Preg­nancy de­val­ued

Sunshine Coast Daily - - YOUR SAY -

IT SHOULD come as no sur­prise that La­bor’s pro­posed Abortion Law is be­ing met with a lot of out­cry and op­po­si­tion.

Us­ing po­lit­i­cally cor­rect ter­mi­nol­ogy, they re­fer to abortion as “women’s health is­sues” and “med­i­cal pro­ce­dures” in an at­tempt to dis­guise the se­ri­ous­ness of the mat­ter and make it as easy as pos­si­ble to ac­cess.

But why should the ter­mi­na­tion of a life be so easy to ac­cess?

The abortion law should pro­vide re­straints and safe­guards that re­flect the se­ri­ous­ness of such an ac­tion.

I can’t un­der­stand how La­bor can seek to de­value preg­nancy in this way, where, in one cir­cum­stance, a baby is the most pre­cious gift in the world and, in an­other, it is in dan­ger of be­ing re­garded as some­thing akin to an un­wanted body part that re­quires a “med­i­cal pro­ce­dure”.

La­bor’s pro­posed law will al­low abortion “on de­mand” up to 22 weeks and then up un­til birth with the con­sent of two doc­tors.

How­ever, there are no ef­fec­tive re­straints in this law to pre­vent the pos­si­bil­ity of ba­bies be­ing aborted at these late stages for any rea­son.

Un­der our ex­ist­ing law, it is le­gal to have an abortion if a doc­tor be­lieves a woman’s phys­i­cal or men­tal health is in dan­ger, and so we have more than 10,000 abor­tions each year in Queens­land and no con­vic­tions.

Yet in their de­ter­mi­na­tion to give women the “right to choose”, La­bor seems to have for­got­ten what’s re­ally at stake here: a life. A de­vel­op­ing, hu­man life.

Surely we should tread care­fully on such an is­sue and err on the side of cau­tion and re­straint. NI­COLE YOUNG Obi Obi

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.