Shanti & other religious people,

I respect you for your opinion but considering what I have experienced it should be the decision of the woman.

This debate is not about abortion... it is about who should make the decision regarding a prescription that will be advised upon by a trained pharmacist for the benefit of the woman.

Do you remember the days of the backyard abortionist? The poor police would find women left to die in the streets after having one of these butchers destroy her insides. Was that part of Gods plan?

Can you put yourself in the position of an 18 year old girl who has been abandoned by everyone? What would you do with no money, no help, no prospects no future, and a male who was 50% of the cause of the prgnancy denying it was his? How much emotional torment can a woman bear? Where is the compassion here?

And what of the kids who are born through the pressure placed on the woman by the selfrighteuos... Are they ever sure that their child isn't a ward of the state, isn't being abused and is being cared for properly? Do they ever get peace?

I admire your compassion for cells that may one day become a human but I always wonder where the compassion ends for the woman in that predicament.

Ever had one of your children taken from you for adoption? How can anyone imagine the sadness the poor mother must feel and the fear that they must feel when they hand over their little bundle. Can you put yourself in that young persons position?

Seeing you have faith rejoice because the innocent spirit of the cells are with your God in paradise forever.

the so-called ru486 debate is only contentious because the drug is designed to terminate a pregnancy.

the so-called 'question' of when 'human' life begins is irrelevant to the debate because the *purpose* of the drug is to kill the embryo/fetus. the question may be a relevant factor in a woman's decision whether to continue to term, but it is not properly part of the debate about whether the drug ru486 could or should be available as a means to end a pregnancy.

equally, it is ludicrous to claim that a goverment minister is better equiped to determine the merits of the drug than an organisation specifically funded and staffed to make those determinations.

no, both of those issues come down to particular religious prejudices. in a democracy, no one ought to have the right to predetermine another's decision for them. the current arrangment holds a particular option hostage to moral prejudices.

the question to be considered regarding ru486 is not who should be making the decision, but who is properly equipped to determine if it is an acceptable medical option. that would be the therapeutic goods administration - certainly for every other proposed therapeutic substance. ru486 is no different.

trying to revisit the legalisation of abortion by illegitimately restricting the means available is reprehensible. objection on personal moral/religious grounds is completely acceptable - this is a democratic state. but it is not acceptable to impose those personal morals onto another person.

those who argue that women prescribed the drug "will not be adequately supervised" demean the professional and ethical conduct of the medical profession. just how much "supervision" is required to miscarry anyway? i'm not aware of any definitive statement on the matter. most doctors are more than capabale of discussing the matter with their patients and coming to their own conclusions.

Lots of argumentative heresay, but not a lot of facts in the comments posted against this article. Helen makes valid points. Given the advances in technology with ultrasound, etc...it is hardly convincing that the child in the womb is not a human child. The progeny of two snails is a snail, etc. therefore the progeny of two humans is human...from conception...whether he/she is Adam, Eve, Bruce or Sky!

When society judges any human as 'more (or less) equal than others', we end up with such atrocities as 'Pol-Pot' or 'Hitler's human cleansing'...there will always be those who will argue the case for killing those more vulnerable than ourselves, it is usually those who speak up in their defence that attract the abuse and hostility.

EVERY society is judged by history by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them...how will each of us be judged?

Well done Helen! No bouquets for saying the unpopular - truth is seldom greeted with popularity!

"EVERY society is judged by history by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them...how will each of us be judged?"

Well thats easy Meg, the question is, how much is rhetoric and how much is serious? Is it not easier to try to tell others how to live their lives, at no cost to ourselves, then to live by that creed?

So its up to you. You are free to sell your computer, give up OLO,
send the money to Africa and save another couple of starving babies.

So what is your choice Meg? Saving starving babies or arguing on OLO?

Yabby's post suggests that having Tony Abbott in charge of the decision on RU486 is like having dracula in charge of the blood bank...curiouser and curioser. Surely having a pro-ABORTION politician in charge of the decision or perhaps a politician who has had donations from drug companies for his election campaign...would be far more like having dracula in charge of the blood bank?

Why is it that we drag out the ole 'Catholic' bit to beat our politicians with as often as we can, we argue against politicians having Christian values and morals at every turn when it suits our own ends. But what happens then when our politicians act like amoral and irresponsible creatures who ignore the best interests of Australians in favour of big corporate transnational companies? I guess we get what we deserve don't we?

Actions have consequences Yabby and when we ask our politicians to accept that life at any stage is worthless...all stages of life fall under the same law and hold the same value. Take a look at the difference that legalised abortions have already had in Australia.

"Why is it that we drag out the ole 'Catholic' bit to beat our politicians with
as often as we can, we argue against politicians having Christian values and
morals at every turn when it suits our own ends"

Quite simple Meg. No religion is as politically active as the Catholics. No other religion bar Muslims, wants to force its dogma on the population, as the Vatican does. Why should Catholic dogma
not be questioned, as any other political dogma from any political party?

"all stages of life fall under the same law and
hold the same value."

No they don't. An organism without a human brain, is not a person.
Its time that you eductated your self Meg. All emotion and Catholic dogma does not equate with our ability to reason.