Page 1113 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This Bill, however, Madam Speaker, is about the further dismantling of our society. A government that would defend the rights of animals and preserve the trees but views human life as being dispensable has lost its way. Let there be no mistake; our response to this Bill will be a reflection of how this society regards its most precious resource.
For my part, I strongly oppose this Bill. I realise that the Bill will not necessarily change the existing law relating to unlawful abortion, but the mere fact that it will provide for greater accessibility for those requiring abortion sets in train a whole new situation. It is not hard to imagine that the automatic extension of this will be the establishment of abortion clinics, and a further extension of this will be the ready facilitation of abortions virtually on demand. There is no question about it, in my mind.
The Minister for Health, by his own admission, in his introductory address to this Bill, pointed out that the termination of a pregnancy is a safe and relatively simple procedure. What is the Minister trying to say in pointing this out? Is he saying that because it is so easy it really is not a problem? What an indictment of our society if this is how we view the beginning of life. It can be dispensed with quickly and easily, like having your tonsils out. It is just a routine operation. This admission of the Minister's is why so many people in the community are very concerned about this matter and why they are vehemently opposed to it. This is why we have all received so many letters strongly opposing it.
The Minister goes on to say in his speech that the termination of pregnancy is a reflection of our society's failure to provide perfect contraceptive methods. I would like to reply to Mr Moore about this. My church did not tell me to stand up here and say this. What nonsense! What a stupid statement! Madam Speaker, it is also a reflection on this society's very poor attitude towards the sanctity of life. Those who support this Bill speak of convenience, costs, and the woman's right to choose. What are we on about when this question of life can be weighed up against the question of convenience?
This is a very arrogant view of life and the particular role that the woman plays in it. For a start, it takes two to produce a child, but many of the pro-abortion groups would have you believe that the male has no rights in this matter. If you ask them whether the male should be consulted prior to an abortion, they will claim that it is the woman's right to choose. A husband and a wife cannot even open a joint bank account, or close it for that matter, without the approval of both. But a woman may obtain an abortion - - -
Mr Connolly: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have to question the relevance of a husband and wife opening a joint bank account.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Westende, I would remind you to remain focused on the debate. Please continue.
MR WESTENDE: A woman may obtain an abortion without any requirement of consent from her husband or partner. It is relevant, Madam Speaker, in that respect. I have no argument with a woman's right to choose how she conducts her own life and how she wishes to look after her own body, but I do object to the view that the woman should have the sole right to choose over the life of an unborn child. Ready accessibility for abortions will unleash a very grave situation that threatens the very fabric of our society. Greater convenience, economy, a simple solution to an unwanted pregnancy, is not the way to go.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .