cardine, my goodness. So totally over the top for such a harmless and benign comment. I will expand on my last post, though I did honestly feel it was an easy answer to your professed confusion. Intent is one of the principle foundations of legal principle from which much law rests. Prove intent and you have your criminal. If you can not show argument free of doubt that invests intent of action or outcome in person or corporate or nation. You have no criminality. What you might have is a bunch of very poor decisions made by many different people not directly associated who's combined actions lead to catastrophe. They may also lead to success but who would know? That would never be reported. We are judged on our failures not our successes. And if anyone mentions their success, there is always someone close by to remind that person how they and other people contributed to that success. Failure is something someone does alone. Go figure!

I did not realise that my tongue in cheek answer would be taken to be serious..lol seems my humour failed its intentions....lol

I was not talking about intent but rather the reasoning behind the legislations that occur. Intent is in everything and I believe abortion is not an issue alone.
Abortion is made illegal and then what happens?
Financially, termination is a cost effective solution to unwanted births. Adoption is rarely an option.
If a woman is forced to carry out the birth, then who is responsible for the cost of raising the child?
Does a man have the right to use a womans body without her consent to carry a foetus to gestation?
This is a law that is more than whether a foetus is allowed to become viable.
I choose which laws I want to obey because that is the freedom I have in my country. If I am charged than I have the right to argue my choice.
Lets consider a far reaching, right wing thought. Foetus's are given human rights at conception, their life depends on their host, without their host the woman, they will not survive. The womans rights are not granted and she must carry the foetus to gestation.
Now, lets consider, a person needs a liver transplant, and finds a donor. Without this donation the person will die and relies on this donor to survive. If you believe these are 2 different issues, consider the rights of one outweighs the rights of another.

chill.

Dear chill, using your theory two year old children can be killed and organed off because they too are dependent on their mothers and if abandoned leaves the state holding the bag. The state would then be with in it's rights to kill all abandoned or orphaned children, even profit by marketing the harvested organs . Unless you have special rules at each level of human development. How about the unemployed. Relying on the state and unable to care for themselves. Shall we begin terminating them too. Other than emotional attachment/bonding what constitutes the various strata of human value. Killing a 22 week old developing human being is no different than killing a 22 year old developing human being. That you can find an excuse to do so hardly precipitates moral or ethical human behavior. The difference between a natural miscarriage and an abortion is intent. They are not equal in nature nor circumstance.
Have all the abortions you want but, don't tell the rest of us it's an ethical and moral act because it saves the mother or someone else from taking up the responsibility of raising a child because babies are dependent. We are all dependent on one another for our existence. It's only a matter of degree and time.

Helen Pringle denies the law on abortion is confusing. She asks, where is the confusion? Is she a little shortsighted?

According to the ruling by Judge Menhennitt, as found in her own article, the lawfulness of procuring a miscarriage revolves around preserving the woman from “serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health”.

With the advancement of medical science, most pregnancies are not dangerous, and most of the 80 000 abortions procured each year are for economic or convenient reasons. The doctors know it, and that’s why they are looking over their shoulders.

If it wasn’t that the law was a bit confusing or incongruous with current practice, why would the Victorian government feel the need to legislate? Those in the Labor party wanting free access to abortion already have the status quo on their side with no convictions for abortion in the last few decades.

I agree with Runner, that some things are wrong regardless of what the law says (e.g. 2000 years ago it was good sport to feed people to lions in the Coliseum, and only 200 years ago it was lawful to own slaves), but abortion on demand, as it is been practiced in recent decades, is still technically illegal.

aqvarivs
Not so long ago, the Argentinians used to shoot the feral children who lived in the sewers of Buenos Ares. Feral adults seem to be quite capable of destroying themselves either in motor cars or with drugs.

What really does need some reform is the way we treat the old and suffering terminally ill who would dearly love to end it all, but can't do it legally because some bioethics dick head thinks that life must be preserved at all costs.

David

David, The faster we abort our progeny and suicide the aging, the great society of the no thing can then realise it's full nature. Long live the no thing. You know, people when they hit fifty begin to become more dependent on the system as they require ever more medical care. We should start thinking of ways to kill them off too. We got rid of the extended family and that value system and replaced it with the values of the nuclear family and now we have the feminist anti-family. The social engineers have been pulling at the thread of society and much of our familiar values have been lost to the self-interest of the me me clan. The cloth has begun to unravel and we have not been training weavers but, cultural marxist. We are rotting from with in, looking outside for answers why it could be happening to us. Society is a ship afloat in a ocean of despair and too many people are drilling holes to let in that sea because it has become the moral standard. They look out and see the multitude floating serenely with in their life preservers snug from the cares of the world and responsibility and are envious. Why am I struggling when the State should be responsible for me. I'm a victim too.