Skip to content
The Catholic Leader
  • Home
  • News
    • QLD
    • Australia
    • Regional
    • Education
    • World
    • Vatican
  • Features
  • Opinion
  • Life
    • Family
    • Relationships
    • Faith
  • Culture
  • People
  • Subscribe
  • Jobs
  • Contribute
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • QLD
    • Australia
    • Regional
    • Education
    • World
    • Vatican
  • Features
  • Opinion
  • Life
    • Family
    • Relationships
    • Faith
  • Culture
  • People
  • Subscribe
  • Jobs
  • Contribute
No Result
View All Result
The Catholic Leader
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion Letters

RU486 debate contradictions

byStaff writers
12 February 2006
Reading Time: 3 mins read
AA
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

THE current debate about RU486 is primarily concerned with two topics.

The first is the “conscience vote” of all parliamentarians and the power of Australia’s Health Minister Tony Abbot to veto the drug RU486 or Mifepristone instead of the Therapeutic Goods Administration approving the drug.

Secondly, it is about the “issues” associated with “access” for country women to abortion, and therefore, the medical and emergency services available for rural women.

It is clear that the media want to avoid (where possible) the argument about abortion being “right or wrong”, and whether RU486 is a “healthy, safe and legal” option (thus avoiding culpability).

The next step deserves a separate debate/argument all to itself, and, defended with great fervour by pro-life supporters, it would be the ultimate victory.

Like it or not, Mr Abbot has the right to veto. John Howard (who we voted back in) gave the Health Minister that right in 1996 as a concession to Senator Brian Harradine to gain support for the sale of Telstra.

The concession was supported by both Liberal and Labor parties.

Parliamentarians (elected by us) are going to have a “conscience vote” on the topic.

All members from every party, all backgrounds and beliefs in parliament are voting on a topic which when looked at in black and white is asking the question: “Do we allow into our country a lethal cocktail that constitutes a new form of medical violence, endangers Australian women’s lives and violates their right to be free from bodily harm, trivialising a very serious situation that jeopardises a woman’s life and ends that of her unborn child?”

Due to the nature of the debate John Howard has asked members of parliament to vote with their conscience – the faculty or power of inward principle which decides the character of one’s own actions, purposes and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong and approving and prompting that which is right.

Related Stories

US bishops applaud San Francisco prelates pastoral response to Pelosi’s decades of abortion advocacy

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village

Life ‘is always sacred and inviolable’, Pope Francis says

Why all the worry? Why the media frenzy?

If abortion of any kind is morally right and not contradictory why are all pro-choice people worried about RU486 when it comes to a vote of conscience?

How can you make a decision in the best interests of Australian women’s health conscerning a drug if you don’t assess all its social, moral and ethical implications?

Pro-choice groups have presented traditional abortion as “safe and legal” for decades.

Now faced with the introduction of RU486, conventional abortion is being referred to as “surgical” and therefore unsafe.

How could a “chemical” abortion be safer?

RU486 abortion has a grave difference and it lies in the fact that once the drugs have entered a woman’s body, the risks of chemical abortion defy control.

Complications that can occur with RU486 tablets (and prostaglandin taken two days later) can draw out the abortion process to two weeks or more.

Some common side-effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, pelvic cramps, and bleeding for up to 40 days.

As a mother and concerned country woman I could fill pages with the documented complications but instead here are two that should be enough!

About 33,600 US women annually undergo a second and surgical abortion because their RU486 abortion was “ineffective”, 16,000 women per year required blood transfusions due to haemorrhage. Not an insignificant few. I would hardly consider RU486 “safe”.

It’s not just about “choice” and issues associated with “access” to abortion for rural women.

How on earth is RU486 going to help country women in already under-resourced and overburdened rural hospitals?

It would be parliamentary and medical gross negligence to allow such a dangerous cocktail fraught with serious known consequences into Australia.

It is blatantly obvious, we don’t need it!

ANNELISA CORBOY

Wangaratta, Vic

ShareTweet
Previous Post

JUST LIKE HEAVEN

Next Post

Breakfast treat on streets

Staff writers

Related Posts

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village
News

US bishops applaud San Francisco prelates pastoral response to Pelosi’s decades of abortion advocacy

24 May 2022
Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village
News

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village

24 May 2022
Life ‘is always sacred and inviolable’, Pope Francis says
Vatican

Life ‘is always sacred and inviolable’, Pope Francis says

23 May 2022
Next Post

Breakfast treat on streets

Recalling golden days with humour

Helping others is a stack of fun

Popular News

  • From a humble start Albanese is sworn in as new prime minister

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Here are the stories of 10 new saints being canonised this Sunday

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • US bishops applaud San Francisco prelates pastoral response to Pelosi’s decades of abortion advocacy

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Catholic environmentalist says Australia has failed as God’s caretakers of earth following interim report

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
Search our job finder
No Result
View All Result

Latest News

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village
News

US bishops applaud San Francisco prelates pastoral response to Pelosi’s decades of abortion advocacy

by CNS
24 May 2022
0

A NUMBER of US Catholic bishops have praised San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for declaring House Speaker...

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village

Myanmar military burns houses, destroys a village

24 May 2022
Life ‘is always sacred and inviolable’, Pope Francis says

Life ‘is always sacred and inviolable’, Pope Francis says

23 May 2022

From a humble start Albanese is sworn in as new prime minister

23 May 2022
Gwen has given 15,000 hours of cuddles to sick and premature babies

Gwen has given 15,000 hours of cuddles to sick and premature babies

20 May 2022

Never miss a story. Sign up to the Weekly Round-Up
eNewsletter now to receive headlines directly in your email.

Sign up to eNews
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

The Catholic Leader is an Australian award-winning Catholic newspaper that has been published by the Archdiocese of Brisbane since 1929. Our journalism seeks to provide a full, accurate and balanced Catholic perspective of local, national and international news while upholding the dignity of the human person.

Copyright © All Rights Reserved The Catholic Leader
Accessibility Information | Privacy Policy | Archdiocese of Brisbane

The Catholic Leader acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this country and especially acknowledge the traditional owners on whose lands we live and work throughout the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • QLD
    • Australia
    • Regional
    • Education
    • World
    • Vatican
  • Features
  • Opinion
  • Life
    • Family
    • Relationships
    • Faith
  • Culture
  • People
  • Subscribe
  • Jobs
  • Contribute

Copyright © All Rights Reserved The Catholic Leader

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyChoose another Subscription
    Continue Shopping