This article asks for too much.

You cannot ask for a moral stance to be taken and then argue in favour of moral relativism.

You cannot remove all references to abortion and child destruction from the Crimes Act. Law-making governments are there to make laws that protect people. These laws are particularly crucial when they protect the vulnerable: commonly the extremely young and extremely old. Courts see the need to protect the unborn when they are threatened, for example when pregnant women are attacked with the intention of harming the unborn child.

A morally relative stance argues in favour of protecting the unborn in such a situation, but argues in favour of abortion in many other cases. The difference is simply how we feel about the unborn child, not any intrinsic worth of the unborn individual.

If Judith wants courageous and moral decisions to be made, she cannot opt for a morally relative stance.

A courageous stance is one that acts on a moral ideal in all situations; being consistent even when it is hard. Arguing in favour of the right to abortion sounds like a courageous stance, but it is one that hides its face from the reality that the unborn child is disposed of. It is not courageous at all.

Furthermore, abortion has been achievable on demand in most states of Australia due to common law side-stepping of legislation. To ask legislation to fall in line with practice in the way that Judith requests will disallow crucial rights to the unborn that are currently protected in most jurisdictions, such as protection in the example given above.

I agree with Stop&think

A courageous decision would be to carry the pregnancy to full term, and then adopt the child out.

There has been almost no research undertaken into abortion in Australia, (which has not been very courageous), and while abortion rates have remained at high levels, the adoption rate has declined. This has occurred while the demand for IVF has increased.

Perhaps society needs to reevaluate.

I applaud Judith Troeth's clearly argued position. Its time to assume that women and their partners are moral beings capable of making the right decisions for their own fertility and life choices.

"A courageous decision would be to carry the pregnancy to full term, and then adopt the child out."

Yes, it is a courageous, and fraught, decision -

Something that HRS will never, ever have to face.

Easy to be glib when you don't have to deal.

Yes, a clear and succinct article from Judith Troeth. Any reference to abortion in the Crimes Act should be removed, and should only be included under Health legislation where needed for regulatory reasons.

The unborn don't have rights - they are not people.

At least CJMorgan adpots a clear point of view. I may disagree with it, but the stance is clear: "The unborn don't have rights - they are not people."

But in reponse to that point: so a premature baby at 22 weeks is a person:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11222-worlds-most-premature-baby-set-to-leave-hospital.html

but an unborn baby at any stage of pregnancy is not a person.

There, in a nutshell, is moral relativism for you. And not just moral relativism, but a sheer lack of logic.

The author on the other hand pretends to make a clear statement and to take a moral stance, but totally neglects a huge moral implication in any abortion - the rights of the unborn.

It's also interesting that advocates of abortion like the author use this argument: "the choice to have an abortion is not made flippantly by women but is always a serious moral decision." As if it would ever be a flippant decision! This stance further justifies moral relativism. Essentially it is saying, "If I acknowledge it to be a moral decision and think long and hard, it doesn't matter which way I decide. I can terminate a living being as long as I ponder my decision for a while." I bet the dying child is appreciative that the mother acknowledges it is a hard decision.

Certain acts have certain consequences, and necesitate courageous decisions. A decision to abort is of course always hard to make, but it is not courageous. There are plenty of good examples of courageous people, including victims of rape, who coureagously take the pregnancy to term and deal with the consequences. They are the ones who understand the moral principle that the unborn are people, no matter how we feel about them.

stop&think: << so a premature baby at 22 weeks is a person.. ...but an unborn baby at any stage of pregnancy is not a person.

There, in a nutshell, is moral relativism for you. And not just moral relativism, but a sheer lack of logic. >>

Neither moral relativism nor lack of logic: you have to be born to be a person. It's quite a simple distinction, really.

Judith's statement is irrational and nonsensical.

Either abortion is a moral wrong, in which case it should be legislated against

or

Abortion is not a moral wrong, in which case it is irrelevant to claim that 'It is time that women were recognised as beings capable of moral agency.'

Lets face it...no significant opinion in western civilization has ever doubted women were beings capable of moral agency.

So then we are left with a few options

1) Judith believes women were thought of as not having moral agency in Australian society. Of course this means Judith's ability at making good judgments is seriously doubtful and we shouldn't listen to her

2) Judith believes that the unborn are not worthy of protection, but felt the need to make a nice sounding claim to become the 'victim', knowing it was a truly vacuous rhetorical trick. In which case, we shouldn't trust her claims in this article.

3) Judith believes that 'women' will always make a good moral decision and so legislation is not needed, which once again casts serious doubt on Judith's ability to make sound judgments and so we shouldn't listen to her.

Did I miss anything, or is this piece of propaganda a worthless waste of time?

I don't think it is possible to make an important decision in general terms, such as pronouncing that abortion is immoral--without considering the particular circumstances of the each individual case. Until you know the specific circumstances, how can you judge? Besides, doesn't the New Testament warn, 'Judge not least ye be judged'?

In cases where continuing with the pregnancy will threaten the mother's life, why must the mother die so that the baby lives? Why should we force rape victims to have the child of a rapist, as occurred in Northern Ireland a few years ago? Why should we force people who are not emotional, physically or financially able to raise children to have unwanted children?

Forcing women to have large families has the consequence of reducing the life expectancy of women and often leading to health problems. My main problem with the idea of making abortion illegal is when we tried that in the past, many women died attempting to secure illegal abortions. According to the World Health Organisation, rates of abortion in countries where abortion is illegal as in countries where it is legal. Abortion is something that is going to occur, whether pro-lifers like it or not because there are complex factors that need to be taken into account to make such a decision.

Honesty precedes morality, so drop the free licence. Like what defines 'health.' And stop pretending that there is such a thing as 'free.' There are only CONDITIONS.

If ya want a doctor to abort/terminate/kill conceptus/feutus/baby then do it. Its YOUR decision and no one has any authority over what you do to your body. Even if they can dole out consequences. People meet the law and go there on way all the time. Its only ever a question of degree.

l dont care if people want suicide, euthenasia, drugs or to drink draino. Its THEIR business. l will attempt counsel and help clean up. Thats the price of living in a society that recognises non-coercion... dream on.

It is for no one to dictate what another will do to themselves, irrespective of who is literally/figuratively plugged into them. In a world with abortion, every person is capable of unilateral reproductive decision-making, thus no parenting obligations attach to conception/pregancy. If you want that, then make an agreement and sign a contract like a marriage licence. How equal do folks wanna be. Current conditions enable choice. The lies of society do not.

Abstain, take birth control, use contraception, abort, whatever. That those things exist create the conditions out of which my choices are borne.

What fundamentally drives society's control of abortion (and enforced parenthood) is self preservation. In an over-populated world, the generality have little problem with abortion as society is not threatened by the practice. If the world was seriously under-populated, society would likely develop a different view.

Society is a big lie, built on lies, propelled by lies, constantly expanding and validating its lies. I prefer to think and act for myself.

Its your body, its your choice and unfortunately, at base, its your responsibility. Sure, blame the person who gives you the key for where and how you operate your motor. Society is quite amenable to lies. It will send around the badges and guns to COERCE and FORCE, so this one flies nicely. Aint morality grand.

"It is a decision that can uphold and protect the life, health, and future of the woman, her partner, and family. "

So says Judith. But, earlier legislators in our Westminster tradition (read Judeo-Christian) placed a higher price on the community's need to uphold and protect the life, health, and the future of FAMILIES rather than individual's 'preciousness.'

Should abortion be outlawed? Yes. It is one of the functions of the law to mould societal outcomes.

Should a woman be prosecuted for having an abortion? No. But, we as a society need to have in place the environment that makes such a decision unlikely.

Should practitioners be prosecuted? The Hippocratic oath (hypocratic oath?) ain't worth much if a doctor does this as a profession. Deregistration is punishment enough.

As for the 'backyard' operators, gaol is a worthy option.

The law is not about one baby or one individual, it is a message to ALL people.

As another thread has stated, Hillary & Bill Clinton have done little to ensure their 'line' continues and, ultimately, those who continue to abort themselves (couples or nations) will end up with no progeny -living or politically. Remember the Spartans? This attitude is just like their 'hillside childcare' facilities. What is good for the state?

How about Judith and co putting 'couples' first - that way women and men and their children are ALL looked after. No doubt she also supports the expansion of legal rights - formerly reserved to married couples - being extended to all and sundry. I just wish these pollies would have the guts to say what they mean.

The 'left's' and Liberal Party position on public policy rationale is contradictory.

The baby bonus is paid with one hand and medical costs for abortion with another; de facto and now gay "equality/non-discrimination" replacing the former affirmative action for monogamous married couples and their families etc.

Does either major party have a families policy outside of the ubiquitous 'working families' paradigm?

And we are worried about Bill Henson wrecking our children and nation...Judith and Emily's list are streets ahead already.

CJMorgan:

How can it be a simple distinction? Birth is such an arbitrary date. It is quite a different date for many people, or as you would hold, 'would-be people'. What you are arguing is that more maturely developed human beings are deemed not people while less mature beings are people because they are born prematurely. Explain the logic to me please. Human life is always human life. Or do you hold that somewhere in the birth canal or in the uterine wall (for caesarean births) there is a 'human life' switch that turns the being into a human person?

Getting back to the original argument, NSW criminal legislation protects the unborn in several situations. An example is when a wanted child is harmed in utero and the aggressor is criminally liable, not just for harm to the mother, but to the unborn child. In the interests of these cases, the NSW Crimes Act must continue to protect the rights of the unborn, while those seeking abortions can still side-step the legislation. You won't succeed, as Judith is trying to do, to remove all reference to abortion or child destruction from the Crimes Act.

However, the factual scenario above proves further that according to current legislation and the way many people think, the unborn child has rights only when we desire the child to be born. If we don't want the child, it has no rights. Once again, I would like to see you argue that this is not moral relativism or a lack of logic. I would argue it is both and that the reasons for us thinking this way are our emotions, and a lack of courage.

Nic-Syd

I think you misunderstand (Both the moral status of abortion and the Bible)

The chief question in the abortion debate is what 'is' the unborn. At law there are only two options...it is either a person or it is property. If it is property, then there is no grounds for saying abortion by the mother is immoral in any circumstance. If it is a person, then abortion is immoral (on the grounds that Judith is talking about anyway). There is no middle position.

A caveat is in the case of the life (not just the health) of the mother being in imminent danger (because there you have the right to life of one person conflicting with the right to life of another...of course, many people don't even define this situation as abortion). But in this case, it is expert medical opinion that makes that judgment, not the mother (although the mother, as the risked person, can make the decision to terminate the pregnancy in this situation, once these circumstances exists). But this isn't what Judith is dishonestly arguing for....

A very Troethful article, Judith, you make absolute sense.

Like CJ Morgan, I think that an embryo/foetus has no right other than the host is willing to bequest it.

Even without having to discuss everyone's ethicts and morals, the fact is that if we want to reduce the abortion rate, we should legalise abortion.

Countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates, while the opposite is true for countries where abortion is illegal and banned. Go figure.

Fractelle, well said. It is all too easy for anti-abortionists, usually men, to tell women what to do with their body.
Like HRS, 100% of all male anti-abortionists will never be pregnant.

I also figured out during my last abortion debate last year, that the priority of the religious anti-abortion brigade (who call themselves ‘pro life’) is not the foetus (which they call an ‘unborn child’) but the social and sexual control of women.

Laws should defend women who are being bullied into abortion by selfish partners and the pro-abortion lobby.

BR, what kind of law are you picturing that would protect women from that? At the risk of sounding ignorant, I can't see how a law can prevent people from influencing a woman's decision.

I would agree that it is sad when women are pressured into having an abortion which they otherwise might not have needed had they found sufficient support from partners and family, but I'm not sure how a law can prevent that.

The best we can do is to offer all options to pregnant women including abortion, adoption, discussing the kind of help that would be available to them if they'd choose to keep the baby after birth...

But ultimately, it is the woman who has to make the ultimate decision.