on
12-01-2014
08:52 AM
- last edited on
12-01-2014
09:20 AM
by
pixie-six
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE left, be they from the ALP or the ABC, oppose free speech when it is their ideology which is under scrutiny.
That's why there was a sustained outbreak of clamorous opposition to Senator Cory Bernardi's middle-of-the-road discussion of cultural values last week.
The South Australian Senator broke two of the rules laid down by the left.
He asked why no discussion of abortion is permitted in Australia though there are anything from 70,000 to 100,000 abortions carried out in this country each year, according to evidence given in Senate estimates - and he questioned whether single-parent families are the golden standard for child rearing.
Under leftist dogma, abortion, or the more politically correct euphemism, termination, should only be discussed by women. Then, using the usual distortions of the language which have seen homosexuals insist that they be called gays and that the descriptive noun marriage be corrupted to include same sex unions, the so-called progressives say they are in favour of a pro-choice policy on abortion which means in fact that women are rarely presented with any options, in effect - no-choice.
By breaking these taboos, Senator Bernardi aroused the slumberous feminist lobby, few of whom it would seem have actually read his book, The Conservative Revolution, which was published almost a month ago and has been reviewed in numerous forums.
Senator Bernardi does not hide behind weasel words.
He is so plain spoken that most of the commentators who have attacked him have revealed their ignorance of his writings or have taken his words totally out of context.
He believes in the battle of ideas and thinks it is important for politicians to stand up for what they believe in. Indeed, he believes it's the right and responsibility of every member of the parliament to engage in the battle of ideas.
"It's absolutely critical that politicians are prepared to discuss ideas that are controversial," he told me.
"Otherwise we are stuck with a tyranny of political correctness. That's a stifling doctrine we need to rebel against in this country - that's the revolution I am calling for."
The Senator understands that abortion is an emotive topic, he understands - as most people do - that it can cause enormous stress and anguish, but he is also concerned that one in five pregnancies in this country are being terminated and believes that should be a cause for concern and debate.
He has not said we should outlaw or prohibit abortion but that was certainly the insinuation made by his critics.
His position on abortion is exactly the same as that as that held by former US president Bill Clinton - that it "should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare".
Last January, in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama echoed president Clinton's remarks saying: "Today and every day, my administration continues our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and minimise the need for abortion."
That view is also held by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom the members of the ALP and some commentators from the ABC have attempted to link to extreme anti-abortion views on numerous occasions when they attempt to drag his personal and private religious views into the political debate.
Senator Bernardi was also attacked by ABC breakfast presenter Beverley O'Connor for mentioning single-parent families in his book.
She framed her question: "The book really rails against non-traditional families; children within a gay relationship, children of marriage breakdowns. In 2014 now, this is a fact of life, this is not necessarily a fact that families want but it's a fact of life isn't it?"
In defence of traditional families, Senator Bernardi had written: "Why then the levels of criminality among boys and promiscuity among girls who are brought up in single-parent families, more often than not headed by a single mother?"
Had O'Connor wished to put the argument in an intelligent context, she might have noted that there was a footnote in the book which referenced a New York Time article on a Father's Day address delivered by President Obama which said: "We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime.
"Nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
"They are more likely to have behavioural problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundation of our community is weaker because of it".
O'Connor's approach to the Bernardi book exemplifies the arrant hypocrisy taken by so many at the ABC when they are wittingly or subconsciously taking up the cudgels for the left and Labor against conservative figures.
They so obviously inject and infect their interviews and assaults with their own personal political prejudices.
While O'Connor may not like the mainstream moral compass which has served society well for millennia, she and other critics should note that on these issues, Senator Bernardi is actually in excellent company.
on 12-01-2014 09:22 PM
@izabsmiling wrote:I would like for that Man and others who quote figures to speak and clarify the numbers of abortions he/they quotes as happening in Australia each year in his book.
Are they based on medicare figures ? Does he include spontanious abortions in his fugures ? Does he know the difference ?
and do his figures include ALL currettes...which many women have for various reasons ?
Can't let facts get in the way of a good old woman bashing session.
on 13-01-2014 10:06 AM
I don't get it. The morning after pill is available also excellent birth control products. Personally I have nothing against abortion & any atack on a womens right to choose would be fiercely defended but surely a discussion is allowed isn't it??
I wonder why young women choose to go the abortion route if indeed that is the correct number, when it could be avoided.
on 13-01-2014 10:08 AM
that too could be considered having an abortion
on 13-01-2014 10:16 AM
on 13-01-2014 10:23 AM
@silverfaun wrote:
Rubbish, The morning after pill considered an abortion???? what a ludicrous suggestion but anything to disagree EH!!!
Rubbish back at ya
The last time abortion sentiment was tested in federal parliament was in February 2006 when, following the efforts of a cross-party coalition of women senators, the ministerial veto over RU486 was repealed. (The House of Representatives agreed to the same legislation and Health Minister Tony Abbott lost his power to veto the import of the abortion drug.)
on 13-01-2014 10:28 AM
The morning after pill is not considered an abortion. There is nothing there to abort but if a reaction has taken place then it will nullify it.
As for that old trout Somers well you would quote her wouldn't you. Still fighting the gender wars. Still trying to put Abbot in the frame.
on 13-01-2014 10:35 AM
(The House of Representatives agreed to the same legislation and Health Minister Tony Abbott lost his power to veto the import of the abortion drug.)
Tony Abbott never said a word about veto'ing the morning after pill, he didn't put it, never said he would put it. This type of historical slur just suits the Abbott bashers, the tired gender war & the lies they love to spread.
If you want to endlessly post C&P to back up a hollow argument then go for it but it won't wash.
on 13-01-2014 10:36 AM
@silverfaun wrote:
. As for that old trout Somers well you would quote her wouldn't you. Still fighting the gender wars. Still trying to put Abbot in the frame.
and her (Sommers) and her ilk of loyal followers are still losing every battle and making them selves look silly (er) and just out and out bitter.....
Time they all moved on and found a productive topic to talk about....
13-01-2014 10:37 AM - edited 13-01-2014 10:38 AM
@silverfaun wrote:The morning after pill is not considered an abortion. There is nothing there to abort but if a reaction has taken place then it will nullify it.
As for that old trout Somers well you would quote her wouldn't you. Still fighting the gender wars. Still trying to put Abbot in the frame.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
It is called an Abortion Drug.
If women didn't believe that there may be something there they wouldn't take it .
another source for you
Abortion pill vote lifts ban
In a rare conscience vote, MPs set aside their political colours and voted to strip Health Minister Tony Abbott of his power over the controversial pill.
Medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration will now take control of RU486.
Today's decisive victory in the lower house ended two weeks of emotional debate in which MPs and ministers revealed their own personal experiences with abortion.
Two earlier attempts by Liberal backbenchers to amend the private members' bill failed.
But the vote does not mean that RU486, which allows women to have abortions without surgery, will become available immediately.
A pharmaceutical company or doctor will have to apply to the TGA for permission to use the drug. At least one doctor has started that process and two major companies are believed to be keen to import the drug.
One of four female senators who put up the bill, Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison, was confident Australian women would be able to access RU486 by the end of the year.
read more http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mps-strip-abbott-of-ru486-veto/2006/02/16/1140037811387.html
on 13-01-2014 10:39 AM
polocross, or is it...........?
You need a physiology lesson, BADLY.