I would be very interested to know a number of things - has Anne O'Rourke actually seen the "one page proforma" submissions she tosses in scathingly? Or is this yet again a madeup attempt to throw dispersions upon the efforts of those who wrote them? Also she goes on to quote studies but at no point footnotes which studies - so which ones are they Anne? Or again, are they just 'made up' survey results?
A person can say they believe there can be choices but that does not mean that they believe in the choices that are made - all too often we hear people say "Well, I don't agree with abortion but I agree with a woman's right to choose." So far more people DISAGREE with abortion but not understanding the real impact this has on the woman individually, the father of the baby and extended family including siblings and society as a whole, and often refusing to investigate the whole abortion issue, abortion goes on.
What most women want is not abortion but to be pregnant under different circumstances. So let's set about changing their circumstance INSTEAD OF removing the baby.

Dear Teresa

Yes I have seen the proforma one page submissions. Anybody can make an appointmtnt with the Victorian Law Reform Commission and go and examine the submissions. I did so and a significant amount of opponents are one page pro-formas organised by religious groups.

The surveys I referred to are the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, the Australian Election Study survey, the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute Survey, the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations Survey and Marie Stopes International Survey. If you bother to read the article correctly you will see that they are all examined in the Victorian Law Reform's Final Report, as that report is referred to in the article there was no need to footnote it as well.

This was not the only point of the article it was also to highlight that there is no religious consensus on the issue of abortion nor is there any grounding in the Bible to oppose abortion. See Hosea 13;16, Isaiah 13:18, 2 Kings 15:16, 2 Kings 8:12, and 1 Samuel 15.3. The religious right are very selecvtive when quoting the bible, I can quote different parts to support my argument.

Anne

Therese 3 until the arrival of the $5000 baby bonus the imminent arrival of another baby hasn't always been greeted with unalloyed joy, especially if the baby was illegitimate, another girl or just more strain on the family budget.

Most Australians think that as we expect each family to be responsible for feeding, housing, clothing and educating their own young to be worthwhile members of society then really it's up to each individual family to decide whether they can take on the job of rearing another child. Except in the case of the Geelong/Adelaide woman who should denied the opportunity to get pregnant again.

Dear Anne,
Always pleased when the Lord's word is brought into the discussion, and I see you were spot on regarding the context. Hosea 13:16 relates God's intention to Judge a guilty nation who has rejected Him. Your quote from Isaiah is in a similar vein. As is 2 Kings 15:16, and 2 Kings 8:12, 1 Samuel 15:3. These words are recorded to horrify those under judgement and to inspire the God haters to turn from their evil ways.

In quoting the Bible to prove your point, do I correctly assume that your point is that you believe that the curse of infant slaughter is once again being released because we as a nation have rejected God.

I hadn't even considered that angle. Its got me thinking.
Dav

I see 'Lititia'. The God who loved you enough to send His Son to die for your immorality is the bad guy and those who murder the unborn are the good guys. They are the poor victims who are quick to commit immorality and even quicker to kill their babies but it is their Creator that is the bad guy. Your misquoting of Scripture comes from the same source as the serpents misquoting of Scripture to Jesus in the wilderness. Surely you can do better than that! You would be more honest if you just told the truth that You (as a god) want to decide what is right and wrong.

On the contrary Runner and Dav. My point is that there is no reference to abortion or whether it is right or wrong in the bible. There is no special emphasis placed on the fetus. If it is such an important issue why is it not addressed in the new testament. This total obsession with abortion and controlling other people's fertility is purely an invention of the religious right in modern times given that it is not a part of christian history. The most common issue that is addressed by Jesus is poverty and social justice but rarely will either of those words pass the lips of the religious right.

It is not those of us who allow people to make their own decisions regarding the size of their families and how many children they have that play God but indeed the religious right who mask their own authoritarian dersires behind religion that are playing 'God'. Indeed the beauty of the secular state is that it allows those who believe in God and the bible to live by it and those that adopt their ethical system from equally legitimate but alternate systems of belief to also follow theirs. The secular state does not impose actions or a course of behaviour on christian fundamentalists they are free not to engage in sex before marriage, have abortions, etc. However, fundamentalists or the religious right, whichever label you choose, do not allow others who do not share their belief system to follow a different course of action, indeed they are the ones playing God.

Anne