David van Gend has deliberately focused on 1% of abortions, which as Romany has observed, have been performed due to exceptional circumstances.

David's argument is just a big red herring to change the focus from women's well-being into an argument that is not about quality of life at all.

Does not any who oppose abortion care for the trauma a woman experiences when at 24 weeks she is informed that her child is so deformed or disabled that to proceed with the pregnancy is not possible? At no stage do we hear a single expression of empathy or compassion for women. Just that we can be easily 'brainwashed' as some of the more extreme opponents claim to believe.

The prevailing attitude from anti-choicers, leaves out the basic fact that women care very much about children and their ability to care for them. WE DO NOT HAVE ABORTIONS ON A WHIM. And to claim that we do simply proves and undercurrent of hatred for woman as self-determining and intelligent beings.

No-one who is anti-abortion has to have one. But these self-appointed judges would force women to endure pregnancies irrespective of their circumstances and abilities to raise a child to adulthood.

The right to control one's fertility has always and will always be about controlling women. It has never been about 'life'.

Fractelle makes an emotional plea on behalf of women which is valid. She however totally ignores the poor child getting its limbs torn apart while being 'terminated'. She says that woman do not have abortions on a whim. Some do some don't, it still does not make murdering the most vulnerable any less evil. Most of the 80000 plus abortions are for convenience sake. She argues dishonestly just like the original arguement was about the 1 in 10000 case where the young girl had been raped. The arguement was dishonest back then and now Fractelle starts on another dishonest arguement now. Only totally calloused hearts could condone this crime.

How sad, and yet how very predictable, that this has turned into a pro vs anti abortion slanging match, with regrettably few posters actually able to pick out the ethical issue raised by this article.

I don't care if the author is completely anti-abortion and has not stated it - it isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not 24 weeks is an acceptable cutoff for terminations on demand. I happen to think it isn't, based on issues of viability. I don't care how many there are per year, that isn't the issue either - one 24 weeker is too many.

It simply has to be earlier, just remove viability from the debate altogether. Most Australian neonatologists agree that offering resuscitation to neonates prior to 23 weeks should not be mandatory.
(Perinatal care at the borderlines of viability: a consensus statement based on a NSW and ACT consensus workshop.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_09_061106/lui11142_fm.html)

The earliest survivor as far as I know is 21 weeks, 6 days (very unusual).

So, since for the purposes of legislation, a cutoff (however arbitrary) seems to be necessary, let's make it 20, or 18. Cleary, I am talking here about "on demand" rather than "medically indicated" (intrauterine infection causing fetal compromise, chromosomal abnormalities - separate issues).

Question for those of you who love to berate anyone uncomfortable with late-term termination - are you so wedded to the hard-won right to reproductive autonomy that you refuse to recognise the possibility of competing interests of a nearly 24 week fetus? Sure seems that way to me...

"The issue is whether or not 24 weeks is an acceptable cutoff for terminations on demand. I happen to think it isn't, based on issues of viability. I don't care how many there are per year, that isn't the issue either - one 24 weeker is too many. "

Good post Stickman

I would agree and believe a 24 week cut-off is too late. Of course there's no escaping the fact that there will always be exceptions under dire circumstances (hopefully with a humane termination process) however, I believe legislation should opt for a shorter cut-off.

It appears that the UK once permitted terminations at 28 weeks which was then reduced to 24 weeks but in 2006, two thirds of abortions were performed under 10 weeks and most under 13 weeks.

Surely the earlier the termination, the lower the risk of medical complications to the Mother?

More good analysis may be found in the Victorian Law Reform Commission report that preceded the drafting of the legislation. http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/resources/file/eb4e310768c8401/VLRC_Abortion_Chapter3.pdf

The law reform commission offered three options: codification of the existing law, abortion on demand, or a two-tier system, with abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, and restrictions similar to the existing scheme after that.

The government has gone for the two-tier system. After 24 weeks the abortion must get the concurrence of two doctors that it is "appropriate in all the circumstances", including "all relevant medical circumstances" and "the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances".

It seems to me that the legislation strikes a good balance, though I'd be happier to see 20 weeks as a cut-off. The fact that in the public system women cannot "obtain abnormality testing until 18–22 weeks gestation, unless they arrange it privately at significant personal expense" suggests that many poorer women will not be able to make an informed decision until 24 weeks or later. Looks like more funding for public pregnancy screening might be in order?

HRS “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.””

Maybe you could suggest where anyone succeeded in brainwashing me,

It might have been in some anti-smoking tapes I tried, someone threw in a few subliminal suggestions promoting mass extermination (in which case you could then argue that the mass extermination worked, despite me not giving up smoking as a consequence)?

Jason60 “You cannot comment on an abortion, unless you know the circumstances of why an abortion had to take place. To summise is just a waste of time.”

Exactly. Every abortion decision is private and intensely personal.

No one knows the circumstances or issues surrounding the decision as well as the woman who is pregnant.

To surmise or generalize and to then apply arbitrary rules, based on those suppositions and generalizations is to deprive the pregnant woman of her individuality.

Something no one should wish to do to another humanbeing.

Josh_for_social_justice “the high incidence of depression among women who do have abortions.”

And depression is common among women who go to term and have babies.

Post partum depression, I believe is the product of changes in hormones following pregnancy

The depression is not a consequence of having an abortion, it is a result of no longer being pregnant.

Stickman “The earliest survivor as far as I know is 21 weeks, 6 days (very unusual). “

I think the pediatric practice in Holland, is for no attempt to support survival because of the very low survival rate of any delivery under 26 weeks and the high probability of significant disability (eg aggravated cerebral palsy) in those who do.