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.