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.

"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."
-crumpethead

And anyone with a broad liberal education should know what the third kind of lie is.

"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."
-Rhys Jones

I think you may be wrong. I believe all people are equally valuable, regardless of race, religion etc. I'm still quite OK with abortion.

There is a difference betwixt people and humans. I consider it hypothetically possible to be a person without being human. If Vulcans (from Star Trek) existed, they'd certainly be people - and they certainly wouldn't be human. I consider it entirely possible to be human without being a person - a human zygote is certainly human, but certainly not a person.

I concede that it is wrong to kill a person just 'coz they haven't been born yet. But I fail to see the immorality in killing a human which has yet to attain personhood.

I don't think many on the left realise what a big issue life is to many conservatives. On the left abortion is just one of their pet issues to be ticked off, along with gay marriage, surrogacy, gay adoption, euthenasia. Whereas to many who are prolife, this is a huge issue that will easily see them switch votes. So there is much more to be lost here than to be gained by Premier Bligh. The research backs this up.

"It is also alarming that Emilys List doesnt support independent counselling of pregnant mothers, many who are confused and pressured and need support."
-Joe2008

Probably 'coz they're canny enough to realise that 'indepedent counselling' is correctly read as 'pro-lifers in independent counsellors' clothing trying to foist their own values onto pregnant women', and that women considering an abortion aren't actually going to receive anything of value from a religiously inspired guilt trip.

There you go Riz continually bringing up your personal issues with religion again... I wonder why you feel you need to keep doing that...

If you think that even indipendant counselling will be biased, it is surely a given then that any so called counselling provided by the abortion business itself won't be remotely impartial or of any use consoling a distraught new mother and showing her her real options.

Both sides in this debate could readily be satisfied with the inclusion of RU486 in a woman's arsenal of contraception and recognition of the reality that in addition to the sex act being natures means of procreation; it is equally performed as a form of recreation.

All children deserve to be wanted and not merely the result of a few minutes of unrestrained passion.

The 'Morning After Pill' can resolve the argument of 'when life begins' by thwarting the intent of that determined little spermatozoon swimmer.

"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." -Rhys Jones

What planet do you live on?

Surveys across Australia since at least the 1980's have shown that more and more people are supportive of a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Despite shrill right-to-lifers preaching their myths and claims that women are doing it for "convenience" and that the rights of the fetus are greater than that of the woman, he truth is that as time passes, a growing mass of people have either had an abortion or know someone who has. These women were not just some anonymous "party girl", but their wife, daughter, mother, sister etc. They may not have previously considered themselves pro-choice but when faced with their own unique, compelling reasons to terminate a pregnancy, they then understand why abortion needs to be available without interference from politicians.

Dodgey surveys like the one commissioned by AFA, don't do anything to change the public's attitudes on abortion. Even right-to-life politicians know that it would be political suicide to pass laws making access to abortions more restrictive. Maybe not this year or even next year, but at some point in time, abortion will be completely legalised.

"There you go Riz continually bringing up your personal issues with religion again..."
-Joe2008

What the devil are you talking about? I've only made two posts in this thread, and the first made no mention of my views regarding religion. It's a bit of stretch to call once 'continually', isn't it now?

"I wonder why you feel you need to keep doing that..."
-Joe2008

As I said, I've only done it the once so far. And I can't give you a definitive answer to your question, but I'd hazard a guess that it's 'coz it's pretty much impossible to have a discussion about abortion without the pro-life side basing most of their arguments on their personal issues with religion - I just wanted to beat them to the punch. Why is it only bad when I do it?

But wouldn't it be nice, for a change, if we could have discussion about abortion where nobody makes reference to religion at all?

I think Queensland's abortion laws are a disgrace and it's an embarrassment that that young couple recently went to court for allegedly procuring one.

Both women and men should be educated about abortion and it should be a viable and available option to women who need one. It is wrong and unfair that some people who are opposed to it are trying to stop other women from making a choice. It is no-one else's business if a woman chooses to have an abortion.

It should be legal throughout Australia, so those who need one can do so and not ruin their lives by giving birth to an unwanted child, and those who are opposed can exercise the choice they would make regardless of the law.

The main justification for a law is public opinion. It overrides other considerations. Such is the case with drug prohibition, where the evidence for decriminalisation is trumped by public support for the status quo.

The speed with which a jury delivered a not guilty verdict in the recent abortion trial might suggest a lack of public support for the current anti-abortion law. So is it any wonder we see a public opinion poll supporting the law as it stands? This is a pity, as the recent case amounted to no more than an ideological persecution of a young couple. They and their families suffered substantial stress and hardship for the sake deciding they did not wish to have a child.

I hope that the case and its impact on the accused gets a bit more publicity. People need to realise the devastating impacts of such draconian legislation, even when there is no chance of conviction. The law serves as no more than a means of ideological persecution. It is the nadir of Queensland legislation and should be repealed before others are persecuted because of it.

No problem Alan, I'm sure you'd have no qualms putting the law to QLD referendum then if you believe most people see things your way.
Alan?

""The speed with which a jury delivered a not guilty verdict in the recent abortion trial might suggest a lack of public support for the current anti-abortion law. ""
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 6 November 2010 7:44:20 PM

I think you'll find the speedy not-guilty verdict was because there was no evidence an abortion had actually happened - she may not have been fully diagnosed as pregnant, or have aborted spontanenously ...

<I think you'll find the speedy not-guilty verdict was because there was no evidence an abortion had actually happened >

So why was the case brought to trial then? The purpose of the courts is public justice, not the pursuit of ideological vendettas. Causing people such harm when there is so little evidence makes the episode all the more vulgar and shameful.

"Conducted by independent market research firm Galaxy Research on behalf of the Australian Family Association, this research shows that there is no consensus among Queensland voters for a change in the law..."

As soon as I read that this article was supported by the Australian Family Association, I was immediately skeptical.

This 'Association' was founded in 1980 by B.A. Santamaria, a prominent Melbourne Catholic activist.It is the Religious Right group of choice for most ultra-conservative Catholics.

If the author did not want to bring religion into the equation when discussing the issue of abortion, then it would have been better not to mention this Catholic Association.

The constant carry-on about 'at will late term abortions' is totally wrong. As a midwife, I have never seen late-term abortions done purely for 'convenience sake'. These unfortunate couples usually have very deformed or disabled babies who are usually incompatible with life outside the uterus.

Most women would agree that carrying a dying baby (such as those without a formed brain) to full term is a horrendous journey.
The result of this abortion (forced labour) of a preterm pregnancy is a dead baby, just the same as it would have been if she had waited until full term.
She just didn't have to wait around in horror and sadness for so long.

No one actually likes the idea of abortion at all, but we can't force women to do something against their will either.
No woman, despite what stage her pregnancy is at, should EVER be forced to remain pregnant if she truly doesn't want to carry on with the pregnancy.
We can't go backwards in time to the days of women dying from self-abortion or illegal abortionists again.

" So why was the case brought to trial then? The purpose of the courts is public justice, not the pursuit of ideological vendettas. ... "
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 7 November 2010 4:29:02 PM

I have seen a couple of different references to a particularly religious zealotry in the local constabulary (probably including the police officers who did the original search for another reason (as yet not disclosed)

The survey was 400 people - 200 hundred in Brisbane and 200 Rest of QLD, which would favour a conservative response

After establishing age of person, and elgibility to vote ..

"A few questions now about abortion.

"B1. Abortion is an operation or procedure which involves termination of an unwanted or difficult pregnancy, preventing birth of a live child. Do you believe abortion involves the taking of a human life?
Yes.........................1
No .........................2
Don’t know ..........3
[mention live child would seem to confer bias]

"B2. 20 weeks of pregnancy is the earliest point at which survival outside the womb is possible. Do you believe that at that time an unborn child is a human person with human rights?
Yes..........................1
No ..........................2
Don’t know .........3
[more bias, towards a child with rights inferred in the question]

"B3. Do you believe that abortion can harm the physical and/or mental health of a woman?
Yes........................1
No ........................2
Don’t know .........3
[more bias - of course it "can". The real issue is does it, and how often? !!]]

"B4. Do you support abortion for non-medical reasons, that is, for financial or social reasons?
Yes ....................... 1
No .........................2
Don’t know ........ 3
[social reasons ... ?? - invokes bias]

"B5. Up to what stage of pregnancy would you allow abortion, would it
be…? READ OUT 1-4 ...

Not at all ....................................................................................... 1
At any time up to 13 weeks, that is 3 months ................................... 2
At any time up to 20 weeks, that is half-way through pregnancy .. 3
Or, at any time during pregnancy up to birth...................................... 4
Don’t know .................""

The average person would not know the nuances of development of and for the embryo; it is fact the foetus has an inability to feel pain as the sensory nerve fibres/pathways of the spinal cord do not join the brain until about 23 weeks gestation due to a barrier called the sub-cortical plate.

When abortion is allowed ought to the domain of a combined expert medical and ethical panel, not public opinion, as really happens all over the world.

I see what you mean by biased questions in the so-called 'independent survey McReal.
One of the many questions I would have asked on the survey would be:

Question: If abortion was made totally illegal in any form, how would we ensure this is enforced?

A) No sex allowed between couples unless they specifically want to produce a baby? (if abortion is outlawed, then contraception is bound to follow soon after).

B) Any pregnant woman who wants an abortion for any reason should be tied to a hospital bed and guarded until she gives birth?

C) All abortion clinics and any hospitals who have wards and staff who have performed abortions should be bombed, with all murderers inside?

D) Any woman accused of causing herself to have an abortion should be jailed for life for murder?

Dear Alan,
Just a note of clarification. I do not share the reservations of the commentors on your article (or, by the way, of Get Up) about the AFA/Galaxy survey's questions. I don't think the report adds much to our knowledge of public views on abortion (and indeed, it is not as in depth as the earlier report, What Australians Really Think about Abortion). However, in my opinion piece you mention, I challenged the conclusion drawn by the AFA that MPs could or would face a swing of 12% if they voted for decriminalisation. This conclusion is unwarranted either by the figures in the report, or by the results in the electorates you mention: a 2-3 % swing over a general swing does not equal a 12% swing, and what is more, the only evidence you adduce for a connection between the swing and the pro-life campaign is that one happened after the other. But eg in the case of Aspley, the swing also happened after a decision to remove a hospital. So you need to do something more than simply note that one happened after the other in order to establish a causal connection. You need more evidence of different kinds to establish the conclusion you draw from the report about voting patterns. kind regards, Helen Pringle

To argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is old or allegedly draconian is a complete furphy. Who defines "draconian"? Is a law draconian simply because it prohibits something? One may as well argue that laws prohibiting theft, murder etc are drasonian.

The age of a law is also irrelevant in most cases. The laws against burglary, theft, murder etc are very old but no one argues they should be repealed.

And as far as survey results go, I would trust those published by the AFA sooner than those published by Planned Parenthood, Children By Choice, or even state or federal governments. The AFA have *nothing* to gain unlike the other organisations who stand to make millions.

Further, to argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is being broken or because it is difficult to enforce is another red herring. All laws are broken - some more often than others. Does that mean we abandon them? Many laws are difficult to enforce - does that mean we repeal them? Obviously the answer any rational person would give is "no".

In actual fact, enforcing abortion laws is not that difficult. It just takes an act of political will and an honest legal system... Hmmm... maybe it is more difficult than it appears.

<To argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is old or allegedly draconian is a complete furphy.>

Who is arguing for the law being repealed because it is old, MB? No mention of that line of argument in this thread that I can find. Maybe you were thinking of another thread? As for the law being draconian, I agree with you that opinions differ, but I think that you have missed the main reasons for objection to the antiabortion law. A law that allows ideological persecution is bad in my opinion.

I would like to see a CMC investigation of the trial as there is a possibility that the trial was pursued on an idealogical basis rather than a legal basis.

Let's face it - virtually all laws are formulated on an ideological basis. It just depends what your ideology is. In western society it has been the norm until recently that human life was not to be taken lightly (if you'll pardon the pun). We have the ludicrous situation where someone can be imprisoned for murder - provided the victim has been born! If the victim is still in the womb then it is apparently okay to terminate that life despite what the law says.

In practical terms, what is the difference between the ancients who sacrificed children to their idols and modern society which sacrifices unborn children to convenience, career, and the quest for the perfect child. And when I say "convenience" I am also meaning those men who cajole, coerce and force their partner/spouse/one-night-stand to have an abortion because they (the men) do not wish to be saddled with the responsibility for a child.

No matter what the modern ideologues say, an unborn child is a child. Women give birth to kids, not koalas, kangaroos or cabbages. That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells". Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop the same as the pro-abortionists did when they were at a simiar stage of development.

"virtually all laws are formulated on an ideological basis. It just depends what your ideology is."

No, it does not depend on one persons ideology, or even an oligarchy. They are mostly formed on the basis of reasoning and practicality of that reasoning, as well as precedent, and occasionally a bit of party or factional politics.

"Women give birth to kids, not koalas, kangaroos or cabbages." - Wow! How perceptive.

"That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells". Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop ... " Notice *your* qualification - time ...

Michael B.<"In actual fact, enforcing abortion laws is not that difficult. It just takes an act of political will and an honest legal system.."

Ok then M.B., please do enlighten us all on how you would enforce abortion laws, in the unlikely event they would ever be totally banned?

"In practical terms, what is the difference between the ancients who sacrificed children to their idols and modern society which sacrifices unborn children to convenience, career, and the quest for the perfect child."
-Michael B

The ancients were practising infanticide - a whole different kettle of fish to abortion. It is highly disingenous to conflate one with the other. Nice red herring, though.

"If the victim is still in the womb then it is apparently okay to terminate that life despite what the law says."
-Michael B

I think you'll find that the law says that it is okay to terminate that life.

"No matter what the modern ideologues say, an unborn child is a child."
-Michael B

I concur. An unborn child is a child. And an unborn non-child is not a child. The pertinent question is when the unborn not-child becomes an unborn child.

"That child in the womb is not merely "a clump of cells"."
-Michael B

In your opinion.

"Given time, nourishment and nurture it will develop the same as the pro-abortionists did when they were at a simiar stage of development."
-Michael B

Yes, and given time, pressure and heat, graphite will become diamond. Strangely enough, nobody has ever been able to make a profit selling graphite engagement rings. That's because graphite isn't diamond, even if it has the potential to become diamond. By the same token, a blastocyst is not a person, even if it has the potential to become a person.

Opinions are like arceholes, Michael. Everybody's got one, and they all stink. If you believe abortion is immoral, that's fine - don't have one. But you need to recognise that not everybody is going to share your opinions, and that while you have every right to get up on soapbox and shout your opinions to the world, you have no right to have your opinions forced on others by means of statute. That's not how secular democracy works. Don't like it? Move to Iran.

"They are mostly formed on the basis of reasoning and practicality of that reasoning..."
-- McReal

How do you define "reasoning"? Is it just what YOU agree with? Is everything else therefore unreasonable?

" Notice *your* qualification - time ..."
-- McReal

My qualification? It is a fact. Ask any obstetrician. Everything takes time. Some things take more, others take less. Is something invalid simply because time is involved? An unborn baby is a human being. If it was simply a clump of cells no one would care and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"The ancients were practising infanticide - a whole different kettle of fish to abortion"
-- Riz

I think not. At what point does it become infanticide? Once the child is born? What if the child is born a month premmie? Would it still be infacticide or would it be acceptable to sacrifice the child?

"while you have every right to get up on soapbox and shout your opinions to the world, you have no right to have your opinions forced on others by means of statute"
-- Riz

But I am not shouting my opinions. I am expressing them, though, which I am perfectly entitled to do in a democracy. What people forget is that until about the last 40 years of last century, abortion was considered gravely wrong which is why we have the laws we have. So really it is the pro-abortion camp who are shouting their opinions from the soapbox at every opportunity. While they call on all those with a different opinion to theirs to accept the fact and live with it, they will not return the courtesy.

BTW, Riz, you need to get a spell checker. It is arsehole or (asshole if you are American).

"How do you define "reasoning"? Is it just what YOU agree with? Is everything else therefore unreasonable? "

No, reasoning by others in other forums, such as parliament, occurs independent of many people with opinions.

*You* stated it was cells, until other things happen/progress.

"What if the child is born a month premmie? Would it still be infacticide or would it be acceptable to sacrifice the child?"

There are defined points in foetal development, as I alluded to in a previous post, which coincide with viability as an individual, which before-hand the foetus is not.

Michael, your points are somewhat black & white, and simplistic.

You might want to consider the particulars of the case, e.g.

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/10/14/130601_local-news.html

Despite the openness of the defendants to police about their use of RU486, and the plea to jurors by the prosecutor that their job was not to moralise but to uphold the law, a not guilty verdict was delivered, and delivered after little deliberation. How the hell is this a workable law if it cant even get a guilty verdict under such circumstances? And with all the publicity the case has received, do you think that the police will get similar confessions in future?

Given the verdict of the jury, it borders on delusional to think that Queensland's abortion law has public support.

"I think not. At what point does it become infanticide?"
-Michael B

When the human becomes a person. Bugger me, this isn't rocket surgery...

"I am expressing them, though, which I am perfectly entitled to do in a democracy."
-Michael B

Yes, but you're not entitled to force them on others.

"While they call on all those with a different opinion to theirs to accept the fact and live with it, they will not return the courtesy."
-Michael B

More lies, eh? I'm quite happy for you to have a different opinion, and I'm quite happy for you to share them. The problem is that most of the pro-life camp don't want to share them, they want to enforce them. If they were to succeed in re-criminalising abortion, everybody - pro-life or pro-choice - would be forced to behave in accordance with the opinions of the pro-lifers. This is radically different to the current situation, where pro-lifers can behave in accordance with their consciences and not have abortions, and pro-choicers can beahve in accordance with theirs and have abortions.

See, Michael, that's the important difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers: pro-choicers aren't trying to make abortion compulsory, they're trying to ensure people have a choice. It's the pro-life camp who are oppressive and illiberal, and that's why I take issue with them - oppression and illiberality piss me right off.

"BTW, Riz, you need to get a spell checker."
-Michael B

BTW, Michael, you need to stop being such an anally retentive pedant. It's not a good look. Usually my spelling is excellent, but even I make the occasional typo (only yesterday I misspelt genetic with 3 e's). If you're going to jump down people's throats for the odd typo, you're not going to win many friends around here.

As it happens, arcehole was not a typo - I deliberately misspelt it 'coz I know from personal experience that the site moderators are hyper-vigiliant when it comes to profanity, and I didn't think I'd be able to slip arsehole by the censors. Seems I was wrong.

Excellent argument Riz!

Michael B. still hasn't answered my question about how he thinks we would enforce an abortion ban?

At the end of the day though, abortion is legal in Australia, so the anti-choice brigade need to move on and accept that fact.

suzieonline

'At the end of the day though, abortion is legal in Australia, so the anti-choice brigade need to move on and accept that fact.'

At the end of the day gay marriage is not legal so the supporters need to accept that fact and move on. Your logic is hard to understand.

runner, it is not logical to align or conflate abortion legality with gay marriage illegality.

Moreover, abortion will be practised whether legal or not.

McReal

You also make little sense. You say

'Moreover, abortion will be practised whether legal or not.'

Murder will also be practiced along with bestiality whether legal or not.' Should we change the law just because someone does it?

Runner, what I meant to say is that the fight for women to have the choice about what happens to their bodies, and whether to have abortions or not, is over. Women won this 'law' that should never have been outlawed in the first place.

Homosexuals are usually not 'forced' to do anything to their bodies they don't want to do - so that particular fight is in no way equal to that of women's rights to have an abortion or not.

However, I don't see how their right to marry or not is anyone else's business, just as abortion is no one else's business except the parents and their doctor.

runner, nothing is more clear than "abortion will be practised (i.e. performed) whether [it] is legal or not."

i.e. backyard abortions would be practised if it were no legal.

......................

Support for legal abortion is a principle in

* natural law ( law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. ... natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behaviour).

It is more moral to avoid backyard abortions.

or
* natural justice (with a backgrownd in Roman law where certain basic legal principles are required by nature)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice

They have precedence as a special sense known as *Wednesbury reasonableness* (from an English law case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial review).

(I don't expect you to agree)

McREal

There is nothing natural at all about murdering an unborn baby no matter how sanitized you or anyone else makes it. Your arguement is non sensical.

runner,

correction - "backyard abortions would be practised [even] if abortion were "not" legal" i.e they have occurred frequently, anyway, where abortion is illegal.

" natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature ..

"Natural law theories have .. exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law .. [= the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation].

"Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it [natural law] has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

"There is nothing natural at all about murdering an unborn baby " - putting aside the deliberately loaded wording of runner's comment it might be useful as a test of "naturalness" to look at the rates of pregnancies which don't go through to birth without deliberate termination.

Not a clear topic as early stage miscarriages are not always easy to identify and under-reporting is a significant factor at all stages.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/miscarriage-rates-revealed-20090116-7j77.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/miscarriage-rates-in-pregnancy-may-be-as-high-as-50-experts-say-a239265

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679161

I don't personally get all that excited about the "natural" criteria but for those who it's important it's clear that nature (or whatever god's people choose to believe in) does not place a very high value on pregnancies running through to the birth of a live child.

For those wanting the pregnancy to complete it can be a very emotionally painfull process.

R0bert

How's this for a thought: we legalise abortion, and instead of women being punished in this world for what many do not regard as a criminal act, we wait until they die, at which point God flings them into 7th circle of Hell where they spend all eternity in a river of boiling blood - a far worse sentence than one that an Earthly court can impose.

That should keep you happy, right runner?

Actually, Riz has me thinking now...

Abortion is actually the greatest gift one can provide a child. They by-pass the cruelties of this Earthly world and skip straight to the good bits in heaven. Not only that, but by skipping this world, they never run the risk of succumbing to the devil and going to hell.

Now that I think about it, why is it looked down upon so much when a teenage girl - engaging in pre-marital sex - falls pregnant and has an abortion?

All they’re doing is creating souls and sending them to heaven. Without such sinful acts being committed, these souls would never have been brought into existence and thus would never have enjoyed the eternal bliss of heaven. Instead, they would have continued on in the eternal nothingness we’re all in before we’re born.

So by Christian logic, we should encourage promiscuity and use abortions as birth control.

Another thought...

If a woman aborts a foetus that was going to grow into an adult that would have lived a life that sent them to hell, would she still go to hell despite the fact that her abortion saved that foetus’s soul from eternal damnation?

Of course, I don’t expect an answer. I just thought I’d point out yet another reason why the Christian belief system makes no sense.