Personal agendas of politicians

[Julia]

Given that this forum is mostly made up of blokes, could you put aside your gender temporarily and consider Tony Abbott's most recent moves:

i.e. a few weeks ago he authorised a fairly large grant to a "Pro-Life" organisation for "counselling for unplanned pregnancies". No such similar grant was made to any "pro-choice" organisation for similar counselling.
Guess how many referrals for terminations the pro-life organisation would make as a result of their "counselling".???

Now, despite convincing medical evidence as to the efficacy of the "termination pill" which can be used as an alternative to surgical termination, he is refusing to even consider allowing this product to be listed for use.

Clearly, his personal religious beliefs are determining his political decisions and I find this totally inappropriate.

What do others think?

Julia

[wayneL]

Given that this forum is mostly made up of blokes, could you put aside your gender temporarily and consider Tony Abbott's most recent moves:

i.e. a few weeks ago he authorised a fairly large grant to a "Pro-Life" organisation for "counselling for unplanned pregnancies". No such similar grant was made to any "pro-choice" organisation for similar counselling.
Guess how many referrals for terminations the pro-life organisation would make as a result of their "counselling".???

Now, despite convincing medical evidence as to the efficacy of the "termination pill" which can be used as an alternative to surgical termination, he is refusing to even consider allowing this product to be listed for use.

Clearly, his personal religious beliefs are determining his political decisions and I find this totally inappropriate.

What do others think?

Julia

Jullia, You tend to start hot topics don't you

I'm going have splinters in my derrier' by ensconcing myself firmly on the fence on this issue.

But as a general comment regarding that particular religion. They preach free choice and condem you to hell for practising it...or take every opportunity to remove it. It doesn't make sense :-X

[son of baglimit]

as with the 2 most recent elections in usa, and how the religious right have influenced them - be conscious of the exact same happening here......
BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID.
their beliefs and blind ignorance are going to influence so much of our lives, and long as abbott and arses like him can gain a seat in power.
beware 'family first' - only 1 seat at the moment, but if they become the absolute difference between the coalition having or not having senate control, they will dictate every bit of legislation going thru parliament - with every piece complete with the phrase - 'praise jesus'.

GOD I HATE RELIGION....but thats another topic.

p.s. did you know if you played most HI 5 songs backwards, it says 'satan has eaten ya muther'.....true - really - try it !!

[ghotib]

Yeah well they don't call Abbot the Mad Monk for nothing! And Brendan Nelson seems to be sliding very fast down the same divinely despicable slope.

I think it's unrealistic to expect people, including ourselves, to exclude our religious (or ethical, or philosophical, or atheistic, or etc etc) beliefs from political decision making. However I also think it's unethical and dishonest to deny the influence of a belief or to refuse to consider evidence that appears to contradict a belief, which is what Abbot seems to be doing in relation to the "termination pill". And in today's world, I think it's essential to acknowledge that sometimes some political decisions are going to run counter to some religious beliefs, because sometimes those beliefs contradict each other.

That's not quite sitting on the fence is it? More like standing maybe.

Cheers,

Ghoti

[It's Snake Pliskin]

If the pill is more efficient and effective then what is the problem? We have abortions now. It's not like it is radical in any way.

Politicians really need to assess the results of their decisions in an impartial manner on issues such as this.

[happytrader]

Do you think it might have to do with populating Australia with more little 'Aussies'? After all the baby bonus is a big incentive.

When that was first introduced mums to be started delaying their inductions and caesarians to ensure they qualified for the bonus. That bonus has since increased.

Then you've got the treasurer suggesting we have one each for mum and dad and one for the country.

That grant for the Pro-life organisation certainly seems to support this chain of thought.

Polititians with an agenda,yes. To support personal religious beliefs, no. This is purely economically driven.

Cheers
Happytrader

[Julia]

Do you think it might have to do with populating Australia with more little 'Aussies'? After all the baby bonus is a big incentive.

When that was first introduced mums to be started delaying their inductions and caesarians to ensure they qualified for the bonus. That bonus has since increased.

Then you've got the treasurer suggesting we have one each for mum and dad and one for the country.

That grant for the Pro-life organisation certainly seems to support this chain of thought.

Polititians with an agenda,yes. To support personal religious beliefs, no. This is purely economically driven.

Cheers
Happytrader

Hello Happytrader,

From my initial post you will see that I can't agree with your conclusion that this stuff is not driven by personal religious beliefs. However, fair enough to suggest another motive is the government's desire for us to go forth and multiply. The sad thing about this is that, at least in my experience where I see a lot of people in the lowest socioeconomic demographic, the people who are getting into the most prolific procreation are those doing it primarily for the extra financial benefits. Obvious result of this is that those who have been on the dole for a very long time and have no intention of trying to alter their status, will produce more of the same - thus a continuation of the scourge of multigenerational welfare recipients. The likelihood of this group of people actually working and paying tax to contribute to the care of the much maligned baby boomers in their old age is minimal to say the least. Are these the new Aussies who are going to save our nation? Doesn't look like it to me at present. In the meantime, they receive more per week in welfare than most people on the minimum wage.



I suppose this is another thread? (?Joe, Rich,Wayne???)

Julia

PS I don't set out to start controversial threads for the sake of it. Topics like this are simply things that really upset me and I'm genuinely looking for either support or contradiction of my feelings.

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far and keep them coming.

[Julia]

Yeah well they don't call Abbot the Mad Monk for nothing! And Brendan Nelson seems to be sliding very fast down the same divinely despicable slope.

I think it's unrealistic to expect people, including ourselves, to exclude our religious (or ethical, or philosophical, or atheistic, or etc etc) beliefs from political decision making. However I also think it's unethical and dishonest to deny the influence of a belief or to refuse to consider evidence that appears to contradict a belief, which is what Abbot seems to be doing in relation to the "termination pill". And in today's world, I think it's essential to acknowledge that sometimes some political decisions are going to run counter to some religious beliefs, because sometimes those beliefs contradict each other.

That's not quite sitting on the fence is it? More like standing maybe.

Cheers,

Ghoti

Hi Ghoti,

Well said. I wouldn't feel so irritated it Abbot were to acknowledge the influence his religious beliefs have on his decision. But he doesn't, and tries to palm the whole thing off on to the opinions of one doctor who has been outshouted by a number of his colleagues.

Note also your less than flattering reference to Brendan Nelson.
Isn't it interesting that he is in favour of the latest suggestion from Melbourne University that, e.g. Law and Medicine, will no longer be available to students without their first completing a "basic" degree in, i.e. Arts or Science. All very fine for him to condemn them to more years of study and HECs fees considering he was a beneficiary of the years of free university education. Oh, how our views do change according to our station in life!!