Just as soon as people like you have removed any choice she has about bearing a child, right?

You mean the choice to terminate the life of a human being? I've already pointed out rape or serious endangerment to the mother's health. Otherwise what do you think you have that trumps the preservation of a human life - "Choice"?

The woman has the right to decide the fate of her body. The law should reflect that

She HAS got the right to decide - whether to hop in the sack with a guy or not, or use contraception aware that there is a very tiny risk it doesn't work.

How about you start thinking about how FREEDOM entails RESPONSIBILITY.

And seriously you believe the ending of a human life is a better course than the "inconvenience" of 9 months pregnancy?

Lets address that societal issue first before some kiwi guy gets to decide what a woman's allowed.

Abortion should not be used for population control, not surprising you think it should though, after all Communist China does it and your Feminist ideological roots are grounded in failed Marxist philosophy.

The issue involves the very nature of human life and should not be allowed to be hijacked by a small group of Feminist ideologues.

The tax payer is sick of being treated like an ATM, forever expected to hand over money to individuals who make poor life choices and emotionally blackmailed with hysterical nonsense about "starving babies".

So, women should be forced to have babies but we should punish those babies by starving them to death? How does that fit any morality? I suppose other than "women should be punished".

If a woman can not afford to look after a child there are plenty of loving couples desperate to adopt. The mother could even stay involved. It can be made to happen.

Why should the taxpayer be funding solo mother lifestyles - like those women who aren't even sure who the father is of their various kids.

If a women CHOOSES to be sexually active she can take RESPONSIBILITY for that, not the tax payer.

I should hope it is made harder to have a baby on the DPB, the State should not be used as a replacement for a father. Unfortunately feminists seem to demand exactly that.

Abortions should be permissible only in cases of rape or serious threat to the woman's health.

The claim about Hawaii is dodgy, as the article itself points out, there maybe a drop in surgical abortions but only because of the day after pill.

This is an issue about how we define a human life, its not merely a "woman's health issue" as feminists are trying to spin it.