Celivia, I for one can only respect you for providing the assistance to your former neighbour. Regardless of how it ended, at least you proved to care!

Yvonne, as for a foetus (unborn-child) not being a person-in-law, does not alter the fact that legally a men is financial responsible for pre-natal cost, etc. Seems your tunnel vision avoids you to consider this and other legal issues!

Aqvarivs, Little-Bindi-Irwin had her show about her late-father Steve-Irvin and she made known she doesn’t know what it is like to live in a city or in an apartment as she has grown up in the bush! Now, it seems to me you seem to demonstrate the opposite, that you know what it is living in a city but not in the bush! Firstly, I for one do not accept that any parent should have to flee their home with their children to seek sanctuary! I may dislike the abuse of Intervention Orders (because of the gross misuse and abuse of them) but hold that violence of other partner must be deplored and never be tolerated. Further, if you reside in the country then “refuges” for either a father or a mother may not be available for hundreds of kilometres, even in Victoria. Now, if you rely upon public transport and need to travel to a large city to seek refuge, it can mean that if an incident occurs, say, on Friday morning at 7am then the next buss out might not go until 5pm on the Sunday! And, by the time you then get to the “refuge” it can be about 9pm at night. If then you have to take children along of tender age then this trip alone can be horrific.
The simple rule should be that no parent should be violent at home. Or better to say, no partner, as even if they are not a parent there still should be no violence!
Neither do I view it was wrong for the woman to have her 5th child. What appeared to me wrong was the reported conduct of the husband.
Continued..

A few weeks ago, I received a phone call from a person telling me how his eldest son now is 21 years old and how pleased he is that he has grown up. Yet, some 10 years ago he was the same person then contemplating to kill his son, as he gave me the understanding, because of that he felt it was immoral for his son to live with his mother while she became married to another man.
As this man now acknowledge he was really crazy for having this intention to kill his son, but he made also known that he then saw it as being the best for his son. At that time he asked my assistance, and as I am opposed to any form of violence I was able to get him to understand that harming his child was not his right, regardless of his views that as he had created the child he had the right to end that life. I do not accept this of women and neither of men.
We all have our ups and down at times and we learn to live through it. We need to help our fellow man (included in this term are women) to get through times of difficulties and give them the appropriate support we can provide!
I for one would rather have that there is no need for any “refuges” and rather we avoid violence in the home altogether. The home should be the sanctuary for all members of the family!
I grew up in The Netherlands with never having witnessed any violence between my (late) parents in their 56 years of marriage! It can be done. Aborting a child because of violence in the family is not the solution!

Yvonne,
Sensible post, as usual!

Gerrit, thanks.
But aren’t the pre-natal costs the responsibility of BOTH partners? My prenatal expenses were covered by Medicare.
I’d have to disagree that in case of violence abortion is not a solution. It depends on the situation; it should be left up to the woman to decide.
I do agree however, that nobody should be in violent relationships. But that’s not the reality, I’m afraid.

Yabby,
My crystal ball predicts that Aqva won’t agree with your points; he’ll maintain that it’s OK for men to have 365 one-night stands annually without having to take responsibility whatsoever, while women take on full responsibility for a consensual act between her and partner.

Aqvarivs
We’ll have to agree to disagree about some things.
‘Biological different’ means that both are physically different: women worry about wombs and men about prostrates. Women don’t play Rugby in the same team as men because of physical differences; we need to accept our differences when it’s something that probably not even a sex-change can fix.

Just need to clear up that in my former neighbour’s case her ex wasn’t physically violent but emotionally.
Even though she might have had other options living near Sydney, I believe she made the right choice for her kids. As Gerrit says, much better for her children to be looked after by a neighbour than having to drag the five of them to different addresses; especially with a small baby and two of her kids with severe asthma.

Seems that women not only have to battle against the anti-abortion brigade, but also against the ‘Father Scrooge Brigade’.
Two opposites: the anti-abortion brigade pressure her to have a baby (or else she’s a murderer- and the ‘unborn baby’ a victim); the Father Scrooge Brigade pressure her to have an abortion (or else… the kid won’t get a cent from HIS hip pocket- and the man is the victim).

The woman, however, is never the victim. She has so many wonderful choices when she faces unplanned pregnancy as a womb-owner: sole-parenthood, adoption, or abortion

Celivia, the woman is a 'victim' of an unplanned pregnancy so is justified to attach herself financially to a man, who is to be enslaved to the womans lack of foresight and planning but, not to be considered a 'victim' because it's his fault she's having this unplanned pregnancy. Nice blurry reality you have so heavily invested in. No wonder your so intransigent when it comes to men and demanding they're accepting of the womans choice to have a child out of casual sex rather than have an abortion as is their stated 'right'. Your listed choices for women only include, when she faces unplanned pregnancy as a womb-owner: sole-parenthood, adoption, or abortion but, have conveniently left out abstinence, contraceptive use, or even any mention of taking responsibility for her actions as an adult woman who ought to know that there are repercussions in having casual sex, and by right and to be just any pregnancy should be aborted. It's called casual sex because no one is committed to anything further than the act. It is unjust to want to have the power to change the rules midstream for not having taken necessary precautions, failed precautions or to not have an abortion, and change a casual sexual encounter into a life long commitment because 'it's her choice'. That kind of petulant feminism is hardly an answer to unwanted children. And if that is your idea of empowerment I fervently hope you are not in any position to influence young women of such a 'victim mentality' that will do nothing more than increase the amount of unwanted children and domestic violence. Your idea of justice is no different than the old method of a shotgun wedding.

Mr Gerrit, in a perfect world people are perfect. In an imperfect world lies imperfections. We are imperfect people living in an imperfect world of our own creation. Some of us are struggling to create a egalitarian social experience while other want power. Feminist do not want balance they want control. And they don't want any argument.

"so is justified to attach herself financially to a man, who is to be enslaved to the womans lack of foresight and planning"

Hang whoah Aqva. Its his child that attaches itself to him financially with good reason, not the woman. Give me a good reason
why both parents should not have financial responsibility for
that child.

No point talking about abstinence and contraception, when he's done
his best to get her so drunk, that she is not sure of what she is
doing. It happens in every pub.

The thing is, if a pregnancy happens, both parents are responsible,
not just one. Both have the option to use contraception or to
abstain. Men can't go getting her drunk, then claim it was just
casual sex and run away, as you seem to think would be ok.

My two points remain unanswered, but of course I did not expect
anything different :)

Cevilia, I think you will find that if you say its blue, Aqva will
say its green. I think he just loves to argue for the sake of it,
or is bored at work or something..

yabby, my apologies. I had no idea that was a question directed towards me since you gave no suggestion in your post. All the better for you to claim victim though eh!

1) "Nobody should be forced against their will to have an
abortion". No one should be forced into anything. Especially parenthood. Single women have free and ready access to abortion. There is no need to subjugate a man to the single womans choice not to have an abortion. Single women should only have children with willing parental partners unless they are willing to be the sole parent and sole supporter of that child.

2) "Both parents should contribute to the costs of raising
their offspring". Single men in a casual sexual relationship with a single woman in a casual sexual relationship is not a parent. It's two people getting laid and just because the single woman chooses to have the baby does not make the single man a parent unless he so chooses to escalate a mutual one night stand into a life long commitment. How many women want that? So why have the few dictate the laws for all. Single women engaging in casual sex must own their womb and not blame men for their pregnancy. If the man is not using protection why is he inside her? Why has the woman allowed such an act against her best future interest? And why would any woman want to enjoin in any commitment/relationship with that type of man? Power. Revenge. Money. Escape. Manipulation. I can find no good practical reason, nor any good reason to have that child. Freedom of choice is not sufficient when it impacts on the future of a child, especially an unwanted child. It's abusive.

Your arguments are suspect. And your examples even more so. You must really need Celivia's praise.