Celivia, the medical journal of Australia has a web site with an archive of all(?)published articles. I couldn't find anything more current or as complete. There are a number of related articles. Use the following search page with your key words and read away. I used 'teenage pregnancy'.

http://www.mja.com.au/cgi-bin/s.cgi

This is the article from which I quoted, published in 2003 I think.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_03_040803/ski10035_fm.html

Thank you. aqvarivs, I appreciate it. Great site, I hadn't discovered it yet.

I had in mind a few words to Shockaholic, but I can't improve on Col's last post, so I'll just second what he said.

I have a feeling that this thread has come to an end, and I just noticed a new abortion discussion that looks quite interesting, so I may now contribute to that one.

Thanks, everyone, esp. David Palmer; this was a very enjoyable and informative discussion.

This is definitely my last post here. I have read the article aquarius cited, and think it is sensible. But, as always, when people use judgments they are using implicit or explicit comparisons. In the teenage pregnancy article, the authors see an Australian teenage abortion rate of 23.9 per 1000 as worrying and well above the OECD average. Well, I would be interested in the rates in countries I know well that are like us. And here they are: Canada: 22.1, New Zealand: 22.5 and the UK: 21.3. We look pretty similar, which suggests (if you accept these rubbery data at all) that we have similar situations.

But I would also ask: what would you have expected? A thousand teenage girls, 15-19, most of them sexually active. How many births, how many abortions? I thought the number was smaller than I would have expected. And that gives me some cause for comfort, for, to say it again, I regret that abortions occur and wish that people practised safe sex, however old they are, unless they were planning to make a baby for whom they were ready and able to make a home.

It's worth remembering that teenage births are now less than 5% of all births. They were once (when I was young) very much higher. That too says something about our society and its capacity to deal with with sex.

No, I'm not a murderer, by your *own* definitions of a person.

A "person":
1. is conscious.
2. isn't dependant on another for life support.
3. has memories.
4. interacts with their environment.

Catatonic amnesiacs and comatose patients on artificial life support fit *none* of those definitions.
They are not "persons", only living human tissue, as are embryos.

They *were* persons before. They are not now.
But they are still *human*, and that's why they are given respect and rights.

People even give respect and rights to corpses!
And they aren't even living tissue!
If you dig up a corpse and rip it to pieces, you will be *arrested*!

Celivia has in desperation brought yet another issue into the debate.
First it was donors, now it's IVF.

No surprises, I'm opposed to IVF too.
So, you can't really "catch" me on that one.

Concerned about the unwanted children in orphanages?
What about the children who are the product of IVF?

I've heard of one who had a barcode tattoo on his neck and another tattoo that read "Product of Technology".
Not a happy boy!

The destroyed IVF embryos aren't inside the woman, they're in a *petri dish*.
So the "in her body" argument can't apply.

So whose tissue is it? Who has the right to destroy it?
Don't wince, you brought it up.

"A "person":
1. is conscious."

Back to jail you go Shocka! Are you saying that when you
are asleep, you are not a person?

Society does not accept crazy gunmen like you, going around
shooting people. If a person is brain dead or not, should
have their life support switched off or not, is up to
experienced physicians, not crazy gunmen.

But then I did have my doubts, perhaps you belong in a
mental institution :)

A person has what can be defined as a human brain, even
if its malfunctioning. Its only when that person is
considered brain dead, that they are pronounced to be
a corpse. You won't be charged with murder, for shooting
a corpse, just perhaps put in a mental institution, for
being a nutcase. A zygote, an embryo, they don't yet
have what can be considered as a human brain. Big difference!

Are you saying foetuses are NEVER aborted if they have a *functioning* brain?

Physicians have rights over patients only to the extent that human law says they do.
What are those laws based on?
Perhaps the principles of decency and respect?

What crime exactly have I committed by shooting a corpse?
Why should dead tissue have rights?
But not a foetus, which is living tissue.

And you ignore the IVF issue: If an embryo is not "in her body", who has rights over it?