|
Always been around
blog posted 2.1.06
On October 5, the Tasmanian Labour government
did a surprise back flip on the sex industry legalisation they had pushed for years. Instead of legalising brothels, they
succeeded in banning them.
In response, the argument that brothels have always been around and should therefore be
made “safe” is often used.
This is expressed in Sonja Ralph’s letter to The
Mercury, Saturday 8 October 2005.
“There is no safety for anyone if the world’s oldest profession
is forced underground,” she said.
This is a repetition of the arguments used to advocate legalisation of other
activities. In 2001, Tasmanian Premier Jim Bacon spoke in favour of legal abortion.
“The reality is that terminations
of pregnancies have occurred for centuries, in fact probably since human beings have been on this earth,” he said.
Despite
its popularity, the “it’s always been around” argument lacks punch.
Almost all unhealthy and harmful
behaviour has “always been around”. Think for a moment about murder, violence against women and the weak, suicide,
or oppression and exploitation of workers.
Many movements that shaped the twenty-first century actively worked for
changes in what had “always been around”.
Labour movements challenged the poor working conditions, long
hours, and poor pay that had characterised most people’s working lives for centuries.
Feminism went further,
to challenge the oppression of women that had been systemic throughout recorded history.
It is ironic when those who
actively support these movements also argue that if something has “always been around,” we’d better just
make it safe.
Some practices, such as prostitution, cannot be safe.
Sheila Jeffreys, Associate Professor of
Political Science at the University of Melbourne, has exposed in detail the dangers of legal prostitution. She spoke at the
Swedish Mission side event at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in 2003.
“The practices of
prostitution in legal brothels place women in the kind of danger to their health that would be inconceivable in other kinds
of work,” she said.
Sheila Jeffreys said these include continued low rates of condom use and high levels of violence.
The length of time something has happened is no argument for its continuation. Accepting
harmful behaviours like prostitution is not progressive. It is the opposite.
Widespread
acceptance of harmful behaviour often leads to an increase in people participating in it. A few people choosing an action is not a good
reason for it to become an ordinary part of society.
After brothels were legalised in other states of Australia, the
number of both legal and illegal brothels increased.
Sheila Jeffreys argued that accepting prostitution creates a
damaging cultural climate. She used several examples from her home state of Victoria.
“Children walk past brothels
on their way to school and buy their summer swimsuits in a shop opposite a brothel. Brothel owners are in the Rotary Club
and are profiled as role models in respectable newspapers,” she said.
If an action is considered unacceptable, it takes great courage, determination or desperation
to go against the established pattern. If an action becomes “normal” it takes a similar level of determination
to choose against it, so more people participate.
Abortion is one example of this. Before abortion was widely available
and advertised, some women chose abortion out of desperation. Instead of solving the problems that led them to this, some
people worked to make abortion accessible to all.
Now, as a young woman I expect to be offered abortion at least once
in my life. Many women I know have received repeated abortion offers. Often abortion is presented as the most logical option
for their circumstances. It can take great determination to refuse, especially when little alternative help is offered.
At
its heart, the “always been around” argument is hopeless, repressive, and backward. The greatest advances in human wellbeing have come
because people dreamed and worked for better than what had “always been around”.
US
Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice spoke in France on 9 February about the many benefits we now enjoy because past generations challenged the status quo.
“Imagine where we would be today if the brave founders of French liberty or of American liberty had been content
with the world as it was,” she said.
Imagine this when people tell you to accept or even embrace what has “always
been around”.
11.05
Ashamed to be a woman
blog posted 18.4.05
”The way you and other women politicians
talk about abortion makes me feel ashamed to be a woman,” I said to a Tasmanian politician who sat across the table
from me at a lunch I attended in November. She had been speaking loudly against pro-life views for some time. I had been trying
to carry on a conversation with the person next to me, but her loud comments distracted me. “I felt I needed to
say this to you because you were acting like you were speaking for all women, and you don’t speak for me,” I said.
As
I spoke to her, I felt both calm and determined. For days I had read women’s comments in the newspapers and now I had
a chance to speak. Telling her felt like an expression of protest against all women politicians who put forward a view of
womanhood that is so opposed to my values. I explained that her perspective was not necessarily pro-choice, if she did not
work to promote choices other than abortion.
Her response was typical of advocates of abortion access: she tried to
disqualify me to speak on the basis of personal characteristics. This is the same tactic she used towards the men she had
been speaking to earlier. She said I was too young to speak, as I’d probably never been in a situation where I felt
the need to have an abortion. Her position was clear: being a woman is not enough. To speak, you must be a woman who is pro-abortion
access.
Later that month, pro-choice women again demonstrated that they did not want pro-life women to speak. On 16
November 2004, the Insight TV show did a program on abortion, with many people of different views coming together to
discuss the issue.
Pro-life author Melinda Tankard Reist attempted to question Dr David Grundmann, a doctor who performs
late term abortions, about serious complications of abortion that have occurred at his clinic. Ethicist Dr Leslie Cannold,
along with other women, kept interrupting Reist so that she could barely speak. “You continue to interrupt, you continue
to - No, what we are seeing here is very typical of the pro-choice police who don't let us speak,” Reist said.
How
right she is. The interviewer, Jennie Brockie, allowed pro-choice women to talk over the top of pro-life people. The result
was that the pro-choice people gained much more time to speak, particularly Dr Grundmann. The pro-choice women were happy
to allow him to speak, and referred to him positively in their comments. This shows that they want men to speak, provided
they support pro-choice orthodoxy.
Now in Australia pro-choice women politicians are again putting forward the argument
that men are disqualified to speak on abortion. This is a way of trying to diffuse their opposition, but their inconsistency
is blatant. Last year, they called on male politicians to support the”right to choose” as well as attempting to
disqualify pro-life men on the basis that they were male.
If advocates of abortion access are going to use the gender
argument, they should at least be consistent. The fact that they are not demonstrates that gender is not what they care about.
Their goal is to shut down debate. They do not want anyone to question their position, regardless of gender. They want silence
because they are satisfied with the status quo of accessible abortion.
Many Australian women have spoken out against
abortion. On 8 December 2004 over 700 women attended a Pro-Life and Pro-Woman forum in Sydney. Several high profile
women addressed the gathering, including Senator Jacinta Collins and law philosopher Rachael Patterson. De-Anne Kelly, Veterans
Affairs Minister, has argued strongly for an inquiry into abortion in Australia and appeared on Insight.
Rachael Patterson
wrote in The Australian on 29 December 2004, “Newspapers have been dominated by a small group of vocal women
telling politicians to back off . . . Unfortunately, their rhetoric has been largely successful in silencing debate. This
is a shame. Pretending that the high level of abortion in Australia is fine doesn't do women any favours.” Patterson
wrote that many women feel they have no choice but abortion. Discouraging debate on abortion limits discussion about the obstacles
these women face and initiatives that might help them.
Now in 2005, the discussion is continuing. This is a victory
that should not be underestimated. In countries such as Denmark abortion is no longer a controversial issue. That is the ultimate
victory for the abortion access movement. We can be thankful that is not the case in Australia. The pro-life position may
not achieve any gains in legislation through the debate that is currently going on, but speaking itself is a victory. Pro-life
men and women need to keep on speaking, because women deserve better than abortion.
The Right to Refuse
By
Sherrin Ward
Nov 28, 2004, 20:42
|
| Renee
is a young, single Sudanese refugee who has recently moved to Australia. She discovers she is pregnant, and an ultrasound
shows she has twin babies in her womb. Renee has no money and is still adjusting to Australian culture. Her family is no better
off. She feels overwhelmed. Renee’s doctor recommends an abortion; it is safe and will solve all the problems her mistaken
pregnancy has brought on. It is the only solution.
Her friends and family say the same thing. Reluctantly, feeling
she has no other choice, she makes an appointment. The night before Renee is due to have the abortion, she meets a Rachel,
a Christian woman who urges her to consider other options. Rachel is the first person who has told her she should make another
choice. Renee agrees with Rachel that abortion is murder, but she is overwhelmed, and everyone else says she should have the
abortion--she has worked herself up to do it. So she does.
Julie is unmarried and pregnant, so she goes to a family
planning clinic for advice. They schedule her for an abortion, saying the child will probably be deformed. However, the father
of her child supports her to continue the pregnancy, and they get married and have their child. Julie is offered abortion
again when she was pregnant in her 40s. Again she refuses.
Yvonne is pregnant with her third child. Her doctor encourages
her to have tests to check for abnormalities. He says she needs to “prepare herself” for an abortion if there
is something wrong. He continues to urge her, although she tells him she would refuse to abort even if tests did show abnormalities.
Although these women’s names have been changed, their stories are true. I believe that their stories are similar
to the experiences of many other women.
Most women in Australia will be offered abortion at least once in their reproductive
lives. It is offered in many situations. A single woman with little support, a married woman who already has two or three
children, a woman with a large family, or a woman who has had physical or emotional problems in past pregnancies.
The
possible disability of the child is another common situation where abortion is offered. Women are urged to have tests and
ultrasounds. Even before these are done, the doctor will likely explain to her that if there is something wrong, the best
thing she can do is to terminate. If she refuses the tests, she will probably be urged to reconsider her decision several
times.
Abortion is not just suggested to women, it is often urged upon them. Sometimes the pressure is subtle; other
times it is obvious. Often no other options are offered.
Women who have not thought much about abortion before being
offered it are in a dangerous position. A weak, half-formed sense that abortion is wrong and a fetus is not just a “blob
of tissue” are not enough to withstand the suggestion to abort. Nor is being uncomfortable or even upset about the idea
of having an abortion. Most women trust their doctors, and many doctors think abortion as the best solution and that it is
safe, quick, and easy.
As Fredrika Matthews-Green wrote in her book, Real Choices, “Naturally the big,
walking-around people appear much more daunting to her, while the little, dependent person within exerts a stronger, prior
claim.”
The result is often a choice for abortion. Her attachment to her child is shadowy and submerged, as
Matthews-Green points out. Her attachment to others often seems greater and more important.
This is why eliminating
abortion is not solely about legislative change, or even about moral arguments. Those things are important, and they do help.
Yet they are only part of creating a culture where unborn children are protected, even when they are unplanned or disabled.
We need a culture where those around pregnant women encourage and support them to continue with their pregnancies--a
culture in which doctors and other important people in the lives of women no longer urge them toward the destruction of their
children.
Thankfully, until that happens, women still have the right to refuse.
Sherrin lives in Tasmania, Australia with her parents. She enjoys reading God's word and other good
books, making cards, scrapbooking, cooking, gardening, and generally living daily life as a daughter of the King!
© Copyright 2002-2004 by Sherrin Ward
So who is selfish?
Nov 10, 2004, 18:35
|
| One
cold day last May I collected money for Pregnancy Support Service. I stood alone outside a shopping area holding a tin in
my mitten-clad hands. A man I know walked past. He is usually friendly and kind, so I called out to him and asked him how
he was.
“I’m alright but I’m not interested in that,” he said, quickly hurrying past me without
stopping to chat.
“You’re not with those people are you? You’re not trying to tell us something
by being out here are you?” he said on his way back from the shop he had been to.
“I believe in supporting
pregnant women,” I said.
“Oh well, I suppose we all have our little things,” he said.
This
short exchange stayed in my thoughts for many days. During my hour of collecting, many people gave generously. Yet this man’s
reaction stayed with me.
I realised again that many people think it is kind and compassionate to see abortion as acceptable.
I began to think about how this can be a type of selfishness. People who say it is acceptable for women to have abortions
often don’t work to help women have other options. They may even oppose organizations that do offer other choices as
“anti-choice.”
Pro-life people often discuss the selfishness behind abortion. This is a valid discussion,
but it needs to be much broader than discussing women’s selfishness. I don’t believe abortion is a problem that
stems solely, or even mainly, from the selfishness of women. We often ignore the selfish choices of others that surround and
pressure a woman at a vulnerable time in her life:
- Pro-choice advocates, whose rhetoric makes it sound like a woman
is alone and autonomous. The word "choice" in their slogan could more accurately be substituted for the word "abortion," because
they often do not work for other choices.
- Doctors who do not have time to counsel women on their options, so
they quickly refer them to abortion even when it is not requested.
- Families who do not want to admit another member at a hard time.
- Parents of a pregnant girl or woman who feel they cannot handle the
embarrassment and bother of supporting their daughter through her pregnancy. “We’ve raised three children, we’re
not doing it all over again” is sometimes an attitude that surfaces.
- Men who do not want to pay child support, or do not want their wife
to stop work. Men who did not prepare for the fact that their sexual pleasure might result in a child.
- Abortion clinics that do not offer informed choice; that obscure
or lie about matters that are important to a woman’s decision. One brochure from a clinic in the city near my home tells
women that the abortion will “remove the lining of the uterus.” Some clinics even employ such practices out of
greed, knowing they will lose profits if women choose against abortion.
- Family planning clinics that teach a safe sex message, but do not
prepare people for handling unplanned pregnancies in a positive way. A speaker on abortion I heard recently said that many
pregnant women she has spoken to are deeply shocked. These women thought contraceptives made them completely “safe.”
They could not understand how they got pregnant. These women are likely to choose abortion out of desperation and a desire
to correct a “mistake” so they won’t seem stupid.
- Christian people who profess to be pro-life, but do nothing to oppose
abortion because it could make them uncomfortable or unpopular.
- Politicians who are “personally pro-life” but do not
actively oppose abortion because it would hamper their career.
- Lastly, it is the selfishness of ordinary, decent people like the
man who walked past me as I was collecting for Pregnancy Support Service. People who say “it's her right to choose,”
and free themselves of any responsibility to help. “She has a choice, let her deal with it, I don’t want to get
involved,” may be their attitude. It is easier to believe “it is her right to choose” than it is to consider
all the reasons that are leading her toward abortion, and seek to resolve them.
The man who walked past me probably believes, along with many other
Australians, that his attitude is neutral and gives women freedom--that looking down on services that are known for being
pro-life is the best thing for women.
Yet many women feel trapped and pressured into abortions they would never have
gone ahead with if they had been supported to pursue other options. His choice to walk away, like the choices of so many other
Australians, leaves these women unsupported and desperate.
Sherrin Ward is a Hobart-based writer with a particular interest in women’s, indigenous,
and refugee issues. Sherrin recently graduated from the University of Tasmania with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
and Journalism.
All articles this page copyright Sherrin Ward.
email Sherrin
|
|
