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!