Veronica. I am not interested in your excuses of DEMOS.

That you choose to write in defense of the obscene and obnoxious, only diminishes the value of anything else you may choose to write in future.

Back to the article:

I find this debate interesting, people deciding to draw the line on when someone’s bodily resources ceases to be deployed at their discretion, in the manner of their personal choosing.

I find using any number of weeks a completely arbitrary matter be it 0 weeks (the anti-abortionist position), 1 week, 24 or 26 or 39 weeks.

I would support a woman’s right to choose to terminate in the final trimester, in the final days before delivery, without deference to anyone because, we are, after all, talking about her body and not our own

But I would also guarantee, the longer into the pregnancy she is, the harder that decision will become (and of course it should never be taken lightly at any stage) but

it remains her body and her decision, not mine and no one elses.

HRS

<<Many millions have been deemed “not wanted” or “not suitable”, and have been aborted through mass extermination.>>

Interesting use of the word 'abortion'.

Did you happen to note any difference between abortion in the sense used in the article and in the Victorian Parliamentary debate - about the woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy - and the deaths of Australian Aborigines, Cambodians, Chinese, Ugandans, Russian Muslims and Jews?

I suppose if you think for a nano-second, one or two differences might occur, even to you.

Watch that slippery slope. The pool at the bottom of your spiralling logic might be a bit sludgy.

Let’s get this straight a foetus would have a very low survival rate if born at 24 weeks without modern science, even with our advances it is still 50/50.
If women who don't want to have an abortion under then it is their choice not to this bill does not allow forced abortions. Why do people want the choice to be taken away from women?
As for the difference between the men and women voting, I wonder how many of the anti-choice voters were also very religious. It seems to me conservative religion is the last bastion of patriarchal control. Many of the religions trolls on this site love to have Taliban style keepers of the faith forcing their moral views on everyone else, the author of this piece appears to be one of them.
It’s fitting that the author brings up the Republicans in the US. Go to any right wing religious site on the web and you will see to pillars of their world view Anti-Abortion and support of the Death penalty!
Now if you got the kind of mind that can square those two ideas then in the US you join the republican movement but hear thankfully you join the nutter brigade. Long may this debate continue not to be a party platform.
PS. The author needs to watch their language, their last comment might be seen as a threat, after all we all know what religious extremist are capable of.

Just a quicky.

Anyone know whether David van Gend is a proponent of comprehensive sex education, the abortion pill and free contraception?

If he's not, I question his sincerity about his concern about the foetus at 24 weeks.

Spikey
I would think that the reason for decriminalizing abortion is to allow certain sections of society to start encouraging women to have abortions.

They will start brainwashing women into believing that children are not wanted.

Similar has been done for mass exterminations in the past in many countries, where certain sections of society are normally brainwashed into believing that mass exterminations were necessary.

And who brainwashed you, HRS?