A couple of comments about last night's Compass program on the changes to Victorian law.
No longer will medical practitioners be left swinging in the breeze for following their best policy.
The administrator at Royal Womens Hospital was damaged
The medical team that performed the procedure had their careers damaged
Senator Julian McGauran acted inappropriately

Only when Senator McGauran gets married or gets a woman pregnant is he justified in commenting on what to do with the foetus he fathered. I guess we will wait a long time for that to happen.

At the moment women in country Victoria notably Bendigo and Ballarat are unable to access terminations unless they travel to Melbourne. What right have doctors to sit in judgement on a woman's fertility. I assume that the state government is happy to see doctors being forced to refer women on because when there are less unwanted babies there are less delinquent children and less children in state care which is a huge saving on the public purse.

Religionists, doctors and interfering do-gooders have been “forcing compliance” to their no-abortion rules, now Victorian law is telling them that they will no longer have the ‘power’ to dictate to individuals what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

This should happen throughout Australia, and be extended to euthanasia.

Medical practitioners’ consciences should not be forced on anyone, and doctors merely have to refer clients to another doctor who will perform abortions. Anybody objecting to that has to be seen as blindingly arrogant in their belief that they have some right to control other people. People like that should lose their jobs if they fail to comply.

Calling this law “draconian” is laughable. There is nothing more draconian than society dictating what individuals may or may not do with their bodies.

And, bringing “human rights” into the discussion is really hyporitical. A living human being has more rights than a foetus, unborn child, or whatever these control freaks are now calling it to make the ‘crime’ of abortion sound as bad as they can.

This character can’t even see the incongruity of calling another group “…self-appointed guardian of civil liberties…” when he and his cronies have obviously appointed themselves to block the right of abortion. The author even has the gall to call the pro-choice believers “rigid”, “profoundly undemocratic”, with “totalitarian ideology”.

Hypocrisy, arrogance and mania at its worse.

It is interesting to note that Doctors might conscientiously object but nurses may have to comply if their "boss" requires it. (If I undertsand the article correctly).

No matter our own personal beliefs, it should be recognised and accepted there may be medical personnel who conscientiously object to performing operations on moral grounds whether it be circumcision or abortion. This should be respected in a democratic society (and should include nurses).

As long as these services are distributed as best they can between regional and urban areas it should not pose a real problem. As for emergency abortions where there is a risk of death to the mother, I would hope that most doctors would take a different view and join in efforts to save the life of the mother.

But it is a complicated world. Doctors should not be "forced" to comply - and it may mean that conscientious objectors might miss out on some roles if the quota of willing surgeons was under-staffed say in some rurual areas where choice is limited - something to think about for sure.

It is a tad worrying when suddenly the Right to Life crowd start coming across as the moderates. Nothing more to be said really.

For once I'm in complete agreement with Mr Right. I think Michael Cook is at best being precious - and at worst being disingenuous or downright dishonest - when he claims that anti-abortion medical practitioners will be forced "to participate in abortions against their conscience" by being required to refer patients seeking an abortion to a doctor who is willing to perform one.

The act of referring a patient to another doctor could only be construed as "participating" in an abortion by someone who is so obdurately opposed to abortion that they are incapable of objective, rational thought. Who'd want to be treated by a doctor like that anyway?

As for nurses who are opposed to abortion, I imagine that they could seek employment in hospitals and medical practices where such procedures are not performed.

Michael Cook's article is simply a rather hysterically overstated case of sour grapes.

The new law also gives doctors who don't agree with abortion the opportunity to talk to the pregnant woman and talk her out of proceeding with the abortion, while advising her of what the alternatives are. Surely, if you're a person opposed to abortion, this has to be seen as a unintended but positive consequence arising from the legislation.

pro_abortion activists often express a view that a father has no rights to feelings for his unborn child. Also often expressed is view that a mother to be should only consider her unborn child to be a potential human being, rather than a real life unborn child, a boy or a girl. Otherwise she might inspire guilt in those who consider that abortion is merely a 'termination'.
My beliefs are not based on religion. The question of God is irrelevant.

Michael sums up the ideals of the Secularist. He writes
'There is only one bright side to this shameful law: it has exposed "pro-choice" to the world as a rigid, profoundly undemocratic, totalitarian ideology'

I am surprised that it has taken you so long to see that social engineering from this God and man hating lobby have never believed in democracy.

Runner: How is a public vote by our elected representatives not democratic?
Do you believe you would get a different result if the general public voted on this, all evidence says otherwise. Then again reality never stopped you from making stuff up.
To the Author, get of it you lost we won. So what if Vic is the first, I hope that many more states and countries for that matter follow Vics example.

It's a lot better than the situation when the God-botherers had police arrest and charge doctors who carried out terminations, and forced the whole thing underground. This was much to the detriment of wiomen who were then forced into unsafe "backyard" operations by unqualified people.

Kenny

I take it you thought it perfectly okay for our Government to send our troops to Iraq? I take it you were repulsed by the violent protesters who took their anger on the streets opposing democracy in action. This of course was in contrast to the peaceful protests against legislating the murder of the unborn. So by your logic Mr Howard's policies on immigration is perfectly okay!

wadaye - nobody is 'pro-abortion'. But most of us are pro-freedom and pro-happiness and most of us have the common sense to recognise the enormous difference between the happiness and health of a real live human being and the continued survival of a small cluster of cells.

Why is the Catholic church and its supporters so reluctant to specify exactly when -- according to God -- a single cell becomes a 'human being'? Let's have it out in the open so we can debate it seriously. Or could it be that they know that when they state their case clearly the absurdity of it will also become clear?

Wait wait wait...

'There is only one bright side to this shameful law: it has exposed "pro-choice" to the world as a rigid, profoundly undemocratic, totalitarian ideology'

If your not laughing yet, read it again.

Jon J. I do not believe in God, in the sense of any organised religion. I do not think that the Catholic Church's pro life stance makes it a legitimate organisation. However, even if I was Catholic, either by birth or by choice, I would still appreciate the opportunity to voice my views.

What you class as a cluster of cells, is not what is normally the subject of an abortion. An abortion, the law tells us, is the "termination", i.e. killing, of an unborn foetus. That is, any time up till the baby is completely born. Your position that any abortion is merely the termination of a cluster of cells, is an extreme position, not actually reflecting the true nature of abortions actually performed at abortion clinics.

Finally, what sex is the cluster of cells? If you do not admit that it is human, you must admit that it has a sex. Either the foetus, or zygot even, is male, or it is female. You may think what relevance is this? Well it so happens that gender determination is used to abort, that is kill, female fetuses - yes, girls - and no doubt a lesser number of male ones - yes, boys.
Wadaye

Consider this scenario. A woman who is 6 weeks pregnant has an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. If left untreated it will rupture and cause internal bleeding. The woman's life is at serious risk unless the tube is removed and the pregnancy terminated.

If a doctor is legally allowed to be a "consciencious objector", they could either refuse life saving surgery or could delay her receiving treatment in a timely manner. No doctor shold refuse treatment or referral in situations like these. If they did they should be de-registered.

I can't think of any medical practitioners who would refuse emergency abortions or hysterectomies because they were consciencious objectors, but i guess it is theoretically possible. But they would suffer professional and probably legal ramifications for their inaction. To me the issue is where the moral boundaries of legislation exist and what the unintended ramifications of shifting them may be. For right or wrong that boundary just moved,and there will be pressure to move it again, and again because there will always be someone for whom the current legislation fails.

I do wonder where application of this principle of 'personal choice'> all other considerations will end. Suicide by choice? how many teens will survive to adulthood with suicide booths as featured in the opening scenes of futurama! Certainly totalitarianism isn't an answer, but absolute freedom also has it's ridiculous extremes.

does anyone else think that a society that spends hundreds of millions maintaining neonatal ICU's for 26wk+ babies (whether planned or unplanned)but will abort them as just a bundle of cells 2 weeks earlier lacks a coherent idea of what a foetus is?.

CJ is being way too nice. Cook is either a liar or an idiot.

"...Only the pro-life side was prepared to be rational and accommodating..."

Hehe, that would be a change from their usual lies, misinformation, and downright dishonesty. Oh, weren't they busy terrorising the MP's they feared would vote for the bill - they received hysterical threats by email and phone from the organised anti-abortion crusade accusing them of murder and dire retribution to follow!

The anti-abortion doctors and nurses should be serving the needs of the general public, they are not being asked to perform the operation themselves, they should for the sake of the patient be prepared to refer - if they won't, they should resign. The personal, religious views of medical staff are not more important than the life of the mother. If they had their way, two people would die just because a doctor or nurse thought their personal views were more important than the mother and foetus in question.

Practitioners who wish to enforce such rigid, profoundly undemocratic, totalitarian ideologies upon a patient undergoing a medical emergency, should go to jail and should lose their job.

Well said, Human Interest.

No-one's personal/religious beliefs have sovereignty over the health and well being of another person. It is that simple.

The new Victorian law has finally acknowledged that women can and do make responsible with regard to their fertility and health and have every right to do so.

Many years ago I had to seek an abortion due to both a medical treatment I was receiving, which could be detrimental to the embryo, and also I was in no way fit or ready for motherhood. I didn't realise that my regular GP was anti-abortion under any circumstances. However, to his credit he did refer me to someone who could help me. However, I had to endure his anger - he claimed that the medical treatment would not harm the embryo (in contradiction to everything I had been advised, I had been warned not to get pregnant during treatment for that very reason). I was already very upset and the doctor's attitude added significantly to my distress. I didn't even bother with his referral and found another who understood and would help me. Fortunately I lived in a big city, but I have to wonder at the pain, suffering and trauma experienced by women in rural areas who cannot access suitable care in situations as fraught as an unplanned pregnancy.

Never thought I'd say this but, Thank you Brumby Government.

Seems I do have something further to say on this after all. Firstly, about the Brumby Government. In today's paper I see that they have attempted to bring in new legislation that could limit the participation and free speech of people in councils for previous activist roles. Then I also see today that they now want women accessing fertility treatments to undergo police checks. I think this is a fascinating development myself and look forward (not) to the day they announce that all pregnant women should also have to undergo these checks. I think the Brumby Government is overdoing the red cordial and firing off legislation left right and centre.

The bringing in of the clause that coerces objecting doctors to refer was I think more than half baked in the research department. Then I've yet to see a estimate of how many people it will effect - do we have 'four' objectors or 'thousands' who are really clogging up the works and are a problem?

Then is it going to work? Probably not, the objectors will still refuse to comply and the Government can pretend they are doing something to access women's access to reproductive services, while not spending a penny. This will not help women access reproductive services in country areas at all.

Then is there actually a need for this clause? 20,000 abortions happened in Victoria last year so it seems the objectors are not standing in the way of abortions happening.

To be continued.

I’m going to ignore the nonsense Cook utters (e.g. the 20.000 ‘children’ who die every year) but I think it’s worth to look at the real: whether or not doctors, who have a conscientious objection to abortion, should have the right to refuse performing one.

While I strongly support the pro-choice stance on abortion, I also like the thought that people should have as much freedom as possible.
McFly already talks about absolute freedom and extremes, which is a tempting topic, but I prefer to stay on the topic of abortion and whether medical staff should have a choice.

I feel that Medical staff should have the freedom to conscientiously object to perform an abortion, but at the same time no woman should be deprived of her freedom of choice and denied access to safe abortion.

I'm not sure how to juggle this.
Perhaps doctors, who do not wish to perform abortions, simply have to make sure that they seek employment in an area where there is another doctor who has no such conscientious objection and that they refer the woman to this doctor. This should come as a condition and responsibility with their right to refuse to perform abortion.

It’s nonsense to object to referring a woman to an abortion doctor.
It’s like refusing to give directions to people to the nearest furniture store because the store sells leather sofas and you happen to be a vegan.

Women's choice should have priority over a doctor's choice if there is no doctor in the area who is willing to perform abortions.
The consequences for a woman who has been denied abortion are far more serious than the consequences for an anti-abortion doctor who is required to perform an abortion.

Billie says that only when Julian McGauran gets married etc can he comment. That's not a very smart comment, Billie.

That's like saying that you can't comment on whether slavery is right or wrong unless you have a sugar cane plantation or are in some other way directly involved. That's nonsense.

No one has more right than another to declare on the issue of whether it is right or wrong to abuse or kill other human beings; we all have a moral duty, if we see that there is slavery or killing of innocent human beings, to be part of the solution.

On the surface, with reference to his address, marital status, details of his life in the public domain, Julian McGauran's life style choices don't show empathy for women or understanding of the strains of family life. Thus I think he absolutely should not try to control women's fertility.

i have experienced abortion from both sides of the fence .

My mother was having twins, one was aborted, i was recalcitrant, and the surgeon refused to complete the job a few weeks later. (too late, said he).

I knew of this through my aunts, cousins, - and my father (who had never talked to me directly but whom i had overheard talking to my successive step-mothers) confirmed it to me on our last meeting (1993) : "your mother did not want any children, then she was having twins, she did something about it.. we never knew if the one who died was a boy or a girl, but you still came along, and you were a girl ! I so much wanted a son, but you were a girl..." the resentment was thick in his voice..

My mother was a very devout catholic, but had never connected religion with gynocology... to her, a foetus received a "soul" only at the time of birth... then (1931) this question was debated, from the pulpit, mortal sin, murder, etc... my mother became ridden with guilt. I was a very troublesome child, mumps, hooppingcough. My parents' small business was very demanding ("corner shop" + cafe + meals + a boarder - in the days when the grocer did all the weighing and packing, etc) It was during the "great depression", customers were begging for credit, suppliers wanted cash. Guilty and over-tired, my mother fell into despair, attempted to rid both of us of this hard life, she was taken to hospital, the day she was discharged she jumped out of a second floor window and died from peritonitis. My father was left with no help-mate, no business (could not sell as in a small town a suicide was a bad omen - but still owed money to the bank) no job, no roof (accommodation went with the business) and, as he often mentionned over the years, lumbered with a 4 year old, and, to cap it all, a girl !! yes, yes, RU486 would have been preferable ... see you later !

Newhouse I am not saying that Julian McGauran should get married before he comments on women's fertility.

Just because I don't practice sodomy, if I campaign to deny same sex couples access to the same superannuation benefits available to defacto couples I'm just being controlling and mean spirited even if I dress it up in morals.

i also heard my father recounting that orphanages were overcrowded and accepted exclusively children who had lost both parents and had no relatives...

1950.. i, a complete misfit, guilty to have been born, married a misfit who had been abused, "that equalled thing out" in my mind... we would help each other overcome our beginnings.. little did i know... we made life extremely difficult for each other... i produced 4 children in 5 years, (a dutiful wife gave her husband his rights) and he became panicky at the prospect of an unlimited number of dependants and his inability to provide.. he was "before the times" in his opinions and tried very hard to coerce and compel me to have abortions.. and this is the other side of the coin... i loved and wanted to protect my "baby" as soon as i knew it existed..

In campaigns for the "rights" of a woman to not bring a child into this world, what happens to the rights of a woman to refuse her husband's orders that she should abort ?
I was so thankful to be able to tell him : Abortion is a crime, YOU would go to jail if i die and you are found out... and, yes, my health was ruined by the time i was 25 and four "repair" surgery attempts later i'm still in discomfort (t'was not only constant pregnancy and feeding, t'was the hard physical work as well). Which leads me to beg you : More education, more access to birth control as PREVENTION.

It still seems to me that abortion violates a woman's inner feelings. "mentally" i had two; "effectively", the doctor assured me that i was so demolished that i would not have carried to term, even if i had not taken the mysterious tablets..

Of course when you consider that governments forbid abortion and 20odd years later send these "saved" foetuses to war, the argument is meaningless anyway...

"...what happens to the rights of a woman to refuse her husband's orders that she should abort?..."

Why must women fight for the right to choose their own fertility and pregnancy?

Husbands orders? The women have equal rights don't they? Why women bother with religions that demand subservience to men is beyond me.

Stand up for yourselves or walk - leave the man who orders a woman to undergo an abortion against her will, there can't be any loving care and concern for the woman in that relationship.

Finally the rest of the post!

Continued... Then have community asked for this referral clause? Not as far as I know. Despite some fairly strong views being expressed here, we live in a society where overall we are taught to be tolerant of others beliefs, and generally that some people's objection to abortion is known and tolerated, while acknowledging that a woman's right to have one is also respected. Respecting each other’s views does not cancel out either group’s rights. One of the worst arguments I have seen for this clause, is that pro-abortion doctors were bullied by the State, so now it’s the other doctor’s turn. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Then is it fair? The clause was brought in on people who had no hint of this when they trained. Some would have trained in the days when they would have been prosecuted for assisting in an abortion. Now out of the blue, they can be penalised.

Also as said by another, rogue doctors would already face consequences for not assisting in an emergency, and hopefully police charges as well. If this is not so, the emergency clause would be necessary, but otherwise it's just duplicating current law. Civil Libertarians generally hate duplication of law. Furthermore it is standard procedure in emergencies for a mother's life to come first even if that results in the death of the foetus, so a rogue would be a rare creature and not tolerated already. The doctor and the hospital may get sued.

I think Civil Libertarians and the general populace should be getting twitchy, if not alert and alarmed about the Brumby Government direction in selecting out special groups, these medical staff and like women seeking IVF for 'special' legislation. Who's going to be next? A unwelcome precedent has been now been made. The decriminalising of abortion was a great step, sticking the extras on, not so great. It just took the attention off the government not to provide better women's health services and refocussed the attention on a minority of medical staff for absolutely no point.

Henriette

Your story is tragic but at least RU486 did not terminate you and prevent you to have your say. I am very grateful that my mother who spent the ages of 3-11 in an orphanage had the opportunity to turn out fine sons and daughters (hold your breath guys). Your emotions seem to have prevented you from thinking your arguement through clearly. Many fine citizens have come from tragic home lives.

What a winge!
The religious folks *really* don't like being told to pull their bloody heads in and let the rest of us live free. Even professional courtesy is *such* an obligation.
Of course abortion is bad...but prohibition is far worse.
Religious folk never did get "cost-benefit analysis": very dangerous for a Goddist to start thinking! (sorry to the nice ones who only believe to belong)
Doesn't take long for the little Hitler in all of us to come out...especially when in "think of the children!" mode.
Reminds me of the quote: "I like kids" means "I like humans...until they grow up".
By claiming mainstream status (despite what the evidence says) the extremists are trying to made a balanced decision seem to be marginal. I think the masses are waking up to this ploy now.
We seriously need a secular leader to undo the damage Jonny Howward did. The Goddhists are just a bit too cocky these days!

I'm pro-choice, and I strongly support the availability of RU486 into Australia.

But can we do away with the hackneyed phrases 'just a bundle of cells' and 'potential human being' please? I used these phrases myself many years ago, as an overconfident pro-choice 14-year-old, and now I just cringe.

I have just had a 12 week ultrasound scan for my third child. This is not a bundle of cells. At 11.5 weeks - previously around the cut-off for most legal abortions - this 'foetus' is a recognisable child with perfect fingers, 6.5mm feet and nasal bones in the recognisable skull! Also, there seems to be a degree of independent movement, as the ultrasound really seems to get those babies going!

At three weeks post-conception, yes, undoubtedly the baby is a bundle of cells. At twelve weeks, there is a tiny body already there.

I do not agree that referring a patient on to an abortion doctor is necessarily unethical - after all, the patient has come to the doctor for advice, and it would be unethical for the doctor to pass on what s/he knows as far as availability of legal medical services.

Surely, the current ethics of doctors would have any doctor work to preserve the mother's life, even if at the risk of her child/ren, in the event of an 'emergency' abortion (whatever that is).
Currently, women are provided with the option to abort foetuses that are identified as compromised through disability, such as Downs Syndrome. These procedures take place shortly after the three month conception mark.

However, the new laws provide for any lay person to demand the abortion of their unborn child to the point where so-called 'foetuses' can be viable premature babies.

That fact, in itself, tells me that the new legislation is compromised, and needs to be looked at again.

Sorry, typo. I wished to say that:
I do not agree that referring a patient on to an abortion doctor is necessarily unethical - after all, the patient has come to the doctor for advice, and it would be unethical for the doctor NOT to pass on what s/he knows as far as availability of legal medical services.

Dear Human Interest, that was in the fifties.. (we have evolved since) No women's refuges, then..
In the good old days (?) women could be "persuaded" to go for a ride on the back of the motorbike on rough pot-holy country roads.. or to jump from the top of the stairs.. then the hospital would complete the job. Don't go back to that.
EDUCATION, PREVENTION, and if "it" has to be, don't make it illegal, you would go back to the knitting needle.

Being aborted is better for the baby than being a resented burden.

Dear Human Interest

Women do sometimes have to fight off their husbands who are demanding an abortion, if they have the strength that is. This is simply a fact. It's not a question of "Stand up for yourselves or walk -". This is simply a fact of life, women often are compelled by their husband to have an abortion.

Daniel

Henriette,

I was prevented from posting again due to the two post/24 hr rule.

I meant to add - the pregnancy should be planned by the partners firstly and wondered if the scenario offered meant that the woman had accidentally got pregnant, or had she refused to take any preventative methods and got pregnant against her husband's wishes?

She doesn't need to live in a refuge - why can't she live solo and support herself? If she is having an unwanted pregnancy within a marriage, I would think that there is something drastically wrong with the marriage.

If she deliberately got pregnant against the husband's wishes it is pretty dishonest of her, she should either abort or leave because she doesn't respect her partner's wishes anyway. Why should he have a baby forced upon him when he clearly did not want one? He has a right to feel aggrieved. Women should not force babies upon men, within a marriage or not.

I don't wish anyone to go back to the dark ages and desperate attempts at abortion. Of course education and prevention is the answer. I never said anything about making it illegal, I am pro-choice. The word 'forced' was used in the offered scenario and I am wondering who is forcing who?

Daniel,

"Women do sometimes have to fight off their husbands who are demanding an abortion, if they have the strength that is. This is simply a fact. It's not a question of "Stand up for yourselves or walk. This is simply a fact of life, women often are compelled by their husband to have an abortion..."

Do you have any stats on that situation?

Are they compelled to stay with their husband? Why would they continue to live with such a man? They do have a choice about it - stay or leave. There is a lot of help and assistance out there, but of course if they don't exercise their will to do so.

Dear Human Interest,
Yes, you are right, "There is a lot of help and assistance out there", australian society has evolved, i was retro-thinking to the time when there was no help, women HAD to give their husband their "marital rights", and it was up to the women to not "FALL pregnant", which, with a "spontaneous" husband was not easy.

Perhaps more pre-marital counselling would help to prevent the "necessity" for abortions. Perhaps, being made aware of the responsibilities of husband-hood (?) some would choose celibacy ..

Don't make it "illegal", but don't casualise it to the point where it would replace prevention just for the man's better pleasure.

Well... the topic is not about whether abortion is right or wrong, ethical or unethical.
The question is whether medical staff should be forced to (help) perform abortions or not when abortion is legal.

I'm really interested in finding out other's opinions about that.

Dear Celivia, Having seen documentaries of surgical abortions, no, i don't think that anyone should be compelled to watch or take part in vivisection. Are there not specialised clinics where the staff know, before they apply for employment, what the work will entail ?

Dear Human Interest : "she deliberately got pregnant against the husband's wishes it is pretty dishonest of her, she should either abort or leave because she doesn't respect her partner's wishes anyway. Why should he have a baby forced upon him when he clearly did not want one? He has a right to feel aggrieved. Women should not force babies upon men, within a marriage or not."
Do you mean that wives rape husbands ? "baby forced upon him" ?

Hi Henriette,
You said:
"Are there not specialised clinics where the staff know, before they apply for employment, what the work will entail?"
In cities and towns, yes. There should be little problem finding access to safe abortion there.

But what about the women who live in small country towns or remote areas with no access to such clinics in their area? That's a bit of a conundrum.

These towns can have difficulty attracting and retaining doctors, these areas can't afford to be picky.
Doctors who are obliged to refer a woman may not have anywhere to refer her to in that area.

Do we force these women to travel to distant clinics/hospitals or do we force doctors to perform abortions?
And if we do expect women to travel, do we compensate them or do we expect poor women to somehow come up with this money?
And will women, who cannot afford to travel, resort to illegal, unsafe abortions, risking their lives?

Also, at least for some women, it might be hard to get away from home- some women will need to keep their abortion a secret from others.

Henriette,

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty following you - are you retro-thinking or talking of today?

Anyway, life and marriage has progressed since the 50's and things are somewhat better now, although women are still fighting for the control over their own fertility and bodies.

"...Do you mean that wives rape husbands ? "baby forced upon him" ?..."

I was replying to an offered scenario of a woman being ordered to undergo an abortion and was wanting to clarify how she could have become pregnant when the father was so against it, was it accidental or deliberate?

You seem to imply that a woman has to be completely subservient to the husband's wishes by letting her husband have sex whenever he wants without question, and her taking no precautions whatsoever or saying no to him (I'm talking about today here, not the 50's).

If the husband says he does not want children, then either he or the woman should use preventative methods to avoid her getting pregnant. Surely it's not too difficult for them to communicate and come up with a decision? Same for vice versa, if the woman does not want children and he does. Unless they are both happy for a pregnancy to arise, it would be wrong for either of them in that relationship, to make no effort to avoid pregnancy.

If the husband takes no responsibilty for his own sexual actions, then it's up to the woman to refuse sex or use contraceptives if she does not wish to be confronted with an abortion request. It's not right or fair, but she is the only one who suffers the consequences.

Hi, Human Interest,

If avoiding pregnancy was so easy, why are there still unwanted, neglected, and even deliberately hurt children ? Sad.

Some of yesteryear problems still occur today. If a woman can't tolerate the pill, or if for "religious guilt" reasons the couple can exclusively use the rythm, "accidents" will happen.

which then leads to panic and abortion... to frigidity(hers) ... to sadism(his)... to broken marriages.. Not in the human interest, is it ?

Hi, Celivia,
Is it not still a question of "whether abortion is wrong or not" ? If it is NOT wrong, then doctors can be compelled to perform; if it IS wrong, they must not be forced to act against their conscience. ? ? ?

Henriette,
Much can be done to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies: comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception.
There's a recent discussion I contributed to and which covers this, but unfortunately there wasn't much interest in the topic.
The article is here if you're interested, but also look at the comments.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8086

"If it is NOT wrong, then doctors can be compelled to perform; if it IS wrong, they must not be forced to act against their conscience."
As I said, I'd have no problem with doctors being free to follow their conscience as long as abortion is still accessable for women who want it.
But whose morals would decide whether abortion is wrong or not?
There's also the question whether it's wrong to force a woman to give birth against her will.

If there's a clash between the conscience of a doctor and the need of a woman to have an abortion, then whose best interest would have to receive priority- the doctor's or the woman's?

If we look at the consequences for each scenario, I'm sure that the woman would more likely suffer serious consequences than the doctor would.