It is a pity that the reporting of a seemingly good survey is clouded by some tangential and superficial commentary.

To say "decriminalisation would mean that abortion would be legal for any reason until birth .. is the model that the pro-abortion lobby is pushing here" is a bare/bald assertion, as is reference to Victoria's requirement to "obtain a second medical opinion before proceeding with an abortion past 24 weeks of pregnancy .. is nothing but a façade and a sham"; and "a recent Channel 7 News report" that "late-term abortions being performed in the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne have risen six times" is poorly substantiated.

It is likely the pro-abortion lobby members want to see abortion rates much, much lower than they are, too. The dilemma is how we all achieve that.

As far as the effects of abortion on those women (and potential fathers), it is not polls about what people think about that that is important, but polls of those who do undergo abortion that are important, as well as polls of women who contemplate abortion but decide to give birth - and those women could provide valuable information if polled at different time periods e.g. 1 yr, 5 yrs, and 15 years after giving birth.

Surveys overseas have suggested the cost of non-abortion are likely to be high for families and communities in terms of strain on social services and criminal consequences.

Education and Information is the answer.

people need to be accurately informed about the facts . The relaxation and repeal of Queensland's draconian laws does not mean that all women will be encouraged to have an abortion.

The real issue is CHOICE . Women who want a family are not interested in having a termination but that is no reason for them to deny choice to the family who do.

There must be widespread Public debate on all the issues surrounding Termination of Pregnancy to improve the level of understanding

I tend to agree with McReal's points.
Is there a link available to the "neutral" survey questions? I'd like a better feel for just how neutral they are and which if any obvious questions were not asked.

I don't like abortion, would prefer that it was very rare and as the author points out would like better support (including better support for prevention of the need). I have strong disagreement with the double standards applied by some of the most vocal pro-choice advocates when it comes to the nominated fathers choices (his choices ended at involvement in the initial act, hers include keeping the child, abortion, surrendering the child for adoption etc).

At the same time there are some sticking points with the anti-choice approach that I'm not Ok with. It's not their body. Anti-choice stances all too often travels with religious moralising with no regard to the harm done and rarely travels with genuine long term support. I am also deeply suspicious of any group which routinely uses misleading emotive appeals and worst case scenario's to promote their cause, unfortunately in this case that applies to both extreme's.

R0bert

I strongly urge readers to read the survey report by Galaxy. Anyone who has done STATS-101 during their studies would understand that this is a very questionable survey from a survey company that should know better than to put their name on a survey as poorly conducted as this. (But I guess if AFA are paying their bill, then Galaxy had better do what the client demands)

The report data doesn't state how many people declined to take part in this lengthy phone interview and this is a significant omission. If respondents choose to take part in a lengthy survey it is usually because they hold strong beliefs one abortion way or the other, so the survey population is not representative of the general population.

A more likely table of results would actually be;

Strongly against abortion: 5%
Strongly for abortion: 5%
Those who are actually pro-choice but told the survey company "%#$*^ off! I'm eating dinner!" 90%

These survey results can't claim to state what Queenslander's really think about abortion. Only what those who are at either end of the spectrum think.

I think that the current support for abortion will evaporate with the coming generations. Today's children who have grown up being taught that all people are equally valuable, regardless of race religion etc, will have a hard time accepting that its ok to kill people simply because they haven't been born yet. This has nothing to do with religion, but every thing to do with universal human rights. After all, the unborn child has a great deal more at stake than the mother. To suggest that it's ok to kill an unborn child for the sake of the convenience of the mother is a pretty hard thing for many decent people to swallow, and the younger children of today who have grown up believing that all life is valuable will find it even harder to understand.
Regardless of any flaws this research may have, it does indicate that abortion is far from universally acceptable to Australians.

It is very interesting that the survey shows that only an extremely small minority - 7% - want abortion right upto birth - or late term abortions. Yet in Victoria their mps have just approved late term abortions. How representative are these MPs?

It is also alarming that Emilys List doesnt support independent counselling of pregnant mothers, many who are confused and pressured and need support. This is very telling about their real agenda. Women deserve much better than that.