sparkyq, yes, sometimes it is.
It is humane if it means that a severely disabled child is not born to suffer only pain.
It is humane if it means a woman's life is saved from certain physical harm or possible death.
It is humane if it means a person is not forced to carry their rapist's child.
It is humane if it means that a child is not forced to have a child.
It is humane if it stops a child being neglected, abused or abandoned by a mother who is mentally, physically or emotionally unable to care for it.
It is humane to the future children the woman may carry if they are not forced to carry a child that are not ready or able to care for.

Now you tell me, is it humane to force a woman to carry a child that has been diagnosed with a severe or catastrophic disability?
Is it humane to force a woman to carry her rapist's baby?
Is it humane to force a child to have a child?
Is forcing any woman to carry a child to term humane? Or is it just another way of telling women that they are not capable of deciding what is best for them?
To be honest your consideration of women considering termination underwhelms me. If you aren't in favour of abortion the solution is simple: DON'T HAVE ONE! You do not have the right to determine what is best for any other person.

Carz,

why don;t you speak about the 98% cases of baby murder instead of using the dishonest emotional arguement of the 1970's where the 1% or less is focussed on. Your consideration of the 99% seems very heartless.

runner, until the baby is able to live outside of the womb it is not a person and it is not murder. And I would be really interested in where you obtain the statistics of 98% or 99% being "baby murder" for which I guess you believe there is no good reason. Preventing harm to the mother IS a good reason. It is none of your business what form that harm might take. Like I said before - if you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

AJ Philips "It simply recognises that the reasons for NOT recommending the procedure are religious or personal and not medical"

And you overlook that the reasons the woman wants the abortion are "personal and not medical" in most cases.
Pregnancy is not an illness.

Should doctors be forced to refer clients in other cases, where there is no actual disease, but simply the personal desire of the client?
Nose jobs? Sex change? Skin lightening? Fetish amputation?

How is referral to technically unnecessary procedures part of a "doctor’s duty of care"?

"Governments (are at least supposed to) legislate to reduce harm overall"

Is that why every government in the world at one time banned abortion?
Isn't an lifeform being *destroyed* being "harmed"?

Cobber the hound "what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?"

You're talking about a *needed* life-SAVING procedure.
Hardly comparable to a "choice" that will destroy life.

Tell me, where is this mythical hospital that only has one doctor on duty?

Carz "Preventing harm to the mother IS a good reason. It is none of your business what form that harm might take."

Yes it is, if the justification for such a law is a "doctor's duty".
Most of the "good reasons" you mention have nothing to do with HEALTH.

"if you don't believe in abortion don't have one."

And if you don't believe the protestors, don't listen to them.
Just keep walking.

I think all the pro-choice advocates here are ignoring the principal issue.
It's not about abortion, but the right to *protest* against it!

And inadvertently, protest *anything else* within 150 metres of a clinic.

What if you want to protest an unethical business, but their premises is right next door to a clinic?
You could be fined over a protest that has nothing to do with abortion!

Some people believe killing animals is "immoral", a personal judgment.
Yet meat is legally available.

Are we to ban anti-meat protests within 150 metres of an abattoir or butcher shop?

Yuyutsu,

I figured this was the case…

<<Unlike yourself, I believe that spiritual well-being is more important than physical well-being, thus religion is more important than health.>>

This is why we only legislate according to that which is demonstrable. Just imagine a country being governed by millions of different religious beliefs (or not governed at all - as you seem to prefer sometimes). Is it any wonder that secularism has delivered us so much wealth and knowledge?

<<I respect your wish to place health above religion, and have no desire or intention to restrict yourself or your doctors in that matter.>>

But of course. You’re intelligent enough to realise that you’re on the philosophical back foot here, so you have to. If you’re religious beliefs were the more evidential and philosophically supported, then I would expect that things should be very different.

<<I don't even demand in the slightest that you attempt to prove your point-of-view>>

Well, you should.

<<You however, seem to disrespect my choices and values and are willing to use force, even the barrel of a gun if necessary (for that's what legislation and governments do), to try enforcing your values on me.>>

Please don’t be so melodramatic. I have alluded to nothing of the sort. You don’t have to have an abortion and I could quite as easily argue that if you don’t like abortion, then don’t be a doctor. Whose argument takes precedence then?

<<The issue thus is not about who is right, theists or atheists…>>

I agree. It’s about that which can be demonstrated and that which cannot. Regardless of who is actually right. Luckily, however, historically, those who have been able to demonstrate the accuracy of their beliefs have always been shown to be right. Funnily enough.

<<…nor whether my views are in alignment or not with those of the author.>>

The authors views were only relevant because that is what I was responding to.

<<The issue is whether it is acceptable to use violence against people who do not share your views and values…>>

No-one has proposed violence.