Ah Shocka, but the problem is you! You pick and choose what it
is that is natural, that you insist on. Cancer is natural, death
is natural, kids starving of hunger is natural. If you are going
to fiddle with nature, at least be consistant. Clearly you are
not, just bringing up the nature argument when it suits your
agenda, as in this case.

If the Catholic Church and you argue that we should not fiddle
with nature, then at least be consistant, and neither of you
are being that. We of couse use vaccines, antibiotics, cart
boatloads of food around the world, all unnatural, then are
amazed when then there is a human population explosion, which
becomes unsustainable. When that population becomes so overcrowded
as say in Rwanda and all start to kill each other, you are then
amazed!

So your argument Shocka, is a non issue.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka “When a child gives me the understanding contemplating suicide rather then being forced to continue to live with gay people, we hardly can claim we caring for the childs interest and welbeing!”

If someone were to tell me they contemplated suicide because there are gay people in their life I would first, suggest they are making gays an excuse for what they lack within themself (lack of self esteem etc, common among adolescence).

I find it incomprehensible that a child who, as you say, is “forced to live with gays” would not find opportunity to avoid such circumstances by referring to their school or social services. But then, I do live in the real world, where only real things happen.

Shockadelic “Specialists in obstetrics studied to maintain the *health* of both mother and child.”

You continue your piffling diatribe about protecting the spiritual virtue of medical staff from having the deal with the less pleaseant aspects of life.

You are arguing from the perspective of the inane.

A clinic employs nurses to provide a service to patients.

A patient, who may be seeking an abortion, is not their to comply with the spiritual and emotional needs of the nursing staff who attend her.
clinics and patients are not there just to employ "spiritually fragile" nurses.

You obviously fail to understand the meaning and implications of the words “professional” and “professionalism”.

Any nurse, unable to support abortion services, will find equally rewarding opportunities with alternative clinical service providers who do not supply abortion services.

“Murder and rape are illegal because they're immoral, not because they materially effect every single person, including myself.”

Adultery is immoral, it is not part of the criminal code and we do not imprison people because of it.

Adultery is a private matter between individuals. Abortion is the private matter of an individual woman

An embryo is not a “person”, it cohabits and utilizes the body of an individual woman. We celebrate someone becoming a “person” by issuing a birth certificate, not be being conceived.

Col Rouge, I said murder and rape were illegal because they're immoral.
I didn't say "All things immoral should be illegal" or "All things illegal are immoral".
Don't extrapolate.

What is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, can change over time.

Driving on a particular side on the road has nothing to do with morals.

It used to be illegal to walk around at night! (common nightwalker).

Alcohol was legal, then illegal, then legal again.

What's considered moral or immoral can change, so don't think you've won any permanent victories with your abortion laws.
They may be a brief historical aberration.
The tide can turn.

What if scientists discovered a way to detect consiousness prior to brain development?

What if a meteor explosion kills most humans, and the few still alive want reproduction at any cost, to save the species from extinction.
Think they'll allow abortions? Think they'll give a damn about your "rights"?

What if the lack of childbirth amongst secular, agnostic types leads to a future generation of mostly moralistic religious types.
Think they'll preserve your laws?

"We celebrate someone becoming a "person" by issuing a birth certificate, not by being conceived."
We? Speak for yourself. Many would disagree.

So if you're only a "person" if an official piece of paper says so, I suppose you aren't a "corpse" until a death certificate has been issued either.

Never mind the fact that you've been lying in a morgue for several days: You aren't dead!
Not until the official document has been issued.

I just love the way you legalistic, rational materialists think.
It's very amusing.

Yabby has stated *five times* so far, that women have 400 chances to get pregnant.
Do you really think that after 399 abortions, a woman's body would still be capable of carrying a child?

Even *one* abortion can irreparably damage a woman's reproductive organs, and the more abortions you have, the less likely your future chances of giving birth become.

The choice you make today to abort may actually *prevent* you making a choice to be a mother later.

"Yabby has stated *five times* so far, that women have 400 chances to get pregnant.
Do you really think that after 399 abortions, a woman's body would still be capable of carrying a child?"

Shocka, where did I mention having 399 abortions? Or even 5?

Women use various methods to not land up pregnant. Sometimes
they can fail, sometimes they make a mistake, whatever.

Sex is not illegal and there is no good reason why a woman should
not be able to pick and choose, when she decides to have children
that are loved and wanted. If at say 18, she does have an
abortion, she might settle down and happily have 3 or 4 kids
at 25. Its her choice, its up to her. You have given no good
reason shy she should not have that choice or right.

Why do some of you always want to force your agendas onto others?
Why not let them make decisons about their lives? I think there
must be a heap of male control freaks out there. A few women
have told me that there certainly are and come to think of it,
I know quite a few men who think that way. All very sad really.

Col Rouge about your comment” . But then, I do live in the real world, where only real things happen.”.

It is a matter of Court record (yes it can be checked) that a brother and sister were removed from their custodian father and forced to reside with the lesbian mother who was living with her lesbian partner who was a manger of Human Services. The boy did run away, escaping though a bathroom window while his mother stood guard at the door trying to prevent him to run away, and in 2002 I even published in one of my books a copy of a tape recording off the son to his father that he had escaped thhrough a bathroom window!
Time and again the son was forced to return. Then the sister run away and went to live with her father, and nothing was done about this. Then the son run away again and the father contacted me that he was advised his son had run away again and if returned would commit suicide. I then took the father to the police to report the matter and the police advised the father that if the son did arrive in Melbourne he should keep the child in safe care.
The Court ordered the imprisonment of the father, even so it was later found the father had no involvement with the son running away, after I filed in the case material proving the child had run away without prior knowledge of the father and that the police had advised the father to keep the child for safe keeping.
A social worker reported the child contemplating suicide because he didn’t want to have the conditions in the lesbian household.
The Court finally then formally ordered the child to reside again with his father!

Because I had published already the tape recording in my book (on CD), and copies were provided to the Court, by me, the Court could not cover-up the matter any longer.
Seems to me your fictional "real world" is blinding you from reality!

"Shocka, where did I mention having 399 abortions? Or even 5?"

Yabby, you have repeatedly asserted the *theoretical possibility* of a woman having 400 opportunities to get pregnant.

It follows, Mr Logical, that if you can have 400 *theoretical* pregnancies, you can also have 400 *theoretical* abortions.

I think this is a gross overestimation anyway.
You're considering the possibilites from the very beginning of puberty until menopause, 3 decades of life.

However, the reality is more like a decade and a half.

Most girls don't become routinely sexually active the moment puberty begins.
It may be 5-10 years before they regularly engage in sex.

Also, in the final 10-15 years before menopause, it's very difficult for women to get pregnant or maintain a pregnancy.

So the real-life possibility is probably *half* your estimate: around 200 ovulations from late teens to mid-thirties.

"If at say 18, she does have an abortion, she might settle down and happily have 3 or 4 kids at 25."

Maybe, but the point I made was that abortions can *reduce* the possibility of later motherhood, by damaging the internal organs.
Thinking "I can always have kids later" may not be true at all if you've had abortions.

Crumpethead stated that "the majority of women who have abortions are over 28 years old. Women in this age group often already have children."

So most women having abortions are not "putting off" having children.
They already have children.

If these women were really truly responsible and "in charge" of their bodies, they'd get sterilised if they don't want more kids.

Are you campaigning for free "on demand" sterilisation?

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/e50a5b60e048fc07ca2570ec001909fb!OpenDocument

According to this site:
33.3% of women are not using *any* form of contraception.
27% of known pregnancies end in termination (does not include miscarriage/stillbirth).

It seems around one third (that's a lot!) of the female population are not being very reproductively "responsible", yet they are somehow "mature" enough to decide whether to snuff out a life or not.

This is like employing drunk-drivers as school crossing guards.