“And informed consent is a problem - or lack thereof.”

Very true, sneekeepete. My issue is that the use of emotionally manipulative language (as Scout points out) represents an attempt to compromise the ability of women to make informed decisions about their own lives and health. Unfortunately such language is frequently part of the modus operandi of some in the anti-abortion movement, and several examples of this can be seen in Melinda’s article as well as the previous posts.

Women facing the difficult situation of an unplanned pregnancy have a right to be supported through the process of their decision making without having to deal with button pushers with their own agendas. Not all arguments against abortion are presented this way, of course. Any decision about abortion involves confronting important bioethical issues about how we see our own bodies, our relationships with others, and what constitutes human life itself.

I agree with the Right to Lifers’ position that women who choose to continue a pregnancy deserve better practical support. I would also like to abortion rates falling. The most effective way of achieving this is to ensure that women (and men) are better able to avoid unwanted pregnancy. The credibility of opponents of abortion would be higher if they also supported improved access to, and education about, contraception, rather than simply focusing on abstinence and restricting sex to marriage (as if that prevents unwanted pregnancy). Unfortunately, many anti-abortionists appear to be motivated more by a desire to impose their own beliefs about sexuality and reproductive health on others than supporting the autonomy of women.

Incidentally, in my years as a health worker, including in reproductive and sexual health I’ve never heard the term “space occupying lesion” in any context other than referring to an intracranial tumour or bleed. Certainly not about a pregnancy. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life.

Rnrofe.

Its not often I get inloved with this sort of stuff because frankly I consider each person to have some right to privacy.

However you have enspired me.

I will seek a urgent application for a bill to be passed to stop such outragous comments and the people who make them such as you.
talk about racism and discrimation!.
your comments are a discrace.

Woman have a legal right to choose what they wish to do without you calling them murders.

How dare you make such comments.
You can do real damage to a girl who has been raped for eg or even just a woman who has chosen for personal reasons not to be FORCED to give birth.

If we have discrimation against gays etc we certainly require a law to stop your evil mouth.

Mind your own business and stop trying to enforce your strange idea on others.
I have my own beleifs thank you and seeing kids have kids for 4 grand by the hundreds does nothing for me.

If I had my way THEY would not be supported to give birth.

China had the right idea.

Your sick get help.

rnrofe said "...... As a member of a 'caring profession' ..... fertility is best handled by education before the occasion for intercourse arises ......... all the methods of termination are bad for the mother, her baby of course and her family - and in the long run, society. ...... complicit in such murderous decisions ........ unaustralian."

Surely in your role as a member of a 'caring profession' you have seen families struggle to care for and rear badly disabled babies who have no possibility of good quality of life. Caring for a severely disabled child is so hard that 80% of family units break up which is a tradegy for mum, dad and the other siblings.

The editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday said that Australia's current population growth was too high to be supported by the environment, Sydney is running out of fresh water, the city is so large its outgrown its transport infrastructure, the air quality is deteriorating etc. So Sydney doesn't need every foetus to grow to adulthood.

As fertility is best handled by education before fertility arises I hope you permit access to effective contraceptives for all fertile women.

Got to agree with Wendy Lethwaite that its inappropriate for a member of a 'caring profession' to call abortion murder. Since the early 1960s its been unacceptable for community leaders like priests to use such intemperate language.

rnrofe...if it is "still murder", surely Melinda's article is a distraction.

For those who believe, as some do, that abortion is murder, surely it does not carry any more heinous an outcome if the method used is different.

For people with a genuine concern about the health and wellbeing of women and their reproductive health, there will always be a vested interest in ensuring that the services provided (counselling, pregnancy support, and pregancy termination services where they are sought) do not excessively threaten the health of the woman concerned.

I am not a pharmacological expert, and neither is Melinda. All either of us can do is to collate a series of evidence that supports or refutes our point of view about this particular drug.

Many pro-choice women will need to be convinced about the safety of this drug, but they come to the argument with the central tenet of women having control over their fertility, not looking for ways to discredit the activities of a particular service provider. For those with an anti-abortion framework informing their consideration of this issue, there can be no positive outcomes of this drug or medical abortion per se, just ways in which it is easier to sell to a public less informed than they are.

For those who believe abortion is "murder" (as opposed to those who wouldn't personally seek an abortion themselves) there should be no grey area.

I've considered my view and stand by my beliefs, I'm not sure why anti-abortion campaigners can't do the same.

Rnrofe “The use of abortion as fertility control is openly abusive of women's dignity.”

Duh? – women are not and cannot be forced, blackmailed or coerced into having an abortion. I fail to see how anyone’s “dignity” is abused by giving them right of unfettered choice to abort or not.

“and in the long run, society.”

Society does not vote. Society does not have a voice. Society does not have rights.

However, “Individuals” do vote, do have voices and do have rights.

The strength and quality of any society is reflected only in its ability to reflect instead of repressing the choices of the individuals who comprise it.

The rest is just bilious rant and not worthy of comment.

Except

Rnrofe “it is still murder”

Wrong! "murder" is an action which terminates the life of an autonomous individual. An embryo / foetus is not autonomous and has yet to aspire to a state to be considered “individual” (viz marked and celebrated as the moment of “birth”, not conception).

Check out the dictionary (at dictionary.com), look up abortion and then murder. The most significant thing you will notice is in both descriptions, whilst being full and detailed they refer not to the other in any way.

Thus “Abortion is not murder and murder not abortion”

Its great Wendy that you were so inspired.Maybe we who are vehemently opposed to abortion need to be charged alongside Mother Teresa for agreeing that 'the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me is for me to kill you and you to kill me.'

Amazing that those so vicously in favour of abortion wants the likes of the late mother teresa to be silenced. Locking up rednecks like her would surely ease the conscience of many.