Ultimately abortion is a private matter - if a woman wants to do it badly enough she will, because there's no changing human will.

However, there is another dimension to the issue that is at odds with 'personal choice' that isn't so easy to untangle. That is, once pro-abortionists go public, if they are not challenged in a like manner, their philosophy becomes mainstream and eventually starts infecting everyone. The big danger here is that people who wouldn't otherwise engage in the practice do so in much the same way that teenagers take drugs and booze as they go through that period where they drift around looking to 'find themselves'.

Now, I think people can turn a blind eye to abortion where it is quarantined to those who really want to do it. But, will this still be the case if the practice starts spreading further? Hopefully, the better survival instincts of mainstream society will kick in at that time and mobilise against its intrusion.

I believe a 100% pro-life stance (or zero tolerance to abortion) cannot go wrong. There will always be degrees to the issue (eg the later the abortion, the worse the outcome), but the best policy would be to not have it, apart from a few extenuating circumstances which would be need to be acted on on their merits.

Dear RobP,

I'm not sure if you're aware that the
Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 that was
passed in Victoria 22 Oct. 2008 quite
clearly states that:

(Quoting from the Minister for Women's Affairs
office):

"Under the Bill, terminations of pregnancy will
be regulated like any other medical procedure
up to 24 weeks gestation. After 24 weeks gestation,
a registered medical practitioner may perform an
abortion on a woman ONLY if the medical practitioner -
a) Reasonably believes that the termination of pregnancy
is appropriate in all the circumstances;
b) Has consulted at least one other medical practitioner who
also reasonably believes that the termination is appropriate
in all the circumstances.

In considering all the circumstances the registered medical
practitioners must have regard to all relevant medical
circumstances and the woman's current and future physical,
psychological, and social circumstances..."

Foxy,
You naively assume some sort of ethical self-regulation among abortionists, similar in substance perhaps to that of Hollywood plastic surgeons.
The practical effect of the abortion restrictions you quote is that if two abortionists back each other up then the law has been fulfilled.
How much money does an abortionist stand to lose for each abortion they knock back?
How easy would it be for abortionists to establish quid pro quo arrangements?
What's the difference between a viable 24 week only foetus and a viable 25 week old foetus anyway?
Who cares?
Not the Victorian government it seems.
It's just another lump of tissue in the biohazard bag.

Dear KMB,

The legislation that has been modernised in Victoria
is a fundamental change in the way abortions will
be regulated in the state. It's an excellent move
by the State Government - and complies with the
demands of the broader community. Whether you like
it or not - abortions are going to be (and are) performed.
However - the State Government decided to modernise the
legislation and bring it up to date with current clinical
practice.

The Legislation is basically :-

A clarification of the law relating to terminations
of pregnancy. And it does set limits - as explained
in my earlier post.

The bill was passed after extensive consultation with
individuals and organisations. You compared "abortionists"
with - "Hollywood plastic surgeons." That comparison
has no validity, and you know it. For a start, they are
not "abortionists," they are reputable physicians. And there are
many reputable plastic surgeons to be found globally,
not only in Hollywood. If you consider me being naive.
I consider you being - contentious.

There is no need for health professionals to misuse
the law - it's no longer a criminal offence to
perform an abortion in Victoria. The law merely
reflects broad community views and current clinical
practice. That's the whole purpose behind the legislation.
By modernising the law the misuse that occurred with
"backstreet" abortions by private physicians or even
untrained practitioners (fairly common in the past) has
been removed out of the equation - as have the serious
risks involved for women.

The Bill that was passed was subject to a conscience
vote by Government MPs. You may not agree with the
legislation, but naivety doesn't enter into the
argument. You're contentiousness does. You obviously
are against this legislation - and that's fine. That's
your opinion. However, it's only your opinion - and
whether you like it or not - it actually doesn't count
for very much - in the general scheme of things - in
the state of Victoria!

The fairness of the legislation, to the broader community
is self-evident.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

All the legislation you refer to does is solve the Government's political and legal problems. It doesn't solve the underlying problem which is the immediate effect on the foetus and the future effect on the woman involved.

In my view, the 24 weeks threshold is way, way too much. The foetus is already well down the formation and developmental path at this stage, and an abortion is permanently and abruptly killing that development. There is no nice way to put it.

Where the legislation says "and future physical, psychological, and social circumstances..", this is meaningless as how can a medical practitioner know or even guess what the future effects are going to be on the woman having the abortion? This phrase is feelgood codswallop, basically. What will happen is that the practitioner doing the assessment will go with the flow of majority opinion at the time.

My argument effectively boils down to prevention is better than cure. All the legislation does is attempt to contain the damage and even then it is slipping backwards all the time.

Dear RobP,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree
on this topic. At the root of this
controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus.
Is it a baby or a mere collection of
cells and tissue... The conflicting
value judgements stem from this ambiguity.

The question is further compounded by a related
issue - the right of a woman to control her own
body.

We all have our own opinions about abortion.
I for one am unwilling to impose my views
on others. I feel that as time goes on, the legal,
ethical, and medical complexities won't abate.
People will continue to make decisions primarily in
terms of their personal desires rather than what
anyone else tells them to do.

And, as Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand stated,

"The Government has committed to the development of
legislation that provides clarity for women,
health practitioners and the community about the
circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy
can be performed."

Thanks for your views on the topic.
But I have nothing more to add on this subject.

See you on another thread.

Cheers.