MOST of the community would seem to support proposed changes mooted by the Victorian Government to decriminalise abortion.

A Bill to be introduced by Health Minister Daniel Andrews later this week is likely to allow women an open choice to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

There will be a conscience vote on the legislation, but its inevitable passage will have nothing to do with good conscience.

Instead, it will simply confirm that as a species our moral sympathy gland is rarely triggered by beings whose suffering or loss we cannot readily detect.

Our moral stances continue to be driven by self-interest as opposed to detached and fair principles.

That's why we are not marching in the streets to stop the intense cruelty our farmers inflict on farm animals.

That's why we are gorging ourselves to ill-health by eating too much food while 20,000 people in distant parts of the world die daily of starvation or other readily preventable causes.

It's also why so many people are prepared to destroy a fetus.

The next time that people ponder their views on abortion, they would do well to reflect on the fact that the only reason they get to reflect on the issue is because they got lucky -- their mother decided not to exercise her choice on them.

Abortion numbers in Australia are estimated at around 90,000 annually. This compares with around 250,000 births. Thus, more than a quarter of all pregnancies are terminated.

From the moral perspective, the abortion issue involves balancing two main competing interests -- the right to life versus the right to one's body.

There is no obvious point during the gestation process that can be used to signify when life commences.

Gestation is an ongoing process. At no stage during the process does the fetus have relevantly different attributes to a point marginally earlier in time.

The least arbitrary point at which life begins is at conception.

At this stage the embryo has individuality and uniqueness, and the building blocks for the development of life. There is no logical difference between a 24-week embryo and a new-born child. What of 25 weeks or 23?

The only quality that a 24-week embryo lacks, by virtue of it being in the womb, is the capacity to tug at the emotional heartstrings of the mother.

It also can't plead for its life.

The indecency of the human condition is rarely more obvious than in relation to our willingness to exterminate humans simply because they can't beg to not be destroyed.

Further, on matters pertaining to life and death it is better to err on the side of conservatism. Of course, the right to life is not absolute.

Pro-choice advocates point out that the right to one's body means that we cannot force others to donate blood or a kidney to save another person.

Thus, it has been argued that women cannot be forced to deliver unwanted children.

However, when the notion of personal responsibility is factored into the abortion benefits and burden calculus, the baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to her body.

More is expected of people who bring about a state of affairs.

That's why if you cause an accident you must try to rescue injured people, while onlookers have no such obligation. Of course women are entitled to do what they want with their bodies.

But so too are males, including those too young to express their views.

Never in human history has a child under the age of two committed suicide, so you can be sure that no embryo wants its body destroyed.

The interest that an embryo has in preserving its being is more paramount and permanent than a female's right to not be incumbered by nine months of pregnancy.

Thus, abortion is unethical.

Its widespread acceptance doesn't change this.

Rather it illustrates that our moral judgments continue to be unduly shaped by emotion as opposed to logic.

The fact that we can actually see a being and hear it cry is no basis for conferring it enhanced moral status.

Morality involves the development of universal standards -- its reach is not exhausted by what we can sense and feel. There is no doubt a need to change the abortion laws. But in the opposite direction to that proposed by the Victorian Government.

The Government states that abortion would be allowable after 24 weeks only in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy posed a risk of harm to the women.

Why 24 weeks? Abortion should be made illegal at any time, except where the pregnancy arose out of forced sex or its continuation presents a demonstrable and serious risk to the welfare of the woman.

Unlike the current limitations on abortions, this new law needs to be monitored and enforced.

No doubt pro-choice groups will be opposed to this proposed fetter on embryo and fetus destruction.

And they are entitled to, but they are not entitled to base their arguments on ethical grounds.

Morality commands that wherever possible, luck must be eliminated from considerations of life and death.

It is repugnant to suggest that whether a being enjoys the most cardinal right of all - to life - should depend on the whim of another person.

Mirko Bagaric is a professor of law at Deakin University and author of Being Happy and Dealing with Moral Dilemmas

Reproduced in the Link-Zone pages with the kind permission of the author : SP15/08