Ani Difranco - Tiptoe

It's better when she says it:

tiptoeing through the used condoms
strewn on the piers
off the west side highway
sunset behind the skyline of jersey
walking towards the water
with a fetus holding court in my gut
my body highjacked
my tits swollen and sore
the river has more colors at sunset than my sock drawer ever dreamed of

I could wake up screaming sometimes
but I don't

I could step off the end of this pier
but I've got shit to do
I've an appointment on tuesday to shed
uninvited blood and tissue
I'll miss you
I say to the river
to the water
to the son or daughter I thought better of

I could fall in love with jersey at sunset
but I leave
the view
to the rats
and tiptoe back

Tell The Truth are on TV now

Thanks to a heads up from a reader I discover that Tell the Truth are televising their misinformation.

At ten to twelve this morning channel nine aired an add from the Tell the Truth Coalition.

You can view it here. Click on the "Life" TV commercial. Note that there are NO women pictured. Even when the voice over, full of syrupy concern, says that the new laws will not protect women, the picture is of a pregnant belly hugged by a child. The woman, as usual, is portrayed as an incubator (if she could be said to be portrayed at all). Also note that the written component of the add is from the viewpoint of the foetus: "My heart, my limbs..". As usual, the foetus is portrayed as something that is capable of a viewpoint. The sentient cows most of us consume regularly have viewpoints, a foetus is not capable of a viewpoint until months after birth, that is, after it has become a baby. Also note the church organ background music (I thought of dracula, anyone else?)



Seen it? Let's see what ol' Ronny would have you believe this time. (I'm sorry if this is a bit rough, it's late...)

"3 Weeks My heart is beating."

The general consensus of my texts (below) is that it begins to beat at four weeks. The heart begins to develop at three weeks.

"7 weeks I have fingerprints."

No, no and no no no. Finger and foot prints begin forming at week 16 according to Visible Embryo. According to MedlinePlus they are not forming until week 24. They are not set in stone until much later. At 7 weeks PADS form on the hands. These are bumps that eventually become fingerprints, but fingerprints they are not indeedy. No no no no no.

"12 weeks My limbs and organs have formed."

Not this again... here, I'll just cut and paste from the last time with a few edits...

As I am doing a thesis on foetal pain I knew immediately that this is patently untrue. For example, skin keratinisation (where the skin becomes more like skin on a full term baby) does not begin until week 16, thalamocortical structures in the brain (important connections for pain perception) are not laid down until 26 weeks, 22 at the very earliest. Scalp hair patterning begins at 16 weeks, bone formation (calcification of bones) begins at week 14. Limbs do not reach their final relative proportions until week 17, and the uterus in females is not complete until week 18. So, the skeletal structure is yet to ossify (or become hard bones), the foetus might have nerves but the central nervous system has barely begun to resemble that of a full term baby. The 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails, hair, certain reproductive organs, skin as we know it, functioning lungs…. … I could go on, but I think I have made my point. This sentence is, again, incorrect and emotive. The idea is to paint a picture of a miniature fully formed baby at 12 weeks. If it were truly equivalent to a baby, we could put it in a pram and walk it around the block.

"I am a human being."

This can be a tricky one. A foetus is human and alive, no doubt about either. (Yey! They got something right!) However, conscious? Nope. Sentient? Not until at least week 26. Self aware with desires and interests? Not until some months after birth. It is my position that a human being in the foetal state should not have rights that trump the rights of a human being in the adult state. These rights include the right to refuse to lend your body to save the life of another. For example, it is possible for most of us to live with only one kidney. Yet we do not make our citizens hand over their second kidneys in order to save another citizen's life. In our society we get to choose whether or not to use our bodies to help other people to live. Women must be able to choose whether or not they will use their bodies to turn a potential human life into a fully fledged human life.

"I need your protection."

Now this last one made me spit out my rather yummy Red Back beer. What do they think happens to unwanted babies? What do they think would happen to 30,000 extra unwanted babies in Victoria per year? There are plenty of CHILDREN out there already who need protection from their own PARENTS (350,000 reports of child abuse in Australia per year for those who did not watch Andrew Denton...). Anti-Choicers want to make more of these miserable beings? Argh! I have no more words...

Now for the dialogue:

"Human life is precious."

Uhuh. It's weird that given the preciousness of human life we're so keen to keep a thriving military and tolerate a third world in our own back yard. Next?

"Yet the Victorian Government is considering removing all legal protection for children until the moment of birth."

Note the use of the word "children" and the assumption, that I mentioned in a previous post, that women are satanic harpies who will willy nilly demand abortions the moment they go into labour. Also the assumption that the current situation is protective.

"This will not help protect children..."

Okeee, I didn't think it was supposed to. Or did I miss something? Actually, I've just realised that freely available abortion does protect children. It protects them from poverty, overcrowding, and the pain of being blamed for the unhappiness of their parents and consequently being abused or killed.

"...or women."

Notice that we're an afterthought?

"Say NO to legalising abortion in Victoria."

*sigh* because keeping it illegal was doing a great job of protecting the children wasn't it?

I've had enough. Sorry peeps, it's 1am and hours past my bedtime. This post will probably end up being edited for clarity tomorrow... refs below.





An atlas of human prenatal developmental mechanics : anatomy and staging, by Jan E. Jirásek, London : Taylor & Francis, c2004
The developing human : clinically oriented embryology, by Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud. 7th ed, Philadelphia, Saunders, c2003.

My own amendment to the Decriminalisation of Abortion Bill

The Australian has reported that Catholic anti-choice groups are warning MPs that a portion of the bill may breech Victoria's Charter of Human Rights.

That'll be the bit where they have to refer a woman to a doctor with no conscientious objection to performing an abortion.

I'd like to propose my own amendment that will nip the problem in the bud and allow women with problem pregnancies to nip them in the bud with a minimum of humiliation and embarrassment. Hospitals and doctors with conscientious objections to abortion and birth control should have clear signs in their waiting rooms warning patients that this is the case. That will save both the women and the doctors some time, save the women some money in the case of private consultations and above all, spare the women the humiliation and embarrassment of harsh judgement at such a vulnerable time in their lives.

Signs would circumvent the problem of doctors acting against their conscience and hospitals acting against their charter because women wouldn't waste their time with people who put their faith before their patients. (This happened to a friend of mine who went to the Mercy to enquire about a contraceptive implant. The nurse let her explain the whole situation before saying, "You know we're a Catholic hospital?" My friend was naturally peeved.)

As for the objection to performing an abortion to save the life of the mother, Archbishop Denis Hart knows damn well that the Catholic church has the Doctrine of Double Effect to deal with situations like that. Catholic doctors would not have to act against their consciences if the mother's life was at stake. According to the doctrine of double effect an abortion to save the mother's life is morally permissible. It is not the problem Catholic groups are making it out to be.

I'll say it again, BIG signs stating that:

"This Practice Does Not Provide Full Reproductive Health Services"

would solve the problem. Women could ring around until they found a doctor who did provide a full service. In fact, women could choose their family GP and specialists based on these considerations if they wished to do so. I wonder how many patients a doctor would lose after placement of such a sign?

Antidote - an apt pregnancy craving.

I thought I'd share a facebook friend's response to a "Ten Second Interview" question. It made my day.

Q: If you were pregnant you'd crave...

A: An antidote.

The respondent was a bloke which made it all the funnier for me. It had a "No WAY am I doing that shit!" ring to it.

Also, given my mixed feelings about spawning again I can just imagine that's what I'd be craving too. I don't do pregnancy well and get through it by looking forward to the day when the invasion of my body is over. Luckily I thoroughly enjoy my spawn once they are verbal! :-)

Steve Fielding, pro-choice! Be still my heart!

Wow. Family First senator Steve Fielding crosses the floor, or rather, steps away from his party line, on the issue dearest to my heart at the moment. Pity he's in the wrong upper house :-(

An interesting read from I'mnotsorrydotnet

This was a comment on imnotsorrydotnet. The author is unknown to me, and it's long but I think it's well worth getting a cuppa and reading the whole thing. It's a christian prochoice argument.

Christianity is an incredibly simple religion. Christ did the hard part by dying on the cross for our sins. Then, all that we have to do is believe in Christ. That's easy; all that we have to do is say "I believe". After that, it's love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Again, that's easy. Everyone loves God. The next part is easy also. We love our neighbor, just hate their sins or things they do. Not only that, if everything else fails, all that we have to do is confess our sins, ask for forgiveness, and our sins are forgiven. Since Christ loves us and died for our sins, He surely wouldn't let us go to hell. Add to this the supernatural help Christ promises us in this life. It's like Christ giving us a million dollars with no strings attached. We would be crazy to not take it.

Everything would be great if Christ had just shut up and left it at that.

In Matthew 7:21, Christ said, "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father which is in heaven". Christ says similar things in John: 15, 14:23-24 and 15:6. Christ can tell very quickly who really believes in Him and those who are just talking. It is by our actions that He can tell what we really believe. We can't buy our way into heaven with good deeds; that comes from God's grace. We also can't fake belief or faith in Christ, all that Christ has to do is look at what we do to tell what we really believe.

In John 14:34, Christ says, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another". Christ says this again in Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27-28 and in John 15:12 and 17. Christ is very clear about what happens to us if our love isn't translated into action. Matthew 25:41-46 41 Then He will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me no food: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: 42 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in: naked, and you didn't clothed me: sick and in prison and you didn't care for me. 43 Then they will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you? 44 Then He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do to one of the least of these; you did not do for me. 45 And these will go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous to eternal life.

Christ tells us that we will go to hell for doing many things but this is the only time He tells us that we will go to hell if we don't do something.

This presents a huge problem for religious leaders. If people spend their time, effort and money feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty etc., as Christ commanded, they can't build churches or pay their religious leaders a salary. We all have a limited amount of time, effort and money that we can give to religion. Religious leaders have come up with two very simple solutions. First, they just ignore these passages or make token efforts like giving some old clothes in a clothing drive, a few cans of food to a food pantry or work in a soup kitchen every once in a while. And yet there are literally hundreds of millions of people who go hungry every day. This is hundreds of millions of people who will say that we didn't give them food or drink or shelter or clothing or medical help or visit them in prison. What do we tell God then? It is hard to care for these hundreds of millions of people. A few live in this country but most of them live in Africa, Asia or Latin America. Out of sight and out of mind, except to Christ, of course.

The second thing religious leaders do is to divert attention from doing what Christ commanded. Here are some of the many ways they do this. Abortion is a common way that religious leaders divert attention from doing what Christ commanded. The Pro-Life supporters consider themselves as doing God's will in "thou shalt not kill" and "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren". They consider the fetus to be the very, very least of God's brethren. This is easy. All they have to do is pass laws against abortion or otherwise prevent abortions and they have done God's will.

Most of the supporters of the "Pro-Life" movement view this disagreement as being between those who are doing God's will and those who find having a baby to be inconvenient. In reality, it is a disagreement between those who will take responsibility for the child after it is born and those that believe their responsibility ends with the birth of the child.

To understand what they really do though, imagine a man who does God's will of "go forth and multiply" Genesis 9:7. He rapes as many women as possible to produce as many children as possible. He is doing God's will and thus insuring he will go to heaven. He doesn't care what happens to the children he fathers, his responsibility ended when he fathered the children. It is the woman's responsibility to care for the child. If she can't or doesn't, that's not his problem. This is exactly what the people who support the Pro-Life position do.

Since our fictitious man is following a teaching in the bible, he may be convinced that will earn him a place in heaven. Most might disagree. But it really doesn't matter what any of us think or believe, the only thing that matters is what God decides.
The people who support the "Pro-Life" movement have no intention of taking care of the children they force to be born. They don't even know who or where these children are. - Most of them live in Latin America, Africa or Asia. - More important, they don't think or care enough about them to want to relieve the constant hunger, thirst, and grinding poverty that these millions of children suffer all day every day.

Most supporters of the "Pro-Life" movement can't imagine themselves being cast into everlasting fire as Christ promised. They think of themselves as the "good guys" doing God's work. But according to Christ, they aren’t doing his work at all.
In Matthew 7:15-20 and Luke 6:43-49, Christ said "Beware of false prophets...you will know them by their fruits". It is so easy to call a fetus a child and thus the fruits of the Pro-Life movement would be saving the lives of millions of babies. Certainly, many of these children will live good, healthy and happy lives. We also know that hundreds of millions of these children will live lives of hunger, disease and despair.

What about the "sanctity of life"? It isn't one of Christ's teachings! Surely he would have mentioned it but He must have forgot. Actually, Christ does address this issue. In Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:6-9, Christ said, "full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition". It is easy to come up with all kinds of traditions and declare them inspired by God. It is very hard to actually practice love as Christ commanded.

The concept of "the sanctity of life” does one very important thing. It gives people an excuse for NOT following the teachings of Christ. Now people don't have to look at the "fruit" of their actions and see if they are "love". If you think "love" means abandoning a child to hunger, disease and hopelessness, please trade your own children, grandchildren or other loved ones with these children. Do this without any chance of ever seeing them again. After all, many times, Christ commanded us to "love one another as I have love you".

What if your parents aborted you? If a soul exists, your soul would be with all the other souls of those whose parents had miscarriages. Billions or even trillions of fetuses die as miscarriages and good "Pro-Life" couples just flush them down the drain. If these fetuses have a soul, what happens to it? The same thing whether it died from a miscarriage or an abortion. If it doesn't go straight to heaven, then every Christian married couple is condemning the souls of their fetuses to hell or someplace else equally bad.

One thing we know for sure is that if you go to eternal damnation, you will wish to God that you had been aborted. Not only that, but you will curse to hell those who caused you to be born.

Some churches put crosses out to symbolize fetuses that have been aborted. They should display a thousand crosses to symbolize the thousands of children they have deliberately let starve so they can go to a nice church and pay a clergy tell them how God loves them for doing this. Certainly, Christ has a special place for them for letting all of these children starve.
The real fruits of the supporters of the "Pro-Life" movement are hundred of millions of children who are hungry.

Some people pretend to believe in a "literal" interpretation of the bible. To them, this guarantees that they don't make any mistakes and thus ensures that they will go straight to heaven. They don't really believe in a literal interpretation of course. In Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25, Christ says that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven". It is literally impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Do they really believe that it is impossible for a rich man to go to heaven? Of course not! They picked out the belief in evolution because it is so much easier to deal with than feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty etc. They don't even pretend to love their neighbor as themselves. This is just an easy way to trick themselves into believing they are going to heaven. But according to Christ, they condemn themselves to hell for not putting love into practice.

Climate change is another topic where Christ can easily see if we really believe in Him. Parts of Africa, Asia and Latin American are suffering from severe drought or flooding because of climate change. But many people, who pretend to believe in Christ, would sooner enjoy their good lives in this world rather than reduce their energy use. They have all kinds of excuses. Climate change really isn't happening. It's a natural cycle. It might improve our conditions here. Ultimately though, they just don't care what their actions do to other people.

Others talk about homosexuality and other people's sins of whatever type. It's a matter of looking at the splinter in someone else's eye rather than the log in our own. Of course, it is always so much easier to worry about what someone else is doing rather than do the things Christ commanded.

What about forgiveness of sins? To most people, these are magic words and all they have to do is say them and they get into heaven free. Actually, very few people really want forgiveness. What they really want is to continue doing what they have always done and just not be punished for their sins. They believe that God is too stupid to know the difference.

These ideas must be the work of the devil because they challenge so much of "traditional" Christian thinking. Let's use the teaching of Christ to determine if this is the work of a false prophet (Matthew 7:15, Mark 13:22 and Luke 21:8) or of the blind leading the blind (Matthew 15:14 and Luke 6:39). Christ said, by their fruit you will know them (Matthew 16-20 and Luke 6:44). Which actions do you think follow Christ's teaching to love one another as He has loved us? Did we give money to build a new church or did we give money to feed the hungry? Did we spend our time trying to convert others to our view of Christianity or did we spend our time giving drink to the thirsty? Did we spend our effort forcing more babies to be born or do we spend our effort feeding the millions of hungry babies who have already been born?

Keep in mind that doing what Christ commanded isn't easy. There are corrupt governments, warlords, drug lords and crooks of all kinds out there ready to steal the food, water, medicine and other supplies given to those who need them. We have to decide if we want to keep our hard earned money for ourselves and our own little congregation or tackle these problems as Christ commanded.

In Matthew 4:4, Christ says, "Man can't live by bread alone, but by the word of God". That means we don't have to worry about bread for the hungry, we just have to tell them what Christ said, doesn't it? Most people understand that Christ was talking to people who have bread and not those who need bread.

In Matthew 7:13 and Luke 13:24, Christ tells us that the broad, easy way leads to destruction. It is the narrow, hard things that lead to salvation and that few will be willing to follow it. For so many people, that means protecting themselves from the evils of this world. That's easy. What's hard is to go out into the evils of this world and practice the love that Christ has given us.
Imagine that on your way to church, you came across an infant that had been abandoned. What would you do? Would you call for help and take care of the infant? Or would you just step over it because you didn't want to be late for church? What if you knew there was an abandoned baby a couple of blocks away on a street you don't normally take? What would you do? What if you knew there were millions of babies on different continents that needed help and you didn't help them?

For many people, their final ace in the hole is Christ's teaching in Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27 and Luke 18:27. The apostles ask who can be saved and Christ answers "what is impossible for human beings is possible for God". What religious leaders want this to mean is that every other teaching of Christ can be ignored. God loves us and we can do anything we want and He'll still take us to heaven.

This presents a serious problem. Does God love all of us and we're all going to heaven no matter what we do? If so, then why does Christ (Matthew 7:13, 7:21 and 13:49-50, Mark 13:22, Luke 21:8 and John 15:6) talk about some of us going to heaven and some of us going to hell?

In John 14:26, Christ said that he would send the Holy Spirit to “teach us everything and to remind us of all that He (Christ) told us”. Does anyone really believe that the Holy Spirit is sent to fix all of the things that Christ got wrong? Apparently huge numbers of people believe just that! They don’t believe the teachings of Christ or in Christ, they believe in the teachings of various “saints”, religious leaders or founders of different “Christian” religions.

Now here is the most horrible thought any Christian can imagine. What if Christ got it right the first time and didn’t forget anything? What if Christ loves us and can easily tell who loves him back by what they do about his teaching? Hundreds of millions of hungry people will be testifying on judgment day either for us or against us.

None of us can imagine that we personally are going to hell. To do so might be a sign of mental illness. We especially can’t imagine that our loved ones who have died might be in hell rather than heaven. We believe that if Christ loves us, He can’t possibly let us be led astray. We don’t believe Christ when he tells us again, again and again how our religious leaders will deceive us. Get out your own bible and read it for yourself.

Christ taught a good news, bad news type of thing. For the people willing to go out into the world and make it a better place, He promises salvation. For the rest who just sit around and praise the Lord, He promises eternal damnation. Christ clearly knew that most people would choose the “Lord, Lord” route. He told us that many are called but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). It's up to us to decide which group we will be in.

Post on "This is my truth, tell me yours."

Reply to a post on This is my truth, tell me yours:

I love it when Pro-Lifers attempt logic.

Chris, your arguments are flawed because you have hidden premises that are false.

1. Please find ONE example where a woman merrily "decides" she wants to abort a baby capable of being born alive without grave concerns for either her health or the baby's welfare. It's a monumental decision not a mere whim. To imply that it is anything else is to reveal your contempt for women and your view that they should not be autonomous moral agents. Perhaps you believe the story about the apple and the snake? And you're wrong about the legal issue, the according to the new laws it is possible for an abortion after 24 weeks to be illegal. The legality will depend on the circumstances.

2. Medical staff who object to abortions should not be working in women's reproductive health. Period. Providers of abortion have every right to refuse employment to conscientious objectors. Do you seriously think a good Catholic nurse is going to apply for work at a family planning clinic anyway? Besides, a medical professional who refused to perform ANY medical procedure to the detriment of a patient would be guilty of professional negligence and punished. The bill only protects women from being at the whim of their healthcare providers by ensuring that, a) they are referred to a healthcare provider who is sympathetic to their needs, and b) that they can have an abortion when their life is at stake. Again, if you don't want to perform abortions then don't work in women's health care. It's quite simple.

3. ANY operation performed without a patient's consent is assault. Whether or not it's an abortion is irrelevant. That is one of the more ridiculous arguments being bandied about at the moment.

4. It seems you only object to late-term abortions if you are worried about the baby crying. You really need to clarify that. In fact, your whole thought process could do with a bit of clarification.

Here's some things you could consider:

Some developmental biology obtained from a medical text book rather than a Pro-Life website (where medical facts are exaggerated to the point of falsehood).

Some ethics not obtained from a religious source (most of which advocate stoning women to death for minor misdemeanors). "Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong" by Louis Pojman is meant to be a good beginners text.

Oh, and finally, please butt out of our deeply personal and private reproductive decisions. Ta.

Letter to The Age re Tell the Truth claims

Dear Editor,

In Michael Bachelard’s article “The Gloves come off in battle over abortion” he quotes Mr Waardural of the Tell The Truth Coalition as saying that Mr Ron Van Wegen was “a bit less active now”. Given that a pamphlet authorised by Mr Van Wegen was recently distributed in the Ballarat area, one could say the man remains very active indeed.

Also in the article, Right to Life Australia spokesperson Marcel Smith claims that there is no formal link between Right to Life Australia and the Tell the Truth Coalition. Perhaps Mr Smith could have mentioned that the initial Tell the Truth website (tellthetruth.org.au) was registered by Margaret Tighe of Right to Life Australia. Soon after the March leaflet campaign by Tell the Truth, the website disappeared (noted by me on March 31st) and was replaced by tellthetruthcoalition.org.au which is registered by Mr Ron Van Wegen (noted by me on April 5th). So, though there are no formal links, it seems that Right to Life Australia was initially supportive of the Tell the Truth campaign.



The report of recent pamphlet distributions:
http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/girl-finds-graphic-antiabortion-leaflet/1254733.aspx

The new pamphlet with Mr Van Wegen’s authorisation and the same phone number as the last leaflet from the Tell the Truth Coalition:
http://tellthetruthcoalition.org.au/media.php?topl=3

A simple “whois” search on the domain names above will confirm the truth of my claims. The timing of the change of domain was noted on my meager weblog:
http://emervents.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-is-tellthetruthorgau.html
http://emervents.blogspot.com/2008/04/has-margaret-tighe-withdrawn-her.html

Ok, I take back what I said about The Age earlier...

Despite the ratio of Pro-Life letters to Pro-Choice letters being skewed, I am now slightly happier about The Age's editorial position. How could I not be?

Decriminalisation of Abortion Bill passes lower house

I thought I would want to blog about this but I just can't. The comfortable margin is a small relief but the comments from people opposing the bill make me literally sick with anger.

Please vote in The Age poll today.

Today's poll in the Age asks "Do you support the move to decriminalise abortion in Victoria?"

Please take the time to vote "Yes" because you can bet there is an organised majority out there poised to flood it with "No"s.

Blow me down - a positive spin on drugs for mental illness!

I was a bit hard on The Age a post or two ago, but I was very pleased to read this with my morning cup of tea. An article outlining what can happen to mentally ill folk if they don't take their medication, including suicide, hostility toward others and jail.

Without a course of antidepressants when I needed it I would be dead. Period. Without antipsychotic medication my Aunt would probably be in jail. The article stated that the media didn't help with the stigma associated with drugs for mental illness, but from my experience, neither did my family and friends. Here's a snippet from a letter I sent somewhere else, it sums up my feelings nicely!

As a sufferer for twenty years, I have seen it all. From people who will go out of their way for you as though you are an emotional invalid, to people who pretend they don’t know, to the contemptuous and dismissive "get over it" types. Here are some examples, I am sure fellow sufferers will be familiar:

Dismissal of suicide attempts as “a cry for help” or “attention seeking”.

Angry accusations of selfishness after suicide attempts “how could you do this to us?” (irony alert).

Asking loudly and in company how your “depresso drugs” are going, and whether they are working yet.

Jokes about borrowing your prescription medication “to pep me up, I’ve had a bad day.”

Being told you are no better than a heroin addict or alcoholic because you have a “chemical dependency”.

People tip-toeing around you as though you have been recently bereft.

Accusations of “putting it on” to get out of commitments or obtain prescribed uppers.

It's really no wonder people resist seeking help and taking medication. If they do eventually seek help, they keep it under their hats. Recovering from depression would be much easier without having to cope with the attitudes of thoughtless and ignorant people. The people I am most grateful for are the pragmatic ones. They accept that I am sick, satisfy themselves that I am getting treatment and ask if there is anything they can do. Unfortunately, they are the exception.

Letter to my representatives

To my representative,

It is my hope that you will choose option C and accept no amendments. Personally, I trust that the Australian Law Reform Commission has carefully considered the matter of amendments and has justifiably rejected them, I sincerely hope that is your position.

I am a qualified and practicing scientist with a qualification in philosophy. I am married with two happy children. I have also had an abortion.

As a woman who has experienced both wanted and unwanted pregnancies I am tired of being treated like a moral infant from the moment two cells meet in my body. Both when I asked for an abortion and when I received medical care for my pregnancies I felt like my body's fate was entirely in the hands of male doctors who will never have to face an unplanned pregnancy, nor could they know what it is to carry and birth a baby. I'm an intelligent and responsible person, yet I am regarded as a careless hussy for the abortion I asked for (I have become pregnant twice while using birth control, I'm not careless, nor am I a "hussy"), and was treated as though I was a potential danger to my babies when I chose to have them. I felt I was regarded as incompetent because of the potential child inside me - the treatment was patronising and insulting, not to mention discriminatory.

Please choose the option that will give me, and women like me, full autonomy over one part of our reproductive lives - Option C.

Yours sincerely,
Emma N Fox

Pro-Choice Fizzle :-( Let's get on with our lives.

The turn out by Pro-Choice activists at parliament today was disappointing, not to mention embarrassing when you compare it to the Pro-Life turn out. Or perhaps I'm just taking The Age pro-life editorial slant too seriously and should wait for some other media coverage. (What, you hadn't noticed The Age's Pro-Life leanings? Jeepers, don't get me started...)

The Australian Law Reform Commission felt that the vocal Pro-Life component represented a mere 10% of the population. Yet the turn-out at the parliament steps would give the impression that the reverse is the case. What's our problem? Is it apathy? Are we still secretly ashamed? Are we simply less organised? Or are we, as I have long contended, simply getting on with our lives?

Why did I do laundry instead of going along, kids and all? Ok, maybe there's the crippling anxiety that makes doing new things on my own nigh impossible, and I used up all my reserves to fight that when I went to Monash on Thursday to meet a scary smart philosopher dude about a PhD... But I feel like I should have been there today. I'm certainly vocal enough from my lap-top. Why did I not put my money where my mouth is and paint myself a sign? (My favourites are: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" and "Never Again" with a picture of a coat hanger.) I don't really know why I didn't go. I strongly suspect it's because this is one issue in which I am socially isolated. Most of my friends are sensible scientists who just don't get worked up about this sort of thing. (They are busy getting on with their lives.) Friends who have had abortions feel as though they could get one when they needed one so don't see any point in changing something in name only. (They are busy getting on with their lives.) And I strongly suspect that people I haven't spoken to about it find the whole matter distasteful. They'd rather not think about it, are happy to let someone else deal with it, and... guess what? They are busy getting on with their lives.

I am beginning to think a paltry turn out by the Pro-Choice people is worse than no turn out at all. At least if there were no turn out it could have been construed as our decision not to engage with the Pro-Lifers. It would have been far more dignified than the "yelling" reported in the article. Yelling does nothing but attract the press, and often in the wrong way. What matters is contacting the people who will vote in parliament. Let's remain in the civilised majority. Let's write our letters clearly stating our position. Let's make our voice heard in a quiet and dignified manner. Then let's get on with our lives.

It's ch-ch-ch-ch-choice people.

Thanks to my husband for this link. The Daily Show's Samantha Dee interviews republicans about Palin's reproductive CHOICES. I thought it was hilarious, but I have a very specific sense of humour...

I'm at home with the kids now, but I'm thinking of the rally starting at 1pm at Parliament House today and hoping they get a good turn out.

Victorian MPs need your letters of support

I read this in The Age this morning:

"One member of Parliament said emails and telephone calls from Right to Life campaigners had reached a "fever pitch". "One colleague took a call from someone who just yelled 'child killer' into the phone," she said."

Victorian MPs need to hear from the from the kind of people who do not scream into the phone. The kind of people who will support a rational move to recognise women as autonomous moral agents and arbiters of their own fate.

A letter to your MP does not have to be long, you can merely say: "Dear Minister, I vote, I support Option C, I hope you do too." Seriously. They have staff who are counting preferences, make yours heard and we can drown out the voices of the Pro-Life crazies.

ProChoiceVic have made expressing your views to MPs easy. Try to imagine yourself with an unwanted pregnancy and an uncertain future, imagine that you did your best but birth control failed, imagine that you live in a country where someone who is not you is dictating what is best for you in this circumstance. Then write.

Daisies for bad drivers?

In Croatia, a shopping centre has provided special extra wide parking spaces for the ladies. They are pink and decorated with flowers.

Naturally people from both sides of the gender divide are furious. You could imagine the reaction in Australia, where women are such god awful drivers that we get (OMG!) lower insurance premiums.