This is my blog. It's been going for a couple of years now. I'll keep writing in it from time to time, often for no particular reason.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Possibly the brief that Tony Abbot was given....

WELL, that's fine then. Excuse me while I go and have an abortion … Gulp. There we go - much better. Just sit and forget now that I can get RU486 by the handful. You know what we women are like, brainless, uncaring creatures who get pregnant at the drop of a hat and seek to get rid of it just as quickly so we can go to another party tonight.

We never think about the results of our actions because we can't, being so dim as we are. We love washing machines, running water and frozen food because they make our lives so much easier - therefore it follows that we will all be racing to the doctor the minute we know we are pregnant, and taking a pill to cure the problem.

Hell, why not get pregnant now just so you can try it out? Be the first on your block to have a new, simple abortion before the latest winter fashions. We gals all want to be first because we are flighty and can't think beyond the next pair of shoes, so we will knock people down to get our hands on this easy new whiz-bang miracle.

Better than cheese in a can, better than vegemite snack-packs and better than lip gloss in a tube, lunchtime will never be the same waste of a hospital visit that it used to be.
We used to head off in the mornings to our girly, waiting-to-get-married jobs - as business managers, lawyers, doctors, airline pilots - work out we were pregnant, file our nails until lunch, and then pop into casualty to have an abortion. And we got back to work in time to have a cup of tea and a biscuit before going home.

Now those days are gone with the magic of medicine. There will be no more wasting ours and the boss's time with silly things like babies, which women only have to annoy public service budget makers anyway.

Time-saving should also be a plus with industrial relations negotiations, although we girls don't understand difficult concepts like that either.

You know we women are also so dim that we don't actually mind getting pregnant, which is why we really don't care about abortions. Of course, we don't like sex either. We only do it to oblige our brutish demanding husbands, because we are all "nice girls".

We'll be even nicer now we can have abortions to order because we won't have to worry about the unsavoury side of sex - all that bothersome contraception that we've been carrying on about for years, spoiling the mood and making men wait when they just want to get on with things.

We will immediately give up the irritation of remembering, with our feather-brained heads, to take the pill, and forget forever the slippery nuisance of the diaphragm and the unpleasant latex of condoms.

No more squirting foam, no more frantic washing with lemon juice. No more fearfully counting days off the calendar in that unladylike way we used to. We can just swallow a pill and not even blink as we go off smiling broadly to play tennis or ride bikes and all the other things women do in ads for tampons.

While we are on the subject, a word about men. Men, as we know, are completely innocent here. They never had uncontrolled, unprotected sex unless they are lured into it by scheming, idiotic women who will get pregnant just to disoblige them. Or, indeed, they are just so stupid that they fail to take the proper "precautions" and, through their own negligence, get pregnant.

And of course, a single woman slatternly enough to lure a man into sex deserves to get pregnant, wear a scarlet letter of some sort for nine months and then bring forth the baby in pain.
Men never make mistakes. They are never silly enough to get pregnant, so obviously they are removed enough from the problem to make impartial judgements. They have every right and reason to tell us how to manage our bodies, just as we are allowed to tell them whether they should risk having heart attacks by taking Viagra.

For years we've had politicians saving us from the consequences of our stupidity, but now it's lovely for a change to be free to have an abortion whenever we like, and probably two on Sunday, just to make sure.

(Harriet Veitch, Herald journalist)

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and, just in case you thought we girls could become lecturers ... see Andrew Bolt's article in the Melbourne Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18074962%255E25717,00.html
"Ladies who lecture"

Saturday, February 18, 2006 6:40:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

What a sad man he is. It really is so difficult being a white male, this unfair world discriminating against us so.

Monday, February 20, 2006 9:57:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Nick,

That article's a pretty poor excuse for an argument. Or satire. Or whatever it is.

It seems to suggest that the only reason anyone would oppose making RU486 more readily available is because they hate women/think women are sluts/think women are stupid.

That's like arguing that the only reason anyone would oppose slavery is because they hate cotton farmers.

Try these: RU486 should not be made more readily available because human life is sacred and begins at conception/the drug is responsible for the deaths of many woman/that abortion has serious effects on the psychological health of women who undertake it.

No one has to agree with these arguments but any responsible journalist would at least attempt to engage with them.

Hope you're having a great time mate.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:43:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Thanks Tim,

I wouldn't expect catholics to veer away from the argument that life begins at conception. It's hard to provide any evidence that a soul is born the moment an egg is fertilised though.

I agree the article wasn't particularly hard hitting in terms of factual rebuttal, from what I hear that is the case from the other side as well (didn't Nick Minchin have a girlfriend who had an abortion - POOR Nick). But I (and I'm sure plenty of other pro-abortionists) found it an amusing poke at the chauvinism that surrounds the debate.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:26:00 am

 
Blogger futureshock101 said...

Ha, I think it's amazing that people take the abortion issue so seriously... We are animals... And if you look around we are not in short supply...Hence what's the problem if unwanted people don't enter the world...And life is sacred? Well if you believe that stop eating meat and watch out for stepping on ants dude!

Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:51:00 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Lucas,

I'm gonna pull Godwin's Law on you for that one: what's 6 million jews? They too were unwanted people. Or 2 million Cambodians? Or... well, I'm spoilt for examples aren't I?

Maybe you're just yanking my chain, but for a guy who gives such serious thought to issues of social justice, you're pretty blithe about 'unwanted people'. If life is so intrinsically valueless, why bother about the frikkin poor?

Some people characterise the debate in terms of woman's body/ woman's choice. That's just one way of looking at it. Once upon a time, the majority world viewed slavery as being legitimate. Even today, in some countries, women are essentially possessions. Why do we think this is wrong? Because we apply a standard we cannot absolutely prove.

The whole concept of universal human rights is based on the presumption that, contrary to Lucas' assertion, human beings are not just animals and that it is irrelevant whether we are in short supply. The debate about abortion is essentially about: what is life and when does it begin?

To paraphrase Dostoevsky, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. And abortion is just the start...

Peace boys.

PS Nick, FWIW I have seen no evidence of chauvinism from the male politicians involved in the debate, if you have examples I'd be happy to see 'em.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:58:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

To look at it another way. Our consciousness is what seperates us from 'animals'. A consciousness requires a moderately formed brain. Abortions take place on foetuses that are nowhere near that developed and therefore could be termed 'animals'. Sounds crude, but is another way of looking at it.

I also think it is callous to compare the relatively painless termination of developing clusters of cells to the Jews who were tortured and murdered with such malevolence.

A man who thinks he has any legal right to the choice of whether a child is born = chauvinism. I'm pretty sure I've heard something like that from the Libs.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:02:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The argument over whether abortion is murder or not is very complex. I will admit that some sort of life exists at conception…because that is when cells start reproducing. And as they are human cells, then, you could say that it is human life. However, to not distinguish between a freshly fertilised egg, and a person like you or I, is not very convincing. A blueprint for building a house, is not a house. In my opinion, since a foetus has no perception of pain (not before the fifth month of gestation), and since there is no loss of an individual personality, the act of aborting a foetus is not harmful.

Your stance on the argument will depend on your own morals. There are some morals that are universal, and some that are dependent on your religion, upbringing or culture. So, really, I cannot say that Tim’s opinion is wrong or that his morals are wrong, just as he should not say that mine are wrong (though I am sure he will). And thus it follows, since morals on abortion are not universal, abortion should be legal, safe and available for those who choose to have it.

I will not get too deep into the ‘rights of women’ side of the debate, even though this is where the majority of my opinion lies, because if you have already decided abortion is murder, then maybe the rights of women pales in comparison in your mind. I will just say that much social/economic/psychological harm can ensue from an untimely motherhood, the results of which are most likely to be very long lasting. Certainly there may be some psychological harm to some who undergo an abortion, but if they have decided to undergo an abortion, then obviously they have considered the negative effects of going through with the pregnancy, and have decided that the abortion is the lesser of two evils, and will cause less damage to themselves in the long run. As the opinion piece (I think excellently)points out, women are unlikely to make this decision lightly.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:27:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Good one Trakka. Absolutely, an abortion is not mental/emotional masochism. It is a careful and very difficult decision...for the woman to make. So citing psychological harm as an argument is not giving credit to the intellect of the women involved.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:29:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Nick,

You sound like Peter Singer. He claims that infanticide is morally neutral up to the age of about three (I'll have to check on that to be sure). That's a bit more severe than 'crude' - but at least he's consistent.

You need to research more on abortion before you deem it 'relatively painless' - particularly if you think my comparison callous (warning: partial birth abortion is not for the squeamish). You would be well advised check out stories of abortion survivors.
http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/survivors.html

But you may be referring specifically to RU486, in which case your reasoning seems to be: if it doesn't cause physical pain to the victim then it's morally okay - is this what you're saying? Sounds like a pretty poor moral litmus test to me. Furthermore, it has been often observed that abortion (at whatever stage) has two victims. http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/

Re. chauvinism. Thought experiment: you fall in love, get married and discover that your wife aborted her and your child without your knowledge/consent. Do you really believe that:
a) it would be none of your business; and
b) you would have no cause to be upset?

If you say "yes" to these points, I can only observe that we are very different creatures. If "no"... well, maybe you're a 'chauvinist' like me.

Your arguments seem to hinge on the understanding that a pre-born child is the property of the woman carrying it, to be carried to term or disposed of as she sees fit. If so, on this we most certainly disagree.

Take care lads.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:38:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey tracqua!

I absolutely disagree with you! :)(As you expected.) I'm pretty sure that fifth month pain thing is bogus but I'll have to check...

Consensus does not determine morality, and nor does democracy. The fact that the majority of people supported slavery (possibly even a majority of Christians) did not ever make it morally neutral or good.

Slavery still occurs today, and the fact that I am neither a slave nor a slave owner does not disqualify me from testifying to its evil, and fighting it should the opportunity arise.

Moral relativism is a slippery slope. By saying that an act is wrong for X but acceptable for Y we surrender all moral authority i.e. the ability to testify to the truth of any moral statement.

All laws are based on morality and, like it or not, have their roots in religious beliefs. Moral principles are by definition normative - statements about how we *should* be and what we *should not* do.

A woman has no right to kill her pre-born child any more than I have a right to kill her pre-born child. The child, like all human beings, has an intrinsic value beyond what she and I ascribe to it.

More posts on your blog please trakka! Peace y'all.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:57:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just can't shut up can I?

Nick, I would suggest that everything we have discussed is part of a push to ensure that abortion is not "a careful and very difficult decision".

I mean, if it's only clump of tissue, what's there to think about?

Move on, nothing to see here.

Peace.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:04:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Yes and Yes.

What's inside of a woman is none of my business. It would probably be very distressing if I found out an ex had an abortion - only for the fact that I wasn't able to help her through the experience - but relief that she did abort it.

Come on Tim, comparing me to someone who advocates killing children up to the age of 3 takes weight from your argument.

I am going to boycott reading your links because without even looking I can guess that they will support your argument, anyone can surf the web and find arguments to back themselves up. It's even better to take a few isolated examples to try and disprove an internationally recognised right in free thinking countries.

Come on! Aren't I supposed to be the one who wants to be a benevolent dictator who decides right and wrong instead of letting individuals make choices???

Friday, February 24, 2006 2:30:00 am

 
Blogger Trakka said...

We will have to agree to disagree on this (as on many other issues). Luckily for me, I do have the right to 'kill' my unborn child. That is the law, and as you say, all laws are based on morality. (don't give me moral relativism, everything is relative, the world is not black and white. you can't possibly really think it is.)

I have not convinced you, but I have finally been able to articulate for myself why I am pro choice, and am not swayed by your spurious arguments. Thanks for the opportunity.

Just one more thing: Regarding the pain issue, if you are talking about the pain to women, then I think you need to not pick on the exception to the rule to try and strengthen your argument. The majority of abortions are quick and painless. That is until people like you get them outlawed and force people to go at themselves with a knitting needle.

and the foetus pain thing...why would you question my facts? that is so patronising.

Friday, February 24, 2006 5:12:00 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi guys,

I didn't expect to convince you or anyone else reading this, but that's no reason for me not to defend the defenceless.

Nick, if you read some of Professor Singer's work you would see that his argument about when life becomes 'valuable' is actually quite coherent (as you would expect from soneone of his formidable intellect). What he does is take your premise and extend it to it's logical conclusion.

As for abortion being an internationally recognised right in free thniking countries, well that takes us back to the old slavery chestnut doesn't it? Legal does not necessarily equal morally good.

Trakka: I question your assumption regarding pain not because I'm patronising, but because I read an article a couple of months ago regarding recent research on when pre-born infants can feel pain. I could probably find it, but I get the sense that your not really interested in having your assumptions challenged.

Similarly, I suspect you have no idea whether "the majority of abortions are quick and painless", but rather that you need to believe this in order to justify your position. I submit that you need to talk to a woman who was coerced into having an abortion by a boyfriend who didn't feel like paying child support before you dispute the 'two victims' thesis.

Saying that the only alternative to legal abortion is a 'knitting needle' is a false dichotomy. Insisting that we need not value the lives of the most vulnerable will guarantee that they become disposable. Only by testifying to the value of ALL human life can we make knitting needle "solutions" unconcsionable, and convince society to provide women with unplanned pregnancies with the support they need.

Read the links guys, the experiences say more than I ever could.

Peace

Friday, February 24, 2006 10:12:00 am

 
Blogger Nick said...

I know we're all agreeing to disagree, but I like to have the last word.

Tim, the reason why certain premises are not taken to their 'logical' conclusion is because humans are not mindless fools. No logical conclusion can argue that a nearly three year old child should be killed.

Our society has an evolving consciousness of morality and human rights, which is supported by scientific evidence. Policy makers and scientists with far greater intellects, information and moral responsibility than either of us have made the decision that it is acceptable to abort foetuses (ie. before they become a child). You are clutching at straws by trying to find 'experiences' that support your belief.

I can totally accept that you and many others believe that life begins at conception. Hence why you humanise a foetus. As Tracy so excellently points out, many people, including the mainstream scientific community, does not believe this. Therefore, you can choose not to abort, others can choose to abort. Of all people I thought you would be the most willing to say (as you've told me before) that Governments should step back from the role of moral guardian - it is not their place. You can't have it both ways just because it is an issue you feel strongly about.

Friday, February 24, 2006 7:43:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Nick,

I promise this will be my last on this (no really!), THEN you can have the last word.

"Tim, the reason why certain premises are not taken to their 'logical' conclusion is because humans are not mindless fools. No logical conclusion can argue that a nearly three year old child should be killed."

We don't use logic because we're not mindless? Are you serious? As you haven't read Singer I don't understand how you feel equipped to engage this point. I assure you he is coldly logical.

"Our society has an evolving consciousness of morality and human rights, which is supported by scientific evidence."

Actually, it's not. There is no scientific basis for a notion of universal and inalienable human rights. Perhaps that is why it is so easy for people to ignore them.

"Policy makers and scientists with far greater intellects, information and moral responsibility than either of us have made the decision that it is acceptable to abort foetuses (ie. before they become a child). You are clutching at straws by trying to find 'experiences' that support your belief."

Huh? You have worked for some of those policy makers Nickos, you know better than to trumpet their 'virtues'. As I have said previously, policy makers (and yes, even scientists) defended and advocated slavery, anti-semitism, genocide, eugenics... why trust them now?

"I can totally accept that you and many others believe that life begins at conception. Hence why you humanise a foetus. As Tracy so excellently points out, many people, including the mainstream scientific community, does not believe this."

You're just making this up Nick! You don't know what 'the mainstream scientific community' has written about the issue. Try these:

a) "From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Lily, MD 1967

b) "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

c) "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, human life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic

d) "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste of opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"Therefore, you can choose not to abort, others can choose to abort."

I can choose to bash someone's head in with a rock and take his wallet, but that person's right to life (and property) trumps my freedom to do so. Hence I have a responsibility to not bash him, even if it were not against the law.

"Of all people I thought you would be the most willing to say (as you've told me before) that Governments should step back from the role of moral guardian - it is not their place. You can't have it both ways just because it is an issue you feel strongly about."

Ah, now you've got me! I know I have said something like this to you before, but I'm pretty sure I have also made the point that, at their heart, ALL laws and all concepts of human rights are based on morality. Laws differ from country to country, but rights are universal.

I do not advocate outlawing contraception even though it is contrary to my faith, so why is abortion different? Because this is as an issue of rights rather than the law. I think we agree that yours and my fundamental right is the right to life - without this all other rights are fairly meaningless.

Well, life starts at conception and, from that moment, so does the right to life. Yes, sometimes it conflicts with the mother's preferences and liberty, but that right is universal. That baby is not the property of the mother any more than a one week old infant or a three year old child.

I have argued above from a secular point of view, but it doesn't represent what I really believe: that life is a gift from a loving God and that human beings, at all stages of life, are not loved because they are valuable, they are valuable because they are loved. By God first and foremost, hopefully by their parents, certainly by me.

No more from me I promise. Take care you guys.

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:33:00 pm

 
Blogger Nick said...

Okay. Last word coming up.

Let me repeat and explain so you understand. I am saying we don't take logical arguments to their end because we are not mindless fools. We are logical, but we also have other factors in the equations inside our heads that stop us from using pure logic to determine our actions. It is that irrationality that makes us human and economic models irrelevant.

Tim you appear to be backing up my argument while trying to rebut it...

"There is no scientific basis for a notion of universal and inalienable human rights. Perhaps that is why it is so easy for people to ignore them"

"As I have said previously, policy makers (and yes, even scientists) defended and advocated slavery, anti-semitism, genocide, eugenics... why trust them now?"

As I (and you seem to saying) said, scientific knowledge has evolved, to demonstrate that previously believed 'inferior' races are not so. This has been coupled with evolving morality (morals being thought about rather than learned like times-tables) as well.

You are again quoting inviduals, how about I quote some famous intellgentsia who are anti-semitic - would that make an anti-jewish argument have more credibility? No. So don't accuse of me of not doing my own reading on the issue, how easy it is to google the topic and find other's arguments to support your own beliefs.

Here's a quick fact that takes two seconds to find - in fact it was on a pro-life site - a foetus will cease to develop if removed from the female before 20 weeks. I consider that a pretty decent point at which the foetus becomes a human being with rights and not the sole property of the woman.

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:27:00 am

 

Post a Comment

<< Home