ENDEAVOUR FORUM AD2000 ARTICLES - BABETTE FRANCIS
|
|
A FALSE CONCEPT OF MORAL EQUIVALENCE Babette Francis During the cold war era, the intelligentsia of the Left regarded - and wrote - of the USA and the USSR as if these two countries were morally equivalent, like two football teams, and it didn't matter from a moral perspective which team won. To remind younger readers who may not have learned about the differences between the USA and the USSR, one difference was the USSR murdered millions of its own citizens, while the USA did not. The same game of moral equivalence is played in Australia in the abortion debate, at Federal and Victorian level, with the three pregnancy options of giving birth, adoption and abortion treated as morally equivalent choices. Similar to the USSR death toll, millions of unborn babies die as a result of the abortion option. At the Federal level, Democrat Senator Stott-Despoja introduced "The Transparent "......Rather than hindering the work of those pregnancy counselling services which offer support to women facing a crisis pregnancy to choose an alternative to abortion we should be grateful for this community service, largely carried out by volunteers. The Commonwealth should be finding ways to foster and enhance this work, not undermine it...." I suspect Senator Stott-Despoja introduced her Bill not because she regards giving birth and abortion as morally equivalent, but she might actually prefer the abortion option, seeing it as a symbol of women's liberation - or as the new buzz word - "women's autonomy". Fortunately, Stott-Despoja's and the Democrats' tenure in the Senate is terminated. "Women's autonomy" is the much touted rationale for the (pro-terminating the life of the fetus) Victorian Law Reform Commission's "Law of Abortion - Final Report", tabled in the Victorian Parliament in late May. The VLRC were constrained by their Terms of Reference requiring them to present options for decriminalising abortion, but as Charles Francis, AM, QC pointed out to VLRC Chairman, Professor Neil Rees, they could have requested additional terms of reference. Not only did they not do so, they rejected every one of the recommendations in pro-life submissions which might have reduced the incidence of abortion, e.g. cooling-off time, parental consent for minors, providing ultrasound pictures of the fetus, and provision of information on the risks of psychological damage, increased breast cancer, future premature births and the connection to cerebral palsy, and future infertility. Nor did the VLRC The VLRC rationale for rejecting pro-life recommendations is that these restrict "women's autonomy" (a phrase used incessantly) but how does it restrict women's autonomy to provide information? The raison d'etre for decriminalising abortion is that it be treated like any other medical procedure, but in no other medical procedures are surgeons reluctant to show the patient x-rays or ultrasounds of what is being operated on. The VLRC's uncritically accepted the views of abortion proponents, even though as Archbishop Hart pointed out, the abortionists' livelihoods depend on performing abortions. One of the worst recommendations in the VLRC report is the rejection of anti-coercion legislation because "there is no hard evidence of coercion", despite evidence in the books of Anne Lastman ("Redeeming Grief") and Melinda Tankard Reist ("Giving Sorrow Words") and in legal cases cited by Charles Francis and Michael Houlihan where there was coercion and in which settlements were obtained for the women concerned. Rejecting anti-coercion legislation makes clear that the VLRC is not on the side of the angels (i.e. giving birth or adoption) because if there is no coercion as claimed, the legislation will do no harm, and it might do good by deterring bullying. However, the VLRC's assertion is not supported by their own cited evidence from articles in the Medical Journal of Australia and the Australian New Zealand Journal of Public Health that "Partner violence is the strongest predictive factor of pregnancy termination in Australian women". If domestic violence is not coercive what is? The VLRC focus on "women's autonomy" being of greater value than the life of their unborn children almost suggests that pregnant women are imprisoned in dungeons and deprived of
freedom, food and fresh air for 9 months duration. This concept of pregnant women being Wainer makes insinuations about the influence of Irish Catholicism and religious belief on the abortion debate, She is right to the extent that this is a spiritual battle, but science is on our side and is what abortion promoters really fear. Not only are women fully human but ultrasound shows so are the babies in their wombs.
|
|
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN
|