(no subject)
Nov. 9th, 2004 05:36 amQuestion to my fellow Australians . . .
In the recent Abortion 'debate', have you heard any women speaking? Or is it just Tony Abbott, the guy from Family First, and the Governor-General (There's a trio that needs to be written)?
Also, is Tony Abbott still persuing the law which means doctors have to tell parents when they see someone under 18? (or was it 16?)
Don't mind me. I'm trying to make sense out of Australian politics
In the recent Abortion 'debate', have you heard any women speaking? Or is it just Tony Abbott, the guy from Family First, and the Governor-General (There's a trio that needs to be written)?
Also, is Tony Abbott still persuing the law which means doctors have to tell parents when they see someone under 18? (or was it 16?)
Don't mind me. I'm trying to make sense out of Australian politics
no subject
on 2004-11-08 01:33 pm (UTC)I notice that Melinda Tankard Reist hasn't said anything, which is curious. You'd think she'd be all over this -- unless she wants to distance herself from Family First.
Sad thing is, I'd agree with Tony Abbott, except that I swore an oath that I'd never support Abbot in anything. This is the dilemma faced by all pro-lifers with
soulsdubious past acquaintances with Tony Abbott...no subject
on 2004-11-08 03:26 pm (UTC)My major concern is the way he made late-term abortion sound like an epidemic. Not even 1% of the the abortions that occur in this country are post-20 weeks; the vast majority happen in the first 12-14. The majority of the late-term abortions have been in just the cases they should be: when there is a serious threat to the health of the mother.
Nobody *likes* abortion. Almost anyone who's been through it will tell you it's not as easy a decision as many pro-lifers make it sound, and is really quite a harrowing experience in general. But there are cases where it is necessary.
And whilst I can acknowledge people not wanting abortion to be funded by Medicare, what exactly do you do with someone who has been raped, or used birth control methods in that 1% of cases where it fails, who simply cannot afford an abortion? Should they really be forced to have the child by virtue of not having the money to pay for it?
There's a degree to which the concept of Medicare not paying for abortions *sounds* like a reasonable idea, but I simply can't see how it can be reasonably implemented in a way that *won't* drive more abortions underground and back into the 'coathanger in the backyard' years.
no subject
on 2004-11-08 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-11-08 06:43 pm (UTC)I quite agree with the GG, i thought he took a good position. Yes, would be great if abortions could be cut through education whatever (I hate how people seem to think that pro-choice people are pushing for abortions), but it can't be at the expense of a woman's right to choose.
Bob Carr has already said NSW would pass a bill to protect the state's abortion laws if the federal government tries anything.
Also in NSW, any abortion over I think it was 21 weeks has to be approved by a health board consisting of various doctors.
Abbott is making a mountain out of a molehill.
no subject
on 2004-11-08 06:50 pm (UTC)So in this state, you can't just have a late term abortion "willy nilly".
I'm not convinced he's not making an issue out of something that isn't a problem.
no subject
on 2004-11-08 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2004-11-09 11:27 am (UTC)God forbid we ever go to abstinance only
no subject
on 2004-11-09 06:41 pm (UTC)But of course those most vocally anti-abortion also are anti sex education. And anti single mothers and poor families.
Can't they see it's all interconnected?
no subject
on 2004-11-10 11:18 am (UTC)