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