'The accusation I made was that GP wants the freedom to harass women who go to an abortion clinic'

not nearly as vile as those who promote, profit and encourage the killing of the unborn David G.

David f,
You keep accusing Graham of harassment. I don't see why. Seems to me his protest was entirely silent and peaceful.

I can see how it would have been bad for business ($$$) on that day at the abortion clinic.

It's really quite hilarious, david f. You say it is wrong to criticise a person who goes to an abortion clinic for a purpose with which you disagree, and to do so amounts to harassment. Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Look in the mirror.
The bottom line here is that Graham has taken an immensely courageous and principled stand in upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular in relation to the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, and he has logically chosen to do so at a location where those declared rights are most openly and flagrantly violated, and he has done so in the face of extreme harassment and abuse, to which he never responds in kind. It is quite simply a lie to state that he is guilty of harassment.
If you want the Universal Declaration of Human Rights torn up, just say so, and have the courage to make your stand in a public place, as Graham has done. If you accept Australia's obligation to uphold those declared human rights, then you have no case against Graham.

Runner have you forgotten male circumcision, but of course to you that would be ok, it is still mutilation, freely done in the USA

A fetus is not a child so the rights of the child do not apply. Those who oppose a woman's right to have an abortion disregard the interests of women. They would return us back to a bloody past with back yard abortions which often resulted in a woman's death or inability to have children at a later date. Let us lessen the need for abortion by having all girls and boys taught methods of birth control so there are few accidental pregnancies. There will still be a few cases where a woman's circumstances will change during pregnancy so she will want an abortion. In those cases a medically safe procedure should be available.

I have noticed that those who would deny women the right to abortion are mainly men according to the names of the posters. Those women who are opposed to other women having the right to abortion need not get one themselves. The opposition to abortion apparently comes mainly from religious people. As is often the case with religious people they want to force others to conform to their beliefs. We may yet outlaw legal abortion and go back to the coat hanger and the backyard butcher. I for one hope those days are gone. Graham Preston and others would bring those bloody days back.

The law that keeps GP and others from harassing women who are going to get an abortion is a good law. If Graham can't make abortion illegal he would still like to be able to harass women. That is his 'courageous' stand.

Foetuses have a right to live, but they don’t have a right to live at the expense of someone else’s body. No-one does.

No-one here would think that that law should force a woman to donate a kidney to their child if they were the only ones who could provide it; so why does a foetus have special rights that no-one who has been born is afforded?

This is the contradiction in the anti-abortionist’s logic, and it’s the reason why Graham Preston’s article falls flat on its face and may be dismissed as nonsense.