“And a law outlawing abortion would hence effectively require of women as a class what is required of no other class of persons in our society. For that reason, such a law would be a discriminatory imposition on the autonomy of women as a class.”

Highly debateable, if not totally incorrect.

If the woman does have the baby, then who normally pays child support. The mother?

If the father pays child support, then who has most of the say, (if not complete say), in how that money is spent. The mother?

If the child is born, and the father does have some contact with the child, then who normally acts as the gatekeeper of that contact. The mother?

If the father wants the child to be born, then who has final say in whether or not the child is aborted. The mother?

If the father makes a commitment to have full custody of the child after it is born, then can he stop the abortion from occurring and so preserve the child’s life?

Finally, just how many women “do” seek counselling, or “do” discuss the matter with their doctors, or “do” discuss the matter fully with the father, before deciding to have an abortion? Do the majority of women do this, or is this just a myth?

I agree with the Article - the voilinist analogy is accurate / appropriate.

Who has authority to tell any other person how their body will be used?

Who is most intimately involved -

the ranks of Pro-Life, pursuing what they see as a moral issue

or

the Pregnant woman herself - for whom the ProLife "moral issue" is an "intimate and personal issue" and whose sense of morality may not concur with the extremes of PRoLife?

What sort of "authority" is it that tells someone else they will suffer a pregnancy against their will?

No "authority" which I will ever be subordinated to.

Firstly, let me say that I am not opposed to abortion, except late term.

The analogy to the violinist is a bit weak, especially so if applied to third trimester babies. Firstly a pregnant woman can hardly be compared to a kidnap victim. The woman must have taken some action to become pregnant in the first place (excepting of course, rape etc.)

The violinist would die without the use of the "victims" (charming to equate pregnancy with victimhood) circulation system. After a certain period of gestation a fetus can survive without the mother. So using this example if the violinist reaches a stage where he could survive without the circulation system of another it's still OK to vacuum out the contents of his skull.

Thirdly, if nature was allowed to take it's course with the violinist, he would die with no help from anyone else. If nature was allowed to take its course with the fetus, it would live. The violinist requires active intervention to live, the fetus requires active intervention to die.

The abortion of a bunch of cells is one thing, the killing of a fully formed, living human being who could survive independantly of the mother is quite another.

Timkins,
To answer your questions and pose some of my own.
1. Child support is payed by the state or the father or some other party. How does that oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says it is the expense that underpins the decision to abort.

2.The guardian/carer of the child probably decides how the money is spent. How does this oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says it is the prospect of shared power on spending decisions that underpins the decision to abort.

3.Child access is agreed between the parents and if not is determined by the Family Court. How does this oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says sharing access underpins the decision to abort.

4.If the father wants the child to be born and the mother wants to abort, the pregnancy is aborted. So what? That is the challenge of life mate, to find some nice girl who wants to have your children. Otherwise we would all rock up to Elle's place. You want her to have your children, by her some flowers and take your chances but how is she obliged to do that? You have to earn it.

5. Full custody of the child after birth? Ditto above.

6.Finally, who the mother discusses the decision with is her business. Why must she discuss it with anyone in partiular. I am sure Tony Abbott would like them to discus it with their priest. I wish John Howard would discuss global warming with me but I guess he just does not rate/trust my opinion. Getting the ear of someone has to be earned. So she does not seek a certain party's opinion, how does that oblige the mother to carry the child?

Or am I missing something.

Bob,

In this article, the author did not mention fathers once, and this is completely typical of hundreds of similar articles that are being currently written, that consider fathers irrelevant also.

Many of the authors of these articles are being paid out of the taxpayer’s pocket, and many of them have installed themselves into places such as universities, where they can more readily influence the minds of the young.

A general belief in some, that fathers are irrelevant becomes highly important when many issues are being debated, and these issues are not just limited to the abortion debate.

Fathers are being considered irrelevant in many areas, but ironically, (or perhaps totally hypocritically), the people who often consider fathers as being irrelevant, are also very adamant that there should be “gender equality” within society

"To require that a woman carry an unborn child to term is to demand something that is required of no other person in our society: the involuntary use of her body by another."

I disagree. It demands of them that which is demanded of EVERY other person in society: thou shall not kill.

"This way of looking at questions of abortion clarifies that a demonstration of the personhood of the fetus would not entail that abortion should be outlawed."

Wrong again. As per above we don't kill other people.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure NSW has introduced legislation making it basically manslaughter/murder if someone injures a pregnant women resulting in the foetus' death. So it's an offence to harm a foetus when the women wants it, but legal to kill the foetus via an abortion when she doesn't. This is getting a bit too relativistic for my likings.