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?