Sex education + contraception = fewer abortions

Tedd says:

06:22am | 22/02/11

Likewise,

please provide us with the studies that shows how abstinence, no-sex teachings delivers the result of a nil pregnancy rates.

Bristol Pailin?

AliceC says:

07:26am | 22/02/11

@Servaas

I had sex-ed from Grade 6 until Grade 9, and no unwanted pregnanies here.

One of the girls I was friends with in high school, a Catholic, was not allowed to attend these classes. At the age of 21, she asked me “can you get pregnant if you have sex in the shower?”......

This is only one example of how sex-ed is about providing the facts on how the body works, especially reproductive organs. The Catholic church does not teach this, the basic concept if Catholicism is ‘sex ius for pro-creation only’. Therefore, each married couple, wanting two children, should only have sex twice in their lifetimes. Try convincing the hormonal teenagers of the world abstinence is the way to go….

Joseph says:

07:43am | 22/02/11

wow..thats alot of words to say “i believe in absintence and denying all children a sex education because of my personal beliefs…”

JD says:

08:13am | 22/02/11

The catholic church needs to move with the times or they will fade out into oblivion much like paganism or the greek or roman gods, times change and religion needs to move with it or perish.

and if priests are going to teach about no sex etc then stop didling the altar boys

Faeery says:

08:41am | 22/02/11

Seervass, you’re absolutely right, you are a “conservative stone-ager”.  Please head back into your cave and save the rest of us from your completely out of touch views.
Ever tried putting a child/teenager into a room jam packed full of lollies, leaving them in there alone for an hour or so but telling them they can’t have any?  How do you think that would go?
Kids today, whether we like it or not, are surrounded by sex; from the internet, to the media, to other teenagers and young adults and pop culture.  To suggest that sex education should be limited to “just say no” is sticking your head in the sand a refusing to acknowledge reality. 
Teach kids early.  Teach them ways to cope with peer pressure and social pressure.  Teach them that it’s ok to say no.  Teach them ways to get out of situations they may find themselves in ie: pressure to have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend, sexting etc…  Teach them methods to calmly and rationally make the decision as to whether or not to have sex.  Teach them the consequences of such a decision.  Teach them how to have safe sex. 
Prevention is always better than treating the problem once it’s occurred.  If we tried to guide kids through the mine field that is adolescence and sex surely we would have better results than just leaving them to find their own way.

Kate says:

09:36am | 22/02/11

You might find this interesting reading: “Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active.” More info here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html.

Speaking from personal experience, sex ed at my Catholic high school was a joke. It would have stood me in much better stead and led to much healthier relationships had that ‘education’ included classes about respectful relationships or how to negotiate contraceptive use with a partner.

Kyra says:

09:43am | 22/02/11

Here are a couple of studies, go to http://www.scholar.google.com for peer reviewed articles

Abstinence and Safer Sex HIV Risk-Reduction Interventions for African American AdolescentsA Randomized Controlled TrialJohn B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta Sweet Jemmott, PhD, RN, FAAN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD

Conclusion.— Both abstinence and safer-sex interventions can reduce HIV sexual risk behaviors, but safer-sex interventions may be especially effective with sexually experienced adolescents and may have longer-lasting effects.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/19/1529.abstract

The impact of abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs on adolescent sexual behavior
Douglas B. Kirby

Abstract
In an effort to reduce unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) in adolescents, both abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs have been proffered. Based on specified criteria, the author searched for and reviewed 56 studies that assessed the impact of such curricula (8 that evaluated 9 abstinence programs and 48 that evaluated comprehensive programs) on adolescents’ sexual behavior. Study results indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 of 9 had any significant positive effects on any sexual behavior. In contrast, about two thirds of comprehensive programs showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people’s sexual behavior, including both delaying initiation of sex and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth. Based on this review, abstinence programs have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication; conversely, strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs should be disseminated widely.

The overwhelming evidence is that sex education works better and for longer.
Do your own research and don’t rely on what others tell you.

Steely Dan says:

09:48am | 22/02/11

@ Servaas

“In that case please provide me with the studies that shows how no-abstinence, ‘safe’ sex teachings delivers the result of a healthy, emotionally stable group of teenagers”
It’s not “no-abstinence” (who’s teaching that?) that works, it’s giving basic reproductive information to teenagers that has an effect.  Abstinence-only is what fails - not because abstinence doesn’t work, it’s because teenagers are rarely abstinent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Sarah says:

02:05pm | 22/02/11

Are you serious? These are such outdated comments about Catholicism. I attended Catholic schools for my entire education, secondary being all-girls and we were taught sex-ed from year 6. We weren’t told not to have sex, our teachers weren’t that naive to assume that would happen so they taught us about what contraceptive measures were available, even where the local sexual health centre was. We learnt about what diseases were out there, but it wasn’t to try and convince us not to have sex, it was to ensure that we used protection when we did. It isn’t 1940 anymore, so don’t base your arguments on what things were like back then.

Jason Todd says:

02:30pm | 25/02/11

Sarah, I hate to break this to you, but it may be the luck of the draw when it comes to what you get in the Catholic system. Your sex ed may have been great, but I came through the Catholic school system not that long ago, and we had a biology teacher threatened with disciplinary action by a religion teacher for teaching that after conception, the zygote is little more than a mass of cells. The religious folk running the school decided that this was unnaceptable teaching for a religious school, even though it was biological fact. Sadly, the sex education programme was not much better.

Tedd says:

06:18am | 22/02/11

Are you Glad-to-be-alive because you weren’t a spontaneous miscarriage?

Are you Glad-to-be-alive because you weren’t one of the four children that die each week from congenital heat disease?
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/one-of-the-lucky-ones-running-free-from-heart-disease-20110221-1b2ku.html

Abortion rates ought to be reduced significantly, and that requires the rate of unwanted pregnancy to be reduced.  That, in turn, requires addressing a number of the realities of human behaviour, especially sexual behaviour.

malohi says:

06:58am | 22/02/11

Tedd, you are on fire today. Great comments.

The issue of abortion always brings out the one eyed emotional crowd (and understandably so) but there is so much more to it than one side with devil horns wanting to kill babies and the other side with halos wanting to save babies.
Thankyou for injecting some reason.

Von says:

07:07am | 22/02/11

Not a question you’d ask adoptees…they have been known to say “No”.
The move in America is complicated and involves the need for the adoption industry to increase the supply of domestic babies to meet the demand. Babies are commodities in America, expensive ones.

Glad to be alive! says:

07:56am | 22/02/11

Hey Tedd, aren’t you glad to be alive and able to post comments to a news site, even though other people might disagree with you? Isn’t it great that you can go outside and breath fresh air, instead of being aborted when you were a baby? I gather you are glad to be walking the earth right now, so why would you deny that right to others?

@ Von - are you serious? I’ve never heard an adopted person say that they wish that they had never been born. And I suspect that neither have you. Although we all suffer hard times, life is better than the alternative.

JD says:

08:16am | 22/02/11

@glad to be alive, if we had been aborted we would not be here to know about it or wonder about about it so it’s really an idiotic question, are you glad your parents decided not to watch tv that night instead? if you were never conceived or were aborted then you can’t really have an understanding of anything so no opinion whatsoever, it wouldn’t have mattered to me one way or another, i’m here now big deal, i will eventually die as will everyone else, it’s a part of life why worry about it?

VickiPS says:

08:35am | 22/02/11

Hey Glad, that’s an impossible question to answer, as well you know, so I’ll treat it as nonsense but answer it anyway.  Actually, no I’m not glad I wasn’t aborted.  Okay?  So what does that have to do with the abortion debate?  Does asking “have you stopped beating your wife?” add any weight to the campaign against domestic violence?

AdamC says:

09:31am | 22/02/11

I never understand why people who are pro-abortion try to obfuscate the fact that the act of terminating a pregnancy is a decision to deny life to a child. It is. Tedd’s absurd attempt to liken a choice to accidents of circumstance (miscarriages and heart disease) is laughable.

I don’t favour criminalising abortion, but the debate should be based on reality. The act of denying life is not trivial and people who point out that inconvenient truth are not being ‘one eyed’ or ‘emotional’.

Evewasframed says:

09:57am | 22/02/11

I’m glad to be alive because my mother is pro-choice. I know that despite being unplanned, I was wanted because my mother weighed up her options of continuing or not continuing her pregnancy. Silly question really. Surely it’s better to be alive and WANTED rather than alive because your mother has given no choice.

Kate says:

10:00am | 22/02/11

I’m glad to be alive and to have the parents that I do.

I wouldn’t feel the same way if I had been conceived as a result of rape or incest. Or if I had been born to a poor, young single mother with absolutely no means of supporting herself, let alone her child. Or to a woman who wasn’t emotionally ready to have children and who wouldn’t have been able to provide for and nurture me like my mother did. Or if I’d been brought up in an abusive household.

I agree that a low abortion rate is a good thing. I also believe that women who choose abortion have made this decision because they do not believe they are capable of providing for a child and giving it the life it deserves. I think this is a sensible and brave decision.

LauraBoBaura says:

10:35am | 22/02/11

AdamC - it’s an emotional issue, and everyone who has an opinion on it is completely one eyed, whether you’re prochoice or prolife.

I don’t believe that anyone who is pro-choice is trying to triavialise abortion, It is not an easy thing to do.
Any woman who has an abortion is fully aware of the gravity of the decision she is making.
But how are screams of infantcide from prolife supporters on this forum anything but emotional. Pro life supporters love to demonise women who have had abortions as callous babykillers & that does not create a debate based on reality.

notSue says:

11:40am | 22/02/11

Wow, Von, I never thought I’d hear anyone say that, except occasionally in my own head! I’m an adopteee and am mostly grateful for my life and upbringing, but the pain of separation from my birth family and heritage has haunted me all my life. I also know it was incredibly painful and traumatic for my birth mother. If abortion had been a realistic option for her then, perhaps she might have taken it. I would not have been here, obviously, but I don’t think anyone would have blamed her.

It’s only recently, since contact has been made with my blood siblings that I feel truly whole.

James1 says:

11:54am | 22/02/11

“whether you’re prochoice or prolife”

I just wanted to add that this by no means encapsulates the number of possible positions on abortion. I consider myself prolife and prochoice.  As such, I would never willingly choose abortion (if indeed I had a say, but being a man I really do not), and think abortion quite abhorrent.  Furthermore, I am regularly shocked by the statistics that come out - such as one in four Australian women having an abortion in their lifetime.

However, I also believe that others should be free to think the issue through and come to their own decision in line with their ethical framework and life situation.  Surely we should all have the right to go through the same process of determining what we personally think about the issue, or the act of aborting itself.  As such, I have no right forcing my perspective on, say, a pregnant rape victim.

On another note, did anyone else read Freakonomics?  They had a very interesting chapter about abortion and crime rates.

iMitchy says:

12:13pm | 22/02/11

There are two sides to this arguement. Therefore, both sides cannot be “pro” unless the next words are opposites.
I think that the term Prolife is misleading.
Prochoice people are not anti-life.
But Prolife people are anti-choice.
How can you make the choice to be antichoice? It is inherently hypocritical.

I think that says a lot about the Prolife crowd pedaling accusations of murder and hate.

I’m sure that your houses are clean and free of ants, spiders and other creepy crawlies. Have you ever called a pest control man? Is it murder?
Why not? Because they are not human or because they are only insects?
Well insects are a lot more developed than the cluster of cells that are flushed out in an early term abortion.

Prochoice folks are not trying to take your unborn child away.
Why are you trying to take their choice away?

You don’t have to walk a mile in their shoes.
Because the fact is, while they stand there barefooted waiting for you to return, they are probably just hoping that when you get back you will leave them the fuck alone.

Jane says:

01:07pm | 22/02/11

My trouble with the pro-life crowd is abortion is not “killing a baby”, its killing a bunch of cells that may or may not become a viable life form at the end of 9 months in a womb. Each successful implantation is not a guarantee of a baby, just ask all the hundreds of woman who have miscarriages. In fact a lot of premature babies die of natural causes shortly after birth and carrying a featus to term does not mean it will live for even 1 hr after birth.

If a successful egg implantation was a guarantee of a baby then I may agree with them, but its not.

Luce says:

01:45pm | 22/02/11

Glad to be alive, for every child that is conceived there are some 180,000,000 sperm which go to waste. Aren’t you GLAD you were that one sperm and not one of the ones that failed?

Sure, I’m glad I’m alive, but if I had been aborted, I wouldn’t be sad because I wouldn’t feeling anything.

Tedd says:

04:06pm | 22/02/11

AdamC,

I just pointed out to “Glad” there were other scenarios that thwarted a pregnancy or an early life. Sheech.

Kika says:

04:50pm | 22/02/11

What if that child was to be born into a pretty crummy life? Like what if the parents were both drug addicts or alcoholics, what if one parent wasn’t ready to be a parent and resented that for the rest of their life, what if the child was conceived out of a one night stand with a married man?
I hate abortions and I wish that no child was conceived and wasn’t wanted. But the reality is that not all pregnancies are wanted.

Adoption is something that used to be done in this country, but it’s taboo to give your child up. Especially with the welfare system the way it is these days. Its easy to be a single mum if you choose to be. Our neighbour is a single mum. It must be hard for her as she screams at her son all day. The poor thing is only about 3.

If people are coming from a Christian belief in why they are pro-choice tell me this, didn’t Jesus say that unless you are completely sin free who are you to judge? Are you God? Maybe we should leave the judging to God and pray that those who do have abortions repent and ask God for forgiveness.

It’s easy to cast the first stone, but unless you’ve walked a mile in someone else’s shoes how do you know what personal circumstances they have come from to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy? Who makes a decision to not go through with a pregnancy lightly?

Likes Joining Dots says:

05:04pm | 22/02/11

@AdamC

It seems you are selling Tedd short by calling his comment ‘laughable’ and ‘absurd’.  There are merits to his argument.

These things do happen - Glad to be alive! posed the question but seems to restrict it purely based on a healthy life -  not a damaged, short and pain ridden life.

On common ground though, both you and Tedd advocate abortion.

LC says:

08:10pm | 23/02/11

Neither has all the sex (cough, abstinence cough) education they have in Texas…

Jane says:

01:11pm | 22/02/11

For me the best sex education/contraceptive I got was getting to change the messy nappies of my cousins. When all the other girls were going gaga over babies and wanting one of their own in their teens because they are “so cute” I was “no they arent, they dirty, smelly things that interupt your sleep”. Thankyou Mum & Aunty.

Joan says:

08:24am | 22/02/11

But then, those who do have an abortion should have some respect for the life they have created within them.  Many see abortion as the only way of contraception and give the living form within them no more thought than a rotten tooth to be removed. That`s the way it is some people cherish life from its begining to its end,  others don’t. ... for convenience sake some get rid of a life before it has a chance to life in the outer world and probably same would have no qualms to put down those that are old and frail.  Hmmm pro-life sounds better way to live.  The cave belongs to those women who keep themselves ignorant about contraception rather than choose suitable means of contraception… and there is plenty of choice.- morning after pill for a start… many are too lazy…busy making themselves sexy… but not thinking - then playing dumb to excuse. ... rather than lack of sex education- what makes babies??  daa, daa . dunno.  Yeah get real!

KH says:

09:23am | 22/02/11

Joan - I don’t know anyone who thinks terminations are a form of contraception.  You absolute idiot.

Kate says:

09:42am | 22/02/11

@Joan: How about you stop demonising women who choose to have an abortion as careless and unfeeling? Ever had a discussion with someone about their abortion? I’ve had plenty and i have never, ever, heard a woman talk about her decision like this. It’s a backup if contraception fails. Almost 70% of women who have abortions in South Australia were taking contraceptive when they fell pregnant - which means they were trying to prevent themselves having to face this very situation. Sounds sensible, right? Not really careless, huh? Or unfeeling. Go and walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before you criticise.

RC says:

09:43am | 22/02/11

So the pro-life advocates need to “shut their mouths and go back in their cave”, but you’re more than entitled to express your opinion? Hypocrite.

AliceC says:

10:13am | 22/02/11

@Joan

How many women do you actually know that use abortion as a contraception????

Syl says:

10:17am | 22/02/11

Wow Joan

Do you read what youve posted?  Are you seriously suggesting that women use abortion as a contraceptive measure?  Really?  You actually think that women would prefer an invasive and possibly dangerous procedure instead of taking the pill or using a condom?  I cannot think of a single possible scenario where that could be valid.

Then you go on to make a nice generalisation that those who are pro-abortion would have “no qualms” to put down those who are old and frail.  People who are pro-abortion or pro Euthenasia are not the heartless unthinking bastards you would like to portray them as.  To suggest that someone would simply “off an old timer” or have an abortion as if it was nothing is bullshit and offensive.
I am pro-euthenasia, but you can bet if the time came and a relative asked me to approve their death I would certainly not have “no qualms” about it.  It would be an extremely stressfull and difficult decision (as it would be with abortion).

How about actually discussing your reasons for being “pro-life” (a stupid statement, no-one is “pro-death”).  How about pointing out why you disagree with abortions rather than spewing personal insults and gross generalisations while foaming at the mouth.
Who knows, you may come across as someone who has something worthwhile to say, rather than a sideshow.

Joan says:

12:24pm | 22/02/11

KH…. excuse me as a heath professional I come across different women from different ethnic backgroungs and believe me abortion is a form of contraception…..and many a young girl just shrugs abortion off ...shit happens…. you know.  Yes shocking to hear but that`s the thinking for some out there…. I don’t need to make it up. All types to make this world. Some even say they don’t want to take the pill because of what it might to their body…. yet happy to have abortion..

Joan says:

12:44pm | 22/02/11

Nowhere did I say that I am against abortion. Its up to the individual .... there are may methods of contraception but abortion rate is still high in Australia and doesn’t need to be. If contraception fails you still have choice ,... abortion or not. Some see it as an opportunity of a beautiful child others well…make their choice and up to them to live with that.

Jane says:

01:14pm | 22/02/11

Joan I hate to tell you this but a rotten tooth has more life than an early term abortion, the bacteria that make a tooth rotten can live on once that tooth is removed for quite some time and in the right conditions indefinately, the bunch of cells that is aborted cant even make it to the next cell division in most cases.

notSue says:

01:21pm | 22/02/11

Joan, as a former health proffessional also, I can attest that some women *seem* to have a cavalier attitude to abortion..but I can also tell you that in the majority of cases it is mostly bravado, a coping mechanism to avoid all those uneasy feelings that inevitably surface, even if a woman is sure of her choice at the time. Very few women are completely blase about a termination.

In regards to “ethnic” attitudes, their are certain nationalities where a woman’s role as incubator and mother is her only worth and she may be unable to procure contraception, so abortion is her only way of avoiding yet another pregnancy and child to raise.

Don’t be so ready to judge the actions of people whose lives you know nothing about.

Joan says:

03:50pm | 22/02/11

I`m making no judgements…. different ethnic groups act differently ...  abortion is birth control no fuss ado for many women .  .... that`s not a judgement that`s how it is. Many could even give advice on which herbs, potions to make to use to abort… all passed down through the ages. Talking generally…. some women will have up to three abortions in their lifetime…that`s birth control I say.  Other women choose to have up to nine children and live very happily and it definately isn’t the Pope who made them do it and they are not as downtrodden as some would make out.  . Each to her own life choices….. you make your bed, you lie in it.

Joan says:

03:57pm | 22/02/11

Jane feel sorry for you…. that your start in life was not worth more than bacteria in rotten old tooth

Jane says:

07:35am | 23/02/11

Joan, I was a miracle. According to the medical professional I should never have been able to be concieved, Mum was thought to be stirile. If Mum had aborted me, I wouldnt know anything about it because I wouldnt exist.

However I do know a lot more about life than that so I know bacteria are alive and will live on long after the tooth has been removed from a mouth where as a bunch of cells die almost as soon as they are removed from the womb. Learn biology.

Jane says:

01:18pm | 22/02/11

When I first heard about teh misquote my reaction was…well he is 16 years old, what did you expect as a response to a question like that? A balanced and well researched response giving all teh pros and cons of each side?!

Sam says:

01:34pm | 22/02/11

This is the full quote:

“I really don’t believe in abortion. It’s like killing a baby?” And as for extenuating circumstances, such as rape? “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

I don’t like the guy but I have a hard time condeming what he said.

LauraBoBaura says:

03:24pm | 22/02/11

Yeah - no need to hang Bieber out to dry on this one. The kid is 16.

AliceC says:

07:40am | 22/02/11

@ TChong!

LOL! Well said.

I wonder, if I wrote a story book, and claimed ‘God’ had spoken to me, would people follow this new religion, or throw me in the loonie bin?????

David C says:

08:41am | 22/02/11

since when did conservtive = religuos.

Syl says:

10:04am | 22/02/11

I actually agree with what you have said TChong, but can people please stop perpetuating this myth that Conservative = Religious.  There are religious people in all sides of the politcal spectrum, stop using gross (and false) generalisations to have have an underhanded dig at the other side.
Being conservative has nothing to do with believing in sky wizards.

People need to start realising that society’s moral and ethical codes have been designed by people, not by invisible omnipotent beings who watch and tut when you masturbate.

Sex education is the key, teenagers are having sex, telling them not too is not going to stop this, surely this is pretty bloody obvious…  Educating them on how to have sex safely and responsibly is the best way to reduce the instances of unwanted pregancies and, in turn, needless abortions.

JD says:

08:19am | 22/02/11

what ethical or moral obligations? as long as they are legal who cares? i plan to tell my kids as soon as you get to be legal age and are safe do whatever you want, as long as no one else is getting hurt (unless they are into that) then do whatever feels good

Kate says:

09:45am | 22/02/11

@ BJ: comprehensive sex ed also discusses the ethical side of sexual activity - it’s about respecting your partner, using contraception, negotiating sexual activity. That’s what real sex ed is, not just the biology - and that’s what people are asking for. We’re on the same side!

Syl says:

10:26am | 22/02/11

Please, there is no set “ethical and moral obligations” regarding sex.  Sex is just sex.  Things like commitment are a personal ethical decision, not a blanket responsibility.  As long as both parties are consenting and fully aware of what they are doing you can leave the ethics up to the invidividuals themselves.

The most important things are legality, safety and education.  Forcing a (your) moral code into the debate is unneccessary.

Elphaba says:

10:38am | 22/02/11

@Syl, well said.  Commitment, monogamy, sex whilst in love, etc are an individual preferance, not a pre-requisite.

Maria C says:

11:48am | 22/02/11

Agree Sly and Elphaba, but there are still moral and ethical considerations, you highlighted them.

People need to be honest and open about expectations, I certainly know both Men and Women who have lied about what the want from their partner and then someone gets hurt. That is the ethics and morals we need to teach. MUTUAL RESPECT AND HONESTY, anything out side of that is up to the individual.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:05pm | 22/02/11

Maria - mutual respect & honesty aren’t the kind of things that can be taught in schools. Some people are going to lie to have sex, and some are going to keep lying to keep having sex.
You can’t educate against that, people who lie about it, know that it’s wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t bother lying.

Elphaba says:

12:17pm | 22/02/11

@maria C, whilst you can highlight those problems to kids, you’ll never stop them lying if the mood takes them.

I think mutual repect and honesty is a wonderful thing, but you won’t always get it.  That’s just life.  That’s why we trust, and then get hurt, then pick ourselves up and try again.

Well… most of us…

Lisa H. says:

12:33pm | 22/02/11

Syl has just highlighted the modern (well, ancient, really) ‘issue’ surrounding sex. There ARE ethical and moral obligations surrounding sex.
Otherwise, it is rape.

Modern consent has been reduced to a legalistic and simplistic concept of ‘yes’, free of social context or ongoing obligation, when in actuality, emotional, social and even financial damage is done to consenting adults every day.

I would like to see sex ed place sex more holistically within adult life.

Surely that means accepting that ultimately pregnancy and family is at the heart of the heterosexual sexual act, regardless of whether pregnancy is the outcome of an individual act of intercourse.
This has implications for how we ‘place’ sex as a culture.

Do we simply say sexual damage happens to everyone, and is therefore not important? Or do we agree that sexuality is at the heart of so much of normal adulthood, functional parenting etc that we should really aim as individuals and as a culture to reduce the level of exploitation and cynicism surrounding sexual expression?

Science actually knows so little about sexuality.
What provokes women into desiring to be mothers, for example? There are risks to her financial and physical well being involved. Is it a hormonal development? Or is it primarily a social push/pull, where women observe ‘rewards’ for women who mother.

Sexuality is at the heart of these matters, is it not? How do rape victims, for example, process the trials and tribulations of parenting? Do they bond with the father of their children okay?

On another tack, how can sex ed help women plan for parenting, if that is what they wish? Some fertility doctors have said that women should be planning their children from the age of 18, to prevent unneccessary use of IVF.

Men’s attitude to sex, and the role they play in family life, also needs to be examined in a truly holistic sex-ed.

Syl says:

11:20am | 23/02/11

Lisa

I didnt say there were no moral issues.  I said there were no SET moral issues.  There is not one, universal set of moral issues regarding sex, things like monogamy etc are personal decisions.

Elphaba says:

08:17am | 22/02/11

Huzzah!

Banning it would be totally ineffective, it would still happen, instead it would be driven underground where people will perform them with little training, and women will die in droves.

I cannot stand people who insist that banning it is the right way to go, just because they get on their soapbox and bleat that it’s murder.  The law disagrees.  Abstinence is a joke.  Sex education in plain terms and ready access to contraception is mandatory, and in the words of Bill Clinton (I think?) abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare’.

If you don’t like it, then don’t do it.  Put your baby up for adoption.  Or use a condom.  But since I don’t see the pro-lifers opting to put up their hand and raise the unwanted babies, abortion must be an option.  The last option, but an option nonetheless.

Tedd says:

08:27am | 22/02/11

Each year approximately 210 million women become pregnant. An estimated 80 million of these pregnancies are unplanned. Forty-six million abortions are carried out annually around the globe, 27 million are terminated legally, and 19-20 million are performed illegally.

Where abortions are illegal, they are also generally unsafe.  Annually, an estimated 68,000 women die and 5.3 million suffer temporary or permanent disability as a result of 19020 million unsafe abortions.

Ina K Warriner and Iqbal H Shah (eds), Preventing Unsafe Abortion and Its Consequences: Priorities for Research and Action (2006).

Elisabeth Ahman and Iqbal Shah (P Butler is the editor), Unsafe Abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2000 (4th ed, 2004).

Once more unto the breach says:

09:15am | 22/02/11

But religious people consider abortion murder. It’s right to ban murder, and religious people in Australia should make it their life’s purpose to see it outlawed - if that means charging through the political system like a tsunami, then so be it.

Believing you evolved from a sea slug is much more irrational than believing in an intelligent creator.

LauraBoBaura says:

10:41am | 22/02/11

Once More: (sorry your name is too long to write all of)
So, what do you think will be the result when you outlaw abortion?

More unwanted babies, more children born to rape victims, drug addicts, people who can’t support a child, more backyard abortions killing women.. how will banning abortion combat this?
What will your Church do for all of these women & their children? I

Once says:

11:13am | 22/02/11

Laura,

None of those things are common enough to support abortion.

How can knowing your child is out in the world living life with adopted parents be worse on the psyche than knowing he or she never had a crack at life.

In a liberal society, rape is hard to prevent. Perhaps, the punishment for it should be upgraded to a dark ages level. Females attitude to relationships and self worth should be examined as it’s usually downscale people who are the victims.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:57am | 22/02/11

@Once - You have just made my point. The reason that these things (backyard abortion/unwanted children/children of rape) are not more common is because women have safe & legal access to abortion.

Abortion should always be a last resort. But it should always be a decision that women can make safely and legally.

Luce says:

02:15pm | 22/02/11

@Once, I’d like to see YOU faced with an accidental pregnancy when you have barely enough money to support yourself, let alone a child, and see whether you still think its more beneficial to bring them into the world knowing that you can’t give them any sort of a decent life, and at the same time ruining your own life.

“Believing you evolved from a sea slug is much more irrational than believing in an intelligent creator.”  Please don’t get me started…

Kate says:

03:02pm | 22/02/11

Christians don’t want to raise those kids. Pro-lifers seem to have an unhealthy interest in people before birth, and no interest in them after it.

Once says:

03:19pm | 22/02/11

Luce, the mother might be poor and unable to support her child but she can put him or her up for adoption so the baby gets a taste of the magnificence of life! In her darker moments, she’ll know that she gifted another human being life as well rather than prevented it.

Please don’t let me stop you from blessing us with another atheistic rant on the supreme righteousness of your own reason. Bring it when ever you want.

iMitchy says:

03:24pm | 22/02/11

@Once,
This is not a debate about creationism. But let’s look at what you said:

“Believing you evolved from a sea slug is much more irrational than believing in an intelligent creator”.

If you do not believe that life started with single cells which then divided and over millions of years evolved generation by generation via mutations into all the species that have ever walked the planet, then explain to me how exactly do the early stages of pregnancy work?
It is evolution on a fast track and it starts with 1 sperm and 1 egg. Attributes of the previous generation are passed to the next and sometimes birth defects occur. Go and have a look at the height of the doors in an unmodified 19th century building, Fremantle Prison for example. Guess what? We are getting taller…
If you disagree then removing those few little cells from ones body is not really murder is it? I mean, babies don’t just spontaneously appear now do they?
If God created man and gave him free will then who are you to take it away? I guess he is pro-choice.
I refer you to my earlier post - Pro-life is a euphamism for Anti-choice.

Luce says:

04:15pm | 22/02/11

Once, it isn’t “my own reason”, it’s simply reason (be careful in calling other people righteous as you speak with a certain amount of righteousness yourself). I’m not interested in ranting, I’ll just say this: Evolution is so well founded and backed up by evidence that it is effectively a fact.

Every bit of ‘evidence’ cited for an intelligent creator is simply a scientific process which is not fully understood by the person citing it, hence they can’t fathom how it could occur without divine intervention. That is all.

Brissy Boy says:

10:20pm | 23/02/11

No point arguing with Once he has faith, therefore no logic, no rational thought and does not require any basis for his arguments.

Tedd says:

08:21am | 22/02/11

not quite that straight-forward, iansand,

“Over half the women who have abortions were using contraception at the time they became pregnant. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that if all couples used effective contraception 100 per cent of the time, there would still be six million unplanned pregnancies every year.”
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia

kyra says:

09:55am | 22/02/11

@Tedd at 6 million unplanned pregnancies per year with a population of 6 billion this is 0.001%. Do you know what the rate of unplanned pregnancies is now?
I believe you were just trying to point out the naivety of iansand’s statement but still.
My main interest is that if everyone was using contraception 100% of the time do you know what the fall in the rates of STI’s would be as I was always told “use the pill to protect against pregnancy and condoms to protect against STI” by the way, someone who is educated about contraceptives would know the fail rates of each method and be able to protect themselves more effectively

Kate says:

10:07am | 22/02/11

@Tedd: Totally true. The reality is that at present, there are no methods of contraception that are 100% effective and also reversible. Many methods of contraception that are currently available also have side-effects that make them impossible for some people to use. More funding and research needs to go into developing effective and reversible long-acting contraceptives if we are to think seriously about lowering the unplanned pregnancy rate.

Advocate, Devil's says:

10:23am | 22/02/11

@kate…...yes there is a method of contraception that is 100% effective….it is called keeping it in your pants….

clazberri says:

10:24am | 22/02/11

That result will never “be delivered”.  It’s completely unrealistic.

I agree with Tubesteak’s comment.

iMitchy says:

03:50pm | 22/02/11

What is to prevent people from using multiple contraceptive methods?
Doctors will tell you that there will always be a chance of getting pregnant but seriously, (to get extreme here, I would never suggest that anyone do this) if you use the pill, a condom, spermacide, a diaphragm and the “pull out” method, then who can deny you the right to an abortion if you get pregnant? The odds are bewilderingly minute.
But if you do conceive while doing this, maybe you should keep it ‘cos it’s probably the immaculate conception of the messiah (chortle).

Anyway, for all the debate I think it has completely steered away from the article. No one can argure with the title of the piece and nowhere does Tory mention that the two methods in title would ever lead to an abortion rate of zero.
@Advocate, Devil’s,
You are absolutely correct. I cannot fault your comment.
You have fun with that.
I’m just gonna be over here not doing that… not one bit.

iansand says:

04:24pm | 22/02/11

Hyperbole!  Hyperbole!  Come back!  They really do love you.

Tedd says:

07:19pm | 22/02/11

kyra says, 09:55am | 22/02/11 -
“Do you know what the rate of unplanned pregnancies is now? “

Each year approximately 210 million women become pregnant. An estimated 80 million of these pregnancies are unplanned.

Forty-six million abortions are carried out annually around the globe, 27 million are terminated legally, and 19-20 million are performed illegally.

Annually, an estimated 68,000 women die and 5.3 million suffer temporary or permanent disability as a result of 19-20 million unsafe abortions.

Ina K Warriner and Iqbal H Shah (eds), Preventing Unsafe Abortion and Its Consequences: Priorities for Research and Action (2006).

Elisabeth Ahman and Iqbal Shah (P Butler is the editor), Unsafe Abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2000 (4th ed, 2004).

kyra says:

09:58pm | 22/02/11

so 80million unplanned pregnancies vs 6million, can we agree that a 74million (92.5%) reduction in unplanned pregnancies in a perfect world would be a good thing. never happen of course.

Kyra says:

10:02am | 22/02/11

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

Even in perfect use there is a failure rate for contraceptives the pill has a failure rate of 1% in perfect use and 5% for typical use, condoms perfect use 3% failure rate, 14% failure typical use. Most women who have an abortion were using contraception

Asrael says:

10:18am | 22/02/11

The Pill still fails sometimes. It has a built in failure rate, women take it incorrectly (all pills should be taken at the same time every day-not just the mini-pills), antibiotics will interfere, so will a stomach upset, hangovers, alcohol and some Vitamins and Herbs. Condoms can’t even protect you fully from some STDs. Implants are only as good as the mini pill and IUDs are often just not suitable. It’s not ” nearly impossible” to get pregnant using contraception. Contraception just reduces the risk. The only way to avoid pregnancy, absolutely guaranteed, is no sex. Speaking as a sexually active woman, that doesn’t sound like much of an option.

Kate says:

10:25am | 22/02/11

Mags, two things: women DO take contraception, it’s just not 100% effective. See Tedd’s comment above re the World Health Organisation, who states that even if every adult couple in the world used contraception perfectly every time they had sex, there would still be 6 million unplanned pregnancies per year. There have also been studies done in NZ and Australia which found that between half and three quarters of women seeking abortion were using contraception at the time they became pregnant. On a personal level, three people very close to me have fallen pregnant in the past two years, all three while using contraception. Two of them were using multiple methods. To say ‘get on the pill’ is an over-simplification.

Point two: ‘late-term’ abortions don’t happen to healthy, viable pregnancies. Less than 1% of all abortions in Australia are performed at 20 weeks or later, and those that are are done because of problems with the fetal development or occasionally health issues with the woman. They’re not done because someone wakes up at 22 weeks gestation and thinks ‘ah well i’ve had enough of this, might just pop down to the clinic and terminate the pregnancy’. Nobody thinks like this.

Bitten says:

01:17pm | 22/02/11

Yes there is a built in failure rate (or more appropriately I guess it would be the ‘error’ rate) for contraception.  So why not use two methods, if we’re all honestly about truly minimising our risk of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission? You can take the Pill but it still offers no protection against STIs, for that you need barrier protection. So clearly the responsible pathway is to use both condoms and the Pill.

That system hasn’t failed me yet.

Once says:

11:31am | 22/02/11

And what Pinko revolution do your teachings go back to smartarse.

Maria C says:

12:53pm | 22/02/11

Once, if he was a pinko he would expect society to inform and look after his children. Get a grip. Stop throwing the word pinko in because you have no genuine contribution to the discussion.

Sit Ronald Bradnam says:

03:12pm | 22/02/11

@once, pinko I am not I take responsibility for myself and my family and dont ask or expect any government or sky fairy representative for their help or advice, you should try it, it actually works. as Maria C says why dont you add to the debate with a real contribution instead of a barb. Ive been thinking about starting a revolution though, mine will be to get everybody to stop listening to sky fairies there is no such thing, get yourself educated and teach your children morals and right from wrong, are they going to be perfect, no but I gaurantee they will be better people for it.

Once says:

03:27pm | 22/02/11

So, ‘sky fairies’, ‘old men’, ‘dresses’ and ‘stone age’ are genuine contributions to the debate. If you mock our religion we’re gonna mock you’re worldview, obviously. Isn’t that justice?

Elphaba says:

03:43pm | 22/02/11

@Once, I don’t know about justice, but it’s definitely not turning the other cheek.

Cranky little Christian, aren’t you?

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

03:54pm | 22/02/11

@once ahh your true colours I mock all religion just not yours in particular. They all share the same common denominator, listen to me I know the true way, my god is better than your god, to get to my god you have to believe what i tell you dont worry about evidence just follow what I say I am in power so listen to me. congregate with all other followers and ritualise the beliefs that I say are true.
Mock away doesnt bother me one bit I lead a good life I am charitable to others and expect others to treat me the same. I donate 1 day a week to helping others and expect nothing in return. When I die I will know I did my best and know that there is no such thing as an afterlife but I accept that and dont need to cling to a false hope to get through life. So mock away once no problem because I am comfortable with myself.

rudy says:

03:55pm | 22/02/11

Ooh - ‘pinko’ - gee Once, you really know how to hurt an atheist.

Syl says:

04:06pm | 22/02/11

Actually AJ, I think these are exactly the questions we should be asking 16 yr olds.  It is legal for them to have sex, and they are pretty much what this whole discussion revolves around.  One would hope that if 16 year olds were properly educated on sex and its reprocussions they would be able to articulate a thoughtful response.

AliceC says:

10:18am | 22/02/11

@Tim

Even if that was an option (to remove a person’s right to have complete control over their own body), even implants are not 100% effective

RC says:

10:25am | 22/02/11

You’re not serious?

loxy says:

10:32am | 22/02/11

Tim, the contraceptive implant is only compatible with about 30% of women (stats from my Doctor’s office). When I say compatible I don’t mean effective, I mean that around 70% of women get such horrible side effects such as constant bleeding etc from it that they have the implant removed. There is no contraceptive that suits everyone and no contraceptive that is 100% effective. That being said, contraception is the responsibility of both males and females and not just females as you imply.

BK says:

10:34am | 22/02/11

Better still, bring on similar contraception for males. You would find that the number of ‘accidents’ declines ramatically.

James1 says:

10:45am | 22/02/11

Except Catholics, who believe it wrong to use contraception.  It is wrong to force someone to act against their conscience.

Peta says:

11:08am | 22/02/11

YES!!!!!!!!!

This is what i have been pushing for. OR alternativly a contraceptive in the water supply and people have to apply for a permit to have a child they are then given the Drugs required to concieve. That way people actually have to WANT a child to have one.

Tim says:

01:10pm | 22/02/11

Loxy,
that’s just a technical problem, improvements are being made every day. Even if we can get 90% effectiveness, the abortion issue would be reduced dramatically.
If there are male equivalents, then sure they can be used too. However, it’s simply more effective to direct this initiative at the female population. Men can impregnate multiple women, whereas a woman can only have so many children.
James1,
I would apply a conscience waiver where someone can opt out of the system due to religious belief. However, being religious they would have no need of abortion services either right?

Jane says:

01:37pm | 22/02/11

Win win for males who dont want children but dont want to take the responsibility to prevent them? How about you get a versectomy, that works as well you know

Tim says:

01:57pm | 22/02/11

Jane,
having a hysterectomy would also work too.
What’s your point?

Sarah says:

02:55pm | 22/02/11

Vasectomy’s can be reversed. Do that instead you prat.

Jane says:

02:58pm | 22/02/11

The point is it takes two to produce a potential child and yet its still seen as the womans responsibility to prevent pregnancy? If a male doesnt want kids, he should take preventative actions, not just suggest that implanting females with contraceptive will solve the problem.

Btw, forcing all males to have a contraceptive implant and the male petitions for its removal would work far better, that way there wouldnt be all these men around claiming they were “tricked” into parenthood either.

Tim says:

03:54pm | 22/02/11

@Sarah,
You want me to have a Reverse Vasectomy?

@Jane,
If you read my follow up comment, you’ll see that I said:
“If there are male equivalents, then sure they can be used too”
Can you point me to where I said that contraception is solely women’s responsibility?
If you think about it practically though it makes much more sense to apply this to women. One man can impregnate many women, whereas women can only have say one child a year.
If you applied this technique to males only, any percentage failure could result in large numbers of unwanted pregnancies whereas applying it to females wouldn’t result in the same. Also seeing as females have much more say in deciding the fate of any unwanted pregnancy, it makes much more sense to put them fully in control.

Tim says:

10:25am | 22/02/11

So it’s the fault of Christians that people don’t follow Christian teachings?
Wait, What?
C’mon P.Darvio, you’re making even less sense than usual.

iMitchy says:

04:28pm | 22/02/11

I suggest that the Punch team set up a thread exclusively for P. Darvio and Zac de Spudnut so that the rest of us can participate in thought provoking debate without being exposed to the extremist views of those who contribute nothing but pop up every now and then like subliminal message frames in a film. These people have only one agenda and try to relate any discussion to suit their purpose. You do not receive support in any threads on this site. Give up. Stop trying to recruit drones from a site that is built on people who already have strong opinions and the means to debate them in reasonable terms.
By the way, there is so much BS on the net these days that referencing to articles written by other fruit loops who share your extremist agenda is in no way convincing nor does it support your twisted view.

P. Darvio says:

06:17pm | 22/02/11

Quote: By the way, there is so much BS on the net these days that referencing to articles written by other fruit loops who share your extremist agenda is in no way convincing nor does it support your twisted view.

Really? - The BIBLE approves abortions - period - go read it. It even says in detail who is to do it and how it is to be done -  and Christians are required, as a matter of their faith to actually believe it yet they LIE about their faith and their Bible and blame others (like all religions do). Holding people to account for their repugnant religious beliefs is hardly extremist so I suggest you take you offensive and false blog posts elsewhere yourself.

iMitchy says:

11:21am | 23/02/11

If I want a Christian’s point of view I will ask a Christian.
I want to know you’re stance. You are your own person.
Are you a christian by the way P? I hope not. I get the tone that you are non-religeous. So am I. So what is the difference between us then?

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when you only have one idea.” - Emile Alain.

PS If I am not going to read BS on the net, why would I read BS in a book? You can hold on to your Bible.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:01pm | 22/02/11

RC - I am pro choice & I agree with most of what you said. Abortion should never, ever be a method of contraception. It should always be carried out with the gravity of the decision in mind… your friend needs a swift kick up the arse in my opinion.

LauraBoBaura says:

10:22am | 22/02/11

That’s good to hear zoe, but unfortunately not everyone has the same level of sex ed in religious schools.

James1 says:

10:49am | 22/02/11

Out of interest Zoe, what were you taught about the failure rates of contraception?

Markus says:

11:50am | 22/02/11

Probably the same thing I was at a Catholic school James1.
95% average effectiveness for the pill, just under 90% effectiveness for condoms, emphasis on the pill providing no protection against STIs etc etc.
Of course the obligatory ‘abstinence is the only 100% effective method’ was thrown in, but even the teacher was smirking a little while stating that one.

James1 says:

12:38pm | 22/02/11

That was what I was taught at Catholic school as well Markus.  I have heard some interesting stories about the teaching of contraceptive failure, but am yet to meet anyone with first hand experience of the more dubious claims.

Our teacher talked about abstinence with a straight face, but she couldn’t get through the Pope’s “rhythm method” without a smirk…

Seanr says:

11:18am | 22/02/11

She wouldn’t stand a chance, it’s only by dumbing down and demonising the opposite side that she is able to frame her argument

Voxpop says:

12:31pm | 22/02/11

Pft you think this guy has the answers LOL.
I’d compare forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy as a form of slavery.
And no-where does he stand up for the women’s human rights.

Mumofmany says:

01:16pm | 22/02/11

Thanks for providing the link.  That was a well articulated argument.  I particularly like the fact that he makes a distinction between sex and abortion.  While one may lead to the other, a pro-life position doesn’t mean that you think sex is evil.  I personally love sex, often, which please my husband I am sure - but believe that a growing baby is a human being that deserves being viewed as such, and not as a blob of tissue.

The abortion issue is so emotive on both sides.  It needs to be discussed in a logical and rational way, not just by demonising those holding views at a different end of the spectrum.  I am yet to hear a solid, logical reason in favour of free access to abortions other than a woman’s choice.  Surely we are not as a society so naive to think that we have freedom of choice at all times!

iMitchy says:

05:42pm | 22/02/11

Sorry @Sarah,
I did not see a single rational point put forward in that article. It spoke of “human rights” however it did not articulate any further. I suspect with good reason. The author also tried to use disclaimers by saying “This is not about (insert legitimate pro-choice arguement here), it is about (generalistic objection to slavery on the basis of human rights). I compel you to consider my point of view without the considerations of the legitimacies of your own. Where does that leave you?
The author also used the term “living, breathing human being” and “infant”. Well early term pregnancy does not contain a living, breathing human being or an infant. It is in fact a “blob of tissue” - thank you for the words @Mumofmany.
Do some research about early pregnancy and find out about the terminology for the different stages.
@Voxpop is absolutely correct, it is the rights of the mother or the cells inside her, both is not possible. And quality of life is much more important than quantity of life, especially in this age of overpopulation and famine.
@Mumofmany,
Try this arguement: miscarriage rates are high in early pregnancy. Many women who abort at the earliest possible stage may have miscarried anyway. They simply wanted to make sure that what they were terminating was as undeveloped as possible, not even yet a fetus.
If you think that terminating a cluster of cells is the prevention of a child to have a life, then the same could be said about the resevoir tip of a condom - they never even had a chance.
As for human rights - unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children. Should abortion become illegal, do you honestly believe that the instance of child abuse (both direct and indirect) would not rise? And what about the women who choose to have illegal abortions or self harm to incur a miscarriage? Where is their human right to decent medical care? What about those who are already below the poverty line? Is bringing a child into that life in itself an abuse of human rights on the mothers behalf?

A little insight: My wife had an early term abortion at 15. She was due twins. The pregnancy caused some major family issues.
Now we have a daughter and are planning to have either one or two more kids. Then I will get a vasectomy.
We have a beautiful little girl who has a lot of support and we can give her everything she needs or wants. In your opinion, do you think that having been denied the abortion of twins at age 15 would not have had serious medical risks to this woman. And do you think that she and her twins would be as happy, healthy and well off as she is now with our lttle family?
No.

Elphaba says:

11:36am | 22/02/11

Erm… correct me if I’m wrong, but the man contributes half the genetic material.  Their views should (at least) be heard, and a decision should try to be reached that both parties can live with.

I don’t envy the abuse you’re about to cop for the rest of the day.  Enjoy.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:41am | 22/02/11

NEFFA - I have to disagree on that. An unwanted pregnancy does have a huge affect on the man if he wants to keep it, and the woman does not. Men have no say as to whether a woman aborts their child. I don’t think it is an issue of ‘telling the little lady what to do’ - it’s more a feeling of helplessness that they have no say as to whether the woman carries a child that is their’s to full term or not.

Jugg says:

11:45am | 22/02/11

Why is it that a woman determines whether a baby gets to live or not?

How is it that you can say an unwanted pregnancy will never personally affect a man?  How would you know?

Tim says:

01:01pm | 22/02/11

Fair enough Neffa.
If that’s your view then I’m sure you’re fully supportive of any man who wishes to not financially support a child born from an unwanted pregnancy? It doesn’t affect him personally right?
I can just hear the new slogan now : “It’s my wallet, it’s my decision”

Syl says:

04:26pm | 22/02/11

NEFFA

“An unwanted pregnancy is never something that will affect you personally, so why get so hung up on it? “

So if my wife fell pregnant and decided she didnt want to carry to term this would not affect me personally?  Are you serious?

“I guess men just can’t get out of the habit of telling the little lady what to do. “

Or maybe, since men were, you know, half the equation that created the pregnancy, they believe they should have at least some say in what happens.  Babies don’t spontaneously create themselves (unless of course you prescribe to specific religions).  And both parties should discuss their options.

Perhaps you should realise that some guys would like to take some responsibility for the life they create and not everything revolves around man’s supposed oppression of women.

JD says:

04:42pm | 22/02/11

women have been having abortions since the dawn of time without the men knowing, most men will never know if the woman has done this or not, and why is it her decision? as soon as men can carry the babies to term and deliver them then they can have a say in what happens

Asrael says:

01:45pm | 22/02/11

Nasty side swipe at teachers.  tut, tut.

Luce says:

02:52pm | 22/02/11

“Im not religious at all but…”  *facepalm*

If implants are mandatory (which is a little 1984 for my liking), kids won’t be taught anything about personal responsibility, which is a very important part of life.

And that’s just such a low shot at teachers. A lot of them go into that profession by choice, you know.

Grumpy says:

03:56pm | 22/02/11

Its not a low shot at teachers. Its a fair assessment of my experience of knowing them as a student and socially. The problem is never with them it is always the child or the family. If someone doesn’t understand something they have a learning disability…Its not that they cant communicate to that person. Its a job. I hate mine too. The difference is my job doesnt ruin kids lives. but anyway…

It might be a bit rash but single motherhood raises criminals and perpetuates low socio-demographics, its a cycle and its an obvious one. Yes this may be a sweeping claim, but the majority of drug addicts, criminals, people with mental illness, learning disabilities etc etc etc come from single parent homes, where the head of the home is a female, or where the father has been extremely abusive, which is rarer than you think especially in comparison to the rates of the above from female households…If you want an increase in crime, decrease in literacy, more tax payer funded social welfare programs then continue to go along as we have been. The fact is school doesn’t see it as its job to educate children in anyway but what the curriculum says, its a job, 9-5. Some may care more than others, but the curriculum is a problem. It dances around issues. look at the stats of literacy and test schools from Waldorf students, somewhere that encourages them to learn instead of punishing them for not…but thats another story.

The problem is societies complacency with these issues

Slick says:

09:51am | 24/02/11

Grumpy,

“single motherhood raises criminals and perpetuates low socio-demographics, its a cycle and its an obvious one. Yes this may be a sweeping claim, but the majority of drug addicts, criminals, people with mental illness, learning disabilities etc etc etc come from single parent homes, where the head of the home is a female”

Now, please explain to me what you want someone who loses her Husband due to a drunk driver, shot in a war, stabbed by a random thug, is supposed to do?
Oh gosh, I suppose she should race out straight away and try find a new male partner, even though her heart is still raw and open from losing the love of her life to early, because otherwise her children will be crims or screwed up for life?
What about single fathers? when they have lost their wives, and then their daughter goes through puberty, and they don’t know what to say to them, or how to help them?

I think you need to relook at how that sounds. I also do not like single mothers who pump out 10 kids to 10 random blokes, but remember, sometimes people are not single by choice. Same as some people do not get pregnant by choice.
Personally, fell pregnant at 17, still with the daddy, who is the love of my life, we are married with 2 kids now, but, if he were to die tomorrow I would be WAY to heartbroken to even think of finding another partner to help raise my children. I would hope that the males in my husbands family would be willing to step up and help teach my son and be a positive male influence in my daughters life.

Trude says:

01:46pm | 22/02/11

Students at any school in Australia can be denied sex ed because of religion. Both of my boys have told me that only 2/3 of their class mates attend sex education classes. Because they’re at a Catholic school, the issue of condoms is only covered for a few minutes and not as a prophylactic against disease, just that some other people use it as a contraceptive.

That means that 1 in 3 children will leave the school with no sex education at all, and maybe date your daughter. All of the students who’s parents don’t teach them about condom use as a prophylactic against disease will also leave school not fully aware. One of them could end up dating your daughters.

Students from overseas need to be taught too, have a look at this article about foreign students. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/foreign-student-sex-health-alert/story-fn6bqphm-1226008361858 Now picture a situation where a young girl meets an older guy from overseas, he’s never learned about safe sex and has only what his friends have told him to go by, but he’s older and she trusts him because of it.

DMR says:

03:38pm | 22/02/11

If sex education in Catholic schools is so poor then you’d expect the products of these schools to be over-represented in statistics for unplanned pregnancies, STIs etc – are they?  I very much doubt it.  And why would they teach abstinence until marriage and faithfulness thereafter, and then tack on some advice about disease prevention in the case of casual sex?  That seems like a defeatist attitude to me.

My daughter should be in no danger from someone whose knowledge of sex is to wait until marriage and then be faithful to their wife.  I’d be chuffed to bits if she dated someone who adhered to those views.  You may think of me as naïve for expecting abstinence in this day and age, but if you don’t expect your children to follow Catholic teachings then why send them to a Catholic school in the first place?

(BTW, I’m not Catholic and would never send my children to a Catholic school.  I just don’t believe they should be blamed for providing insufficient sex education if the education they do give is ignored.)

Trude says:

05:12pm | 22/02/11

Tell me DMR, have you ever told your children “Don’t do such and such” only to have them do it anyway? Or do you have the only perfect children ever born? Teens are well known for doing things on the spur of the moment, without thinking of the consequences. My children are taught abstinence is the very best answer to prevent pregnancy and disease, also so that they can both respect themselves and be respected by their future partners. They are taught that fidelity goes along with honour.

However, I don’t bury my head in the sand either, I know many teens are sexually active and mine may become so before they marry, so I also make sure that they know about safe sex.

Many, many parents will not allow their children to learn about sex at all, thinking if they keep their children from learning it, that their children won’t do it. That’s stupid and irresponsible parenting. It’s like saying I told my kid not to have a car accident, so they don’t need to wear a seatbelt or learn first aid.

Even in public schools, any parent is allowed to cite religious reasons to deny their child sex education.

As for why my kids go to a Catholic school, it’s not for the religious side, it’s purely because the quality of education and access to extra classes, services, technology is far better in other subjects than our local public schools.

You say “My daughter should be in no danger from someone whose knowledge of sex is to wait until marriage and then be faithful to their wife. I’d be chuffed to bits if she dated someone who adhered to those views” But how would you feel if she dated someone who fully intended to adhere to those teachings, but things got out of hand one night? What if she told him to put on a condom, but he didn’t know how to use one, because he’d never been told and it broke? What if she got pregnant or AIDS because of it? Would you still be chuffed?

There are no perfect people. All people have moments of weakness. So all people, regardless of religion/beliefs, should be taught how to have sex safely. Regardless of what you want to believe, many, many children are going without sex ed because their parents wouldn’t sign a consent form, and they’re taking friend’s advice as truth. I volunteer at the tuck shop and take my kids to and from school, I’ve over-heard some of the conversations. You’d be shocked at some of the things these kids think will keep them safe, I over-heard one boy tell his mate that if you wash your genitals with vinegar straight after sex it’ll kill any disease.

DMR says:

06:35pm | 22/02/11

You may flame me for this, but I don’t actually have any kids.  When I do I’ll make sure they get the full spectrum of sex education, which sounds like the approach you’ve taken - hope for the best, plan for the worst etc.

I’m not defending religious parents (Catholic or otherwise) who deny sex education to their children, I just do not believe that children in this situation are over-represented in statistics for unwanted pregnancies, STIs etc compared to children who receive a full ‘secular’ sex education.  To use your car analogy, teenagers know seatbelts save lives but still so many don’t wear them.

Markus says:

03:27pm | 22/02/11

Doesn’t matter how much spurious anecdotal evidence you have about the ‘LOT’ of girls who get abortions because their boyfriend says so.

Legally a man has zero input in the decision surrounding unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Until this changes, then the responsibility of preventing unwanted pregnancies sits entirely with women. Get used to it.

Kika says:

05:00pm | 22/02/11

Well Markus if you could kindly tell my ex boyfriend that when he told me that if I didn’t have the abortion he would push me down the stairs, that would be most appreciated.

Kika says:

01:55pm | 22/02/11

I do agree with you. I feel as though that the system only teaches girls the reality and the boys get the glossed over version.

LauraBoBaura says:

02:25pm | 22/02/11

I believe that sex ed should ultimately be the parent’s responsibility. We are too keen these days to hand our kids over to the education system & think that they will come out the other side as model human beings who know everything they need to know without parents having to lift a finger.
But - I think that the education system should still teach sexual education, it’s important that children recieve an unbiased education when it comes to sex.
If parents have strong religious objections/beliefs surrounding the use of contraception, then they are not going to teach their children about using condoms/birth control & kids will miss that vital information.

Luce says:

02:59pm | 22/02/11

If sex ed is left only up to the parents, a significant number of children won’t be properly educated due to religious beliefs. That is why it should remain part of a school education.

... the last thing we need is religious people procreating faster than everyone else.

Kika says:

04:54pm | 22/02/11

Yeah but Laura, if you leave it to the parents how are you going to know what is actually being taught? When my parents went to school there was no HRE. My Dad told me there was a boy who seriously thought babies come from cabbage patches and freaked out and cried and had to be sent home when they made him worried that he hadn’t got a period yet.

Boys will be boys. Are parents going to teach their sons about the female reproductive cycle and how babies are created? Or just told to “Go get em son!”

LauraBoBaura says:

09:13am | 23/02/11

Like I said - it should still be taught in an unbiased factual way in schools, but parents should have ‘the talk’ with there kids aswell, it’s their genes that are going to be running around out there procreating, they should be responsible for them- instead of turning them over to the education dept because they don’t want to have an awkward conversation.

By the by, there is no cabbage patch man, it’s a stork Kika - he comes and delivers babies.. pfffft cabbage patch man.

Nathin says:

02:22pm | 22/02/11

Whaaat? Zaf, if life begins at conception, then abortion is the “taking of a life”, or in a judicial sense the Dr is committing “murder” and the mother is committing “manslaughter”. And to make the point clearer, just because you can’t see the baby (that it is hidden in the womb) doesn’t make it any less human.

Zaf says:

04:25pm | 22/02/11

Let me spell it out for you: I believe that women have an absolute right to kill their unborn babies.  This right flows from women (and everybody else too) having a fundamental right to control their bodily integrity - ie control how their bodies are used.  FORCING someone to have sex is rape - it’s illegal.  FORCING someone stay when they want to go (just for eg) is also unlawful.  Why is FORCING someone to give birth essentially different?

All this fluffling around about when life begins, and when a foetus can start feeling pain, etc. is an attempt to sidestep the issue by trying to define abortion as a not very important choice because it’s just some cells, etc. 

While this is arguably a politically strategic approach, in terms of preserving women’s liberties, I feel that it’s counter-productive in terms of firmly establishing the principle that adults have a fundamental right to control their own bodies.  When life begins, and whether a foetus can feel pain or not, are emotive subjects but essentially irrelevant to this principle.

jmho.

Lisa H. says:

09:21pm | 22/02/11

Great points, Zaf!

LauraBoBaura says:

03:22pm | 22/02/11

‘Succesful’ mainly because divorce was still very much frowned upon back in these previous generations you speak of.

Lisa H. says:

05:35pm | 22/02/11

I don’t think you can dismiss other generations’ experience with such a closed minded attitude.
Sure, there were (and still are!) unhappy marriages.
But, even now, unplanned pregnancies remain an IMPORTANT TRIGGER for family formation.

Seano says:

06:54pm | 22/02/11

I think Laura has a point, there would have been a different standard for a “successful marriage” before no fault divorces came in.

Lisa H. says:

09:36pm | 22/02/11

Surely ‘successful’ is a word that means ‘full of success’, regardless of how old you are.

Even - especially?- in these modern times, I know several people that began their family through unplanned pregnancies.
Unplanned pregnancies have always been a part of the family formation landscape.

Rigid planning of life doesn’t necessarily lead to ‘success’ either.
Life is more flexible, and interesting than that.

For that reason, I think it would be a great shame if birth control methods because completely rigid and inflexible.
In my view, it may lead to a further loss of integrity in society’s view of sexual relating.
Many women already grow into their 40s without having had ‘permission’ from a man to bear a child. I have seen several men push their partners to the edge of a spiritual brink through their refusal to consider a child, or their partner’s desire.
Personally, I think it is a great shame for women caught in this predicament.
And a shame for men too, as having children is a great stimulator of personal growth.

Again, we need to learn more from a scientific perspective as to what stimulates a woman, or man, to desire children.
Surely, ‘family planning’ involves the right to have a family, not just avoid a family!
But I guess I have moved off topic.

Markus says:

03:45pm | 22/02/11

The abortion rate based on race probably syncs up perfectly with the abortion rate based on income.
How many of that 30% black population are living on or barely above the poverty line?

I actually read ‘this group’ as ‘poor people’. I am sure Margaret Sanger was implying the same thing.
The same argument is being used here too about preventing generations of welfare families, so I don’t see the issue.

Nathin says:

08:52am | 23/02/11

I agree with you Jaz, the Catholic Church is (one of) the most vile organisations on the planet.
However, that doesn’t mean that the Bible is incorrect and untrue (the Bible isn’t the forefront of Catholicism anyway), and that also doesn’t mean that Christ will not hold everyone accountable to His divine Word on Judgment Day.
Murder is sin, so is lieing, theft, adultery, blashemy, our consciences confirm this. Murder includes abortion and euthanasia, and have been condemned by God in His Word since the days of the Chaldeans who used to sacrifice their babies to Molec so that they would have better crops and financial prosperity.
And Catholicism has done worse that what you’ve described Jaz, they’ve murdered thousands of true Christians for preaching the true Christ, preaching against the tyranny of the Papacy, and distributing the Bible, from the 12th Century even unto the 19th Century. So I’m with you on the rant’s against Catholicism and especially the Pope.

Seano says:

06:52pm | 22/02/11

Your’s is a silly argument. The reason Islam is not mentioned is not because of some fear of a fatwa (seriously in this country who cares what some loony imman who can barely fill are scout hall might say). It’s because Catholics make up 25% of the population whilst Muslims make up less than 2%.

P. Darvio says:

06:56pm | 22/02/11

Quote: Tory: you forget to mention that Muslims are just as opposed to abortion as Catholics.

Sorry? What? - Catholics as Christians are required to approve abortions because the Bible approves abortion, and the Bible also details who is to perform it and how - please go study your Bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 5:11-21&version=NIV

From your Bible “....the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell”

Why do you think Catholics oppose abortion when your Bible says its OK?

Lisa H. says:

09:19pm | 22/02/11

So often it is after the big life choices are finally made - the marriage, the kids - that previous sexual / life decisions look wrong, or even in hindsight crazy or dangerous.
You can’t put an old head on young shoulders, unfortunately!

Shelly says:

11:20pm | 22/02/11

The laws on this vary from state to state. Which state would charge the offender with two counts of murder?

james milton says:

07:56am | 23/02/11

@Shelly

Which states? Irrelevant.

It shows the entire fallacy of ‘it’s just a fetus’ to be utterly untrue. The law sees it as a human being, but at the mother’s whim, automagically turns into a non-human when she doesn’t want to have it and would rather kill it.

Shelly says:

10:36am | 23/02/11

Not irrelevant if it isn’t true. Where does the law see the foetus as a human being? Or do you just think this is the case because you saw an episode of Law and Order and think this somehow translates into real life - here - in Australia.

Danny B says:

03:10pm | 23/02/11

Right,

If the law did see the foetus as a person, then pregnant mothers would be able to drive in a T2 transit lane when they were the only person in the car and they’d have to buy two seats at the cinema and on public transport.  I don’t see this happening.  Do you?

Brissy Boy says:

10:29pm | 23/02/11

James you are completely wrong.  It is not possible to murder a child until it is alive.  Legally the child is not alive until it is detached from the mother and it breathes (maybe only brain activity depends on which states highest court you are talking about).  Nor can a pregnant women’s child sue for damages in tort for negligence causing death, eg car accident unless child was alive immediately prior to its death.

Nathin says:

12:19pm | 23/02/11

Excellent summary of Planned Parenthood’s legacy Van. There are not different points of view on this issue, there is just the TRUTH and you have spoken it well. Good stuff.

james milton says:

05:43pm | 23/02/11

Many more Jews have died from abortions than died in the concentration camps. Very sad.

Danny says:

07:19am | 24/02/11

When it takes its first breath Paul.
Any other line is arbitrary.

It’s the only way to keep you freaks at bay by moving the goal posts of the definition of viable outside the womb. Pro-lifers are attack late term abortions as an in road to banning abortions altogether.

Jason Todd says:

09:21am | 26/02/11

Paul, if you really cannot see the difference between a cogent, concious, thinking feeling human being and a blastocyst which has more in common with your discarded big toenail clippings than a walking talking human, then I fear you may be beyond help.

If you want to talk confusion and contradiction, talk to me about the pro-lifers who are dead against abortion, but are all for the death penalty.

I am pro choice. I am about the path of least harm. The removal of an embryo or foetus that is not even concious or self aware to prevent the sufferring of both mother and child for many years to come is the lesser evil in my eyes.

Sandy says:

12:12pm | 24/02/11

Religion and Church/Mosque/etc are not exactly the same thing.  I thought the reformation 500 years ago taught us that.

Before you all take your next a shot at religion think of it like the Simpsons series. There’s something in it for everyone. I.e. there’s something in it for the kiddies, the naiive, foolish and ignorant. But there’s also more serious messages in it for grown ups.  The serious messages go right over the kids heads. But both groups are (for the sake of this comparison) enriched.

All the stuff that most of us target when making a broad attack at religion is there for the kiddies. And when we do attack religion as such, we just reveal our true self serving intentions or our level of conceit.