right or wrong? you decide

David Maegraith - 22 August 2008 09:33 AM

right or wrong? you decide

I’m not sure which side you’re asking ‘right or wrong’ about - Medicare’s current funding of partial birth abortions, or the potential changes to these laws so that it doesn’t happen any more… IMHO the first is obscene and the second is brilliant!

It was actually the second part of the piece that perked my interest a little bit more, about the proposed changes to allow AusAID funding “to be used to fund abortions”… AusAID funds are currently prevented from funding any organisations that provide “abortion training or services, or research, trials or activities which directly involve abortion drugs”.  This is a very similar policy to the US Government’s ‘global gag rule’, which prohibits US funding of any reproductive health service, in the US or globally, which even mentions abortion as an option (note that under the US laws the organisation doesn’t have to provide the services, or even refer women to these services - it simply must not acknowledge abortion in any of its counselling services, literature etc, unless to discourage it if it is raised by a client).

This sounds like a pretty good thing for the pro-life, right?  However the problem is that most sexual and reproductive health (SRH) agencies do much more than just provide or refer abortion services – they also provide contraceptives, family planning, maternal and infant health care, condoms, STI prevention and education programs etc… services which are absolutely fundamental to health and development.  The effects of these funding bans have really serious downstream impacts on things like HIV transmission rates, the empowerment and status of women, and poverty.  Allowing funding to these organisations (not necessarily for abortion services, depends on the strings attached) can actually be a good thing.

I guess my overall point is that I think the Christian lobby, heart in the right place and all, is painting this one way too black and white – allowing AusAID money to “fund abortion” may not necessarily just mean that it will actually be doing that, or only that.  I’d be very interested to see the wording of the proposed changes to the laws… and to see Christians thinking a bit deeper on this one, rather than just reacting to the a-bomb every time it gets dropped…

My 2 cents 

Nicole

Thanks Nicole, well put!

i please to aim :)

Baby the wrong gender? Abort it, says expert

David Maegraith - 01 September 2008 04:21 PM

Baby the wrong gender? Abort it, says expert

I don’t know if a word exists which adequately describes how obscene that is.  One which comes to mind is ‘eugenics’, although apparently Julian Savulescu (the expert in question) prefers to refer to it as “biological enhancement”…

Nic Jameson - 22 August 2008 03:26 PM

i please to aim :)

And aim to please?

Please remember our situation in Victoria in your prayers.

The Government’s Decriminalisation of Abortion Bill comes up for its 3rd reading and a vote on the 9th Sept (the debate is likely to spill over several days).

The legislation will have the effect of making an abortion up to 24 weeks possible upon the simple request of the woman concerned, no cooling off period, no mandatory referral to counselling, no anti coercion provisions, in short nothing that might reduce the level of abortions below the current one abortion for every three live births, nothing that might offer sympathetic support to a woman, all too often deserted by her sexual partner, who in rather more cases than people are prepared to acknowledge are liable to trauma that will extend for decades after an abortion: flashbacks, anniversary reactions, temptations to suicide, difficulties in maintaining and developing relationships, turning to drugs, increased susceptibility to breast or other cancers, etc.

The Bill requires consents for a late term abortion. However the requirements for determining risk are set so low the obtaining of consents will not be difficult. Even though late term abortions are terrible they constitute well below 1% of all abortions.
There will be many amendments in Parliament put up by pro life MPS, both Labor and Coalition. It is even though remotely possible that the Bill will be sent off to a Parliamentary enquiry, which would be a good decision.

There are two main groups working against the legislation. Broadly speaking, the Right to Life people who simply hope to defeat the Bill and a Church based group plus ACL and Family Values Australia (previously FOL) who are registering their strong opposition to abortion and its decriminalisation but recognising abortion is not going to be outlawed is also arguing greater support for women with an unlooked for pregnancy (a “looking after mothers is good for their children” approach) plus greater transparency.

Some of you may think, “O that’s just Victoria”. I say, don’t be so sure, though maybe not immediately, given your political turmoil. One of the problems with abortion is that it is currently unregulated with women receiving 3rd rate care and the whole thing swept under the carpet.

Think about how concerned we as a society are with 1500 road deaths, smoking & lung cancer, now obesity as well, and then think about how silent we are over 80,000 to 100,000 abortions.

David Palmer - 01 September 2008 05:43 PM

Please remember our situation in Victoria in your prayers.

Of course, David. 

It’s so frustrating watching those with so much power make such destructive decisions with it…

Quite a good letter in the Age today about the abortion debate in Victoria.

Back in the USSR

A RELIGIOUS state compels non-believers to act against their consciences. An anti-religious state compels believers to act against their consciences. A secular state does neither.

The decriminalisation of abortion, while disturbing to many people for many reasons, is at least consistent with secularity. But Victoria’s latest abortion bill would go beyond that; it would compel Catholic doctors - and any other doctors who accept the personhood of the foetus as an article of faith - to act against their consciences.

That is not a secular policy, but an anti-religious policy, differing only in degree from those of the former Soviet Union.

Gavin R. Putland, Dandenong

This is something to be praying about over the next few days.