Ms Pringle, you should be the first to realise that it is not the prerogative of the judiciary to make laws, it is the responsibility of parliament. In this case Mr Justice Menhennitt is the de factor law maker and as a matter of principle this is not really a satisfactory way for such a controversial matter to be resolved, no matter on which side of the fence you sit.

It is therefore good to see that the new Premier of Victoria is taking steps to exercise the authority of parliament to resolve the matter.

David

AS if legislating for something makes it right. It has always been legal for a rich 60 year old man to sleep with as many 18 (or is it 16 these days) year old girls that he likes. Murder will always be murder whether it is legal or not!

I never made any judgment as to whether it was right or wrong. I expect the parliament to weigh up all the pros and cons and then make a rational decision. If you wish to lobby them one way or another then that is also your right.

So, Helen Pringle, having clarified the grey area in the law, where do you stand on the proposed new laws?

It seems to me pretty awkward, time wasting and cruel to expect doctors and nurses and patients to operate under laws which could form the basis of nasty legal attacks on their jobs and reputations. And any law which remains on the books can always be reinterpreted by a State with a particular policy so as to find most abortions illegal, just as the planning and environment Act in Victoria is interpreted via state policy to prioritise economic growth over environmental health and biodiversity.

Australians are currently ruled by increasingly religious and authoritarian governments, with pronatalist tendencies. Maybe Brumby can see some danger looming ahead, or perhaps he is just going for a cheap emotional ride for self-promotion.

The ALP's developer mates won't be too happy because they endorse the big population scenario and would frankly have Australians tolerate any ill just to keep housing demand growing.

I like the idea of abandoning the case-law on abortion.

Helen, your attempt to clarify the simplicity of the current laws actually highlighted to me just how confused they are! I'm sure that to you, who has probably been examining these laws for some time, or to a lawyer reading your article, it all makes perfect sense, but not to the average layperson.

You are clearly in favor of the current status quo, but why are you so against change? ie decriminalisation?

Three cheers for Helen Pringle - Hip-hip-hooray! Hip-hip...(etc).

Why?

You may well ask. And in reply you would be well advised that this Helen Pringle is no dork. No sir-ee. She's a very intelligent and very ethical bit of womanhood. God bless her little bits. If in doubt, just go read some of her earlier articles on this very site - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3739 .

This Helen Pringle is all business and no hoo-har.

Yet, we see her opinions - based on fact and truth you understand - being called into question by the likes of "crumpethead" and "Kanga", the latter of whom calls for clarification about, and in other words - but just whose side are you on? Pro-life or pro-choice?

No one seems to have appreciated that Pringle isn't interested in sides on this issue. Nope. She's just interested in pointing out that Leslie Cannold (and we all know whose side she's on) is creating confusion about abortion laws, when it seems, they aren't confusing at all to normal rational people.

A simply stunningly wonderful article of fact that raises the question of why is Cannold spinning her tale of confusion about this matter?

You good folks can go figure that out for yourselves, but I think I know why.

I'm just tickled pink that Pringle here has most eloquently shot Cannold's hot-air pro-abortion propaganda gas-bagging (read bullsh') down in flames. And she's done it because she (Pringle) is obviously a woman of academical ethics and human balance and isn't on anyone's side in particular here at all. But she is on the side of truth and honesty. She clearly has no motives of "sides" or political bias or social engineering. She's just simply interested in getting the facts straight.

And poor ol' Leslie - you have to admire her spirit - shot down in flames again!

My goodness, isn't life just so wonderful?

Many thanks Helen Pringle. This exceptional article has made my day.