this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you.

"this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you" - and E.Sykes here demonstrates the complete lack of empathy for anyone else's view that makes me want to keep people like Syke's simply ranting from the sidelines and out of any postion of real influence in society.

If the Bill of Rights fails to get up (and why would Labor want to run with a can of worms that lacks support even in it's own party), there is going to much breast beating and supporters I suspect saying it was most foully murdered by people like Andrew Bolt and writers from the Australian. I think that perhaps the same people that supported the conscience clause and who are also pushing for the Bill of Rights, might look a little closer to home as to what eroded confidence in it.

For all Brennan's and other lawyers attempts now to say the Bill of Rights will in fact protect people such as this student, the passing of the conscience clause down in Victoria despite the Charter of Rights down there was a serious blow to the Bill of Rights credibility.

Dear Amanda,

You are a shining example of the wisdom underpinning the separation of the State and the Church. Over the centuries, more death and suffering has been inflicted upon humankind in the name of Christianity than any other single cause.

Now, Amanda: when you say you are a Christian, do you really mean that you are a "Catholic Christian"? The difference is really only one of degree; that is, like the difference between Ted Bundy and the Borgias.

There is no medical proof that life begins at conception - and the law specifically denies that that is the case. Despite this, and flying in the face of centuries of law and the medical science, you choose to impose your own religious dogma upon those people who would come to you, in great need and good faith, seeking independence and objective medical assistance.

When Parliament is forced to pass legislation (largely forced by the need to overcome the minority views of loonies like you, who hold positions of social power), you can't even accept the "out" that is afforded to you, by letting you declare your position and allowing the patient to choose another doctor.

Oh, Original Sin!!... mia culpa!!…mia culpa!! By doing nothing, you are still to blame for these crimes against humanity. Oh, this is such a merciless God.

So, let's choose an extreme, remote and physically and emotionally revolting example to use as a moral comparison: female circumcision. Obviously, Amanda, none of your studies to date have included ‘rational debate’. The example is not only spurious and factually irrelevant; it is a measure of the dogmatic zealotry with which you have been imbued in your upbringing. In case you haven't noticed, Amanda, female circumcision is illegal in this country, too; another example of how the law has protected us from moral extremists.

Let me also make a declaration up front: I completely support the statement by Professor Savulescu. Further, if it would make a difference, I pray to God that you never make it through your studies to inflict yourself as a doctor upon this society.

Dear Dr Fairweather,

I admire your concern and agree with your opinion albeit from a totally secular pov in this instance, as I believe that the initial cause of unwanted pregnancy is mostly due to poor decision-making by the parents of the child in the heat of the moment. I also thank God for human nature by which we were (mostly) all born and our species carries on.

As a rather unsatisfied customer of hospital doctors on two occasions over 18 days in 2008, I would also hope to draw attention to the rights of the patient as a consciencious objector to 'malpractice' (to put it as nicely as possible) and so see that some of the legal limitations to the carte blanc powers of transient passer-by medical practitioners over the lives of patients already born from the womb can provide some hope for the unfortunate in their weaker moments, of the body and not the mind, as is when abortions might be the most accessible solutions.

I appreciate that you may have already read John Irving's Cider House Rules (1985) of just over 730 pages in paperback, and if not, perhaps the conflict faced by the fictional orphan character Homer Wells as an obstetrician in WWII North-East USA might offer some inspiration on how to walk the fine line between the legalities and the humanity.

Also, I solemnly hope that there might be more quacks with a good consience such as yours the next time I ever have the misfortune to wind up in another Australian hospital, and I assure you it will not be because I got some young lady pregnant and need a quick fix.

Thank you for a well-written and article and best of luck in your future practice, with remaining true to that seemingly redundant oath.
Noli illegitimi carborundum!

Yours Faithfully,

Sean Moran.
Perth Au.

Amanda
Congratulations on a well-written article. I'm sorry you are just going to have to put with the abusive personal arguments of those who are unable or unwilling to argue the issues.

The idea that is implicit in a Bill of Rights, and in Doc Holiday's malicious argument, is that a right is nothing more and nothing less than whatever the State orders. When we ask its advocates how or why the state comes to have this moral knowledge or authority, they never say 'because the state exercises a legal monopoly of force, and might is right', - because it is obvious that such could never serve the purpose of deciding what is or should be a 'right'.

The only answer they have is that it's 'democratic', as if majority opinion were able to constitute as moral whatever it wants. According to this view, if the majority decided that killing, or raping, or robbing is a "right" - why then it's a right. All it would take is for a majority to decide that they are entitled to sports equipment paid for by the state, or for sex paid for by the state, for these to be deemed "rights", and the funds to pay for them taken under compulsion. This is obviously an abuse of language and there is no abuse of human beings that it would not justify.

Since rights are enforceable and enforced, the content of a right must *necessarily* contemplate the ethics of using force. If you are not justified in using violence or threats to get a thing, then it can no way be a right.

This means a right is, and can only be, what you are justified in using force to defend. It includes only life, liberty and property. There can no more be a right to the fruits of other people's labour taken under compulsion, than a right to slavery, and hence there is not and can never be any such thing as a right to anything paid for by taxation, because taxation by definition is a compulsory confiscation of property.

Amanda

You are a champion and deserve much praise. Many think like you but know that by speaking truth their careers depending on Government funding would be hampered. Just speak to Warick Marsh and find out how he was scrubbed out by the Federal Health Minister because he spoke of the need of a child needing a mother and father.

Unfortunately you are going to learn that many sell out of their convictions. Mr Rudd himself who claims to personally dislike abortions but would never go against anything the godless UN endorses. In Politics on both sides we see very little conscience. The AMA has been pushing abortion for years which is not surprising when you look at some of their past leaders (not the sort of examples you want your kids to follow).

A Charter of rights will kill free speach and deliver more power to our godless judges (sorry for any exceptions). It is a lie that is pushed that minorities will be protected.

The good news is that you are on the winning side. Christ will one day destroy all evil and our job is to see as many people come to their senses before that day. The slaughter of the most innocent will come to a halt and all those unrepentant will be dealt with appropriately. Keep up the good fight and don't grow weary of doing good. You are to be highly commended.