The pair of young fools referred to in this article had ample opportunity to seek a legal termination and being in a large regional city, the resources were readily available. Instead they chose a 'backyard abortion' arranging the illegal importation of medication that was used without medical supervision. Then they failed to dispose of packaging and other 'evidence' several months down the track. STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE & LAZY too it seems.

I do agree with the Author however that prosecuting this pair is a waste of Public money. They have undoubtedly done the gene pool a favour as well as the social welfare system. Leave them alone I say - with a heap of info about contraception options and where to access them ....

Seriously, even though the concept of "Abortion on demand" is somewhat confronting to me, the last thing I would consider is dictating to any woman that she should bear a totally unwanted pregnancy. Reluctant mothers are hardly going to be good mothers and the 'social stigma' of adopting out an accidental baby is probably greater than that of being a solo mum - or at least that is the impression todays "Social Workers" give.

Yes - abortion should be decriminalised and laws pertaining be made Federal. This business about being legal here and illegal over there is patently stupid and undoubtedly costing all States to administer

It is interesting that Elizabeth Mathews appears to have no problems with the Queensland law that says that a person who is found guilty of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child can be penalised with life imprisonment. (s 313 (2) of the Qld Criminal Code)

In our present society it seems that many people have the view that if an unborn child is wanted, but killed against the mother’s wishes, then the child should be regarded as having the same value as born people. But if the unborn child is not wanted by the mother then the child can be treated as so much junk and can be killed and thrown away. This is the grossest of discriminations.

The value of any human life cannot depend on whether that person is merely wanted or not.

Mathews calls for the decriminalisation of abortion in Queensland – that would mean abortion being allowed up until birth for any reason.
No wonder the politicians don’t want to go down that path.

The fact is, no one need fear criminal charges for abortion if no one ends the life of unborn babies by abortion.

Elizabeth writes

'On the other hand, all that the criminalisation of abortion does is to force frightened women into dangerous situations, which could ruin their lives forever'

The same arguement could be used for the criminalisation of murder or rape. Abortion is the murder of a child like it or not. The problem is not with the law but with the acceptance of lies propagated by people whose consciences have been severely burnt.

Again never any thought for the child just the selfish woman.

The debate about the legalisation of abortion has never been about protecting women from "criminalisation". This article is about legalising baby killing in Qld. This is just another hoary old chestnut used by pro aborts as they have used similar hoary old chestnuts as strategy for legalising abortion in WA, Tas. and VIC. Anyone could write the protocol for their campaigns, so blatant have their tactics become. In ten years of nursing in a Womens Prison I did not encounter one woman there serving a sentence for seeking or having an abortion. There were women there serving sentences for killing their born children...after having a doctor kill their unborn children. The women "did the time" while the doctors no doubt used the proceeds to "sun themselves in the south of France"! Not that abortionists should have been in that prison. They would have corrupted the other prisoners. We should build special prisons for abortionists to prevent this happening.

Ms Matthews tries to get away with claiming laws against abortion
(why ever would a civilized society NOT have laws against baby killing?) don't decrease abortion rates. Try saying that in the UK!
In England and Wales 22,000 abortions were performed in 1968, the first year they were legal. In 2006, 193,700 abortions were performed.
And that paid maternity leave, better support for school age mums,eliminating the stigma of single motherhood, increased sex education and access to contraception would do more to reduce the abortion rate than prohibiting abortion. All of this HAS happened over the past 40 years... and the result has been the exact opposite! Never has an old adage like 'the law is a good teacher' been more relevant.

JP, emotional language is not going to do it for you. I see no
evidence that in this case, either a child or a baby were involved.

If chemical abortion was used, then it would have been relatively
early in the pregnancy, a fetus is a long way from being a baby
or a child.

The days of the holy zygote are well beyond us.

Yabby, As Dr Suess famously said: "A person's a person no matter how small"! Your contention "If chemical abortion was used, then it would have been relatively early in the pregnancy, a fetus is a long way from being a baby or a child.The days of the holy zygote are well beyond us" flies in the face of reason viz that if a chemical abortion had been used on you when you were a zygote, you simply would not be here now! Whoof! No little Yabby! Human life is a continuum...there's no turning back once it has been set in motion. Just be glad... with the rest of us...that your mother didn't allow RU486 to be used on you...and mourn with us the denial of life to so many of our fellow human beings. As John Donne equally famously said: "No man is an island to himself. Every man's death diminishes me. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee"!

*The days of the holy zygote are well beyond us" flies in the face of reason*

Nonsense. An acorn is not an oak tree, an egg is not a chicken,
a sheet of steel is not a motor vehicle. A person has a human brain,
if that stops, its a corpse.

*if a chemical abortion had been used on you when you were a zygote, you simply would not be here now! Whoof! No little Yabby!*

Denny, if my mom had had a headache, or if my mom delayed sex for a
minute by stopping for a cup of coffee or whatever, more then likely
a different little one of a billion sperms would have won the race
and I would not be here either. Fact is I would never have known
about it, so it frankly would not matter. In nature there is hardly
a limit as to the amount of potential offspring that can be created.
Reality prevails, we flush trillions of sperms and eggs down our toilets daily and don't give it another thought.

That is the reality of nature, I am not so foolhardly as to ignore
it.

You might well wear your heart on your sleeve, but a little bit more
reason would not be such a bad thing.

Exactly what is an ‘unborn child’? It seems a contradiction in terms to me. Either you are a child or you are not a child so why the distinction? What is wrong with the perfectly good word foetus? Why can’t you believe that life begins at conception and still call it a foetus? Or is it that ‘unborn child’ is more emotionally manipulative? If you need to resort to emotional manipulation is it because you do not have a reasonable argument?

If it is so obviously killing then why is there not obvious proof that the foetus is a human being? It can’t be that hard for those who are absolutely certain that abortion is murder to provide us with an absolutely certain definition of human being since murder is the killing of a human being. Why don’t they help the rest of us out with an exact definition? It would help solve lots of other problems as well.

A recent letter in the SMH said that decriminalising abortion would simply mean that it would be regulated as a medical procedure instead of as a crime.

I am not sure how that would work, because what sanctions are available if a medical procedure is improperly used?

I don't like abortion, particularly late term abortion where the fetus is nearing or even at a point of viability. So how do you regulate a medical procedure where a doctor aborts a fetus that is capable of breathing on its own? The story of the Northern Territory breathing fetus that was left to basically 'die' (what is the term for life becoming extinct when something is not considered to be alive?),whilst lying in a surgical tray, from exposure and dehydration comes to mind. (What was the difference between that fetus and the 7 year old left to starve to death by her parents in NSW recently?)

So I am serious with this question, when does regulation of a medical procedure transform into a criminal act? Some might say never, but others would point to serious cases of medical abuse carried out in the name of being a medical procedure.

When we have medical technology, and the willingness to use it, to try to save the life of a severely premature baby in one room of a hospital, whilst in a clinic in the same hospital medical technology is being used to 'terminate' a fetus that may be more advanced than a premature baby I really have to ask what has happened to our society.

And I recognise that trying to enforce the law won't work either.

Is there any way we can 'pregnancy proof' women so that they only get pregnant by choice? I guess not, because even then they can change their minds.

There's another aspect of this case about these unfortunate young people from Cairns that hasn't received much attention, but which I think is quite critical to the wider debate. Apparently the cops discovered the packaging etc of the abortifacient drug while they were searching the couple's premises looking for other drugs - which weren't found, so some eager beaver cop has decided to go after this young woman because they at least had something with which to charge her, as police do.

This seems to me to encapsulate the entire stupidity of the law as it currently stand with respect to medical and indeed surgical abortions in Queensland. While abortion remains technically illegal, women and medical professionals who terminate pregnancies, and anybody who assists such procedures, are potentially subject to opportunistic persecution by the State - as in the case of this unfortunate couple.

The law needs to be changed such that any ambiguities that may be exploited by those agencies, organisations and individuals who are inimical to a woman's right to choose to have a medical or surgical abortion if she needs one, are removed.

Until that happens, those who wish to control women's choices will continue to victimise those women who decide they need to terminate foetuses that they don't want in their bodies.

Phanto – surely it is not that hard to grasp: an unborn child is a child that has not yet been born, i.e. the child is still in the womb. Where is the contradiction in terms there?

Using the term “unborn child” is not to try and be emotionally manipulative – that is the term, along with just “child” (used in relation to an unborn child) that is used in the Qld Criminal Code, such as here:
S 313 Killing an unborn child
(2) Any person who unlawfully assaults a female pregnant with a child and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to, or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth, commits a crime.

Moreover “foetus” is just Latin for a young human being before birth, after the organs have started to develop – why is that a better word to use than “unborn chid”?

Quote:
Until that happens, those who wish to control women's choices will continue to victimise those women who decide they need to terminate foetuses that they don't want in their bodies.
Unquote

That sort of argument makes my skin crawl, as, except for cases of aggravated sexual assault or other illegal acts, women have the choice as to whether they wish to take part in the activity that leads to the "foetuses that they don't want in their bodies" without using contraception, even if they have to use more than one method.

If they don't want to have foetuses "that they don't want in their bodies", then use contraception. And before you jump down my broadband cable, reach thru my screen and strangle me, I am simply restating exactly the same argument used by those who argue that men should be responsible for paying child support for the children that they sire: The old 'if they didn't want to pay child support then they should have kept it in their pants' cannard.

Of course men should be responsible for paying child support, or they should have 'kept it in their pants', so why let women off the hook? If they didn't want unwanted foetuses then they should have not had sex without contraception. What is good for one must be good for the other?

Or do you want to give women a 'get out of motherhood card' that you don't want to give to men regarding fatherhood?

So, Doug - you'd be one of those men who wish to control women's ohoices?

I note you absolve men of any responsibility for contraception.

Women who become pregnant have the choice of continuing with the pregnancy - and all that motherhood entails - or not. Men who don't wish to be fathers - and all that fatherhood entails - have the choice of using contraception or not.

Quite simple, really. I like choices.

I agree CJ Morgan, it should be about choices for pregnant women.
It is no one else's business, especially unrelated males.

The young couple in question were to be punished for illegally buying a drug without a script and then giving it to the pregnant woman without medical supervision. She could well have died an agonising death from haemorrhage. They should be punished for doing this foolish act. Abortion under medical supervision is not illegal, quite rightly so.

The author of this article was not advocating abortion as such, but rather saying that criminalisation of any couple seeking abortion does not help to prevent abortions in the wider community.

She stated that when they decriminalised abortion in Spain (a very Christain minded country) there were not more abortions than before the law was dropped.

So why continue this law?
What purpose would it serve other than make the militant right-to-lifers feel more superior?

Elizabeth Matthews < "Even simply working towards improving sexual education in our society and increasing women’s access to contraception would make an important difference without any need for criminal convictions."

Very wise words indeed. Why not do this rather than punish couples after they procure an abortion.
Why not help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

Great article Elizabeth Matthews.

It would seem logical and rational that prevention would be a better focus than criminalization of abortion.

Sad to think that such a conservative and catholic country as Spain can decrimininalize abortion unlike a supposedly secular state as Queensland. Could it be that the Spanish have a higher regard of women than do Queenslanders and are less ready to see women as being inherently evil?

"It is no one else's business, especially unrelated males."

Except under Medicare those who object to abortion on demand still pay for it. So it is the financial business of 'unrelated males'. Perhaps if the cost of abortion was only paid for by those wishing to avoid birth?

I also note the following: "Women who become pregnant have the choice of continuing with the pregnancy - and all that motherhood entails - or not."

When should a woman's right to absolve herself of 'all that motherhood entails' end? At the point of viability? Birth? Perhaps at age three months, giving the woman a chance to 'try before you buy'? Perhaps we should permit maternal infanticide until, say, 13 weeks. After all, what is the real difference between a viable foetus at, say 32 weeks gestation, or later? Surely a woman should have decided before the point of viability if she wants to continue with the pregnancy. (Excepting the case of severe foetal abnormality)

I don't absolve men from the need to use contraception. Only an idiot would not use contraception when having sex unless he actually wants to have a child. I would go further and say that any male who actually wants to have children in this society is a fool. With the rate of divorce and alienation of fathers from children, and the possibility that the children are not even his (probably about 5% but some estimate up to 10%) it is probably better for males if even more foetuses were aborted.

Actually, those who are in favour of free-for-all abortion are probably 100% correct, It is probably better that many foetuses never breathe, or are allowed to expire after birth, than they be born to women who are so careless, or hateful. The recent ‘wrongful birth' law cases come to mind - how would the child feel in those instances?

Any unwanted or undesired potential children are better off dead than forced upon unwilling women.

Yes, better off aborted than being born.

Dougthebear < "It is probably better that many foetuses never breathe, or are allowed to expire after birth, than they be born to women who are so careless, or hateful. The recent ‘wrongful birth' law cases come to mind - how would the child feel in those instances?"

Still spewing forth hateful antiwomen sentiments no matter what the subject aye Doug?

The last time I heard, it takes two to make a baby, and often it is both parents who choose to abort the baby. But you seem to conveniently forget these men.

Many times it is the pregnant woman who is deserted when the father finds out about the pregnancy, and feels she has no choice other than abortion. If these men took responsibility for their actions, maybe there would be less need for abortions?

Yes, there are also women who use abortion as their method of contraception, but they are fewer than men like you think.
I agree, if men don't want unplanned pregnancies and the resulting abortions, then keep it in the pants.

Yes medicare pays for some public patient abortions on demand, but so does it provide benefits for other services that not everyone agrees with or need. Yet we all have to contribute to medicare.

You are being a bit dramatic talking about late-term abortions as if they are common place Doug. As a midwife and gynecology nurse of many years, the only times I have seen abortions after 12 weeks gestation have been for mother's health or for very disabled, unviable babies.

There are sound reasons why women in our society are legally not forced to carry on an unwanted pregnancy. The predominantly male politicians agreed on the laws years ago.

There is nothing that religious objectors or women-haters can do to change those rights.

I have been convinced.

Abortion should be available at any time during a pregnacy, at no cost to the client of the health system, without question.

Apart of the decriminalisation of abortion there will have to be the repeal of all laws against 'child destruction', which will also have the consequence of decriminalising any action which results in the death of a foetus (ie, in a car accident or other assault), and only a charge of assault or aggravated assault against the person gestating the foetus (is the word 'mother' applicable before birth?) could be brought.

Even any medical regulation involving termination may have to be dropped, or at least changed considerably, as there will be no way to enforce any regulation, as no sanction should be brought against any medical practitioner who carries out a termination contrary to amy regulation by medical authorities, as this would only be able to be enforced ultimately by a sanction under criminal law.

Which leaves only those who, misguidedly if terminations are available freely and at any time, chose the do-it-yourself course of action, or who have someone not medically qualified perform a termination. Perhaps in these instances there should be no law at all against the do-it-yourselfers, but that any third party should receive a punishment akin to a traffic fine and told not to do it again?

Keep building that straw man, Doug.

"Apart of the decriminalisation of abortion there will have to be the repeal of all laws against 'child destruction', which will also have the consequence of decriminalising any action which results in the death of a foetus (ie, in a car accident or other assault), and only a charge of assault or aggravated assault against the person gestating the foetus (is the word 'mother' applicable before birth?) could be brought."

Why not add that legalising sodomy will lead to people marrying animals: another popular, hysterical Christian prediction that hasn't come to pass?

Australians tend to lean toward a moral balance. Despite the religious outrage, most us of us, quite reasonably, don't consider a clump of undifferentiated cells to be a human being. Screaming in our faces that this means we're okay with the murder of actual children just makes you look like an extremist - and an uninformed one, at that.

For the record, Doug, do you know what proportion of conceptions miscarry or spontaneously abort? I think you might want to have a word with sky-daddy about His massacre of the unborn before you try it on us.

Many anti-abortionists do not really have a problem with abortion. What they do have is a problem with their own particular mother. It is not uncommon when a mother wants to ‘lash out’ that she does so against her own children. It is not the child’s fault that their mother cannot handle her anger in appropriate ways but because a child is vulnerable they are easy targets for a mother’s aggression. Mothers have been known to try and hurt their children by saying to them ‘I wish you had never been born’ or ‘I wish I had never had you.’ This can be extremely painful and unnerving for a child when its very existence is deemed as a ‘mistake’ and a source of regret.

Many people carry these scars into adulthood and become very critical of any woman who does not want her ‘child’. It is much easier to condemn strangers than it is to honestly evaluate your own relationship with your mother. Many anti-abortionists are doing exactly this. You can tell by the anger and resentment in their language. Their arguments are not reasonable but emotional.

It may never be possible to prove exactly when human life begins and when termination is to be considered killing. These are very difficult things to define. One thing we can do is to keep the debate rational and in the absence of concrete evidence allow women the freedom to make their own decisions. Engaging in a debate with people who are obviously emotionally driven is a waste of time because it is more than likely they have an agenda that has nothing to do with abortion.

A very insightful post Phanto, and I couldn't agree with you more.
I have no doubt that many extreme views held abortion have an underlying reason- most likely to do with how they were brought up with extreme religious indoctrination by one or both parents.

I would add though that men also request and pay for the abortion of their pregnant partner if it suits them. I personally know of some women who were pressured into having an abortion by their partners, and later bitterly regretted it. It should ultimately be the woman's choice.

Many fathers are not above telling their children they wish they had never been born either.
Mothers certainly do not have a monopoly on being the cause of mental health problems in their children

Suze,

Why should it automatically be the mother's choice whether to abort or not?

The most irrational and emotional people in this debate are those who scream about women's rights. Making up fairy tales about an unborn baby not being human is a pathetic way of trying to ease a conscience after murder. Their is certainly nothing at all rational about this point of view.

Regarding the crime of 'Child Destruction': It is something that would have to be addressed in the decriminalisation of medical termination of pregnancy.

For a discussion from a legal point of view see this paper from the Law School at UNSW

See http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/slr/slr28_4/Savell.pdf

How the law relates to the destruction of a child in general:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/16/1087244979991.html

It is also clear from what has been expressed here that Dr Sood should not have been charged with anything. The judgementr on sentence is instructive and can be found here

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2006nswsc.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/d4ecee8a2a59bc72ca257217007b05ac?OpenDocument

For the Victorian Law Refrorm Commission discussion you can read:

http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/resources/file/eb4e350768c8480/VLRC_Abortion_Chapter7.pdf

In the ACT the law is:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 42
Child destruction

A person who unlawfully and, either intentionally or recklessly, by any act or omission occurring in relation to a childbirth and before the child is born alive—

(a) prevents the child from being born alive; or

(b) contributes to the child's death;

is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 15 years.

So, these are just some examples of the "straw man" that I have erected.

These laws, and similar others, will have to be removed for abortion on demand to be a reality.

By the way, one of the leading medical practitioners - now retired - of late term abortions in Victoria said:

"Dr de Crespigny said planned changes to Victorian abortion law, which would make abortion available on request before the 24th week of pregnancy, falls short of "the ideal situation": abortion on request, at any stage of a pregnancy."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24259170-5013871,00.html

There must be some demand for late term abortions on request.

I never claimed that there were currently a large number of late term abortions, as these are difficult to get past medical ethics committees. This is obviously not ideal as that is obviously a limitation on a woman's unfettered right to abortion on demand.

Fair enough. Let them abort.

The business of saying that it is fine to kill a foetus prior to 20 weeks gestation but not after is quite ridiculous. The foetus is no more self aware at 21 weeks than it was at 19 weeks. The real reason we believe killing a human is wrong, is that we deprive that human of the rest of their life. This applies as much to a foetus as to a born human.
It is interesting to note that no one appears to think that the father should have any particular say in this matter. It seems bizarre to me that a woman has the right to kill my child prior to birth and there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this. This is one area where criminalisation of abortion may be useful, to ensure the father has the ability to protect their offspring.
The reasons for which abortion became legal no longer apply. It used to be that unwedded mothers were ostracised by society. Back yard abortions were common. Single parents were doomed to poverty.
This is no longer the case. It is time that as a society we started valuing all children. Even if a mother does not want her child, the father may well do and certainly someone will have that child and be most grateful for the opportunity.
The inconvenience of carrying a child to birth cannot justify the taking of another's entire life. The right to decide what happens to our bodies should not extend to killing other people.

Many self-proclaimed "pro-life" advocates are actually only "pro-birth".

They make a judgement on behalf of somebody else yet accept no responsibility for any consequences beyond the moment of birth itself.

Suzieonline, phanto and sancho (and anyone else who agrees with the argument that abortion on request should be a medical rather than a criminal issue).

Just out of interest, and I will not comment on nor question what you say;

What, if any, should be the limits / restrictions on choice in regard to medical termination of pregnancy on request? Or should there be absolutely no limits. either legal, or medical, whatsoever?

I repeat that I will not comment or question one way or another on what you say.

Benk < "Why should it automatically be the mother's choice whether to abort or not?"

Because that is the law Benk. She must give consent for any operation on her body. Gone are the days when the man 'owned' his woman's body and all she owns.
Quite often there is no Daddy around to make the decision anyway.

Runner <"The most irrational and emotional people in this debate are those who scream about women's rights."

I am not being irrational or emotional Runner, merely stating what is a reality in our society.
Abortion is LEGAL, and was made that way by predominantly male politicians years ago.
No one is asking you or your' partner to have an abortion if you don't want. Leave the rest of the population to make their own minds up.

Dougthebear, bring up as many websites as you like, however the reality is that if a woman in her first trimester wants an abortion, she can get one in Australia.

I wonder how all the pro-lifers on these pages would actually go about dealing with women and/or their partners who do not want a pregnancy to go ahead if they succeeded in making abortion illegal?

Would you tie them up and force them to remain captive until the birth of their baby? You would need to watch them carefully.

All through the ages, and indeed still today in some poor, backward- thinking countries, women will do anything to stop an unwanted pregnancy.
This leads to deaths then of both women and the baby.
Is that something you wish to return to?

"I wonder how all the pro-lifers on these pages would actually go about dealing with women and/or their partners who do not want a pregnancy to go ahead if they succeeded in making abortion illegal?"

Good question, Suzeonline. Take it from hyper-conservative writer P.J. O'Rourke: "In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1)

O'Rourke's honest sentiment is far too close to the bone for most anti-choicers. They prefer to work in generalities and lofty condemnation.

Dougthebear- our posts must have crossed each other!
I had meant to say that I am not a supporter of abortions as such (but I haven't been in a desperate situation that might warrant one either), however I am a supporter of any woman's choice.

In answer to your' last question, I believe that if a woman in her first trimester, and her partner, have been suitably counselled as to all the help out there for pregnant women and new mothers, and for other options such as adoption or help from other family members if possible, and they still want to go ahead with the abortion, then there should be no restrictions.

Having dealt with the awful aftermath of several self abortions by some desperate women, I would hate to see us return to the days of trying to force women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course, there must be strict restrictions on 2nd or 3rd trimester pregnancies, as you have already stated, with hospital ethics committee decisions on whether to proceed or not with these.

"What, if any, should be the limits / restrictions on choice in regard to medical termination of pregnancy on request? Or should there be absolutely no limits. either legal, or medical, whatsoever?"

I believe parents should be permitted to spare a human being a lifetime of suffering. If a woman doesn't believe she can care adequately for a child she must be permitted to abort a pregnancy. If a child is born with a severe disability that couldn't be noticed in-vitro, the option of euthanasia should be available.

Doug, can you cite a link to confirm "the story of the Northern Territory breathing fetus that was left to basically 'die'...whilst lying in a surgical tray, from exposure and dehydration"?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us how many conceptions abort without any medical assistance, and how that figure sits with your morals.

Rhys Jones wrote, "The foetus is no more self aware at 21 weeks than it was at 19 weeks. The real reason we believe killing a human is wrong, is that we deprive that human of the rest of their life."

Close. The real reason we believe killing is wrong is that it deprives a human of the _awareness_ of their life. An embryo or foetus has no awareness, and loses nothing. Compared to the potential ruin of the mother's life, and a bleak future of loveless survival for the child, abortion is the only compassionate option (and unless you've fronted up for the duty, please don't bother saying "adoption").

Sancho, just for your information, provided in response to your enquiry re the Darwin íncident':

I was incorrect in my stating of the cause of death as I was working from memory and I apologise for that. But reading the Coroner’s Findings may be more useful than reading my comments:

Regarding links:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2560

Hansard

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/2003-09-15/0034/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24301603-28737,00.html

Australian Woman's Forum

http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/docs/George.Age.pdf

The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/women-not-helped-when-abortion-facts-are-missing/2005/08/15/1123958001532.html

Miranda Devine in the SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091557919028.html

And most reliably the findings of the Northern Territory Coroners Court.

http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/findings/other/babyj.pdf

1. Jessica Jane *xx* (the “deceased”) was born alive at the Darwin Private Hospital on the morning of 14 July 1998 at 0245 hours. The deceased was delivered after an induction procedure had been carried out with the express purpose of terminating the mother’s pregnancy by aborting the foetus. However, the delivery of an aborted foetus did not occur and instead a baby girl (the deceased) was born alive. She died at 0405 hours on the same morning after living some 80 minutes. Pursuant to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, relevant particulars of the deceased and her parents were provided and a birth certificate issued in due course. The death was reported to my office pursuant to the Coroners Act (“the Act”) by the general manager of the Hospital.

The last paragraph of the Findings of the Coroner.

37. In my view, the fact that her birth was unexpected and not the desired outcome of the medical procedure, should not result in her, and babies like her, being perceived as anything less than a complete human being. Similarly, the fact that her death was inevitable should also not have the same result. The old, the infirm, the sick, the terminally ill are all entitled to proper medical and palliative care and attention. In my view, newly born unwanted and premature babies should have the same rights. The fact that her death was inevitable should not effect her entitlement to such care and attention.

I appreciate many posters have strong anti-abortion opinions. Admit "abortion on demand" does not sit comfortably with me.

However I have never had the dilemma of making a hard decision about proceeding with an unwanted pregnancy or foetal abnormality or maternal risk.

I have sympathy for those choosing termination. Terribly unhappy decision for probably > 95% of that number. Also one that they (sometimes including baby father or parents of underage girls) must live with. Nobody else!

As for the pro-life brigade, remember we are born to die - if born at all. Many conceptions are spontaneously aborted between sperm meets egg and 20 weeks. God or Nature (whatever your creed) made it so.

Furthermore some babies are BORN to DIE - infants with severe defects or too premature. Instead of allowing these poor little souls fast peaceful return to the Maker, pro-lifers want them mercilessly medically tortured in the name of LIFE. They might LIVE - though death would be preferable (and before 'wonderful' interventions, inevitable). God must shake his head sometimes .....

HOWEVER what REALLY riles is how Anti-abortionists are so concerned for the unborn yet so gung-ho about the baby (when 'foetus' becomes undeniably 'person')once on the ground.
It's like: "Yippee - 'saved' another one! Now have a nice life kid" "What's that? Mum is unstable 17 year old welfare dependant with substance abuse history, no family support and neglecting you already?" "LOOK - at least you were BORN - geez, what more you want ...?"

I am mostly concerned for the welfare of children already in the world stuck in situations of neglect, abuse and lack of opportunity.

Pregnant but unwilling/unable to give a child essential material and spiritual sustenance? Won't give it to an adoptive family? Then ABORT.
Victims of rape or advantage (eg retarded, underage), mothers with health risks or defective foetus, it should be their right, or in cases of persons non-competent/underage, that of Guardian, to decide best course of action without any browbeating by others who should be minding their own business.

Suze,

It seems that you believe that it should automatically be the mother's choice whether to abort or not because "gone are the days when the man 'owned' his woman's body and all she owns." Does this mean that you believe that any expectation that the unborn child's father might have a right to have an opinion and a hope that the women might compromise necessarily equals him trying to control her? Whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy is a major decision. Compromise and negotiation are a major part of any relationship.

And to think that others have speculated that men on this forum might have difficulty maintaining a relationship.

Our perception of and implementation of the law should be 2 separate processes.

The law has the function to 'instruct' and provide what should be the rational and sustaining basis of a society. Procuring abortions is not in the long term interests of a society and so is proscribed.

Where the law is violated, the prosecution should be on the basis of what impact will the transgression have on the wider community? In normal cicumstances such 'personal' cases would not be in the public gaze, however, it would appear that the fact that it is and the widespread discussion of the modus operandi now means that a deterance element has been created/magnified.

Finally the author's comment "that this couple are now facing the prospect of years behind bars when they should be enjoying the best years of their life" raises the spectre that having a child, unplanned or otherwise, is an impediment to what may have alternatively been the best years of their, and their child's life.

Dougthebear, I read that last link on your last post about the coroners report on the baby aborted at 21 weeks. You had to go all the way back back to 1998 to find an example to prove your point?

Thank goodness there are very few instances of late term abortion like this. It seems to me it was very badly mismanaged by the Doctor.

In actual fact the poor little baby was not left like you said- the nurse very humanely left it in a warm blanket and tried to get the Doctor to see it. He refused.

You also neglected to mention why this sad scenario came about- apparently the mother had a severe psychiatric problem. This usually means she was probably suicidal and if she did not abort the baby they would probably both have died.
Her partner was with her, so I assume he agreed to the abortion rather than lose his wife.

You should not immediately judge what couples decide to do with a pregnancy if you don't know all the details.
It is no one else's business.

Benk, I never said the pregnant woman should not include the father in her decision - but at the end of the day, it is her decision because the baby grows in her body, not his. No amount of anti-abortion sentiments will ever change this situation.

When you say compromise, the only way it could be any different for most men, is for the woman not to abort. Thus, they would have to force her to carry the baby? How?

Do you think it is easy for most women to decide to abort their baby?
These days there is plenty of pregnancy help out there, and all women are aware they could give the baby up for adoption, or give it to the father to raise (if he will offer).
So what is the compromise you speak of?

Suzie, the woman in Darwin had her pregnancy terminated in order to be able to continue a career in the defence forces. The defence forces have had, for some time, fairly strict rules about its member's mental health. As long ago as 1995 a friend who was in the Army Reserve, but working more or less full time with the Reserve, told me that if anyone was detected to have psychiatric illness (or major pyschological problems) they would be discharged.

If the woman had such major psych problems her career was at risk anyway. Perhaps this woman 'slipped through the cracks' and thought that she could obtain a second trimester termination on the grounds of psychiatric risk / psychological problems. Perhaps her problem was an obsession with her career, I don't know. But I do know that she should have sought termination very much earlier than when she did.

The Dr Sood case was more interesting, that foetus was born alive, at 23 weeks, in 2002 and was pronounced dead after 4 hours. That pregnant woman should also have sought a termination a lot earlier, like 4 months earlier when she thought she may have been pregnant.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/doctor-guilty-of-illegal-abortion/2006/08/23/1156012590847.html

Regarding adoption: it is actively discouraged these days in comparison to 30 years ago (when it was probably encouraged too much).

Dougthebear <"That pregnant woman should also have sought a termination a lot earlier, like 4 months earlier when she thought she may have been pregnant."

No arguments from me that late term abortions should be only allowed as a last resort, either for the mothers health or for very disabled babies. The doctor obviously thought it necessary. Who are we to interfere?

Neither of us can assume we know the whole story behind any woman or couples decision to abort her baby. Who is to say she did not develop a wish to suicide from extreme hormone imbalance late in her pregnancy?
There are dedicated areas in mental health facilities to deal with women who suffer like this. Sometimes abortion is the only answer.

Would you be ok with her killing both herself and her unborn child rather than allowing abortion? Two deaths instead of one?

Again, I say it is no one else's business than the parents and their doctor.

Suze

Sweet little statements about the need to "include the father in her decision" mean little if the mother retains the final say in important decisions in the relationship. Using language that equates attempting to change her mind to forcing her to doing things is similarly unhealthy.

When I spoke of compromise, I was speaking in general terms about decisions. I believe that all of all important decisions should be joint decisions with an equal balance of power.

I agree that it is hard to find a compromise in a situation where one person is strongly in favour of an abortion and the other is strongly in favour of continuing the pregnancy. However, I suspect that most of the mothers who consider abortion have an element of indecision. It is only fair that they value the opinion of the father.

This should not bring any emotions at all to anyone, after all she was just exercising her right to chose, a right defended by many, and a right she just chose to exercise more often than many others.

No problem here:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/abortion-addict-the-woman-who-terminated-15-pregnancies-in-17-years-20091015-gy46.html

First paragraphs of the article:

A woman has admitted to being an "abortion addict", likening her 15 terminations in 17 years to the actions of "a druggie".

American Irene Vilar said she "unconsciously" forgot to take her birth control pills in rebellion against her husband, who didn't want children, and then had abortions so he wouldn't leave her.

Her website is at:

http://www.irenevilar.com/

Just exercising her right to chose.

Yes dougthebear, a truly awful example of a terrible way to practice birth control- multiple abortions.

She was putting her life in danger having so many operations, and yes was also terminating planned pregnancies.

You managed to find yet another obscure, extreme example of abortion.
The bulk of women do not act like this.

Obviously she is acting out against her husband who would not let her have children.
She must have had a psychiatric disorder to act this way and not leave the man instead. Hubby must be sick as well to condone this behaviour by continuing having unprotected sex with her.
If only he wore a condom, all those abortions would have been unnecessary.

I would have left him after he made me have the first abortion.

Suzie

Most husbands who are told by their wives that they are on the pill, like this woman was, would not wear a condom: why would they?

There are indications that her husband was not aware of at least some of the abortions, but that she got pregnant voluntarily and procured the terminations because of some desire to keep the husband: she describes herself as 'forgetting' to take the pill. She is right when she describes herself as an addict - it almost sounds like a form of Munchausens - the other factor is that this woman is one of the few to admit to multiple terminations - and I agree that there are VERY few woman who would be as extreme as this case. But as I said pro-choice implies pro-choice: even if the choices made are not what some people may consider to be good choices.

I agree that criminalisation will not stop terminations.

But I am also aware that whilst we only hear of a few of the extreme examples of anything, these are but the tip of the iceburg. This case was extreme - but I wonder how many similar, if less extreme cases there are out there?

It seems that no state in Australia keeps the statistics - after all there is no reason to, as each woman seeking the medical termination of a pregnancy is an individual and why should we count what individuals chose to do?

But the British do keep these statistics: and as we are both broadly similar (not the same) societies it could be assumed the the British stats provide a few clues as to what may be happening here.

Britain has a population of around 60,000,000 or three times that of Australia: Extrapolation of the figures in this article should be straightforward.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6335880.ece

Quote:

"A breakdown of the data showed 11,354 women had their third abortion and 2,780 their fourth. The figures showed 46 women had had eight or more terminations."

I guess it is relatively insignificant that in any recent year perhaps 3,500 women exercised their right to choose for a 3rd time, perhaps 900 for a fourth time but only around 15 women in Australia may have exercised their right to chose 8 times or more (per year). Only small numbers really.

But it is their choice.

i'm sorry Dougthebear, but this woman's husband must have been truly stupid? He continues to have unprotected sex with her despite knowing about at least several of her 17 abortions?

He REALLY didn't want children did he!
They were both obviously insane or incredibly stupid!

I agree that multiple abortions are inherently wrong.
If women really don't want to get pregnant there are now injections or under-skin hormone implants that can give long-term contraception without the need for women to remember to take the pill at all.

Certainly, they should not wait for the man to take care of the contraception needs! Men don't like wearing condoms.

Suzie

You wrote: "I agree that multiple abortions are inherently wrong."

Firstly I want to say that I am not arguing with you about what you have said, but what you have said actually brings this, and other matters, into context.

I actually question the use, in this situation. of the word, or the concept, 'wrong'.

We live in a society where there is essentially no such thing as right or wrong. There is legal or illegal, lawful or not lawful, honest or dishonest. The idea of 'right or wrong' has slipped away, except when it comes what children are told. We have people who are guilty of bad things not being held responsible because of quirks of law.

In terms of terminations, if one or even two terminations are a matter of choice for the woman involved, and therefore neither right nor wrong, then multiple terminations are also a matter of choice, and neither right nor wrong. Multiple terminations may be unhealthy or undesirable, but they are not 'wrong'.

In much the same way as some (very few) women and their partners keeping having many children, and keep neglecting them so that they are taken into care, the having of many children, or not having any children, is a choice. It is neither right nor wrong. The community has decided not to stop those multiple mothers from having more children, so that they keep on having them and they keep getting removed. If we had 'right or wrong' those women would be sterilized by force: but that is not going to happen.

So how can we stop multiple terminations, except by force and denying what is defended as a choice and a the right to have control over your own body? We cannot. That is the way that it is.

I see your point Doug, and it would seem there are no easy answers.
If a woman keeps having abortions, with one partner, then I guess he could have a vasectomy by choice?

On the other hand, I have heard of disabled or intellectually handicapped females and males who put their lives in danger by constantly having unprotected sex, with resulting pregnancies and abortions.

If the guardians of these people agreed, then they were surgically 'fixed' so they were now infertile as well as having lowered sexual drive.
That is another controversial topic all by itself!

This is pretty radical of course, but I imagine that in some cases that is all they can do.

At the end of the day, it is a question of choice for able minded people.
Who is able minded and who is not is open to conjecture!