Sams,
If 2 forms of contraception are not sufficient, then use 3.

This is basic risk management. If you look at the computer in front of you, there is not one system to stop you from being electrocuted, but several.

I have never heard of an academic working out the risk of unwanted pregnancy when a number of forms of contraception are being used, but risk management is taught in universities in engineering, and the author would be teaching risk management in her business classes.

It is a sign of the complete corruption of the university system, where risk management can be taught and applied in some areas, but cannot be taught or applied when it comes to contraception and abortion.

All shame on academics for being corrupted by abortion loving feminists, and the money hungry abortion industry.

HRS, re: adoption, so it's ok to force the mother to endure months of pregnancy, discomfort, labour, birth and recovery? And all for someone elses benefit. Don't think so.
There is no doubt about it we would be forcing someone to do something against their will, where is the "mothers" rights in all this.

I haven't had a chance to look at the other thread, but so what exactly? There are fringe lunatics in all walks of life, what they say and what they do are often quite different things. Even carried out all that will happen is a change to society, where indeed women are highly valued. Perhaps a society where women have multiple husbands. Few comment on gender imbalances from societies that have men with muliple wives. Surely that means some men have to go without.

At the crux of the matter is the assumption that the unborn at the time of abortion have "rights". What I wonder is why we think an unformed brain has more rights than say the brain dead person on whom the plug can be pulled? Potential does not infer that future rights should be bestowed on the fetus, IMO.

HRS wrote: "If 2 forms of contraception are not sufficient, then use 3."

The reality is that nobody wholly sane is going to do that. Nor should they have to. Imagine the expense and impingement on quality of life. Women are supposed to take a break from the pill occasionally too for health reasons. I know women whose bodies can't abide even low dose pills after being sensitised by years of use.

"but risk management is taught in universities in engineering"

I taught IT at QUT and am the managing director of an IT company and a consultant/programmer. I used to work as a principal engineer for the top security software multinational, so I think I know a little about risk management. I know about reality versus perfect world fantasies.

"shame on " ... x 10

Your self-righteousness blubbering really has no place in a rational debate, and is far more likely to increase the resistance to your point of view than garner you any support.

rstuart

I don't know what you were taught at Sunday school but it sure does not sound like bible if you were not taught to love people but to hate sin. I hold no hate towards any person.

You infer that I am a hateful person because I come across strong on moral issues. I think many people would prefer a spade called a spade instead of beating around the bush. I have constantly conveyed the message that we are all flawed creatures and lost without Christ (including myself).

You claim 'vast majority of the people here are at worst indifferent to your views - ---

You might be right but you are kidding yourself if you have not noticed the vile posts directed at myself and others at times. There are a number of posters who equate belief or faith in Christ as 'stupid, vile, gullible. deluded. You must have turned a blind eye to these.

You say 'They do not hate you or your religion, they are not violent towards you'

Try telling that to Fred Nile who many times had urine thrown over him for having a 'religous' point of view. Is it not feral to throw urine over people? The truth is it is a lot easier to find violent secular people than it is to find the odd luny calling themselves a Christian in this country. Just ask the police. Whether it is the despised brethren, happy clappers at Hillsong or Baptist you are unlikely to find violence. Many environmental gatherings or lets hate the US gatherings are marked by violence. Just look at the number of Police needed at those events.

And so you accuse me of being the judgemental critic simply because I hate the murder of the unborn, the pornography industry leading to the breakdown of the family and degradation of the human race, the lies pedaled in the name of science (eg a baby is not a human being.)
If this is what you call hateful then I think you are reading it wrong.

ScienceLaw: "I am absolutely astounded to see this statement from another lawyer? Its loaded language, illustration of an evidently entrenched position, ..."

You kidding, right? You just said earlier:

GP: "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them."
ScienceLaw: "I think GP has summarised this issue in a nutshell."

It is very possible to come to ethical decisions about many things, such as "thou shall not steal". It everybody suddenly decided to take whatever they want we would be in a real pickle, so we forbid it. Easy.

There is no such line of reasoning for abortion - one way or the other. If every woman was allowed to make her own decision on abortion then ... what? You don't have to speculate about the outcome. They currently do make their own decisions, and last I check the only negative outcome on society is that it makes some people feel real uncomfortable. You can't decide this debate on logic alone. Just ask runner.

However, that is not my point. You attack Anne for not following a "constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate", having just cheered on the argument "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them". Get real.

Sams
You seem quite abusive, and I can understand why you like abortion.

There are many forms of contraception, and a woman need not use the pill or any type of chemical as a form of contraception. Using more than one form of contraception is obviously best, and some contraceptive sites on the net recommend this, but I have never heard of any academic researching, publicising or even mentioning the decreased risk to a woman of getting pregnant, if she OR her husband/boyfriend uses more than one form of contraception.

I would think that their lack of mentioning it, publicising it, or researching it is because they have no interest in reducing the rate of abortion.

In the case of Anne O’Rourke, she attempts in this article to vilify a religion, (which does nothing towards reducing the rate of abortion), and such vilification was one of the primary methods carried out by the completely corrupt NARAL organization in the US, so as to fill the coffers of the abortion industry in that country. (See the link I kindly provided previously for verification of that).

The abortion rate has hardly declined in time, and in reality, Anne O’Rourke and similar academics have been a dismal failure at reducing the abortion rate. I’m inclined to believe they secretly like abortion.

Rojo,
Adoption is a way of reducing abortion, and there are other ways also. For all the words written by various people in support of abortion, I have rarely read anything from them on ways to reduce abortion. The author has written many words in this article in support of abortion, but not one word on how to reduce abortion.

Even more shame on the author, and anyone else like her who is too lazy to think of ways of reducing abortion.