Life Network Australia
HOMEABOUT LNACOMPASSION TO ACTIONENEWSCONTACT US
INFORMATION
INSPIRATION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION
LET LNA HELP YOU
SUPPORT LNA

The Case Against Abortion

Parental consent for piercings, but no parental consent for abortion.

Life Network Australia - Wednesday, July 22, 2009

As a mother of girls, LNA co-founder Sonja Couroupis, is horrified by any legislation that would deny her knowledge about the health and welfare of her children. “As a parent I have every right to know and influence the decisions made by my child under the age of 18 years. As a parent, that is a responsibility I assumed when they were conceived and do not consider it the right of any government to remove from my husband or myself.”

Abortion provider, Family Planning NSW, summarises the consent requirements in NSW. “A young woman 14 and 15 years of age may give valid consent to an abortion without her parent or guardian's knowledge. That is, if the doctor judges the young woman to be mature enough to understand the implications of making the decision. A young woman under 14 years of age should have the consent of a parent or guardian or an order from the Supreme Court before a doctor would perform an abortion.”

Compare with legislation introduced in Victoria last year which bans intimate body piercing for people under the age of 18 and requires parental consent for non-intimate piercing for people under the age of 16.

Save the baby kangaroos, but not the (unborn) baby humans?

Life Network Australia - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Those that are familiar with abortion statistics and abortion procedures in Australia will recognise the contradiction in the recent spate of animal programs and daily newspaper articles in which the media and the public agonise over saving baby kangaroos, possums, elephants, etcetera, yet turn a blind eye to the plight of so many of our unborn babies and their mothers. If only we could apply this wonderful compassion and care to our own offspring.

The Feminist Argument Against Abortion

Life Network Australia - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
It has been said that “abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society”.11 Unfortunately, this is the reality for many Australian women. Without control over their reproductive lives, women are often unable to get an education, pursue a career, or even maintain their role as a respected and valued member of society. But is abortion a solution, or part of the problem?

Feminists for Life of America (http://www.feministsforlife.org/) argue the following:

“The premise of male domination throughout the millennia (is) that it was nature which made men superior and women inferior. Medical technology is offered as a solution to achieve equality; but the premise is wrong … It’s an insult to women to say women must change their biology in order to fit into society.”

If society were to be structured such that tall people could not function properly, would we expect tall people to be grateful for legal access to surgery to shorten their legs? Would such access be a sign of our respect for tall people. Of course not. The appropriate way to value tall people would be to restructure society so that they could participate, and still remain tall. 

If pregnant or parenting women can’t fully participate in society, then surely the solution is to change society, not to force women to give up part of their unique abilities as 

women. It is a further insult to expect women to be grateful for the opportunity to give up their children. At best this is the better of two bad alternatives, at worst, it is expoitation.

Abortion therefore, is a sign that society has failed to meet the needs of women, and that women have had to settle for far less than they deserve. Abortion is not a solution for women, but part of the problem, enabling society to continue to devalue womens’ unique capacity to bear children. 

The question should not be whether a woman has the right to choose, but rather, should she have to choose – between being a valued, respected member of society and the life of her own child. When we fail to cherish motherhood, we force women to make such a choice, which is really no choice at all.

_______________________________________________

11 Kate Michelman, former President of the US organisation, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), quoted in The New York Times, May 10, 1988.

The Role of Law

Life Network Australia - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
It is reasonable and necessary for society to outlaw certain ‘choices’. The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Therefore, it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be ‘free to choose’ (http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/the_role_of_law)

In Australia, we legislate against driving under the influence of alcohol because of the likelihood for injury or death to another party. We outlaw smoking in public places, even in our own cars (where children are present), because of the potential impact on the health of others. This is because it is not OK to do whatever we want with our bodies when it adversely affects the health of others. The role of law is to curb the freedom of some, to ensure the more basic freedoms of others. 

Is choice a universal right? To be pro choice or anti choice makes no sense. It all depends on the ‘choice’ that we are talking about. It is silly to defend a specific choice on the basis that it is a choice. For example, few people are pro choice about rape, child abuse or cruelty to animals. No one has the ‘right’ to do such things. On the other hand, other choices are regarded as a right – matters of religion, politics and lifestyle, for example. Even poor choices may be permitted. No one will stop you from staying out late before an exam, leaving the milk out or wearing a heavy coat in summer. ‘Choice’ is only a right if it doesn’t harm others.

Opposing abortion is not about opposing the right to choose. It is about opposing the particular choice of abortion, on the grounds that it harms another person – the unborn child. It is reasonable to expect that our Government will restrict the freedom of some, to protect the welfare of others, just as it does in the cases of rape, slavery and assault.

When does life really begin?

Life Network Australia - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
An individual human life begins when the sperm unites with the egg – fertilization. This is a biological fact, undisputed amongst scientists and obstetric doctors. The beginning of life is attested to in both modern and older embryology texts, and by expert medical doctors (http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony). The question is about biology, not religion.

Dr Alfred M. Bongioanni, a professor of obstetrics has stated, “I have learned from my earliest medical eduation that human life begins at the time of conception … human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood … any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life”. Speaking further about the early stages of the development in the womb he said “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage”.9

Prominent abortion supporters (http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony) and providers10 also make this concession (http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony). In fact, there is no debate amongst honest, informed people: abortion kills distinct human beings. This is true no matter what the circumstances of conception, from conception onward. 

Finally, the fact that abortion kills is not lost on the many women who realise, too late, that the pregnancy that they have terminated has taken away their baby. If you are suffering grief after an abortion, you are not alone. This site has links to post abortion support services that may help.


________________________________________________

9 Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.
10 Aileen Klass, owner of the largest abortion clinic in Oregon in the US testified under oath: “Of course human life begins at conception”. Lovejoy Surgicenter v. Advocates for Life Ministries, et al., 1989 (United States).



Recent Posts


Tags


Archive