Aquarius: Thank you. I will follow your suggestions.

I simply couldn’t stay away any longer because the things said in the last few posts by Gerrit and Shockadelic are just beyond belief. I admire Yabby’s endurance.
I’m not here to reply to any child support comments, as I said: Create your own thread about this topic rather than hi-jacking abortion threads.

Shockadelic,
“Potential Australians”? Immigrants are potential Australians, all it takes is a silly citizenship test, which seems much less painful than women having to giving birth against their will to produce new Australians; I shouldn’t even have to mention how much it costs the govt (not that I care) and parents to raise children. I’m an immigrant myself and have created children and paid taxes, as many immigrants do.
Unless you are from Aboriginal descent, your ancestors were immigrants as well.
Anyway, I agree with you on contraception and education.

Gerrit,
Rather than forced sterilisations, what about free contraception and comprehensive sex-ed we have discussed here ad nauseam?
If you favour forced sterilisations you must have been jumping up and down with joy that your daughter, who “murdered” her “unborn child” (hey aqva, note the quotation marks) became sterile after the abortion went wrong.
Otherwise she would have started a family; well that’s too bad, she deserves to be sterile for having an abortion- according to your own bizarre logic.

Imagine if we sterilised all women that ever had an abortion- we’d be in need of a healthy influx of immigrants or Australians would face extinction.
You’ll probably snip this idea, but why not sterilise all men who contributed to unwanted pregnancies as well

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, “The moment you allow a woman to willy nilly decide the right of an unborn baby to live or not to live then you permit them the right to choose designer babies also.”

I thought they all had that right anyway, the right to choose to remain pregnant or otherwise. I would also support that right because when you say they are disallowed that right, then you are saying “your body is not your own, you are merely a support system for embryonic development.”

And now

“If a woman has such wide variety of options and squanders them all and pursues an abortion nevertheless then sterilisation seems to be the only option.”

So who gets to decide who is “has such wide variety of options and squanders them” and thus who will be “sterilised”?

I do not know what sort of social order you are espousing but it sounds perfectly in tune with those blackshirted fellows you were talking about in a previous post.

Dictatorships are founded on denying the individual choice, instead imposing the monolithic will of the despot, who considers himself best equipped to decide who is “squandering” what. As I said previously, in 1942 Hitler changed the law in Nazi Germany, Aryan women who sought abortion would no longer go to prison, the would be executed but I guess that would stop those women "squandering their options".

That is a social order which anyone with even the barest ability to reason would never elect.

Hence, such social orders only come to being by brute force and violent repression rather than a democratic process.

The Despotism of the Pro-Life lobby!

Shockadelic wrote
"There's no such thing as "accidental" pregnancy, only irresponsible sex partners." And "You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception.."

On what facts do you base these statements?

No contraception is 100% effective. Even vasectomies have a failure rate which is not insignificant. All oral contraceptives and a few other types like Implanon (a small rod inserted into the arm) are hormonal and are therfore not without possible side effects such as depression, moodiness, acne, weight gain, loss of libido, nausea, headaches, DVT, increased risk of breast cancer, spotting or bleeding between periods. In an effort to minimise these side effects, drug companies have reduced the amount of hormone present in many types of contraceptive pills. This has the trade-off however that the pill has less margin for error. It must be taken at the same time every day within a few hours or the risk of an unplanned pregnancy increases. Similarly, if a woman who is taking the pill is ill and is vomiting, or is taking other medications such as antibiotics, the risk of the pill failing is again increased.

So despite women actually using their oral contraceptives to their best efforts possible, for many reasons, sometimes just bad luck, contraceptives fail all of the time.

Making some assumptions and crude "big figure" approximations, lets assume that if Australia's female population is 10 million, and a conservative guess that 20% of these are between the age of 18 - 45 and sexually active. If they were to all use oral contraception which has a typical failure rate of around 9% (http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm) this would result in 180,000 unplanned pregnancies.

These are all "accidental" pregnancies which the women / couples were making their best efforts to avoid. The women were not acting irresponsibly just because their contraception failed them.

crumpethead, I see you conveniently leave out Shockadelic's full statement including,"You are extremely unlikely to get pregnant with contraception, and the more forms used together the more unlikely (e.g. pill plus condom beats either alone)." But then, if you had included that little truth you wouldn't of had your argument would you.

When my first wife was pregnant with our first child she made clear she didn’t want another baby. So, after she gave birth we practiced safe sex, using a combination of preventative’s just in case one would fail there was, so to say, a back up.
I totally accepted my wife’s right to insist appropriate protective measures were being in place!
When then we moved to Australia, and my wife was concerned that there might be a lack of preventative items available we simply stocked up, just in case.
I had no issue with my wife rights to refuse to become pregnant!
I had no issue with my wife desire not to have any other children.
I had no issue with practicing safe sex with back up!

To me it was my obligation to ensure my wife was comfortable within our marriage.
It was my wife, some 3 years later who then wanted to have a second child.
Now, this came about where she knew I had respected her choice and we had dealt with matters within the confine of our marriage as to what we both deemed to be appropriate.

Nothing in the world can justify women who ignore to ensure that they and so their sex-partners take sufficient and appropriate protective measures to avoid pregnancy then can claim it is all about their body rights.
I do not say it must just be the woman who take appropriate protective measures, just that a woman should ensure that it is being done. If she ignores to take that care then there can be no issue of “accidental” pregnancy!
It is not an issue of women having to abstain from a sexual relationship, rather that a woman who do not wish to become pregnant has it within her means to insist on sufficient and appropriate protective measurers being taken or simply refuse sexual intercourse to take place! Then the whole ill conceived debate about a “women” having the right to decide for herself to kill of or not to kill off an unborn child would be no issue!