A recent article in The Australian by Padriac Murphy notes that Dr. Caroline de Costa, author of the book “RU-486” stated that “says Mr Abbott told her during a meeting in November 2005 that he would rather be "knocked out" if he were a woman having an abortion.”
According to the article, she said that it was "disappointing to find how poorly informed Abbott was on the topic of medical abortion compared to many of his party's backbenchers,’ Dr De Costa writes in the book.’
“ ‘He also made the quite incredible remark that if he were having an abortion, he would like 'to be knocked out and have it done surgically'.
"Suppressing several possible rejoinders, I simply said that while some women would certainly prefer surgical abortion, others would like to have the option of medical abortion."
And, the article notes that “RU-486 is available widely overseas, can be taken orally and aborts a pregnancy without the need for invasive surgery.
“Dr de Costa and her north Queensland colleague Mike Carrette are the only practitioners in Australia authorised to prescribe the drug. Dr De Costa said RU-486 was a safe alternative to surgical abortion, and that it could be used to treat a variety of other medical complaints, including the possible prevention of some cancers, but large pharmaceutical companies had been discouraged from marketing the drug by anti-abortionists.
“She was eventually allowed to prescribe RU-486, or mifepristone, after a private members bill passed in February last year removed Mr Abbott's power to veto drugs approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.”
That article also said that she has used it to abort the pregnancies of 12 women who suffered conditions including thrombosis, severe depression, hypertension and eclampsia. She also said she was frustrated that RU-486 was not readily available, and had considered forming her own company to market the drug.
“Dr De Costa writes in her memoir that the point at which a fetus or embryo becomes a human was too complex an issue to be resolved by either scientists or theologians. ‘What I have seen is this: the fetus becomes a person when the woman decides it does.
“ ‘With wanted pregnancy, even if unplanned, this may be very early on. With unwanted pregnancy, this often becomes a difficult and deeply personal decision for the woman, but that is the decision she makes."
Martin Fitzgerald, who teaches Religion and Philosophy at Redfield College, comments:
“Dr de Costa tells us that the criterion which should decide when a fetus becomes a person is “when the woman decides it does”. Let’s hope that Dr de Costa in her memoir RU-486 explains how we are to justify to future generations that their mothers were the ones who decided whether they were persons or not and they were just the lucky ones whose mothers decided they were.”
If we take Dr de Costa's thinking on this, we really should be thankful to our mothers that we are all here. Pity the aborted, fetuses who were unlucky enough to have mothers who thought that they were not worthy of being persons.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Tuesday 7 August 2007
Monday 23 July 2007
World Youth Day
Last week, we had the Cross and Icon for the World Youth Day celebrations in our parish. It was a great experience to see these special items, to witness the faith and the love of our parishoners and visitors.
It's going to be a great event and I'm sure many Christians are looking forward to this event.
It's only a year away.
As a preview, here's a great video on the Sydney WYD, you may want to checkout.
The video shows past events, the cross and icon, including the arrival in Sydney from New Zealand, and, of course, the theme song by Guy Sebastian.
Please pass this on.
Saturday 16 June 2007
Is debate one sided on the Stem Cell Research Bill?
A friend sent me an article by Christopher Pearson (The Australian) which commented on the ignorance of certain protagonists involved in this issue. This got me thinking more on the issue
Allow me to make a few points based on that article and another one in The Australian.
Pearson pointed out that Cardinal Pell's admonition to the NSW pollies was "essentially a collegial response to contentious legislation rushed into the NSW parliament." He added that "Sydney's Anglican Archbishop Phillip Jensen condemned the bill just as forcefully as Pell did...He also warned that, if passed, the bill would 'enshrine in law the corrupt view that embryos used are not morally significant or important.' Despite that, Jensen was left unscathed, on this occasion at least, and almost all the media attention was on the cardinal."
I wonder why.
The cardinal seems to be a favourite target of what Pearson labelled as modernists and ultra-liberals. He commented that these people were "appalled at the idea of a bishop taking orthodoxy seriously and expecting the people responsible for the formation of young catholics to do likewise."
The cardinal is obviously an easy target. And, any chance to have a swipe at the Catholic Church is always a good thing for these people.
The focus is on whether the moral authority of the church is correct on this issue. If the church has a right to raise this matter, if it can influence thinking based on moral and faith issues.
What about the whole issue of the morality of the stem cell research? The members of parliament were allowed to vote guided by their conscience. A point I won't cover here, but this is well covered by Pearson's article.
As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. It doesn't happen at some later stage, but is a continuing process which begins at conception and ends in death.
Killing an embryo, whether for a noble reason like finding a cure for disease, or any other reason is just that. Killing. Ending life.
Frank Devine commented recently in the Australian that "Anti-Catholic, anti-Pell rabble rousing unfortunately distracted attention from what the cardinal actually said and wrote last week. As usual he was courteous, (thanking Premier Morris Iemma for allowing a conscience vote) calm and to the point.
"For example: 'The human embryo cannot develop as anything other than a human being. New laws would result in there being two classes of human embryo: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it is a perverse new direction for human experimentation.'
"A diligent inquirer, Pell pointed out that in 25 years of experiments with embryonic stem cells not one treatment had been suggested that warranted human clinical trials. By contrast, in the US alone, 1422 government-approved clinical trials were under way on the basis of laboratory experiments using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells had been used successfully in treating type one diabetes.
"Pell also took appreciative note of what secularists would categorise as the windfall news of successful experiments in Japan and the US in cloning cells from the skin of adult laboratory mice.
"Serious Catholic legislators undoubtedly gave serious thought to their decision to vote in favour of the stem cell bill. I sympathise with them. Catholic journalists face similar dilemmas, though we have more room for artful dodging.
"Pell's statement that there would be 'consequences in their life in the church' for Catholics who voted for the bill roused much indignation, with dopey talk of excommunication - these days reserved for the church's stubbornest enemies within."
I'll make further comment on this issue in another post. If you want to read the full text of Pearson's article click here, for Devine's article, click here.
Allow me to make a few points based on that article and another one in The Australian.
Pearson pointed out that Cardinal Pell's admonition to the NSW pollies was "essentially a collegial response to contentious legislation rushed into the NSW parliament." He added that "Sydney's Anglican Archbishop Phillip Jensen condemned the bill just as forcefully as Pell did...He also warned that, if passed, the bill would 'enshrine in law the corrupt view that embryos used are not morally significant or important.' Despite that, Jensen was left unscathed, on this occasion at least, and almost all the media attention was on the cardinal."
I wonder why.
The cardinal seems to be a favourite target of what Pearson labelled as modernists and ultra-liberals. He commented that these people were "appalled at the idea of a bishop taking orthodoxy seriously and expecting the people responsible for the formation of young catholics to do likewise."
The cardinal is obviously an easy target. And, any chance to have a swipe at the Catholic Church is always a good thing for these people.
The focus is on whether the moral authority of the church is correct on this issue. If the church has a right to raise this matter, if it can influence thinking based on moral and faith issues.
What about the whole issue of the morality of the stem cell research? The members of parliament were allowed to vote guided by their conscience. A point I won't cover here, but this is well covered by Pearson's article.
As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. It doesn't happen at some later stage, but is a continuing process which begins at conception and ends in death.
Killing an embryo, whether for a noble reason like finding a cure for disease, or any other reason is just that. Killing. Ending life.
Frank Devine commented recently in the Australian that "Anti-Catholic, anti-Pell rabble rousing unfortunately distracted attention from what the cardinal actually said and wrote last week. As usual he was courteous, (thanking Premier Morris Iemma for allowing a conscience vote) calm and to the point.
"For example: 'The human embryo cannot develop as anything other than a human being. New laws would result in there being two classes of human embryo: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it is a perverse new direction for human experimentation.'
"A diligent inquirer, Pell pointed out that in 25 years of experiments with embryonic stem cells not one treatment had been suggested that warranted human clinical trials. By contrast, in the US alone, 1422 government-approved clinical trials were under way on the basis of laboratory experiments using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells had been used successfully in treating type one diabetes.
"Pell also took appreciative note of what secularists would categorise as the windfall news of successful experiments in Japan and the US in cloning cells from the skin of adult laboratory mice.
"Serious Catholic legislators undoubtedly gave serious thought to their decision to vote in favour of the stem cell bill. I sympathise with them. Catholic journalists face similar dilemmas, though we have more room for artful dodging.
"Pell's statement that there would be 'consequences in their life in the church' for Catholics who voted for the bill roused much indignation, with dopey talk of excommunication - these days reserved for the church's stubbornest enemies within."
I'll make further comment on this issue in another post. If you want to read the full text of Pearson's article click here, for Devine's article, click here.
Thursday 14 June 2007
More on Cardinal Pell and the pollies
If you have any opinion for or against what Cardinal Pell did recently, you may want to check out an internet poll asking for opinions on this.
It's being conducted by 2GB. No matter what you may think about the station, internet polling, or whether we should carry this theme any further, if you want to stand up and be counted, click here to go to the site.
Hopefully, you're on the Cardinal's side on this. Either way, make sure your opinion is heard and noted. It's a blog site, so you can leave your comments.
It's being conducted by 2GB. No matter what you may think about the station, internet polling, or whether we should carry this theme any further, if you want to stand up and be counted, click here to go to the site.
Hopefully, you're on the Cardinal's side on this. Either way, make sure your opinion is heard and noted. It's a blog site, so you can leave your comments.
Sunday 10 June 2007
Great thought
Going for my morning walk, which I did not do for two days—because of the rain and laziness, I suppose, I noticed an interesting sticker at the back of a parked car.
I can't remember the exact words, but it said roughly: "Show that you are a man, kneel down and pray." That's great. Here's someone who has nailed his colours to the mast.
Who says that machismo means you are not disposed to pray, to acknowledge your Maker? To show that you are interested in communicating with your Lord, is not wimpy. On the contrary, it shows you care about your soul.
And, to show others that you pray, it shows that you are a man (or woman) who believes in God.
It is not something to be ashamed of.
I can't remember the exact words, but it said roughly: "Show that you are a man, kneel down and pray." That's great. Here's someone who has nailed his colours to the mast.
Who says that machismo means you are not disposed to pray, to acknowledge your Maker? To show that you are interested in communicating with your Lord, is not wimpy. On the contrary, it shows you care about your soul.
And, to show others that you pray, it shows that you are a man (or woman) who believes in God.
It is not something to be ashamed of.
Saturday 9 June 2007
You wonder about politicians
Being a good Aussie, I really cannot take our politicians too seriously.
Except, unfortunately, they can pass laws to make it hard for the rest of us. And, not just by the power of taxation which is vested in the state, but other means that they have over our lives.
The stem cell debate is a case in point. And, I add to that the lambasting that Cardinal Pell received in the hands of the NSW pollies.
And, this by supposed "catholic" MPs. Add to this the irony of the defence of the Cardinal by two non-catholic politicians. Both MPs of the upper house and members of the cabinet. I refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.
I suppose to put the boot in John Howard was quoted as saying: "I found the abuse of Cardinal Pell by many Labor members of parliament and one or two others very strange.
"Labor members of parliament are ritually told how to vote by union bosses. Their preselections are threatened if they don't do certain things."
When asked by a journalist if Cardinal Pell should be in contempt of the NSW Parliament, the Prime Minister said that this was "over the top."
Finally, I would like to quote a letter written by a fellow parishoner at St Bernadette's Castle Hill, Dr. John James, which I quote in toto:
"The public statements by Messr's. Rees, Iemma and Watkins, amongst others, in
response to the public statements by Cardinal Pell on the Cloning Bill before the NSW Parliament are both interesting and disturbing for a number of reasons.
"The Cardinal is simply restating what the Church has been saying all around the world for some time now. There have been examples of similar statements during the last US presidential election,and more recently in both Mexico and Brazil by Pope Benedict.
"People who publicly identify themselves as Catholics and who occupy positions in which they are formulating legislation that will affect the lives of citizens in their constituencies, cannot support legislation, let alone introduce such bills, that seek to legalise the destruction of innocent human life, no matter how noble their stated goal.
"When John Watkins publicly rebukes the Cardinal for his statement and suggests that such statements are meant to deny him an expression of his conscience, he simply demonstrates that he understands neither what it means to be a Catholic nor how conscience, properly understood, works.
"Conscience is that voice we all hear within us that commands us, broadly, to do good and avoid evil. Conscience, however, doesn't decide what is good and evil but looks for guidance and reasons outside itself for making such decisions. The only people who think their conscience is the final arbiter of good and evil are the psychopaths.
"The Cardinal is reminding faithful Catholics that the Teaching Authority of the Church, when it is universally expressed on such a fundamental moral issue as this, is expressing the mind of Christ. 'He who hears you, hears Me.'
"A practicing Catholic, as Watkins and Iemma claim to be, who deliberately sets aside the Church's teaching, is a little like a judge who ignores the legal statutes. Their conscience is malformed, will arrive at incorrect conclusions and they will do much harm in the exercise of their public office as lawmakers.
"They, in my view, have publicly excommunicated themselves.
"Just watch these same guys scramble for public photo opportunities when Pope Benedict arrives in Sydney next year for World Youth Day! Their hypocrisy is dwarfed only by their ignorance."
This letter comes from someone, who is not only a practicing catholic, but a medical practitioner, who would not only know about the moral dilemma of stem cell research, but the ethical and other considerations.
Definitely makes you wonder about our pollies, doesn't it?
Except, unfortunately, they can pass laws to make it hard for the rest of us. And, not just by the power of taxation which is vested in the state, but other means that they have over our lives.
The stem cell debate is a case in point. And, I add to that the lambasting that Cardinal Pell received in the hands of the NSW pollies.
And, this by supposed "catholic" MPs. Add to this the irony of the defence of the Cardinal by two non-catholic politicians. Both MPs of the upper house and members of the cabinet. I refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.
I suppose to put the boot in John Howard was quoted as saying: "I found the abuse of Cardinal Pell by many Labor members of parliament and one or two others very strange.
"Labor members of parliament are ritually told how to vote by union bosses. Their preselections are threatened if they don't do certain things."
When asked by a journalist if Cardinal Pell should be in contempt of the NSW Parliament, the Prime Minister said that this was "over the top."
Finally, I would like to quote a letter written by a fellow parishoner at St Bernadette's Castle Hill, Dr. John James, which I quote in toto:
"The public statements by Messr's. Rees, Iemma and Watkins, amongst others, in
response to the public statements by Cardinal Pell on the Cloning Bill before the NSW Parliament are both interesting and disturbing for a number of reasons.
"The Cardinal is simply restating what the Church has been saying all around the world for some time now. There have been examples of similar statements during the last US presidential election,and more recently in both Mexico and Brazil by Pope Benedict.
"People who publicly identify themselves as Catholics and who occupy positions in which they are formulating legislation that will affect the lives of citizens in their constituencies, cannot support legislation, let alone introduce such bills, that seek to legalise the destruction of innocent human life, no matter how noble their stated goal.
"When John Watkins publicly rebukes the Cardinal for his statement and suggests that such statements are meant to deny him an expression of his conscience, he simply demonstrates that he understands neither what it means to be a Catholic nor how conscience, properly understood, works.
"Conscience is that voice we all hear within us that commands us, broadly, to do good and avoid evil. Conscience, however, doesn't decide what is good and evil but looks for guidance and reasons outside itself for making such decisions. The only people who think their conscience is the final arbiter of good and evil are the psychopaths.
"The Cardinal is reminding faithful Catholics that the Teaching Authority of the Church, when it is universally expressed on such a fundamental moral issue as this, is expressing the mind of Christ. 'He who hears you, hears Me.'
"A practicing Catholic, as Watkins and Iemma claim to be, who deliberately sets aside the Church's teaching, is a little like a judge who ignores the legal statutes. Their conscience is malformed, will arrive at incorrect conclusions and they will do much harm in the exercise of their public office as lawmakers.
"They, in my view, have publicly excommunicated themselves.
"Just watch these same guys scramble for public photo opportunities when Pope Benedict arrives in Sydney next year for World Youth Day! Their hypocrisy is dwarfed only by their ignorance."
This letter comes from someone, who is not only a practicing catholic, but a medical practitioner, who would not only know about the moral dilemma of stem cell research, but the ethical and other considerations.
Definitely makes you wonder about our pollies, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
