Post by NFA on Nov 5, 2020 18:11:32 GMT 8
Who Will Oppose SA’s Abortion Travesty?
by Stuart Lindsay (a retired Federal Circuit Court Judge) 4th November 2020
some excerpts
Attorney-General Vickie Chapman has presented her abortion-to-birth Bill to the South Australian Parliament. She is a Liberal. Premier Steven Marshal supports it. He supported her when she abolished the right to silently protest in the vicinity of abortion clinics two months ago and also her attempt to decriminalise prostitution last year. As Arts Minister, he introduced Drag Queen Story Time for kiddies at the State Library during the DreamBig children’s Arts festival in 2019 (it used to be called, less disingenuously perhaps, the “Come-Out” festival).
But the degenerate state of a formerly conservative political party is not my theme here.
The viciousness and zealotry with which this Bill bristles has awoken me from my incurious slumber about abortion. Like many men, I have kept my distance from the issue. But legislation of this kind does not permit me or any of us to do that any longer. I need to understand why abortion has been so enthusiastically embraced by so many women in the West, both as a personal choice and as a cardinal item of their political faith.
One of the most troubling features of that embrace is the seeming compulsion to celebrate abortion and proselytise on its behalf; it seems a long time since it was promoted, reluctantly, only as the last resort of desperate women whose physical safety must be protected in the procedure. Incessant references to ‘”backyards” and “coat-hangers”, I seem to recall, was how it got its foot in the door of people of conscience and goodwill. But now one can detect a scarcely concealed impulse on the part of its supporters to rub the faces of those who disagree with them in the blood and macerated organs which are the product of the particular medical procedure with which we are dealing. Feminists, full of a shrill and passionate intensity, now insist that there must be no limits to a woman’s entitlement to extinguish the nascent lives which only their bodies are capable of harbouring or nurturing. It is as if they must be seen to glory in the gore their “choice” entails. And that choice, they insist, must be unfettered by any hesitancy hitherto derived from instinct or fellow-feeling or religion; to admit of any kind of limitation to abortion, it seems, would weaken the resolve required of them early in their “struggle”, that which enabled them to keep mind and heart and ears and eyes turned away from the grisly reality.
In short, the ideological purity associated with abortion now entails a shamelessness about every aspect of its cruelty.
No woman has been prosecuted in the 51 years since abortion was made legal (upon certain conditions) in South Australia.
But the degenerate state of a formerly conservative political party is not my theme here.
The viciousness and zealotry with which this Bill bristles has awoken me from my incurious slumber about abortion. Like many men, I have kept my distance from the issue. But legislation of this kind does not permit me or any of us to do that any longer. I need to understand why abortion has been so enthusiastically embraced by so many women in the West, both as a personal choice and as a cardinal item of their political faith.
One of the most troubling features of that embrace is the seeming compulsion to celebrate abortion and proselytise on its behalf; it seems a long time since it was promoted, reluctantly, only as the last resort of desperate women whose physical safety must be protected in the procedure. Incessant references to ‘”backyards” and “coat-hangers”, I seem to recall, was how it got its foot in the door of people of conscience and goodwill. But now one can detect a scarcely concealed impulse on the part of its supporters to rub the faces of those who disagree with them in the blood and macerated organs which are the product of the particular medical procedure with which we are dealing. Feminists, full of a shrill and passionate intensity, now insist that there must be no limits to a woman’s entitlement to extinguish the nascent lives which only their bodies are capable of harbouring or nurturing. It is as if they must be seen to glory in the gore their “choice” entails. And that choice, they insist, must be unfettered by any hesitancy hitherto derived from instinct or fellow-feeling or religion; to admit of any kind of limitation to abortion, it seems, would weaken the resolve required of them early in their “struggle”, that which enabled them to keep mind and heart and ears and eyes turned away from the grisly reality.
In short, the ideological purity associated with abortion now entails a shamelessness about every aspect of its cruelty.
No woman has been prosecuted in the 51 years since abortion was made legal (upon certain conditions) in South Australia.