this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you.

"this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you" - and E.Sykes here demonstrates the complete lack of empathy for anyone else's view that makes me want to keep people like Syke's simply ranting from the sidelines and out of any postion of real influence in society.

If the Bill of Rights fails to get up (and why would Labor want to run with a can of worms that lacks support even in it's own party), there is going to much breast beating and supporters I suspect saying it was most foully murdered by people like Andrew Bolt and writers from the Australian. I think that perhaps the same people that supported the conscience clause and who are also pushing for the Bill of Rights, might look a little closer to home as to what eroded confidence in it.

For all Brennan's and other lawyers attempts now to say the Bill of Rights will in fact protect people such as this student, the passing of the conscience clause down in Victoria despite the Charter of Rights down there was a serious blow to the Bill of Rights credibility.

Dear Amanda,

You are a shining example of the wisdom underpinning the separation of the State and the Church. Over the centuries, more death and suffering has been inflicted upon humankind in the name of Christianity than any other single cause.

Now, Amanda: when you say you are a Christian, do you really mean that you are a "Catholic Christian"? The difference is really only one of degree; that is, like the difference between Ted Bundy and the Borgias.

There is no medical proof that life begins at conception - and the law specifically denies that that is the case. Despite this, and flying in the face of centuries of law and the medical science, you choose to impose your own religious dogma upon those people who would come to you, in great need and good faith, seeking independence and objective medical assistance.

When Parliament is forced to pass legislation (largely forced by the need to overcome the minority views of loonies like you, who hold positions of social power), you can't even accept the "out" that is afforded to you, by letting you declare your position and allowing the patient to choose another doctor.

Oh, Original Sin!!... mia culpa!!…mia culpa!! By doing nothing, you are still to blame for these crimes against humanity. Oh, this is such a merciless God.

So, let's choose an extreme, remote and physically and emotionally revolting example to use as a moral comparison: female circumcision. Obviously, Amanda, none of your studies to date have included ‘rational debate’. The example is not only spurious and factually irrelevant; it is a measure of the dogmatic zealotry with which you have been imbued in your upbringing. In case you haven't noticed, Amanda, female circumcision is illegal in this country, too; another example of how the law has protected us from moral extremists.

Let me also make a declaration up front: I completely support the statement by Professor Savulescu. Further, if it would make a difference, I pray to God that you never make it through your studies to inflict yourself as a doctor upon this society.

Dear Dr Fairweather,

I admire your concern and agree with your opinion albeit from a totally secular pov in this instance, as I believe that the initial cause of unwanted pregnancy is mostly due to poor decision-making by the parents of the child in the heat of the moment. I also thank God for human nature by which we were (mostly) all born and our species carries on.

As a rather unsatisfied customer of hospital doctors on two occasions over 18 days in 2008, I would also hope to draw attention to the rights of the patient as a consciencious objector to 'malpractice' (to put it as nicely as possible) and so see that some of the legal limitations to the carte blanc powers of transient passer-by medical practitioners over the lives of patients already born from the womb can provide some hope for the unfortunate in their weaker moments, of the body and not the mind, as is when abortions might be the most accessible solutions.

I appreciate that you may have already read John Irving's Cider House Rules (1985) of just over 730 pages in paperback, and if not, perhaps the conflict faced by the fictional orphan character Homer Wells as an obstetrician in WWII North-East USA might offer some inspiration on how to walk the fine line between the legalities and the humanity.

Also, I solemnly hope that there might be more quacks with a good consience such as yours the next time I ever have the misfortune to wind up in another Australian hospital, and I assure you it will not be because I got some young lady pregnant and need a quick fix.

Thank you for a well-written and article and best of luck in your future practice, with remaining true to that seemingly redundant oath.
Noli illegitimi carborundum!

Yours Faithfully,

Sean Moran.
Perth Au.

Amanda
Congratulations on a well-written article. I'm sorry you are just going to have to put with the abusive personal arguments of those who are unable or unwilling to argue the issues.

The idea that is implicit in a Bill of Rights, and in Doc Holiday's malicious argument, is that a right is nothing more and nothing less than whatever the State orders. When we ask its advocates how or why the state comes to have this moral knowledge or authority, they never say 'because the state exercises a legal monopoly of force, and might is right', - because it is obvious that such could never serve the purpose of deciding what is or should be a 'right'.

The only answer they have is that it's 'democratic', as if majority opinion were able to constitute as moral whatever it wants. According to this view, if the majority decided that killing, or raping, or robbing is a "right" - why then it's a right. All it would take is for a majority to decide that they are entitled to sports equipment paid for by the state, or for sex paid for by the state, for these to be deemed "rights", and the funds to pay for them taken under compulsion. This is obviously an abuse of language and there is no abuse of human beings that it would not justify.

Since rights are enforceable and enforced, the content of a right must *necessarily* contemplate the ethics of using force. If you are not justified in using violence or threats to get a thing, then it can no way be a right.

This means a right is, and can only be, what you are justified in using force to defend. It includes only life, liberty and property. There can no more be a right to the fruits of other people's labour taken under compulsion, than a right to slavery, and hence there is not and can never be any such thing as a right to anything paid for by taxation, because taxation by definition is a compulsory confiscation of property.

Amanda

You are a champion and deserve much praise. Many think like you but know that by speaking truth their careers depending on Government funding would be hampered. Just speak to Warick Marsh and find out how he was scrubbed out by the Federal Health Minister because he spoke of the need of a child needing a mother and father.

Unfortunately you are going to learn that many sell out of their convictions. Mr Rudd himself who claims to personally dislike abortions but would never go against anything the godless UN endorses. In Politics on both sides we see very little conscience. The AMA has been pushing abortion for years which is not surprising when you look at some of their past leaders (not the sort of examples you want your kids to follow).

A Charter of rights will kill free speach and deliver more power to our godless judges (sorry for any exceptions). It is a lie that is pushed that minorities will be protected.

The good news is that you are on the winning side. Christ will one day destroy all evil and our job is to see as many people come to their senses before that day. The slaughter of the most innocent will come to a halt and all those unrepentant will be dealt with appropriately. Keep up the good fight and don't grow weary of doing good. You are to be highly commended.

Dear Peter Hume,

Have you had a reality check lately? (Not to mention an eyesight test.)

Just as an aside - you are quite correct: "a [legal] right is nothing more and nothing less than whatever the State orders". And, 'yes': this is the legal and moral right we have accorded them - by election - in a "democratic society".

Are you anti-democratic? Is our society flawed because it does not have a totally egalitarian basis of decision-making that allows minority views to dominate societal directions?

What planet do you people come from??

You have the luxury of being an "armchair critic" - only because our democratic society allows it!

Name one other international regime that would allow you even to exist - let alone express your 1950's bohemian dogma!!

Amanda,

It is clear that you started with your conclusion then chose logic to justify it. Sadly what you arrived at was the stand hotch potch or reasoning apposite to a zealotic campaign (act of faith, no logic required).

Clearly this is your BELIEF and as such you are entitled to it. I have to say you do seem overly imbued the higher status of your career. So much so that you not only feel you have the duty to practice medicine but also to preach your form of PERSONAL church influenced morality.

I might humbly suggest that you chose which horse you want to ride.
I'm reasonably sure that the Hippocratic oath/ MD doesn't come with a pulpit for your surgery. People come to you for medicine (full stop). You would be wise to leave the soul saving for another venue. Likewise the ethical arguments to people that are equipped to deliver them.

Having lived in New Guinea at a time when medicine came on a bible and spent my time at the coal face crisis intervention. I've seen what damage views as naive and self-righteous as you can do. Life in the real world isn't black or white, rather a continuum of greys. If you're lucky you'll call the majority an nill all draw.

By all means have your religious beliefs but don't confuse them with medicine....simple pass the patient on without the sermon have you considered a career as a opinion columnist true they are as helpful as herpes but it pays well AND you can preach all you want.

You people get overrun with you own emotions.
The only ones that want a bill of rights is the same ones that would have us still living in the stone age.
What rights don't you have now, that a bill of rights would create for you.
Look at the mess in America with their rights.
Common rights are forever changing, so why complicate the situation.
I cannot think of a single thing that i would want that i cannot get now.
I can only forsee this as a lever for people with a hidden agenda.

Dear Dr Fairweather,

off-topic I realise, except to clarify my meaning regarding some folks' poor decision-making skills. Around 18 months ago or so there was a rare and totally unexpected knock on my apartment door one early evening. Expecting an emergency call from the landlord, I opened the door to one of the most beautiful human beings I have ever seen on televison, but she was there at my door, just moved in next door that day and hadn't unpacked her can-opener yet.

After that first surprise, I saw in her eyes that beauty was from her soul, so rare in this decadent city of mine. She returned that can-opener 15 minutes later and went back to have dinner. A few weeks later, She told me one afternoon across the balconies of our hi-rise coastal apartments just north of Fremantle that she was a 'graduate' med' student, (whatever that means?), so I hope that if you ever practice medicine in Perth and meet another doctor of the same first name, that you might see in her that same human quality that I saw in her eyes, and learn from it.

I knew from that first moment, with that look in her eyes, that she would take her own life before murdering another. I sensed that same goodness in your article before I recognised the similar first names and vocations. She moved out of these apartments six months ago. I will always remember her.

Sorry if it's an off-topic post. I feel obliged to add this because I have a good memory and rarely meet good people. You may one day know that wonderful person that lived next door to me. She had the same first name as yourself.

Goodnight you kings of New England, you Princes of Maine!

Best Regards,

Sean Moran.

---o0o---

'Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last.'

- Charlotte Bronte, 1847.

(from Cider House Rules)

<yes Desmond, I'm drunk again 9-) sorry mate...>

This is article is not about abortion- or if so, it is only indirectly. It is about freedom of conscience.

Has it occurred to anybody that the author is not arguing she should have the right to preach to her future patients about whether or not they should get an abortion

BUT

that she should have the right to NOT be involved in a woman getting an abortion? This means not being forced, by law, to refer a woman onto a doctor who will enable the woman to get an abortion.

Has it occured to anybody that if a woman wants an abortion she can go see another dr, without forcing the first dr to refer her on?

From the article:
"Some people would have a problem with me choosing to use my future position of influence as a doctor to tell women that it is morally wrong to end the life of their unborn offspring. In the same way, I have a problem with the State choosing to use its position of power over me, forcing me to be involved in the process that will result in an unborn human unnecessarily losing his or her life."

Personally I would LOVE a Bill of Rights- as soon as I see one that doesn't place the average Australian citizen as a secondary consideration to facilitating someone else's rights- or as the biggest threat to them.

For example, anyone proposing a Bill of Rights should answer this question:
'How will YOUR particular Bill prevent another APEC meeting, WYD2008 celebration, Harbour Bridge Tea Party promo or other invasive private takeover of a public space from happening?'
Also
'How will YOUR particular Bill prevent another Harry Seidler from overriding local wishes and building whatever he wants just because he owns the footprint it will stand on?'

No answer to these- no support from me.
And that's completely ignoring the even more serious end of the spectrum- abortion, Euthanasia, denial of medicines, jury/court duties, conscription, war participation, voting, control of infrastructure, etc.

To the article- as JL Deland made a convincing case for, sure the doctors may reserve a right to say they cannot help (due to variety of hypothetical cases)- but I believe that should be backed up with a right for the patient to kindly keep their money after the NON-consultation instead of paying you just to say "Sorry I won't help you" and wasting their time.
Citizens and consumers have WAY too few rights in this country at the moment.

That's actually a good idea... that the patient shouldn't be billed for that sort of consultation.

Doc Holliday
...[Y]ou are quite correct: "a [legal] right is nothing more and nothing less than whatever the State orders".

So if the State says it's okay to own slaves, then you have a 'right' to own slaves?

'And, 'yes': this is the legal and moral right we have accorded them - by election - in a "democratic society".'

Prove it.

Thanks netjunkie! I find it imperative that the criteria of what doctors can/cant do based on their consciences is balanced with a willing compromise to the well-being of the patients- I think a denial of pay is a good step- or otherwise it is an abuse of power.
Although I am still skeptical about allowing a ground of denial of service and pay in a market-like position- but so far I don't see a way around it.

Peter Hume
The problem with rights of any sort is that they are ALWAYS the dictates of one or more individuals, and something that they force onto another or give to themselves at the expense of someone else- no matter how much they think they aren't imposing, they ALWAYS are in some way- be it a government, a voting majority or an individual choosing his own rights.

I would like to see how your 'self-defense' simplification of rights covers freedom of movement and association, contracts, abortions, euthanasia, health, construction/enterprise, purchase, information, legal representation, equality in law, running of infrastructure, acquisition of property, commerce and various other issues which become the basis of conflicts of well-being between two autonomous individuals.

Is somebody entitled to the right to build a lead paint factory next to a school simply because he owns the plot of land? Is a teacher or pupil of the school entitled to use "self defensive" measures against the owner and his factory to preserve their own life against the risk of lead poisoning? Is the owner of that factory entitled to kill that person on the spot for threatening his property?

When making your answer be careful to note any statements you make about what the parties are entiteled to do, or are obligated to do- and consider the question- says who?

Just thinking about it some more, I get the impression maybe wrongly, that some of the people who advocated for the conscience clause are treating medical staff with objections to abortion as somehow 'morally lacking'. Maybe a more positive way to handle it and one that would serve the community better, would be to regard them simply as 'workers' who have been caught up in a change of community standards, and rather than try and ride roughshod all over them and coerce them, would be to simply go around them.

Some of us want to see the end of old growth logging in Victoria and the end to using brown coal and yes, change community standards. But when we advocate for this, we don't paint the workers in the industry as somehow morally lacking, even though some of them almost certainly see us as deluded Greenies. Instead mostly we are at pains to try and reassure the workers that new green jobs are anticipated, and that they won't be penalised, when we retire these industries. Yet somehow it's okay to suggest that doctors and nurses with a moral objection aren't fit to be in the profession.

I'd have no objection to all Catholic hospitals being nationalised if the State needed to do that in order to provide all services to the community. But if it happens, then I think it's only fair that the doctors and nurses affected by such a move, are placed in new positions where their beliefs wouldn't be a problem, or retrained for these new positions. They are after all just 'workers' in a sometimes high stress occupation and some of the nurses at least, are probably paid less than the coal miners and loggers, yet not valued as much it seems to me as those other workers.

netjunkie,
That is precisely why I wrote what I did.
Amanda simply want her cakes and eat it too.

Given it's her problem being involved with the process. Common sense dictates that can simple advertise that she is pro life, anti abortion doctor. i.e. Call her practice “name of suburb Pro life (anti abortion) family Clinic”, have it on her stationery, sign in reception area etc. Refuse the appointment. Don't work in a public hospital. Write op columns. In short let the client/public decide.

Consider this REAL WORLD SCENARIO. You are a crisis intervention counsellor(Dr.) your caller(patient) is a 14-15 suicidal girl who is pregnant. If she has the baby all hell will break out she'll lose her family etc. She's clearly not old enough to survive on her own during and after the baby is born and she wants an abortion . Do you then only offer her the pro-life options? Or give her the name of a Dr that will discuss BOTH and one prepared to give her the support needed is SHE decides the abortion?

If you mention the first she's hung up/ turned off and maybe tomorrow's tragic statistic. She and the POTENTIAL baby have both paid for Amanda's conscience. First do no harm?

Experience shows some one wanting an abortion won't go to a pro life counsellor or vise versa unless they want to be talked around.

In NG I remember one woman who had been raped by a man from another clan(nation) and was pregnant. If that became known in her clan she would be killed (baby too) and a payback war would ensue. Keep in mind in NG there are or were 800 languages (each was effectively a nation). Without her one talks(her people) she would probably die.
Consider now the old Chinese wisdom "if you save a life you are responsible for it afterwards" in the above context. (it has/had practical implications)

Given these real life examples perhaps you can see why, practically speaking, Amanda's moral myopia (her naivety) is less than impressive. That thread to me is moot.

netjunkie writes correctly

'This is article is not about abortion- or if so, it is only indirectly. It is about freedom of conscience.'

So true netjunkie, the problem is those in favour of mutilating the unborn have had their conscience severely seared.

The problem here is essentially a conflict of "rights". The pregnant woman in question has, subject to certain caveats, the right to have the abortion. The doctor has an equal right to hold opinions on the moral "wrongness" of abortion. In a society such as ours the paramount "good" is a peaceful environment where we can all go about our business and live our lives without the threats so common in other societies. To maintain that situation a solution to the conflict of rights must be found: that is a compromise. What exactly IS that doctor's right? I would maintain that it is to hold his opinion and under no circumstances can he/she be coerced into performing an abortion. The doctor however does NOT (imho) have the right to refuse to inform that woman of alternative sources of advice & help that he believes are as well qualified as himself, professionally, but may have different ethical views. He MUST advise as to skills of others as his patient is unable to do so and, left to her own devices, may end up in the hands of an unskilled practitioner and as we know from historical precedent may die.

The problem Gorufus is that ordering non-complying doctors to refer patients with a conscience clause in order to improve access is simply not going to work as they see abortion as murder even if you don't.

Imagine a situation where after a particularly child murder, a referendum is held, and the mandatory death sentence is brought back in for certain offences. Two conscience clauses are brought in with it. The first one tackles Christian prison warders who refuse to string people up, as they see it as murder by the State. They are excused, but they have to find one of their fellow warders who is willing to do it, and refer him or her. I'm pretty certain the warder's response would be unprintable and they would be non-compliant.

The second orders lawyers and the judiacy who don't want to be involved in death penalty cases to do the same thing. Well watching the fallout would be entertaining, but I think the condemned would be more likely to die of old age before the legal profession rolled over.

Access to abortions could be improved with a well run advertising campaign about it being legal and confidential, with a letter to each house-hold, information in public places, and even better, a TV and radio campaign. That should have happened in Victoria after abortion was legalised. I think though that the Government is still squeamish about being associated with something as controversial as abortion, which could be a vote loser so brought in a ineffective conscience vote instead. The Government should get over it and do it's job.

Even before it was legalised, patients accessed 20,000 abortions in one year in the State, so backroom abortions might not a very common occurence. It could be that a young woman from a strict background who isn't even supposed to have a boy friend, let alone find herself pregnant could be short on information. A well run information campaign could help here and cut out the middle man, the unnecessary GP.

The only person with 'rights' on the abortion issue is the person wanting (or not wanting)an abortion. It should not be the business of doctors or politicians to impose their personal beliefs.

On the other hand, if Amanda Fairweather is prepared to lose patients to more sympathetic doctors who hold the welfare of their patients dearer than Fairweather apparently will, that's her business.

However, any Bill of Rights would have far more draconian effects on the general public than it would have benefits for women wishing to have abortions. Abortions are regularly performed, now, and a Bill of Rights has nothing to do with Fairweather's personal views on abortion.

However, Fairweather has a right to her personal opinion, regardless of the following outrageous post:

"this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you.

Posted by E.Sykes, Friday, 6 November 2009 12:54:03 PM"

Apart from being poorly written and expressed, the post is the usual tirade against anyone who doesn't agree with Sykes. He is too stupid, apparently, to realise that in criticising anyone whom he considers to be 'far right', he is exposing himself as a far Left lunatic who has surrendered his powers of thinking to socialist dogma.

Amanda Fairweather strikes me as being a fairly arrogant and unworldly young woman, but she has taken the time to tell us why she thinks the way she does. Name-calling morons like Sykes, with no arguments except loony-left dogma, are far inferior, and less use to society, than Fairweather could ever be.

There are all shades of opinion expressed on OLO, and most of us seem to accept that not everyone is going to agree with our way of thinking. Sykes is a recent and malicious addition to our number who is wasting his time even posting if he cannot come up with something better than just criticising everyone he disagrees with and calling them names indicating extremism when he is clearly an extremist himself.

I think that you have come to the crux of the problem JLDeland. We have another conflict of rights to settle. 1.) The doctor has a right to his moral opinion and has a right to refuse to perform an abortion. 2.) This doctor has also a duty, implicit I admit but I do think well recognised, to offer professional advice on each and every problem presented to him. In this case the advice will be referral to another doctor. He can get out of his conflict by a sign in his surgery stating the limits of his advice i.e. "This practice does not hold with abortion for any reason and advice will not be given concerning pregnancy termination". If he does not so inform his intending patients I think that he probably is in breach of a contract implicit in his calling himself a general practitioner, or gynaecologist for that matter. Incidentally the GP is not "unnecessary" but essential for advising which of his fellow practitiioners is likely to be competent & appropriate to care for a particular patient: horses for courses. This information obviously cannot be made publicly available on some kind of register

Hazza
First we need to dispose of the theory that rights are whatever the state or the powerful say they are.

I’m surprised anyone would defend the claim that might is right. This theory confuses rights with arbitrary power. It provides no protection against abuses of power and will actively carry them out if directed to: the opposite of rights. It cannot distinguish rights from wrongs.

Nor is ‘democracy’ any guarantee against abuses of power. The majority can be greedy, and violent, and exploitative as much as any minority. The greatest crimes in the history of the world were carried out, pursuant to this theory, by a democratically elected government. The classic disproof was provided by the national socialists of Germany. A vast majority voted Hitler in. He even foreshadowed his crimes and abuses beforehand. According to the ‘rights are whatever the democratically elected state says they are’, and ‘the democratic state presumptively represents the people’ theory, the Jews were not murdered, they merely committed suicide.

According to the majoritarian theory, Attila the Hun was merely exercising his ‘rights’, as are the pirates of Somalia. If twelve men and one woman vote whether to have sex, and the men vote for, and the woman votes against, so they use force, then it is it not a crime of rape, it is their ‘right’.

It is no answer to appeal to the existence of the state, because this itself is an artefact of a prior power struggle. It only begs the questions of its own right to use power, and where the boundaries of its territory are to be drawn.

The statist and majoritarian theory is not just confused and absurd: it is positively immoral.

Yet well-intentioned, educated, national socialist Australians defend it in here today. If we called them Nazis, they would be horrified and offended. Yet it is the same theory and they want to use it for the same purposes: to force everyone to obey their arbitrary opinion; to direct other people’s labour; to seize the fruits of other people’s labour; for autobahns...

Since Australia's Constitution provides for men's legislatures only, perhaps the author could be persuaded to consider at the very least that every Australian woman's sole human right to male supervision should be enshrined in a women's bill of right.

Nice going Peter, instead of answering my question (at all), even my hypothesis, you instead pretend I said something else ENTIRELY and went on a rant.

At least I tried.

Dear Amanda,
Your article is like a beacon of light in a sea of dross.
I sincerely regret the dilemma facing principled people such as yourself as Western society slides further into the abyss.
I also regret the ignorance displayed in the comments on your article.
You sound big enough to forgive them, but I'm not and I don't.
Unfortunately, as you seem to be learning, the Charter of Rights is more about imposing a particular ideology than what it purports to be.
You'll be in the firing line of those who would impose their tyranny on you.
I wish you all the best
Sincerely,
Herman Yutic

Hazza
I got cut off by the timer.

It's you who are pretending you said something different. Your argument is that rights are whatever the state says they are, isn't it?

That theory is then the basis for Australia's motherhood subsidies; and compulsory workers’ insurance; and aggressive war; and race-based social engineering schemes; and compulsory indoctrination of the population as children, teaching them implicitly that the state has the right to physical custody of them against their will; to subject their parents and everyone else to involuntary servitude to pay for it; to dictate any and every aspect of the private production of goods and services; and to inculcate the belief that the arbitrary will of the political class represents a higher value of the common good over and above the freedom of the individual.

Yet there is no conflict between individual freedom and the common good, provided only that each must refrain from aggression against the life, liberty and property of other people. End of issue.

There is nothing about social co-operation that necessitates, or is improved by compulsory funding, nor providing goods and services through a monopoly of compulsion.

Freedom is the only moral, as well as the only practical solution.

The philosophy of liberty in a nutshell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

There is no conflict between the various social values you have asked about, and the libertarian theory of rights I put forward. Indeed it is the basis of freedom of movement, association, contracts, enterprise, construction, purchase, health, equality in law etc. etc.

As to your hypothetical questions about the lead paint and the school, the common law of nuisance already covers it. As the lead paint factory would infringe on other's rights to life, liberty and property, they have a right to stop it.

JLDeland
Is it justifiable to bash people’s heads in to save old growth forests? Would any violence be too much, in your view? Wouldn’t it be more ethical for you to save old growth forests by simply buying them?

whatever men say, especially men who claim to know,
freedom for women requires provision of the women's legislature
of an equal rights republic.

Gorufus, I agree with your suggestion that doctor's should indicate if they don't offer certain services. Perhaps by using someone else's suggestion on a different forum, that doctors put down if they don't offer the service on the form that new patients fill in when they sign up with that practice. This might be better than a sign in the surgery. Abortion is a emotional issue and some people might find a sign a bit confronting and become agitated if it contradicts with their beliefs. I've see a bloke lose the plot and throw a anti-abortion stall's table and chairs around when he was just passing. Not his finest hour. The people manning it were at least in their 70's and not physically robust. Doctors and nurses are at risk from assault already unfortunately. I also don't think they should charge for any visits where they cannot assist.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you on the GP having the responsibility to say which of his fellow doctor's is competant. Firstly, it's a pretty unscientific way of referring. A new doctor would be probably down to using other medical staff's gossip about people. Secondly, I think it's up to the State to provide facilities where you can access an abortion and expect all the staff to be efficient and qualified, and the State to only give qualifications to doctors who are competant to perform this service. Then encouraging fellow staff and patients to identify rouges and incompetants to maintain standards. I guess my focus is on putting responsibility for making sure that the service is accessed without any trouble back onto the State and off the individual with a problem as to the morality of abortion.

Peter Hume you lost me when you suddenly started talking about 'bashing people's heads in' and violence in relation to old growth forest conservation. It came across as offesive, not to mention just plain wrong. Can't say I appreciate the association, so won't try and understand your reasoning in how it's relates to the conscience issue

Very skillfully written article.

Amanda should be a politician, the cool cynical way that she took something as odious as genital mutilation and compared it to the Victorian law banning doctors from actively influencing their patients according to their religious view points.

Just a pity to see someone so twisted so young.

Perhaps the clause should contain a requirement for the doctor to post a warning sign on the door:

"Doctor's ability to meet the needs of the patient may be impaired by religious doctrine."

1) prolife gp friend who doesn't refer patients for abortions still counsels them well. she bulk bills them, lets them say everything that's on their minds and together w the patient discusses pros and cons of 5 options (abortion, keeping child, open adoption, closed adoption, partially open/closed adoption). she gives the patients a wk or so to think of their decision. she herself does not refer patients on but she leaves them well informed enough to pursue abortions on their own if they choose to. in all her yrs only 3 patients have gone on to pursue abortions. later on they have come back to her practice and THANKED her for the counselling she gave. those who went on not to have abortions have also thanked her. 2) unwed pregnant teen friend from strict religious background found out from her gp she was pregnant. his response? this child will ruin your life, i'll call the abortion clinic. since when r prolife GPs who don't refer patients onto abortion incapable of good non-directive counselling? since when r pro-choice GPs necessarily any good at it?

Peter Hume you just proposed several solutions that each require laws, "rights" and ideology of someone that are to be imposed on someone else- and again, I ask- by WHO?

And the solution "Buy the forests" is phenomenally short-sighted. This simply means that people have to buy their rights, and means that having rights only comes down to having more money to bid than the person who is less honest. Same deal with the lumber tycoon bidding against the locals. Also, might I ask who owned the forest and why do THEY have a right to it?

And I should also ask- WHO SAYS which property is which? Who divided it? And who enforces these laws? Who even says they are laws? Who decides whether a person is correctly acting along these laws if they do so themselves? Under what circumstances?

MY point is, again, that ALL RIGHTS, laws and standards are nothing but declarations of entitlement by someone which they impose on someone else- it doesn't matter if it's by a government, a public or a libertarian individual who THINKS he's minding his own business (and assumes everyone else will do the same)- but they are ALL THE SAME. Regardless of how strongly they insist their personal beliefs are "the law of the land"- they aren't- they're just laws dreamed up by some individual.

Also, what if the government 'bought' the entire country previously? Wouldn't that just grant de-facto ownership- making the public tenants?

Amanda, as a medical student you still obviously have such a lot to learn.
As a nurse for many years, I too started my medical career with strong ideas like yours. Then I moved out to work in the real world and I changed my blinkered views accordingly.

If I wasn't happy working on a respiratory ward trying to help very sick patients who were there as a result of smoking, and would leave when they were better to go back home and continue smoking, then I would request not to work in the respiratory ward, if I couldn't keep my mouth shut about those patient's 'rights' to smoke if they wished to.

Comparing womens rights to have an abortion to their 'rights' to have genital mutilation is just bloodymindedness on your part if you ask me.

The genital mutilation has so many more medical and emotional repercussions than medically carried out abortions, and you know it.
Most of those poor women do not 'request' such mutilation, but rather are forced into it at an early age for religious reasons by their families, as a form of sexuality control.

Can I suggest that if you don't want to help women coming to you in the future for help to decide about what to do with a problem pregnancy, that you don't work on a gynecology ward or in general practice?

Can I suggest working at a Catholic run hospital?
It really is just that simple.

"Most of those poor women do not 'request' such mutilation, but rather are forced into it at an early age for religious reasons by their families, as a form of sexuality control."

paraphrasing...

All of those poor children do not 'request' abortion, but rather are forced into it at an early age for convenience reasons by their mothers, as a form of birth control.

It really is just that simple

A lot of people are talking about patients having the right to ALL the info...

Since abortion is such a strong risk factor for so many psychiatric issues (not to mention the physical risks) like 10-50% chance of moderate-severe depression within a year, 1/3 risk of being suicidal within 5 years, etc...

Maybe women should be forced to see an ultrasound of the child before aborting? So that if they go ahead with it they really want to, and they have a stronger understanding of what they're getting themselves into, rather than just committing the action and regretting it later?

BTW the smoking analogy is disingenuous. A smoker causes whatever harm they cause to THEMSELF and themself alone (assuming passive smoking is taken out of the equation). A woman who aborts her child isn't just taking out an action on her OWN body but on the body of another human being who happens to not have been born yet.

Does anyone else realise we are one of the few cultures historically to separate abortion and infanticide? People act as if this issue has been morally settled- abortion on demand is a moral good. But the truth is far from that. Sure, in ignorance, some people argued that abortion was about a woman's right to do whatever she liked to her own body back in the 70s. But medical science has developed since then... we have a much greater understanding of the development of the foetus, including, the fact that we now recognise a foetus is NOT simply a part of the mother, but instead happens to live inside of her as a separate living human being.

Also, do people realise abortions happened, even in the USA before Roe v. Wade? Abortion on demand is NOT necessary to prevent backyard abortions.

No HermanYutic, the real difference is that abortion is legal in this country and female genital mutilation is not.

This fact is something that prolife advocates choose to ignore.
The fight for women to have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, rather than have old celibate religious men decide for them is over.

Women have won that right already Herman.
It's as simple as that.

...Can we please introduce a variate of Godwin's law here. Anyone who calls Amanda 'twisted' (how ugly) or brings in Amanda's youth into play, without any sort of argument, automatically loses.

Amnada, presumably with God on her side, and with Frank Brennan's approval, doesn't need a moral pep-talk from me. But if she does, she shoud perk up. Any mindless nastiness she encounters as white noise in public forums like this should be disregarded.

Mind you, I reserve my right to stand off from Amanda if she wants heads chopped off. That does not seem very likely. It seems to be the so called Liberals who are waving the axe on this matter.

suzeonline writes

'Women have won that right already Herman.'

Some men have won the right to mutilate their daughters in Islamic countries. One day you will learn Suzi that just because it is legal does not make it right.

It is significant that the author of this article tells us that she is a Christian. Exactly what relevance it has is not clear. Being ‘pro-life’ on the basis of a belief that life begins at conception is not a singularly Christian or even religious point of view. Many people who are not religious ‘believe’ that life begins at conception. There is no compelling evidence either way. The ‘belief’ that it does not is just as strong. Where you have absolutely no evidence for either of two opposing views you must consider them both equally valid. It is not a matter of conscience it is a matter of ignorance. The author does not need to resort to ‘freedom of conscience’, a bill of rights or appeals to religious freedom she just needs to act on the evidence or lack thereof. It would be perfectly reasonable to not participate in abortions or help procure them because there is no evidence to suggest that life does not begin at conception. So what exactly is the real agenda in appealing to religious freedom or conscience?

Since the question of when life begins cannot be resolved the state has to look after the welfare and rights of other people who are affected beside the foetus. This means the mother. The mother has a right to the procurement of medical services including abortion. All other things being equal those rights should be granted to her unless a compelling argument can be mounted for denying them.

The ethical issue for doctors is not about whether life begins at conception but rather can they ethically deny the rights that the state grants to a woman when all other things are equal. If someone comes up with evidence to prove life begins at conception then they may have a case but until that happens they have no reason to deny the rights of women who seek help with abortions.

Most religious doctors are not battling with their conscience – they are battling with their emotional dependence on religion.

Um, sorry to burst some bubbles but an unborn fetus IS part of the mother- it's attached to her and even gets its nutrition intravenously from her bloodstream.

But on a side note, what happens if somebody is born with a conjoined twin- or a fetus in fetu? (if you want to get really complicated to the point where you are forced to research on Google).
Every single moral justification and complication of a woman maintaining an unwanted pregnancy is the same as these people maintaining their bond with their conjoined sibling.

And what doesn't get asked enough- what happens after the kid is born? You can't just whinge about abortion and then at the point of an unwanted child being born pat yourself on the back and say "my work here is done". It's irresponsible. How is the child going to be brought up? What kind of person will the child become? The issue doesn't stop with an assumably promiscuious woman getting her "just deserts" for having intercourse.

Anyway- I agree that the simple solution to this right dilemma is to make the information needed to consult an abortion expert publicly available (eg a hotline advertised on TV). Therefore, anyone with an objection is simply never consulted to begin with.

Hazza
Yes good points and these are very real issues.

If rights mean nothing more than forcibly imposed values, then instead of talking about rights, perhaps we should just say “I like forcing others to serve me against their will”, or “I hate it when people use force to confiscate the fruits of my labour”.

However, that theory still lacks any ethical content, confuses rights with mere power, and provides no reason why the state should be the party who gets to say what rights are. By your reasoning, Ivan Milat had as much ‘right’ as anyone else to impose his values on his victims. It is an amoral and immoral theory of mere power, not a theory of rights.

At least the libertarian theory provides
a) for the value of peaceful social co-operation to be paramount, and
b) that each person’s material well-being is improved as best we know how, and
c) a way out of that mere arbitrary power struggle by grounding the ethics in a proposition to which everyone universally assents implicitly by joining in the discussion. ‘You own yourself’.

Your present theory of rights fails all those tests.

“by WHO?”

The aggrieved or his agents.

If we assume a system of state courts protecting the rights to life, liberty and property, as in your school/factory example, then the person who claims his right is being infringed, can apply to the court for it to be enforced.

However let us even assume the government monopoly of law and courts were abolished, and the aggrieved person either enforced the right himself, or contracted out this action to competing private firms. Protection services are currently provided by security firms, forensic services by insurance firms, and adjudication and case law services by commercial arbitrators.

Thus it is more feasible for the rights to life, liberty and property to be enforced by the individual and his agents, than may at first sound. There is nothing about a state monopoly of violence and threats that makes it less arbitrary and chaotic, and more ethical or practical – on the contrary.

‘…. "Buy the forests" … means that people have to buy their rights’

That assumes what is in issue. The greens don’t have a ‘right’ to use old-growth forests for preservation, any more than house-dwellers do for shelter, by your own theory.

‘and means that having rights only comes down to having more money to bid than the person who is less honest… Same deal with the lumber tycoon bidding against the locals.’

If ‘the locals’ can’t afford it, compared to the guy selling lumber, it’s because far more people want to use the forest for building homes etc., than for conservation. However, if it’s the other way around, why should they be forcibly prevented from buying and conserving it by the state?

‘Also, might I ask who owned the forest and why do THEY have a right to it?...
‘And I should also ask- WHO SAYS which property is which? …. (etc. etc.)… Under what circumstances?”

Good questions. They all go to the underlying question how could a just, prosperous and sustainable society be based on freedom and private property with a minimum of arbitrary violence, ie with little or no state.

Two points.

Under your present theory, these questions are both meaningless and irrelevant. All that matters is pure power; and murder, rape and robbery are as validly called rights as anything else. That by itself should persuade you to consider a better theory.

The libertarian theory is both more ethical and produces much better practical results. And the right to property arises directly out of the right to life and liberty.

However, we all receive at least 10 years compulsory indoctrination that rights consist of whatever the state says, that rights may include abuses, that the state is above society, that the state is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, like a god, etc. etc. and I cannot reverse that in 700 words.

I can only ask that you exercise your inquiring mind to consider a theory that is more coherent, ethical and practical, for example:
Short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Middle version: http://mises.org/daily/3750
Longer version: http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf

Amanda, here is a thought for you. The late Jacob G. Rosenberg survived Auschwitz but lost his entire family in the Holocaust. In his last book "The Hollow Tree" (Allen&Unwin, 2009), he stated his belief that the greatest sin is self–righteousness.

leigh...i find your views and those of others like runner, on most things, despicable..

i claim the free right to tell you that. your views display what i consider to be the very worst in australian public discourse, extreme prejudice and far right vileness, disguised as good ole aussie common sense....i will continue to call it as i see it.

the history of the far right in public discourse is there, easily studied. one of its primary tactics is to constantly play the “but I’m just a normal person” line. you do this all the time…you claim normality while speaking hate, i am happy to be the person that states the obvious.

in Australian terms, i am yes of the far left it seems, i make no secret of that. In Australia decent humanity seems to have been vanished to the left yes. being a decent person is certainly not on your agenda, or the agenda of any of the current parties.

and to even try and seriously argue that a bill of rights will inhibit freedom is simply insane.

Peter Hume, again, you aught to win a medal for "Biggest strawman-constructor of the year" award- at no point did I ever say that I considered rape a 'right', endorse rape as a right.

The simple matter is, no matter WHAT you may think, the right of one party often conflicts and infringes upon the right of another.

THIS issue is one such example.

The Doctor's hypothetical rights:
-To turn someone away requesting legal services that they find unethical
-To lecture the patient on their own personal morals
-To demand payment from the patient for performing the above

The Patient
-To recieve legal medical assistance and services
-To not be subjected to any treatment outside the duty of the specialist
-To refuse payment for non-service.

Note that both directly conflict with the other. This is an example of rights. The patient entitles him/herself to services on obligation from the doctor, the service provider entitles him/herself to pick and choose said services while occupying a service-provider's office space that may hypothetically be occupied by someone more willing.

Rights will always be something that people feel entitled to- it's always a matter of some party deciding that one's rights outweigh the other.
For example, most countries in the world, populations of people mutually agree that the right to refuse sex from someone overrides the right to rape them, regardless of how many more people would want to have a gang rape- an example you seem to insist on pinning on me.
I could argue, on your own points that the right for locals to retain sovereignty over their local environment outweighs the rights for a larger outside party to "rape" it.

The author is NOT arguing she should have the right to lecture the patient of her own moral views. All she would need to say is "I'm sorry, we don't refer patients onto abortions at this practice, you'll have to go somewhere else." How are people not getting this!? Those of you who keep talking about the sin of imposing your morality are doing that to doctors who you believe must be a part of the process that enables a woman in her quest to seek an abortion, rather than simply respectfully bowing out.

Ahhh,
The sweet voice of "decent humanity" from E.Sykes of the far left...

"this article expresses the usual far right ideological clap trap, has no basis in fact, and simply regurgitates the same vicious christian propaganda that has kept people living in fear for centuries. Shame on you."

Tell us how we can be more like you, oh Master.

Sykes,

I feel the same way about you. It’s rather childish of you to think that anything you say about me will make any difference at all; you are nothing to me. But if you want to keep up your silly and totally useless diatribes against me, so be it. You clearly have nothing to say so, like any vandal, you scrawl abuse about people who don’t agree with your tyrannical and extreme socialist views of everything. You don’t believe in freedom of speech, and you seem to think that your recent appearance on OLO would put others to rights. Grow up, sonny. Other loonies have tried your juvenile little game, but they haven’t lasted long.

In future, I won’t be seeing any of your insults, so I won’t know how long it takes your to crawl back under the rock you came from.

Runner <"Some men have won the right to mutilate their daughters in Islamic countries. One day you will learn Suzi that just because it is legal does not make it right."

One day Runner, probably never, you will learn that just because religious men and 2000year old books say it is right, does not mean that you can ignore the laws that sane people agree to follow.

Again I say, abortion is a woman's legal right in this country.
Get over it and move on.

Abortion on demand is only a legal right in Victoria because EMILY's list have gotten their way.

SHOULD it be a legal right?

The law as it SHOULD be interpreted in NSW is sensible: Only if her physical life is in danger or she is severely psychiatrically at risk (e.g. suicidal rape-victims).

The way it is interpreted is that a woman can get an abortion for any reason whatsoever.

The great irony of abortion-on-demand legislation: in Victoria, if two doctors say the woman is physically fit, she can get an abortion for any reason whatsoever the day she is due to deliver.

However, if she gives birth to the child, then kills it, she is put in jail for murder.

I believe in reproductive rights and reproductive responsibilities.

I am not ready at this stage in my life to be a mother. Therefore I will either a) abstain from sex or b) use contraception, taking into account that it's not 100% effective. If I choose to go with the second option and fall pregnant, I will take responsibility for my actions by NOT killing the foetus and allowing him or her to continue to live out the rest of the 9 months, and then adopting the child out to a couple who really wants him or her.

In QLD last year 6 children were placed on the adoption list- less in Victoria. It's one of the factors in infertile couples being on waiting lists for years even decades before they might get the chance to adopt.

Why? Because all the unwanted kids are getting aborted.

Prochoice people aren't always prochoice. One of my friends was told if she fell pregnant and chose not to abort, her parents would cut off her financial support. Another friend of mine was FORCED against her will to get an abortion.

Did you know 1/3 women are coerced into abortions?

Abortion should never be allowed for financial or social reasons. This is one of the most incomprehensible travesties of our time.

suzeonline,

A few short years ago, when nascent life was still valued...
"abortion is illegal in this country.
Get over it and move on."

Today, when a barbarian can legally abort her healthy baby in the third trimester...
"abortion is a woman's legal right in this country.
Get over it and move on."

How can you use current law as justification for your stance when you would have undoubtedly opposed the preceding law?
Law changes, not necessarily for the better.
Law is not a moral arbiter.

Herman, I am not a fan of abortion as such, and I doubt I could have an abortion myself. However, I could never presume to tell any other woman what to do with her body. That is my choice about my body.
An unrelated male has an even lesser right to say what women can do with their bodies.

I was a midwife for several years, and thoroughly enjoyed bringing new life into the world.

There were a few mid-term abortions I knew of, but in 8 years I never saw or heard of any late term abortions at the major hospital I worked at. These are mostly attended for very serious reasons, and it has to be approved by the hospital board.

The mid-term abortions all involved very disabled foetuses- usually babies with no brains, and all incompatible with life.

If these devastated parents decided to carry these babies to term, the babies would die in the uterus at some time, and then the poor mother would have to carry the dead baby around inside her until she could be induced. How terribly awful that would be.

So before you condemn these sort of 'barbarians' (more often with both mother and father deciding), take the time to inform yourself of the true facts of most of these sad pregnancies.

Hear, hear, Suzie!
An excellent point- I'd like to hear what the antis say about that- but usually I find their thinking to be way too simplistic to even touch an issue like that- or any post-birth issues for that matter.

Net junkie and other anti choice advocates.

You keep on harping about when life begins, and the right of the child.

No one doubts that life begins at conception, however sentience does not.

The issue simply focuses on whether the woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body, or whether the state can force her to incubate the child for 9 months.

A similar hypothetical situation:

You wake up after a car accident to find that you are attached to someone to keep them alive, and if you are disconnected from them they will die.

Can the state order you to remain attached, or do you have the choice to disconnect.

The answer is obvious, you have the right over you own body, and the state cannot command you to do anything irrespective of the consequences.

This is how the 24 weeks is determined, as it is the point at which the baby is likely to be able to survive on its own.

Forcing someone to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is institutionalised slavery.

Well thank you Amanda for confusing what in reality is simple issue at least from your perspective. Philosophy is obviously not your forte so give up the aspirations to a PhD.
1 or starters abortion is a right not a privilege.
2 what bout the children born to rape victims or incest.
3 why complicate your argument with issues (FGM) that exist in other countries when Australia isn’t a signatory to the human bill of rights.
5 don’t confuse knowledge with intelligence as so many of our prime minister has done.
I too am a right to lifer but not for the religious bunkum these abortion clinic bombers claim
I simply refuse to allow any government the right to decide on who should live or die.
Perhaps a little more life experience will set you on the right path if right is indeed what you seek?
We can all live in hope.

Excellent point Shadow Minister- sadly I think the people you were asking will casually pretend they never read it.

Anyway, I would also like to ask them the following;
What happens AFTER birth- and nobody wants to, or is available to adopt?
Simply suggesting a slim possibility that a loving family is there to collect them or the parents who were willing to abort will always suddenly become super-capable upbringers is about as lazy as logic gets.

Foetuses have been known to survive from 21 weeks onwards.

The 24 week cutoff in VIC is only the point at which a woman needs the "permission" of 2 doctors to say she is physically fit.

In effect we have abortion on demand at any point for any reason in VIC.

Re: personhood of foetus, have you read the author's other article on abortion?

"Pro-choicers have argued that for a living organism to be qualified as a human being, it must provide evidence of mental activity, associated with thought and the mind (i.e., a “soul”). This raises important facts: the foetus’s brain is formed within the second month of pregnancy, and brain waves can be detected on an EEG (electroencephalograph) from 43 days onwards. Some people, however, such as Miriam Clare in The Abortion Issue: Personal Views on a Public Issue, take a perhaps more subjective stance that the synapses of the foetus’s brain must have formed connections for it to be considered its own person. This does not occur for seven months into the pregnancy and thus validates the procedure up until that time.

Pro-lifers, however, argue that because the zygote or foetus always has different DNA to the "mother”, it should be treated as a separate person from conception. Within five weeks, the foetus’s sex might be different from the “mother’s” and within seven weeks the foetus has developed its own blood type. Within 13 weeks, the foetus has everything that will be present in a full-term baby; the next two trimesters involve only a development in its size and strength. Therefore, they argue, the child is not simply an extension of the mother, but, by the time most abortions occur, human enough to warrant the right to life."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=153

Netjunkie,

Did you even bother to read my post completely?

The issue has almost nothing to do with the status of the fetus. It has simply to do with whether the state has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, or whether she becomes a parent or not.

The guideline of 24 weeks is based on the probable survival of the child. (which at 21 weeks is possible but improbable, and certainly not without serious problems)

Considering that less than 50% of unwanted pregnancies are terminated, most women do so because of the huge social and economic hardship incurred in having a child, and for the pro lifers that glibly suggest adoption, this occurs in about 1% of cases.

Banning abortion is making women slaves to the state and their reproductive systems, and would be similar to banning divorce because it is against god's will.

Abortion is a right not easily exercised.

The coma case is only analogous to a woman who has been raped.

In every other case, the woman has made a decision where one of the possible outcomes is the Creation of a human life.

With rights come responsibilities.

Re: adoption, did you not read where I wrote 6 children were adopted in QLD last yr and less in VIC?

People are on the waiting list for 15 years to adopt and are then still lucky if they manage to.

So many people put their bodies (and tax-payer money) through IVF because they want to be parents but are having difficulty realising that dream.

And you still think it would be difficult to find a loving family for a child born out of an unsupported pregnancy?

Do you realise we allow immigration at about the same rate as we have abortions each year because of an ageing population and failing birth rate?

In Russia they have "national conception day" which is a public holiday where people are encouraged to go home and procreate (I'm shocked Aussies haven't latched onto this holiday yet). The thing is, abortions rates in Russia are really high. It's not lack of conception that's the problem.

Get better sex ed into schools. Do massive campaigns about how the body works and how contraception works. Then enable people to make their own choices. But if one of those choices contains the risk to create life, and that life is created, the choice to end that life because of inconvenience should not exist.

Net junkie,

"6 children were adopted in QLD last yr and less in VIC"

That kind of proves the point that giving a child up for adoption hardly ever occurs because of the emotional trauma to the mother.

"the choice to end that life because of inconvenience should not exist"

Other "inconveniences" include paralysis from the neck down, cancer, and coma.

See Shadow? I told you this would happen...

Anyway, netjunkie are you suggesting that life only deserves to exist if the woman didn't concieve with intent to be promiscuous?

Because the woman's "irresponsible" sexual conduct seems to be the REAL focus here.

Anyway, I hope you at LEAST read some of the points we've made and try to answer them..

But to answer one of yours YES- it is obviously very hard and unlikely to get an unwanted child adopted- if it wasn't, there'd be no children raised in broken families.

To lazily say "oh well that's their responsibility" just as much means that the wellbeing of the child's upbringing and the consequences of this to the mother, child and anyone who encounters the child is all in the hands of someone who had irresponsible sex.

Suzeonline, I’m glad the women who sought 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions needed hospital board approval. The types of abortions used at that stage are barbaric- we would not treat our dogs that way (we certainly wouldn’t treat out whales that way without the token Hollywood protesters).

I have no problem with abortion being done to save a life. But in modern Australian medicine that is almost never necessary. It certainly isn’t necessary 100, 000 times a year.

You know why most abortions occur though? “0.03 per cent of women choose to do so because the pregnancy was caused by rape; 0.007 per cent because the woman’s life could be in danger; and 0.1 per cent because of a possible birth defect.

Alternatively, 60 per cent choose to do so in order to avoid the cost of raising a child and 24 per cent because the woman fears the impact the child would have on her career or studies.”

Re: after birth adoption: 15 year waiting lists to adopt would not exist if men and women 1) chose to abstain or 2) chose to use contraception and 3) chose to adopt the kid out if they had an unplanned conception. Our problem isn’t lack of prospective adoptive parents, but lack of kids to adopt.

The broken families thing is completely different! Those are kids whose parents have CHOSEN to raise them, but the parents’ relationship didn’t work out. A tragedy as well, even if it is common.

“21 weeks is possible but improbable, and certainly not without serious problems.” So? They’re still alive just as much as you or I.

1 year survival of someone with pancreatic cancer is possible but improbable. Should we kill all inconveniently alive pancreatic cancer sufferers?

“Anyway, netjunkie are you suggesting that life only deserves to exist if the woman didn't concieve with intent to be promiscuous?”

What the hell?! Where did I ever say that?! It takes a basic 8th grade sex ed class to tell you that you can get pregnant after only one act of sex. And it’s not just “promiscuous” (your word, NOT mine) women who end up with unsupported pregnancies. Some women are even married but not intending to conceive. All I said is that with rights come responsibilities. If you do an act which could lead to conception, but you’re not ready to be a parent, then don’t be. But you don’t need to kill the foetus in order to avoid raising it.

The reason I ask is because you keep differentiating "rape" and "consensual sex" (and their 'justified' consequences) in this issue, and therefore assume your 'human life' waffle is nothing but a cover for the distaste of women having sex and accidentally getting pregnant and needing to be punished for it.
If unborn babies were THAT important, what difference does it make if the mother conceived them voluntarily or not?

Now, some particular points you made need to be re-evaluated.

"Alternatively, 60 per cent choose to do so in order to avoid the cost of raising a child and 24 per cent because the woman fears the impact the child would have on her career or studies.”
Ok, now read this out loud to yourself over and over again. Then once you get tired of it, ask yourself why it would therefore be a bad idea for these women to be raising these children.

"The broken families thing is completely different! Those are kids whose parents have CHOSEN to raise them, but the parents’ relationship didn’t work out. A tragedy as well, even if it is common."
So families with children that the parent(s) actually wanted to abort but were denied- would NOT fall under this category. Right. It takes a bad family background in general- not specifically separated parents.

"Re: after birth adoption: 15 year waiting lists to adopt would not exist if men and women 1) chose to abstain or 2) chose to use contraception and 3) chose to adopt the kid out if they had an unplanned conception. Our problem isn’t lack of prospective adoptive parents, but lack of kids to adopt."
But they don't. Case closed. If these measures would MAGICALLY be applied 100% there would be no demand for abortion- but there is, so abortion should be an option. Simple. And it's tough luck for the consumer demands for foster children if women aborted- as much as if your scenario came true- so it's a non-issue.

The assumptions that all the anti choice activists make in their logic, is that having sex and putting your child up for adoption is as simple as buying ice cream.

The societal and peer pressure, biological desires etc are not considered. If they were, they would realise that adoption is generally an issue of last resort for the mother, and that whilst abortion is a very difficult choice, adoption is impossible.

Likewise the decision to have sex by the woman is less to do with getting their jollies than with the emotions around a prospective relationship. Irrespecitve of how responsible they are with regards sexual contraception, accidents do happen.

To hold up biblical sexual practices as the ideal, and then claim that if you breach it you must lose the right over your own body is thinking from the dark ages, which fortunately carries little weight today.

To be honest Shadow, I'm convinced that these people simply don't give a single hoot about any of the consequences once the baby is born- the mother got what was coming, as far as they're converned and therefore their work is DONE.
So the whole range of bigger issues of a possible adoption, upbringing, mental health, population, costs etc are pure afterthoughts in an agenda based on pettiness.

Whatever happens next happened for the right reason- the harlot got denied a free bonk.

What a delight to read the enlightened words of King Hazza and his Shadow Minister:

"abortion is a very difficult choice, adoption is impossible"?
Impossible? It follows that no child was ever given up for adoption.

"an agenda based on pettiness"?
So everybody who disagrees with you on this life and death issue is doing so out of "pettiness"?

Thank you so much for your words of wisdom.

Methinks it is reason and respect for life "which (un)fortunately carries little weight today".

Very well Herman- let's put it to the test- please share your thoughts on the following situations:
-if a woman was raped, should she be required to carry the pregnancy?
-If there was a person who was a siamese twin- the other twin a gigantic tumor connected to his/her bloodstream- but very much a living breathing human (in every sense that a fetus is), is the healthy twin required to carry the tumorous twin around for their whole life knowing that the other will die without him/her connected?
-If a woman finds out her child, during pregnancy has a massively debilitating birth defect which will prevent it from ever being autonomous, is she required to still carry it?

This will probably be near the last time I bother trying to make a hypothesis for you people to address- me, Shadow and many others have given you opportunities to try to justify your positions and so far have had our questions avoided. Feel free to worm your way out of these ones too and I will happily assume you have no argument and that I am in fact completely correct in my assumptions about you and your 'ethical stance'- and the amount of thought you actually put into your viewpoint.

Sorry for the confusion.

People keep talking about pregnancies being “inflicted on women” by evil, religious men in government, as if women are walking down the street and then BAMN they’re suddenly pregnant.

In 99.993% of cases that is simply not the fact!

The pregnancy is a result of a volitional choice.

Reproductive rights include reproductive responsibilities.

Surely even somebody who DOESN’T value life in the womb can understand this.

Re: rape case and other “difficult” issues: I think abortion should be legal if there is an extreme threat to the mother’s physical or psychiatric health. Why? Because of this, and only this, reason: Truly desperate women do go to truly desperate measures (evident overseas with botched abortions). I’d rather one person dead than two.

Of course I’d rather none. And I’d hope that in the course of good clinical care a woman would be encouraged not to abort. A woman who has been raped has undergone a major psychiatric risk factor. However, a woman who undergoes abortion is at a massive risk for moderate-severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality (1 in 3 within 5 yrs). Even in Sweden, whether abortion has been legal, readily available, and widely without stigma for many years, 1 in 4 women feel excessive guilt over their abortion.

When a woman is rape, no matter what happens, it is a hard decision. Why? Because she’s been raped. Whether she’s raped + raises the kid, raped + aborts or raped + adopts out, it is going to be hard. There’s no getting around that.

Now I believe that it is that a woman who is suicidal needs a psychiatric intervention not an abortion. But if abortion is entirely unavailable to someone in such an extreme situation, she won’t be available for either.

However, do you think a woman mildly disconcerted re: being pregnant for the rest of the 9 months is really going to risk her life with a backyard abortion?

There’s a rapper, conceived by rape, who wrote a song thanking his mum for not killing him. He said “I’m not trying to mak

a political statement, I just want to thank my mum for life.”

Now this whole thing about “promiscuous women” getting their “just desserts”… I think you might just have a chip on your shoulder because you’ve unfortunately met too many judgmental people in your life.

I make no such distinction. But I think most reasonable people should keep in mind that pregnancy is so incredibly rarely something that happens to women without a choice and so acting like a victim who has had something forced just isn’t applicable for the majority of women.

OK for majority of women seeking abortions to avoid impact on their work and studies: I agree it wouldn’t be ideal for a lot of these women to raise their children… therefore… ADOPTION… the pregnancy is only 9 months… you can take a semester off university… you can take time out of work… you can get government/charity support.

Some families are strong enough to handle another (planned or unplanned) kid, some aren’t. Abortion isn’t the answer when there is a 15 yr waiting list of people wanting to adopt.

BTW yes adoption can be a really difficult choice. But so is abortion. Have you read “Giving Sorrow Words” by Melinda Tankhard-Reist?

Re: specific cases:
Rape --> psychiatric assessment --> possibility of legal abortion but discouraged by health care workers.
Siamese twin --> attempt operation to remove knowing there’s a significantly high chance the twin will die. However, if you know there is absolutely NO chance the twin will survive, I would say no. But let me think about that a bit more.
Birth defect--> if we kill disabled foetuses because we don’t think they’re worthy of life, what does that say about disabled people in our midst?

Honestly, between the word limit, 24 hr rule, and the fact that your questions don’t really engage with what I and others have been saying a lot of the time, some of your questions just haven’t been worth answering. But tell me if I’ve missed anything.

(Oh, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned religion in this discussion.)

King Hazza,
I do not dispute the complexity of the issues you raise.
However, you are being disingenuous in raising them.
The hypotheticals you cite represent less than one percent of abortions,
yet you would use them to justify the other ninety-nine percent.
If I responded yes to abortion in those rare cases you would see that as justification for all abortions.
If I responded no to abortion in those rare cases you would see that as justification for calling me a fanatic.
Ergo, anybody who opposes any abortion is a fanatic.
I fully support every woman's right to do what she wants with her body.
It's just that it isn't her body that she's doing it to.
To say that it is, is logically and biologically untenable.

Without delving into the rights and wrongs of abortion, the question of individual rights is interesting.
I think a point that needs to be made, vis a vis rights, is that a Bill of Rights is pointless without the basic right to trial by jury.
As Peter Hume points out, currently our parliamentarians are the sole arbiters of what's right and what's wrong. They mostly don't want a bill of rights, as (they say) it takes power away from democratically elected representatives, and gives it to 'the Judges'; who aren't, under our system, directly democratically elected.
No politician ever wants to diminish his/her own power.
The advantage of a jury is that a well chosen jury can and should have members from all walks of life; rich, poor, male, female... Also, jury members cannot derive any immediate personal benefit from their deliberations.
Parliamentarians are by definition, all from just one sector of the population. They are all in the top 10% (or is it 5%?) highest wage earners in the country (largely through their own deliberations). Personally, I don't believe this makes parliament the best venue for decisions on morality and ethics, particularly considering many if not most of them call themselves Christian, and further considering Christ's admonitions against wealth.
In the particular case mentioned, I believe the doctor's exalted position only gives her the right to make medical decisions; not the right to dictate moral ones.

That's a good point Grim, I hadn't thought of the jury factor before.

But then, it's only 12 of them (or so), how will they necessarily be representative of the commuunity?

And the politicians may be rich once they're in parliament, but they didn't all necessarily have that money before hand.

It's true, pollies do have a vested interest in the decisions they make. But that vested interest is that they need to be representative, or they'll be voted out. As far as vested interests go, I don't think that's too bad.

Re: your last sentence. I posted this a little while ago but nobody responded to it. What do you think in this case? Is the prolife GP making a medical decision without impeding on the moral autonomy of her patient?

2 situations: "1) prolife gp friend who doesn't refer patients for abortions still counsels them well. she bulk bills them, lets them say everything that's on their minds and together w the patient discusses pros and cons of 5 options (abortion, keeping child, open adoption, closed adoption, partially open/closed adoption). she gives the patients a wk or so to think of their decision. she herself does not refer patients on but she leaves them well informed enough to pursue abortions on their own if they choose to. in all her yrs only 3 patients have gone on to pursue abortions. later on they have come back to her practice and THANKED her for the counselling she gave. those who went on not to have abortions have also thanked her.

2) unwed pregnant teen friend from strict religious background found out from her gp she was pregnant. his response? this child will ruin your life, i'll call the abortion clinic.

since when r prolife GPs who don't refer patients onto abortion incapable of good non-directive counselling? since when r pro-choice GPs necessarily any good at it?"

Thanks for proving me right Herman- until you try to answer any of the arguments put forward- or even put forward some yourself, I will move on.
But so you know, my last post was trying to point out that it IS the mother's own body- the other organism is just a part of her- considering its entire nourishment comes from HER body.

Grim- interesting point- but the problem with trial by jury is that it requires 12 people to have their OWN rights violated by forcing them to attend.

That's a pretty poor argument. Being dependent on another person for your nutritional needs doesn't make you a part of that person. You can live in a uterus without being part of a uterus.

King Hazza,
Following your logic then:
because the "entire nourishment" for a breastfeeding baby comes from it's mother,
the mother is entitled to kill the "organism",
but only while she's still breastfeeding it,
after which time it would be a crime against nature.
I think netjunkie's "That's a pretty poor argument" was exceedingly kind, in this instance.
BTW, the "organism" has its own DNA, blood type, fingerprints, heartbeat, etc.

I believe this article discusses ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights?

Why then is everybody still arguing over the subject of abortion- when women already have a legal right to have an abortion in this country and many others?

I will ask one more question though.
Hermanyutic, and other right-to-lifers, if abortion was not legal, how will you force any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term?

Will you tie her to a bed for nine months, stop her going to backyard abortionists? jail her, forcefeed her, or force her to a hospital for the delivery,
Can you really answer me rationally how would you do this?

Yes suzieonline, you are right. There is no point endlessly rehashing the standard arguments about abortion. Talk about the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Hazza and Herman should turn their talents to resolving the Arab/Israeli conflict instead.

Hazza
You do not provide any criterion by which a right could be distinguished from
a) a wrong, or
b) any other exercise of power.

Let’s just be clear: do you agree that a right is whatever the powerful says it is, or not?

The fact that rights are enforceable and enforced, and that this adversely affects someone’s interest, does not mean that therefore rights are just an arbitrary exercise of power, because the person whose interest is adversely affected may not have a legitimate interest eg the rapist. The purpose of a theory of rights is to distinguish which interests we are justified in protecting by force, and which not.

Implicit in a Bill of Rights is that a right is whatever the state says it is. The moral confusion caused by this dominant but jumbled belief is displayed in various comments in this thread. People are using the word ‘right’ to mean ‘anything I want to use power to achieve’.

If rights are whatever the state says they, there can be no rational resolution of all these different claims, and no point discussing it. The conflict is a mere arbitrary power struggle, masquerading as a discussion of ethics.

But if a right is what you are justified in using force to defend - namely life, liberty or property - then there is no conflict of rights involved. The patient has the right to consult the doctor for medical advice. The doctor has the right to give it in good faith according to her lights. If one is in breach of contract, the other has a right to a remedy.

However the reason ‘rights’ come into the discussion is because some people who are in favour of a woman’s being able to have an abortion if she wants, want to use force - the law - to force doctors who find abortion unconscionable, to participate in the process of procuring an abortion. Since their purpose is to infringe the doctor’s right not to refer if not medically indicated, and since the doctor’s not referring to abortion where no medically indicated does not infringe the patient’s right to have an abortion, therefore the patient does not have a ‘right’ to referral to abortion by a doctor who believes abortion is not medically indicated, whether or not the doctor also believes on religious grounds that abortion is immoral.

If a woman wants an abortion, she should go to an abortion clinic, simple as that.

Herman Yutic and netjunkie- the difference of being a part of someone else is simple. It is attached to the other being, and lives entirely off intravenous nutrients from the other being's blood stream- outside it separates and thus forms its own entity, and is capable of gaining most of its nutrients independently- hence why I keep bringing up fetus in fetu as a moral example. Simple. Yet you try to construct a phony comparison of a baby attached to a mother introveniously and not at all. It's getting tiresome.

Peter Hume:
1- Simple reason I haven't provided criteria to distinguish a right from those mentioned is that I'm not convinced there actually are any.

"Let’s just be clear: do you agree that a right is whatever the powerful says it is, or not?"
Personally, no (and I'm against most Bills of Rights so far). In practice, technically that's all it is anyway. A right, practiced by society is only granted by either a consensus or by an individual dictating them, and a body to enforce these rights or else they would never really exist outside of people who would never have overstepped them anyway and therefore unnecessary

Self-defense is only a single right (and the paramaters of to what extent you can use self-defense and defending what are variable)- access to information, contracting, purchasing and other elements of society are others.

As for the doctor- I would also argue that after the doctor exercises a right to deny service, does the rejected patient have a right to withhold payment for the service not being provided?

King Hazza,
So it's anything goes for the full nine months then.
Any time, for any reason just as long as they're attached to that cord.
I've seen eighteen year olds incapable of gaining their own nutrients independently.
Can they be legally terminated?
Is a meals-on-wheels provider entitled to terminate their clients because they are no longer able to gain their own nutrients independently?
You talk about bringing up moral examples, but surely you've abandoned morality.
Pragmatism, convenience or expedience maybe, but talking about morality while justifying abortion takes a lot of chutzpah.

the abortion argument is simple:
if men don't like what women do with their sperm then don't give them any.
dodging responsibility and delivering judgement is just silly.

what i'd like to know is since Australia's Constitution provides for men's legislatures only,
is it proposed a Bill of Rights will contain women's sole human right to male supervision?

Nice try Herman- all of the other examples they are complete individuals.
The only post-birth examples of people who are not entirely individual are siamese twins and fetus in fetu- hypotheticals you dodge again and again.

You also talk about morals- I suppose bringing a child into the world of parents who wanted to kill it if they were given the choice, and are not prepared and probably not capable of raising it, thus creating another unwanted child, and lazily leaving its fate to a few "maybe this could happen" scenarios against a higher likelihood of delinquency is, apparently perfectly moral because a blob got to take a human shape and a woman who practiced irresponsible intercourse got her just deserts?
(and yes, virtually every study on child delinquency and crime point overwhelmingly to poor relationships with parents).

Which goes back to the bottom line- if anyone is so irresponsible to get pregnant when the didn't want to be, and they don't want to keep it, obviously it is in everyone's interest for them to abort.
If they had any intention to adopt it away, they would have done that.

You're starting to bore me as we have made not a single bit of progress at all. Instead of trying to say something intelligent you keep trying to fabricate strawmen which I keep tearing apart.

Bring up just ONE intelligent thing to say, and I might continue to give comprehensive replies, because I'm starting to think it's more than you deserve and I'm wasting my time.

The entire pro life argument in this thread is facile and tries to avoid the main reason why abortion is considered a right.

The nub of the issue is that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, and has to be afforded reasonable access to exercise her right.

The rights of any one person cannot influence the rights of another.

For example suppose I had a rare blood type, and needed a transfusion, and Joe Bloggs was the only person in the world who could provide the blood. It would be a morally correct and decent thing to do to provide the blood for transfusion, especially as there was little inconveniece and no harm.

However, there is no court in the world that would force Joe Bloggs to donate the blood.

At no point does anyone suggest that abortion is a good thing or that it should be promoted, but once having accepted that humans have the sole right over their body, this right cannot be suspended because a few religious fruit cakes wish to impose their morality on others.

As Hazza says, all your examples are for independent beings, who can be taken care of by others if the original carer walks away. This is not the case for a fetus.

King Hazza and his Shadow Minister,
Your argument that “the rights of any one person cannot influence the rights of another” reminds me of the argument for slavery.
It was contrived that slaves had no personhood, therefore they had no rights.
Yours is the same self-serving mentality:
The unborn child has no personhood, therefore they have no rights.
This is an artificial construct based on desired outcomes.
Just as slave owners argued for the right to exploit other humans, so the pro-abortion advocate argues for the right to kill the inconvenient.
There is more evidence for than against the personhood of an unborn child.
Should not the benefit of the doubt then rest with the one whose life is in the balance?
You say that “all your examples are for independent beings, who can be taken care of by others if the original carer walks away. This is not the case for a fetus.”
You create an artificial hierarchy of levels of independence and separability to justify your stance and then cherry pick the level which suits your argument. This is a self-serving fiction.
Furthermore, one doesn’t have to accept “that humans have the sole right over their body”.
For example, society incarcerates those who are a threat to society.
They no longer have “sole right over their body”.
Society does this to protect the innocent.
In a similar manner, society used to protect the unborn.
What happened?
Women realised that they had the power to redefine life.
And we all know that power corrupts.

(Just quickly...)

If the person with the rare blood type has the right not to give it, does a doctor have the right to not refer a woman for an abortion (or onto someone else who will) so long as the dr alerts the woman of her legal rights and the ways that she herself can pursue them? (Again, what the original article was actually arguing...)

Oh and btw I've responded to a few of the questions you have put to Herman but you haven't responded to my responses.

most men prefer to empower women with their sperm
blow-up latex dolls are available to those who don't.

"If abortion was not legal, how will you force any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term?"

In America, before Roe v Wade, abortions did happen. But they only happened when necessary to preserve life or because of extreme circumstances.

To the woman who simply doesn't want the inconvenience of the rest of her pregnancy, sure, she wouldn't be able to abort, but that is a good thing.

Remember, if you don't want to conceive, then don't.

"The patient has the right to consult the doctor for medical advice. The doctor has the right to give it in good faith according to her [rights]."
Yep. And if it is not medically necessary for a woman to have an abortion in order to save her life then we are not talking about something she is "owed" by a dr. Rather something she WANTS for social/economic reasons.

"However the reason ‘rights’ come into the discussion is because some people who are in favour of a woman’s being able to have an abortion if she wants, want to use force - the law - to force doctors who find abortion unconscionable, to participate in the process of procuring an abortion. Since their purpose is to infringe the doctor’s right not to refer if not medically indicated, and since the doctor’s not referring to abortion where no medically indicated does not infringe the patient’s right to have an abortion, therefore the patient does not have a ‘right’ to referral to abortion by a doctor who believes abortion is not medically indicated, whether or not the doctor also believes on religious grounds that abortion is immoral."
Brilliant.

Hazza, honestly, some people choose to raise kids even though they probably shouldn't. I think it's great they choose not to abort but they shouldn't choose to raise the kids. So adoption should be more actively encouraged.

Obama supports abortion up until the cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever. At want point do the other pro-abortion-on-demand people on this forum support it til and why?

Snore Herman, keep it up, you're doing great!

netjunkie- absolutely provide easy information to organize adoptions, but abortion should still be just as accessible- whether or not any prospective parents were available. Certainly if any couples that would consider adopting instead would simply prefer to do so.

"if you don't want to concieve it- dont"
Obviously people that abort concieved without wanting to- and now that it's happened, there needs to be solutions.

netjunkie,

Your comment that "Obama supports abortion up until the cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever" does not do him justice.
Senator Obama is on the record as blocking the Illinois equivalent of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
"Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."
This act sought to ensure that infants who survived abortion would receive due care.
Not if Obama could help it.
Obama thinks that born alive abortion survivors should be left to die because to do otherwise would put an "undue burden" on the abortionist and the "mother".
That's right, chuck them alive in the garbage where they belong.
Think I'm making it up?
Look it up.
Obama's stance makes him the pro-"choice" hero and probably the most radical pro-abortionist in American politics.
Even NARAL refused to speak out against the federal act.
There is simply no getting around the fact that President Obama supports infanticide.

Herman,

In saying "There is more evidence for than against the personhood of an unborn child. Should not the benefit of the doubt then rest with the one whose life is in the balance" it is obvious that you either avoiding the issue or lack the ability to understand.

Using your logic, I could be forced to donate blood or even a kidney to someone that needs it.

Also "For example, society incarcerates those who are a threat to society. They no longer have “sole right over their body"

Wrong! they have lost their freedom of movement and association, but not any right over their body. If they had, we could force them to donate blood or other tissue, which we can't.

I find strange your associating pregnancy with committing a criminal act.

The act that obliges doctors to refer patients to more open minded practitioners came about because of abuses of trust by doctors who chose to lecture and bully patients rather than give them sound advice.

While Peter is right that they should rather seek a clinic than see their GP, the reason they see their GP is because they are nervous and wish to discuss it with a familiar face, which places their GP in the position of trust.

The act is not requiring the doctor to be involved in procuring the termination, simply to refer them to some one that can discus all the options. The act makes it difficult to abuse the patients trust.

Net junkie,

"In America, before Roe v Wade, abortions did happen. But they only happened when necessary to preserve life"

Rubbish. Nearly as many occurred as after RVW, the difference was that they were done safely and thousands of young women didn't have to die needlessly.

The anti choice activists are fighting a battle that was lost at the dawn of reason using logic from the dark ages.

Human rights 1
Religious nuts 0

"abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful"...
Camille Paglia, a feminist who nevertheless supports abortion.
At least Camille Paglia is brutally honest and not a self-serving sophist
like the abortion apologists on this forum.