Recently, I posted a comment on Facebook defending City on a Hill and its lead pastor Guy Mason in the wake of the whole saga surrounding the Andrew Thorburn being forced to quit from his role as CEO of the Essendon Football Club due to his involvement with the church.
A journalist from the Herald Sun saw this and got in contact with me for an interview. Honestly, I think they were trying to get Guy Mason, or anyone from the church, but in the absence of that, they settled for someone who looked like he sort of knows them!
In the end, they only used a couple of lines from me, so I thought I’d share the whole interview here. I have edited out the irrelevant bits and I have kept the name of the journalist private as this is not meant to reflect on them at all. For the text below, I have used HS to represent Herald Sun.
Simon: Hello, Simon speaking.
HS: Hi, Simon. It’s <> from the Herald Sun. How are you?
Simon: Very good. How are you?
HS: Good. Thank you. Thank you so much for agreeing to speak with me. I really appreciate it.
Christmas Eve service at City on a Hill
(They then asked me some questions to establish how I knew City on a Hill and Guy Mason. I told them that I had worked with them on rare occasions on some ministry opportunities, that I have had some contact with Guy over the last 10 years and that I was invited to read the bible at their church’s Christmas Eve service last year.
We also talked about how I had made a Facebook post about Guy and City on a Hill, supporting them during this time.)
HS: I just wanted to ask you about, what you were saying about Christian views, particularly in your post and us the media, and the reaction to these of them being extreme views. But can you tell me from your own words, what prompted you to write this post that you tagged Guy in? And your comments on the whole issue and that would be really great, Simon. Thank you.
Simon: Sure. I think I posted that just to show when – initially, I didn’t realize that it was sitting on the hill, that Guy headed up when the whole issue was happening over the last couple of days and then when I discovered I went, oh, wow, this is really close to home. I know this church, and the way it’s being represented as almost like a fringe, extreme church with fringe extreme views, whereas what they teach is what most Christian churches teach and what they teach is the classic Christian positions on issues of sexuality, on issues of the value of children in the womb, and of all people and those sorts of things. So, it was just interesting hearing it being described as extreme views, or even controversial, because within Christian communities, definitely these topics get discussed, but the positions that what I understand they hold are not really controversial amongst many Christians. And I do think sometimes the way snippets of their teaching have been used, I think it probably misrepresented them a little bit. So, in regards to abortion, often the thing that was getting quoted around every was that they equate abortion with, was it a concentration camp?
HS: The gas chambers. Yeah.
Simon: Yeah. Like, if you look at what they’re saying, they were saying, like other atrocities or other things that we now consider, we’ll look back on that in history and go, “How did we do that?” Which is still saying that an abortion is wrong, but it’s not a one to one equating abortion with gas chambers. It’s not saying it IS gas chambers. It’s using it in the same category of things that we look back on, and think now are our evil and it was in that sermon – which I haven’t heard the whole sermon to give its context – but even from the bits that I read, that was the point I was thinking being made. So, yes, I think sometimes people misunderstand either the positions of the church, or they think that those positions are being portrayed as really fringe ideas, but they’re ideas that Christians have grappled with, and taught and thought about in the whole wider community of Christians, since Jesus began the church.
HS: I think what you said [in your Facebook post] was really interesting, that also just about the controversial and extreme and it’s a sad indictment on the luke-warmness of the church in general, that this community could be thought of as extreme. From your view, just relating that to Andrew Thorburn resigning, what kind of precedent is that set for religious freedom and other people that sit on boards, or even other whether you’re Catholic, Christian, Islamic, whatever you are because your church holds that view? What do you say about that?
Simon: Yeah, I think the biggest concern – and I’ve been chatting with Christian friends and it’s raised a level of concern – is that the fact that it was a football club and he was given an ultimatum based on a question about sexuality. There’s a whole range of things where I think it may be appropriate to say this person’s right for this job or not right for this job. If there’s a direct relationship between the job, what they’re asked to do, and the religious view. I don’t think it’s super clear and cut, but it did make me and other friends go well, wow, our workplaces have positions on LGBT inclusion, and we’re all supportive of LGBT inclusion as people feeling welcome and safe. But our theological position on what is or isn’t sin in God’s eyes, there’s a concern about will that be something that jeopardizes our employment one day. And that’s raised that question and discussion for a lot of Christians, I think. Is this – not to be Chicken Little – but to go, is this a precedent for how our culture expects that if you believe certain things about sexuality, and about the controversial issue of abortion, and the value of human life in the womb? If you sit on one side of these issues, will that jeopardize your employment, even in jobs that have nothing to do with abortion, or LGBT advocacy or things like that?
HS: Oh, absolutely. I was going to ask you for the story, when you said you’ve known and seen Guy for many years, and how many years would you’ve known him for?
Simon: Oh, possibly over the last 10 years, I think. So, we’ve had just different circles of ministry and so I know he’s a man who loves Jesus, and he’s a man of integrity and grapples with these things quite sensitively. He truly cares for people and doesn’t treat these issues lightly.
HS: Yeah and so, I just wanted to ask you about what’s been said about him? Obviously, he had his say, on Sunrise this morning.
Simon: Yeah, I haven’t seen that yet.
HS: So, with the things that are coming out, what would you say to defend his character as you just said before, he is very passionate about sensitively bringing these issues to light. But what would you say about that?
Simon: Can you maybe give me an example of something that is being said?
HS: Yeah, for example, on sevennews.com.au, they’ve said Andrew Thorburn has declined to address his views on abortion and homosexuality. So, Kochi put the questions to him that they’re saying he’s gone head to head with a pastor, essentially, and all of that. Basically, with the fallout with Essendon, what I’m mainly asking is, with some of the public’s negative reaction towards Guy Mason, what would you say to them, essentially about the kind of person that you know, from working with him previously? Do you think that is an incorrect assessment of people that are outraged by his beliefs?
Simon: Yeah, I definitely think that on this issue, you’re either lumped in one camp or another. You either are celebrating everything to do with the LGBT advocacy, or you’re hating. So, it’s either one or the other. I was really upset by how Dan Andrews painted City on a Hill as hateful and bigoted, without even knowing. He was just presented with some ideas that someone had said, and he’s supposed to be governing all of us and he didn’t go “Well, wait, I need to actually follow that up, find out if that’s true about this community of people, actually ask them what they believe.” But he jumped to characterizing them publicly as hateful and bigoted. I thought that was really irresponsible of Dan Andrews, and not good governing. And so, I think you get put in one category or another, and the Christian position is nuanced. It’s that there are beliefs about God’s intention for sexuality and marriage, and human life in regards to abortion and things like that, and a commitment to love people, to understand that we’re all messy, that we all have a journey, that we’re all welcome. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus invites all to repent, all to receive forgiveness, all to come into relationship with God. No one is excluded from that invitation and the churches should display that. But also to be faithful to Jesus, we have to teach what the Bible says about sexuality and about life and marriage and those sort of things as well. So, I think if anyone actually sat down with Guy Mason, and had a coffee with him, they would find him to be a compassionate, loving, thoughtful, Christian man. It’s sad if he’s portrayed as hateful or bigoted.
(We then ended the interview and wrapped up the conversation. A couple of minutes later they rang back and said that City on a Hill had removed the 9 year old sermon that had caused some of the controversy. They wanted to ask my reaction to that.)
HS: Did you think it was the right thing to do given that the comment was taken out of context and had caused controversy? I just wondered if you have any thoughts about that?
Simon: Only the churches are thinking about their public statements and how best to communicate via online. And with things so easily being able to be taken out of context, or misunderstood, it’s important to make sure that the message is being communicated rightly. I think churches across the whole of Australia at the moment are thinking about how, if people want to try to find dirt on you, how they’ll be searching through nine years’ worth of sermons to find one line. I think a lot of churches are thinking about their online presence and how best to make sure that they’re not misrepresented or misunderstood.
HS: Sure, would you say personally, that you support that this was a good approach for them to do that and as sensitively as possible?
Simon: Yeah, I don’t think they’re going to be shy about their position on abortion or sexuality. Their name is “City on a Hill”! You know? I think they’re just thinking through how best to do it wisely.
Here is the article that they quoted me in. It was posted in the Herald Sun newspaper on Friday 7th October 2022.
On the back of “Pride Month” and with the latest controversy involving the Manly Sea Eagles Football Club jersey, the rainbow is a prominent and popular symbol in today’s society.
This symbol of LGBTI+ pride has been around literally as long as I have been alive. Back in 1978, at the request of the first openly gay politician in California, Harvey Milk, the gay artist and drag queen Gilbert Baker designed the first rainbow flag. Baker explained, “Our job as gay people was to come out, to be visible, to live in the truth, as I say, to get out of the lie. A flag really fit that mission, because that’s a way of proclaiming your visibility or saying, ‘This is who I am!’”
The flag’s original eight colours were not accidental. Baker meant for each colour to symbolise something of their own. Hot pink was for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for art, indigo for harmony, and violet for spirit.
As a graphic designer and someone who likes a bit or marketing, I’ve got to say, it was an inspired choice. The rainbow is vibrant and happy and full of diversity. It has “every colour of the rainbow” and it communicates that same message – everyone is welcome and all our differences just make the world more beautiful. From a marketing perspective, it’s brilliant.
It’s no wonder then that this symbol has only grown stronger over the last 44 years. Now corporations use it to show that they are one of the “good guys”, restaurants use it to show their support for LGBTI rights, and as we’ve seen this week, Rugby teams incorporate it into their uniforms to express their values. As Manly coach Des Hasler explained, “The intent of the rainbow colour application of our jersey was to represent diversity and inclusion for all, utilising the symbolic colours of pride to embrace all groups who feel marginalised, face discrimination and have a suppressed share of voice. The jersey intent was to support the advocacy and human rights pertaining to gender, race culture, ability and LGBTQ movements.”
So the symbol of the rainbow may mean different things to different groups. For some it is a public expression of loyalty, for others it is about compassion and solidarity with various marginalised groups and for others it may be just about supporting inclusivity in general.
Scott Penn, the owner of the Manly Sea Eagles recently told the Herald from New York of their choice to use the rainbow on their jerseys, “It was never just about pride. It was about saying we want everyone in the game and making them feel they can get involved.”
It is, and will always be, a symbol of gay pride.
Despite this claim, many people naturally can’t divorce the symbol of the rainbow flag from its intended origin. It is, and will always be, a symbol of gay pride. It represents being proud of and celebrating sexual diversity outside of heterosexual desire and sexual activity. And “pride” is the word that is specifically used to reject any sense of shame or guilt or sin associated with homosexual sex.
This is why Christians have a problem with the rainbow symbol. The Bible teaches that sex is God’s good gift to humanity and that God has told us how and with whom it should be expressed. God also teaches us how it should not be expressed and this includes any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman. This is why homosexual sex is consistently condemned throughout Scripture as sinful and why Christians who are committed to faithfulness to God’s Word, can not endorse, let alone celebrate it.
It doesn’t mean Christians should hate or reject or not show compassion or kindness to those who experience same-sex attraction. Not at all. Hatred and a lack of kindness is also condemned in Scripture. But neither can we ignore God’s Word on these topics and our love for people compells us to be honest about sin. As possibly the most famous bible passage on love states: “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6)
For many Christians, the rainbow symbol is an expression of delighting in something that God calls evil, and to do so would actually be a rejection of the greatest of Christ’s commands – to love.
This is most likely why those seven Manly rugby players could not in good conscience wear the new jersey with the rainbow symbol. Maybe the owner of the club is being honest when he says “It was never just about pride.” but it’s definitely partly about pride. And Christians should never be proud of sexual sin, either our own or someone else’s.
It is difficult though. As I have said, the rainbow means different things for different people. A Christian may say “I can’t wear the rainbow because if I did, that for me would be unloving” and all the world will hear is “hate hate hate”. As Jackie O recently commented on her popular KIIS FM breakfast radio show: “You hate gays that much that you won’t wear a rainbow.” For many people, to refuse to wear the rainbow is a symbol of lovelessness.
It reminds me of that episode of Seinfield where Kramer refuses to wear the AIDS ribbon.
Christians do not want to communicate hate. We do not want to communicate rejection or a lack of inclusivity in sport or a whole range of fields. But we also don’t want to communicate that God does not care about sexual sin. Or indeed that we take pride in it.
So in the end all we can do is try to be clear. We do not wear the jersey. We do not put up the rainbow flag. We do not bow the knee to the golden statue. But we also do our best to communicate that we do love and value and welcome all people no matter who they are. And we don’t just communicate that love through a nice tweet or a Facebook post. We demonstrate love in real and practical ways. We show hospitality. We speak kindly. We offer practical help. And even if we are hated for our beliefs or our refusal to wear a rainbow, we return that hate with love.
As John writes: “Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:13-18)
If you aren’t aware, Victoria has recently introduced a law banning “practices that seek to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity”.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission has updated its website to describe what is allowed and what is illegal. It is rather scary stuff. But more than that, at times it is just plain confusing.
This is not a good thing. If we are to properly assess this legislation and decide how best to respond as Christians, we need at the very least to understand it.
So I thought I would email the Human Rights Commission to get some clarity.
The following is what I wrote.
To whom it may concern,
I am finding it difficult to navigate what is or isn’t considered a “change or suppression” practice based on the information on the humanrights.vic.gov.au website.
I was wondering if you could please provide clarity on a couple of issues.
The Definition of “Suppression”
I have not been able to find a clear definition of what it means to “suppress” one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The closest I was able to find was in the factsheet where this question was proposed: “Can I run a support group designed to help people not act on their same-sex attraction?”The implication is that to “suppress” one’s sexual orientation, is to “not act on” one’s sexual attraction.This understanding seems to be backed up by other places on the website where talk of being celibate or not engaging in a same-sex relationship is also deemed a “suppression”.I really want to make sure I am understanding this correctly, so I thought I would ask a few clarifying questions:
Is “to not act on one’s sexual attraction” a good definition of “suppression” of one’s sexual attraction?
Consequently, is it a “suppression practice” to instruct an individual directly that they should or must not act on their same-sex attraction?
Or to put it another way, is it a “Suppression Practice” to instruct an individual that to act on their same-sex attraction would be a sin (an act condemned by God or needing repentance from)?
Or to put it a third way, is it a “Suppression Practice” to instruct an individual that the ONLY context in which they can act on any form of sexuality is within heterosexual marriage and the only alternative is celibacy?
If a religious leader is actually supportive of same-sex marriage, but instructs an individual that they must not act on their same-sex attraction until they get married, is this a “suppression practice”? Especially if it means they are required to remain celibate for the rest of their life if they do not find a partner to marry.
The issue of Heterosexual Suppression
If it is a “suppression practice” to instruct an individual that they must not act on their sexuality outside of marriage, is it also deemed a suppression practice to instruct someone to not act on their opposite-sex attraction within the same parameters? As with my last question, especially if it means they are required to remain celibate for the rest of their life if they do not find a partner to marry.
Are there any ways that a heterosexual orientation can be deemed being “suppressed” under this legislation? Are there any protections for heterosexuals from harmful suppression practices?
Personal agency over personal identity
I have also found it difficult to understand some of the statements around “gender identity”.The website defines it this way: “Gender identity is someone’s personal sense of being female, male, a blend of both or neither.” and the legislation itself similarly defines it this way: “Gender identity means a person’s gender-related identity, which may or may not correspond with their designated sex at birth, and includes the personal sense of the body (whether this involves medical intervention or not) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, mannerisms, names and personal references.”These definitions describe gender identity as one’s “personal sense” of one’s gender or body.
My question is, if this is the definition of gender identity, how can the Human Rights website claim that such a sense CAN NOT change, even if one wants it to?If it is one’s personal sense of self, doesn’t that automatically mean that it is a personal matter? It’s one’s own identity, not anyone else’s. Doesn’t it mean they should be allowed to have agency over their sense of self if they wish to change it? In fact, the very fact that one may wish to change it (which is acknowledged on the website) suggests that one’s own “personal sense” is fluid and on a spectrum that can indeed change.
If people do have personal agency over their personal sense of self, on what basis it is illegal for adults to be prevented from seeking to grow or transition or change into what they believe is their “true self”. Who is to tell them what is or isn’t their true self?
The website states: “The way someone describes their sexual orientation and gender is completely up to them. Everyone deserves to be surrounded by people who understand and support them.” and yet it also states that you specifically cannot support someone who wants to change their gender identity. How is that not a contradiction? Either it is “completely up to them” to describe their “personal sense” of gender and their body or it is not. Either “everyone deserves to be surrounded by people who understand and support them” or they don’t.
My second question on this issue is, with the definition of gender identity being as stated, how can it be claimed that “There is no evidence that…gender identity can be changed.” ?
There are many testimonies of people whose “personal sense of being female, male, a blend of both or neither” has changed over their life. Many trans people acknowledge a certain point in their life in which they came to understand that how they had previously thought of themselves was not their true self. They may have thought of themselves as a boy and over time changed in their personal sense of self. We know that our identity is fluid and develops grows and changes. There are even those who identify as gender fluid and would say that on one day their personal sense of self is one day and on another their personal sense of self is different. Lastly, there are those who de-transition or change their personal sense of gender later in life. With all of these examples, I don’t know how the claim that “There is no evidence that…gender identity can be changed.” can be maintained.
Thank you for considering these questions, and I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I very much want to understand this legislation and for it not to be misunderstood or mischaracterized. Please contact me if anything I’ve written does not make sense.
Kind regards,
Simon Camilleri
I will keep you informed if they respond to this email.
I’ve been hearing a few Chicken Littles have gotten all flustered about a new character on The Wiggles.
Meet Shirley Shawn the Unicorn.
It is being reported that this is The Wiggles first non-binary and that her pronouns are “They/Them”.
Some conservative commentators like Lyle Sheldon have gotten their hetero-normative nickers in a knot and written some very stern words about the development.
In a recent Eternity News article, he wrote:
“Shirley Shawn the unicorn might seem like a harmless, colourful, larger than life character but dubbing him/her (or should I use the politically correct pronoun “theyâ€) non-binary, the Wiggles are now helping the rainbow political movement’s project to indoctrinate everyone from toddler to tertiary level into contested genderfluid ideology.”
And: “They preach that just because a baby was born with a penis or a vagina, it doesn’t make him or her a boy or a girl.”
Now, my first question is, why on earth do we NEED a mythical creature like a unicorn who only says the word “Scrumptious” to be either a woman or a man? I mean, they don’t exist! Maybe they reproduce asexually through their horn! Do we really need to wonder whether Shirley has a penis or a vagina?
But more important than the genitalia of a unicorn, the most important question I’ve got is…
where on earth do we get the idea that she is non-binary??
And yes, I said “she”.
And apparently, The Wiggles say “she” as well.
Here are the first couple of verses of her theme song:
“Oh, Shirley Shawn the Unicorn
In the sun she trots
Everybody loves her,
from grown-ups to tiny tots
Oh, Shirley learnt to talk
from a Danish duchess
Her favourite word indeed was the word
Scrumptious!”
That seems to put an end to it. This is the only official statement I could find from The Wiggles themselves and it seems pretty conclusive. Shirley is a she.
Now sure, there is a News.com article that says Shirley is non-binary and even the fan-created “Wigglepedia” website claims:
“Shirley Shawn’s pronouns were revealed to be they/them, making them the first non-binary wiggles character.”
But I can’t find any evidence of where this was “revealed”. I mean, anywhere!
Of course, LGBT websites such as this Pink News article are also reporting the introduction of a gender-diverse character, but I wonder if they actually fact-checked it?
After a bit of digging, I found another interesting claim in a Ladbible article that The Wiggles founder, Anthony Field, said: “I got a beautiful email from someone who said they came out because of Shirley Shawn the Unicorn; they said that we gave them acceptance and helped them accept themselves.”
But again, there is no source for the quote and I can’t find it anywhere else (other than in an Advance Australia article, which just linked back to the Ladbible article).
So, maybe it’s all bs? Maybe people see a unicorn holding a rainbow umbrella and make an assumption about her gender identity.
Maybe people just like to rage without double-checking the facts?
Maybe exciting lies spread quicker than boring truths?
And, whether or not they are supportive or enraged, it is quite possible that all those who are claiming that Shirley is the first non-binary Wiggle character, may be actually committing the cardinal sin of misgendering her.
If this is correct, then it seems that it is definitive…
The question may be now… did they misgender Shirley in her theme song?
UPDATE #3
I heard back from The Wiggles. They have confirmed that Shirley is indeed non-binary and that they have updated their song after being “educated” on the matter.
One wonders what “being educated” means? Did Shirley tell them herself (a bit tricky when all she can say is “Scrumptious”? Did the psychologist who apparently consulted with them about their new show “educate” them about the importance of including gender diverse characters? Or was it a condition of their new contract with their US distributors?
In any case, here is their new updated song for Shirley the non-binary Unicorn. Personally, I think it’s nowhere near as catchy as their original.
The following is the testimony of a Christian man I know who has experienced same-sex attraction for years and has attended the sort of support that Victoria’s new “Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020” has just declared illegal.
There are many people who do not fit the narrative of “conversion therapy survivor”. Their stories are often ignored, or even silenced. I am grateful for this man’s bravery in sharing his story, and I am proud to present it here unedited.
MY EXPERIENCE OF A VICTORIAN SUPPORT GROUP FOR SAME SEX-ATTRACTED YOUNG ADULTS
I am an evangelical Christian and I have been attracted to both men and women from age thirteen.
I was a sensitive boy, creative and kind-hearted. In Grade One there was only one girl in my class and I felt sorry for her, so I became her friend. This led to my only close friends being girls, from Grade One til the end of Grade Four when my two close friends left the school. I then had to learn how to play soccer to try and fit in with the boys.
I am one of the Digital Pioneers Generation. We did not have the internet when I was a young child, but it came into popular use while I was in Primary School. We were flexible adapters and adopted this new technology as a way of life. This also made us the first generation to have access to online pornography from our homes. Our parents had no clue what we had access to or how to deal with it. This was not their fault, but it was a huge problem.
When I was thirteen, two major things happened. Firstly, I was bullied mercilessly by one boy in my class at school and did not connect at all with other boys at school. Secondly, I discovered pornography depicting men. It was actually a TV ad that was the gateway. It aired in prime time, maybe during the news or a sitcom. It was an ad for a movie they planned to air a few days later. I don’t want to name it here, but it was a mainstream movie that featured sexualised men’s bodies in an exciting way. This made me curious, so I logged on to our family computer and started googling. I have since reflected and have theorised that the heavy-handed rejection by the boys my own age may have confounded the problem.
This sin tormented me. I was hooked on the poison, and I remember feeling highly distressed while I was trying to get to sleep, saying “I’ll never, ever tell anyone about this!†However about 6 months later the guilt got too much for me and I confessed to my parents and prayed with them that God would help me repent.
However I was still attracted to men, in particular the athletic male form. I was also attracted to girls, and asked out a couple girls during high school. For the record, I have never had a boyfriend or any sexual encounters with men.
When I was 18, still attending church, I was often plagued with guilt and shame about my orientation.
When I was 18, still attending church, I was often plagued with guilt and shame about my orientation. I went to a friend of mine who suggested I speak to another young man who had connections with a ministry to help people like me. I was referred to a support group for same sex-attracted young adults, run by a Christian organisation that does not exist anymore.
One of the reasons I am sharing my story is to describe what my experiences were in this support group. In light of the new Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 becoming law in Victoria, I thought it may be helpful to share what it is like to be a Christian aiming to obey the Bible’s teaching on sexuality while having these attractions. And also to show you what this support was really like.
The group’s activities consisted of the following: sharing our testimonies, hanging out over a meal, praying for each other, Bible devotions, and using a video resource to fight the battle with porn. We also volunteered at a Christian conference on the topic of homosexuality which took place on the same weekend as a camp to support us. Part of that weekend were small group conversations. Those conversations consisted of tips on how to get support from your mates, even straight ones, and encouragement that God loved us and accepted us.
It is sad that at least two of those young men have “come out” since then, but I am glad that I was given the opportunity to know that I was not alone in this struggle, that it is possible to live a faithful Christian life while being same sex-attracted, and that there was help available to try to change my orientation if I wanted that.
I really wanted to change it. I wanted to obey God fully and also I feared that it would hurt my future wife emotionally if I were to marry one day.
I have since learned that God is able to change people’s sexuality if he wishes, but for me, he did not change that part of my experience. I know that Jesus is close to the brokenhearted. I know that people are broken as a result of the global problem called sin. Gay sex is a sin and so is lust. (Just like heterosexual lust and pre-marital sex are wrong.) I aim to live a celibate single life being content, or get married to a gracious Christian woman who loves me, warts and all.
It was only in the last few years that I realised that the world would call me bisexual. I am glad I never adopted that label. God has blessed me with an identity greater than my sexual orientation, because I am a child of God, adopted into his worldwide family, the church.
God has blessed me with an identity greater than my sexual orientation because I am a child of God, adopted into his worldwide family, the church.
My experience at the support group for same sex-attracted adults was a positive one, one that was encouraging and harmless. The leaders were kindhearted people who invited us to eat at their kitchen table, volunteered copious amounts of their time and taught us from the Bible how to live God’s way. They showed us the grace and love of Jesus.
Now in my thirties, I still have these attractions. I meet weekly with a godly friend as an accountability partner and have seen great progress in becoming more like Jesus. I am a mess, but a beloved mess!
I am horrified at the idea of what my life would have looked like without the support of countless pastors and other Christians who walked with me on this journey. Let us be that support for the current generation of same-sex attracted Christians, no matter what the law says, for the law of Jesus is far greater, and it is to him that we answer to at the end of the day.
To read more testimonies of Christians who both experience same-sex attraction and seek to follow Christ, I can recommend checking out: https://www.livingout.org/
The following was written by Rev Neil Chambers, Senior Pastor at Bundoora Presbyterian Church. It was originally published at bpc.org.au/updates/ . It has been reposted here with permission.
Click below to listen to Neil Chambers as you read the article:
The Change or Suppression Practices Bill
I have been asked to comment on the ‘Change or Suppression [Conversion] Practices Bill 2020’ which is currently before Parliament and has been a cause of concern for many. The origin of the bill is the conviction that LBGTI people have been harmed and are still being harmed by the continuation of ‘Change or Suppression Practices.’ This has to be acknowledged and we should be grieved at coercive and cruel practices based in ill-informed understandings of the origin of sexual orientation, especially where people have been pressured to participate in these against their will. Nevertheless the bill raises serious concerns about, amongst other things, its conflation of issues relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, its definition of change or suppression practices, its reach into private and voluntary conversations, its criminalisation of therapy that is not in line with affirming gender transitioning, and its enshrinement of gender ideology in law.
The Problems with the Bill
The bill combines both sexual orientation and gender identity in its scope and seeks to embrace them both in its prescriptions. But these are distinct issues and have different responses. It is the inclusion of gender identity in the bill and the insistence that the only response permissible to gender dysphoria in young people is affirmation of change to the desired gender that has provoked the most concern amongst professionals. Gender re-assignment treatment has recently been described in the recent English High Court judgement in Bell vs Tavistock [1/12/2020] as experimental:
“We express that view for these reasons. First, the clinical interventions involve significant, long-term and, in part, potentially irreversible long-term physical, and psychological consequences for young persons. The treatment involved is truly life changing, going as it does to the very heart of an individual’s identity. Secondly, at present, it is right to call the treatment experimental or innovative in the sense that there are currently limited studies/evidence of the efficacy or long-term effects of the treatment.†[paragraph 152]
It is also clear that the only response that is allowed to someone revealing a same sex or bisexual orientation is affirmation and strengthening them in that identity. Doubt about whether it is fixed or might change, grief at what that might mean for them and for their family, or the distance of distaste, all human reactions, will fall far short of what the government is mandating and in the complexities of family relationship may well be used against those who express them.
In addition the definition of change or suppression practices, the behaviour that is being criminalised is intentionally both broad and ill defined.
Section 5 of the Act states:
(1) In this Act, a change or suppression practice means a practice or conduct directed towards a person, whether with or without the person’s consent—
(a)Â on the basis of the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and
(b) for the purpose of—
 (i) changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person; or
(ii)Â inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sexual orientation is further defined to include sexual practice “”sexual orientation means a person’s emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relations with, persons of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender;”. [Part 5:59:3]
Thus encouraging someone who is same sex attracted to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage of a man to a woman would be seeking to suppress someone’s sexual orientation.
Section 5:3 gives examples of prohibited practices:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice includes, but is not limited to the following—
(a)Â providing a psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation, treatment or therapy, or any other similar consultation, treatment or therapy;
(b)Â carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism;
(c)Â giving a person a referral for the purposes of a change or suppression practice being directed towards the person.
The Explanatory Memorandum [page 5] adds:
“These examples are illustrative only and do not narrow the definition in subclause (1) which is intended to capture a broad range of conduct, including, informal practices, such as conversations with a community leader that encourage change or suppression of sexual orientation or gender identity, and more formal practices, such as behaviour change programs and residential camps.â€
There is a real possibility with this wide definition that conversations with a Pastor, or a youth group leader, or an AFES worker, where the biblical teaching that same sex activity was sin was being outlined to help someone understand the cost of following Jesus, would be breaking the law, even if those conversations were taking place [as they would] voluntarily [“whether with or without the person’s consentâ€]. Further, prayer with someone that he or she would be strengthened to resist temptation and live a chaste and godly life would also potentially be construed as breaking the law. This is deliberate.
One of the reports that has informed the Government’s development of this law [Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice, by the Human Rights Law Centre and La Trobe University] makes it plain that it considers the teaching in faith communities of homosexual practice as a sin [or of gender to be binary] to be a harmful suppression practice which develops a culture which is unhealthy for LGBTI people. The government leaving the definition broad leaves open the possibility that this teaching itself will be banned under this legislation, despite a mention of religious freedom in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights.
Another of the disturbing features of this bill is its reach into private and voluntary conversations. This legislation will make people reluctant to talk with those who might be troubled by their same sex attraction or their discomfort at their gender if they cannot be wholly supportive, if they have doubts or reservations. Yet it is helpful to people to be able to explore their feelings and responses with those they know and trust, and helpful to families to be able to speak openly about these matters. One sided conversations do not help understanding but the fear that what is now a welcome conversation may become later a resented conversation will cause many to hold back.
Others have written about the bill and its shortcomings, and links are at the bottom of the transcript. While the prevention of harm to others is a worthy goal, and while we should not minimise the distress of gender dysphoria or the cost of living a celibate life, this is a bad bill with significant implications for our freedoms. And it is a bad bill because it is based on false beliefs.
The Beliefs Behind the Bill
One is the idea that gender identity is fixed. The letter of the National Association of Practicing Psychiatrists says:
“The Bill is premised on the idea that gender identity is fixed and unchangeable, making attempts to change or suppress it futile. The press release accompanying the legislation put out by the Department of Justice and Community Safety makes this explicit. It says: “there is no evidence that…gender identity can be changed.â€This is an extraordinary proposition and is contradicted by a large body of medical and scientific evidence.â€
It is an extraordinary proposition where one of the goals of the Bill is to support people making a gender transition, and where there are a growing number of de-transitioners. The letter cites some of the evidence and you can pursue the issue of gender fluidity further there.
But the more fundamental problem is the false gospel of salvation through defining your own identity that runs through the bill, which is in truth an expression of that ideology clothed in prevention of harm.
That gospel is expressed in the ‘objects’ of the Bill. 3:1[c] states one of the objects of the Bill is:
“to ensure that all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, feel welcome and valued in Victoria and are able to live authentically and with pride.â€
This means it is the intention of the Parliament to:
“(b) to affirm that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not broken and in need of fixing; and
(c) to affirm that no sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency or shortcoming;â€,
only just falling short of declaring no sexual orientation or practice to be a sin.
The important thing is that people can live ‘authentically and with pride’ for that is the vision of life found in the secular gospel. We are to be true to ourselves, and that means finding identity and purpose in ourselves and being free to express that in fulfilling our desires, in a context where sexual identity is central to personal identity. Salvation, the life of human flourishing, is found in sexual authenticity. Any gospel therefore that calls for authority to be found outside ourselves, or says that life is found in denying yourself, is an alien gospel in our society.
Our Response to the Bill
So how should we respond to this Bill?
It is possible to respond politically – to lobby politicians to ensure amendments that protect private conversations and our freedom to teach and preach the truth. There is a place for that, for the freedoms threatened by the overreach of this bill – freedom of speech, freedom of association [defining on what basis people can belong to voluntary associations], freedom of belief – are vital to the functioning of our society.
This bill will also, if it prevents the exploration of alternative treatments other than gender re-assignment for gender dysphoria, do harm to young people. Such action though must be done in love, not anger, and in humility not a spirit of offended entitlement, acknowledging the reality that some have been hurt in the past by responses to same sex attraction that have been co-ercive.
But the best way to respond to a false gospel is with the true gospel, proclaiming Jesus is Lord and life is found in denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following Him, for He is the one with authority to judge and to forgive. In love we want to be able to call people of all sexual orientations and all gender identities to follow Christ, to tell them that He is worth everything. But that means we must also tell them the cost of following Him, and the Scripture is clear that all sexual immorality, and that is all sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman, is sin, and continuing in sin is inconsistent with inheriting the kingdom of God [1 Cor. 6:9-11]. We need to show the goodness and the greatness of Jesus, and we need to be in truth a community of forgiven sinners who love one another, including believers called out of and tempted by sins we might find confronting.
To respond to the false gospel with the true gospel will now take courage. As others have observed the broad nature of the offence is meant to create a climate of fear in which we will self-censor, become less clear and bold in teaching what God has given us for our good, the sexual morality of Scripture. But our Lord Jesus has told us that we should ‘not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.†[Matt. 10:28]. And He has warned us that He did not come to bring peace but a sword [Matt. 10:34-39] and that anyone who does not love Him more than all is not worthy of Him.
Now is the time for we ourselves to remind ourselves of and build ourselves up in the truth and goodness of Jesus, to remember that what is at stake in being faithful to Him is eternal life, and that our Lord has all authority, including over governments, and will work all things for our good and for the glory of His Name. We will need to do this together, to know each other’s encouragement in a community of love as we face the hostility of a society seduced into believing a lie. The Lord Jesus is not less Lord because the Victorian Government is seeking to bring in a piece of legislation that may test our faithfulness. We must look to Him, and not expect allies either in free speech advocates or civil libertarians. And we should not be discouraged when people who claim to be Christian come out in support of affirming same sex sexual orientation as acceptable to God. In writing to the seven churches in Revelation our Lord warned his people that there were those who taught that God’s people could share in idolatry and practice sexual immorality [Rev. 2:14, 20]. His condemnation of them and those who follow them is clear, as is our Lord’s expectation that we have nothing to do with them [Rev. 2:21-24]. Â
And we should pray. Pray for our government, that they would encourage and reward good, and shun wickedness. Pray that in His mercy the Lord would continue to allow us to ‘live quiet and peaceable lives, godly and dignified in every way’ [1 Tim. 2:2], where we are free to preach the gospel. Pray especially that this legislation would not be used to exclude Christian groups from campuses or chaplaincy. And pray especially for those most threatened – Christian counsellors and health professionals, Christian teachers and chaplains in schools, our own youth leaders, evangelists on our university campuses – that they would be sustained in love of the lost, in trust in the Lord to keep them, and in hope, the hope that tells them that the work of the Lord is never in vain, and worth the cost. And yes, pray for your pastors too. I do not think for the moment we are as much at risk as those others I have mentioned for we work in a more explicitly religious context, but we always need prayer for boldness in preaching the gospel.
Censoring ourselves would just embolden the opponents of the gospel. Worse, it would deny to lost people the Saviour who is seeking them, to dying people the Lord who can give them life. So hear the Saviour’s call to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. The path of faithfulness to His Father cost Him His life but was the path of exaltation over all, and one day every knee will bow and confess Him Lord.
Both Murray and Stephen have a number of helpful posts on the matter. Murray has been following this issue for many months, and was writing on it well before the final bill was introduced to Parliament. In addition Stephen’s book ‘Being the Bad Guys’ [Good Book Company] is very helpful in considering the changes taking place in society and how we can helpfully respond and persevere.
Helpful Websites:
The Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship has a number of useful resources at https://www.cmdfa.org.au
Simon: Hi everyone, thanks for tuning in, my name is Simon Camilleri.
Maureen: And I’m Maureen Mulholland, hi Simon.
Simon: Maureen and I have been wanting to do this for a long time, actually. I’m pro-life, and Maureen is pro-choice – although we can discuss whether we like those labels and what they mean – and I have helped organize the March for the Babies, and, Maureen…?
Maureen: Oh, I run a project called Common Ground, where I just think about ways to have conversations with opposing views, where you learn more than what you come out of, and you learn about yourself, you learn about others, and it’s enjoyable, it’s not a mudslinging fight. And it’s not about yes, trying to win and lose and make the other side look bad, but also, you know, just to learn, you know, what is conflict and, is there any point in talking to your direct opposition, and what do you get out of it?
Simon: It’s great.
Maureen: Yes, this is a great issue, because it makes people upset, but they don’t really talk about it, I mean, I do, you know, watch hours and hours of YouTube videos of protests, and I just see those little minutes where people have a conversation out in the…wherever they are.
Simon: Yes, where the two sides – well, that’s sort of how we met – because I was attending the March for the Babies, and you’re attending the counter-rally that was happening at the same time, and online, there was sort of discussion about can we actually have any conversations between these two groups or between these two sides? And both you and I felt passionate that it was possible, or should be possible, that it’s at least important?
Maureen: Yes, so we met just before that, and then we arranged to meet, so yes, I started feeling anxious, like, I don’t know, you know what it’s going to be like, and they were going to be police there, and it was just so much more angry, and so, I think we just met there and just hung out.
Simon: Yes, it was good, and…
Maureen: Rather than let anyone know what we were doing, because if we were, you know, at this protest, and counter-protest, and I thought, I’ll bring a couple of chairs, and we’ll invite people, but the pro-choice side just separated themselves into a group and were just sort of screaming through megaphones. And to me, I guess that they are getting not the wrong idea, but they are, you know, when you separate yourself into a group, you build up the other side as much worse than what they are, so there’s no, you know if we tried to sit down, and I mean, it would have been good, but my anxiety at that rally was too high, but well, I think that was two years ago, was it?
Simon: Yes, yes, the rallies are really helpful places to have that dialogue are they? Instead of, yes, the two groups are separated by barriers, and really, does make the impression that there isn’t any, as your group hasn’t, you know, there is no common ground because we’re so separated. But when we’ve caught up face to face, we’ve not found that to be the case, so we’ve been able to chat and disagree or agree and find that space as well.
Maureen: And I guess the group that represents pro-choice at the counter-protest, they don’t, to me represent everyone in Society there. And I never really felt part of that group anyway, I went, because I was interested in conflict, and I do identify as I mean, I guess if you’re going to pick a side, that’s the side, I would choose, but like you said, about, you know, do like the terms, yes I don’t think…I’m starting to dislike left and right, even though you sort of need to pick, you know, just where you belong, just so that people know where you’re coming from, I guess.
Simon: Sometimes, when people try and go, well, you’re clearly this, I’ve had people say, well, you’re a lefty, obviously, and other people say, well, you’re clearly on the far right, it’s just because if you give a nuanced picture of something, they sometimes see it, oh, well, that’s different to me, so, therefore, you must be completely on the other end of the spectrum. And so we both encourage you if you’re watching, and you’re a bit of an internet warrior, to actually have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, on any topic, try to have a face to face conversation with them, you know, share your both views and try to not let it descend to mudslinging, and insults and all that sort of stuff.
Maureen: Yes, and I think you can simplify it, just to take an interest in what they have to say without – I don’t know what the fear is – but it seems like if you listen to your opposition, maybe they’re going to change, you know, they’re going to brainwash you, or I don’t know what…I don’t know that, but it’s just like, you can’t let them have their say, because you’re so angry at them, and I’ve definitely been like that for a long time, and something just sparked my interest in getting past that. And yes, it did start with my friend Perry, you know, he was coming over and my husband said, oh, you’ve got to be gentle with him, I know that you’re these big feminist, you’re going to…if you tell him off, you’ll just destroy him.
And I think that just clicked like, you know, why would I hurt another human being? I think it’s like some loyalty to the group that they demand that you belong to and support and, you know, if you’re a feminist, you have to support them, whoever they are, you know, there’s so many different branches of feminism and part of it for me is going to Uni finally, and learning, you know, what is feminist theory and what’s, you know, these theories that are just, you know, people…they’re pretty, you know, very intelligent people, and they know a lot, but they are just writing theories, rather than living in real society and having real experiences.
So I guess like, abortion is so difficult, because it’s about experiences, and, you know, I guess the things, you know, that we should bring out in the open is like, you know, I guess we’ve had discussions about some pro-life people, just outright, you know, don’t want to discuss this, you know, need to ban it and ban it now, and I probably haven’t considered – I think you were saying you’d like pro-life people to think more about what they’re talking about – you know when they go to the match, or when they talk to their relatives.
Simon: Actually I think as much as there’s that group think, with, like you were expressing it within the groups that you’ve been in, I definitely experienced that there’s definitely a group thinking in pro-life circles in some church circles and, it’s really important that we make sure we’re not just speaking into an echo chamber, and that we are hearing our own things bounce back to us and patting ourselves on the back, that we have conversations that will actually help us be nuanced, even if fundamentally we don’t change our position, because sometimes our positions are based on certain convictions that are at a sort of a fundamental level, but may change how we express those convictions, and how we actually are implementing them. Like, we may agree on quite a lot of things about what needs to be done to support pregnant women you know, or there’s a whole range of things we might agree in terms of how we actually care for people, even if we disagree on some other things, so.
Maureen: So, should we talk about what we personally believe?
Simon: Yes, yes, I think so.
Maureen: And then kind of, then we can move on to what we…
Simon: Yes, I want to definitely say that anything I express is my own opinion, I don’t represent March for the Babies as an organization, and even the March for the Babies is more of a meeting place of pro-life people in Victoria, who have issues with the Victorian law as it currently stands. It’s not just one, sort of person or one exact thought about, you know, what, you think about the issues and how what needs to be done. So, yes, I’m just expressing my views, and, you know, and…
Maureen: Yes, I guess my side of it is, I mean, I am just expressing my own views, but I guess I promote free thought and making mistakes and even changing my mind and…
Simon: Yes, definitely, I hope…
Maureen: Yes, I’m not…I don’t, ever want my group to be, you know, some kind of…definitely not, you know, paying any money to join. Definitely not, I mean, yes, who knows what the future would bring, but yes.
Simon: Cool.
Maureen: I think I always represent myself, and I sort of sit on the margins anyway, so yes.
 Simon: Yes, I understand it, cool, alright. Well, shall we…how about we just start with those big labels? Then, you know, I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-life, what does that mean, to you? Do you like that? You don’t like that label? Yes, what do you think it means when people say, I’m pro-choice, or what do you mean, by it?
Maureen: Yes, I guess I dislike it because it’s fairly black and white. It’s, do you think if a woman needs or wants an abortion, I guess there are different levels of that, and to me having an unwanted pregnancy, I mean when I listen to pro-life reasoning, it makes sense. But then I still, I guess, I think about my own gender and even a couple of experiences I’ve had of abortion, and, you know, being young, I guess, you know, people always talk about, you know, what about when you’re raped, even girls that have been raped want to keep their children, that sort of individual, but yeah, should the law exist? Yes, and I’ve thought about the reasons why, you know, one day, maybe there shouldn’t be abortion, but realistically, maybe there’ll always be a need. for it, it seems, if society doesn’t get it together to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You know, as a woman, and it’s, you know our natural body, does something and, you know, and in a man’s body, it doesn’t happen to them. So, and then, you know, animals are a certain way, they live in a cycle of their nature, they don’t really think, the same way humans do and humans have conquered nature to a certain degree. I’m sort of getting this from the latest feminists that I really like, she is considered an outcast, Camille, Puglia. She says, you know, we’re humans, we’ve transcended nature, you know, so this is sort of women’s way of you know, having power over their body, and because we’re not able to do it in another way, this is all we have.
So I guess, for now, you know, that feels you know, in a simple answer, that’s why I have to be pro-choice because the alternative is to, you know, allow women that get pregnant for different reasons. And I could say a lot of it is that a lot, you know, a lot of young girls get talked into sex, and, you know, I know that’s not always true, but, you know, in the 80s, and 90s, that felt like a thing that happened a lot that, you know, you fall in love, or you think you’re in love or a boy, sort of talks you into it, you know, today, they would call that rape.
But, you know, a lot of the times, girls are naive, and they end up pregnant and but then, yes, I don’t want to keep going on, but yes, I guess, I really feel that because it’s so difficult-I have put off having this conversation, because I’ve thought, I agree that abortion is…I wouldn’t say I mean, you know, you’re saying murder, is it in the same way men doing philosophy? It’s this idea of what is the world? What is reality? Who are we, when you’re born, you know,  I have been a Christian for a long time, it felt very much easier, I guess, to just think, yes, you know, every life is sacred, and now I don’t really, I’m not an atheist, but I think philosophy drives you a bit mad because you start asking, why are we here?
And the answer is, we don’t know, we are just here, realities as our, you know, we exist, and then we just die, and it’s, it’s either over or, well, there is a God. So you know, you’re just thrown into this crazy…so yes, we are like animals when we at that level of sex and pregnancy. And I sent you that link about Jordan Peterson, that summed up probably what how I feel as well, that it is the wrong thing to do, but it’s all we have at the moment because we haven’t worked out what to do with them, you know.
Simon: So, yes, I guess there are two questions that don’t often get separated, which are, is abortion, moral or ethical, in certain circumstances, and in every, or only in certain? Yes, so that whole question, which is maybe the principal side of it, and then there’s like, the practical side of it, should it be illegal, should it be regulated, should it be restricted in any way? And then sometimes we lump in these conversations I find online, is they get lumped together, and some people can have quite nuanced views, they could have a view that actually I think it’s immoral, but I don’t think the law should enforce morality, say, or they think that they could be pro-life principally, but pro-choice, practically.
And people will know, the only way you have, you know, the reason why it should be legal, is because principally, it’s moral in all circumstances, no matter what, and then you’d have the other side be, it’s immoral, and therefore, it should be illegal, you know and then there is…
Maureen: They are the two polar opposites?
Simon: Yes, yes, and then you could also say it like, it’s immoral in all circumstances, or it’s immoral in some circumstances, and, you know, so yes, I find those difficult. So, where do you think because you’ve talked a bit about that, you don’t necessarily think it’s right, or that it would be better if we lived in a world where we didn’t have an abortion, but that there’s a necessity. So that’s sort of the practical side of things, there’s a necessity for abortion. Is that where you think you sit, do you think that abortion is ever immoral?
Maureen: I could only really sit there by reading because I guess now you know, I only started Uni at 35, so I’ve become more of an intellectual thinker more than a, or emotionally or based on my experience and what opinions people have. So there is only two or three feminists that have this opinion, and the other ones is Naomi Wolf, she’s quite a well-known feminist, otherwise, I think all the feminists will say there’s nothing immoral about it.
And I think that there’s just it has to be just sort of fear, that if they step over the line and say that it’s moral in any way, and I guess moral, yes, we do have universal ethics or morals as a society, western society even, other nonwesterns, yes, well we all think what’s ethical or moral. I guess they say, you know, a woman’s body whatever is contained inside it, is her body maybe. Yes, I would call myself a pro-choice, but I haven’t taken much interest in…as soon as I kind of hear that you know, when it goes into biology and how it’s a woman’s body, it becomes an opinion, I mean, how can you really say…and the scientifically, I was having an argument, in another issue and just saying, I’ve learned about science, I think it’s called scientific materialism, where you believe science is going to…
Simon: Solve everything.
Maureen: Proves everything, and it’s like, there’s a point where you’ve got the data and the scientific data, and then you’ve just got to sit down and talk about it. So I think this came from Pro-lifers, but now that you can see inside the womb, and you can see the baby, you know exactly what they look like, you get the best video quality, and that made a big difference, I think. An interesting year, what’s happening in America with the new is it Supreme Court judge could…yes because the people I’ve talked to that are pro-choice, they assume, oh, they are just going to make abortion illegal, but they’re not aware of all the different stages of law like they’ve got the heartbeat law, and then other ones about…because they’ve got all these different states would have different law, one if you requiring an ultrasound.
Simon: It’d be different in America like the different states can have a lot more jurisdiction, whereas, in Australia, it’s much more of a system where one law, like the different states, do have, different positions or different laws on abortion, but there’s a lot more general things that are across the board.
Maureen: I mean, yes, it was only the other day, was it at Adelaide, about protesting out the front, so it’s not sort of, I mean, I wouldn’t even know what to think of that.
Simon: Yes, your safety, well, they define them as, like safe access zones, as they call them. So 150 meters, if you’re watching, and you don’t know about that, but there’s a law in Victoria, that 150 meters around an abortion clinic, basically you can’t express anything about abortion, or communicate anything. So you can’t be there protesting, you can’t peacefully protest, you can’t sit there and pray, as some want to do. And the one that I think is hardest is you can’t be there even passively offering assistance to women who might not have found assistance anywhere, other than when they’re coming to that place, and they think they’re alone, and they are not part of any community or anything like that, and that’s sort of the last opportunity for them to maybe find assistance. And now that’s illegal, so 150 meters, there can’t be any of that near.
Maureen: You see, that seems like something that both of us would have a very different view, because when I think of it, I’d probably think of my experience or if I was bringing a woman in, a friend who needed, you know, I’d probably go well, that’s good that you know, we’re not going to have protesters.
Simon: Yes, people harassing you as you’re going in, yes and I understand that you know, you’d want if you’re going for that procedure you’d want no one around you, you don’t want anyone there, I do understand.
Maureen: Yes, and I think that’s what makes them very angry, yes, I guess what I’m trying to…yes I guess I want to hear more conflict, I suppose, but yes, I’m getting to like, a pro-choicer would get very angry at that point, because they would assume probably, you know, a lot of pro-life people don’t think about what’s going on in the mind of the woman and, a lot of pro-choice people, which I’ve used to be surprised about, they would say, you don’t know how hard it is to get an abortion. So they’re admitting that it is hard and painful, and so it’s sort of I guess, so they get angry, like, oh, yes, you don’t think about how hard…
Simon: The experiences?
Maureen: Yes, in another breath, I guess other people could say, well, I had an abortion It was nothing you know, I didn’t care at all. But, they could just be sort of political points, but I think, yes, it is something that upsets a lot of women, is that if they didn’t need to do it, that would be a good thing, and is it necessary?
Simon: Well, the thing that made me maybe feel more heartbroken about the fact that, that it’s not allowed, is when I hear of stories of women who were going for abortions, feeling exceptionally alone, but because of the people who were reaching out to them, the surrounding the abortion clinic, they then connected with them, and then found help, so that they could not have the abortion, and in the end, they are so grateful for that. So the stories of that which is much more of a common story in the States because of freedom of speech, they’re allowed to have people, but they’re…
Maureen: Argument, so, they never stop…
Simon: Yes, I don’t think they’ve got those sorts of access zones issues, whereas in Australia, we haven’t got, technically we haven’t got freedom of speech as enshrined in our Constitution, and so they can make those excess zones. But generally, the people I know who want to be there are not people who want to protest abortion, but who want to offer another option, and not wanting to harass you know, or shame women who are going in for abortions, but wanting that sort of last, you know, wanting to offer assistance, if anyone wanted it.
But yeah, there might be people who just want to stand there and yell but I actually don’t think that’s as common, that’s maybe how it was painted, but if you’ve had an experience.
Maureen: Of any of those things, other than in the media or movies where you know, and well, YouTube, yes, America, so they probably as radical as they can get, you know, big photos of aborted babies to make the woman feel
Simon: Terrible about it
Maureen: Then there was a movie called Juno. Did you watch that?
Simon: Yes.
Maureen: That was very interesting. She was portrayed as a very open, tough thinking girl. So she made her own decision to keep the baby but yes, the decision was kind of made because there was that protester who said, your baby has fingernails, and she went, oh really fingernails, but then she still went in, so yes, I can actually remember why she decided not to, well I mean, it’s such complicated reasons. So yes, you were talking about individual stories that happen, and I guess I would only think about how protesters are just going to make things worse when you’re already suffering.
But each story is different and maybe they could have made it so that you…yes, because then they wanted to just have people with silent prayer, and then that was shut down as well, so I guess maybe they’d have to have people regulating and making sure that people are only praying.
Simon: Yes, I would agree, I would support a law that banned aggression, or things that were there to shame or you know-and that becomes a nuanced thing of what exactly shames people because to some degree, the truth can shame us. Like if the truth is that, it is a baby, or it is a human being, it is something that’s valuable. So, I was talking with a Melbourne, Sonographer, who was telling me that a lot of the women who were planning to abort, never want to see the scan, they don’t want to see the scan, because the scan humanizes the child or the scan doesn’t actually humanize the child, it’s whether the child is human or not, and the scan reveals the humanity of the child.
And so they say, don’t show it to me, and I guess that’s the thing that, you know, it’s that last moment of going in, is like a hope of…it is a confronting thing to change people’s view that this isn’t just a pregnancy as a nonhuman concept, it’s a human being. And I don’t, want to speak at all, for all women who are going into that experience, but I know there’d be many who would, well I would believe they’ve been sold this picture, that it’s not a baby yet, or it’s not a human being yet or it’s not alive yet-and, maybe we could discuss where we both stand on that issue, but I would say yes, it is a human being, I’d say it is alive, I’d say it is valuable, it is as valuable as a child that is out of the womb, and it is deserving of your protection and, and human rights, and those sort of things. But that reality maybe is obscured by the language.
Maureen: Indeed, very interesting. Yes, because a lot of I mean, well, right now, I want to know the truth about everything. So, I thought, you know, I’ve had my children and I’m, like thanking God and science and everything, to be able to have my tubes tied, tubal ligation, because I don’t have to take the pill, you know, I was having natural cycles, and the doctor even said, women come at me and they say, something’s wrong, I’m bleeding and he said, you’re just having a natural, your body’s doing what’s natural.
And so yes, what I’m saying is, if I got pregnant now, I would think that I would want to see this sonogram and I probably can’t imagine choosing an abortion, but you know, I mean, I can’t think that is a 45-year-old or, I mean, I had the tubal ligation at 38, that was enough for me and so yes, to not see the sonogram. So you have to admit, when you are saying I don’t want to see it, I don’t want to humanize it, you know, in the back of your mind that there is something human about, you know, this being and for me to understand why we still say abortion is okay.
I feel like I had to read especially Jordan Peterson, he had a great take on it. And I don’t even think he, he doesn’t say whether he’s pro-choice or pro-life, but he’s very practical, so he would just say, we haven’t solved this, so we have to have this and he’s very upfront about evil and death, and you know, he eats only meat, because I’ve thought, you know, it’s the same as just killing and eating animals, or maybe it is I don’t know. I think I’ve had this conversation with you before that most or all pro-lifers are religious, and I think you were like, oh, no, not at all, or maybe it is someone else.
Simon: Yes, there is definitely a perception of that, possibly because…
Maureen: It’s what you believe.
Simon: …Yes a lot of prominent pro-lifers are religious or, you know, that the reason why they stand for protecting the life in the womb is partly that their religious convictions prompt them to say that all lives are valuable, no matter what age or stage and things like that. But there’s a whole bunch of people who aren’t religious, who acknowledge, that truth as well. So there’s a great if people could look it up, it’s a great group called Secular Pro-Lifers, on Facebook and other places, and they’re great, and they, are so frustrated by people who have that perception that it’s just a religious question. There’s no, you know, sort of ethical, humanitarian question or whereas I think…
Maureen: So, they just see human life as…so, what are the basic points of that, like about?
Simon: Yes, well, the basic point would be that, by the way, any of you could look up their Facebook page to maybe get to hear it from their mouth, but that killing a human being is wrong, you killing an innocent human being is wrong, and so it’s actually very…and from a scientific perspective, there is no doubt that a child in the womb is a human being, a member of the human race. And if we say, why do we say that it’s wrong for me to kill this person down?
Yes, like whether you’re religious or not, you generally agree that it’s not ethical to kill someone who’s just in your way, you know, that they have rights and those rights are not based on how clever they are, or how attractive they are, or how, whether they’re able or disabled, whether they’re, you know, white or black, whether they’re a man or a woman, their sexuality, the reason why they shouldn’t be killed is because of their humanity, which is the thing that unites all human beings.
And that’s the one reason why you don’t go well we can kill this subset category of humanity, and so that just extend that and I would too, to the difference between a human being in the womb out of the womb is, arbitrary in the sense…not arbitrary to the mother, obviously, it’s very significant, whether it’s in the womb or out of the womb. But in terms of, to the human being itself, that difference is quite arbitrary. So, a child couldn’t be…my daughter was, she didn’t want to get out of the womb, she was in there for an extra two weeks, and then we had to induce after 41 or 42 weeks. Whereas children have been removed from the womb at 24 weeks and survived, and they can do surgery where they remove a fetus from the womb, do surgery on it, and then put it in the womb.
Maureen: Are you serious, wow.
Simon: Yes,and so you sort of go, well, what was the status of that child? You know, did it become a human being and then lost its humanity again, when it went back in the womb? Yes, I think the continuation of what, of the humanity of the fetus, you know, from zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, it’s just a stage of development. And some of them are in the womb, and some are out of the womb, and so if we consider that it’s unethical to kill a child out of the womb, then you’ve got to argue what makes the child within the womb, what makes it lose its human rights, what makes a loss of humanity.
And the natural discussion then plays to the effect that has the difference between a child in and out of the womb is the effect it has on the woman herself. That’s where my body my choice comes, the bodily autonomy arguments. And I think they’re really good, I think they’re really important, and I think pro-lifers need to actually grapple with those realities, potentially more than they do.
Maureen: Yes, because I think your points are very good, and right, so, yes, but I feel like we can get deeper, like, because it’s interesting to me because there are still questions, I don’t know. like, if you’re arguing with a pro-choice person, and they’re saying, well, what if, you know, if, or if it was me, saying what if abortion was illegal, and well, I guess, you know, the argument is that we return to backyard abortions, but…
Simon: Is that what you think?
Maureen: Yes, I guess what I’m asking is like, do you just hold that position about pro-life without having any answers about abortion? Like, because you know that’s the right thing.
Simon: Yes, because that’s practically so.
Maureen: And I’m, I’m thinking of my father right now because he was an advocate. And I was too young to think about these things, but I wonder if he was thinking…well, he was a Catholic, so they believe you know, sex isn’t even for enjoyment, it’s just for procreation. So I think and he was an old-fashioned guy, and there is nine of us.
Simon: I don’t want to storm on all Catholics, I know, some Catholics who might disagree with that.
Maureen: Well I just know, yes when I’m arguing with him, that’s what’s in his mind. So, I know that when I’m discussing with someone, I’m trying to understand their mind. One thing I learn in philosophy is that every single person’s brain is like a whole world in there. And, if I just take an interest in, but yes, then, you know, pro-life is a whole group, so you share what we should.
Simon: Yes but you’re right, they are different. Sometimes it’s just, you know, that pro-life can mean just focused on the issue of the child’s rights and that abortion is wrong, and that abortion should be abolished. I love this threefold aspect to the issue, its talking about, I would like, to some degree abortion to be illegal. But more than that, I would like abortion to be unthinkable and I would like abortion to be unnecessary. So, unthinkable means that actually, that’s a social change, that’s, how do we relate to life? How do we relate to sex? How do we relate to, you know, our bodies? How do we relate to others? You know, how do we…
Maureen: If we just said, we’re not going to treat sex like a commodity anymore, we’re not going to have any sexualized, you know, and when I think about, you know, really conservative government doing that, I sort of go, hmm, you know, like, society is never that great, everything we try I mean, society is better than it’s ever been, even though we’re all…people are going crazy that, you know…
Simon: In some ways, it is definitely, I mean, otherwise, I might disagree.
Maureen: But, another view that was very interesting was, Ben Shapiro, I mean, he’s someone that loves the truth. And even though I don’t agree, because he’s so conservative, you know, and I don’t know if a lot of it’s from what he believes as a Jewish man, but he said, he wants abortion to be illegal. And he doesn’t mind you know, he’s willing to accept that women are going to be forced to have babies because that’s a better way to move our society towards valuing life-I just went oh, that’s cold, like I was thinking, but then I thought, well, you have to play it out, that’s what I don’t know if you think that’s what…if a pro-lifer thinks everything should be and for me as a pro-choice, I have to admit that it’s killing a human being.
I mean, I guess I should say it’s murder, and a lot of pro-choice, I know, they say it sarcastically, you know, they’re full of anger, and I probably, you know, had a lot of horrible conversation or arguments, not debates, you know, and they are that angry that they just go yes, I want to kill and murder babies, you know, and, it really where, and I thought, well, at least, that’s what I’ve had to play out, this side, you know, the pro-choice, that’s their truth, and yes.
Simon: I think, the language of force is a really tough one, it’s one that gets thrown at me a lot, in terms of why you want to force women to give birth to babies. And the challenge with any law, or the challenge with anything, is that there’s, especially with the issue of abortion is, there is a force in both ways, right. So either we force women, you know, abortion forces, a child out of the womb, so, it uses force, it’s an action, and it uses violent force against a child and preventing that uses force, right? So, the same thing, as if, you know, if I wanted to kill my five-year-old daughter, and then you wanted to stop me, I could accuse you of wanting to force me to be a father, you know, that you were forcing me, technically, whenever you prevent someone from harming another, you are forcing them to not harm them, right. So, there’s an element of force on both sides. I definitely disagree that any woman should be forced to…
Maureen: I was going to ask that because you said that the pro-choice argument about women’s autonomy, you think about that…
Simon: I think there is validity to the concept of autonomy, right? So, I don’t think any woman should be forced to have a baby. But because of that, I disagree with rape, right. So, no woman should be forced to have a baby. But what happens is, once you’re pregnant, you have a baby, right, the baby is there, the child is there. And now you have to go, well, what we do with that the natural progression of this, if we step stand back, the natural progression of this is that child is going to naturally develop and grow. And it will, get its way out, right? We don’t even need to fortunately we have an intervention to make sure birth is safe in this country.
But, but you know, development and birth will happen like that’s the natural progression of the child’s existence. So, you don’t actually have to force women to give birth or force women to continue their pregnancy, like that’s going to happen naturally. The question is, should people be allowed to force this, the stopping of that natural process, and do it in such a way that a child is killed, or a human being – if we wanted to talk about the terms, you’re a human being, the human being in the womb is killed in the process – And that’s the part that I take objection to if there was a method of preventing the woman from, having to go through the whole pregnancy, because she doesn’t want the child, and she does want to give birth. And there was a way of…I would be supportive of that any method that would at the same time, protect the child from being killed. So, I don’t…
Maureen: So, have to change the way women own their children because then you would say, you know, as soon as you’re pregnant, and this is a human being with rights, then and maybe we are seeing children like that, but now we don’t punish children, the same way we used to, maybe its heading…
Simon: Yes I definitely think we can, and the idea of not being like…and the issue of adoption, adoption is still incredibly stigmatized in Australia. Not to be an adopted child, but the idea of giving up your child for adoption, is I think, still socially seen as a bad parent, but the idea of terminating your child is not.
Maureen: Yes, I never would have thought that I thought that you know you’d be, you know, you’re heroin for going through it.
Simon: And then giving it up.
Maureen: Especially if you are young, yes, and then there is class, you know, if you’re too poor, you’re in a bad situation or drug-addicted.
Simon: Yes, and I’m very, very supportive, of any measures that would support women through to make that whole process easier. My wife and I looked into adoption, and we attended an information session with hundreds of other parents desiring to adopt. And we learned that that year, only 14 children up for adoption.
Maureen: Wow, that’s amazing.
Simon: And they explained why and they say they are proud of the low numbers. And I said, because we, if it’s a late pregnancy, and a mother approaches them saying they want to give their child up for adoption, they are been stigmatized, the idea of raising their child being a single mum, and they give them support, they say you can do it, and we can help you. And I think that’s really good, that’s really, really good.
Maureen: Encouraging them to keep the baby.
Simon: If it’s a late-stage, but what they actually told us was that if it’s not in the later stage of the pregnancy, then I’ll actually advise them to terminate the child, to actually have an abortion. And they told me…
Maureen: So, who is this group?
Simon: This is the adoption Victoria, this is at this information session for adoption. They told this to this room of longing parents, who would just like, and you could just hear a pin drop. And there are always questions afterward, people going well, how many children are aborted instead of who could have been adopted and they shut down the conversation quickly, I think they realized they sort of stepped in it. But, you know, the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of abortions in Victoria, but only like 10 to 15 adoptions every year.
To me just shows an actual real social problem, that adoption is just seen, not encouraged as an option, and that abortion is so normalized, and so, seen as just a termination of pregnancy, rather than the termination of a human being. So part of my passion is not just gone, oh, yes, abortion should be illegal, because I actually think if that’s all we did, that would be disastrous. I don’t think that would be good for society if all we did was make abortion illegal, and stopped and did nothing, there would be…
Maureen: Is there a lot of people that think like that, it’s because now it’s really showing me that these two sides is very damaging. And that anyway through it is to start something new, where you step away from pro-life, pro-choice, and you start to do all these things…talk about adoption…
Simon: I think the pro-life movement gets painted as a, all we care about is birth. But that’s for me within that community, that’s not what I hear. I hear that there is incredible support for the crisis pregnancy centers, and helping women to not be in a circumstance where they feel like they have to have an abortion if they don’t want one, incredible support for adoption there. You know, Christians are running adoption centers, and, you know, if you look at all the adoption centers or the official ones, it’s all Anglicare, and it’s all Christian organizations that are running these organizations, you know they care about doing that.
I’m not saying that non-Christians don’t care about that, but or non-pro lifers don’t necessarily, but I just don’t hear pro choices, and you know, to use that label, I don’t hear them going…I hear them saying women in those circumstances need abortions, right? If they, if they don’t feel like they could raise the child, whereas my angle on that is, well, then why don’t we do something about the fact that they don’t feel like they could raise the child? Why don’t we support them so that they either do feel like they could raise the child, or they do feel like their child could be raised, without them feeling needing that responsibility? That abortion seems like that’s the only way, only option for women. Do you think it’s painted that way, or?
Maureen: Well, the question I was thinking of was, these problems, like were these messages don’t get through like, pro choices, say pro-lifers don’t care about, they only care about your birth yes, so it seems like you can’t get any of these ideas out because you are just pushed into one box, and then maybe a lot of people are just scared to talk, you know, if they, because there’s a lot of people on the pro-choice side, but they would definitely agree with all the things that I agree with you, but they just, I think if I had a career in, you know, some job where if you know if I worked in some trendy cafe and I had any opinion against what they said, I’d be fired and mean that that kind of thing is big now, but just fear in general of being rejected.
Simon: Yes, so, it makes these sorts of conversations difficult to have when everyone’s expected to toe the line.
Maureen: Yes, because I mean, I’ll probably go away from this and then, you know, it just seem to drift back to when I hear pro choice, you know, even the hardliner speak, something in me just agrees, but I mean, maybe not, because I think about my own situation, I was young, you know, the first time I was under 18, and then the second time, I did feel bad about it, and then I got pregnant very soon after, you know, that’s my first daughter, and I think that experience and having no counseling and having a little bit of, you know – I wouldn’t say, manipulation from my partner – but yes, I mean, if you just heard thousands of stories from girls and women why they had abortions, a lot of them are grouped together, and, you know, mine was just, I was in a new relationship and, it’s just so common, I guess, you know, you’re in a relationship…and the kind of person I am or woman, you know, I just wasn’t very, I didn’t feel like I knew anything about myself and my boundaries, and my, you know, if we educated children, boys and girls to be strong in themselves and respect the bodies, and you know – people would go, you know, you put religion into it, you wouldn’t even need any religious belief, to agree. I think in France, and some other European countries, they just look at sex education, from almost you know, kindergarten, they’re not even talking about sex, they’re talking about how they respect themselves. And if you’re found pregnant, and you just don’t have any of these life skills, this is what I feel was just me.
And then, the stigma, you know, my father was alive both times, and that was a big part of it because, you know, girls are very close to their dads, and, you know, a big part of it is just, you cannot tell your parents, and that there’s just no way they’re going to know. So you will do anything…so, I guess that’s…we could look at all the different groups, of women that get pregnant, and that’s what sort of makes sense to me, why they do.
Simon: You don’t need to answer this, but I’m just curious, in your circumstance, you talked about there’s sort of stigma and the idea of how it would affect your life and your life circumstances at the time. If there wasn’t that social stigma, to the idea of either carrying the child to term, and you’re adopting the child or raising the child, in whatever circumstances you had, and if there was actual support, like, you know, if the next door and you saw that there was a crisis pregnancy center, and you saw how they, you are sort of aware of that at the time. Do you think if those sorts of support networks, we’re there, that were actually there walking with you through that, do you think that would have changed your decision?
Maureen: When I think about, it doesn’t have to be a completely different culture, like, I’m thinking about, you know, it was near the end of high school, so, you know, and I’m extremely anxious, or, I did have anxiety, I was very self-conscious, very shy. So, it’s just like, nothing beats how my peers and my parents and family view me and I guess, now I can look back and go, you know, that is, I guess, self-centeredness, or selfishness or whatever, and as a human.
And I study sociology, so, you know, looking at society, it’s a completely meaty crazy place, and I don’t, I don’t really believe in good and evil, I could see how like, we suppress our morals because, you know, stigma and fear of rejection is just massive and…
Simon: It’s very powerful.
Maureen: Yes, so, if our culture was different, but then I think it just wouldn’t have happened because if our culture was different, I don’t know you know like the first time I was not far off being a virgin, I remember thinking, I want to know what it is and how it feels. And but then beyond that, I didn’t want to do it and I was quite under the thumb of the boy I was with. And that’s just how it was, I had not been taught – I mean, I don’t know how you’re can grab every single child and teach them and have everyone just so healthy in their mind that they know their boundaries – I think kids today seem to know, like, my kids, I hope that if anyone, you know, put the finger anywhere near them physically, they seem to…because now you know, you can’t smack children you can’t, you know, they’re a bit out of control, my kids are a bit naughty, but that’s probably expected.
Simon: It’s really good that the principle of consent is being taught to kids.
Maureen: But then sex is still, from what I hear sex with teenagers could be worse.
Simon: Yes well, that’s probably maybe another conversation, but probably getting a generation being raised on pornography, just being the sex Ed teacher for a lot of a whole generation.
Maureen: Do you know the statistics of abortion, because I just assumed that it’s young women, but I’m sure it’s all ages and all backgrounds.
Simon: Yes, it is, there’s a lot of young women who and the socio-economic factors are there, so the more educated women, I think, the better off they are, the less likely they are because they’ve got more access to education, sex education, and contraception, and potentially, the prospect of actually keeping the child they don’t feel the circumstances, make it needed as much. But I do think there is a sense, a cultural attitude towards sex in general, that sex is recreational, and it shouldn’t have any consequences, that it’s not a powerful force that can create a life, and engage…
Maureen: [inaudible 01:06:31]
Simon: Yes, I’ve heard some people say, you know, if you’re going to play the game, don’t be surprised if you win, that life is a part of, it’s not the only purpose of sex at all, but it’s definitely biologically what sex is designed to do. I think, culturally, we don’t…until you’re in the stage, where you’re wanting to have kids and you’re finding it difficult, then yes, before that, sex is sort of recreation or seen that way.
And, and to keep that principle, maybe, or that value of how we treat sex, that abortion is some to some degree necessary or seen as necessary, because otherwise, sex has consequences, and those consequences are quite heavy and quite big and life-changing.
Maureen: What do you think of that, because it’s making me think of, I think of the argument about, you know, the patriarchy, you know, I could almost say- I mean, I’m not gonna, you know, settle on this- but it does feel to me that, don’t know, women go along with the needs of men in a way. I mean, I know, it’s not true all the time, it’s becoming less true, I think the more that abortion is just accepted that, you know, women, and I don’t know, the new feminism, not been, you know, there’s lots of different feminism, but, you know, the popular thing now is to embrace sex and be into it.
And I just sort of think, I don’t know that many women and girls were into it as much as boys were, and maybe even the boys weren’t, it might have been just a bravado thing, but it turned out that you know, it seemed like the boys were always chasing the girls. So that needs to end, you know if we are to change.
Simon: Defiantly, one of the things that abortion does, teaches men that there are no consequences. So, the idea that they can have these flippant sexual relationships, and that there has been no result to that, because abortion sort of takes care of that evidence or that consequence of that promiscuity, then, I think it breeds both for men and women that flippancy. It’s often, I’ve heard it argued that for women to be equal, abortions necessary, because men can have sex and there’d be no consequences to them.
Maureen: Yes.
Simon: Â But I actually think that’s a bad thing. I think that that’s a bad thing that men can think they can have sex and have no consequences. But that’s a cultural change that needs to happen, where men relate to women much better, and they like to sex with more, much more responsibility. And that if a child is produced, that’s their child, and they, you know, they need to step up, and to some degree, men should be protecting the women in their life, not seen as a threat or an aggressor, but as someone who could use whatever strength they have to protect them.
And yes- not to, say women are weakened, and can’t protect themselves- but the aggression that men have, should be used as a force for good to protect rather than a force to harm and the idea that, you know, that this principle that men can just go in and have sex and then leave, and get away with it, as if that’s something to be desired, like, that’s a principle that women should aspire to, or that that’s a sort of value, that we need abortion so that women can be like that, I think that we need to flip that on its head and say, actually, that’s wrong, and men need to change.
You know, so that if a woman gets pregnant, that they’re not left to fend for themselves, it’s not going to harm them socioeconomically, that it’s not going to leave them high and dry. And then where, the man doesn’t do that, that’s where I think society needs to step in. So I’m very much of the opinion, that, we should as a society, both through legislation, and through community groups, and things like that needs to take responsibility for the children that are, you know, our fellow human beings. So, no woman needs to go through pregnancy alone.
That no woman needs to face nine months of pregnancy, without support, without help, without financial help, you know, social help, emotional help, psychological help, whatever, you know, support that she needs that we need to be more like, you know, raised by the tribe sort of essence, you know, that when a child comes into existence in our community, that we care for that child. And, so that’s why for me, going back to those three things, that the idea of abortion being illegal, but abortion being unthinkable is the change of attitude, but then abortion being unnecessary, where there’s never a situation where a woman who wants to keep the child feels like her only option is abortion or a woman who might keep the child but feels like she can’t.
And the vast majority of women who have abortions don’t have it because the child is going to die, if they don’t have the abortion, or they’re going to die if they don’t have the abortion, those cases are so ridiculously rare that the majority of you know so many abortions happen because it’s not the right time or the effect it will have socio- they call it psychosocial reasons- you know, the effect upon the woman. And so I think as a society, we need to step up so that those reasons are not reasons to have an abortion for the women.
Maureen: So, that I think this brings up a point of divide because, and not even really about abortion, but about society and I feel like…I’m studying sociology, and I’ve been interested in sociology because I want to understand it, and I’ve really felt the need to come up with answers and control it, and what do we need to…and now I’m thinking, I don’t think that sociologists should do anything, like our job should be just to observe because society does what it does.
But then when you said the legislation, that’s such a powerful thing that changes, but then it only changes in one direction it can cause…so I guess, yes, the difference, what it feels like, between us is that I think of society as it’s just happening, does its thing and you can only and, you know, people are never going to be, not never, but yes, to say, we should do this, I don’t even know-how these things can happen because there are so many sectors, you know, there’s, like, to me, I look at lower-class people, I mean, it’s a terrible term, but I think the class is, bigger than even, like, mean, I don’t want to go into the, into race stuff that causes people to fight me, but I feel like we should only look at class for now.
And because, you know, there seems to be a whole forgotten, you know, millions of people that can’t really survive financially, and they just act…when you have nothing, you just sort of life in a more sort of natural way you don’t have any education you’ve had, your parents are trying to work just to keep you so you’re left, this is kind of how I, it’s not how I grew up, it was my circumstance because I was seventh out of nine children, and I just run a model with all the other kids in Dandenong that were left, you know, like, their parents were at work, or their parents were so strict that the kids had to run away because Dandenong was a great place, it was full of ethnicities and cultures.
And in the 90s, you were just somehow you’re in these groups running the streets and doing what you want, and now you look back and you just sort of going well, society was just a certain way, you know, we had the recession, and there was a shift from very conservative values, I think 50s to the 60s, and then the 70s and 80s, were kind of I guess, economic. You know, people were into working and you know success, and in the 90s, it was sort of this, everyone was nihilistic again, and yes not that it seems to happen in a natural way. So yes, I guess what I’m saying is, you can only take like two to make the best you can, I would like to think that you can make society better, which I think, yes, because I do agree with you.
Simon: One thing I need to clarify, I don’t think we should make that three-prong thing of illegal, unthinkable, and unnecessary. I don’t think that if we have illegal, that will make it unthinkable, and that will make it unnecessary. I think that if we actually try to change our culture often interpersonally and, what sort of culture do we develop in our own communities, and how does that change lives around us and have it flow on from there rather than a top-down effect like we make the law because that will make people care about life. I don’t think that is the case, I just think that it justified it.
But I hope for that social change, and maybe all I can do is make sure that I have that change in my own heart, and that I raise my children to respect life and to take responsibility and to and to treat sex with respect and to treat their own bodies with respect. And to see life from the very point of it’s created or from the point of fertilization that that’s to treat a human being as valuable all the way through and I can teach that to my child, and I can be part of creating a culture where that happens. But you can’t enforce that you can’t enforce values or morality. The question then comes up…
Maureen: But that’s the way it’s supposed to be, it’s like a bit of a fantasy, I like the more realistic but I actually feel like I’m a bit more insane or a bit…
Simon: Well, yes, we got to be idealist, as philosophers, we have to, yes, we’re always a bit idealistic. But the challenge is…
Maureen: I could say you can’t change the society, but then I, go, why can’t you change the society, you know, could easily change it like, we are supposed to be running around, I think, why don’t they just go and buy, you know, 100 acres and start a socialist society, like you can make any reality you want, you just have to put in the work. And they just, you know they took over a town in Seattle, and try and have this utopia, and you can’t just steal a town and make…
Simon: Yes, it’s not a utopia for the people you steal it, from. I think racism is a great example, right. Where racism is a social evil, per se, and it takes us social change, but there is also legislation that needs to come alongside and anti-racist philosophy. So for example, the abolishment of slavery, right, slavery should be abolished, and it was abolished, even though there were still people who saw slaves or saw African Americans, as second-class citizens.
And legislation had to change to go, no, they are citizens. And then eventually they got the right to vote. And women got the right to vote, and those legislative changes gave rights to people due to realities, but it didn’t change – yes and you can see it today – there is still people who are sexist, still people who are racist, and those legislative changes that you know, that said that black and white people can now eat in the same restaurants that didn’t change people’s values.
But irrelevant to that, those black people deserve the right to eat in those restaurants, and I would argue, in terms of legislation talking on that, just that topic, is that I can’t wait until society starts to see children as human beings. Okay, once everyone agrees that the child in the womb, is a member of the human race, and we should love and care for them, and once all that setup, that’s when we’ll talk about whether we change the law to provide some protection for those children. I think those are some protections that would.
Maureen: Well, yes, I was just going to say, well, it’s a different thing, isn’t it? Like how we look at sex and then how we look at children. So, because I thought maybe culture will change, because here you’re saying, like legislation about women to vote, I can’t really speak that much about racism, but I just read the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, you’re going to read the whole book, just people cherry-pick it, but what it showed me was that…and she does make parallels to race, but she says that women acted the way they were treated.
So she is saying, well, you know, there were only small groups of women that tried to get the vote, and most of the women didn’t want it because they liked being, not you know, liked, they were comfortable in their role as housewives and mothers. And they probably weren’t educated enough, and they weren’t in public life, and they were treated as infants, and they acted like infants like this book is just very realistic about how things were and then she would say, black people were treated a certain way and they would act that way. It doesn’t mean that they were you know, and people get the wrong idea of what she’s saying, but I’ll say as a woman, I mean, people would get too emotional.
Like, if you’re suggesting that black people are acting less than human, it’s because they’ve been treated that way. In her studies of psychology and biology and everything, she studied so much, I mean, you know, as women, I feel like it’s definitely true. I was treated like sex object, and I acted that way. So I can say it’s all men’s fault and of the patriarchy, but women perpetuated by, you know, that’s how we got attention if we were, you know, just happen to be…if we looked the way you know, and that’s just by nature, how you’re born you, and by my character as well, you know, I was a quiet, very agreeable person. So I got lots of attention from lots of people, and then you use that, so yeah, I think that’s why in my 30s, I was only just started learning intellectually, at university because I just acted the way I was treated.
Simon: Yes, the culture…
Maureen: So, yes those three, legislation…
Simon: Yes, essentially legislation, it can change at least, it says these principles, and I think, you know- we are going into a whole another conversation- but part of the point of changing the marriage debate, and having same-sex marriage was, as a way of saying that these relationships are just as legitimate as, heterosexual relationships and that the law is a way, changing the law on this matter is a way of helping society agree with that or come to that, you know, or acknowledge that.
And, I think that the law, as it stands now, in terms of abortion, says that a child is not a human being until it gives its first breath. Like there are no protections whatsoever for children in the womb, there are none whatsoever, there’s no anesthetic given for late-term abortions. There’s no…if a pregnant woman is beaten up and her child dies, it’s not a death, as recorded by…
Maureen: Absolutely, oh yes.
Simon: …Yes, there’s all these no acknowledgment of the child…
Maureen: I have heard that people say if a woman is shot and she’s pregnant, that the person gets charged with murdering the baby, alone.
Simon: Not in Australia. So in America, there are states where- and I think it’s hypocritical- that there are some states where if you shoot the child in the womb…
Maureen: Because that’s a very life argument isn’t to say, yes.
Simon: If you shoot the child and boom, you get down for the murder of the child, but if the mother chooses to have the child terminated, then it’s not. But in Australia, if you shoot the child in the womb, it’s not murder, it’s harm to the mother alone. So something that I think needs to change is that there needs to be some, and I’m not sure, like, I’m willing to have a bigger conversation with what should the legislation actually be. But as it stands, at the moment, there are no protections, there’s no acknowledgment of the humanity of the child, at any stage right up to the point of birth. And that allows for so much and generally, like, I don’t know, whether, how you feel about that. Whether you think there should be some legislation that acknowledges the humanity of the child or provide some protections for the child at some stage.
Maureen: But when I went to listen to the speaker, the Pro-choicers shut that down- well that hardly ever happens- and then, you know, that was, I think it was five years ago, and now it’s sort of resurfaced. And then you had all those myths about…is that your brother? Yes, that was a good conversation about whether the statistics are true or not, but I suppose like, what was the number of like, 500? And even if it’s 10.
Simon: Three to four hundred a year, in Victoria.
Maureen: Even if it is a low number, yes, and then they want to shut it down as they are all abnormalities. So you were showing that no, it’s not abnormalities. And, I really wanted to go and see the speaker and I wanted to see her, and you know, she was just a human being, her mother went to abort her, and one of the nurses, I think, went against what she was meant to do. And she provided care to the baby that they meant to just leave to die. So it’s quite to me, it’s a bizarre thing, and I feel very confident to move into this place and say, no, that’s definitely wrong and should not happen. And I’m not going to and I don’t need to be put in a box because it’s happening in all these other issues that, you don’t just put me into the, you’re a pro-lifer and want to ban everything, no, that’s just to make you get away with the idea that, a doctor can even reach in and kill the baby with their hands, you know and then pull out the babies. I think that’s what the law in Australia is.
Simon: Like, with late-term abortions. It’s, through dissecting the baby inside and removing it piece by piece. And our law doesn’t even prevent partial-birth abortion, which is where the babies basically…
Maureen: [inaudible 01:30:36]
Simon: Yes, like, and a lot of people go, well, how often do these things happen? And, but for me, it’s the issue of what does it say that the law provides no protections for children at all in the womb? What does it say about children? And does that change how…so I want to go from both sides, so, I want to go from, let’s change the culture as we can, through conversation, through how we raise our kids, through our communities, but also, you can do all that, but when the legislation provides no protection whatsoever for children in the womb, then that says something powerful, especially if people aren’t part of communities. If people are just walking through life alone, then that says something quite powerful to women and think about.
Maureen: I think I used to be very suspicious that five years ago, people were, the pro-life group were fighting to change that law that just came in about, you know, what was it called up until birth?
Simon: Yes.
Maureen: Well, my suspicion and I didn’t think much, very freely about it, I just thought, oh, they just want to get this legislation through and then they can, then it’s the beginning of the end of abortion rights. That’s all I remember thinking, so, unlike now like…
Simon: Yes, the slippery slope argument.
Maureen: Yes, the slippery slope. And I think, I don’t know if you’re the first one. I mean, because there are people that are on the pro-life side, I don’t know, but at that time, yes, I just immediately…it was interesting, I thought, yes, they shouldn’t have this law, but they need it. I remember thinking this reasoning, you have to have full abortion rights, and if you start chipping away, then they’re going to make the move.
So you know, it’s these enemies, it’s us against them mentality and they’re probably not thinking about that idea that you’re saying, you know, how we think about society, I guess, because, you know, it’s a cold place, and when you, you know, you’re sitting in because a lot of these people are sitting in the same classes that I have the gender class, and it’s very negative. And you’re talking about, you know, all the negative stuff about what men do to women and how it’s just patriarchy. You can’t really sit in classes and go, you know, is it? You know, to what degree? Students used to go and sit in the pub or the cafes and argue, and I just don’t, I’m just like too scared or some of them are not just social anymore.
Simon: Yes, I remember back in high school and back in my uni days, that sort of vigorous discussion and stuff was really welcome, but it seems like it’s not as much anymore. We’re very tribal.
Maureen: Yes in the 90s, it was, I had few uni friends, but I just used to go to the parties and drink. But I was only not interested because I wasn’t ready for any kind of intellect. So yes, I feel like I’d like to start that kind of thing again. And that’s the kind of change maybe that needs to start, or I think it’s happening naturally anyway, I sort of think social media you know…
Simon: I think people are getting sick of it.
Maureen: You know, America would probably have Trump again, because, you know, the left as a whole- simple label of the left- may basically kind of maybe don’t believe in talking to the right and then the right is all, sort of open and discuss, and there’s quite a mixed bag there that they’re not afraid to talk, and I think that they will vote, Trump in again maybe
Simon: There will be people watching this after the election, so you guys know more than we do, as to how it all went down.
Maureen Reality is proof.
Simon: How about we talk in terms of pro-life and pro-choice, those sort of both the things that we care about, at least, throw the labels out the window, what things would you like to…I’ve talked about sort of this change of the things I’d like to see legislation wise, is really, where the humanity of the child is acknowledged, and protected, and there are certain predictions, and the reality of the child and the reality of the mother, we have to juggle as we do with all rights, we juggle against competing rights.
So for example, when there’s a mother who doesn’t want her child anymore when like a pregnant mother, not a pregnant mother, with a newborn say, who then decides she doesn’t want the child anymore, now they really relate to this competing rights, the health and well being of the mother that doesn’t want this child anymore, and then the health and well being of the child, and we have this, our society juggles those rights. And I like to see, I think that has to happen on the issue of abortion, that we have to juggle does rights, rather than just go no, either is all just the child’s right and the woman is insignificant, which I defiantly don’t believe – and I don’t think most pro-lifers believe – or we go the other extreme is, no it is only the woman’s rights and the child is nothing until it is born, I like to see it both legally and socially get to a place where does the humanity of the mother and child are protected. What about for yourself, do you have any sort of where you would like these issues to get to eventually from your perspective?
Maureen: Well, I guess I kind of agree with the argument that if you know, pregnancies, you usually know, you’re pregnant at around eight weeks. And I guess I mean, like, it was probably a bit more up in the air, but you could probably tell me what, at eight weeks that sounds like you know, there’s not much going on and doesn’t seem like you know that at that stage, you kind of go whoops, yeah, I’ve skipped my period, you know, maybe you’re not really feeling anything and yes, I don’t know. I mean, it seems like that’s an okay thing to do to go and get an abortion but yes, I mean, with that is, in Australia, you get knocked out. And in America, you don’t you’re actually awake, having an abortion. I think that’s just how it happens. So, that’s why you know, you don’t even feel that you’re pregnant.
Simon: Yes, okay.
Maureen: Yes, so you’d have to leave that in place, but, if it goes above the point where they’re… well, firstly, if they can survive outside the womb, I would definitely want to protect, you know, the child’s life then because they are capable of living outside the womb. But then it brings, I guess have to, you know, think about all the consequences. Like, if a woman says you know, I’m not going to have an abortion, but I’m going to wait until 24 weeks and then you can take it in that seems unreasonable because then the baby has a low chance of surviving. So if you put rights, give rights to the baby, then, I don’t know if that’s going to work, but I guess that’s the first stage. And, yes, I do believe in, you know, societal change where if you didn’t have that law, so I mean, Australia must have had a law before the one that came out where you could only have an abortion, was it until 16 weeks I think?
Simon: Yes, I’m not sure.
Maureen: That sort of went up in stages. So we were obviously only willing to allow abortion at a certain stage, and then we got more aggressive or left or whatever, and just went up and up and up. So, it’s hard to say, I guess, but it’s not that I don’t know, because I guess I still think it’s necessary. And it’s hard to think about it because I’ll never – and I know that I am as a self-centered human – I think of it like oh, well, I’ll never need one because I’m in this great, natural place where I had to take the pill for years, and now I don’t and I’m older.
And the fact that I’m not fertile anymore is a strange feeling, but I’ve had that for eight years now, so…46? I don’t know, yes that seems like to me, yes you are asking, what would I think? Well, I would, you know, I agree with what you’re saying, but, you know, I have that view that society is a certain way, and it’s not fair, you know, girls get pregnant for all these different reasons and it’s just not fair to force them. And the original argument was, is that you’re not going to force them, they’re going to find a way. So we’re not like we were in the 50s or whatever when they did have real backyard abortions, but you know, if it ever did become illegal in America, it seems like it’s a high possibility, or I think that’s what the fear is. I’m not sure if they’re going to overturn…
Simon: Yes the biggest debate is whether they are going to
Maureen: Who knows it could be the new judge coming in,
Simon: That’s right, I remember the last March for the Babies, there was rosewood and a few others standing on the side yelling.
Maureen: Back to the back yard?
Simon: That’s right yes, yes. We’re not going back, we’re not going back, we’re not going back. And I felt like…
Maureen: Going back to the backyard no way.
Simon: Yes, yes, and back to the back yard no way….
Maureen: They were holding a picture of a coat hanger and chanting like oh.
Simon: But to some degree, I want to like do it with them, and chanted it as well, because that’s so the opposite of what I want to see happen, like, and that’s why I don’t feel like any legislation can just be passed without accompanying support. And, I would not, you know, obviously, as much as I, if you’re pro-life, you have to be concerned about those things. And if you’re not concerned about those things, you’re not pro-life. If you’re not concerned about the well-being of women who are facing crisis pregnancies, then you’re not pro-life. And, you know, so,
Maureen: Are you just aware of who you are talking to them, they don’t have a kind of a full picture. So I just, you know, a lot of people, they just don’t go that far in their thinking, and yes it’s hard to think about what other people are thinking, and that’s all I seem to do.
Simon: Well, that’s a great virtue.
Maureen: It’s very negative, and now I’m using it as a positive I think, but yes it is one of those things driving me insane.
Simon: Yes, but we can stress too much about what other people think. Well, maybe that’s a good place to…
Maureen: It’s kind of hard to understand,
Simon: That might be a good note to end this sort of formal part of the discussion with that principle that…
Maureen: Yes, I think we go back to, I did open the front door, but the family think they, can’t come in.
Simon: Oh they’re being very kind, well, we’ll let you go to them, and yes, that last night of that, we can just stand there and yell at each other, but actually, when we have the sort of dialogues, we find a lot of places of common ground and places where, yeah, I’ve really appreciated you sharing your story and your experience, and your thinking on these sort of things, it’s very helpful for me to not, you know, be in my own echo chamber in my own bubble, so, thank you. Thank you, Maureen.
Maureen: Thank you, yes, I mean the same with you. I’m always shifting in my thinking, so, I mean, I have shifted, but it’s not unusual. And, yes, I never want to be- well, it’s more exciting to go, oh, I’m not going to change my stance on this- or, you know, like, being asked something that’s very difficult and feels unreasonable- you know, it feels strange to answer, and I kind of know, it feels wrong to say, you know, like, I believe in abortion, but, you know, we’ve discussed yes things that need to change. So we kind of agree on a lot of things and found where we’ve, yes- kind of skewer off into different places a little bit- but yes, more to talk about, I think.
Simon: Yes, definitely, and I’m sure these people who are watching, who are furious, that one of us didn’t bring up that killer point that would have destroyed the other side or stuff. But we care much more about hearing each other out I think that’s what I appreciate about you, Maureen. So, those conversations, if people want to have conversations that bring up those points, we encourage you to do it, yourself. Catch up with someone who you disagree with, yes now we’re all meeting on zoom anyway, and things like that, so take a breath, grab a tea even.
Maureen: Push your ego to the side a little bit, although not just egos, the need to have answers the need to control, you know, like, we learned the Serenity Prayer, it’s also good for mental health is like, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. And that also goes for people that have severe anxiety. The psychologist uses dialectical therapy, which is, know the things you can change and know the things you can’t change and learn what the difference is. So you can’t change people, you can change your attitude, and you can relax and spend a bit of time understanding the other person’s point of view and, going- well, I wasn’t going to change them anyway- but I didn’t get angry and scream and I’ve learned something, yes.
Simon: It’s great. Great stuff Maureen, thank you. Well, also…
Maureen: Thanks, Simon.
Simon: …off the air, we’ll catch up again soon Marine, hopefully, and thanks, everyone [inaudible 01:48:00].
Maureen: Yes, I’m looking [inaudible 01:48:03] and yes, I’ll get involved in your March for the Babies online. Is it a series of events or it’s all happening on one day?
Simon: Is one event happening on the 10th? If you’re watching this after October 10th, 2020, then we have it every year. But it’s on October, the 10th of 2020. The website is MarchfortheBabies.org. If you want to find out more, and look up Common Ground on Facebook, you can find…
Maureen: I will start a group, or I’ll find the group that I had and I didn’t know, yet.
Simon: Yes, that’s all good.
Maureen: Common Ground groups.
Simon: But yes, we need more of them, we need more of these conversations, I think. Okay bye-bye.
Maureen: Yes, okay thank you, Simon.
Simon: Cheers.
Thank you to Maureen Mulholland for your wonderful contribution.
The following is a testimony written by a sonographer working in Melbourne today. Their story dispels the myth that late-term abortions are extremely rare in Victoria and only ever carried out due to extreme foetal abnormalities.
The reality is, every year in Victoria over 300 human lives are terminated in the womb after 20 weeks. And, as this Melbourne sonographer shares, some are aborted for the most cosmetic of reasons.
A Sonographer’s Story
I have worked as a sonographer in Melbourne for over 10 years and can personally attest that non-medically indicated abortions occur at a high frequency and during all trimesters of pregnancy. Primarily, the reason cited is one simply of convenience. Without ever asking why, I’ve been told ‘it is not the right time’, ‘my family is already too big’, ‘I don’t have the energy’, ‘it was a surprise’ or ‘I’m not in a relationship’.Â
I do not wish to convey judgement at this as much as simply explain the current state of affairs to those who may have been misinformed. Nonetheless, it is something that weighs heavily on my heart.
Mothers undergoing screening for abortion (which involves assessing the location, viability and gestational age of the pregnancy) often request not to view the child’s movements on the monitor, or hear their heartbeat – both of which are almost always clearly visible/audible at 6 weeks gestation, and sometimes earlier.
This seems to convey a state of willing and intentional ignorance. It tells me that the parents know this is not simply a clustered group of cells, but a living being whose termination is unambiguously immoral. People often ask to look at their gallbladders or their kidneys – why not this?
If we don’t see or hear the consequence of our choices, then we can pretend they don’t exist. I, of course, am sufficiently practised at expressing no emotion (apart from understanding) when this request is made and always immediately comply. Who am I to judge? What right do I have to force them to see?
Less Than Perfect
One particular scan still bears its scars on my soul. The parents had presented for a routine morphology scan (21 weeks). During the scan I detected a minor defect known as a cleft palate. This is often an isolated finding, often purely cosmetic, and is readily correctable with minor surgery. I explained and reassured the parents of this and they left in seemingly good spirits. Not long after, I was informed that they had decided to terminate the pregnancy – against all medical advice. This was accompanied with a pat on the back, so to speak, for a job well done.
My wife and I, almost without hesitation, internally requested an offer of adoption be forwarded to the parents as we felt that this would present an elegant solution – one that would allow the child to survive and the mother not to bear the weight of her decision, or suffer the horrible experience of a late-term abortion. This request was denied and there was no further way to proceed without breaching patient confidentiality, so they never received this offer.
The child would have been close to 25 weeks by the time the abortion was performed, a stage of development where he may quite well have survived should the mother had given birth even then.
We still think of this little boy who would have lived if not for an inconvenient blemish that made him less than perfect. Aren’t we all less than perfect? Why do some imperfections carry a death sentence?
I often struggle to reconcile that the better I am at my job, the worse the outcome for the child.
I often struggle to reconcile that the better I am at my job, the worse the outcome for the child. Of course, I can never express these sentiments to patients, nor should I as a health professional. Every autonomous individual has the right to decide how their health is managed – and this must be so, else we would have a paternalistic system where the clinician’s values are forced upon the vulnerable. Yet, in over 10 years I have not once managed to reconcile this belief with the treatment of society’s most vulnerable, who are so easily discarded without ever having their voice heard.
“…so easily discarded without ever having their voice heard.”
Last year, concerns like the ones expressed by this sonographer were raised during the abortion debate in NSW. As the ABC reported, Dr Deborah Bateson, the Family Planning NSW Medical Director, was “concerned by some of the reporting during the debate that women might have late-term abortions for reasons such as cleft palates.”
When asked about this reality, she shrugged it off as a hoax. “Late-term abortions have been almost trivialised in some of these stories and we know this never happens,” she said.
Sadly, at least in Victoria, it absolutely does happen.
And Victoria’s inhumane abortion laws provides no protection whatsoever for those healthy late-term babies who are unlucky to be a little less than perfect
Please share this story and join with March for the Babies as we take a stand for both mothers and babies.
Thank you to the sonographer who shared his story with me and I have kept his name private for his protection.
In Melbourne at the moment, weddings are banned until we achieve an average of less than 5 new cases of Covid-19 in the entire state AND that no new cases come from an unknown source, for two weeks straight.
That means that if there is an outbreak in a country town somewhere, then even if there are no cases of Covid-19 in the rest of Victoria, then no Melbournite will be able to get married (in the eyes of the State).
Not even if the minister social distances and wears a mask and performs the ceremony through livestream. Not even if the witnesses are viewing it via Zoom. Not even if you only have a group of 5 and everyone involved come from two households, even though during Step 2 the DHHS website says you are allowed to have outdoor “public gatherings – up to 5 people from a maximum of two households”… Just not for a wedding apparently.
To put this in perspective, since the 16th of March there has been only 6 DAYS that achieved that benchmark. That’s right, in the last 176 days, 170 of those days would have prevented people from being allowed to marry under the Victorian Government’s current standards.
The DHHS website states that this could possibly go on indefinitely as we will only be able to transition to Step 3 (where small weddings are allowed) “once the thresholds are met; there is no set date.”
There is a petition going around asking Dan Andrews to change his mind on banning weddings. I hope it is effective.
But if it doesn’t, and the wedding ban in Victoria goes on indefinitely, at what point do Christian couples just get married and worry about the formalities later?
At what point do we remember that marriage is not created by the Government. It is created by God. The State acknowledges it, registers it, records it and grants it certain legal rights and privileges. But the State does not make people married, nor can it ban people from making vows before God, with people witnessing (even if remotely).
History tells of the Roman Emperor Claudius II, who around 270AD apparently banned weddings for the sake of the Empire. It was thought that married men love their wives and children and so don’t join the military to go off to war as willingly.
The legend goes that St Valentine defied the law and married couples in secret because he saw marriage as not a right granted (or forbidden) by the government, but a sacrament given by God.
I’m not saying we should disobey the law, even over this issue. But I do think we need something of a St Valentine attitude. Marriage is a good gift from God, and like the ancient proverb from Nike says… maybe we should “Just Do It” and worry about the paperwork after we one day meet the crazily ambitious numbers the State has currently set.
The Lord’s Prayer is Jesus’ working example of how we should pray.
But many (including those who claim to follow him as Christ and Creator of the Universe) argue that Jesus was just a product of his times, and like problematic films like Aliens and The Goonies, much of the New Testament requires a disclaimer stating that Jesus’ teaching contains: “outdated attitudes, languages and cultural depictions which may cause offence today.”
The Xenomorphs were culturally appropriated
Now, we could just cancel Jesus, doxx him on social media and force him to quit his job as Saviour of the world.
Or, we could just update Jesus’ prayer to something less offensive…
The Lord’s Prayer – Woke Edition
Our [god, free of all gendered imagery],
Hallowed be your name [not that you care about all that stuff].
Your [democratic socialist autonomous zone] come,
[Our collective] will be done,
On earth as it is in [whatever concept of the spiritual realm sits best with you].
Give us today our daily bread [with a gluten-free option and maybe an alternative for those that are cutting down their carbs. Also could we get some butter?].
And forgive us our [<no alternative found>]
As we forgive those who [offend] us [after destroying their career].
[Let us lead ourselves] away from temptation [unless it’s sexy or chocolatey or both].
And deliver us from [ignorance and low self-esteem, because no one and nothing is truly “evil” deep down, just misunderstood].
ADDITIONAL ENDING FOR WOKE ANGLICANS:
For Thine is the [democratic socialist autonomous zone]
The Power [to the People!]
And the Glory [of each one of us living out our own truth]
Now and for [the next few years until the zeitgeist changes once again].
Amen
[also Awomen and Athosewhodontidentifybyanygender]
If you want a slightly more serious reflection of what I think about The Lord’s Prayer, check out this article I wrote for The Gospel Coalition Australia: “Our Father Who Art in Parliament”.
