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.