Serious assault causing injury can carry quite long jail terms - as much as 16 years in some cases. Also where abortion is legal it requires medical controls and the patient's consent to be so. A kick in the stomach during an assault episode would hardly constitute a legal abortion even if it occurred in a state where abortion has been legalised.

Then tell that to the guy who got convicted!

Wow. I had my comment removed once again for simply saying that some of us are not allowed to post information that provides alternative analyses of the issue under discussion in the article above? I have just written to one of the editors, let's see his response. I wonder what the Australian Communications and Media Authority will have to say about suppressing alternative views and information on abortion and other cogent social issues?

The standards for TC are available here: https://theconversation.edu.au/community_standards.

Only comments that contravene these standards are removed. Suggested reading for those wishing to post a comment.

If it is you that keeps reporting me (again), care to explain which of the "standards" you think I breached? You seem to be so keen in having accurate information provided to you, so pray enlighten me on what it is I did wrong?

Mrs Ng, I reported you once for your vulgar ad hominem attack on another poster.

The moderator will only remove your comments that have been flagged if they believe that they contravene the standards. It may surprise you that there are others who find certain of your comments to have been in breach of the standards. Please think before you post.

Thanks for your reply, though it is hardly enlightening I appreciate your continuous effort to support me on these threads, Mark Amey.
The fat remains that a comment which simply provides links to some articulate resources, including refereed research papers, and which was not aimed at anyone in particular, is deleted. I am still scratching my head in disbelief. You mentioned the "standards", but I see you are unable to provide a more precise explanations as to how I might have breached them by doing nothing more than posting up some links. Rest assured that I am familiar with the "standards". I have also read what this organisation aims to do. Here are two of its aims:
"Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias".
"Work with our academic, business and government partners and our advisory board to ensure we are operating for the public good".
Apparently operating for the 'public good' must only include the opinions of some, but not others.

Thanks for your response, Joanne, much appreciated. Mercatornet is quite a well-informed online publication, though perhaps not to the taste of some people here. They have a couple of informative stories on the link between eugenics and the 'planned parenthood' movement which ought to be relevant to the historical context provided by the article here. I also linked to a peer reviewed academic paper, but unfortunately I can't relocate the link in my records. But not to worry, here's another paper, which indicates for at least one national context that there is no link between abortion laws and maternal mortality, but points rather to a positive correlation link between support and education and reducing mortality rates: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613
Hopefully you get to see it before it gets deleted.

I would also draw attention to the fact that when abortion was restricted in NZ in the late seventies there was no increase in maternal mortalities, in fact a slight fall

Mercatornet may well be very interesting, but it is not a 'peer reviewed' journal. Most of the stories are just that, stories, at best, opinion pieces.

The plosonelink you provided is interesting, but has little to do with the title of the article, on which you have commented: 'Still keeping women out: a short history of Australian abortion law'

Yeah, there is plenty of evidence supporting this. Like the low mortality rates in Ireland and other countries where abortion is not supported by legal systems.

Perhaps not. However, there are figures for maternal death rates for the UK and Australia. It would be easy to compare them with those of Ireland and NZ. I know that the UK figures are much higher, so does this mean that Irish women place themselves at greater risk of mortality?

I meant to say, Does this mean that Irish women place themselves at greater risk of mortality if they travel to the UK for abortion procedures?

Sure, but even the 8/100k rate is lower than that of the UKs, which is somewhat over 12/100k, even accounting for the inter-country medical migration patterns. When compared to culturally similar countries where religion plays an important place in decision-making for women, like Chile, Portugal and so on, then I would guess that culture may be an important variable. I am not sure what the case is for Sweden, the point is that there are different factors at play here, which merit further investigation, rather than retreat to a model which does not hold explanatory power for every culture or national context. For example, in the US socioeconomic position is obviously a key factor, with the most disadvantaged groups being impacted the most.

Oh, but they clearly do. There is a negative association between culture/national context which supports and provides access to unbiased information and health /social education, and maternal mortality rates. Otherwise we wouldn't find any stats and social research to support this.

'Sure, but even the 8/100k rate is lower than that of the UKs, which is somewhat over 12/100k, even accounting for the inter-country medical migration patterns.' No, not 'somewhat more, 12 per 100000: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html.

Clearly the MMR for Ireland and England (and, possibly France and Spain, as these are countries which also provide abortion services to Irish women) is closely tied together. I don't know how you can say that the inter-country migration patterns don't account for this, when the numbers of Irish women seeking abortion in England, and other countries, is unknown. You seem keen to compare Ireland to Chile on the basis of them both outlawing abortion and both being Catholic. That's probably where the similarities end.

I note that you're quick to dismiss Sweden's low MMR, in spite of it having had legal abortion since WWII.

" I don't know how you can say that the inter-country migration patterns don't account for this, when the numbers of Irish women seeking abortion in England, and other countries, is unknown". I don't "say" this, please don't put words in my mouth. If there is speculation about figures, surely my speculations are just as valid as yours? I didn't dismiss Sweden at all, in fact that's what I meant by cultural/national variables, otherwise I would have mentioned Catholicism as a specific variable instead. Sweden also falls under my broad category of cultural/national. The question then becomes, What are the characteristics we can identify for each country under this category, and would they explain the variance in the statistical differences we are concerned with here? I believe, if I remember correctly from the classes in research methods I used to teach, this is called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

"' No, not 'somewhat more, 12 per 100000"
It varies; for instance, it was 13.9/100k in 2003-05 and 11.39/100k in 2006-08. I am happy to stand corrected, however, and agree on exactly 12/100k if this makes you happy (See table 1.3 in the document located here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02847.x/pdf).

So, no Irish Catholic girl went to England, or Spain, or France, or anywhere else in Europe to get an abortion?

Let's re-frame it another way, just so that we can agree who should take responsibility for backing what. You postulate that the 100% difference (6 vs 12 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241503631_eng.pdf pp.33-36) explained by Irish females traveling to the UK? Your thesis, not mine, so I suggest that the onus is on you to defend it and for me to critique. So let's hear the evidence supporting your argument. If you instead wish to be right at all costs, then say so and I will be happy to drop the discussion.

I remember the anguish of the woman in Roe v Wade when she found out that her lawyer had herself been in a position to make a test case but had chosen to go to Mexico to have an abortion. I note in response to me you use the phrase "taking a wanted foetus" I am not sure if I interpret you correctly but wanted by whom? In the US some militant men's groups have campaigned for men to have the right to abortion meaning that on notification of a pregnancy they have so many months to choose the role of fatherhood, or paternity payer or they can tell the woman she can terminate or go it alone. I have experienced quite a few cases of women getting pregnant to the richest male they can to maximize support payments. Elizabeth Hurley being a case in point and people with fixed assets, farms and own businesses seem to be particularly popular.

He signed up for sex not parenthood. What if she tells him that she is using contraception but is not? Bettina Arndt tells of regularly receiving correspondence asking for her blessing for women to get pregnant against their partner's wishes. She does not give it. In the days before fertility controlled the maxim "you got her pregnant nor marry her" had currency but should that attitude still persist?

It does appear Norma McCorvey was simply a feminist's puppet.

"At various times, Norma McCorvey has clarified that she did not consider herself an unwilling participant in the Roe v. Wade lawsuit. However, she felt that feminist activists treated her with disdain because she was a poor, blue-collar, drug-abusing woman instead of a polished, educated feminist.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/a/norma_mccorvey.htm

She was considered dispensible and irrelevant, like a discarded fetus.

Abortion has little to do with people and babies, but is a political system for feminists.

While feminist appear determined to retain abortion for political purposes, the mega billons spent on abortion worldwide could have been spent on finding better contraception.

Well actually not true, why not believe someone who you are having a relationship with? Why should only one partner decide if a pregnancy continue. There is an old saying that a cad is someone who does not tell his wife that he has had a vasectomy until after she tells him that she is pregnant. Speaking for myself I have twice"got a girl pregnant" but only after I had a secure career and a house. Problem was I had a vasectomy at the age of twenty three. In one case she had an abortion when she found out, never found what happened in the second case.

Which method do you favour?

I would favour the ABC method.

Abstinence, Be faithfull, and then Contraception.

Unwanted pregnancy is a risk, and should be treated with risk management systems, and the ABC method is most closely alligned with risk management.

Abortion is a result of risk management not being applied successfully, or a failure to adequately apply risk management.

Of course, feminists celebrate abortion, which is now celebrating failure.

Together with unwanted pregnancy there is also the risk of an STD, but abortion does not fix that risk. In fact, having many sexual partners (which appears to be encouraged by feminists) not only increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy, but significantly increases the risk of contacting an STD.

In all, feminist's celebrating abortion is to celebrate failure, and if they encourage people to have many sexual partners, they are now significantly increasing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and increasing the rates STDs.

Mark - abortion would not currently be within the scope of midwives, but it is conceivable (pun intended) that it could be within scope of a NP if they went through the normal process of training, documenting and having approval for the procedure.