Friday, August 22, 2008

A big fat tick for factually incorrect reporting

Here

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.

22 comments:

Magic Bellybutton said...

Six month old child.

WTF??? Wankers.

kej - kicking arse and taking names!

Keri said...

Piffle, MBB.

Just an angry little gnome when it comes to this issue.

The Editor said...

Great post, Keri.

Keri said...

Ta, Ed!

Cassandra said...

Here from ICLW...

Since abortion is such a contentious issue in the US, I always find it interesting to see how the issue is dealt with in other countries. Unfortunately in this case, it seems that your politicians can be as clueless as ours.

Keri said...

That's very true, Cassandra. Politicians rarely continue to do the right thing after they realize that it makes them more vunerable to do so.

Although I'm not sure whether I can assume that means you are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I find it's best not to assume.

Iain Hall said...

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.
It is a democracy Keri , even in deep dark Victoria, and if something can't get support from the parliament it certainly should not become law.

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.

What is it with the Pro-choice advocates and the use of euphemisms? can't you take responsibility for the killing that you are advocating?

“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”

Fair enough criticism of the interpretation of the survey results

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.

His point that is even obvious to this Queenslander is that the pro-abortion camp are more concerned about protecting animals from cruelty than protecting the unborn from arbitrary execution for the crime of being "inconvenient".

Secondly, six-month-old child? I know the usual pro-life technique of replacing the medical terminology for embryo or foetus 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.
Your second point though is just another example of how Pro-abortion advocates insist on denying the truth of what you are advocating, which is the killing of unborn children. Now I accept that there are times that an abortion can be justified but I don't accept that the reality of it should ever be denied.

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.

Now who is wilfully distorting what Matthew Guy is saying? But it begs the question when do you think that the unborn gain enough humanity to be considered worthy of the protection of the law like every other Victorian?

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.

Why should the pro arbitrary death( for the unborn) advocates have the right to determine the way that language is used in this debate? But if you were being as fair and balanced as you like to think you are you would be admitting that when it comes to abortion that there are competing imperatives, especially later in the gestation when it becomes harder to deny the humanity of the unborn as you are trying to do with your insistence that only your chosen terms are valid in what is an important ethical question.

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.

Your problem is that it is NOT just a question of anyone's "reproductive rights" it is also about at the rights of the unborn not to be considered less than human when they are "inconvenient"

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.

Oh please why is it that those on the left are so keen to curtail the right of citizens to protest? Must be that totalitarian tendency that George Orwell warned us about

Keri said...

It is a democracy Keri , even in deep dark Victoria, and if something can't get support from the parliament it certainly should not become law.

In 'deep, dark Victoria', there's been absolutely no indication of any 'struggle' with numbers in the Lower House to pass this law. THAT'S why I was confused. There's been absolutely no reports from any source - pro choice or life - suggesting there's any chance it won't go through.

What is it with the Pro-choice advocates and the use of euphemisms? can't you take responsibility for the killing that you are advocating?

There's a big difference between an early term abortion and a late term MEDICALLY NECESSARY termination, Iain. I was pointing out that this article made no such distinction.

And neither did you when you used the word 'killing' to refer to it.

Are you suggesting that a woman who is advised by her doctor to have a termination for medical reasons is a killer? Are you calling my mother a killer for terminating her pregnancy because my sister had anencephaly? Are you suggesting that women who have pre-eclampsia or HELPP and have a termination to save their life are killers?

I didn't think even you were that thoroughly offensive, Iain.

I absolutely will point out when ignorant, foolish people - or worse, media organisations - fail to make that distinction. Because every woman who faces that choice and mourns their loss deserves that someone does when they see it.

His point that is even obvious to this Queenslander is that the pro-abortion camp are more concerned about protecting animals from cruelty than protecting the unborn from arbitrary execution for the crime of being "inconvenient".

First, both you and Guy leap head-long to the conclusion that all pro-CHOICE advocates are 'more concerned with animal cruelty' than human life.

Secondly, you assume that all abortions are because of convenience. Because for pro-life advocates to acknowledge that at least some of the time that isn't true, you have to admit there are exceptions. And if you admit there are exceptions, suddenly it's something you look at on a case by case basis.

And if you look at it case-by-case, suddenly it isn't always wrong. But right now, the law doesn't reflect that.

Your second point though is just another example of how Pro-abortion advocates insist on denying the truth of what you are advocating, which is the killing of unborn children. Now I accept that there are times that an abortion can be justified but I don't accept that the reality of it should ever be denied.

No, it's an example of how replacing medical terms with emotive language muddies the issue and - more to the point - is deceptive. The term he uses is completely incorrect. He refers to a child already born rather than the correct term - featus. I didn't cone up with the term, the medical fraternity did.

Now who is wilfully distorting what Matthew Guy is saying? But it begs the question when do you think that the unborn gain enough humanity to be considered worthy of the protection of the law like every other Victorian?

Pfft. Coming from the man who's spent God only knows how long telling me the meaning is in the reading? He said 'a six-month-old child' His words, not mine. He's the one wilfully, deliberately, misusing terms, not me.

Why should the pro arbitrary death( for the unborn) advocates have the right to determine the way that language is used in this debate? But if you were being as fair and balanced as you like to think you are you would be admitting that when it comes to abortion that there are competing imperatives, especially later in the gestation when it becomes harder to deny the humanity of the unborn as you are trying to do with your insistence that only your chosen terms are valid in what is an important ethical question.

I'm being fair and balanced by doing what I always do and insisting on correct terminology, Iain.

And you, in return, call me 'Pro-Death'. Yep, I can see the balance in that.

Your problem is that it is NOT just a question of anyone's "reproductive rights" it is also about at the rights of the unborn not to be considered less than human when they are "inconvenient"

Actually, that isn't my problem. My problem is that you think you have the right to call me or anyone else 'Pro-Death'.

My problem is that you think you have the right to tell women they are killers when they make difficult choices - sometimes, in the best interests of their unborn children.

That's my damn problem, Iain.

Oh please why is it that those on the left are so keen to curtail the right of citizens to protest? Must be that totalitarian tendency that George Orwell warned us about

Those with compassion, not just those on the left, realise that it's ridiculous to have to run a gauntlet of wingnuts - and they are wingnuts, Iain, i've stood outside and watched them - to get to a medical facility. Regardless of what services that clinic provides.

Especially since those wingnuts have shown themselves perfectly capable of criminal violence themselves. The defence rally I attended? Was outside the same clinic where a wing-nut shot dead a security guard. The wing-nut who shot the Security guard was a member of the same group of wing-nuts who still harass people there today. And the reason we were there whn we were is because the month before they'd used their childrens prams as battering rams.

That's how pro-life those wingnuts are. That's how much they love children, Iain.

And that's why I want them banned from within a reasonable distance of the clinic in question. Safety, not some leftist conspiracy to halt their free speech.

Iain Hall said...



In 'deep, dark Victoria', there's been absolutely no indication of any 'struggle' with numbers in the Lower House to pass this law. THAT'S why I was confused. There's been absolutely no reports from any source - pro choice or life - suggesting there's any chance it won't go through.


The experience with such conscience votes on abortion is that the result nearly always a close run thing so I would not count your chickens until they are hatched.

There's a big difference between an early term abortion and a late term MEDICALLY NECESSARY termination, Iain. I was pointing out that this article made no such distinction.

And neither did you when you used the word 'killing' to refer to it.


I am being literally correct her KerI, using the appropriate terminology, before an abortion the foetus is alive and afterwards it is dead, so the person doing the procedure and the person consenting to it are killing that foetus. This is a fact beyond dispute, even by you. While I agree that there are occasions when such things can be justified for medical reasons that does not give us the right to flippantly dismiss the humanity of the foetus or pretend that its forcible removal from the womb is not killing it.

Are you suggesting that a woman who is advised by her doctor to have a termination for medical reasons is a killer? Are you calling my mother a killer for terminating her pregnancy because my sister had anencephaly? Are you suggesting that women who have pre-eclampsia or HELPP and have a termination to save their life are killers?

Well of course I am but the examples you cite are all with in what I would consider reasonable justifications for the procedure. As i said it is a matter of being thoroughly honest with ourselves about what it is we are debating here.

I didn't think even you were that thoroughly offensive, Iain.

The truth should never be considered offensive Keri, even from me.


I absolutely will point out when ignorant, foolish people - or worse, media organisations - fail to make that distinction. Because every woman who faces that choice and mourns their loss
deserves that someone does when they see it.

I make the distinction all the time Keri but it is a distinction that I present as the difference between killing a clearly defective foetus because it is grossly deformed ect, and killing a foetus because it is "inconvenient" But that does not require me to deny that in both cases it is killing that we are doing. I are you going to pretend that if you have a pet euthanased that you are not having it killed?

First, both you and Guy leap head-long to the conclusion that all pro-CHOICE advocates are 'more concerned with animal cruelty' than human life.

That is a reasonable assumption to make given the profile of both groups have lots of overlap.

Secondly, you assume that all abortions are because of convenience. Because for pro-life advocates to acknowledge that at least some of the time that isn't true, you have to admit there are exceptions. And if you admit there are exceptions, suddenly it's something you look at on a case by case basis.


Keri the figures clearly show that the majority of abortions are NOT preformed for any significant medical reason surely you are not claiming that they are?

And if you look at it case-by-case, suddenly it isn't always wrong. But right now, the law doesn't reflect that.

The law has to balance competing imperatives on this issue Keri the right of women to access safe abortion when that is medically necessary and the right for all people to be protected from arbitrary death by medical practitioners, even if they have yet to have been born.I agree however that if the law is ambigious then it may need reform.

No, it's an example of how replacing medical terms with emotive language muddies the issue and - more to the point - is deceptive. The term he uses is completely incorrect. He refers to a child already born rather than the correct term - featus(sic). I didn't cone up with the term, the medical fraternity did.


Keri we both know that the reason that you want to insist on the use of particular terminology is to try to make it easier to deny the reality of what the "pro choice" people are advocating , you (and they ) think that by doing so you will make your advocacy more palatable and the essence of your objection is not that the Pro-life advocates "muddy the waters" but that we make the reality altogether too clear for those who want to deny the humanity of the unborn.


Pfft. Coming from the man who's spent God only knows how long telling me the meaning is in the reading? He said 'a six-month-old child' His words, not mine. He's the one wilfully, deliberately, misusing terms, not me.

I got his meaning with out a second of doubt and as I had watched the gestation of both of my children I know that you are wrong here. Ask a pregnant woman about the contents of her womb during her pregnancy and she will undoubtedly refer to it as her baby or her child,it will be a very rare women who will use the term Foetus so don't try to insist that he is" wilfully, deliberately, misusing terms" He is using the vernacular and he is correct in doing so.



And you, in return, call me 'Pro-Death'. Yep, I can see the balance in that.


Actually, that isn't my problem. My problem is that you think you have the right to call me or anyone else 'Pro-Death'. My problem is that you think you have the right to tell women they are killers when they make difficult choices - sometimes, in the best interests of their unborn children.

That's my damn problem, Iain.

I call a spade a spade Keri and you want to call it "a manual digging implement" or coat it in so many euphemisms that its true nature is completely disguised even to those who would use it. and read again my earlier passage above on justifaction.



Those with compassion, not just those on the left, realise that it's ridiculous to have to run a gauntlet of wingnuts - and they are wingnuts, Iain, i've stood outside and watched them - to get to a medical facility. Regardless of what services that clinic provides.

If the protesters stay with in the law then I have no problem with them advocating for their sincerely held ethical position to the members of the public who clearly have to consider the issue.

Especially since those wingnuts have shown themselves perfectly capable of criminal violence themselves. The defence rally I attended? Was outside the same clinic where a wing-nut shot dead a security guard. The wing-nut who shot the Security guard was a member of the same group of wing-nuts who still harass people there today. And the reason we were there whn we were is because the month before they'd used their childrens prams as battering rams.

If they break the law and assault or harm anyone of a contrary opinion then the police can deal with them.

That's how pro-life those wingnuts are. That's how much they love children, Iain.

And that's why I want them banned from within a reasonable distance of the clinic in question. Safety, not some leftist conspiracy to halt their free speech.


Would you not complain if such a ban was made against anti-globalisation protesters? Gay rights activists ? Muslims? If you support the right for citizens to protest then it has to be the right for all citizens to peacefully protest even for causes you despise.

Keri said...

The experience with such conscience votes on abortion is that the result nearly always a close run thing so I would not count your chickens until they are hatched.

Point being, Iain, I wasn’t denying the rights of democracy, I was pointing out that the Herald Sun, bastion of credible Journalism that it is(n’t), was doing a really bad, really incompetent beat-up job. I was counting nothing, merely writing a post on the facts the Herald Sun considers superfluous to requirements.

I am being literally correct her KerI, using the appropriate terminology, before an abortion the foetus is alive and afterwards it is dead, so the person doing the procedure and the person consenting to it are killing that foetus. This is a fact beyond dispute, even by you. While I agree that there are occasions when such things can be justified for medical reasons that does not give us the right to flippantly dismiss the humanity of the foetus or pretend that its forcible removal from the womb is not killing it.

How about you stop flippantly dismissing the humanity of the mother? How about you don’t label a woman who is in a difficult, heartbreaking position a killer? How about a bit of bloody compassion?

God. You talk about denying the humanity of the foetus, yet you completely deny the humanity of the mother. For that matter, of the parents.

You think a woman who has to make a choice between her own life and ending a pregnancy gives a shit about being literally correct? You think that’s of any comfort to anyone? Do you think any woman who has had to go through that give a shit whether you think it’s justified?

My point is, and always has been, that if you restrict the choices of one woman, you restrict them all. Because the wing-nuts will use any means to stop all terminations and abortions. They will see women die over and over again through illnesses and conditions not of their own making and still be content. They’ll watch husbands lose their wives; children lose their mothers, and praise the Lord for it. They’ll dance on our damn graves.

They’ll happily tie the hands of doctors tied in regards to patient care because of their own religious convictions. They’ll cram those beliefs down our throats and watch us choke on them.

Well of course I am but the examples you cite are all with in what I would consider reasonable justifications for the procedure. As i said it is a matter of being thoroughly honest with ourselves about what it is we are debating here.

Oh, so now it’s a “procedure”, not a heartless killing?

Point being, what is ‘reasonable’ and what is ‘justified’ should be between a woman, her doctor and her family, No-one else.
And go to hell, Iain. My mother made a difficult decision, and mourned it like every other woman does. You can’t know what that decision is like, how fucking agonising it is. Your labelling her and every other woman who makes that decision a killer is wholly offensive and completely unnecessary.

It’s not fucking reasonable. It’s a slap in the face of every woman who has had to lose her child through no fault of their own. And believe you me, if you were within distance, I’d return the favour.

The truth should never be considered offensive Keri, even from me.

Truth? What would you know about the truth of the situation? Have you ever had to make that decision? Have you ever lost a child? Have you ever longed for something, think you are getting it and then had it ripped away?

And then to have foolish, ignorant people label you a killer? What would you know about the truth of it? You sit back and sermonise. You’ve got no idea.

I make the distinction all the time Keri but it is a distinction that I present as the difference between killing a clearly defective foetus because it is grossly deformed ect, and killing a foetus because it is "inconvenient" But that does not require me to deny that in both cases it is killing that we are doing. I are you going to pretend that if you have a pet euthanased that you are not having it killed?

How can you think that word is appropriate when the woman is put in such a position? How can you think it’s okay to use the word killing to describe it?

Tell you what, Iain. You go to your nearest maternity hospital. Go to the post-partum ward, and wait until you find a woman being admitted who is in that position. Sit with her the whole time. Sit by her and watch as she goes through that. Then come back and tell me who is being killed. The foetus who knows nothing of it, or the mother who sees her hopes and dreams destroyed when she’d do anything to protect the life she’s forced to consent to being extinguished. You tell me who is being killed.

Come back and tell me she’s a killer then. Better yet, say it to her face.

That is a reasonable assumption to make given the profile of both groups have lots of overlap.

No assumption is reasonable. We’ve been through this before.

Keri the figures clearly show that the majority of abortions are NOT preformed for any significant medical reason surely you are not claiming that they are?

I didn’t claim they were, but the vast, vast majority of late term terminations are. Are you claiming they’re not?

The law has to balance competing imperatives on this issue Keri the right of women to access safe abortion when that is medically necessary and the right for all people to be protected from arbitrary death by medical practitioners, even if they have yet to have been born. I agree however that if the law is ambigious then it may need reform.

The law has always been based on the morality of the community. When that morality shifts, so must the law. 80% of the community agrees with this bill.


Keri we both know that the reason that you want to insist on the use of particular terminology is to try to make it easier to deny the reality of what the "pro choice" people are advocating , you (and they ) think that by doing so you will make your advocacy more palatable and the essence of your objection is not that the Pro-life advocates "muddy the waters" but that we make the reality altogether too clear for those who want to deny the humanity of the unborn.

Don’t tell me what my reasons are, because you don’t know. I don’t want this to be more palatable. I’m not trying to make it seem like a small, insignificant decision, because I know it isn’t. It’s a huge, life-changing decision. I have always, and will always, advocate for clear-eyed, logical, FACTUAL decisions made by the public and by parliament.

And your friends on the Pro-Life lobby? They’re distributing leaflets telling people that this bill will allow partial-birth abortion (it won’t), that this bill will allow pregnancies to be terminated up until birth (wrong again), and that medical staff who refuse to participate in abortions will be ‘punished’ (Completely, utterly incorrect)

What have you got to say about that? I’m insisting on correct terminology. They’re distributing leaflets that have nothing factual on them. Worse still, what they’re printing aren’t just incorrect, they're lies. Complete and utter lies.

I got his meaning with out a second of doubt and as I had watched the gestation of both of my children I know that you are wrong here. Ask a pregnant woman about the contents of her womb during her pregnancy and she will undoubtedly refer to it as her baby or her child,it will be a very rare women who will use the term Foetus so don't try to insist that he is" wilfully, deliberately, misusing terms" He is using the vernacular and he is correct in doing so.

UNBORN child, Iain. UNBORN. He IS wilfully, deliberately misusing terms. He’s not using vernacular, and even if he was, he’s a politician. He has a duty to be correct, not just emotive.

I call a spade a spade Keri and you want to call it "a manual digging implement" or coat it in so many euphemisms that its true nature is completely disguised even to those who would use it. and read again my earlier passage above on justifaction.

How does saying exactly what I mean using the correct terminology constitute a euphemism? I use the medical terminology. That isn’t a euphemism. Know what an early term abortion is? A Dilate & Currettage. I have no problem using the terms. None.

I have no problem facing the truth of the situation. Your friends on the other side of the road, on the other hand, are proven liars.

If the protesters stay with in the law then I have no problem with them advocating for their sincerely held ethical position to the members of the public who clearly have to consider the issue.

I have no issue with that either. But that’s not what they’re doing, is it? They’re not standing on the steps of parliament, or bringing their “sincerely held ethical position to the members of the public” they’re shoving their beliefs down the throats of people attending a medical clinic and those who work there.

These aren’t peaceful protesters, Iain. Don’t make them out to be touchy-feely, morally upright citizens who I’m trying to deny their say, Iain. I’m not. And they aren’t so touchy feely when they’re ramming people with prams, tearing down their signs, screaming in peoples faces and shooting security guards simply for doing their jobs.

Very ethical, what with the violence, outright lies and harassment, aren’t they?

If they break the law and assault or harm anyone of a contrary opinion then the police can deal with them.

Bit bloody late when someone is dead, isn’t it? I’m sure that’ll be of great comfort to the next person to die at their hands. And if this was a green protest where someone had been previously killed by one of their ilk, you’d be all over it like a rash.

Why are you so pro-life when it comes to an unborn child (See the use of the correct term there?) and yet when a measure is suggested to stop someone from shooting someone you’re against it?

Be consistent, Iain.

Would you not complain if such a ban was made against anti-globalisation protesters? Gay rights activists ? Muslims? If you support the right for citizens to protest then it has to be the right for all citizens to peacefully protest even for causes you

Iain, read what I wrote. It’s not because they hold a contrary viewpoint to me, it’s because they have shown themselves to be violent thugs with no regard for the law or for the human life they are so hell-bent on protecting.

If gay-rights activists or Muslims or anti-globalisation protesters had shot someone at the very clinic they were still protesting at today, harassing people trying to seek medical treatment (you are aware that women who don’t want to wait for medical terminations through the public health system also attend the clinic? And get abused in the same manner as everyone else?), ramming people with babies prams, tearing down banners (They so clearly respect other peoples rights to free speech, don’t they, Iain?), then I would have no problem with those protesters being banned from within 50 metres of that place.

Notice I didn’t want them banned altogether? Just from outside the clinic. It’s ridiculous. Would you be okay with these violent wing-nuts turning up to maternity wards and protesting because people were having terminations there? It’s completely obscene.

bron said...

*applauds* Good stuff, Keri.

Iain, you really are a wilfully blind ignoramus. Don't talk about compassion until you know what it means, Iain.

Iain Hall said...

Point being, Iain, I wasn’t denying the rights of democracy, I was pointing out that the Herald Sun, bastion of credible Journalism that it is(n’t), was doing a really bad, really incompetent beat-up job. I was counting nothing, merely writing a post on the facts the Herald Sun considers superfluous to requirements.

You were making the claim that the bill was certain to be passed and it was to that suggestion that my invocation of the number of chickens obviously refers.

How about you stop flippantly dismissing the humanity of the mother? How about you don’t label a woman who is in a difficult, heartbreaking position a killer? How about a bit of bloody compassion?

God. You talk about denying the humanity of the foetus, yet you completely deny the humanity of the mother. For that matter, of the parents.

Keri exactly how am dismissing the humanity of the mother ? That is unquestioned by me in the entirety of my comments here. Why do you imagine otherwise?

You think a woman who has to make a choice between her own life and ending a pregnancy gives a shit about being literally correct? You think that’s of any comfort to anyone? Do you think any woman who has had to go through that give a shit whether you think it’s justified?

But I am not discussing the topic with you straw woman Keri I am discussing it with you.


My point is, and always has been, that if you restrict the choices of one woman, you restrict them all. Because the wing-nuts will use any means to stop all terminations and abortions. They will see women die over and over again through illnesses and conditions not of their own making and still be content. They’ll watch husbands lose their wives; children lose their mothers, and praise the Lord for it. They’ll dance on our damn graves.


They’ll happily tie the hands of doctors tied in regards to patient care because of their own religious convictions. They’ll cram those beliefs down our throats and watch us choke on them.

But that is not my position at all Keri, My stance on abortion is that it should be available , affordable ,safe, but most of all RARE. So you can drop the hyperbolic arguments like those above.They do not apply to my position at all.

Oh, so now it’s a “procedure”, not a heartless killing?

Point being, what is ‘reasonable’ and what is ‘justified’ should be between a woman, her doctor and her family, No-one else.
And go to hell, Iain. My mother made a difficult decision, and mourned it like every other woman does. You can’t know what that decision is like, how fucking agonising it is. Your labelling her and every other woman who makes that decision a killer is wholly offensive and completely unnecessary. It’s not fucking reasonable. It’s a slap in the face of every woman who has had to lose her child through no fault of their own. And believe you me, if you were within distance, I’d return the favour.


No Keri these are the ethical questions that, in a democracy, we put to our parliaments, and we do not just ignore the competing imperatives and hope that they will resolve themselves,our parliaments have to work out a solution to these problems.

Difficult or not I am not discussing this topic with your mum and if I was I would be more diplomatic in the way I would put the argument but my wife and I had to consider the possibility of exactly the same decision because as older parents there was a higher than average possibility of conditions like downs syndrome, the 20 week scan was not something that I remember with any fondness precisely because of this. However in the context of this debate at this venue it is still an issue of calling it exactly as it is and not dancing around what is an unpleasant truth.

As for threats of violence .... well Ho Hum.


Truth? What would you know about the truth of the situation? Have you ever had to make that decision? Have you ever lost a child? Have you ever longed for something, think you are getting it and then had it ripped away?

And then to have foolish, ignorant people label you a killer? What would you know about the truth of it? You sit back and sermonise. You’ve got no idea.

As I said before My wife and I had to consider the question twice, and I do know how tough it is, and yes I have lost a much desired child when my wife miscarried her first pregnancy (after two years of trying) so don't think that I don't really know what I am talking about here.Or that you and your family have a monopoly on such anguish.


How can you think that word is appropriate when the woman is put in such a position? How can you think it’s okay to use the word killing to describe it?

[..}

Come back and tell me she’s a killer then. Better yet, say it to her face.

I tell you what Keri why don't you go and man the incinerator at an abortion clinic and tell me that the dismembered unborn are not human as they are unceremoniously turned to ash. Every day I look at my children (and my 4 year old son is playing outside as i write this)and I know how precious their lives are, I know what it is like to spend years trying to bring them into existence and I know that their lives as human beings began at fertilisation. I find it grossly offensive when I hear pro-abortionists blithely claiming that the unborn are "just a bunch of cells" and that they are liable for execution for the crime of "being inconvenient"

I didn’t claim they were, but the vast, vast majority of late term terminations are. Are you claiming they’re not?

Now you are moving the goal posts here Keri . Now you want to make a distinction that you did not make previously, anything to avoid admitting that I am right eh?

The law has always been based on the morality of the community. When that morality shifts, so must the law. 80% of the community agrees with this bill.

So where exactly do you get that figure from Keri? is it just a straw poll among your leftist friends? Because my understanding is that there is no where near that level of support for abortion.

Don’t tell me what my reasons are, because you don’t know. I don’t want this to be more palatable. I’m not trying to make it seem like a small, insignificant decision, because I know it isn’t. It’s a huge, life-changing decision. I have always, and will always, advocate for clear-eyed, logical, FACTUAL decisions made by the public and by parliament.

Except when I make the factual statement that an abortion is killing the unborn then you threaten violence... (rolls eyes)

And your friends on the Pro-Life lobby? They’re distributing leaflets telling people that this bill will allow partial-birth abortion (it won’t), that this bill will allow pregnancies to be terminated up until birth (wrong again), and that medical staff who refuse to participate in abortions will be ‘punished’ (Completely, utterly incorrect)

They run their campaign and I have no association with it so if you have a beef with their tactics I suggest that you take it up with them. But the experience in the UK is that those who do refuse to take part in preforming abortions within the NHS certainly have been sanctioned for doing so.

What have you got to say about that? I’m insisting on correct terminology. They’re distributing leaflets that have nothing factual on them. Worse still, what they’re printing aren’t just incorrect, they're lies. Complete and utter lies.

Take it up with them Keri I am not endorsing such extreme propaganda , take it up with the advertising standards people.

UNBORN child, Iain. UNBORN. He IS wilfully, deliberately misusing terms. He’s not using vernacular, and even if he was, he’s a politician. He has a duty to be correct, not just emotive.

Unborn or not it is still a child, and a politician has a duty to be truthful and not a an emotionless automaton just because he is discussing a contentious issue.


How does saying exactly what I mean using the correct terminology constitute a euphemism? I use the medical terminology. That isn’t a euphemism. Know what an early term abortion is? A Dilate & Currettage. I have no problem using the terms. None.

I have no problem facing the truth of the situation. Your friends on the other side of the road, on the other hand, are proven liars.

The Irony is hat your blog is entitled "This is my truth tell me yours" and yet when anyone tells you what is true for them you you insist they are liars. The reality is that Abortion is much more than a medical matter it is an ethical and a spiritual ones as well and as such you can not just demand that only your choice of terminology is correct and appropriate. There are a whole swag of ways of considering this issue and the medical aspects are only a small part of it.
I have no issue with that either. But that’s not what they’re doing, is it? They’re not standing on the steps of parliament, or bringing their “sincerely held ethical position to the members of the public” they’re shoving their beliefs down the throats of people attending a medical clinic and those who work there.

As i said before if they stay with in the law and protest peacefully there can be no objections.

These aren’t peaceful protesters, Iain. Don’t make them out to be touchy-feely, morally upright citizens who I’m trying to deny their say, Iain. I’m not. And they aren’t so touchy feely when they’re ramming people with prams, tearing down their signs, screaming in peoples faces and shooting security guards simply for doing their jobs.

Very ethical, what with the violence, outright lies and harassment, aren’t they?


Now when AWH talks about the anti-Mo cartoon Muslim protests Your pals on the left were so quick to pillory them for suggesting that Islam was the problem, Your lot are so quick to defend the peaceful majority against the actions of a deranged minority but you are making the same sort of argument here when it comes to those who protest against abortion. You are trying to suggest that they are all deranged killers because ONE nutter killed ONE security guard, sorry but your argument is just ludicrous.

Bit bloody late when someone is dead, isn’t it? I’m sure that’ll be of great comfort to the next person to die at their hands. And if this was a green protest where someone had been previously killed by one of their ilk, you’d be all over it like a rash.

See my response above.

Why are you so pro-life when it comes to an unborn child (See the use of the correct term there?) and yet when a measure is suggested to stop someone from shooting someone you’re against it?

Be consistent, Iain.


I'll answer that with a question Keri .

Why are you so inconsistent in that you support the killing of the unborn at the whim of any woman who wants an abortion, and yet when it comes to capital punishment you oppose it absolutely?

Iain, read what I wrote. It’s not because they hold a contrary viewpoint to me, it’s because they have shown themselves to be violent thugs with no regard for the law or for the human life they are so hell-bent on protecting.

As i have said if they go beyond peaceful protest them make a formal complaint to the police
If gay-rights activists or Muslims or anti-globalisation protesters had shot someone at the very clinic they were still protesting at today, harassing people trying to seek medical treatment (you are aware that women who don’t want to wait for medical terminations through the public health system also attend the clinic? And get abused in the same manner as everyone else?), ramming people with babies prams, tearing down banners (They so clearly respect other peoples rights to free speech, don’t they, Iain?), then I would have no problem with those protesters being banned from within 50 metres of that place.

Notice I didn’t want them banned altogether? Just from outside the clinic. It’s ridiculous. Would you be okay with these violent wing-nuts turning up to maternity wards and protesting because people were having terminations there? It’s completely obscene.


You know what I think that you are getting these ideas from the Beijing security protocols and I am sure that your thinking about dealing with protests would be right at home with the central committee there.



Finally Bron

I don't think that you have demonstrated any understanding of what compassion actually is all I have ever seen from you is the snide and smart-arse comments that seek to ingratiate yourself with your fellow leftists.

Bron said...

Oooh zzzzing!

Keri said...

You were making the claim that the bill was certain to be passed and it was to that suggestion that my invocation of the number of chickens obviously refers.

No, I was making the claim that the Herald Sun was not reporting facts at all, but making outlandish claims, and that it’s the only article in the media in Victoria suggesting the bill will not go through. Please point out where I claimed it was “certain to be passed”

Keri exactly how am dismissing the humanity of the mother ? That is unquestioned by me in the entirety of my comments here. Why do you imagine otherwise?

How are you dismissing it? By calling them killers if they do something you disagree with, Iain! That would be enough for most sensible people.

But I am not discussing the topic with you straw woman Keri I am discussing it with you

I’ll pretend this sentence makes grammatical sense. I am talking about why being “literally correct” (And I question whether the technical term – or medical term – for a woman who has an abortion or termination is killer. I think you’ll find it’s patient) is inappropriate in this case.

But that is not my position at all Keri, My stance on abortion is that it should be available , affordable ,safe, but most of all RARE. So you can drop the hyperbolic arguments like those above.They do not apply to my position at all.

Yes, but it does to mine. Because you are quite happy to label any woman who has a termination a killer. That’s sick. How you can call a woman who has a medical condition a killer with a clear conscience I don’t know.

No Keri these are the ethical questions that, in a democracy, we put to our parliaments, and we do not just ignore the competing imperatives and hope that they will resolve themselves,our parliaments have to work out a solution to these problems.Difficult or not I am not discussing this topic with your mum and if I was I would be more diplomatic in the way I would put the argument but my wife and I had to consider the possibility of exactly the same decision because as older parents there was a higher than average possibility of conditions like downs syndrome, the 20 week scan was not something that I remember with any fondness precisely because of this. However in the context of this debate at this venue it is still an issue of calling it exactly as it is and not dancing around what is an unpleasant truth.As for threats of violence .... well Ho Hum.

Yes, exactly, Iain. You’re quite happy to label women killers behind their backs, but you wouldn’t say it to their face. That’s pretty much why my policy is always that I don’t say behind people’s backs what I wouldn’t say to their face.

And when you present a bill in parliament, you present it as a factual document, not the tripe that the Pro-life brigade likes to trot out.

And as for your having to consider the “possibility”, that’s not the same as confronting the reality. “What if” can’t be compared, I’m sorry.

Dancing around the unpleasant truth? I haven’t said anything that isn’t absolutely true, Iain. Nothing at all. And yes, I get angry enough to slap people who won’t stop and think about how what they are saying will affect people. You’ve even admitted yourself that you wouldn’t say it to a woman’s face. You’re just content with calling them killers behind their backs.

As I said before My wife and I had to consider the question twice, and I do know how tough it is, and yes I have lost a much desired child when my wife miscarried her first pregnancy (after two years of trying) so don't think that I don't really know what I am talking about here.Or that you and your family have a monopoly on such anguish.

You fool, Iain. My whole point is that any woman who makes those difficult choices is in anguish. Not just my mother, not just me, not just any woman who goes through that kind of thing. EVERY woman deserves some damn compassion, and you display none.

If you had discovered at that 20 week scan that there was a condition present that led you to make the decision to terminate, would you turn around and call your wife a killer? Would you call the doctor who carried out your wishes a killer?

.I tell you what Keri why don't you go and man the incinerator at an abortion clinic and tell me that the dismembered unborn are not human as they are unceremoniously turned to ash. Every day I look at my children (and my 4 year old son is playing outside as i write this)and I know how precious their lives are, I know what it is like to spend years trying to bring them into existence and I know that their lives as human beings began at fertilisation. I find it grossly offensive when I hear pro-abortionists blithely claiming that the unborn are "just a bunch of cells" and that they are liable for execution for the crime of "being inconvenient"

Better yet, Iain, tell me where I’ve said that the “unborn are “just a bunch of cells””

Because I think you’ll find I never have, and never will. But I won’t have women and their bodies and their rights subsumed by the unborn, because it doesn’t balance the imperatives, it gives precedence to the unborn over women.

Now you are moving the goal posts here Keri . Now you want to make a distinction that you did not make previously, anything to avoid admitting that I am right eh?

No, because I was referring to the terminology used in the article – specifically to late-term medical terminations. I’ve been consistent with that position during every discussion I’ve had with you on this issue.

So where exactly do you get that figure from Keri? is it just a straw poll among your leftist friends? Because my understanding is that there is no where near that level of support for abortion.

I am seriously considering banning the use of the word straw on this blog.

Once again, Iain, you understand incorrectly.

The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, which surveyed 5000 people from all cross-sections and - particularly important, faiths – reported that 81% of Australians thought that women should have the right to decide whether or not to have a termination. 10% were undecided, and 9% were against women having the right to choose.

Additionally, the Australian Institute of Family Studies (A right-wing group, for balances sake, Iain), found that 96% of Australians did not consider abortion wrong.

Also, 85% of General Practitioners surveyed thought that women should have unrestricted access to termination services.

The link? http://www.whv.org.au/submissions/VLRC_Abortion_Law_Reform_Inquiry_Nov07.pdf

Once again, Iain, I’ve got the numbers. I’ve got the references. I’ve got the studies. What do you have? Semantics.

Except when I make the factual statement that an abortion is killing the unborn then you threaten violence... (rolls eyes)

Threaten violence? Jesus, Iain. I even included in that statement the fact that I WOULDN’T be violent. I’d use that S word, but then I’d be a hypocrite. But you’re clutching at them good and hard, aren’t you?

)They run their campaign and I have no association with it so if you have a beef with their tactics I suggest that you take it up with them. But the experience in the UK is that those who do refuse to take part in preforming abortions within the NHS certainly have been sanctioned for doing so.

Oh, I will, Iain. But I was refuting your point that they’re people with “sincere, ethically held beliefs” They aren’t. They use lies as propaganda. Those are the kind of people you are defending.

.Take it up with them Keri I am not endorsing such extreme propaganda , take it up with the advertising standards people.

Again, it’s being reported. But the point is that you hacked into the “pro-death” lobby and said we were insistent on “muddying the waters”, which there is no proof of. Whilst I can point out very quickly at least two organisations you regularly use violence and deception for their Pro-Life lobbying.

Unborn or not it is still a child, and a politician has a duty to be truthful and not a an emotionless automaton just because he is discussing a contentious issue.

If he added that one word in, Iain, I would have had no objection. But if you’re going to say something, say it correctly. If not, shut up.

The Irony is hat your blog is entitled "This is my truth tell me yours" and yet when anyone tells you what is true for them you you insist they are liars. The reality is that Abortion is much more than a medical matter it is an ethical and a spiritual ones as well and as such you can not just demand that only your choice of terminology is correct and appropriate. There are a whole swag of ways of considering this issue and the medical aspects are only a small part of it.

No, I haven’t called you a liar, have I? I haven’t called anyone who has ever commented here a liar, have I? I have called people who distribute leaflets with deliberately incorrect information designed to misinform liars. That’s it.

If Matthew Guy had come out and said he wasn’t comfortable with a six month old unborn child, or a six month old foetus being aborted or terminated, I’d have no problem. He didn’t, and I pointed it out. That isn’t calling him a liar. I said he wilfully misused a term. I didn’t call him a liar.

.As i said before if they stay with in the law and protest peacefully there can be no objections.

As I’ve pointed out, they aren’t peaceful protesters, Iain.

Now when AWH talks about the anti-Mo cartoon Muslim protests Your pals on the left were so quick to pillory them for suggesting that Islam was the problem, Your lot are so quick to defend the peaceful majority against the actions of a deranged minority but you are making the same sort of argument here when it comes to those who protest against abortion. You are trying to suggest that they are all deranged killers because ONE nutter killed ONE security guard, sorry but your argument is just ludicrous.

My “pals on the left” frequently say things I don’t agree with. And I’m quite quick to point out when they do. I find it quite ironic that you’re telling me not to tar all the wing-nuts with the same brush whilst you’re doing exactly the same.

I’ve never been a yes (wo)man, whether that’s disagreeing with you, anyone of my “pals on the left” or anyone else. And you know it.

Secondly, I wasn’t suggesting they were all “deranged killers”, and I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything that backs that up. What I said was they weren’t peaceful, fluffy little bunnies. The same group have very recently rammed people with prams, torn down signs, distributed propaganda that contains complete lies – the list goes on. These aren’t peaceful protesters. Your little pals at AWH would be up in arms if they were muslims outside the clinics instead of Catholics. If it had been a Muslim man not a Catholic who had shot the security guard, I’m guessing you wouldn’t be sticking up for them.

I'll answer that with a question Keri .Why are you so inconsistent in that you support the killing of the unborn at the whim of any woman who wants an abortion, and yet when it comes to capital punishment you oppose it absolutely?

When have I said I oppose capital punishment absolutely? I’ve never discussed my views on capital punishment. I’ve discussed yours, because you don’t support euthanasia yet you support capital punishment. I’ve never discussed what my views are.

. As i have said if they go beyond peaceful protest them make a formal complaint to the police

I have when I’ve seen it, but if it continues to happen, if they don’t learn, why wouldn’t you prevent it happening? Is their protest any less valid if its 50 metres down the street?

.You know what I think that you are getting these ideas from the Beijing security protocols and I am sure that your thinking about dealing with protests would be right at home with the central committee there.

Do you have some problem reading the English language, Iain? I don’t care what they’re protesting. The point is that they are doing it in a violent, threatening, intimidating manner. I would be just as outspoken if it was a Greens protest that was consistently violent or threatening. I sure as hell don’t agree with anti-globalisation protests being violent. That’s a consistent view I hold.

Keri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Keri said...

Stupid linking. Let's try this again:

here

Iain Hall said...

No, I was making the claim that the Herald Sun was not reporting facts at all, but making outlandish claims, and that it’s the only article in the media in Victoria suggesting the bill will not go through. Please point out where I claimed it was “certain to be passed”

Well this seems to suggest that you were pretty 'certain' about the bill being passed to me Keri

In 'deep, dark Victoria', there's been absolutely no indication of any 'struggle' with numbers in the Lower House to pass this law.

How are you dismissing it? By calling them killers if they do something you disagree with, Iain! That would be enough for most sensible people.


Killers can be human too Keri, even the killers of children. what makes you think that they can't?
I am talking about why being “literally correct” (And I question whether the technical term – or medical term – for a woman who has an abortion or termination is killer. I think you’ll find it’s patient) is inappropriate in this case.

This sentence does not make any sense at all.

Yes, but it does to mine. Because you are quite happy to label any woman who has a termination a killer. That’s sick. How you can call a woman who has a medical condition a killer with a clear conscience I don’t know.

Its called being intellectually honest Keri, or serving up the argument without the sugar coating, calling a spade a spade. As i have said if there is a sound reason like the one you cited in the case of your mother's circumstance then while it is still killing to "terminate" that pregnancy it is a Justified killing and it is morally defensible. If there is no such justification then it is not defensible.

Yes, exactly, Iain. You’re quite happy to label women killers behind their backs, but you wouldn’t say it to their face. That’s pretty much why my policy is always that I don’t say behind people’s backs what I wouldn’t say to their face.

I said That I would be more diplomatic Keri, not that I would not put what is in essence the same argument.

And when you present a bill in parliament, you present it as a factual document, not the tripe that the Pro-life brigade likes to trot out.

(rolls eyes in disbelief)

And as for your having to consider the “possibility”, that’s not the same as confronting the reality. “What if” can’t be compared, I’m sorry.
You have no idea Keri this is very much a case of "for those who know no explanation is necessary and for those who don't none is possible" I stand by what i said about this before.
Dancing around the unpleasant truth? I haven’t said anything that isn’t absolutely true, Iain. Nothing at all. And yes, I get angry enough to slap people who won’t stop and think about how what they are saying will affect people. You’ve even admitted yourself that you wouldn’t say it to a woman’s face. You’re just content with calling them killers behind their backs.

There is a place for diplomacy and there is a place for plain speaking I am paying you the courtesy of plain speaking on this issue and I will remind you again that I would make the same argument but that I would perhaps be somewhat less blunt that I am with you in this venue.


You fool, Iain. My whole point is that any woman who makes those difficult choices is in anguish. Not just my mother, not just me, not just any woman who goes through that kind of thing. EVERY woman deserves some damn compassion, and you display none.

And so she should (feel anguish that is ) because when you find it necessary to end a life, any life, it should never be an easy decision and it is the feeling of anguish that is the measure of someone's humanity.

If you had discovered at that 20 week scan that there was a condition present that led you to make the decision to terminate, would you turn around and call your wife a killer? Would you call the doctor who carried out your wishes a killer?

My wife well knows that I am a plain speaking man who does not dress things up in unnecessary frippery Keri.

Better yet, Iain, tell me where I’ve said that the “unborn are “just a bunch of cells””

Because I think you’ll find I never have, and never will. But I won’t have women and their bodies and their rights subsumed by the unborn, because it doesn’t balance the imperatives, it gives precedence to the unborn over women.

So you are saying that the unborn are less than human then? which amounts to the same thing as claiming that they are "just a bunch of cells" I was paraphrasing the standard leftist position and what you say in response does not move you very far away from it I am afraid.


The link? http://www.whv.org.au/submissions/VLRC_Abortion_Law_Reform_Inquiry_Nov07.pdf


Once again, Iain, I’ve got the numbers. I’ve got the references. I’ve got the studies. What do you have? Semantics.

Well I read your reference and thing that struck me is that the way that questions are put in such surveys really determines the result you get and I bet that If you asked the Australian people if they supported abortion as a contraceptive that they would be far less supportive.

Threaten violence? Jesus, Iain. I even included in that statement the fact that I WOULDN’T be violent. I’d use that S word, but then I’d be a hypocrite. But you’re clutching at them good and hard, aren’t you?

Oh come off it the only reason you cited for not slapping me is that I am a long way from Melbourne

Oh, I will, Iain. But I was refuting your point that they’re people with “sincere, ethically held beliefs” They aren’t. They use lies as propaganda. Those are the kind of people you are defending.

The sincerity of their beliefs does not mean that they are perfect. You are so dogmatic about those who hold a view different to you aren't you?

Again, it’s being reported. But the point is that you hacked into the “pro-death” lobby and said we were insistent on “muddying the waters”, which there is no proof of. Whilst I can point out very quickly at least two organisations you regularly use violence and deception for their Pro-Life lobbying.


You are the one who used the term "Muddying the waters" and I retorted that your use of euphemism was doing just that I need no other proof than your own text where it is self evident.

If he added that one word in, Iain, I would have had no objection. But if you’re going to say something, say it correctly. If not, shut up.

What makes you the person who determines the "correctness" of anyone's language?



No, I haven’t called you a liar, have I? I haven’t called anyone who has ever commented here a liar, have I? I have called people who distribute leaflets with deliberately incorrect information designed to misinform liars. That’s it.

I am not just talking about those who comment here now am I?
If Matthew Guy had come out and said he wasn’t comfortable with a six month old unborn child, or a six month old foetus being aborted or terminated, I’d have no problem. He didn’t, and I pointed it out. That isn’t calling him a liar. I said he wilfully misused a term. I didn’t call him a liar.

You play the pedant and now you split hairs about my response.

When have I said I oppose capital punishment absolutely? I’ve never discussed my views on capital punishment. I’ve discussed yours, because you don’t support euthanasia yet you support capital punishment. I’ve never discussed what my views are.

You misrepresent my position on euthanasia, I said that i don't support it for depressives, not that I oppose it per see. But I invite you to disprove your total opposition to the use of capital punishment because nothing I have seen from you suggests that you support it in even limited circumstances.


I have when I’ve seen it, but if it continues to happen, if they don’t learn, why wouldn’t you prevent it happening? Is their protest any less valid if its 50 metres down the street?


Why would you compromise our civil liberties for the sake of a few rowdy protesters? when the existing laws can easily be enforced to keep their behaviour within what is acceptable in a civilised society?


Do you have some problem reading the English language, Iain? I don’t care what they’re protesting. The point is that they are doing it in a violent, threatening, intimidating manner. I would be just as outspoken if it was a Greens protest that was consistently violent or threatening. I sure as hell don’t agree with anti-globalisation protests being violent. That’s a consistent view I hold.

Well as I say the criminal law can be invoked if protesters do not behave in an acceptable manner. But it seems to me you clearly confuse how they react to a confrontation from your bunch of pro-death protesters and how they react to ordinary members of the public.

Keri said...

Well this seems to suggest that you were pretty 'certain' about the bill being passed to me Keri

In 'deep, dark Victoria', there's been absolutely no indication of any 'struggle' with numbers in the Lower House to pass this law


Iain, if you had any idea what has been going on in Victoria in the past few months you’d know that parliament has all but confirmed the bill will be adopted – mainly because they’d asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to provide it’s recommendations on the understanding that one of the recommendations would be adopted.

But I’m not ‘certain’ about the bill being passed. I sincerely hope it will, but I’m not by any means ‘certain’

Killers can be human too Keri, even the killers of children. what makes you think that they can't?

I didn’t say they weren’t human, I said you were denying women their humanity by saying women who have terminations for medical reasons (that even YOU agree are justified) are “killers”

This sentence does not make any sense at all.

Yes it does. Read it again.

I am talking about why being “literally correct” (And I question whether the technical term – or medical term – for a woman who has an abortion or termination is killer. I think you’ll find it’s patient) is inappropriate in this case.


Its called being intellectually honest Keri, or serving up the argument without the sugar coating, calling a spade a spade. As i have said if there is a sound reason like the one you cited in the case of your mother's circumstance then while it is still killing to "terminate" that pregnancy it is a Justified killing and it is morally defensible. If there is no such justification then it is not defensible.

If we’re being “intellectually honest”, then you’re going to have to drop the emotive terms and start presenting facts and figures. Which you won’t, will you, Iain? You’ve yet to present one single figure or fact that backs you up. As usual, I’ve done my homework. As usual, you haven’t.

And further, if you’re being intellectually honest, then you’ll add the words “In my opinion” to the last sentence.

I said That I would be more diplomatic Keri, not that I would not put what is in essence the same argument.

Iain, the point is you wouldn’t say it to a woman in that situation. You’re quite happy to tell the internet you think they’re killers, but you wouldn’t use the word to their face, would you?


(rolls eyes in disbelief)

Are you telling me that I’m incorrect, or that you have nothing you can argue against the contention that language in bill before parliament uses the term, not just the “vernacular” as you put it?

You have no idea Keri this is very much a case of "for those who know no explanation is necessary and for those who don't none is possible" I stand by what i said about this before.

I’ve got no idea? Try two relatives with Down syndrome. Try my mother having a termination because of anencephaly. Try my aunt having a still birth due to anencephaly. And by God, there’s more. Don’t tell me what I do and don’t know, Iain. Your sanctimonious little superiority complex isn’t getting you anywhere with this one, because you couldn’t possibly know what it’s like to face that choice. You know what it’s like to think about that choice. You don’t know what it is to make that choice, do you? And I pray you never do.

There is a place for diplomacy and there is a place for plain speaking I am paying you the courtesy of plain speaking on this issue and I will remind you again that I would make the same argument but that I would perhaps be somewhat less blunt that I am with you in this venue.

I’m not the one who wants your courtesy. I’ve never asked for it, and in this case, I’ve only asked for it on behalf of others. You’ve admitted you wouldn’t say it to a woman’s face, but you’re happy to say it behind her back. That’s not diplomacy, that’s cowardice.

And so she should (feel anguish that is ) because when you find it necessary to end a life, any life, it should never be an easy decision and it is the feeling of anguish that is the measure of someone's humanity.

No doubt. But what she doesn’t need is you making that worse because of your own untested opinion.

My wife well knows that I am a plain speaking man who does not dress things up in unnecessary frippery Keri.

A few paragraphs ago it was diplomacy. Now it’s unnecessary frippery? Make up your mind. And answer my question - would you call your wife a killer?


So you are saying that the unborn are less than human then? which amounts to the same thing as claiming that they are "just a bunch of cells" I was paraphrasing the standard leftist position and what you say in response does not move you very far away from it I am afraid.

Holy Jesus. I’ve just said I DON’T think they’re less than human. But what you’re suggesting places the embryo or foetus at precedence to the mother. I won’t agree to that.

Well I read your reference and thing that struck me is that the way that questions are put in such surveys really determines the result you get and I bet that If you asked the Australian people if they supported abortion as a contraceptive that they would be far less supportive.

Iain, where in the bill before the Victorian parliament is an endorsement for abortion as a form of contraception? The question was asked three ways:

Do you think abortion is wrong?

Do you think a woman should have the right to choose?

Do you think women should have unlimited access to termination/abortion services?

It was asked by an independent body, a right-wing family group and a Medical Association. You can’t argue with the fact that I’ve provided THREE studies that back up the fact that I said 80% of Australia agrees with me, whilst you have provided none.

Oh come off it the only reason you cited for not slapping me is that I am a long way from Melbourne

Actually, I said “if you were within distance I’d return the favour” Not

“If you were closer to Melbourne I’d slap you”

And damn right if you called my mother a killer to my face I’d slap you. Any daughter would. That goes well past having an opinion.

The sincerity of their beliefs does not mean that they are perfect. You are so dogmatic about those who hold a view different to you aren't you?

Not at all. If they were peaceful and truthful I wouldn’t have an issue. I’ve made no complaints and have no problem with any groups apart from Protectors of Gods Precious Infants and this “Tell the Truth coalition”. I’ve never had any problem with the fact that people disagree with me. It’s the thuggery and deception I object to.

You are the one who used the term "Muddying the waters" and I retorted that your use of euphemism was doing just that I need no other proof than your own text where it is self evident.

Get this straight in your damn head, Iain. Use of medical terms is not a euphemism. A description of what something is – exactly what it is – is not a euphemism. Using incorrect terms deliberately is. You know what an abortion is. I know what an abortion is. Everyone knows what it is. I’ve got no problem using the words. Dilate and Curettage. You open the cervix with a speculum, insert a scraping implement (the name of which escapes me) and scrape the lining of the uterus off, which detaches the embryo. As a result, the embryo dies. I’ve got no issue using the terms. Pro-Lifers however, consistently and deliberately misuse the terms – and completely deny the fact that they are now in the minority in the community.

What makes you the person who determines the "correctness" of anyone's language?

I’m not. The medical fraternity and dictionaries do more than a competent job in determining that. But I WILL point it out if I see those terms wilfully misused to push a point.

I am not just talking about those who comment here now am I?

Apart from the “Truth telling coalition” who ARE proven liars, who have I called a liar?

You play the pedant and now you split hairs about my response.

No, I explained exactly what my position was. That’s not splitting hairs.

You misrepresent my position on euthanasia, I said that i don't support it for depressives, not that I oppose it per see. But I invite you to disprove your total opposition to the use of capital punishment because nothing I have seen from you suggests that you support it in even limited circumstances.

Actually it was dementia, not depressives. And you did oppose it. I don’t have a total opposition to the use of capital punishment. I’ve never suggested I did. You’re making an assumption based on no facts whatsoever – surprise, surprise!

Why would you compromise our civil liberties for the sake of a few rowdy protesters? when the existing laws can easily be enforced to keep their behaviour within what is acceptable in a civilised society?

Because they’re ramming people with prams? Endangering both their own children and other people? Because they’re harassing people seeking medical care? Because they’re tearing down signs? Because they’re thugs?

You’re quite happy to “compromise our civil liberties” when it’s a Greens supporter, Iain. BE CONSISTENT.

There’s nothing civilised about these people, Iain. If you’d seen the things they get up to, you’d know that.

Well as I say the criminal law can be invoked if protesters do not behave in an acceptable manner. But it seems to me you clearly confuse how they react to a confrontation from your bunch of pro-death protesters and how they react to ordinary members of the public

“My” bunch of “Pro-Death” protestors stood on the opposite side of the road, and mainly took photos and observed. And for the sake of accuracy, they confronted us, not the other way round.

And this is what I mean about misusing terms. I’m not Pro-Death. If it was within my power, no woman would ever have to have an abortion. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Legislation needs to reflect that fact. I’m Pro-CHOICE. I want the CHOICE to be there. Any woman who chooses not to terminate has my support, as does the woman who chooses to terminate. I’m not on one side, I’m on BOTH.

Iain Hall said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Keri said...

Apologies for deleting your comment, Iain. I've sent you an e-mail explaining why.

I'll re-post the comment without that paragraph ASAP.

Iain Hall said...

Iain, if you had any idea what has been going on in Victoria in the past few months you’d know that parliament has all but confirmed the bill will be adopted – mainly because they’d asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to provide it’s recommendations on the understanding that one of the recommendations would be adopted.

But I’m not ‘certain’ about the bill being passed. I sincerely hope it will, but I’m not by any means ‘certain

My point being of course that it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings Keri despite your evident confidence (which despite your pedantry is so near to certainty that it does not matter) until there is the final vote you just can't be sure.



I didn’t say they weren’t human, I said you were denying women their humanity by saying women who have terminations for medical reasons (that even YOU agree are justified) are “killers”


Well then please explain exactly how your claims are right, because just asserting that it is the case does not make it so.

Yes it does. Read it again.

Ok but only if you stand on one leg and look at it sideways (rolls eyes)

If we’re being “intellectually honest”, then you’re going to have to drop the emotive terms and start presenting facts and figures. Which you won’t, will you, Iain? You’ve yet to present one single figure or fact that backs you up. As usual, I’ve done my homework. As usual, you haven’t.
Fact 1: every abortion kills the unborn.
According to the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) 18,713 Medicare-funded abortive procedures were undertaken in Victoria and Tasmania5 over the 12-month period from July 2003 to June 2004. This is 2,719 fewer than the 21,432 procedures reported 10 years earlier. The number of procedures has reduced in the 0-24 year age group and the 25-34 year old group. However, there has been a slight increase in abortive procedures in women aged 35+ over the past decade.
source
How are those figures Keri? and Most of them are "social" abortions
And further, if you’re being intellectually honest, then you’ll add the words “In my opinion” to the last sentence.
Rolls eyes heavenwards in disbelief

Iain, the point is you wouldn’t say it to a woman in that situation. You’re quite happy to tell the internet you think they’re killers, but you wouldn’t use the word to their face, would you?

(rolls eyes in disbelief)


I’ve got no idea? Try two relatives with Down syndrome. Try my mother having a termination because of anencephaly. Try my aunt having a still birth due to anencephaly. And by God, there’s more. Don’t tell me what I do and don’t know, Iain. Your sanctimonious little superiority complex isn’t getting you anywhere with this one, because you couldn’t possibly know what it’s like to face that choice. You know what it’s like to think about that choice. You don’t know what it is to make that choice, do you? And I pray you never do.



You PERSONALLY have never had to face the conundrum have you? It is all well and good to be able to emphasise with the anguish of your family members but You have NEVER had to be in the position of having to decide. so don't pull the "i know about it " line with me because I have had to stare that possibility in the face that my wife and I would have to ask the hardest question. As I said you have NO idea.

I’m not the one who wants your courtesy. I’ve never asked for it, and in this case, I’ve only asked for it on behalf of others. You’ve admitted you wouldn’t say it to a woman’s face, but you’re happy to say it behind her back. That’s not diplomacy, that’s cowardice.

How many times have you had to tell someone that their beloved is dead?and what would you say in that circumstance how would you tell a stranger about the same death? I bet you would not put the news in exactly the same words. the situation is the same we all cut our coats according to our cloth..

Holy Jesus. I’ve just said I DON’T think they’re less than human. But what you’re suggesting places the embryo or foetus at precedence to the mother. I won’t agree to that.

But you are saying that they are lesser human beings here because your default position is that the unborn should not be protected by the law.

Actually, I said “if you were within distance I’d return the favour” Not

“If you were closer to Melbourne I’d slap you”

And damn right if you called my mother a killer to my face I’d slap you. Any daughter would. That goes well past having an opinion.

You are proving to be a champion hair splitter here to day Keri (gives eyes yet another roll)


Get this straight in your damn head, Iain. Use of medical terms is not a euphemism. A description of what something is – exactly what it is – is not a euphemism. Using incorrect terms deliberately is. You know what an abortion is. I know what an abortion is. Everyone knows what it is. I’ve got no problem using the words. Dilate and Curettage. You open the cervix with a speculum, insert a scraping implement (the name of which escapes me) and scrape the lining of the uterus off, which detaches the embryo. As a result, the embryo dies. I’ve got no issue using the terms. Pro-Lifers however, consistently and deliberately misuse the terms – and completely deny the fact that they are now in the minority in the community.

In this context it is, no matter how much you claim otherwise. and I am well aware of what actually is done during an abortion. but I should point out that if You open the cervix with a speculum, you will undoubtedly kill the woman you are seeking to abort, a speculum is used to open up the vagina so that the cervix is accessible (gives eyes another workout) as a woman you should know that.


Actually it was dementia, not depressives. And you did oppose it. I don’t have a total opposition to the use of capital punishment. I’ve never suggested I did. You’re making an assumption based on no facts whatsoever – surprise, surprise!
I concede the point re dementia vs depression but that is of no consequence as the result is the same I oppose euthanasia in some circumstances but not necessarily in all and I invite you once again to tell me under what circumstance would you support the use of a capital sanction?

And this is what I mean about misusing terms. I’m not Pro-Death. If it was within my power, no woman would ever have to have an abortion. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Legislation needs to reflect that fact. I’m Pro-CHOICE. I want the CHOICE to be there. Any woman who chooses not to terminate has my support, as does the woman who chooses to terminate. I’m not on one side, I’m on BOTH.
But my question to you Keri is where is your concern for the unborn in this pro choice ideology?

You see I used to be pretty much where you are now before my wife and I spent years trying to have a family. An experience like that changes you and changes the way you view the unborn. Sit in a gynaecologists office once a month for a couple of years, have all kinds of tests ect and then you tell me how much you support abortion. You will change your mind.

Keri said...

My point being of course that it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings Keri despite your evident confidence (which despite your pedantry is so near to certainty that it does not matter) until there is the final vote you just can't be sure.

Evident Confidence? If I was confident, would I have included a plea to the politicians voting on the issue? Would I be harping on about it if it was a sealed deal?


I didn’t say they weren’t human, I said you were denying women their humanity by saying women who have terminations for medical reasons (that even YOU agree are justified) are “killers”

Well then please explain exactly how your claims are right, because just asserting that it is the case does not make it so.


I’ll restate what I’ve already said then, Iain. You are calling women who have terminations for medical reasons killers. I contend that this is denying the woman involved her humanity, as you place the foetus’ humanity above hers by being so needlessly callous.


Ok but only if you stand on one leg and look at it sideways (rolls eyes)

It makes perfect sense, Iain. If you have to stand on one leg, look sideways and roll your eyes to get sentences in perfectly comprehensible English to make sense, don’t hold me responsible for it.

Better yet, take a photo and send it to me.


Fact 1: every abortion kills the unborn

No-one is arguing otherwise.

According to the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) 18,713 Medicare-funded abortive procedures were undertaken in Victoria and Tasmania5 over the 12-month period from July 2003 to June 2004. This is 2,719 fewer than the 21,432 procedures reported 10 years earlier. The number of procedures has reduced in the 0-24 year age group and the 25-34 year old group. However, there has been a slight increase in abortive procedures in women aged 35+ over the past decade.

What on earth are these figures supposed to prove? We were discussing whether the current legislation before parliament has community support. I have provided three studies that back up my claim that it does.

You, so far, have proven that abortion takes place, and that 18,713 took place in 2004 in Victoria and Tasmania that were Medicare funded. No-one is disputing that. Oh, except the source you got the figures from


How are those figures Keri? and Most of them are "social" abortions

Oh, Iain. Please, we’ve been through this before! If you’re going to throw statistics at me, check the source and read what you are using. The paragraph after the statistics you’ve provided reads:

“WHV (Women’s Health Victoria) upholds the tenet that decisions should be made by those most closely involved with them. This includes the support and respect of a woman right to control of her body. It is appropriate that women make decisions regarding their fertility, including unplanned pregnancies, based on their life situations, personal views and beliefs.

The decision to continue or terminate an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy can be difficult for many women. The decisions should be made without pressure from others and women should never be made to feel guilty or judged for their decision”


I think calling them killers might come under that heading, Iain.

Additionally, if you’d care to read a further paragraph down, you would have seen this:

”Currently only South Australia, Western Australia & Northern Territory provide accurate abortion statistics”

Also, this:


”Medicare items which may result in abortive outcomes are also used for procedures that are not abortions, such as those carried out following a miscarriage”

In other words, your statistics are not accurate and if you’d read them, the source itself tells you that!

Also, you didn’t mention that none of the statistics focus or even include statistics on terminations conducted after 24 weeks, and makes no distinction between medical terminations and abortion.

Also, you’ve provided nothing that proves that ‘most abortions are social abortions”


(rolls eyes in disbelief)

I’d recommend some eye drops with the amount of eye-rolling going on, Iain. Have you suddenly turned into a sixteen year old girl when I wasn’t looking?


You PERSONALLY have never had to face the conundrum have you? It is all well and good to be able to emphasise with the anguish of your family members but You have NEVER had to be in the position of having to decide. so don't pull the "i know about it " line with me because I have had to stare that possibility in the face that my wife and I would have to ask the hardest question. As I said you have NO idea

Thank you for taking out the bit I talked to you about, but why would you include the rest of it given what I told you? Because you know I can’t contradict you without revealing things I don’t want to?

How many times have you had to tell someone that their beloved is dead?and what would you say in that circumstance how would you tell a stranger about the same death? I bet you would not put the news in exactly the same words. the situation is the same we all cut our coats according to our cloth.

Twice. Again, you’re making the mistake of assuming because I’m younger than you that I can’t possiblyhave some of the same life experiences you have.

I certainly wouldn’t flippantly turn to a stranger and say “So and so is a killer and killed their unborn child”, that’s for damn sure.

But you are saying that they are lesser human beings here because your default position is that the unborn should not be protected by the law.

There is no “default” position, Iain. I’m saying that the law must reflect the morality of majority of the community. I have the figures that prove that majority of the community agrees with me. You’ve so far come up with figures that prove abortions occur – and they aren’t even accurate!

You are proving to be a champion hair splitter here to day Keri (gives eyes yet another roll)

That seems to be your default position if I point out any of your fallacies, Iain.

In this context it is, no matter how much you claim otherwise. and I am well aware of what actually is done during an abortion. but I should point out that if You open the cervix with a speculum, you will undoubtedly kill the woman you are seeking to abort, a speculum is used to open up the vagina so that the cervix is accessible (gives eyes another workout) as a woman you should know that.

I haven’t used a single euphemism, Iain. I’ve been consistent in using medical terms (Even if in the case of using cervix instead of vagina I was incorrect)


I concede the point re dementia vs depression but that is of no consequence as the result is the same I oppose euthanasia in some circumstances but not necessarily in all and I invite you once again to tell me under what circumstance would you support the use of a capital sanction?

And I once again invite you to give me one example when I have stated I’m completely anti-capital punishment?

But my question to you Keri is where is your concern for the unborn in this pro choice ideology?

My concern for the unborn has been evident from the fact that I don’t agree with abortion past 24 weeks unless there is a compelling reason for it to be done. And that decision, I feel, is between a woman and her medical team.

That’s always been my position.

You see I used to be pretty much where you are now before my wife and I spent years trying to have a family. An experience like that changes you and changes the way you view the unborn. Sit in a gynaecologists office once a month for a couple of years, have all kinds of tests ect and then you tell me how much you support abortion. You will change your mind.

Iain, don’t lecture a woman on sitting in a gynaecologists office. Until you’ve had a speculum shoved up you, and a balloon catheter used to open your cervix and radioactive dye and Saline water pumped throughout your tubes, piss off being condescending about experiencing the delights of the gynaecologists.

You’d be bloody lucky if all you had to was sit there.

And may I ask why you weren’t sitting in an RE’s office? That’s the usual referral you get. And why only once a month? Your wife surely was monitored more often than once a month?

And as my e-mail states, my position on abortion has been tested. And I’m still firmly Pro-Choice.