Sunday, November 14, 2004

Privacy & Medicare Item # 35643

I apologise that I missed this when it was published.

It is evident that Health Minister Tony Abbott has been fomenting this ill horror for some time.

Women will be required to declare abortions on their Medicare paperwork under a plan being considered by the HoWARd Government.

I can only assume that HoWARd (and others) ordered Tony to keep his social engineering to himself until the subject could be considered without the sensitivities of an imminent election.

I can just imagine the conversation:

Tony: "There are far too babies being killed John"

John: "Babies killed? Where?"

Tony: "Abortions. Morning after pills. Me, Nick, Ando, Kevin and God, we're not happy"

John: "Listen Tony, if you keep quiet; Lie if you are directly questioned; Avoid media scrutiny of your agenda, then I'll provide extra money directed to mothers who give birth to babies from midnight on 30 June this year. How does 3 thousand dollars sound? That should keep a few of them from aborting until after we win and then it's all yours. Save as many as you can. Make it as difficult as possible. We'll never stop the rich ones, but we will stop quite a lot. Use every Government Department that's relevant. And Tony, remember my name is out of it"

Julie Robotham says it best.


Blogger weezil said...

Abbott has an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

His religious extremism is interfering with his ability to manage his healthcare portfolio.

He should resign, but there's no honor among fundamentalists.


11:13 am  
Blogger suki said...

I agree.
We all have to make a decision as to what is private and what is professional in the Public Service positions we hold where we discharge a duty.
Yes, the person is political, however Abbott has the balance quite wrong.

I know this because he cannot clearly articulate just how many abortions occur every year.
-Just too many!

This is not research. Nor is it a response to the ongoing wellness in women or the grief felt by all people touched by the procedure.
He is not raising any concerns that place a woman central to an abortion.

Abbott is no better than the rogue Counsellors that are alluded to and vilified for coercing vulnerable women to have an abortion.
In fact, he is worse.
He is in a position of public office.

He will not rest until the right to choose is eliminated.

11:37 am  
Blogger fidens said...

When does life begin?

11:17 pm  
Blogger suki said...

Life begins at birth.
It may be followed immediately by death. It may also last a long time or anything in between.
In order for life to begin a woman must want to incubate a foetus to birth.

Are you concerned about life not continuing; in fact ending abruptly, due to war, famine, disease and poverty for thousands of children in Iraq, the Sudan or in the Top end?

7:52 am  
Blogger fidens said...

Yes, I am very concerned, about children in these places and more besides.

If a woman miscarried, would it be truthful to say "It wasn't really alive?"

11:07 pm  
Blogger suki said...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Miscarriage" is the lay term for the natural or accidental termination of a pregnancy at a stage where the fetus is incapable of surviving.
The medical term for it is "abortion"; when the abortion is not deliberately induced, it is termed a "spontaneous abortion," so that is a synonym for "miscarriage."

A miscarriage usually results from biological defects in the mother or genetic defects in the developing fetus.

Miscarriages frequently occur so early that the woman is not even aware that she is pregnant. Some women are prone to miscarry; the term "habitual abortion" describes the condition where three consecutive pregnancies have terminated before 20 weeks gestation.

In the past, a frequently used synonym for miscarriage, was to say that the mother "lost the baby". This phrase is not as popular in current times, because there is less of a cultural stigma on discussing issues related to reproduction, and because some people feel that it carries the connotation that the expectant mother was, somehow, at fault for the miscarriage.

11:32 pm  
Blogger fidens said...

Sorry, I wasn't being clear.

If someone you loved miscarried, could you say to them "it wasn't really alive"?

8:11 pm  
Blogger suki said...

If someone I love miscarried.
I would say to her
"What can I do to help"
realising that she is grieving.

1:33 pm  
Blogger fidens said...

Would you think her grieving pointless? If, after all, the foetus was not really alive, what is there to grieve over?

7:12 pm  
Blogger suki said...

Who am I to judge someone's grief?

My post is not about miscarriage or grief. This post is about C H O I C E !
The choice to abort or not abort.

9:44 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

I can make this profoundly simple:

If you disagree with abortion, don't have one- but never, ever be stupid enough to think you are important enough to instruct allwomen what to do with their bits.

If men could become pregnant, there would be termination services available 24/7 on every other streetcorner.

Abortion is healthcare- and not one person on this planet has the right to dictate to any other how to care for their bodies.


5:42 am  
Blogger fidens said...

Throughout history there have been particular times when the majority of people in particular places did not consider the lives of other, dissimilar people to be of equivalent 'value'.

Part of human development has been the gradual recognition that human lives have intrinsic value and are of equal worth - that, for example, Hutu, Tutsi, Jews, Muslims, women and even Catholics, deserve equal protection.

To get to this point often required courageous people to fly in the face of received wisdom. Despite their efforts, human rights have only relatively recently been considered self-evident in the west, and have a long way to go in many places.

My point is: consensus does not make morality. If every one in the world except me believed that abortion is good, that would still not necessarily make it so. I sat this not to compare myself to those brave human rights pioneers, nor to compare you with slavers or Nazis - I'm merely saying that society needs a better basis for moral choice than "do whatever you believe is right".

Peter Singer believes that beings attain 'value' when they develop a concept of the future. He argues that as mature animals have a concept of a future, it is immoral to abuse or kill them. Conversely, he maintains that human beings do not develop a sense of future until three months after birth, and that until they develop this sense, killing them is morally neutral.

Suki believes that babies can be killed up until they are delivered, I assume by the typical partial birth abortion methods. Here is end of the procedure "The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed."

I've thought about this for a long time and have come to the conclusion that there must be a transcendant basis for morality. The worth of a human life should never be determined by another human being - not kulaks, not the mentally disabled, not Muslims, not Jews, not negroes, not the elderly and not the pre-born.

Thanks for your time.

10:33 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

And this spew worthy of any back page of the Daily Mirror does what to prove that a woman should not have the ultimate right of control over her body functions?


11:15 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home