibilities, so I won’t.

The biological father DOES exist: who do you suggest fertilised the woman’s egg- the invisible man?

Anyway, I think I'll call this discussion to an end.
Thanks, all!

Celivia, while you may hold the discussion is at an end, perhaps because of uncomfortable statements made, I am one of those who have had to deal with many a person who were sucked for child support payments and then discovered that after all they were not the biological father of the child but swindled into believing they were. Where a woman has this kind of mentality as to deceive a person in such manner then it is not just about money but also how the woman then has swindled her own child to live the lie of the pretended biological father. When then a man desires a woman to have an abortion, not wanting to risk the same, then somehow the “woman” has all the “rights” to decide yes or no and the poor fellow unknown he is not the biological father then is hit over the head with child support payments.
I am too much aware that there are women “child-support fathers” shopping, where they elect to tell the best financial support person that he is the biological father and concealing she had other sexual encounters. On 6 September 2007 Judge Judy happen to make clear to a woman that she should have disclosed to the alleged biological father that she had another sexual encounter, which in fact later turned out to be the real biological father. Both genders, so to say are playing around, and so one cannot blame one particular gender, but when a woman is the one person who knows if she had other sexual encounters at the time of conceiving and conceals that and then sucks out monies from a man pretending he is the biological father, then this is very serious.
In principle, I oppose child-support as it basically is making children to be used as “slaves”, precisely what the Framers of the Constitution opposed. I oppose also in principle “abortions” unless it is for extreme emergency, but would look forwards to the day when paternity testing is required at the time of birth, regardless if the child is born in a marriage!

What would a pro-life man know about abortion answer nothing.
It is the womans body and her child we do not need a religous nutter such as the Pope saying it is evil. Religioun is only a superstition and went out with the days of the Spanish inquisition. This is now the 21 first century fortunately we have banned hanging and back street abortions, unfortunately they were the evils of the past.

David Palmer you have come out with a primitive point of you and then you want to slope off how shameful. If the Pope agreed with condoms then their would not be so many unwanted pregnancies. The whole idea of legalised abortions was because of the many deaths during back street abortions. If you were pregant what would you prefer David Palmer?

Cel, how is anyone supposed to know what you mean if you only post the same rant. Men and the government must pay for the womans right to have a child, whether it is wanted or not, and if the public must pay for and raise that child so what. The important thing is that the woman has a right to bring a child into the world, poverty and violence and emotional abuse and neglect be damned. It's the woman that is the victim not the child. And any suggestion that perhaps as a single unsupported mother now is not a good time to be having a child is forcing a woman to have an abortion. It could never be about good decent caring common sense by any persons who have to go behind and clean up the mess of your encouragement of assumed 'rights' over what is the right thing to do considering that childs future. What's one more childs desperate life compared to feminist control. The real power will come when there is a majority of single mothers with unwanted children permanently attached to the public purse. Oh the glory of such a day. Mummies philosophy of the nanny state handed down to the children so they can begin the cycle of 'rights' and abuse and misery and poverty and welfare dependence all over again. Manufacturing victims in the name of feminine empowerment and it only cost the life of an innocent child. Cheap by half eh!

There was this group the BLACKSHIRTS who had one of their issues that the moment a parent became a single parent then the child or children are to be removed and placed in care with a couple or a child care agency unless the single parent immediately married. Even if a woman became a widow then her children were to be immediately removed unless he married. These and other kind of “nonsense” they had allegedly based also on Catholic faith. After more then a decade talking to the BLACKSHIRTS they have about totally abandoned to push for this, albeit still like this to become reality. I for one accept that anyone is entitled to life their life in their faith as they desire but as long as this does not clash with the rule of society.
As much as I oppose in principle abortions, I do not like to see that females are getting pregnant all over the land. In my view, no religion should oppose contraceptive usage where after all, this also can make the difference of a person ending up with AID or not.
To counter act abortions, if at birth paternity testing is taking place then many a woman would not get it in their head to have a extra marital relationship without using contraceptive. As such preventing unwanted children to be born can be by all together avoiding in the first place to become pregnant.
Not, so to say, have the cake and eat it. That a woman want to have the fun and then when she doesn’t like it she then somehow can throw of her responsibilities but on the other-hand can hold it over the head of a male if she keeps the child. It is a bit like when you drive a car and have an accident you have to face the consequences, likewise so when you have sex, you simply have to have guts enough to face the consequences!

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, while not being a religionist I don't look upon abortion from a spiritual angle of morality. I see abortion as a necessary but, not a championed tool, that should be used when all else has failed and the advent of bringing a child into the world is known to be a poor outcome for all. Especially considering young single women who are not supported in a desire to have a family by another young single male. And who will be dependent upon society and all it's social resources to give that child the bare necessities. Those two people have their whole life ahead of themselves and a better more opportune time of willing mutual consent awaits in the future. It is abusive and criminal to destroy three lives, the young womans future, the young mans future, and the childs future for the selfish expression of feminist empowerment. I do this by 'right'. It's no different than some sick twisted jerk saying I rape cuz I can.
Being able to do something with out consideration for the totality of that decision is not empowerment. It's the reckless abandonment of social morality and familiar and social responsibility, and a marked disinterest in the welfare and the value of any child brought into this world under those circumstances.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, “It is a bit like when you drive a car and have an accident you have to face the consequences, likewise so when you have sex, you simply have to have guts enough to face the consequences.”

It is not.

The obvious difference is the car accident involves more than one cognitive individual, each occupying their own separate bodies.

A pregnant woman holds an embryo within the confines of her own body. Hence, an “accidental pregnancy” involving the woman has a completely different consequence to a car accident involving maybe the same woman and a different individual or even someone elses “property".

Basically, the embryo has no rights or authority which can precede or prevail over those of the woman, regardless of the demands of uninvolved third parties.

As for your blackshirts, such mindless idiots deserve the ignominy which they attract. However, it does remind me that Hitler was fervently anti-abortion and in 1942 declared that any Aryan woman seeking abortion would no longer face imprisonment but a death penalty.

It is strange the way authoritarian states, be they secular or theological, end up demanding the rights and will of individuals (they are supposed to serve) be subverted to their own omnipotent will.

Shesh Aqva, you continue to go in circles.

I remind you that its your beloved Catholic Church, which you
regularly attend, who are the one screaming loudest when young
women do go ahead and have an abortion. They will go out of
their way to make these women feel like murderers etc.

No wonder that women are sometimes confused

Shesh yab, if you actually took the time to read what I post you wouldn't be chiming in regularly with the most stupidest of unfounded assertions. If you can't understand what I'm posting or find it opposite to your own thinking, providing you do your own thinking, I can understand any counter argument. After all we are discussing abortion, a contraceptive tool used in only a minority of occasions relative to live births. Aprox. 1 in 4. And while the author is concerned with those numbers and what they mean to him, I am concerned with those who most likely should have used more care, contraceptives, or availed themselves of the use of abortion considering their youth, their future, and the life awaiting the innocent child. This does not mean I'm pro-abortion, or anti-abortion, or don't also think there is some validity in looking into the number of abortions and why they take place. Being pro-choice I have also learned that some choices are better than others depending on the circumstances at the time.

Aqva I don't misread your posts at all. You are blaming the evils
of feminist empowerment for the fact that many single mothers
decide to have kids without having a male partner, how this
apparently destroys lives etc.

Its been pointed out on this thread that we have the option of
having less single mothers, less abortions, if we follow the
example of countries like Holland, in terms of sex education,
contraception etc.

The organisations fighting this the hardest, happen to be the
religious lobby! Not only that, but when an abortion is required
by some woman wanting to make a choice, they scream even
louder. Now you personally might have a more tolerant view
on abortion then your church, but it stands that it is your
church that is one of the major impediments to less single
mothers, which you seem so concerned about.

As we can show from the US figures, trying to force abstinence
on people has been a dismal failure.

So its not feminism that is the problem, but your church.

Yab, you have picked your team and blame everything singlemindedly on that which does not follow your politicalised social view. I'm against todays feminism for the simple reason it no longer is an advocate for equality but now an advocate only for special considerations. To that same extent I do not hold with religions or their institutions advocating, or having any political lobby to influence social behaviors.
Your feminism and your beloved Pope are equals in this regard. One no better than the other. If you weren't so prejudiced by your own narrow feminist politic and were open-minded about the lives and choices of these young women, you too would be advocating not for the exclusive exercise of 'rights' but the exercise of commonsense and the doing the right thing considering the specific circumstance. Did you know 1 in every 4 young single mothers have their second fatherless child with in 24 months. Do you know how many attempt suicide, become chronically depressed, harm their babies, never finish secondary school, never escape poverty, end with aids, drug addictions, dragged into prostitution

I'm always on the lookout for good data. Aquarius, could you give me the source for your '1 in 4' statistic about single mothers and, if what you then wrote was other than rhetoric, could you give me the stats for the other consequences for single mothers too?

Contraception is widely available.
There's no such thing as "accidental" pregnancy, only irresponsible sex partners.

You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception, and the more forms used together the more unlikely (e.g. pill plus condom beats either alone).

You *cannot* get pregnant from oral, anal, masturbation, frottage, homosexuality or sex toys.

You can *only* get pregnant with a penis ejaculating into your vagina when you are fertile!

Can this happen accidentally?

"Abortion's a woman's right because it's *her* body", they say.

No, a foetus has its own DNA, so *cannot* be part of her body.

Irrespective of how long it's been inside her (one minute or nine months), it's not "her".

This is the cause of morning sickness and miscarriages.
Her immune system doesn't recognise the tissue as her own and *attacks* it!

Oddly, the people supporting the death of 70,000 or more potential Australians every year are often the same people who argue we need to import hundreds of thousands of migrants for "economic" reasons.

We kill our own people. Then import somebody else's. Absurd!

About the same number of people emigrate as are aborted.
The new children would replace the emigrants in roughly equal numbers.

So without abortion and without immigration, our population size would be *stable*.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb09.pdf
http://www.immigration.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/05emigration.htm

Babies are just beginning life.
Most immigrants are at least a third of the way through their lifespan.
Choosing immigrants over babies actually contributes to the aging of the population.

Does the woman have to raise the child?
No, fosterage and adoption are "choices" too.
(Notice how pro-choice only ever means "pro-abortion", never "pro-fosterage" or "pro-adoption").

And I don't object on religious grounds.
Only scientific and humanist grounds.

And I'm totally in favour of *brutally honest* sex education in schools.

Why do people always presume an "unwanted" child will have a worse life than anybody else?

Many people's childhoods weren't that great.
But growing up involves learning to cope with difficulties, rejection, loss, self-doubt.

Nobody escapes from the dark side of life, whatever their origins.
Those kids will learn to survive like everybody else.

Shockadelic, you have mastered to basically put in the post what I have been setting out elaborative previously.

Time and again, females having asked my views about abortions, and not having proceeded with it subsequently have expressed themselves to be glad they did not abort.

Often people are having their ups and downs and a female being pregnant can feel very disillusioned when pregnant and no partner. However, they generally find that having a child does not make them less attractive in future to get a male partner.
Picking on single parent families that somehow then the children will be worse of is sheer and utter nonsense. Frank Sinatra grew up in a single parent family and many other very successful persons did so.
Having an abortion is the killing of an unborn child (as-Shockadelic-correctly-points-out-with-its-own-DNA).
Many a parent have a still born baby placed in its own grave and mourned because to them it was after all another person. To then argue that somehow a unborn child is meaningless as the woman has the right to her own body is to ignore reality.
A woman cannot and never will fall pregnant merely because she is looking at a penis. Neither will she fall pregnant if the penis she is looking at is ejaculating. She must have the penis inside her vagina before any ability exist for her to become pregnant. Hence, it cannot be that somehow she “accidentally” fell pregnant! In simple terms she wanted the “pleasure” but hasn’t got the guts to take up the responsibilities. In simple terms, if someone drives a car by far over the speed limits because of wanting to have the pleasure to do so then the person must also accept the consequences.
I view that a woman who is so loose with the right of an unborn baby to have an abortion should be sterilised so she never ever can become pregnant again as their morality is in question! After all, if they do not desire to become pregnant they could have had a hysterectomy in the first place and still enjoy sex!

"I view that a woman who is so loose with the right of an unborn baby to have an abortion should be sterilised so she never ever can become pregnant again as their morality is in question! "

Gerritt, that sounds very Hitleresque to me, thankfully you will never
be an Australian politician.

Morals based on whose opinions? Why is your little subjective line
in the sand the correct one?

I remind you of the difference between a zygote, a foetus and a child,
but I do concede that because of lanuage, you might not understand the
difference.

An added note. A zygote contains no new dna, simply the dna of
the sperm and ova. So life continues.

Yabba, nothing to do with “Hitleresque”. Simply, if a woman does not want to risk to be pregnant but desires nevertheless to engage in sexual conduct then she can have a hysterectomy! It is therefore simple, either she has a hysterectomy or take other protection’s (which may include that she refuse to have sex with a man not castrated and/or not using protection’s to avoid pregnancy or she is bound to fulfil the obligation to avoid any harm to the unborn child. If a woman has such wide variety of options and squanders them all and pursues an abortion nevertheless then sterilisation seems to be the only option.
The moment you allow a woman to willy nilly decide the right of an unborn baby to live or not to live then you permit them the right to choose designer babies also.
We have doctors who are operating on unborn babies at times to avoid certain complications during pregnancy to the unborn baby! Now, if you are going to argue that an unborn-child has no right and is not a “unborn-child” but a mere “foetus” subject to the decision of the pregnant woman then why should society pay for the medical cost of trying to save the unborn child?
Have you ever seen how an “unborn-child” (foetus) was pulled to pieces even so it had still been alive at the time?
They happen to show this some time ago! So, is it a “child” when it is torn apart in the process of being taken out of the woman or "nothing"? Is the killing of such an “unborn-child” not murder?
There were reports that when the “unborn-child” was supposed to have been killed but after the abortion took place it was found to be still alive it then was killed anyhow because of the fact that more then likely it would die because of what was administered. To me, this is and remains plain murder!
We cannot deny an "unborn-child" the right we were given, that is an opportunity to life outside the womb.

Don Aitkin, I googled 'single mothers' and got thousands of hits and started following links. A Swedish site showed a correlation between single motherhood and poverty. Another site, American I think, a resource centre for single mothers on line help gave me the 1 in 4 will have a second fatherless child with in 24 months. Another site stated that 31% of Australia's new births are from single mothers. Another, a Canadian site showed numbers for suicide, chronic depression and child abuse. A British site took all that and included drugs and alcohol. One British site focused on the cycle of single motherhood, poverty and prostitution. It's all out there. Sites reporting from all over on single motherhood. Especially those countries with a social welfare system. You just have to look.
While some argue the pro or cons of the use of abortion. I'm rather wondering about the number of young women exploiting the laws, as well as the practices of the CSA. One third of the total new births being attributed to single mothers is no minor social condition. The laws were not drafted to encourage such behavior as a life choice but, rather to protect those who had not consciously chosen that end. Personally I think things have gotten back to front and needs proper review. Are we raising children to think in terms of exercising their 'rights', or for them to think in terms of their 'responsibilities' inherent in those rights and the obligation of every citizen to meet those responsibilities with out leaning on his or her neighbour for support. There is too much of the belief of entitlement in our perpetuation of this welfare state. It was meant to be a safety net not a choice of livelihood.

Gerritt, having sex is not exactly illegal and neither should it be!
So your comment was very much Hilteresque. A woman has roughly
400 chances to have a baby. It should be up to her, which of those
potentially cute babies she decides to progress with.

As we don't refer to you as a future corpse, the term unborn
child is really emotional rhetoric and no more. It becomes a child
at birth, not before.

Most abortions happen within the first tremester. The foetus does
not feel or think, is not yet a person, doesent yet have a human
brain.

Abortion can happen with RU 486, no "tearing apart", which you
seem so concerned about.

Murder applies to people, not organisms. Without a human brain
in place until about week 25, at week 12, the foetus is not yet
a person.

You are claiming that a fertilsed cell, ie a zygote, should have
the rights of a person. You have given no good reason for drawing
your little line in the sand at that point.

Aquarius: Thank you. I will follow your suggestions.

I simply couldn’t stay away any longer because the things said in the last few posts by Gerrit and Shockadelic are just beyond belief. I admire Yabby’s endurance.
I’m not here to reply to any child support comments, as I said: Create your own thread about this topic rather than hi-jacking abortion threads.

Shockadelic,
“Potential Australians”? Immigrants are potential Australians, all it takes is a silly citizenship test, which seems much less painful than women having to giving birth against their will to produce new Australians; I shouldn’t even have to mention how much it costs the govt (not that I care) and parents to raise children. I’m an immigrant myself and have created children and paid taxes, as many immigrants do.
Unless you are from Aboriginal descent, your ancestors were immigrants as well.
Anyway, I agree with you on contraception and education.

Gerrit,
Rather than forced sterilisations, what about free contraception and comprehensive sex-ed we have discussed here ad nauseam?
If you favour forced sterilisations you must have been jumping up and down with joy that your daughter, who “murdered” her “unborn child” (hey aqva, note the quotation marks) became sterile after the abortion went wrong.
Otherwise she would have started a family; well that’s too bad, she deserves to be sterile for having an abortion- according to your own bizarre logic.

Imagine if we sterilised all women that ever had an abortion- we’d be in need of a healthy influx of immigrants or Australians would face extinction.
You’ll probably snip this idea, but why not sterilise all men who contributed to unwanted pregnancies as well

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, “The moment you allow a woman to willy nilly decide the right of an unborn baby to live or not to live then you permit them the right to choose designer babies also.”

I thought they all had that right anyway, the right to choose to remain pregnant or otherwise. I would also support that right because when you say they are disallowed that right, then you are saying “your body is not your own, you are merely a support system for embryonic development.”

And now

“If a woman has such wide variety of options and squanders them all and pursues an abortion nevertheless then sterilisation seems to be the only option.”

So who gets to decide who is “has such wide variety of options and squanders them” and thus who will be “sterilised”?

I do not know what sort of social order you are espousing but it sounds perfectly in tune with those blackshirted fellows you were talking about in a previous post.

Dictatorships are founded on denying the individual choice, instead imposing the monolithic will of the despot, who considers himself best equipped to decide who is “squandering” what. As I said previously, in 1942 Hitler changed the law in Nazi Germany, Aryan women who sought abortion would no longer go to prison, the would be executed but I guess that would stop those women "squandering their options".

That is a social order which anyone with even the barest ability to reason would never elect.

Hence, such social orders only come to being by brute force and violent repression rather than a democratic process.

The Despotism of the Pro-Life lobby!

Shockadelic wrote
"There's no such thing as "accidental" pregnancy, only irresponsible sex partners." And "You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception.."

On what facts do you base these statements?

No contraception is 100% effective. Even vasectomies have a failure rate which is not insignificant. All oral contraceptives and a few other types like Implanon (a small rod inserted into the arm) are hormonal and are therfore not without possible side effects such as depression, moodiness, acne, weight gain, loss of libido, nausea, headaches, DVT, increased risk of breast cancer, spotting or bleeding between periods. In an effort to minimise these side effects, drug companies have reduced the amount of hormone present in many types of contraceptive pills. This has the trade-off however that the pill has less margin for error. It must be taken at the same time every day within a few hours or the risk of an unplanned pregnancy increases. Similarly, if a woman who is taking the pill is ill and is vomiting, or is taking other medications such as antibiotics, the risk of the pill failing is again increased.

So despite women actually using their oral contraceptives to their best efforts possible, for many reasons, sometimes just bad luck, contraceptives fail all of the time.

Making some assumptions and crude "big figure" approximations, lets assume that if Australia's female population is 10 million, and a conservative guess that 20% of these are between the age of 18 - 45 and sexually active. If they were to all use oral contraception which has a typical failure rate of around 9% (http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm) this would result in 180,000 unplanned pregnancies.

These are all "accidental" pregnancies which the women / couples were making their best efforts to avoid. The women were not acting irresponsibly just because their contraception failed them.

crumpethead, I see you conveniently leave out Shockadelic's full statement including,"You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception, and the more forms used together the more unlikely (e.g. pill plus condom beats either alone)." But then, if you had included that little truth you wouldn't of had your argument would you.

When my first wife was pregnant with our first child she made clear she didn’t want another baby. So, after she gave birth we practiced safe sex, using a combination of preventative’s just in case one would fail there was, so to say, a back up.
I totally accepted my wife’s right to insist appropriate protective measures were being in place!
When then we moved to Australia, and my wife was concerned that there might be a lack of preventative items available we simply stocked up, just in case.
I had no issue with my wife rights to refuse to become pregnant!
I had no issue with my wife desire not to have any other children.
I had no issue with practicing safe sex with back up!

To me it was my obligation to ensure my wife was comfortable within our marriage.
It was my wife, some 3 years later who then wanted to have a second child.
Now, this came about where she knew I had respected her choice and we had dealt with matters within the confine of our marriage as to what we both deemed to be appropriate.

Nothing in the world can justify women who ignore to ensure that they and so their sex-partners take sufficient and appropriate protective measures to avoid pregnancy then can claim it is all about their body rights.
I do not say it must just be the woman who take appropriate protective measures, just that a woman should ensure that it is being done. If she ignores to take that care then there can be no issue of “accidental” pregnancy!
It is not an issue of women having to abstain from a sexual relationship, rather that a woman who do not wish to become pregnant has it within her means to insist on sufficient and appropriate protective measurers being taken or simply refuse sexual intercourse to take place! Then the whole ill conceived debate about a “women” having the right to decide for herself to kill of or not to kill off an unborn child would be no issue!

Ok aqvarivs, lets work out the odds for condom and contraceptive pill.

Given that the pill has a typical failure rate of 9% and condoms have a failure rate of 15%. When used together, this equates to a failure rate of 1.35% Using the same rough figures as before, this would result in 27,000 women having unplanned pregnancies each year and accoring to Gerrit, would deserve to be sterilised. Although I'm sure that if Mrs Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka fell pregnant with this combined protection it would have been different and he would have made an exception because his wife isn't like those other women who he assumes are being so irresponsible.

While condom use by men who are in new relationships is recommended as a good way for men to take some control of causing unplanned pregnancies and STD's, the majority of couples choose not to use condoms.

I suspect that one reason for many people taking a hostile attitude towards women who seek terminations is because like Shockadelic and Gerrit, they think that nearly all unplanned pregnancies could be stopped by contraceptive use. Well even in an ideal world where all couples used contraception, contracepives do fail and in a population the size of Australia's, unplanned pregnancies occur in very large numbers.

Getting back to David Palmer's original question in his article, "What are our politicians doing to reduce the numbers? [of abortions]". I believe that while more and better sex education would do something to *slightly* reduce the failure rate of contraception and unplanned pregnancies, subsidised relationship counselling would also have some impact. Many abortions would not be neccessary if from the beginning, couples knew where each other stood in relation to future plans to start a family (or not), child raising responsibilities, and contraception. While this is a very un-cool topic to raise over dinner early in a relationship, it would save a lot of grief down the track.

Gerritt, its all very nice if one is living perfectly,as you claim
to be, but I assure you, there is a large imperfect world out there.

Women are plied with grog, women are coerced in all sorts of ways for
a bit of nooky, usually by men, thats the reality. Some people
make mistakes, etc. etc. thats life. Contraception sometimes does
fail, as has been mentioned.

As we have shown that no "children" or "people" are aborted,
something which you have not been able to refute, you have yet
to show why some holier then thou attitude should be applied to
a zygote, embryo or foetus. Nearly all abortions are performed in
the first trimester.

Personally I try and take a more tolerant view of the world and
others then you do. I accept that people are not perfect and
will make mistakes.

A little less dogmatism and a little more tolerance from you, would
be welcome.

The Hitleresque suggestions applied to his time, not to a secular
democracy like Australia.

crumpethead, first the opportunity for failure of the pill and condom use is given at plus or minus 2% when used properly, second you forgot to configure for spermicidal, and both male and female condoms used in conjunction, and the number of days of actual fertility for each given woman considered. Both men and women securely bundled in plastic, swimming in spermicidal and her on the pill and they should never have to face abortion. It's up to you to encourage condom use by both partners and the liberal application of spermicide. There is no excuse other than poor planning. Being human is no excuse. There should never be any skin touching unless both participants are willing to take on the responsibility and obligations of being parents. Otherwise it's garden supply bags over the head and tied at the ankles.

Gerrit, I apologise for asking you an irrelevant question about contraception, I rushed my post and overlooked that you did indeed discuss contraception.

I tend to agree with aqvarivs that with all those different types of contraception, the chance of pregnancy is minimal, but I’m not sure how much contraception costs. Teenagers can’t always come up with that amount of money especially if they can’t tell their parents.
They may rely on condoms-only because they’re cheaper.
That’s why contraception should be free.
And, as Yabby said, people have sex when drunk and forget about contraception. We could say that “they shouldn’t”, but the reality is that “they do” make mistakes. We also “shouldn’t” have car accidents, but we still do, unfortunately.

Crumpethead, the counseling is a good idea.
Also, social networks like easily accessible and affordable child care and flexible work hours all play a role in the willingness or ability for parents to provide for a child.

Gerrit, the fact that people burry their foetus after miscarriage is because they have emotionally connected with it. Mothers who plan to give birth do tend to connect with the foetus, whereas women who opt for abortion usually don’t have feelings towards the foetus. The fact that women feel emotional toward their foetus still doesn’t mean that it’s a person- it just means that the parents have feelings.
Forced sterilization is, as Col suggests, far too much like dictatorship- you can't be serious.
If a woman chooses to give birth to, say, 2 babies in her life, does it really matter to others at what age she becomes a mother? She can have an abortion at 16 and still start a planned family later.

Celivia, you do it so well that I'd like to read an article by you on this or a related topic. It is complicated, and falls back on ourselves as individuals, and the ethical standing we have and the ethical choices we make, plus the laws that act as guidelines for us in making those choices. It is also, as you have just pointed out, often a most emtional business, which complicates things further. I don't think that we will ever get rid of abortions, but we certainly can reduce their number, and everyone who has written on this topic seems to have wanted such an outcome. What we differ on is the best way or ways to do so.

We now seem to have on going excuses being made that a woman can be made drunk, teenagers cannot afford cost of contraception’s, etc.
Translate this in someone using a car but cannot afford to maintain it and drives it unroadworthy and end up in an accident. We simply then are to accept the argument that a teenager hasn’t got enough money to afford keeping it in good condition, and ignore someone might have been as result ended up cripple or killed?
Or are we simply to hold that if one participate in driving then you simply have the responsibilities and must accept the consequences?
If a woman does allow herself to become drunk then that was her own doing (I do not include rape in this).
If we are going to make all kind of excuses then every criminal in prison will have some hard luck story to tell why they should not have been convicted, let alone have been imprisoned.

Aqvarivs bag over the head would be some option if we did leave breathing holes in it!
Anyhow, besides education, contraception (ring/cream/condoms), abstain and whatever else can be applied it can be hardly argued that somehow all so called unwanted pregnancies are the result of unforeseen accidents. An “accident” is where you simply had no ability to prevent it. If I were to bang onto a window and his cracks then it is not an accident, as I could have anticipated, even so I may not have expected it, that the window may crack.
If however I happen to slip on the street and in the process loose my balance that I fall against a window and causes it to crack then it is an “accident” in that my slipping was not intended.
If a person voluntarily engages in sexual-intercourse then they are taking a conscious decision to do so. If either or both involved ignores to take sufficient and appropriate precautions then forget about hard-luck stories. They did it to themselves!
Don't make excuses for those who did it onto themselves!

"Both men and women securely bundled in plastic, swimming in spermicidal and her on the pill and they should never have to face abortion."

Wow Aqva, this all sounds more and more fanatical to me! No
wonder that people don't practise it.

Next we have Gerritt, seemlingly not understanding the difference
between having sex and driving a car. They are quite different!

Society of course is far more reasonable and rational then
both of you.

So far none of you has given a good reason, why abortion
in the first trimester, whether by ru 486 or the slurpy method,
should be considered such a bad thing.

Thats why its become pretty standard in more and more countries,
is considered a health issue rather then a criminal issue and
is condidered a basic human right in more and more countries.

In Australia in practise, thats pretty well much the case too,
although some states have yet to change their laws accordingly.
If they haven't done so, its as usual the religious lobby
who is making a racket. Nobody is forcing them to have an
abortion.

They make male condoms and they make female condoms and they make spermicidals. To not educate and encourage their use but rather depend on abortion is about the stunnedist comment you have ever made. Your not even trying now. Your just kneejerking and using emotionalism to attack language. Do at least try to understand an opposing view and when called for fake a sense of humour. I really shouldn't have to spell this out for another adult.

Gerrit, even if everyone would drive well-maintained cars and the roads were perfect, car accidents still happen. You gave an example of that yourself: “… while I was driving in traffic, my wife suddenly flipped out she was pregnancy. I was so shocked that I hit the brakes and a bus run in the back of me.”

We could argue that your wife ‘shouldn’t’ have told you the news while driving, or that you ‘shouldn’t’ have hit the breaks, or that the bus driver ‘should have’ paid attention, but it would a useless comment because we all know that people are not robots and do have to deal with emotions, feelings, distractions, impulses, urges, etc at any given time, convenient or not, as well.

I'm sure that you or the busdriver were not banned from driving even though you all 'should have' reacted differently. I am confident that people even showed compassion for you, your wife, and the bus driver.

I know the analogy doesn’t apply 100% to unplanned pregnancy, but I hope it’s sufficient enough to illustrate that people do make the wrong decisions because they are not robots without emotions, so in fact 'being human' IS an acceptable excuse for making mistakes.

We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world and all we can do is show a bit of compassion for other imperfect people. We are so eager to criticise others while we’re not perfect ourselves. I'm guilty of that as well.
Marge Simpson: “Hmmmmm Homer, criticising is so easy.”
Homer: ”Yeah, and a lot of fun, too!”

I would even argue with theists that God isn’t perfect, neither was Jesus. Doctrines therefore cannot be perfect either.

I wonder what a (hypothetical) perfect person would do: would s/he criticise and judge others or not? I wouldn’t know the answer to this question myself. It’s complicated, like everything else.

Continued

Technically, aqvarivs, you are correct about supersizing contraception.
But people have emotions, feelings of lust, act on impulses etc. because this is naturally ingrained into our brain, so spontaneity feels damn good.

Sex: everybody likes it- and if we don’t then there’s almost a myriad of remedies to ‘cure’ our disinterest in sex or to simply improve our sex life, from Viagra to penis enlargements. There is so much focus on sex because we are programmed (whether by evolution or God) to crave sex.

Especially, teenagers and young adults have a big interest in sex- after all, lust is something new for them, and frankly, they don’t really know what to do with all those new hormones rushing through their body.

There was a documentary on TV last week, unfortunately I caught only part of it, but it was about the fact that teenagers can’t help taking risks.
Their brain hasn’t matured enough to fully understand risk and anticipate risk. That’s why they take part in extreme sports other dangerous things, have mood-swings etc.
Their brain is confused about compassion as well, because new hormones get flushed through their system, sometimes in the wrong ‘doses’ etc. This all still has to settle down.

I figure we can apply that knowledge to teen-sex as well. We can’t expect teenagers and young adults to behave in the same responsible way as adults- it’s biologically or physically impossible for them.

Thanks Don, it is indeed all very complicated, I’m struggling with the topic as much as anyone else. I haven’t adopted a certain ‘stance’ or a particular philosophy or outlook on this- not out of principle but simply because I find everything so complicated that I don’t fully understand anything at all.

That’s why I have a problem with doctrines or absolute philosophies because they stop necessary changes and claim they're correct. Time changes and so do morals and ethics. Call it the zeitgeist. But I’m positive that over time, morals have changed for the better and that socially, we are progressing. But we still have a long way to go.

Yabby the expert:
If a zygote has the DNA of *both* parents, why is only the mother, and not the father, consulted regarding abortion?
His DNA is in there too. It's "his body" as much as it is hers.

Zygotes exist for 2 weeks before becoming embryos.
By the time a woman *knows* she's pregnant, there would be no zygote.
There would be an embryo. With its own DNA.

"Murder" is just another name for "deliberate non-defensive killing".
Just because something isn't a "person" or "conscious" doesn't mean you can't "murder" it?
You're debating semantics, not science.

If I kill a fungus or a bacterium, I have "murdered" it (unless it was self-defence), as I have deliberately killed it.

Bacteria don't have rights because they're not *human*.
Zygotes, embryos and foetuses are human.

Human cultures have permitted the killing of *other* species (even "intelligent" ones like whales) for food, clothing, sanitation.

Only *primitive* societies have approved the deliberate non-defensive killing of our *own* species (cannibalism, human sacrifices).
Are doctors in modern hospitals primitives?

Celivia, my comments about immigrants related to the numerical statistics, not economic costs.

But what of the "costs" of migrants?
The language barriers causing unemployment?
NESB students' learning difficulties?
The fact that *half* of them leave Australia anyway, so why have these problems in the first place!

What of the "cost" of the loss of thousands of children who could have contributed to our political, economic, artistic, spiritual, philosophical, technological and scientific spheres?

There was only *one* Einstein (unique DNA).
Only *one* Michelangelo (unique DNA).
What if the world had missed their contributions?
At least migrants have had a chance to contribute to the world.

Crumpethead, abortion isn't 100% safe and also has side effects like depression.
Abortion can kill the mother! Pretty nasty side effect!

Contraceptives only "fail" if a penis is ejaculating into your vagina, not in your mouth, anus, skin, hands, headboard.

Failure rate of 1.35% for combined pill/condom use would cause 27,000 pregnancies?
Are miscarriages deducted from this figure?
27,000 failed condoms/pills is less than *half* the abortions.
What's causing the other half?

Shocka, I remind you that billions of his dna cells go down the
sewers on a regular basis, so his investment is virtually nil,
but a moment of pleasure. She invests in 9 months of discomfort
and the risk of losing her life. Therefore its only fair enough
that she has more of a say.

An embryo still only has the dna it inherited from its parents.
New dna would require a mutation to happen.

Murder is what we apply to killing people. An embryo is not
a person. Now you are free to talk about "murdering" bacteria,
flies, carrots or whatever, but thats not how the word is normally
used, except by a few pro lifers trying to use semantics to
make their argument.

Since when do human cells have rights? Every cell in your
body contains the dna to build another body. If you graze your
leg, you kill millions of them. Do those cells have rights?

"Smart" human societies ensure that they live sustainably,
or in the end their whole society is wiped out, as history
shows.

If you want more Einsteins etc, then we can show that good
education is the key. Better perhaps to educate and reduce
suffering amongst those already billions of people then
simply create unlimited new billions just for the hang
of it and land up with even more suffering and collapse
of societies.

Abortion is something like 8 times safer then giving birth.
We went through all that stuff ages ago on OLO.

Yabba stated;
“Next we have Gerritt, seemlingly not understanding the difference
between having sex and driving a car. They are quite different!

Society of course is far more reasonable and rational then
both of you.

So far none of you has given a good reason, why abortion
in the first trimester, whether by ru 486 or the slurpy method,
should be considered such a bad thing.”

Seems you don’t get it that having sex or driving a car means you engage in a conduct that can have consequences if you do not take appropriate care/precautions.

I do not have to give a reason why someone else should not murder an unborn child! Neither do I need to give a reason why a comatose person or any other person kept on a life machine should not be killed. I am not the one pursuing the killing!

The problem with fanatics is they get some consensus to do some killing and then before you know it they will use the same rhetoric to start killing of the aged, infirm, the disabled and whatever. After all, if it can be applied to one group then why not another!
Why not then introduce a system that a woman who is pregnant can do so as she can always abort the child and get paid for the umbilical cord. Now, taxpayers paying for the abortion will pick up the medical cost and the woman makes money out of this kind of killings. While no doubt some may argue this will never happen, reality shows that people already are selling kidney’s, etc, for next to no money because of the need for the money and so we have a thriving economy in the black-market of body parts.

Do not deny rights to unborn babies you were never denied by your parents!

Yabby says "An embryo only has the dna it inherited from its parents.
New dna would require a mutation to happen."

Nobody has *two* DNAs.

They have a *combination* of the two parents' DNA, a third unique DNA.

If not the child would be a clone.

Only identical twins have *exactly the same* DNA.
But identical twins can have very different personalities?

Where does this come from? Not just their cells.

People have come up with all kinds of explanations for the human mind or spirit.

Whether you agree with any of these theories, we seem to possess some element beyond pure physicality.

What if this element is present right from the *moment of conception*, only becoming obvious later, but there all along.

I know this is hypothetical metaphysics, but that's precisely why this issue isn't as *clear cut* as you want to think it is.

"An embryo is not a person."
You keep chanting "person". It is "human".

"Since when do human cells have rights?
Every cell in your body contains the dna to build another body."

My cells can't *naturally* create a cloned body!
This could only happen artificially in a lab, with my consent.

Embryos are developing *naturally* and would inevitably become a *unique* human.

My cells have rights because they are *me*, and I'm human.

I have the right to chop off my arm and burn it.
Why? Because these are *my* cells, my body, not somebody else's.

I don't have the right to decide what happens to another human's body or cells, which is why I can't chop off somebody else's arm and burn it.

"Smart human societies ensure that they live sustainably".
You imply unrestrained population growth.

You ignore my statement that the number of abortions is the *same* as the number of emigrants.
The babies would simply replace people leaving the country.

Net result: no growth from these extra births, provided there was no more immigration (the main contributor to growth today).

Education might help potential Einsteins, but what if Einstein's abilities weren't learnt but genetic?
Or due to that mysterious "spirit"?

Gerritt, nearly everything we do has consequences, including walking
down the street. That does not mean that the two actions can be
compared.

Abortion is not murder of unborn children. Murder applies to people
and say a zygote or embryo is not a child/person.

Your slippery slope arguments, if applied elsewhere, would mean that
i.e. we could not teach children how to use matches safely, as they
might burn the house down. Ridiculous.

In fact, that’s exactly why secular democracy, with a separation of
the powers, is a great way of governance, certainly the best we
have come up with.

We might have extremist politicians, extremist religious leaders,
extremist individuals. The bulk of society however, is usually
far more rational then that.

Individuals views, such as sterilising women who have had an
abortion, are clearly extremist and would not be accepted
by a rational society.

The slippery slope argument is constantly raised by the religious.
What it implies is that people as a group are too stupid to
sit down and rationally discuss moral standards and the laws
by which they should live and behave. That is nonsense.

Next, some of the religious will tell us that as they are in touch
with the almighty through their holy book, their interpretation
should be accepted as objective morality. A hog for power
to control others, if ever I saw one!

There is no good reason for instance, why euthanasia could
not be allowed in terms of people making decisions about their
own lives. Its fairly ridiculous that Australians now have to
fly to Switzerland or Mexico, to be able to make decisions
about themselves.

As to me, if my parents had stopped for a cup of coffee before
making me, most likely I would not be here. I would not know
about it, so it would not matter.

Shocka, I will respond to you, when I have another post available.

Shockadelic, about our immigrant vs. embryo argument, you have reasonable points but I think we need to put it aside from the ethical discussion until it becomes an important deciding point which I doubt will happen within the frame of this debate. There are so many aspects to it, and while you may (or may not) be correct about the immigrant problems, there are overwhelming problems with foster care, too.

I have a problem with the thought of discriminating against 2 groups of actual people: immigrants and pregnant women all for the sake of 1 group of potential people or embryos that lack consciousness/awareness, dependence, and even a developed, functional brain. Only actual persons have rights, not potential persons. Potential persons can be granted rights by their hostess, who is an autonomic person and supplies everything for the potential person. Only the hostess has authority to decide whether the potential person has rights or not.

About potential, you said: “There was only *one* Einstein (unique DNA). Only *one* Michelangelo (unique DNA). What if the world had missed their contributions?”
There was only one Hitler, what if his mother had decided to have an abortion?
This was just to illustrate one reason why the ‘potential person’ argument is a useless one.

I was just pondering…. what holds anti-abortionists back, since their mission is saving human lives, from becoming a life donor?
There is a very safe option with a risk that can be neglected since it’s almost non-existent: bone-marrow transplants.

You can save a life by donating your bone marrow without having to oppress or force anyone else to take risk to save a life that YOU want to save.
You could even do this multiple times during your life time.
Why focus so much forcing others to save potential people while there are so many actual people, including children that can be saved by YOU?

If you think that pregnant women should be forced to give birth while the risk of death in childbirth is roughly 1 in every 5000, then why not save a life almost risk-free yourself?

Shocka, so let me get this straight. You think that women should be forced to
have children that they don’t want, any surplus could always be dumped into
orphanages etc, for the kids would eventually “get over it”

Given that women have around 400 chances to have another potential Einstein,
Why not simply let them have their children when they are ready, willing and
able?

Your plan is doomed to failure from the start. Statistics show that if abortion
is banned, out come the knitting needles etc and the net result is a huge increase
in women dying from botched abortions. Needless suffering all round and then
you claim to be a humanist!

DNA expresses itself in the form of genes and in sexually reproducing organisms
like ourselves, cells contain two copies of every gene, one from each parent.
No new genes are created, unless a mutation occurs, simply genes passed on
from generation to generation. That is why some characteristics can be passed
on from grandfather to grandchildren, without ever expressing themselves in
the parents.

As to your speculation about spirits, souls etc,
I will rely on substantiated evidence. The mind is what the brain does. No
evidence of any ghosts that we know of. Identical twins are affected by
differing environments and different nutrition, even at the foetus stage,
so will behave a little differently, no magic there.

Your cells have rights as part of you, a person. On their own they have
no rights. Similarly zygotes, which are cells owned by women and
completely dependant on women, thus depend on her goodwill and
ownership. They are not an autonomous individuals.

People are products of both their genes and environment. Potential
Einsteins may well exist in Africa, but they won’t get far without
an education. Check out the number of patents coming from the
third world, compared to countries with good education systems.
Einstein would not get far, if he never learnt to read or write.

If you were a humanist Shocka, you would be more concerned with
suffering, not forcing kiddies into orphanages.

.

Celivia, "immigrants vs. embryos"
"You have reasonable points but we need to put it aside"

Don't you mean: "That makes perfect sense, but I don't want the debate deviating from the familiar women's rights vs religion."

"Discriminating" against immigrants?
Migration isn't a "right".

Einstein vs Hitler.
"Bad" people are born! Really?
At least we can learn from their mistakes.

Donors?
Preventing destruction of life isn't the same as preventing *natural death*.
Subtle but significant difference.

"Risk of death in childbirth is 1 in 5000"
In modern hospitals?

Yabby
"Unwanted children dumped into orphanages"
Do you work for a tabloid newspaper?

"Why not simply let them have children when they are ready, willing and able?"

Why not allow a penis to ejaculate in your vagina only when you are ready to raise children?
In the meantime, ejaculate somewhere else, anywhere else, and Shazam, no pregnancy!

"If abortion is banned, out come the knitting needles".
If you're a spoilt brat.

Feminism and the advertising media have trained young women to think only of themselves.
Don't think of others or the future of society.

It's all about me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme.
The Veruca Salt generation: "I want it NOW!"

"Cells contain two copies of every gene, one from each parent.
No new genes are created, unless a mutation occurs, simply genes passed on from generation to generation.
That is why some characteristics can be passed on from grandfather to grandchildren, without ever expressing themselves in the parents"

By this argument, *you* don't really exist as an individual.
You are just other people's genes: your parents, grandparents, etc.

A dead end: nobody exists as individuals.
So why should you have rights as an individual?

"As to your speculation about spirits"

*My* speculation?
Every culture thoughout history has believed in the spiritual dimension.
Rational materialists, like yourself, are the odd ones out.

Science isn't infallible.
Science is subjective (the experimenter is *part* of the experiment) and any data produced is interpreted subjectively.

The metaphysical and psychological cannot be reduced to "facts" and "evidence".
Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting? I want proof!

Shockadelic wrote: "There was only *one* Einstein (unique DNA).
Only *one* Michelangelo (unique DNA).
What if the world had missed their contributions?"

We can also ask what about the possibility of missing out on the contributions of famous women who were free to carry on with their contribution to society after only being enabled to do so by having the option to have an unplanned pregnancy terminated.

Your argument about DNA is irrelevant and has been discussed earlier in this thread because regardless of whether the embryo is an independent organism, or even whether it has rights, it's rights will never equal or exceed the rights of it's mother to which it's existance is completely dependent. For the anti-abortion brigade to claim that the rights of a woman only equals the rights of an embryo really illustrates where they rank women in society.

You also say "Abortion can kill the mother! Pretty nasty side effect!"
In the last 15 years there have been only 3 deaths caused by abortion in Australia, compared with 83 from 2000 to 2002 alone. Prior to 1971, abortion (then illegal) was the highest cause of maternal death in Australia accounting for 25% of maternal deaths. Prior to 1971, women knew that the risk of dying was high yet they still risked their lives to have an abortion. These women were desperate, not "spoilt brats" as you claim. Women today are no different, they just have a safe option.

And you said "Feminism and the advertising media have trained young women to think only of themselves. Don't think of others or the future of society."

You incorrectly assume that it is mostly young women who are having abortions. While this depends on what age you consider to be young, Medicare stats show that the majority of women who have abortions are over 28 years old. Women in this age group often already have children and just can't cope with more. They have terminations because they ARE thinking about others. The welfare of their existing children.

”Why not allow a penis to ejaculate in your vagina only when you are ready to raise children?”

Because society has not deemed sex to be illegal. People enjoy sex, often without
wanting children at the time. Why forgo all those pleasurable experiences?

” If you're a spoilt brat.”

You are implying that women the world over are spoilt brats. There are around
42 million abortions a year, IIRC. Lots of those in the third world. Those women
all have their own reasons, they are certainly not all spoilt brats. Knitting needles
have been around for a long time. The rich of course, can just fly to another
country, use good medical services. So its poor women who suffer most from
banning abortion.


”By this argument, *you* don't really exist as an individual.
You are just other people's genes: your parents, grandparents, etc”.

Your genes are made up of your ancestors genes, bar the odd mutation.
Genes are one part of what makes up an individual. As you interact with
your environment, those experiences, memories are all part of what makes
you. Without your mind, you would not be you. Your mind is, what your
brain does.

“Every culture thoughout history has believed in the spiritual dimension.”

Every culture has invented some kind of gods of the gaps and for good reasons.
As people evolved to think more, they also became more anxious about things
they did not understand. Lightning, thunder, you name it. Perceived certainty
assists brain chemistry in achieving homeostasis or balance. Whether its actually
true or not, does not even matter. Anxious individuals are not happy individuals.
So religion etc, is required by some to make them feel better. Fair enough, for
those who need it.

”Science isn't infallible.”

Nobody said it was. In Science, all knowledge is tentative. However Science is
clearly a more informed process of understanding the world, then claims by
people like popes etc, that they are infallible.

” The metaphysical and psychological cannot be reduced to "facts" and "evidence".”

So its no more then an opinion

My paragraph above should have read;
"In the last 15 years there have been only 3 deaths caused by abortion in Australia, compared with 83 DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH CHILDBIRTH in the three years from 2000 to 2002 alone."

Shockadelic,
>>Don't you mean: "That makes perfect sense, …." <<
No, otherwise I would have said so. It’s pointless to discuss the immigrant issue at this stage because regardless of our view of immigrants, these views won’t affect decisions to be made about abortion. I do believe, based on evidence from other countries, that when a supportive and safe social network is in place, abortion rates will fall. We can’t just talk about two social issues like immigrants and foster care without equally discussing many other social issues that could possibly influence women to choose giving birth over abortion. See what I mean’? It'll be an endless discussion. Perhaps others want to discuss this, but I won’t during this debate.

BTW, I have the impression that you haven’t read this entire debate. If you choose not to read what has been discussed, then I choose not to reply to things that you address which have been debated unless you have something new to add.

>>Donors? Preventing destruction of life isn't the same as preventing *natural death*.<<
I know. That’s why I never said it was the same. I merely asked why, if anti-abortionists are so concerned about saving lives, do they try to force others to save lives that THEY want to save without offering themselves to save lives of people who want to be saved.

What keeps anti-abortionists from donating bone-marrow, a kidney, a piece of liver or lung?
Is it because human beings are only worthy of saving pre-birth?
It’s so easy, isn’t it, to tell others what to do. Put your organs where your mouth is.

Yabby is right, whether it’s new DNA or not is not the issue. I think ‘personhood’ is the issue. DNA alone does not make a person.

>>"Risk of death in childbirth is 1 in 5000" In modern hospitals?<< In Australia. Crumpethead’s figures are correct. A woman, at a modern Sydney hospital, who gave birth on the same day as I did, died shortly after giving birth.

QUOTE
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070913/2/14f7k.html?f=mv

Friday September 14, 06:26 AM
Doctor sacrifices her life for daughter
A Melbourne GP has refused high-level chemotherapy, ultimately sacrificing her life to save her unborn daughter.
Family and friends farewelled Dr Ellice Hammond, 37, at a funeral service, the same day anti-solarium campaigner Clare Oliver succumbed to melanoma.
Dr Hammond lost her battle with Hodgkin's lymphoma on Sunday, three weeks after daughter Mia Ellice was born nine weeks prematurely at the Monash Medical Centre, where she remains in neonatal intensive care, The Herald Sun said.
Dr Hammond was diagnosed in the 22nd week of pregnancy and refused high-level chemotherapy that could have saved her but might have killed Mia, whose induced birth took place on August 20.
Dr Hammond had three reduced-strength chemotherapy treatments during the pregnancy, but the cancer returned worse than before each time and full-strength treatments following Mia's birth did not save her.
END QUOTE
.
Anyone who argues that an unborn child has no rights/status, etc, would in my view insult Dr Ellice Hammond.
A woman who sacrificed her own life for the sake of her (then) unborn child!
As I have always stated, where it comes to a matter of life or death I accept that in special circumstances a woman may need to have an abortion. As such, I can only admire this women nevertheless having considered the life of her (unborn) child above that of her own.

Crumpethead:
"The embryo will never equal the rights of it's mother to which it's existance is completely dependent."

So Elderly people with Alzheimers have less rights, because their lives are dependent on others?

"Prior to 1971", most girls weren't told a thing about sexuality, pregnancy or contraception.

The "knitting needle" era was one of ignorance and innocence.
Young girls and boys did not discuss sex at home or at school.

The only reason the knitting needles would come out *today* would be pure selfishness, not ignorance or innocence.

"The majority of women who have abortions are over 28 years old"
All the more reason they should be informed enough to know how babies are made and how to prevent it.

"83 deaths associated with childbirth in the three years from 2000 to 2002"
You are more likely to drown, be poisoned, or commit suicide.

So you can die from abortion, you can die from childbirth, you can die from choking on a lolly.
Everybody dies.

Yabby:
"Why forgo all those pleasurable experiences?"
i.e. Me, Me, Me!

You can't have "sex" without ejaculating inside a vagina?
Are you Bill Clinton's publicist?
Have all the sex you like, but there's only *one* way you'll get pregnant.

"The third world"?
We're discussing abortion policy in Australia.
In the third world, abortion's the result of backwards cultural norms about sexuality, and lack of education about reproductive reality.

"Without your mind, you would not be you.
Your mind is what your brain does."

And your brain is your *ancestors genes*.
So "you" don't exist.
You are just a biochemical genetic reaction-factory.
I thought rational materialists already knew this.

"Perceived certainty assists brain chemistry".
Like your perceived certainty in science's subjective data.
Your perceived certainty that religion is hogwash.

Celivia:
"Perhaps others want to discuss this (immigrant issue), but I won't".
Because it contradicts your presumptions about population growth.

"I think 'personhood' is the issue. DNA alone does not make a person."

Do *catatonic amnesiacs* in mental hospitals have rights?
Is there a "person" in there?

”So you can die from abortion, you can die from childbirth, you can die from choking on a lolly.
Everybody dies.”

You missed the point. Childbirth is something like 8 times as dangerous as abortion.
Its up to people to decide, when they want to risk their lives, not up to you.

”i.e. Me, Me, Me!”

Do you have the foggiest about basic evolutionary psychology 101? Self interest
is a normal, natural instinct. Even altruism and reciprocal altruism relate back
to self interest. Social species like us, do some things for the benefit of our “tribes”
which in turn benefit us, that does not make us slaves of the state, fulfilling the agenda of others.

” Have all the sex you like, but there's only *one* way you'll get pregnant.”

How people have sex is their business, not my business.

”We're discussing abortion policy in Australia.”

Abortion is a global topic, no reason not to discuss what happens outside
Australia.

”And your brain is your *ancestors genes*.
So "you" don't exist.”

Shocka, time for you to go back to biology 101. This is actually a great book,
which explains things simply, even for people like you.

http://waylifeworks.jbpub.com:80/toc.cfm


”Like your perceived certainty in science's subjective data.
Your perceived certainty that religion is hogwash.”

You forgot what I wrote. All information is tentative. No evidence
of the many religions claims so far. When the 10 commandments appear
on the face of the moon, we will all take note!

” Because it contradicts your presumptions about population growth.”

So what is your real agenda here? More little Anglo Celtic babies
perhaps?

Today I walked into a mental hospital, took out my gun, aimed at a catatonic amnesiac, and blew her head off.

Then I walked next door to the medical unit, took out my gun, aimed at a comatose patient on life support, and blew his head off.

I walked home a free man.
I'm not a murderer.

Those things didn't interact with their environment or have memories.
They were not "persons".
Just live tissue.

I had every right to destroy them.
They were a burden on society.