david f

"Abortion is a natural process. Whether it is spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or a result of surgical intervention there is nothing supernatural about it. If there is surgical intervention an element of choice enters the natural process. It is a woman's right to make that choice."

This is a straw man argument. A miscarriage is not the result of deliberate killing by an external person. Not once have I mentioned "supernatural," hence your straw man logical fallacy.

If "it is a woman's right to make that choice," who has the right to protect the human being in the womb?

I will be one such person.

Its a pity Michael did not check his facts first. S48 of the Victorian Charter was put in at the urging of the catholic bishops to stop women from being able to enforce their reproductive rights under the Charter. It effectively means that women cannot argue that criminalising abortion is a breach of a woman's right to security and liberty.

This essentially is a case of the church being hoist on its own petard. In seeking to ensure that women could not enforce their rights they have limited their own, oh what a tangled web we weave when we ....

An excellent article by Michael Cook. Finally someone is speaking rationally and intelligently about this issue.

Think about it...Is this whole issue REALLY about protecting the rights of females? How can it be, when half of the children who are aborted are females?

Cat J wrote:

"Think about it...Is this whole issue REALLY about protecting the rights of females? How can it be, when half of the children who are aborted are females?"

It is about protecting the right of an adult woman to decide what happens with her own body. The sex of the fetus is irrelevant to that consideration.

If pro abortion advocates were REALLy pro "choice" they would be concerned about a number of aspects of the Abortion Bill.

Even Pro "Choice" Ethcist Daniel CAllahan admits that many women are coerced into abortion by men. Even the research arm of Planned Parenthood has some statistic that 30% of women are coerced into abortion. Now pro lifers would claim thst figure is higher, but if we accept the pro choice figure AT LEAST 1/3 women are coerced into abortion.

one would think pro "choice" advocates would support ammendments to protect women from coercion. However, pro choice advocates do not want any anti coercion measures in the Abortion Bill. It seems to me the pro choice movement should really call itself pro abortion as it supports only one choice and that is to abort the baby, even if you want it and are being coerced by your husband, boyfriend,parents!

The pro abortionists are also opposed to mandatory counselling which informs women of alternatives to abortion, the psychological risks(depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse)etc. Pro "choice" psychologist Professor Fergusson who describes himself as an atheist and rationalist found that abortion increases young womens risk of depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol abuse. See the Journal of Child Pychiatry and Psychology 2006.I admire this pro choice researcher for being willing to admit research findings against his own position. Shouldnt women making a decision to abort be aware of any risks to their mental health? Post abortive women are more likely to commit suicide than those who carry their pregnancies to term- shouldnt women be informed of this? Abortion is in a woman's best interests? I don't think so!

Well said Caddie.

I think every woman who chooses to abort should be made aware of the consequences- it is not the easy option out as a lot of people think.Planned Parenthood lists the prevalence of moderate-severe depression at 10-50% for one year after the procedure- if you or anyone you know has ever been through anything like that, you know how terrible it is.There is then another 3 pages worth of increased risks due to abortion, including infertility.

In line with this doctors, should take the time to talk to the woman about what her other options are- keeping the child, giving the child out for closed, open or partially open adoption, etc., and the different strengths and weaknesses of each plan.

The point about coercion is very valid too.I have a friend who was forced to have 2 abortions by her grandmother (legal guardian) even though she didn't want to.I also know a woman who was told "You're pregnant.This child will ruin your life" by a doctor, who then preceded to pick up the phone to call an abortion clinic, without giving her any time to think about it (she basically told him to get stuffed and took some time out to think about it herself- she ended up keeping the baby and while the child lives, that doctor is long dead). I also imagine employers would be less likely to accept a woman's pregnancy if she's the one "choosing" to get pregnant by not having an abortion.

I also think it is important women know the full facts surrounding the abortive procedure. IMO this should include viewing the ultrasound (partly to make the woman understand what she's doing, and partly to prevent her seeing a similar image years later and suddenly realising how developed the foetus was that she considered simply a mass of tissue to be aborted and having delayed PTSD). I can think of almost no other medical procedure in which a patient would not legally be required to have full informed consent. Why is abortion, an elective procedure with significant health risks, any different?