Not even democratically elected "numbers" can guarantee human rights protection for vulnerable groups.

At the foundation of modern international human rights law is the recognition that “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” cannot be legitimately restricted through arbitrary exercise of governmental power or even through arbitrary exercise of the majority’s democratic will.

“In order to guarantee human rights, it is therefore essential that States’ actions affecting basic rights not be left to the discretion of localized or domestic governments but, rather, that they be surrounded by a set of guarantees designed to ensure that the inviolable attributes of the individual not be impaired.”

Extreme liberal abortion legislation (such as is proposed in this Bill) that permits lethal disrespect for the lives of so many children from conception right up until birth demonstrates just such a need for some system of subsequent control, when a localized majority seek arbitrarily to pass a law that has abrogated the human rights of these children at risk of abortion.

Neither public opinion nor common practice excuses human rights violation

It has never been valid under international human rights law to plead a defence that terminations of children's lives are legal and/or common practice domestically—the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not permit violation of children’s rights on the grounds that local or customary law or local common practice tolerates such violations. Cultural practices are frequently contrary to law. Relying on cultural practice to restrict or narrow established international law on human rights is not a sound basis for any novel domestic human rights legislation or amendment.

Dear Ritaj,

If the foetus were an independent living being which was not in the body of another human being you would be right. However, that is not the case. A foetus is inside the body of a woman. Her wishes should take precedence. Two rights conflict. The right of a woman not to continue her pregnancy and the rights of the foetus conflict. In my opinion the right of a woman not to continue her pregnancy prevails. I don't believe any other person should have the right to tell a woman that she has to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Women will continue to get pregnant. Some women will want to terminate their pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal that would bring back the days of DIY abortions, medically unsafe abortions, suicides by desperate, pregnant women and unwanted babies. Those are the alternatives to removal of abortion rights.

Five of my descendents are female. If any of them got pregnant and didn't want to go to term I hope they will have the option of a medically competent abortionist.

Hmmmm ... Evidently GOD doesn't consider an unborn baby a person in his/her own right.

Go to the Book of Exodus Chapter 21, verses 22 & 23.
22:"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

So the penalty for 'killing' an unborn child was a fine.

23: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shall give life for life" and so on with the eye for eye, tooth for tooth etc

Therefore should the MOTHER die as result or suffer other injury, the LAW in it's fullness would apply.

I have yet to find a reference suggesting otherwise that according to scripture, a foetus becomes a person when it emerges live from it's mothers womb.

Other than that - while I find the aborting of healthy foetuses sad and undesirable it's not my place or that of anyone else to force women into going through with unwanted pregnancy. Yes, by all means offer a service to provide advice, help and support to women (taking into account she may need this for 18 years not 8 or 9 months) but intimidation and bullying is way out of order. The behaviour of some of the anti-abortion brigade is abhorrent. After all - Judge not! Leave it in Gods hands for judgement is his.

As for Babettes "Health Statistics & Facts" - well .... I won't start.

Well done Tassie! 150 mt exclusion zone is good and fair policy.

How can anyone say that the rights of the foetus and the woman are in conflict and therefore the right of the woman to terminate prevails? Why is this the case?

Why not say that the right of Nazis to kill Jews was in conflict with the right of the Jews to continue living were in conflict so therefore the right of the Nazis prevailed. This is no less logical and we all know where such logic led. One can say that the right of slave owners to enslave was in conflict with the right of slaves to be free therefore the rights of slave owners should prevail.

Either we accept that some rights are "inalienable" or we accept an arbitrary human standard based on physical or military might prevails i.e. the law of the jungle.

Dear Gadfly,

This is not the law of the jungle. It is simply common sense. To equate a foetus with a woman is simply outrageous.

If abortion were made illegal that would bring back the days of DIY abortions, medically unsafe abortions, suicides by desperate, pregnant women and unwanted babies. Those are the alternatives to removal of abortion rights.

That would be the consequence of rescinding the right of a woman to have an abortion if she wants one. Apparently you support that.

Do you say that we should not equate a Nazi with a Jew or a slave owner with a slave?

You have adopted an arbitrary standard. Rights have to be argued from fundamental principles.

Let us suppose that what you say did happen? The net result would be that about 100,000 babies per year would be brought to term and born alive. I think that would be a good outcome.

There is an old saying "Hard cases make bad law". Start off from the premise that all people have equal rights to live and you can't go wrong David.