What the hell is wrong with you anti-abortionists?
There is a case for allowing a family who has no access to birth control pills and condoms where there asre aslready too many mouths to feed.They face poverty of the worst kind.They are hopelessly in debt.They sell some kids to slavers.And we wish them worse misery by denying them the right to decide the number of kids they can afford.They need to have their kids educated but cannot when there are too many.This is the sad story of all South American countries.This is the sad story of the Philippines andother countries where anit-abortionists dcide legislation.And some of this cruelty flows from doctrines and interpretation of religious creeds and rules.

In the name of life and freedom,in the name of humanity and mercy let families decide the strength of families.

Johnj,
Agree with your last post, and also, a good point in the last paragraph of your previous post; I didn’t know about the funding. I’m not even sure why it would have to cost more to allow women access to earlier testing/screening, can’t it just be shifted a few weeks earlier?
As women postpone having children till a later age, increased access to screening is necessary. As far as I know the screening can’t be done till the 20th week into pregnancy but I could be wrong.

I have tried to get the “comprehensive sex education” point through in other abortion discussions but the OLO fundies have blind faith in abstinence-only education.

Well said Col, and I also agree with Jason60.
Nobody knows the circumstances better than the pregnant woman herself. Medical advice and counseling can be provided if she needs it, but the ultimate decision should be hers.

The author, HRS, Runner et al have an over-active imagination.
What do they think- that when a law allows late abortions, hordes of brainwashed, pregnant women are going to conspire to dawdle till at least the 24th week into pregnancy, and then gather to swamp abortion clinics and hospitals just for their convenience?
As Romany and Fractelle pointed out, late terminations are very rare and are very traumatic for women.

Runner,
Where is the evidence for your claim that “Most of the 80000 plus abortions are for convenience sake.”
Talk about honesty and emotion!
You have been patiently corrected many times about your ‘confusion’ between fetuses and children, and between murder and killing.
Still, you keep repeating the same old flawed arguments and lies, deliberately ignoring facts.
Also, since when is something legal a crime?

And, at least 15% of known pregnancies end in natural miscarriage.

yes olly - it is dominated by religion. Any writing on abortion or homosexuality attracts the religious right like moths to a flame. You will find the same names on every article on this topic, especially, HRS and runner, who seem to have as their life's mission to ensure that women do not leave the kitchen. Notably I never see these names in comments on child poverty or similar postings on children. The reason for that is that the only kind of life that relgious conservatives value is that from conception to birth, you will never see them put up their hand to assist children who are actually alive and struggling. No wealth distribution there, once born your on your own, its sink or swim - too bad if the cards are stacked against you.

It is interesting to note the article in the Sunday Age on the abuse hurled at pro-choice politicians. Any politicians that voted in favour of decriminalisation have been blasted with abusive emails, flyer calling them 'killers', etc, from the religious right. Some have even received death threats. Its really about a pathological desire to control other people's lives to the most intimate level.

This sort of thing makes a good arguement for Brave New World style propagation of community cogs and wheels. At least in that book, they didnt lie thru their deluded self interest masquerading as whatever beneift for the good of whoever's whatever.

Reproduction politics/power is where the rubber meets the road. It boils down to power. Men wanna have a voice. women want monopoly. Majority of electorate is female, so hardly any surprise here.

In any event, this be secret womens business, so shutup already. Thats OK, afterall, they're left holding the baby and without the psychological appeals and emotional manipulations, they're left to turn to the men with badges and guns to enforce their interests, which puts them in a real tuff bind.

Frankly, as a man l dont see anything to really complain about regarding pregnancy, womens bodies, their feotuses, their babies, their burdens and responsibilities.

Men have just gotta learn to STOP moralising about women and telling them what we think about their ways and offering opinions and solutions (most of which are swimming in mens projected self-interest).

Its easier for men and better for women to let them plough their own fields.

Not bloody likely tho. Men and women get far too much benefit and comfort out of the status quo and recoil in horror at the possibility of giving up the addiction.

What one forgets is that pregnancy is measured from the date of the start of the last cycle. Typically conception takes place at about 2 weeks, and the earliest that pregnancy is detected is 4 weeks.

The third trimester or 6 month mark is actually the 27th week, not the 24th, so 24 weeks is closer to 5 months.

With irregular cycles and low levels of hormone it is actually easier than most realise to pass the 12 wk mark without recognising the symptoms, especially when it is not expected, and the person is not experienced. However, it would be very difficult to pass the 20th week without noticing.

Peronnally I have known of two cases where this has happenned. In both cases the suprise pregnancy was carried to term as the parents were in a relationship.

While I feel 12 weeks is too short, I also feel that at 24 weeks it is possible (though unlikely) for the foetus to survive on its own and would opt for a shorter period say 20 weeks, where survivability is non existant.

Firstly, I believe that no abortion should be available where the baby suffers pain. its just my belief system, but I believe that the baby suffering in this way is reprehensible. It must be able to be given anesthetic, or no abortion.

I support the ability to choose to have an abortion. To choose to have one for a healthy child, there should be a fairly early cut-off point. 15 weeks? Hard to pin a date though, as particularly if a surprise pregnancy it can be easy to be 3-4 weeks out. Where the mother has a life-threatening problem abortion should be available anytime - while it might be noble to lay down your life for the unborn, it shouldnt be forced on you. For an unhealthy baby an abortion should be available anytime (but I am not referring here to something as straight-forward as Downs Syndrome here, which can be diagnosed early anyway). Pregnancy and delivery is still risky business, even in Western societies with modern medicine - something that is regularly forgotten.

To sum up, abortion shouldnt be easily available, but it should be available nonetheless.