(Eds note: Peter Michael covered the Queensland abortion trial for the Courier-Mail)

It was like a morning after pill. That’s what Tegan said. That’s how they do birth control in Russia.

Tegan Leach and Sergie Brennan finally smiling outside court yesterday. Picture: Brian Cassey

Except by the time she took them – five tiny pills over 48 hours – she estimated herself to be about five weeks pregnant. “I woke up with a period the next day. And other than that I was fine,’’ she told police brightly, in explanation.

It begs that hoary chestnut: When does life start? When sperm meets egg? When there is a heartbeat? When newborn child emerges from womb and opens eyes and lungs to the world? It does not matter. Not in this case.

Tegan Leach, 19, of Cairns, a shop assistant at a video store in December 2008, had done what most women who suspect they are pregnant do.

She took a urinary test. It came back positive.

She went to a doctor. He agreed she was probably about three weeks pregnant. He wanted a blood test to confirm.

But that was enough. She’d had enough of strangers sticking their nose into her private bits.

She did not turn open the criminal statutes of a law passed in 1899, based on a British law of 1861, from a time when women had few if any rights and the idea of a safe termination was medically unknown.

No. She did what up to 70,000 women in Australia do every year.

She turned to boyfriend Sergie Brennan, now 23. They agreed to abort. Together they told their parents. Both had sisters who’d been through a suction curette and told them, if a little bluntly, “it gets sucked out and scraped out’’.

Tegan, a slim, elegant, fragile blonde, paled at the thought. She was against an invasive surgical procedure from the start.

Helpfully, Sergie’s sister living in Ukraine offered another option. She could pick up some pills, pop them in the post, and the matter could be handled discreetly and at home.

Elsewhere in the world, you see, including Ukraine, North America, Sweden, Japan, and the United Kingdom, the abortion pills – misoprostol and RU486 – are freely available.

Not in Australia where use is heavily regulated. Not in Queensland where abortion is still illegal unless the woman’s life or physical and mental health is at risk.

Tegan, supported by her mum and boyfriend of two years, took the imported pills and put the empty blister packets onto the “junk shelf’’ of the built-in wardrobe in the back bedroom.

How she must wish she’d thrown them into a bin.

But how could she have possibly known she was about to become the unwitting poster girl of the pro-choice lobby in a landmark abortion case – the first in Queensland’s 111-year-old criminal law history - that has polarised debate and divided opinion across the globe?

And how could she suspect that benign comment that she “felt fine’’ – the apparent lack of a “noxious’’ or harmful side effect - would ultimately become her defence, save her from a seven-year jail term, and end a nightmare two-year legal drama?

For more than a month those empty blister packets sat on that shelf until police executed a search warrant and raided the Mt Sheridan home in February 1, 2009.

Police have been tight-lipped about why they stormed the rented three-bedroom home with its elaborate CCTV security cameras on the front and back doors and the ever-rotating stock of car hulks in the backyard.

Neighbours hinted at unconfirmed reports of frequent and numerous visitors and a possible drug or property related crime raid.

Nevertheless, what Queensland Police did walk out of the house with were those empty blister packs and the mean-spiritedness to prosecute the pair as the state’s first over a home abortion.

Watching the decent, loving, young couple throughout the trial, it was impossible to shake the feeling they should never have been put in the dock.

They’d tried to deal with a very private and personal matter – an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy - as discreetly as they and their family knew how only to be hung out in full public view.

The Crown prosecutor derided it as “a lifestyle choice’’.

Luckily for the couple, the 8 woman and four man jury accepted the defence and judge’s directions as to whether the WHO listed essential medicine – misoprostol and RU486 – was noxious to Ms Leach, as defined under the statute. This was regardless of whether she was pregnant or not, or the impact on any alleged foetus.

She was fine, remember.

So. Time’s come. Time to stop the hand-wringing. Stop making criminals out of kids.

Time has come to bite the bullet, put it to a conscience vote, and terminate the state’s archaic 111-year-old anti-abortion law.

327 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Walt says:

      06:01am | 15/10/10

      So you acknowledge she broke the law, you just don’t like the law? 

      People don’t like the speeding laws either, should we abandon them too?

    • abeaverhausen says:

      07:11am | 15/10/10

      He is saying the law should be CHANGED. This is a ridiculous, archaic law..and those people should never have been prosecuted for what is a personal decision.

    • Job says:

      07:39am | 15/10/10

      Yes, speeding laws should be abandoned wink

      If abortion is murder then masturbation is genocide, periods are manslaughter and blowjobs are cannibalism.

      It’s ridiculous that we are deliberately trying to force people into situations that they are unprepared for and unwilling to enter just because of some metaphysical and pointless argument.

      Change the law

    • adam says:

      07:53am | 15/10/10

      I’m not going to pretend I understand the legal system in this instance.

      So they were charged with a home abortion, but it went to jury? And they got off because she did it but felt fine?

      I don’t get it. Anyone know of a legal breakdown of this story?

    • Gonzo says:

      08:27am | 15/10/10

      Doesn’t matter whatever you do with the law, there was another entity there (the fetus) whose rights nobody is giving a rat’s about. That is what is ridiculous abeaverhausen, that culture of death.

      If that girl had been as irresponsible with a credit card as she was with her sexual life, shw wouldn’t have been able to get out of it that easily. A life is worth more than a credit card.

      If that girl would have given those pills to a pregnant whale or sumatran tiger, every article in the punch would be talking about that today, and comments would be flowing like a river and activists rioting. But not about a baby. Who would care about that.

    • iansand says:

      08:44am | 15/10/10

      adam - Regardless of the legal breakdown, the reality is probably that the jury thought the whole thing was a ridiculous WOFTAM, and acquitted.  Thet weren’t out long which supports this theory.

      It is a brave call to do it, but one avenue of jury advocacy is to ignore the law completely and emphasise to the jury that they do not have to put up with the Crown presenting nonsense to them.

    • Scarneck says:

      09:45am | 15/10/10

      Hey Gonzo…I’m dead if my life support system is turned off, a mothers womb is no different. At what stage do you have life? - I say when you can breathe for yourself!

    • Joseph says:

      10:42am | 15/10/10

      The Law needs to be changed now.
      Grow up Australia. If you don’t like abortions, you don’t have to have one.
      To those MP’s who are sitting on the fence, do something meaningful, put the choice back in the hands of women, and get decent education out there so women understand their choices and all the options. Decent sex education would help as well.  Reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies is the only way to reduce the number of abortions. There is no other.

    • Sandra says:

      11:16am | 15/10/10

      A bit less sex and a bit more thoughtfulness, and much wanted babies could be passed on for adoption. Despite not being at all religious, I hate abortion.

    • Nathan says:

      11:56am | 15/10/10

      I believe the Act states something along the lines of ‘a woman cant imbibe a noxious drug in order to procure an abortion’. Hence the defence, the drug taken by the accused wasn’t noxious because she felt fine afterwards. It would be up to the prosecution to prove that the abortion drug itself was noxious.

    • Jayne says:

      01:11pm | 15/10/10

      Excuse me Gonzo but some species of whales and Sumatran tigers are endangered, hence the outrage. The human species is far from endangered.

    • Luke says:

      03:55pm | 15/10/10

      Therefore killing human beings is acceptable…right Jayne?

      Why stop at baby murder, let’s introduce culls, starting in your street.

    • Jayne says:

      04:23pm | 15/10/10

      Ouch, I think that was a little harsh for a website where we are simply expressing our opinions on a very controversial topic like abortion.
      I was simply pointing out that Gonzo’s analogy wasn’t appropriate. I’m pro-choice. It doesn’t mean I would have an abortion but I want to be able to make that decision.

    • Chris L says:

      12:41pm | 16/10/10

      Luke please explain to me why a few cells that might become an unwanted baby is sacred but it’s ok to suggest killing people for expressing their opinions.

    • Frances says:

      09:02am | 18/10/10

      Scarneck…some babies can’t breathe by themselves at full-term/birth…should we just knock them on the head and discard them?

    • Criminologist says:

      06:12am | 15/10/10

      ‘Police have been tight-lipped about why they stormed the rented three-bedroom home with its elaborate CCTV security cameras on the front and back doors and the ever-rotating stock of car hulks in the backyard.’

      The average house doesn’t have cameras on the front and back doors.

      ‘Neighbours hinted at unconfirmed reports of frequent and numerous visitors and a possible drug or property related crime raid.’

      Drug offenders (dealers/traffickers) are known to have cameras on their front and back doors.  There has never been any suggestion that Police weren’t there lawfully.

      ‘Nevertheless, what Queensland Police did walk out of the house with were those empty blister packs and the mean-spiritedness to prosecute the pair as the state’s first over a home abortion.’

      Your personal objection to a law does not make the law questionable.  How did you come to the decision that the Police were ‘mean-spirited’?  Police have a duty to enforce the law, even if they personally disagree with the law.  It’s their duty.  They swore an oath to uphold the law. 

      A crime was committed. Do you expect Police to prosecute criminals based on their personal opinion of the value of the particular offence to their moral position? 

      Is that an absurd notion?

    • Barry says:

      07:55am | 15/10/10

      “Do you expect Police to prosecute criminals based on their personal opinion of the value of the particular offence to their moral position? “

      I would say that the personal judgment of the police plays a major role in determining who gets arrested and prosecuted. How else do some get away with merely a warning, following the comission of a crime?

    • Helen says:

      08:05am | 15/10/10

      “A crime was committed”. No - they were found not guilty.

    • Mal says:

      08:08am | 15/10/10

      That oath does not preclude the use of commonsense and tact.  If your stance is correct why aren’t there tens of thousands of prosecutions each year?  What on earth has this got to do with drug traffickers or car hulks?
      Where you the arresting officer?

    • Phil says:

      08:41am | 15/10/10

      Just because its law it doesnt mean its whats best for the situation and the people, not to mention a stupid law something out of date and out of touch with current society ... much like QLD actually.
      They (police) had by chance come across something that was completely private and unrelated to the police search and were done over by the cops for it.
      This trial was a waste of tax payer funds and the courts time and should never have happened.

    • Jake says:

      10:03am | 15/10/10

      Mal,

      You should probably read the article.

      Phil,

      The Police had the lawful right to be there.  Once they do, any evidence of another crime can be seized and quite rightfully investigated.

    • ibast says:

      10:16am | 15/10/10

      “Do you expect Police to prosecute criminals based on their personal opinion of the value of the particular offence to their moral position? “

      Actually yes I do.  It’s call the power of discretion and it goes hand in hand with the constabulary power they are given when they are sworn in.  Not using is an abuse of that power and Police officers should be held account if they don’t use it.

    • Richard says:

      10:28am | 15/10/10

      Phil mate you don’t have a clue about Queensland. We are on the leading edge of society, where do you think Ian Frazer is from? You know, the HPV vaccine guy? Nobel Prize winner? Newsflash dude he’s from the University of Queensland.

      Just because you southerners are able to delude yourselves into thinking that its 1pm in the afternoon when the sun is in the dead-set-centre of the sky, well congratulations. To a Queenslander, 12 o’clock is high noon because we have the common sense call a spade a bloody hole-digger and get on with it.

      And the fact that this ridiculous prosecution was ruled against by a jury comprised entirely of Queenslanders totally disproves your assertion that all Queenslanders are backwards and out of date.

      Then again you’re probably still smarting from NSW’s 5th straight Origin series defeat so I’ll take your comments with a grain of salt.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      11:52am | 15/10/10

      @ Criminologist, I think it is an absurd notion.  There are many laws still in place that require some discretion.

      Queensland: It is against the law to ask any person if their father was a criminal.  Or this, No man under 4ft 8 inch is alowed to surf on Klondike Beach.

      I’d hate to see my surfer mate Stringbean in Pentridge because that law is still on the books (and the law is the law after all) and a final warning to all, please don’t ask about my dad, ok?

    • Walloper says:

      03:59pm | 15/10/10

      ibast,

      Discretion is for minor offences, not crimes…you should perhaps know the job before you claim authority.  You also need to familiarise yourself with how the Police operate and what is expected of them.  Sometimes, they have no choice.

    • Reg says:

      04:02pm | 15/10/10

      Joining Dots:

      Not sure what happened to your father’s son.

    • Henry says:

      04:05pm | 15/10/10

      Like Joining Dots,

      Please, demonstrate to us, the acutal Statute law, Act, Section where it is an offence to ask someone if there is a criminal.

      Please…I would love to see it.

    • Sally says:

      08:02pm | 15/10/10

      Actually Richard the sun is directly overhead in Brisbane at around 11:30 am not 12 noon ... so what exactly are you alluding to with yoru comment regarding common sense ?

    • Mal says:

      09:11pm | 15/10/10

      Jake.  you must be the corroborating officer.  Read the article and then go and talk to someone who can explain it to you.  Obviously you can’t think for yourself.

    • PaulB says:

      07:56am | 16/10/10

      The whisper around town is that all this was being driven by some fundie christian idiots inside the local police force.

    • Seamus says:

      06:34am | 15/10/10

      Common sense prevailed! 

      It is now up to the Premier of Queensland to repeal this stupid and archaic law.  Sadly, common sense is a commodity sorely lacking within the ranks of the Queensland government.

    • Vicki PS says:

      11:01am | 15/10/10

      Seamus, you need to bring yourself up to date with what the present Qld government actually has done to revise the abortion law.

      With regard to the actions of this couple, the facts are that medical abortion was available from two Cairns doctors at the time they decided to terminate the pregnancy.  However, rather than legally obtaining a abortion (which would have been relatively easy), they illegally imported unprescribed drugs and the woman used these to terminate her own pregnancy.  The DPP failed to secure a conviction because the defence successfully argued that the self-administered drugs were not “noxious”.

      What is puzzling is that the couple were not charged over the illegal importation of drugs.  Rather than rehashing the same debate over abortion law, we should be questioning the potential precedent this creates for a whole raft of other dodgy mail-order medications to slip through the loophole.

    • Zednik says:

      06:57am | 15/10/10

      To Walt. This has, as you well know, nothing to do with speeding. When laws are no longer required, plainly archaic, or just wrong, they need to be appealled. The QLD govt (of all political persuasions) has a 150 year old history of putting its head in the sand when it comes to social change.

    • Paul says:

      07:23am | 15/10/10

      Zednik clearly does not know that Queensland was the first state to abolish the death penalty in 1922. I would count that as a huge change well ahead of other states and done at a time when the majority favoured capital punishment.

    • Old Salt says:

      09:00am | 15/10/10

      Paul, thats probably the only thing Qld have first! We stil have laminated licences!!!! smile

    • fairsfair says:

      09:50am | 15/10/10

      I’ll keep my dunga laminated license old salt because my five year renewal is going to hit almost two hundy with the new fandagled ID card one. Long live the laminator I say.

    • Zednik says:

      11:43am | 11/11/10

      That’s a given Paul, but for a state to only make one significant social change in 150 years doesn’t say much for its standards of governence.

    • Anna McCormack says:

      07:06am | 15/10/10

      Yes Walt, we ‘just don’t like the law’ that criminalizes women and their partners for making fertility control decisions in the light of their own personal situations and values.  ‘We’ refers to 79% of the Qld and Australian population.  Premier Bligh and her spineless parliamentary colleagues are out of touch with the people’s views.  No jury will convict under Bligh’s rotten laws and they should be repealed.  No other couple should have to go through the nightmare that Tegan and Sergei have endured.  The only way to ensure that is to repeal the anti abortion laws and treat abortion as the health issue it is.

    • Steve says:

      07:28am | 15/10/10

      Any thoughts on the human life you have poured into the toilet?  When does that human life have rights?

    • Thank goodness the jury had some sense says:

      11:31am | 15/10/10

      Hey Steve, you ever pull your pud, every guy reading knows the answer to that one. Is that not the loss of life, every sperm is sacred remember.

      Just another point, Lots of stupid laws exist from the far past. It is expense and time consuming to repeal laws so they just get ignored. Here in Queensland it is actually illegal to walk three abreast in public (inciting a riot, hold over from Sir Joh) Just because a law exists does not mean it has any relevancy in current society.

    • Gavin H says:

      12:58pm | 15/10/10

      Actually Premier Bligh has gone on record to support decrimininalisation of abortion, but not enough MPs in the House support it for it to be passed. Her hands are tied because for special Legislation like abortion, a leader must grant a conscience vote. This is due to the diverse (and equally valid) personal moral convictions held by different members of caucus who are human beings as well. You can blame Anna Bligh for plenty, but not this. It’s the social conservatism of the House as a whole. These are not Bligh’s laws, she didn’t introduce them.

      Stop being lazy and learn about the system before you bag it.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:03pm | 15/10/10

      The 1800’s called they want their views on women back.

    • BK says:

      04:02pm | 15/10/10

      The law is there to protect the right of doctors to choose not to participate in an abortion. It doesn’t threaten anyone’s right to an abortion.

    • KP says:

      05:16pm | 15/10/10

      “we ‘just don’t like the law’ that criminalizes women and their partners for making fertility control decisions”.... Anna - Control is done before conception

    • Old Clive says:

      07:09am | 15/10/10

      Perception and contraception would have prevented the the whole circus.

    • AFR says:

      07:36am | 15/10/10

      +1. Hey, how about using a condom?

    • Tedd says:

      08:03am | 15/10/10

      Perhaps contraception failed?

      How much did Tony Abbott’s obfuscation when dealing with the introduction of RU486 contribute to the scenario around events like these ie. including dealing with early abortion?

    • AliceC says:

      08:12am | 15/10/10

      Nothing is 100% unfortunately (apart from abstience, are you going to be the one to start this trend?).

      You can take every precaution under the sun, but accidents happen, and it’s up to the woman (you know, the one who is physically affected) to decide what happens to her body.

      There is enough mental trauma making this type of decsion, without having to answer to every person with an opinion….

    • Beck says:

      08:16am | 15/10/10

      Sometimes shit happens Old Clive, contraception fails. Should we promote abstinence as the only form of birth control? You really need to get into the real world.

    • Who says:

      11:10am | 15/10/10

      Never heard or read about contraception failing when used correctly.  Those warnings on the pack are more than likely just there to cover the companies ar$e. 

      Even if it does fail the number of abortions in Australia topped 100,000 last year (~74,000 reported but both sides agree it is closer to the higher figure as reported on the ABC).  I doubt they fail that regularly.

      I believe abortion should be a legal option for certain situations (up to someone far more knowledgeable than me to determine those situations) but Old Clive’s not completely off the mark.  It would be a sad situation if abortion becomes thought of a contraception because people are too lazy/stupid to reach for a franga.

    • Jane says:

      01:28pm | 15/10/10

      @Who
      You need to open your eyes and ears, how about a condom breaking, a forgotton pill a couple days later etc. Are you saying that if I forget to take my pill, just once out of 365 days a year and end up pregnant then that’s it, I live with that mistake the rest of my life and as a 19 year old studying to be a teacher and to make a difference in this country spend the rest of my life with a child I never wanted? Or spit it out in to the hands of goverment?
      I don’t think that’s up to you, is it.

      Abortion shouldn’t be used as a contraception but the majority of women do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly I have held the hand of crying friends as they made a decision that they’d carry with them the rest of their lives. But THEY made the decision. Not you, not the government, not the church.

    • Old Clive says:

      01:41pm | 15/10/10

      Sex outside of marriage is fornification, just for the information of all you fornicators, you are all helping to spread the STD’s by practicing unsafe sex.

    • BK says:

      02:16pm | 15/10/10

      The pill only fails when he wants to end the relationship but she won’t accept it.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      02:45pm | 15/10/10

      Old Testament Clive huh?

      The grown ups want to talk, you take your imaginary friend and go play outside.

    • marnie says:

      02:47pm | 15/10/10

      what about gay people - since they can’t marry, should they never be able to have sex?

      secondly - married people cheat on their partners too!

    • BK says:

      04:12pm | 15/10/10

      Maybe the pill “failed” after he threatened to leave her.

    • Punch Police says:

      04:30pm | 15/10/10

      Austin 3:16,

      Old Clive is entitled to his opinion, without your derision.

    • who says:

      04:35pm | 15/10/10

      Jane,

      You clearly didn’t read my post very well.  I believe abortion should be legal.  I don’t believe abortion should be treated as a form contraceptive. 

      Why is it that aggressively pro-abortion people such as yourself seem so flippant with human life?  Take the comment “spit it out” for example.  Is it that you are trying to distance yourselves from the reality of the act?

      There is no easy answer to your first question regarding responsibility.  However, if you treated the subject seriously (thinking of the unborn baby, as well as just yourself) then you probably wouldn’t forget to take the pill, or would at least exercise some self control for the short period that it remains inactive after you do forget.  Actions have consequences, drink and drive and you could crash, inject with unclean needles and you could get a disease and if you have sex there is a chance of becoming pregnant.

      Also, please refer me to a case of someone falling pregnant despite using contraception properly as I have never know this to happen to anyone.  If the quoted statics are not just an exercise in mitigating liability, then I would be expecting this to be happening in my group of friend on a weekly basis.

      On a side note I also don’t think importing drugs into the country should ever be acceptable.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:25pm | 15/10/10

      Hey PP,

      You’re half right

    • Andrew says:

      06:39pm | 15/10/10

      If “old clive” is entitled to his opinion, then so are we.  And, in our (I think I speak for most of the population here) opinion, old clive is an archaic, bigoted, pathetic excuse for a human.  Am I entitled to that opinion?

      Abortion is not something anybody does without giving it careful consideration.  It’s not pleasant, and the consequences are lifelong.  But then again, so is the alternative, having a child when you’re not financially, emotionally, or mentally prepared for it.  Far better to stop nourishing a small cluster of cells (which is what a fetus is, really) than raising an unwanted and unneeded child into the world.  Nobody should be told what they can and can’t do with their body, be that having sex with whomever they desire (within reasonable limits, naturally), carrying and supporting another life, or choosing to end their own life when their is no chance that it will have any meaningful value to them anymore.  That’s my opinion, and if you disagree with it, I have an opinion about you as well..

    • Rich says:

      07:10pm | 15/10/10

      I generally have no problem with abortion when it is necessary such as mothers health at risk. I don’t like it being used when “accidents” happen. When you have sex you know what will happen if contraception fails and need to take responsibility for your actions. If you feel the risk is too great either use the pill and condom combined or don’t have sex.

      If you forget to take your pills that is your fault and no one else.

      I’m not religious or misogynistic or whatever other defense you have. I just hate how we’ve become such a bunch of animals who always bleat “poor me it’s not my fault”. Anything remotely inconvenient is rejected in this instant gratification culture.

      Bunch of cowards.

    • PaulB says:

      07:56am | 16/10/10

      Poor Clive.  Terrified that someone, somewhere is having a good time.

    • Chris L says:

      12:54pm | 16/10/10

      Rich, at what point did this couple say “poor me” or that it was someone else’s fault? Exactly how do their actions define as cowardly?

    • Kika says:

      01:11pm | 19/10/10

      Any man who trusts the ‘pill’ is asking for it. It’s a scientific fact that the pill actually makes women more ‘clucky’ by fuelling them with the very same hormones pregnancy provides.

    • Phil Osophy says:

      07:18am | 15/10/10

      If Tegan was bright enough to take a pregnancy test, why wasn’t she or her partner using any sort of contraceptive.  This is the 21st century and prevention is better than the cure.  I’m happy with any abortion if it is necessary but girls, use your brains before the brawn. Sometimes my sex shows how stupid it is and I’m ashamed of them.

    • HappyCynic says:

      07:36am | 15/10/10

      Contraception is never 100% effective, and besides it’s none of your business or mine.

      That’s why these laws should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

    • it happens says:

      07:44am | 15/10/10

      Contraceptive (except for abstaining) is at best 98% effective. Therefore, you can be taking contraceptive and still have a outcome that the contraceptive was supposed to prevent. Grow up.

    • Two Mummies says:

      08:12am | 15/10/10

      Unfortunately Phil contraception (condoms, the pill) is not 100% effective against pregnancy and some women get pregnant despite taking precautions.

    • Beck says:

      08:25am | 15/10/10

      How do you know she wasn’t using contraception? What some men obviously don’t realise, but what is ever present in a woman’s mind, is that sometimes contraception fails, and you may not know until it’s too late.

    • Eric says:

      07:28am | 15/10/10

      By all means, let’s change this law.

      Let’s also change the archaic and sexist laws which deny men an equivalent right to renounce responsibility for an unwanted foetus - “Choice for Men”.

      Then we can have something approaching equality in reproductive rights.

    • Eleanor says:

      10:38am | 15/10/10

      Eric, I’m disappointed. This article should have been like a bat-signal to you, and you didn’t make top comment.

    • KH says:

      12:07pm | 15/10/10

      Eric.  When you can carry it, you can make the decision.

    • Michael says:

      01:13pm | 15/10/10

      KH to be fair to Eric, he doesn’t dispute what you say. Only that men should also have the equivalent right to renounce responsibility.

      A woman carries the fetus, and it is solely her choice to keep or terminate it. She can choose to take into account the male’s feelings, but ultimately it is up to her. End of paragraph.

      Now this is where the howls of protest come in…

      A male has impregnated a woman, and she chooses to terminate it despite his wishes for her to keep it (he even offers to raise it alone). This is her right and he has no recourse. Her body.

      A male has impregnated a woman, and she chooses to keep it despite his wishes for her to terminate it. This is her right and he has no recourse. Her body. HIS equivalent right to renounce responsibility. It took the two of them to tango, both are equally responsibility but the “keep it vs terminate decision” is hers, not his. The “renouncing responsibility vs staying on board decision” is the only choice men can have, and we should have it.

      Otherwise, all men have to stay, but they get a say.

    • Eric says:

      02:20pm | 15/10/10

      Well put, Michael. It’s a simple matter of equal rights.

      @Eleanor - I’m sorry, it’s Friday. raspberry

    • James1 says:

      03:56pm | 15/10/10

      In principle I agree with Eric, but if a man was to do such a thing in practice, he has no right to consider himself a human being, let alone a man.

    • Mirror says:

      04:08pm | 15/10/10

      Well KH,

      When you can create it by yourself, you can make the decision.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:32pm | 15/10/10

      In the instance of pregnancy why should rights be equal?

      The burden isn’t equal, so why should the rights be ?

    • Eric says:

      05:54pm | 15/10/10

      @James1 - and what if a woman was to make the decision to abandon her foetus (known as abortion)? Would you say she has no right to consider herself a human being, let alone a woman?

      If not, why not?

    • Eric says:

      11:24am | 16/10/10

      @Austin 3:16 - so you oppose equal rights? That’s rather sexist of you.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      02:43pm | 16/10/10

      Hi Eric,

      Of course I support equal rights, and when you can get pregnant I’ll support your decision to do what you want with your body.

    • Eric says:

      05:47pm | 16/10/10

      @Austin 3:16 - I think you don’t understand the issue. It’s about a man’s right to dfecide what he does with his body, as a consequence of the pregnancy.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      09:03am | 17/10/10

      Hey Eric,

      So what can’t a man do with his body, after pregnancy, that you’d like him to be able to do?

    • James1 says:

      09:41am | 18/10/10

      Yes I would, Eric, under most circumstances.  Unless she was going to die by keeping it, or if she had no choice in the pregnancy to begin with (ie, rape), I would agree entirely.

    • Kika says:

      01:14pm | 19/10/10

      Eric, it goes both ways. I’d say the majority of cases have full consent of the father. Very few would ever go through without the fathers consent. What about the rights of the mother? Where can she go if she wants the baby, and the father doesn’t? She can choose to have the baby Yes.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      07:33am | 15/10/10

      I find it quite extraordinary that the Bligh government has shown no inclination whatsoever to repeal the archaic laws that facilitated this disgrace.  Other Australian States have removed abortion from the criminal code, and RU486 is perfectly legal in other civilised countries.

      Come to Queensland and wind your watch back by 1 hour - and about 100 years.

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:32pm | 15/10/10

      @CJ Morgan:  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt.  A pity that, before making an utter nong of yourself, you couldn’t be bothered Informing yourself about the September 2009 amendments to the Qld Criminal Code, namely:

      “s.282 A person is not criminally responsible for performing or providing, in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation on or medical treatment of:
      a) a person or unborn child for the patient’s benefit; or
      b) a person or unborn child to preserve the mother’s life;
      if performing the operation or providing the medical treament is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.”

      Since you are determined to blame the Bligh goverment for not repealing the existing provisions applying to abortion (s.224-226), how about you do some research and let us know what the Qld Opposition’s position is—will they support decriminalisation of abortion and ensure that appropriate legislation is passed in the House?  And, by the way, New South Wales has not decriminalised abortion either.  Go and check out the NSW Crimes Act 1900 (ss 82, 83 and 84), you pillock.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:33am | 15/10/10

      Hang on, this abortion is derided as “a lifestyle choice” by the Crown prosecutor. Yet my taxpayer dollar is paying for another “lifestyle choice” through the Baby Bonus and Family Tax Benefits. To my mind, anyone can have any “lifestyle choice” they damn well please including an abortion or gay marriage as long as they don’t require the tax payer dollar. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the state outlawing some lifestyle choices while officially sanctioning others based on undefined criteria (usually religious)

    • bec says:

      07:37am | 15/10/10

      The majority of women who get abortions *have* used contraceptives, which for whatever reason have failed.

    • Ben says:

      08:59am | 15/10/10

      Wow, did you pull that ‘fact’ from like where . . . the back of your brain? It’s about time people started to accept responsibility for their own actions. Decades ago we were told women needed abortions because they were abused and raped. Now the activists are telling us they need abortions because they’re not ready for a child. How crass that we have come to accept abortion as a form of contraception.

    • JD says:

      10:50am | 15/10/10

      agree with you Ben. we want the fun but not the consequences. human life is precious. whilst personal choice is a fantastic freedom, we (society) have no moral compass whatsoever - and that is disturbing

    • Mike T says:

      02:02pm | 15/10/10

      @ Bec

      Bulls#%t…....

      thats all…..

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      03:30pm | 15/10/10

      Hey Ben,

      Seems to me that your problem is more with women thinking independently than anything else.

    • Lisa H. says:

      05:34pm | 15/10/10

      Many women terminate because although they planned the pregnancy, they are carrying a disabled child.
      The medical system routinely recommends screening for disability with the aim of offering abortion as the ‘cure’.

      Scientists have discovered a way of determining gender in a five-week pregnancy… I shudder at the possible results of this ‘breakthrough’ globally.

      Australians’ strong support for abortion has unwittingly put a lot of pressure on young women to become sexually active with unsuitable or irresponsible young men in the name of ‘lerv’.
      At the end of the day, easy sex is the reason why we Aussies love our abortions.

    • Jenna says:

      08:07am | 15/10/10

      Hang on it is ILLEGAL in this country to have a prescription only medication without a script!! What ever the drug!! The issue here is that the abortion industry has such a lucrative hold over the market & will not let it go!! This is big business controlled by a few providers who dictate when & where we as woman can obtain an abortion. I had to travel 2 and a half hours for mine & felt humiliated every second that I was on that train let alone that night when I had to stay in the city with relatives cause you can not travel on your own!! If abortion is such a simple medical procedure then why can it not be done at a medical center? Why are we restricted into see a Dr that we have never seen before and will never see again for something that is so private and distressing?? Yes absolutely there is government blame here BUT there is a need to take abortion out of the hands of an elite few, who in my opinion, are making their lifestyle off women’s pain (& funny that most are men hmmmm I thought women were supposed to be free of male dominance).Abortion is not a marketing tool, yet both sides of the divide seem to want to claim some sort of copyright so that they can use it to secure their own personal and collective political agendas, pro life to stop it & pro choice to keep it in the hands of a few!! It is about time that women’s real experience we used in a proactive way to CHANGE what we have to go through rather than letting them be hijacked!! I am 30 & these arguments have been around longer than I have been ALIVE!! I have HAD IT with women suffering because of the public discourse of abortion It is time we changed the landscape and let battle lines die away!! I find it insulting YES INSULTING to see old women and men, who are way passed their used by dates when it comes to reproducing, telling me what I should or shouldn’t be doing!! Yes the bad old days” were bad, I have heard the stories and have loved ones who had been through it. But this is 2010 and another generation of our girls are destined to head down the same path I did 11 years ago today. To enter a clinic because of X Y Z and to come out some kind of public property to be used where others see fit!

    • Harold says:

      04:11pm | 15/10/10

      Jenna,

      You can’t come in here making sense…this is The Punch!

    • Past my use by date... says:

      07:45pm | 15/10/10

      Jenna, it distresses me that young people who have no idea and who root anything that moves, expect a drive-by clinic to make having an abortion ‘easier’.  Well bad luck toots, it’s a specialist medical procedure and can only be done in specialist clinics.

    • acotrel says:

      01:43pm | 17/10/10

      ‘human life is precious. whilst personal choice is a fantastic freedom, we (society) have no moral compass whatsoever - and that is disturbing ‘

      Tony Abbott and George Pell will look after our souls - don’t you worry about that, now!

    • Helen says:

      08:08am | 15/10/10

      Can the people who bring up “why didn’t she use contraception” on any and every thread concerning abortion simply ask their GP or read some literature on contraception? Every contraceptive has a % failure rate. In addition, some circumstances such as gastro or taking antibiotics will increase the possibility of failure. People who smugly make this argument are lacking basic sex education.

    • Ollie says:

      09:10am | 15/10/10

      The failure rate of contraception is very low, Helen, even for the least reliable methods. Surely using contraception has hugely better chance of preventing pregnancy than not using it at all.  Just because contraception fails in a small number of cases, should women/men dispense with its use altogether?

    • devil's advocate says:

      10:06am | 15/10/10

      Helen, I’d wager a bet that the vast majority of the 70-80,000 terminations performed each year in Australia did not involve any contraception.  I wish these people would ge a shot in the arm or even better permanent steralisation.

    • trentyn says:

      10:17am | 15/10/10

      hey ollie, how many times have you had sex?
      if more than a hundred be very thankful you dont have 2 kids already, I know the rest of us are.

    • Georginorx says:

      10:19am | 15/10/10

      Helen is not saying that, Ollie. Read it again. She is saying that there is a % risk of failure.
      My sex ed classes told me the % chance of failure for one method of contraception is very low, but to be on the safe side you should use two methods at the same time (eg condom and pill, or condom and spermicide). I don’t know of anyone who actually does that though.

    • Your name:Rebecc says:

      01:33pm | 15/10/10

      I do Georginorx. If you’re not mature enough to take care of your contraception, then you’re not mature enough to have sex. No wonder we have so many abortions, STDs and sexually related mental health and relationship problems. IT’S NOT A TOY PEOPLE!

    • Bec says:

      02:04pm | 15/10/10

      Hey, Devil’s Advocate. Have you ever tried to request a permanant sterilisation at 18 or 19, because you know that you never want to have children? I’m willing to bet that that you won’t find anyone to perform that little procedure.

    • Georginorx says:

      09:11pm | 17/10/10

      @ Your Name:Rebecc
      My choice of contraception is not a question of maturity. It is appropriate for my personal circumstances and a carefully weighted risk. I am not at risk of STDs or other sexual health issues, and I know what I would do if I fell pregnant. If I were ever in a less stable relationship, or practicing promiscuous behaviours, I would use 2 forms. What is immature about that?
      I would in fact question your maturity in using such outrageous accusations. And your Oprah-esque use of the word “people” and CAPS to emphasise your point.

    • Scarneck says:

      08:13am | 15/10/10

      2010 Queensland Abortion laws are based on 1861 British law - and to think they laugh at Tasmanians. The good news is…women weren’t allowed to vote in 1861, at least they can now - so come on ladies, put your vote to good use!

    • Michael says:

      01:31pm | 15/10/10

      Lol yeah Redn..I mean Scarneck, put the votes to good use, vote out Anna Bligh (who supports decriminalisation of abortion) for a conservative party who outright opposed abortion. Top advice. So glad you are entitled to vote.

    • Joe says:

      05:52pm | 18/10/10

      Luckily we don’t just change laws because they are old! Laws giving property ownership are very old also but I don’t want to change them just cause they’re old!

    • the apologist says:

      08:18am | 15/10/10

      Society has gone mad with our mass killing program, covered over as a ‘life-style choice’. It baffles the mind to think that we have somehow fooled ourselves at large into devaluing life and not even recognising human life in the womb as human life (a stage of life we’ve all been through). Abortion for the sake of a selfish lifestyle choice is murderous madness, and the militant infanticide that’s been taking place in recent decades is a blot on human history.

    • Phil says:

      09:01am | 15/10/10

      There should always be the choice, the phrase of “life-style choice” is a poor choice to use in this situation.

      Id rather a couple be responsible enough to terminate an unborn child knowing they arent ready or able to look after it than have the kid and for it to be neglected or abused, where the parents dont care about the child and dont have the means (mental, physical, monetary) to be able to take care of the child.

      The loss of life even though the child is not born yet is much better than having more unwanted children in the world suffering.

      There is also the fact that its a private matter between the two people and doesn’t need a social commentary telling people what they should or shouldn’t do like you would have. Its not your business unless its your child in question and then its a decision between you and your partner to make something that we wouldnt force you in to

    • the apologist says:

      10:08am | 15/10/10

      Thanks Phil.

      At least you’ve admitted that it’s a loss of life - that’s more credit than most pro-abortionists will allow.

      I can’t agree with you that it’s only an issue between two people. Murder is never just involved between only those who are directly involved - it is a crime with social implications that is addressed on a social level. It would be an injustice to let someone murder someone else unchecked - why should the murder of an unborn child be any different?

      You raise important and legitimate issues re. the inability of potential parents - but killing the child is just the wrong answer to a situation that is already a problem in its own right. The situation arises because sex has been irresponsibly used - the answer then is to get that in order as an issue in its own right, and not just overlook it by killing an innocent child.

    • Georginorx says:

      10:21am | 15/10/10

      What’s next? Forced adoptions?

    • Beck says:

      01:25pm | 15/10/10

      @ the apologist, mass killing, murder and militant infanticide are all very emotive and over the top terms for what we’re discussing in my opinion.

      If I were to use such strong words for the other viewpoint then I would suggest that a foetus is little more than a parasite, feeding from the host’s precious life support reserves. Bringing an unwanted child into the world, who will inevitably be neglected or abused, is child abuse and the parents should be prosecuted as such. And putting a child up for adoption is simply child trafficking and a prime target for peadophiles to source their victims.

      That’s how loony you sound when you take all rationality out of your argument. You’ll never convince your detractors that you have a valid point if you can’t put your argument forward without the use of these kinds of words.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:39pm | 15/10/10

      People who have abortions would otherwise be child abusers?  The simplicity of gaining an abortion in this society has only increased the incidence of child abuse.

    • the apologist says:

      02:20pm | 15/10/10

      Bec, at the heart of my argument is the proposition that humans are humans regardless of the stage of life that they are at. Killing someone is killing someone. The language that I used was consistent with my premise. Murder is murder.

      Under your mirror-image equivalent statement, there is no consistent premise - it’s just a cover up for a pro-murder stance (i’m not presuming that this is your stance, I accept that you were just trying to put a voice to the opposite of my opinion). Properly speaking a parasite is generally forced upon the host - whereas having a child is generally a mutual and responsible decision between two people. Parasites also suck the life out of something until it’s dead (generally). An unborn child is sustainably developed in the womb, and leaves it’s mother to become a (hopefully) productive person in a loving relationship with the parents and others. Yes there is a sacrifice on the part of parents - particularly the mother at this stage of life - but that’s the nature of human relationships generally, we shouldn’t be purely selfish beings.
      As I said with Phil in relation to related issues; child abuse is a different issue in its own right - and arguing against it using abortion is to answer a wrong with a wrong - the problem needs to be addressed in its own context. I agree that adoption is not ideal, but again, these are issues not necessarily linked with abortion.

      The question comes down to what is at the heart of the pro-abortionist stance? it is a devaluation of human life, and it is murderous. Non-arguments like those that you have raised are the sorts of lies that have blinded society to the horror of what is actually happening, and they don’t address the true issue.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:54pm | 15/10/10

      It’s possible that as many as P of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

      So why would you automatically assume pregnancy is life ?

      If you want the concept of devaluing human life how what about removing the right to bodily integrity. When women become brood mares then human life is devalued.

    • Dan says:

      06:59am | 16/10/10

      ‘Abortion for the sake of a selfish lifestyle choice is murderous madness, and the militant infanticide that’s been taking place in recent decades is a blot on human history.’

      Wow, way to be inflammatory there, mate.  You must be a laugh riot at parties.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:18am | 15/10/10

      I heard American politician Chris Coons, who is personally against abortion, put the whole concept brilliantly:

      “Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.”

      Now, I don’t know a lot about him, so if he’s cocked up on something else, that’s a pity.  However, my first thought was here’s a rational American. I was shocked, lol.  But he’s right.  he doesn’t have to agree with it, but he supports the notion that it must be an option available to women, with a minimum of fuss, and minus the bullying and intimidation.  With contraception so freely available, it absolutely should be the first thing people discuss when deciding to have sex.  But let’s not kid ourselves.  Accidents happen, and there should be options to deal with those accidents.  No one is holding a gun to the pro-lifers heads and insisting they have an abortion - so why does it matter if the option is available to people who want it?

    • Rebecca says:

      01:43pm | 15/10/10

      What about the huge pressure brought to bear by partners, family and society if you happen to get pregnant in less than ideal circumstances? I would agree with safe and legal if it were also rare, but it isn’t. Society has once again removed a consequence of life and we are all worse off because of it.

    • Tess says:

      01:53pm | 15/10/10

      “Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.”

      I totally agree.  If the more militant pro-lifers put some of their effort into lobbying for more reliable contraceptives and really good sex education on how to properly use the existing options there wouldn’t be the need for as many abortions.  Sadly I can’t see that happening any time soon.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:07pm | 16/10/10

      @Rebecca,

      But removing the option of abortion will not fix the problem, it will just drive it underground.  That is what pro-lifers do not understand - banning abortion is not the solution.  Lobbying for frank discussions about the consequences of sex in schools, making adoption a smoother process, asking militant Catholics to pull their head out of the sand and encourage that condoms and the pill ARE effective against pregnancy (and STI’s in the case of condoms as well) - these are all things that will decrease abortions.  Banning it will not.

      Encouraging abstinence is also ridiculous.  Look what’s happened to the Catholic Church… abstinence is not natural.  Education.  That is the answer.

    • nic says:

      01:30pm | 19/10/10

      @ Tess

      It is all well and good to state ” the more militant pro-lifers put some of their effort into lobbying for more reliable contraceptives and really good sex education on how to properly use the existing options there wouldn’t be the need for as many abortions”.

      However, look at the UK.  Contraception is free.  However, they have the highest teen birth rate in Western civilisation and the highest abortion rate (a service which is also free in the UK).

    • incervisiaveritas says:

      08:21am | 15/10/10

      The fact that the law under which these 2 young people were charged was enacted 111 years ago raises the broader question of out-of date statutes. In Queensland, it was only in 2004 that a law which banned the wearing of slippers outside ones house was repealed.

      Parliaments spend time enacting ever-increasing legislation which, for better or worse, affects the daily lives of citizens. Very rarely do these same parliaments spend time repealing stupid or out-dated laws.

      Maybe it’s time they did.

    • Richard says:

      12:06pm | 15/10/10

      Totally agree incervisiaveritas. We need some politicians who are motivated by the common sense instead of being motivated by the desire to big-note themselves and pass a whole bunch of new regulations and legislations and even further clog up the (ideally simple and natural) process of citizens leading their lives the way the wanna lead their lives.

      Time for politicians to start repealing laws, we not less laws, not more laws.

    • trentyn says:

      12:18pm | 15/10/10

      law is whatever is written and enforced, not just written. as such repealing of old laws would be a waste of taxpayer money.

    • incervisiaveritas says:

      05:49pm | 15/10/10

      Yes trentyn, that may be so.

      But who makes the decision on which laws should be enforced and which ones should not be?

      In addition, good governance in never a waste of taxpayer funds - bad governance always is.

    • Liz says:

      08:26am | 15/10/10

      Whatever else this young couple may or may not have been involved in obtaining an abortion is their business.Wake up Queensland! Just one question though, why keep the empty packets? Or were they set up?

    • Joon says:

      08:26am | 15/10/10

      Phil, nice one. I presume you are ignorant of the fact that there are documented cases of women becoming pregnant on the pill.

    • Paul says:

      10:36am | 15/10/10

      Yes, but that doesn’t prove that it is the norm. The percentage of falling pregnant while using the pill, while not obvously 100%, is pretty darn close to it.

    • Steve says:

      08:38am | 15/10/10

      The state of Queensland is an embarrassment to this country.

      The land that time forgot.

    • howy says:

      11:36am | 15/10/10

      Is abortion ‘progress’?

    • monkeytypist says:

      01:29pm | 15/10/10

      Yes, howy, it is: because forcing women to have children against their will under pain of imprisonment is the action of a society of medieval peasants.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:44pm | 15/10/10

      No one forced them to become pregnant monkeytypist

    • Gavin H says:

      01:52pm | 15/10/10

      What’s your point Rebecca?

    • AdamC says:

      03:05pm | 15/10/10

      Monkeytypist, what makes you so sure that posterity won’t compare our abortion-happy attitude quite unfavourably to those of your mediaeval peasants?

      I think there is something quite bizzarre about a society in which the plight of battery hens is greater cause of public concern than the lives of unborn children.

      Simply because it is easier for us to empathise with the plight of a woman with an unwanted ‘pregnancy’ than her foetus doesn’t mean that the foetus has no right to life. And just because feminist doctrines insist on unfettered ‘reproductive rights’ doesn’t mean these rights really amount to the right to deny one’s unborn children the opportunity to be born and live.

    • Georginorx says:

      03:10pm | 15/10/10

      Rebecca, are you suggesting they chose to become pregnant? Or are you suggesting they should have practised abstinence?
      Short of a histrerctomy, there is no sure-fire way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Other surgical procedures might not work, medications might fail, condoms might break. You might not realise you are pregnant until it is too late for the morning-after pill.
      It is not your right to make someone keep a child because of a risk like that. We have the technology to minimise unwanted consequences of sex, why not use them?
      To be callous, if you were to use a condom and be as careful as possible about avioding STDs, but you still caught an STD, is it your own fault? Do you deserve to live with that STD for the rest of your life? Would you be prepared to go through legal and public scrutiny just to get rid of that STD?

    • James1 says:

      04:01pm | 15/10/10

      Rebecca,

      Sometimes rapists force women to become pregnant.

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:37pm | 15/10/10

      Steve, go check out the NSW Crimes Act, then shut the hell up.

    • AdamC says:

      08:50am | 15/10/10

      So, in summary, none of this would have happened if the silly girl had just gone and got an abortion like thousands of QLD women would do every year, without any sanction. Instead, she had to import drugs from Ukraine and do a sort of DIY, amateur abortion.

      I would broadly agree that this trial was not helpful, but have no sympathy for the couple. At all.

    • Claire says:

      09:43am | 15/10/10

      Not an amateur abortion. An at-home abortion. Using drugs that are deemed safe for an abortion for a woman at her stage of a pregnancy - deemed safe by many countries overseas.

      What’s wrong with that? If you had the choice of going through an invasive medical procedure at a clinic or a more discreet and safe one in the privacy of your own home, what would you choose?

    • AdamC says:

      10:36am | 15/10/10

      Claire, do you usually medicate yourself by importing drugs without a prescription?

      I can understand the attraction of a drug-enabled abortion rather than a surgical one, but that shouldn’t (and, except in this politically-charged case, wouldn’t) be a defence to going and playing doctor.  Only a tiny minority of people would ever consider doing what this woman did. Aside from anything else, it is silly to take medications without seeking medical advice. What would have happened if she had an adverse reaction?

    • KH says:

      12:11pm | 15/10/10

      @AdamC.  That brings us to the rest of the argument.  Why is this drug not available on prescription at your own doctor?  It should be.

    • Old Salt says:

      08:58am | 15/10/10

      Here’s my point, someone else has probably said it: if these people were found not guilty of abortion and quite a large number of women have abortions and no-one is ever found guilty (i am assuming, i haven’t done the research), whats the point of the law? Take away the emotive aspect the law itself has no power because these people were found not guilty, so why have it?  People in this thread said things like we don’t like speeding laws etc, but every day people get found guilty of speeding, so the speeding law works.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      09:11am | 15/10/10

      More important is the fact that the police needed a warrant which must stipulate a suspicion, ie a reason for a home invasion. Obviously their reason for the warrant was wrong so they found something else to justify their invasion.
      Seems to me that police got away with a fishing expedition - something must be going on. Let’s find out - well bugga me look we found something ... not what we were looking for but something all the same. This is more frightening than anything else in this case applying to so many other cases where drugs for example are the reason for a warrant and an illegal fire arm is found. Frightening ...

    • Jake says:

      10:09am | 15/10/10

      Poor Dieter,

      Are you not following the real reason the house was searched?  The packets were discovered during that search.  On you theory, if Police enter a house looking for drugs and discover someone cutting up a body, they should look the other way?  WTF?

    • Gary says:

      10:50am | 15/10/10

      I suspect the reason for the warrant was because of a neighbourhood dispute. The “ever-rotating stock of car hulks in the backyard.” probably got up the nose of some righteous do-gooder living next door, who then made a false complaint of drug trafficing to the police as payback. Any such dispute could be the reason for installing the “cctv” cameras also.
      A friend has been through a similar situation after a fallling-out with a ‘friend’. The police don’t give up easily. While they found nothing suspicious in his house, some 15 months later he is still regurlarly harrassed while driving in the vain attempt to hang something, anything on him.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:26pm | 15/10/10

      yeah, because the police have nothing better to do than persue law abiding, innocent people for non-crimes. They love nothing more than rifling through your jock draw and sh*tpit houses for something… anything to create more monotinous paperwork for themselves.

      Come off the grass. I live in Mt Sheridan and parts of it are dodgeville. Parts of it are lovely. I have no idea which part these people live in. If my neighbour had an “ever rotating stock of car hulks in the backyard” I would complain too - because it is residential area. My complaints would be directed to the council due to land use and if I tried to complain via the police they would tell me to p* off.

      Bottom line is, to be investigated by the police they had to be doing something untoward. Bottom line is, this has no bearing on the matter at hand. I could not care if they were repeat drug offenders or catholic school kids who volunteer at meals on wheels - they broke the law (by procuring and importing drugs illegally for the purpose of aborting their child). They should have been found guilty by the jury (because they admitted to the act) and then the judge should have shown discression in sentencing to appease the public. Anyway, what is the point in wasting money repealing the law if it not held up in court and precedent is now set with respect to this particular drug.

    • Phil says:

      04:34pm | 15/10/10

      Or Gary,

      Maybe they actually are drug dealers…

    • Luke says:

      05:38pm | 15/10/10

      fairsfair…

      You need to add…bottom line is..an independant Justice of the Peace was satisfied the Police where justified in their actions when seeking a search warrant.

    • bella starkey says:

      09:22am | 15/10/10

      There is something kind of suss about this whole case.

      Besides the whole “why were the cops searching there in the first place” thing. How would a couple of plods take a look at a ukranian, empty packet of misoprostol and think “wait a minute! these teenagers have illegally imported this in order to procure thier own miscarriage contray to the 1899 criminal code on lady bits and that”

      It just doesn’t add up to me

    • iansand says:

      10:18am | 15/10/10

      It depends what the cops were looking for.  What follows is complete speculation.  The setup of the house suggests some sort of illicit activity, perhaps drug dealing.  Perhaps something else.  There is every chance that these people, or other occupants of the house, were “known” to the cops.  It is not unheard of for cops to fit people up if they cannot obtain legitimate evidence.  These cops search the house and find a pill thingy with Ukrainian writing so they take it away to be examined, just in case.  They want to get these people for something, so when they discover that the pill thingy was for an abortion drug some bright spark does a bit of investigation and discovers an ancient offence which they hang on the defendants, helped by a bit of blurting by the woman (a good example why you should never say anything to the cops, no matter how innocent it may seem).

      The decision to prosecute is probably based on police vindictiveness rather than any moral attitude.

    • trentyn says:

      12:23pm | 15/10/10

      i’ll go one further to ian and say, who cares when the law was introduced, its pretty general knowledge that abortions are illegal in QLD. I question how they fingered the teenagers.

    • Delphic Oracle says:

      09:58am | 15/10/10

      There are pills,k pills and pills.  I think the police must have found the wrong ones and she wasn’t taking the right ones.  If she had been on contraception there would have been a high percent that she would not have become pregnant.  And why, if they didn’t want kids, wasn’t her partner usiong a condom.  Life choices should be responsible choices.

    • AliceC says:

      10:33am | 15/10/10

      How do you know she wasn’t on contraception, or they they didn’t use a condom? Where you there????

    • Marnie says:

      10:10am | 15/10/10

      I can’t believe this even got to the court stage. It was nobody’s bloody business but that of the couple concerned. What a watse of taxpayers money and time.

    • Helen says:

      10:11am | 15/10/10

      So if the kid is three and murdered by the parents you’re all outraged and the calling for life imprisonment.

      If the kid is not outside the womb, no one cares.

    • concerned says:

      11:41am | 15/10/10

      Yes that is right, If you look at the level of nerve development and brain tissue mass in a first trimester foetus it is very very different to that found in even a 2nd trimester. This was an early term abortion and really, pro lifers opnions do not stand up from a biological point of veiw. The moralistic regarding potential of life is more difficult but if we are going to prosecute for the loss of potential life then women should be charged ever menstual cycle that they do not fall pregnant and a bloke ever time he releases a bit of pressure.

    • Rebecca says:

      11:51am | 15/10/10

      Just like the pro-lifers don’t care about what happens post-pregnancy.  They succeed in coercing (forcing) the pregnancy to term and then abandon ship.  You may be able to force someone to give birth, but you can’t force them to be a decent parent.  And that’s when the children truly suffer.

    • AliceC says:

      12:17pm | 15/10/10

      @Helen

      That’s not the case at all. Up to 12 weeks post fertilisation, it is a group of cells in the womb, not yet a foetus. By your logic, an unfertilised egg is a potential child, therefore a woman murders a child every time she her her period….

    • Daniel says:

      12:43pm | 15/10/10

      Exactly right, and it’s none of my business.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:49pm | 15/10/10

      Agree Rebecca!  Well said.  All this protesting about how the child deserves to live, but they don’t offer to help you raise it.  High horse indeed…

    • (another) Rebecca says:

      01:52pm | 15/10/10

      There is a huge waiting list for newborns for adoption. Abortion makes no difference to child abuse rates. If anything, it would increase them due to the decreased value placed on life. And the level of nerve development and brain tissue mass is very different between a newborn and a two year old, so? Eggs and sperm have 23 chromosomes, therefore are only half of a potential human being. Once conceived, the ‘group of cells’ have 46, and is a person.

    • Your name: Mumof3 says:

      02:48pm | 15/10/10

      its just the opposite Helen.  All these pro-choice people care about the children so much that they don’t want them brought up in a home where the parents do not want them.  Surely we need to be concerned not only with the life of the child, but the quality of the child’s life.

    • Helen says:

      04:20pm | 15/10/10

      @AliceC

      An unfertilised egg is not a child, by any stretch of your vivid imagination.

      A fertilised egg IS a child.

      @Elphaba

      So you’re insisting, that only people who are able to raise the child properly have the right to have one.  Seriously, think about what you just said…it beggars belief.

    • Helen says:

      04:38pm | 15/10/10

      Mumof3,

      So following your logic, if at say age three, we identify that the parents aren’t capable of providing adequate upbringing, why can’t we kill them them?  Why would that be offensive to your moral stance…baby in the womb, three year old child…same rights?

    • Tedd says:

      05:50pm | 15/10/10

      A fertilised egg is a zygote, then a blastocyst containing an embryoblast that develops into an embryo, which in turn develops into a foetus at about 9 weeks after conception.  Viable child after 6 to 6 1/2 months with medical help.

    • BK says:

      09:18pm | 15/10/10

      I would like to adoption rules relaxed so that birth parents are able to ask for limited access to their children as they grow up. I suspect that many women aren’t in a position to have a baby, aren’t terribly happy about having an abortion, couldn’t hold their baby and give it away, never to see it again, but could live with seeing them one afternoon every second month as they grow up.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:00pm | 16/10/10

      @Helen

      “So you’re insisting, that only people who are able to raise the child properly have the right to have one.  Seriously, think about what you just said…it beggars belief”

      Yes, of course.  Those that can put the child first, who can shower it with love and support, who make it their mission to see their child succeed at life.  Tha’s my definition of ‘properly’.  Why does that begger belief?  I suppose every crack whore has the right to breed, right?

    • someone says:

      10:16am | 15/10/10

      “Abortion pills” - ie abortifacient medication - *are* widely available in Australia.

      However because of the restrictions on the newer, safer, more effective RU486/mifepristone, doctors in most places are forced to use an older combination of drugs, namely misoprostol and methotrexate.

      This combination is not only less effective, meaning a higher chance that follow-up surgery (usually a D&C) will still be needed, but these drugs - specifically methotrexate - have many more side effects.

      This is what is sickening about the entire RU486 controversy.  Politicians with no scientific or medical background are being allowed to dictate to medical professionals what drugs they may use, based on “moral” concerns rather than health ones.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:27am | 15/10/10

      @Someone - exactly.  These drugs should be turned over to the scientists who can determine what, if any health effects there are, and make a decision based on data, not conscience.  If the drug is determined to be hazardous to health, it might have a benefit somewhere else.  Isn’t thalidomide used in pancreatic cancer treatment now?

    • fairsfair says:

      10:23am | 15/10/10

      Women have all the power in this situation and though some might argue that that is rightly so, men hardly get a look in when it comes to choice. In this instance the couple have represented a unitied front - but we are silly to think that it is the case for the majority. The overhaul of QLD (and Australian) abortion laws will ruin some lives.

      I don’t think that our legislation is archaeic. QLD allows abortion when it presents a legitimate threat to the mother or the child. Be that physical or emotional. This means that women do have the option to terminate their pregnancy if their is something fundamentally wrong, they have been abused/raped, whatever. As a women - I am happy with these options. I do not believe that termination should be available with ease. It would become relied upon. This is not a lifestyle choice and this is not a form of contraception. This is killing an unborn child because you don’t want it, you don’t think you can provide for it, you forgot to take your pill, the condom broke, you’re on antibiotics, you were drunk. Not good enough excuses.

      I don’t deny, there are legitimate times that call for termination - but making it readily accessible and spruiking about how it is simply a matter of taking five tablets over a 48 hour period will see it become the norm. I don’t agree with that and you will find that most people are of the same view - hence why it will not make it through parliament - Anna Bligh has said that many many times. 

      This is such a bizzare article. I love the depiction of her as a slim, elegant fragile blonde. WTF does that have to do with anything? I love the photo of them in their matching outfits and her hanging on to his arm. I love how on the first day of the trial her long bottle blonde hair was straightened and she resembled something out of Zoo magazine, but on day two and three she had Shirley Temple ringlets. I have never seen a photo of them without their sun glasses on. I don’t wish to imply that I judge them for any of the things that I have just written (or for the implication that they are drug barrons via Mt Sheridan) - but it is subtle choices of language, clothing and behaviours that incfluence the broader public’s formation of opinion.

      This story has dominated my local media for months. Kudos to the officer who converted the discovery of an empty russian blister pack into a legitimate charge which made it to trial.

    • trentyn says:

      12:25pm | 15/10/10

      here here, well stated

    • Chewbacca says:

      10:25am | 15/10/10

      Why would they bother to repeal the law?  A jury, under instructions from a judge, has ruled that abortion is perfectly legal.  I have read the relevant section of the act and would like someone to explain the decision in legal terms - not emotions or opinions.

    • trentyn says:

      12:26pm | 15/10/10

      they were on Endor, it makes sence!

    • dancan says:

      10:27am | 15/10/10

      Why didn’t they just go to canberra and have the abortion there?

    • Cassie says:

      11:59am | 15/10/10

      They COULD have had the abortion in Queensland, you just have to get the doctor to agree it will cause phsyical or mental detriment to the woman’s health. Apparently in this case, the girl was too “slim and fragile” (or something??) to undergo a standard abortion procedure, which I take it means she was all squicked out at the thought of having the abortion done the surgical way, and wanted to go the “easy” option of using abortion drugs.

    • Paul says:

      10:31am | 15/10/10

      Every living human being has the basic right to his or her own life. Murder is against the natural law and social justice.

      1) At conception the foetus takes on nourishment and grows. It is therefore alive.
      2) The live foetus has the DNA of a human. It is therefore a living human being.
      3) The DNA of this live human being is different from both the mother and the father. It is therefore a new human being and not just a part of the mother (i.e. like her finger or a kidney).
      4) This new human being is innocent of all personal guilt.

      Therefore the killing of an innocent human being is murder and is against the law. A woman has a right to decide if she will have a baby but once she is pregnant - she already has a baby. She has no right to murder that child.

    • Betelnut says:

      11:18am | 15/10/10

      A live foetus has gills. like a fish.  It is therefore a fish.

      Simplistic reasoning for a very complex issue.  Although your resolute absolutism is refreshing, to most people this issue is morally grey and deliberately provocative language does little to convince anyone of the merits of your arguments.

      Safe. Legal. Rare.  Let people make their own moral decisions and live with the consequences.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:33am | 15/10/10

      Paul, a 12 week old foetus cannot breathe by itself.  I question the idea that it is ‘alive’.  You don’t have to like abortion, but it does have to be an option.  Otherwise you will get women ‘murdering’ unborn babies in their kitchens with knitting needles.  There needs to be a safe, legal option available, with more money poured into contraception education, counselling, and alternatives to abortion like adoption.

      If THOSE things were more accessable, as well as a safe legal abortion option for when all others have been exhausted, you would see less abortions.  Take it away, and it’ll be much worse.

    • Tedd says:

      11:36am | 15/10/10

      Paul, at conception a zygote is formed; this then becomes a blastocyst after 4 days ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst ) which possesses an inner cell mass - the embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo.  It is 70-100 cells.  The outer cell mass develops into the placenta.

      The embryo phase lasts about 8 weeks, after which the developing structure is then called a foetus (9 weeks after conception).

    • trunk says:

      11:47am | 15/10/10

      Agree 100% - even if that means I’m not enlightened, progressive or ‘in the 21st century’.

    • ibast says:

      12:14pm | 15/10/10

      Unless it can breathe on it’s own, it is not alive.

    • dave says:

      12:16pm | 15/10/10

      What does 4 have to do with anything?

      Maybe it is guilty? I’d say it’s guilty of not working at all for rent and food therefore it’s a thief and a squatter.

      The mother has every right to evict it frankly. If it can’t live without its free handouts from an unsuspecting innocent woman that’s not society’s fault.

    • AliceC says:

      12:24pm | 15/10/10

      @Paul

      She does not have a baby until after 12 weeks post fertilsation. You culd also state an egg is alive (all cells in the body are alive). Is a woman having her period murder?

      The day other people make decisions for me about my body, is a very sad day indeed.

      If men were the ones who carried the foetus/baby to full term, would the laws be different?

    • Tedd says:

      12:42pm | 15/10/10

      Paul, *if* it is infused with soul, it is infused with original sin, so your point 4 is doubtful.

      *if* is such as iffy word.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:07pm | 15/10/10

      I think that conventional medical wisdom is that a foetus becomes viable at 24 weeks gestation.

      And I can’t see that being changed because Paul from the internet sees it differently.

    • Paul says:

      02:57pm | 15/10/10

      @ Tedd
      If it is infused with a soul, and therefore original sin, it still has no personal guilt. Please do some more research into original sin.

    • Paul says:

      02:59pm | 15/10/10

      @ Dave
      Therefore all children are theives and squatters until such time as they can work and make their way in the world and earn a living? Think, mate!

    • opine says:

      03:05pm | 15/10/10

      @ Paul
      par·a·site? ?/?pær??sa?t/  [par-uh-sahyt] 
      –noun
      Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

      This is the medical definition of a parasite.
      Therefore one can define the embryo/foetus as a parasite.
      just saying

    • Paul says:

      03:09pm | 15/10/10

      @ betelnut
      I know you were trying to illustrate a point, but the simple fact of the matter is that a live foetus (zygote, or whatever the stage of development after conception) has the DNA of a human being, separate from the parents.

    • happy friday says:

      03:27pm | 15/10/10

      lol @ Betelnut says:11:18am | 15/10/10

      A live foetus has gills. like a fish.  It is therefore a fish.


      i like that..

      I wish i could transport back in time to high school debating and be on the pro abortion side, have the anti abortion side say all the things Paul said.. then i would stand and say

      A live foetus has gills. like a fish.  It is therefore a fish.

      and then i would sit down

      and then i would win.

    • Jade says:

      04:35pm | 15/10/10

      Cancer cells also have the DNA of human beings. They also take on nourishment and grow. Oddly enough, from similar sources to that of foetuses. Are they alive too? Should we start protesting outside cancer clinics - those genocide factories where innocent life is stamped out daily?

      Or can we be grown enough to recognise that regardless of your views on when life begins and what constitutes life, no human being has the right to use another as a life-support system without that human’s consent. Consent which can and should be able to be rescinded at any time.

    • Huh? says:

      04:48pm | 15/10/10

      Elphaba,

      If it’s not alive…how does it grow?

      Strewth!

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:40pm | 15/10/10

      Huh, crystals can grow too what does that make them? (hint the answer is not alive)

    • Andrew says:

      06:53pm | 15/10/10

      Paul,

      Your elegant, yet ridiculous, argument applies equally well to something other than a foetus - a cancer cell.  It takes nourishment and grows.  It has the DNA of a human cell.  It is different to the DNA of the host organism.  Therefore it is a person?!?!  Your logic is stupid, ridiculous, illogical, and shows a complete lack of any thought.  Congratulations, a promising career in the church awaits you!

    • Amanda says:

      10:41pm | 15/10/10

      “Every living human being has the basic right to his or her own life.”

      Yet not once, ever, have I ever heard any pro-lifer speak about the rights of the woman that is pregnant.
      “A woman has a right to decide if she will have a baby but once she is pregnant - she already has a baby”
      So once she is pregnant, however she became pregnant, she forfeits her rights to life? The unborn, unformed mass of cells then dictates her life?
      This is why I struggle with these types of articles that men ( who will never have to pysically go through pregnancy or abortion) are so strongly on the pro-life side. Yes a man should have a voice in this debate, but not all men. The only man should be the one that helped get whatever woman in the situation in the first place. Just that one, not someone on the sidelines that has no relation to the woman involved. not some stranger on the other side of the country. Same goes for the women with the same opinion, if you are not directly involved, it is none of your business.
      I do not choose to get involved in the man down the roads personal life, so have some respect and do the same for the people in this situation

    • Chris says:

      09:28am | 20/10/10

      So, if someone murders a person with a kidney transplant (the kidney receives nutrients from the bloodstream, has human DNA that is different from the receiver of the transplant, and being a kidney, can’t possibly be guilty of anything) should they be charged with 1 murder, or 2?

    • lucky to be alive says:

      10:43am | 15/10/10

      My brother and I are always grateful that our (unwed) mother did not believe in abortion but instead decided to take responsibility for her mistakes. If she had believed in abortion neither of us would be alive today!

    • Tone says:

      11:48am | 15/10/10

      ltba, you imply there were 2 “mistakes”, therefore imply your mother did not take responsibility after the first pregnancy.

      This is not to deny your happy life or a happy relationship with your mother, but it is hardly an argument against abortion for those who cannot cope with pregnancy or raising a child they would resent.

    • Georginorx says:

      11:53am | 15/10/10

      Philosphically speaking though, if a baby never reached the stage of development at which it could feel grateful or sad then it is only the feelings of the adults aware of the decision that exist.

      You only feel because you were brought to term. Now that you have developed, your feelings about life exist and are relevant and valuable.

      Just sayin’

    • BR says:

      12:44pm | 15/10/10

      I’m surprised your content in the knowledge you were an unwanted mistake. Incidentally, if your mother had beleived in abortion, would you ever know?

    • lucky to be alive says:

      01:34pm | 15/10/10

      As many others have said in the comments, contraception is not always 100% effective.  But if you make the decision to be a sexually active heterosexual you need to be prepared to accept any consequences however ‘inconvenient’ they might be.  My mother often said that her ‘mistakes’ (not just her irresponsibly conceived babies) are what made her life as full and rich as it was, you often don’t know what you can copy with until you are actually faced with it.  And not all mistakes are necessarily bad or disastrous – consider Teflon, Penicillin, Champagne and super glue just to name a few.
      Tomorrow my two handsome (responsibly conceived) sons and I will join other family members to celebrate my niece’s 3rd birthday – an event that could not be enjoyed by us or our family and friends if we did not exist. The issue is bigger than just the woman involved, a point
      that seems to be conveniently overlooked by pro choice exponents.

    • kyzz says:

      03:10pm | 15/10/10

      Why do you believe you are a mistake? Has your mother told you that you were a mistake? Bad parenting 101 there. If it was others, how would they know if you were a mistake or not? Surely you’re mother would have reassured you that you were not. And why is it important to mention that your mother was unwed? My friend was unwed (I mention it as you seem to consider it important) when she became pregnant whilst using contraception. Being against abortion and for many other reasons she had the child and I can assure you that neither she, her partner, friends or family consider that child (now 6) a mistake.

    • Gary says:

      06:24pm | 15/10/10

      @ Lucky to be alive, I’m in my 60’s, I was born to an over religous mother and a drunken father. I have always felt regret at having been born.

    • fairsfair says:

      06:35pm | 15/10/10

      lucky to be alive, as nobody else has commented to this effect, I just wanted to say that I understood the point you were trying to make dude. You mother, rather than taking the easy way out at the time, accepted her mistakes and made best of the situations life threw at her. The pregnancies may have been a mistake, but you and your brother certainly were not.

    • Sam Vimes says:

      12:08pm | 18/10/10

      On the other hand if our first pregnancy was’t terminated my wife would now be dead and none of our children would be here today. There are usually 2 sides to the coin.

    • Sasha says:

      10:52am | 15/10/10

      The RU-486 drug actually is available in Queensland, albeit not widely and only through a few select clinics such as Marie Stopes International.

    • Joe says:

      05:56pm | 18/10/10

      Yes so people shouldn’t be illegally importing such drugs…

    • Ramot says:

      10:56am | 15/10/10

      Yes, change the law. Anything to avoid begging the hoary chestnut!

    • diddee says:

      11:13am | 15/10/10

      Acording to this journalist, who I have every reason to believe, 70 000 women per year procure themselves an abortion. What made it so different for this couple that they were threatened with imprisonment?

    • Zeta says:

      11:13am | 15/10/10

      Abortion isn’t the issue here. It’s just another human aberation amongst many, nestled between war, genocide, and Justin Bieber, competing in the human arms race for greatest perversion of nature.

      The issue is how much control does the State have over the biological functions of our own body.

      If the State should be able to control the circumstances of conception and the conditions of a pregnancy’s termination there is no limit on the organic functions the State should be able to legislate on.

      By all means, the State should be able to control the importation of drugs - but once those drugs are ingested, irrespective of the effect, the State should have no more authority over them. Therefore, while Tegan Leach might be guilty of importing an illegal drug, she should not be guilty of administering an abortion because the State should have no control over the biological function that terminates a pregnancy, be it aided by a drug or not.

      Now even where a State, with a mandate, decides that abortion should be illegal - you shouldn’t be able to prosecute the individual who’s abortion it is.

      Simply put, the line between what the State can and cannot prosecute should be the epidermis. Because once they can start enforcing laws on your physical functions, there’s no end to it.

    • Jake says:

      04:54pm | 15/10/10

      What have you done with Zeta…that became boring after Justin Bieber!

      Anyone else disappointed add the number 1…

    • Vicki PS says:

      05:03pm | 15/10/10

      A very nice point, Zeta, as usual, but I fear that nice distinctions have been lost in the melee of this debate.

    • stephen says:

      06:07pm | 17/10/10

      That the arresting police were looking for drugs, I think, may rest your case.
      But you’re right, the State should not hold jurisdiction over a preson’s person, yet I sense your statements are meant to encompass illicit drugs in general.
      Nice try, Zeta.

    • Georginorx says:

      11:20am | 15/10/10

      Just out of curiosity, is it legal to repeatedly carry children to term and repeatedly put them up for adoption?
      What if someone intentionally had as many children as they could just to send them all to foster care as soon as they were born?
      Is this moral, and why?

    • Michael says:

      01:44pm | 15/10/10

      No, not moral but legal. No authority can stop a person’s reproductive rights.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:11pm | 15/10/10

      @Michael. There is no such thing as “reproductive rights”. The State has an obligation to restrict the reproduction of individuals if the population growth outstrips the carrying capacity of the environment. Only cancer cells enjoy unrestricted growth….

    • Michael says:

      04:30pm | 15/10/10

      Fair enough Shane, Communist China does have a similar thing, so I’ll concede. But in the example Georginorx came up with, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do under current statute to stop a woman constantly reproducing and giving up the offspring. I however for the life of me can’t begin to think of any conceivable reason someone would ever do that.

    • Georginorx says:

      05:21pm | 15/10/10

      ...Maybe they enjoy being pregnant? Or maybe they’re really, really bad at making a decision and sticking with it… or maybe they don’t believe in contraception but aren’t prepared to raise a child…
      I’m just brainstorming. It really was hypothetical.
      Good example for another country’s policy Shane. (note the one child policy was repealed a few years ago, but everyone’s used to having fewer children now.)

    • N says:

      11:28am | 15/10/10

      I fail to understand how people come to the conclusion that an unwanted child is better born than terminated at conception.  If you’re not in a position to have a child, why should it be forced upon you? Surely such policy implementation is devastating to society, the family and child long term?

    • Tone says:

      01:00pm | 15/10/10

      There have been some models done - the projected increased crime and other drags on society from the adults that were the unwanted children born over the last 40 years or so was staggeringly high.

    • lucky to be alive says:

      03:11pm | 15/10/10

      Firstly, not all unplanned pregnancies go on to be unwanted children.
      In defense of an unplanned pregnancy, I grew up to be a law abiding, tax paying, wholly responsible citizen as did my equally unplanned brother. 
      Secondly I’ve seen plenty of families where the children were planned and wanted but have still ended up screwed up for a variety of reasons, including abuse and the ugly divorce.

    • Kordez says:

      11:30am | 15/10/10

      What a massive foul up. A waste of police resources and tax dollars.

      The QLD Police continue to make fools of themselves! Instead of finding what they were looking for in the home of the accused. They decide to lay charges for a procedure completed almost 200 times a day. QLD Police need to stop seeking vengeance, wasting time with trivial shit and start making an impact in public areas. Especially on the Gold Coast.

      Abortions.. They are freely available now.. Just read the fine print first.

    • DrDoLittle says:

      04:58pm | 15/10/10

      So don’t get it done through proper medical assistance….much safer to do it through the post…

    • QLDPCS - Queensland People with Community Spirit says:

      11:57am | 15/10/10

      Don’t women take the pill or use protection anymore? The only abortions should be when a woman is raped. Just my opinion, thank God we have freedom of speech.

    • Tedd says:

      12:46pm | 15/10/10

      that would create a lot of unwanted children which could be seen as an abuse in itself

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      03:00pm | 15/10/10

      Hey Tedd,

      Interestingly enough there is a school of thought that legalised abortion leads to a lower crime rate.

    • Kate says:

      03:56pm | 15/10/10

      Protection always has the possibility of failure. The Pill is something like 99% effective if taken correctly - women will always fall into that 1% and it’s not their fault.

    • Colin says:

      05:49pm | 15/10/10

      Austin says: “Interestingly enough there is a school of thought that legalised abortion leads to a lower crime rate. “

      I think the school of thought you’re referring to comes from the USA where somebody linked a decrease in crime to a decrease in births from African Americans.

      Are you suggesting some races should be discouraged from breeding?

    • Ian Moses says:

      07:29pm | 15/10/10

      Women will always fall into that 1% and it’s not their fault??? If that was the case there would be a lot of pregnant women Kate. Tedd, what are you drinking today? Think…

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:26pm | 16/10/10

      Hey Colin,

      What are you on? Seriously.  In the USA the decision of Roe v Wade, which essentially legalised abortions, has been linked to a later decline in the crime rate.  Donohue and Levitt, amongst others, have done some work in the area.  They give Alaska as an example of one of the states in the USA which was among the earlier to legalise abortion and correspondingly had an earlier drop in the crime rate. According to Wiki the African-American population of Alaska is about 3.5%  They further make the point of how across the board the drop in crime rate was in line with the legalisation of abortion.

      If you have some weird fantasies about racial superiority or eugenics do us all a favour and keep them to yourself.

    • Sherelle says:

      12:05pm | 15/10/10

      yes murder is archaic, let’s make it legal.

    • Tedd says:

      12:47pm | 15/10/10

      The notion an embryo or early foetus is a person is also archaic.

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:12pm | 15/10/10

      A bunch of cells is not a human being, its POTENTIAL for life. Women, and their partners, have a right to choose whether or not to bring a child into this world. Saying that, I don’t believe in late term abortions…or really any abortions after the child has formed - and we are talking arms, legs, eyes, mouth, brain etc (don’t abuse me, I am unsure of when exactly this is during the pregnancy).

      I have no issue at all with abortions that early on in the pregnancy. RU486 should be freely available to all young women as needed after a consult with their GP.

    • Lisa H. says:

      10:52pm | 15/10/10

      When does the child stop being a bunch of cells?

    • Geoff 10 says:

      12:17pm | 15/10/10

      What an evil society we have become maybe we should change the meaning of the word ‘Choice’ to mean ‘Murder’. What choice did the unborn baby have? None. Suggest in future if they don’t want the responsibility of children that t they use a condom, she talk the pill, cross her legs or just say no.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:12pm | 15/10/10

      Geoff unless you were there at conception you would have no idea if a condom, pill was used etc.

      But having no idea doesn’t seem to be a problem for you.

    • Mirror says:

      05:00pm | 15/10/10

      Nor you Austin?

    • Alan says:

      12:24pm | 15/10/10

      What a great idea . Now the way is clear for DIY abortions at home. Can you just imagine what will start happening now.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:58pm | 15/10/10

      The way has ALWAYS been clear for DIY abortions at home.  Unless the police are sitting in your house at the time, a woman can force an abortion. An overdose of Vitamin C can induce a miscarriage.  Did you kow that?  Or they could use an household implement, like a knitting needle.  If the govt made abortion illegal, and the way will still be clear for DIY abortions at home.

      Imagine that.

    • Georginorx says:

      03:38pm | 15/10/10

      Is an overdose of Vit C safe? How far can the foetus develop before Vit C is no longer effective?
      There are so many unsafe ways to abort, it would save so many lives globally to have cheap access to a safer option than a coathanger, or getting someone to punch you in the guts. I don’t have any stats on me, but last I heard unassisted home abortions were killing and injuring desperate women.
      I think we should put the rights of the living, breathing, emotionally active woman before the rights of something incapable of feeling or thought.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:24pm | 16/10/10

      @Georginorx

      Excess Vitamin C intake is not usually harmful to the mother.  Upset tummies and diarrhea are common, but the body does not store excess Vitamin C. I think it’s something that has to be done in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

      Before you ask, no, I didn’t try it - I read a lot, and have doctor friends. smile

    • Jess says:

      12:27pm | 15/10/10

      I am amazed how many people commented “why wasn’t she using protection?” and then stating that because most methods are 98% so hardly anyone should accidently get pregnant. 2% of the female population to have accidents is a LOT. I’m 26 and of the 30 or so girls I know around my age who have had kids, almost all of them were using contraception at the time. My family is hyper fertile and almost all of us were accidents while using different forms of contraception.
      Do you people realise how many external factors affect the reliability of the pill? Being over 65kg, having gastro, taking it two hours late, using antibiotics, drinking alcohol etc ALL reduce the effectiveness (all documented but many women are not told by their doc). And guess what, condoms break more often than you would think!
      Also, the younger you are the more fertile you are-you’re body wants to get pregnant so if a tiny bit gets through that shouldn’t, you could end up with those 2 pink lines.
      The only way to not get pregnant is to abstain or use two forms of protection at the same time. If you’re not doing that yourself, don’t judge others and automatically assume that their idiots and that they weren’t being careful. (And no, I have never had an accident because I use two forms).

    • Georginorx says:

      03:26pm | 15/10/10

      Statistics!
      Two forms of protection still leaves a chance of getting preggers, just a lot less chance.
      Basically, assuming 98% protection of any type of contraception, it’s a 2% chance of a 2% chance, so that’s um.. 0.04% chance of getting pregnant (that’s 99.96% reliability).
      Or a 1 in 2500 chance.
      Unlikely indeed, but not impossible.
      For all we know the couple were using 2 forms of contraception.

    • Snoogens says:

      12:39pm | 15/10/10

      When does life begin?

    • Tedd says:

      12:57pm | 15/10/10

      It’s all a continuation - live sperm cell meets live egg to form another cell, a zygote. Then, it multiplies to form more cells.  The biological machinery in the cells is awesome - DNA and RNA replication and translation.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:07pm | 15/10/10

      What is life ?

    • Kordez says:

      01:14pm | 15/10/10

      When you can breath your own air.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:26pm | 15/10/10

      This is the crux of it snoogens. I for one think it is point of conception, but clearly others do not. People cannot seriously suggest that abortion be readily available until there is consensus on which point life begins. According to other posts - it is not “life” unless it can breathe on its own. I think that is a rather simplistic view. There never will be consensus. Abortion (outside of its legitimate need) should remain a horrible and difficult process to obtiain. You know why - because it is horrible when it is done due to the selfishness or poor judgement/choices/mistakes by the parent/s.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      01:28pm | 15/10/10

      Snoogens, you really should have said “human” life.  Not sure why that is exactly, but from reading numerous comments submitted - life and human life are apparently very different things (and I would be interested in knowing the distinction).

    • Georginorx says:

      03:52pm | 15/10/10

      You could look at yeast and say “I dunno, whenever it’s moving I guess”
      You could look at your hand and say it is alive, but it cannot survive or even feel sensation without other parts of your body. It is also made up of living and dead matter, for example your fingernails and outer layers of skin are dead in every sense.
      When cells begin funtioning and growing, those cells are alive. When a creature is capable of separating from another body without dying, I’d call that independent life.
      I don’t think “life” is the right way to put it. If you want to talk about a human life, and when it is worth protecting, I have a range that I am still debating with myself. At the cautious end, I think it is when it is not “brain dead”. Even then I think that’s pretty cautious. Can anyone nane higher brain functions that are relevant to defining life?

    • BK says:

      04:17pm | 15/10/10

      People who talk about choice may well be expressing their emotions, but they won’t convince the other side. If you believe that abortion is the murder of a baby, you aren’t going to be swayed by freedom of choice argument.

    • Gidgee says:

      12:50pm | 15/10/10

      Abortion has gone on since the bears were bad - all that has changed is we of humanity have become more refined in killing the unborn child while amazingly having the contraceptive pill readily available to short circuit the creation of the foetus in the first place.
      Now, sterile hospitals allow masked and gloved surgeons to use deadly killing devices to, so help me “to preserve and protect the mother” (as the law demands) when everybody and his dog knows full well that that is utter rot….as to this particular case now the refinement of the slaughter of the unnborn child is notched up a degree or two….no longer is it necessary for pregnant miss to go to the doctor and seek an abortion at the hands of a surgeon done on the most specious of grounds, now, lo, she just pops a pill when she “misses” and Bob’s your uncle..what was to be a human being is simply flushed down the toilet bowl….how pitifully sad we of modern mankind have become, how pathetic, how brutal, how wrong.

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:09pm | 15/10/10

      That’s your opinion, and while I respect your right to hold it, others disagree and should be allowed to disagree. 

      Answer me this though, if you can, why should life be treated with any sort of sanctity?  What makes living better than not living?

    • Emily H says:

      12:54pm | 15/10/10

      There is a reason that abortion is regulated. It can be dangerous. RU486 isn’t always safe. It is available in this country under prescription. Self medication is never ok. In a case like this the dating of the pregnancy needs to be confirmed- if the women is further along than initially suspected the effects can be disastrous, the woman needs to be monitored afterwards in case all the products of conception are not passed- remaining tissue can cause infection and lead to infertility. RU486 can react violently with existing health issues and medications- the consequences can be extreme- women have died. Yes it is personal and private, maybe a little embarrassing a little hard to confront- well I’m sorry you got pregnant- it didn’t happen by itself. If you know in yourself the right thing to do is to abort then take the responsibility to go through the appropriate channels to get one. Reading this article you would think it’s hard to get an abortion in QLD- it’s not. and the ‘invasive’ surgical procedure shouldn’t feel much more invasive than a pap smear- you don’t even need a general anaesthetic and you can go home the same day. And if that idea is still so offensive find one of the doctors that are authorised to prescribe RU486. But for gods sake don’t cry privacy,  and rights. You have the right to abort your baby if thats what you want to do, you have the right privacy and respect from your health professional- maybe it’s not easy but at the end of the day you are ending a life- suck it up and at least don’t put YOUR life at risk while you do it.

    • Sarcastic. says:

      12:57pm | 15/10/10

      Abortion is a personal choice, akin to choosing which type of car you want to buy, and which TV show you want to watch. And because the baby/car/TV show can’t defend itself, it’s ok. What a great, free society we all live in!

    • Khrystene says:

      01:13pm | 15/10/10

      These laws are archaic and senseless. Very few if any women and men who choose to abort go into it lightly and it should remain a personal choice.

      I daresay, by the sounds of this, the cops that raided their place were looking for a bit more than this and settled on prosecuting this couple for anything they could find.

      I’m pleased they had a sane jury.

    • Walloper says:

      05:05pm | 15/10/10

      I am guessing that you don’t realise Police are pleased if someone hasn’t committed a crime.

      I daresay, you have no idea what the Police were thinking.

    • Colin says:

      01:33pm | 15/10/10

      Pro-Choice is all about women never having to take responsibility for their sexual activity. As Pro-Choice people like to say: “Abortion at any time of gestation and for any reason”. Oh yeah, “and tax-payers should pay for it too”.

    • Rachel says:

      01:57pm | 15/10/10

      It’s also about men not having to take responsibility for their sexual activity.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      02:53pm | 15/10/10

      Gee “Colin” you sure know a heck of a lot about the mind-set of women.

    • Jade says:

      04:10pm | 15/10/10

      Because a baby is a punishment. For daring to exercise the same right to sexual freedom that men have enjoyed for centuries. For being dirty sluts who dared to have sex outside of monogamous wedlock.

      Because a baby should never be a thing to be wanted, celebrated or loved. It should be a constant reminder to women to keep their legs closed or suffer the consequences. 

      Notice how there is never any suggestion that men should stop having sex if they don’t want a baby. Or that they are “trying to evade their responsibility” by wearing a condom. Or that they should have taken more responsibility than believing the girl they picked up in a bar when she said she was on the pill.

      It’s always the responsibility of the woman to be chaste, pure and sexually repressed. Never the man’s.

    • B says:

      04:22pm | 15/10/10

      While we’re being precious about our tax dollars we should remember that abortions are cheaper than Family Tax Benefit and Parenting Payment.

    • Mirror says:

      05:07pm | 15/10/10

      Wow Jade,

      A baby is punishment?  And it went down hill from there…

      Issues at all?

    • Colin says:

      06:05pm | 15/10/10

      Rachel, men do have to take (at least some) responsiblility for their sexual activity, as they should. Do you think there are men out there who became fathers even though they didn’t want to? I hope you think these men should take responsiblity for their sexual activity.

      Austin, so you think women shoudn’t have to take responsibility for their sexual activity? What about men, should they be forced to take responsibility for their sexual activity - or do you believe in the “rights” of dead beat dads to be well… dead beat dads?

    • BK says:

      09:37pm | 15/10/10

      I will be as happy as Jade when they make a male pill. The responsibilty of taking the pill is a small price for women to pay for controlling when they become parents.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:31pm | 16/10/10

      Hey Colin,

      The word “responsibility” does not mean “agree with what Colin thinks”.

    • gus kohn says:

      02:20pm | 15/10/10

      I hate abortion.but it is not my choice. Maybe if some of the dumb male parliamentarians could become pregnant ,they would give the choice to the person affected: the woman

    • Mirror says:

      05:08pm | 15/10/10

      ...and what about the female parliamentarians?

    • Elizabeth says:

      02:33pm | 15/10/10

      There is NO difference between killing a child inside the womb and killing a child outside the womb. Both are murder !

    • fairsfair says:

      04:36pm | 15/10/10

      Though your statement is rather blunt Elizabeth (and people will jump up and down about it) I kind of agree.

      If someone has a baby and then their circumstances change meaning that “they can’t provide for it” do they have the right to bump it on the head for its own sake? Hell no. This all boils down to when it is defined as a life. Until that can be defined in a legal sense, the authorites can’t just go allowing people to abort their child/baby/feotus/zygote/cell cluster willy nilly.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:17pm | 15/10/10

      Reality begs to disagree.

    • El Piggio says:

      08:07pm | 15/10/10

      Yes, exactly. If her boyfriend beat her up and caused the death of the unborn child, that would be murder too. In this case they both agreed to murder it by taking some illegal poisonous pill. This absolutely must not be made legal. It would be a very sickening step for the law to go down that road. Seems more and more people support this today though. A not so very long time from now other disgusting crimes like Paedophilia will be tolerated too. Society is sick and standards are dropping every decade.

    • Dan says:

      07:25am | 16/10/10

      Thakfully, most people disagree with that absolutist viewpoint.

    • B says:

      02:39pm | 15/10/10

      A friend and I are waiting on the judgment to be released. Neither of us paid enough attention during criminal law - we’re both in civil law now. Because we’re both incredibly interested in the case turning on the noxious effect to the mother, but not to the foetus.

      I had a knee jerk reaction when I first heard about this case - I had not considered that living in Brisbane means I have the luxury of driving to Tweed if I ever choose to terminate a pregnancy.

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:55pm | 15/10/10

      @B:  Termination of pregnancy can be obtained legally at clinics in Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns.  Moreover, at the time Brennan and Leach decided to DIY with illegally obtained pills, the same drug could have been prescribed by either of two Cairns medical practitioners.  Unfortunately, the charges against this pair caused the Cairns doctors providing medical abortion to cease doing so, for fear their patients would be similarly targeted.  You have to wonder, with Cairns being one of the very few places where they could have obtained medical abortion legally, why did this pair opt to do it by smuggling drugs?

      One thing is sadly and profoundly obvious from the reactions to this case—the “stone age Queensland” stereotype is so pervasive that otherwise sensible people believe complete garbage, and are blind to the modern reality.  It has been more than 25 years since safe legal surgical abortion was difficult to obtain in Queensland, and the legal limitations on availability of medical abortion are the federal laws regulating approval and use of prescription drugs.

    • James Hunter says:

      02:50pm | 15/10/10

      That the police prosecuted is outrageous. wonder how may coppers have used the same pills ?
      Still what do you expect in Joh Joh land

    • Mirror says:

      05:10pm | 15/10/10

      Tell us James?

      Tell us how many coppers have imported abortion drugs from the Ukraine?

      Still what do you expect in James Hunter Land.

    • Logan says:

      03:40pm | 15/10/10

      “She did what up to 70,000 women in Australia do every year.”

      Peter Micheal is LYING when he says this. If she did was 70,000 other women do and gone to the doctor then he wouldn’t have gone to court. instead she took the law into her own hands and got punished for it. The take home is simple: if you don’t want to be charged with breaking the law then don’t break it.

    • B says:

      04:19pm | 15/10/10

      She didn’t get punished

    • Stu says:

      05:12pm | 15/10/10

      Exactly Logan,

      70,000 other women did not import drugs from the Ukraine illegally.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:51pm | 15/10/10

      Hey B,

      That often happens to the not guilty

    • BobM says:

      08:05pm | 15/10/10

      @Logan - she didn’t get charged for having an abortion, she got charged for obtaining a prescription drug over the internet which is illegal. And the reply by Emily H at :12:54pm | 15/10/10, explains why you don’t just buy a prescription drug on the net and self administer. As other posters have said, you can easily get a legal abortion in QLD.

    • Melissa Walker says:

      04:52pm | 15/10/10

      We live in a society that has made sex into an extracuricular activity. It is all fun and games until a pregnancy occurs. What a sad society, when we cannot put in place support systems for the woman and her child to have a happy life. Many women have abortions because they don’t feel they have support, often because the man does not want to help, or they are being forced too by parents or partners. They are told it will ruin your life! Does it really or is it because others around them are too lazy and selfish to support them? Having proper support systems will actually mean a woman has more of a choice! The heart of the fetus can be heard at around 4-5 weeks after conception which means oxygen from the blood supplied is being pumped around the body. As for comments that an unborn child is not paying rent etc what is the difference between a child receving what it needs from the mother in utero and receving what it needs when born i.e. that is, being changed, carried around etc. No difference at all, it still relies on a carer for all its needs but we would not expect the child to work to pay rent etc.

    • devil's advocate says:

      04:59pm | 15/10/10

      It’s strange how the pro-choicers are now trying to have us believe they are doing the unborn baby a favour by destroying it.  Just because a pregnancy is unwanted does not equate to an abused childhood.  There’s a lot of money to be made out of abortions and at the end of the day it’s a money making business venture, hence the increase in the number of abortions at the same time as the increased sophistication in contraception.  It’s a disgrace that it’s sanctioned by our society and some women line up time and time and time again for this sickening procedure.  When will they learn???

    • Melissa Walker says:

      05:38pm | 15/10/10

      We live in a society that undervalues motherhood and children and thus abortion becomes in the eyes of many a “necessity”. Motherhood is not an honoured position in society. Just look at the pressure on women to look perfect and have it all. Unfortunately instead of being encouraged in our creative role as bearers of human beings we have been sexuallised into what mankinds fantasy is and being placed in the position of purely sexual beings. We are not just this we are more!!!

    • Mirror says:

      05:46pm | 15/10/10

      It’s interesting to note that the Police are blamed.

      Let’ see District Court Trial:

      Case brought before lower courts where a Magistrate determined that there was sufficient evidence for the couple to be put on trial and they should answer to their actions.

      Matter passed to Director of Public Prosecutions where noted legal authorities determined that there was sufficient evidence to pursue the matter.

      District Court Trial presided over by a Judge, a highly emminent legal authority who did not determine that there was no evidence or that the trial should discontinue…

      Somehow…with these three indpendent legal authorities determining the matter should be determined by a jury (that is to say, the Police were correct in bringing the matter to trial) the Police somehow are maligned for their actions?

      Australia…

    • Colin says:

      06:35pm | 15/10/10

      Right on Peter Michael, no need to have any laws restricting abortion. Women’s rights rule!  It’s women’s body. As other commentators have said, the product of conception is not even human, it’s only a fishy thing, and a parasitic one at that. It’s the 21st century people not the dark ages. Modern science shows what’s in the womb aint worth worrying about. The following ad was supposedly banned by the Irish. It shows that fishy parasitic thing.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKXEnRVeBo4

    • gecko says:

      06:41pm | 15/10/10

      Before we get reform, we need to terminate the career of many conservative politicians too fearful of the Right to Life fanatics to implement the wishes of the majority.

    • AH says:

      06:41pm | 15/10/10

      Honestly, what kind of “journalist” uses such emotive language as “Tegan, a slim, elegant, fragile blonde, paled at the thought. She was against an invasive surgical procedure from the start.”  What does being slim elegant and fragile have to do with anything?

    • Lara says:

      06:54pm | 15/10/10

      Why are unplanned pregnancies called ‘mistakes’?
      Surely, biologically speaking, they are the total and over-riding purpose of the activity.
      If you insert part A into part B often enough, you get result C.
      What else should you expect, realistically???
      Many a relationship has broken down because a woman has finally realised her ‘partner’ is not actually interested in her sexual needs AKA contingency planning for possible pregnancies, planned or unplanned.
      Because she is on the pill, which is a magic bullet for his lifestyle.
      It’s all part of a modern Western woman’s wonderful experience of her sexuality and youth.

    • ACB says:

      07:07pm | 15/10/10

      Selfishness prevails. I bet she went shopping after the verdict.

    • marley says:

      07:12pm | 15/10/10

      Well, if the comments are any measure, there is clearly no consensus within Australia about the rights or wrongs of abortion.  Some believe it is murder, other believe it is allowing a woman to exercise control over her own body.

      Regardless of my own views, I would have HUGE difficulties sending someone to prison for an “offense” that a large part of Australia believes not to be an offense at all, but an exercise of individual human rights.

      It would simply be wrong to convict or imprison someone because she or he has done something that society cannot agree is in fact a crime. And to me, that’s the bottom line.  Murder, arson, burglary - the social consensus is that these are crimes.  Abortion, especially very early term abortion - there is no social consensus whatsoever. The law should reflect that lack of consensus, and back entirely away from the issue.  Call it benefit of the doubt.  And that’s what our legal system is based on, after all.

    • antiprolife says:

      08:49pm | 15/10/10

      wish all the pro life fascists would just piss off back to their bibles and leave everyone else alone.

    • Joe says:

      05:50pm | 18/10/10

      It sounds like you just need a hug.

    • mother of 4 beautiful 'mistakes' says:

      09:08pm | 15/10/10

      You can’t possibly believe that there are 100 000 accidents through contraception not working.  That there is 100 000 women who forget to take their tablet, or the condom broke etc. A lot of women use it for birth control. Maybe they should all be grateful that their parents didn’t decide that the time wasn’t right, or they couldn’t cope, or didn’t have the money. There isn’t one acceptable excuse for murder.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:34pm | 16/10/10

      I can’t believe where the 100 000 figure you got comes from ?

    • kyzz says:

      04:47pm | 16/10/10

      no, it is your right to continue each of your pregnancies, just as it is these women’s not too. I doubt many if any of the women in your alleged figures made the decision lightly. Might I also point out that if their mother had had an abortion then the point would be moot as a nonexistant person can not have sex let alone become pregnant. I hate the “What if your mother had had an abortion argument, you’d be upset” No I would exist to be upset. I’m sure you’re children are wonderful and you would never actually refer to them as mistakes even jokingly. No one forced you to have an abortion and no one ever would.

    • redvixen says:

      10:48pm | 15/10/10

      When I was young and unmarried I thought I was pregnant once (to the man I eventually married).  However, I couldn’t stomach the idea of abortion.  But that was right for me.  I am not going to judge any other woman who might find themselves in the same situation.

    • Jill says:

      11:27pm | 15/10/10

      No matter what the law says ‘abortion’ is the killing a an innocent, defenseless human baby and there will never be enough beautiful babies in this world.

    • Cherie says:

      11:56pm | 15/10/10

      I use contraception, and I hope the time will never come when I get pregnant. I am responsible in my actions and have no intention of having a child, not now, and not later in life.
      I do not want a child. I do not want to be pregnant. I do not want my work and life options to suffer, and I do not want to give birth.  So I won’t.
      If contraception fails, then a pro-lifer is welcome to remove the foetus from my body in the first trimester (about the time I’d have an abortion, if I had to have one), keep it alive some how, raise it and assume all responsibilities for it.

      For the male pro-lifers, when you’ve worn a pregnancy suit (and carried that weight) for 9 months, experienced simulated side effects like morning sickness, and then undergone simulated contractions, I’ll listen with respect to your experience and we can have a discussion.

      I would never -want- to have an abortion. But I do want the option.

    • Up the Ante says:

      11:50am | 16/10/10

      ‘keep it alive some how, raise it and assume all responsibilities for it’.
      Actually that happened to Melissa Ohden, Drs at an abortion clinic (‘presumably ‘not pro lifers”)  noticed the aborted baby (Melissa) was still kicking and cared for the baby who was later put up for adoption.  The mother like you wouldnt and doesnt want anything to do with her now, and you would ‘welcome’ that?

    • BobM says:

      06:37pm | 16/10/10

      And Cherie, the irony is that peopler like you who ‘have no intention of having a child’ are breeding themselves out of existence - which can only be a good thing for the human gene pool.

    • Patrick Kelly says:

      05:51am | 16/10/10

      “It begs that hoary chestnut: When does life start?”
      The issue of “when life starts” is the kernel of the debate. In making that statement you make it eminently clear that your views have no place in any intelligent discussion of the issue.

    • Phil Osopher says:

      07:21am | 16/10/10

      Sex is over rated anway!

    • Bill says:

      08:00am | 16/10/10

      No Richard, get your facts straight - Prof Ian Fraser was born and educated in Scotland, a country light years ahead of the supposed ‘smart State’
      The action of the police who initiated this prosecution is absolutely disgusting. I am against abortion but I don’t try to force my religious views on others.
      It is time the pro-lifers got a life and minded their own business.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:25am | 16/10/10

      QLD just gave him a job, paid for his research and helped fund the development of the drug.

      Oh and can I also note that the entire state of QLD is against the “smart stage” slogan. It is wanky and we know it -  thanks to Peter Beattie for that (amongst other things).

      I am pro-life and I am in no way religeous. Your are just as bigoted to lump the two in the same category. Like it or not - people have differing opinions to you and they have just as much a right to voice them.

      The police were doing their job and they did it well.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      02:49pm | 16/10/10

      They lost the case, how is that ‘doing things well’ ?

    • Walloper says:

      04:34pm | 16/10/10

      Austin 3:16

      It’s not the function of the Police to win!

      It’s their duty to put someone before the court to determine if they have committed an offence against out laws.

      All through this blog you have demonstrated little knowledge of how things actually work.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:51pm | 16/10/10

      They got the charges to trial.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      08:25pm | 16/10/10

      Hey Walloper, what tosh the police firstly need a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed then they need to be able to compile a brief of evidence able to support that suspicion.

      Otherwise they might as well randomly arrest people in the street, charge them with anything, then just let the courts sort it out.

      fairsfairm, the standard to get the charges committed in is something along the lines of —that the prosecution evidence,
      taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could properly convict upon it—

      So basically if viewed in the best possible light could the evidence possibly lead to a conviction of guilt by a jury. It’s not the very highest standard they had to reach.

    • Walloper says:

      11:15am | 17/10/10

      Austin 3:16

      Thanks for confirming my initial assessment.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      04:48pm | 17/10/10

      Walloper, your assessment, initial or otherwise,  is irrelevant.  It won’t change reality one iota. Pity that.

    • Robz says:

      12:45pm | 16/10/10

      I cannot believe how blase so many people are about the murder of an unborn child.  A foetus is a living individual person from the point of conception.  Would you all be so on the side of and forgiving of a young couple who after the birth of their child, take it home and decide they really aren’t ready to be parents and just can’t cope, so they murder their new-born?  There is no difference between murdering your child inside or outside the womb.

      There are many people in this country who are unable to have a child of their own who would more than happily adopt and raise in a loving home any child that this (or any couple or single woman) might have that they are unable or unwilling to raise.  Imagine how these people feel when they see/hear/read about such a casual attitude to murdering of children.

      And not to mention, this particular couple illegally imported a drug - I can’t believe they weren’t prosecuted for this.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      12:06am | 17/10/10

      You have skipped over defining exactly when the cluster of cells becomes a human; killing a baby as you describe it would be a late-term abortion which this was clearly not. There was also doubt as to whether the woman was pregnant; not only is contraception fallible so are the home pregnancy tests, hence her doctor recommended a more thorough means of test.

      How does the demand for children for adoption have anything to do with a woman’s right to control what happens to her body?

    • Lisa H. says:

      02:33pm | 17/10/10

      The woman had a hunch and took a home pregnancy test, just like most women do.
      Home pregnancy tests are over 99 per cent accurate.
      Most women, including myself, celebrate their pregnancies (privately) on the strength of those home tests.

    • Robz says:

      04:15pm | 17/10/10

      A baby is human from the moment of conception - at which point it already has it’s own individual DNA.  Referring to an unborn child at this point as a “cluster of cells” clearly helps people feel less guilty about murdering their child.

      My point about the demand for adoption is simply that if you are unable or unwilling to raise and care for your child, there are other options rather than murdering it.  What about the child’s right to live?

    • Tone says:

      11:26am | 18/10/10

      Robz, conceptions forms a zygote, then after a few days a blastocyst forms containing an embryoblast which then develops into an embryo.  Lots can go wrong naturally at these stages. A viable human is not developed until after 6 months. 

      Appeals to emotion do not change the reality of an unwanted pregnancy on women and the fathers, nor the consequences of rejection for them resulting in an unwanted or poorly supported child.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      03:00pm | 16/10/10

      Well at the point of conception it’s a actually a zygote, which will become an embryo, which then become a foetus.  But hey don’t let any facts get in your way.

    • Jon G says:

      08:25am | 17/10/10

      All those advocating adoption as an alternative to abortion, ponder this: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics show that in 2008-09, 441 children were adopted in Australia, of which 269 were from overseas. The Victorian Department of Health estimated that approximately 70,000-80,000 terminations occurred in Australia in 2005-06 (figures are estimates partly due to variations in legality between states and territories). I’m pro-choice, but even if you disagree with abortion, you have to come up with a better line than ‘adoption is an option’ - clearly it isn’t.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:58pm | 17/10/10

      God, pro-lifers have hijacked the thread again (pun intended). Strange, how all those pro-lifers care so much about the foetus, but seem little concerned about what happens to the baby (lifetime of being unwanted, maybe child abuse, maybe a disability). Maybe that’s because they know that the taxpayer will have to pick up some if not most of the tab. Of course if you are pro life you could march down to the adoption agency and adopt as many kids as you can or write out a large cheque to a single mother who has five kids because she knows the state will pay for it. Maybe if the Catholic Church is so pro life they can donate all their wealth to raising all the foetuses that they have saved from termination. But somehow I doubt that they will put their money where their mouth is, the hypocrites….

    • sandyk199 says:

      09:54pm | 17/10/10

      Her body, choice.  As quoted in the article it’s a decision made by 70k women every year. I’ve had one myself and was advised at the time that it’s one of the most common medical procedures in Australia.  Surely those statistics in themselves indicate that there’s a need for the law to be changed.

    • Lisa H. says:

      10:22pm | 17/10/10

      Shane, I have always thought of myself as pro-life, but frankly I think Australian culture makes it quite difficult for young women to experience their sexual relationships responsibly.
      It is not simply a matter of saying ‘ban abortion’, such a concept is unthinkable.
      But, by legalising abortion, we have put more pressure than ever on young women to disconnect the sex act from expectations of mutual obligation and lifetime love.
      This is a real problem for young women.
      Commitment is delayed for so many women for so long that there are many years where women are basically expected to run a gauntlet where the choice is single motherhood or abortion…. or social isolation.
      It is not good enough to simply say to young women, ‘do not participate in poorly organised relationships’, because Aussie culture really offers most young women (those outside organised religion) very little alternative.
      Perhaps school sex education should include partner selection, mutual obligation and expectations, as well as rolling condoms on bananas.

    • Melissa Walker says:

      04:15pm | 18/10/10

      I agree totally! Sex has become just another every day activity, but it has huge consequences that many don’t think about in this oversexuallised society. Many women enjoy sex just as much as men but there are bigger consequences for women (as you mentioned). There really is something beautiful about sex, within a relationship that is commited, where an issue such as pregnancy and babies is carried to its natural conclusion. The woman feels supported and safe enough to carry that child and give birth.

    • Kika says:

      02:12pm | 21/10/10

      Another attitude which has helped with this is the blase attitude most young men have towards relationships. I don’t know whether this is the result of feminism, I’d say most likely yes, but because women have relaxed their attitudes towards their relationships with men, men don’t have to try so hard to be gentlemen anymore. They know if this woman doesn’t work out, the next one is at the next pub. We’ve created a society of weak, selfish men and naive, silly girls.  Men can go around creating children wherever they want and have NONE of the burden of responsibility for them. Maybe $30.00 a week in child support. The woman and Centrelink is stuck until that child is 18.

    • Melissa Walker says:

      04:46pm | 18/10/10

      A quote from Germaine Greer (a well known feminist)
       
      “What women ‘won’ was the ‘right’ to undergo invasive procedures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies, unwanted not just by them but by their parents, their sexual partners, the governments who would not support mothers, the employers who would not employ mothers, the landlords who would not accept tenants with children, the schools that would not accept students with children. Historically the only thing pro-abortion agitation achieve was to make an illiberal establishment [patriarchal culture] look far more feminist than it was” (Greer, 92).

    • joe says:

      05:48pm | 18/10/10

      This court case was so obviously cooked up to create a false sense of outrage.  I’m only outraged with the number of Abortions in Australian each year. What is the government doing to reduce that number? Next to nothing. Outrageous.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter