Victorian voters need to write or email to their representatives in Parliament and tell them whether they want to have abortion decriminalised or remain as part of the criminal code. Don't forget to include your name and address as it appears on the electoral roll.

You can find out who your representative in the lower and upper house is by checking the following website http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mps.html

" yet they are an aggressive and vocal minority who manage to project a presence much larger than that of their own."

This can be said to be true for many special interest groups, in fact did not feminism start exactly like this?

A small group of extremely vocal women.

Interestingly if you are idealogically aligned with a small group, then you claim your group has no power and is powerless and is not heard.

If you are idealogical opposed to a small groups politics then you claim that the small group is vocal and has a greater influence than it's actual size suggests.

Neat tricks considering what side of the debate you are on and when you are on the opposing team, it is easy to claim that the otherside is using unfair tactics.

This is just part of the ploys employed to win arguements and POWER.

The reason you can't see problems with the ACT's abortion laws is you are not supposed to. Wayne Berry not only decriminalised abortion but abolished statistics and informed consent for women, so the problem of abortion is once again hidden from the public.

I would agree Suezy,

There is minimal science attached to abortion in this country, and abortion is political only.

There are minimal reliable statistics being kept on abortion, there have been no wide-scale studies conducted into the reasons for abortion, there is no accurate knowledge of how many abortions are repeat abortions, there is no knowledge of how many abortions are referred by doctors etc.

With minimal statistics being kept, there is no way of reducing abortions.

So the question is, do pro-choice advocates want to reduce abortions or not?

I would say they do not want to reduce abortion, but want abortion as a political system.

HRS - anti-abortionists may see it as some kind of political issue.

You're right in that those who support it may not be aiming to have less abortions.

They're not aiming for more either.

It's not about more or less abortions. It's about having the right to decide what goes in in your own body.

Provided that right is protected, there's no reason why there can't be discussion of health issues associated with it.

I grant you, there are some who support the right for abortions, who will react negatively to these health discussions - though I suspect the vast majority of these are concerned that the discussions are merely a trojan horse for an agenda of restricting abortions, and with good reason.
The fundamentalists who see it as outright murder believe they are justified in using any means necessary to stop it.
This, I believe, plays more of a role in clouding debate, as suspicions arise from motive.

Put simply - there are clear reasons why anti-abortionists would hijack a debate about health issues relating to abortions, but the only clear reason why those who support it would be do the same, is to prevent such a hijacking.

And I can't help but feel the idea of it being political is a symptom of the anti-abortionist 'prevent it at all costs' perspective.

Turnrightandthenleft,

With minimal statistics being kept, the pro-choice advocates (and anybody else for that matter) don’t know if abortions are increasing or decreasing.

I don’t know why they bother to keep various statistics on health, when few if any statistics are kept on abortion.

Maybe we should burn all health statistics.

To my mind, the anti-life mob (pro-abortion) reveal themselves for what they possibly are: shallow, callow and fallow.

The sudden flood of voices that appear on abortion comments threads here, but not on other topics, confirms the author's point.

And I fail to see what abortion stats have to do with one woman's choice over whether to terminate a pregnancy. Abortions happen one at a time. It's hard to imagine a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy rushing to the nearest statistician for advice. She's not likely to base her decision on whether or not she'll be adding to a number that makes other people unhappy.

Francis: based on what? I could just as easily call the right to lifers religious nutters, but it wouldn't get anywhere. On both sides of the debate there are people who are both compassionate and intelligent.
Name calling however, is a puerile exercise and doesn't contribute to debate.

Chainsmoker, HRS - my point exactly - like I said, it's not about numbers or politics. Just ensuring women have rights over what happens to their bodies.
The reality of banning abortions entirely is too Orwellian to contemplate.

Something has gone seriously wrong when the term "aggressive" is used to refer to people who want to use the legal system to protect human beings from aggression culminating in death...

We can all agree that it would be better if there weren’t unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but IMO that isn’t what drives many anti-abortionists. The real problem is that lurking beneath the niceties of a secular debate about public health policy, active anti-abortion campaigners are driven by religious views about the immortal human soul.

Some may point to the valid points we may hear about abortion rates, the need for genuine counselling, social stigmas, and abstinence. But these are a necessary non-theistic stalking horse for the real position.

Something like a reversing the criminalisation of abortion wouldn’t threaten anti-abortionists if their position was really based on public health arguments. Otherwise, we’d be talking about better sex and health education, public health campaigns or whatever.

The one thing decriminalisation removes is the presumption that every abortion is an illicit and wrongful act. It cannot be countenanced, because it runs contrary to the real kernel of their beliefs against abortion.

Just recently, Right to Life president Margaret Tighe said:
"I think any legislation which says a certain class of human beings can be killed is a gross abuse of human rights," she said.

The comment reveals, very clearly, what this boils down to: she thinks human rights are attached to human genetic code through an immortal soul at conception. Now, Tighe doesn’t specifically mention a soul, but let’s not torture the obvious.

So, we must now ask, is there any good reason to believe human rights work like that, even if we don’t accept a soul? Or, do we have any clear counter-example that human being need not carry rights?

An anencephalic foetus, for example, has no brain stem, and no capacity for consciousness or feeling ever. For such human biological matter, which can never attain any interior existence, it is manifestly absurd to talk of rights. A thing cannot have rights if it has no capacities for those rights, and will never have such capacities. Yet this is exactly what the Tighes of the world demand of us. Let's move beyond the fake debate.

I always think of the Helen Garner quote where she said something about how much she respected a woman's adamantine resolve not to have a child she cannot adequately parent.
As BBoy says, this debate actually comes down to whether you value the idea of an immortal soul over the proper parenting of a real, living, breathing, suffering child. Let those who believe in immortal souls adamantinely refuse to ever have abortions, I applaud their right to decide against it, I absolutely support their right to try to persuade others (respectfully) not to have an abortion either, but I absolutely object to their desire to force women to have children they do not want and cannot bring up properly via legislation.
Isn't there a section in the book Freakenomics that points out that exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade (the breakthrough pro-choice decision in the US) the crime rate fell? And that the authors assumed the results were just a freak co-incidence until they found that in other US states that had decriminalised abortion prior to Roe v Wade, they also had a drop in the crime rate exactly 18 years after the law changed? Unwanted children often have very crap lives. There really are many, many worse things than not being born.

Almost all abortions in Australia are actually illegal if you take the trouble to read the law. If the numerous methods of contraception were used there wouldn't need to be 100,000 babies aborted each year at tax-payers expense.

Every unwanted pregnancy is failed contraception.

In countries, like the Netherlands, where abortion has not been criminal for years, the numbers are very, very low. Why? Because of good clear sex education.

This would greatly help the rates of sexually transmitted diseases too.

If the anti-abortionists where genuine in their distress because it is about the 'murder' of 'babies' they would be at the forefront advocating sex education for both boys and girls and teaching about the responsibilities towards the other and themselves when engaging in sex.

They are not. Because what they are really distressed about is people having sex without being married. And unfortunately, that is impossible to legislate against, so abortion is the next best thing.

Yvonne- nice to see you again on yet another abortion thread : )

Yvonne is correct- if anti-abortionists were serious about reducing the abortion rate they’d be making a lot of noise about good sex education, promote (free) contraception and do everything they can to help women prevent pregnancies. So they are not ‘really’ pro-life, are they? They are the cause of a retarded sex education program in schools, they are the ones (I include the Popes) telling people not to use condoms despite high incidences of AIDS e.g. in Africa. I think Benedict XVI is changing his mind about condoms now so that they can be used to prevent HIV infection (but not to prevent pregnancies and I think only inside marriages- how generous).

Abortion should be the woman’s prerogative right. Rights pertain only to an actual human being, not a potential one. I wouldn’t want to see a reduction in abortion rates if that means more unwanted children. Indeed, most unwanted kids have crap lives and so have their mothers. Anti-choicers have no regard for the rights of a woman- they want to transfer the rights of the woman to a clump of cells.

Neither do so-called ‘pro-lifers’ loudly support any research or even worry at all about all the many natural abortions taking place. They do not care to find out how to prevent natural abortions from occurring, not even if these pregnancies are very much desired. They might call it “God’s will”.

God gets away with aborting zygotes and embryos but women and doctors are murderers?

Suezy “so the problem of abortion is once again hidden from the public.”

I thought the most important thing about an abortion was it was not a public matter but a private matter which affected one individual beyond all others, the pregnant woman (noting the embryo is not an individual). It might not be a public problem because the burden of choice is not the “public’s” decision.

Francis“To my mind, the anti-life mob (pro-abortion) reveal themselves for what they possibly are: shallow, callow and fallow. “

And the Pro abortion mob might consider your view as demanding, dictatorial and dogmatic. Now we can all express our view of one another and be thankful that we are free to express such views, just as women are free to decide on if they wish to sustain a pregnancy or not.

As for “fallow”, I guess if a woman seeking abortion (one of the pro abortion mob) were fallow she would not have been pregnant in the first place. Ah well, that’s life, you gotta smile.

Indeed, there are no accurate or reliable data on abortion numbers in Australia.
Although on one the hand abortion is a private matter and so there should not be a need for accurate data, on the other hand we do need to improve data collection because accurate numbers enable Australians to have a proper debate about it.

Anti-abortionists who claim that abortion rates are too high may well be exaggerating numbers, while pro-choicers may underestimate them. If there were accurate data on abortion available, both sides could stick to the facts.

We then could also confidentially compare our abortion rates to those of other countries that keep accurate and up-to-date data and possibly use impressive foreign data (e.g. of countries like the Netherlands with its extremely low abortion rate as Yvonne mentioned) as an aspiration for reducing unwanted pregnancies in Australia.

What the anti-abortionists fail to recognise is that countries with the most liberal (including most affordable) abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates; all the more reason for decriminalisation of abortion, making it easily accessible and keeping abortion freely available through our public medical system.

I think, as stated above, that the issue has to come down to the human soul and whether humans in general or in utero humans in particular have one.

Can it be proved that human beings possess a soul?- or is it just a matter of belief.

Another issue is what is the source of a woman's right (to have an abortion in this case) if we have no particular distinction from the animals.

I think otherwise I understand that the issue can be stated as the mother' autonomy verses the legal status of the fetus-is it a human?

And when does it become a human and why?

ANYONE please help if they have any answers to the above --as I have none!

Jellyback,
“Can it be proved that human beings possess a soul?- or is it just a matter of belief.”
There’s no evidence that a person possesses a soul. Souls are purely a matter of faith or an idea; it is not an actual thing for the idea of a soul depends on our brain. A soul is not something that lives on when we pass away as its source is in our brain.
Even though the burden of proof is on the side of theists who claim the existence of souls, I think it’s more probable that scientists such as brain experts, neurologists and evolutionary biologists, as science advances, will be the ones that first come up with evidence that there is no such thing as a soul. Many aspects that were (and still are, by theists) attributed to the soul (such as emotion) have already been found to be physical traits found in certain regions of the brain.

“…what is the source of a woman's right (to have an abortion in this case) if we have no particular distinction from the animals. I think otherwise I understand that the issue can be stated as the mother' autonomy verses the legal status of the fetus-is it a human?"
An embryo or foetus is human, but not a person; it is a potential human being and has no legal status as an actual human being.
A potential human being cannot have human rights before birth as its existence totally depends on the body of the pregnant woman.

“And when does it become a human and why?”
A foetus becomes a human being (or baby) when it lives outside the mother’s womb. Independence would be the defining line. Before birth, the woman has veto rights over the foetus.

Why?
When two ‘entities’ occupy the same body, both entities cannot have equal rights.
The woman’s body provides for the embryo; this would give her rights over the embryo. It would be unreasonable to grant rights to a dependent entity without a conscious when the provider for this embryo objects to the embryo’s presence.

Very well said Celivia.

To those who believe an embryo/foetus/unborn baby wholly dependent for life has a soul and the same rights as an autonomous independent human being, please put your considerable energies and intellect in preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place rather than focusing on pregnant women who choose abortion. It is too late then.

Can't we have a discussion on how unwanted pregnancies can best be prevented rather than theological discussions on the status of embryos?

In regards to the numbers of abortions, I understand that procedures like D&C's are also included. That would inflate the numbers considerably. D&C's are very commonly performed after a miscarriage.

When abortions are legal in their own right we will finally get real numbers on how many pregnancies are terminated. It is only guesswork now.

Celivia and Yvonne continue to make rational and well-reasoned points; that safe, affordable, legal and easily accessible abortion be available. I would like to add that , safe and affordable vasectomies also be available and promoted for men, after all contraception is easier for us blokes AND we’re the ones who don’t wind up pregnant. Education and affordable contraception are the optimum ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

I am happy to contribute part of my hard earned taxes to family planning – even me old cobber, Col, is apparently on board with this; guess there beats a heart instead of a calculator in the old bean-counter yet.

Jellyback, do you really want women to churn out babies regardless of their circumstances? Do you care so little about living beings and more about ‘souls’? Tragic belief you have there.

Using this supernatural belief to deny women control over their fertility is as sad as it is suspect.

You would claim that the 'soul' of an unborn infant has precedence over the 'soul' and life and well being of women? Are ypu saying that some 'souls' are more equal than others? ;-)

Sounds like just another argument to promote the subjugation of women. Another spurious claim like “all feminists hate men”. Faulty reasoning my friend, which has at its final agenda the repression of women.

Jelly, you provide the proof of Myfanwy’s claim of the noisy minority and to that I would add irrational. The vast majority of Australians want abortion legalised.

Abortion's illegality has never been proven to decrease the number of abortions. It merely shifts the manner in which women access abortions (with many choosing to self-abort, or to seek access to services in other jurisdictions - Irish women travelling to the UK is a good case in point).

Celivia is right to point out that it's the question marks surrounding legality which make it difficult to assess the number of abortions each year - combined with figures which both inflate and reduce aspects of the statistics (such as some women not seeking the Medicare rebate for the surgical procedure, and D and Cs for purposes other than terminating a pregnancy being included in the figures which contribute to the "abortion" figure).

Before abortion was made somewhat available through judicial law, there was no way of knowing at all how many abortions there were - backyard abortionists tend not to keep figures, and they certainly don't report them to the medical authorities.

I find the statistics argument a bit odd - some seem to suggest that there would be some support for abortion if the numbers were lower. If this is the case, then perhaps anti-choice people would like to throw their weight behind decriminalisation, which in conjunction with better sex education, has been shown in other countries to drastically lower the number of abortions.

If you're serious about reducing the abortion numbers, you must first countenance EVERY proven option. If you can't support an option shown to dramatically decrease the number of abortions (certainly in the case of Belgium and Sweden), then perhaps you're not serious about reducing the rate of abortions, merely upholding a view that until there are NO abortions any measure taken to reduce the number of abortions is inadequate.

I don't think more people should have abortions. But I do think that decriminalisation in Victoria is both long overdue and will make a significant impact on the terms in which sex education and information about reproductive services are offered in this state.

When reading the many considered postings on this thread and on previous threads regarding abortion, including some very articulate posts from men, it is curious that abortion is still not legalised.

Myfawny has hit the nail on the head as to the reason why abortion is still not legalised. Not only in Victoria.

Johnny Rotten,
I agree- contraception for both men and women should be easily obtainable and affordable and not only that, it should be promoted as well.
Isn’t it ironic that the religious fundies are actually the main cause of (assumingly) high abortion rates?
The more secular countries, which equate personal responsibility with a commitment to responsibly use contraception, are far more successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies than those quasi-secular countries that religiously equate personal responsibility with abstinence.

If this noisy minority has managed so far a delay of legislation of abortion, think how successful they could be in promoting safe sex, if they only wanted to do that.
Their effort would be far more fruitful or uhm should I in this case say "fruitless"… in helping to reduce abortion rates.

You’re right Seether,
to believe that criminalisation of abortion will reduce numbers is ignorant: throughout the ages women have been having abortions no matter how risky, it’s nothing new and won’t stop because of a screaming, deluded minority.
Many unwanted pregnancies will keep being terminated and if women can’t find a legal and safe way to have them, they will resort to backyard abortions, just as people who cannot find affordable dental treatment resort to backyard dentistry pulling their friends' teeth just like they did in medieval times.

Yes, it is very curious indeed, Yvonne; I find it hard to believe that this minority is so thick that they don’t even realise that their loud protests against abortion are having the opposite effect. They’re just giving themselves away and are showing their real agenda as the author points out.
Without their opposition abortion might as well have been legalised by now, and without the religious influence on Australian schools, proper sex education might have prevented unwanted pregnancies as well.

Hi Celivia

Thanks for your comments.

I find myself in the position of having being exposed to the position of the Catholic Church as regards abortion and wished to hear cogent arguements from the other side.

I find much that is persuasive from a basic "human life is sacred and begins somewhere. Who decides where and when it begins?" perspective.

On the other hand the mother must have some sovereignty over her own self and situation.

It is this angle of arguement that I feel is undeveloped at the moment.

One thing that has recently annoyed me was when the lead actress from that nativity film was banned from visting the vatican because she was pregnant and not married.

Shouldnt they have been rejoicing in the new life rather than condeming someone. Would they rather she got rid of the baby on the sly?

Perhaps not a good comment but its something Id thought about before I came across this blog.

Is abortion illegal in every state?

Jellyback, thanks.
I agree with anti-abortionists that human life begins at fertilisation. Even a zygote is human life: it has human DNA and it’s alive.
But at this is the point I start to diverge from the view of the anti-abortionists.

Even though I agree that a zygote is ‘human life’, I cannot agree that it is a ‘person’ or a ‘human being’ in the sense of an autonomous person. Just having DNA doesn’t make a zygote or embryo a ‘person’ with rights. A sperm cell has human DNA and is alive.
First of all, to be a person one must have a brain and a complete nervous system so one is equipped to have consciousness, feelings and thoughts and be able to live independently within an environment as part of a society and outside a womb. To be a person and qualify for human rights, one needs to be born and be independent (not dependent on someone else’s body for survival).

That was indeed very upsetting; whatever excuses the Vatican used, if Benedict XVI wanted to make a statement he would have proudly publicly recognized this young actress.
BTW if I’m correct, the Vatican changed its mind about the beginning of Human Life- wasn’t it the case that at first they insisted that human life starts at the time of quickening (when a woman first feels the foetus move) and later they reviewed it and said human life starts at fertilization? I might be mistaken- I read this years ago but haven’t actually researched it any deeper.

I struggle with the thought that life would suddenly begin at one point, say fertilisation, and never end. We would end up with trillions of beginnings and no endings; it would be unbalanced. For me it makes more sense that life is a continuum, life takes on different forms. One day you’re a person, thousands years later you may be part of a star… I find it fascinating to think that everything that ever existed never leaves the universe and just take on different forms.

"It's about having the right to decide what goes on in your own body." Is it really TRTL? I thought it was about the right to decide whether or not your own life goals would be compromised by the introduction of an unwanted life. If, for instance, someone tried to overdose, I would hope some noisy and aggressive person would step in to assist that person to not make such a wrong choice. Or, if a pregnant woman (no matter what stage) was kicked in the stomach by her drug addicted boyfriend, I would dearly love to see someone try to rescue her and the new life in her stomach -rather than justify their inaction with nonsense about a "bundle of tissue". Moreover, if a woman was raped, I'd hate see her baby aborted for the sins of the baby's father. That would, for me, be unjust. Yes I acknowledge that it would be a woman of exceptional character who chose to not punish the new life for the sins of the father. The day-after-pill argument pretty well negates TRTL's rape argument anyway. Come on TRTL it's just your subjective reality driving your choices – just like others (myself included).

One's subjective position doesn't always reflect or understand an other's objective reality - of course, we know that don't we? This is the female pro-abortionists poke in the eye and it stings. So ten points for the poke-in-the-eye.

But it works both ways. Some female pro-abortionists exclude the male pro-lifer's point of view from their considerations. Isn' t that why you're trying to alter other folk's subjective reality - isn't it? Not going to happen with weak, subjective arguments that exclude the male partner. But then is there any such thing as objectivity? Pro-lifer males would probably have to get pregnant to have a truly objective account; a woman would have to experience the powerlessness of a male whose loved one decided to abort his child without his involvment.

I still think the law must reflect the value of human life and also the value of meaningful relationships.

To the article’s author. I am not religious; indeed, I think religion can and usually is a negative in our society. I am not noisy and I am not usually an aggressive person, and I am not in any noisy minority group or organisation - what a sorry generalisation on the author’s part. And what if I was – so what? What’s the crime there? I just happen to have a different opinion than you which I choose to share and you will no doubt reject. Is my position somehow enhanced by my being under resourced and under represented in the majority? Don’t think so.

Why is it that certain folk in the decriminalisation crew(including the drug mob) are always into stereotyping and personally attacking their enemies and relying on emotive tactics to get their point across? I remember when I was a bit - a lot- younger and in the peace movement I was forever being tagged a communist. Nothing's changed - just the tags. Maybe you all are compensating for a lack of solid uncompromised evidence, ethical correctness and moral foundation. I hold that our laws must reflect the value of life.

And girls, especially, Celivia, please don’t skew things with your quantity vs quality arguments. Really! I am all for contraception and that should have been clear even to the thickest of thickwits from my talk of planning in my earlier posts. So given that most of you are clearly intelligent and articulate folk I urge you to reconsider and don't get into such lame divergences. What do you call Dorothy in the distance? Dot. So connect the Dorothys next time.

Ronnie, you agree it is subjective how we see and experience a foetus or an unwanted pregnancy.

For a man to have to stand by while his 'loved' one decides to abort his baby must be truly agonizing. I wonder at the miscalculation of the 'love' for one another in this sexual relationship. Sex is the precursor to pregnancy. If he feels strongly about not terminating a pregnancy he needs to be particular with whom he has sex with.

Abortions have been with us since the cave days. They have never been stopped by criminalizing it. Back yard abortions have horrendous consequences. These are facts, whether we wish them to be so or not.

It is of paramount importance that abortions can be obtained legally and openly. For medical reasons and also to determine the numbers and how these can be reduced, or even eliminated.

When legal, it does not mean that your loved one has to avail herself of this when confronted by an unwanted pregnancy, it means that another's loved one can without resorting to subterfuge.

Ronnie, not to have been born at all is not as scary a thought to some as being born unwanted by your mother, through the result of rape or not.

Abortions should be legal. Why unwanted pregnancies occur, that needs to be our focus. It might even eliminate the need for abortions altogether.

Yvonne: Your arguments are unfair, weak and emotive. You skew what I said from loving meaningful relationships to a relationship for the sake of sex. Maybe you should be examining this behaviour as a cause of unplanned pregnancy instead of skewing my words and comparing loving relationships to purely sexual encounters.

You say: “Sex is the precursor to pregnancy.” Well go on ! ( Why aren’t gays getting pregnant?) If women know this and can’t afford the consequences of abortion, why do they engage in unprotected sex? Why don’t they and their partners consider the consequences? Read my posts, I have made clear my pro-contraception position and opinions on unplanned pregnancies.

You say: “Abortions have been around since the cave days.” How does that justify an abortion? We’ve had rapist around since the cave days so following your logic rape must be okay. No. Moreover, we have a social structure and a welfare system that women can access. This was provided, I might add, with the help of males with socialist ideals? It must follow that certain socialist ideals prevent abortions. It may also be noted that the drug use is bound to see couples making wrong choices.

If women know that backyard abortions are so horrendous, then why make that choice. Your argument is much like a teenager who threatens to cut her arms if she doesn’t get her way or a male who threatens suicide to coerce his wife into staying in a bad situation. It’s manipulation. It’s threat. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s cliché -status scaremongering and propaganda that most people have heard ad nauseam. I reject them as reasons to legalise abortions. Besides, given the waiting list and state of our hospitals, you’re probably not much better off.

The backyard-abortion plea implies responsibility for that mistake lies with the pro-lifers and that is just as silly as the murder guilt trip of the far right. The woman and perhaps her partner are responsible for that choice. Someone else has suggested re: drugs, etc. that next the lobbyists will want to legalise crime.

Yvonne says: “…not to have been born at all is not as scary a thought to some as being born unwanted by your mother…” How offensive? One of my mates is adopted. He and folk like him who never had the chance to meet their mum are better off unborn according to your thinking. I recall him lamenting once at why he was unwanted: that maybe he was adopted because his mother was raped (see where my subjectivity is coming from) . He is great fella involved in medicine and your assertion that he’d be better off dead is scary.

Also, an unplanned pregnancy doesn’t have to equate to an unwanted child. Your argument is essentially that an unplanned child is better off dead; however, you neglect to consider that, for pro-lifers, a being is killed to do that.

You haven’t answered the germane question re: the problem. Why is it a tragedy for a mother to lose her developing baby on one hand and a matter of course on another? You don’t get it - for some people life is precious life for others it is unwanted life. It being "unwanted" transcends its value as life and justifies its removal, on the other hand, it is precious and preserved at all costs. Can’t you see the conundrum? Can’t you see that in good conscience, and to be authentic, people like me cannot agree with legalising abortion? For me, it is human life and one cannot get around the fact that abortionists are killing a potential human being. The seed has sprouted. It’s too late –deal with it with grace and honour.

Yvonne says: “Abortions should be legal.” I think if you legalise abortion you will cause more abortions because an easy alternative will be available. This is the problem with research (and sexual encounters) no one wants to forecast the negative consequences.

For me, one person denied the life that they have been blessed with is wrong.

We disagree. However, I believe pro-abortionists mostly have good intentions. The road to an ideal society is paved with good intentions.

Goodbye.

Do you know that one of the things I don't understand about white people in this country being an Indigenous man, is the fact that white men feel that they have a right to comment on a matter that effects women only.

For thousands of years under our law, seperate laws for women and men enabled us to survive for thousands of years without advanced technology. I can't even imagine trying to debate this matter with an Aboriginal women, because quite frankly Aboriginal men would not be game, which is proberly why the christian right is so determined to stamp out our society.

All the problems attributed our communites in the paper today can be linked directly to white christian males, who molested the children under their care, who then became adults who intern molested others etc.

Let the women vote only to decide what they want on this issue and leave the men out

Yindin, what a wonderful and refreshing view, thank you. You made my day. People like you are much needed to provide some balance in abortion debates.

At the moment I am contributing to an abortion debate and guess what- the only ones who don't want abortion decriminalised are some Christian men (and one who says he isn't religious but has exactly the same morals as the Christians).

Why should women have to live by the rules of Christian men even if they're not Christians?