"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?