This article is interesting. It seems a bit contorted in places but to put it into more perspective the author was on ABC radio on 31 March talking about her new book on parenting, and happened to mention that she only interviewed women when writing this book on parenting. This was a Freudian Slip perhaps, but it highlights her anti-male or anti-father bias.

So now we have an article on parenting, adoption, children who don’t know who their father is, males who don’t know if their children are theirs, women who don’t tell the male that they might not be the father etc, and in this article the author attempts to put words into Tony Abbott’s mouth. (IE “Or will his rigid views about nice girls and sluts live to see”)

Now I can’t remember Tony Abbott ever calling someone a “Slut”, so I think the author is trying to misinterpret and distort the situation, (see http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=68 for a female’s view of this type of activity)

However better use of modern contraception would stop many unwanted pregnancies from occurring, and routine DNA testing at the birth of each child, would eliminate a lot of potential grief and emotional shock latter on, and perhaps it would make women more open, less secretive, and less manipulative towards males.

Dear Timkins,

just to clarify. My book is on women's experience of circumstantial childlessness and is based on original research I did for my PhD just on women. It was not a "slip" to reveal this, but rather something that is made clear in the book and on the back cover.

However, if you had read my book or come to any of the discussions around it, you would be aware that it is not anti-male at all, and contains citations of much research about men's experience showing, I think, men experiencing similar constraints to women on their freedom to choose fatherhood at all, and to be active fathers.

My point is discussing the Abbott issue is not to be "anti-male" - which again, as my work makes clear, I am not - but to discuss what seems to me to be obvious hypocrisy from a health minister who once the government gains control over the sentate, will exercise inordinate power over women's health and fertility.

Of course, you and any other reader are free to disagree with this thesis but I feel it's important in such debates to engage with the actual arguments - and provide counter evidence and argument to refute them - rather than attempt to discredit the intellectual integrity of the person making them.

In other words Timkins and with all due respect, please pay me and other readers and writers on this site the courtesy of playing the ball, not the (wo)man.

Hope tony is not a hypocrite now, though he is still foul-mouthed - at question time in Parliament- and mean spirited in my book, and neither of those traits are Christian or catholic. When he was a hot-blooded youth thinking of joining the priesthood he was committing fornication - a sin. (still better to live in sin before becoming a priest than after I suppose)Yet whilst committing fornication, a sin, he "obeyed?" the catholic teaching re using condoms. Yes he was a hypocrite of monumental proportions. Has he changed? Can he judge others- well I do not think so really.At the same time didn't he use this "lost son" business for all it was worth and didn't he have himself look good - eh? numbat

Sorry, Leslie. I'm going to play the man. I found Tony Abbott's discomforture over the last few weeks very gratifying. Here's a senior government minister trying to impose his moral(?) views on women and anyone else who doesn't fit into his bigotted mindset and now it turns out he was sleeping around and all the while he was even contemplating the priesthood. Abbott revolted me before these revelations (mainly brought on by himself because he wanted to milk media publicity around his long lost son). Now it turns out there was no long lost son. So it has backfired - and I can't wipe the smile off my face. Hopefully (and I don't hold much hope) Abbott will mind his own business when it comes to other people's reproductive choices.

Great article, as usual, Leslie. I was fascinated by Allanson's comments about women who campaign against abortion yet have abortions themselves. Her later analysis that it relieves anxiety to want to impose rigid controls on other's behaviour also rang true.
I have been trying to reconcile the Terry Schiavo case, the anti-choice view on abortion and pro- capital punishment (152, I believe, executed under apparent right-to-lifer Governor G.W Bush's watch), pro- war beliefs, and finally decided that it was not about what was being decided, but who decides. There are those who object to individuals deciding what they will do if they become pregnant, find life insupportable, or become totally incapacitated, but are perfectly okay with institutions, with authority, making similar decisions; the church, the state, the armed forces. Save me from the authoritarians, those who see their own life in shades of grey, but everyone else's in black and white.

Timkins, buddy I don't know the authors background or world view but taking the article on it's own merits it stands fairly well in a lot of ways. There is stuff here we should celebrate, I think you have to be fairly determined to see the article as anti-male based on the content in it. Perhaps the author would care to back up the nice girl/slut views attributed to Abbott, I have not heard that from him either (but I don't follow his comments very closely either).

Three cheers for anybody standing up against double standards, and those demanding that others live in a way they cannot live themselves. I am concerned that Abbott's role will contribute to others making some of the same choices he made (single mum roulete). Which is the greater sin against christian belief, the sex act outside marriage or the use of contraception?

I doubt that Abbott will learn from this and support the kind of reforms you and I are seeking (better access to paternity testing, sane rules and formula's for child support etc). I would also like to see him recognise that other people's sexual morals are not his business, ensuring that the government has not placed hurdles in the way of people managing the consequences of those morals is his business (reasonable access to contraception, education etc)

LeslieC
[Deleted for being off topic.]
“In other words Timkins and with all due respect, please pay me and other readers and writers on this site the courtesy of playing the ball, not the (wo)man.”

This could be amusing if it wasn’t so serious. Perhaps “Timkins” is a symbol of many males in our society, wherein if he points out the gross hypocrisies of feminists, or the amount of male discrimination that is occurring, and then references his statements to many other sources, he is then labelled with everything from “misogynist” to “old”, and it is also continuously inferred that he is anti-female (which is interesting because I have just spent a number of days camping and bushwalking with a female).

Again, I don’t believe Tony Abbott called anyone a “Slut” as you seem to infer. I don’t like him as a person, but I don’t like others who attempt fear mongering, are a part of the system of gender biased social science research, and make negative remarks with substantiation as you are doing.

In defence of Tony Abott I find it interesting that while he and his partner were practicing "vatican roulette" she did not get pregnant. However in her one off fling with her flatmate she did use contraception and did get pregnant. Delicious irony.
It's so easy to be judgemntal on Christians like Mr Abbott. They have an objective moral standard which they frequently fail so it is quite easy for them to be painted as hypocrites. Secular bigots have no such worries. They can always justify their actions by their flexible morality and claim the moral high ground of "consistancy". Their morality always fits the situation.
Mr Abbotts failure to denouce his ex shows that he is not judgeing her.
In trying to raise issues with regard to matter of abortions Mr abbott is not trying to call pregnant women naugty or nice. Rather in a society with so many contraceptive options why is abortion so prevalent

Oh, for goodness sake men! Because contraception choices may seem many to you that don't have to take them, but the choice is very similar for us!
Most contraception stinks!
Stop laying the responsibiliy at women's feet, and get yourself some of your own choices of contraception, other than the condom.

Leslie poses the following question
“The question is whether he will finally allow the evidence of his own experience to collapse his rigid views about how others should behave when it comes to sex, contraception and decisions about unplanned pregnancies. Or will his rigid views about nice girls and sluts live to see - and to guide the nation’s health policy - another day?”

Answer – Tony Abbott is but one among many Coalition MPs and whilst he is Health Minister, in regard to abortion politics, is (thankfully), in the minority.

I personally find the real sadness in all this is another item Leslie quoted “The problem, says Allanson, is that while such women sympathise with their own situation and feel confident their case justifies an abortion, most refuse to allow their experience to translate to compassion for other women facing the same dilemma. Instead, these women prefer to see their experience as unique and so no challenge to their abortion politics or their uncompromising judgement of all aborting women - except themselves, of course - as murderers.”

The world will be a better place when people respect others sufficiently (exercising compassion and tolerance instead of prohibitions and judgement) to allow them to exercise choice in matters which effect them alone. This would be a better way to channel the energy which the (minority of) busybodies rush here and there feverishly hanging up billboards and demanding abortion be banned because of either their minority experience or some bit of non-universal theological dogma which they may happen to share with Tony Abbott.

In this matter -
we are not all catholics
but we are all capable of exercising the cognitive processes needed to research, interpret and act in response to our individual wants and needs, regardless of the dictates of a catholic priesthood who, lets face it, lack (or at least should) the fundamental experience to ever counsel anyone on "pregnancy choices".

“Tony Abbott has had control of his sexual and reproductive world and now, as Health Minister in a government about to take control of both houses of parliament, he is about to assume unprecedented control of ours.”

He is not the father. How does this translate into having had any control? Kathy sleeps around, has a child by another man, Tony is held emotionally responsible for the next 27 years. What sort of control is this?

Tony is not the bad guy here, unless you assume he exercised some undue influence on Kathy to relinquish another man’s child. If he hadn’t, he would have been like the tens of thousands of other dads raising someone else’s child. Is this what women want to protect?

Let’s not forget Tony is the good guy here, and Kathy is the one with women’s sexuality issues.

SLUMLORD I no longer fanticize about you as a greedy Landlord of a Fitztroy slum, your comments RULE !
Speaking as a Christian, I am only too aware of my own failings and sins, but how secular people just LOVE to jump on the slightest mis step of a person who believes in something and condemn them as 'hyporites'. To such attitudes I have but one thing to say, "The only thing worse than a hyprocrite, is someone who hides behind one"
Actually.. there are two things, "He/She who is without sin, cast the first stone" Show me a secular non Christian person who has NEVER gone against their own set of values for selfish opportunistic reasons and I definitely will join those flying pigs.

Usually attacks of 'hypocrite' are based on the assumption that the targeted person perceives their OWN life as spotless and without blemish. Nothing could be further from the truth ! Some pathetic and 'Fred Phelps' types might feel they are pretty special, but most of we Godbotherers would say of sinners "There but by Gods grace go I"
Sometimes, in spite of Grace we still tread the well worn path of 'the flesh' only to be reminded of our straying and the beauty of what we departed from, returning to Him who makes new.

When people of some Christian persuasion are in positions of governmental responsibility, they will call things as they see them, in the context of the perceived community mood and the mandate they received at election time.

So, to all anti 'godbotherers' .. stop bothering us about 'imposing' our values on the community, after all, if they are not 'ours' (i.e. the 73% odd to whom the religious aspect of Easter are meaningful) they will be YOURS, get over the fact that other people have a democratic right to exercise their rights.

I find the mix of Abbot (Catholic) Howard (Anglican) and Costello (Baptist) quite refreshing in terms of denominational harmony.

And surprise surprise, they actually make mistakes, they even SIN.. God forbid, hmm.. perhaps they are human ?

BOAZ_David,

"Show me a secular non Christian person who has NEVER gone against their own set of values for selfish opportunistic reasons and I definitely will join those flying pigs."

NEVER is a pretty big call, maybe it is relevant to differentiate between heat of the moment stuff and things done with time to reflect and change. The kind of comments in the article are about long term actions and views.

If you might be surprised how many people outside the christian church both secular and of other faiths have a pretty good go at living by their values. The problem for the christian church is that it claims that christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (eg you are getting a helping hand) and yet there appears to be no evidence that christians as a group are more likely to live consistently than others who place an emphasis on living by some kind of value centered structure (that last bit is not well phrased but hopefully gets it's meaning across). Christians get jumped on because as a group you continue to claim to have a better handle on this stuff than the rest of us so you should consistently get it better.

One member who appears to be a self righteous prig slams others for saying that tony sinned. We got the bit about casting the first stone.
Tony was contemplating joining the priesthood,that's the Holy priesthood in catholic eyes, tony by having sex was sinning. (NO! I am not saying that I have never sinned we are talking about tony here)Tony was also obeying the catholic 'law' by not using a condom. I did not condemn tony for his sins but for his blatant and total dribbling hypocrisy. Regards, numbat

I have responded to this exemplary example of bad logic on my blog
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/04/life-leslie-cannolds-irrational-bias.html

A sample
"Yep. Leslie starts off brilliantly, Tony Abbott will not publicly condemn a women he loved for something she did nearly 3 decades ago. Obviously, we need to highlight this great defect in his character."
and
"The logic is staggering. Tony Abbott was sexually active before he was married, and he refusing to publicly condemn someone he cared for deeply for an act she did nearly 30 years ago, so obviously, this failure to condemn implies Tony Abbott has changed his mind about the evil of abortion."

This article is typical of Cannold's aggressive and bitter activist approach to the abortion issue. More rhetoric than logic; more pop than academic.

Abbott's comments do not indicate that he has changed his mind on the abortion issue or that there is some inconsistency in his views. First, Abbott's comments re Donnelly relate to sex, not abortion. Secondly, it is possible for Abbott to consider abortion to be wrong and yet to refuse to judge those who engage in pre-marital sex or those who have had abortions. There is, in other words, a difference between objectively judging the right or wrong of a particular kind of act and subjectively judging the culpability or moral standing of a person who, within a particular context, commits that act.

Cannold unfairly misrepresents the views and reasons of those who oppose abortion. Not all agree with the likes of Alan Cadman. Many have a problem with abortion, not because they want to suppress the rights of women or have "rigid views about nice girls and sluts", but because they genuinely and sincerely consider it to involve the taking of a small yet valuable life.

Cannold's lack of understanding and sympathy for conservative women who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances and end up having abortions despite their reservations is appalling. If one is looking for hypocrisy, then go no further. Cannold wants greater sympathy for and less judgment about women who have abortions - but in this case is herself unwilling to give it. This is an example of the very worst kind of feminism and the very worst kind of illiberal liberalism.

If Cannold wants to change minds, rather than simply preaching to the already converted, it would be better for her to first understand the internal viewpoint of the conservative approach. She would be well advised to consider that conservatives are capable of having well-meaning and sincere concerns for both the mother and the unborn child. Her distrust and dislike of the "other side" seems to prevent her from engaging in any form of constructive debate.

I wonder what poor old Bill thinks about female sexuality. His son was relinquished without him having a say.

According to Kathy he was a non-event – a regrettable one-night stand of protected sex with a housemate.

All this focus on Tony Abbott would not have happened if he kept his big mouth shut and not invited media publicity when he thought he could make mileage out of the issue. What should have been a personal issue was converted into a political issue. And Abbott is now suffering the consequences.

I'm happy to do a deal with Abbott and his supporters. I'll shutup about his personal issues as long as they shutup about other people's reproductive choices.

rmbp, criticising those who argue against access to abortion for others then choose to have one themselves when an unwanted pregnancy happens is not an lack of compassion or understanding.

It is a recognition of massive double standards. Someone who makes that choice is saying they believe the foetus to be a living human child and that because of their circumstances they want the child dead. A very different ethical situation to someone who believes the foetus to be a clump of cells. Same impact on the lump of cells/child but very different ethics by the person making the choice.

The same situation applies to fathers who oppose abortion and then want their child aborted.

I don't think Leslie was speaking about those who change their mind when they are brought face to face with a tough decision, rather about those who excuse themselves while demanding different rules for others.

A classic case of people saying do as I say not as I do.

DavidJS, I can’t see where Abbott tried to use this situation for political mileage, and even if he did, that doesn’t diminish the humanity of his situation.

The man lived 27 years of his life thinking that he had a son, and knowing that he had put his son up for adoption, to be raised by other people. This knowledge surely would never have been too far away from his thoughts and must influenced his understanding of himself. To suddenly find out that this child is not yours must be quite anguishing. It must be a real blow to your self-identity. Not to mention the fact that a relationship he obviously looked back on with fondness turns out to have been a farce. You’ve got to feel sorry for him – regardless of your political views.

Abbott has the right to his views, just as you have the right to yours. Gloating over his misfortune is a bit tacky.

Leslie's Cannold can't achieve greatness in her own right,so next best thing is to elevate her own status by denergrating a public figure who doesn't reflect her philosophy.A very cowardly and tacky attempt to pigeon hole Tony Abbott.

Arjay - Leslie "pigeonholing" Tony Abbott? She doesn't need to, he pigeon holes himself whenever he opens his mouth up about where he stands on his portfolio issues, until it came to his own situation. Of course he is treading warily on his personal issue as he is a politician. It's the only issue in his political career where he has been so carefully politically correct about the people and dilemma involved. Leslie's article was spot on. The issue she raised was pertinent, as health minister, how can he reconcile other peoples issues in black and white, knowing he was in a grey area? Regardless of what he has found out since. I also find it ironic that the whole thing has turned into a bad soap opera re revelations from various parties, "that wanted to respect the parties involved". Quite frankly, there has now been 2 x 1 night stands with a Tony on the side. We can get into the morals of that situation, but the article is about the Health Minister and his portfolio in light of his experience (which he milked like a jersey cow) Let's not get sidetracked like we did in the abortion fizzer!