|
|
 |
Right and right.
There has never been such a tenacious battle as the one women fight to control their own bodies. In the 'seventies, when South Australia led the nation in acknowledging women's right to choose, women had no idea that they would have to continue to fight for that right, election after election, government after government.
In the United States, the choice issue rears its head in the ugliest manner possible, with women and medicos being killed and maimed supporting that right. Candidates win or lose depending on their position on this one matter. With the rise of the fundamentalist Right within the Christian religions, the right to choose for American women has never been so precarious.
In Australia, states have various laws governing how and when terminations are possible. They weren't slapped out in a casual manner some sunny afternoon. Carefully considered people made carefully considered decisions and legislation was enacted accordingly. Yet since that time, various politicians have raised the spectre of reversal, more often than not citing religious grounds and the 'rights' of the foetus.
Over the last decade or so, fundamentalist Christianity has been on the rise in Australia. While we have yet to see a fully realised Family First agenda, ironically enough, it is not from that direction that the current salvos are being fired.
For people to have strong religious beliefs is not an issue. Religious teachings can assist in the formation of good personal ethics, which in turn can make for good politics. But when they begin to seriously inform political decisions, then we are in trouble.
Current Health Minister Tony Abbott trained as a Jesuit priest, but decided to answer the call of politics instead. He brought with him a conservative Christian view which was mirrored by others in his party of various persuasions. And while the Westminster system calls for a separation of church and state, all too often the line gets very fuzzy (a classic example was the Prime Minister appointing a religious to the office of Governor General).
It is with this background that Minister Abbot, backed by local MP Christopher Pyne, has called for the cessation of late term terminations. And they have put forth the most appalling argument - that is, if medical science can now keep a late term foetus alive on one floor of the hospital, then why is the state permitting another foetus of the same duration to be aborted?
This spurious argument would appear to be predicated on the fact that the woman and the foetus would, if the pregnancy were to continue, both survive in perfect health and with positive long term expectations.
There will always be breakthroughs in medical science. And with them, the ethics of each individual situation must and should be debated. But to confuse the issue, to disguise religious belief with the fuzzy logic of advancing medical science, is to let go of ethics and to misunderstand the basis of this hard fought reform.
It is a woman's right to choose. To choose yes, or to choose no, without any recrimination. It is important to understand that women did not ask permission to choose; they did not request that they be allowed to choose; they demanded the right to choose. It is not a religious argument, it is not an argument of medical science. It is a fundamental human right to control your own body, and one that must be protected at all costs.
For the conservative right of the Federal Government to even raise this issue is abhorrent. Acknowledging that it is a state issue, they have instead threatened to consider making Medicare unavailable for women who choose this option. This is nothing short of reprehensible, and a flashback to the conservatism of the 'fifties and 'sixties when men ruled and women died.
Be warned. Women have not forgotten how to fight, and they are not afraid.
|
|
The latest issue
available now!
|
