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?