![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krazykitkatThe Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, made a last-minute bid for votes against the bill, saying Australia's abortion rate was dismissed as a "fact of life, almost by some as a badge of liberation from old oppressions".
"We have a bizarre double standard in this country where someone who kills a pregnant woman's baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice," Mr Abbott said.
"[This drug] may indeed be no less dangerous to a woman, but it is absolutely lethal to a baby and that's why this drug should keep the current status of special consideration."
He's been sharply criticised this morning over those comments, but it's that last sentence which has me amazed. No shit, Sherlock! Does he need the concept of abortion explained to him? This is exactly why he should not have control over the drug. And the first part of his last sentence confuses me.
As a little sideline to show ignorance, mum knows a woman who's involved in counselling of women through the Catholic Church (and I'm not for one minute suggesting this is part of Catholic teaching, I'm talking about an individual, but also putting it in context of whom she can then influence). This woman honestly believes that you can't get pregnant from rape because the uterus seizes up or some such nonsense. Mum was flabbergasted and couldn't convince her that she was totally wrong.
"We have a bizarre double standard in this country where someone who kills a pregnant woman's baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice," Mr Abbott said.
"[This drug] may indeed be no less dangerous to a woman, but it is absolutely lethal to a baby and that's why this drug should keep the current status of special consideration."
He's been sharply criticised this morning over those comments, but it's that last sentence which has me amazed. No shit, Sherlock! Does he need the concept of abortion explained to him? This is exactly why he should not have control over the drug. And the first part of his last sentence confuses me.
As a little sideline to show ignorance, mum knows a woman who's involved in counselling of women through the Catholic Church (and I'm not for one minute suggesting this is part of Catholic teaching, I'm talking about an individual, but also putting it in context of whom she can then influence). This woman honestly believes that you can't get pregnant from rape because the uterus seizes up or some such nonsense. Mum was flabbergasted and couldn't convince her that she was totally wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 01:00 am (UTC)The only proper internet response to that is o.O There are seriously no words in the face of that kind of stupidity.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 04:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 01:36 am (UTC)Here here, Can I quite you on my blog? Because its crucial to point out that Abbott will be exercising his right of veto to interfere with a legal action - abortion is not up for debate right now.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 02:47 am (UTC)His quote comes from http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/victory-likely-for-abortion-drug-supporters/2006/02/15/1139890807116.html.
I have respect for people like Kim Beazley who said that he personally opposes abortion, but he will be voting for the bill because it should be decided by experts on the evidence and facts.
Abbott would ignore all the medical evidence in the world.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 06:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-16 12:36 pm (UTC)