Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Tony Powers, sadly, I expected you to respond in the manner that you did.

"Bob Wall: Tony Powers You wrote:
... then there seems little point in trying to discuss the matter with you."

I repeat, you chose to engage me. Nothing wrong with that. My comment that no one asked you to engage me in debate in no way indicates that I wanted a private conversation.

Bob, your posting an opinion on a public website, that is set up specifically for discussion, is an implied invitation to engage."

Gibberish. Read it back to yourself. You included my disclaimer but then proceeded to make a totally redundant statement.

"Bob: To make a judgment about my debating methods in your first post to me poses the question as to why you elected to engage me.

I did not make a judgment about your debating methods, but rather about your trying to draw a comparison between innocents killed unintentionally in a war and innocents killed intentionaly through abortions."

OK, semantics. But still, your choice. As to your definitions, they are contestable. Others have dealt with the child/foetus issue I will deal with the "innocents killed unintentionally in war."

"Yes it would be my choice to step in Bob, but the bit of my example you “conveniently” left out was the bit about the innocent 3rd party being injured. My intent in stepping in was NOT to injure the 3rd party. What YOU are implying, with regard to the COW’s choice in invading Iraq (by comparing the unintentional deaths there to the intentional deaths of abortion), is that the killing of innocent 3rd parties was intentional."

I did not "conveniently" leave out anything. The fundamental point I am making is one of establishing that an action is a matter of choice. You have agreed with me on that. The reasons or rationale for the choice you would make in that situation are extraneous and superfluous to the issue of it being a matter of choice.

My point was that there is an apparent inconsistency in opposing abortion yet supporting war, in particular, a war of choice. It would be unusual if a state went to war and did not expect to kill people. So to choose to go to war, to wage a war of aggression, is to knowing you are going to kill people. It would seem an undeniable corollary at minimum. Moreover, part of the process is to deliberately target the defence forces, this would seem to entail trying to kill at enough of them to achieve victory. So a state intends to kill people. Pause for a moment before react in a predictable way. Here's a hypothetical:

A state is at peace and has not attacked or intending to attack another state. Yet another state bombs its defence headquarters killing defence personnel. Are they innocent victims?

On the issue of deaths in of third parties in Iraq as a result of the war, it is a sad result of modern warfare. States go to war knowing that it is highly probable that non-combatants will be killed, even when efforts are made to avoid such eventualities. So to wage a war of choice is taking on the responsibility for such deaths, despite trying to avoid it by use of terms such as "collateral damage".

"The COW’s reasons for invading Iraq (valid or otherwise) had everything to do with Hussein (WMD, unco-operative with inspections etc), so he is not extraneous to the reasons as to why the COW chose to invade Iraq."

Saddam is however, and I have to repeat this point, extraneous and superfluous to the fundamental argument that it was a war of choice.
Refer again to my above response to your analogy.

I have tried to make a fundamental point about choice yet you seem unable or unwilling to deal with that. This time please pause to think about what I have written. If you still cannot see the points, basic as they are, how do you expect people to take seriously any position you devise for such a complex issue as abortion?

In response to Stuart Lord's comment, does the woman have any say? She makes an informed, difficult decision based on all your concerns and many more.

Why should she have to make your decision? Is she just your breeding machine?

Tony Powers: "Speaking for myself, I can say that I don’t support the teaching of sex education to kids, and the promotion of contraceptives, precisely because teaching them how to have sex and providing them with the means to have 'safe' sex completely undermines any attempt to encourage them not to have sex. Providing sex education that says all contraceptives are 'safe' would only encourage them to experiment believing nothing could happen. However it’s common knowledge the all contraceptives are NOT 100% foolproof. Therefor the promotion of abstinence is the only 100% safe way of ensuring no 'unwanted' pregnancies. I have no problem with people of sufficient age and maturity being taught sex education."

I can only assume you have never been given any formal sex eduation. In fact well taught sex education does not teach that all contraceptives are safe. The effectiveness of each method is discussed as are the risks. Good sex education also includes discussion of whether a person should have sex and the emotional implications of such a decision.

And the statistics do not back up your belief. Children who are told that abstinence is best and are not provided with proper sex eduacation are more likely to contract an STD or experience an unwanted pregnancy.

Currently there is a big debate going on in the US about abstinence teaching vs. sex education. Here is a useful starting point: tgorski.

Bob Wall, I was going to go into another point/counter point post, but I’ll (try to) keep it short.

As I see it, your point is that by choosing to invade Iraq the COW formed an intent to kill (if only combatants). I agree. The question then becomes is that EVER justified, and if so was it justified in this case? I would submit that waging war can sometimes be justified (e.g. WWII) where the potential for destruction & death is seen as the “lesser of two evils” (hopefully no-one has a problem with believing that the Nazis were a great evil that couldn’t be allowed to spread/survive).To draw a comparison, where a pregnancy goes wrong and becomes a matter, of either the mother or the child dying, it is also acceptable for the mother/parents to decide on a course of action that would end one or other life.

Subsequently, I also believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified in that Hussein (and his merry bunch of henchmen/family) was a significant threat not only to his own people, as has been widely documented, but also to his neighbours, as also has been widely documented. Add to that the belief that they were developing WMD’s (supported circumstantially by the fact they weren’t co-operating fully with the inspectors) then there was reason to believe that there was sufficient threat to justify the invasion, in my opinion.

My Bottom Line: All life is sacred/precious, but in extreme circumstances there may be reason to take life (eg. Self Defence). Where you are dealing with a murderous regime it may be a matter of choosing the lesser of two, apparent, evils. With Abortion, apart from the circumstance raised above, there is very often, very little justifiable reason for killing the unborn child.

I hope I’ve understood your point correctly this time. I also hope I’ve made my position clear.

Michelle, I said I didn't have a problem with Sex Ed being taught to people of sufficient age/maturity. My main problem is having it taught to younger impressionable kids.

Tony Powers, we are not driven to have sex by the need to procreate otherwise people who are not in a position to procreate with each other (older people, gays and lesbians) would neither want to have sex nor would they have sex.

Human sex serves a large number of functions apart from just procreation otherwise humans would only need to come on heat at appropriate times as other mammals do. After all in evolutionary terms if the purpose of coupling is merely to pass on genetic material it would probably make sense that only periodic oestrus and receptiveness occurs so that humans would then be getting on with seeking food and looking after any offspring without that pesky urge to couple popping up.

This is not what occurs of course. Human females are receptive to sexual activity even during menstruation.

Of course people are often periodically abstinent between relationships by choice or if a partner is absent for some reason, but I assume that your definition of celibacy includes refraining from masturbation or any other autoerotic activity.

The fact that humans do not behave in this way and the fact that women usually enjoy sex during pregnancy suggest that maybe the sex drive is there for some other purpose than just spreading your genes.

So under your scenario a parent has no right to convey basic sex education to their children? Such as answering the "How did the baby get there Mummy?" question my two year old asked me when I was pregnant with No two?

Oh dear, perhaps the large number of parents here have been mistaken all these years in their wish to give factual information to their children. Maybe we should have waited for them to procreate through ignorance.

I notice you have not addressed the social justice aspects of creating a child-and-family-friendly society either. Nor have most of your Coalition of the No fellow travellers. It seems that if parenthood is so great then the societal supports for it should be better.

You also said:

"If women want to sleep with every man they meet, that’s their choice and they will have to answer for it in the end."

Answer to whom? Do men 'answer' to someone too? Most adults have a number of consensual relationships in their lifetimes.

I doubt if women facing an unwanted pregnancy would have 'chosen' for the pregnancy to happen. That's the difference between that situation and some of the activities you mention such as narcotic use.

What has paying car registration to do with abortion anyway?

Tony, you are getting closer to my point but still digressing in justifications and rationales that are extraneous to the simple fact of determing whether a course of action was one of choice or not.

It is a simple Yes or No, True or False proposition.

Then we get to possible inconsistencies if one person is pro-war yet anti-abortion when both involve choice.

Iraq was a war of choice and not self-defence. To pursue a pro-war line without exhausting all other avenues undermines a moral stance against a woman's choice over her own body.

This is not the place to debate the Iraq war except to say that you are wrong in your comments. I suggest you go back to threads where this was debated and review them.

The abortion issue is complex. My view of the matter is that, as I wrote earlier, it is best left to the woman and those from whom she seeks help and advice. This is what the overwhelming majority of the Australian people have also decided.

Further detailed and pertinent aspects of the issue have been posted by others.

I will make special mention of Deb and her comments from the 'coal face'. You were very eloquent, Deb. Thank you.

Dee, I think we need to differentiate between the sex act and the function of the act. The function of sexual intercourse is to procreate. You said “we are not driven to have sex by the need to procreate otherwise people who are not in a position to procreate with each other (older people, gays and lesbians) would neither want to have sex nor would they have sex.” My point is that the desire to have sex (procreate) is intrinsic to all humans, indeed all animals. That is why anyone who is not in a position to procreate still seeks to have sex.

The act of having sex does indeed serve other functions, not the least being, frankly, it feels good, but it is these other functions that are the “side effects” of the sexual function (feeling good, expression of love etc). Proceation is the reason for the sexual function.

Further you suggest that “...humans would only need to come on heat at appropriate times as other mammals do..” Well, I’d have thought it obvious that humans are not like other mammals/animals. Women ovulate around once a month, thus leaving plenty of time to “then be getting on with seeking food and looking after any offspring”.

Dee: So under your scenario a parent has no right to convey basic sex education to their children? Such as answering the "How did the baby get there Mummy?" question my two year old asked me when I was pregnant with No two?

Dee, let’s not get hysterical here. I think it’s apparent from previous posts that when I was talking about “Sex Education” I was referring to “formal” courses, such as those given in School, not a parent talking to a child, which I would fully support. The parent/s are in the best position (hopefully) to decide the childs’ level of maturity and how much information is sufficient.
You didn’t mention what you told your 2 year old. Did you give him/her the full, unadulterated truth about how the baby got there? , or did you simplify it for him/her?

Dee: I notice you have not addressed the social justice aspects of creating a child-and-family-friendly society either. Nor have most of your Coalition of the No fellow travellers. It seems that if parenthood is so great then the societal supports for it should be better.

Yes they should be better. But they also have to be affordable. What we have isn’t perfect but it’s a whole lot better then what used to be in place even a decade or two ago.

Dee: You also said: "If women want to sleep with every man they meet, that’s their choice and they will have to answer for it in the end." Answer to whom?

Answer to God, and I meant to add “..as do we all”.

Dee: I doubt if women facing an unwanted pregnancy would have 'chosen' for the pregnancy to happen. That's the difference between that situation and some of the activities you mention such as narcotic use.

Anyone who chooses to pursue an action should also be aware of the possible consequences of that action, which is the point Bob Wall has been making.

Dee: What has paying car registration to do with abortion anyway?

Nothing, it s an example of how government/society regulation “interfere” in peoples lives, which was raised by someone else previously.

I have read some comments on abortion, and now I add my comment.

War, famine and starvation cause more damage and death of a foetus in the womb, than any other intervention by the human. Those humans who support war of any kind, cannot take the high moral ground on the issue of abortion. Those humans who sit on their hands, ignoring the plight of humans who do not have enough food to eat, cannot take the high moral ground on the issue of abortion.

The human is flawed, the female is less flawed because she is truer to nature, nuturer not destroyer, and for this reason she should have the final decision to abort or not abort a foetus. She has medical support today, and hopefully she will not have to resort to past practices, where she had to put her life at risk.

Tony, yes choice. People have options and the options they choose might raise questions about their moral or philosophical consistency.

"I gave some basic reasons as to why I thought the war was justified, you don’t agree? So what? I don’t make my mind up based on what you think. You may not agree with the rationale of my choices but that doesn’t make them wrong or inconsistent."

I suggested you review the threads where the war was debated. Look at the evidence. That is what makes your rationale wrong. The war was a war of aggression, a path chosen by the COW and was based on lies and fabrications. So look at the evidence ad make an objective analysis. If you can.

I note in your answer to Dee this comment:

"Answer to God, and I meant to add “..as do we all”.”

Somewhat presumptuous of you. Many people either do not believe in your god or a god.

Bob Wall, you say that “you are getting closer to my point but still digressing in justifications and rationales that are extraneous to the simple fact of determining whether a course of action was one of choice or not.

I’d have thought it self evident that any ‘course of action’ is initiated by a choice. We aren’t machinery; we don’t mindlessly act out a certain action at a certain time in a certain way regardless of circumstances. But, to say “rationales …are extraneous…” is nonsense, bordering on dishonesty.

Choices aren’t made in a vacuum. No-one I know simply makes a choice on a course of action without at least some small measure of pre-meditation. I feel hungry (rationale), I eat something (action).

You go on to say “Then we get to possible inconsistencies if one person is pro-war yet anti-abortion when both involve choice”. Every action involves choice as I’ve already said, so in both war & abortion a choice is made that will lead to the loss of life. But not all choices carry the same moral weight. It is sometimes the ‘lesser of two evils’ to take a life/lives in the belief that by doing so you are achieving a greater good. I gave some basic reasons as to why I thought the war was justified, you don’t agree? So what? I don’t make my mind up based on what you think. You may not agree with the rationale of my choices but that doesn’t make them wrong or inconsistent.

Tony can you reconcile yourself to the fact that a lot of people, probably most, are non-believers so your comment about God would be irrelevant to them? The real challenge is more about firstly creating a society friendly towards all sorts of positive human relationships. That is why one of the things we need is comprehensive non-judgemental sex education suitable for different stages of development in the context of personal health. Sometimes parents cannot, will not or do not deliver this.

For instance responsible parents do not wish to make the error Peter Kay makes in the famous John Smith's Babies (site) ad but neither is the answer to tell children nothing or to leave them open to misconceptions, guilt and fear. You will notice that in an earlier post I made about sex offenders that a significant number of offenders came from homes characterised by sexual knowledge based on punitive inaccuracy driven by such guilt and fear.

If the desire to procreate is a primary drive as you seem to think then you still have not reconciled the anomalies I have mentioned. I would venture to say that perhaps humans have evolved so that the primary drive is actually sex, not reproduction alone, and scientific studies promote the idea that sexual behaviour operated as a bonding and social mechanism amongst both humans and our close primate relations. Small and weak primates, however intelligent, did not as individuals have an advantage over large predators unless they banded together in social groups.

And yes Tony sex does feel good which is why people do it. In anatomical terms women do not require a clitoris to reproduce, nor do women need to orgasm to do so, but women have a clitoris and it is a complex enough organ in humans to suggest that it probably played a vital part in mate selection to the extent that it may have been the male who rocked her sensual boat who got to impregnate her.

The reproductive aspects of sex may well have been a side-effect since humans are not in reproductive terms all that successful. They do not produce large litters like those of the predators who hunted them, nursing mothers have large gaps between infants compared to other species and brain development in human babies takes place for a long time after birth. So obviously the care of young requires a cohesive group to be in place first. It wouldn't make sense in evolutionary terms to have our small primate ancestors as tiny nuclear families or sole mothers with helpless infants. They would have become extinct, principally from predator attack but also from vulnerability to natural disaster. So the cohesive group had to be there to protect and facilitate selection of attractive and genetically suitable males and their sperm.

And if one of the functions of males in a group was to protect pregnant or lactating females against predators or rival bands, maybe the function of older females was not just to assist in the rearing of offspring but to also engage the less sexually successful or "attractive" males in order to maintain group cohesion so that there would not be gangs of dissatisfied adolescent hominids ready to cause trouble.

My point about women ovulating was to show that women are sexually active and receptive all the time, unlike dogs or cats. In fact women are sexually active and receptive even when they cease ovulating, suggesting that reproduction is not their main function in your determinist model but that their sexuality in evolutionary terms can act as a moderator and as a facilitator.

And on the social justice aspects of parenthood in Australia you say "But they also have to be affordable." Obviously under Howard's preferred model they are for some given the anomalies in family support pointed out Patricia Apps (onlineopinion) but not for others, and those others represent the majority of existing or potential parents.

And bear in mind that government charges and penalties for all manner of activities, illicit or not, are often artificially created and cunningly disguised revenue raisers. Otherwise there would be uniform car registration charges across Australia, or none at all, and universal insurance after the New Zealand model would take care of third party accident claims.

Simon Moffitt, it’s no surprise that nobody has answered your questions, because there is no valid justification for the lack of paternal rights on the abortion issue.

Whenever the abortion issue is debated, there are always some extremists who insist that potential fathers should have no rights in the decision making process, and that they should just shut-up and support whatever the potential mother decides to do. In other words, men should have no rights but potentially should have plenty of very long term responsibilities.

The excuse for such an extreme position is usually that the mother carries the child, and nobody else should be able to impose nine months of pregnancy on her body against her will. Yet while it is intolerable to impose this nine month burden on a woman, the same people have no problem in imposing a twenty-year or more burden of child support on a man, when he is forced to father a child against his will. The burden on his body doesn’t matter, even though it lasts 25 times longer.

It’s no surprise that the so-called 'deadbeat dads' phenomenon sometimes results from this lack of gender equity in reproductive rights. And if these fathers complain, feminists tell them that they should take responsibility for their actions, as they have had the opportunity to decline having sex or to use contraception. Yet, unless it was a rape situation (in which case the loss of paternal rights is justified), the same argument applies to potential mothers – they could have avoided becoming pregnant by declining sex or by using contraception.

The result is that potential mothers can terminate pregnancies, without taking any notice of the opinions of the potential father. The so-called 'pro-choice' lobby doesn’t believe in providing any choice to potential fathers. I wonder how most women would react if men were also given a choice, and had the right to abort the reproductive process, via the withdrawal of their genetic material, resulting in pregnancies being terminated against the potential mother’s will? If abortion is to become a form of post-coital contraception, then why shouldn’t both partners have access to it?

However, all this injustice is consistent with other areas of reproductive law, which always demonstrates an imbalance in the rights and responsibilities assigned between men and women. A few examples follow.

In Texas, a woman asked her boyfriend for help in self-aborting her pregnancy, after her own previous attempts had been unsuccessful. His attempts were successful, and he has since been charged with murder. However the law does not recognise a woman killing her own unborn child, so she has not been charged. So much for the American constitution, and its claims of equal protection under the law.

Men’s reproductive rights have also been diminished in Europe, where precedent has been established to enable sperm to be taken without consent.

On the other hand, men’s reproductive responsibilities are being extended beyond any measure of common sense. In situations where women have deceived men into supporting other men’s children, instead of addressing the fraud, courts have ordered that these men must continue paying child support. This is supposedly based on the claim that a ‘paternal relationship’ has been established, but then they forcibly terminate this relationship by ending any visitation rights.

My position on abortion won’t make me any friends from the pro-death or the no-choice lobbies, but I believe that in most situations the decision to abort should only proceed based on a joint decision of both parents. If agreement can’t be reached, then the deciding factor should be the child’s welfare, as is meant to be the case with Family Law scenarios. The pregnancy should therefore continue to term, as it can be assumed that the child would not want to be dissected and thrown into a bin. Maybe that will mean that a reluctant mother will be subjected to nine months of pregnancy against her will or a reluctant father will be subject to many years of child support against his will. Too bad – both partners took the risk of such scenarios when they had sex, and the child’s welfare combined with the other partner’s desire for parenthood outweighs their objections.

While there may be some exceptional situations, such as rape or fatal medical risk to the mother, they can be catered for without destroying the basic policy.

If somebody can propose an alternative policy on abortion, that can better balance the rights and responsibilities for ALL of those involved (mother, father and child) in a fair and equitable manner, then I’m ready to hear it.

Tiu Fu Fong: “I see the difference as being that a flake of skin, left by itself without any conscious intervention by a human being, isn't going to develop into a human. That is, it requires an active decision to make that happen.

“On the other hand, a zygote has the potential to develop into a human being without any need for an active decision in relation to it (excluding the need for the mother not to stop eating or anything similar). For the zygote not to develop into a human being, an active decision is required to abort it (excluding natural self-abortion).”

But what of a zygote/embryo/foetus that does require active steps on the part of the woman carrying it in order for it to survive? Taking drugs (for example, for the common condition of gestational diabetes) or undertaking complete bedrest in order to avoid miscarrying? At that point, your criterion of activity/passivity falls down, so it seems to me you need something a little more substantial to make the ethical differentiation.

Phil Uebergang: “The zygote or foetus is the totality of the living creature, whereas a single cell from a mature creature is simply a part thereof. Chalk and cheese. A single cell bacteria's totality is the cell, just as with the zygote. One of its parts is its DNA, but the DNA alone is not the bacteria.”

The totality of the living creature? Do you seriously suggest that a four-celled organism equates to the 'totality' of a human child or adult? That's just nonsensical, sorry. There is no capacity for consciousness, for pain, for cognition, for mobility, for independence, experience; for, indeed, any of the criterion we commonly use to define humanity. All it has in common with the human being it might become is a full complement of DNA, but that is exactly my point about the increasingly likely situation of somatic cells being used for cloning. They too have a full complement of DNA, no more nor less than a fertilised germ cell, and precisely enough to form a human being. In plenty of species in which parthenogenesis occurs—and from whom we're not too distantly related—this is precisely what already happens: the replication of the mother's DNA.

My point in making this argument is not to argue that abortion is always morally right. I do not believe that it is. However, basing one's ethical stance on a fragile and false biological argument is foolish. Abortion is not something that fits into a tidy Yes or No analysis, since there are a range of social and psychological issues involved (unless you're coming from a faith-based position, in which case there isn't much point in arguing logic on the subject).

Tony Powers, you are aware, aren't you, that countries in which sex education is taught comprehensively from a young age (like the Netherlands) generally have a far lower level of teenage pregnancy and abortion than countries where it is denied and where 'abstinence' is taught (like the USA)? The classic scenario in the latter is that teenagers are utterly unprepared for sex and of course would never contemplate carrying condoms. So within months of 'pledging' their virginity, when they find their hormones overwhelming the dogma they've been fed, the sex they have is unprotected and pregnancy often results. So they either have abortions or they quickly get married (and such hasty, youthful marriages might well explain the high level of divorce in the US's 'Bible Belt' compared with other regions in that country).

You might find open and honest discussion about sex to be confronting, but you cannot deny the overwhelming statistical correlations. If you don't like the idea of abortions, I suggest you start liking the idea of comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception.

Tony Powers: "Michelle, I said I didn't have a problem with Sex Ed being taught to people of sufficient age/maturity. My main problem is having it taught to younger impressionable kids."

Why?

In the Netherlands, it's taught in school from around eight years of age.

And again, look at their teenage pregnancy/abortion rates.

Presumably, your objection can't come from that. So what is your objection?

Jaye , I don't believe women are necessarily more nurturing, or less flawed. I think it’s sad when men are not allowed to be nurturing. I've long hated masculine/feminine roles like that. I've been pushing against them for a long time now.

I think people my age are more androgynous and attitudes are changing quite fast. Many of the young women I meet are harder-edged, yet the men are softer-edged. It’s not always that way but it often is. There is almost a feminisation process of males, in some ways.

The whole truth, for me, I think is that I'm disturbed by assertive males and will try and undermine them, where as I'll promote assertive females and attack submissive ones. I've done it for a long time, though I couldn't explain why. I like Stuart's piece a lot - except for some parts which I've already discussed - because it asserts Fatherhood rights, without trying to be misogynistic.

Such issues are seldom discussed, honestly, or if they are it’s usually out of some deep well of anger from some "Angry Fathers" group, which is just an embarrassment. I think men go through many of the humiliations that women go through, it’s just not addressed. I think it'll start to shift once new mothers start getting concerned for their sons and demanding that something be done. I think women are increasingly dominating the education/business systems. They deserve to be because they're highly committed and ambitious. They are boring, too, but that can't be helped.

Anyway, I'm no destroyer, Jaye. There are things that I would like to see torn down, as barriers to progress, but otherwise the only thing I'd want is for every man or woman to be properly nurtured and to reach their full potential.

Bob Wall: I note in your answer to Dee this comment:
"'Answer to God, and I meant to add “..as do we all”.' Somewhat presumptuous of you. Many people either do not believe in your god or a god."

So because people don’t agree with my point of view, that makes it presumptuous? I find it presumptuous that you feel you comfortable denegrating others views simply because you don’t agree with them?

Dee: "Tony can you reconcile yourself to the fact that a lot of people, probably most, are non-believers so your comment about God would be irrelevant to them?"

I have no problem understanding that many people are non-believers, Dee. So What? If there is a God, and I believe there is, then we will all have to answer to Him whether we “believe” or not.

Roger Fedyk wrote on the old thread, "There seems to be a very timid approach from the P-L lobby where this current government is concerned. Why would that be?”

Hi Roger, sorry to take so long,
1.my computer was hit over the w/e and
2. I didn't see MK's note where all had gone, until I accidentally stumbled upon it.

It was a bit sad. Like leaving the party to get some more drink and coming back and no-one is there… sniff. Funnily enough, I am so sorry for the SMH. Webdiary gave me hope that they might stay more independent. What was it in the end? The advertisers? Any particular issues? Any particular off limit topics? What really got up their noses? Or was it what is coming?

It is Margo's fault I have had to take the red-or was it blue-pill after she linked to iraqwar.ru. during the prewar discussion. Speaking of scales falling off. Now I am terrified that they really will nuke Iran and bio China and impale upon their own sword. That is just such a conversation stopper at tennis.

To your astute observation and interesting question, Roger, which really is about power.

At what point can laws be made that are opposed by 80%(?) of the population? Why do it if it risks seats? Who benefits for this sticking out of one's political neck? They will do anything if:
-they will get away politically with it (controlled media, sweetened stories to Barbiefied it, suppressed or unreported, or vilify opposing/protesting groups, uninterested disengaged general population-"it doesn't effect me” or "protesting gets no where"-and the best one of all, the diebold voting machine with no paper trail)
-AND it pays, eg their backers, or guarantees votes in parliament or in the ballot box,

Even more scarily, it may fit with real ideology that is held passionately. Then it will happen regardless of above when it can.

There appears to be an eerie lock-step of policy and actions of the Triumvirates-Blair, Bush, Howard. The issues are remarkable in their echoing in all three and the legislation that follows, even the probable Rundle fed language is the same eg "cut and run" "Stay the course" etc that all three leaders polish off and out. This is appalling and suggests collusion. We are even having the same evolution debate. THAT is appalling and suggests medication.

The Lyons forum, the Opus Dei, the Family First org, the Assemblies of God are all religious organisations with fundamentalist Christian dogma that allow little grey area, either between black and white, and between the ears. It is worthwhile considering the increasing worldwide fundamentalist direction in every major religion group and the irony in how they support each other. Who would have thought the Bush Regime and the Vatican would have backed the Iranian on the hardline about women and their reproductive rights at the UN?

I suspect that favours are owed, and will be so. I suspect that if the agenda is demanded from the globalist triumvirate whip then it shall be so and no amount of protesting (not covered by media, just as the antiwar were distorted) will stop it being railroaded through. I hope I am wrong.

There, a long answer to a short question.

PS: would someone please lend Iran a dozen nukes to shut the warmongers up once and for all, just like they did in North Korea. Ha ,they thought they got’ em on that train. Missed and whoops up went the mountain "leaving a crater seen from space" and down went the war rhetoric.” we are now helping with peaceful nuclear power development”. Bet it was all to get Japan to put the 60 billion into the failed star wars program of military industry. Money and money and the power to get it and spend it and keep that power.
My serve.

Greg Weilo, I am sure you are somewhat surprised by the lack of response to your post. I am not! It is hard to argue against a well thought out position. I agree with you completly. It takes two to tango and it must take two deal with the consequences of that union.

The usual medical reason for proceeding with an abortion is the 'psychological' health of the mother yet no one ever questions the psychological health of the father either pro or against abortion. I would interested to know the views of men (if any) who have wanted to keep the child but were denied, or the other way where they are supporting a child they did not want but were forced to accept.

Tony, you have your belief, fine. I was not denigrating your belief merely pointing out that it is presumptuous to extend your belief to others who might not share that belief.

Surjit Wadhwa, here's a man's viewpoint
The Courier-Mail: 25aug05.

Hi Solomon,
In regard to your previous post in the former Webdiary. Here are the articles that you asked for. I have just had to learn hyperlink HTML and am wrecked, it seems so complex to this internet dummy!

Firstly a recent feature article in the ANJ here and
a some research for NSW nurses by the ACIRRT here (is it enough for a backflip?)
There was an interesting article in The Independent recently too from Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

ed Kerri: we appreciate the effort you went to, Deb.

Surjit I know of no statistics in this country on the number of fathers involved in unwanted pregnancies and whether they would be interested enough or not to claim a child if they knew in fact that a child existed.

For married couples or couples in long-term relationships the decision to terminate a pregnancy has probably been made by both for any number of reasons including lack of finance, existing family size or the risk of passing on a lethal genetic condition.

I do know that some abortions occur as a result of casual sexual encounters, often resulting from contraceptive failure or the refusal of a man to take precautions on both the erroneous assumption that because a woman might be taking a contraceptive pill that no pregnancy will result and also the refusal of a man to wear a condom despite the risk of STDs as well as pregnancy because it is seen somehow as an affront to his "manhood".

The "double standard" has moved a little from "nice girls don't have sex" to "nice girls don't have sex unless they are in a long-term relationship" so women who want casual sex and who have it could be at risk of falling pregnant if any contraception they use fails.

I am not sure whether any purpose is served by forcing women to carry a pregnancy for someone simply so he can claim a child. It stands to reason that a man who does not practice safe sex in the first place is not going to be terribly good at the responsibilities and sacrifices involved in parenthood.

Dee Bayliss, there too many "what ifs" in your post to go through them individually however as far as I am concerned if you are old enough to have sex you are old enough to know the consequences. If your partner (male or female) refuses to practice safe sex then don't have sex. It takes two people to make a pregnancy and the decision not to proceed with it should also be made by two people.

By the way - Dee Bayliss: "I am not sure whether any purpose is served by forcing women to carry a pregnancy for someone simply so he can claim a child. It stands to reason that a man who does not practice safe sex in the first place is not going to be terribly good at the responsibilities and sacrifices involved in parenthood."

It is dangerous to judge a person purly on one act.

Deb Wands: "Surjit Wadhwa, here's a man's viewpoint."

As I said usually the psychological state of the male is not considered an issue when it should be.

Dee Bayliss: “I know of no statistics in this country on the number of fathers involved in unwanted pregnancies and whether they would be interested enough or not to claim a child if they knew in fact that a child existed.”

Of course there are no statistics regarding fathers’ opinions on abortion. That’s the whole point – nobody cares what they think and nobody will ever ask them their opinion.
I’m sure that in most cases women will consult with their partner before reaching a final decision on abortion, and in most situations they will be able to reach agreement on whether to proceed or not. When that occurs then there is no problem, and it’s nobody else’s business.

However there is no legal requirement for any consultation, let alone agreement.
Dee’s ‘blame the male’ philosophy assumes that it is always the man’s fault if a condom isn’t used. I can assure you that a lot of women don’t like condoms, and threaten to refuse sex if they are used. I can’t give you a logical reason why they have this attitude, the only answer I’ve heard is something like “I don’t want anything to come between us”.
As things stand, the consequences of pregnancy are only a risk to the man, so it more important for him to use contraception. The woman has a second chance to decide whether she wants a child or not. The man’s destiny is out of his hands once intercourse has taken place.

Deb Wands, the link that you provided proves Surjit’s original point that while the 'psychological' health of the mother is considered critical to a subsequent abortion decision, the father’s 'psychological' health is never even contemplated. If the charges are proven, then this indicates the type of outcome that can result from such an unfair policy.

Except in the case of abortion, society doesn’t allow people who are mentally ill or suicidal to kill somebody else, just so that they can feel better about themselves. If one of the potential parents is mentally ill, then this should be sufficient grounds to indicate that they are not competent of making such a life and death type decision.

Surjit Wadhwa, women who have a large number of sex partners do not keep records of who they slept with and when. Men do not either. For the purposes of this discussion nor does the ABS, so we have no way of knowing under what circumstances a conception may take place.

I suspect the number of men who casually father children in casual relationships and who wanted further dealings with the woman involved or with any ensuing pregnancies would be miniscule.

So unless you do have these figures and unless you have a magic way of bringing about what you want without infringing the legal rights including the rights to privacy of both the man and the woman involved then it is pointless musing about whether men have automatic rights to a foetus or not.

I would say a man who wanted a reluctant woman to continue a pregnancy when there was no established relationship between them would be at the very least selfish. Perhaps if he is so hungry to have a child he should consider either adoption as a single man or a business relationship with a surrogate.

Deb, that story speaks volumes.

Dee you say "I suspect the number of men who casually father children in casual relationships and who wanted further dealings with the woman involved or with any ensuing pregnancies would be miniscule" Why do you suspect this - have you any figures to confirm? I don't think so.

It is clear from your comments you do not consider the father has any right with regards to abortion - I beg to disagree. The male could say "I don't care" and as such has given his consent to either decision and still would be bound to support the child if the mother decided to have the child. The mother also has an obligation to her partner (not just herself) with regards to the child they both created and that obligation is not met by saying "its my body I will do with it as I please". The feotus in the womb does not belong only to the women it belongs to both parents.

By the way the link does speak volumes does it not - just depends how you look at it.

Well I am afraid Surjit that you would have to set up an untenable governance of such a situation as you propose. Since you have no such solution I suggest there is none.

Of course people should practice safe sex. No one here has disagreed with this. Of course you may need extra precautions if it is consensual sex with a stranger. Such as condoms and spermicide which cuts the chances of impregnation down to almost zero.

And the word "partner" usually refers to someone with whom you are in a long-term relationship, not someone you pick up for one night and never see again. Most partners are going to make a joint decision about questions like pregnancy.

Greg Weilo you must have sex with some very unusual women. The ones I know of whatever age tend to be mature and responsible. If they indulge in casual sex they always take more precautions than they would with a regular partner.

I suggest you take more than usual precautions if you are in the habit of having casual sex. And you can say "No" to unprotected sex and walk away. Just like women do.

Hi Deb, thanks for that. I checked them all out but I've had a little trouble with the web-links, so I'll have to try again later. Its definitely a sincere back-flip, its just a question of finding the time, and convincing myself and others to care. Let me know how things pan out, post-IR.

Greg Weilo, the link that I gave referred to a man killing a woman after she terminated her pregnancy. I'm not sure that I follow your argument, you say in the first instance that this only proves (he has gone psycho remember) what can happen from such unfair policy. How do we know that he hasn't always been possessive and violently unstable and therefore not such a great fathering model?

Then you go on to say "Except in the case of abortion, society doesn’t allow people who are mentally ill or suicidal to kill somebody else, just so that they can feel better about themselves. If one of the potential parents is mentally ill, then this should be sufficient grounds to indicate that they are not competent of making such a life and death type decision."

Society allows normal, rational people who are not even mentally ill or
suicidal to kill someone else. It's called the War On Terror and it's happening in Iraq as we speak.

Are you now saying that women who have an abortion are mentally ill and/or suicidal? The mental health of the woman is considered to be paramount in abortion to avoid just such a crisis if she is forced to carry to term. The woman also undergoes counselling prior to abortion, I think they would notice if she were mentally ill or suicidal at the time and her competency would be assessed.

Tony Powers, in your post to Bob Wall you said, "Every action involves choice as I’ve already said, so in both war and abortion a choice is made that will lead to the loss of life. But not all choices carry the same moral weight. It is sometimes the ‘lesser of two evils’ to take a life/lives in the belief that by doing so you are achieving a greater good."

I can reverse your argument and use it for mine, I may believe that the
choice to accept any collateral damage of innocent lives lost in war to be an act of morally bereft thinking/power or "the desired end, justifies any means". Whereas for me, "the lesser of two evils" being a very personal choice to terminate a foetus that has never known life, for the greater good purpose of extreme necessity by the already living. We can go back and forth forever.

We still come back to the morality debate, morality is a perception and no
one person can say that their version is superior. If you don't have morality to argue though, what do you have? Religious faith? that only works for the believers - what else do you have that can compel us to cross the divide?

Surjit Wadhwaand Greg Weilo, but why should a women be forced against her will to have a pregnancy and birth because of the man's psychological state? That is emotional blackmail and she is still the one whose body is utilised, therefore, her mental state overrides his. Also, because of the powerful emotions involved, I think that most women do not want to have a pregnancy, labour and childbirth, if they can't be responsible for the nurturing and protecting afterwards, so they prefer to have an abortion.

Especially more so if she realises that the man is not someone she feels
will provide the kind of fathering that she wishes for her child. Maybe his
mental state and dominance is the reason that she wants to terminate. I still believe that the woman carefully considers and then ultimately chooses what is best for their unborn child after weighing up all of the (acceptable to her) available options in doing so. I feel too, that if men are not careful in going about their protestations, they could run the risk of not being informed of pregnancies and then their wishes would be mute.

Dee Bayliss, some women are immature and irresponsible, just as some men are. You can’t assume that the woman always has better ethics and morals than the man, or vice versa.

Both men and women have the right to refuse sex and the right to use contraception. The use of contraception should always be a joint decision, and there should be an equal division of rights and responsibilities for any consequences.

I’m not suggesting that the man the should have the total right to determine if an abortion should proceed or not, regardless of the woman’s opinion. That would be just as unjust as the current situation.

Deb Wands, why should a man have his child’s life terminated against his will, and against any reasonable application of child protection principles, just because of the mother’s psychological state? It is this total exclusion from the decision making process that is causing such resentment, even to the extreme levels indicated by your link. If nothing else, doesn’t this convince you that men also have ‘powerful emotions’?

This resentment also applies when the father is forced to have and support a child against his will, and leads to the deadbeat dad scenario, where he refuses to allow his body to be utilised against his wishes. Does his body utilisation justify his mental state overriding hers? What about if he feels that the mother will not provide the kind of mothering that he wants for his child? What about if he is concerned about her mental state and suitability for motherhood? Why is a man incapable of carefully considering and choosing what is best for his child, after weighing up all of the available options? There is an equivalence here that you refuse to recognise.

If the law did recognise the right of fathers to have an input into an abortion decision, then these resentment issues would diminish. If both potential parents were able to negotiate on an equal footing, then at least they would be more likely to accept a decision that was contrary to theirs. I’m sure that in the vast majority of cases either partner would think twice about proceeding with a pregnancy if the other partner indicated total opposition, just as they would reconsider an abortion if the other partner indicated a strong desire for parenthood.

Men are already not being informed of pregnancies, at least until after a birth when the letter arrives from the Child Support Agency. As far as endorsing abortions is concerned, they should only proceed after the mother has identified the father and he has agreed with her decision.

Greg Weilo, I agree that there are both men and women who are mental lightweights for whatever reason. But that is reflected just about anywhere you care to think. Look at the road deaths each year for instance despite greatly improved car safety. Most caused by human error.

Women are not higher moral beings anyway despite what some deluded tragics might think. Never were.

However your casual sex responsibility scenario does not always work. Often people have casual sex when they have been drinking or taking drugs. Under those circumstances they are just as irresponsible as those who attempt to drive while under the influence of either. Little or no negotiation goes on beyond the level of 'Wanna shag?' if that.

I would have thought you as a man would have known that even if you do not have casual sex yourself.

Your so-called 'dead-beat dad' dilemma is a family law matter more than directly to do with this topic. Non-custodial parents who are concerned about a child's welfare can make application to the Family Court to vary or overturn custodial arrangements.

However the scenario you propose for abortions is impossible. Women would merely say 'I don't know' if asked about the father. Which is more often than not true. Can you remember the names of all the women you have had sex with? Do you always give your right name for a quickie? You'd be unusual if you did.

Greg Weilo, I agree with alot of things you say but I cannot agree with your comment, "As far as endorsing abortions is concerned, they should only proceed after the mother has identified the father and he has agreed with her decision".

If there is no agreement I believe that the end decision should be left to the mother.

Surjit Wadhwa, I don’t think we need to wait for Dee Bayliss to produce university research stats. The biological fact is that women are, on average, much more invested in their child than the father will be.

Greg Weilo, while I respect the sensitivity with which you developed your argument, I will never accept males being given a 'legal right' to contribute to the abortion decision.

While I am fortunate to have been born late enough that I am not a 1970s lefty-moonie who chants 'no Always Means No' and 'My Body, My Choice' 24/7, the body has limits.

I doubt I will ever be convinced by any argument - moral, legal, ethical - that any male can EVER expect his opinion to carry the same weight as the woman who is actually pregnant.

As a matter of ethics, or even as nothing more than my own personal value system, I think that having an abortion without at least discussing it with the male who provided the sperm is insupportable. Of course, I am less troubled when that male was a one night stand and so on.

From the age when such a dilemma could have been a reality for me I always said I would have an abortion. Not long before I got pregnant I had changed my position, and decided that even if I were not in stable, loving relationship I would NOT have an abortion.

The reasons for that change were not rational, and I don't think I could even really articulate them. Let's just say that something 'spooky' or 'mystical' or 'spiritual' overcame me. Now, I am not even remotely religious, so who knows?

I have wasted too many hours debating and reading people banging on about 'the start of life'. For me, that issue was resolved simply. Sometimes, human beings and human societies have to make decisions and rules for not entirely rational reasons.

So, I don't CARE if an abortion is murder. For my ethical system, it is an acceptable murder that carries no legal consequence with it. All societies have many examples of acceptable murder, ranging from self-defence to provocation, to war. For me, this is another one.

When you, and other males, can demonstrate that you can nourish the foetus and bring it to term without it being totally reliant on MY body to do so, and when you can demonstrate that you can transfer that foetus to your incubating site without defiling MY body, maybe then this conversation might have some validity.

Until then, for this Mother, the case is CLOSED!

Hi Greg, I do understand that men have powerful emotions, those
emotions have been frightening women for many generations. I do feel that in the issue of abortion that they cannot be the ones to have the final say. How do you propose that a woman can decide to give the man his child without being pregnant etc? Does she have a hysterectomy and then give him the womb complete with foetus? But then he cannot provide the nourishment for the foetus to grow either, can he? How does she get her womb back again - because she would want it returned to her after the birth. Maybe when men evolve to have the necessary anatomy to sustain life, they can have equal authority.

I wonder just how many men get a letter from child support that is a total
surprise to them. They often do a runner and finally child support manages to catch up with them. Do you have any stats? Most of the single women that I have spoken to say that the deadbeat dad dumped her when she was pregnant, that she had to leave because of violence or he managed to get someone else pregnant at the same time as he was in the relationship with her. Granted, I do feel sorry for the committed dad that has lost his family, anguishes at being a once a fortnight dad and the woman uses the kids to her advantage, but that is already living children and another story. It wasn't so long ago that men complained that women only got pregnant to trap them into a commitment.

"The use of contraception should always be a joint decision"

That's not how I see it, if a man and woman are having a sexual relationship and the woman is adamant that she does not want a pregnancy, she should decide for herself alone to use contraception as is her right. The man has a choice once again, whether to have sex or not, or even whether to stay in the relationship.

"If the law did recognise the right of fathers to have an input into an abortion decision, then these resentment issues would diminish" - I don't think so Greg, because it is more about control and power over women for many men rather than wishing to have equal input,  and don't think that men would not wield that power ruthlessly. Can you think of any other arena where men do not have more power than women?

Noelene, I think you've articulated the problem very nicely. The father should never have a legal right to veto a woman's decision to have an abortion but I think that, on a personal level, most men would have an expectation that they would be listened to and consulted about it. I agree, if it was a result of a one-night stand then the right to be consulted simply hasn't been earned.

But if the relationship has more depth and the male is not consulted, it would be hurtful, especially if he feels particularly paternal about the child. I think its a question of personal ethics.

There is also the flip-side of the issue when the woman wants the child and the male doesn't. If I were ever in that situation, I'd probably feel obliged to hold my tongue, unless I were asked for my opinion. Otherwise I'd keep my fingers crossed and hope she decided to abort.

I think I would find such a situation much more excrutiating than if I wanted the child. I could accept, perhaps with some regret, intervening to stop a child developing, if I had wanted that child. However if I didn't want it and couldn't stop it, I'd be scared to death. Its the kind of thought that makes abstinence sound much more attractive. It also makes marriage and fidelity sound attractive, since I'd at least then suffer less risk of unwanted surprises, by making sure I chose to be with someone I was damn sure I would be willing to have children with.

Noelene: "The biological fact is that women are, on average, much more invested in their child than the father will be."

I assume you have research to back up this fact. Please share it with us.

"Not long before I got pregnant I had changed my position, and decided that even if I were not in stable, loving relationship I would NOT have an abortion."

So in your opinion the father of such a child with whom you do not have a stable loving relationship should be bound for the rest of his working life to support the child even though he did not want the child? I have heard many women make the argument that it is their body therefore they have the final say, well a father forced to support a child may in fact be putting his own welfare (read body) at risk. The ability to forge new relationships is significantly hampered if one is carrying excess 'baggage' which does have effect on self esteem and the ability to perform at your best and hence better yourself in our society. Similarly the finacial pressures of support maybe such that long term financial security is compromised which may lead to an inability to properly look after children that the father may have had later with someone with whom he had a stable relationship. Being a bread winner is a very powerfull psychological burden and the inability to meet your own expectations of the lifestyle one should be providing for ones family can and does lead to profound psychological illness sometimes with tragic consequences.

If it is OK for women to have an abortion without input from men then men should have the right to have an 'abortion' as well and withdraw all contact and support from the mother and child if they wish to do so.

Surjit parents do not support children forever. Child support finishes when the child becomes 18. There is no legal obligation after that. On average that is not "the whole of working life" for anyone and remember men have been known to avoid their responsibilities by deliberately becoming unemployed.

In the real world of long-term relationship breakdown most fathers do in fact have access to their children, more and more are in joint custody arrangements negotiated without interference from often self-serving lawyers, and mothers would like fathers to have more access, but sometimes fathers do not take this opportunity. I know of cases where fathers have in fact had generous custody and access to children and have had these arrangements endorsed by the Family Court but have formed new relationships and have walked away from their responsibilities.

That is the prevalent scenario for absent fathers whatever you and Greg Weilo might think and however you may muddy the waters with speculation by talking about the (again speculative) men who supposedly are aggrieved by women choosing to abort pregnancies resulting from casual relationships.

The last thing any woman wants is to be a sole parent.

Surjit Wadhwa, I definitely agree that the way the law treats fathers as “financial provider of first and last resort” is sub-optimal, and a policy area that we could improve. In fact, it IS a policy area of concern with many people - parents, advocates, and professionals - exploring options.

One part of me also says that just as each individual woman must take responsibility for her fertility men cannot expect to be completely protected from responsibility for THEIR fertility. However, that view of mine is more whimsy and advice to my sons when they get older than it is a passionately held priniciple of jurisprudence!

Margaret Morgan. Exactly.

Surjit Wadhwa, again I don't have the data, but I would be very surprised if you could find any society at any time in history, where the percentage of mothers who either abandon their children or never contribute anything at all to their rasing is higher than the percentage of fathers who do this. ;)

Noelene: "The biological fact is that women are, on average, much more invested in their child than the father will be."

Surjit Wadhwa: "I assume you have research to back up this fact. Please share it with us."

All you need is a basic biology textbook, Surjit. It's not biologically irrelevant that a man can produce hundreds of thousands of versions of his genetic contribution each day, while a woman can produce only one per month. That's why women are the ones who (in the absence of rape or getting ratarsed drunk) make the ultimate decision about who will impregnate these precious ova. That's why peacocks have feathers and orang-utans thump their chests and male goats lock horns. It's all about impressing the female, letting her know that his genes are the best, and worth her while shutting down her reproductive choices while she gestates and raises his genetic offspring. That, after all is what we're here for, biologically speaking, just like every other species on the planet: to pass on our DNA.

Now, of course, as a socially sophisticated species, we humans vary from the biologically determined, but only to a degree. You still see it. Men who'll root anything that move, women who hold out for the man who'll hang around. Yes, there are copious exceptions, but the rule still generally holds. And when women do play the field, they often do it when they've a solid male who'll hang around, and raise another man's offspring as their own. (We're so like many species of bird, previously thought to be monogamous, but proved to be full of girlie gadabouts, it's spooky.)

Margaret Morgan, women release one egg at a time not because they don't have any more (they have millions) they release only one to prevent multiple pregnancies. The uterus can normally (they are always exceptions) handle one fetus at a time. The female does not release eggs all the time because the uterus is not ready to accept the fertilised egg - the hormones required for the uterus to be ready at all times would be detrimental to the health of the female in general. The male releases and makes millions of sperm to ensure fertilisation.

It is true that not all women have the same cycle (humour - god forbid the PMT would be "blank") and therefore the male has the ability to fertilise numerous eggs at any one time - this is the true biological function of DNA passing, ie. a combination of varied cycles of women and the ability of the male to pass on DNA at anytime. To equate this as a reason for claiming that women are 'natural' parents, I think not.

The emotional and psychological attachment to a baby can and does range from 0% to 100% for both mothers and fathers and views of both are essential in deciding to proceed with abortion of a foetus.

Surjit Wadhwa, do you sincerely think that there is no biological imperative propelling mothers to having a greater attachment in their children than fathers? I would be interested in reading your exposition of this position.

It's OK Surjit most of the women here do not need the reproductive biology lesson - I daresay that we probably have more children between us than you have had dates.

As a matter of fact women who are on the Pill are actually fooling the ovaries and uterus into thinking they are pregnant so the egg does not get ready for the sperm, and the Pill has been tested and retested for safety more times probably than any other drug in the history of medicine. In fact pregnancy hormones can be good for women. That's why they give the Pill to teenage girls with acne. It's a lot safer than giving them Roaccutane.

Now as to those millions of sperm you are so proud of. I take it you are familiar with sperm anatomy. Get some of yours and stick it under the microscope. I trust there will be lots of little tadpoles wriggling about but take a close look at them and you will find many of them are a bit gimpy. There are spermatozoa with two tails, spermatozoa with two heads, spermatozoa with no heads and a very large number who look all right but who are very slow and do not swim as they should.

Obviously if you are making babies you do not particularly want the gimpy ones getting there. In fact the egg is cunningly designed by millions of years of evolution so that the gimps won't even get in through the membrane.

So you may ask why you produce so many gimps. The answer lies in the pool (no not the gene pool but that could be part of it)

Grant Hackett is currently the world's fastest man over 1500 metres in the pool. If you put Grant in a pool and timed him swimming over that distance he would do a speed which would leave the rest of us in the shade. But to get the maximum speed out of Grant you would need to put others at about his level in with him. That is when you will really see him fly.

So most likely what happened with our distant ancestors was that the female maximised her chances of getting the best genetic material by mating with a number of different males. The best competitor over the few centimetres required to get from the vagina into the uterus and thus to the waiting egg would have given her the best material. The other gimpy non-productive sperm sent a chemical message to the champions so that they would swim faster and beat the competition.

So your superstud male is largely a myth since he in fact carries a lot of dud gimpy sperm and does not actually start producing these sperm until puberty. And sometimes the delivery mechanism does not work in middle age even if the sperm is still produced.

But the eggs of women exist at birth, are in sufficient numbers to artificially produce many embryos and do not in fact die off until menopause. The problem with IVF has always been getting the sperm to connect to the egg.

Multiple births are not a good evolutionary strategy for human infants who are dependent on their mothers for longer compared to other mammalian species. Twins were rare enough until last century to create great excitement, and larger multiples were almost unheard of. In fact some tribespeople, including some Aboriginal groups, used to kill the smallest and weakest of a multiple birth for this reason.

Surjit, you cannot ascertain who are going to be 'good' parents or total washouts. The sort of attachment to babies you are talking about happens after birth, not before it, though parents do grieve a stillbirth or miscarriage if the baby is a wanted baby, and attachment is moderated by "attachment" hormones like oxytocin produced during and after the birth and during lactation. There is some evidence that fathers react to these hormones (probably an evolutionary strategy to prevent males from eating their mate's offspring) but the father has to be there in the first place in order to do so.

Dee:”It's OK Surjit most of the women here do not need the reproductive biology lesson - I daresay that we probably have more children between us than you have had dates. “

That is probably true however I have probably seen more babies “pop out” than most (if not all) here.

“As a matter of fact women who are on the Pill are actually fooling the ovaries and uterus into thinking they are pregnant so the egg does not get ready for the sperm, and the Pill has been tested and retested for safety more times probably than any other drug in the history of medicine. In fact pregnancy hormones can be good for women. That's why they give the Pill to teenage girls with acne. It's a lot safer than giving them Roaccutane.”

I agree – partially. My comment was not about a pregnant uterus but one ready to accept a fertilized egg. These two conditions are VERY different, biology 102 (not 101). In general pregnancy is not detrimental to the mothers’ health.

“Now as to those millions of sperm you are so proud of. I take it you are familiar with sperm anatomy. Get some of yours and stick it under the microscope. I trust there will be lots of little tadpoles wriggling about but take a close look at them and you will find many of them are a bit gimpy. There are spermatozoa with two tails, spermatozoa with two heads, spermatozoa with no heads and a very large number who look all right but who are very slow and do not swim as they should.”

Agreed there are many non viable sperm incapable of fertilizing an egg – they do however all carry the same genetic material. There are mistakes in every production line and not all eggs that are within the ovary are capable of being fertilized because they are damaged in some way – the argument is the same in both direction. Maybe next time have a look at the lining of the eggs within an ovary you may get the idea.

“Obviously if you are making babies you do not particularly want the gimpy ones getting there. In fact the egg is cunningly designed by millions of years of evolution so that the gimps won't even get in through the membrane.”

The so called “gimps” actually have the same genetic material as the healthy ones – biology 101

“So most likely what happened with our distant ancestors was that the female maximised her chances of getting the best genetic material by mating with a number of different males. The best competitor over the few centimetres required to get from the vagina into the uterus and thus to the waiting egg would have given her the best material. The other gimpy non-productive sperm sent a chemical message to the champions so that they would swim faster and beat the competition. “

Agreed – however this has nothing to do with “natural” parent argument. Also by the way once the semen has entered the vagina it is actually a very powerful spermacide to foreign sperm from a different male – if you want the “fastest” sperm you have to select before mating not have multiple simultaneous partners.

“So your superstud male is largely a myth since he in fact carries a lot of dud gimpy sperm and does not actually start producing these sperm until puberty. And sometimes the delivery mechanism does not work in middle age even if the sperm is still produced.”

What has this got to with abortion.

“But the eggs of women exist at birth, are in sufficient numbers to artificially produce many embryos and do not in fact die off until menopause. The problem with IVF has always been getting the sperm to connect to the egg.”

Again what has this to with the abortion.

“Multiple births are not a good evolutionary strategy for human infants who are dependent on their mothers for longer compared to other mammalian species. Twins were rare enough until last century to create great excitement, and larger multiples were almost unheard of. In fact some tribespeople, including some Aboriginal groups, used to kill the smallest and weakest of a multiple birth for this reason.”

No the main reason larger animals do not have multiple births is the relative size. In order to mature more than one offspring to a healthy level the uterus of larger animals and the placenta requirements would be so high so as to be detrimental to health of the mother. That is why larger animals such horses, cows which do not look after their young for long still only have one “baby”

“Surjit, you cannot ascertain who are going to be 'good' parents or total washouts. The sort of attachment to babies you are talking about happens after birth, not before it, though parents do grieve a stillbirth or miscarriage if the baby is a wanted baby, and attachment is moderated by "attachment" hormones like oxytocin produced during and after the birth and during lactation. There is some evidence that fathers react to these hormones (probably an evolutionary strategy to prevent males from eating their mate's offspring) but the father has to be there in the first place in order to do so”

I am glad you use the term parents and realize the fact that fathers do react to hormonal changes. If this is so and also as you say forms the basis for attachment why should they not have a say in the abortion of a pregnancy. With regards to “has to be there in the first place” I am not sure what you mean but as I have said the father can give up the right to object.

Noelene, I have never said that men have as strong as parenting desire as women. All I have said is that they do have some parenting desires (weak or strong varies from person to person as in women) and these should also be considered when decision regading abortion is made.