Archives for : March2013

Two ways

With the recent announcement of a Tasmanian proposal to make abortion more readily accessible, I was reading through the (extremely bias) leaflet explaining the changes. One thing that caught my eye was the following statement under the section explaining the reasons why the law needs to be changed:

The law needs to change to recognise unplanned pregnancies will occur

To which I certainly agree. However, turns out there are two ways to recognise this (any there could well be more.) I would argue that we need to make adoption more accessible (however I’m all for vetting all families wishing to adopt to ensure that they can provide a safe and stable home, but currently it’s ridiculous.) We should also be funnelling money to pregnancy support services to help women work through their unplanned pregnancy. We should be encouraging abstinence and sexual purity rather than encourage promiscuity (which, let’s be honest, our society does.) Pregnancy isn’t a disease, and doesn’t need to be cured with abortion. This is one path to take to recognise unplanned pregnancies.

This got me thinking of some arguments for gay marriage that I have heard. To be honest, upon inspection, these arguments don’t hold up. I want to take a look at two different ones.

Divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage and gay marriage isn’t anywhere near as bad.

I wholeheartedly agree that divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage. However, this isn’t a reason to allow gay marriage, which will further erode the true meaning of marriage of being between a man and a woman, for life. The ease of divorce has already ruined the latter. So instead of saying “oh well, marriage is already ruined, let’s allow gay marriage” we should be saying “both divorce and gay marriage is wrong, we should make divorce harder rather than make gay marriage legal.”

As a side, I am mostly referring to no-fault divorce. Divorce is a evil necessity in some cases when one person is at fault (for example, but not limited to, adultery.) It would be good to try and work it out, however in some cases it is simply not possible. I know people who are divorced, and in their circumstances it was justified due to fault on their partners side. The reason it is justified is that humans are sinful, and as a result divorce is in some cases a necessary evil. However, allowing no-fault divorce undermines the meaning of marriage, and the times when it is a necessary evil are certainly not the most cases. If it is the most cases, then it’s even further evidence our society is falling into a decline in morality. A high divorce rate as a direct result of adultery is awful!

People can decide to get married overnight and have a Vegas wedding, yet a gay couple can’t get married

This is just unfair isn’t it! Well, I agree, I don’t think people should be able to have Vegas weddings. Instead of saying we should allow gay marriage, we should instead be saying we need to restrict Vegas weddings. Australia actually does have this right (or at least more right than other countries) in that it requires at least 1 month notification of intention to get married (Marriage Act 1961, s42(1)(a).) Rather than using this as an argument for gay marriage, we should instead be working towards fixing this issue.

Are We Playing a Numbers Game?

This article was cross-posted from Students Protecting Life.

With the news of Savita Halappanavar death late last year, who supposedly died as a direct result of not receiving an abortion (the facts of which are constantly changing,) the pro-choice community was outraged. Apparently this one death, even if an abortion wouldn’t have saved her life, meant that abortion should be legalised for everyone on demand.

One of the concerns I had with the case of Savita Halappanavar was that it was being hijacked in order to promote more death, when we should have been mourning for the loss of two lives (hers and that of her child.)

So, what do we do in cases where a woman dies as a direct result of a legal abortion? Does that instantly mean that abortion should be illegal for the same reasoning? Are we just going to start counting deaths, and whichever has the most deaths wins? 1 person died supposedly because abortion wasn’t legal, and 1 died as a result of a legal abortion? Of course not, that’s both bad policy making and disrespectful to those who have died under tragic circumstances.

Photos of Marla Cardamone published in January revealed what happened to her during what was supposedly a “safe and legal” abortion (these photos available via a web search, however be warned they are graphic.) These photos of her autopsy, published after some time as a direct request from her mother, show that abortion is capable of killing women as well. Does this mean all of those who campaigned for abortion as a result of Savita’s death are now going to be campaigning against abortion as a result of Marla’s death? No, as Savita’s death was hijacked to promote their own agenda.

Playing a numbers game is dangerous. Even if there were a large number of deaths as a direct result of not being able to get an abortion (which there isn’t,) it wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is morally wrong, and always involves taking of an innocent human life, whilst gravely affecting another. We believe that everything should always be done to save both the mother and child. Sometimes tragically the child is lost in this process, but that’s a tragic loss of a child and the result of trying to save the mother’s life.