Brendan – you say, “Moral argument seems incapable of resolving the seemingly intractable abortion law debate” but if we abandon moral argument all we have left is the brute force of numbers.

Indeed, you then indicate that you believe that might makes right when you say that the majority opinion ought to prevail.

Would you have used the same argument if you had lived in Alabama 200 years ago – let’s forget about morality, if most people want slavery, then we should allow slavery. Or if you had lived in Germany 80 years ago – let’s forget about morality, if most people want to get rid of the Jews, let’s get rid of the Jews.

Section 313 (2) of the Queensland Criminal Code which you cited, “Any person who unlawfully assaults a female pregnant with a child and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to....the child before its birth, commits a crime. Maximum penalty imprisonment for life" clearly shows the incredibly hypocritical nature of our society.

That section was added to the Code in 1997 after a man deliberately assaulted his pregnant girlfriend and killed their baby. So now, for killing a child in the womb without the mother’s permission a person can get life imprisonment, but if that exact same child is killed with the mother’s permission then the child can just be thrown in the rubbish.

And you want to abandon moral argument about this?

Three questions:
Why is it that conservative always think they have the silent majority on their sides?
Why is it religious people seem to be obsessed with abortion and porn, but are the biggest users of both?
Why are religious people so fond of covering up kiddie fiddling?

finally from the study the author cited at the start of their piece.
"Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) is a rare outcome of pregnancy and a principal element of fetal medicine."

I agree with the author that the Australian abortion laws should be tightened up and be comparable within all states.
There should be total freedom for women to choose abortion if they please, as any decisions involving their own bodies should be up to them.
All medical staff involved in abortions should be free from the current antiquated laws.

Late term abortions are very difficult to procure for any woman, as it is not something many doctors would agree to do except in very problematic situations.
I would say that late abortions after 20 weeks gestation are very rare except when there are foetal abnormalities or if there are severe mental or physical problems with the mother.
Any attempt to prove otherwise are lies from hysterical anti-choice proponents.

The division of gestation into trimesters is arbitrary and seems to be decreasingly relevant.

Foetus do not feel pain until ~23-24 weeks of gestation: until that stage there is an embryological structure dividing the brain from the spinal cord called the sub-cortical plate. It stops nerve transmission from the spinal cord to the brain.

Even after the sub-cortical plate disappears, probably through apoptosis (genetically programmed cell death), the degree of transmission of signals and foetal-brain cognition of them is poorly understood.

So I think we should be talking about pre mid-gestation abortion, and post mid-gestation abortion.

Most people are not pro-abortion per se. There are indications many abortions are sought after failed contraception.

The reasons for late-gestation abortion ought to be better clarified before we consider and discuss it further.

Why am I commenting on this thread?

It is because my probable Irish Catholic background gives me special insights into the hearts of men and their womenfolk.

I hold the moral high ground as God ordains.

After all, it is not a women's choice. Wiser minds than a women's consider and judge matters of a woman's womb.

Suck it up young lay lads of honored Priests.

After all, I'm the next Pope. Get used to it.

Mine is the Eminence. Amen.

Cardinal P---

Cardinal P--- ?? Cardinal Pant/s ?

I think we can all agree that killing babies is immoral.

But what has the state to do with it? Since when has the, ammoral if not immoral, secular state, become a guardian of morals?

The only legitimate rationale for the existence of the state is for the protection of a group of people who agreed to join their powers to protect themselves in this manner.

Problems and oppression arise when a state attempts to protect those who never sought its protection, or against perceived dangers which those who gave it power never entrusted it to protect them against.

In the case of babies, born or unborn, they may not be counted as citizens, nor even as visitors who arrive into the state under agreement (visa). The only legitimate way for them to come under state-protection, is when either they or their parent(s) as their representatives, approach the state applying to receive its protection - and in the case of abortions, that usually never happened.

No Mc'O'Real

You may address me as Cardinal Icky Poota.

That'll be 66 Hail Mary's on Monday. But leave me the odd Marjorie on Tuesday.

Yours

Seamus O'Paddy's Big One

A quick response to the points raised.

"“If we abandon moral argument all we have left is the brute force of numbers". I don't want to abandon moral argument but I see little prospect of the two sides reaching a consensus, or public opinion going back to a majority supporting a prohibitionist position.

I am agnostic and not at all religious. I get annoyed with people who stereotype me because of my Irish name.

"Why is it that conservatives always think they have the silent majority on their sides"? The survey evidence I quoted related to the views of all Australians. It is clear that the majority (silent or otherwise) support abortions early in pregnancy but are opposed to or have strong reservations about late abortions.

"I would say that late abortions after 20 weeks gestation are very rare except when there are foetal abnormalities or if there are severe mental or physical problems with the mother. Any attempt to prove otherwise are lies from hysterical anti-choice proponents". The issue with late abortions is not the reason or lack of one. The point is that (at a given time late in gestation) a pregnancy could be ended by a live birth (with the unwanted child adopted, if necessary) instead of by an abortion resulting in a lifeless foetus.

"The division of gestation into trimesters is arbitrary and seems to be decreasingly relevant". Anyone who has studied medicine or vet science would know that reference to trimesters is stock standard and has scientific basis.

Venturing into the waters of Abortion with an Irish name guarantees stereotyping - which may have considerable truth.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/labour-party-politician-considers-another-vote-against-government-on-abortion-31206195.html

Firstly I fully support women having the right to choose whether or not they seek an abortion.

Second, what is the issue? Is it religiously wrong or are there anti-abortion secularists. We all know the argument against abortion comes primarily from Christians who believe 'killing' an unborn child is murder, the ultimate sin.

So when a women has an abortion 'her sin' is between her a God. If there is a debt to pay, God should decide, not a bunch of self righteous do-gooders. If these Christians have no faith God will hand down the proper justice, they don't have much faith.

Finally, where are the statistical accounts regarding the lives of children who were never wanted but their mother was forced to have the baby? How have these children turned out? If one, god forbid, turned out to be a serial killer, would it be the mother's fault or those who forced the birth to happen?

Believers generally accept there is a Higher Plan, or God's Plan that is beyond human knowledge or understanding. How can believers question whether or not God intended a particular entity to only live a few months inside its mother's womb?

To me, the religious anti-abortionists show themselves to be hypocrites who are unwilling to accept God's mysterious ways, they are the very ones of little faith.

Well, there are a number of valid grounds for an entirely lawful abortion! The first and probably most important is incompatible DNA and tissue rejection, which if left can kill both the mother and the baby!

And not able to be known by all the religious nut jobs with their anti-clinic pickets! You can't judge a book by its cover!

And no 9-10-11 year old should be forced to carry full term, given she would have had to been literally raped in order to get pregnant in the first place; and she could literally die in child birth.

And early term termination ought to be automatically available to any female who was unable or unwilling to give informed consent, as would likely be the case in date rape!

Again not something the nut jobs can ever possibly know. Ditto most incest and underage sex?

Which if carried full term can quite literally destroy the entire future prospects of the non consulted incubator.

I mean surely it is already enough that these women/girls may be subjected to the trauma of the court procedures, without also being almost raped again by a (lunatic fringe) picket line of (a tail trying to wag the dog) or force a minority (stone age/flat earth) view down our collective throats.

Were it down entirely to me, I'd ask the police to enforce the law or should that read, AVO's, with shotguns loaded with non lethal bean bags!?

Which might give the anti-clinic picketers something real to rave on about!?

That said, termination procedures that still a beating human heart, can never ever be seen as a substitute for (multiple choice)contraception and shouldering personal responsibility for knowable/foreseeable outcomes!
Rhrosty.

Bren – you say that you don’t want to abandon moral argument but when you rely on a simple majority to determine what should be lawful that is precisely what you are doing.

I note that you conveniently ignored my question about whether you would have gone along with majority votes that support slavery or genocide. I am sure that you would say that you would not, but why not if a majority of people wanted to allow such things? Of course it would be because you would regard such things as being immoral, right? - even if most people wanted them.

We have to determine what is the right thing do and not just go along with the crowd. This applies as much to abortion as anything else.

(Of course, for you as a non-religious agnostic, all you have to determine what is right and wrong are your own personal preferences anyway.)

little difference between the death cult (Isis) and the abortion industry.

Oh I don't know about that silly comment Runner, when abortion is legal and ISIS is not.

Bren, the issue is really about some people (mainly religious men, or controlling men) wanting to force women to go through with a pregnancy against their will.

Are you ok with that?

If so, how exactly would you force them to not go ahead and abort their own baby if they were not legally allowed to have access to legal, safe abortion?
You know, like back in the good Ol' days when women tried anything to get rid of unwanted pregnancies?
Would you tie them down and jail them until the labour is over?

If a woman needs to abort, it's her choice, no one else's. Get it done and ignore those who dismiss Your wishes,

Pretty simple.

JP commented that "you say that you don’t want to abandon moral argument but when you rely on a simple majority to determine what should be lawful that is precisely what you are doing".

JP's other point was " I note that you conveniently ignored my question about whether you would have gone along with majority votes that support slavery or genocide. I am sure that you would say that you would not, but why not if a majority of people wanted to allow such things?"

I think the focus of my piece is being misunderstood. I was not attempting to discuss the morality of abortion per se or suggesting that everyone should go along with the majority opinion without dissent. Instead I was looking to see what Australian public opinion had to say on the subject of abortion law and contrast this with what the law has delivered (namely very inconsistent abortion laws across states and territories that in many respects don't reflect public opinion and are not properly enforced).

The reality in a democracy is that majority opinion will generally determine what is lawful, though organised minorities can be unduly influential. Moral argument has a continuing place but in my judgement there is little prospect of legislators being convinced to recriminalise first trimester abortions.

Moral argument did help change public opinion in favour of abolishing slavery, assisted by things like the slave rebellion in Jamaica and the American Civil War.

moral arguements only work when you have a moral generation. Ours is immoral otherwise you would not have baby murder legal or even encouraged by emily's listers and emasculated men.

Runner you are the most immoral person on this site. So full of hate for your fellow man. You have far more in common with IS then the rest of us.

Immoral?!

You ride a girl's bike runner :)

Bren, "Instead I was looking to see what Australian public opinion had to say on the subject of abortion law and contrast this with what the law has delivered"

Very good questions, the operation of all laws should be subjected to regular comprehensive audit and scrutiny. I also believe that many laws should have 'sunset clauses'. Laws should be revisited even if only because the administrators of the laws, bureaucrats, are not themselves directly answerable to the Parliament, yet they usually have delegated authority that can easily alter the intent, operation and outcomes of the regulations.

Regarding abortion, it is rather surprising that while supporters on either side were able to claim 'facts' prior in support or in opposition - such as the main beneficiaries would be underage minors, in practice it doesn't seem to be that way at all. Again, the overall number of abortions vastly exceeds that predicted.

I am not opposing abortion, but the public is due some rigorous examination of what is going on and why.

There is concern for example, that many young working couples are reportedly not having the children they wanted and planned and worked for, because their goal (of children) is a kangaroo that continually leaps away from them. The reason is that they simply cannot afford a child where their work is 'casualised'(sic) and the taxes on them are so high. So presumably these women are being forced into abortions of children they want.

Yet the same young working couples are paying ramped up taxes and endure more 'user-pays' (indirect taxes) to provide infrastructure, health and welfare for record numbers of migrants and their relatives, and that has been going on for years.

What prevents independent scrutiny? Who is able to ensure (as is happening) that numbers are not being kept to allow proper research even if it was politically possible? Good questions too!

You make some compelling points onthebeach.

In a two income family the tax threshold is effectively $36,000.00! Whereas in a single income family it's just $18,000.00!

And that's compounded by child care which can and does cost the working mum as much as $140.00+ a day!

That's $700+ a 5 day week; or, $35,000,00+ a year! And further compounded by factors like housing affordability and commuting costs!

We have the highest median house prices in the english speaking world, and are adding to that problem with a gold plated energy delivery system, that makes energy costs among the highest anywhere also?

Arguably the direct results of almost moronic, successive government policies?

Couples get on this treadmill and just can't get off!

We are essentially slaves to the economy, which is entirely the wrong way round!

The well to do don't seem to think there's not a problem with any of that; even though the policy paradigms, effectively holds a economic imperative loaded gun, to not born yet childrens heads?

Throwing more money at the problem may in fact just create even more expensive child care!? When what needs to be addressed are the economic imperatives that compel couples carrying huge debt, to seek solutions in an abortion clinic?

Economic imperatives that would essentially be addressed with the return of affordable housing; coupled to affordable energy and a completely reformed massively simplified tax system!

And follow that real reform by simply outlawing the middleman profit taker, who between them and their often sharp (money for nothing) practice, effectively double the cost of living?

A good start would be to treat all family income as the one household income and raise the tax free threshold for a family to $36,000.00!

And a win/win for all families, but particularly those (the working poor) on incomes as low as $37,000.00 a year!?

If you add what can be then saved by stay at home parents, taking care of the kids themselves, give that option back to some/more families?
Rhrosty.

What I do not understand about abortion is the need.

As I recall when the 'pill' first came out it was supposed to end all those unwanted pregnancies, so why now are women getting pregnant? There are other means of contraception as well and then there is the 'morning after' pill, so again why the need for so many abortions.

When sex education was introduced into schools it was supposedly to stop unwanted pregnancies of girls who were ignorant of sexual facts. The girls are still getting pregnant and even though they have access to contraception without parental permission.

So, to me, the need for so many abortions boils down to the fact that people do not take responsibility for their own actions.

While there may be some argument for abortions, the occurrance of late term abortions should be very rare indeed and only in dire medical circumstances.

Banjo, "The girls are still getting pregnant and even though they have access to contraception without parental permission"

While pregnancies in young girls and minors, and victims of rape, were used as the big-hitting justifications for abortion, it seems that the unexpected hump in abortions is attributable to young women in their prime childbearing and child-raising years instead. That is, the group formerly seen as most unlikely to be having abortions.

If so and I believe it is, that is a national calamity and a disgrace to social planners and government, particularly the federal government.

That is why there needs to be better collection of raw data and government sponsored research. The public is entitled to know, even if some educated, middle class feminists presume to know what is best for women - without ever stooping to consult women - and roll logs in the road to shield their own ideology and guvvy-funded careers.

I am not arguing against abortion, merely arguing for the same comprehensive audit and research that should be conducted of any policy in action. Laws and regulations should be reviewed to check efficiency and effectiveness and whether the desired results are being obtained. Call it monitoring to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money from government.

Also, I am not suggesting that abortion policy itself is responsible for the unexpected, consistently high number of abortions by women in their twenties up to their early thirties.
contd..

continued..

It is most likely very poorly conceived other government policies and lack of a holistic approach that are impacting so harshly on these young working couples. Couples who would have children if they could, but cannot rise above the high direct and indirect taxes that result from immigration that since the end of WW2 has always been far too high. Of course home prices and council rates are being ramped up by over-enthusiastic immigration for a 'Big Australia' and so too are the costs of essentials such as water and energy.

Young working couples just don't have the ear of government as other lobbyists do and they are not organised. They need leadership to step forward and demand what used to be their right and reasonable expectation, to have the children they planned and work so very hard for, but are denied by federal governments that respond to noisy lobbyists and the perceived political imperatives to shore up votes and win marginal seats.

OTB,
Then why are those young women you speak about on the pill if they cannot afford to have babies. That seems a far better option than having an abortion.

Banjo,

Agreed, research is sorely needed.

It seems that sex education and availability of contraception lower the incidence of unplanned pregnancies of minors and teens. The number stays down.

However, the unexpected spike in abortions concerns women in their ideal childbearing and child-raising years - twenties to early-thirties. With this group the rate of abortion is likely linked to difficult financial times. Probably more so where there is already one child and the couple have already experienced the additional costs of child-raising.

That seems to make some sense. However, you would imagine that where there are so many more abortions than even the opponents of abortion might have speculated, government is duty bound to ensuring the best data gathering available and would be sponsoring independent university research into causes, which could involve a complex interplay of other policies, as indicated earlier.