Squeers,

"Are you saying that as long as the expectant mother isn't actually psychotic she can be deemed fit to make the decision for herself and her potential spouse?" - Absolutely, just as she is legally deemed fit to make contractual decisions for herself.

As for mental health, 80% of women have no mental health issues what so ever, do you still propose mandatory counselling? Perhaps with a 9 month cooling off period, or other arbitrary barriers?

As for the other 20%, half of those are mild cases of mood / anxiety /depression, and only 4% of all adults have severe mental health issues.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March%202009

SM,

sorry to keep whittling away your position till there's nothing left for you to cling to, but the fact that 20% of the population suffers from mental illness "in any given year", doesn't mean, as you simplistically suggest, that "80% of women have no mental health issues what so ever". The statistic indicates that our population is extremely susceptible to "mental illness", such that one in five is suffering at any given time. It doesn't suggest it's the same one in five, but that in all likelihood we'll all succumb sooner or later to melancholy of one kind or another. It seems we are a pathological society.

I actually agree with you that much of this "mental Illness" is dubious (a symptom of egotism?), in fact that it's just another form of commodification; people have exercised "free choice en masse" in seeking treatment, "just as they would any other medical procedure". Another rousing testament to libertarianism!

Squeers,

Depression reported to a GP and treated with mild anti depressants is a "clinically treated mental illness" as per the definition. And 20% of women are treated in a 12 month period does not mean that 20% are suffering at any one time.

Even those being treated for mild or moderate depression are perfectly capable of making a sound decision, which leaves about 95% of women at any one time mentally and legally capable of making decisions for themselves.

I am still trying to see why anyone should feel that counselling should be anything but voluntary.

'The screening process is secular,'

Haha, not if Abbott gets his anti-abortion 'help' lines up again...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/01/02/1167500124318.html

Shadow Minister:
<I am still trying to see why anyone should feel that counselling should be anything but voluntary>

Because this is an issue important to "us". Because our society is already perilously close to having amorality as its only human ethic, the rest privatised and turned over to the markets.
All thinking people are aware of the dilemmas associated with their stands on abortion, euthanasia, over-population etc., and that's why we continue to agonise, because there is no one correct solution, and certainly not libertarianism. There is the mother, father, potential human being and human society at large to consider, and while the woman's choice is in my opinion paramount, that doesn't make the issue (literally) irrelevant to the rest of us. Screening abortions--and I dare say counselling "is" voluntary, and that no one is being lectured--seems to me a reasonable compromise position.
The doctrine of individualism is, consciously or unconsciously, dedicated to undermining the social contract and reducing civilization to a fragmented and shallow materialism, readily exploited by the market. For anyone who cares to think about it; this is "not" hyperbole.
But thanks SM et al for the engagement, and sorry for derailing your thread BR/JW.

Squeers, and there we have the nub of the answer. The counselling has nothing to do with the welfare of the women and everything to do with blocking access.

The other issue that I have personally is Christians trying to claim that their view point is the gold standard in morality and ethics. Their view point is based on christian dogma and is way out of date. We have moved on from stoning adulterers and witches, and modern laws are based on in depth thinking based on human rights and dignity.