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