Let’s have some common sense on abortion laws
|
Nobody likes abortion. For Family Planners, having a patient who needs an abortion means that their contraceptive advice has failed either because the patient did not comply, or because the method was less than 100 percent effective. For women who are in the position of needing an abortion, they are in a “lose-lose” situation — whatever decision they make has negative consequences. Continuing with an unplanned pregnancy may have serious social and economic consequences for the woman, the child, her family and her partner. On the other hand, no woman likes to have to undergo an abortion, and many do so with reservations. In my 35 years of clinical experience, I have found that no woman makes the decision to have an abortion light-heartedly. Under the current law, we have to add to the negative feelings the fear that under The Victorian Crimes Act, they may be performing an “unlawful act”. It is therefore in the public interest for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, and for the air of criminality be removed from pregnancy termination. It has always been said that “there are no votes in abortion” so Premier Brumby should be congratulated for his decision to introduce this Bill. It was disappointing that there was so little support from the Opposition with, according to media reports, only five opposition MHRs supporting the Bill. Will passing this Bill open the flood gates for abortions in Victoria? No, of course not. Despite abortion being currently unlawful, it has been readily available in Melbourne for all my working life. Decriminalising it will at least remove some stress from the unfortunate women who have to make this difficult decision. Recently there has been publicity about the difficulty Catholic hospitals would have if the Act was passed. The Catholic Church has a significant role in providing health care in this State, especially in obstetrics, and the quality of care they provide is of extremely high standard. No-one would wish for this to be compromised. All clinicians have to provide healthcare that they may not personally approve of, but our duty is to do what is best for our patients. A doctor who has a personal opposition to abortion cannot and must not inflict his or her views on a patient who has no such beliefs. If a doctor or nurse is put in a “conflict of conscience” situation, he or she should refer that patient to another colleague/hospital. Similarly no doctor or nurse should be required to take part in an abortion procedure if they have a moral objection. This situation is already clear in the training of O & G specialists. One can only hope that common sense will prevail in the Legislative Council, so that the Bill can be passed in both Houses, and abortion can disappear from The Crimes Act. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
What an inane and offensive remark James. No-one likes car accidents, or tax returns either, but there are plenty of them every year too. If a professor with 35 years clinical experience tells me that no woman makes the decision to have an abortion light-heartedly, I believe her. And your emotive language (“kill” a pregnancy) adds nothing to the debate.
Professor Kovacs’ comment was predictable. He argues that abortion should not be considered to be an unlawful act. In doing so, he completely ignores the fact that abortion results in the termination of life of a developing human being. He does not even acknowledge that the life of another human being – a totally innocent defenceless human being — is in question. This is discrimination in the extreme against the unborn.
Furthermore, given his teaching role in medicine, his view compromises the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. Traditionally, doctors pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine, have taken the Hippocratic Oath, which disallows harming the unborn.
For those who don’t know, Professor Kovacs is also a leader in the provision of IVF services to couples who desperately want children but have trouble conceiving. So he sees both extremes when it comes to pregnancies. I commend his well-written article injecting a bit of common sense into all the hyperbole written around this issue. I sincerely doubt any woman ever really wants an abortion but sometimes she sees it as the least bad option in a particular circumstance.
IN 2003 the estimated number of abortions in Australia was 84 460 according to Medical Journal of Australia and this almost certainly an underestimate by their own admission.
Seems incredibly popular for an illegal act that “Nobody likes”.
I’m sure all those women who make this awful choice will feel so much better after that the Victorian Legislative Council passes into law a ‘freedom’ to kill their pregnancies up to very very (read: extremely) late in their pregnancies…….
“onya dickhead” says the ever ‘intelligent’ contributor Michael.
Perhaps you should say that to individuals who as a ‘foetus’ have survived an ‘abortion’ attempt on their life.
Of course you would be unable to say that to the 99.999% of ‘foetuses’ who are successfully killed because they never make it to ‘individual’ status even when they are paerfectly medically viable………
so no problem there then………
You are a class act Michael……
Who really is the “dickhead”?
.
In her predictable, simpering defence of the proposed decriminalisation bill proposed by the Victorian Government, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Gab Kovacs forgets the very people she presumably signed up to help when she was an idealistic student many years ao - the babies.
There is one simple question on this issue that is usually ignored, but without which any debate or discussion about abortion is meaningless - ‘At what stage of development does human life begin?’
If the answer is ‘At birth’, then killing the baby after this is murder. If the answer is ‘At some artibrary period before birth (say, 25 weeks)’, then killing the baby after this is murder. If the answer is ‘at conception’, then killing the baby after this is murder.
Please answer that question, then let your conscience, not someone’s convenience, be your guide.
Very good article, thank you. It’s obviously a very emotional and morally fraught area, but I always think choice (with appropriate safeguards) HAS to be the best option.
@JamesK - no, they’ll still feel awful, but at least they won’t be criminals. As for the likes of you, you won’t actually make any difference one way or the other - apart for making them feel worse still. No doubt that’s your intention, good onya dickhead.
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTATORS:
It’s clear that Little Jimmy K thrives on the limelight……any limelight………even that afforded to a witless, right wing, racist bigot such as he.
The best way to eliminate Tiny Jimmy’s facile commentary, or at least reduce it, is not to mention his name at all, or respond to his silly arguments.
Hopefully this tactic will rid us all, both left & right wing commentators, of his increasingly tiresome, low rent ramblings…this time, about abortion
PS: I get the impression that Mini Jimmy sees himself as a big-time ’ player’ on the commentary scene……….yes… really !!!!! You know the type……the one who thought that by bombarding political science tutes with his facile views, he would be seen as a stand-out student.
Abortion psychologically harms some women. We have evidence from Professor Fergusson, a research psychologist who has described himself as an atheist, rationalist and pro choice, that young women who have abortions are at increased risk of developing depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol abuse You can read about his study by googling ” Sydney Morning Herald Fergusson Abortion”, We also have a finnish study which found that post abortion women are more likely to commit suicide than those who carry their pregnancies to term.
Pro choice ethicist Daniel Callahan has admitted that at least 30% of women are coerced into abortion by their boyfriend, husband, family etc ( he was using statistics supp[lied by the research arm of Planned PArenthood, Americas largest abortion provider).
In light of this information, one would think that the proposed Abortion Bill, if it truly wanted to help women. would contain anti coercion measures, such as a cooling off period. One would think that women should have to give informed consent to having an abortion, they should be warned that some women have adverse psychological reactions. Perhaps the women who are mentally traumatised by abortion tend to be those who are cooerced into it by other people.
women should access to :information about womens refuges, public housing, material and practical support, maternal and child nurses so that those who don’t want to have an abortion, have a real choice
Feminists should realise that easily accessible abortion allows irresponsible men, who dont want to shoulder their responsibilities, ( e.g. 18 years of child support payments), the opportuntiy to hound and threaten women into aborting their babies, against their will.
health professionals should not be forced to violate their conscience. Let pro abortion health professionals kill babies. 20,000 BABIES DIE IN VICTORIA EVERY YEAR. so it means women have no trouble finding doctors who are happy to kill their babies.
It’s not an illegal act, in fact it’s much more accessible in most Australian jurisdictions than it is in Victoria. Also, there are many reasons for wanting a termination without, you know, really liking abortion… unless perhaps you have access to evidence of widespread recreational pregnancy termination?
I stand corrected. I retract my lazy “illegal act” and replace it with the obviously politically yoked Professor Gab Kovacs’ terminology: “unlawful act”.
Feeling ‘recreationally’ more at ease now with 20 - 30% (possibly underestimated) of pregnancies terminated Lucy?
Oh and lawfully…
“I believe her” - sorry, him.