Participants in this discussion might be interested in the discussion taking place on this issue at the Catallaxy blog. The link is:

http://www.badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=895#comment-17417

It seems that there are now a number of people (eg Eva, Leslie, Kate Mannix ) who appear to be inferring that data from organisations such as the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Southern Cross Care, or Knights of the Southern Cross etc cannot be relied upon, as it is biased in some way.

This must lead to the question:- exactly which organisations in Australia can be relied upon for accurate, unbiased, and relevant data?

If there are no organisations that can be relied upon for data on abortion, then that can be stated too.

But to my knowledge it has never been stated by pro-choice supporters, how much abortion in society becomes too much. (eg. is it 2 out of 5 pregnancies, 3 out of 5, 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 5). This lack of disclosure of what would constitute too much abortion does seem to indicate an unwillingness by pro-choice supporters to fully investigate the reasons why abortion occurs, and that would have to introduce considerable bias into their own surveys.

Timkins asks whether pro-choice advocates have a position on "how much abortion is too much".

Speaking for myself, ideally there would be no unwanted pregnancies and therefore no need for abortion. It should therefore be possible for pro-choice and pro-life people to agree on practical measures which would minimise unwanted pregnancies in the real world.

Unfortunately it seems that some of the most ardent pro-lifers are unwilling to come to the party. For example, one of the Southern Cross Institute's contributors, Melinda Tankard-Reist, is an impassioned writer on the alleged harm which abortion causes to women who terminate pregnancies. Yet she also has an article on the Southern Cross web site which must be interpreted as hostile to the distribution and use of RU-486 (the "morning after pill").

Of course this combination of positions is entirely reasonable if one believes that preventing the implantation of a newly conceived zygote is morally equivalent to terminating a 36-week foetus. With all due respect, one would have to be a seriously unbalanced fanatic to sincerely believe this after a careful consideration of the issues.

Dr Paul
I would accept that there are divisions between the various pro-life and pro-choice groups. I also tend to think that there are financial interests involved, (such as abortion clinics), and gender feminism is also involved.

However I tend to discount the results of public opinion polls into abortion at present, (no matter who arranges those polls), because I think the public does not have sufficient information about abortion to be able to provide informed opinions, and the public does not have that information because it is not being collected.

Perhaps government legislation does not require information to be collected and collated into standard reports that are then made available to the public, but if this is the case, then perhaps the medical profession should take more control of the situation, and be doing so regardless. The information collected by the NZ government can be an example of what type of information becomes necessary to define the reasons for abortion, so that solutions to the problem can be eventually established. http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/dem-trends-03/dem-trends-2003-part-7-induced-abortions.htm

I personally think that the present abortion rate in Australia is too high. Other countries have lower rates, but to reduce out current rate will take effort from the medical profession and from the public, and it may take a number of years. To delay waiting for government to change legislation is to risk the chance that our current abortion rate will increase even further.

"I personally think that the present abortion rate in Australia is too high." I can only imagine that pro-life and pro-choice individuals would have to both agree on this point, it is a horrible injustice and gross inequality, that women are subjected to "the most common surgical procedure in Australia", to quote from the Preterm Foundation website. This encompasses the usual consequent surgical and anaesthetic risks, this is regardless of the other costs deemed to result from the procedure.
I respect highly those who hold firm their convictions, what concerns me is the apathy of the 90% who do not know, or care, what to think. It would be academically naive to expect to find truly impartial/disinterested research. The forum responses to this latest 'survey query' illustrate this well. I agree, access to the questions would help discern the legitimacy of the findings. However, the questions, whether 'soft or hard' are only sifting the knowledge of the gaggle, and a great majority of Australians do not have adequate information to make any sort of knowledgeable response. Balanced public education forum's need to be held, so that such survey’s findings are deemed adequately legitimate

Southern Cross Care is a legitimate charitable and government funded organisation whose day to day business revolves entirely around the provision of aged care services in nursing homes, hostels and in the community.
Why Southern Cross Care is involved in funding the activities of the Bioethics Institute is historical and not in keeping with Southern Cross Care's current core business.

What John Fleming has failed to acknowledge of course is that the institute also receives funding from the Society for Protection of Unborn Children.
John Fleming should refer to an opinion piece from one of his colleagues Dr Gregory Pike "Serving Mammon: Conflicts of Interests in the Professions" posted on the SCBI website - the same issues are relevant between any researcher and a funding body.

I have also been told that the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute has never presented their research proposals to a Human Research Ethics Committee