Protagoras - you seem to be suggesting that the life of a homeless person is not worth living. As far as abandoned babies go, are you suggesting they would be better off dead than going to a loving home? It is not the system that prevents adoptions, it is the lack of babies being offered for adoption.
We should start by making contraception far more readily available than it is to attempt to get the rate of unwanted pregnancies down. Then develop a culture that values our children. We should be celebrating when a woman gets pregnant, not contemplate killing the baby. I do not think I "have control over womens bodies". Clearly if I did there would not be 80,000 abortions a year in Australia. I do not believe that control over your body should extend to killing an unborn child unless in self defence (pregnancy threatens the womans life). If women don't want to have babies then they should use contraception to avoid pregnancy. If a man doesn't wish to have babies and spend many years financially supporting them then he should wear a condom. This is not rocket science. If despite all precautions a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, then she should adopt it out to people who would dearly love to have one.
Our birth rate at around 1.7 children per woman is less than what is required to replace our population. I think that in a country with as much wealth as Australia we can afford to care for our children here, rather than kill them before birth to save them the trauma of not having a perfect life.

Dear Rhys Jones,

You wrote: Our birth rate at around 1.7 children per woman is less than what is required to replace our population.

That is also true for other countries. If our population decreases what is wrong with that? Why do we need to replace our population? Why can't it go back to what it was previously?

Rhys Jones,

That no one has been hooked up to someone yet is irrelevant. It was simply a theoretical scenario for comparison. Even if the hook up was only for one hour, it would be legally impossible to enforce. Even if my son required a blood donation to save his life (another theoretical scenario), I could not legally be forced to do so irrespective of how odious my refusal was.

Secondly giving your child away is not just an inconvenience, as you would imply, which is why almost no body does. There is also the inconvenience of not completing your education, not being able to have much of a career, or missing out on your childhood from a silly mistake.

The anti choice, god botherers who feel they have the right to ruin other's lives are amongst the most odious, despicable people. (marginally better than the KKK)

The issue is about choice. If you feel contraception or abortion is wrong, no one is forcing you to do it. However, it is also incumbent on you to back off from where you opinions are neither wanted, nor relevant.

Rhys Jones <"...I'm sure you not an evil person who simply wants to kill everyone with Alzeimers."

No, because not EVERYONE with Alzheimers would have requested that they be euthanased Rhys Jones!

I would have no hesitation assisting those poor patients who did previously request not to live on through to the end of this distressing disease.

As we are discussing only VOLUNTARY euthanasia, then you can choose not to have any assistance in this way, but don't presume to know what is best for the rest of us.

Rhys Jones:
<We should start by making contraception far more readily available than it is to attempt to get the rate of unwanted pregnancies down>
Dear Rhys Jones, how can you be so callous about the relationship between sperm and egg; surely their union is sacred (in your secular sense) and must be preserved? Would you deny the "life to come ... and all that it entails" by "killing" an imminent (immanent?) conception?

JL Deland:
<I don't think that we can include mental illness as a reason for euthanasia, though many would argue for it.>

There is a bias behind all our thinking that should be acknowledged. But don't mind me; I'm just that hissing noise in the background :-)

Why not? Depression can be just as malignant, in its own peculiar way. The government sanctions the sale and abuse of depressant drugs like alcohol, which destroy countless lives by stealth in a way that is the obverse of euthanasia--sanctioned self-destruction. I'm interested in the undefined moral impediments that inhibits all our "so-called" reasoning (lol). What a shame we're not so diffident when it comes to other sentient beings, or Gaia herself.

Davidf:
<Why do we need to replace our population? Why can't it go back to what it was previously?>
"economics" of course, dear davidf; capitalism is our "grand narrative" and it has to be fed.

Dear Squeers,

Rhys Jones neglected to mention that our population is increasing faster than in many other countries.

Country Growth Rate in %
Australia 2.1
Canada 0.8
China 0.5
Indonesia 1.1
Italy -
PNG 2.1
USA 1.0

Population increase results both from fertility and immigration. Rhys Jones ignored that. Many things are blamed on capitalism which capitalism is not responsible for. The socialist countries when Marxism was more popular gave medals to overbearing women.