Dear Suseonline,
You ask how a ban on abortion would be policed. I don't think that is the issue. I believe that if a ban on legal abortion were in place, there would be little demand for abortion.
People keep talking about the horrors of back yard abortions. However, society was very different then (1950,s and before). If a woman got pregnant outside of marriage, she was branded a whore by society, ostracized by her family and community. She was likely to be unable to support herself or the child in the absence of a husband. There was a huge incentive for these women to get rid of the child without anyone finding out.
Today women would be unlikely to suffer even mild embarrassment. Around half of all Australian children are born outside of marriage.
Contraception is readily available and I think people would be more careful to use it if they didn't have the option of abortion.
Our birth rate in Australia is well below what it takes to replace our population. We should be valuing, supporting and celebrating every child. Not killing them for the convenience of the mother. I say mother, because fathers do not get a say in whether their unborn child will be killed or not.
In any case, it is not really about the law. It is about society's attitude toward its most vulnerable members. The fact that our society feels it OK, and even a womans right to kill her unborn babies, shows we have a long way to go before we can really call ourselves civilised.

".....It's all about society's attitude to it's most vulnerable members....."

Your darn tootin' it is, Rhys Jones.

How's this for starters - and this is about actual children and their mothers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/housing-fails-to-meet-changing-face-of-homelessness/4659026

Warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it....in general, we're a consuming competitive society, which doesn't give a particular hoot about vulnerability as a rule.

Just to clarify my point above.

It's all very well to say how far we've come and how we should be valuing every child, etc...

It appears we don't even value every child who is actually alive and walking about upon our soil. These kids are being relegated to living on the streets - in these modern, so-called "enlightened" times - in this extremely prosperous country.

So, Rhys, when you say, "...We should be valuing, supporting and celebrating every child..." as an argument against choice, the reality is that we don't value, support or celebrate every child.

We're happy to let some of them live on the streets.....

Poirot, just because we fail to care properly for some children does not justify killing others. You can't tell me that every child who is aborted would have been destined to live on the streets.
There are many reasons for homelessness and poverty. I don't believe that a lack of abortion is one. I also don't believe that a reduction in abortion would lead to more homelessness.
We should be aiming for a society where no-one is forced to live on the streets and where we value all people, including the unborn. One is not exclusive of the other. I don't see us getting any closer to such a society at present though.
I think the welfare state has destroyed our charitable spirit. People immediately see every problem as being the responsibility of government to fix. Yet government intervention tends to make these problems worse rather than better, such as creating welfare dependence which consigns people to decades of poverty, often crossing generations.

The problem is, Rhys, that we appear to moving in a retrograde direction.

More women and children on the streets.

It doesn't bode well for a future where all children are valued and supported.

We'd have more chance of women opting to continue pregnancies if we really were sincere in our celebration of all human life.

Show me a truly caring and engaged society (which is what is needed here) and not merely an ideological stance.

David,

If the Bible was "not a reasonable guide for law", explain why the Israelites survived as a people for millennia while countless others have come and gone. And what is a "reasonable guide" then? Where does your moral standard come from? What I am pointing out to you is that you don't even know what it teaches because you fail to employ even the most basic rules of scholarship - eg. putting things into context. So when you make claims about it, you are actually wrong because it's hamfisted and clumsy how you quote from it. You've now done it twice.

Stop the ridiculous fearmongering about being a theocracy (has Australia ever been that?), stop ignoring the basic human rights of a some people (and still trying to claim the moral high ground!), and stop trying to claim I am imposing anything on any woman (except in the case of rape a woman has her own free will to enter into sex) when sex is hardwired in humans to lead to pregnancy.

Saying that supporting killing the unborn does not reflect well on you is a fairly straightforward conclusion. Sure, you can consider that a 'personal attack', but in reality I am simply pointing to your backward primitive views that belong in the dustbin of history. Continuing to hold to them doesn't reflect well on you - but you can let them go at any time.

My point about voting stands. The Suffragettes were unified against abortion, did you know that? You are confusing issues and only trying to use smears.

"A fetus is part of a woman’s body until it is born."

Completely unscientific. For that to be true, a woman has a penis when she carries a male child. The little human inside is a distinct human being. "Fertilised egg" is not correct terminology either. Immediately after conception, the first human cell is no longer called an egg because its fundamental nature (having a full set of chromosomes now) has changed.

Your ideas are not grounded in knowledge, that is clear.