"discount the sensitivities of the religious minded. They are entitled to pray for a different world and even work towards it but they are not entitled to impose that “world view” on the secularly minded citizens of this or any other country, any more than the secularists are entitled to outlaw or ban a religious creed."

This is a banal moral philosophy. Society imposes its will on individuals for all sorts of reasons and deliberately curbs their behaviour. To say an anti-abortionist can't outlaw abortion just because it imposes on the will of others flies in the face of current practice.

An anti-abortionist would no doubt argue it was abortion's supporters who were disregarding the interests of the individual - in this case the foetus.

If they believe the interests of two people are at stake (mother and child) they are especially entitled to argue for abortion to be outlawed, by the logic of your own "secular" code. Religion does not even have to come into it.

ladies I hope you are listening...stop killing unborn babies...or laws in future will become draconian...as in severe sanction against you and the tool you used to get pregnant...

now that I have offended about half the population...allow me to explain...
http://www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Background~Stats
http://www.popline.org/docs/1294/140692.html

so since abortion legalized a dramatic jump in numbers...then a plateau...albeit some fiddling to hide increasing figures from individual studies...and that has a strong message...

and law increasingly has allowed women to 'my body my choice' power over unborn child...and now push for 'absolute power and no accountability/identification' effect of laws...

but science has been cathing up...now there is much in common between unborn and 'just born'...so lesser difference to killing 'just born' and which 'murder' at current law and 'unborn'...they are both just beautiful babies...

and the general population wants an end to this...as in shift the point of action to time of sex...not after impregnation...meaning laws must start strongly address responsibility/accountability at the time to parties who choose to engage in sex...avoid pregnancy or face severe consequences...like driving...dont drink/drugs/tired...full stop...for its an innocent life with no fault at risk here...got that...and since women organized themselves as an effective force the power of terminating the unborn into your own hands...its primarily your responsibility...any reasons eg drunk, too young, contraceptive failure becomes of much less value...

yes, the reasons for abortion from one extreme of severe foetal deformation that reasonable life unlikely...to other extreme of 'rite of passage' a women has to do to become a sista...(dont ask...too sick...)...and inbetween reasons...and so abortion should and must exist...but currently its severely abused and should not continue...and note septic death from illegal abortion will be considered 'intentional self harm' at law if current abuse does not stop...

and for those who see beyond the immediate to the bigger picture...killing our unborn is a society that is 'dying'...for it reflects our driving forces of our society...'unbalanced self interest' than 'balanced self interest' where it should be...think about it...

Sam
Ps~and guys help out...your sperm is your total responsibility...make sure not one goes near there...during and after...not matter what she says...

Nobody _wants_ to have an abortion, any more than anyone wants to have their appendix taken out. But sometimes it is by far the lesser of two evils. When David and the church groups he represents have shown their capacity to adopt and raise every unwanted child in comfort and security, then he will have earned the right to criticise a woman's (or couple's) choice.

"The bitter vile responses to David [Palmer] confirms that you are on to the truth here David."

Joseph Stalin evoked some bitter responses. It didn't mean he was onto the truth (although he did make abortion illegal in the Soviet Union. Resrictions on reproductive rights is a typical feature of authoritarian regimes).

It is a very old tactic to revel in victimhood when someone opposes your argument. But a few hostile responses to an article does not a martyr make.

It maybe true that people have abortions for selfish reasons. So what? People have children for selfish reasons. And people who choice not to have children at all a labelled 'selfish'. At any rate, this is not the Soviet Union and people do and should have such options.

Well, David Palmer,
If you care so much about the women who have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy and abortion, perhaps you should ask the religious right to lobby for comprehensive sex education and gang up during the World Youth Day festival with the libertarians who are planning to educate the Pope and the devote Catholics about the c-word: condoms.

The majority of Australians support the legal availability of abortion, but are concerned about the number of abortions.

The two are related, but restricting the access to abortion is purely reactive.

What about being pro-active instead? That means not focussing on the situation AFTER conception has occurred, but BEFORE.

As IanD points out, David has a valid point by raising awareness that abortion is not experienced as the easy option by many women.

Col argues that if regret sets in 'so sad, too bad-take responsibility for your decisions', but that still focusses on the situation after conception.

Celivia points out what the debate really should be about.

It is good that abortions are no longer relegated to secret procedures affordable to those with the money or to the back-yard.

But it is truly shameful that though we argue back and forth about the number of abortions it is not coupled with a demand for comprehensive sex education for our young people.

This will not only reduce abortions, but will also halt the frightening rise of sexually transmitted diseases. Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are becoming very common.