I have a friend in Western Sydney who works in the funeral services and after loosing three foetus herself has decided that mothers need time to grieve and the feotus is given a funeral service. She conducts the service and gives comfort counselling. My pastor of 20 years past received a deralect couple she had aborted and came to him with the infant in a shoe box for a burial service. These mothers considered their foetus human and worth grieving the loss.

The thing that really gets me about this is the utilitarian attitude -a wanted child - and there is a crime if the unborn child is killed in utero,
but - incovenient(and that is a small word to cover all the reasons that the child is a problem for already born people) - and abortion is fine.
That is why Peter Singer's argument - although repugnant - is very logical.

Bring on the male pill. All of the methods that Suze mentioned have problems. Women have the pill, so should men.

Men should also have a right to a legal abortion. We should have the right to sign a document, recinding our rights and responsibilities over any unborn baby.

The man in the story did the wrong thing, but I can empathise with someone who is about to have his life turned upside down and who is powerless to change what is happening.

just people dreaming up reasons for their vulgar actions.

Benk, the man could have kept it in his pants or used a condom if he definitely didn't want to make a baby?

If any person wants to have unprotected sex with another unprotected person, then they BOTH need to suffer the consequences.

In these days of sexual enlightenment, simply saying that the girl should have taken care of the contraception is not enough.

I wouldn't trust that men would take the contraceptive pill properly , and it is the women who would have the most to lose if there was an unwanted pregnancy.

Men can't be trusted to use condoms properly as it is.
Hence, the reason why we have no male contraception pill...

Suzie you are letting the misandry show again. Yeah I know you like them men in your life but your statements convey a strong sense of sexism.

As to the points being discussed.
If its murder when the woman wants it to be murder then its never a lump of fetal tissue, if its fetal tissue then its not murder. The idea that it's human if the woman wants to carry it to birth and not human otherwise does not make any sense.

If its good enough for men to carry long term responsibility as a result of a consentual sexual act then it's good enough for women as well.
If we accept that both genders are capable of making a poor choice (and don't believe conception equals a new human life) then as far as possible both genders should have choice about the long term consequences to themselves. The idea that women should have ongoing choice but that the males choice stops at the sex act is sexist junk.

Misandrist attitudes such as yours undermine the whole argument for reproductive choice becuase you so readily dismiss the concept of choice when it comes to men.

R0bert