The main point of this poll is to find out what abortion laws are like around the world. For example, in the U.S., up to the first trimester is legal everywhere. However, it is my understanding that elsewhere it goes to extremes of totally illegal, all the way through partial birth abortion being legal. If you could provide your country and law in your reply, it would be much appreciated. There's some other questions too.

EDIT: One more thing - one question is on the morning after pill. In case you've never heard of it, it is a pill that can be taken very early on in pregnancy (hence the name morning after) to prevent the continuation of a pregnancy. Also, I'm assuming that we're talking about legal acquisition of the product. If you can only get it illegally, then consider it's unavailable (legally).

[ October 11, 2005, 19:35: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 5 question(s). 33 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Abortion Laws (and some views) (33 votes.)

What response most closely represents the legality of abortion in your country? (Choose 1)
* It is never legal. - 6% (2)
* It is only legal in extreme circumstances (examples: incest, rape, life of mother in jeopardy) - 9% (3)
* Abortions in the 1st trimester (13 weeks) are legal. - 39% (13)
* Abortions in the 2nd trimester (26 weeks, about when fetus can survive outside the womb with medical intervention) are legal. - 39% (13)
* Abortions in the 3rd trimester (40 weeks, up to and including partial birth) are legal. - 6% (2)

What response most closely reflects your thoughts on the legality of abortion? (Choose 1)
* It should always be illegal - 15% (5)
* It should be illegal except in extreme circumstances (as examples above) - 15% (5)
* Legal in the 1st trimester - 42% (14)
* Legal in the 2nd trimester - 21% (7)
* Legal in the 3rd trimester - 6% (2)

Is the "morning after pill" available in your country? (Choose 1)
* Yes, it is available in over-the-counter sales. - 48% (16)
* Yes, but only with a prescription from a doctor. - 36% (12)
* No, it is currently unavailable. - 15% (5)

On a societal level, I feel abortion should be... (Choose 1)
* Alway illegal (fanatical pro-life) - 6% (2)
* Mostly illegal, but acceptable in extreme circumstances (pro-life) - 21% (7)
* Mostly legal, but not OK with it if the child could survive outside the womb (pro-choice) - 45% (15)
* Always legal (fanatical pro-choice) - 27% (9)

On a personal level (i.e., you are the parent), you would... (Choose 1)
* Never consider (or actively discourage your partner from) having an abortion. - 33% (11)
* Would only consider (or encourage your partner to consider) having an abortion in an extreme circumstance. - 36% (12)
* Would consider (or actively encourage/leave the choice up to her) to have an abortion regardless of the severity of the situation. - 30% (10)

Excellent question!
my answers:
1. It is only legal in extreme circumstances (examples: incest, rape, life of mother in jeopardy)
2. It should always be illegal (I voted that option in a rush so it looks stupid in refference to other responces. My view for that question - always legal)
3. Yes, but only with a prescription from a doctor.
4. Always legal (fanatical pro-choice)
5. Would consider (or actively encourage/leave the choice up to her) to have an abortion regardless of the severity of the situation.

EDIT: corrected no.5

[ October 11, 2005, 19:42: Message edited by: Undertaker ]

@Undertaker - what country are you from?

And perhaps the better question, why do you feel like the law should be always illegal, and yet, at the same time, you consider yourself fanatical pro-choice?

I'm from Poland.

why do you feel like the law should be always illegal, and yet, at the same time, you consider yourself fanatical pro-choice? Did I said sth wrong/stupid? Yep in no. 2 "What response most closely reflects your thoughts on the legality of abortion? " I think there should be "Always legal" option. Guess I rushed and voted wrong option :o
I need to correct that.

I voted that the morning after pill was not available only to procede with the poll. The truth is that I really don't know, and really don't give a rat's ass about it.

I'm Pro-Life but will look the other way in extreme circumstances (it's not my place to judge there).

1. In Victoria, it is only legal if taking the baby to term would present a serious risk to the health of the mother. Health is broadly defined. Effectively and in practice, that's somewhere between 2 and 3, so I voted 3.

2. Up to the 1st trimester. Once the baby can survive outside the womb, I do not support abortion unless there is an exceptionally compelling (and typically life-threatening) reason to do so.

3. No, it is not, to the best of my knowledge. To have access to it, one must apply to the Federal Health Minister directly. In short, it's unavailable.

4. Mostly OK with it, but not in all circumstances.

5. Only in an emergency situation would I consider or encourage such a decision. Even then, it wouldn't ultimately be my choice to make.

1. In Poland, only by a doctor and where there's a serious danger to the mother's life or health; when prenatal examination has shown with large probability that the foetus is irreversibly severely damaged or has a life-threatening defect; when there's a well-grounded suspicion that pregnancy results from crime. For pregnancy resulting from crime, it's 12 weeks. Danger or damage, not after the foetus can live on his own outside the woman's body. In case of danger to the woman or damage of the foetus, said damage must be diagnosed by a different doctor from the one that induces the abortion unless there's an immediate threat to the woman's life. As for crime, it takes a public prosecutor. In case of minors, they are to be consulted and the court decides, not just the parents. If the minor is 13 or older, no one can abort without her consent. Break the rules and you're in prison, except the mother who never faces any consequences herself.

Note: It was legal for social reasons or "difficult situation" but the Constitutional Court struck that down and we won in Strasbourg. Basically, placing one human entity's right to life below a subjectively defined interest of a lesser rank (economical concerns etc) of another person violates the most basic human life. Such a legislation is unseemly, therefore out it goes.

2. It should always be illegal, regardless of the circumstances. Performing a necessary medical action on the mother that results indirectly in the death of the foetus, even if the result is certain, is not always abortion. However, a direct assault on the foetus is never permissible.

3. As for abortifiacients known as "post-coital contraception", they hand people leaflets in front of courts and the law department, it's probably legal without prescription. There must be some regulation but they have their ways... you know, there are always meds that can be used as abortifacients but are otherwise necessary on the market.

4. Should homicide ever be legal?

Note: I don't oppose non-abortificient post-coital contraception in case of rape, but the problem is twofold: first, such meds are always or almost always also abortificients depending on the dose used, so there's a risk of destroying a fertilised egg. Next, those meds can actually facilitate fertilisation because of their effect -- and we don't want that. So, caution.

5. Would never have, always discourage.

1. See chev post above.

2. Always illegal.

3. I don't know, and I don't care, so I voted "No".

4. Mostly illegal.

5. Never consider, no matter what.

1 - Illegal in ALL of Ireland
2- It should be legal, but discouraged (with help provided of course)
3 - Perscription only (don't want to encourage its use)
4 - Pro-choice, but it should be discouraged (and help provided as with Q2)
5 - I would discourage abortions, but thankfully I have no experience in this matter.

1.) Legal to 20 weeks
2.) Legal in first Trimester, (imo 13 weeks really is enough time to make your mind up.) except in exceptional circumstance where I would accept the current British regulations of up to 20 weeks.
3.) Yes, I believe over the counter but don't actually know.
4.) Legal except if the foetus can survive outside the womb - Covered by my response in 2 really.
5.) The choice is my partners. Being as she has a phobia of pregnancy (including other pregnant women) I'm fairly sure which way it would go...

Illegal in ALL of IrelandI read somewhere that it was made legal in 1999 or something, was my source wrong?

Legal upto second trimester (which is considered to end at 20 weeks). Agree with the current laws in India. OTC. If the baby was carried for almost 5 months then the mother should not have any objection to carry the pregnancy forward. Termination of late pregnancies should only be allowed if there is proof that carrying the pregnancy to term will endanger the life of mother and/or child. Her choise is primary. I would rather have her take a pregnancy to term because she will love the child rather than for some inane religious reasons. I for one can never understand nor consider arguments that the mother should take a pregnancy to term and then hand the child over to authorities if she doesn't want it. Better to terminate the pregnancy at the first available opprtunity.


The reasons for which MTP is done, as interpreted from the Indian MTP Act, are:

(i) Where a pregnant woman has a serious medical disease and continuation of pregnancy could endanger her life like:
Heart diseases.
Severe rise in blood pressure.
Uncontrolled vomiting during pregnancy
Cervical/ breast cancer.
Diabetes mellitus with eye complication (retinopathy).
Epilepsy.
Psychiatric illness.
(ii) Where the continuation of pregnancy could lead to substantial risk to the newborn leading to serious physical / mental handicaps examples like
Chromosomal abnormalities.
Rubella (German measles) viral infection to mother in first three months.
If previous children have congenital abnormalities.
Rh iso-immunisation.
Exposure of the foetus to irradiation.

(iii) Pregnancy resulting of rape.

(iv) Conditions where the socio-economic status of the mother (family) hampers the progress of a healthy pregnancy and the birth of a healthy child.

(v) Failure of Contraceptive Device irrespective of the method used (natural methods/ barrier methods/ hormonal methods). This condition is a unique feature of the Indian Law. All the pregnancies can be terminated using this criterion.

Consent:

If married--- her own written consent. Husband’s consent not required.
If unmarried and above 18years ---her own written consent.
If below 18 years ---written consent of her guardian.
If mentally unstable --- written consent of her guardian.
A consent assures the clinician performing the abortion that she:
Has been informed of all her options.
Has been counseled about the procedure, its risks and how to care for herself after she chosen the abortion of her own free will.

After a little research, I found the following

It should be noted that, in theory, Abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the mother. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dail Eireann to legislate on this, however no political party has risked it, and in the meantime, while it is legal in theory, the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion.Its illegal in the North, I know for sure - but you are allowed to travel to Scotland, England and Wales for the purpose of having an abortion. There is also a Swedish charity that operates at sea that offers abortions to local women, its known as the 'abortion ship' by pro-life fanatics.

In a similar vein, there was a recent case in Britain where a charity group were reported for refering late-term pregnancies for abortions abroad. And apologies, it is 24 weeks in the UK, not 20.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3730464.stm

"What response most closely reflects your thoughts on the legality of abortion? " I think there should be "Always legal" option. Um... essentially, there is. The last option in question 2 is if you believe it should be acceptable through the 3rd trimester. That would be the entire pregnancy, meaning it is always legal. After the 3rd trimester, it's a baby, so it can't be aborted as it's already been born.

Guess I misunderstood the question :o

After the 3rd trimester, it's a baby, so it can't be aborted as it's already been born.Why not ?...If one is for aborting child just before birth, one can as well allow aborting just after birth...makes no difference for me. The only difference is that newborn child breathes air.

After the 3rd trimester, it's a baby, so it can't be aborted as it's already been born. Why not ?...If one is for aborting child just before birth, one can as well allow aborting just after birth...makes no difference for me. The only difference is that newborn child breathes air. The 3rd trimester extends from 26th week till delivery. So could you please explain what was that you just posted? Abortion is used exclusively to mean the termination of a pregnancy resulting in subsequent death of the fetus (if formed). From Wikipedia: An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy ending in the death of the embryo or fetus. A pregnancy that ends early, but where the embryo or fetus survives to be born as an infant is instead a premature birth.

I don't know much about the other things but i'm pretty sure that you can get the "morning after pill" in all farmacies for about 100 DKKR ~ 15 USD

Finland does not have abortion on demand, but that is practically how it is since economical and social reasons are valid for abortion. Abortion is allowed up until the twentieth week of the pregnancy and up until the 24th week if serious impairment in the foetus is found (whatever that means in practice is beyoned me). If the mother's life, physical or mental health is considered to be threatened by the pregnancy it can be terminated whenever necessary.

I am pro-choice and feel that denying abortion to a woman is a violation of her human rights, but what really appals me is that all the people (as far as I'm aware) who are voting and pontificating in this are Male and really have no right to decide this issue.

So who has the right to decide? Men are bad, so maybe infertile women and those who have never been pregnant, too? Then those who have never been raped, never faced "difficult social conditions" etc etc. It's absurd.

What is absurd - that women can make rational decisions pertaining to what happens to their bodies ?? Or that the lawmakers, the religious zealots (vast majority of whom are male) who have no conception of the emotional or physical traumas associated with pregnancy and/or termination should decide how or when it should be done.

When men can carry a foetus to term they will have a right to say what is right or wrong about
abortion.

Further let's look at your statement


Should homicide ever be legal ? homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.


Murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

human being

• noun a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

child

• noun (pl. children) 1 a young human being below the age of full physical development. 2 a son or daughter of any age. 3 derogatory an immature or irresponsible person. 4 (children) archaic the descendants of a family or people.

fetus
/feetss/ (Brit. (in non-technical use) also foetus)

• noun (pl. fetuses) an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

The definition of Homicide and Murder are taken from a legal dictionary. The other definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

By these definitions a foetus which is terminated or aborted (whatever you want to call it) HAS NOT been murdered, that is an emotive response and in particular the catholic church a two thousand year old institute of misogyny who still haven't moved into the 20th century nevermind the 21st.

I've stated my viewpoint and I will not be drawn into it anymore.

What is absurd - that women can make rational decisions pertaining to what happens to their bodies ?? Or that the lawmakers, the religious zealots (vast majority of whom are male) who have no conception of the emotional or physical traumas associated with pregnancy and/or termination should decide how or when it should be done.Should the vast majority of the society or its elected representatives, the vast majority of whom has never killed or been killed, and who have no conception of the emotional or physical traumas associated with killing or being killed decide how or when it should be done?

Ah, and the foetus is not a human argument. I've already debunked it. It may be difficult to find, so here goes the quote:

From dictionary.com:

Homicide: The killing of one person by another.
to Kill: To put to death.
Abortion:
a) Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b) Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
Induced abortion: #1 Abortion caused intentionally by the administration of drugs or by mechanical means.
#2 a deliberate termination of pregnancy
Pregnancy: the state of being pregnant; the period from conception to birth when a woman carries a developing fetus in her uterus
Foetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
Embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
Person: A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

Conclusion:

1. A living human is a person.
2. An embryo or a foetus is a human young.
3. To terminate pregnancy is to terminate the life of the foetus by casting it away from the womb outside of which it is unable to survive

ERGO: 4. A foetus or embryo is a person.
ERGO: 5. To put a foetus or embryo to death is to kill him and commit homicide.

1. Refutation is not debunked use a real dictionary for the language I pointed out that I used the Oxford English dictionary which is the authoritative source for the definition of english words used in the english language. I am english, I speak english and as a reference to my language I use the OED, if I was american I'd use Webster's.

2. I stated an opinion, a viewpoint, a personal observation that I had come to a conclusion on because I am an intelligent, open-minded,caring human being and travelled extensively in the world. Having obserced first hand some of the atrocities perpertrated by the male of the species in such places as Zimbabwe and Madagascar.

3. At the end of my opinion I stated that was it; I did not want or wished to be drawn into a debate there are forums for that and if I wish to do so I will go there and debate it. However in passing and as a final comment one of the purposes of debate is the introspection that should follow such a debate with such questions hopefully as
A.) Were my views expressed well and in a logical manner
B.) Are my views upheld and validated or if there is doubt where can I and how can I remove that doubt

Following the introspection is, how has your world viewpoint changed and how do I feel about that, this is (IMO) what open-mindedness is all-about.

From what I have read on the boards before you are a devout catholic and as a world-view I think that is somewhat limiting. I do not wish by this to demean your faith or your adherence to it but I ask your indulgence when asking not to be drawn into debate because of a viewpoint you disagree with when I was just expressing an opinion.

Easy, no one's going to force you into something you don't want. ;) Still, if you make strong claims, especially suggesting the other posters have not much right to speak, it's bound to cause some repercussions.

Dictionaries are hardly decisive with all the differences between them, even subtle ones. For one, I no longer rely on anything Oxford after the kind of grammar I saw in one of their textbooks.

If you prefer, we can look into the Cambridge Dictionary:

foetus, US ALSO fetus
noun [C]
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to developHowever, murder is defined as killing a person, a person as a man, woman or child, a child as a boy or girl from the time of birth on, therefore, according to Cambridge, it seems that not all humans are persons, which is strange. Still, dictionaries are meant to give meanings of words rather than serve in solving civil rights disputes.

What sucks is when someone is given the right to kill someone else because of reasons of own convenience and when definitions are played with in order to justify such killing.

I appreciate the idea of a wide scope of personal freedom and treating citizens like responsible adults and autonomous persons as they are. However, the rights of one end where the rights of another begin. Lordship of life and death is a concept no longer supported in the modern society, except specifically in case of abortion. Dangerous violent criminals can't be killed but innocent children can.

Edit: Having taken a closer look on your Oxford definitions, I must admit I was wrong in presuming they were in favour of your claim and I was too quick to give credit.

Logically, the mere definition of a foetus as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." suggests that at whatever stage it is, foetal or earlier or later, it's human and a particular stage is the foetus, from eight weeks on. Thus, the definition of a child as "a young human being below the age of full physical development." perfectly fits the foetus. As a human being is a man, a woman, or child, therefore a foetus is a human being. To kill a foetus is homicide.

Next, your legal dictionary specifies that abortion is homicide but not a crime, listing abortion in the number of non-criminal cases of homicide.

Considering how killing a foetus in the womb of a pregnant mother tends to be considered an independent act of murder in common law, making it a criminal homicide for an external person to kill the foetus but not for the mother, this only shows how abortion laws are inconsistent with the ethical and legal legacy of our civilisation and what kind of absurd they are.

[ October 13, 2005, 16:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I'm going to hate myself for pointing this out and ignore it if you wish but ....
According to the catholic church no child is innocent they are born with the original sin; that of Eve plucking the apple from the tree and they have this sin until they are baptised. Therefore abortion is actually the removal of a source of evil from the world...
Sad really it all went wrong when we left the villages to build towns and society grew beyond the male hunter/gatherer and the female nurturer/carer...

According to the catholic church no child is innocent they are born with the original sin; that of Eve plucking the apple from the tree and they have this sin until they are baptised. Therefore abortion is actually the removal of a source of evil from the world... According to the Catholic Church, a human is not the source of the evil he commits. The original sin relies on disobedience towards God and is not a question of personal, let alone legal responsibility. A child has not committed any crime. Theologists agree that there is a possibility of committing a mortal sin and ending up in hell for it for even very young children (it's even -- we have saints aged 10 at the point of death), but it doesn't stretch so far as to include foeti. ;)

Sad really it all went wrong when we left the villages to build towns and society grew beyond the male hunter/gatherer and the female nurturer/carer...There's a lot of evil in the world, but this doesn't mean it's all irrelevant now and we're free to do what evil we can get away with to improve our own situation. One example would be abortion after rape. It's obvious that rape is a despicable act and one of the most horrendous crimes one can imagine. I would refuse to defend in the court a person charged with rape if I believed him to be guilty unless it would effectively deprive him of fair trial and defence which even the most atrocious criminals deserve. I wouldn't object to castration, either. However, this crime still doesn't give us the right to eradicate the foetus. The fact someone has done something evil to us doesn't mean we can do evil to someone else to even it out. Eradicating another human being to help deal with a "natural" evil, i.e. a fact of harsh reality, is even more absurd.

By Chev's point A Foetus, carried by a human mother classes as human, therefore Aborting such is murder.

Further, while I do not believe that we will be accountable for the original sins of Adam and Eve, and that children are innocent to the age of 8 years (Mormon doctrine). Therefore, not only is abortion murder, it is the shedding of innocent blood...

This *is* a touchy subject... but here's my two cents, nontheless.

I beleive it is a matter of situation. Chev, you'll disagree with what I will say, but I'm expressing myself.

I used to be a many woman's man, and collected a hell of a one-night stands. Just for the record, I have since repented myself, and try the hardest I can to be one woman's man. Not always easy, but it's better this way.

Speculation time: Had one of these one-nights told me she was pregnant, for me it was abortion without questions. However, if my ex, a woman I really loved with all my soul told me she was pregnant, then I would have seriously considered having that child, since it's a child of love, and not of only of carnal pleasures.. Also, if financial matters allowed it too.

I beleive it's really a question of circumstances.

*sigh* Abortion is such a tough topic.

I was discussing it briefly with my friends today, and I found out that I was probably the most radical of all of them: Most of them believe in abortion to extents (not after a certain point, only in certain cases, etc). I, on the other hand, believe in it fully. No restrictions. Any time.
It truly is interesting to see so many peoples' veiws on such a matter...

In any case, I applaud those who said their piece once, and left it at that (such as those who said: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life and left). I would have, but it's just so hard to not argue with Chev...

Just to make a point: The legalistic arguement that abortion cannot be allowed on the grounds the pre-baby is technically a human being is invalid. It is perfectly legal to murder many human beings whom also have the noted distinction of -- you know -- being born.

This one is for Chev (or any othere who understands Polish. To all who don't, this is an article about finding abandoned newborn baby. Mother left it on the stairway in a block of flats). http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiadomosc.html?kat=35116&wid=8040132&rfbawp=1129308851.380
Would this happend if the woman had a right to terminate her pregnacy?

From your description, she ought to be prosecuted. Either way, she is guilty of a crime...

"The police is searching for the mother of the newborn who was found near the entry door to the staircase of one of the blocks of flats in Ciechanów in the Mazovia region on Thursday evening. The boy was in a shopping bag. The founder was a dweller of that block of flats," announced the Mazovia Police Command located in Radom.

The woman who found the child immediatel informed the police. The boy was dressed in baby's robe. He was taken to hospital.

After examination, the doctor determined that the boy was healthy; he had probably been born a couple of hours before. That block is not far from the police station, perhaps this is why someone left the child there, said Magdalena Siczek-Zalewska from Mazovia police press team.In short, the woman left her child there to die. Abortion being legal wouldn't have made it any better. The child is healthy boy now, while it could have been a dead foetus. Besides, any woman in Poland has the right anonymously to leave her newborn in the hospital without facing any penalty for abandoning it. This is the alternative to abortion that is being provided. Please note that the possibility of giving the child up for adoption invalidates all economical and social pro-choice arguments about being unable to support a child. The woman probably acted out of after-birth shock but she should still be prosecuted.

So why didn't she just left her child that way? I do believe that if she had such possibility she would terminate the pregnacy. And you don't know if the child would find a substitude family.

I find it interesting that 77% of those polled think abortion should be "mostly legal" or "alway legal", yet 67% would be outright opposed to abortion if they were the parent, extreme circumstances excepted. So most people think abortion should be at least "mostly legal" yet, at the same time, most people think they themselves would never take that route.

This is because of the modern 'tolerance' movement. Basically, belive what you want, but don't make any laws around it that would force your views on others. I respect that view point if it is not taken to extremes, but I disagree. If you believe something is right, and you give one wit about other people, you will try and convince (or even force in the extreme) them to go along with it. If your neighbor adopted animals just to torture them, and it were legal, wouldn't you try to stop them?
That may be an extreme case, but the general principle applies. That said, and jut a tad off topic. Let me try to convince you all, again, that abortion is wrong.
The vast majority of abortions are for comfort. Either the parents don't want it, or can't afford it, or they are under age and their parents don't want it, or can't afford it, or... you get the point. Less than 10% of all abortions are due to medical reasons or rape.
That said, most abortions end one human life (whether a person or not), just to make another one more convenient. That may not be legal murder, but it is wrong.
As for the less than 10% that are for medical reasons or rape:
Rape: No one said the mother couldn't put the child up for adoption. Punishing the child for the crimes of the father went out a long time ago. Also, of the few rape victims who do become pregnant from the act, many find it theraputic and comforting to love and raise the child. They will never forget the rape anyway, so the child is no more a reminder than life itself. Add on top of that the fact that, for 99.9% of women, the woman must be in a particular frame of mind to become pregnant, and I think we can say that abortion for rape victims does not justify itself.
Medical reasons: If pressed, doctors will tell you that the VERY few pregnancies that actually put the mother's life at risk all only do so in the last few days, usually at delivery itself, and the situation cannot be forseen. The doctors advise abortion when they see indicators that suggest that a pregnancy might possibly lead to some danger to the mother. It is completely up to the doctor in charge to determine what risks to allow. Of women who choose to go ahead with the delivery in this situation, only about 5% of them actually encounter a serious problem, and less than 2% of them actually die from it. This from a US national survey in 2002 that looked at over 2000 hospitals and medical clinics. Each of these had multiple cases. Again, we can see that this does not by any means mandate abortion availability for such situations.
In the end, it comes down to how far are we willing to go and what do we believe to be acceptable. I encourage everyone out there to voice your opinions, whether you agree with me or not.

@NOGs: Maternal mortality in Sierra Leone in 2004 was 1 per 50. (WHO figures) This is a fairly typical Third world figure and includes normal, uncomplicated pregnancies. Westernised nations fare considerably better - 4.6 per 10,000 in Australia for the same period IIRC.
Part of the reason for low maternal mortality (aside from issues such as nutrition, hygiene etc) in countries such as the States is the policy of inducing delivery of the baby when the mother's life is believed to be in danger. You state that problems occur in the last few days before delivery - in many cases they are why the baby is delivered.
My post in the other abortion thread mentions a few progressive conditions that are inevitably fatal, unless transplantation of heart and / or lungs occurs. Pregnancy by its very nature increases the strain on already failing organs and hastens the inevitable.

True, but these are the great exception. You cannot legislate to the masses based on such an unusual circumstance. If you want it legalized as an emergency procedure in these cases only, then please specify. If you already have and I missed it, sorry, but I don't think you have.

Point taken: my point was really a rebuttal of the assumption made by several on the board that maternal health is never really at risk during a pregnancy, and hence termination of pregnancies on medical grounds can never be justified.

Abortion on medical grounds is one thing I really don't care to touch. It should be possible in an emergency, but as a LAST resort...

Here's a link I posted in the other abortion thread, dealing with the legal position and reasoning behind the (il)legality of abortion in Australian states. It's a little old, so it may not be 100% current - it is accurate to the last change in Victorian law that I am aware of (although further changes are on the table at present). Hopefully it will provide some food for thought.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm

And with that, I'm outta this topic - I'll find somewhere else to argue with Chev. :p