With both houses of parliament voting to hand control of the drug RU486 to the Therapeutic Drugs Administration, women who choose to abort their pregnancy now have a choice as to how that abortion will be carried out. At least, they will soon be able to use RU486 to terminate their unborn child if they have made the choice to abort before the 6-8 weeks period during which the drug is effective. Given that the debate was not supposed to be about whether abortions should be allowed but whether women ought to have a choice about how abortions are carried out, sanity seems to have prevailed.
Some people of considerable influence, however, did their best to make the debate about abortion itself. Tony Abbott, the Health Minister, was one of these people. He made no bones about bringing his religious beliefs to the debate. This raises a whole heap of questions about separation/integration of religion into politics, but this post won’t be asking any of those questions. Rather, the object of this post is to highlight what I think is very valid point made by the Health Minister:
We have a bizarre double standard in this country where someone who kills a pregnant woman’s baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice.
Although some have described Mr Abbott’s statement as "unfortunate" (notably Amanda Vanstone), to me, as somebody who is generally pro-choice, this poses a real moral dilemma, which cannot be dismissed and simply swept under the carpet. Unfortunately, I don’t see how this dilemma can be adequately resolved.
4 replies on “RU486”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any double standard. While the woman chooses to have an abortion, the killer deprives the woman of any choice — the baby dies even if the woman wanted it to live. It’s worthwhile noting that this situation is the same in regard to euthanasia (that of course doesn’t mean you have to hold the same views on them both).
Yes, but it seems rather harsh to charge somebody with murder when, in another circumstance, that same unborn might have been terminated by legal means.
It seems to me that’s like saying it seems harsh to charge someone for stealing a couch when, in another circumstance, the owner might have gotten rid of it like taking it to the dump. (and of course I’m not trying to imply abortion is like taking something to the dump)
Yeah, I guess it all comes down to delegation of rights. If we agree that the rights of the unborn child are delegated to the pregnant woman and, therefore, she alone determines whether her unborn child lives or dies, then the issue is resolved. However, it brings to light a different issue: why does the delegation of rights from the unborn to the mother cease when the child is born? Ought abortion be legal at any time during a pregnancy? Is the physical separation of the unborn from its mother truly the defining moment at which a baby becomes human? Or is it after 14 weeks pregnancy? 20 weeks perhaps? At present, legislation about when abortion is legal differs from state to state, and the legislation will always be arbitrary, no matter what choices are made.