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!