I would like to see more than just a “debate” on abortion, but a proper public enquiry, where many issues can be fully examined, and better solutions to problems of unwanted pregnancy can be found (or at least trailed).

Many question remain unanswered or minimal information is known:-
How many abortions are carried out?
Why were they carried out?
What contraception was being used?
What were the possible reasons for the contraception failure, and can it be improved upon?
Was the abortion used as a form of contraception (and some ethnic groups use abortion this way)?
Was counselling carried out before or after the abortion?
Was the father included in that counselling?
What possible negative affects did the abortion have on the mother or father?
Do the mother or father wish for children in the future etc?

However I think the issue of abortion is actually secondary to the author, as she mentions none of these important questions or issues. I think the author is actually using the abortion “debate” as an attempt at fear mongering amongst women, by trying to convince women that “men” are out to take away their rights(ho hum). If this is true, then abortion is actually secondary and political only.

Interestingly, the author didn't mention Emily Maguire's piece in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago which basically told anti-abortionists to lay it on the line. It's a pity Helen Pringle omitted any reference to Maguire's article because she made some pertinent observations (http://smh.com.au/news/Opinion/If-terminations-are-really-murder-there-should-be-no-abortion-debate/2005/03/08/1110160822226.html?oneclick=true)

Maguire noted that the likes of Margaret Tighe and other outspoken opponents of abortion focus on Medicare subsidised abortions. They seem less worried about child killing (as they describe it) per se and more worried about taxpayers' money. This shows how unprincipled the anti-abortionists really are. If they had a backbone they would come out with draft legislation outlawing abortion fullstop. No ifs or buts. If they really believed in Biblical commandments they would say "thou shalt not kill" and produce policies based on those very principles.

As Maguire states, abortion is either murder or it isn't. Make up your mind. And if it is, why aren't anti-abortionists urging the Commonwealth to jail women who avail themselves to abortion services and the service providers as well?

I suspect that for anti-abortionists, abortion isn't much of an issue so long as it's not too much in their face.

Give it a rest Timkins *yawn*

Oh dear, not yet another demand for an enquiry. Curious and perverse that they come mostly from those, the men like Timkins, for whom there is absolutely NO PROSPECT of pregnancy and for whom the option of abandoning an unplanned parenting role is so easy and so prevalent among his sex.

Good on you Timkins. These others have no hearts, but perhaps they see those little faces in the middle of the night.

It's so incredibly and utterly stupid. We spend squillions of dollars and medical hours on IVF programmes so couples can have children. Then we spend sqillions of dollars and medical hours killing healthy normal lovable babies because, in many cases, they are inconvenient. Then constantly we hear women bleat&peep ad-nauseum - "It's MY body I can do as I like with it" or "It's alright for you men/fathers you do not have the carry the little sod" (maybe the little sod bit was mine) Never hear them say "well I am now responsible for a new life and regardless will have to go through with it if only for my child's sake" Then [not finished yet]we spend squillions of dollars importing unwanted babies from o/seas for adoption. As I said so incredibly and utterly stupid. Regards, numbat