Colour me shocked:
The federal Health Minister says the Catholic Church will take part in the Government’s multi-million dollar pregnancy counselling service aimed at reducing the number of abortions in Australia.
Just because this is expected, doesn’t mean that it isn’t completely appalling and unacceptable. A 24-hour pregnancy counselling helpline should be completely unbiased. It is there to provide advice for the genuinely undecided and there should be no question that the person you are speaking to may have strong moral objections to one of the three alternatives.
Whatever your view on pregnancy counselling in general, there is no justification for this kind of organisation receiving government funding for emergency, 24-hour counselling. As Kate Mannix argued (PDF) in last year’s Senate Inquiry into Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005:
… if someone knows already that they want to continue their pregnancy and they need a service to help them to do that then there is no rush. The rush is in making sure that you have all of the information for all three options. That seems to me to be self-evident.
She spoke of her experience with counsellors involved with Catholic counselling agencies:
Part of the reason for my being here is that I know people who have been counsellors in these services and who have left because anti-abortionism has become almost a matter of doctrine. We know statistically that Catholics have abortions at the same rate as everybody else, but you would never say it. The people I know who have been counsellors and who have left have left because they just did not feel that what they were doing in the end was right—all of that faintly patronising, caring, sharing, long-form interview but at the end of it the implication that their view was the correct view. There is not any real recognition that another person has autonomy.
Women – and taxpayers – deserve better than a Health Minister who uses public funds to push his own personal agenda on women who need respect and help to determine their own choices, not guilt and attempts at persuasion.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop’s take.
There’s the problem!
Cardinal Pell, by the way, has been strongly pushing “counselling” within the Catholic Church as a “ministry” which will promote a “culture of life”.
Utterly breathtaking. Abbott is no fool, therefore he must actually understand about Church and State, therefore he must be actively, openly working to undermine and destroy the principle.
Is the timing of Ratty’s recent authoritative pronouncements on feminism being so, like, ovah (and therefore women can get back into the kitchen and the labour ward where they belong, popping out and nurturing little white Christian babies, but we promise they’ll still be like rooly rooly equal, even with no participation in public life), closely followed by this Abbott initiative, a coincidence, do we think?
I heard the Abbott announcement this morning on the 9 am news on the car radio and nearly drove off the road. By the 10 am news he was already on the defensive, assuring the populace that there will be measures in place to make sure there won’t be any ‘pressure’ on women not to have an abortion.
Sure there won’t.
I think the article that reports Abbott’s defence of the scheme sums up the problem, albeit unintentionally:
I don’t care what your view is of abortion, that’s not counselling. If it were, then it would be open to the possibility of more terminations as well as fewer. Counselling is about helping people make their own choices, otherwise it’s “education” or advocacy.
Tony Abbott is an immensily irritating man. Crikey are right to call him ‘the Mad Monk’. He is the sort of Catholic who gives other Catholics a bad name.
Tim Dunlop’s take:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/government_has_catholic_tastes_in_counselling_services/
From Anna:
“Just because this is unexpected,….”
Sorry Anna its been well known inside Centacare for many moons that they were going to get to perform this service. I was informed of this some months ago.
[And, of course, your fears about biased dogma based counselling are entirely justified. There are still many counsellors [not really an appropriate word is it?] of the type who cause Kate concern who are still within Centacare, in some places they are the majority and in at least one major centre which will be performing the services referred to they are the entire staff minus one only].
And its not just that service either.
Centacare are in the running for managing Family Relationship Centres. There are some regional centres that WILL be run by Centacare.
Actually there might be some/several already I’m not sure. I can check in a day or 2.
Depressing aint it?
Cheers, hannah – that was a typo. It should read “expected”.
Fixed…
To be honest, I’m surprised that it’s come so soon after the Senate Inquiry. It smacks to me of the same kind of hubris the government demonstrated when they passed the truckful of conservative legislation last year – except perhaps this has been executed with an air of desparation.
If the government is genuinely worried that they may not get re-elected next year, Tony Abbott will at least be scrambling to get as much as possible of his oppressive religious rubbish into the mix. He can’t do it too late, because that could be unfairly blamed for dashing the election chances. Doing it this early gives him time to set the system up before getting shafted ruins his chance to once and for all destroy reproductive rights in Australia.
Of course, I’m just speculating.
I still find it ironic that Mr. Holier Than Thou preaches ad infinitum about the supportive alternatives available to women with unplanned preganancies when the first thing he did upon finding out about Cathy Donnelly’s pregnancy was abandon her. What. A. Nob.
Tony Abbott, in an article from The Age:
So we can expect ALL vulnerable and anxious women unsure of their options or indeed of their own perceived morality of these options to be of sound mind enough to recognise when they are being lectured to? Bollocks.
I had an abortion in the middle of last year. I fervently believed it was my right to do so, knew it was the best option for me and I had the unwavering support of my friends and family. But even I experienced a few desperate hours of irrational though one night where, had the right person spoken to me in the right way, I might have been swayed against what I ultimately knew was the right decision.
This makes me so mad I can’t even breathe.
The tender was announced a couple of days after the RU486 vote. We were expecting the announcement late last year, but he’s put it off until just after Christmas and New Year (for some strange reason…).
“A 24-hour pregnancy counselling helpline should be completely unbiased”
Anna, do you really believe that people involved in abortion counselling are completely unbiased. Most people I’ve spoken to about this subject have pretty pronounced views (mostly in favour I have to say).
Would you disqualify yourself from counselling in this area? Your views appear to at least as strong as Mr Abbott’s.
If the Catholic Church is to provide individual counsellors, of course it is essential that the fact of their religious alignment be disclosed to the inquirer. Similarly if a counsellor is say a member of a Pro-Choice organisation. But I think many counsellors are simply individuals with no such formal alignment, but nevertheless possess very strong views.
There are so many things that bother me about this announcement, but one of them is the fact that the federal government has decided to use counseling (read: advocacy and moralising) to reduce the number of abortions in Australia.
It is very telling that nothing is being done to actually make it easier for women to choose to continue with a pregnancy – in terms of financial support, childcare options, maternity leave, etc… Instead, women are made to bare the burden and the (government and church-imposed) guilt in order to achieve this reduction. It is really quite disgusting.
This move is in breach of section 116 of the constitution, and Abbott knows it. The ALP won’t do anything because their leader, KRudd, is a Catholic too. So its up to the Democrats and Greens to press this issue in the High Court.
Religion belongs in the private arena. It’s not enough to say we espouse secular principles and yet tolerate the infiltration of religious values into the public domain. Those with a religious agenda will always take advantage of secular tolerance. Secularists must get active and mount a campaign to remove all traces of religion from the public domain. Section 116 of the constitution is our chief weapon.
whyisitso,
I preemptively apologies for my rudeness, but what part of “pro-choice” do you not understand?
The part where women get to choose for themselves. I am not going to apologise for any rudeness: on this topic, whyishehere is not worth engaging.
I have an excellent grasp of the euphemism “pro-choice” Robert. I do have a concern about the killing of human beings still in the womb, however. What part of “killing” are you having trouble with?
If you continue to try to make the thread all about you then I’ll delete you. I don’t ever threaten that, but I mean it. This is not about you and your beliefs, it’s about counselling and autonomy and separation of church and state.
Go away.
whyisitso, get your filthy religious hands out of women’s business.
My 1:31 comment was very moderate, merely attempting to bring another perspective into the debate. It wasn’t abusive in any way. Robert’s 1:50 comment was very provocative and my 2.01 pm comment was provocative in response. I apologise for that, and I would hope he recognises that and withdraws also.
Ban me by all means. That’s your right. But please, I maintain there are two sides to this debate. If you want this blog to simply replicate Leftwrites where any non-left comment is banned, then fine.
I’d be interested to know what you believe ‘pro-choice’ is a euphemism FOR, whyisitso…Meanwhile, you might also like to acknowledge that the pro-life camp routinely rate the life of a foetus over that of its mother. Further, our good friend Dubya, one of the most fervent pro-lifers of all, has no problem with executing so-called criminals in the name of ‘justice’. Interesting conception of life.
And herein lies one of the great furphies that have been perpetuated by the “pro-life” camp. The endlessly repeated suggestion that those who are pro-choice are in fact pro-abortion is maddening. Those in favour of allowing women to choose aren’t murderers, whyisitso. They just happen to believe that the self determination of a woman with an established history, emotional ties and a complex cell structure is more important than that of an undefined blob of cells.
No woman is happy to go through an abortion – they are more than likely relieved, but this is hardly the same thing.
And in response to your original question, it is evident that properly trained counsellors, whose agenda is purely that of ensuring the women they deal with have full access to all of their options, can remain impartial in a way that religiously driven counsellors cannot. The former have nothing to gain from pushing any one option over the other – the latter…well. I don’t know how they justify it. Spiritual war?
You’re not banned, whyisitso, but you have been asked to stay on topic.
The topic is not whether you like abortion. The topic is whether government funds should pay for advocacy pretending to be counselling. Abortion is a legal option in most states, and it isn’t the Health Minister’s job try to use counselling services to achieve policy goals.
If you can’t understand the difference between telling women what to do and helping them come to their own decision then there is no point to you joining the discussion. But quit talking about murder or killing babies.
Unfortunately, s 116 has been so narrowly interpreted that it is likely to be completely useless in defending women from Abbott’s crusade.
It’s not clear that the Catholic organisations involved in the counselling will be putting forward the church’s view on abortion – after all, it is possible to provide information about pregnancy without advocating a moral viewpoint.
Obviously everyone involved in the organisation will hold a personal view on the ethics of abortion; and many will presumably be part of organisations which hold such views as well. They can still do the job adequately.
Having read the transcripts of the transparency bill inquiry it’s clear that it’s possible, but not likely. There is only one 24 hour phone counselling service – it should be the most professional, and the one that doesn’t have an agenda.
Any organisation that gets involved will have an agenda, it’s whether they push it that’s important.
He’s an Anglican.
Just sayin…
Sorry, Mark. My mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd
That’s almost as bad as being a Catholic, but not quite. It will still prevent him from fighting for secular values. His support of the ban on therapeutic cloning is a case in point.
Silkworm, your hobby horse is just as tiresome sometimes.
Rudd is not against professional, unbiased counselling.
No it isn’t.
S116 reads:
Doesn’t say you can’t use public money to employ pro-lifers to push a (IMO) reactionary agenda.
Is this thread being moderated?
If not, comment spamilated (not sure why, not trigger words in it)
Released from the spam bin, David.
Ta muchly, Anna.
Centacare are a member agency of Catholic Welfare Australia.
Anyone doubting Abbott’s motivation needs only refer to the following passage from their code of ethics.
you might also like to acknowledge that the pro-life camp routinely rate the life of a foetus over that of its mother
audrey, you might like to offer some evidence for this outrageous claim – sounds like complete claptrap to me. You’ve been listening too much to silkworm!
There are some strong words condemning the input of Christian organisations, without having full facts, here, which are frankly offensive. Not every woman thinks the way feminists do. I know that may surprise you, but it’s true! Not everyone thinks that the Catholic Church is not a trustworthy advocate in many areas. Not everyone thinks that the Christian perspective is flawed or inclined to force opinions on others. Not everyone is bothered if they did. Some people might actually prefer the kind of service they provide.
Has anyone found out what exactly the Catholic advisory services would offer?
The Catholic service organisations cover a broad spectrum in a large organisation with thousands of members, many of whom are nominal, even those with fleeting or loose associatons, but have enough ‘Catholic’ in them to be troubled, perplexed or frightened by certain events, circumstances or situations, including women who may fall pregnant and who find themselves in a position of having to make a decision about whether to take the child to birth or not.
No-one is naive enough to think that even Catholic girls and women won’t find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy and have to face the dilemna of whether to go to full term and give birth or to go through with a termination, because of a possible health or emotional issue. In fact, for a catholic women, the dilemna could be hieghtened because of their religiouss upbringing. Providing a service to women from within the Catholic Church actually seems to be worth-while thing, considering the large national parish they cover. It may be that some Catholic women will find better counsel for their particular need than from a purely secular service organisation.
On a more serious note, I think that counsellors should declare their biases from the first. I would like to know who I was talking to if seeking help.
On the question of separation of church and state – this is utterly irrelevant. There is a far more serious need to ensure the separation of the judiciary and the state – and no-one objects to the government funding legal aid.
Well said, FaceLift.
Facelift, it would be great if you could address the point made by Kate Mannix in the post. This isn’t about stopping Centacare from providing counselling, it’s about who gets the tender for the only government-funded emergency phoneline.
Anyone who is truly against abortion won’t need emergency counselling, as the other two options are not time-sensitive. The federal government is also providing Medicare funding for counselling. I’m happy for Centacare to qualify as a registered provider.
The issue is only with the emergency phoneline.
That may very well be true. However, in that case there should be a separate service provided that is a transparently Catholic organisation. It should not be the government funded, 24 hour counselling service. As Alex earlier pointed out, Centacare has a specifically Catholic agenda that can only result in the service provided being manipulated somehow. Again, it comes down to the fact that pro-lifers try to stop something from happening, while pro-choicers provide information to enable guilt free decision making. One is clearly more reactionary than the other.
Hmmm. I just tried to leave a reply to PeterTb but it didn’t publish it.
My point perhaps was not clear Peter. I was referring to the emotional, physical ‘lived’ life of the woman as opposed to the foetus. It probably sounded as if I meant that pro-lifers would let women die over children. Very few (mentalist) ones would, definitely not all. But I think that choosing a pro-life position is invariably choosing against a woman’s entitlement to determine her own life. Therefore, pro-lifers favour the ‘lived’ life of an unborn foetus over that of a woman.
Whatever s116 says or implies, there has never been a separation of Church and State in Australia, in the French or American way. States, for instance, would be perfectly within their rights to set up State religions and enforce their doctrines on residents, it’s just the Commonwealth that can’t do it. David J’s right in this case.
Silkworm, your bizarre sectarianism does you no credit. ‘As bad’ as being a Catholic? Do you support Glasgow Rangers as well?
A negative religious test would be as repellent to any democratic society as a positive one: in this sense I’d be firmly on the side of the Government commissioning Centacare or Anglicare or any other competently-run religious charity to whatever, except that as Anna says, it’s not really meant to be counselling at all but anti-abortion advocacy.
I’m not sure I agree with Anna in her definition of counselling: “I don’t care what your view is of abortion, that’s not counselling. If it were, then it would be open to the possibility of more terminations as well as fewer. Counselling is about helping people make their own choices, otherwise it’s “educationâ€? or advocacy.”
Consider suicide prevention. The Lifeline organisation describes itself as a telephone counselling service. Presumably, Lifeline counsellors do not discuss suicide in some sort of value-neutral way, helping people make their own choices and calmly detailing the options available for topping oneself. It would, I imagine (thankfully I’ve never had recourse to the service) strongly advocate one particular course of action — staying alive.
I hasten to add that I draw no equivalency in any way between suicide and abortion, and I am very much in favour of women’s right to choose abortion. But while being pro-choice I can see that a government might want to reduce the number of abortions as a policy goal and would provide counselling in accordance with that goal.
Similar analogies might be drawn with marriage counselling and smoking. Everyone has the absolute freedom to divorce their partner or smoke tobacco (in their own home at least) — but government provides counselling services which deliberately try to minimise both.
The spam trap has my comment by the leg!
In a spirit of ecumenism, is Abbott going to appoint some Christian Scientists to counsel people about the use of transfused blood?
After all, Christian Scientists are, like catholics, very humane people dedicated to doing God’s work and to living according to their religious teachings as they interpret them.
And the fact that Christian Scientists are against blood transfusions will allow people who may consider being transfused to rethink their options.
And if it was a focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies your point would be a very good one. That’s where the public health issue lies. Once someone is pregnant, it’s not in the interests of women’s mental health to try to influence their decision for population policy reasons.
Preventing suicides, and helping people stay or get healthy is good for the person being counselled. Using counselling to achieve broader goals is not.
In addition to Anna’s point, as Cristy argued, there are much better ways of achieving the goal.
“It is very telling that nothing is being done to actually make it easier for women to choose to continue with a pregnancy – in terms of financial support, childcare options, maternity leave, etc”
!!!
Jesus H. Christ, what about Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B, Child Care Benefit, and Maternity Payment?
FTB was $13.5 BILLION in 2005-06, Child Care Benefit $1.5 billion, Maternity Allowance $0.9 billion.
Exactly how many more billions of (mostly) middle-class welfare would you like to see spent?
Now that you mention it, I think it shopuld be. Not just Centacare. Centacare, the Caroline Chisholm Society and McKessons all operate with a Catholic bias, and should be banned or closed down.
Religion has no place in health care.
silkworm, is your hatred directed exclusively at (Roman) Catholics? Or can all of us Christians bask in it?
A good question, PeterTB. I’ve always thought that Silkworm’s gravatar should be a little Oliver Cromwell.
And hannah, I don’t think it’s fair to characterise ‘Catholics’ as being generally or naturally on the political ‘right’, no matter what the behaviour of Centacare employees.
And women have the right to do whatever we like now.
No shortage of funds or support for any choice.
What’s this stoush about? Something a politician said or wants?
Any one who has been involved in counselling knows that it mostly involves listening not telling. It is also presenting known and predetermined facts which can help the client make a decision, and in the end it should, in this case, be their decision.
However, many people are unable to make crucial decisions on their own, and need the assistance of a sympathetic person who is trained and experienced enough to read into their throughts and advise based on shared information, which in many cases isn’t clear-cut, black and white, or easy to fix. Presumably this is why a client comes to the advisory service in the first place.
Given the gravity and complexity of the situation pregnant women face if they come to the gut-wrenching conclusion that there is a chance they won’t want to go through with the pregnancy, there may need to be more than a tick-in-the-box, three point indicator of available choices to help them make the ultimate decision. I don’t see how there can be a cold, general, or even lifeless approach to a very personal, life-changing, life and death real-life scenario. And if it is an emergency, and the counsellor maybe gets a few minutes with someone they have never met before, what they hear and respond to can’t be easily put down to a mere short list of options a woman might have. Hence the need for good quality counselling services – but with a heart.
Well actually I said it was another group that was to the right of the Catholics.
But you’re right, the implication is there and it is painting with a broad brush but if you had to listen to the worries of the person close to me about the narrow minded bigotry directly derived from dogma encountered over coffee this early am that places those concerned to the right as far as women’s reproductive issues are concerned I reckon I can be cut a bit of slack.
Facelift, you’re being silly.
Firstly, emergency counselling isn’t “I need an abortion in 5 minutes, please sign here”. Anyone who already knows they want an abortion doesn’t have to have counselling – it isn’t compulsory. Furthermore, anyone who already wants to continue the pregnancy doesn’t need emergency all-options counselling. They have 9 months to decide whether to keep the child or adopt.
But for the genuinely undecided, what they need is counselling that will help them to make the decision that is right for them and then – and this is where the biggest problem lies – validate the person making the decision. I don’t know many people who believe abortion is a mortal sin who could do that.
Secondly, non-religious counselling is not “cold, general, or even lifeless”. Religious folks don’t have a monopoly on caring for women.
Lastly, there is no law stopping you from trying to dissuade women from having abortions. What we have a problem with is the funding of the first, and only, national, 24-hour pregnancy counselling phoneline that has as its charter an opposition to one of only three options.
This isn’t about what you, or anyone, think of abortion. This is about what’s good for the women using the service, and using counselling to manipulate them is not good for women.
Quite right, so you did, hannah. I’m sorry.
I think that’s the problem, though, Facelift. There’s clearly a belief that it won’t be a genuine counselling service as much as an opportunity to push a particular point of view by the Catholic Church.
And judging from the experience in the US, there’s good justification for that concern.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion, I suspect, if the Catholic Church had a nuanced and variegated approach to moral judgements.
Thank Dumbledore.
I have a problem with the general assumption that it’s a ‘gut-wrenching conclusion’; for some women I’ve no doubt it is. But I’d wager there’s a lot more women out there that claim it to be gut-wrenching because to do otherwise is to be perceived as heartless. Mostly, I think women who have abortions feel relief.
I know it’s a little off topic Anna, but I think it’s an important point to make. It’s difficult to defend a pro-choice position if even the people defending it constantly refer to the practice as being this incredibly traumatic event.
Absolutely – and it’s another problem that was brought up in the Inquiry; women who have had an abortion and need someone to talk through the issue with are accidentally ringing anti-choice counsellors and being told that they should expect to suffer trauma and suicidal thoughts.
Not silly, Anna. Just attempting to bring a human voice into a humanist world-view exhibited by this post.
So what guidelines for provision of counselling do the Government advocate before they give funding? There must be guidelines and rules. They’re generally rather strict and precise. Far more precise than previous Governments as far as I can make out. Many legal requirements have been tightened up considerably.
There are very few guidelines, that’s the problem. And counsellors don’t have to have qualifications like psychs.
Aside from implying that mine isn’t a human voice, that isn’t what you’re doing. You’re trying to bring in god’s voice.
Unfair, Anna. I’ve discussed this from a non-bible-bashing perspective. And I’m not a Catholic, but I’ve supported their right to be counted as a viable option, end of story.
Technically that’s true, but in practice no organisation will hire a counsellor that isn’t registered with a member organisation of PACFA. To gain membership, one usually has to have a degree or Graduate Diploma in Counselling.
Centacare do good work, however, are bound by the ethical guidelines of the Catholic Church. Fine if you’re a Catholic, but if you’re not, then well tough. As I demonstrated in my earlier comment, Centacare are quite literally forbidden to offer any advice/support to clients considering an abortion.
Actually [I like that word] there are guidelines, and very detailed they are too. The documents concerned are many pages long and have lots of lovely jargon words and phrases.
And Centacare, ostensibly at least, takes them seriously.
And organizations involved in the FRC’s and the counselling lines, inc Anglicare, Relationships Aust., Centacare, Mensline, all employ persons with Social Work degrees and the like. Well sometimes, if they can find them and if those people will take the pay cuts. The reality is that a lot of people who have undergone brief courses at best have snuck into the field recently due to the sudden increase in demand thanks to Abbott, Ruddock and Williams.
The problem is that when the guidelines and mission statements and the like are inspected closely they reveal a point of view, a social ethic, a political ideology that is far far from woman friendly.
Much more “family” [nuclear of course] centred.
Almost keep em barefoot and pregnant type of thing. And then out to [part-time low pay] work when the kid turns 8 years old.
I’ll try and find a doco or 2 to show you.
If you are interested.
Because this is all part of a huge social change agenda.
It ties in with the FRC’s and the changes to Family law, the changes to Child Support payments alluded to by Paulus above [and by the way Paulus those figures you quoted are in the process of changing with the new laws, very soon 10s of 1000s of single mum's will have their incomes and rights slashed dramatically]and the new Welfare to Work laws which impact heavily on women and the recent anti-domestic violence campaigns [which were a joke].
Massive social changes aimed principally at women.
Which is why the phone call this morning was so disturbing.
Because these are the self same people who later this year will be staffing one [yet to be announced] of the 64 family relationship Centres that will seriously impinge on the safety of women and children.
They will be “counselling”, actually “mediating” is the favoured term [that's in one set of guidelines], women and men in the the throes of divorce who will be compelled to attend.
Compelled.
And these people, I’ve met 2 of them, are going to counsel, sorry mediate, between women and men where issues such as sexual abuse and domestic violence are going to be raised. And where the term ‘mediate” is entirely inappropiate.
And most of these services will be run by religious groups.
Relationships Aust. is withdrawing and the slack is being taken up by others.
Centacare and Anglicare aren’t happy with some of the attendant issues and so that leaves….who?
Its all a deliberately designed mess.
Facelift, I was being fair until you implied that you were the first to bring the “human” touch to the debate and that we are all cold and lifeless.
I don’t think I applied cold or lifeless to people, but to an approach, Anna. Clearly you’re neither cold nor lifeless! By human ‘voice’ I was referring to an attitude, something needed other than purely clinical determinations or assessments.
Why would you assume that non-religious counsellors wouldn’t have that attitude, FaceLift?
Suki’s take:
http://machinegunkeyboard.com/shao/?p=444
Well, I assume that anyone with a heart could have that attitude, Mark. But it would involve some kind of influence, or bias, or it isn’t human.
So Facelift, you’re suggesting one can’t remain entirely unbiased without also sacrificing an element of their humanity? That’s ridiculous. It is clearly possible to counsel a pregnant woman sympathetically without influencing her in any way. Simply by listening and assuring her that she has support no matter what her decision implies to me a more humane (as opposed to naturally human) approach to counselling.
Even the Commonwealth can do anything short of
purposefullyestablishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a substantial union between church and state is merely aneffectof a particular law… then that is perfectly fine. Section 116 is a joke. The High Court has interpreted it out of existence…The Bush administration, it should be noted, were also quite blatant in their approach to Federally funded reproductive health/counselling services… not to mention their faith based initiatives, which are similar to programs in Australia which have in both countries been challenged on church-state grounds. But the only major establishment clause cases in recent years have been about displaying the ten commandments and teaching intelligent design. The American Separation of Church and State is not as well-founded in constitutional law as we would think. With Alito replacing O’Connor’s swing vote its likely set to move further off centre stage.
This is politics… and it should be fought politically. Seeking a constitutional injunction on this risks doing what similar action has done in the USA… making martyrs out of theocrats (which they love more than anything else by the way). It’s very easy to make whipping boys out of Judges and paint them as radical and unrepresentative. Fight this through normal democratic-political action and they won’t make that charge so easily.
The news article quoted in the post is a little misleading because it misses the point that Centacare won’t actually be providing the counselling, but:
The organisation providing the counselling is McKennon, according to Tony Abbott’s website.
Women concerned about an unintended pregnancy will be provided with additional support following the selection of successful tenders for the National Pregnancy Support Telephone Helpline and an associated counsellor training package.
A brief look at the way McKesson operates should tell you that it is recommended by various Government bodies.
It seems that you have run with the misinformation provided by the ABC News report.
Apologies – McKesson, not McKennon!
FaceLift, any professional has to take into account their own biases and predispositions in order to focus ethically on the needs of their clients.
True, Mark, so why can’t it be expected that McKesson will deal with clients accordingly?
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/not-happy-abbott/#comment-282820
I was responding to this comment, FaceLift.
Which was a response to this remark, Mark!
The implication of the post is that Catholic advised agencies can’t operate without bias, but non-catholic agencies can. Since McKesson is the agency in question and they have guaranteed ‘professional, non-directive counselling’, it should be assumed that they mean what they say!
No, the implication of the post was that we needn’t pay agencies that have a bias written into their charter, when there exist plenty of agencies who don’t have a bias at all. It’s not a Catholic vs non-Catholic post Facelift.
Anna,
Then what did you mean by this:
…and what problem do you have with Tony Abbott?
Since it has already been revealed here that it is McKesson’s nott Ceentrecare whihc will be the service provider, and they have guaranteed professional, non-directive counselling, what iss the problem with funding, particularly since McKessons are already being used by and are recommended by ALP run State and Territory Governemnts. Why is it that Liberal use is bias, but ALP use isn’t?
That could be a very long list, FaceLift
I tend to agree with FaceLift here. As I said before, for any given Government tender, there shouldn’t be discrimination between organisations based on their religious or secular nature. Catholic and other religious bodies do lots of job placement work, for instance. It’s not really a matter of professional bias as I see it.
The critical issue isn’t who’s doing the phone counselling, it’s what the counselling is meant to achieve. Is the purpose to reduce the number of abortions or to provide useful counselling for the pregnant woman?
Clearly if the aim is to simply reduce the number of abortions, and provide counselling which doesn’t canvass abortion as an option, a Catholic service provider would be perfect for the task.
Oh, yeah. The internet might run out of <li></li> tags if we were to start down that path.
OK, Mark, let me rephrase that! Do you (Anna) have a problem with Tony Abbott’s Catholic ties? Rats! A tie with a picture of the pope might be problematic. Er, Do you have a bias against TA’s choice because he is a Catholic?
Anna can speak for herself, FaceLift. I’m a Catholic. I have no problem with Abbott being a Catholic. I do have a problem if his personal views shape his public choices and thus enable public policy to restrict citizens’ choices to act differently.
Evidently the former. The problem is that it’s going to be under the guise of the latter.
I have two problems, neither of which are as you’ve described, Facelift.
I already disagreed with silkworm – I have no problem with religious organisations getting contracts to perform services. I’m not anti-Catholic.
I have a problem with organisations that have in their charter items that stop them doing that job. Centacare is involved, and they have a charter that won’t allow them to go against Catholic teachings. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t abortion considered a mortal sin in Catholic teachings?
My second problem is the fact that what is being described as counselling is in the same breath described as an attempt to reduce abortions. That’s not counselling, it’s advocacy and public policy.
I’m afraid that women’s mental health is going to be put at risk, so that Abbott can get some of the pride back that he lost in the RU486 debate. No, it won’t happen to everyone who uses the service, but when there exist organisations that don’t have a problem validating any decision a pregnant woman might make, then I feel justified in being a bit cynical that Abbott didn’t choose any of them.
There’s a fairly infuriating thread happening over at The Australian.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/in_whom_do_we_trust_for_abortion_advice/”
Paul of Sydney makes the perfectly accurate point that the issue is one of value neutrality “that should be inherent in any counselling relationship”.
I think this is why many of the commenters seem to have problems with Centacare being involved Facelift. It doesn’t make us anti-religious. But utilising the services of an organisation whose core values system disagrees with one third of options available to pregnant women is NOT ensuring neutrality in counselling.
You might be interested to note that the Oz is also reporting that Centacare has been “enlisted as a provider of counselling services…”
It might not be the case that Centacare are providing direct counselling. But given their moral opposition to abortion, it seems absurd that they would be enlisted to provide support on the issue.
Crap. I have no idea why I messed up that link. Sorry eyes.
Fixed now.
Just paste in the link without any html syntax, audrey. There’s a plugin which converts it into a hyperlink.
You haven’t addressed the fact that McKessons are already being used and endorsed by the Western Australian, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Governments, which are all ALP run, as well as NZ which is Labor run. Could it be that they have been recommended, not on religious grounds, but because they have established credentials and the proven ability to facilitate the required counselling?
They aren’t being assisted by Centacare, Facelift.
Perhaps there won’t be any issues, but if you’d read the evidence of the transparency bill inquiry then you’d be worried too (or, you would if you thought that anti-abortion bias in non-directive counselling was a bad thing).
Some new revelations about the awarding of the tender:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/helpline-furore-widens/2007/01/03/1167777154175.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pregnancy-helpline-applicants-rated-on-philosophy/2007/01/03/1167777155934.html
I think Facelift has a point. Is the ‘anti-abortion bias’ of the xtians going to be significantly stronger than any ‘pro-abortion bias’ from the pro-choice guys? Can this even be quantified? Is there a QA system in place to evalutate impartiality, given that they don’t record counselling sessions?
Does anyone seriously think the xtians will give counselling like Scrubs.(Ok,this doesn’t really add to the debate, but it made me think of this sketch
)
SimonC – how exactly do you define “pro-abortion” bias? Do you know of any “pro-abortion” agencies who show women gruesome videos of labour in an attempt to scare them into abortions? Who tell them that pregnancy can lead to (probably permanent) mental dysfunction and suicidal thoughts? Who make up false medical claims about pregnancy?
They aren’t opposite things, but unfortunately these anti-choicers have got too many people thinking that way.
Pro-choice counsellors listen, help the woman come to her own decision and then validate her autonomy once she has made up her mind. Anti-choicers try to influence and are often not capable of validating the woman’s choice if it isn’t what they want her to choose. The fact that they might have to say to her “well, OK, you’ve chosen abortion, which I believe is a mortal sin. Here’s a number of someone who doesn’t think you’re going to hell” is enough of a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to provide emergency counselling for those who are genuinely undecided, or for those who need help ensuring that they’ve made the right call after the event.
Don’t feel like finding the post (on catallaxy’s monster OT thread), but didn’t someone dispute CL’s proposition that abortion was dangerous and mentally damaging, by saying that pregnancy was more dangerous and mentally damaging? Would a pro-choice councellor give the same information to councellee’s? Wouldn’t that bias someone’s decision?
Facelift has made the point, why do you think that an anti-abortion biased person is going to be any less biased than a pro-choice person? For example, Mark has mentioned he is catholic, do you automatically assume that if he was to counsel someone he would condemn them to hell eternal for an abortion? Why assume all xtians are bible-thumping fundamentalists?
No – if they are, there have been no complaints, as opposed to the mountains of complaints generated by clients of anti-choice agencies.
Furthermore, the whole issue is that they’re counsellors, not doctors. it isn’t their job to quote statistics at people without the medical expertise to properly explain what the stats mean.
The stats Steve provided are actually correct, btw. But because everyone knows heaps of people that have been pregnant and given birth those sorts of stats have less impact than stats about the dangers of abortion, because it’s more hidden, and often women feel they have to keep terminations private.
Precisely for the reason suggested in the two terms you used. One is opposed to one of the three options, the other is in favour of the woman making her own choice. Again – do you honestly think there are counsellors who are trying to discourage pregnancy? If there are, then they should be stopped from being counsellors too. I would never condone that, and I’m tired of people implying that I do.
First, Mark’s not a counsellor. I also know Mark enough to know that a. that isn’t what he believes, and b. he wouldn’t be so cruel to women.
I guess I can’t possibly say enough times that I’m not against Catholics working in public health roles, or any roles. I’m against people whose mission is to discourage abortion pretending to be non-directive counsellors.
Again, I don’t. I assume that people who have in their charter that they can’t go against Catholic teachings won’t be able to support and validate a woman who chooses abortion. Many individual counsellors are great despite this requirement, but not because of it.
Test
What dents your arguement somewhat, Anna, is the readily-available-on-investigation information that McKessons use ‘independent experts in fields of psychiatry, obstetrics and gynaecology’, have guaranteed ‘professional, non-directive counselling’, have a proven track record in telephone counselling, are recommended by ALP run State and Territory governments, and are already equipped to meet the needs of enquirers.
Your implication that they are sitting at the other end of the phoneline waiting to pounce on a pregnant woman considering an abortion to condemn them for a ‘mortal’ sin is unfounded. Your examples of potential abuses are anecdotal, and rather on the extreme end, and there are extremists in every field, but the majority of trained counsellors, as always, are careful, moderate and sensible, and aided by guidelines, protoculs and procedures. You’re scare-mongering, frankly, for political aims.
I always thought that, for a Catholic, confession of sin is confined to the confessional with a priest, not a telephone counsellor.
Confession is a Sacrament and can only be given by an ordained priest. Which has nothing to do with the phone counselling being commissioned by the Commonwealth.
Whatever, Facelift. I’m raising concerns that were great enough to warrant a Senate Inquiry. If you think that risking women’s mental health is unimportant then you don’t have to join the discussion, but it isn’t scare-mongering to say that I don’t think that Centacare etc should be involved.
You can keep repeating that McKessons are used at the state level, but it doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t working in conjunction with Centacare at the state level.
As for your last sentence – it’s nonsense. Talking about what should be is meaningless if it isn’t what happens in the real world.
Of course my involvement is political. That’s what I do. It’s what Abbott does. He made a political decision that I think is the wrong one and I’m saying so. Welcome to blogging.
I’m confused. What are these helplines actually supposed to do then? If they aren’t telling women about their options (all their options), and the relative risks of each of them, what is their purpose. Is it just a directory for medical centres, ultimately?
I think that is really the essence of my point. No, I don’t believe pro-choice councellors do that. Nor do I really believe that the impact of having a religious group advise a self-described impartial counselling service is going to lead frightened women being sermonised down the phone.
Oh I know it’s political, but how does it aid your political aims to alienate the Catholic vote with your strong, accusative stance?
If you don’t understand the difference between decisions counselling and medical practitioners then I can’t really help that, SimonC. Counsellors don’t give medical advice, they help people make life decisions, or process and deal with them after the event.
As for your second comment, I have mentioned the inquiry a few hundred times. If you don’t believe the evidence presented then fine. I hope you’re right. But I’m not optimistic.
Facelift, you seem to think that criticising is the same as alienating an entire group. Mark and Kim aren’t alienated. There are plenty of Catholics who are actually involved in this current fight who are on my side. They are a 2000 year old religion. I reckon they’ve coped with worse. Please stop with your persecution complex every time I post about anything to do with religious people or issues.
No one’s claiming that Centacare’s an insidious organisation whose ultimate purpose is to indoctrinate all and sundrey into the more dogmatic folds of Catholicism. The issue, Facelift et al, is that the official, government (read: separation of church and state) funded 24 hour hotline has as one of its advisory and support bodies an organisation that expresses 100% condemnation of the act of abortion (note that I don’t believe they all condemn the women, just the act – which is the salient point). The issue isn’t really even one of abortion, but of neutrality. Obviously there are going to be people of hardline opinions that can separately become counsellors and ’slip through the cracks’. The difference is that it isn’t an entire organisation that has been officially employed as an advisory body.
I think Anna’s been very clear throughout this debate that she doesn’t condemn Catholics or even pro-lifers (although I imagine she doesn’t understand them). What she’s concerned about is the fact that the Health Minister has deliberately involved a group that has as one of its core aims the intention of eradicating abortion – one of the three options available to pregnant women. The very act of doing so sends a message to women with accidental pregnancies. Even if a woman has made up her mind anyway, it’s not fair to have an abstract suggestion that what she’s doing is wrong.
The issue is with the government, not with the ability of Catholics to empathise.
Sorry Anna, I’m not accusing you of being unfeeling or blinkered. Personally *I* don’t understand pro-lifers either.
But I thought chicks were “understanding” and “empathic”?
I don’t have a persecution complex, but I do think it’s relevant to comment on religious issues if I think they’re controversial, or don’t give the right information or impression. The ABC, which should be neutral in its reporting, if not in its commentary, clearly left out some rather important information, wittingly or unwittingly, which presented the case in the wrong light, in my opinion, and you quoted them in your post, so I pointed those things out. I think that’s the reason people blog, isn’t it?
If you’d prefer that I don’t have an opinion on your posts, then just say the word.
No Facelift, you know what I meant. Criticise away, but stop behaving as though I’m damning an entire religion along with all of its adherents every time I share my view.
Well, I would hope that everyone was aiming to eradicate abortion, ultimately. It is a particularly damaging process, both mentally and physically. I just don’t think that banning or restricting access to abortion is the most efficient or humane method.
Well, I would hope that everyone was aiming to eradicate religion, ultimately. It is a particularly damaging process, both mentally and physically. I just don’t think that banning or restricting access to religion is the most efficient or humane method.
really Simon? Have you had a termination? I would agree that we should aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But while people are still having sex there will always be some unwanted pregnancies and an aim of ‘eradicating abortion’ is inhumane and revolting in my book. I really don’t think that most women find termination ‘particularly damanging’, stressful no doubt, but mainly an enourmous relief.
silkworm, I can’t believe you’ve stayed out of the debate over whether Jesus really existed over at Catallaxy:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2273
Banning and restricting access to religion has never worked anyway. Churches just go underground and take the risk of being discovered, persecuted or murdered for their faith, as in China and N Korea. In fact the N Korean experience should tell anyone that a godless, man-exalting society breeds wierddom, poverty and atrocities.
Banning and restricting access to abortion has never worked anyway, FaceLift. Women just die in the process.
Well, I don’t think I’ve argued for banning or restricting access to abortion on this thread, Mark, so I don’t know what brought that on! Maybe you’re prejudging my arguement.
But since you mention it, what I would like to see is more accountability, more access to abortion figures, leqadeing, hopefully to fewer convenience abortions, if in fact there are any, because we don’t know for sure because there are no accurate figures in most states, so no one really knows, which means, in effect, from my perspective, which is, granted, different to yours or Anna’s, being equally compassionate towards the mother and child, if there are convenience terminations which are unaccounted for, unborn children just die in the process.
And remember this, for every illegal abortion where a woman died in the process, a child died in the process, and a back-street abortionist committed a double murder.
I meant the motivations of some of the people who support Centacare’s involvement in all this, FaceLift – eg Cardinal Pell.
We don’t have to ban churches, just tax them like any other business.
Re Jesus, I’m not particularly concerned about debating his existence. For me the issue is settled. Jesus is a myth. The question is – what is the origin of the myth?
I am currently researching the Flavian Christ thesis of Joe Atwill. Atwill’s take on the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus) is very controversial, and it’s causing me a rethink. I used to hold that the TF was a forgey by Eusebius, but now I’m warming to Atwill’s analysis. Atwill argues for a fictional Jesus but he accepts the Testimonium Flavianum as actually written by Josephus, but as a fiction, to be read in conjunction with the gospels, which were also written as fiction by Josephus and other intellectuals in Titus Flavius’ circle of intellectuals.
In this scenario, Jesus is a satirical figure, based partially on the figure of Jesus ben Ananias, who, according to Josephus, apparently began to prophesy the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 62 CE, but mostly on the figure of Titus Flavius himself, who sacked the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.
Atwill’s thesis explains why the first archaeological evidence of the Christian religion was found in Flavian catacombs, and why Pope Clement, the first historical pope in Atwill’s opinion, was also a Flavian. Peter, the supposed first pope, was another satirical invention of the Flavians. Peter was really Simon, a Jewish rebel leader who was captured trying to tunnel through rock (‘peter’) to escape the besieged Jerusalem. He was transported to Rome and executed.
Lazarus is another satirical invention, based on the real figure of Eleazar ben Simon, the messianic leader of the rebels whom Titus defeated at Masada in 73 CE.
Assessing Tender APplications is a complex process, and a number as factors come into play, not the least is a demonstrated track record in sucessfully doing what is required in the Tender. This is not as self-evident as it may appear, and all the ideologies in the world wont help when inexperienced project managers are unable to deliver a functional project/service. It is important to keep in mind also, that just because an organisation receives Govt Funding for a particular program does not mean other programs auspiced by that org necessarily meet the aims of a specific funding round.
I’ve been fortunate to meet some wonderful staff who work at Qlds Children by Choice and great people who work at Centacare. i’ve found virually all senior staff to be personally and professionaly reflective, compassionate and respectful, and people for whom i have great respect.
However all organisations have histories, biases and frameworks for practice that reflect their value base, as is their right as autonomous not-for-profit organisations, and these two are no different. No human service work occurs in a vaccuum.
Where Centacare has to deal with the critique of having an anti-abortion pro-family/life/parenthood bias, CBC has to deal with the vestiges of its public persona as an pro-choice with a pro-abotion bias. In practice i think both of them have moved forward from such simplistic notions, but that is not to say certain ‘options’ around the ‘3′ pregnacy options arent ‘underemphasised’.
I dont think i need to illustrate this in Centacare’s case as those up-thread have pointed these out far more articulately than I ever could .
However, take a close look at the CBC website and you will discover that while affirming information aroung counselling and support is offered before and after terminations, the information provided for adoption is very uinlikey to make a women feel affirmed and supported in this choice, and, unlike termination, comprehensive and women affirming pre-and post adoption or childbith/parenting support is not offered by the agency for women who make this decision, (they are referred off site to the DOCS or COmmunity Health etc).
I doubt they are even aware of the subtle bias that permeates the website, which is more likely to be a remnant of the decades of advocacy that lay behind the fight to even give women choice in the first place, or perhaps its as simple as lack of funding.
(IF i was consulting to CBC i would be interested in exploring this with them, looking at the (unintentional ?) ommissions and assisting them to come up with strategies and funding to overcome this service gap. If i was assessing them for funding, i would flag this with them as much as the Catholics blind spots.)
Many of you may not be aware that Lifeline (who i think also placed a tender) has had significant experience in the area of National Phone Helplines as they provide the National Domestic Violence Helpline (the Australia Says No campaign). Operationally they act as a national one stop brief counselling and referral service. Should a women call that number and require Refuge, she is switched through to the State-wide DV service for that her state. THe model for these statewide services vary from Gt provided and operated (NSW) to Not for Profits with a variety of funding sources (Qld). ) A referral fee is paid to the referring service by the National service for each client referred to them.
While i am not privy to this info, it would seem safe to assume Lifelines ‘demonstrated experience’ in providing a national 24h Domestic Violence Helpline would have impacted somewhat upon this most recent tender process.
Cowgirl, you identify which side you are on by the language you use.
Instead of the term “anti-abortion” I would use the term “anti-choice”. And I would never use the term “pro-abortion bias” – that is not the public perception of CBC but your own personal religious bias.
I’m pro choice for the record.
Exactly. The presumption that women are damaged by abortion has been perpetuated by the implication that they SHOULD feel mentally scarred.
A few months ago I spoke at a women’s conference in Adelaide on how the Howard Government’s policies impacted upon women. After speaking about my own guilt-free, ‘convenient’ abortion I had many, many women approach me to reiterate exactly what I had said: that I felt nothing but relief and thanks that I could still access free, safe and legal abortion in my country. Most of these same women told me they had never admitted to feeling relief before because they felt that to do so would be considered callous.
I’m not saying it’s representative of all women – just that I think the overwhelming testimonies of ‘regret’ are largely inflated.
Facelift, my abortion was one of convenience. I didn’t want the child, couldn’t care for it and felt my life would be changed in a way I wasn’t prepared to accept. I don’t feel guilty about it. Should I?
No, you shouldn’t Audrey.
No-one in their right mind would want what Facelift is suggesting: that doctors make women outline their reasons for wanting a termination so that it could be recorded and placed on the public record so that moralising busybodies can hold a referendum on who’s worthy and who is not.
That’s for you to determine, audrey.
I don’t think you can ‘inflate’ a testimony of regret. Either a person regrets or they don’t, that’s all.
I have a problem with a society where abortion which saves the life of a woman chnages into abortion which saves the lifestyle of a woman. That’s just my opinion. Your conscience is your affair.
Have you ever thought, Anna, that since abortion, for many of us, is a matter of the life or death of a child, as well as an inconvenience for the woman, and a higher degree of accountability than we presently have might actually encourage more women (and men) to take more adequate care not to fall pregnant if they know they don’t want to, given that there are numerous ways to avoid pregnancy?
I agree that having to outline reasons for termination is awful and intrusive, but the high rate of abortion is alarming. There must be accountibility for life and death. If you can come up with a better idea, I’m listening. But I don’t think you value the life inthe womb as much as many of us do. They’re just a blob of cells, eh!
I wasn’t going to enter into this debate on these lines, since there will be a line drawn and we’ll shout across it at one another. It is imperitive, however to do all we can to lower the amount of abortions taking place, don’t you think?
Well, exactly. If the Mad Monk wants to lessen the number of abortions, why doesn’t he channel all that crusading energy and taxpayers’ money into preventing unwanted pregnancies?
… Oh. Sorry. As you were.
Facelift:
So is her abortion. Mind your own business.
PC,
Did I say something about audries’ abortion? She asked me a question, and I replied.
The problem with discussion about these issues arises when (men? people with another point of view about abortion?) are told to butt out. It’s rude and uncalled for.
Well, yes. An embryo or foetus is certainly not self conscious and doesn’t fear its impending death. It’s no more wrong than killing a turkey for Christmas lunch. And, I would say, significantly less wrong as an unwanted child is likely going to lead a not very nice life – better not to bring it into the world.
If, by lifestyle, you mean her ability to continue operating as an equal member of society (biology isn’t destiny!), then I would say that that is very important indeed.
pipsickle,
Tell that to the turkey!
I’m sorry, but being unwanted is not a strong enough motive for ‘killing’ (your term). Many unwanted children have developed into extremely important citizens. Unwanted pregnancies taken to full term more often than not turn into wanted and much enjoyed children once they arrive into the world.
I’m sure the following arguements will be familiar territory for everyone, and I think it would be better to ease up, as I have no desire to engage in a fruitless debate with you wonderful ladies!
audrey apple and pipsickle: Well then, the debate is over! If there are no mentally-damaging side effects from abortion, then there will be no need for a 24hr emergency councelling phone line.
Centacare can believe what it likes. No-one will be calling the phone lines, they will be secure in their life choices.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the 24 hour phone line is for women who are deciding what to do about unexpected pregnancy. That means that they are being counselled about their options, not about mental ‘damage’ after having terminated a pregnancy. I think that an unexpected pregnancy is a stressful event for any woman and good counselling services in coming to a decision are important. That’s not the same as saying that most women who have abortions are mentally damaged by the experience.
One of the problems people have with Centacare being a part of this phoneline, is that this service won’t ‘validate’ their choice to terminate. If women are largely happy with this choice (and I’m not saying they aren’t) then this worry is baseless, as they will not need this validation. They just need information.
If its about information, then anyone can provide that. As long as QA ensures that they are giving women equal access to abortion services (do they give out referrals, contact info, or is this just a chat?) then why does it matter that the person on the other end of the line is being advised by a group that would like to eradicate one of the options you have?
Psst Hey Facelift,
SimonC stop being ridiculous. This can’t be too hard for you to understand, so I can’t help but think you are doing it on purpose.
There’s a difference between trying to decide what’s best for you, and being comfortable with the decision once you’ve made it. There are plenty of life decisions I’ve made that took a lot of soul-searching, but once made I didn’t regret.
Facelift, I’ll make the same comment to you as I did to whyisitso: this isn’t a thread about the rightness of abortion. For now it’s a legal option in most states, and that’s the situation the counselling service paid for by the government needs to deal with. I don’t want this thread being sidetracked with an abortion debate.
Sublime Cowgirl: your point about CbyC is an interesting one, but I don’t agree. Yes, adoption doesn’t take up much space on their site, but that’s for a few reasons.
Firstly, they provide more info about abortion because it’s something that women find it difficult to find good information about. They have no hesitations in referring women to adoption services if they need it, but as you said, limited resources mean they don’t pay for experts in another field that’s already well covered.
Secondly, there is a difference between not highlighting, and actively discouraging or lying about. It isn’t highlighted partly because most women who choose adoption are the kind of women who usually don’t consider abortion. Yet another reason for truth in advertising – so that women who don’t want to consider abortion can choose the service that’s right for them. But mostly it’s because CbyC counsellors are primarily – as is this new phoneline – about helping women who’ve just discovered they’re pregnant. She has 9 months of pregnancy to really consider the adoption issue. At the early stages, there’s really only two options to decide between: continuing or terminating the pregnancy. That’s why properly advertising anti-abortion services are a much more urgent issue.
Thanks hannah, but I’m of the school which takes heed to Jesus’ words in Matthew 24, “If anyone says to you, Look, here’s Christ, or there he is; don’t believe what they’re saying, because false Christs’ will arise…” Mr Atwill and his adherants are evidently wasting thier time on one of them!
Anna,
Already agreed to! Twice!
Sorry! First link again!
Anna: I understand the problem as you describe it. I just fail to see how having a group, Centacare, advising another separate counselling entity, which prides itself on impartial non-directive counselling, is going to have any measurable negative effect on the counselling experience of the client.
If anything, I would recommend an extensive QA system to ensure this impartiality, rather than just assume the evil xtians will try to warp the naive minds of fragile women using their guilt rays.
Anna: I understand the problem as you describe it. I just fail to see how having a group, Centacare, advising another separate counselling entity, which prides itself on impartial non-directive counselling, is going to have any measurable negative effect on the counselling experience of the client.
If anything, I would recommend an extensive QA system to ensure this impartiality, rather than just assume the evil xtians will try to warp the naive minds of fragile women using their guilt rays.
Facelift [and Silkworm].
Sorry, I erred, the suggestion to visit Internet Infidels should have been addressed to Silkworm, not you.
Would it be fair to say that Centacare does the same – that is , refer out to experts in termination rather than get involved themselves ?
I think its quite a jump to assume the practice framework of a proposed service when we havent seen the tender..
i’m not sure that this assumption necessarily holds true these days…
These things are evolving processes. Adoption does not always occur in the immediate period after birth. One could be forgiven if looking at the info provided, if it all just isn;t too hard and complex. It is clearly stated that disabled children are “not in demand’ and unlike the termination option, there is an omission of examples of succesful outcomes of women who choose to adopt or parent after an unplanned pregnancy.
Anna, i’m FOR transparecy in advertising around pregnancy options for women. I’m not particularly comfortable with the catholic framework necessarily , but argue all services have bias. Options is the key word here. For me being Pro-Choice means I have the right to choose from all available options, and to have my choice supported and made possible with the most possible support /technology and understanding available.
A look at the questions the CBC site asks pregnant women to consider when deciding on their options would appear heavily weighted toward termination and omitts any positive and profound impacts that parenthood can bring, especially over the long term. There is also no mention that i can find of the issue of age related fertility decline, and how that needs to be factored into our choices.
Perhaps if these issues werent addressed in their application, than could that explain why they missed out?
The catholics do not have a monopoly on bias; I have opinions, you have opinions and we all bring them to any discussion on this topic. I guess i am just interested in finding ways we can present more balanced and affirming services for all women, and understand why different services may have been sucessful (or not) in their tender.
Thanks, hannah. I checked out Internet Infidels yesterday, but couldn’t find any mention of Atwill there. I’ve just joined Atwill’s forum and left a message there, but he seems to be on holidays at the moment. FWIW, jesusneverexisted.com has been down for the last two weeks. That’s a great pity because it was the best anti-xian resource around, bar none. Maybe the xians hacked it.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you weren’t for transparency, SC – my argument was just about a. why anti-abortion agencies are often worse in terms of not just minimising, but actively lying and discouraging one choice, and b. that an anti-adoption bias, if it exists, is less of an urgent problem given timeframes.
But as for this:
- my point is that they aren’t the same issue.
The issue with CbyC is about lack of information. The possible problem with Centacare is an attempt to actively discourage one option.
That said, of all the possible choices I agree that Centacare is one of the least bad. But having followed the senate inquiry closely, I don’t think the concerns being raised are unfair.
Silkworm
Try this link
post #4 will get you to more threads.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187373&highlight=atwill%20josephus%20rome
Response to Tony Abbott’s “counselling”:
“Abortion Access and Information”
http://www.abortion.org.au
It has all the information women need:
*Abortion clinics list
*Links to pro choice organizations
*About anti-abortion propaganda
*How to recognize deceptive anti sites
*Articles about abortion and religion
AND proof that pro lifers also want to ban contraception!
PS The Bible is Pro Choice!
Don’t take my word for it, click here
http://www.abortion.org.au/abortionbible.htm
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT (in arm)
THAT IS – SAFE – 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?
Ask your doctor…………….
World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million. (likely 55 to 60 million)
I am a pro-lifer, who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong. You see we were all once a fetus.
Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term you can consider yourself lucky.
Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you.
Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.
Many people say that life begins at birth, and prior to birth all you have is a clump of cells or a fetus and not a living human being.
Soon after you were conceived you were no more than a clump of cells.
This clump of cells was you at your earliest stage, you had plenty of growing to do but this clump of cells was you none the less.
Think about it.
Aren’t you glad you were left unhindered…. to develope further.
Safe inside your mother’s womb until you were born.
Want to know how to find humanity-?
True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.
Until we do we are no more than an uncivilisation,
with all the uncivilised things that we do…
The rhythm method depends for its success on creating unviable embryos. In other words, the Catholics who use this method are really practising abortion. Bwah ha ha ha ha.
response to ausblog:
What if my mother had decided to abstain the month I was conceived? That would mean that the egg that resulted in me would have ended up in her sanitary napkins and in the rubbish bin! What if the egg which resulted in me, had been fertilized by sperm no. 989 231 45 instead of sperm no. 723 491, would I still be the same person?
http://www.abortion.org.au/whenhuman.htm
I would have thought that those who argue that life begins at conception have a major logical problem on their hands. Are not both the sperm and the egg alive!
Question,
should a woman be able to have an abortion when her partner doesn’t want her to.
I think she has an onus to discuss it with him, and if there is disagreement seek a mediator. But in the end, it is the woman’s choice.
Last question –
What does the law say in relation to a man that assults his partner by repetedly punching her in the abdomen,causing a miscariage because she wouldn’t have an abortion?
Surely more than just a common assult on the said partner.
I understand that up until recently it was assault in NSW. However, I recall (and I may be mistaken) that the Law was changed as a result of a dangerous driving charge in which a women lost he unborn child.
Mary,
all the “what if’s” are irrelevant, facts are you were conceived,your mother carried you and you were born,
aren’t you glad of that?
Jade,
egg sperm = human being.
egg sperm =human being
egg plus sperm = human being
That may be true, but it does not follow that life begins at conception.
egg sperm – human being simply does not mean anything.
Fertilized single cell is simply not a human anymore that a sperm or an egg is a human. And it is certainly possible to produce a human from the egg only.
Life does not begin at conception.
Now you may be for abortion, you may be against it – there are very good arguments on both sides
But you statement does not mean anything.
Although abortion provides complicated issues, I think there is a more difficult issue that society rarely discusses.
The IVF programme is technologically driven, without proper concern for the social implications for the child and the families, and friends, involved. The donation of an egg to an otherwise infertile mother has ramifications at a social level for all involved. There may be some success stories, but they would surely be in the minority, if there are any successes at all. The ones I have encountered are major disasters.