I am the author of this piece. Might I point out that it is not the case that information from government(s) about abortion is scant on the ground and it is not the case that even senators can't get the information they request on this matter. There is a great deal of information on abortion publicly available, and it is accessible in the usual way, by reading, research, etc etc. In the case of abortion, some of this hard work has been done extremely well by the Parliamentary Library, in Research Brief no. 9 2004–05 "How many abortions are there in Australia? A discussion of abortion statistics, their limitations, and options for improved statistical collection" by Angela Pratt, Amanda Biggs and Luke Buckmaster, at
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb09.htm
The footnotes to th ebrief are also good sources of further information. I am afraid that I find it disingenuous for MPs and others to claim that they only want to know how many abortions there are, with no intention of restricting access to abortion. We have a rough sense of how many abortions there are -- and it appears that if anything the rate of (taxpayer-funded) abortions is falling, even if not significantly. But whether there is one or many abortions, I don't see how that affects the principle of autonomy at issue. I have written on these questions elsewhere. Thank you for your comments and a lively debate! Helen

Timkins – "There can be “choice” for some in society, but when it comes to abortion, “choice” is a farce."

If you think exercising "choice" on the matter of abortion is a "farce", I can only presume, the "humour" of such a farcical situation is because you have never faced it seriously in your own circumstances.

I believe such decisions are of such magnitude and consequence that many are overwhelmed by it - so be it -

The Reality is it is a serious decision with serious consequences - but it remains a decision which most significantly effects only one person / decision maker - the woman herself.


“Tax payers objecting to tax payer funded abortions” – sorry - that is pure "bunkum" reasoning

It is the same puerile argument used by the sort of mindset which demands that because they are a "pacifist" they do not want their "taxes" used on military spending –

It would be like me demanding my "taxes" should, somehow, not be used to employ an Equal Opportunity Commissioner (An Office which I fervently disagree with but, as a tax payer, in some way one which I finance).

You have missed the point entirely if you base your argument regarding abortion on government fiscal policy.

Helen – “But whether there is one or many abortions, I don't see how that affects the principle of autonomy at issue” –

I concur completely –

Autonomy of the individual and that individuals right to “choose” ,on the matter of abortion is an entirely different topic to a numeric outcome resulting from that right of decision, as represented by any number of abortions, be it sero, one or a million.
Many thousands of women have exercised their “Right to Choose” and have chosen to proceed with their pregnancies – and good luck to them all – Their Bodies, Their Choices

Isabel, Col

Almost all articles written on the rights of a woman to have an abortion are written to a similar formula. These articles, (like this one), rarely present no medical, scientific or technical facts at all. Instead these articles are normally based on quite generalised, vague or esoteric concepts, and they normally achieve “nothing” of any tangible or constructive use in reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancy to start with.

We have an abortion rate that has hardly declined at all, (eg. from 1 in 3 women in the 1930’s, to 1 in 4 currently), and some women have a number of abortions throughout their life.

With modern female contraception (such as long term contraceptive implants under the skin), then a woman has nearly a 100% guarantee of not falling pregnant unintentionally. ( see…http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone4.html)

Theoretically, the rate of abortion should be much lower than what it currently is. In fact, it should be theoretically close to zero, instead of nearly 2,000 abortions per week, or just over 20 % of all pregnancies.

Modern technology has now presented women with very few reasons why they should fall pregnant unintentionally. Perhaps many women and feminists do not like that.

Abortion is a ghastly business, (see...http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/ )and articles that only consider the autonomous right of women to have an abortion are of minimal practical or constructive use in establishing methods of actually reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancy.

If anything, formula type articles on abortion only perpetuate our current rates of abortion, and our current systems of abortion. Dozens of such articles have been written for decades, and the essential and important question must now become “why”?

Exactly what type of systems are these formula type articles trying to perpetuate?

Amanda and Col, you are simply displaying your prejudice. You care only about what the woman wants, whilst callously disregarding the rights of the child. To an objective observer there are 3 parties to consider in the abortion dilemma - father, mother and child. Of these 3, it is the CHILD's rights who are paramount as it's the CHILD who stands to lose the most from the dilemma, and as the child hasn't caused the situation.

Whilst the mother may stand to lose her liberty (temporarily and partially) for 9 months (or less), the child stands to lose it's entire life, plus it's liberty - permanently. Furthermore, a pregnant woman has morally SACRIFICED the right to control her womb to the child, as she has FORCED the child into womb dependency. Whether a child is in the cot or in the womb, parents still OWE care to their children - they may not kill them because THEY decide THEY don't "want" them. The issue here is parental obligation. Parents OWE their children care.

If a woman has a right to control her body, then a child has a right to control IT'S body, which means it has a right to grow and develop as it's body designs and directs. If a woman aborts, she is initiating aggression against the child, violating both it's body and it's right to life.

The proper role of the state is always to PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM AGGRESSION - not to simply side with the strong against the weak. Do people seriously think a pregnant woman can always be trusted to act in the best interests of an unborn child? Surely people are capable of understanding that there is enormous potential for a conflict of interest in giving a woman the "choice".

And what is this "choice" we speak of? It is really a choice to AVOID RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY. Imagine if we applied that across the board, giving everyone a "choice" to NOT be liable... I break Amanda's window - should I have a "choice" to not be liable?

Any time the state does not act to protect the innocent and simply allows people to do as they please, it will be the strong who will prevail and the weak who will be exploited. Giving a woman the "choice" is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Abortion is about the only area in civil law where the state is siding with an aggressor against a victim.

Jaxxen – “displaying Prejudices”?

Please enlighten me to my supposed “prejudices” – So I may challenge them individually – I resent your cowardly use of innuendo and conjecture to characterise my view as “prejudiced”, simply because it differs from your own (prejudicial) view.

The “rights of the fetus / embryo” are vested in the Mother and are, anyway, subordinate to the rights of the mother, as the individual with cognitive ability and the priority of discretion over her own body.

As for your second post – “Do people seriously think a pregnant woman can always be trusted to act in the best interests of an unborn child?”

Your sense of “trust” does not matter. Since you are in complete and total ignorance of the circumstances the mother and fetus face, I know for a fact the individual mother will have a better idea than you about what to do.

All you are doing is ranting on about how you “feel”, with total disregard to the ability of the mother to make her own decisions.
That those decisions may not conform to what you demand is just tough – get used to it –

Alot of “decisions” people would make, I find completely inane and stupid – like those who demand strangers be forced, by criminal sanction, to obey their commands as Pro-Life advocates.

I suggest stop mincing around with ideas of the rights of the pre-born – the pre-born is indivisible from the mother and thus differs from the “new born” or “infant”, which has achieved “individuality” and “individual rights” through the process of birth.

2 Questions

Identify what right YOU have to enforce your will in a matter which, at worst, irritates your sensibilities, over the will of the person intimately involved in the outcome of the decision ?

Advise us, if you made abortion “illegal”, what sentence will you hand down on the “criminal woman” who dared disobey it ? Oh and please do, please, supply some historic precedent for your opinion – remembering abortion was “illegal” for around 100 – 150 years before it was de-criminalised.