The Forum > Article Comments > A conscience vote is meaningless unless it is a two-way street > Comments
A conscience vote is meaningless unless it is a two-way street : Comments
By Leslie Cannold, published 23/9/2008Denying another's freedom while exercising one's own is hypocritical.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by RobbyH, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 8:43:17 AM
| |
I'm a little confused about what the obligation to refer means. Does it mean they actually have a obligation to refer someone over to a clinic or hospital for an abortion, or merely direct them to another doctor to do just that? If someone would clarify, it would be appreciated.
My own feeling is that it would be good for women to have their needs met quickly, and if they have already decided to have an abortion, to be able to go to their doctor and have it sorted quickly. In a practical world that would happen. The world is not though a practical place. Many doctors of different faiths will regard it as a matter of principle. A doctor close to me had the police visit and station themselves in his waiting room twice during my childhood. He firstly refused to examine for the draught and then refused to take blood samples from the passengers in fatal car accidents. He didn't back down. These cases were somewhat different in that he was defending other people's civil liberties, rather than refusing a service that another could provide, but it gave me a taste of doctors digging their heels in on something he regarded as a matter of conscience. If doctors are pursued for refusing to refer, then all I can see happening is that a lot of often very fine individuals will find themselves in the courts. There will be stress on them, their families, their patients and maybe chase them out of the profession. Similarly young students thinking of entering medicine may shy away from the profession if they feel they will be compelled to act in away that goes against their deeply ingrained beliefs. So without knowing a great deal about it, I'd instinctively shy away from something that attempts to compel people into something doing something that they probably won't. I don't think the doctors have the equivelent of St. Thomas More. Maybe they might yet get one down in Victoria. Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 9:20:39 AM
| |
conscience vote is a rarely used parlimentary tool to produce law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_vote...
usual is an 'issue' affecting constituency/state/country identified by peoples-elected-representative and introduced into parliamentary debate...meaning problem should exist and be significantly affecting community to warrant address... secondly, every issue ever debated to law has a 'conscience' element...so identified 'issue' then given to representatives whom supposed take it back to their people and debate on all the 'materially relevant factors'_this component currently missing...then once where majority lies with each of relevant factors know...parliament resumes and debate identifies where majority lies...and 'bill' drafted...which through senate goes to law then given to 'crown-the-corporation' which runs the government to enforce as 'intended by people'...one can see the inbuilt 'checks and balances' working...circumvent any one of the parts and no longer works as intended...yeah...corrupted... http://dictionary.die.net/corrupted now abortion...I have not been aware of any parliamentary debate to argue if abortion of unborn_child should be made a 'conscience issue alone'...so removes debate and each representative votes on own personal feelings...to an issue of unborn_child...whom by 12 weeks has identifiable human parts and behaviour identifiable with new_born...to have 'no rights' at all even to if they can live...all moved to women...an impossibility...achieved in parliament...which means...yep...organized vested interests overun the place... this definitely no conscience vote issue...many relevant issues exist before arriving to terminate/kill or not...womens 'own' choice ends at allowing/preventing pregnancy ie beginning...with all contraception/education/rationality women possess...first question for debate is should there be legal sanction against man/women for unwanted pregnancy...once optimal environment to prevent unexpected pregnancy in place...we almost there...then move on...to final issue is if mother/father/family refuse care of child...then how society cares for child...this is fundamental to any society...a baby/child has always been cared/monitored/reared for at society level and each member of society has duty to... once pregnant the interested parties become father/family/community...and society in general...paramountly unborn_child itself...and relative value of each debated...we victorians have had none of that...more surprising is why we the community is 'silent without action'...wheres the demonstration outside parliament...nationwide wide strikes by fathers/fathers_to_be?we are talking about open season on the most loving and vulnerable of us...our unborn babies... Sam Posted by Sam said, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:17:29 AM
| |
So Lesley, you are saying that even if a doctor sincerely believes that abortion is the taking of the life of a fellow human being, no different in principle to killing you now, that doctor must refer abortion-seeking women to where her child will be killed or will be referred to be killed. To require that of such doctors is to make the notion of freedom of conscience meaningless.
It is equivalent to requiring abolitionists to hand over runaway slaves or those who hid Jews during WWII to turn them in. In both those cases, black-skinned people and Jews were declared to be nonpersons just as preborn human beings are today. If freedom of conscience is to mean anything then it must be able to be applied completely consistently in matters of absolute importance. The killing of fellow human beings is a matter of absolute importance. Oh, by the way, abortionist David Grundmann stated in an article in The Age ten years ago (25 April, 1998) that he would be “happy” (his word) to abort babies at 30 weeks gestation. And such abortions, according to his infamous talk at Monash University on 30 August 1994, could be for “minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities” and social reasons such as the desertion of the partner. I guess he will be delighted if the new laws in Victoria are passed as he and a fellow abortionist will be able to agree to abort babies up until birth for just about any reason. And I suppose you regard Grundmann as a health care worker who is “a trusted and respected member of society." Even the late Brisbane abortionist, Peter Bayliss, when asked on the '7.30 Report', 27 October, 1994, "Do you think it is murder?" (in relation to Grundmann's late-term abortions) replied, "Yep." Posted by GP, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 11:22:43 AM
| |
The filthy little murder clinics should be left to the godless people without consciences. Trying to ease ones conscience by including people with a conscience is a joke. The fact that the Victorian Government is listening to those with a death culture is a disgrace. Leslie writes that 'With all rights come obligations, ' Surely spreading your legs should also apply.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 12:20:29 PM
| |
I would like to remind "runner" that it was "godly" people, (apparantly the only ones with consciences, according to "runner") that were responsible for murdering thousands of women throughout Europe suspected of being "witches", who cause the illness, sufferring and death of millions of men, women and children today by their influence on world leaders and their financial control to the point where AIDS is spreading throughout Africa and Asia like wildfire because condoms are against the churches' teachings, that family planning, contraception and abortion are not funded in aid packages so thousands of women die in childbirth and from botched amateur abortions. That so many "godly" people oppose abortion but support the death penalty! I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
Jenny E Posted by Jenny E, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:03:41 PM
|
Why? Simple. MP's are there to represent their electorates, not themselves.
Their own opinions and feelings are and should be irrelevant as they are elected to represent, not decide for, the people of the electorate.
The arrogance of MP's who choose to push their personal agendas ahead of any wishes from the people they represent should really void their election as they would be opposing what their constituents want. Tony Abbott is a good example of this ignorance with his hypocritical Catholic view of the world.
Of course the other thing this "conscience vote" issue brings to our attention is that MP's never vote other than as directed except on these rare occasions when they place their views above their electorate's. On any vote they should be voting for the wishes of their electorate and never for the Party line.
This issue always exposes the fact that democracy does not exist in our country as MP's do not vote as a representative. They vote as a member of their Party, only deigning to seek our support to get elected. Then forget us for 3 years.
Damn these ignorant and greedy self interested morons for destroying our potential as a real democracy.