Thanks for the tip I will bear that in mind but that was not actually my question.

He had the choice to use a condom. He had the choice to get a vasectomy. He had the choice to have a trust-worthy partner.

Women have to live with the consequences regardless. Often they don't have choices and often those choices aren't 100% effective. Give them the option.

He didn't have a choice to get a vasectomy if the only surgeons or hospitals in the local community refused to perform a vasectomy on religious grounds.

Reproductive rights, access to birth control, in the face of political or religious opposition, actually does effect men too.

You've struck an important point. at present all the focus is on female "reproductive rights", while men are seen to have no such rights, other than the right to have a vasectomy or use a condom. If a woman conceives, whether the man wants the child or not, every decision from that point on is out of his hands, including the big one: support.

What's needed desperately is a reliable male oral or long-lasting injectable contraceptive so that young men are not financially tied to women for years, when all that he intended was a simple night of sex. She may have also wished only no-strings sex, of course - contraception does fail after all, but then decide not to abort once she has conceived. He cannot influence that decision and yet is completely bound by it for the next 2 decades.

It's a bit like the way the old press-gangs used to work - grab the drunk ones when they can't defend themselves and by the time they wake up it's too late to do anything about it.

Pressing hasn't been regarded as a valid means of recruitment for seamen since 1814, but it remains a very common method of recruitment of semen.

Let us follow through on this. In the US it has been suggested that a man who is party to an unwanted pregnancy can tell the woman that she can have an abortion or continue with the pregnancy but if she does so she is on her own. She does not have to continue with the pregnancy, abortions are readily available so it becomes her responsibility. Your views?

Young men aren't "financially tied to women." They're financially tied to their children. Who do you think SHOULD support children, if not their own parents?

What a strange conversation, both men and women have reproductive rights and responsibilities which unfortunately are not always taken seriously. RU486 ads another element which is to be applauded.

This should have happened years ago and if I recall correctly, was blocked at the time the current leader of the opposition was health minister and it was not clear if his religious beliefs played a part in that decision along with Senator Harradine. This should never have been a decision for male, Christian, conservative politicians but made on evidence.

Actually, your comment shows some naivety. The man makes payments in the name of the mother, the CSA pursues him in the name of the mother, he has no way of knowing whether money he pays is spent on the child or not. The nominal beneficiary is the chld, but the actual beneficiary is the mother. It's akin to the "dowager empress" role: the child-monarch is nominally in charge, but the dowager makes the decisions and enjoys the perks.

However, that wasn't the point of my comment. My point is that it is entirley the mother who has the power to make the decisions regarding the pregnancy proceeding once conception occurs, yet the father faces significant consequences, whether he has expressed an intent to remain childless or otherwise. The mother is encouraged to make the decision to continue the pregnancy because she knows that the costs will be at least shared by the father, even if he doesn't want the kid.

Would you think it reasonable for you to be held to account for decisions made by someone who you might have only known for a short, sweaty time, or would you think it reasonable that you should have some capacity to self-determine?

Sounds a lot like the sort of thing i've been advocating for some time. Why should a man have to endure a painful and intrusive surgical procedure simply so that he is at no risk of being taken advantage of by bedpartners? Why is it deemed reasonable for a woman to have the right to determine what happens to er body, but the man has no right to determine whether he participates in her decision?

I see the nodding donkeys behind the scenes are busily clicking the red and blue buttons. Why bother folks? Why don't we take it as read that anything that talks about men in a positive light will receive lots of red marks and polemics about the perceived victimisation of women will receive lots of blue marks and you can save the trouble?

Craig Minns - unless the man is forcibly raped by a woman and forced to ejaculate inside her vagina, how do you figure that the man has "no right to determine whether he participates in her decision"?

I am fascinated by John Coochey's concept above of "a man who signed up for sex". If each man did "sign up" before each sexual encounter that was capable of leading to conception, perhaps the form they signed could explicity warn about the consequences of unprotected sex. Better still, both (or all) individuals sign that they understand and accept the consequences. Sort of a pre-coital agreement...

Craig - why imagine that your down-raters must be mindless donkeys? Perhaps they genuinely and thoughtfully consider your posts to be "unconstructive" and not "insightful".

You seem to be free to post and express yourself. Others are free to react and respond. Great, isn't it?

"unless the man is forcibly raped by a woman and forced to ejaculate inside her vagina, how do you figure that the man has "no right to determine whether he participates in her decision"?"

I've already explained that Sue, do you normally have this much trouble understanding simple English?

Howevr, just for you, here it is again in simple language:

1They decide to have sex (you'll note they BOTH decide)
2 Neither of them explicitly want children as a result of their encounter
3 She conceives

My concern is about what happens at that point.

At present, she has the power to make all the decisions, while he has none. Even if he explicitly told her before they had sex that he doesn't want kids, after they had sex and as soon as she tells him she is pregnant, she can decide to continue the pregnancy and he is bound by that decision. All clear now?

I regard that a serious imbalance in power, which is open to abuse, or even simple caprice, which is why I am waiting with some interest for the development of male contraception that is non-intrusive and as easy to use as The Pill.

Screwed up a cut and paste.
That should have read

"Even if he explicitly told her that he doesn't want kids before they had sex, after they had sex and as soon as she tells him she is pregnant, she can decide to continue the pregnancy and he is bound by that decision. "

The other version doesn't make sense, sorry.

"Perhaps they genuinely and thoughtfully consider your posts to be "unconstructive" and not "insightful"."

If so, they're free to comment, as you point out. Instead, they sit in the shadows, nodding and clicking, but without sufficient courage of their convictions to express their reasons.

Pathetically weak, in my view: not even heckling, just cat-calls.

I think that research has been shown to be false, John. I can't recall where i saw it now but the figure was far less than 20% and it was a study in one hosppital anyway. It's probably far less a figure than the infddelity of men i'm guessing anyway. Not that women are angels...

Well the readers of this page are given the option of providing support for your comments or not. Seems like you've been hoist by your own petard.

Good point Luke, one I hadn't considered. I feel like singing the Monty Python song Every Sperm is Sacred.

I think that might be a subject of a court order in a paternity suit, don't see any reason for I to be compulsory.

Imagine chewing gum and walking - well everyone - even you, can click on the -ve and +ve flags AND write a comment as well.

Multi-tasking is grand, isn't it?

Lynne - you may be confusing "morning after pill" (a type of retro-contraception) with "medical termination" (to terminate an established pregnancy).

Morning-after contraception is hormonoal suppression of ovulation.

RU486 suppresses endogenous progesterone secretion, which stops an embryo from developing.

Essentially, the effect of RU486 is like having a spontaneous miscarriage.

Your right Sue I am, the spontaneous miscarriage is the operative word, but that being said, one wouldn't be sure they had conceived in the first place taking it for no benefit, plus the possibility of having side affects after long use.
Questionable for just chance encounters surely.
It doesn't matter, my comment wasn't in the right vein, thanks for enlightening me.
I don't know why men can't have some responsability in the scheme of things anyway.
If a woman does she's to blame, if she doesn't she's to blame what the hell.
I wonder what Mary of Magdala would choose to do, but then she must have taken something herself, or maybe the high priests who condemned her were all clued up.

Has anyone else realised that with the addition of just two letters - G & R, this drugs name is cyber shorthand - R U 4 GR8 6. Serendipitous or evidence of an immoral conspiracy?? .......( yes, I'm laughing )

Luke, the incidence of adverse events from the use of RU486 is substantially higher, with recent Australian research showing that 1 in 18 women require hospitalisation following its use, compared to 1 in 250 women requiring hospitalisation following surgical abortion. Hardly safer.

The other issue is that this regimen of drugs is marketed as being a useful solution for rural and regional women, yet these are the same groups of women less likely to have access to emergency medical and surgical intervention should they suffer an adverse event. The drug already has already caused the death of one Australian woman since it became available.

One could hardly call this a step forward for women's reproductive health... just another medical solution to add to the current surgical solution so freely offered to women for their psychosocial problems.

We are yet to see the ramifications for women's mental health given that current research suggests up to 30% of women suffer serious and prolonged mental health problems following surgical abortion. With women's more active participation in a lengthy painful process, culminating in the viewing of their expelled baby, the potential for their psychological harm must certainly be much greater.

Debbie Garratt - how does the hospitalisation rate compare with that for spontaneous abortion?

"Surgical" abortions are carried out using either suction or D&C (dilatation and curettage) of the uterine contents. These may not be done in "hospitals" but they are done in procedural facilities.

If only 1 in 18 women using RU486 have to go to hospital, that is far less than the 100% of surgical abortion recipients who have to do to some procedural facility.

RU486 (mithepristone, a steroid that blocks progesterone) can only produce the same adverse effects as a spontaneous miscarriage - pain and bleeding. Many women tolerate these at home, some need pain relief in hospital followed by D&C.

Surgical abortion, apart from the cost and requirement to attend the procedural facility, carries the additional risks of perforation and infection from the instrumentation.

Medical abortion carries no greater risk than miscarriage - ie related to retained tissue that has not passed. Indeed, RU486 has been used in the setting of incomplete surgical abortion - where tissue has been left in the uterine cavity - to prevent infection of that tissue.

I understand that your organisation aims to minimise abortion by any means - which is a different discussion.

It's hardly realistic to say that 1 in 18 women using RU486 and then needing a D&C is more dangerous than 100% of surgical abortions consisting of a D&C.

Sue, the 1 in 18 refers to hospitalisations following complications from RU486, most often haemorrhage. This would then often require a D&C. The issue is that this is in addition to the medical abortion which many women have described as both more painful, and more traumatic than they had anticipated.

This figure represents adverse events, not initial visits such as you infer from your example of 100% of women attending a facility for a surgical abortion.

RU486 is not a single drug, but a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, the first being as you described, the progesterone antagonist to cause death of the foetus, the second to cause uterine contractions to expel the foetus. It is not as natural as a miscarriage, nor have I seen evidence that miscarriage carries the same significant risk of haemhorrage, although I am happy for you to link me to any.

Our organizations aims to disseminate information about the adverse effects of abortion which impact a very significant number of post abortive women.

Debbie - I understand that many women receive a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol - this is to increase the chance that the miscarriage is expelled from the uterus. Indeed, some women are given RU486 to manage incomplete passage of uterine tissue following either spontaneous miscarriage or surgical abortion.

Did you know that about 10% of all pregnancies around the world end in miscarriage, and that 100% of all miscarriages involve pain and bleeding (to varying extents)?

Bleeding is not really an adverse event or complication from RU486 - it is the intended consequence. How else would the thickened endometrium get out of the uterus?

"It is not as natural as a miscarriage, nor have I seen evidence that miscarriage carries the same significant risk of haemhorrage"

Do you have any basis at all for these assertions? Both spontaneous miscarriage and medical miscarriage have 100% incidence of haemorrhage - where else would the blood and tissue go?
"It is not as natural as a miscarriage,

"current research suggests up to 30% of women suffer serious and prolonged mental health problems following surgical abortion"

Debbie do you have a reference for that?

Sue, there is a difference between 'normal' bleeding and haemorrhage requiring intervention as I am sure you know. 1 woman in every 18 women who had a medical abortion in order to avoid a surgical procedure was hospitalized for a surgical procedure as a result of excessive bleeding.

The fact is that miscarriage and abortion are both different in intent and in the psychological outcomes for women so I am not sure it is helpful to confuse the two.

All of the people that take this drug will BE WOMEN! Now what does that do for your half baked statistical UNreason?

Is it really better? Condoms significantly reduce the sensation available to the man, they have a high failure rate and they are highly dependent on being properly worn. One of the reasons they are not a panacaea is that men are reluctant to use them, because of that loss of sensitivity. Would you be as supportive of a female contraceptive that removed a significant part of the enjoyment of sex for women?

I do agree that men are poorly served by the current solutions. The sooner a male chemical contraceptive can be developed the better. I expect that when it does eventuate there'll be a significant drop in birth rates, since at present the man has little say in whether a pregnancy occurs or proceeds if it does occur.

What precisely did the button-clickers find so offensive about this comment?
the only thing I can come up with is that some are quite concerned at the idea of men having the ability to decide whether they wish to participate in her pregnancy?

Perhaps they were annoyed when the commenter ignored that the point made about condoms related to protection against STD's.

Perhaps it's a left-wing, feminist conspiracy.

DA- "Of course better than taking a drug is for men to use condoms (and lube) which protect them and their partner from STD's as well as unwanted pregnancy"

CM- "Is it really better?"

Yes, a condom is really better at protecting against STD's than a contraceptive drug. How about this for an idea- your preceding comment need only have consisted of the first three words, rather than wasting more to reinforce an obvious point.

Craig

I can't speak for all women, but condoms do dull sensation for me as well. However, if I am having a causal fling; no condom = no sex.

Did you ever consider that women have feelings? Down there?

No, I have read too many of your posts - you are all about you.

I have an alternative theory. I find it mildly offensive that you should question whether a non-invasive contraception technique is better than a potent drug whose purpose is to cause haemorrage in the internal organs of the female partner. Others may find it offensive that you should question whether it's better to prevent sperm and egg meeting, than to cause the death of an embryo after conception.

Paul, every other cell in a woman's body contains her own DNA, the very thing that makes each of us unique. The zygote, embryo, fetus, baby.. contains its own DNA. These terms are developmental, not suggestive of lack of humanity. Whilst you might want to make an argument on whether or not the unborn are persons, your current statement is scientifically flawed.

Paul, while I appreciate this is the usual pro-choice tactic (its amusing to read those who cry the mantra of choice, often utilise a false dilemma) to devalue the living organism within the womb through cherry-picking philosophical, legal, social, and biological interpretations, there is one simple question that no-one, with all of their philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives seem to be able to define or explain or have the courage to commit to: when does the living organism within a womb, become human?

Though this has nothing to do with choice. Its about decision. The law is not about giving you choices, its about dealing with the decision of your choice according to a definition. The same with science.. people have choices due to understanding and make decisions based on the knowledge of what the outcome most likely will be. Society is not built on providing people with choices. Its about managing the decisions people make. The same with philosophy.. understanding the nature of something to define it obviously requires more then one individual (either to define it, or to adhere to it, otherwise the definition would not be required) which makes it absolute and objective.

Choice is merely a symptom of human reason and understanding, nothing more. To label someone as being anti-choice is philosophically unsound without actually asking if that person has other options to choose from (and allowing that person to detail them before being a bully and forcing your perspective on them)..

So again, when does the living organism within a womb, become human?

In that case Paul, how many 'cells' constitutes a human being? With almost every bodily organ in place and functioning within the time frame allowed for the use of the drug RU486, what is being aborted, if not a human being?

If you are correct this relates to my still unanswered question where a male does not want to become a father and gives this or a similar drug to his previous partner. Surely this must be acceptable if it is just a zygote?

Joshua:

"when does the living organism within a womb, become human?"

An entirely moot point.

Until birth a baby is part of a woman and part of her often difficult decision whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.

A decision which has nothing to do with you, or anyone else apart from the father, however ultimately the decision rests with the person who is pregnant.

Dianna:

"An entirely moot point."

Ah, not sure of your english comprehension capacity, but the ? (question mark) at the end of the sentence, makes it, well, a question. So, seeing as this is a forum and there is a consensus of opposing ideas, it's obvious that a question is subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. Thanks for your contribution though.

"Until birth a baby is part of a woman and part of her often difficult decision whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.

A decision which has nothing to do with you, or anyone else apart from the father, however ultimately the decision rests with the person who is pregnant."

That's an entirely philosophical, legal, social, and biological explanation, right there. Thanks again for more of your contribution and I am glad you took the time and effort to participate (well not really, just sayin').

Though, it kind of does concern me. I'm not sure if you've not been told, but there's this movement going around the place called western civilisation. It's been going on for a few millennia and has been able to progress through the development and interaction of human reasoning and understanding. Forums like this add to the general social acceptance of individuals having ideas and concepts that may not be similar or even close to yours, but through sharing them you work towards the most efficient and effective methods to live.

There should be something on the interweb-thingy-mah-bob you could read about how to involve yourself in the 21st century?

Though I guess in saying all of that, the absurdity of your position is you have told others they have no right to involve themselves in something (because they oppose it and use convenient arguments to somehow justify your statements relevancy), yet you are, well, involving yourself in others decisions by advocating for something.. get it?

Like, it's kind of, ahh, dumb.

Yes but it won't affect her just the zygote.

If you think a woman having the right to determine what happens to her life and her body is "kind of, ahh, dumb" you are entitled to do so.

Diana:

Clutching at straws now? Having quoted from a previous comment of mine in your previous post it's amusing that you now need to redefine what I write to somehow distract from the comment you react to but can't reply to.

Perhaps you are unaware but there is freely available content on the internet about how to communicate effectively. I am sure there would be TAFE courses in the area in which you live?

Keep on with the personal insults Joshua - it suits you.

Debbie, this IS about REAL CHOICES. Choices. No one is saying if you fall pregnant that you MUST use this drug. No one is saying if you fall pregnant that you MUST decide on termination. And actually sometimes, women fall pregnant for reasons that aren't their choice. Todd Akin stole your thunder last week with regards this type of Flat Earth rhetoric. I defend your right to your opinion, but seriously, this article is about choices that our Government(s) insist on taking away from us. In this instance using attrition over time, in a bid to hopefully make it all just "go away". You know, like they used to ages ago, when women would be sent "away"? This is a drug which has been proven to be safely used in a wide variety of contexts in a wide range of countries. Always exceptions to the human condition, but I do believe that if someone is capable of passing a "basic" medical degree (here in Queensland that is actually two degrees now by the way) that perhaps they have a capacity ability to comprehend an online training program. This could just be me though.

"..viable to live as a separate human entity.. around a minimum of 20-23 weeks. Prior to that a foetus is actually a parasite.."

Viable, entity and parasite. All terms with "value implications" which we can easily ignore to strictly consider their grammatical definition.

So in saying that, how does Stephen Hawking compare? Is his humanity related to his physical independence or is it measured by other potentials and abilities that are on offer from his being? Are these abilities and potentials only valid because we think they are valuable as a society or are they valuable in their own right? If most of society does not understand the work of Hawkings, does that mean his life is less worthy due to his physical situation and that his contribution to society is not greatly understood? Of course, not. Thank goodness, it is not! The dignity of human life, though related, is not for this thread.

Regardless of value definition, if humans decide how to value other humans, it becomes open for interpretation, abuse and disregard. If we apply human logic and understanding to a system that we actually belong within, then again, it is open for the same treatment. Philosophically speaking, its bizarre to suggest that at the moment, human life begins at 20-23 weeks but in X years with some advancement in technology, human life can be "viable to live as a separate human entity" at an earlier time. So in X years, a human becomes a human at an earlier stage in their utero development due to scientific and technological capability? Leading on, would our humanity be proportionally linked to how much in control we, as a society, think we are? That's particularly relative and subjective.. not sure how scientific or consistent that would be.

Freedom of choice without consequence absolves responsibility. A lack of responsibility dilutes the meaning of rights that a society invokes upon its citizens. The dilution of the privileges extended through rights, essentially means individuals actually do not possess freedom of consequence. One can not have both. Everything in existence, that operates well, is in balance, or a cycle of averages (humanly considered) to achieve that balance, and the human condition is no different.

As to the potential of human life, I would suggest it shows the absurdity of those who seek to interfere with the value of human life. Human life, as mentioned above, is not just defined by biological factors. To start with, a clone will only devalue the individual from which the biological structure was copied.

Well those are my thoughts, anyway. Enjoy the weekend, Paul.

Debbie: You are entitled to your opinion, as are your fellow researchers and health professionals who hold similar hypothesis. Often people become quite emotionally attached to their thesis. Most people I think realise that scientists and doctors are not akin to a god-like all knowing entity(s). Similarly, most people also realise that with any science that for a hypothesis to be valid it either needs to be proven or disproven. You appear to be making some very broad and general comments on both the science of the substance(s) involved, as well as very broad and general comments on the impact of using, with medical supervision, this/these substance(s). In general terms you seem to be making statements about "unintended consequences". Humanity's history and our society at large is infused with "unintended consequence". With any type of medical intervention there are risks, with any type of medical intervention there is unintended consequence - negative and positive. Thank you for the information about the negative unintended consequences you and others have created.

If you don't have any other agenda than pushing a barrow of "pro-life" under the guise of "science" where would you have us draw a line in the sand with regards the use of any substance for medical purposes? Every substance we imbibe, natural or manufactured, there exists a risk of negative unintended consequence. The ultimate negative effect being death of a human and all, one could argue that every medical intervention has this risk. Shall I never again go to the doctor at all, or is it just with regards reproduction that you seem so concerned about my ability and those on this forum, to access balanced information about the impacts of medications and medical interventions? Yes I hear you, you are merely presenting the "unknown" facts to assist with decision making processes that arise in a myriad of contexts, I ask have you actually read the article? It is an article more overtly about the ways in which women do not have access to all the information about all the choices, and thus, by careful and calculated omission we are then asked to simply accept this as being "morally correct", or "what's good for us".

I am sure you will now tell me that I have proven you correct, that your information is dismissed, "thrown away", simply because of who by defacto you represent by using your email address. Not so, but you seem to have a need to prove to us all that you are right and that the rest of us are all wrong. Yes I understand what peer reviews are. And it would be with high degrees of circumspection and consideration that my opinion is that there is significant debate over whether peer reviews actually add value or credibility to an argument.

Hmmmm. Debbie, you chose to post from the position of using an email account which makes your intent extraordinarily clear. If anyone chooses to criticise your arguments, oh dear, you poor thing, your affiliation with a known lobby group will be called into account. No Debbie, you are not a victim and you are entitled to have an opinion. I don't know you personally, but I do know the organisation that by defacto you represent when choosing in a public forum to use this email address. I do have a problem, as a voting member of the Australian community, with the stance(s) that your organisation takes on a female's ability to self determine and make balanced and considered decisions. Crucify me for this position. But you are afforded the same privilege to take umbrage with my position.

I don't believe that you posted from the email domain you did for any other reason than to create an environment whereby any thoughtful person would be forced to comment on your supposed science. It's like winning some weird type of sympathy in a democratic forum. That's passively aggressive and manipulative. If you are so concerned with the "safety" of this drug, would you not be better served in lobbying the Therapeutic Goods Authority? It's at least a more appropriate forum for your arguments. I don't have absolute faith in government or it's processes by any stretch of the imagination, however I do believe they will have considered a wide variety of information in this instance. Debbie, again I ask, have you read this article? This is not an article about the literal "safety" of the drug. I also don't believe that you don't understand my reference to the training program, nor indeed my reference to Flat Earth rhetoric. Kudos though for starting some very old debate in 2012.

Debbie

Are you the same Debbie Garratt who is linked to claims that condoms are only 50% successful in protecting against STD's and unwanted preganancy? The same Director of Real Choices with links to the Catholic Church?

According to:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/todays-lesson-condoms-in-the-classroom-cause-controversy-20091202-k6fc.html

"Real Choices Australia operates the program, Choices Decisions Outcomes, mainly in government schools across Australia. One of its directors and spokeswoman, Debbie Garratt, has links to the Catholic Church and has worked with anti-abortion groups.

The program is used at Ulladulla High School. Teams are trying to promote it in the Newcastle, Kempsey, Macksville, Port Macquarie and Taree regions. On the Choices Decisions Outcomes' website, students are warned that condoms are not 100 per cent effective in stopping sexually transmitted infections. It highlights that children who engage in sexual activity are ''flirting with danger''.The website goes on to say there is ''no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases''.

The NSW Greens MP John Kaye said the program compromised the State Government's public health strategy, which says the use of condoms during casual sexual encounters ''significantly'' reduced STI transmissions.
Advertisement

''The program is using subterfuge to infiltrate the classroom and indoctrinate young people with a minority viewpoint, putting their sexual health at risk,'' Dr Kaye said.

Ms Garratt said the program, which catered for the first four years of secondary schooling, encouraged adolescents to make healthy lifestyle choices regarding their sexuality as well as health and relationship issues.

Asked whether the website was designed to dissuade students from using condoms, she said some readers may have inferred the wrong meaning. ''The message is that condoms are not 100 per cent safe,'' she said. ''We don't promote abstinence as the preferred option.''

Nicholas Parkhill, the chief executive of ACON, formerly the AIDS Council of NSW, said questioning the effectiveness of condoms put the lives of young people at risk.

''It is very concerning to learn that groups are questioning the effectiveness of condoms in relation to the prevention of HIV and other STIs,'' Mr Parkhill said.

Ellie Freedman, medical education co-ordinator of Family Planning NSW, said scientific evidence existed that condoms prevented the transmission of most STIs. She said laboratory studies showed latex is impermeable to STIs.

''At Family Planning NSW we advise that consistent condom use is the most effective way of protecting against STIs,'' Dr Freedman said.

A spokesman for the Department of Education and Training said Real Choice Australia did not require departmental authorisation for its presentations, only approval from principals.

''Where an external speaker addresses students on a topic, the regular classroom teacher remains present to ensure the information is consistent with the curriculum,'' he said.

''Condom use is included as one of several options for minimising the risk of infection.''

Debbie Garratt - your comments seem to misunderstand the mechanism of action of RU486 (mithepristone) - it essentiall stimulates a miscarriage.

The features of all types of miscarriage include pain and bleeding in various degrees. The pain is from the cervix dilating and the uterus contracting to expel its contents. The bleeding is from the uterine contents coming out.

Sometimes, a blot clot or piece of tissue can get stuck in the opening of the cervix, preventing uterus from clamping down. This is seen occasionally in spontaneous miscarriage, and is treated by removing whatever is in the cervix through a speculum (anyone capable of performing a Pap smear can do this).

Contraception and abortion are emotive and compex issues, but exaggerating the harm of this drug doesn';t make the discussion any more rational.

Sue, I have already corrected your error that RU486 is a single drug further up. I am reporting the research for which I have provided links. I am not exaggerating the research findings which you are free to read for yourself.

Dianna, I am that Debbie Garratt, however I have never made these claims, nor would Mr Kaye return any of my phone calls or emails at the time he made these false claims. Guess you can't trust everything you read in the media.

Real Choices Australia also has no links to the church, catholic or otherwise, although given the amount of credit the church gets for our valuable work, perhaps we could ask them for some funds. :-)

Well the article isn't entirely false... The bits where I tried to tell them the facts were true! No, we don't have an association with Melinda Tankard Reist either, although Melinda has produced some very valuable work on women and abortion and her book, Giving Sorrow Words provides valuable and compassionate insight into the lived experiences of women suffering after abortion.

Debbie

You are not conversing with a teenager here, but a mature experienced woman who had an abortion while married (quelle horreur) because I was in an abusive marriage and did not want a child brought into such toxic relationship. I have no regrets. Nor do friends of mine who have had abortions. Of course, there will be some women who do regret - not all women are the same.

Once again you are using scare tactics to promote your anti-abortion agenda.

Dianna, I haven't mistaken you for a teenager. Nor am I engaged in the use of scare tactics. In fact I am very vocal about the need to be evidence based and to never engage in the manipulation of women. The fact that a significant percentage of women suffer after abortion should not be denied, nor should the experiences of those women be denied representation just because some women do not suffer.

I am not shocked at the fact that you have had an abortion. I am glad that you have reconciled the experience for yourself. I know other women who express the same. Not all of these believe that just because their experience wasn't negative that every women's experience is the same as their own.

Just because we give voice to the 30% doesn't mean we are denying the experience of women such as yourself. Sadly, post abortive women with a negative experience are often denied the opportunity to have their stories heard and accepted by those most loudly proclaiming support of women's rights.

And BTW, Debbie - you might want to read up on your pharmacology.

RU486 is a synthetic steroid that binds to progestoerone receptors. It is a single drug, called Mifepristone.

To increase the success rate of medical miscarriage, it is often combined with another drug - a prostaglandin called Misoprostol.

They are two separate drugs.

"Nor am I engaged in the use of scare tactics."

but

""current research suggests up to 30% of women suffer serious and prolonged mental health problems following surgical abortion"

and

" there is a difference between 'normal' bleeding and haemorrhage requiring intervention".

Hmmmmm.

Debbie

I know you don't think I am an ignorant teenager and would appreciate you stop treating myself and other women on TC as if we are.

" Sadly, post abortive women with a negative experience are often denied the opportunity to have their stories heard and accepted by those most loudly proclaiming support of women's rights. "

Who is denying women the freedom to talk about their abortion experiences? We are discussing them right here and right now. Safe abortion and support after such surgery is a very important issue for the majority of women.

However, when such discussion regarding negative experiences is used in conjunction with anti-abortion propaganda this becomes manipulative scare tactics.

What is required is full disclosure of ALL the facts; that is the majority of women who decide to have an abortion do so without long term adverse effects - provided the abortion is performed by a professional and without the application of guilt towards women for their choices. For example, the protest outside family planning clinics; no woman should have to endure that. And I have.

Also, grief is normal - no woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. It is normal to feel grief after an abortion.

Most women don't have post-natal depression after giving birth either, but some do, especially if they were forced or let themselves be persuaded into having a child they did not feel they could give adequate care to.

Finally, you said you admire Melinda Tankard Reist's work and claim no affiliation with the Catholic church? Australia is a very small country and both your organisation and the Catholic Church champion the same rhetoric. As Sue would say, hmmmmmm...

Dianna, you have managed to prove my point more clearly than I have been able to explain it. As soon as someone begins to talk about the negative aspect of abortion, produces evidence that it can be harmful or suggests that things are not as rosy as they seem in the land of 'womens healthcare', the usual response is to begin to look for religious links or some other suspicious affiliation for the purpose of discrediting them.

This forum isn't unique for that. It is expected. The facts still remain the facts. I have provided you with peer review published research evidence. I have spoken personally to many hundreds of post abortive women for whom abortion was a nightmare 'choice' for them and who almost universally say that they are so marginalised by those so loudly proclaiming their rights that they become even more traumatised by the response when they speak.

The fact is that the freer availability of this drug, which has so far not proved itself to be safe at all, is not helping those women for whom abortion feels like anything but a free choice.

You can undermine me all you like. You can continue to google. You can fabricate anything you need to in order to make yourself feel better about your position. I am not hear to make you feel bad about it. I'm only hear to offer some information. What you choose to do with it is completely up to you. Question it, research it, ignore it... but when you have to stoop to ridicule of the messenger.. well that about says everything doesn't it.

That's okay. Its part of my job and it helps our cause for people to see how closed minded abortion advocates can be when it comes to the views of anyone other than their 'own'.

Debbie - you say that you are only interested in the facts, and yet you have posted many assertions and errors. You claim to have "corrected my error" about RU486 and yet it was your assertion that was wrong. You seem to make bold statements without knowing much about either the effects of this substance or the range of spontaneous miscarriages.

I have no idea who you are, and it's not my concern what your affiliations are.

I don't hold disdain for people who cannot bring themselves to accept any form of abortion - so long as they don;t prevent the access of others.

What you have done repeatedly, however, is distort and exaggerate the effects of medical miscarriage.

You are not a victim of anyone here. The reactions to your comments are not about your affiliations - they are about your erroneous and exaggerated assertions.

(This is the spot reserved for Debbie Garratt to come back after her "Sue, I have already corrected your error "

with

"yes, I was mistaken. RU486 (mifepristone) is a single drug, often used together with another drug.")

Rachael, both international and Australian research show a significantly higher incidence of adverse events following medical abortion with RU486 compared to surgical abortion, with the added psychological trauma of active participation and commonly viewing the expelled fetus. The recent Australian research found that 1 in 18 women require admission to hospital following their use of RU486 compared to 1 in 250 following surgical abortion. RU486 is also marketed as being a more available to women in rural and regional areas where their access to appropriate medical and surgical care for adverse effects may also be more limited, even though recommendations for use of the product include that a woman is nearby emergency care.

Rachael, no woman knows when the procedure starts to work and how long it will take. So she could indeed be on a bus when she starts bleeding uncontrollably or starts have massive contractions or feels very sick...for some women it works well, but for others it's dreadful. And no woman knows how she will react. So very dangerous for a woma in the bush...even more so when she's trying to hide that she is undergoing an abortion...Success rates less: 91% to 93% depending on which research you read. Suction abortion 99%

Ms Klein - are you aware that "medical abortion" is essentially the same, pathologically, as a spontaneous miscarriage?

There is a big difference - though, in that the RU486 will have its effect at a predictable time, whereas a spontaneous miscarriage could occur at any time during the first trimester, and sometimes later.

Women could be on a bus, driving a train, teaching school, lecturing at university when their miscarriage starts. It doesn't suddenly kill them - they get cramps first, then some bleeding, more bleeding, sometimes clots. ABout 10% of pregnancies result in miscarriage. I'm not aware of anyonein our society dying from one.

SHould all pregnant women just stay home for their whole pregnancy in case they start to bleed on a bus?

Sue

I have to applaud your response. Having had a (natural) miscarriage while stuck in gridlock traffic.... one of those "causal events" :)

The scare tactics by those who disapprove of RU486 is appalling, that "Real Choices" is permitted access into schools is of great concern. Sex education is fraught enough without this campaign of obfuscation.

See link below an example of the videos Real Choices have shown provides the type of misinformation being presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc1EkBgDmTc

The quality of the video is as poor as their argument.

Damn straight Rachael, If women have all the information provided they should make the choice, and not the sort of "all the information provided" you would get from the family planning equivalent of Meryl Dorey.

And sadly those places do exist Luke! One near us called Pregnancy Problem House promises to provide lots of information and support, but mentions nowhere on their website who they are affiliated with. They were raising funds recently for a new ultrasound machine - the intent being to show pregnant girls their baby so they would become more emotionally inclined against abortion.

I cannot imagine they would provide "all the information" - at least without a distinct bias.

They call themselves "Pregnancy Problem House" - are you serious?

Surely you jest? Off to do some sleuthing....... shuffles back, shakily holding much needed cuppa. They are for real:

Naming pregnancy as a problem is a deliberate attempt to attract women who for whatever reason are seeing pregnancy as well, a problem, who may be in the process of considering an abortion. These women who already have problems are then met with advice like:

>>If you've recently taken a pregnancy test or missed a period, you might be worried or scared. If a baby isn't part of your plans, you might be looking for an abortion clinic to terminate your pregnancy. It's important to take your time and get all the facts before you decide which choices are best for you.<<

http://www.pregnancyproblemhouse.com.au/

This is some slick wording. I could not find out on their website just what "all the facts" were, but my anti-choice alarm has begun to sound. Just like it did with Debbie Garrat, who resented the suggestion that her background may be investigated or that she may be affiliated with any of these sham family planning groups.

And the advice to "take you time" coz we all know women have unlimited time in which to make a decision regarding a pregnancy.

Sheesh.

Yes their private firm MS Health will import it and then sell it to pharmacies. Doctors who have done on-line trainiing (!!!) will be allowed to write scripts. Women then presumably fill scripts and away they go...DYO abortion in the backyard. I truly hope their will be more controls imposed!
Up to ths decision a clinic had to have an authorised prescriber license from Therapeutic Goods Administration.