The Age newspaper - and Mark Rabich - are being disingenuous and not really honest when they don't inform readers of the newspaper that Rabich, who has his letters published regularly in this paper, is a creationist christian fundamentalist with rabid right-wing reactionary views. Readers have the right to know whose views they are subjected to and which are favoured by The Age in preference to left-wing atheistic explanations of the world as it is, and not as they wish it to be, as not favoured by The Age.

Fortunately, we blog, therefore we are free - well, until Senator Conroy and his bunch of right-wing politicans get their grubby little hands on our ISPs.   

15 December 2007  and beyond – from The Age

AND for an encore, Rob Hulls will now legislate against the laws of physics, since biological science is obviously no great hurdle. Incontrovertible proof we have lunatics in office.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Abortion must always be about choice

Anne O'Rourke
December 18, 2007

THOSE with moral objections to abortions should not have abortions. Neither should they be allowed — in a free and democratic society — to impose their particular moral beliefs on others, nor have those beliefs imposed through the law.

The fundamental point to remember in relation to medical practitioners is that they are regulated by law. They are entitled, and indeed obligated, to use their clinical judgement in consultation with their patient to determine what course of action is in the best interests of the patient. The late-term abortion case at the Royal Women's Hospital was a tragic one, particularly for the woman involved, but there is no evidence that the medical professionals involved acted improperly or immorally.

It is well known that the vast bulk of the Australian public supports a woman's right to choose. The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes undertaken in 1987, 1996 and 2004 indicates that support for a woman's right to choose has grown. Even among religious groups, the majority favoured the right to choose.

In a perverse acknowledgement of public support for the right to choose, the religious right keep running a rearguard action by focusing attention on late-term abortions.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (Opinion, 14/12) is correct that many Australians are deeply conflicted over the issue of late-term abortions. But it is necessary to put the facts. Such terminations are extremely rare.

According to Jan Dickinson, who reviewed the outcomes for abortion beyond 20 weeks' gestation in Western Australia, between May 1998 and December 31, 2002, only 219 women presented for late terminations. Dickinson found that all pregnancy terminations in these latter stages were for foetal abnormality and those requesting such terminations were statistically older women.

Likewise, associate dean and professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at ANU Medical School, David Ellwood, estimated that across Australia, late-term abortions are somewhere between 0.1% to 0.6% of all births each year. He found that nearly all are at less than 28 weeks' gestation, with the majority less than 24 weeks, and the reason is for severe foetal abnormality that is likely to result in major handicap or perinatal death.

While opponents would like to see late-term abortions made illegal, Dr Lachlan de Crespigny is correct in his view that such laws would be an injustice to women. Because late-term abortions turn on the particular circumstances of the case and in the vast majority involve either a health risk to the mother or severe abnormality, such decisions should be left to the woman or couple and their doctors. It is not the business of third parties to intervene in what is already a highly emotive and stressful situation and inflict their desired outcome on the parents. To make such terminations illegal may in some cases endanger a woman's life.

The fundamental point to remember in relation to medical practitioners is that they are regulated by law. They are entitled, and indeed obligated, to use their clinical judgement in consultation with their patient to determine what course of action is in the best interests of the patient. The late-term abortion case at the Royal Women's Hospital was a tragic one, particularly for the woman involved, but there is no evidence that the medical professionals involved acted improperly or immorally.

It is well known that the vast bulk of the Australian public supports a woman's right to choose. The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes undertaken in 1987, 1996 and 2004 indicates that support for a woman's right to choose has grown. Even among religious groups, the majority favoured the right to choose.

In a perverse acknowledgement of public support for the right to choose, the religious right keep running a rearguard action by focusing attention on late-term abortions.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (Opinion, 14/12) is correct that many Australians are deeply conflicted over the issue of late-term abortions. But it is necessary to put the facts. Such terminations are extremely rare.

According to Jan Dickinson, who reviewed the outcomes for abortion beyond 20 weeks' gestation in Western Australia, between May 1998 and December 31, 2002, only 219 women presented for late terminations. Dickinson found that all pregnancy terminations in these latter stages were for foetal abnormality and those requesting such terminations were statistically older women.

Likewise, associate dean and professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at ANU Medical School, David Ellwood, estimated that across Australia, late-term abortions are somewhere between 0.1% to 0.6% of all births each year. He found that nearly all are at less than 28 weeks' gestation, with the majority less than 24 weeks, and the reason is for severe foetal abnormality that is likely to result in major handicap or perinatal death.

While opponents would like to see late-term abortions made illegal, Dr Lachlan de Crespigny is correct in his view that such laws would be an injustice to women. Because late-term abortions turn on the particular circumstances of the case and in the vast majority involve either a health risk to the mother or severe abnormality, such decisions should be left to the woman or couple and their doctors. It is not the business of third parties to intervene in what is already a highly emotive and stressful situation and inflict their desired outcome on the parents. To make such terminations illegal may in some cases endanger a woman's life.

There is also a lot of mythology about the physical and mental health threats of abortion. Numerous studies in the United States and by the National Academy of Sciences over 20 years have found that there is no basis for supporting the argument that abortion causes severe physical or mental health threats. A two-year study on the psychological effects of abortion found that the majority of women do not experience any mental health problems or regrets two years after an abortion. A third study undertaken in 1991 found that up to 98% of women who had abortions had no regrets and would choose the same course of action again.

The American Psychiatric Association, despite the repeated assertions of anti-choice proponents, does not recognise the so-called "post-abortion syndrome".

Similar research undertaken in Australia by Melbourne psychologist Dr Susie Allanson supports the conclusions of the international studies. It is misleading to suggest that the majority of women suffer harm as a result of having an abortion. The evidence does not support that position.

The insistence that women be required to undergo compulsory counselling is also a distraction. Mandatory counselling and waiting periods assume that all women are unable to reasonably determine what is best for them and are unable to rationally reflect on their decision. This assumption is demeaning to women and undermines their autonomy.

In addition, making counselling mandatory would achieve little, other than become a focus of anger and a cause of distress. Abortion providers and hospitals, private as well as public, already offer counselling services to women seeking terminations.

Criminalisation of abortion is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. If there is to be a law governing abortion, then it must start from the position of respecting women's full human rights, including liberty and security of the person, and the right to determine when and if they have children.

Abortion law reform must also be backed up by a comprehensive sexual and reproductive health program that provides high-quality, professional and unbiased information on family planning, pregnancy and terminations, in a timely, affordable and accessible manner. This means that services should be localised; rural women need women's medical centres in regional cities.

The Victorian Parliament should have the courage to follow the example set by the Australian Capital Territory Government and refrain from acting as a watchdog over women's reproductive choices.

Anne O'Rourke is a vice-president of Liberty Victoria, a lawyer and a lecturer at Monash University. Liberty Victoria's submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry can be found at www.libertyvictoria.org.au

A small modification …

19 December 2007 – from The Age

JUST a slight rewrite of Anne O'Rourke's opening statement: "Those with moral objections to slavery should not own slaves. Neither should they be allowed — in a free and democratic society — to impose their particular moral beliefs on others, nor have those beliefs imposed through the law." We are in profoundly deep trouble as a civilisation when we cannot recognise the massive logical inconsistencies inherent in popular ideas, and, worse yet, actually campaign to further erode the most basic of human rights: that of drawing one breath after another. Notwithstanding your obfuscation, Anne, abortion is still wrong.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Declare war on woolly thinking

THAT a young Australian would opt to support religious-backed terrorism in the 21st century is remarkable and says volumes about the power of charismatic leaders such as Osama bin Laden over naive, gullible and ignorant members of society. Hicks' story hammers home the need to provide all Australians (and everyone else) with sufficient training in critical thinking and science to have the capacity to see through the irrational claims made by cults and religions about future non-earthly rewards and used to motivate the foot soldiers of terrorism. If the war on terror is seen as a war on irrationality we will win most ground, long term, with education rather than with military muscle or fridge magnets.

I look forward to Hicks' apology but rather than attend a police station three times a week as part of his control order, perhaps he could attend some science and philosophy classes instead.

Marc Hendrickx, Berowra Heights, NSW

 Religion and power are a bad mix

JOHN Roskam once again rewrites history and ignores obvious facts with his article on religion and politics (Opinion, 2/1). The influence that extreme (and less extreme) religious groups had on the Howard government was a disgrace. Howard quietly introduced huge, crippling fines for even discussing possible methods of euthanasia. He also introduced legal and huge tax exemptions for the Exclusive Brethren and their non-religious businesses in exchange for their large political contributions. Brendan Nelson wanted to introduce teaching of the very non-scientific intelligent design theories into our schools. Then there was the very murky, political RU486 debate. The list goes on. But Roskam wipes this aside with his revisionist nonsense that Howard's critics struggled to provide examples of this pernicious influence of religion. No, John, they struggled to be heard! Teaching intelligent design is not about morality. Nor is giving tax concessions to all non-religious businesses of the Exclusive Brethren. Separation of church and state starts to disappear as soon as a church donates funds to a political party.

Graeme Scarlett, East Malvern

Teach about delusion

MARC Henrickx's analysis (Letters, 31/12) is accurate and we should consider some strategies in order to arrest the imposition of irrational thoughts and teachings on children too young to defend themselves.

A good starting point might be to place Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on all school syllabuses. It would encourage our youth to think clearly and scientifically, not to swallow traditional superstitions, prejudices and inaccuracies.

Maybe such enlightenment would filter down and prevent any brainwashing of the very young by religious institutions. It was Voltaire who wrote: "If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."

Tom O'Connell, Pascoe Vale

Debating Dawkins

IF TOM O'Connell (Letters, 2/1) wants Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on school syllabuses, then may I suggest, in the interest of stimulating enlightenment, two opposing points of view, namely The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, and The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths by a Scottish pastor, David Robertson.

If Dawkins' book was full of such aspirations to think "clearly and scientifically", Tom, you'll have nothing to fear from that, will you? Or is "brainwashing" OK, so long as it's your brand of imposition? From David Hume to Madalyn Murray O'Hair and now Dawkins, various opponents of Christianity will come and go, along with their ideas. There's a reason for that.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Now I understand

WHEN I read Marc Hendrickx's elevation of philosophy as the antidote to religion and fanaticism (Letters, 31/12), I wondered how he could believe this when there have been so many philosophers who were believers and so many others who have endorsed foolish and fanatical ideologies. Thanks to Tom O'Connell (Letters, 2/1) for providing the key: "philosophy" and "education" actually mean indoctrinating children to accept Richard Dawkins.

Andrew Moody, Blackburn South