Well, John Howard is the Prime-Minister, not the dictator. He can’t make laws all on his little lonesome. As far as I can recall, the liberal party has always run conscience votes on moral issues. A bill reversing it would never get through parliament. If they thought it would, I’m sure Howard/Abbott and crew would be proposing it pretty quickly.
Like Dani, I do find it deeply disturbing, though, that a prospective prime minister is just plain disinterested in the topic, as though there were no food for thought in the fact one Australian is legally killed every five minutes…
I think there is a huge gulf between moral nonchalance and holding moral conviction one is not able to enforce.
What I found interesting, is the fact that after his comments about no interest in the topic (which some people I have met in the political arena feel is “safe” ground offending as few people as possible), Latham then notes that
he hoped the ABC was abiding by its charter.
“It needs to act in the public interest. It is funded publicly. I would hope in this instance it is following its charter and all the appropriate guidelines,” he said.
There seems to be no public interest concern when loopy conspiracy theories about Jesus’ resurrection (including that one about how he eloped with Mary Magdelene to India) are on the ABC, but a serious documentary which will probably refute the notion that unborn children do not have feelings, or which may sicken members of society about the practice, is something obviously to take to the standard bearers at the ABC and ask “is it in the public interest”.
More interesting than John Howard, who ostensibly is against abortion, has allowed 100,000 babies to be aborted every year in the country he actually is the Prime Minister of?
John Howard has been very public about his own opinion on abortion… but as Matt said he is not a dictator and he doesn’t ‘allow’ 100 000 babies to be aborted every year. The people that allow that are those whose babies are aborted (and arguably I guess those who perform the abortion).
Even if parliament did outlaw abortion that doesn’t mean it is going to stop or disallow babies being aborted. Underground abortion rates are huge in countries where abortion is illegal. So I don’t see how it is a fair comment to say that John Howard allows abortions to occur.
My concern with Mark Lathams comments is his claim that the subject holds absolutely no interest for him whatsoever (as also indicated by his ‘past my bed time’ comment) as if the morality or immorality of the murder of 100 000 babies every year is of no consequence to him.
[quote author="Peter"]the fact that after his comments about no interest in the topic (which some people I have met in the political arena feel is “safe” ground offending as few people as possible)
Hi Peter :)
I agree that is probably what he is doing. Unfortunately, I have little respect for that political approach to moral issues by someone who wants to lead our country. I wonder if that is going to be his standard approach, should we have a change of government, when it comes to divisive moral and ethical issues in our country?
[quote author="Dani Treweek"]John Howard has been very public about his own opinion on abortion… but as Matt said he is not a dictator and he doesn’t ‘allow’ 100 000 babies to be aborted every year. The people that allow that are those whose babies are aborted (and arguably I guess those who perform the abortion).
Even if parliament did outlaw abortion that doesn’t mean it is going to stop or disallow babies being aborted. Underground abortion rates are huge in countries where abortion is illegal. So I don’t see how it is a fair comment to say that John Howard allows abortions to occur.
My concern with Mark Lathams comments is his claim that the subject holds absolutely no interest for him whatsoever (as also indicated by his ‘past my bed time’ comment) as if the morality or immorality of the murder of 100 000 babies every year is of no consequence to him.
Howard could do many things to stop abortion if he chose to. Abortion law is a state health issue, (perhaps another source of Latham’s disinterest) and most of the laws are drafted in such a way as to force consultation with a doctor. But the laws are generally ambiguous and allow loopholes like that doctors can perform abortions provided they make the decision to do it not the patient. Howard could close that loophole. Howard could tie health funding to abortion reform legislation (as he did with school reforms this year) to force the states to accept his policy. Bush has done many things in the US to pursue his convictions over abortion, in an even more segmented health system (where each city runs it’s own health).
You may argue that it would drive it underground, or it wouldn’t stop it.. both good arguments, but it doesn’t hold in the case of drugs, for instance. Making drugs illegal forces drug use underground, and doesn’t stop it, yet our legislators still make it illegal because they think it is important. Why not with Abortion?
It’ll all well and good for Howard to wring his hands and point at the states, or as is more often the case make vague statements about how he would prefer it didn’t happen, and let Tony Abbot take point. But fundamentally he hasn’t stepped in to slow or stop the practise.
The reason why is that abortion is a zero-sum game. If you do something to stop it, you will loose the left. If you do something to support it, you loose the right. But many surveys have shown the majority of people support early term abortions being legal. So if you make them illegal you are acting against the interests of the majority of people. That is why Howard is also not interested in pursuing the issue either.
So really Latham and Howard have exactly the same position. They both defer the issue to the states. Neither have an interest in changing the situation. Both accept that there is no votes in the issue.
So I guess all I’m saying is hold Howard to the same standard you would hold Latham to. Ask why Howard has made no moves in the 8 years he has been in givernment. Because on an issue like this, you will be far more likely to move a right wing government than a left wing one.
I agree with you Rowen that I would like to see legislation brought in outlawing abortion (although I remain unconvinced that any attempts by the government to do so would be successful from a parliamentary point of view). I also wasn’t saying it should remain legal because people will head underground for the procedure anyway (because I agree with your point about drugs etc). I was simply saying that the Prime Minister (whether it be John Howard, Mark Latham or Dame Edna) is not responsible for the abortions which occur in this country. As far as I am aware, no Prime Minister in our democratic system has the individual power to simply allow 100 000 babies to be killed every year.
So I guess all I’m saying is hold Howard to the same standard you would hold Latham to. Ask why Howard has made no moves in the 8 years he has been in givernment. Because on an issue like this, you will be far more likely to move a right wing government than a left wing one.
Certainly I would like Mr Howard to push harder on the issue- just as I would have liked those ‘surplus’ IVF embryo’s not be killed in the name of stem cell research. It’s frustrating, disappointing and disillusioning that he hasn’t been more proactive in some moral and ethical issues and I pray that if he is re-elected he will be. But that isn’t my point.
My concern was that Mr Latham flat out said the subject matter of the documentary holds no interest for him. In other words, the abortion of approx 300 000 babies during his first term in office (should he be elected) is of no consequence to him. It doesn’t interest him that one in 4 women in this country will have an abortion during their lifetime. I’m not saying Howard is more politically proactive over the issue than Latham is or would be. I am simply saying that by his own admission he doesn’t care about the subject of abortion.
It’s one thing for Howard to say “I am very conservative when it comes to abortion but am not pushing the issue in the political arena because the majority of people in this country seem to want to keep 1st term abortion legal” (which is, after all, what his government was elected to do- represent the interests of the Australian people). But it is a very different thing for Latham to say “I just don’t care about the subject”.
If Latham’s uninterest (is that really a word Gordon? Sounds wrong) is simply a ploy to straddle the fence nicely, then I’m sorry but I don’t see how that position has a great deal of integrity (and I am not naieve enough to think that Howard hasn’t done the same thing in the past on other issues).
On the other hand it has surely got to be better than the other possibility - that he really just doesn’t care either way.
And another thought- does his ‘uninterest’ also extend to the physical, emotional and pyschological wellbeing of about 15% of the population of Australia who have abortions.
PS. Sorry to hijack this thread guys! Luke feel free to bump us off if you so desire :)
If Latham’s uninterest (is that really a word Gordon? Sounds wrong)
Uninterest is not yet a word. Uninterested is a word. Disinterested is a word. Disinterest is a word that may possibly mean a person is uninterested rather than disinterested, as the meaning of ‘disinterest’ appears on my observation to have drifted further in the direction of ‘uninterested’ than ‘disinterested’.
I usually avoid the problem by saying ‘lack of interest’, or ‘indifference’. We could use Kel Richards in here.
Great letter in SMH on abortion Dani, alongside one from Claire Smith.
And an excellent example of how this forum can be used to raise issues and sharpen our thinking.
Worth writing again on abortion today, all, as there was an opinion piece. Fascinating how squeamish people suddenly become over what, for them, is simply a piece of elective surgery.
I notice a letter on the ‘saint’ issue too (scroll down on letters page), which would warrant a response.
Oh, and the abortion issue is in the Australian too, so make sure you consider sending the SMH letter you write to them as well!
Those of you game enough to express a public opinion on Peter Costello, here’s one in today’s Age where he backs living by the 10 commandments.
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]I notice a letter on the ‘saint’ issue too (scroll down on letters page), which would warrant a response.
I wrote in on this one but it did not cut the muster. I should have gone with religious tolerance rather than mention miracles, Jesus and John Howard in the same sentance.
Out of interest, do they always ring for confirmation?
They did the first time I wrote (probably to establish I was real), and they did a month or so ago (not sure why). Thats all.
Most times I get a “Your letter has been shortlisted” email in response to one I have sent, sometimes nothing - and its a pleasant surprise to read the paper the next day.
The Age had an opinion piece and 2 letters on Pete Costello and the 10 commandments ( a famous early ‘70s rock group), one for and one agin. The ‘for’ one was sufficiently provocative that I reckon they will get a few letters again in response. If you wrote on this issue today that wouldn’t hurt at all.
I have this wonderful image of Gordon, up at the crack of dawn, with thousands of computers, each one set to a different newspaper’s letter page, and Gordon scouring each one. ;-)
*Why we need this Big White Maggot*[non-Victorians: ‘white maggott= the referee!!]
The Ten Commandments will never make sense to anyone who does not believe, or does not want to believe, that the Commander even exists. Would anyone keep the footy rules if they were sure that the referee was a figment of the imagination?
Footy rules have been worked out so that the game is fair, enjoyable and as safe as possible. There is even a need for a rule to respect the referee! Without these rules the game would quickly descend into chaos and danger.
In a day when many in our nation seem to have lost their trust and confidence in politicians, I am thankful that our Treasurer, Peter Costello, is trying to follow the Ten Commandments and honouring the Commander.
He will have my support any day over and above those who seek to rubbish God’s best ideas for this wonderful country of ours.
Reverend Geoff Harvey, Antiochian Orthodox Church of Australia, Rowville
*Secularism*
Pamela Bone (Opinion, 13/7) doesn’t offer a reasoned defence of secularism, but launches an ill-founded attack on Christianity instead. Her latest article adopts a faux-naive reading of the Commandments that wilfully ignores the real meaning and substance of both the Commandments and the faiths based on them.
Holding a torch for a secular society is one thing, but denigrating other people’s faith is not secularism. It’s bigotry.
Caroline Miley, Heidelberg
I know it isnt the SMH or Australian, but an interesting critique of Christian Politics is here… (in the shock horror Daily Telegraph) Particularly dealing with Fred Nile.
Should probably be linked to some other threads as well.
I especially found this comment interesting…
Where Nile differs from other religious politicians is that he is 100 per cent upfront about where he is coming from.
The Christian Liberals of the Lyons Forum; the blandly-titled, cross-party “Monday Night Group”; the Catholic conservatives in Labor ranks; and even Brian Harradine, who hates the accurate tag, “devoutly Catholic” – most of these MPs bristle at attempts to examine their faith and its link to policy.
Having written a letter in response to the response to Caroline Miley, I found this article - well worth writing in about. I don’t have any more time though!
Peter Singer is a former Green political candidate and famous ethicist who promotes infanticide. He is most famous for his book on animal rights. He sees ‘specism’ as a form of discrimination, and applies those ideas consistently so that “all life forms are respected”, which is code for “human life is not intrinsically more valuable than other life forms”.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
