Discussing the anti-abortion stance in terms of the "modern" idea of 'the right to life' is futile because it takes it out of context. It is also inconsistent with that modern idea because the people opposing the murder of human babies do not similarly oppose the murder of adult members of other species who are more developed - physically, emotionally and mentally than a human baby.

The original spirit of the prohibition on abortions and the only context where it can be properly understood and make sense, is its use as a tool to make people think twice before having sex.

Encouraging people to conserve their sexual energy so that they can direct it towards higher purposes, is noble. Yet nowadays this particular means (prohibiting abortions) does not serve this end, for the following reasons:

1. Availability of contraceptives.
2. Spirituality cannot be acquired by force, only by free choice.
3. Most people in this age are not spiritually ready for a significant effort to limit their sexual expression, it's like asking a baby to run and write poetry before they crawl and talk. The toughest sexual discipline that the general public today is able to handle, is to refrain from having sex with others against their will, even that with difficulty. Asking them to wilfully limit having sex altogether is bound to erupt in violent ways, including towards oneself and becoming ill.
4. Dishonesty and fear: Instead of telling people straight why it is good to try to limit their sexual expression, it is covered up by the threat of having to have and raise an unwanted child.

Fear doesn't bring us closer to God - if one is to try to limit their sexual expression, then one should rather do so for the love of God, in order to preserve this energy for their Highest Beloved.

Julia Gillard and the handbag hit squad failed miserably in their efforts to demonise Tony Abbott as anti-women.

Now feminist guru Eva Cox has been very forthright in saying that Tony Abbott's parental leave policy is better for women than the Gillard government's version. Does that make Gillard and her Grrls sexist and misogynist?

The Gillard government's National Disability Insurance Scheme deliberately excludes the old, with people over 65 not being eligible. Not only does Gillard discriminate against the elderly, but she discriminates against women in particular, because women outnumber men in that group.

Facinating that PM Gillard sheds no tears for the disabled old, most of whom are women. On top of that Gillard wants to tip the old dears out of the family homes they raised their families in. Great for the entrepreneurs who see megabucks in redevelopments for Yuppies and DINKs I suppose, and great too for the other entrepreneurs who are developing flatette boxes on cheap land for the displaced elderly.

Returning to abortion, it will be interesting to see if the removal of the baby bonus by the Gillard government results in a spike in abortions. Such a spike is to be expected. After all, one of the compelling justifications given for legal, publicly funded abortion on demand is unplanned pregnancies of vulnerable, poorly educated and unemployed women who cannot afford to keep their children. Still, the Gillard government can easily cover the losses with the abundant adult male asylum seekers. Expensive 'diversity', but tres 'Progressive'.

The double-edged sword is that the Gillard government is always willing to bend over backwards to advantage educated middle class women in their careers and children. Middle class feminism.

Expressing his own views on abortion, President Obama stated, "I think President Clinton said it pretty well when he said abortion should be safe, legal and rare." A majority of Australians would agree with that view. The red flags that policy is not well framed would be anything outside of that. So, what does 'rare' mean in numbers and what about late term abortions, what rules should apply?

Come now, onthebeach.

The Howard government introduced the $5,000 baby bonus as an addition to their model of pork-barrelling middle-class welfare.

Btw, I agree with you that Gillard couldn't give a toss about women to any greater extent than Abbott. Some of her policies have made it a whole lot harder for women...just yesterday I was talking to a single mother who has been living "in her parent's backyard".(I didn't ask for details) She was telling me that she and her daughter are moving into the "two front rooms" of house owned by her friend whose husband is working fly-in-fly-out (ie, she can longer afford to rent a house of her own).

It's a lovely state of affairs, don't you agree? (sarc)

I was making hay out of this seemingly big slip-up by the Coalition. Ony because the party which champions paid parental leave should be more cognisant of the difficulties which sometimes arise with sick children, etc.

But all in all, I think both parties and their leaders are pretty much on the nose.

Dear Poirot,

You wrote: "But all in all, I think both parties and their leaders are pretty much on the nose."

Until you wrote that I assumed 'on the nose' meant exact or correct. Obviously you didn't mean that.

I looked up the expression and found:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+nose

on the nose (mainly American)
exactly right, often an exact amount of money or time We arrived at three o'clock on the nose. Her description of the play really hit it on the nose.

Apparently the same expression means something different in Australia than it does in the US where I am from.

This subject always brings oput the worst on both sides.
Those who unthinking find they need an abortion, almost as a lifestyle thing.
And the far right linked to religion as it never truly was.
Christ if he came back would not know some who use him as reason to murder Abortionists, just as much as he,based on his teachings, would not know the just too lazy to prevent pregnacy7.
Then again, some Church,s bar the pill too.

Poirot,

No, the baby bonus was introduced to assist young couples defray the initial and not small costs of a new child. The fertility of young Australian couples was low, they were struggling with the cost of living and the bonus helped. The population boom is migrant driven. The 'diversity' you have when you force your own young couples to put off having children indefinitely. Rightly, Costello tried to help them. Wrongly, this government has spent so much money elsewhere, including broadcasting dollars overseas as aid, that it cannot afford to help its own citizens.

Proof that the baby bonus helped increase the number of young Australian couples havng children is in the present prediction that its abolition will lead to a baby boom 10 months hence as couples try to get in before Gillard rips the bonus away from them.

But as most would recognise, the Gillard crew represent themselves: tertiary educated, elitist, middle class womyn. Eva Cox was right to remind them that Tony Abbott's parental leave would suit them $$better.

But what Eva Cox forgets is that so many of the leftie womyn on Emilys List are well over the hill already. They are now looking for affirmative action leg-ups to company boards to serve them into their dotage and are not interested in pushing for Australia in some labour ward. Hmmm, I wonder how many of them have Anna Bligh bobbleheads to remind them how to manage their super entitlements and career leaps post September '13?