The movie 'unplanned' is based on a brave young woman who was a Director of Planned Parenthood. After she was asked to help out murdering a young baby she became pro life instead of pro death. Strangely enough the movie received an R rating. Apparently you can have your baby killed at a young age without parental consent but you can't watch a true life account of the horrors of killing babies. No wonder Trump is showing some decency in defunding this horrible organisation.

I read about this recently, runner. It's always comforting that some of the young and naive, who have been brainwashed and verballed by the nasties, come to their senses when faced with reality. It's not comforting, though, to be reminded that abortion seems to be supported
by Australian society as perfectly normal; an important achievement for what is called feminism.

I was reminded that our society, via the court system, aided the baby killers by ruling that protestors against abortion could not approach one of the killing clinics closer than 150 metres. This is the same society that has no qualms about thugs harrassing, attacking and physically preventing people from entering venues to hear conservative speakers. The Victorian government even sends a bill to organisers for the protection they do not get from police. We become more backward and barbaric every day.

'I was reminded that our society, via the court system, aided the baby killers by ruling that protestors against abortion could not approach one of the killing clinics closer than 150 metres'

yeah ttbn and Vegan protestors or terrorist can trespass, steal and destroy business's and get a slap over the wrist by pathetic activist judges.

I must admit I am torn by this issue. Both sides have good points. But the traditional context seems to rule against the females. Very torn.

Well, two-sided argument but when abortion is not allowed you end up with runners & starving to death children !
I am against abortion for convenience of course but if I had to choose between a healthy family & a starving one then i would agree to abortion !
My personal preference is birth control up front in the first place.

'Well, two-sided argument but when abortion is not allowed you end up with runners & starving to death children !'

seen how long the adoption list is Individual? dishonest, unscientific arguments are over ruled by irrational people and in the case of planned parenthood deceitful practices making money by killing the unborn. The movie is well worth watching however has not arrived in Aussie yet.

Runner,

Just asking, but if abortion was illegal, and women had to have their babies, should the fathers be required to pay for their maintenance until the kids were, say, eighteen ? Plus a mother's living allowance, of course ?

Or are you proposing that, since the girl has got herself pregnant (as the saying goes, like immaculate conception), she is at fault entirely (and she should have done A or B to avoid pregnancy) and should either bear the costs of raising the child herself, OR put the child up for adoption ?

Are those your options: paternal obligations; OR no paternal obligations but entirely maternal obligations; OR adoption out ?

Joe

'Just asking, but if abortion was illegal, and women had to have their babies, should the fathers be required to pay for their maintenance until the kids were, say, eighteen ? Plus a mother's living allowance, of course ?'

Hi Joe

by raising the cost of bringing up 'unwanted babies' we might as well murder one year old babies after useless fathers desert them. Much of the American Africans would not have survived. And don't give me totally unscientific nonsense about a' fetus' not being a person. True science absolutely debunks that made up myth. They tried to name Jews as non human in the same way.

A life is totally precious as many who could easily have been murdered would tell you. As the ex director of planned parenthood has revealed the abortion industry is one cruel, callous, dishonest industry that lies to young girls. If we can spend billions on myths like man made climate change surely we can find loving parents and pay for 'unwanted' kids.

surely we can find loving parents and pay for 'unwanted' kids.
runner,
Tragically, this is one of the greatest challenges out there because people don't just "love" a child because it is an orphan or unwanted.
An abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy must surely be more humane than watching them starve to death on TV ?
I just watched "The World from above" episode from around the Mediterranean & looking at these concrete jungles full of miserable humans spewing their hordes across the sea to Europe made me think of abortion being the most humane option.
Mass sterilisation would be another option. We have passed the point of compassion & are heading towards the inevitable if we persist on believing it won't affect us here within this decade.

Hi Runner,

You've answered questions that I didn't ask. I look forward to your answering the questions that I did ask :)

No rush :)

Cheers,

Joe

One would think that, with modern sex education and reliable contraception, there would be no need for abortion. But, it seems, people remain stupid, unable to restrain themselves, animalistic, ignorant of right and wrong etc. The human being hasn't really evolved much since Adam and Eve lost control of themselves.

Runner,
I simply cannot understand why there are so many abortions in Australia (100,000 pa).
We have reliable contraception and even the morning after pill.
So it simply has to be irresponsibility of some females that use abortion as a means of birth control.

I think it reasonable for abortion to occur for genuine medical reasons but not for the general run of 'on demand'.

Hi Henry,

Yes, many females are quite irresponsible like that. They deserve to be lumbered with a kid for eighteen years. Sluts.

Fortunately, men are as innocent as babes. They have no part to play, and therefore bear no responsibility at all. They probably always urge some form of birth control but are ignored by women. Sluts.

Joe

Joe,

Henry didn't suggest that it was all down to women to make the decisions and ensure proper control activities; you are letting your natural gallantry carry you away. You even piss in that awful Foxy's pocket because she is female, heaven's sake.

Ttbn,

No, I'm simply trying to ask whether or not Runner (and Henry) believe that, in the event that abortion was illegal, men have any role in financially supporting the mother and child until the child is able to support itself, say at eighteen.

Or should women have to bear all the costs, physical, financial, social, etc., of 'getting themselves pregnant' in the event that abortion is illegal ?

In other words, should the prohibition of abortion be a costless event for men ?

No rush, take your time :)

Joe

Joe,

The law already speaks to fathers paying child maintenance.

As for women “getting themselves pregnant”, well short of being raped, they do play a major part in the business. If they chose not to say 'no’ they should be on the pill. This is available now to females we regard as kids, without parental say so, thanks to the feminists and 'equality’ merchants. Then there's the morning after pill.

I have to say that any female getting pregnant other than deliberately has to be an idiot - someone who needs protection from the promiscuous society because they cannot handle it. They want the freedom, then they have to a accept the responsibility or the consequences.

Of course, that's probably too 'alt-right’ for you, and we can't have that sort of nonsense interfering with the 'rights’ of people to do anything they feel like, can we. Nanny should pick up the tab.

Joe

I am not avoiding your question as to men's responsibility of payment for upbringing of an 'unwanted' child. It's probably an issue you can't generalise on. Killing a human life is definitely you can generalise on especially when the vast majority is done for convenience (including monetary). There are actually cases where the father wants to save the baby from murder but is overruled by feminist law/dogma. I think many women would save themselves from much pain and future regret by adopting their child out. Of course callous organisations like planned parenthood who suck millions from the public purse would not encourage a decrease in funding for their murderous industry. I do hope people have the stomach to watch the movie when made available here in Australia.

Ttbn & Runner,

So the answer to the question: "In other words, should the prohibition of abortion be a costless event for men ? " is:

- "um, maybe not BUT .... since women can use the morning-after pill, and anyway adopt their babies out, therefore, well, maybe, eventually,

: yes."

If only I'd known that fifty years ago, as you imply, I could have shagged around to my heart's content :(

Joe

https://divermag.com/letter-to-the-women-of-the-world-by-hans-hass/

posted here several times before, never got any reaction.

Joe,

You missed or ignored: "The law already speaks to fathers paying child maintenance". The answers you ask for will not necessarily be the ones you want to hear.

individual,

Your reference can't be opened in that form.

ttbn,
just google Dr Hans Hass letter to the women of the World

Ttbn,

That's it ? Like it or not, the woman has the baby and then has to care for it for eighteen years or so ? The bloke continues building up his career, paying just a portion of his income in maintenance, while the woman puts her career on hold ?

IF abortion was illegal again, I wonder what proportion of men would actually do that ?

And of course, the other option is adoption out: so a woman invests her body and her love for a child, and then gives it up ? The bloke may never feel anything, or have to do anything, about the child ? Or even have to pay anything except maybe legal costs ?

Doesn't sound quite equal to me ......

Joe

individual,

I read it. Yes, we need to control the population - without abortion.

To Individual- Yes I read this before too (letter-to-the-women-of-the-world-by-hans-hass) very interesting article. Thanks for providing it. Very thought provoking.

ttbn & Canem Malum,
Hass's philosophy was guided by healthy logic & mentality rather than bandwagon knee-jerking as is the more recent mentality of many educated.
He could understand that natural instincts are overriding every superstition & idealism.
The human body is designed to just breed nilly-willy without consideration for the future prospects for the new life they create.

The human population reduction and the extremist climate fears are linked, and the elite push both as they make money, and make both moral behaviour. Note it is the young that is lobby for both not realising that they were potential abortions. That is why genocide in some minds is legitimate as it was in Germany.

Western women generally only has one to three children, which is a natural maintenance of human population. Governments should not fund family child support beyond three children in care, beyond that it is the responsibility of the parents.

Have a look at Insight on SBS Tuesday night 23/4/19.

Movie Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgihy0gAUps

Woman who organised 28,000 abortions changes her mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1Dcw2tJczI

The female human body is designed to produce & that design has been challenged by evolving medicine. When many newborn didn't naturally make it to age 5, another baby took their place. Since medicine's progress more & more are now living to an older age hence the overpopulation we have now.

Abortion is the only industry where human genocide has been made acceptable. It satisfies those with fear of overpopulation and climate effect caused by humans. The agenda is to kill off humans without conscience. What we need is to teach human responsibility and sacredness of life within family structures.

The agenda is to kill off humans without conscience.
Josephus,
I don't believe that to be the case with abortionists, only with certain religious zealots !
There wouldn't be abortions if there was another way !

His mother made a choice to leave him without limbs.

http://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-survivor-missing-limbs-choice/?fbclid=IwAR3YDHvrD8JUk3uX5B3cJXo3FZZBw2gziSuJLSJtV5E0TNozeOCexg-57Pw

This is the facts as abortionists see destroying babies.

http://www.liveaction.org/news/celebrated-abortionist-carhart-jokes-about-breaking-babies-apart-with-pickaxes-and-drill-bits/#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=5cbd2feb67a3a6af&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

Josephus,
These are horrifying links, but this needs to be shown to those who are against legal & above all professional medical abortion !
That's the sort of Sex education that is needed not just showing how unwanted babies are made.

strange how Joe can justify in his mind the killing of innocent children just because costs are not shared equally. Just shows that even people who are normally rational can be irrational when justifying evil.

Hi Runner,

Not sure what you're referring to. No, i don't believe an embryo is a person, if that's what you're getting at.

But apart from that, once a baby has been born, yes, it will usually be the mother who will raise it. My question was more to do with the father's responsibilities, and the differential impacts on the mother's and father's careers - that giving birth and raising a child may be necessary once a woman becomes pregnant, but that it is still a very unequal world for men and women as far as that goes.

Joe

runner,
That Russian boy would more than likely prefer to have had his abortion completed rather than live without limbs.
Such a handsome lad having to suffer through this just because some religious zealots don't approve of proper medical assistance is heartbreaking !
n.b. I'm not talking from the poor mother's perspective, I'm talking about that poor young fellow.

To Individual.

From what I've seen. People with a disability still have the same yearning to live as anyone else does. They might not like the disability, but they still want to live. In fact I see inspiring reports occasionally on the news about a person born with one issue, or deal with another health condition later in life, who become an inspiring subject to report on be cause they make it work somehow. They want to continue on and keep on living.

Granted these stories might be the only ones I've seen because their the only ones I've been exposed to through news stories. But even so I haven't met anyone that was born with a physical or mental disability that didn't want to live. They might want an easier life, but they still want to live.

Just something to think about when making the decisions for potential aborted babies.

Not_Now.Soon,
Of course, once being brought into the world no-one including I wants to stop living. What I was saying is that, in hindsight, many people would prefer they hadn't been brought into this world in the first place with such horrific handicaps.
Existence is highly overrated whilst living standard is underrated.

Individual

u obviously have not heard of the Australian born nick Vujicic.

Born without arms and legs he lives life more to the full than most 'able' bodied people.

runner,
do you know how many able-bodied people kill themselves every day ?

To Runner

Thanks for mentioning Nick Vujicic. Looked him up and was glad to see his testomy in the life he has.

To Individual.

I haven't met anyone who wishes they weren't born because of a handicap. I've met many with depression that are not handicapped at all, and those who are depressed with a handicap. But the depression isn't always about that handicap. Wish life was easier; wish they had what they see other people have; even to wish away any kind of failure they hold. These reasons of depression reach both able bodied people as well as people with a handicap. And many people from both able bodied and handicapped populations are able to rise out of their depressions. They don't end their lives.

With this in mind, you and I have no right to take that decision from them and make it ourselves. You don't know how anyone will turn out. Abortion on the basis of looking out for the person being denied the right to live, is a very deceitful way to look at it. There's nothing true about the approach, but instead ignores the examples that prove the reasoning to be in error.

Do be that way and hold this reason for abortion to be for the person's benifit. After all, if the logic of killing out of kindness can be applied to a baby before it's born. Why is it so unthinkable to kill a baby after it's born. When the parents and doctors can see the disability they are born with? The logic for abortion is never for the one being aborted.

To Individual.

Sorry for the error. In the last paragraph, I meant for the first sentence to read "do not be that way..." Instead of "do be that way..." Sorry if this made it hard to read or caused confusion.

The logic for abortion is never for the one being aborted.

Not_Now.Soon,
The subject of severe disability is literally a taboo & the poor disabled suffer in silence.
My heart goes out every time I encounter someone who is totally dependent on a carer.
I can't help thinking that abortion would be more humane than knowingly bring a human being into this world & I'm sure many people affected secretly must have similar thoughts.
Once born every being wants to live but surely the prospect of a life of severe disability must be a consideration ?
There is a huge debate about euthanasia for the old & terminally ill whilst their sufferings continue yet the prevention of human suffering is taboo. It is not taboo when money can be made from inflicting suffering but is taboo when it can be prevented.
I'm fully aware that it is easier said than done when the time comes but I'd prefer to put a stop to it when I can't look after myself anymore. Of course people will always find exceptions for any reason & situation but I maintain that prevention is better than suffering & misery !

Most abortions today are of healthy babies, very few of genetically deficient. The agenda is to reduce human population to about one Billion people. China tried it with their one child policy.

The agenda is to reduce human population to about one Billion people.
Josephus,
I find that logic rather far fetched. If Govts with all the conniving resources available to them, then why instigate wars ? They could simply make us sterile & blame it on GW or similar & be done with it. Yes, healthy fetuses not babies, are being aborted for convenience in our selfish feminist society. The abortions that go so horribly wrong are unfortunately, in situations where there is simply no way of the mother to look after another baby.
The blame lies solely at the feet of those who could help but won't. Such as anti abortionists who don't go & help a poor mother take care of her children. Religions that breach high morals but don't lift a finger to help a mother in distress. Vogue compassion is one of the most hypocritical afflictions of the modern feminist society !

Hi Individual,

I wonder if, when the Great Day comes and medical advances allow men to get pregnant, there will be a strange and inexplicable call from men to liberalise abortion laws.

But clearly, once that medical option is available, many men would rush to get pregnant, and to be baby-and-child-carers for twenty-odd years, to put their careers on hold and to forego any superannuation contributions and growth. Even gays, I suppose.

That might solve Australia's problem of low birth-rates.

Joe

Loudmouth,
how'd you get them to put children before the almighty Dollar ?

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“I can't help thinking that abortion would be more humane than knowingly bring a human being into this world & I'm sure many people affected secretly must have similar thoughts.”

I will admit to having similar thoughts when I was younger. I was very soundly disavowed of the notion by a close relative in the disability field who told me of the very full lives many of her clients experience even though they had severe disabilities from birth. Perhaps there is a distinction with people who suffer severe disabling impacts later in life but for those she worked with there was far less self pity displayed than in her wider friendship group.

This is what the religious far right in the US has managed to achieve in regards to abortion;

Quote

The Trump administration's opposition to abortion has led to the watering-down of a UN resolution on ending sexual violence in war.
The US removed all references to sexual and reproductive health.
The Security Council resolution, submitted by Germany, dropped all such references. The US, along with China and Russia, had threatened to veto it.

The Trump administration opposed a phrase on the grounds that it implies support for abortion.

The amended resolution passed 13-0, with Russia and China abstaining.

French UN ambassador Francois Delattre was scathing of the decision to exclude the reference to sexual health, saying it undermined the dignity of women.

"It is intolerable and incomprehensible that the Security Council is incapable of acknowledging that women and girls who suffered from sexual violence in conflict, and who obviously didn't choose to become pregnant, should have the right to terminate their pregnancy," he said.

The removed phrase read: "Recognizing the importance of providing timely assistance to survivors of sexual violence, urges United Nations entities and donors to provide non-discriminatory and comprehensive health services, in line with Resolution 2106."
This line was thought to be a compromise from an earlier version, which included a more detailed description of the health services, "including sexual and reproductive health, psychosocial, legal, and livelihood support".
End quote.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48028773

So women and girls who have suffered the trauma of being raped in war time can not be assisted but instead face carrying the pregnancy full term impacting their health and social inclusion.

All because of the sexual hangups of people like runner.

Just brilliant.

'All because of the sexual hangups of people like runner.'

thanks for attributing me with so much power Steelie. I thinks it's more likely the new generation of young who are repulsed by the way your mob have slaughtered millions through organisations like planned parenthood. They are happy not to trash biology and see through your fake rage.

the very full lives many of her clients experience even though they had severe disabilities from birth.
Steele Redux,
This is an impossible argument but I stand by my stance that prevention is better than suffering even though the person who makes a living out of looking after disabled people says her client has a full life !

Steele Redux,
There were two programmes on TV last night on that very subject & two of the disabled stated that they required at least two people every day to keep them going. One said "you still have a brain so, use it !" Neither of them gave me the impression they were living a full life !
I just find it so sad that people are knowingly brought into this world to suffer when a professional abortion could have have prevented that. Once born, every being wants to live & it's too late to prevent the suffering then !
To some this may sound callous & heartless but to it is more callous & heartless to watch people suffer. I suppose the only phrase that could possibly be used in such situations is "you got to be cruel to be kind ".
It's just too awful a situation from my perspective !

a couple of points Individual.

You appear to be taking what you see as the high moral ground as far as unborn with disabilities. Here we are talking about 2 or 3 per cent of abortions? And so even if what you were saying that abortion is morally right (and I definitely disagree with you) in thee cases, its a very poor argument to justify the other 95 plus percentage being butchered for convenience. Adoption waiting list is very long. Instead we are importing some cultures that breed much but are not good citizens. Look at Europe who have aborted millions of babies while welcoming large populations of people who hate the West.

The other thing I will mention is a friend of mine who was pregnant and told her baby could well have down syndrome. She sought my advice as a friend. I told her down syndrome or not the babies life was precious. My wife has a down syndrome brother who is a delight. Anyway it turned out the 'experts' were wrong with this women's baby. It was perfectly healthy somewhat to my relief.

Before Australia was colonised Indigenous kids who were handicapped were at times clubbed due to practical reasons. I thought we had progressed beyond that barbarity.

runner,
I don't get what your point is because you're all over the place with this.
What I am saying is that if it can be ascertained early in pregnancy that the foetus is not normal then an abortion will save a life of anguish for mother & child & families & support agencies. That is not taking the moral high ground, that is just plain logic & selfless.
Anyone not seeing this in the right light better look for another planet to live on !

'Anyone not seeing this in the right light better look for another planet to live on !'

a planet without the disabled?

To Individual.

What Runner said about the child thought was going to have Down syndrome actually turned out healthy, this goes into the same reasoning I gave earlier for removing their choice to live before they have the chance to make it.

You don't know how they will turn out.

......

On an other aspect about abortion. Abortion is presented as something done for the woman, rejecting the baby. It's for her life, for her struggles and for her to not have to pay the hardships of being a mother before she's ready or before she wants it.

This is the real heart of abortion. And this Istael stance where the majority of people who get abortions stand from. It's not for the babies welfare, for their health, or for them to not suffer. It's for the mothers welfare. This is a very important aspect to consider because her welfare is important.

The shame in getting pregnet before marriage, or any time that is thought to be wrong should not be a great enough burden to kill the baby before their born. Nor should the hardship of being a mother be the same great hardship pressed on those pregnet, to make them scared enough to kill their baby before they are born. Though the hardship and or the shame that are presented as part of the reasons millions a year use abortion (again it should be stressed that abortion is to kill the babies before they are born), those reasons should not be strong enough to consider killing a baby. Neither before they are born, nor after they are born.

(Continued)

(Continued)

None the less. These are the issues that are facing young women in our addictively oversexed societies. They should not be ignored or be even greater burden either. Anyone who sees the value of life and values the life of a child should have the sense to not make abortion the solution to the issues making women choose abortion. There needs to be other alternatives. Discipline to abstain from sex, or at least use protection if they do. That should be a great enough priority for people so the issues of abortion don't have to be faced. There should be a cultural change to actually move against sex at any time in any way you want it kind of philosophy. At least that much to end the deaths caused every year through abortion.

Either way though you've heard it from several people that they've seen many people who have a severe disability and don't think of it as suffering. They just live life as they've always lived it. Probably much like a person born blind or born deaf would learn to live that way, because that's all they've known. It's not suffering. It's just harder. The disability of the child is no reason for abortion. Not one that meats the realities of their lives, nor the reason why the abortions occure.

a planet without the disabled?
runner,
Opportunistically mis-stated, a planet without disabled is more to the point.
I'm certain that every disabled person alive now would totally agree with that !

Is a fertilised egg a human being ? Then I suppose a morning-after pill would be out. In fact, to take the issue to an extreme, maybe some might object to any contraception, since, after all, every sperm is sacred.

Or is an embryo a human being ? i.e. in the first trimester of pregnancy ?

Okay, once an embryo has developed into a foetus, (around three months ? My school biology is pretty rusty), especially if such a foetus has developed to the point where it could exist outside the womb, with IC, then abortion becomes a bit more touchy.

But let's be honest: women are the human beings who have to cop all the disadvantages of carrying a baby to term, and most likely of raising it for the next twenty years or so. Men don't have much of a role in any of that usually.

So I'm not sure if men have any right to dictate to women what they can or can't do with their bodies, UNLESS the bloke is prepared to be the full-time carer while the mother resumes her career, OR the bloke is prepared to financially support the mother in comfort, as well as contribute to the superannuation that she would have earnt if she had continued working.

After all, the woman bears the child for nine months, then goes through the pain of childbirth (and the sleeplessness of raising a baby). I'm not sure if men can match that.

Joe

Loudmouth,
I agree, all those supposedly male limp-wristed social justice warriors should be kept in some public toilet & let the women get on with their decision making.

Had an old friend drop in today who happened to work in those facilities where many unfortunate disabled were looked after when their families couldn't.
I was absolutely stunned at what I learned. Later on I thought that that would be an opportunity for a Non-military National service to get involved in & make people realise what reality looks like. It'd certainly instil a more sincere mentality in those who come away from such services.
They could also be engaged with drug abusers & delinquents. In fact any services that require a dose of stark reality should engage 18-20 year olds & or young long-term welfare recipients.

No more posts ? I apologise if I took the sexiness out of disability vogue compassion !

To Individual

What more is there to talk about? Both you and Loadmouth have used the line used against men having an opinion. (Or at least you agreed with it). Here is the logic as I've seen it when it comes to any issue that relates to women. Whether it's abortion, equal rights, or even in some cases just male bashing. The logic? If you're a man and agree with us you are a real man. If you don't agree, your trash and your opinion doesn't matter. Here's the truth of that logic. They don't want a man's opinion UNLESS it is in line with their own.

Regarding abortion and parenting, yes it is a greater burden on women instead of men. There are things we can do about this.

•Protect your women and raise your girls up to resist the culture on sex. In the same way we teach our children to not hit when they get mad; something taught to resist the impulse of giving it up way too early in any relationship should be something taught. Do this and abortion doesn't have to be the industry that it is today.

•If a girl is pregnant, cut the shame, the teasing, or otherwise embarrassing comments that come up. This is a cultural thing and feeds the drive to hide it to give in to abortion.

•At the same time, give her the options on having the child as well. Let her know that this will be more difficult, but give her the knowledge of both what they have supporting them if they make the decision to not abort. I would even go as far as telling them a person who has been in her shoes and raised their child, or gave them up for adoption, instead of aborting. Then have the girl talk to that other woman. As of now the abortion clinics tell how difficult it will be to have a child and nothing else. They scare girls into giving into abortion regardless if they wanted to choose it or not.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Do these three things and who knows maybe abortion won't be making as much of a killing as it does today.

We can do more then only offer abortion and scare girls into agreeing, and we should do more then that. For the sake of the women and the girls there should be more done both before the unplanned pregnancy and after the surprise pregnancy.
________________
As for those that are disabled. I stand by what I've already said. You don't know how they will turn out before they are born. However, if it is a reasonable excuse to kill them before they are born then why is it so horrible to do it after they are born? The real reason? Out of sight out of mind. Abortion should not be the first solution that it has become today.

Last thought:

Abortion isn't a woman's choice. It's an industry. It makes a lot of money and feeds on the fear and shame of unplanned pregnancy. Which in tune unplanned pregnancy feeds on an over sexed society that doesn't say no. Thus making abortion is the answer. It makes a killing, both in the literal sense, as well as the money sense as well. Why does this not sicken you?

Not_Now.Soon,
Sounds fine to me. What do you think of my other proposal to make young people serve in a non-military national service that includes looking after disabled people ?

Not_Now.Soon appears to have lost interest so the door is open to Steele Redux et al to give us their opinion or even offer solutions on a service that includes helping disabled people.

Individual.

I like the idea, but I don't know about the nuts and bolts of the national service. In other words how to make it work, or if it would work. A few issues would be about how is it payed for, the tax for paying for it, and the pay that the national service would give to the young people serving come to mind. I'm not familiar with either tax codes, or on work labor laws. So therefore, my opinion is of no merrit for the issue.

The idea is also going away from the topic of abortion. So while I like the idea, I don't have any insight on helping it come into being, or if it will last; and it is no longer about fixing the issues that cause abortion.

Not_Now.Soon,
I appreciate your input. Paying for a national Service should be neither here nor there. Other countries do it.
It should only be for say 18-20 or 19-21 year olds who are unemployed & only run around the streets with no aim nor any direction. They're costing us more in drug treatment & crime then what it'd cost to send them out doing meaningful work-life experience.
I'm certain that the majority would actually enjoy being out & about & interacting in the community rather than just mill around in their dim, closed circles. There are weeds & pests to be eliminated, waterways to be cleared, walking tracks to be cleared etc etc etc. They could be involved in anything community orientated whilst on Welfare payments. It'd open their eyes & minds to things they'd otherwise never dream of. It'd be a win, win, win situation !