Lititia, well said!
The Religious Right should spend their time on helping the many unwanted, neglected, abused children who live in hell.
There are too many unwanted and at-risk children for our child protection system to cope with, yet they want more.
How many children are anti-choicers like HRS fostering?
Credit to David though, for having adopted children, but the vast majority of anti-choicers don’t put their money where there mouth is.

HRS
“who decides…”
The pregnant woman herself, of course!
Only she is capable of making a decision since nobody else carries her embryo and nobody else knows her situation. Others can advise her if she wishes.
Why is everybody else’s moral judgment valued more than the woman’s?

What if some moral high-grounder decides that a woman should be forced to give birth and the woman resorts to a backyard abortion and dies?

It’s so easy to tell others what they should or shouldn’t do if there is 0% chance that you’ll ever end up in that situation yourself!
If men could get pregnant, don’t you think that some of them would want to terminate their unwanted pregnancy as well?

“Increased pressure on the abortion industry to reduce the abortion rate is much more likely to reduce the abortion rate than teachers...”
Abortion clinics deal with pregnant women- sex education they offer happens post pregnancy.
Teachers deal with young people- sex education they offer happens pre pregnancy.
Which do you think is more effective?
And why do you think that countries, like Holland, that do offer comprehensive sex education in schools have lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancies and lower child poverty rates than countries that don’t?

Circular argument?
No wonder if you keep repeating an already refuted point.

You only want the abortion rates reduced when feminists are vilified and controlled in the process.
You don’t want to see the real cause of high abortion rates.
The Religious Right want the abortion rate only reduced by controlling women.
That’s why all anti-choicers refuse to be pragmatic and pro-active about sex education and contraception.

Lititia, the bible does not mention abortion by name but does describe a procedure which sounds very much like an abortion - the section around Numbers 5:21

There is an interesting coverage of the topic at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

I found a similar coverage from what appears to be a christain evangelical writer looking at the biblical coverage of abortion at http://realevang.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/the-bible-and-abortion/

As is the norm people read into their sacred texts what they want and ignore the bits that don't suit.

R0bert

Lititia,(and where did you think of that name)?
The Bible is a book that doesn’t mention abortion. Probably because abortion was not very common when the Bible was written. Similarly, the Bible doesn’t mention obesity, peak oil, nuclear weapons proliferation, global warming, or various other problems and ailments that currently beset our society.

You haven’t given out any information regards reducing abortion, and if legitimate research has been carried out by other university academics into reducing abortion, then where is it and what are the results?

There are about 10 abortions per hour in our country, but I can’t even find a list of ways to reduce the abortion rate, although such a list would mean that legitimate research into reducing abortion has been carried out, and consensus has been reached amongst researchers. The development of such a list would also constitute basic level risk management.

However I can remember seeing a study showing a correlation between the abortion rate and female media celebrities. If a number of female media celebrities had babies, then other women had babies also, and the abortion rate declined.

If women’s “choice” is so easily swayed by the media, (and in particularly women’s media), then women’s ability to choose does appear to be very capricious, and dependant on what is currently chic or fashionable in women’s world, similar to cosmetic surgery, or whether to wear high heels or lace ups.

If desertification and environmental degradation are not decreasing, you don’t make it easier to chop down forests.

If green house gas emissions are not decreasing, you don’t encourage the driving of cars.

If the inflation rate is not low or decreasing, you don’t reduce interest rates.

If the abortion rate is not low or decreasing, you don’t make abortions more readily available.

All very sensible, and all very basic level risk management, and I think it is a sign of just how unreliable and feminist our universities have become, when they teach risk management in some courses, and then turn a blind eye to what is happening in the abortion industry.

HRS

Finally someone who acknowledges that the bible has no guidance for today's society.

The motivation for having children is the fantastic joy they give you. The negatives of having children is that it is a risk to a woman's health and crippling both financially and career wise to a young single woman.

As it is a life time commitment no one should have the right to decide for the woman. All these road blocks suggested by the religious right wing, are merely attempts to erode a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body.

If the religious right wing had any intention of reducing the number of abortions then they would put their weight behind decent sex education instead of the worthless "abstinence is best" drivel they push.

As the majority of unwanted pregnancies in Aus are due to the incorrect use of contraceptives, decent sex education would prevent the pregnancies in the first place.

Democritus,
How do you know that the majority of abortions are due to incorrect use of contraception, and that sex education is the answer to reducing the abortion rate?

Did you read it in a women’s magazine, or you hear it from a feminist?

Both sources of information would be as reliable as each other.

Compare the following: -

[pregnancy is] “constricting, suffocating, an enemy of the liberated woman’s larger hopes”

"I still have pregnancy dreams, where I'm a huge domed abdomen floating in the warm shallow sea of my own childhood, waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen. And my life is full of baby surrogates, animals and birds that need nursing."

Both pieces were written by the same author.

Robert

See Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male amongst the little ones.

1 Samuel 15:3 - slay both men and women, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;

Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb,

Ezekiel 9;6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children

Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed to pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

These passages from the Bible tend to suggest that no special emphasis is placed on the foetus or children for that matter. At best, the religious right could argue that these passages apply to non-christian but accepting that would mean that religious interpretations only apply to Christian thus those of us who are not christians should not have christian values imposed upon us.

To HRS - abortion was common during biblical times. It was also practised in the ancient world, Greece, Rome, Middle East, etc. There is nothing new about abortion, the fact that the Bible ignores it suggests it was not an issue of importance.

Finally I do not have to give information about reducing abortions nor does any other academic. This suggestion assumes that I think abortion is wrong I do not therefore I am not concerned about the numbers. The evidence which I stated in my last post is that if you are concerned about abortion then you need to support liberal sex education as that is the only thing that appears to reduce the number of abortion. Primarily I don't think its yours or anybody else' business if someone has an abortion. If you oppose abortion don't have one but you are not entitled to stop others from doing so.