Epic Fail, Tasmanian Government, Epic Fail.

Today I have cried, I have felt the weight of Australia’s 80,000-plus lives destroyed in the womb each year and I have felt such disappointment that our government has not taken a stand for the most vulnerable citizens of this state. Last night Tasmania’s abortion bill was passed in the Lower House by two votes. Eleven pollies acknowledged the epic failings of the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill, but 13 had the misguided notion that it is just what Tassie needs right now.

“A person’s a person no matter how small.”
 – Dr Seuss (Horton Hears a Who!)

After all the submissions and petitions and protests, we remain unheard. And it would be easy at this point to feel defeated. That was my initial reaction. But this bill still needs to pass the Upper House, so let me hear you say, “Bring on Round Two!” Word is that it won’t be debated until May or June, so we have some time.

“Abortion is the last in a long line of non-choices.
“If the child is unwanted, whether by her or her parents, it will be her duty to undergo an invasive procedure and an emotional trauma and so sort the situation out. The crowning insult is that this ordeal is represented to her as some kind of a privilege. Her sad and onerous duty is garbed in the rhetoric of a civil right.’’

 – Germaine Greer (The Whole Woman, Doubleday, 1999)

This is too important an issue to lose our nerve over, or to put in the too-hard basket, or to delicately look the other way. This is life and death. So I encourage you to, once you’ve had a little breather, get busy emailing again, this time to all the members of the Upper House. Writer and activist Mishka Gora has written a stellar article outlining all that’s wrong with the bill – would make a great starting point for any letters you write. Read it here.

“I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. I proclaim righteousness in the great assembly; I do not seal my lips.”
 – Psalm 40:8-9

Why am I so concerned by this? Because the unborn have a right to life as much as I do, and their mothers have a right to love and support. And because, when my son is old enough to ask me about the abortion laws in Tasmania, I want to be able to tell him I did everything within my power to speak up for the unborn.


  1. Kerri says

    I admire your courage, tenacity and perserverance to stand up for the unborn and their rights! Keep going, keep strong, keep united, keep speaking the truth even if your voice shakes!

    • Thanks Kerri! You must’ve heard me speak, because my voice does shake!!! Haha! Love the way God kicks us out of our comfort zone.
      Bless you x

  2. Brendan says

    I cried too. That they could do this to Tasmania. I lived in Hobart in 2007 doing a twelve month attachment in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Tasmania is such a beautiful part of the world. I met some doctors who (like me) refused to do abortions. With this legislation more pressure will be exerted to force young, training doctors to do terminations. And the pressure on women and couples to comply with the medical eugenics movement will also increase.
    There is one comforting thought to always remember – no matter how evil may assail us: Jesus has already won!

    • Yes – that is a great comfort to me too Brendan. And I really do feel for those in the medical profession. A friend I know who is studying medicine said she wouldn’t think twice about moving interstate if this law is passed, rather than find herself in the position where her profession compels her to do/condone what she knows to be wrong.

  3. Your courage and strength are inspirational.
    The battle for truth must be fought until the end for it to triumph.

    • Thanks for sharing – warning to anyone heading to this link – the contents are horrific (the truth is horrific sometimes…) Bless you x

  4. Upon contemplating this famous poem, as ANZAC Day approaches, I have realised that the same sentiment could also apply to abortion. 

    In Flanders fields the poppies blow
    Between the crosses, row on row,
    That mark our place: and in the sky
    The larks, still bravely singing, fly
    Scarce heard amid the guns below.

    We are the Dead. Short days ago
    We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
    Loved and were loved, and now we lie
    In Flanders fields.

    Take up our quarrel with the foe:
    To you from failing hands we throw
    The torch; be yours to hold it high.
    If ye break faith with us who die
    We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
    In Flanders fields.

    John McCrae (1872–1918)

    As the soldiers lie dead in Flanders, so too aborted babies also lie dead.  The birds still fly about and sing, oblivious to silent horror occurring around them.

    The second verse also applies:
    ‘We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt … saw … loved (being alive) and were loved (by God) and now we lie (dead).’

    The plea from the dead in the third verse is that we would ‘take up their quarrel with the foe’ by remaining vigilant and seek to comfort them, in a sense, by putting an end to the slaughter.

    Although, in contrast to the crosses and poppies that mark the soldiers graves in Flanders, nothing marks the graves of aborted babies.

  5. Fiona Vosper says

    for goodness sake, Claire. Where is the fight from the Christians of Tasmania against the atrocities of the Catholic Church towards children? Where are all the Christians standing up for abused and neglected children that currently reside in Tasmania, with no hope and no future? The effort that has been expended trying to save the unborn has been totally out of proportion to what abortion actually is. The church is behaving like a bunch of hysterical twits.

    You can stay out of my choices and my life. You are naive and totally out of touch with reality. Your privileged, white, middle class life does not give you the wisdom to write about sensitive issues such as these.
    I asked you the following question on one of your other posts and you never answered me.
    What is your alternative? Do you want to force women go through a pregnancy they don’t want just so you can sleep at night? Do you want to turn women to backyard abortions or have them resort to a coathanger and do it themselves?

    Go and give yourself a history lesson and come to terms with the fact that abortion is part of society, that women will always fall pregnant with fetus’ they don’t want to carry to term, birth or raise and that they have every right to exercise control over their own bodies, whether you agree or not.

    You can pray, you can speak your mind in your church and to your friends, you can write your little column, but you do not have a right to try and limit my choices, just because you don’t agree with them.

  6. Hi Fiona,
    You will probably be surprised to know that the head of the Anglican church in Tasmania, Bishop John Harrower, has been calling for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse for the past 10 years. I spoke with him last year after the Federal Government announced the Royal Commission, and he was elated. Read about it here http://imaginarydiocese.org/bishopjohn/2012/11/15/national-royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse/

    Many of the support services for children and families in our state are run by the church or Christian organisations (Anglicare, Centacare, Salvation Army, City Mission, Babymum…) There’s always more to be done, of course, and I’m not for a moment saying the Church is perfect, has it all worked out. You’re absolutely right in pointing this out – if we are to uphold sanctity of life from conception, we also need to support women and empower them to value life so that they can not only keep their babies, but raise them in a loving, stable home.

    Yes, abortion has always been a part of society, but I don’t believe it has ever been at the numbers we know today. And call me naive but I believe we should strive to be the best society we can. I reject the defeatist attitude that says “It’s always been here, always will”, rather than striving towards the best for this generation and the next, and the next etc. etc.

    I know that I might come across as black & white, bigoted, single-minded, arrogant and so on, as I have been called on occasion. But I do not judge any woman who has had an abortion. I am saddened because I know there’s a better way. And I’m saddened because of that woman’s painful experience. But she can find the same healing and hope that I have from knowing the love of Jesus Christ.

    Thanks for dropping by.
    Bless you, praying for you.

    • Hi Claire,
      Thanks for replying.

      I feel that you are missing a valuable point in all this. I know women who have had abortions during the first trimester of their pregnancy. They have no regrets about terminating the pregnancy and are glad that they made the decision not to bring a hungry mouth into the world that they were not sure they were ready to raise or had the means to raise it properly. They are glad in their decision and are glad that they had the option to plan their family their way. Why should your opinion on these women’s lives or personal decisions count for anything? What if the “better way” for them was a termination? I believe that the columns that you have dedicated to this issue in the Examiner have been judgmental and lack understanding and empathy. The one that started with “What a privilege it will be for women to have unfettered access to abortion up to 24 weeks” is full of judgement of women (the first line alone is full of vitriol!) who have chosen a different path to you and who have chosen to do what is best for their life, so when you say that you don’t judge women who have had abortion, I feel that is a mistruth. You do judge and you seem to have little empathy for the woman who has found herself in a situation where she feels that she needs to terminate, whatever personal reasons they are.
      “Should I wear this dress or that one? Should the kids go to this school or that one? Should we buy this car or that one? Should I have an abortion or…” This line shows that you have little to no understanding of the subject and lack the skills and life experience in this area to adequately comment on this in a public forum. You haven’t even included any Bible verses in the piece, which seems strange for Christian column.

      And, I am surprised to learn of your involvement in the Royal commission into child sexual abuse, as you have not dedicated nearly as much ink to that cause as you have to the cause of abortion laws in Tasmania.

      Although I think that you mean well and are doing what you think is right, it’s a subject that I feel you need to do more impartial research (i.e. non-christian, peer-supported medical research) You will be surprised with what you learn.



      • I’m sorry you read my articles that way Fiona – that is not my heart. I do not judge any woman who has made the decision to abort a baby, I ‘judge’ the society that 1. allows it, and 2. presents it as the best option.

        I am not involved in the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. I have written articles on it in the past but I like to write about things of a timely nature when I can, and abortion is that right now given that we have this proposed law change on the agenda.

        See my comment below (right down at the end of the comments) regarding the rest.

  7. Neil C says

    Hi Claire, I guess I will have to be the (awful) one to dis-agree with you on your own forum.
    I think that the legislation is a real win for all Tasmanian ladies who find themselves in the unenviable situation of an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy.
    Whilst I understand the catch-cry of theists, the reality of unloved (living) children is (to me) far more important.
    I really must disagree with your claim that after all the petitions and protests…..you haven’t been heard. I put it to you that your voices have been heard in a most resounding way !! You are all to be congratulated for your obvious media prowess. But then I also put it to you that many, many folks no longer trust any opinion that is based upon the Bible or the supposed ancient wisdom of Mr. J. Christ.
    Perhaps it is the stark reality of the current Royal Commission ?? Perhaps it is that folks are asking themselves; why did both God and the Christian Church employ and then shelter their own (monsters in cassocks) who have committed this litany of abhorrent crimes (and then lied about it) upon the living children of Christ’s faith ??
    One thing I am sure of is that I want the “Church” to pay for every cent of the full cost of this RC !! (sorry, bit of a rant)…. 😉
    Whilst noble, even goodly intent is just that, we must not only look at the distressing, but unarguable reality of unloved children spawned by unfit, unjust or uncaring parents, but also the well being of the pregnant lady. This is clearly highlighted by such observable reality as this….If you make it illegal, difficult or expensive for a woman to obtain a “safe” abortion, you then directly open up the reality of desperate ladies forced into getting what we understand is a “backyard abortion”.
    This isn’t hyperbole or distraction……..that is an undeniable, documented fact. Support for the prohibition/hindrance of abortion is direct support for backyard abortions. Not only support, but it actually creates the whole beastly trade. I understand that this is not the intent of your (noble) cause, but it is the undeniable, observable reality !!
    This is exactly what has happened in our societies, for centuries. This type of abomination still happens today in many countries (predominantly in ones harnessed under the yolk of religious control).
    The intent of your opinion may be fine, but the reality is revolting !!
    Then there are the offspring born to unloving/damaged parents, and that ain’t a nice reality neither….cos as you and I both know (in our hearts) Claire; a child without the joy of true parental type love and attention is a mere husk.
    P.S. The highlighted quote from Germain Greer is a ridiculous non-sequitur of epic (fail) proportions !! If the pregnancy is unwanted it can’t be anyone else’s task to undergo the pregnancy termination. Her smug, self serving, circuitous inference is loopy to the max !!
    P.P.S. I haven’t seen your “Blog With Claire” on the Examiner website for some while. Are you still writing there or have they moved you to a different section, or is this website now the only way to encounter/interact with your musings ?? Although we are polar opposites (you’re a shortie….I’m a tallie, you may ascend to Heaven, I may slide to Hell), I do miss your words from the Examiner Blogs.
    Best wishes, hope your joy from ya little man is boundless !!
    Cheerio then, from Neil C

    • Hi Neil!
      Firstly, can I just say “thank you” for so respectfully disagreeing! Such a breath of fresh air.

      You say that “many folks no longer trust any opinion that is based upon the Bible or the supposed ancient wisdom of Mr. J. Christ.” Yes. I find that really sad, of course, because my life is full of hope and freedom because of them. But the reality is that people are flawed – Christians included – and we frequently represent God badly. People muddle our bad representation with God himself, and then they reject God and anything associated. Child sex abuse within the church is the perfect example. And can I say right here, right now, I am completely for the Royal Commission and bringing into the light what has been kept hidden for too long. But I’m also kinda sick of being ‘tarred with the same brush’…

      Thing is, abortion is not a religious issue. In fact, I haven’t argued for abortion on religious grounds but rather on human rights grounds. I read your comment and mostly nodded my head at the hardships around pregnancy and parenting. But for me, the clincher is that the baby is a different being to the mother, and it is not her right or anyone’s to deny that other being a chance at life. Mum is faced with a difficulty and she has choices. Bub has no choices. All the issues you raise around the reality of unwanted pregnancies are where our government should be investing its time and resources. Clear the red tape around adoption. Provide better support services to mothers. Educate young people on their options. How about parenting courses? How about giving the Children’s Commissioner greater powers (but that’s another issue!!!).

      Can I just point out too, that abortion is not unavailable in Tasmania. As the law stands, abortion is available no questions asked to 12 weeks gestation, and up to term if two doctors sign-off. The whole thing has been drummed up to make Tassie look like some backwater where women have to go interstate to access a termination. It’s simply not true.

      Argh. I could go on, but I’ll spare you 😉

      Thanks for dropping by Neil. As you say, the joy I gain from my now 2-year-old boy is “boundless”. If only I could bottle it and hand it out to anyone considering ending their pregnancy 🙂

      P.S. Hmm, not sure what’s happened with The Ex. My column is still printed in The Examiner every Monday and it is supposed to be posted online the next day, but I see that there’s been a few weeks where it hasn’t been posted. Thanks for the heads-up, will look into it!

  8. kat says

    Claire, I also must be one to disagree with you on your post/view, whilst I do see where you are coming from, I also see the pain and the difficulties both mother and child have faced when abortion was not available to them in Tasmania.

    Outdated and uncertain laws and the threat of criminal prosecution act as a deterrent to doctors and so impede the provision of a full range of safe, accessible and timely reproductive services for women. If women do not have access to safe abortion procedures, as this bill will encourage, it is proven that many women will undertake dangerous and life threatening acts in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy, putting their own lives and health at risk, often resulting in death.
    You claim to be pro-life, but what about the lives of women which are lost when abortion is not readily and safely available? Resulting in women often resorting to unsafe procedres?

    whilst i understand your oposition to abortions, im sure you understand the need for abortions to be available. I guess you are against this bill because you think it’ll result in an increase in abortions, however, removing restrictive termination laws does not increase termination rates. A 2007 study by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organisation found that: unrestrictive termination laws do not predict a high incidence of terminations; and restrictive termination laws are not associated with lower termination rates.1

    A study published in 2012 by the same author found that terminations continue to occur in measurable numbers in all regions of the world, regardless of the status of termination laws.This is not to say that the restrictiveness or otherwise of termination laws will not impact on the health and wellbeing of women. Indeed the reverse is true – there is a close association between restrictive termination laws and increased rates of sickness and death in women.2

    This is because restrictive termination laws, rather than reducing incidences of termination, reduce the delivery of safe and legal services. Studies show that even when termination is a crime or affordable services are not available, women continue to have terminations – though in the absence of safe and legal services they are forced to either travel elsewhere at increased expense, delay and impact, or seek illegal, unregulated and unsafe services at an increased risk to their health and lives. 3/4

    This research suggests that the revised framework proposed for Tasmania will not increase the overall incidence of Tasmanian women having a termination. What it will do, rather, is enable and encourage increased service delivery within the State, so that Tasmanian women will no longer be required to travel interstate to access safe and legal services, and so tasmanian women will not be putting their lives at risk accessing unsafe and unregulated services.

    Those that usually choose to have abortions are people who would not be able to provide for a child or simply do not want or can not have one. Yes, they did make the choice to take part in the act of procreation. But accidents happen. Why bring a child into a place that does not want them? More often than not this leads to deviance in the child, and by association, in society.

    Again, I have noticed you often arguing “what about adoption” but adoption is not an alternative to abortion – it is an alternative to parenting. The women will still be required to carry the foetus for 9 months, will still have to access a range of excess medical care which can be expensive, will still have to deliver, and will still miss school or work due to the pregnancy.

    Another issue I have with the “what about adoption” argument, and the argument that there are systems in place to support children who can not be looked after is that a lot of the systems in place which are supposed to ensure a child is looked after when the parent is unable to and the foster care system, are broken. Being placed into these systems for many children is basically a fast track to the prison system. I realise I am profiling here, and not every foster child becomes a deviant; more often than not, though, this is the unfortunate case.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion because we live in a wonderfully free and opinionated society. I mean no offense by my beliefs; they are simply my opinion. Take it or leave it, because you are free to do so, however, whilst opinions are entitled, opinions should not be forced – so while I respect your right to disgree, your right to impose beliefs is non existant, and that is where my main issue is. I highly respect people who are strong and passionate about something, i respect you, Clarie, for being passionate. However, you lost my respect once you turned this passion into forcing your beliefs onto others.

    No one is forcing you, or any other religious women to get an abortion, don’t force non-religious women to not be able to get an abortion. Very simple for you to not be effected – you can choose not to get an abortion. Not simple for other women to not be effected, they can’t change the law.

    Ironic, isn’t it? When the church does not want to have non-religous beliefs inforced upon them, yet feels it is their duty to force relgious beliefs onto non-believers.

    one thing I am interested in, is your views on access to contreceptives and the morning after pill? because have not heard you mention your stand on such issues.


    1 – Sedgh, G, etal, Induced Abortion: Estimated Rates and Trends Worldwide, The Lancet, (2007)

    2 – Public Health Association of Australia, Abortion in Australia, Public Health Perspectives, 3rd edition, (2005)

    3 Katzive and Henshaw (1998)

    4 – The Victorian Law Reform Commission notes that a World Health Organisation study released in 1964 showed Australia had the highest death rate due to terminations among 12 countries studies. In Victoria, illegal termination was among the top four causes of death in pregnancy.)

    • Hi Kat,
      You will find my opinions on abortion if you look back at articles I’ve posted here on this blog so I’ll just address a few things you’ve said (sorry, bit time poor right now). Abortion IS already available in Tasmania. A woman can have an abortion, no questions asked, up to 12 weeks and there are clinics in the North and South that deliver this procedure. Further, with the sign-off of two doctors, women can access abortion to term – yes, right here in Tasmania. So your assertions based on abortion being unavailable in Tasmania are unfounded.

      I’m very interested to hear how you believe I am forcing my views on you. I did not sit you down and force you to read my work. You are very welcome to refrain from reading anything I write. And if you are speaking about my stance on the abortion issue – yes, I have the right to express my opinion, and that does not equate to forcing my religious beliefs on anyone. For the record, I don’t believe abortion is a religious issue at all.

      Nowhere in your response have you considered the right of the unborn child to live. I believe a woman has the right to do what she likes with her body – but the baby within a pregnant woman is a separate being with a unique DNA. Consider the baby. At what point do you think it becomes murder to kill a baby? At 12 weeks? 16 weeks? 24 weeks? 40 weeks? 1 year? Who gets to decide?

      Thanks for dropping by – you obviously put a lot of time and research into your response. I hope you have a revelation of life, because isn’t it a wonderful gift, something worth fighting for!

      • kat says

        hi Claire, thanks for the reply!
        re: the forcing of views, in your attempt to stop the bill from passing, if successful, your view will also have been successfully pushed onto other women in the form of preventing them from having access to what this bill would provide.

        Personally, I wouldn’t want an abortion either, and although I am 20 and still studying with limited income, (I already have to work 2 jobs to just afford uni!! dont know how many jobs I would need for a baby!!!) I do feel I would have the support around me (currently, I can’t speak for future me in future relationships and future financial situations, though) however, I would want the option there (for future me!), and I want other women to have the option there also, this is due to, through my work and my parents work, along with many of my university studies, I have seen many children and known of many families who have had children they could not provide for and also could not care for, going through entire cycles of poverty and this poverty transforming from situational poverty to generational poverty.1

        Currently, access to abortion in Tasmania is scarce (i understand it is not unavailable, but it is scarce and for some people, difficult to undergo), and is not available through the public health system unless necessary to save a woman’s life or due to severe fetal illness. Only one provider is known to provide terminations using medicines. Otherwise, surgical termination services in Tasmania are available only through private clinics – of which there are two providers. Private providers fill part of the gap in service delivery. However, they are heavily reliant on fly-in/fly-out doctors and operate on a model of day care only and, as such, as you said, they do not provide terminations after 12 weeks.

        Women seeking a termination after this time must travel to another state to seek a safe and legal service. Due to relying on doctors flying in from the mainland, and having to receive the approval of two doctors here in Tasmania, accessing termination services in Tasmania before 12 weeks can be difficult if there are waiting lists, if a doctor’s flight into the State is late or cancelled, or if there are obstacles in accessing two doctors (one a specialist) to provide the necessary certification.

        As such, despite best (and early) efforts, a woman may not be able to see a provider prior to 12 weeks – which means she can no longer access the service in Tasmania. I myself am on a form of contraception (the implanon) which actually stops my period, if this were to fail and i were to become pregnant , it could take many months before i even knew, preventing me from getting an abortion in tasmania if I did not know that I was pregnant for say, 8 weeks, then had to get 2 appointments to allow the abortion (it would literally take me 2 weeks in itself to save the money to afford these two appointments) there’s 10 weeks already!!! i then only have 2 weeks to plan time off work to have the actual abortion, and rely on there being 0 waiting time, and 0 issues with doctor availability and me somehow coming up with the money on my $400 a fortnight income!! (I do not get government assistance, so this $400 needs to pay for food, transport, uni costs, and general living expenses) As you can see, all of these factors would result in me rely on everything running very smoothly, or I would miss that 12 week period. (and I would also need to almost win the lottery to afford the costs, as would almost certainly not be able to afford them within that 12 week time, which, if I only found out I was pregnant at 8 weeks, would only give me 4 weeks of time)

        On this, I am not saying I am bad off at all, because I know there are many people with even less than me, hence my belief that whilst abortions are available, they are not available to all and the current system does not cater for those less fortunate who need to access the service.

        On the topic of when it should be murder – if you look at some scientific studies, you will find that the fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks into the pregnancy, at which point it is little more than a hollow tube filled with dividing neurons. Between weeks 4 and 8 this neural tissue grows forming the major divisions of the adult brain (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord). By 8 weeks recognisable facial features have developed and the cerebral cortex separates into two distinct hemispheres. By the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) nerve cells are beginning to form rudimentary connections between different areas of the brain. However, these connections are sparse and incapable of performing the same functions as an adult brain. So by 12 weeks, although the fetus is certainly starting to look like a little human, the neural circuits responsible for conscious awareness are yet to develop.

        As the complexity of the fetal brain grows, forming structures similar to those we recognise in the adult, so the does the fetus’ ability to experience and respond to its environment. Indeed, studies have shown that from 16 weeks the fetus can respond to low frequency sound and by 19 weeks will withdraw a limb or flinch in response to pain. An observer would certainly think these responses look very much like the start of conscious awareness. However, during these early days the neural pathways responsible for converting senses to conscious experiences have yet to develop. This means what we are seeing are just reflexes, most likely controlled entirely by the developing brainstem and spinal cord, and not conscious awareness. (2)

        So, this brings me back to when I think it is murder – personally, after all the scientific research I have done, I feel that abortions should not be possible past 20 weeks unless there is a risk to the mother’s health or other medical issues impacting on mother/child, this is due to the fact that yes, I am aware of many babies being born at 23-24 weeks and surviving, which is why I feel the revised 16 weeks is reasonable.

        It’s been really great to have an open honest discussion with someone about this (as many people I know would rather avoid the issue )

        1- http://www.nchsd.org/libraryfiles/Conferences/2007/FrameworkDayOneHandoutsVersion2.2aSept2007.pdf

        2 – Neuropsychopharmacology (2010) 35, 147–168; doi:10.1038/npp.2009.115; published online 30 September 2009)

    • Hi Kat,

      I can see that you are very passionate and well researched about your beliefs. But is it right to be angry with Claire for being passionate about her beliefs? Claire is not trying to force her beliefs onto anyone. Rather, Claire is simply disclosing the proposed law changes and, because of her convictions, is voicing her objections. Call me naive, but isn’t it good to long for our country to be truely civilised – where those vulnerable during and post pregnancy, both women and babies, are valued, supported and protected?

      • kat says

        hi sid 🙂
        as said in my above comment
        “re: the forcing of views, in your attempt to stop the bill from passing, if successful, your view will also have been successfully pushed onto other women in the form of preventing them from having access to what this bill would provide.”

        on what you have said, I am not angry with Claire, I praise her passion, and she has every right to voice her objections, but as Claire is in some ways a prominent public figure, and also capable of having her views publicly influence others/members of parliament, these views then, can in turn, influence the proceedings of the passing of this bill, therefore, as said above, result in other women having these views imposed on them through not having access to what this bill would provide. If Claire were not trying to stop the bill, and was simply saying “I do not agree with this”, I would be all for what she is doing!! because she is totally entitled to that, and you go girl for believing in something!! however, she is rather more saying “i dont want an abortion, and I believe life begins at conception based on my own values, and whilst others may believe differently based on their own values, I am still going to stop everyone else getting an abortion by opposing this piece of legislation.” it’s very simple for someone to not have an abortion if they, based on their values/research feel life begins at conception, it’s not simple for someone to have an abortion if they believe otherwise based on their values/research when abortions are not legal or accessible as a result of this legislation not being passed.

        hope that made more sense and clarified what I meant, and also hope it clarified i am not angry! 🙂

  9. Hi Kat,

    Those who oppose abortion do so from the conviction that it is wrong, based on the Bible.  Those who do not accept the Bible will not have this conviction.  But if, from the Bible, we accept that the unborn are people to be valued from conception then, by implication, the best course of action for pregnant women is to give birth to their children (even though this may appear unfair or unjust to us in certain situations).

    Those who do not accept the Bible’s authority rely on their own opinions (which change over time) and their society’s opinions (which also changes over time).  Though such people mean well, laws based on their opinions are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change.

    If these proposed abortion laws (contrary to the Bible) are introduced, what will stop them leading to laws that go further and allow for the termination of other vulnerable people in our society (eg new-borns, the disabled, the elderly) as the value of human life is diminished further?

    Therefore, it’s to be expected that people who are convicted by what the Bible says, regardless of their perceived influence in society, should seek to have laws introduced that honour God and thereby benefit society.

    • kat says

      hey there Sid!

      I do realise that, however, if you do see above, Claire has actually stated her views are not to do with religion.

      I also would like to say that whilst someone with religious values is very welcome to view the unborn as a person from point of conception, some other, non-religious people, do not feel this way. These feelings, whilst as equally as important as each other, should not impact each individual.

      Whilst you say that people who do not accept the bible rely on their “own opinions” I beg to differ. On the issue of abortion, many people actually are basing their opinion on scientific fact, which has been proven time and time again.

      So, you think these laws will result in other people being killed? Sorry, Sid. Whilst I know you follow the bible, you must also have not realised that you don’t actually have to be religious to be a good, moral and sensible person. Abortions are legal because what we are actually talking about, scientifically, is cells. You believe that these cells are a human being from the time of conception, based on the bible, so that’s great, however: based on science, other people do not feel that way. you believe in the bible, others believe in science (not just form opinions out of thin air as you seem to be implying from the above)

      And, on your last point, which got me a little fired up with a tiny bit of rage in my stomach – no Sid. No one should expect that others in-force their religious beliefs onto the wider non-religious population. Why should people force religious values onto non-religious people? You’d be up in arms if people tried to force non-religious values onto the church. Tasmania, and Australia, are societies of religious freedom, it is not fair, nor practical, to try and govern based on the bible, and this is what frustrates me about people or large NGOs who try and have a religious influence over a government who is representing a large range of people (not just christians) views in the community. However, they may not be reflective of the views and beliefs of the wider population, this then results in the links between electors and their representatives being completely completely undermined. The Austrlian constitution states in section 116:

      “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

      Also, by the way Sid, you say you follow the bible? right? and even though us non-bible followrs have opinions that change, the bible is eternal and un-changing right? You might be able to help me out with some things:

      1.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord — Lev. 1:8-11. “ 8 He shall remove all the fat from the bull of the sin offering-the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 9 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys- 10 just as the fat is removed from the ox [1] sacrificed as a fellowship offering. [2] Then the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering. 11 But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the inner parts and offal.” The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

      2.. My friend would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

      3.. I know people are allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness — Lev.15:19-24. 19 ” ‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 ” ‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening. 24 ‘If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.”
      The problem is, how do I tell everyone to stay away from me? I have tried asking, but most take offense, and my boss won’t let me use it as an excuse to call in sick to work?

      4.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” Provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. I put an ad up on gumtree, for some people to be my slave from New Zealand? but everyone told me I was being rude? Why can’t I own slaves from Neighbouring countries anymore?

      5.. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath — Exodus 35:2. “2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD . Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.” The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

      6.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination — Lev. 11:10, “10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest it”– is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

      7.. Lev. 21:20 “20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles states that I may not approach the altar of God.” If I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

      8.. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even thought this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. 27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” How should they die?

      9.. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 “6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.” That touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

      10.. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 19 ” Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” By planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? — Lev. 24:10-16. “10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. 13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.” Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? — Lev. 20:14 14 ” If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.”

      I know that you follow the bible so would enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

      I remember you saying “Those who do not accept the Bible’s authority rely on their own opinions (which change over time) and their society’s opinions (which also changes over time). Though such people mean well, laws based on their opinions are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change.”

      Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging, unlike us mere mortals who will simply change an opinion at the drop of a hat!!

      (please note the sarcasm used in the last half of this post to show you that whilst following the bible is fine, it’s not immune to changes, nor is the Christian society, just like ‘regular’ society, because as can clearly be seen above with the 10 examples, the bible and christian society are ALSO subject to change, and especially arbitrary, because I don’t see you fighting for laws that require everyone to wear 1 type of cloth, or to prevent women who are menstruating from going out in public/doing anything)

  10. Hi Kat, 

    The Bible verses you have quoted come from the Old Testament law which was given to the nation of Israel.  As you have pointed out, many of them are peculiar and hard for us to understand.  However God related to Israel in a different way than how God relates to people today.  God chose the nation of Israel to be his people and delivered them from slavery in Egypt.  However the nation of Israel rejected God’s authority over them.  Therefore, God then imposed on them a covenant of works (the law and the levitical priesthood).  This covenant was a meritocracy (ie, if the people obeyed, they received good things, if they disobeyed, bad things happened).  The laws you pointed out were part of this covenant.  However, throughout the duration of the covenant, God sent prophets that promised a better covenant to come. In Jesus, all the promises of the Old Testament are fulfilled and God now relates to his people in a covenant of grace.  The laws of the old covenant are no longer binding.  Now, If we believe in what Jesus has done by suffering, dying on the cross for us and rising again, we have forgiveness of sins and life in eternity.  I encourage you then to seek God and trust in Jesus.

    These covenants aside, the Bible values the unborn as people from conception and does consider them to be simply cell tissue or part of the mother (despite what some scientists may say).  Because of this, Christians have genuine convictions that abortion is wrong, bad for individuals and bad for society, and that’s why the laws are opposed.  But nothing is being forced here in speaking out against the proposed laws.  However those who share the pro-choice viewpoint disagree.

    • kat says

      other people, have genuine convictions that interfering with a women’s body is bad for individuals and bad for society. there’s no reason why “genuine convictions” of one person should be greater valued due to them following the bible than the genuine convictions of someone who doesn’t, which is really what seems to be implied by a lot of what you’ve said.

      And yes, people do disagree BECAUSE VIEWS ARE BEING FORCED. I don’t see how you don’t get it? haha, you get a law to not pass and everyone has to live by the way you want everything to be, without what that bill would provide, the law passes, people can get a safe legal abortion up to 16 weeks if they so need, and you just don’t get one… (oh wait, you’re a male you wouldn’t be getting one anyway…)

      anyway, point of the matter is, trying to prevent something which will effect a large number of women is forcing the view, because if successful, those women will be forced to do things by your view. eg – If my personal opinion on not teaching religion in schools, based on me being non-religious and not wanting my future child to be taught that, becomes law, YOU will be effected and possibly hurt by something that is only meant to be a personal opinion, when I could have easily just asked for my child to be removed from that class, rather than changing the entire law. same goes as your view on abortion where rather than pushing for these laws to not be passed (as claire is, it’s how I found her blog) she can choose to not get an abortion and there can still be safe, legal abortion for other women up to 16 weeks.

      if you really want to see little to no abortions, Sid? Push for free contraception, push for the morning after pill to be free. Keeping abortion illegal and in the private system isn’t going to change anything – the lowest abortion rates in the world can be found in western and northern Europe, where abortion has been legal for decades but access to contraception is widespread.

      • Hi Kat,

        Certainly, more needs to be done to support and counsel pregnant women.  An increase in these services needs to be a priority, and this is what governments need to put their efforts into.

        Those who support the abortion laws do so out of a genuine concern for the well-being of women, but the impact and implications of these laws have not been fully thought through.

        Behind the pro-choice argument lies the assumption that abortion is in the woman’s best interests, should the woman decide to have this done, and that there should be no barriers that inhibit this.

        But is it really in the woman’s best interests to have an abortion? Invariably, women who have had an abortion grieve for that lost one and have lingering regret about what they have done.  Readily available abortion only results in women doing something, that can’t be reversed, which they would otherwise regret.

        Making abortion easier, which these proposed laws will do if introduced, will only lead to more women, who take this option, suffering heartache and guilt, which is really what we want to avoid.

        Another assumption of the pro-choice argument is that unborn babies are not people, or are expendable if the mother chooses.   Yet I understand that the unborn are people to be valued, as much as the women who carry them, and our laws should reflect this.

        Just because abortion is legal, doesn’t mean that it is good or right.  These proposed laws, and in fact the existing laws, are a big mistake.

  11. kat says

    Sid, I’d like to see some facts and statistics and ACTUAL GROUNDING TO WHAT YOUR SAYING rather than you just making something up based on your assumptions.

    FACT: “Study Says Most Women Don’t Regret Abortion: …a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.”

    FACT: Data from 44 studies showed women with an unwanted pregnancy have a higher incidence of mental health problems, meaning, if people CAN NOT have an abortion when required, they are more likely to have mental health issues.

    If you ACTUALLY cared about the mental health of the women involved/their best interests, you would accept the fact that women are competent decision makers, with the right to make decisions about their body, and leave them to make their own choices, rather than whipping out words which have no founding, and are purely to provoke fear or shame.

    “Abortion is stigmatized because it is evidence that a woman has had “nonprocreative” sex and is seeking to exert control over her own reproduction and sexuality, both of which threaten existing gender norms (Kumar et al., 2009).
    The stigmatization women experience may not be rooted in the act of aborting a fetus; stigma may instead be associated with having conceived an unwanted pregnancy, of which abortion is a marker. Stigma may be associated with feelings of shame about sexual practices, failure to contracept effectively, or misplaced
    faith in a partner who disappoints. Abortion can be seen here as one of several “bad choices” about sex, contraception, or partner (Furedi, 2001).

    Ie – the reason some women do feel guilt and shame after an abortion is because of the stigma associated with abortion, perpetuated BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. People who can’t accept that a women is more than a reproductive tool. People who can’t accept women are entitled to sexual freedom. People who can’t accept women have the right to choose what happens with their body. People who can’t accept other’s do not believe in the bible and do not follow their beliefs.

    Technological changes during the past three decadesdfetal photography, ultrasound, advances in care for preterm infants, fetal surgerydhave facilitated personification of the fetus and challenged previous constructions of boundaries between fetus and infant. Prochoice groups have debated appropriate gestational age limits (Furedi, 2010). Anti-abortion forces have helped to shape this debate by using fetal images (many of which were not alive or in utero as implied by the photos) and interpreting them in ways that suggest abortion is equivalent to murder
    (Morgan & Michaels, 1999). These images have effectively erased pregnant women from view, decontextualizing the fetus and overstating its independence from the woman who carries it and the social circumstances of her life (Taylor, 2008). Abortion stigma is affected both by legislative initiatives that establish
    fetal personhood and gestational age limits and by discourses that influence cultural values. By constructing the fetus as a person and abortion as murder, anti-abortion forces argue that women or providersdor bothd should be seen as murderers.

    (to understand more of what I am saying, read this study – http://women.ge/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/PIIS1049386711000338.pdf) however, if you don’t understand or want to read it, I’ll simplify it for you: people like you, who see life as beginning from conception due to their biblical beliefs and dismiss scientific facts, result in the guilt and shame associated with abortion. by referring to abortion as “murder”, you are personifying what is essentially a medical procedure. OTHER. PEOPLE. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. A. BLASTOCYST, EMBRYO, OR EARLY FORMED FETUS IS A HUMAN. you only believe that based on a book written in a time where there was not nearly as many medical and scientific advancements as today – you don’t want to accept the science, and that is fine, IT’S YOUR CHOICE. but leave women who DO ACCEPT THE SCIENCE to MAKE THEIR CHOICES based on THEIR BELIEFS as you make your choices based on yours.

    Again, if you actually cared about the best interests of the women, you would not use your beliefs (dismissing the beliefs of others) to stigmatise abortion, causing the guilt or shame.

    scientifically, the unborn isn’t even a fetus until nine weeks.
    0-1st day: Zygote

    1st day-2 weeks: Morula/Blastocyst

    2 weeks-9 weeks: Embryo

    9 weeks-birth: Fetus

    A zygote is a single-celled organism and really only lasts for a very short period of time. After fertilization, the DNA from the sperm and egg form a diploid zygote. This zygote then undergoes cleavage and becomes a morula (a multicellular organism), followed by a blastocyst.

    An embryo is considered an embryo approximately 2 weeks after fertilization until the end of the 8th week. An embryo is what implants into the uterus to form a pregnancy. It develops a trophoblast (what eventually forms the placenta) and an embryoblast (what eventually forms the embryo).

    Also, if you actually cared about the life of the mother, you would understand the need for abortion. I’m sure you understand that some people DIE if access to abortion is not available.
    In March, the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries reported that 107 women in the UK died of conditions directly related to pregnancy for the three years from 2006 to 2008.

    The vast majority of maternal deaths could be prevented if women had access to quality family planning services, safe abortion services, and quality medical care.

    EVERY. SINGLE. MINUTE. a women dies from pregnancy complications or child birth.
    So much for being pro “life”

    Just because you believe something, and gain your beliefs from the bible, doesn’t make it good or right.

    you are entitled to your beliefs, leave others to theirs. It’s as simple as that.

  12. Another thing about abortion is that it is a form of self-harm to one’s body. I find it sad when people are willing to harm one’s body for short term gain, only to find long term pain.

    I don’t hate anyone who is pro-abortion, but I feel sad for people who fall into such a situation and end up getting one.

    • Kat says

      With all due respect Jo, self harm is a MENTAL CONDITION. I’ve self harmed since grade 4. Obviously I did not get an abortion. My self harm was a mental condition I could not control. How dare you try to relate the two. One is a medical issue, one is a mental health issue. They both are entirely different

      • asdfadfa says

        Self-harm is not necessarily abortion, but it can be argued to be so, in terms of the pain people go through.

  13. Hi Kat,

    I can see that you have researched this subject thoroughly and objectively and are very knowledgeable regarding the whole reproductive process.

    There are obviously many who whole-heartedly agree with you Kat, which has resulted in the existing pro-abortion laws in Tasmania and in other parts of Australia.

    However, I have come to understand and accept the biblical view that people, including the unborn, are created by God and have intrinsic value.

    Genesis 1:26-27 states:
    26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

    We have been created by God, differently to animals, and are considered as people from conception, as Psalms 139:13-16 states:
    13 For you created my inmost being;
        you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
        your works are wonderful,
        I know that full well.
    15 My frame was not hidden from you
        when I was made in the secret place,
        when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
        all the days ordained for me were written in your book
        before one of them came to be.

    So we see that God takes an interest in the unborn.  And if we have this as our viewpoint, then we will arrive at a different conclusion to those who hold to the pro-choice viewpoint, whose arguments are derived without this Biblical foundation.

    Some of your argument is based on the stigma that women have after unexpectedly becoming pregnant.  As I have previously stated, support and counselling services for pregnant women and women in general needs to increased.  But legalising abortion is not the solution to overcoming this stigma as it only demeans the value of human life.

    Also, as you have pointed out, there are risks associated with becoming pregnant.  Yet despite these risks, the incidence of maternal mortality in Australia is actually quite low, i.e. 7 per 100,000 live births in 2010. (Source: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14770)

    So we see that the vast majority of Australian women can cope with the health risks and give birth successfully.  Yet, despite low maternal mortality, the brutal silent horror of abortion is occurring on a hugh scale across our country.  There are at least 75,000, possibly up to 100,000, abortions carried out in Australia each year. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia#Statistics)
    This is a staggering proportion compared with the 300,000 live births in Australia in 2011. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate_and_fertility_rate_in_Australia)

    The suicide rate of women who have had an abortion has been found to be much higher than women who carry their child to full-term.  Abortion can also affect a woman’s physical health and reduce a woman’s ability to have subsequent children. (Source: http://cherishlife.org.au/Resource-Areas/Abortion/85)

    So, just because abortion is legal, doesn’t mean that it’s a good option.

    Kat, it is only through faith in Jesus that we will appreciate what the Bible says and come to see things differently, and have life in eternity.

    John 3:16 states:
    ’16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (Jesus) that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’

    and Luke 24:45 states regarding those who recognised Jesus:
    ‘Then he (Jesus) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.’

    • kat says

      Hi sid, I can see you have difficulty coming to terms with those who are not religious. I also see you are rather influenced by the pro-life propaganda, rather than facts.

      no offence, but I am not going to respond to your biblical quotes other than saying that the whole reason this debate is occurring is because people like you still can’t accept that some people do not take the bible as truth, and rather have their own beliefs, so really – quoting the bible is misguided and irrelevant, and just proves my point – religion is being pushed into an issue that doesn’t just impact non-religious people.

      the stigma associated with unexpected pregnancy and abortion will not decrease with counselling for these women, the stigma will decrease when people stop shaming and legislating the choice women make.

      on your “suicide rate of women after abortion” statistic, along with your “fertility after abortion” statistic – i urge you to seek your information from multiple sources and back it up before assuming fact.

      the myth, that abortion causes fertility actually stems from when abortions were not possible and abortions were performed in “backyard clinics” in unsafe manners, damaging the women’s body . However, this is no longer the case with safe medical abortions in a proper clinic. I’ve, again, done a lot of research on this issue. If there were a significant infertility problem, medical sources would mention it. Only pro-life organizations and their web sites appear to cite it as a significant concern. The possibility of infertility frequently arising from an abortion, like the breast cancer and post abortion syndrome scares, is not a major public health concern. Of course, it can be a very serious problem to a woman who finds herself infertile.From the available data, it appears that abortion itself rarely causes infertility. It is the infection that might develop after the abortion that most often prevents further pregnancies. There are probably many millions of women alive today who became infertile as a result of an abortion. Most of them are the victims of back-alley abortionists in the days before safe and easily accessible procedures, again, Sid, if you care about a women’s fertility, you should be fighting for safe, legal, easily accessible facilities, because the only way her fertility is going to be impacted is if she does not have access to these services and seeks an abortion from an unsafe, non legal provider.

      On suicide rates- Women who have an elective legal abortion do not experience depression or long term psychological distress afterward, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in Baltimore, Maryland (Contraception 2008;78:436-50, (doi:10:1016/j.contraception.2008.07.005). They reviewed the best 21 studies published in the past 20 years, involving thousands of women.

      SO rather than just making selective research, this statistic has come from 21 studies over 20 years, with thousands of people. You can not just take a statistic and assume it’s fact, you need to find supporting facts from CREDIBLE, NON-BIASED, STUDIES.

      So, on that, I really can’t take your facts seriously when you’re getting them from a website which A. has no credibility, and B. is against abortion but also against contraception such as the pill? where is the sense in that? Again, I urge you to research outside the pro-life propaganda website and search through multiple sources to come to a conclusion, quoting websites that just happen to say what you want them to say doesn’t make what is said factual. You can find anything on a website if you want to –

      Eg if i wanted to convince the whole world that soup cause cancer, i could quote this – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1132814/Salty-soups-increase-cancer-risk-says-expert.html

      do you get it? you need to look in other, and CREDIBLE sources before coming to a conclusion, otherwise you’ll end up believing things like soup causes

      so, as Fiona said above ” I think that you mean well and are doing what you think is right, it’s a subject that I feel you need to do more impartial research (i.e. non-christian, peer-supported medical research) You will be surprised with what you learn.”

      Also, again, thanks but no thanks on the bible preaching. I am happy with my views, so please don’t question them. So, again, rather than just assuming religion is the only thing that matters here, consider the fact there are many many many non religious people who this bill is ALSO for.

  14. Kat says

    Asdfadfa, abortion is medical procedure where you are administered pain medication… … … Not to mention the fact that the pain of labour is much higher. Or the fact that the pain of a non-legal abortion is again, much higher. If you care to stop people “self harming” don’t focus on abortion. If you care about the pain in abortions? Fight for legal abortions to prevent women going through the pain and trauma (often resulting in death) of non-legal and safe abortions.

  15. Thanks for your comments people – we might leave it there. Some of these conversations are going in circles! There is criticism here both for not quoting the bible (Fiona) and for quoting it (Kat) and I will say this – I am a Christian. The Bible is what I base my life on, as do many of the followers to this blog. If you don’t like reading excerpts from said Bible, then you’re best not to return because there’s going to be more 😉 My beliefs are always grounded in the Word, but sometimes, with an issue like the abortion one, the foundation for debate can be widened – i.e. to human rights, the right to life. It’s great to have lively conversations on the issues affecting our society, but it’s more important that we show respect and love for the participants. Thanks again for your comments – hope you drop by again soon x

Comments are closed.