Celivia,
If as you say, sex education and contraception do lower the abortion rate, then how our brilliant Germaine had a number of abortions without ever knowing about sex education and contraception is beyond comprehension (or perhaps not).

If abortion clinics were highly moral and ethical, and contraception and sex education do lower the abortion rate, then why don’t abortion clinics have ads for contraception? There are now frequent ads on the radio for erectile dysfunction, so why not ads for contraception?

I would think the main consideration of abortion clinics is their profit margin, and more widespread use of contraception could reduce that profit margin.

Of all the words written by academics in favour of abortion, they have rarely written anything about contraception, and I’ve never heard any of them questioning why abortion clinics don’t run ads for better use of contraception.

Putting the 2 together, these academics must have had no sex education themselves, or they must have shares in abortion clinics.

LOL HRS,
Have you ever been inside an abortion clinic?

Most offer a large range of services, from contraception and pap smears to counselling, even for the woman’s partner if he needs it. Many are not-for-profit.
Look at the Marie Stopes site, for example. http://www.mariestopes.com.au/services_for_women/contraception_faqs

Abortion clinics offer FAR more advice to women about preventing unwanted pregnancies than the anti-choice brigade do. We have the anti-choice brigade to thank for the mediocre sex education that Australian schools have to offer.
The ones who are opposed should stop whining - why aren’t they pragmatic and pro-active- then they may achieve what they want: lower abortion rates.
You can blame the pope and the Religious Right for many unwanted pregnancies. They are the ones against advertising contraception, not feminists.
Thanks to the feminist movement we have contraception at all! The government has been urged by Marie Stopes, not by the Religious Right, to put the spotlight on contraception: http://tinyurl.com/6gddbn

And re taxpayers funding abortion, an abortion costs taxpayers far less than the birth of a baby.
Taxpayers would be even better off if our taxes would fund a large range of contraception.

Celivia
I didn’t think the Pope had much to do with Australian laws. In fact, most people probably wouldn’t even know his name.

Many abortion clinics continuously break the law, by offering abortion with no recommendation from a doctor, when the law requires that the woman must be under serious risk before an abortion can take place.

A number also carry out no type of counseling or contraception education services, either before or after an abortion, while at the same time saying that abortion is low risk. Try telling that to a very prominent Australian feminist, who had so many abortions she could no longer have children.

It would be interesting to know how many feminists have had abortions. I tend to think more than average, but feminists keep placing emphasis on the education system to teach children about safe sex, when the reality is that the education system can hardly teach children to read and write.

The emphasis on reducing abortions must come from those who know most about abortions, which are the abortion clinics. At present they don’t seem to be doing much of a job in that regard, or seem to have much interest, while at the same time feeding taxpayer funding into their own bank accounts.

HRS,
” I didn’t think the Pope had much to do with Australian laws.”
The pope does have something to do with Australian laws because we have the Religious Right who are influenced by the Pope and we’ve been stuck with several Catholics in our government who are in a compromised position when voting on issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

If the government were not influenced by the pope, why do you think that there are going to be protests on World Youth Day, and why are our Australian Libertarians (bless them) protesting against the annoyance law?
The annoyance law means that non-Catholics cannot annoy Catholics while Catholics are totally free to annoy non-Catholics. How double standard!
Non-Catholics are expected to shut up about their issues with the Church while the pope can spread his nonsense about sins freely- hmmmm me thinks that Catholic priest are among the most illustrious sinners in the world.
Gagging people is pretty evil stuff.
Especially since non-Catholic taxpayers will have to fund their own gagging.

“Many abortion clinics continuously break the law”
Only in WA, women need a referral from their GP.
Laws vary from state-to-state, even two-thirds of GPs find the abortion laws very confusing. Women’s risk is not only classified as physical risk only. Mental risk, psychological risk, even financial risk can be taken into account.
The physical risk of giving birth is 11x greater than that of an abortion. Unless you’d want to go backward to backyard by restricting abortion, of course.
The risk of backyard abortions is much greater than birth or safe, legal abortions.
Anyone who hates women would like to see them have to resort to backyard abortions.

Anyway, he idea is to repeal outdated abortion laws.
The Qld abortion law is over 100 years old.
The vast majority of the Australian population support abortion; it’s a matter between the woman and her doctor. It’s nobody’s business. Laws simply will have to reform.

There are NOT too many abortions in Australia, there are too many unwanted pregnancies and the Religious Right are guilty of that.

Celivia,
If a woman does not need a referral from a doctor (or even a psychologist), then who decides if the woman is under serious risk from the pregnancy, and can legally have an abortion?

And if abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, then how come she doesn’t need a referral from a doctor to have an abortion?

I guess the abortion clinics love these little flaws in the abortion regulations.

With no referral required, and some abortion clinics now advertising no waiting period, Australia would probably have some of the most lax abortion regulations anywhere in the world, and I doubt that any politician in Australia is holding back abortion, regardless of their religion.

The vast majority of the public only accepts abortion under certain circumstances, and do not accept wholesale abortion, which is something abortions don’t mention much.

However this is rather like a circular arguement, and none of it actually decreases the abortion rate (or rate of unwanted pregnancy), and I doubt very much whether teachers in schools will either. Increased pressure on the abortion industry to reduce the abortion rate is much more likely to reduce the abortion rate than teachers in schools, if feminists actually do want a decrease in the abortion rate.

While the cross is central to Christianity, abortion definitely appears to be central to feminism, and I somehow doubt that feminists really do want to see a decrease in the abortion rate.

"I'm assuming that as a university academic who is funded by the public, Lititia does not want to give out too much information to the public (at least regards abortion)".

The absence of logic in this statement amazes me. The fact that I or any other academic or member of the public generally support a woman's right to choose does not mean we have to come up with plans to cut the abortion rate. There is not a connection between these two things.

Legitimate research on abortion by academics is all publicily available, the idea that academics don't want to give out information to the public on abortions is ridiculous, and points to the conspiratorial perspective of those making the suggestion. On the other hand, churches and religious organisations are also funded by the public and indeed tax exempt yet they are able to distort their research by making spurious links between abortion and breast-cancer which has been proven by legitimate peer-reveiwed research not to exist.

I note none of the religious right ever take up the religious point made such as the lack of emphasis by Jesus on abortion. The fact that the Bible does not mention it. It is really a cover for people who don't wish to challenge their own values regarding materialism and consumerism, they can conveniently ignore all the messages about the poor and social justice because that would mean they have to do something or question their own commitment to Jesus' real message. Much easier to focus on abortion, because it is something tthat does not challenge them personally but convinces them they are good people living according to the Bible, despite the fact it has no legitimacy in the Bible.