BigAl30 – me in denial – not at all – maybe that satisfies your need to compartmentalise and categorise peoples responses but you too little about me to make the “easy” judgement which you so readily jump to – simply out of ignorance (you will just have to accept my word for that).
When you can face the reality that your opinion is not omnipotent, is not all pervading and because people disagree with you it is simply that they view the world and analyse it with more a refined and better developed cognitive processes than those you struggle with.
It takes a far greater degree of “faith” and “trust” to believe, accept, defend and promote the view that people are the best judges of their own circumstances -
Rather than some monolithic state, religion or social (class) structure in which someone else makes the hard and challenging decisions for us.
You could give pregnant women all the support you want – but it will all be pointless if you destroy the individual by destroying her belief in her right to self determination.

OE, I would agree that abortion should be on the bottom of the list so far as options go for an unwanted pregnancy, but I think it highly important to determine why there are so many unwanted pregnancies in our society (ie nearly 20% of pregnancies).

Abortion would have to be the worst researched area of medical science, and I feel that this is because the pro-choice lobby groups have successfully shut down all enquiry or research into abortion. So no research -> no problems identified -> no solutions found -> continuation of high rate of unwanted pregnancies -> continuation of high rate of abortion -> continuation of welfare system for single mothers that keep the baby -> continuation of welfare cycle of many children of single parent families etc.

The worst-case if for the pro-choice lobby groups to be successful in halting all inquiry, research and investigation into abortion this time around also. If that occurs, no problems will be solved, as per the past.

Col, the child in the womb is NOT a "guest" in the mothers body at all, it is effectively a CAPTIVE. A "guest" has a CHOICE NOT to be there. Remember, the unborn child had no say in it's being in the womb. A captive cannot be tresspassing on the rights of it's captor. Instead, a captor is obligated to the captive.

That the mother is the "permanent resident" only adds weight to my own argument. The child is not a permanent burden for the mother to carry - her self-inflicted "loss" of liberty is only temporary and partial. The child on the other hand stands to lose it's entire life and liberty permanently. That's precisely why the State has a duty not only to protect the innocent from aggression, but also to avoid the worst possible outcome from the scenario. Hence the just thing for the State to do, is to protect the child.

You can't complain about the woman's "loss of liberty" after the damage has already been done, Col. If her liberty meant so much to her, then she should either have avoided vaginal intercourse completely, or she should have gotten herself sterilised. Anything less than that and she becomes responsible and liable for the outcomes of her choices. Her "loss of liberty" was inflicted by HERSELF, not by the child. That's the key point in this debate.

I note that you conveniently attempt to brush aside my liability argument. But it won't do, Col. You have in no way refuted it. If the woman is liable, then she no longer HAS a "right to control her body".

Jaxxen – from your post

“the child in the womb is NOT a "guest”” – argue that with Bill Muehlenberg - I purposely used his expression from his pro-life bleating.

The mother being “permanent resident” adds nothing to your argument – it analogously describes her priority of status compared to “guest” status within her body.

“woman's "loss of liberty" after the damage has already been done,….”
When you know the circumstances which prevailed to result in her being pregnant, presumably against her will (or she would not be seeking abortion), you might have some argument. Since you certainly do not know those circumstances – you are basing your demand to abstinence on your own ignorance. Ignorance is not a sound basis on which to decide anything.

“brush aside my liability argument.” The woman is liable to and for her own body –
the embryo / fetus is inseperable to that body, thus it is not a separate individual – you are trying to define a womans “liability” to herself.
In attempting to define peoples liability to themselves – we all conduct such debates with ourselves – It is not something the state, church or society need interfere with (and nor should it try).

Now maybe you answer me (instead of whining about what I have not supposedly answered from you),
what special insight, authority or power do you think you possess which entitles you to interfere in the free exercise of the sovereign rights of other individuals in determining their own destiny, many of which I know you do not know and for which you will bear no personal responsibility, should they be forced to obey your edict

Timkins
You're on the money. Abortion is poorly researched, so get behind John Howard and agree that the Parliament have a free debate on the issue. Then research will occur.

The author of the article Helen Pringle argues that even if the fetus is a person, there are still good arguments for abortion! Good God, what about "the rights of the child"? Where is the UN now? Where is the Hippocratic Oath [Modern Version 1964]?

Even the ones in denial about the fetus being a person want to treat it as though he/she were a cancerous tumour. How do they sleep at night, especially when they wake in the wee small hours?

The sooner there is a National Enquiry into these 90,000 - 100,000 abortions [which is bordering on "open season" ] the better.