Tuesday, August 21, 2007

"Decisive Premier acts for most Victorians" - The Age (just not those in the womb)

VICTORIANS who believe abortion should not be a crime — and polls suggest that is an overwhelming majority of the state's population — can be grateful they now have a Premier who sees himself as a decisive, cut-through leader. - The Age (21/8/07)
And the rest of us? This is what I meant about the dangers of "governing for the majority". The tyranny of democracy. Take note:

1) You are not a "Victorian" citizen till you are born. With this bill you will not even be regarded as a human being until you are born. You will have no rights until you are born. Since what is being proposed is the removal of abortion from the criminal code, it will no longer be a crime to kill or otherwise harm an unborn child in Victoria.

2) Like a sick paradox, this comes at precisely the time that the Premier is proposing to place a specific crime of child homicide on the law books of Victoria--because they want to "get serious" about child abuse. Yeah. Right. As soon as you are out of the womb, you are the most precious thing on earth to the Victorian Goverment. Before that, you are slime.

3) Victorians who oppose the decriminalisation of abortion (those who don't belong to the "most Victorians" category above) aren't going to get much of a say on this. Because Opposition Leader Ted Ballieu is of one mind with Premier Brumby on this matter. You're damned if you're Labor and damned if you're Liberal. (Especially if you are a "non-citizen" yet to be born).

4) What is being proposed is that the crime of abortion be removed from the Crimes Act and the whole matter of abortion shifted to the Health Act. Why? Because abortion is a health issue for women, stupid, not a crime against a human being. Read their lips. Currently there is protection for at least third trimester babies. But if it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child, what happens to the rights and protection for unborn children who have been lucky enough to make it that far?

5) And what about those "polls" that show "the overwhelming majority of the state's population" believe abortion should not be a crime? What were the people asked? What were they told to inform them about the way the Act currently works? What were they told about the implications of decriminalisation? What percentage of those polled were potential victims of abortion? In a word, how moral is it to base legislation affecting human rights on polls?

There are some who are seeing the withdrawal of Candy Broad MP's bill as an answer to prayer. Not yet, folks. Now the real battle begins.

4 Comments:

At Monday, August 27, 2007 8:54:00 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interestingly, the debate about whether abortion should or should not be a crime never (or rarely) touches on the subject of punishment. If abortion is classified as a crime, what do you think the punishment should be for a woman who has an abortion and/or for the doctor who performed the procedure?

 
At Monday, August 27, 2007 11:12:00 pm , Blogger LYL said...

Grrrrrr. This issue makes me so mad.

And in response to anon, the person to prosecute is clearly the doctor for performing the murder (and making a living out of it).

 
At Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:24:00 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

By your definition, if the doctor should be prosecuted for murder, then surely the woman is at least an accessory to murder and should be punished accordingly?

 
At Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:33:00 pm , Blogger Schütz said...

But the prosecution would involve mitigating circumstances for the woman involved, Anon, as in every judgment on every homicide.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home