The Forum > Article Comments > Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws > Comments
Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws : Comments
By Jocelynne Scutt, published 11/5/2007Confidentiality and privacy laws are little protection against the determined anti-abortionist.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
I understand why passions run high. Two sacred cows are considered to be at stake here: the value of human life or women's rights. Which issue is it? For many of course the question is very personal.
Surely we can't work this issue out by shouting in each others' faces. We must listen to both sides of the argument (the sensible voices, that is) and ask ourselves which issue we consider to be really at stake here.
I have done this, I believe. As a strong believer in women's rights I oppose all attempts to force, mislead, deny or violate them. But I also find it difficult to accept that we can decide when a human life is valid and when it is not. The development of a lifeform is on a continum. The decision about when it becomes human is largely philosophical. Science chooses where to draw that line. Many are happy to accept that. But what's at stake if they're wrong? Human life obviously trumps women's rights.
I do think it's wrong to accuse a woman of having murderous intentions. But I also think it's misleading to deny that abortion is killing something. It's a huge responsibility to make a decision about whether that thing is human or not.
It's an important issue to consider, a hard matter to decide on. Science has things to say on both sides of the argument. Such muddy water on such a crucial issue. No wonder there is conflict. Both sides believe that what is at stake is so important that we can't give up the fight. Little wonder policy-makers end up in a muddle