Thank you, Col and everyone else. I'll move on to a different discussion also.
I'll end with reiterating some important info from the www.teenpregnancy.org USA site from January 2007

“The United States has much higher pregnancy and birth rates than other fully industrialized countries. US pregnancy rates are nearly twice as high as rates in Canada and England and seven to eight times as high as rates in Japan and the Netherlands. “

This is because of abstinence-only sex education.

I just want to make sure that David Palmer gets the message that abstinence only sex-ed is the WORST type of sex education one can opt for.
Who wants to choose the worst kind of education?
You should be ashamed of your choice.

Not only does this method keep abortion rates higher than necessary, this method also changes NOTHING about the average age that students began to have sexual intercourse!

It's quite moronic if anyone, despite knowing these facts STILL supports and promotes abstinence-only education!

We are Utopians.
We come in peace.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Celivia: "Shocka, you seem to have developed quite a negative world view.
Even anxious people -the ones who have not been brainwashed into thinking that they are doomed unless they're one of the 144,000 chosen ones who exclusively have their future reserved in utopia- can at the same time have a positive outlook."

I'm not the one with the negative worldview, preaching a doomed future.
That's the Utopians!

I think the world is amazing, precisely because it's filled with unexpected, irrational, imperfect and weird things (like conjoined twins .... if they don't get aborted).

"Groups can have goals and ideals without having to resort to conspiracy."

But some do.

Something *seems* innocent, therefore it is?

The Jehovah's Witnesses look innocent enough.
Asking them "Are you involved in a conspiracy?" isn't going to help.
They're both the victims and perpetrators of a conspiracy, and they don't even know it!

"If you were called a Nazi nutcase it must've been DESPITE the fact that you're a supporter of good sex-ed and contraception; not because of it."

No, I was called a Nazi nutcase, because that's your lot's standard approach: call people names.

"The United States has much higher pregnancy and birth rates than other fully industrialized countries."

Their birth rates are *too low*, causing aging of the population and skills shortages.

"Nature usually gets the male-female balance right."

If you don't interfere.

Your lot's "natural" and "rational" arguments are actually contradictions, but you hope if you just throw enough stuff at people, they'll be bamboozled into submission.

Pregnancy is "natural".
Anything that artificially terminates it is "unnatural".
You can't argue "natural" to support "unnatural".

"Rational"? But...
The aging of the population? Skills shortages?

Why? Because all those kids who would've been born 20 years ago never got to grow up and be productive workers, who have kids of their own.

Where do we get workers?
Import them.

Abort 70,000 Australians in 1987, then 20 years later go "Omigod, there's a skills shortage!" and import 70,000 people, depriving other countries of their most talented, educated citizens.

Very "rational".
Not!

I am going to ask a serious question based on a hypothesis.
(Yes, I know how much you hate them.)

Following Col Rouge's definition of a "person" only having rights *after* birth, all states in Australia create laws permitting abortion at any time prior to birth.

Two women are driving down the same road.

One is rushing to the hospital to give birth.
The other is on her way to an abortion clinic with a viable foetus.

The two cars crash into each other and kill both women.

Paramedics arrive in time to save *both* babies.

Should they save both?
Neither?
Only the one that was going to be born and not the one that was going to be aborted?

What rights or obligations do the paramedics have?
If they don't save the life of the "to be born" baby, could they be sued?
If they *do* save their life of the "to be aborted" baby, could they be sued?

The paramedics only have seconds to decide what to do.
Once done, they can't undo their decision.
They have to know what the standard procedure is.

I would like a serious answer.
Because situations like this will happen if your preferred laws existed.

Part 1 of 2

In my view the paramedics would act appropriately to save the lives of both babies because they are doing their job by this.
.
Even if the woman going for an abortion was to have with her a letter stating not to save the child if something happened to her, besides the fact that the paramedics unlikely would be aware of it, but even if someone else in the car travelled also and could pass on the message the paramedics would not be able to rely upon this as their job is to seek to save the live of the child. It is not for the paramedic to try to sort out a legal mess or what others may claim, their right would be to try to save both children and I view they could do so without legal consequences.
The very person who possible could object is dead and as such cannot be regarded as someone to speak up.
.
It reminds me on a accident in Germany some 40 years ago where the soldier was lying on the road half his head and so with it his brain missing. It was all over the street. Another man was clearly very emotional about it all, and the injured soldier was calming him down, and telling his mate not to worry as he was all right. He does soon after that. Here we had a man dying on the road and rather then to concentrate on his own pains, etc, he was more concerned to try to calm down his mate, who other then being emotional did not appear to have physical injuries.
.
Many a woman should keep this in mind that if they enjoyed the sex act and became pregnant then rather to make an issue about the discomfort as result of the pregnancy they should be more concerned about the life and rights of the unborn child.
.
Continued

Part 2 of 2
.
Some women seem to be stupid enough to have pregnancy after pregnancy and so abortion after abortion and one then may question the intelligence of such a woman!
.
So to say, all they need to do is to keep their legs closed, and place conditions if a male desires otherwise. It is that simple, but going by other posters what they really portray is women are lacking any backbone, so to say, to stand up for their rights to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
.
Sure, an accident can always happen but when some women have abortion after abortion then it questions their mentality and their overall intelligence.
.
Those who are so much for abortions seem to underline that women are basically sex toys who lack any intelligence to stand their ground and act responsible.
.
After my wife had her first child she had a hysterectomy as she didn’t want any more children. Now, is that not really the sensible thing to do?
.
Likewise I know of plenty intelligent women who decides that they didn’t want any further child or simply didn’t want any child at all and had a hysterectomy to prevent pregnancy.
Those women had the right over their own body and didn’t want to relinquish this right by getting pregnant. I accept their right to make that choice. However, as the saying goes, If you do the crime you do the time. With a baby it is standard 9-months in general and so, those women (females) who do not want to do the time should not do the crime and just ignore their “lust”.
.
Ample of women oppose abortion, and so it is not some male mentality to seek to preserve life.
.
My wife (75) also makes clear why should taxpayers have to feed the medical bill for women to have abortions where there are ample of other ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place but are dumb enough not to do so. And she does have a point with this.