Great article, which highlights some of the misery in the third
world, caused by the influence of Vatican dogma.

Methinks their real issue is concern about demographics. Once
the pill became popular and birthrates started to decline in
the West, the Vatican could see that they might might be
outbred by their big enemy, the muslims. So the last two
popes have been pretty fanatical about this stuff, the
future of the Vatican and its power clearly is paramount
to them. Less believers means less power and money.

Even on OLO we've read comments about how the secular
movement is meant to be a dying breed, yet their number
keep increasing!

What they forget of course is things like the internet,
which are having a large inpact about informing people
and their rights, much much better. People in general
don't really want the Vatican in their beds, forcing them
how to lead their sex lives, so many have simply abandoned
the Catholic Church and the pews have emptied.

If the Vatican is good at one thing, its political lobbying
behind the scenes, to try and enforce their agenda on
others by law in various countries. Third world women
are paying an enormous price for this in terms of poverty,
deaths, suffering etc. The West has luckily basically told
the church to get lost.

That does not mean that they won't keep trying to enforce their
agenda on us. The Vatican is a highly political organisation,
thats why to me, as with other political groups, it is open
to scrutiny and questioning about their true agenda

Bravo, bravissimo.
Yes I think its all about the frightened child within the essentially childish mentality which Christianity panders to.
If "they" can "murder" even sperms and eggs in the ovary, what hope is there for us. We are all threatened.

And what about our "immortality" via reproducing ourselves individually and collectively via "our" children.
We are all threatened.

The trouble is that medieval cultists make IDOLS out of the processes of nature, rather than permit men and women in their Spiritual consciousness to be responsible for the processes in nature. The processes in nature are not holy in themselves. They are made holy only through conscious God-Communion. We, not nature alone, must be responsible for birth. But the conventional religious point of view with its parental "deity" tends to keep us irresponsible, eternally parented, as if only nature in the abstract (not in the form of conscious living humanity) can be responsible for life. The notion of not wanting to "interfere" whether responsibly or irresponsibly, in the workings of "Mother Nature" is behind the common dogma relative to birth control.

And then these same medieval cultists are also fundamentally opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education.
Why?
Because they are very squeamish about the body and bodily existence altogether---peoples underwear being the source of all kinds of horrors. Sexuality and the body EQUALS sin.
Sex and bodily existence altogether is basically problematic to them.

They have thoroughly mis-understood what the body IS altogther.
We are "sinners" in this vale of tears.
Fundamental DE-LIGHT in existence-being is TABOO.
Real life and happiness is elsewhere in the "next" life.
Bodily pleasure is TABOO.
See:
1. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
2. http://beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.htm

I agree with Yabby, it is an interesting question.

Why do some people so vehemently oppose the right of choice of other people?

Is it because of the potential of an embryonic fetus or is it something else?

I am told rape is not about sex but about power.

From what I have seen and understand of the history, the Church of Rome, it is not about Christianity, it is about Power,

I wonder if the same of the Church of Rome’s surrogate, “Pro-Life” organs, it is not about potential babies, it is about Power?

Another point from the article “In the US, 86 anti-abortion groups have committed to opposing all forms of contraception.”

Opposing the rights of strangers to exercise responsible family planning sounds egocentric and obsessive, to say the least.

I wonder, whilst they may claim to be committed, should such people be clinically “committed”.

I guess they would be committed to oppose me – I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago. The sole purpose of the procedure was as an effective means of contraception. I have 2 daughters, I have had no regrets for undergoing the procedure when I did and would recommend it to anyone as a safe and effective way of controlling the number of offspring one is prepared to take responsibility for.

I wonder if the anti-choice lobby supports artificially keeping children with anencephaly alive?

In which case they can look after them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

What is the pro-life position on miscarriage, or the 25%-50% of fertilised ova that are spontaneously aborted by the uterus long before a foetus begins to form? Murder by God?

Politics and religious power are never far from the surface in the anti-choice movement.

For all the good the church claims to do, they sure managed to do a lot of damage. The church is nothing but a political organisation yearning for its glory days of the crusades. Faith and spirituality have no need of dictatorial 'morality' regimes or ill-conceived baseless dogma.

Col Rouge: "Why do some people so vehemently oppose the right of choice of other people?"

They oppose the 'right' to actively kill another human. While this is a view generally shared by most people, it's something that the anti-choice people take to the extreme. Firstly in their definition of "human"; as far as I'm aware there's no biblical guidance as to when life starts so defining it as a fertilized egg is not mandated by Christianity. Secondly they believe that the single act of actively killing someone is infinitely worse than suffering and death of millions of children through abuse, neglect and lack of resources.

I do find your 'right of choice' mantra interesting in light of your views on drugs.

As far as their views on contraception, if there had a screw up with your vasectomy that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, would there have been the possibility of an abortion? To the anti-choice people, an abortion is so horrible they see anything that has even the slightest chance of increasing the number of abortions as being wrong.

I really think most of the long term pro-abortionists have become so politically and activist minded that they have lost the real plot. That of obeying God. Above all else, before everything else in this lukewarm ungodly age is Gods pre-existing Commandment "Thou shall not kill". Lets obey that Commandment and not look for doors through which to abort the child. Lets not make it easy, in any way, to kill an unborn. I understand all of the circumstances that can happen to a woman but most of what is being said is hype, slant, theory (RC conspiracy as well), hypothesis etc.
I would completely and lovingly admire and respect any woman, though raped, went ahead and had the child anyway. Thats true love for ALL life.

@Gibo

"Pro-abortionist"? That would mean someone who supports compulsory abortion under all cases.

WRT to the rest of your comments, do you want to look after the children with anencephaly?

Put your action where your words are.

The author states 'the pro-life lobby hopes to harness public support in chipping away abortion rights'. Mary questions the motives of those opposing abortion and yet speaks of 'abortion rights'. Surely she means feminist rights which seem to imply that no matter how murderous the act that feminist rights must not be chipped away at. I am one who has little time for the Catholic church but see at least they stand against this hideous crime. For me it is all about the babies (the most vulnerable in society). For her it seems to be about 'feminist rights'.

Gibo, your response is so couched in superstition it's not worthy of a response. Perhaps if you spent more time considering morality from a common sense point of view instead of spouting about witchcraft and demons, you might learn somethnig.

runner - you've not addressed anything in the article except provide more of the empty rhetoric it describes.

Answer me these:

1) Are you opposed to all forms of contraception? Do you agree with their labelling of the pill as an abortifacient?

2) What of the fact that 90 per cent of abortions are in the first trimester? Do you still persist in calling these lumps of cells 'babies'? is a group of eight cells held together by a membrane a child?

3) What of cases of anencephaly? Would you accept abortion there? What about cases when the mother's life is in danger? At what point is the risk allowable for an abortion? 100 per cent? 99 per cent?

4) What about Sancho's point? If we found away to save the 25 to 50 per cent of fertilised ova spontaneously aborted? Would women then be forced to save these ova?

5) would you prefer a situation like the Phillipines in Australia?

Although it sounds like I'm stridently against pro-lifers, the truth of the matter is that I'm just anti-anyone who tries to paint complex issues as black or white.
You can scream about feminist rights all you want, it's entirely beside the point. Accept that this isn't a black or white situation and consider the other side of the debate, for just a moment.

It's not about babies at all. If that were the case, wouldn't the pro-lifers be helping out single mothers, trying to improve their welfare benefit, healthcare for children in poverty, etc.? Yet that is not what we see. I think the opposition to the HPV vaccination makes it very clear that what really gets their goat is the thought that some women might be having sex and enjoying it, unpunished. The pro-lifers would like to create a world where women are afraid of having sex.

Gibo “That of obeying God.”

That would depend on whose God you choose.

Many folk follow the teachings of the Church of Rome.
Others prefer something a little more Christian.

Myself, I believe in God but you would not see me enter many supposed Churches, those who think they are exclusive or special or pretend to represent something not open to all mankind.

My God gave me freewill to decide for myself and will balance up the merit of my existence when I reach my judgement day.
He did not make me subservient to some bishop or Pope’s whim.
He does not expect me to kneel at the image of saints or virgin Marys or flay myself to prove worthiness in his eyes.

I believe my God will measure me based on my compassion, tolerance to others and my ethicacy.

I respect the Salvation Army folk who tend to the drunks and destitute, demonstrating their faith through selfless acts of kindness, without judging the merit of the recipients of their efforts. They have far more to offer everyone than some papist or prolifer demanding we all bow down before their brand of theological claptrap.

Despisis “I do find your 'right of choice' mantra interesting in light of your views on drugs.”

Simple, a woman having an abortion is exercising rights over her own body (the embryo having no separate identity) and having no impact on the freedoms or rights of other people.

The issue with drugs is not simply the effect of the user but the debilitating effects which widespread addiction would have on the wider society. The issue with drug dealers is they profit through trading in and promoting the certain misery of addicts.

“if there had a screw up with your vasectomy that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, would there have been the possibility of an abortion?”

There is always a possibility but in hindsight, it is not a likely probability but dealing with hypothetical’s never produces absolutes.

TurnrightTurnleft

1) Are you opposed to all forms of contraception? Do you agree with their labelling of the pill as an abortifacient? No I am not opposes to all contraception. I think this is a personal choice for people unlike the murder of the innocent where the child has no say.

2) What of the fact that 90 per cent of abortions are in the first trimester? Do you still persist in calling these lumps of cells 'babies'? is a group of eight cells held together by a membrane a child? Renaming babies according to their stages in life does not make the crime any less.

3) What of cases of anencephaly? Would you accept abortion there? What about cases when the mother's life is in danger? At what point is the risk allowable for an abortion? 100 per cent? 99 per cent? This is a dishonest arguement as well over 90% of abortions are for convenience. I am happy to leave it to the mother if her life is at risk.

4) What about Sancho's point? If we found away to save the 25 to 50 per cent of fertilised ova spontaneously aborted? Would women then be forced to save these ova? Sanchos arrogance in the clay questioning the Potter is self explanatory. He/she shows a complete ignorance of God.

5) would you prefer a situation like the Phillipines in Australia? I am not familiar with the Phillipines situation.

Speaking of "obeying god" and not killing the fact of the matter is that, at least in the USA, those that are most adamantly opposed to abortion are almost, without exception, supporters of the so called "war on terror" and the Pentagon death/terror machine.

So too with thr "righteous" right wingers here in Oz.

George Bush lends his support to this anti-abortion campaign. Never mind that when he was governer of Texas he approved a record number of executions and as far as I know did not give a clemency or pardon to anyone.

This is all the more disturbing now that it is well known (or rather proved) that The USA justice system sucks, especially if you are brown skinned and/or poor. It always was known that this was the case. Going on the results of research done elsewhere in the USA a goodly number of George's victims would have been innocent.

Many USA anti-abortionists are also strong supporters of the death penalty.

So much for being pro-"life".

A quote from my favourite philosopher about how everyone that participates in or witnesses an execution ALWAYS gets brutalized at heart.

"To perform, or to watch, or even to condone capital punishment is, necessarily, to perform, watch, or condone murder, blood-lust, revenge-killing, evil intention, and heart-hegating purpose. Proof of this is in the fact that, virtually universally, ALL who perform, watch, or condone any kind of real human-to-human violence feels an unavoidable and unquenchable hurt in their hearts."

Femme Fatale Lyrics (abridged due to post length)
By Digable Planets

Nikki

Lookin some kind of sad with tears fallin from her eyes

She sat me down

And dug my frown and began to run it down

"you remember my boyfriend Sid that fly kid who I love

Well our love was often a verb and spontaneity has brought a third

But do to our youth an economic state we wish to terminate

About this we don't feel great , but baby that's how it is

But the feds have dissed me

(..) And the pro-lifers harrass me outside the clinic

And call me a murderer, now that's hate

So needless to say we're in a mental state of debate"

(..) Digging her somber mood

The fascists are some heavy dudes

They don't really give a damn about life

They just don't want a woman to

Control her body or have the right to choose

But baby that ain't nothin

They just want a male finger on the button

Because if you say war they will send them to die by the score

Aborting mission should be your volition

But if Souter and Thomas have their way

You'll be standing in line unable to get welfare while they're out

Hunting and fishing

It has always been around it will always have a niche

But they'll make it privilege not a right

Accessible only to the rich

Pro-lifers should dig themselves

Cause life doesn't stop after birth

And to a child borne to the unprepared

It might even just get worse

Supporters of the h-bomb and fire bombing clinic

What type of s**t is that? Orwellian in fact

If roe v wade was overturned would not the desire remain intact

Leaving young girls to risk their healths

(…) to botch (…) as they kill themselves

(…) I don't want to sound macabre

Isn't it my job

To lay it on the masses and get them off their ass*s

To fight against these fascists

So whatever you decide make that move with pride

Sid will be there (….)

And so will I

I think there is a key difference between contraception and abortion.

Obviously there can be no life to take if the sperm and egg have not joined. That's what contraception is. After they have joined, I believe human life has been created and thus has a right to protection from harm, just like all of us.

I recall reading the anti-choice submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Committee on the RU486 discussion. I frequently observed a high number were asserting that RU486 (and abortions in general) permitted "irresponsible" sexual behaviour of women and men and this was their reason for opposing the availablity of the drug. That is, the threat of pregancy should deter non-procreative sex and control or restrict sexual behaviour. Some of these people felt that this would impact on men and women alike but seemed to conveniently overlook the biological reality that even if he paying child support or not, a man can still walk away from a pregnancy and the pain of childbirth. Ergo, pregancy is to punish women -- and only women -- for *enjoying* sex.

This is, of course, from the same people that extoll the virtues of the miracle of creation, the joy of children and the usual predictable platitudes. If having a baby is so great, then why do they seek to have pregnancy serve as a tool of fear?

Of course, these people are entitled to their opinion.

Clearly they KNOW that abortion and birth control allows women to behave like men; to phuque with impunity and for their own gratification. Taking away women's access to controlling their reproductive destiny hands takes away women's independence.

This debate will become clearer when the compulsory natalists admit that the real reason they oppose abortion and birth control is because they are sexually insecure and are terrified by sexual competition. When women start to enjoy non-procreative sex this unleashes the horror that they may compare men's sexual prowess or inadequacies. It means that frigid women must contend with wanton jezebels. And the older anti-choicers are bitter that they missed out on all the sexual permissiveness now enjoyed by others. Misery loves company

This is a fantastic article, I agree with everything Mary Smith says.

I’ve just come out of another abortion discussion where I‘ve been questioning the anti-abortion brigade about its motives.
I came to the conclusion that saving “unborn babies” as they call them, is not the priority of this mob at all.
Control of sexual behaviour of people, especially of women, is on the top of their list, probably motivated by, as Yabby says, their obsession with world population.

They ignore that, despite the fact that women have always used abortion throughout history whether it was legal or not, we managed to increase world population to over 6 billion.
They also ignore that outlawing abortion only will result in a higher number of deaths amongst women due to dangerous backyard abortions.

I read somewhere that 75% of the anti-abortionists are men (may I add the obvious, 100% of them will never be pregnant).
I‘d gamble a nice pair of my shoes that the majority of these men are white Christian males.

Ho-Hum is correct about pleasure being taboo- that’s why the religious glorify suffering and/or martyrdom so much.

Because of all the violence they glorify and because banning condoms has been a major cause of the spread of AIDS especially in Africa, I stopped using the term “pro-life”. They are not pro-life at all, just pro-birth and as Oliver O also addressed, they don’t give a rat’s what happens to the mother and child after the birth.
I agree with Col that there are exceptions such as the Salvation Army.

Runner, if abortion is murder and should be illegal, what kind of punishment you think would fit the crime of abortion?

Steward, some contraception types (e.g. mini-pill and also IUDs) work by allowing fertilisation but making it impossible for the zygote to implant in the womb so that it will be disposed of in a natural manner during menstruation as if it hadn’t been fertilised.

" most of what is being said is hype, slant, theory (RC conspiracy as well), hypothesis etc."

As they say Gibo, "ignorance is bliss" Do you know the first thing
about this topic?

Perhaps its time that you informed yourself, I shall make it easier
for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

BBC Panorama did a programme on this. The URL gives you a link
to read the transcript. Young girls of 13-14, forced to have
children, women with 7-8 kids, denied the right to have their
tubes tied. What the Vatican is doing in the 3rd world is an
outright scandal!

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm

tells you a bit about the huge lobbying effort that goes on,
in this case just in Europe. Huuuge Catholic $ are spent,
to influence various political agendas. The Vatican even has
a seat at the UN! I wonder if churchgoers who put their few
pennies in the plate on Sundays, are aware of how its spent.

Clearly the story is not about babies, or the Vatican would
not be so opposed to the snip, the pill, the condom and most
other forms of birth control. As was pointed out, they
want control of those "evil" people who actually enjoy
sex as one of the pleasures of life. Fear about pregnancy
is one way to do it! In the process, more little Catholics
can only benefit the power of the church, against their archenemy,
the muslims.

Whilst everybody is focusing on abortions and contraception what they are not stopping to pay attention to is the fact that so many females are getting themselves pregnant when clearly they are not ready and they are in no position to do so.

The question has to be asked, why are these women not smart enough to have avoided getting pregnant in the first place, either by abstinance or by using protection? Is it because abortions are given so freely and they are so protected that they don't bother to care?

There is something wrong with society when the consequence of starting the life of a child and or having to end the life of a child is not taken seriously.

I find it interesting that organisations with a history of banning contraception/abortion enjoyed prominence in feudal societies. Does this mean that civilisations that uphold the right of citizens to regulate their fertility will tend towards egalitarianism?

Mary is right that the pro-lifer's aren't interested in saving babies.

I think that the predominantly religeous anti-abortion, anti-contraception brigade really yearn for the "golden years" of the 50's, when women stayed home looking after the children all day. Cleaning the house and getting hubby's dinner ready for his arrival home. None of these pesky intelligent & ambitious women in the workplace (and not trying to become ministers in churches either). Oh I guess that a woman could still be a career woman but she'd have to practice abstinance... The churches would see this as their "cure" for the ills of society.

And the pope's refusal to endorse the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, is this the church's way of punishing or eradicating those who lead lifestyles that the church finds morally wrong?

And Jolanda, your comments demonstrate how anti-choicers also lack forgiveness and understanding, something your were supposed to learn a Sunday school. You degrade women who have terminations by use of terms like "not smart enough to avoid a pregnancy". And "..they don't bother to care" [using abstinance or contraception]. How do YOU know who these women are and what their circumstances were? Your stereotypical view of these women is what you have been fed by your conservative politicians or church leaders. Your comments are out of touch with the real-world reality that the majority of women who have unplanned pregnancies WERE using contraception

Jolanda, please enlighten me. How does a woman get herself pregnant? I mean, I have heard a rumour about some Hebrew chick that lived about 2000 years ago in modern day Isreal who claims she was pregnant but still a virgin. Aside from her, I am not aware of any woman that gets herself pregnant. *befudddled expression*

See here is the problem with society, there are still people out there who don't know how women get themselves pregnant?

The majority of abortions are not from women using proper contraception, it is from women not stopping to consider the consequences of their actions and not bothering to care.

Oh and I am not religious, nor am I anti-abortion as a rule. What I am is anti stupidity and we have so much stupidity and lack of responsiblity in this world today and that has created a situation where people seem to think that they are not responsible for their choices or actions and killing another, if they can justify it, is alright.

I have a wonderful baby bonus idea. How about if our Govenrment gives a $20,000 baby bonus to women who have never had an abortion and who have their first child after they are married.

Now there is some incentive.

Pro life? You mean anti anything they don't like don't you? What about the female's life? Doesn't she have a right to use today's technology (as we all do) to make life choices?

Religion is behind most of this. "I'm right and I read it in the Bible" they shout. They use fairy tales to try and ruin women's lives.

As others have written why do these people want to stop everyone from doing things they choose when it doesn't affect them in any way.

God save us from God's self appointed disciples. Why aren't all these religious fanatics in hospital? They hear voices which don't exist don't they? That sounds like a mental illness to me. And don't accuse me of deriding mental illness, I suffer myself and have for many years.

Jolanda, your baby bonus idea sounds wonderful but many people don't marry so that the woman collects single parent pension while the man continues to work. Its fairly rare amongst the professional classes but more common amongst lower income households who get less government assistance when they get married. So the baby bonus is $20,000 which is equivalent to 2 years of single parent pension for 1 child.

Your more persistent question is harder to answer nicely. Good sex is often instinctive and when you put your brain in reverse you can do amazingly stupid things including taking risks that lead to pregnancy. Its probably an evolutionary trait that has enabled humans to overrun the planet.

So in a society that is keenly into mind altering drugs like alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, ecstasy do you think the populace is interested in denying themselves the thrill of "sex with gay abandon".

You are asking that individuals in our society remain in responsible all the time, a mantle some only assume with motherhood and other mothers never assume.

Jolanda as a non-Catholic I have no problem with abortion as I desperately try to look earnest to not to offend Catholics concerned about the lost souls of the aborted fetuses.
I have a real problem with bringing another starving mouth into the world to live a stunted life and I have a real problem with the prolific consumption and waste in our society.

Othello cat, that was hilarious ; )

Jolanda,
One of the problems is that our kids are not receiving comprehensive sex education at schools. They should be taught about all the gory details.

Another problem is that contraception is not free. It should be, especially for people on a very low income such as young students.
Many people rely on condoms only because they are cheap compared to other forms of contraception and are easily available. Relying on condoms only is a recipe for disaster.

Rather than the government spending money on silly ‘incentives’ such as bonuses for women to keep their legs crossed until married and then have babies, this money would be better spend on free contraception.
People will get married for the bonus, which are the wrong reasons for marriage and years later we'll see another increase in divorces.

If we really want to reduce abortion rates, we first need to concentrate on reducing numbers of unplanned pregnancies in realistic ways. It's clear that abstinence does not work. Look at Bush with his silly abstinence-only funding despite the high abortion rates in USA.

It’s time that people learn to understand that women are there own moral agents and that they are indeed capable of making the decision as to whether abortion is justified in their circumstances.
If the woman needs help of counselling in making this decision, she’ll ask for it. Unbiased counselling for pregnant women should be available as well. Nobody can decide whether an abortion is justified better than the pregnant woman herself.

PS Have you read that the Russian govt. gave people time off work to have sex (oops I mean to procreate) and every woman who gives birth 9 months later receives prices?

Ahh...the evil prolifers...they are really just after the oil! Oh wait. Did I mix up the left wing moonbat, insulting opponents motive talking points?

Gotta love it....86 american prolife groups oppose contraception. 86 out of how many? Thousands?

Attributing the motives of some groups to all groups is a pathetically dishonest tactic, and hardly shows a willingness to getting beyond propaganda to facts.

Lets correct some 'facts' 88% of Abortions are performed in the first trimester. However, only 16% of abortions are done before brain waves are recorded. All organs are present and functional (except the lungs) by week 8. Anyone arguing that these are just 'lumps of cells' (turnrightthenleft) is being disingenuous and would have to call themselves just a lump of cells.

If contraception stopped the implantation of a zygote into the wall of the mothers uterus, it would be considered abortion, unless you try change to a self-serving definition of pregnancy and abortion. (And requires you to believe that starving someone is not intentional homicide) However, the claim that contraception performs this function is based on a logical inference, but the scientific investigation and observation does not support this claim.

Beating up the numbers of 'illegal abortions' and such has been a tactic used by the pro-abortionists since before roe-vs-wade...You will need a little more than a report based on 'interviews with more than 67 women' to make your case about the Philippines. (Note said report does not mention 400,000 illegal abortions)

Huh?

B,b,b,but...

the church is a 'society' of its own, acting to influence its own peoples.

And the pro-my-type-of-'society'-only, free-to-choose-from-their-choices pro-choicers are up in arms.

Make up your minds.

This is free people making their own free choices on their own self serving terms. People who are free to sell out their consciousness to a 'society' a 'community' which dictates their perceptions... as ALL collectivised groups must necessarily do to exist.

Then we all quible over definitions, semantics and try to set up the terms to serve our competing interests. There's nothing new under the sun.

One group is free to preach their mantra and we are all free to ignore it, or not. l guess each group can force the other. If abortion is illegal, no one can actually force you from not getting one. Same as illicit drugs. Or internet pharmacies. There is ALWAYS a way around. ALWAYS.

This is the nature of 'society.' It forever seeks to control, regulate, limit, ban, deprive and dictate your free and natural choices. There are no such things as natural rights. One must constantly fight to reassert their free choices in the face of the'social' controls which limit ones existence. The fight to reinstate what has been taken away, to pre-empt the denial of free choice is what we call rights.

What the government and 'society' gives... it must first take away.

You are not a victim of 'society' or your received perceptions. YOU are FREE to live YOUR life by YOUR terms. This frightens the sheeple, DEEPLY. People who dont like that, can lump it. If my partner cant get an abortion here, we'll go somewhere that she can. And those who disagree can, er, did l say, lump it. Oh, and some of us can think for ourselves, act out of self restraint for self evident self serving reasons and this too deeply frightens the sheep and their herders.

Make up your minds.

Forget abortions for convenience, how about reclassification for convenience!

Anti abortionists are determined to reclassify reliable methods
of contraception as "abortifacients" in the hope of intimidating women from using such methods and ultimately banning their use if they succeed in banning abortion.

When a woman gets her period it is possible that a fertilized egg is expelled with the menstrual flow. Indeed, a large number of fertilized eggs fail to implant (God is murdering babies!).

Should women grief every time they have their period?!?

In the bible didn't God kill thousands of innocent babies in their mothers stomachs when he created the great flood.

How many innocent babies did the prophet Mohammed and his army kill when they waged war through towns and cities. You dont wage war without a lot of people dying.

If God or Allah is so against the deaths of babies why didnt he stop the deaths of all the innocent babies in the recent sunamis in Indonesia.

Personally I don't care about religion, the Vatican; what I am talking about here is what I have seen and experienced here in Australia.

1. Contraception is not expensive. A woman can have an Implanon rod implanted that will cover her for 3 years. The prescription will cost $20, the doctors visit bulk billed (especially if she is on some form of government benefit) and she doesn't need to remember to take a pill every day. I know, I used this after my first child was born and had it removed after 2 years to start trying with my current pregnancy.

2. Yes, when a couple is trying to get pregnant they do grieve a little with every period.

3. I have known several people who have had abortions. Two of the women in question had multiple abortions because they 'couldn't remember to take the pill every day' and their partner found sex with a condom on 'was like having a lollipop with the wrapper on'. The third was the result of a one night stand and the fourth was a result of her partner losing his job and not having the economic stability to afford a child. For the last lady their economic position improved and six months later they had a planned pregnancy.

In Australia there are too many people who see abortion as a form of contraception, and refuse to take personal responsibility when there are so many options available to them.

Another article and thread on abortion!

Good to see that this time there seem to be a few more women participating.

To me abortion should remain focussed on either of two issues:

1. Should abortion be legal and available in Australia to any woman who needs it? Yes. Abortion being legal does not mean that anybody must avail themselves of this if confronted with an unplanned pregnancy.

When a foetus becomes a person with equal rights or with a soul, if indeed there is even such a thing, is open to debate. There is little consensus on this. Even within religious thought.

2. Why do women have abortions?

The reasons would all be very personal. Some may regard another's reason as frivolous or selfish. An abortion is to prevent bringing a child in the world, a responsibility for which the woman feels herself incapable. By acknowledging the responsibility of parenthood she is condemned to be recast as being selfish.

The frivolous/selfish argument reeks of wanting to make a woman pay for her 'sins'. That may be well and good for some, but what of the child? When the anti-choice brigade have all put their hands up to help bring up children, so there is a waiting list to become a foster parent because of a shortage of children I'll listen to these arguments.

It is preferable to avoid abortions. Not because of any belief in a right of a foetus, but because an abortion is a surgical procedure with possible risks which are best avoided.

As Celivia has pointed out let's start with good comprehensive education for both girls AND boys. Women have the wombs, but not the sole responsibility of keeping it clear of contents. They need a willing partner.

For EVERY abortion undergone by a woman, condemned by some, there is also a man who got her into that predicament. I do not hear any condemnation of men complicit by the anti choice brigade. Women need to keep their legs crossed until married? Then men need to keep their pants on and zippers closed until married.

Meelamay, your comments are typical of another tactic used by the rigt-to-lifers. It's all about over-simplifying the issue of contraception and thereby casting blame and moral judgements upon these women, as if to say "If I can manage my contraception then why can't you?".

And yes, abortion is a form of birth control, but it's there as an option of last resort. I can assure you that women don't avoid contraception just to have an abortion. Again, it's another tactic used to degrade the women who's primary contraception failled.

On your point about Implanon, yes Implanon is effective but it's not suitable for everyone and it's not as cheap as you suggest. The Implanon costs about $30, then because the insertion is a minor procedure, you would be unlikely to find many GPs willing to bulk-bill for it's insertion

I find this discussion a little limited, as it fails to discuss the difficulties facing women who wish to have children, but are unable to bring their partner around to the idea. The current culture, which has an extremely high level of acceptance of contraception and abortion, means of course that many young men are reluctant to make a commitment to relationship. The result is that many young women are forced to wait many years until they are 'allowed' to have a child...if the partner is still there, that is. The outcome is skyrocketing rates of IVF, caused mostly by delayed partnering. Abortion is one thing, but the extremely rigid modern cultural attitudes surrounding marriage and children these days mean many women feel they must wait until their most fertile days are behind them. Discussions of abortion and contraception - indeed, of relationships - should incorporate consideration of this important aspect of female experience.

"A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!"

You got it in one.

I dare you to talk to IVF patients and tell them their 4 cell embryo on ice only has value when it's implanted.

""A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!"

You got it in one. "

M Whitehouse, seems like you got it wrong in one!

An organism is not a child. 8 cells can set off parental
feelgood and maternal hormones, that still does not
make them a child.

Reality does not go away, when you close your eyes and
wish it would, no matter how many hormones are flowing.

Crumpethead... you are far away from the truth if you think I am a right to lifer... I am not. I absolutely believe that a woman should have the right to control her own fertility. But, I am a woman and I have only outlined the circumstances that I have personally come into contact with. FYI both of my pregnancies were very high risk for Downs Syndrome where my partner and I had decide to terminate the pregnancy if the amniocentesis came back positive for Down Syndrome, we consider ourselves lucky they came back with no fetal abnormalities.

Regarding the Implanon... $30 is exactly what it cost me to get it inserted, including the script... and to be honest, $30 for three years contraception is very cheap and completely blows out the water an argument that contraception is expensive.

It does not change the fact that there are women (and their partners) out there who consider abortion to be contraception which it is NOT... contraception prevents implantation of the embryo. I am by no means suggesting that this is the case with all terminations... but I am stating that there are far too many where this is the case.

Oh Mary Whitehouse and others "A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!"

I would disagree with that statement. A child has developed to a point where certain other characteristics distinguish it from an embryo.

Most significantly, a child has exited the body of the mother and is no longer exclusively dependent upon the mothers’ bodily functions for nutrients and oxygen. Transition from an embryo to a child is most notably celebrated, socially, by the issue of a birth certificate.

Pretending to assign the rights of a child, which exists outside the body of the mother and can be cared for even following the death of the mother by someone else, to something which is exclusively dependent upon the mother and her functions is bunkum.

The pretense is doubly offensive when it is undertaken to empower a (often religious) minority who seek to control the sexual lives of strangers and force them to accept the minority's obsessive and misrepresentative demands.

Placing the rights of an embryo before the rights of the woman in whose body it is developing and her right to abort, should she wish, implies you have relegated her rights to being no more than that of a life support system. Such a view is, again, grossly offensive.

Does Australia still suffer from the same high abortion to live birth ratio as it did a few years ago.

In about 2001 there were about 117,000 live births and 56,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 abortions depending whether you only count Australian citizens or include Australian residents or just count the number of procedures performed

In 2006 there were 265,922 births.

I think the birth rate mirrors consumer confidence. When people are unsure about their future they do not have children, Australia's birth rate was very low in the 1930s.

BTW, for what it's worth, the countries in the world with the lowest abortion rates are generally Western European countries like Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands where abortions are easily available to all women, including via RU-486.
Australia's abortion rate is over twice that of those nations.
Parts of the world where abortion is illegal, such as Africa and Latin America, generally have the highest abortion rates of all.

While you can't prove a correlation here (that making abortion more accessible generally leads to lower abortion rates), you certainly can't claim that making it more accessible leads to higher rates, as some pro-lifers would like to.

That’s true, wizofaus, that countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates. I think there’s a lot more equality between the sexes as well. I know for a fact that in the Netherlands, sex-ed is not just learning about the basics, but is a subject in itself and very comprehensive. Contraception is free as well.

Meelamay, if contraception is indeed so affordable, perhaps the cost then it won’t make much difference to the number of abortions. I’m not sure whether it has now changed, but in the recent past in the Netherlands, not only women could get free contraception but men also could get a year’s long prescription that enabled them to pick up free boxes of condoms from the chemist. Anyway, the abortion rate now in the Netherlands is 4.2 for every 1000 women, which is the lowest in the world.

It looks very much like the countries that are not totally obsessed with the sexual behaviour of mainly women and are not worried that women have as much sexual freedom as men, are really experiencing lower abortion rates. In all of the countries where abortion rates are high, we’ll see oppression of women also.
I am convinced, until someone shows me otherwise, that ‘saving "babies" ’ is absolutely NOT what it is all about. If it was, then the Vatican and all religious leaders would be handing out free condoms by the boxful especially to unmarried men.

At the moment, they choose to not to face the fact that sexual behaviour amongst teenagers and unmarried people happens.
Protesting against abortions is a totally useless, even harmful act.
Denying comprehensive sex-ed is totally useless, and contributes to high abortion numbers.
Protesting against contraception is the most dumb thing anti-abortionists can do.

Anti-abortionists such as religious leaders who object to contraception prove that for them, it is not 'all about saving "babies" '.

Celivia... contraception in Australia truly is that cheap. After having my first child I looked at many of the options available. Implanon was by far the cheapest, the pill or Depoprovera (the 3 monthly injection) were about the same - the only thing being that for the pill you have one doctors appointment for 4 (3 monthly)scripts and you needed a doctors appointment every 3 months for the injection. Condoms were the most expensive, but then were also the only option that provides some STD protection. As I was in a long term relationship with my childs father and expected more sleep deprivation choosing Implanon was very easy.

The abortion debate is very different depending on which part of the world it is looking at. My personal opinion is that Churches (particularly in the Third world) are a tool of power and control, not faith, and it is absolutely in their interest to ensure that women in particular do not find economic freedom that will lead to further education and emancipation. Keeping them barefoot and pregnant is one way to ensure the congregation grows, and that they are too busy trying to keep themselves and their children alive to rise up against the position they have been placed.

However... the abortion debate in Australia is significantly different. We are educated, information is freely available yet there is a group of people (male and female) who would prefer to forgoe any personal responsibility for ensuring their fertility regardless of the facilities available and demand abortion/termination as their right. Being concerned about this does not make someone a 'right-to-lifer'... it is saying that with any right comes a responsibility, and that responsibility must be taken seriously and conscientiously.

After all an abortion carried out at the end of the first trimester means that a foetus (about the size of a tennis ball) with arms, legs and heart beating is going to be killed at the request of its mother. But at that stage it certainly isn't an 8-cell zygote (you wouldn't even know you were pregnant while the embryo was that size).

Meelamay, you are right. There are some people who are irresponsible and do not bother to use reliable methods of contraception. And yes, the fetus at the end of the first trimester is not the same as the zygote.

However, the point that the article is trying to make, is that the pro life movement opposes contraception with the same zeal that it opposes abortion. They oppose all the contraceptive methods that you have mentioned. They do not distinguish between the zygote and the three month old fetus. Do not take my word for it, check it out for yourself:

Birth control pills kill babies:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

If you think that women should have access to contraceptives, you should write to the pro life organizations and tell them!

Meelamay “who would prefer to forgoe any personal responsibility for ensuring their fertility regardless of the facilities available and demand abortion/termination as their right.”

Actually, “exercising choice” is to take on the responsibility.

Denying responsibility would be to succumb to a fatalistic attitude or to victimise oneself by not exercising conscious choice.

Of course exercising “conscious choice” does not pre-suppose that the outcome means having an abortion, it might equally mean accepting the notion of going through with a pregnancy consciously, rather than unconsciously.

Anti-abortionists would deny a woman choice. That would, effectively, deny her the right to accept any responsibility for her condition.

Celivia “Anti-abortionists such as religious leaders who object to contraception prove that for them, it is not 'all about saving "babies" '.”

It is about greater social control by an organization formed around a theocratic despot.

Basically the Church of Rome demanding its right of interference into the lives of everyone, regardless those people be of the faith or, in my case, a heretic.

When we look back at its history, it has brought such delights as the inquisition and the practice of castrati (more for the enjoyment of its bishops than the castrated) to blight the lives of people everywhere, whilst simultaneously protecting pedophiles and sexual deviants

Meelamay, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea of so many 3+ month old foetuses being aborted - so we need to look at what circumstances lead to that. I'm quite certain that in Australia lack of availability of RU-486 is a big part of that - in the aforementioend Western European countries (with low abortion rates), the drug is widely available and most abortions are in the first few weeks of pregnancy, often non-surgically.
Social attitudes towards abortion also make a difference - a woman who realises that she's pregnant and is in no position to bring a child into the world will quite probably hesitate for a weeks if there is a stigma attached to abortion. But of course the longer you leave it, the closer to infanticide the action arguably becomes.
OTOH, I note that the Netherlands has a 5-day waiting period.

Ideally what should happen is that young people should be properly educated about the risks involved in early sexual behaviour with regard to their intellectual and psychological development, the impact on their life, the short term and long term financial implications and the emotional baggage that it can produce and later carry.

Only when young people fully understand what might be the consequences of their actions(or have at least been provided with the information)then we may just see some more thought out and better choices being made.

Young people need to be told that they can choose to confidently say no to teenage sex and wait until they are older, and focus on other things.

Many teenagers are engaging in sex too early and sexually transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy are usually part of the result.

I do believe that there should be contraception and the morning after pill readily available. At this point in time you cannot really blame teenagers for the way that they are behaving given the push in the media for this type of behaviour so we have to protect them and help them to change.

Education - Keeping them HOnest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

the fact is even if contraception is free and readily available there will also be those women who are irresponsible and careless enough to get pregnant when they don't want to be.Then they are selfish enough if you force them to give birth to keep their unwanted child it is then that child who suffers long term Abortion therefore should be legal to stop children living unloved and feeling unwanted

Maryan, Jolanda, Wizofaus... I agree with what you are saying. I suppose my point of view is very Australia-centric where I make the perhaps mistaken presumption that, here at least, that we are past the whole contraception debate.

Felicity... perhaps you are right, after all what rational person would want to be raised by someone who would tell them they are killing them for their own good.

Meelaway and Jolanda,

Education about sex, sexuality and all that entails is probably the most important key to the low rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion in general in countries like the Netherlands.

People like Celivia and I who have personally experienced the Dutch approach can only look on in disbelief that in a wealthy and educated populace like Australia's there is such squemishness and outright wowserism where sex and sexuality is concerned. And as Celivia pointed out, especially about woman's sexuality from both men and women.

Telling anybody of whatever age, that a girl is not to have sex until you are of a certain age or are married is not education. Telling any body 'it is alright to say no' is not education. It is enforcing a particular moral code without any background or rationality. It is dishonest. What is a girl to think of herself if she wants to say 'yes'?

Whatever your personal moral beliefs are, they are only OK to pass on to your own children. And they would hopefully know the background of your moral beliefs and share them.

Education on sex in NOT about encouragement to go behind the toilet blocks to 'try it out'. It is NOT about relinquishing personal moral/philosophical beliefs or codes. It is all about becoming responsible sexual beings. Surely that is at least one thing we can all agree on.

Abortions are to be available safely and legally. Gnashing teeth over the numbers or lamenting the 'selfishness and irresponsibility' of women who got 'themselves' into this trouble is a waste of time. It is too late. There are worse things that can, and do, happen to a being than not being born.

The question of where life begins is curiously, er, irrelevant.

Its funny how some want to define it in terms of when a 'child' exists. Its just quibbling with semantics, setting the definitions and terms to control the discussion and manipulate the outcomes.

Its called 'begging the question', where the conclusion is already set up in the way the definitions are constructed. Very sly and very effective.

Its very easy to drive a huge logical wedge thru the so-called 'life' debate, as follows.

A pregnant woman is on her way to have an abortion, when her car is hit by a drunk driver. She looses the er, feutus, in the accident. However, the drunk driver can be charged with manslaughter. Ergo, the feutus now has human rights.

This disctiction is usually rationalised in terms of the mothers intentions, which just puts lie to the whole idea that one is defining the concept of 'life.'

That debate is irrelevant and redundant. Abortion, definitions of life and pregnancy have nothing to do with anything other than what the mother wants to do. Fair enuff.

Why people waste their time suring up their little delusions over this blatant contradiction is quite amusing. Its easier to just accept it for what it is, namely SELF INTEREST and stop punishing yourselves psychologically.

The mental conflict, l suspect, is tied into the deeply conflicting messages females recieve about 'womanhood', together with the deeply conflicting aspects of how the concept of 'woman' is created. In this case the conflict is between the flowery stereotype of woman as self sacrificing, kind, gentle and nurturing (all nonsense... these things depend on character not reproductive biology) and the reality that females are humans being driven by the foundation of human nature, namley self interest.

Humans being what we are, just cannot accept the ugly truths, we gotta sugar coat it, hide it, redefine it, shroud it in propoganda and free licence. Of course, what we call things, how we define them doesnt change anything in reality.

Reasons dont change facts.