It's a mad, mad, world we live in. On the one hand we are funding abortion clinics and the procedures they offer. On the other, we are funding fertility clinics and the procedures they offer. None of either service comes cheaply nor are without risk. There are few, if any, children available for adoption in Australia.

Progressive pat is thinking along the right lines. My idea is the government supports a woman through a pregnancy, and post pregnancy if required, on the proviso that the child is available for adoption. There may be a fee for the adoption service to the new parents. Thereafter the usual child payments would be made to the new parents, as with any other Australian child.

I realise there are many couples who want their child as their own gene blend. But there are many who would be immensly greatful just to have a child. It would be wonderful if this could be achieved without the huge expense and invasive procedures.

They haven't had their right to protest taken away, they just have to do it 150 metres down the street.

David

Protest against public bodies is and should remain legitimate, but protest against individuals in a way that disturbs their peace and ability to enjoy whatever they are doing on their private premises, is not.

Why? Because public bodies are the domain of everyone whereas what another does on their own premises is none of your business (so long as it doesn't adversely spill over to adjoining premises and/or public spaces).

As for doctors, I strongly agree that they should never be forced to do anything against their conscience.

HOWEVER, if they receive their income from the public purse (eg. Medicare) then they are no longer on their own and are obliged to obey the instructions of the body that feeds them.

WmTrevor wrote: "Given that in order to practise doctors are highly restricted by regulations and registrations" - but one evil does not justify another.

Doctors should not be regulated in the first place or be required to register and it's none of the state's business who calls themselves a 'doctor' and what they do, so long as no fraud is taking place and their patients are aware in advance of the doctor's qualifications, ethics and practices or lack thereof, then freely choose whether to accept that doctor's services or otherwise.

HOWEVER, if a doctor desires to grab money from the public purse and be in receipt of Medicare funds or any other government support, then I see no wrong in requiring him/her to abide by whatever demands the government of the day makes, even demands that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Dear Sparkyq,

Indeed, the state should fund neither pregnancies nor abortions (except in cases of rape). If someone wants to have children (or careless sex), then it is as they say 'their own baby'. If government is to fund theirs, then why is it not to fund all other hobbies?

Adoption is a great choice, but again that should not be the business of government, but of adoptions agencies (for or not-for profit) that make the contact between pregnant women and prospective adopting parents.

Sparkyq I disagree with your point of view. The rhetoric you are preaching shows a complete lack of compassion for the human life already exists independently. It seems that pro-life means only pro-life in the womb before birth.

From the article: “Providing patients with a list of providers might seem like a reasonable requirement in the scheme of things. However, this is to overlook the fact that it forces medical practitioners to direct their patients to a service which they do not recommend for one reason or another.”

No, I don’t think it “overlooks” it at all. It simply recognises that the reasons for NOT recommending the procedure are religious or personal and not medical, and therefore, irrelevant and overridden by a doctor’s duty of care and obligation to at least direct their patient to someone who will assist them. When those who oppose abortion can provide evidence of a god and evidence that this god is against abortion, or when they can demonstrate that their personal convictions have some objective basis by explaining how the world will be a demonstrably better place when we force women to go through with their pregnancies, then their objections can be taken more seriously.

Until then, any doctor who lets their personal convictions override the needs of their patient - when there is a risk of harm to the patient - needs their medical licence revoked. Or do they not understand the risks involved with coat hangers and knitting needles? Patients have the right of access to such information without being forced to experiment with doctors until they find the right one.

I wonder what the author would think if they had to have blood if a group of people hounded her and told what she was doing would make her burn in hell, that she was a evil person? what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?

If only Christ-stains were so vigilant when their priests were touching up the kids.

Christanity has become a religon of hate for many and condeming other people with different beliefs in order to feel superior is what binds them together. Go protest a guy night club see how you go...you'll end up were you deserve.