Abortion stats are hard to come by, but this document suggests about 70,000 abortions are performed per year, Australia-wide per annum. http://www.fpq.com.au/factsheets_brochures/student_info/Abortion_statistics.pdf

According to WA stats www.health.wa.gov.au/ICAM/publications/pubdocs/AbortionReport1999-2005FINAL(4).pdf "only 0.6% of abortions were carried out at 20 weeks or over". This accords with Victorian stats cited here http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/607/31357 (apologies to those allergic to GreenLeft) that "99% of Victorian abortions were carried out before 13 weeks. Of the remaining 163 abortions, 103 were performed because of congenital abnormalities."

In other words, of the 70,000 abortions carried out per year, there are perhaps 1,000 carried out beyond the 1st trimester. Of these, perhaps perhaps 500 are because of foetal abnormalities. I'd be interested if anyone could come up with any statistical analysis of 2nd/3rd trimester abortions. Might make interesting reading. I suspect you'd find a lot of them were for IV drug users, women just out of gaol etc.

Over 80% of Australians believe "women should have the right to choose an abortion" http://www.arha.org.au/factsheets.html (link at bottom of page). David Van Gend concentrates on the horrors of late-term abortions because the pro-life lobby have lost the abortion debate. Interesting to note that David Van Gend believes that homosexuality can be cured http://www.marriage.org.au/re_entering_the_circle_of_life.htm . No doubt he believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden instead.

billie

I read your post after I posted mine. It partly clears up the question I raised. Thanks.

However, I still believe that, whatever the outcome of this Bill, abortion post-12 weeks should not be treated the same - either legally or medically - as abortions conducted before 12 weeks.

The post 24 week thing is troubling indeed. A close friend though, found that her much wanted baby was only going to survive a few hours after birth if born alive at all. This mite had simply not developed a workable brain. The family decided to terminate the pregnancy. The termination was treated as a still birth, the parents mourned and still mourn, almost two decades later, but fortunately, another healthy child arrived.

While would have been desirable to find out that the baby had problems earlier, it would have been insane to condemn this couple to continue on with a pregnancy with an inevitable sad outcome. It also might have reduced their chances of having a healthy child as their are time constraints on a woman's fertility.

No woman makes the decision to abort lightly and it needs to be left between a woman and her doctors to decide what is the best course of action.

Am i wrong to say this forum is dominated with religon.

This debate is more about the interest of one party versus the interest of another.

If we look at abortion like this, the major ethical issue is whether the interests of the parent(s) should prevail over that of the (unborn) child.

Clearly, pro-choice and pro-life advocates use different ethical systems to determine whose interests should prevail. What we should be looking at, then, is the reasoning behind these different views. If we do not consider why religious fundamentalism and pro life are complementary, we forgoe the opportunity to examine the ethics behind the pro life position.

Even children outside of the womb were considered "human waste" when it came to bombing Iraq with cluster bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorous. The hypocrisy of the people who cheer led the war and their pious stand against abortion is plain for everyone to see.