Finally Australia has seen sense with a removal of the ban preventing NGO’s from accessing Australian aid monies if they had terminantions as part of their services.
ABC Online reports that
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith has been reviewing the rules and has decided to overturn the ban.
Mr Smith says the change will mean women in developing countries will have the same options as those in Australia, if local laws allow terminations.
But he says Australian aid funding will still focus on avoiding abortions through family planning.
The Prime Minister, however, made it known that he did not personally support the overturning of the ban – due I suppose to his conservative christian leanings. The more I learn about Rudd the more worried I get. This decision has been made because the evidence strongly suggests that it is more humane to prevent pregnancy, to educate women about their health and to provide safe abortion services if required. It suggests to me that when evidence contradicts his belief,s he switches off his brain. Additionaly, we can only conclude that he does not think Australian women should be able to access abortions either – I wonder what his female colleagues think of that.
I also caught Sen. Steve Feilding (Jesus Party) misrepresenting the nature of the ban on the ABC breakfast show this morning. Listening to him one would think that Australia is helping fund a chain of abortion factories chopping up babies and selling them as some health shake to the every growing number of baby eating atheists in the west.
The debate in the comments section of the ABC Online story breaks down into the usual arguments:
- Australia is now sanctioning murder
- Life begins at conception
- Unborn children have rights (but mothers don’t?)
- A child doesn’t have rights till its born
- A foetus isn’t self aware
- blah,blah,blah
Personally I am pro-choice, which means if a woman has decided on an abortion and she has had the best access possible to all information, then she has made the best choice for herself, at that time.
When we are talking about the blunt instrument of policy though, we have to look at what causes the least harm. I am convinced that by providing this aid money we will aid in the prevention of harm. Under Australia’s version of the global gag rule our aid funding for Family planning fell by 84% - so much for our christian generosity eh?
The intent of the ban on funding was to prevent abortion, however,
No evidence exists to indicate that the global gag rule has any ability to decrease the number of abortions performed worldwide, based on experience with the gag rule during the 1980s. Indeed, there is reason to believe that it has the opposite effect. To the degree that the Global Gag Rule prohibits providing basic family planning services and supplies to certain organizations, the gag rule may, in fact, lead to more unintended pregnancies, causing more women to seek unsafe abortions.[source]
The intent of the funding is to better educate women, to give them access to adeqate health care, to provide abortion as a last resort. To reduce the need for abortions.
The underhanded tactics of the anti-abortion lobby, their manipulation, deception and violence speaks volumes about their own personal ethics.
Related posts:
- Vatican interfering in Amercian Politics…again Vatican officials have been quick off the ball to criticise...
- Child Witches and Aid Funding A friend recently sent me links to the videos below...
- What should Australian Atheists be doing in 2010? With news that the tickets to the final day of...
Loading ...
I am tentatively pro-lifeanti-abortion, but I think the arguments most pro-lifers make are absolutely ridiculous and based on religious superstitions (i.e. life beginning at conception, etc.). I think the pro-life movement's connection with, and perhaps acceptance of, sexism will ultimately be its undoing. The movement isn't about saving lives, but about preserving white male power. Look at the pictures they use – I have yet to see a pro-life ad picture with a black baby in it . . . and I've been innear the movement for 26 years. There's an interesting essay in a book I read which points out that the pro-life movement constructs the white babyfetus as innocence, but the black babyfetus is typically defined in terms of stereotypes about black children being 'crack babies', etc.
Its really weird. I feel, philosophically, much more in tune with the pro-life movement, on secular theoretical grounds. But politically, and in terms of sexuality, I feel much, much safer with pro-choicers in charge. Hope that makes sense.
Best wishes,
John Weaver
I really do dislike the terms that are used in the debate, pro-life, anti-abortion etc. As they are often not adequate to describe what may be a rather complex view on the issue.
In this day and age there is really no good reason why an educated couple should conceive if they don't want to. That being said I don't think it fair to judge people who become pregnant by a "cruel twist of fate" or as victims of a sexual crime.
I would prefer people, were smart and avoided the need for an abortion. That being said I can see a woman's/ couples ability to choose as the only fair way to approach the situation.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to that essay? I have heard the claim that abortion (in the US) is racist, with more black babies being aborted than white. While I am immediately skeptical of the information because of its source (a anti-abortion:S site) I think were the fact true there might other factors such as socioeconomic factors that come into play.
This pro-reproductive-rights-for-women American is happy to learn of this. We just don't get to post good news often enough, so I always like to see it.
I think it was Obama who got the ball rolling on this. Its because the policy made us look more stupid than Bush that our pollies got their ass into gear
Just read an article on the lifting of the ban whilst my feeds were loading, and what do I see, Sean's already blogged about it.
Anyway here's another article stating how the decision might affect the QLD election. The ACL's christian ranting in this article is ludicrous and despicable. They just don't get that this is not just about providing abortions but also providing proper family planning advice (which may reduce the number of abortions). Doh, those christians are so thick!
Love this bit
But the ACL says Christians would have expected Mr Rudd to impose his view on the issue, because it was his belief in those Christian values which delivered him so many Christian votes.
"While Mr Rudd has set himself apart from it and said he doesn't agree with it, Mr Howard in his time in office was not against standing up and telling his cabinet what to do, because he was the leader of it," he said.
F*ck off Jim Wallace you are not in the Army anymore
Sean,
I wasn't saying black babies are aborted any more than white babies. I too believe that's a pro-life fiction. What I was saying is that the anti-abortion movement only cares about white babiesfetuses, not black ones. The essay on this is "The Crack Baby and the Partially Born as a Millenial Pair" in Killing for Life: The apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-life Politics by Carol Mason. Mason also claims that evangelical stereotypes of abortion providers are suspiciously similar to anti-Semetic caricatures.
Just didn't want you to think I was buying into evangelical pseudo-science crap (i.e. Post Abortion Syndrome and all that stuff).
Best wishes,
John Weaver
John,
Sorry if I was unclear. I understand what you are saying. I was just relating some extra info that was tangentally related:D
I never for a moment suspected that you were buying into anything mate, sorry if I gave that impression.
No problem Sean
A little off the main topic, but a point I'd like to share, if you humor me. The only position I respect (though strongly disagree with) within the "pro-life" movement is the one that calls for banning abortions no matter what, even in case of rape. Again, I strongly disagree, but that position is logical as it claims all life is valuable no matter the circumstance. On the other hand, the position I despise and mock endlessly is the half-ass one where "pro-lifers" are able to reason that a baby conceived from rape or other undesirable circumstances is "less important" and thus able to be terminated. Wtf are the values there? How is that life "less important"? This makes them hypocrites and is simply a weak position for them to take. Once you show them the error in their ways, they either sack up and take a reasonable position one way or the other. Usually they realize that this is a personal choice and not one for the government to dictate. (or they stick to their narrow-minded views on the subject)
Good for Australia and women's reproductive rights. I applaud their courage.
Dear DB,__ I agree up to a point. But then again, the moment of viability argument that a lot of pro-choicers use (in the states, anyway. The smarter pro-choicers don't use it), is equally questionable. Here, anyway, they argue that abortion should be legal until a fetus is viable outside the mother's womb, but the problem is that 'viability' will begin progressively earlier as technology advances.__ I think on an issue like abortion, for that matter most issues in life, people do hold mutually contradictory viewpoints. Abortion, in particular, is such a complex issue that it would be almost impossible for people to not hold contradictory viewpoints on it. I think – this is just me personally – that the most convincing pro-choice argument is that the issue really isn't about life, but about reproductive choice. To not give a woman control over her own body, they argue, is a form of sexual violence against her. I think that's a powerful argument, and I admit I have difficulty coming up with a counter (other than that abortion can argueably be seen as an act of violence against the fetusembryo. But then that argument goes in circles).____John
I hear you, for sure. My position is that the government (and no one else for that matter) has no right to dictate a woman's reproductive rights. Her body, her decision. My wife is pregnant now
, and if we found out tomorrow our baby will have some life altering disease, we will continue with the pregnancy. That is our decision and I can't make that decision for someone else, nor do I think the government should either.
Dear DB,
I'm not entirely sure the govt. has the right to dictate a woman's reproductive rights either, which is why my anti-abortion position is more tentative than many others. I think most pro-lifers would argue that the woman, by making the decision for the babyfetus is taking away its right to make choices as well. Of course, we then get into the whole issue of personhood, which is inherently problematic. I think that it would be difficult to claim that a fetusembryo is not a human being (though i have heard pro-choicers claim that), but I think it would be perfectly reasonable for pro-choicers to claim that the fetusembryo is a human being, but not a person, depending on how they define those concepts. The problem is that even the best, most consistent definitions of those terms, such as those advocated by Peter Singer, strike people as being morally repulsive (i personally think Singerian ethics is justifiable, I just happen not to agree with it).
. Also, if one argues that the fetus is not a person based on the environment argument (that the fetus is not human because it is not interacting with an environment), I think one runs into problems because a pro-lifer could plausibly argue that the womb is an environment.
Personally, I think the best argument for the pro-choice position is that forcing a woman to carry a child to term is a form of sexual violence against her. If one just bases the pro-choice position on 'my body, my choice' (which is obviously a great simplification of the issue), one gets into thorny philosophical issues, particularly with the current advancement in biotechnology. For instance, does one have the reproductive freedom to have what kind of child one wants, in addition to the right to have a child. Some deaf parents have argued they should have the right to alter embryos so they will be predisposed to deafness. Is that covered under a 'woman's reproductive rights'. Not trying to be difficult, I just think any term used in this debate is so loaded that there's going to be a counter-argument against it.
By the way, I think an even better argument against the anti-abortion movement is their whole manipulation of the term genocide. Remember, many pro-lifers (not this one) belive the pro-choice movement is committing genocide. Yet what is their reaction? To do nothing. If anything, the violent wing of the pro-life movement is often more consistent than the non-violent wing, which believes that one never has the right to overthrow a government or disobey it. If Christian pro-lifers (I'm an agnostic one myself) honestly believe pro-choicers are Nazis, why aren't they revolting?
Sorry, Sean, my comment was so long I had to split it up. Great post by the way
Its a good discussion thanks to DB and yourself:D
You cover a lot on this issue, but again, all it comes down to, in my opinion, is not the debate over definitions and terms, rather the fact that I believe a woman has a right to decisions about her body and no person or government has the right to tell that woman otherwise. I don't even care to address the personhood issue, because I refuse to move past the "it's not my position to tell someone what to do with their body" argument I present. Not my body, not my decision, nor is it the decision of a government or religious group of people. If someone's belief says one thing regarding abortion, then it is their choice to take that position, but they do not have the right to enforce their version of morality on me or anyone else through asinine laws. The abortion debate has become some clever way for people to force their views of morality on others, a age-old phenomena that we are seeing in a lot of lately.
Regarding the "why aren't they revolting?" comment, I can offer that conservative Christians usually just talk about issues rather than taking a meaningful action. I believe this has something to do with their over reliance on prayer. You know, they pray to think they are doing something, when they aren't actually doing anything. They might think abortion is genocide, but short of bombing abortion clinics, there is no chance they are going to leave their Churches to do anything about it which is fine by me.
To pick out a point on biotechnology I have no issue with screening for healthy embryo's. When it comes to preselecting embryos for deafness or eye colour etc then I think we need to ensure that it will be in the best interests of the child, then in the best interests of th wider community. I couldn't see an issue with superficial features such as eye and hair colour but deafness :S
Dear DB,
I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the "it's not my position to tell someone what to do with their body" is going to become increasingly philosophically problematic as time goes on. I think uniting this argument with the sexual violation argument makes more sense for pro-choicers. We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time: people aren't allowed to commit suicide for instance, or inflict their body through violence on someone else. Don't get me wrong – I worry much about the policing of the body as anyone else, which is another reason why I'm skeptical of the pro-life movement. But sexual and reproductive freedom, even if we uphold those standards, can probably never be fully absolute. We probably shouldn't for instance, allow one person to deliberately infect another person with a STD, even if both parties are willing (and especially, if one person is deliberately sleeping with someone else to infect them unknowingly. Sorry, seen too much Law and Order!).
As for enforcing morality on others, I think your argument (no offense) is philosophically simplistic. Every law system is an enforcement of morality on to others. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a legal system. Your problem, and my problem as well, is with the system of morality being enforced, not with the fact that people are enforcing morality on others. It's impossible not to do that, at least until our society evolves beyond its current primitive form
One last thing. One reason why I am still tentatively pro-life is because I fear the fanaticism of religious right genetic engineering. Al Mohler, one of the leaders of the Southern Baptist convention, argues that parents should have the right to genetically determine whether their children are gay or not (he argues that Christian parents should genetically engineer homosexuality out of the gene pool). Now, granted, I don't think we will ever find one conclusive 'gay' gene, but I could see the religious right trying to weed out the population of GLBT individuals by some-sort of pre-natal screening. I guess where I stand is that people may very well have freedom of choice whether or not to have a child (like I said, I'm tentatively pro-life, not fanatically so), but people should probably be restricted in their ability to 'choose' what kind of child they will have.
Heaven forbid that they find a God gene then:D The dastardly atheists might conspire with evil secularist governments
Dear Sean,
Lol. It has been proposed, actually. Seriously, though, I don't think there's a single gay gene. What I've read seems to indicate that homosexuality has a lot of different causal factors, and that those factors differ in men and women. I do worry, however, about the hormonal explanation for homosexuality, since I imagine if that explanation is correct, the religious right would try hormonally altering fetuses through injections.
The way I feel lately, the God gene goes hand in hand with the stupidity gene, but I hate saying that 'cause I don't want to be prejudiced against religious people.
John