This article doesn't actually seem to be about abortion. Rather it's another attempt to convince us that Tony Abbott is a bad man, presumably because he doesn't agree with the author's point of view. A moment's thought will convince you that there is no possibility of Fedeal laws prohibiting abortion being passed by Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, so does every other Federal politician.

If the polls hold - and there's not much evidence of a change - Tony Abbott will be the next Prime Minister of Australia. The Coalition will have been voted in by a significant majority of the Australian electors, who will have shown once again that they know an incompetent government when they see one and have determined to rid themselves of it.

I am concerned that certain members of the the Opposition/Coalitions front bench share the same religious affiliations, quite a number of Tony Abbots front bench are practising Roman Catholics and as such probably present a united view on certain contentious subjects such as abortion and stem cell research, subjects which certainly conflict with their religions stated viewpoint.
Australia is said to be(hopefully) a secular society where religion and affairs of state are said (expected) to be quite separate.
With Abbot, Pyne, Hockey, Robb,for example, this separation of politics and religion is somewhat blurred, and the suspicion remains that in certain political decisions affecting all the mainstream Australian public, will their religious affiliations overide their secular obligations to treat the matter before them on its merits? I personally doubt this judging by past statements made by the above named Shadow Ministers.

It has all the right stuff to be very biased, and women would have to take that into account, as catholic women have abortions to. It is their choice, it is their body.

Few issues in recent years have so divided people
as has the morality of abortion. In the past the
practice was generally illegal except under limited
conditions - primarily where the health of the
mother or the unborn child was at serious risk.
However, "backstreet" abortions by private physicians
and untrained practitioners were fairly common.

At the root of the controversy is a basic value
judgement about the status of the fetus. If the
fetus is considered a baby, then abortion is a form
of killing; if it is considered a mere collection of cells
and tissues, then abortion is a morally neutral surgical
procedure.

But the status of the fetus is ambiguous;
it is neither self-evidently just tissue (if these
matters were self evident, there would be little
disagreement about abortion). On the one hand, the
fetus is not a human being in the usual sense, for it is
generally not viable. Indeed, no society treats the
fetus as human; for example, if the mother
accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given a
funeral, but is simply disposed of like any other
tissue.

On the other hand the fetus is potentially a human
being, one that might become as alive and unique as
any of us. The conflicting value judgements about
abortion stem from this fundamental ambiguity in the
status of the fetus.

Anyway, I doubt whether Mr Abbott would get very far in
attempting to take away from women their right of
choice in this matter. As another poster stated -
the public outcry would be too great a risk for him
politically. I don't envy any woman having to make
this sort of decision - and I'm sure that it wouold
only be made under the most dire of circumstances.

Let me see if I understand the good doctor's argument...
1. Several candidates for high political office in another country hold strong views on abortion that the writer disagrees with.
2. Those candidates also happen to be religious.
3. Tony Abbott is religious.
4. Tony Abbott has strong views about abortion.
5. People (like the writer) who oppose people who are religious and hold strong views about abortion should be concerned about Abbott becoming PM...
If my summary is correct then the writer would have done much better to limit herself to the last (perhaps last two) points. The first two are irrelevant and tend to show religious bigotry on the part of the writer.
The third (and fourth) are already well known. Anyone who is concerned by abortion rights would already be well aware that Abbott as PM is unlikely to support wider abortion availability and could very well limit it.
Finally, abortion is very much a feminist issue - but not in the way Dr Wilson contends for. The vast majority of foetuses destroyed by abortion are girls. Gender selection is a common reason for abortion in the 3rd World. Where is the feminist outcry?

Senior Victorian- by all means tell us why Tony Abbot is anything but a bad man?
He is the single worst man ever to set foot in parliament house- worse than Keating and Menzies combined (cronyistic corruption and authoritarian moralistic pontification combined).
By letting that clown be party leader was a big mistake of the Liberals- it tells the public he's the best person they had to represent them?
The fact that he's the default alternative to Gillard and another 3-4 years of Labor screwing the country up is hardly a qualification he should be hanging on his wall either- as quite frankly, I don't think Abbot would do much better.
In fact, his one selling point was vowing to turn the boats back- yet when faced with the choice of doing exactly that or letting them come here, he took the second option out of pure pettiness because Labor would take another publicity drop.

JS Mills- so, women's rights are stronger if they are forced to carry pregnancies, simply so the census papers show a more even distribution of males and females?