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.