"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.