FEMINISTS GET IT PLAIN WRONGHerald Sun 09-01-07 |
|
MUCH of John
Howard's success as a four-time winner of federal elections is his instinct
for gauging This is a
skill state Liberal leaders lack. Howard has
applauded the improvement in our fertility rate and described us as living in
a post-feminist era, where women's achievements are not measured solely by
full-time participation in the workforce without children. Howard's
comments go completely over the heads of feminists such as Senator Natasha
Stott Despoja and Eva Cox. They have not
heard of the European pension funds meltdown because of the "baby
dearth". Feminists'
lack of logic is infuriating because it gives the rest of us women a bad
name. Consider their
contortions over the funding for pregnancy counselling
and their illogical focus on Tony Abbott's Catholicism. Funding for
pregnancy counselling was sanctioned by the Federal
Government in the context of the RU486 debate -- a debate initiated by
feminists -- in which all sides agreed that 100,000 abortions a year in To reduce this
toll, the Government allocated $50 million for pregnancy counselling,
and feminists are hopping mad because some of this is going to agencies such
as the Catholic Church and the Caroline Chisholm Society. These agencies
provide counselling as well as services. I have not
heard of any pro-choice counselling agency, or
abortion clinic, providing services for women such as accommodation, baby
clothes and equipment and care for other children. This would
enable women to choose to keep the baby rather than putting it out for
adoption or aborting it. "Counselling" is just a word unless backed with
practical help to deal with difficulties faced by pregnant women. Then there is
Senator Stott Despoja's illogical agitation because pro-life counselling agencies warn women of abortion hazards. These risks
include infertility, breast cancer and depression. The senator accuses
pro-lifers of "frightening" women when such risks are listed on the
consent forms of abortion clinics, which clients are required to sign. D OES the
senator hope women will sign their consent without reading the forms? Most
unscientific is the objection by feminists to women seeing their fetuses on ultrasound
because it would be "too emotional". This is in
spite of all other surgical procedures, X-rays and ultrasounds being made
available to patients. A report by
abortion providers to the National Health and Medical Research Council
recommended that the ultrasound screen, which is used to estimate gestational
age, be turned away from the mother so she could not see her fetus.
Mercifully, the NHMRC shredded this report. And yet the
abortion lobbyists have the gall to accuse the Catholic Church and pro-lifers
of "bias" and "keeping women in the dark". What are they
are afraid of? That if a
woman sees her fetus on the screen, she might fall
in love with the little guy or gal and reject abortion? Pro-abortion
feminists don't even provide personal help to women having abortions. Have
they ever invited a woman who has had an abortion to stay with them for a
week, until she recovers from the physical and emotional trauma of the
operation? Have they
offered to pay the "gap" fee required by abortion clinics over and
above the Medicare payment? And have they
offered to care for other children the woman may have while she deals with
her problems? |