" Can I suggest that if we really did inform women about everything they need to know about their abortions, that we would have a whole lot less of them? Indeed, that is exactly how we seek to prevent or curtail other ugly activities."

It would be the logical thing to do in this information age, provided that it is not left to abortionists to do so.

I can't believe this has happened n Australia to a 19week old baby. Plus it sounds like this woman was taken to abort by her husband (Possibly a male dominant, arrogant, stand over man who is tripping over his own male ego to have the first born a son)
Most importantly, I cannot believe this good and decent Doctor is possibly getting into trouble for reporting this?
Plus why should any Dr be made to refer a woman to abort?
Plus why on earth should anyone be killing a 19week old healthy infant?
Where are the feminists here?
This is sickening and this Doctor is a Hero.
If he gets into any trouble, there will be thousands of Aussie' ready to protest BIG TIME...The streets will be full protesting to protect Dr Hobarts stand against a barbaric practise being done here.
You are a good, decent, wonderful man Dr Hobart, and 99% of Aussie's support you 100%.. Just check out all the votes and internet sites.
You are a legend man and I will be there to protest big time if you get into any trouble..Plus we need to protest to stop this sick practise right now...

david f:
"We can keep abortions at a minimum by informing sexually active people about contraception."

False, contraception just encourages more abortion. Former abortion clinic directors and workers have admitted publicly that they were well aware that every method of contraception has an average failure rate, but if you convince enough people that it works 'well enough' the overall pregnancy rate increases because everybody thinks pregnancy will never happen to them. And then they clean up by offering abortion at a premium.

Why would these former workers lie?

The simplest way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. I know many people who have made this choice and kept to it - some for decades.

"If women lose abortion rights and they need an abortion the choice becomes the coathanger, the backyard butcher or suicide."

Mindless fearmongering. (And no mention of the development of antiseptics) Recent examples of Poland and Nicaragua - which wound back abortion laws substantially - give lie to that statement.

Furthermore, David - the Bible has multiple general universal commands about looking after the weak, and not shedding innocent blood, and you do not communicate the big difference between these kinds of general commands and once-off situations inapplicable as prescriptive beyond their context. You do not differentiate between historical accounts and timeless moral rules.

As for your cousin - why have you not considered that she might also have committed suicide if she had access to abortion? Suicide is actually a greater risk for post-abortive women than those who simply find out they are pregnant. Do you care at all about the women who committed suicide after having an abortion?

In summary, you have some terrible arguments and want to also rely on emotional manipulation. But abortion is wrong because it denies basic human rights, something quite objective to view. No-one has the right to take some-one else's life. Way to go supporting death for those in society who need the most protection merely because they are helpless. The fact you spend ages obfuscating the blindingly obvious does not reflect well on you.

It amazes me that people think that abortion for sex-selection is far worse than abortion for personal reasons. Abortion is always wrong, but the idea that the personal decision that 'a child is not convenient now' is more justifiable than the external pressure in some cultures to have boys over girls (which apparently was a factor in this case) is false.

In their view, abortion for 'personal reasons' is somehow OK, but a panic response to the stigma of having a girl that a culture has embedded (which I do not condone) is substantially worse? Sorry, but if gender selection is always wrong, then I submit abortion because 'the time is not right' is actually worse because it is a decision taken with only personal factors considered and nothing from outside. And over 90% of abortions happen for that reason.

Yet again, comments below this article from those who support abortion proves they refuse to examine their own views and try to dismiss pro-life arguments by misrepresentations or deflections. I don't recall Bill Muehlenberg making a single mention of religion in his article - yet they often argue as if he did - which means they are not dealing with the arguments as presented, they are just looking for emotional smears that appeal to anti-Christian bigotry and hatred.

Oh, and "anti-choice"? Please. The real anti-choicers are the pro-aborts because the unborn don't get the choice to ever do anything. Sheer hypocrisy trying to use such terms.

Also, to Candide, you don't seem to understand that Dr Hobart referring to another doctor would be contravening his beliefs.

The Nation still remembers its 60,000 plus who lost their lives in the First World War nearly one hundred years ago.

Yet the pro-choicers think nothing of the 75,000 plus innocent lives who are sacrificed on the altars of abortion each year

What is illegal is sex selection using IVF in Aus. Aborting a fetus to achieve the same thing is not, as a woman does not need to specify why she is terminating her pregnancy. However, I would guess that given the very small number of terminations at 19 weeks, that this is extremely rare.

What I find irritating are these officious busybodies that want to legislate actions, that will affect millions of mothers to be, on the one in a million chance that someone will do something that ethically questionable, but perfectly legal.