http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2042&TABLE=BILLS

Section 5: They can't engage in misleading advertisement.
Section 6: Those that don't provide referrals must say so in their ads.
Section 7: Non-referring services can't be listed in the 24 hour call section.

Either be willing to provide referrals, which doesn't require offering, or say that you don't. Neither choice is burdensome and it saves women time. No one is forced to advocate abortion, and no one will mistakenly go somewhere they think will be able to give them a referral.

Services that don't offer counselling, information, referrals (when requested) and support on all three options can't be listed in the 24 hour health and help call pages. I imagine that these pages contain simply the name, phone number of the service and possibly the location. Thus, there is no space to mention a lack of referrals. Notice also that groups which don't offer support and referrals for adoption and child rearing cannot be listed either. Ensuring that emergency call centres be able to assist with all options is common sense, would it really be better for stressed and emotional people to have to ring number after number searching for some comprehensive help?

You've got to love how hyprocritical the right can be. Here they are, outraged that someone wants to limit their ability to counsel women towards an ideological position, arguing that support services which do provide referrals are pro-choice and hence biased. (One second ago they were attacking pro-choicers for not doing enough to help pregnant women.) What, do they think that having to provide referrals will make them pro-choice? I thought this was about not being complicit, but since there is an out the only rationale is that it requires them to disclose their agenda to those they counsel. And they know that will hamper their ability to peddle false/misleading information about abortion and to make women feel ashamed for wanting one.

And the attack on counselling services connected to abortion clinics, amazing! Not a trace of mental effort to consider why counselling services might be located there for good reasons.

ColRouge - Regarding the history of abortion. You need to do more investigation of this as you are a lot further from the truth than she is.

The recent criminal abortion thing was propagated by a eugenicist pro-abortionist who ignores vasts amounts of history in trying to support his case.

That the hippocratic oath (circa 400bc) was against abortion is a good start at showing how misguided this view is.

Much of the difference between today and then is in the knowledge of the unborns life. Previous laws did not regulate against abortion before a certain time because that was when they thought life started and also it was impossible to prove the unborn had been aborted. This was also the catholic churches teaching. It was always a grave sin to take an innocent life, they just did not know exactly when that life started.

Since medical advances have made it very clear that the unborn is alive right from the start, and we can confirm pregnancy quite quickly (as opposed to having to wait for movement of the unborn), it is completely consistent with the history of the last 1500 years to argue that all abortions of convenience should be outlawed, and to state that legalised abortion is a recent phenomena (when considering the last 1500 years of history that is).

Laurie,

“Further, people are always thowing stats around like "75% of women who attended this pregnacy counselling service then aborted". Of course they did. If they were happy and excited and wanting their pregnancy they would be out buying booties and looking up baby names.”

Not necessarily. Even when a pregnancy is planned and wanted, there can be a great degree of uncertainty. Many women feel apathetic towards the foetus for at least some of their pregnancy, even when their personal circumstances are ideal. I have known of women who wanted their babies but at times during the pregnancy felt antagonistic towards the foetus. Add to that many women considering abortion are faced with a decision-making process in a crisis situation. Under that kind of pressure, making a decision that is consistent with your ethical perspectives is incredibly difficult.

Feelings during pregnancy aren’t as cut-and-dried as some would have you believe

As you said, Tracy. That goes just as much, if not more, for those being pressured into not aborting. Poor them , if they mistakenly hook up with a service which casuistically fails to mention it's an anti-choice service, and pulls out the whole gamut of emotional pressure to convince them to keep the foetus. Pity the mother, pity the child. And in these times, it's hard to find a child given up for adoption. Pressure from all sides. Given that around 75 per cent of all fertilised concepti fail to implant, and thus die, in the natural scheme of things, what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it. And spare me the screaming embryo stuff. There are recordings of carrots screaming as they're pulled from the ground. Or are they sacrosanct, too?

Anomie,

"That goes just as much, if not more, for those being pressured into not aborting."

I don't think you can categorise either situation as being more disadvantaged than the other, really.

"Poor them , if they mistakenly hook up with a service which casuistically fails to mention it's an anti-choice service, and pulls out the whole gamut of emotional pressure to convince them to keep the foetus. Pity the mother, pity the child."

Part of the problem in the 'abortion debate' is, as demonstrated by your post, is that both sides demonstrate a cynicism that the 'opposing' side could possibly have the welfare of the women at heart. It is ironic that 'anti-choice' is used as a synonym for 'pro-life' when many counselling services which identify as 'pro-life' seek to provide the woman with more, rather than fewer, solutions. This recognises that there may be problems in the woman's life which are able to be resolved with appropriate support. Certainly, many women who seek abortion want abortion. This is their legal right, and this should not be in question. However, many women who seek abortion are seeking a solution, not necessarily an abortion.

Are you aware of the social pressures women experience to abort an unplanned pregnancy? Such as withdrawal of social, relationship or familial support? Do these women not deserve consideration too?

"Given that around 75 per cent of all fertilised concepti fail to implant, and thus die, in the natural scheme of things, what harm can we say is done to another which fails to be born? They don't know about it."

This is your assessment and belief. Understand others have other assessments and beliefs.

"And spare me the screaming embryo stuff. There are recordings of carrots screaming as they're pulled from the ground. Or are they sacrosanct, too?"

Is this an example of your casuistic reasoning, Anomie? Dogma from either side of this 'debate' is counterproductive and deliberately offensive. Not a great way to advance your arguments

No, Tracy. The claim that 75 per cent of of concepti fail to implant comes from an impeccable source - a C of E clergyman and President of Queens College Cambridge, a scientist in his former life. Do not, please, try to dispute what I freely, happily, admit, is the view of highly-acclaimed scientists, who are also believing Christians, by dismissing them as my personal opinion. I, I fear, quote what is established biological fact. And, by the way, what do you understand the word "casuistic" to mean? It is not a derogatory term - casuistry has a far nobler background than you might suspect -it is a means of moral reaoning that looks at matters case by case, not in the hidebound way of those who dismiss all circumstances for the sake of a principle. On that path lies fundamentalism, and all its concomitants.