Time to see who mixes their religion with their politics.... please answer the survey and provide a reason to justify your answer.

My answer is: yes, as I follow the 'vioinist's argument' of Judith Thomson - that is, that that the developing fetus  only continues to be sustained at the grace of the mother. Reference here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Some may say that this is not relevant - but already we have seen stem-cell research legislation debated in our parliaments recently - and the arguments are partly the same.

I havent got a religious bone in my body, i voted depends.
Do we still have orphanages?
Hey, we could bring them up as super soldiers! ;) ;D

Yes, though obviously only up to a certain age.

Thats right FD. Say for example its a 16 year old then yes the pregnancy should be aborted by law.
That 16 year old is still a child in the mind. cant possibly look after a child PROPERLY.
But what about adoption? :question

I meant the fetus age.

Do you mean that 16yo's should be forced to have an abortion?

There are many desperate people in Australia who would like to adopt a child and if the new Catholic advisory agency on abortion follows the Catholic doctrine, we may find more women keeping their babies to full term.

This is going to be a dilemna for many women - if they have an abortion they feel guilt, if they give the baby away, they will feel guilt.  We have too many unwanted children in Australia as it is, with an alarming increase in child abuse over the past decade.

Unfortunately, there is only one solution to this problem -  abstinence.  So many people don't even make a serious attempt at contraception - so it's either safe or  sorry.  Perhaps this is the message that needs more promotion.  In fact if they bring back those Grim Reaper adds, it may save a few young women from having to make miserable decisions.

Yep fd, 18 should be the minimum age to have children.
Yes you are correct. when the child in the womb reaches a certain age, abortion should not be allowed, such as when its nervous system has developed.

Yes - under any circumstances. If I were a woman I would regard it as no one else's business but mine regardless of the age of the fetus. Of course I might be dependent on the services of a technician but plenty of women have managed it on their own I believe. Seems weird that there could be a law against it.

well said sense
this subject is not for government policy
This is the subject for those involved nobody else

This is a personal choice not government choice

www.tapp.org.au

If a woman of relitively mature age keeps the (unwanted) baby, no worries, my argument is about ''kids'' havin Kids. i think its wrong for the child.
Generally, those that have kids at such a young age are hardly capable of raising a child,;
They are drug addicts , or , kicked out of home (immaturity) , fell into mistake (bfriend who fks off)- (he himself was probably a kid.)  or mentally unstable.

Yes and it should have been legal years ago.
It is not for the government to decide what age or circumstance but the person directly involved(mother) not father.Kids having kids does not sit well with me either because sometimes the grandparents end up looking after the kid instead of the parents

Do you like paying for other peoples mistakes?

I put 'maybe.' -Although I'm 'slightly' spiritual, it had no impact on what I selected.

My main concern is the impact abortions are having on the declining birthrate. Australia needs more people! (No... I don't think immigration is the best option).

My only concern is...
A)Pregnancy from rapes.
B) Inexperienced underage kids foolishly doing something stupid.

Other than that, I think you should suffer the consequences.


Anyhow, I don't think abortion is a big deal. Politicians should decline talking about this issue and be more focussed on making life more liveable for Australians so they actually WANT kids.

End abortion ban on aid spending: Greens

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/End-abortion-ban-on-aid-spending-Greens/2007/05/16/1178995224277.html

The Australian Greens have called on the government to lift a ban that prohibits aid money being used to provide information on abortion.

The call comes in light of The State of the World's Girls report by aid organisation Plan International, released on Wednesday.

The report showed that restricting women's access to abortion services in developing countries was resulting in high levels of morbidity.

Under current guidelines, Australian aid money is banned from funding any organisation that provides advice to women about abortion.

"Between 13 and 25 per cent of maternal deaths globally are caused by unsafe abortions."

Senator Nettle said a recent article published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, had labelled unsafe abortion a "preventable pandemic" which kills around 63,000 women and girls a year.

Australia and the United States are the only two countries that ban aid money being used to provide information about abortion.

---

If it's good enough for Australian women, why deny access to poor women?

I think that religious groups in the US currently prevent aid money being spent on condoms and family planning, even in countries where aids is rife.

---

AIDS fight blocked by religion: Kirby

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/aids-fight-blocked-by-religion-kirby/2007/05/17/1178995317058.html

Religion is hindering United Nations efforts to spread the messages needed to combat the spread of AIDS, human rights activist and High Court judge Michael Kirby said on Thursday.

Australia, under successive governments, had been far more successful in its approach to the disease, he said.

Justice Kirby was launching a new book, Civil Society, Religion and Global Governance, which includes contributions by a range of international and Australian political, legal, economic and religious figures on the role of civil society.

---

Abortion aid policy repugnant: Libs MP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Abortion-aid-policy-repugnant-Libs-MP/2007/05/30/1180205287376.html

The federal government's aid policy on abortion is repugnant and an insult to women, Liberal backbencher Mal Washer says.

Dr Washer is leading a group of 50 politicians from all parties who want the government to allow Australian aid to be spent on abortion advice.

The government banned abortion advice more than 10 years ago to please former Independent senator Brian Harradine when he held the balance of power.

"What is even more ridiculous or more repugnant is that we're saying in these guidelines that if you go and have an illegal abortion where there is a 13 per cent chance of death on average and you happen to survive, we're happy to give you counselling.

---

Parliament debates pregnancy counselling

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/parliament-debates-pregnancy-counselling/2007/06/14/1181414456221.html

A woman who sought counselling after having an abortion was told by the counsellor to name her baby which would not have a place in heaven, the Senate heard.

The startling claims were made by Australian Greens senator Kerry Nettle during parliamentary debate on the Pregnancy Counselling (Truth in Advertising) Bill.

The private member's bill, introduced to parliament by Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja, aims to cut off government funding to pregnancy counsellors who engage in misleading or deceptive advertising and impose fines for such conduct.

---

US abortion foes push for ultrasound law

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-abortion-foes-push-for-ultrasound-law/2007/06/17/1182018920759.html

A national anti-abortion group is pushing legislation in US states aimed at making sure pregnant women and girls view sonograms before having abortions, hoping that what they see will persuade them against having the procedure.

Such proposals have gained little attention so far from legislators in Kansas or Missouri.

But the National Right to Life Committee says 11 states have enacted laws requiring abortion providers to tell patients they have the right to see an ultrasound image of the embryo or foetus they are carrying.

---

US Senate clears foreign abortions aid

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-Senate-clears-foreign-abortions-aid/2007/06/29/1182624124336.html

A US Senate committee has joined the House of Representatives in defying a White House veto threat, moving to reverse a ban on contraception aid to overseas groups that offer abortion.

The Senate Appropriations Committee included the proposal in a $US34.24 billion ($A40.5 billion) foreign aid bill that also places new emphasis on fighting diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22186176-26397,00.html

PARIS: Programs to encourage sexual abstinence, which American conservatives see as a keystone of efforts to prevent HIV infection, fail just as much in the US as they do in developing countries.

Researchers reporting in today's British Medical Journal say an overview of 13 published investigations into abstinence programs, conducted among nearly 16,000 US youths, found no evidence the schemes work.

The study covered research into the performance of so-called "abstinence-only" programs -- schemes that encourage teenagers to delay their sexual debut and not have multiple partners after they begin sexual activity. There is no promotion of condoms or other methods of safer sex or contraception.

A third of funds allocated for HIV prevention under US President George W.Bush's campaign to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean is used for abstinence-only programs.

And the US House of Representatives has approved funding of $US141 million ($165million) for Community-Based Abstinence Education to US youth next year. CBAE programs encourage abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage and describe it as the only certain way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

But the paper, by a trio of researchers at the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, found: "No (abstinence-only) program affected the incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, number of partners, condom use or sexual initiation."

The study's authors say the clear picture is that abstinence-only programs in the US have made no headway on reducing HIV risk compared with safe-sex programs or no programs at all.

Abstinence programs incense many AIDS campaigners, who contend that these initiatives do not work, are often driven by political or religious agendas and drain money from more effective prevention schemes.

more people die from legal abortions than illegal abortions world wide.

Are you talking about fetuses? If not, where did you get that from?

I saw a documentary on youth and abstinence in the US.  These kids were delirious with being virgins and saving themselves for their future spouse.  It was religiously driven and that was the only turn off with the whole program.

It's not a bad idea I suppose to avoid STD's, or STI's as they're called today - but can our young people  deny their hormones when they're at such high levels in certain age groups?  Do they really want to?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Dont-change-abortion-bill-advocates/2007/08/07/1186252699748.html

Proposed changes in Victoria to a controversial bill to decriminalise abortion could "re-criminalise" the procedure and achieve nothing, health groups say.

Upper house Labor MP Candy Broad has introduced a bill to decriminalise abortion, removing it from the state's Crimes Act.

Abortions are performed in Victoria under the 1969 Menhennitt Supreme Court ruling, which permits a termination provided it is to protect the life or physical or mental health of the woman.

"We know that 80 per cent of people in the community say that women can be trusted to make the decision that they need to when they're pregnant - if parliament's stepping away from that, they're actually not representing what the community says."

Ms Maltzahn claimed one-third of Victorian women had had an abortion.

I don't understand that posting .

How can decriminilising anything recriminilise it ?
Why does it need to be decriminilised if it is already ok ? For the safety of the mum ?
Where does the Dad get a say ?

Aid money can be better spent than on advising women to abort - for instance on providing loans  to start micro-businesses, and providing infrastructure such as water pumps and sewerage. Maybe it is just a matter of priorities.

Quote:

Where does the Dad get a say ?

Good question sprintcyclist and I suppose it leads to the fact that sometimes when a woman falls pregnant, the father wants her to have an abortion, either because he doesn't want kids, can't cope - doesn't want the responsibility.  So should a woman deny herself having the child because the father wants the child aborted?

It should work both ways, but it doesn't and so a woman usually decides if she wants an abortion.  It has to be her decision.

It is unfair - but how do you reach a solution when one wants the child and the other one doesn't?

Sprint, they were shifting the laws to a different 'branch' of legislation. They were concerned that the 'add on' provisions would make the new laws no different from the old ones. They would start with something different and more flexible, but then screw with it until it had all the old problems.

mantra  - No, A woman should not be forced into an abortion by the father.
Yes, many things are unequal.
Men and women are different, therefore  unequal.  Which is not saying one is better than the other.
Just different.

Women do have the say on abortion. She is the one that is more involved.
It does effect us "were going to be" dads too.

Quote:

It is unfair - but how do you reach a solution when one wants the child and the other one doesn't?

In situations such as this the mother is the only one who can decide , as its her body and her choice.

No, when you think about it it is not the mother's body in question but the foetus's.

How many unwanted children have you adopted lately Connie?

None, but I am aware of the vast waiting list to adopt. I will never understand why it is better to kill an inconvenient foetus than place a live baby for adoption. Sure, some reasons for abortion may be legitimate but convenience or money or selfish abortions are in my view morally abhorrent.

Anyway, the point I made earlier in the thread is still relevant to the topic - that is that there are betetr ways to spend aid money than on advising women to have abortions.

The aid money is not spent on 'advising women to have abortions.' It is spent on advising them of their medical options. It is basic medical care that is often denied women in certain societies. The women are not encouraged in any particular direction, just given the facts. Unless of course you get some kind of missionary interfering and trying to get vulnerable women to do what they want.

Even so (and i used to sponsor kids under paln International as i do think they are very good generally) the aid would do a lot more by being put into basic necessary infrastructure or micro loans.

You think starting up businesses is more important than basic healthcare?

I think allowing a family to pull itself out of complete dependency on aid by the type of micro-loan that sets them up- ie for a sewing machine or a few goats is far better than providing advice and counselling on abortion.  Health care is a different matter. Obviously health clinics and training for health workers is a good idea, but it is harder with limited funds to provide very village with a hospital which i think is a far higher priority than an abortion clinic.

I doubt they would set up 'abortion clinics' by themselves. It would be part of a broader health care package. Remember that childbirth is a time of very high risk for both mother and child. Mothers frequently die in childbirth in poor countries.

It's not that people are spending money on promoting abortions. It's that conservative campaigners are demanding that any health service funded is not allowed to mention the topic.

What are rape victims supposed to do if they are unfortunate enough to end up in a Catholic run hospital and need a morning after pill? It's not like they are in a well enough state of mind to pack up their things and get a taxi to a real hospital, what with having to deal with police and everything else.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hospitals-must-offer-rape-victims-pill/2007/01/11/1168105099045.html

Governments should enforce strict guidelines on hospitals requiring them to offer rape victims the morning-after pill, a rape crisis counsellor says.

The call comes after revelations Catholic-controlled hospitals are refusing to supply the morning-after pill to rape victims.

Catholic Health Australia's Code of Ethical Standards says raped women should not be referred to centres that offer the morning-after pill.

I think this stinks but, one thing is a rape victim wont be of sound mind for a length of time before they are able to make their own unbias decision to terminate pregnancy.

Does the State make that decision for them or do we leave it to the rape victim?

The Catholic Church is the same church that allows Gays to be ministers. The church should believe that God will choose who becomes pregnant and who doesn't. Is the Catholic church run by Man or God?

[smiley=engel017.gif]

The fact that the Catholic Hospitals won't supply an abortion pill to a rape victim says a lot for the new Centacare Counselling Service who have just received a huge $50 million grant from the Federal Government.

How will women seeking an abortion really be advised by these Catholic counsellers?  Tony Abbott says that they will be unbiased.  Does this sound believable?

I don't think it's possible to give unbiased advice. Even if you read from a list of things you are allowed to say, or give both points of view, you are still going to give subtle hints about your opinion in your voice inflexion etc. If they are good devout catholics then they are going to put their obedience to God before any other rules they are given. The church can even fire them on a regular basis - there are plenty more to choose from.

True - freediver.  Whatever a counsellor's opinion is - those who are professionally trained usually give fair and balanced advice.

Members of the Catholic Church are biased from the start and are not in a position to go against their doctrine.

What scares me the most is that I know certain group of men see rape of a woman as their contribution to a political/religious war which is happening within their households?

What  scares me more is that Australian people at large do not seem to understand that sex offenders do not necessarily see rape as wrong..

I will try to explain the type of male we are dealing with,..

I have had the opportunity to read the report on actual events caused by High Profile Sex Offenders.   (Unfortunately I must not name names. I am sure you know these brothers.)  

also, I have been unfortunate to be born in the country which,16 years later, will go into a civil/religious war and where I will spend no less than two years as a teenage girl in a mans bloody world

While reading the police report and "while doing my time" in a war zone I have come across a certain type of a male who is most likely to offend..
This male is from uneducated & usually Very Large Family. Within his culture large families who have large number of kids are put on a pedestal.  And I am not talking about 4, 5, and even 8... I am talking about 10, 11, 13...  To them Education comes way behind their religion, domination over other religions, food, learning native’s language...

These kids grow up listening to their parents talking about nothing else  but the importance of their god and their religion...  Parents are illiterate. They have nothing else to teach the child nor do they want to because they are certain their god is right and as long as they populate/multiply they will be ok.  As far as they are concerned , their power lies in numbers.  

These men are encouraged and are seen as better/higher men if they are to marry a woman from other religions. It’s a victory for them..  he has minimised the "other side" numbers by 1.  And he gets extra "presents" from his god when he dies.  

Rape is a form of showing dominance (but this you know) however, RAPE,  first and foremost is a form of populating the "other side" with their seed.  This method has been used by the Ottoman empire (The Turks)and was seen as the most effective way of not only bringing fear into the invaded countries but also a way of spreading their own religion (+ men get rewarded for doing it.)   It is their goal to make a woman pregnant not "just" rape her.  My ancestors have lived 500 years under their rule and rape was almost like a trade mark to them...

Unfortunately, in the last Civil War (1990's) my side, the Christians, as well as other "type" of Christians have adapted their disgusting ways and they too have raped their women with the excuse of 'returning' what was due.  I can not begin to explain how ashamed I am to be born within these creatures.

I have experienced and seen the behaviours of young men who rape women.  What I could not believe is that I would read factual / similar story which happened here in Sydney.  I thought it was safe here...

My intention is neither to spread the hate nor racism.  My intention is to advise you to keep your sisters and cousins close... Especially women raised in Australia, who are tolerant/accepting, their views can be naive and only get them into trouble.  

They need to know that men who move in herds are dangerous because they are stupid (they move in herds cause they know, by themselves, they are inadequate). They have no brains and all they know is violence.

THIS PLANET is too small for the number of vicious men who are able & willing to attack us.  Australia is not the only country where this happens.  The whole word is dealing with these issues.

I fear things will get worse but lets hope its my previous experience which is making me pesimistic and not anything else.

Thank you Australia
take care

Jelena

 

Hi Jelena

That was a very honest letter.  Unfortunately rape goes on everywhere - as you say even here in Australia.  The difference here is that it is illegal although very few women come forward when it happens to them because of the long drawn out interrogations and court cases.

As we get more and more immigrants here from countries where "rape" is a sign of manliness and dominance, our young women will have to be more careful.

There must be a lot of rape that goes on behind closed doors by males who haven't been born here - and the woman just allows it to happen, because that's the way she's been brought up.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Amnesty-backs-womens-right-to-abortion/2007/08/18/1186857817774.html

Human rights group Amnesty International has backed women's right to an abortion if their lives are in danger or if they have been raped in a move likely to further anger the Catholic Church.

The church, which considers abortion to be murder and never justified, has already urged Catholic organisations to withdraw their support for Amnesty over the policy. The Vatican says Amnesty has "betrayed its mission".

At the end of its annual meeting in Mexico City on Friday, Amnesty said it would work to "support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to heath care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion ... when their health or human rights are in danger".

Amnesty Secretary-General Irene Khan told Reuters in July that the new policy, inspired by rapes in war zones such as Darfur, urged governments to provide safe abortions when women conceive after rape or incest or when a pregnant woman's life is threatened.

Bishop William Skylstad, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in July the decision "undermines Amnesty's long-standing moral credibility" and called on the London-based rights group, founded by a Catholic layman, to reverse its policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-starts-unwanted-babies-drop-box/2007/05/11/1178390518594.html

A Japanese hospital opened the country's only anonymous drop box for unwanted infants despite government admonitions against abandoning babies.

The baby drop-off, called "Crane's Cradle," was opened by the Catholic-run Jikei Hospital in the southern city of Kumamoto as a way to discourage abortions and the abandonment of infants in unsafe public places. The hospital described it as a parent's last resort.

A small hatch on the side of the hospital allows people to drop off babies into an incubator 24 hours a day. An alarm would notify hospital staff of any new arrival. The infants will initially be cared for by the hospital and then put up for adoption.

Similar baby drops exist in Germany and South Africa. Some US states, such as Alabama and Minnesota, also have programs that protect the identities of women who give up their babies.

An drop box had been in operation years ago near Tokyo, a local news report said. It received only 10 babies in six years, the Mainichi newspapers said.

It was closed in 1992 after a dead child was found inside, the report said.

The latest drop box comes after a series of high-profile cases in which newborn babies were left behind in parks and supermarkets triggering a public outcry.

With no law against abortions and no clear religious taboos in predominantly Buddhist Japan, the procedure is readily available and widespread.

Nearly 290,000 cases of abortion were reported in 2005, according to the Health Ministry.

Man... those Japs are efficient.  ;)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Boy-dumped-in-Japans-unwanted-baby-box/2007/05/15/1178995115097.html

Japan's first "baby hatch" for parents to anonymously leave babies they cannot raise has received a toddler on its first day in use, a source says.

The boy appears to be in good shape, the source said.

The police are investigating whether the boy's case constitutes an illegal act of parental abandonment.

The development in Japan comes as Australian authorities continue the search for the mother of a newborn baby abandoned at Dandenong Hospital in Melbourne on Mother's Day.

The baby is still suffering breathing difficulties but is otherwise in good condition.

Police have called for the mother or anyone who has information about the baby, to come forward.

---

Third child left in Japan's baby hatch

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Third-child-left-in-Japans-baby-hatch/2007/06/17/1182018911821.html

An infant has been left at a controversial baby hatch for unwanted newborns - the third child to be placed there since Japan's first baby hatch was opened on May 10, sources close to the matter said.

---

Abortion is not a human right, says Pope

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Abortion-is-not-a-human-right-says-Pope/2007/09/08/1188783535117.html

Pope Benedict has rejected the concept that abortion could be considered a human right and urged European leaders to do everything possible to raise birth rates and make their countries more child-friendly.

The 80-year-old German Pontiff told diplomats and representatives of international organisations that Europe could not deny its Christian roots because Christianity had played a decisive role in forging its history and culture.

"It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself," he said in an address at the former imperial Hofburg Palace.

"This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right - it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."

---

Losing virginity tied to health risks

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Losing-virginity-tied-to-health-risks/2007/12/05/1196812783665.html

People who start having sex at a younger- or older-than-average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new US study suggests.

The findings, according to researchers, cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education that has been introduced in US public schools.

---

Sex education helps delay sex: US study

http://news.smh.com.au/sex-education-helps-delay-sex-us-study/20071220-1i74.html

Teenagers who have had formal sex education are far more likely to put off having sex, contradicting earlier studies on the effectiveness of such programs, US researchers say.

They found teenage boys who had sex education in school were 71 per cent less likely to have intercourse before age 15, and teen girls who had sex education were 59 per cent less likely to have sex before age 15.

Sex education also increased the likelihood that teen boys would use contraceptives the first time they had sex, according to the study by researchers at the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, which was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

The researchers did not evaluate the content of sex education programs, including whether students were taught about contraception or about abstinence only.

Earlier studies, which relied on data from the 1970s through the 1990s, suggested sex education did little to persuade teens to delay sex.

The researchers said they think the difference may be that sex education in the United States is now more widespread and is being taught at earlier ages.

---

AusAid restrictions archaic: Democrats

http://news.smh.com.au/ausaid-restrictions-archaic-democrats/20080108-1kpa.html

The Australian Democrats want the federal government to abolish "archaic" overseas aid guidelines which ban support for abortion and contraceptives.

The new Labor government is reportedly considering the recommendations of an all-party group of MPs whose report was shelved by the former Howard government.

Chairman of the group, West Australian Liberal MP Mal Washer, said guidelines preventing AusAid from disseminating abortion information should be overturned because the ban was contributing to the deaths of women in many countries.

Democrats foreign affairs spokeswoman Natasha Stott Despoja says the guidelines are a product of Senator Brian Harradine's role a decade ago in the Senate's balance of power.

Women with ill foetuses denied abortions

http://news.smh.com.au/women-with-ill-foetuses-denied-abortions/20080120-1mz4.html

Pregnant women carrying a foetus with an abnormality are being denied abortions even when the defect is grounds for "non-treatment" after the baby is born, a leading obstetrician has warned.

The specialist, Professor Lachlan de Crespigny from the University of Melbourne, says current abortion laws are discriminatory and inconsistent, especially towards mums-to-be who detect an abnormality like Down's Syndrome or inoperable heart tumours in their unborn child.

Most parents opt to abort if a severe abnormality is found in a test, but Prof de Crespigny says access to the tests and termination varies depending on where they live, the values of the doctor involved and the determination of the woman.

The problem is that many abnormalities are picked up in ultrasounds at around 20 weeks gestation, and therefore require a later-term abortion which many doctors are reluctant to perform under current laws, he said.

"Women who request a later abortion after the shocking news of a major foetal abnormality may face a harrowing journey and feel that they have been abandoned by hospitals and doctors," wrote Prof de Crespigny and co-author Professor Julian Savulescu, an ethicist at the University of Oxford in the UK.

"The diagnosis and a woman's reluctant request for abortion are distressing enough but if she attends a private obstetrician there is a high likelihood the doctor will not run the personal risk of performing the abortion," they said.

Catholic hospitals won't perform it, rural hospitals rarely can and the few public city hospitals that do will require reassessment by an abortion committee and may still refuse after weeks of delay.

"Such refusals may leave women embittered, not just because of the devastating outcome to their much wanted pregnancy but because of the impersonal and arbitrary system they had to navigate."

A survey of 20 Melbourne obstetricians specialising in foetal abnormalities found that all but one thought Victorian abortion law, similarity restrictive as other states, was unclear and often inappropriate.

---

Police end Qld abortion protest standoff

http://news.smh.com.au/police-end-qld-abortion-protest-standoff/20080209-1r8r.html

A Right to Life protest in Brisbane almost turned nasty when a group of pro-choice demonstrators ambushed the event and stole the limelight.

Police were called to diffuse the tense stand-off after about 50 pro-choice campaigners stormed the stage as the church-backed Respect for Women rally was about to begin in Queen's Park at 2pm (AEST) on Saturday.

The rally was organised to protest against a private members bill proposed, but not yet lodged, by Labor MP Bonny Barry calling for abortion to be decriminalised in the state.

In Queensland, it is currently an offence to conduct an abortion except when a doctor deems the mother's life to be at risk.

---

Sex education lacking in Qld: forum

http://news.smh.com.au/sex-education-lacking-in-qld-forum/20080225-1umu.html

Queensland teenagers are at greater risk of abuse, infections and pregnancies due to an ad hoc approach to sex education, a forum has heard.

Research indicated less than five per cent of Queensland students received comprehensive sex education, Family Planning Queensland manager for research and development Holly Brennan told the forum in Brisbane on Monday.

"At the moment it is really up to the school's discretion of how they do it because there are no checks and balances in place," Ms Brennan told AAP outside the forum.

"So some schools will have a fantastic program that goes from grades one to 12 while others just give young people a five-minute talk before they go to schoolies at the end of Year 12."

Ms Brennan said parents were not talking to their children about sexual issues as they believed it was covered at school.

She said young people who received sexual education were less likely to be abused or catch sexually transmitted diseases.

"If young people get sexuality education they are more likely to have sex at a later age and more likely to use contraception when they do, and they are more likely to do it without the influence of drugs and alcohol and be making choices that aren't as exploitative," she said.

Ms Brennan said Queensland was second only to the Northern Territory when it came to child sex abuse and teenage pregnancy rates in Australia.

"People support (sex education), but there is no leadership saying this has to be done," she said.

---

Give morning-after pill to girls: expert

http://news.smh.com.au/give-morningafter-pill-to-girls-expert/20080302-1w61.html

Nurses at Victorian schools should be able to give the morning-after pill to girls without their parents knowing, an adolescent health expert says.

Victoria's Centre for Adolescent Health director Professor Susan Sawyer told News Limited newspapers young people legally had a right to confidential health care.

And she said girls should be able to have emergency oral contraception.

Prof Sawyer's call comes as teenage pregnancy rates continue to rise in country Victoria.

Almost 10 per cent of births in Swan Hill are to teenage mothers aged from 15 to 19. In the Central Goldfields, the rate is 14.5 per cent.

Another policy backflip from the coalition:

http://news.smh.com.au/family-planning-funding-ban-faces-review/20080318-207g.html

A Howard government ban on Australian aid funding family-planning advice in developing countries may be scrapped.

Labor MPs have been asked to nominate themselves for a caucus committee to look into overhauling AusAID's policy banning funding for projects which gave out information about abortion and contraception.

The regulations date back to the 1990s, when conservative Tasmanian independent Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the Senate and was able to influence the Howard government on social issues.

Senator Harradine retired in June 2005.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson left the door open to supporting a change in January, saying Australia had to do everything it could to give people in the developing world a reasonable expectation of a healthy life.

Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said she welcomed Labor's decision to review the guidelines.

"But it must not be rail-roaded by the few who will never agree to abortion," she said.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

Another policy backflip from the coalition: http://news.smh.com.au/family-planning-funding-ban-faces-review/20080318-207g.html A Howard government ban on Australian aid funding family-planning advice in developing countries may be scrapped. Labor MPs have been asked to nominate themselves for a caucus committee to look into overhauling AusAID's policy banning funding for projects which gave out information about abortion and contraception. The regulations date back to the 1990s, when conservative Tasmanian independent Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the Senate and was able to influence the Howard government on social issues. Senator Harradine retired in June 2005. Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson left the door open to supporting a change in January, saying Australia had to do everything it could to give people in the developing world a reasonable expectation of a healthy life. Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said she welcomed Labor's decision to review the guidelines. "But it must not be rail-roaded by the few who will never agree to abortion," she said.

explain to me how abortion prevents aids?????

huh?

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:19pm:

explain to me how abortion prevents aids?????

The aborted baby can not catch it.

deepthought wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:29pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:19pm: explain to me how abortion prevents aids????? The aborted baby can not catch it.

um aborted baby already has hiv then...

so what your saying is that we should abort african babies who may or may not have hiv?

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:46pm:

deepthought wrote on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:29pm: Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:19pm: explain to me how abortion prevents aids????? The aborted baby can not catch it. um aborted baby already has hiv then... so what your saying is that we should abort african babies who may or may not have hiv?

No.  It was a joke mate.  Just a joke.

deepthought wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:51pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:46pm: deepthought wrote on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:29pm: [quote author=pender link=1172285897/45#46 date=1206001161] explain to me how abortion prevents aids????? The aborted baby can not catch it.[/quote] um aborted baby already has hiv then... so what your saying is that we should abort african babies who may or may not have hiv? No.  It was a joke mate.  Just a joke.

ah ok,

you would probably be surprised how many times i have heard that argument used...

Of course abortion should be legal, but it should always be a last resort and each case should be considered independently.

Compulsory abortions? - now that's totally scary that anyone should be talking like that.  

http://news.smh.com.au/national/govt-undecided-on-abortion-aid-debate-20080608-2nga.html

The Rudd government has not yet decided on whether to overturn a ban on providing funds to overseas aid programs giving advice on abortion.

The ban was introduced a decade ago by the Howard government, but Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is once again looking into the issue.

Mr Rudd told the Ten Network he was sure there would be a caucus discussion on the issue.

"Put all this into context - there was an all-party report last year chaired by the Liberal Party under Dr Mal Washer, as I understand it, which recommended that these guidelines agreed in the past by the Liberal government be changed," he said.

"That, of course, has triggered further discussion both within the Liberal Party now, and in our own party.

"The caucus I'm sure will debate this at the appropriate time."

But Mr Rudd said he would like to see more information before making a set decision on whether to support a change to the current ban.

"The exact nature or the quantum of our funding commitment to these programs to assist population control mechanisms in developing countries and how they are administered, I'd really like to get my head around all of the detail of that before getting into the substance of the debate," he said.

When asked if the churches would play a role in the government's decision, Mr Rudd said they were entitled to participate in the debate.

"Look, it's a democracy.

"Everyone's got a pretty fair chance to have their say in this country.

"Let's have a discussion and as soon as I'm across all the detail, I'll be in it as well.

"It's one of the things which is part of how you govern the country - being open to challenge rather than saying any challenge to us represents some sort of threat to our political authority. Not our approach."

It was a bit hypocritical of Howard in the first place placing a ban on overseas aid programs giving advice on abortion.  He allowed Abbott to set up a Catholic abortion advice service here in Australia costing millions.  

I think it's a great idea if programs can be set up, particularly in places like Africa where half dead women, who have already borne a number of aids inflicted children, can abort further children that will end up orphans.

Better still - maybe Rudd should think about setting up family planning clinics instead where the women can be advised on, and provided with, contraception.

mantra wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:44pm:

It was a bit hypocritical of Howard in the first place placing a ban on overseas aid programs giving advice on abortion.  He allowed Abbott to set up a Catholic abortion advice service here in Australia costing millions.   I think it's a great idea if programs can be set up, particularly in places like Africa where half dead women, who have already borne a number of aids inflicted children, can abort further children that will end up orphans. Better still - maybe Rudd should think about setting up family planning clinics instead where the women can be advised on, and provided with, contraception.

You have absolutely no idea about abortion, do you?  >:(


Sometimes it SAVES lives. :o

Nef I think you got your wires crossed.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 8:35pm:

Nef I think you got your wires crossed.

Nope. My wires are not crossed.   >:(  What the hell would you know about having an abortion, huh?  Please don't tell me what I should or should not understand or whether my "wires are crossed" or whatever. Jerk!

Quote:

Nope. My wires are not crossed.     What the hell would you know about having an abortion, huh?  Please don't tell me what I should or should not understand or whether my "wires are crossed" or whatever. Jerk!

Calm down neferti.  I didn't say I was against abortion.  I think it's absolutely essential for some women - particularly those who can't cope - either physically or mentally.

FD just meant that you misunderstood my post.  I got it wrong too about Howard being a hypocrite.  Obviously Howard was totally against abortion here & overseas - no matter what the circumstances.