I'm pro-choice, and I strongly support the availability of RU486 into Australia.

But can we do away with the hackneyed phrases 'just a bundle of cells' and 'potential human being' please? I used these phrases myself many years ago, as an overconfident pro-choice 14-year-old, and now I just cringe.

I have just had a 12 week ultrasound scan for my third child. This is not a bundle of cells. At 11.5 weeks - previously around the cut-off for most legal abortions - this 'foetus' is a recognisable child with perfect fingers, 6.5mm feet and nasal bones in the recognisable skull! Also, there seems to be a degree of independent movement, as the ultrasound really seems to get those babies going!

At three weeks post-conception, yes, undoubtedly the baby is a bundle of cells. At twelve weeks, there is a tiny body already there.

I do not agree that referring a patient on to an abortion doctor is necessarily unethical - after all, the patient has come to the doctor for advice, and it would be unethical for the doctor to pass on what s/he knows as far as availability of legal medical services.

Surely, the current ethics of doctors would have any doctor work to preserve the mother's life, even if at the risk of her child/ren, in the event of an 'emergency' abortion (whatever that is).
Currently, women are provided with the option to abort foetuses that are identified as compromised through disability, such as Downs Syndrome. These procedures take place shortly after the three month conception mark.

However, the new laws provide for any lay person to demand the abortion of their unborn child to the point where so-called 'foetuses' can be viable premature babies.

That fact, in itself, tells me that the new legislation is compromised, and needs to be looked at again.

Sorry, typo. I wished to say that:
I do not agree that referring a patient on to an abortion doctor is necessarily unethical - after all, the patient has come to the doctor for advice, and it would be unethical for the doctor NOT to pass on what s/he knows as far as availability of legal medical services.

Dear Human Interest, that was in the fifties.. (we have evolved since) No women's refuges, then..
In the good old days (?) women could be "persuaded" to go for a ride on the back of the motorbike on rough pot-holy country roads.. or to jump from the top of the stairs.. then the hospital would complete the job. Don't go back to that.
EDUCATION, PREVENTION, and if "it" has to be, don't make it illegal, you would go back to the knitting needle.

Being aborted is better for the baby than being a resented burden.

Dear Human Interest

Women do sometimes have to fight off their husbands who are demanding an abortion, if they have the strength that is. This is simply a fact. It's not a question of "Stand up for yourselves or walk -". This is simply a fact of life, women often are compelled by their husband to have an abortion.

Daniel

Henriette,

I was prevented from posting again due to the two post/24 hr rule.

I meant to add - the pregnancy should be planned by the partners firstly and wondered if the scenario offered meant that the woman had accidentally got pregnant, or had she refused to take any preventative methods and got pregnant against her husband's wishes?

She doesn't need to live in a refuge - why can't she live solo and support herself? If she is having an unwanted pregnancy within a marriage, I would think that there is something drastically wrong with the marriage.

If she deliberately got pregnant against the husband's wishes it is pretty dishonest of her, she should either abort or leave because she doesn't respect her partner's wishes anyway. Why should he have a baby forced upon him when he clearly did not want one? He has a right to feel aggrieved. Women should not force babies upon men, within a marriage or not.

I don't wish anyone to go back to the dark ages and desperate attempts at abortion. Of course education and prevention is the answer. I never said anything about making it illegal, I am pro-choice. The word 'forced' was used in the offered scenario and I am wondering who is forcing who?

Daniel,

"Women do sometimes have to fight off their husbands who are demanding an abortion, if they have the strength that is. This is simply a fact. It's not a question of "Stand up for yourselves or walk. This is simply a fact of life, women often are compelled by their husband to have an abortion..."

Do you have any stats on that situation?

Are they compelled to stay with their husband? Why would they continue to live with such a man? They do have a choice about it - stay or leave. There is a lot of help and assistance out there, but of course if they don't exercise their will to do so.