Celivia, while I would prefer that children are born within a marriage, I accept that this is never going to be attained. For those who practice religion they have to recognise that “Jesus” was, so to say, born out of wedlock! As such people preaching religion and confining sexual relationships to a marriage and yet accepting “Jesus” who was born outside a marriage to me is hypercritical.
However, those seeking or practicing “abortions” do not confine this to children born out of wedlock but those also born within wedlock. As some women made known to me (when I asked them about their position about abortion, why worry about getting protection and wast money when you can get for free an abortion if you happen to fall pregnant. As such, “abortion” is used for a variety of reasons, including the so called “designer babies” that if they are not of the right “gender” then have an abortion, and try again until they may happen to get the right gender, that any “sex-education” would not make any difference to those type of women!
The danger being that in a country where they have a one-child policy the “abortion” issue would mean that many would abort an unborn child if she is a female because they are not worthy for them to have. This promotion of “abortions” would play in the hands of those who are interested to have only male gender babies because in their society it would be financially better. Just that a generation later insufficient female may be at hand and then you can have severe consequences.
As my youngest (adult) daughter made clear to me she doesn’t want to know the sex of the unborn baby, as she takes whatever comes. She is more interested in having a healthy baby. If just all women accepted it this way!

Hi, Gerrit.
“For those who practice religion they have to recognise that “Jesus” was, so to say, born out of wedlock” That’s funny, I never thought about that one!
It’s true that some married women opt for abortions, especially the ones who are in violent marriages and don’t feel it’s safe to bring a child into it.

My married ex-neighbour was pregnant with her fifth child and because of difficult previous childbirths and the fact that she had crap husband made her want to have an abortion. But her husband threatened her with divorce if she went through with the abortion. She finally agreed under conditions that they’d get marriage counseling. She had the child, which nearly cost her her life.
Guess what? When the newborn was three months old and she wanted to start the counseling, he refused and left her and their five kids.
She couldn’t cope with the baby (who had health problems) and her other kids by herself and I helped her look after them so that she could have some time away from the children whenever she needed to, for a year or so, which is how long it took for her to get out of a postnatal depression. She even took some time to see her family overseas without the children; she had no family in Australia and felt isolated and suicidal, sometimes.

They divorced, sold the house, she moved away and he is not the slightest bit interested in seeing his children. He lives with another woman and has a child with her. Some never learn.
She got herself sterilised- wise decision.

I have never known a woman using abortion instead of contraception.
All the more reason why contraception should be freely available.

I agree with you about ‘designer babies’.
Don’t put all the blame on women though; in those countries there is a lot of pressure on women to produce boys- ironic when it’s the male who decides the sex of the foetus.
Best to leave the sex of the foetus to nature and the distribution of girls/boys will be about right.

Yabby, it's not ridicule. Cling to your feminism but, even feminist must recognise that there are two biologies. Under law if the biologies are treated as separate and unequal than we have a bipartite legal system which allows exceptions by gender. Any exception to the laws given to one biology will in turn allow an exception to the other biology in order to maintain legal equilibrium. We will then not have equality for all under law which early feminist fought for but, an endocrine system of law.
The law should not support the exploitation of single men by single women to determine when or if that single man becomes a parent. The law is wrong and needs review and adjustment. Single women have access to abortion and if they are not determined to raise the child independently should have an abortion as is their right. Single men should have the right to determine whether or not they become parents and the law should enforce that right. When this happens single women will think twice about bringing unwanted children into this world. It is not men who bring unwanted children into the world. Men can not 'force' a woman to have a child or 'force' a woman to have an abortion. Women have been aborting their children for centuries whether they have been wanted or not. How would a man ever know if the child he hoped for was aborted or not? When a man wants his woman to have a child it's because he wants the child, it is not unwanted. Unwanted children by women/relationships constitute the violence in forced family situations.
As Celivia says, abortion is the right of the woman not the man. So woman finding the man not wanting children should exercise that right of abortion or be prepared to raise the child alone. Not trap the man into a situation opposite of his choice. The woman can have her child when she finds the man who wants children. Then we will have an end to unwanted children. And a lot less domestic violence too.

Celivia, your married ex-neighbour had other choices and other resources for help and assistance. She was not compelled by law. There are more than 50 womens shelters in the greater Sydney area alone. I don't know where you live but, judging by those numbers I'm sure there would be at least one shelter available to assist that woman. There was no need for her to be a victim of that situation. A simple call to the police would have had intervention.

Aqva, my views have nothing to do with feminism, everything to
do with what is fair and just. They are laws which apply today,
voted on by males in various parliaments, who perhaps don't
carry your anti femimism chips on their shoulders.

Lets look at what is fair and just:

1.Nobody should be forced against their will to have an
abortion. Anything else would for good reasons, create
an outcry.

2.Both parents should contribute to the costs of raising
their offspring, if they are in a position to do so.
The taxpayer is already paying more then their fair
share in Australia.

Both fair and just laws. I rest my case :)

Have been away for a while. Am not surprised to read the same arguments going around and around.

I've read the word equality being bandied around. Am a bit puzzled what this has to do with pregnancy. Men do not have wombs and will never be pregnant. Whether men want to continue with a pregnancy or not does not require them putting their bodies to service for this.

Financial consequences on the birth of any baby, both desperately wanted or unplanned, till at least adulthood applies to both the father and mother. Single mothers still make up the largest group of financially struggling people. It is NOT only men who pay financially. Women pay a price as well. To suggest otherwise is mischievous.

Women have the babies. We just can't get away from that fact. It is their bodies that can bring a potential human being in this world. It is only with the cooperation of a woman agreeing to this that a baby can be born. It seems resentment about this is a big stumbling block.

I just can't get away from the feeling that the objection to abortion is also driven by the fact that it is a woman's prerogative to make this decision, a man can't make this decision. That just can't be helped guys. He ain't pregnant. She is. And at least in our society, a woman is not owned by any man and cannot be forced to carry anybody's child if she does not want to.

Therefore, particular moral beliefs by another on the status of a foetus contrary to that of the woman, is of little relevance. A foetus does not have, cannot have, the same rights as a living person. A foetus is not a person before the law. Is not a person in fact.

Abortion must be legally and safely available in a society like ours. Why they occur and in what numbers is another discussion altogether.

Who of you anti abortion position holders is going to enforce an unwilling pregnant woman to continue with her pregnancy?