We know how much abortion ideologues really care about choice, Dr Nathanson, the key figure in the institution of the abortion regime a few decades ago, said he deliberately peddled lies that the media uncritically parrotted. The ruling class desperately wanted abortion for power, money, and eugenic/racist reasons (hear Nixon tapes).

Now the children of these 'pro-choice!' pioneers, Tasmanian and Victorian EMILYS LISTers, simply weaponising the law to seek out and destroy pro-human child Australians in their workplace and in their inherited freedoms.

All Australians are economically conscripted into subsidising this fetish of the rich and power hungry. When they declare the truly human with *the* foundational right to life, must have certain qualities present, you'll find the exemplars of these qualities just magically happen to be . . . . our rulers! With same-sex marriage they'll claim to know where babies actually come from, and that mum's and dad's aren't necessary. They'll try and say that the sexes are interchangeable. Along with our babies they mean to do away with the sexes themselves. Beyond any totalitarian's wildest dreams.

Our culture has been so brutalised, attendant with our butchering our babies, over the last 40 years. Consumerism and selling $$ of sex absolutely needs baby killing as back up birth control - the advertising dependent media effortlessly moves us to hatred and scapegoating of Australians who remind us who we are. An age of baby killers. There is no other place to stand. Everyone has to join together to try and preserve the meaning of our humanity. A meaning that is supposed to be a check on Power.

When reality is too confronting for us, we see what our rulers get away with. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/

As the babies go, so does every other thing worth preserving under the meaning of society/civilisation.

Bravo to Mr Muehlenberg, a great Australian.

Suseonline before you give us the tired old my body my choice routine, understand that your wrong about legality. Abortion is very tightly regulated in this country and only taken out of the criminal code in Victoria of our major populations. And thats only been since 2008, the perverted science of feminists trying to objectify a fetus as a non living parasite makes me want to SPEW

I'm in favour of abortion for sound medical reasons, both physical and psychological, including prepubescent pregnancy, incest and rape! And again, if the choice is limited to either a doctor's clinic or a backyard butcher?
I might vehemently disagree with a woman's choice, but have absolutely no right to deprive her of it!
But particularly, given I can never ever know all of the reasons, or the pain or shame, behind or backing that choice!
It's impossible to know or be in a position to judge!
As clever as I am, I have yet to develop an ability to read minds!
Moreover, laws have to actually be enforceable to be effective. [Meaning, i.e., we can never ever win the so-called war on drugs?]
No ifs buts or maybes!
However, and given things like, ubiquitous condom vending machines, and the morning after pill, acquired over the counter, I don't see abortion as a substitute for contraception.
Nor do I see it as a mechanism for choosing the sex of your baby.
Were the cultures in question advised that all foetuses, start life as female, maybe we could get them to voluntary relinquish this barbaric practise?
Finally, it's not just pregnant women that some doctors/health professionals, are routinely neglecting, or duck-shoving off elsewhere, on so called ethical or religious grounds, but HIV sufferers as well?
Given an almost medieval belief, that this like pregnancy, is almost always, a self inflicted condition?
These so-called medical practitioners, completely disregard, that there is not always an element of choice, in either or any case!
Rhrosty.

My point, r-d, was that much was made in the media about Dr Hobart taking some sort of professional risk in refusing to refer the couple to an abortion clinic for a sex-selective abortion, when the reality is that he has no obligation to refer anyone to an abortion clinic in contravention of his religious beliefs, but he does have a duty to refer to another doctor who may in turn, provide a referral to an abortion clinic. The initial media reports were misleading.

Sex selection abortions provide a logical dilemma: if it is acceptable for a woman to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want a child at all, how different is it if she doesn't want a child of a particular gender? Instinctively it seems wrong, and the 60 million plus 'extra' young men in China attest to the adverse results of widespread gender selection of only children, but its hard to argue that someone should be compelled to have a baby they don't want

Society works better when you care about others as much as caring for yourself. Abortion was always going to lead to the selfishness of sex selection, because its origins are about the mum and not the poor baby being killed.
The baby didn't ask for a rape or a one- night-stand. Why should he or she pay the price?
The mum and all who love her have options for saving mum and baby both, psychologically, physically, economically.
Our policies can find the difficult "life" solutions and refuse the easy way out.

I agree with Bill here that the general public, and indeed prospective clients of abortion clinics, are not told all the facts about what happens. It would be really interesting if someone could do an expose on TV and show Aussies what really happens in the abortion industry or as a result of it. I think a lot of people would think quite differently about this issue.