melwil: (Default)
[personal profile] melwil
Question 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

on 2004-11-08 01:33 pm (UTC)
ext_6531: (Jeremy is lickable)
Posted by [identity profile] lizbee.livejournal.com
There were a lot of women in the Courier Mail on Saturday.

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 souls dubious past acquaintances with Tony Abbott...

on 2004-11-08 03:26 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] jennifergearing.livejournal.com
See, there's an extent to which I agree with his point about late-term abortions, because, well, they *are* dangerous, and it *is* a little incongruous to have foetuses being aborted at 24 weeks while having premature babies in humidicribs at 23 weeks.

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.

on 2004-11-08 03:29 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] jennifergearing.livejournal.com
As far as the doctors issue (it was under 16 by the way), it's been dropped as far as I know, but there has been a Qld law passed that indicates doctors *can* alert parents to their child's health issues, but it is up to their discretion, which, I believe, is something a large amount of doctors do anyway.

on 2004-11-08 06:43 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] krazykitkat.livejournal.com
Several of the Liberal women have spoken and told the male politicians to butt out.

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.

on 2004-11-08 06:50 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] krazykitkat.livejournal.com
In NSW at least, any abortion after 20 or 21 weeks must be approved by a panel of doctors (including neonatologist, psychiatrist etc).
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.

on 2004-11-08 07:54 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] brynderoy.livejournal.com
Yeah, I was just complaining last night that men have no right to have any input regarding this debate.

on 2004-11-09 11:27 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] melwil.livejournal.com
I think more education is a brilliant idea. My sister, only six years behind me at school, didn't get half the sex education I got.

God forbid we ever go to abstinance only

on 2004-11-09 06:41 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] krazykitkat.livejournal.com
Scandanivian countries IIRC have the lowest abortion rates in the world by far...and the most explicit sex education and easiest availability of contraception.
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?

on 2004-11-10 11:18 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] melwil.livejournal.com
That needs a few brain cells, that I'm sure are missing . . .

Profile

melwil: (Default)
melwil

December 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 31st, 2026 06:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios