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.