Yo.
Something is making me sad at the moment. Actually, my 90 year old woman's back is making me sad too (would anyone want to pick up a 90 year old woman at the D&D ball?), but it's a different sad.
RU486.
A very important little pill that has the potential to affect thousands of Australian women. However, can the right decision be made about it's introduction without politics or religion clouding the issue?
Let's get it straight. The REAL issue here is whether Tony Abbot or the TGA gets to decide if RU486 becomes available. I admit that I haven't read enough about the actual pill itself, and its side effects, so I'm not going to bang on in support of it being introduced willy-nilly. However, when it comes to such a sensitive issue, one that, let's face it, has very strong religous hallmarks, shouldn't the decision be made by a religion-impartial body, not a health minister who's views on abortion are well documented?
The usuals are of course lobbying for RU486 to be banned on the back of the abortion - right or wrong? issue. However, when there is not ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THIS WORLD that can pass the judgement as to whether abortion is right or wrong, the issue regarding the introduction of RU486 should be null and void. There never will be anyone that can answer the right or wrong question. And while faith can guide someone as much as it likes, not everyone subscribes to the same religion or indeed any religion at all, and therefore SHOULD NOT be subjected to someone else's fanatical views, and forced to live by them.
Support choice. Support someone's right to say "I don't agree with abortion on ethical/religous/personal grounds, so I would never have one", but also support someone's right to say "I can't have this baby at the moment, for whatever reason, so I am going to abort it". Don't get picky with reasons: that 'career woman' may be selfish for choosing to terminate her pregnancy so it doesn't interfere with her career, but don't give the right to choose to some and not to others. Besides, how many selfish acts do you see in the world everyday anyway?
My argument is probably going to lose all eloquence right now, because I'm going to give a great big FUCK YOU to Margaret Tighe and the Right To Life band. (Sorry, no link. Too angry). You infuriate me when you wax lyrical about how women just need to have counselling, and they'll 'come round' to the idea of being pregnant or adopting the child out instead. Because it's that easy. You make my blood boil when you almost condone violence or abuse hurled at abortion clinics - their staff and the people who use them - and degrade women who have made possibly what is the biggest choice of their lives.
I sit and wonder if you think of the bigger implications of banning RU486, and abortion, and everything else you stand for. The unloved, unwanted kids? The ones that languish in daycare/creche/after-school care or worse still, are forgotten when it's time to be picked up? The ones that end up on drugs and alcohol because that's what they were born into and know no better? The ones who constantly want to tear their heads apart, because they can't quite get them around why their mother gave them up? And the adoptive parents, who go through the heartbreak of their children denouncing them once they've found their birth family?
Do you think about that Margaret? Do you think about the disastrous effect banning abortions would have? We'd go back to medieval backyard abortions, or secret packets of 'herbs'; where no women would be capable of making an informed decision, even though it would intelligent, capable women that would be forced to use the back door method. Is that what you want Margaret? Australian women being uninformed and misled, and ashamed of the choices they make? For them not to have access to pre or post abortion counselling, thus endangering their mental health? I don't think I even need to mention how downright dangerous and unsafe it is too.
Think about it Margaret. Think about it while your minions run around and lobby the members of parliament for the tomorrow's vote. And while you're thinking about it, remember that you DO NOT and CAN NOT definitively answer whether a human's rights begin at contraception or at birth. Again, no one can. By all means, have your opinion, and stand up for it, but respect the women that don't share your opinion, and make choices that don't agree with your personal beliefs.
If you spent half as much energy in supporting and lobbying for a better future for all of the kids that are on the streets, or going through the DHS system, or the ones that are abused; the ones that actually HAVE rights beyond all reasonable doubt, as you do denouncing a woman's right to choose, you might find that there's a whole nastier world out there and children that COULD use your help. You'd probably be more at peace with yourself too.
Quickly back to the issue at hand; Tony Abbot, do what you know is right. Give control to the TGA and let them decide if it's safe to be sold on the Australian market. Dispense with tomorrow's vote, and search past your Catholic heart, to YOUR conscience, and make the right decision on behalf of Australian women (and men), the ones that elected you to do the very same thing in the first place.
NB. For the record, writer strongly believes in a women's right to choose (obviously). For the record, writer would have an abortion given accompanying circumstance. For example, if writer's unborn child was shown to be carrying a genetic disorder, such as severe downs syndrome, or similar, then writer would think long and hard and most likely* choose to abort the child. Or, in the case that write was to fall pregnant at this present stage of her life, given her unstable financial/relationship circumstances and the fact that she is completely aware that she would be mentally incapabable of bringing a child into this world at this time, then she would most likely* choose to abort it too.
* - Use of the phrase 'most likely' is not a cop out. Rather, as writer has not been in the situation where she is pregnant with the above scenarios, or rather, not pregnant at all, she is unaware of exactly how she would act. Obviously, that's why one would attend counselling, and inform themselves thoroughly, relative to one's feeling at the time, as to whether abortion would be right for them.
Apologies to anyone from my reader base that may be offended by my views. I can understand why, however I don't apolgise for having them. I respect your opinion, please respect mine. Although, healthy debate in comments/email is always welcome.
