Now, really. This article grabs you in on the premise that the proposed legalisation of abortion in the State of Victoria might not go through after all. Being Pro-Choice and having signed the petition to get this bill introduced in the first place, I was intrigued, and not a little confused.
Why I would worry that anything written in the Herald Sun might be accurate, I don’t know.
The first thing I noticed was this quote “This week, the Herald Sun contacted every MP, asking if they supported the proposed Bill to allow Victorian women to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks.
After that, an abortion could still occur but only with the consent of two doctors.”
No, no, NO. An “abortion” could not occur. A TERMINATION could. There’s a difference. A women who is required to undergo a termination for medical reasons does not undergo an abortion. She undergoes a termination.
Problem the second:
“The survey found that, of 128 MPs, 31 said "yes", just two days after Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand introduced the Bill to the Lower House. Twenty-three rejected the proposal, 13 were undecided and 61 did not respond.”
You cannot extrapolate statistical data on a decision in the Lower House when just under half of the MPs did not respond. Nor can you claim from your survey that “Abortion Bill faces struggle in Victoria”
Oh, but it gets better. This has to be the best quote I’ve seen from a Pro-Life proponent during this issue thus far:
“Upper House Liberal member Matthew Guy said it would be a sad day if the Bill became law.
"Tail-docking a dog would be illegal, putting a lobster in boiling water would be illegal, but it will be legal to abort a six-month-old child if this Bill passes," he said”
First, putting a lobster in boiling water is not illegal. Putting a live lobster in boiling water might be (Although I don’t think it is), but putting a lobster in boiling water is not.
Secondly, six-month-old child? I know the usual pro-life technique of replacing the medical terminology for embryo or fetus to ramp-up the emotive component of the argument, but what you’re actually suggesting there, Matthew Guy, is that pro-choice advocates (and this bill) are pushing for the legal murder of a six-month-old child.
Ah, No. This bill advocates for legal abortion up to 24 weeks. We’re not advocating for legal abortion up to 66 weeks. We aren’t advocating for the legal “abortion” of a child six months after it is born.
The pro-life movement is never going to be taken seriously or have any credibility whilst it’s deliberately misusing terms, engaging in deception and replacing facts and figures with emotive, incorrect terminology.
MP’s of Victoria, please give the women of your constituencies the right to choose. The right to decide what happens to their bodies. Enshrine in law our Reproductive rights.
Oh, and while you’re at it, ban the damn wingnuts from within 50 metres of Family Planning clinics. Women who are facing difficult choices should not have to endure harassment.
Morning Rant Over.
Bleeding arse and a snot bubble
40 minutes ago