More Shaw…

It is interesting that Independent MP, Geoff Shaw's misuse of a few words when talking about unborn babies has 'created an international stir' and is described as originating from a 'unique grasp of biology'.

If using incorrect terminology suggests an incorrect understanding of biology, then many abortion advocates must also be lacking in some fundamentals or have a different agenda altogether.  When a human foetus is described as a mere 'clump of cells', or 'the pregnancy' (p.2), even by abortion providers, one has to wonder what the real agenda is in the use of such euphemisms.

One only has to read the public comments on the original Shaw article to see the ways in which those not in favour of abortion are vilified, with little attention paid to the actual merit of the proposals.  My own article in Online Opinion drew commentary more concerned with my supposed (but inaccurately so) links to anti-abortion groups, rather than rational debate on the issues at hand.

The fact remains that we are more concerned with pain relief of unborn animals, with regulating bodies stating emphatically that the analgesic requirements of foetal animals 'must be presumed to be the same as for the adult of the species, in the absence of evidence to the contrary'.

Anaesthesia is provided to unborn children undergoing foetal surgery.  It is provided for prematurely born infants undergoing procedures.  It is clear that there is a presumption of the ability to feel pain.   Why is it such a leap to presume that an unborn baby undergoing the most brutal of procedures doesn't feel pain?   Why would abortion advocates be so much more concerned about the 'right' of women to access free and on demand abortion at any stage of pregnancy than they would about the right of an unborn human foetus to the same compassionate care that is demanded for foetal animals?

The ideology of abortion has ensured that the general public lack accurate truthful information, with many still believing that abortion only occurs in the most dire of circumstances and when our journalists, who do know better, continue to perpetuate these lies, women and their children will continue to suffer.

An article in the Medical Journal of Australia on the attitudes of Australians to abortion demonstrated much less support for abortion than most media outlets publish.  Whilst the way in which the results of this research are written up in the article would make it appear that the majority are in favour of abortion, a closer look reveals something much different.

The abstract states in part, 'In most of the clinical and social circumstances described in our survey, a majority of respondents indicated that doctors should not face professional sanctions for performing abortions after 24 week's gestation'.  

In fact, the data shows that only 12% of the respondents believed abortion should be legal in the 2nd trimester, dropping to 6% in the 3rd trimester.   Whilst 57% and 42% believed it depended on the circumstances are added into these figures for the purpose of the author's discussion, it is important to note which circumstances favoured abortion and which didn't given that more than half of the late term abortions are undertaken for psychosocial reasons.

Only 30% of people agreed that a doctor should not face sanctions for performing an abortion for economic reasons, with 42% believing he/she should.

The figures are almost identical for a situation where a woman's partner dies or leaves her and for if a woman simply does not wish to have a child at that time.

Interestingly whilst 78% of people felt that a doctor should not be sanctioned for performing a post 24 week termination if the woman's life was at risk, 11% believed the doctor should, and 11% weren't sure.   That means that around 22% of people are not necessarily in support of late term abortion even when the woman's life may be at risk, a stark contrast to the figures commonly espoused in the media.

Of equal interest is the 67% who believe a doctor should not be sanctioned for performing a late term abortion if a woman is at greater risk of mental health problems, given that there is no evidence to suggest there is ever a mental health benefit from abortion, and growing evidence that in fact the risk of mental health harm is greater in later term abortion.

When abortion advocates suggest that women are adequately informed to make up their own minds about abortion, yet there is so much misinformation, both deliberate and ignorant permeating both the media and from abortion clinics themselves, it is difficult to see how such a statement can be justified.

It seems that abortion as an ideology,  is a much higher priority for those with some kind of financial or emotional investment in its 'goodness' and availability than the actual welfare of women.

 

Written by

No Comments Yet.

Leave a Reply

Message