It’s official. Julia Gillard is our new Prime Minister, the first female Prime Minister in Australia’s history. Kevin Rudd reportedly stood down and there was no ballot in the end after Gillard was said to have overwhelmingly had the numbers.
I’ve been on The Today show set all morning absorbing all the coverage and it’s certainly a monumental day.
For a better understanding of how EXACTLY a sitting Prime Minister can be rolled, I asked Julie Cowdroy late last night to explain it in simple terms. Julie writes…
Hi folks. (Had to say it in honour of Rudd).
Last night Julia Gillard formally challenged Kevin Rudd for the leadership of the ALP. It was not so long ago that Kevin Rudd joined forces with Gillard to overthrow Kim Beazley back in November 2006. Rudd then went on to win the 2007 federal election.
Neither scenario would have been possible without the NSW Right faction of the Labor Party. I lost you at the “NSW Right faction” bit, didn’t I?
A faction is a division within a political party. Like a splinter group within a larger group. So while the members of the Labor party have similar political persuasions, they are not totally in sync with every political, social and economic position. So back in the 1970s the members of the ALP organised itself into formal factions. Members of the ALP belong to a certain faction and some even pay membership fees. The factions are divided along ideological lines. The members regularly vote together on decisions regarding party policy and also throw their weight behind certain leaders.
The two largest factions are Labor Unity, otherwise known as Labor Right, and the Socialist Left. Julia Gillard is a member of Socialist Left and Kevin Rudd is a member of Labor Unity. Within these large factions, there are smaller factions often divvied up by the state, unions and age (for instance there is a Young Labor Right faction). So to win the support of the larger faction, you have to align with the smaller factions. In 2006, the NSW Right faction within Labor Unity had to give their support to Rudd in order for him to contest Beazley’s leadership. If he didn’t have that support, he would have not have had the numbers to even try and challenge. Without the NSW Right faction, and in particular, Mark Arbib, Rudd would not have become Prime Minister. Rudd never really had aligned with any faction and Arbib was trying to build one around him.
Arbib and the NSW Right was pivotal again in the Gillard leadership challenge when they decided to withdraw support from Rudd and back Gillard giving her the numbers she needed to decide to formally challenge Rudd.
The unions also play a big role in the ALP. Members within different unions align with different factions to support different leaders and policies. For example, last night Paul Howes announced that the Australian Worker’s Union was supporting Julia Gillard.
The most interesting thing in all of this is that Gillard is a member of the Left and these right factions are responsible for pushing ALP policies such as asylum seekers towards the right. It will be very interesting to see how she responds to this if she becomes PM.
PLUS HERE IS A CHEAT-SHEET ON JULIA GILLARD: prepared by the astonishingly fast and thorough Julie Cowdroy who doesn’t sleep even though she has two very small children…..
JULIA GILLARD
- Born in Wales in 1961
- First female to ever become Deputy Prime Minister
- Before being a minister, she worked as a lawyer (industrial law)
- Member of the ALP for over 30 years
- Formally chief of staff to Victoria Premier John Brumby’s chief of staff
- In 1998, she ran for the seat of Lalor (south west suburbs of Melbourne) in Victoria and won
- She has been both the Shadow Minister for Population and Immigration and the Shadow Minister for Health
- In 2006, She became the Deputy Leader of the Opposition alongside Rudd in the leadership challenge against Kim Beazley
- When she became the Deputy Prime Minister and frontbencher, her portfolios were Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion.
- She lives with her partner and has no children
Julia Gillard is a remarkable woman. A fighter who has fought and won against many odds. A self confessed feminist and socialist, Gillard has survived the many attacks from the media and conservatives in Australia to become the Prime Minister of Australia, put in the position by the right wing factions that have previously tried to tear her down.
As mentioned in my factions blurb, she is a member of the Socialist Left within the Labor party. She has a controversial past. In the 1980s and early 1990s, she was a key figure in a socialist group within the ALP that pushed radical policies and social agendas. She has been accused of links with the Communist Party but responded to the claims in an interview with Tony Jones on Lateline in 2007 when she said: “It’s 2007 and I’m a 46-year-old woman. What [you’re] referring to is more than 20 years ago when I was in my 20s. I was a full-time university student and I had a part-time job for an organisation called Socialist Forum, which was a sort of debating society. It was an organisation where people who identified themselves as progressives, some in the Labor Party, some outside the Labor Party, would come together and would talk about ideas”.
Another aspect of her fighting spirit and determination is exemplified in the extremely difficult pre-selection process of the ALP. It took five years and three attempts, but Gillard did it. She kept turning up to the party meetings until she was eventually given approval to run for the seat of Lalor in 1998.
She has been pivotal to an organisation called Emily’s List, which is a national group that focuses on getting more progressive Labor women elected to Parliament. In Victoria, she set a target for the ALP that women should be pre-selected for 35% of safe Labor seats.
One of the most fascinating and satisfying aspects of Julia Gillard is balance of self-confidence and humility, Michael Gordon wrote in the Age today:
“Gillard’s more grounded demeanour is just one of the reasons the disaffected are willing to embrace her.
The qualities that stamped her as a future leader are the ones that will be put to the test if, as now seems likely, she becomes the country’s first female prime minister.
There is no more consummate parliamentary performer on Labor’s side than Gillard, and no one who is better placed to take on Tony Abbott. She can master a brief, communicate a message, demonstrate wit and go for the kill. There is also the tenacity that asserted itself when, before her career even began, she failed in three separate preselection bids – and again yesterday when she staked her claim.
The qualities that some suspected would constrain her ambition – being female, unmarried and from the left of the ALP – will be of no consequence today.”
She does not fit the mould of women in politics. The author of The Making of Julia Gillard, Jacqueline Kent says:
“She’s doesn’t fit the stereotype. Women in politics have been cute, or very well behaved, or mumsy – more stereotypical women. But she has decided she’s never going to do that. She’s very confident in herself and she knows who she is. She doesn’t let other people tell her what to do and she’s not somebody who tries to court the media. She’s also quite reserved as a human being and I think politicians need that. If you’re going to be in the public eye 24/7 the way she is, you’ve got to keep some of yourself for yourself.”
An historic day for the women of Australia, and an incredible day for Julia Gillard.
Some tweets from The Australian journalist Caroline Overington:
I know it’s not supposed to matter, but a female PM? It matters.
You feel that tingle? it’s the promise our mothers made us, all those years ago.
Remember when our mothers promised us this, 40 years ago? thank you, all you ragged, lovely 1970s feminists.
It’s not just that she’s a woman. She has a defacto. Think about that, 40 years ago.
It’s the realisation of the great dream: she’s a woman, she’s got a defacto, and a house in working class altona. Thanks, Germaine!
That summed up a lot for me. How do you feel?
What will Kevin do next? How do you think Tony is feeling about going up against Julia? How sad will the Coalition be that they can’t get anymore mileage out of their Kevin 0 Lemon ad campaign? Do you mind that we now have a prime minister we didn’t elect? And, most importantly, what will we be calling Julia Gillard’s partner, Tim? First Bloke?
Also – can’t we keep Therese Rein?
UPDATE: Since you asked…
I’ve met Julia at a dinner that was held a couple of years ago by Fairfax for some of its journalists. I think she’s very real, very impressive and enormously likeable. A good politician and a smart, smart woman. Warm too.
I think this election is going to be a CORKER.
She and Abbott have a long history as sparring partners back from when they went head-to-head in the health portfolio. As people, I’m told they like each other a lot. As rivals, they will be fierce.
Former PM, Kevin Rudd gives a press conference after stepping down -Part 1
Former PM, Kevin Rudd gives a press conference after stepping down -Part 2
Julia Gillard’s first address as Prime Minister of Australia









Comments
1,186 Comments so far
loading...
I just got a new tattoo and tried H2ocean and it burned my skin and tattoo is scabbing..Anyone have any ideas on something that actually works?
loading...
And she will go down in the annals of Australian history as the worst prime minister ever. She is a proven liar, utterly incompetent, has never managed a business and/or people. She has pursued politics for her own advantage and stuff everyone else. She is a living example of the failed ‘Peter principle’ in basic management studies.
Pingback: Mamamia: The Birth of a Song « Julie Cowdroy
loading...
I am all for a female prime minister, especially after growing up through the Maggie Thatcher era in the UK, but Gillard??? Seriously, her tone is depressing and annoying, she’s simply a puppet for those that wanted Rudd out.
I know it’s history and all that, but wouldn’t Aussies want someone better and stronger that Ginga Gillard? But then again, what other choices are there – Bligh (what a joke!!) or Julie Bishop (another puppet)..
I just wish this monumentous occasion has more impact than it does..
(PS I know this is a bit late to post, but still..)
loading...
SCRAPPING the ANZUS treaty, twinning Melbourne with Leningrad and introducing a super-tax on the rich were among radical policies devised or backed by Julia Gillard as a student activist.
Labor’s deputy leader was a key figure in a socialist group that pushed radical policies and social agendas in the 1980s and early ’90s.
Founded in 1984 as a pressure group within the ALP, the Socialist Forum also wanted to sever Australia’s alliance with the US and introduce death duties and redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
In a pamphlet from the mid-1980s, Ms Gillard describes herself as a “socialist and a feminist”
loading...
For a fun and interesting take on Julia’s ascension and campaign, check out my song “Leader of the Party”. You can hear it at http://www.ilike.com/artist/Stew+Walker
loading...
I believe Julia will not win. She is toooooo smart, tooooooo inteligent, toooooo natural, tooooooo good. She is brave and at the same time sensitive woman.
loading...
In the same news as the publicist from David Jones sues for $37m we have a comment from Tony Abbott that what you get with Julia Gillard is “faceless men”. It seems Mr Abbott cannot envisage a strong independent and successful woman prime minister doing it on their own terms. Mr Abbott should be ashamed to stoop so low in this election particularly when he has three daughters.
loading...
Fantastic!
We have our first female PM !
Sorry I am not buying it.
Disappointed to say the least.
I would have liked to have said we got this because of the vote of the public believing in her ability as a female to lead our nation. Unfortunately not.
My concern is this swift and brutal act that could take effect so quickly is a concern to how susceptible our government is for personal goals. Just doenst feel it was the australian way!
A real shame.
loading...
Gillard cannot be forgiven for her part in the “kitchen cabinet” that is responsible for disasterous policies over the last three years. She holds equal responsibility for the decisions that were made and the electorate would be an idiot is she is forgiven.
loading...
Don’t know who I’m going to vote for at the next election but I do know for sure that I love the fact that Julia Gillard doesn’t have that nasty, nasty, sarcastic and put-down way of speaking. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are both great exponents of the down-and-nasty school of speech.
Julia can you please tell Wayne Swan what a turn off it is to engage in this form of communication.. Tell him that you can be powerful and strong without it. Maybe enrol him in the ‘Julia Gillard School of Communication’.
loading...
Excuse me?
Do you ever really listen to Julia? Apparently not!
She calls Christopher Pine ” the poodle”
That’s not offensive?
loading...
No that is not offensive it is totally hilarious and so fitting. Thanks for a great laugh!!
loading...
Given Kevin Rudd’s work history and his method of dealing with those around him, which cabinet position should Julia Gillard put him in, presuming she wins the next election? He alienated China and Japan in his first few months in office, and even Jakarta had issues with him. India was also not a fan. Kevin Rudd could speak Mandarin but couldn’t talk to the Chinese.
After his time in Goss’ office (to which he was seconded) the Diplomatic service didn’t really want him back. And then there is his method of working, which is chaotic at best and downright abusive at worst. Although he has a good memory for facts, this rarely translates in effective outcomes. His history of harassment of underlings is also an issue as is his vindictive nature when it comes to dealing with people he has a grudge against.
Many people think Stephen Smith has brought stability to the position of Foreign Affairs and are quite concerned about having Kevin Rudd back.
I think Julia Gillard has backed herself into a corner in promising Kevin Rudd a cabinet position after the next election. I believe she thought it would be good move to heal wounds but I think it will just provide more opportunities to grow thorns but without the intended roses.
loading...
you obviously know a lot, are possibly in politics yourself and to hazard a guess, are not a labor voter.
i am guessing many of the criticisms could be said of many politicians. i think john howard is one of the worst prime ministers ever. although we have seen karma in its purest form this week. racism should not be tolerated and the international cricket peoples decision this week confirms that.
loading...
the decision to oppose john howard for the cricket board is definitely about racism, but ” i love rudd”" appears to not read news services. john howard was an extremely vocal opponent of many racist tyrants, gaddaff,arafat, and especially mugabe. it is about mugabe getting african nations on side against criticism.
his political past is irrelevant as this is essentially a diplomatic post, like rudd endorsing lucy turnbull. ability not history.
loading...
Ok so i am not very good with knowing about ‘seats’ and what is ‘safe’ or not, particularly when they keep changing boundaries and demographics.
But when i looked up KR’s seat, back when he didn’t seem to be going anywhere, i was thinking maybe he could be voted out? He won it from Liberal’s, it’s not ‘safe’. So i could still vote Labor locally and JG would HAVE to take over i was thinking as a kind of daydream. Howard got voted out of his seat after decades.
Wiki says it is a swing seat of around 3.8%. I just wonder, and maybe i am way wrong, but could JG be banking on him getting voted out? Is it possible? I am not great on the knowledge of what it takes to change someone in a seat, or how he fares amongst his own electorate.
Any chance it’s bye bye KR altogether? As for the cabinet positions, again – better political knowledge people is there a position of no real import he could be put into if the gamble of him losing the election doesn’t pay off?
loading...
I’ve just read Bettina Arndt’s opinion piece in the SMH online. Apparently OMG!!! The sky will fall in! Because the PM & First Bloke will be living in sin!! And this might cause impressionably young girls to do the same!!!
Bettina, why don’t you join Tony & John in the 1950s already?
loading...
I haven’t checked out Bettina’s article yet but I will as soon as I have time. I am not going to lose sleep over Julia Gillard’s relationship status. However, the trend towards people living in de facto relationships has pros and cons.
Given that I work with both men and women and have to discuss relationships on a daily basis, I often see people
wasting their time in relationships which are going nowhere.
E.g. many young women and men find that they move in with someone and find the arrangement is more about sex on tap and minimising expenses than a committed relationship.
Today many people are serial monogamists and find they have had a string of relationships which last maybe 1-3 years and then they move onto someone else. Now if they are happy in this arrangement that’s fine I suppose.
However, I often encounter women in the 30s, particuarly mid to late thirties who have wasted their fertile years in these uncommitted relationships. Most women want to feel they are in a stable and secure relationship before they commit to having children. When they want to have kids and try to get a commmtiment from their partner, the shit hits the fan, the man often refuses to have children andor get married and the woman is back on the single s market with a ticking biological clock.
Unfofrtunately A 40 year man old can get a 20 year old women, the younger the woman is the more desirable she is on the dating market. So the broody 30plus women who have wasted their time in uncomitted relationships can find they have left it to late to find a guy who wants kids
loading...
Catherine, your comments are the central theme of Bettina Arndt’s article.
loading...
Gee, now if I could just get paid what Bettina gets paid LOL
loading...
Hee hee!
I should add that I can see that the reaction to what she wrote is going to miss the aspect you wrote about and concentrate on the fact that she is a concervative writer still in the dark ages about defacto relationships.
Mia has a post about it.
loading...
OK, so maybe the focus needs to be on encouraging people to have a conversation at an earlier stage, not discouraging de facto relationships in and of themselves. EVERY relationship needs to be based on open and frank communication. A misunderstanding about children can happen WITHIN a marriage as well.
loading...
I would asgree with that.
loading...
I so love this. I just moved to London one week ago and missed all the hoo-haa until I checked online. This is the reason I registered as an international voter! I’m not missing this one!
loading...
Just got this from Twitter:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/all-kids-must-read-the-bible-federal-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says/story-e6freo8c-1225812010013
Bloody Mad Monk!
loading...
What i thought was mad is that Tony think’s the ‘scalp’ of KR belongs to him. Er, Tony? Your polls were worse than Kevin’s. Your non-existant soaring popularity did not force the reluctant hand of Labor. Not one commentator has thought this was a victory for you, what crack are you smoking?
The things he is saying lately are just weird. I often disagree with he’s views sure but i understand that is simply what he thinks, fine. But some of the reading of the political waters he has come out with lately are not just of the old ‘face saving’ variety but waaaay of the mark no matter what your personal views are, it’s just political fact. Is the Mad Monk losing that last tenuous grip with reality? I hope so, so that it will encourage his party to give him the arse.
loading...
For crying out loud, he makes Howard look like a moderate.
loading...
I think Howard shares many of Tony’s views (they are clearly still close buddies) but he was smart enough to keep the outdated ones and the largely unpopular with most Australian’s ones to himself or to ditch them.
Tony can’t seem to filter his views from what he wants into what suits the nation. Howard was quick to move on from views that people didn’t want – go back to the 80s and he was saying things that are similar to Tony does. But he got the message, apologised for his anti-Asian remarks (although not to aborigines yes) and got with the times and mood of the nation to some extent.
Knowing what thoughts to keep to himself and what policies and views to publicly ditch is how an ultra-conservative man like Howard became PM and why Tony Big Mouth never will be.
loading...
I LOATHED Johnny anyway, but he particularly made me hate him more because he always used to talk up his idyllic childhood in Earlwood. I grew up in Earlwood. It changed a LOT from the whitebread Methodist upbringing he had in the 40s to what it was like when I grew up there in the 80s. So much so that he actually STOPPED REFERRING TO IT, until it was politically expedient to do so again. And only very selectively. I take immense joy from the fact that where lil Johnny’s house opposite the Methodist church and hall in Earlwood that he was so proud of has been a KFC for at least 30 years.
loading...
Kind of makes a mockery of his defenders saying that his personal religious views don’t affect his policy ideas.
Julie Bishop was on The Circle this morning, and was talking up his time as health minister. Um, RU486 anyone????
loading...
Just to clarify, she was talking up the advances he made with health issues (women’s in particular) in his time as health minister.
loading...
Yeah, Tony Abbott: advocate for women’s issues. Principally ironing.
loading...
I tried to like this, but it wouldn’t let me, so *like*
loading...
http://www.ru486facts.org/index.cfm?page=sideeffects
I read the above website about RU486 as I didn’t know much about it. Frankly having read the site, RU486 doesn’t sound like a great drug. Some women apparently have nearly bled to death, there is risk of stroke and heart problems,
Apparently you have to go to the doctor three times ( seems easier to just to have a surgical abortion and get it all over in one go). The woman has no control of when the products of the abortion are expelled from her body and she is faced with the aftermath. Whereas with a surgical abortion the woman is spared seeing the end results of the abortion process.
loading...
Actually,if my memory serves me correctly,I read somewhere that Christopher Hitchens ( famous atheist) believes that it is important that people read the Bible as it has been such an influential text on Western Civilization.
From what I gather from the article on adelaidenow.com.au, that was the point Tony Abbott was making. Famous writers of the western world eg Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Schiller, Dostoevsky, and George Eliot were influenced by the Bible.
Some of our greatest works of art and music come from our Judeo christian heritage and some understanding of the Bible aids one’s understanding and appreciation of literature, art and music.
loading...
You honestly think that the Mad Monk wants kids to read the Bible as a purely historical text? Nup. Can’t buy that. My parents lost friends for not getting me christened – they didn’t want us to grow up getting bashed around the head with what they hated having to go to – Sunday School, etc. Our lives, our choice.
School is not for conversion, it’s for education. If you want to do religion, do it in your own time. Not in school time.
loading...
Well when I was at school I learnt the basics of Hinduism, Judaism, Islaam etc and such an education helps one understand the world and the people who live in it.I think we could call the subject comparative religion. I didn’t become Hindu etc because I was taught about Hinduism and children won’t become christians if they learn the basics of the Bible.
loading...
Such an education does. That is what I want in the Mad Monk’s idea. Teach all different religions.
However I seriously don’t believe that that is his AGENDA. I am fairly sure that his agenda is to get HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS into public life.
School = learn stuff. Religion? Add it yourself.
loading...
Hmm, please ignore the above and I’ll repost.
Note to self: don’t post long comments from iPhone.
loading...
I agree completely that it is important to teach children about the different world religions. I think it is absolutely key to undermining xenophobia in our community. But I also agree with Kris that Christian dogma should have no place in our State schools. And the bible is the cornerstone of Christian dogma.
My children attend a NSW public school where Scripture is a weekly part of the curriculum. This is, to all intents and purposes, Christian Sunday School given the same weight and context as Maths, Science and English in my children’s education. I do object to this. I also object to the fact that because I don’t wish my children to participate in Scripture class, they spend an hour every Thursday sitting outside the principal’s office reading, to me this smacks of punishment.
I have no objection to anyone’s religion, or their right to practice it, or their right provide their children with a (private) faith based education. In fact I would go to great lengths to defend these rights, on principle. But State education should be secular.
loading...
Right! So it hasn’t changed from what I did! I went to (ostensibly) Anglican? Scripture classes. As far as I knew it was compulsory. Until I hit Year 5 and started questioning it. Oh that was a whole new world of fun for me. Even then. Then I had to do it at High school, and got the note in I think year 9 that it was optional? Ticked before Mum or Dad signed it. We actually ended up feeling quite sorry for our scripture teacher at high school. It ended up with him just standing there going “but its the bible and its right and christianity is awesome!!!!”. Poor bastard.
I have to qualify, I wasn’t christened, as I mentioned ^^^, Mum and Dad lost friends because of it. The “alleged friends” loss. One of my besties is a full ON Christian. She renounced her Catholicism at about 13 or so to become Anglican, and is hardcore Anglican – Church, Bible Study, the works. I posted this on my FB tonight, she said “yeah, you have to admit though, that this is a fair call re literature etc”.
As one of my other friends pointed out: the Torah, Koran, Bible are pretty much the same. As I know, AND I’M NOT A THEOLOGIAN. I do know they preach the same stuff though. I just don’t understand the issues between them.
loading...
I think the basics of the major religions should be taught, including the texts but not a super thorough examination of the text – if you want that go study further yourself. Just like physics at high school is an introduction so too should religious study be. There is not enough time to teach to the full extent the major religions and their texts at school and i don’t think government schools should be focusing on just one religion even though we are a country founded on Christian principles.
For me this is about the level of study and the intent. If the intent is to educate then you would educate on all the religions. Tony would say a Koran, a Bible, a Torah a whathaves you for every classroom. But he is saying bible. That is not educational religious study that is primary religious study and it belongs outside the classroom. When Muslim terrorists are blowing things up, Israel is always in the headlines, Christian crusaders are murdering abortion docs in the US and China is banning harmless spiritual groups and screwing with Tibet how can you say ‘a bible for every classroom’ and then claim it’s about education when clearly it is advantageous to spend equal time on all the major religions? This is not about education this is about a back door way to bring in Christian religious instruction under the guise of ‘education’.
If you want more than your child learning the basics of all religions, including your own, don’t force the school to become the religious instructor take your kids to external religious teaching.
Religious instruction in school from an educational stand-point is very different to educational instruction on the religion itself. In school it should be about the religions place in the world and what affect it has in religious teaching is more theoretical.
Point is, this is just another sly attempt by TA to bring in policies he knows wouldn’t get through if they were entitled ‘teach kids in school to be christians’ not ‘it’s just about education!’. This is about raising the influence of Christianity in schools there is not suggestion whatsoever of a fair and balanced view of the religions.
loading...
I think some form of comparative theology would be great in dispelling some of the unfounded prejudices that exist in our community. But singling out the Bible as the most important text smacks of personal belief not the greater good. The fact that he makes these statements simply indicates how narrow his views are and a complete lack of understanding that others may think differently to him. As a politician he is supposed to represent all his constituents not just the Christian ones.
loading...
Check out Bill Clinton’1992 speech accepting the Democrat nomination for President, and Roosevelt’s famous 1940 radio address. It seems Juila Gillard or her speech writer did a bit of heavy lifting. Perhaps one of the teachers from her Education Revolution should have a word in Julia’s ear about plagiarism.
loading...
I found the abuse directed towards Catherine for her pro life stance to be really disgusting. I am pro choice and had no problem reading Catherine’s point of view. At all times I found her comments to be respectful to those who disagreed with her. The same can not be said of some those who opposed not only her point of view but her right to express her thoughts.
This kind of abuse happens regularly. There have been times when I see comments deleted and for that I am glad.
I personally wonder what it is about some of these topics that make people go feral and feel that they have a right to attack others for their opinions. Their anger almost jumps off the screen and you feel quite contaminated by it.
loading...
You know I didn’t read much of those posts (way too long and involved) but I thought the same thing myself. It was an opinion. I didn’t think this was the place for so much debate on that particular topic, however I do believe that everyone is entitiled to their opinion, without abuse.
loading...
SB and anon, we don’t mind when posts go on slight tangents, and want everyone to express their opinions, but we will delete offensive and disturbing comments. We endeavour to keep mamamia free from abuse. Thanks for your comments!
loading...
I have a question that i think Labor internal polling should have asked
Does Labor moving further to the right make you more likely to vote for them?
Why, Why not?
loading...
Less likely. They’ve sacrificed a good PM.
Nonetheless I will probably still vote for Gillard…out of my disgust at the policies of Abbot.
loading...
Below is the article Alexander Downer wrote about his experiences with Kevin Rudd, this is before he lost his job, its a good read and it gives you a little insight on who the real KRudd is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/australia/6086928/meet-the-real-kevin-rudd.thtml
loading...
I am stunned by what I read in Alexander Downer’s article. Thank you for the link.
David Marr’s essay, is another piece of writing that will leave you shocked by the behaviour of our former Prime Minister.
After Julia Gillard was made PM, I heard someone say ….. thank goodness we now have a grown up in charge of the country.
loading...
Thanks for posting that article about Rudd. I have always thought krudd was suffering from narcisstic personality disorder and this article confirms it.
He has a pervsasive paterrn of grandiosity in his behaviour ( i dont know about his fantasies), has a need for admiration and a lack of empathy.
people need to meet 5/9 criteria
(1) Rudd demonstrated arrogant behaviour, putting his feet up on peoples desks, how he interacted with NSW Premier, Keneally, etc
(2) he lacks empathy, works his staff so hard the turnover is massive
(3) Downer reports he is interpersonally exploitative
, dumps people when they are of no further use to him
(4) he requires excessive admiration,(m e.g. he has to have all this media attention and goes nuts when criticised)
(5) he has a sense of entitlement ( good example from Downer about the plane trip)
Maybe Downer would meet all 9 criteria but we only have to tick 5 and we ‘ve got at least 5.
I realise Abbott is unpopular here, but from what Ihave read about Abbott he treats people far better than Rudd does. Abbott apparently is in contact with friends from way back,’makes time to visit friends in hospital etc (but Rudd couldnt go to Button’s funeral when there was a chance of a photo op with Cate Blanchett and her new baby) but apparently Rudd uses and discards people as soon they are of no use to him in acheiving his goals.
I dont care that Julia rolled him. I think she is held in higher regard, personality wise, than Rudd was and therefore is better liked by the Labor machine.
However, I think Julia is there to win the next election for the Labor party and will say and do whatever it takes to make the opinion polls favour Labor. E.g. When she took over from Rudd she was fence sitting on the Boat people Issue, she doesn”t want to alienate any voters.
loading...
Really interesting Catherine. I also wondered whether Rudd had a personality disorder. My counselling days are long past and so I’m a bit vague on defintions. Rudd’s personality never seemed integrated to me. He seemed to be made up of so many different parts and he never seemed real. The term schizoid also came to mind too? What do you think?
David Marr’s Quarterly Essay is an amazing insight into Kevin Rudd. With your background Catherine I would be interested to know what you make of David Marr’s assessment of Kevin Rudd. You can buy the Essay at News Agents and it is a fairly quick and page-turning read.
I was also thinking that Kevin Rudd reminded me of a kind of mad king from centuries past. Perhaps they all had Personality Disorders too.
loading...
Hi. I read Marr’s essay on Rudd but I think he was wrong when he said Rudd was driven by anger. Yeah Kevin is an angry man , but in my opinion it is narcissistic rage. He is driven by narcissism in my opinion. However, as Downer admitted in his article, vast majority of politicians are a bit in love with themselves, but some are more so than others.
loading...
I think it is a bit much to go diagnosing people with disorders when you don´t know them personally.
loading...
It’s an opinion amandarose, not a diagnosis. We all have opinions based on our personal experiences or areas of expertise. It may make you uncomfortable but I found Catherine’s opinion really interesting. I also found David Marr’s Quarterly Essay on Kevin Rudd quite an eye opener.The article by Alexander Downer is also well worth reading. When you have knowledge in a particular field you can’t help forming opinions.
loading...
Catherine I understand exactly where you are coming from and you make complete sense. Any professional therapist would agree with your opinion. And it is clearly an opinion. The comments are now all over the place and nothing good can come of continuing to debate the issue. When I see those lengthy, angry comments I just get the hell out of it.
loading...
oh plesae coming from Alexander Downer. Pot meet the kettle. SInce when is he or David Marr qualified to run a psychological assesment.
loading...
I’m the first to lay into KR but some things seem to be a bit pop psychology. Speaking of making assumptions…..does Alexander Downer REALLY want to go down that path….oh Alex i remember you in that sexy stiletto, you say it was a joke but my checklist says it is a sign of repressed sexual issues : p
KR seem to me to just have a big ego, like anyone who gets that high up in their profession (how many modest PM’s have we had? Know any aw shucks modest CEO’s?) and have really bad people management skills that results in anger outbursts. Maybe he does have real issues but you can take any example and make it a psych issue, like Alex with his shoe. David Marr – respected journalist who is simply called on to comment alot of narcissistic attention seeker? You be the judge!
loading...
Well we can all get out the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders DSMIV and check the criteria against what we know of Rudd’s behaviour. Obviously having never met him in person, we can’t officially diagnose him with anything, just speculate.
Now Downer didn’t deny he was a bit in love with himself too; but we havent heard about him screaming at people when he didnt have a hairdryer ( Rudd at the Climate Change conference) or abusing flight attendants when he couldnt get the meal he wanted.
loading...
Oh i think KR has problems i just think it is simply a case of bad people skills combined with thinking he’s the beez neez. It’s almost as if putting him into a disorder box would let him get away with it – it’s not his fault he’s borderline personality disorder when really he is just a shit boss with a bit of anger problem. I have family members with serious mental illnesses that run through our family, i am not anti-pysch and i know your a professional. I just see so many people going ‘oh i’m this’ or ‘he’s that’ when they really aren’t. Firstly for some it’s an attempt at an excuse for something they did wrong and secondly it makes it harder for those who genuinely do have a problem that affects their behaviour to be taken seriously. Some people are just real jerks sometimes.
Maybe KR is a head case, i just think it’s best any talk is done carefully because maybe he is just a jerk. People with personality disorders find it hard to get taken seriously, i’d hate to see people jump on some KR bandwagon unthinkingly (not saying you are, you are professional but some people in the fallout from this will start making some big calls) because it could be harmful to real sufferers.
loading...
Apples, I would modify my original post about Rudd’s personality to make it sound more speculative if I could get the damn edit function to work. I didn’t mean to sound like I was making a definitive diagnosis, Would have to study the man and establish entrenched behavioural patterns over a long period of time.
I couldn’t edit my post as the editor wasnt working,
loading...
Hi Catherine, I’ll have a look at the edit button, thanks for alerting us, Nicky (moderator)
loading...
Really we cant diagnose Rudd with anything because we do not have enough information to verify a diagnosis, we can only speculate. We rely on the media and they can be selective in their reporting of events.
Downer and Marr are entitled to their opinions.
loading...
I think there is always a risk of misinterpretation when people start tossing around diagnoses, though I will say I think you were clear to say that it was an opinion rather than an official diagnosis. Though I would personally have thought it a bit more exciting if he was a ‘sex addict’ as that is apparently all the rage now
I do think it needs to be clarified that a diagnosis of any sort doesn’t necessarily excuse behaviour, rather it provides an explanation and a framework to work within when dealing with particular clients.
loading...
of course alexander downer would present a completely neutral unbiased argument, it must be gospel!
of course he was hated, anyone in that position is.
i refuse to believe he is that evil. he did a lot of very important and worthwhile things while he was prime minister.
i think john howard was verging on evil…….children overboard anyone????
loading...
Just watched the Today interview with Julia. She sounds to have jumped on the John Howard xenophobic band wagon. I keep thinking of Mia´s ¨ not happy Kev¨ article last week where she said the things she wasn´t happy with with ALP was asylum seekers and climate. Things Just got worse here.
loading...
Yes, I am concerned about this too. From her initial press conference I was of the opinion that she was saying that she understands the fears surrounding the refugee problem, BUT…
However in the last couple of days it seems to be becoming clearer that she may be bowing to those fears and adopting a more extreme stance rather than a compassionate one as I had hoped.
I don’t know the ins and outs about this issue, but from what I have read there is a LOT of fear mongering. I have seen some other reports that Australia takes only 1% of the world’s refugees and that it can afford to take more.
I think the problem lies in how the govt has dealt with this issue esp over the Howard years and unfortunately not a lot was done differently by Rudd.
Sticking people in detention centres for whatever length of time can’t be the only solution can it?
I can’t speak with any authority on the topic, but I would like to see refugees in detention centres being taught basic English. I think that is imperative to their assimilation. I don’t know if that already occurs, but it’s one of the complaints that many Australians use to justify their positions on refugees. If that was taken care of as a matter of course, that would be one less thing for people to complain about and would make the refugees lives easier in the long run too I think.
I would love to see the TRUE statistics and the reality of the situation reported so that can be on the table and put to bed all of the misinformation about how much money people get when they are released from detention, how detention centres work, how long it takes for asylum seekers to be processed and exactly how many people we receive by boat or other means. Any information that can put an end to the fear mongering. It seems simple to me, I don’t know why it hasn’t been done. I know the information is out there and has been published in certain circles, but I would like to see it presented in full in an impartial outlet that is accessible to all, esp those most “fearful” and vocal.
I have not even been able to form a strong opinion for myself as I don’t have access to all of the facts.
loading...
I dont think teaching them English is the solution. I think they genuinely need to learn how things operate here. I live in an area densely populated by Middle-Eastern Australians, and some of them genuinely have no problem with double parking, parking in people’s driveways and the like. I once saw a police officer get bashed by a group of men for giving one of them a fine for double parking.
I myself am from an Arabic background and have been to my parents homeland and would hate it if the attitudes I have seen overseas, and in my local area, keep being ignored. In some instances having a car accident with some people lands you in so much threat and fear that you cant even go through insurance because such people intimidate you.
Frankly it is scary. And what makes you wonder even more is that half of these men dont have jobs and hang out at the local shopping centre all day but they all have these really expensive cars. They are giving a bad name for a lot of Middle-Eastern migrants. Depsite knowing this, I am glad we’re being tough in sussing out what to do about these boat people. Sadly some are refugees, but the majority are just sly, illegal migrant people who want to come bank on Australia’s fair go and welfare system and milk it for all its worth. I know I sound tough but its easy to claim we’re being unfair from the comforts of eastern sydney or the north shore, but when you live among people who dont care about the environment or people around them because that is what they are used to or because they dont really see themselves as being Australian, it really makes you wonder.
And it always reminds me of a comment I once read on the punch about a lady who works at centrelink saying we pay for the lifestyle choices of some of these people who have more than one spouse in their culture and then our taxes pay single parent pension for their children with said spouses.
loading...
I appreciate your point of view. I have had very few bad experiences with migrants, but I do agree that they should be taught how Australian society expects its citizens to behave and we should also fight to retain the lifestyle and culture that makes Australia such an attractive destination in the first place.
I don’t know if what you say is right, that the MAJORITY of migrants are here to milk our welfare system, I sure hope that’s not the case. From what I understand most asylum seekers are genuinely fleeing life threatening situations, and I think as a wealthy and fortunate country, we can afford to take in genuine cases. You will always get bad apples though I suppose.
I don’t presume to say that learning English will be THE answer, but it would be a starting point. I also believe that if people choose to come to Australia for whatever reason, it is they who have to assimilate to our culture and while we can be sensitive to their customs to an extent, we do not want to risk a change in our values, the values that truly do make this country great.
I think that is what John Howard was *trying* to achieve with his citizenship test. I do think it is a good idea if new migrants are schooled in Australian customs, laws and values though. We need to close the gap.
loading...
“Sadly some are refugees, but the majority are just sly, illegal migrant people who want to come bank on Australia’s fair go and welfare system and milk it for all its worth.”
This statement is both wrong and incredibly offensive.
loading...
How do you know it is wrong?
loading...
Simple, I went and checked the facts. From the Amnesty International website (http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/23236/):
“Asylum seekers in Australia – the facts
1. It is legal to seek asylum, according to Australian and international law.
2. Over 90% of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are genuine refugees fleeing severe persecution.
3. The numbers are very small, and constitute only 1 per cent of Australia’s total annual migration.”
There are plenty of other sources which back these statistcs up, but I’m sure Sarah and yourself can use Google as easily as I can.
loading...
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’ve always admired Julia as she seems articulate and down to earth. However it seems very cynical to dump Kevin for someone who is a better communicator, but was equally responsible for the Government’s fall from grace.
Many of the progressive voters who were switching to the Greens in polls are now embracing her leadership. However her first press conference suggests that she will take the populist line on asylumn seekers and the ETS.
There’s an article by Peter Hartcher that suggests she and Wayne pushed strongly to delay the ETS: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-abbott-found-an-unexpected-ally-over-climate-change-in-the-gang-of-four-20100625-z9r6.html
loading...
Thanks for the link. Really interesting.
Wonder if Julia Gillard will offer Kevin Rudd a cabinet position and whether he’ll take it.
loading...
I’ve always felt we lacked pizzaz and excitement in our political system and with our politicians.
Out there politicians like Nick Xenaphon or Steve Fielding are a relatively recent addition thanks to some technical changes to votes and preferences.
Where is our Barack? Where is our Iron Lady? Tony Abbott surfs and runs marathon’s but Clinton played Sax with celebrities. Where is our Big Epic Speech “ask not what you can do for your country…..”.
I am glad we have a stable country and i would rather a dull leader who knows what they’re doing than a charismatic leader getting blowjobs from the interns. However, do you think this guy would start a Best Party in Oz and give us something interesting to watch?
ICELAND’S CAMPAIGN IS A JOKE, UNTIL HE IS ELECTED (hey…that’s just like Steve Fielding….)
REYKJAVIK, Iceland — A polar bear display for the zoo. Free towels at public swimming pools. A “drug-free Parliament by 2020.” Iceland’s Best Party, founded in December by a comedian, Jon Gnarr, to satirize his country’s political system, ran a campaign that was one big joke. Or was it?
Last month, in the depressed aftermath of the country’s financial collapse, the Best Party emerged as the biggest winner in Reykjavik’s elections, with 34.7 percent of the vote, and Mr. Gnarr — who also promised a classroom of kindergartners he would build a Disneyland at the airport — is now the fourth mayor in four years of a city that is home to more than a third of the island’s 320,000 people.
In his acceptance speech he tried to calm the fears of the other 65.3 percent. “No one has to be afraid of the Best Party,” he said, “because it is the best party. If it wasn’t, it would be called the Worst Party or the Bad Party. We would never work with a party like that.”
With his party having won 6 of the City Council’s 15 seats, Mr. Gnarr needed a coalition partner, but ruled out any party whose members had not seen all five seasons of “The Wire.”
Read more at the NYT website. Oh and he also attempted to drop out of school at 11 because he decided it wasn’t necessary to his future career as a pirate or circus clown. And part of his stated foreign relations experience is derived from his comedy radio show where he tried to call the CIA and prank called New York police stations. Has my vote. And The Wire is definetly an equal to a degree in public policy or government.
loading...
Eh got that quote wrong but you get the gist….bring on The Best Party. Oh and if you youtube it there is a video of the leaders of the The Best party to the tune of, yep, Simply The Best. A polar bear features as does a pet rock for some reason. And they were elected.
loading...
I made my daughter’s watch the first female Governor General swear in the first female Prime Minister, tears in my eyes, then I said “see you girls can do whatever you want to in Australia!”
A great day for women of this country, despite any political differences.
Haven’t had time to read all of the responses so sorry if this is a repeat but I hope that she doesn’t have to “show more balls” than a man to get the job done, I hope she can be the smart woman she is and not have to fend off stupid comments about her clothes, etc! That’s my hope!
loading...
Oh for God’s sake enough already! This has become a post about abortion! I for one am not happy how Julia came to be PM but I am happy to read all of the comments on both sides of the debate. It has been very interesting reading. However, it seems that some people have come here with their own agenda and steered the conversation off course and now it seems tainted and ugly. Let’s stop the character assassination and give Julia a chance!
loading...
What I wish to point out is that these people who are apparently so against the right for woman to choose to have an abortion and claiming they care so much for these “innocent lives” apparently the rest of us wish to kill, are not instead concentrating on advocating for Julia Gillard to make good policies with child care, medical care, education, and housing. These are things that would really show they care for the children, the ones that are existing and that have actual personhood. If they really meant what they are saying you would assume their concentration would instead lie with areas like I mentioned.
Pingback: Julia Gillard: day two | replica handbags
loading...
I’m stupidly proud of Julia. Dad and I have been fans of her for years. Her words reflect her beliefs, which reflect her actions. She’s really intelligent as well, which is always a nice quality in a politician.
I came onto facebook though and came across a facebook status of “as far as I’m concerned australia has yet to elect a female PM”
This isn’t the first time I’ve come across attack on female candidates because they’re not “female” enough. I heard it with Hillary, I heard it with the Segolene Royal. It bugs me to no end.
It takes guts, determination and a lot of grit to be a leader. A male leader who has these qualities is admired, yet a female candidate will always be criticised for not being feminine. I work hard at my job, I will go the distance, I have grit. Am I also not feminine?
These are the same people who say sex doesn’t matter, but they’re the first ones to hold her against standards of feminity. It really gets to me.
loading...
I may be unusual, but I look at Julia Gillard and I see a politician..her gender is of no interest to me. The same way I see my doctor or my butcher or my bank manager- who cares if they are men or women..I just want them to be good at their job.
And I have to say I am completely surprised that others would think otherwise. Haven’t we moved past all this rubbish. Maggie Thatcher became PM over 30 years ago. None of this is new.
loading...
SB you are so so right. What is it about a female politician that turns people to mush?
And exactly right about just wanting them to be good at their job.
loading...
Rubbish. Acknowledging the historic moment and appreciating it is not the same as liking her because she is vagina in chief.
Love how people keeping trying to justify their sexist comments and gender based digs at JG and others by going the ‘but i’m just exposing women towards women sexism not being sexist myself, just callin’ the double standard y’all’.
No you’re not. I have not seen ONE comment along the lines of approving of her simply for being a woman. You can appreciate the moment and await rigorous debate of her policies and credentials (of which their is little to discuss right now as she is yet to reveal what she is planning that is different, so simply saying ‘good day for women’ is a fine comment to leave, for many people their is little else to say. Doesn’t mean they have been turned to ‘mush’).
Many comments have been very critical of her policies and past and made many intelligent remarks. Flat out exist comments towards her as a female outrank by far any ‘go chick only for being a chick’ sentiments.
loading...
i’m also not sure about the general ‘female politician’s’ turning people to mush? Of the top female leaders i can think of (and genuinely trying to be broad here) i can’t think of one that inspires mushiness
Hillary Clinton – despised by her detractors, regularly more viciously than seen towards a male. Respected and admired by supporters, but loved? mushy? No way.
Margaret Thatcher: nicknamed the Iron Lady, not the Mushy Lady. Case closed.
Julie Bishop? Joan Kirner? Amanda Vanstone? Katrina Keneally? Hardly. KK’s government just got hammered in the recent elections. Not very mushy.
Suy Ki of Burma (bad spelling sorry) if loving someone locked up for years for winning an election is mushy then mushy it is. Helen of NZ (sorry ladies for not getting your names right) well i liked her because her government was largely, in my view, a good one. She herself was neither here not there.
Bhutto? Viewed by many as a corrupt prima donna. Assasinated so she wasn’t making everyone feel mushy. Malaysia’s female leader was also of the percieved corrupt kind.
Angela Merkel of Germany? Haven’t seen enough of her to make a call. Penny Wong and that leader of Iceland were briefly acknowledged for making headway against discrimination based on sexuality then promptly forgotten (sorry Penny but you seem to be a massive non-entity these days after a brief blaze of publicity).
I just don’t see the mushiness. Whenever a female leader pops up i see a brief acknowledgement of the achievement of making it so far in a male dominated field (yes, it is) and that’s that. Then they face as tough a grilling from males and females as anyone else.
And speaking of not being able to think of any female leader who inspires lets huge amounts of love and mushiness except for a woman under house arrest in a fight for democracy (gee you have to suffer to get some mushiness when you’re female) let’s think who DOES or once did inspire mushiness, ridiculous over the top platitudes and enormous personal based support:
- Barack Obama
- Kevin Rudd 07
- George W. Bush by the right
- Bill Clinton by the left
- Al Gore by the enviro’s
- Hawke in his heyday
Gee….they all have one thing in common…they’re men. But no one accuses their male supporters of ‘mushiness’.
loading...
Excellent points Apples.
I’m not particularly happy about how this had all come about and it has spoiled the moment a bit for me and whatever the skepticism I have about her lack of policy direction, I have little doubt she wants or needs any concessions for being a woman and is more likely to have it tougher not easier for that fact. I think people should be allowed to feel whatever it is they feel in regard to the situation.
One thing I am enjoying is the look of fear and bewilderment in Abbott’s face. I think Rudd would have easily won but the best thing to come out of all of this is the sweet sweet joy of watching Abbott beaten by a woman who I think easily outdoes him in intelligence and ability. I am waiting with interest to hear what Gillard has to say about asylum seekers, I think this is the issue that will now once again get a lot of focus coming into the election.
loading...
While i have said that i don’t take too much notice of public polls (the most accurate ones are the ones we don’t see, the internal party polling) my the Liberal’s must be panicking right now. I know some will argue this ‘surge’ in popularity is just an instant response that will settle i do think, unexpected missteps aside, she is a winner and the poll numbers won’t slide back that much.
Also keen to hear from her on aslyum seekers. I just cannot get out of my head the fuckwit young guy i saw driving a car the other day with ‘eff off we’re full’ and ‘love it or leave’ stickers on. Your days are numbered! (i hope).
But the big question is, where’s Malcom? (suddenly childhood falshback to Where’s Wally). Come on, Malcolm come out come out wherever you are! He is the perfect counterbalance to JG.
I think Australian’s are centrist’s. Our history shows that depending on the times we chose centre-a little tiny smidge left or centre a little tiny smide right (and yes, it is a smidge. Go look at America or England that’s REAL right and left). Tony is firmly backed into the right-wing corner and either this will push him further right or he will start making concessions to the middle – but the problem with concessions is we all know his true colors and he will struggle to win the trust of moderates who would rather take their chances with JG even if she is a former socialist as everyone loves to point out.
JG has a chance at a fresh start, she can own the middle where Australian elections are won or lost. Tony is stuck. The more he tries to stick with the right-wing angle the more JG will simply move to own the middle. Worked for KR in 07 against Howard. But against Malcolm, a Liberal moderate? That’s another story.
Ah to be a fly on the wall at Liberal HQ right now. Forgetting what i want to vote just on a strategy level surely putting up a moderate against JG is the way to go, fight for the middle not try to sway people to the right. Not saying what is right, just a good winning strategy. I think Tony will get thumped.
loading...
Yes Apples,
Turnbull would be a difficult opponent for Gillard I think, but Abbott is virtually a non-contest.
Watch the refugee issue hot right up, its the only card Abbott will play which will cause difficult problems for Labor, particularly for Gillard. I don’t expect much from Gillard on that issue as after watching her for several years now she always plays the politically correct or populist card rather than one that concentrates on fair or wise policy (or human rights in this instance) which I think is not a great quality in a leader of a country. However it seems that many people expect an all-year round popular leader who unfailingly understands the political landscape and in that regard Rudd was quite short sighted. Gillard is much more politically astute and is sure to get things done, I’m pretty peeved about how all this has come about and think it reflects very badly on the internal workings of the Labor party and I think this will come back to haunt Gillard. However I’m going to sit quiet with my skepticism for a while and see what she comes up with and enjoy watching Abbott squirm.
loading...
Apples wrote: “Love how people keeping trying to justify their sexist comments and gender based digs at JG and others by going the ‘but i’m just exposing women towards women sexism not being sexist myself, just callin’ the double standard y’all’.”
Are you saying it’s sexist to say I see her as a politician, not a woman? I am totally confused with your point here.
Apples wrote: “No you’re not. I have not seen ONE comment along the lines of approving of her simply for being a woman.”
You can’t be serious?
loading...
Not your comment the one below that referred to women turning to ‘mush’ routinely around female politicians. Apologies it fell into your thread it was a reply to the reply to your comment. I can’t speak for you but i don’t think the response to your comment saying women turn to mush quite fitted with what you were saying which is entirely correct – doesn’t matter what gender she is.
loading...
Found you to be unecessarily rude Apples. Disagree with me by all means, but your tone and manner of reply leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway I stopped reading your comment after the first few lines because I saw no reason to continue.
loading...
I agree completely, that is the way it should be, just sometimes reality of people’s attitudes doesn’t line up with the ideal.
loading...
I have not made a big deal of a female PM to my sons. It’s an every day event as it should be. Yes, it is a first. But my kids think that people that are best for a job are the ones who should do it. I’m breadwinner in my house and they see nothing weird in that.Let’s see if Ms Gillard is best for the job.
loading...
Even though I am very excited on the inside, I have also consciously tried not to communicate that excitement to my little girl. At 4, she is only just forming her perceptions of the world. I’d rather she hear us talking about this as a perfectly normal thing. No doubt in years to come she and I will talk about what an important moment this has been, along with many others.
loading...
1000+ comments. wow. new female pm sparks debate
loading...
For me it is not about Julia Gillard being a female … it is about same old Labor trying to hood-wink us … this time with with a horse of a different gender. And just as we were fooled by what Kevin Rudd was selling when we voted him in (and I mean voted him in) we are being fooled by sales lady, Julia Gillard.
loading...
It seems the same old Liberal’s that we conclusively dumped in one of the biggest drubbing’s in Aus history is also trying to hood-wink us with the same old shit:
Says TA tonight:
“Meanwhile, a coalition government would bring “the most experienced and accomplished ministerial team in a generation”, he said.
“No amateur-hour bungles from us, because we know what a good government looks like, we’ve been in one,” he said.”
….Uh Tony? We threw out your ‘good’ government because we thought it had become a ‘bad’ government. We also threw out many of your experienced team including the PM from his own seat. I am open to hearing what the Liberal’s have to say (as my Malcolm comments attest and voted for them before) but really Tony? REALLY? You are going to try to sell us the same old pie we threw away 3 years ago because it had gone off? THAT’s your angle? “We were good before have us back?”.
Ah Tony, please keep on this angle because you are totally misreading the mood if you think that people feel the last few years were some strange experimental nightmare we want to forget with Howard 2.0. There are some very unhappy campers out there but you’re crazy if you think the viable alternative they want is Howard inside a Tony Abbott suit. Please, keep down this path because it will just increase the chances of a different Liberal leader taking the reins and providing a credible alternative and forcing Labor to be accountable.
loading...
So many assumptions Apples …. I have only ever voted Labor and was glad to see the back of Howard. I just don’t like this present Labor Government. Again as above I only read the first few lines of your comment. Didn’t see the point in continuing.
loading...
Frankly I am glad to see Rudd gone. He was the purpose built, manufactured product of a PR Machine who obsessed over the appearance of his legacy and the symbolism of his grand gestures and ignored substance and execution. His “accomplishments” are far from accomplished and most have left a trail of unintended consequences, rorting and waste because the details of their implementation were, beyond the stage-managed announcements, utterly ignored. It was all about KRudd looking good, looking magnanimous, looking important and Prime-Ministerial. His arrogance and condescending treatment of the broader electorate with this “Kevin knows what’s best for you, just be good sheep, go to work, be productive, pay your taxes and let me make all the important decisions” typified his leadership style and his patronising attitude. Lets not get onto his pig-headed refusal to let reality get in the way of Nanny-State policy like the Internet “Clean-Feed”.
And Gillard may seem to be warmer, she may seem to be more “competent” (and no doubt she is a formidable politician with a sharp mind) but she is, in my view, fundamentally untrustworthy. She claimed, in a Judas-like lead-up to her betrayal, unwavering support for Kevin. She repeatedly made a large number of colorfully metaphorical references to the absolute ridiculousness of her ever challenging Rudd for the leadership of the ALP, but when the AWU Powerbrokers in faction-ridden backrooms told her to jump, she didn’t even ask how high because she had scoped the bar well in advance. And her disingenuous deflections of questions about her extreme socialist background are, to me, further evidence of her fundamental and convenient dishonesty.
And at the end of the day she is just another symbol. A symbolic and utterly meaningless change that desperate men have made to distance themselves from the failed policy that Rudd was such a passionate advocate for. A Hail Mary pass thrown by the Warlords in the hopes of clinging to power for more than one term. She is just a different Captain of the same medieval, busted up barge that modern Labor has become. And she backed all of the broken and ill-considered decisions made under Rudd, decisions for which her back-down will be nothing more than a Back-flip by Proxy.
There’s nothing new here.
loading...
Bravo Anonymous.
If you were to read ‘The Making of Julia Gillard’ which was published last year, you would find that Gillard is not even a politician of passion or depth. She is a problem-solver in a kind of’lawyerly’ way …….as in this is the problem how do we fix it ” buildings buildings buildings. But she has shown that she can not even manage to oversee her projects.
She is a rough and tough politician. Whatever one thinks of Kevin Rudd and I was most certainly NOT a fan she doesn’t even have his huge intellect.
Have a read of Paul Kelly’s article in today’s Australian. It makes for chilling reading.
Looking at some of the posts here it is obvious that many people are being fooled by her in a not disimilar way to the way many of us were fooled by Kevin Rudd.
Difference in style and personality but still same old, same old.
Apologies for typos … must run.
loading...
In the words of Paul Kelly … ‘The Australian,’ June 26th 2010
“The coup that installed Julia Gillard was driven neither by policy nor ideology: it is about image, party management and election survival, and constitutes a new method of Labor rule.
Gillard’s vision for Australia is little different from that of Kevin Rudd. But Labor’s spinning wheels will work to conceal such embarrassing truth. Indeed, Gillard endorsed every significant decision made by Kevin Rudd during his brief period in office.
Gillard’s media conferences as Prime Minister are devoid of any new direction or vision for Australia or Labor:her pledge, instead, is ‘to get the government back on track’. That’s it.
This is the reason Rudd was eliminated: it is the mission expected of Gillard by the party. It affirms the transformation of modern Labor.
Gillard will become the forth Labor leader in four elections ……………….. The party, as Latham says, subcontracts the leadership to the best salesman with the freshest image.
This reveals a party governed not by ideas but by powerful interests that span networks of factional, trade union, family and special interest group connections that thrive on the patronage, finances and appointments that only incumbency can deliver.
It raises a fundamental issue: is this method and structure of Labor self aggrandisement consistent with Australia’s national interest? Put another way, is the power structure that king-made Gillard also the power structure that works for Australia’s policy needs in today’s globalised world? The test case of NSW shows the answer is no”………….
The above is only a short excerpt. Can I suggest you read the entire article by Paul Kelly in today’s ‘The Australian’. It makes for complelling reading.
Paul Kelly’s final line is; “Despite Gillard’s lustre, the public sense the sickness in the Labor machine’.
loading...
Apologies for the typos above. I can no longer ‘arm-wrestle’ with the Mamamia editing option. It is beyond frustration …
loading...
Hi N/L
Could you possibly tell us the issues that you’re having with comments editing so we can attempt to trace and fix them.
We did upgrade it a week ago and its been used over 350 times this week, and thought it was working smoothly for everyone.
We’re pretty keen that it works well for everyone obviously.
If you know how to find them, it would be incredibly helpful if you could tell me what operating system (+ version) and browser (+ version) you’re using and I will try to replicate any issues that you’re seeing,in a bid to get them fixed.
It’s tested perfectly on Windows7 with latest versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari just now for me, but different combinations can behave differently.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to help, and if anyone else is having similar issues please let us know.
loading...
Thanks for your response…
I have Windows XP and I use Internet Explorer and this is when the editing is really really slow.
I use Firefox now and it is not slow but each time I go to editing all the paragraphs vanish. And this happens again and again when I try to edit on the same comment.
I get the Mamamia posts sent to me via email but it is really slow if I try to access the posts this way and it is also slow to edit.
I hope this makes sense.
loading...
Hi, hadn’t said anything because i figured you guys were still working on things or the traffic volume was the problem and it would go away like similar tech issues in the past which seem to go away pretty quickly but since you ask i have two things that don’t work:
- No edit button or request to delete button. I have reply and alert mod but no edit. However once or twice in this thread, as someone else mentioned too, i did have an edit button and request delete button pop up on someone else’s reply but when i tested it it did not let me edit (wasn’t trying to just making sure).
- Can only plus 1 comments that are on zero (i like plus-ing makes people happy : ) )
I am on a new mac laptop with Safari version 4.0.4
Not too fussed about it, can still comment just fine just letting you know.
Keep up the good work : )
loading...
Pro Choice and Julia Gillard?
Personally I just didn’t like the way Ms Gillard terminated a first term Prime Minister ……….
A Prime Minister who had listened to her on dumping the ETS.
A Prime Minister who was about to announce he was getting somewhere on the Resources tax.
A Prime Minister who was MUCH more popular than her with the Australian people.
A Prime Minister who had doubted amd questioned Ms Gillard’s loyalty.
I think Ms Gillard had a choice. She didn’t need to abort Mr Rudd’s Prime Ministership.
loading...
So now I have shared some interesting research relevant to debate and point out that abortion law reform is only an Abbott heart beat away… Which is precisely why it is important that Julia Gillard is a member of Emily’s List. So as a member of the labor party and of Emilys List I shall explain… Emilys List is a fundraising organisation based on US Emily’s list. Name is acronym for Early Money is Like Yeast. It is bases on philosophy of raising money and supporting women (Labor women) to be elected to state, Territory and fed parliaments in Australia. Support for progressive Labor Women is given in form of funding for campaigns (raised and donated by it’s members) and through an excellent mentoring system. Emilys list only supports women who are pro choice and will publicily advocate for access for women, choice and support for women to have the right to make decisions regarding abortion and reproductive Health. An excellent and volunteer run organisation proudly getting progressive women elected. Now for my claim to fame…as a former Labor staffer (for Sen Kate Lundy) I recieved a phone call a few years ago from Gillards Office saying that Julia had to go to an Emilys List function but she did not have an Emilys list broach ( which a beautiful hand made hand painted individual purple and yellow broach. I of course offered her mine which she gratefully borrowed. Now I have never gotten it back and am so proud that our first female pm has a little piece of my emilys list passion with her.
loading...
Supporting progressive Labor Women is essential for maintaining legal reproductive rights for women. With an election looming the very real possibility of a vigorous renewed fight for our rights may be ahead.
But let’s forget the politics, the ideology, the drama. Let’s remember what it is at the very granular level – a woman’s choice, and sometimes, too many times, the very health and life of a woman.
It’s important to me and millions others that the choice is there, and the same for the next generations of women that come after us.
It’s an issue of health, of equality, and of civil liberty.
This year I hope Australian women WILL vote with and for their uteruses, and so will the men who love them.
Upon my return to Australia next month I will be volunteering with Emily’s list or whatever similar organization is available, to campaign/ support keeping Julia Gillard as our PM.
http://www.coloradoblueflowerfund.org/julia-george.html
loading...
Hi Jules, yes women ‘choose’ abortion often because they feel they have no other option. Given that Planned Parenthood research found that 30% of women were coerced into abortion. I would think everyone should be doing all their power to give women the support needed to go with pregnancies and keep their babies , should they wish to do so.
I would agree abortion is in part a health issue when we have evidence showing that for a signficant portion of women abortion will be injurious to their mental health. We have research from self declared pro choice psychiatrist Professor Fegusson that post abortion women aare more likely to depressed, anxious and abuse drug and alcohol (and if my memory serves me correctly more likely to contemplate/commit suicide), I would think everyone should be doing all their power to give women the support needed to go through with pregnancies and keep their babies , should they wish to do so.
When the abortion bill was debated in Victoria ob gyns came forward and said that abortion to save the life of the mother was not an issue. e.g. Some babies are delivered pre term because of the mother’s health and now with modern technology many of these babies are viable. You do not have to kill the baby, just deliver it early. Noone is opposing women getting medical treatment for ectopic pregnancies.
loading...
Dinner party. Must remember I’m at a dinner party. Pass the salt please.
Catherine the thing I love about life is google and the internet. Makes life great. So I’m trying to find the 30% statistic you refer to. I have just read a few pertinent Planned Parenthood research papers and find nothing.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/research-papers-23519.htm
Women are given choices when attending Planned Parenthood. Adoption etc.
Abortion should be legal. Its private. Its between a woman and her Dr. – Tony Abbott will never be invited.
It must, should and will be legal for those who need those services. Reproductive rights are a Human Right.
The Guttmacher Policy Review of 2006 states “To a considerable degree, antiabortion activists are able to take advantage of the fact that the general public and most policymakers do not know what constitutes “good science” (related article, November 2005, page 1). To defend their positions, these activists often cite studies that have serious methodological flaws or draw inappropriate conclusions from more rigorous studies. Admittedly, the body of sound research in this area is relatively sparse because establishing or conclusively disproving a causal relationship between abortion and subsequent behavior is an extremely difficult proposition. Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman’s long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.”
Its a brilliant report and feel free to read it after leaving our dinner party we are having here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html
This report alone pretty much refutes EVERY STATEMENT you made above.
30% – you are correct (posting link to said study below) – here’s the kicker “Analyses showed that the number of NEGATIVE RESPONSES” to the abortion was associated with increased levels of subsequent mental health. FAMILY/ SOCIETY NOT BEING SUPPORTIVE MAKES THESE PEOPLE DEPRESSED.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/195/5/420
AND
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/6/444
And Darling you are correct – “I would think everyone should be doing all their power to give women the support needed”. That’s exactly right. A legal and emotionally supportive environment can help a woman re-claim her life and body in a situation that may call for assistance. Rape. Incest. Teenage pregnancy. Too poor. Health problems that risk the life of the mother.
The evidence clearly indicates that those who oppose abortion rights are peddling guilt. The post abortion psychological problem known as guilt is the inevitable result of the mental programming that is being so strongly and so pervasively promoted to the public by those who call themselves as “pro-life?”°
I hope Australia continues to be a leader in reproductive rights. By the the looks of the hierarchy of the country that will continue.
Abortion
Never an Easy Choice
Sometimes the best Choice
Always a Woman’s Choice
loading...
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080412-18536-2.html
I would agree that pro abortion and pro life “”activists are able to take advantage of the fact that the general public and most policymakers do not know what constitutes “good science”
However,the study by Professor Fergusson I provided a link to above has been published in respected journals and has been laid open to peer review.It is a longitudinal study conducted over many years and has controlled for many variables. it is not a perfect study but it is methodologically quite well done.
More research has to be done, and Professor Fergusson admits that but He made the point that he had difficulty getting his study published in American journals as abortion is such a political issue. Some do not want to hear that abortion may have any negative consequences and therefore engage in academic censorship.
Note He is a self proclaimed pro choice atheist, I admire him for be willing to report and discuss his findings which present a challenge to his personal beliefs, particularly when he has copped flak for doing so.
loading...
I would have thought it was simple really. Legalise abortion throughout Australia and thus those who choose to have it can and those who are opposed to it can choose not to. What one woman chooses to do with her body is no one else’s business. People should leave each other alone. Who is some random to tell me I can’t have an abortion if I choose/need one based on their own beliefs?
That would end all the ridiculous debates about it.
loading...
thanks adina for the information about emily’s list, i am going to look it up now, and support it obviously.
now for an offbeat question…
were the colours that the GG wore (yellow suit and purple flower, not that i would need to remind you i am sure) symbolic?
loading...
Human foetus feels no pain before the age of 24 weeks,
says new scientific study
Mark Henderson, Francis Elliott The Times
June 25, 2010
THE human foetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks, says an expert review that undermines calls to cut the time limit for abortion.
Nerve connections in the foetal brain do not form fully enough to allow perception of pain until after the 24-week limit for terminating pregnancies, an expert report commissioned by Britain’s Department of Health concluded.
The finding, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, rebuts claims by anti-abortion activists that legal terminations can inflict pain on foetuses.
It will undermine the efforts of MPs in Britain who have tried unsuccessfully to reduce the limit in the last parliament, to force another vote.
Professor Allan Templeton, president of the Royal College, who chaired the inquiry, said: “There’s nothing in the report that suggests any need to review the upper limit.”
The Royal College was asked by the Labour government to review the evidence for foetal pain and awareness after the Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised its last report into the issue, published in 1997, as out of date. The conclusions of a working party of doctors, scientists, midwives and ethicists were peer-reviewed by independent experts.
It found that nerve connections to the cortex, the part of the brain that deals with pain and higher mental functions, do not form properly before 24 weeks. “It can be concluded that the foetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation,” the report said.
Research claimed by anti-abortion campaigners to show that foetuses feel pain was based on evidence from premature babies that did not apply in the womb, Professor Templeton said.
Another finding was that even after 24 weeks, the foetus is naturally sedated and unconscious in the womb. This suggests that even late abortions, which are permitted for serious abnormalities or risks to the mother’s health, are unlikely to result in suffering.
The panel also advised that this sedation meant that anaesthetics, which can be risky, are not required when a foetus undergoes surgery.
A second Royal College report, into abortion for foetal abnormalities, advised that it would be impractical to draw up a list of “serious handicaps” for which late abortions can be permitted.
Some campaigners had demanded greater clarity following reports of late abortions for correctable conditions such as cleft palate. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said the issue of foetal pain had been politicised: “Women and doctors need to be able to make informed decisions based on what science says, not what advocates (whether pro-choice or anti-choice) wish it said.”
Anti-abortion groups said the report did not challenge other arguments for a lower limit. “Performing abortion humanely does not justify the fact that you are terminating a human life,” said Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics.
The Times
loading...
I was going to reply to about a dozen posts below but thought I’d just start again.
I find it fascinating that anyone would find it interesting that Julia Gillard is pro choice or a member of Emily’s List. I don’t find it a double standard, because being pro-choice (not pro abortion – to whoever said that repeatedly down there, it is an outrageous assertion) is the established norm in Australia. It is a minority opinion to be anti-choice, which is what makes it notable that Abbott holds that opinion.
Most male ALP members are either members of Emily’s List (Jess2, what do they call them? Emily’s Blokes or something?) or have attended Emily’s List fundraisers etc. It was not notable that Kevin Rudd (would have to confirm that) or Mark Latham (he was definitely a member ) were members of Emily’s List.
Further, I think that whilst Abbott shows absolutely no discipline in being baited into stupid arguments on social policy that distract from the main game, you would find Gillard being that stupid.
loading...
I second you on the minority-view. However. It is shit-my-pants-wake-in-the-night frightening that we are even talking about abortion in a political context. This is where it all begins. Ask yourselves, why are we talking about abortion? I don’t recall talking about back when Howard was elected or ever before recently. In Victoria we didn’t talk about in Brack’s days yet it has come up over recent years. Why? It has been a non-issue for years. Think about it. Really think. Abortion is cropping up all over the place these days isn’t it?
Do you really think this is, as anti-choicers always argue, simply a case of society re-evaluating and realising what we have done? Waking up to the horror? No. This is a highly-organised push by anti-choice groups to put abortion back on the agenda and take away your rights. And it starts quietly. And slowly. These people are schooled by the American’s – outright overturning over the law won’t work. Their tactic is creeping, make it harder, brainwash the young in schools (they “volunteer” to host sex ed for grateful schools…..true…..) and suddenly you find the term limit has crept back, week by week. Then you’re looking at an ultrasound.
What happened when a few politician’s tried to stop pregnancy ‘helpline’s’ misrepresenting themselves? Sounds simple doesn’t it, a law that means you have to disclose any agenda? Failed. In Australia. You are allowed to pretend to offer choice to women when you’re agenda is anti-choice. Vulnerable women. Attempts to put an end to this were thwarted. This is REAL.
There has always been a vocal minority who are anti-choice in this country. But they were always disparate, just a bunch of individuals with their own views, which they are certainly entitled to. But the level of discussion and organisation we are seeing now is not how things were a decade ago. And i don’t accept that that is simply more individuals individually decieding they are anti-choice.
There seems to be a concerted push to put abortion back on the agenda and while i keep getting laughed at for my conspiracy’s i don’t care. Look at America. They have less rights than 10 years ago. This is happening.
I am glad Julia is in office because she is going to be a good block to these people.
Educated yourselves or your daughters will be living in a state where you can get a ‘pro-life’ licence plate (yep, that has been introduced in America. Note the ‘introduced’ – it wasn’t always there, this is yes another new windback of rights).
loading...
Apple, would you please explain why it is a terrible thing for women to look at an ultrasound of the pregnancy they are about to terminate? I would have thought someone making a significant decision such as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy might like access to information.
In the past some women were told what they were terminating was a just a “blob of cells” when in fact their pregnancy had advanced beyong that stage, so their decision was influenced by incorrect information.
loading...
Every woman knows exactly what she aborting and the consequences. To say you need an ultrasound to make women understand that it is a potential baby is to say women are morons “oh what? that’s….a fetus on that ultrasound….i had no idea!”
My problem with the ultrasound pushing crowd is it is yet another example of the litany of lies of manipulative tactics used by the anti-choice crowd. I understand your cause. I understand that ultrasounds can drive home that you are ending something that in several months time would be a child. My problem is that the anti-choice crowd don’t own it. It is emotional blackmail. You know it and i know it. But it is dressed up as ‘informative’ and ‘factual’. “Oh we just want to educate women more about their choice”. No, you don’t. It is emotional blackmail and to pretend otherwise is manipulative, lying and insulting women’s intelligence.
And if you care so much about women then you would know that by the time you get to showing the ultrasound stage in the US it’s too late. Prelim studies have shown it does not change the outcome. You simply leave women feeling even worse about it and increasing the chances of post-abortion depression and despair (yes, i accept the emotional consequences of abortion despite you lot accusing pro-choicers of thinking abortion is done in your lunch break so you can go out for cocktails after work).
Not only are ultrasounds are lie, they are actually damaging women and you haven’t even ‘saved’ a life. So good work all round really.
I don’t have a problem with trying to reduce the abortion rate in general, it’s a cause we can all agree on. And if you are not a blow-in you may have read the Trevor and Peter post where i talk about how i will be most likely adopting. Which means i have a vested interest in women putting their babies up for adoption.
What i object to is the underhand tactics and the outright lying and the outright false and biased information. I object to the fact the women are getting hurt more so than they would otherwise be. The fact that the anti-choice brigade need to resort to tactics like ultrasounds means something is wrong with your cause and the way you are going about it. If you have to trick people into calling you the problem is you. Continuing to use ultrasounds despite evidence against them ‘working’ simply exposes the fact that they are not about ‘educating’ or even emotionally appealing to women. It’s about punishing women – women you claim to care about.
loading...
couldn’t have said it better myself
loading...
“Methinks thou protesteth too much…”
Shakesppearre
“the outright lying and the outright false and biased information…”
Apples
“A Picture’s Meaning Can Express Ten Thousand Words.”
Chinese Proverb
loading...
Nothing wrong with looking at an ultrasound – as long as it is elective and not a essential requirement before undergoing an abortion.
Nothing wrong with looking at an ultrasound in a sex education class either – as long as the class is not driven by a ‘group’ with a specific agenda (anti-abortion).
loading...
Exactly. It’s about honesty. i am all for choice and having all the options and information at your disposal from an unbiased source that has only your best interests at heart (that means, not a crisis pregnancy centre that earns commissions from an adoption agency for the women it guilts into going there)
loading...
I’m with you Apples on this one.
You only have to look at the recent Health bill passed in the US – just to have basic bloody health entitlements pass there had to be a massive amount of ‘hoop jumping’ to appease the anti-abortion movement and special clauses inserted to suit their agenda. They have a MASSIVE amount of sway and influence in American politics.
I am even more paranoid than you Apples in that I would like to see Tony Abbott forced to put in writing (because we have been told not to just trust his word) of his intentions towards our current abortion laws if he becomes the elected PM.
loading...
Glad i’m not alone because sometimes i feel like i am banging my head against a brick wall. But i’m going to keep doing it because i believe it’s real.
Speaking of the US Health System everyone should be aware that what 15 or so years ago began as a new concerted organised push by aligned anti-choice groups in the US is now approaching it’s logical end-game (no not overtuning Roe v. Wade i think that’s more Holy Grail). Contraception. Yep, you heard. Just like they have made abortions more difficult to get and kept them away from the health system they are making contraception more difficult to access and would you believe it became a discussion point on the new health bill! CONTRACEPTION! And they call me crazy…..
And no, they do not seem to see the connection between contraception and reducing abortion. We are all supposed to be virgins until married and then….i’m not sure because they don’t all have 8 kids. Maybe contraception for the married only….yep, we are back in 1960 – contraception for the married ladies and coat-hanged abortions for you bad girls.
*Oh and note – i am suspicious of the anti-abortion comments on here because once again they are unfailingly polite. Sounds lovely doesn’t it? But that is a tactic of the organised movement. Polite. Always. Polite, firm, never ending rebuttals with lots of imagery about babies and love and flowers. It’s one way to spot them. They discovered that yelling and screaming a) doesn’t work b) points out their ultimate agenda – no abortion – when they are just asking for one tiny little thing like ultrasounds and c) makes people like me look angry and crazy.
Those old enough will be able to recall that in the not too distant past when their was a collection of individuals with anti-abortion views not a ‘movement’ there was often anger and vehement discussion. Ask yourself why it is nearly always quiet and polite now….it’s a delibrate tactic. Makes them look oh so calm and reasoned….they just want a little term little reduction here….a late term abortion stop here…..an ultrasound or too….nothing too much…from some calm and reasonable people who just love little babies……we can all agree we love babies….
…..and then your local pharmacy is no longer stocking The Pill. It’s all happened, this is not a hypothetical. The fact we are talking about abortion right now seemingly out of nowhere (ask yourself, why is this relevant right now? a female PM is a pretty tenuous hook). Wake up Australia before it’s too late. It’s not about overturning the law outright anymore, that won’t happen, it’s about making it near impossible to access and they’ve certainly made a start.
loading...
and the voice that these women have is that of the PRO-CHOICERS. This is going to be difficult for you to understand but for it is not always in the best interest of the mother OR the child for it to be born. These situations arent black and white. Im usually too lazy to hit the alert moderator button but Id prefer this to be a place free of nasty crazies such as yourself so Im going to go to the effort this time
loading...
Apples – I want to tick all your responses ten times (but it won’t even let me do it once! LOL)
I do agree with you completely.
I think the infiltration of US Christian Evangalests into right wing Australian christian churches has been a huge contributer to this problem. They come from a very different advocacy mindset to tradiational Australian christian conservatives.
Keep up the fight mate.
loading...
agreed danielle and apples.
keep on fighting!
loading...
On the topic of her personal life i think i want to kind of sound a note of, hmm restraint lets say. I am a proud feminist and the first to jump and point the finger and say “sexist!” or “racist” or “something-ist!”.
But with JG i see the commentary on her life more broadly, yes it is sexism but pull back one more level and it really is simply, um, normalism? (making up words….). Anyone gets to a top level in anything and if they are not, or have never been, married to someone of the opposite sex with the requiste 2.5 kids we ask questions. Why aren’t you married? Why don’t you have kids? Why are you married but with no kids? Why do you have kids but never married? If it falls outside the ‘norm’ it becomes noteworthy. It’s not just being a childless woman, anything outside married or divorced hetro with kids they get picked on. It’s like you are defective.
Julia is not the first high ranking politician to face this, for those angry at the sexism consider William ‘Billy’ McMahon, former PM, briefly, but long serving in government (and yes, father of Julian). He didn’t marry until he was 57 and was widely perceived, right or wrongly, as homosexual. Right up until her recent death, long after his, Sonia McMahon spent nearly every interview denying until she was blue in the face he was gay. Was he? I don’t know for sure but although he is not a person who has inspired alot of books nothing has ever been confirmed and these things nearly always come out in the end. Point is, he was a bachelor and this was somehow suss so he was instantly labelled as gay. We don’t like our leaders to be anything but ‘nornmal’ (yes i’m aware of Penny Wong. i think she’s a start.)
I hope this doesn’t become mired in a sexism debate, the kinds of comments that have been made about her. Yes many have been distasteful but it’s not unique to women. We pick on our politicians in many ways that are totally irrelevant to how they do the job. I am just as embarassed that Kevin Rudd’s intellectualism was seen as a hindrance to his chances as i am by facebook comments “a woman is PM…didn’t even know they could vote”.
I do think that the personality matters and your personal experience and life, especially considering that it seems to be KR’s personality/personal style that was his downfall. But these comments may be sexist but they are really just a repeat of every other major election where the only about 5% of the attacks seem to actually be about the policies or capabilities. We need to lift our game all-round in how we assess our leaders, not just women.
loading...
I think Julia is damned either way regarding the marriage/kids thing. If she WAS married, there’d be questions about her ability to do the job because she would always be worrying about the kids, or she’d be copping shit for neglecting them or something. And that she HASN’T had kids or married makes her a whipping boy (girl) as well. Can’t win!
loading...
i agree kris2040, she can’t win either way.
i have also been getting really annoyed with comments that she is single. i don’t consider someone in a long term committed relationship “single”.
the fact that she made a conscious decision to work really hard on her career and not have children should really be applauded. so many people try to do both and struggle. i am not talking about just mothers either, i am talking too about dad’s who spend the majority of their life working away from their kids. i know for some people it is purely financial but some of the real high flyers in society probably have missed a lot of their children’s lives.
loading...
She has been with her partner for years! Who bloody cares if she has a ring on her finger or not? She’s not a person who spouts off about religion or anything, so what does it matter? Does my head in too.
loading...
I’d like to think that Julia has been chastened. No matter what the manner of her ascension, she surely is aware that she is on notice not to replicate a Rudd style one-man show, and neither, as the media yells, a faction led puppet style leadership.
Having been in parliament since ’98 she has more than enough credibility to pull this off. Whether she does will tell us whether she is beholden to the factions that both installed Rudd and deleted him. The survival of the Labor Party depends on whether she has the balls to stand for Australia and against the Labor factions. If she does Liberal is in trouble.
Go the Ginger Ninja!
loading...
Thankfully I ‘see’ differently to you – vote Abbott and sleep soundly in your sanctimonious little world.
This post is about politics – take your agenda elsewhere.
loading...
You may have a different viewpoint cos but I think your reply is unecessarily unpleasant. I think the moderator needs to consider your response.
loading...
The video is extremely offensive & nothing to do with Julia Gillard becoming PM.
loading...
Well N/L consider the poor woman who has had to have a late term abortion and accidentally visits this link not knowing where it takes her – how confronting and upsetting for her. That’s what I was CONSIDERING.
If PMP had any decency they would at least title the link so people know where they are being put through to.
Moderate the shit out of me I don’t care – removing my post will also remove this link.
loading...
male/female, no matter, this PM was not voted in. Our votes count for nothing! Yet if we dont vote, we get fined? IF we are silly enought to vote for her, how long will they respect THAT vote??
loading...
Love your comment, AlliOops.
Maybe Mark Arbib can tell us the length of Julia Gillard’s shelf- life!
loading...
as has already been explained, we don’t vote for a prime minister, we vote for a party, through our electoral candidate
loading...
i do understand that gigdiary, hence the last campaign was Kevin07 and the next due to be NoKevin11…they got their dates wrong and now it just doesnt rhyme!!! That is disturbing.
loading...
I agree, AlliOops, the rhyme is important. It’s hard to vote for a party or candidate without a good rhyme. Labor did well with ‘It’s Time’ back in 72, it didn’t rhyme, but it did rhyme with ‘rhyme’ which was almost as good.
Mind you Gough Whitlam was quite good at rhymes, on one occasion he was asked about policy. And what are you going to do about Aboriginal Rights he was asked, ‘Land Reform’. And what are you going to do about the legal system, ‘Law Reform’, and what are you going to do about Mr Fraser, ‘chloroform.’
Keating lost his second term as PM after he found it impossible to come up with slogan that rhymed with ‘scumbag’.
Howard romped in with ‘All the Way with LBJ’ , and we were so sick of Labor we actually believed it, before realising he was living twenty years in the past.
loading...
Heh heh. Love your work GigDiary
loading...
It’s a manner of speech gigdiary. Even Kevin Rudd talked about being voted in by the people of Australia. That’s why they put him there as the front man. They wanted people to vote for him and they did. Do you think you the same number of people would have voted Labor at the last election if Julia Gillard was leader? Or Wayne Swan perhaps? Of course not! They knew Julia Gillard was unelectable in 2007 and so was Swan. And I’m not talking about their seats.
loading...
yes, of course, a figure of speech. I agree with you, politics is personality driven as well as ideologically driven.
loading...
OK I am not well versed in politics and this will appear obvious once you read this comment but I for one voted Labor because I wanted Kevin as my PM! I can’t even recall the name of my electoral candidate!! We know we don’t tick a box with Kevin’s name on it. But that is the ultimate goal and the reason most of us do it. Just like Parramatta turned away from Labor recently. It was to send Kev (& Kristina) a message that they weren’t happy. I think that was also a nail in Kev’s coffin…..just my uninformed view!
loading...
And we vote according to Westminster system whic means the party members elected select the leader and therefore the PM
loading...
No they elect the Leader prior to the election so that we know who we are voting for as the PM!!! So we ultimately decide if we want that person as the PM! And it seems these days that we determine whether or not they stay PM with opionion polls! Well for Labor anyway. They seem to be more concerned about being the ones in power and will slit their leaders throat to do so!
loading...
the fact that we get fined if we don’t vote is a different issue, but coupled with this turnaround, you’d think we’d get a exemption next time. ‘I need to rethink this, duh!’
loading...
Some random thoughts…….Julia Gillard led the push to dump the ETS. She was aided and abetted by Wayne Swan. Mark Arbib was also a player.
Kevin Rudd and Lindsey Tanner were against dropping it. But Gillard persisted and insisted. After much thought Rudd finally agreed. And now Kevin Rudd has also been dumped and Julia Gillard is PM and Wayne Swan is Deputy.
Prior to Rudd being dumped, polling showed that Kevin Rudd was way more popular than Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot with voters.
And how is democracy at work when even the cabinet had no idea that Kevin Rudd was going to be dumped in an execution led by the faceless men of the Labor Party,
And it was those same faceless men who made Kevin Rudd and it was those same faceless men (including Mark Arbib) who destroyed him. Not since the dismissal have we witnessed anything like what we witnessed Wednesday night.
And another bizarre one …. there is absolutely no love lost between Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard.
And Julia Gillard would never have led the Labor party to victory in 2007.
Didn’t much care for Kevin Rud and care even less for Jullia Gillard.
loading...
I agree wholeheartedly.
loading...
Im happy to have a female PM but my goodness I wish we had voted her in on her merits, not this underhanded crap that has gone on. Instead of it being an amazing step forward for the country it is tainted and I see no sense of achievement in it whatsoever.
loading...
Agree completely Felicety.
loading...
I’m so sick of the misinformation. SHE WAS VOTED IN ON HER MERITS BY THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE SEAT OF LALOR. We DO NOT elect the PM directly except the voters in the leader of the political party’s electorate. The voters knew full well she was deputy and would be the next potential leader of the ALP, ergo should they be the ones to form government would be a potential PM.We vote for our representatives in our electorate.
loading...
Don’t get your knickers in a knot eyeswideshut … it’s a manner of speech …even the previous Prime Minister said that he was voted in by the people of Australia. I do not live in Queensland but I voted for Kevin Rudd. Yes I did! I did not want to vote for John Howard. So I didn’t. And I don’t live in NSW either. And I preferred not think about Julia Gillard as a potential leader in much the same way as I preferred not to think about Peter Costello as a potential leader.
loading...
Personally i think considering how some people don’t seem to know the difference it is helpful to be careful how you phrase things. Definetly if you stopped me in the street last week and asked who i voted for i would say ‘Rudd’. Much easier than saying “Well my local member Blah Blah who is a member of the Labor Party, who i believe have the most seats in the house of representatives and have formed a government, i do quite like the leader of the lower house, the member for xyz Kevin Rudd”.
I get what people are saying about who you vote for. I slipped back into Rudd v Howard in this thread as well. Informally that is how we vote, absolutely. But with people arguing over whether it was anti-democratic or expressed their displeasure or shock it is hard to seperate out, and thus comment on properly or have a discussion with, people who don’t make it clear if they get what has happened or not. Any other day of the week lets talk Rudd.
I can’t tell if some people are unhappy because they feel the person that they informally voted for, being realistic about how our system works, are unhappy at what has transpired because they hoped for Rudd to stay. That’s a worthwhile discussion. But it too easily comes across as “i thought i voted for Rudd and now he’s gone”. And they do exist.
Fine to be upset, it is legit to say we informally vote for someone now their gone and i’m upset. Just make it clear you understand the system please, or it just ends up a long line arguments about system not the person’s view or the issue.
loading...
Completely agree, to say that we only vote for our local member is a crock, I wouldn’t have a clue who my local member is, but I know by voting for them who I am voting for as PM. To think otherwise is delusional.
loading...
That’s exactly what I said above too!! Phew! Glad I’m not the only one!
loading...
well then it’s time you know and find out and educate yourself.
loading...
oh Sheldon…
loading...
IAWTC! It has been frustrating me so much over the last few days, listening to people talk about how she doesn’t have a mandate from the people. Labor has a mandate people, that is all she needs. We aren’t America. Our system does not work like that.
For the record, I do know who my state and federal members are. When I voted, I looked at what their plans for my area were as well their party policies. I didn’t vote for either of these guys, but I knew what they were offering.
loading...
All I can say is, I find it staggering that in this day and age such an argument is even existing.
I personally have been in situations where a lot of people would have chosen abortion. I didnt, because I would never have been able to bring myself to do it. However, this does not make me anti abortion. I am very much pro choice. I would rather have a leader who let women make their own choice, than a leader who took all choice away.
If its between Abbott and Gillard purely on the basis of their stance on abortion, I would vote for Gillard any day. While many people do not agree with people having abortions,for whatever reason, she is not forcing people to have one. She is not making it compulsory – you will still have a choice. You can be against it, and never have one or want to. But, a woman in a position where it is a viable option, can access it.
Abbott on the other hand, wants to make our choice for us.
How ANY woman, no matter what their stance, can be in favor of taking all choice away from other women, absolutely astounds me. I think the fact that Gillard wants women to be able to have a choice is excellent. People seem to think abortion is simple to access in this country – it isnt as easy as you seem to believe it is. And whether you choose to believe it or not, there ARE circumstances where abortion is the best outcome, both for the mother AND the baby.
I know that pro choice and anti abortion will never agree, or be able to make eachother see their side. But, surely we can all agree that we do not want to go back to a time where women were choice-less.
loading...
I love your name!
loading...
Abortion is relevant in this stream because Julia Gillard is a woman? The generalization is staggering.
Reproductive rights are important and imperative in any country, particularly in third world countries.
But let me say…….. Julia Gillard had me at “price on carbons”.
Its less than 24 hours, give her, her policies and her voice some space. Granted I have not lived in Australia for 10 years but the rhetoric regarding her hair color, accent etc makes Australia look immature.
It is odd explaining to people in the US that the leader of a country can be de-throned by other politicians but it is up to us to change that system. Change that policy.
We are not small people and have faced worse.
She’s a red head – that’s the best you’ve got….. she must be a great leader…. and if she’s not – then you have a voice that will hear you. Elections are never very far away.
loading...
Haha, yes. I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately Twitter, Facebook and the ever cringe-worthy man-on-the-street vox pops have served to show up the worst characteristics in Australians.
I say – Red-hair? Don’t care!
Shrill voice? Whatever!
Many people in this country are so quick to cut people down using any superficial or petty argument. Let’s see how she runs the country and not just sit back and sledge.
And let’s not judge her more harshly than we would a male in her role.
And hey, here’s a new idea! How about supporting our leader for once instead of waiting for them to trip up so we can say “told you so”!
Jules, unfortunately the threat of looking bad to the rest of the world only serves to encourage some people – the immature ones.
loading...
I think it is the mining industry that is scare mongering. They make billions upon billions of dollars pillaging our Earth for profit, I think this tax will hardly make a dent in their money sacks.
Where they should be building communities, they are not. They drain resources from an area to line their own pockets and then they move on leaving a ghost town.
I do hope Gillard will succeed in brokering a satisfactory outcome (and I feel that she will) that will be to the benefit of all Australians.
I don’t for one second believe any miner’s job is at risk over this tax. It’s completely illogical. And what does it say if Gillard cannot make this happen, who is ruling the coutry then? The mining industry?! Come off it!
loading...
well said!
loading...
i totally agree. well said
loading...
Re Julia Gillard’s broad Australian accent ….I imagine that Americans might consider it to be a bit like one of their srong southern accents.
A while ago Julia Gillard visited a school in the US and many people had difficulty understanding her. I imagine we might also have trouble understanding a strong southern accent on a visiting politician.
loading...
Julia doesn’t have an accent that’s hard to understand. Generally there is a laziness when it comes to accents. Bob the Builder….. is dubbed in American accent here – ‘lorry’ (sp?) is ‘truck’. 17% of Americans have passports compared to 83% of Australians.
To be fair, I heard her for the first time last night in video footage from ninemsn (been here 10 yrs). Its different. I have been here 10 years and on a daily basis, have to repeat things. I have kept my vocabulary….. footpath, not sidewalk, petrol station not gas…… as a knitter I did give in to ‘sweater’ instead of jumper.
But her voice remains solely important in one place, Australia.
loading...
I had trouble understanding KR! Have we forgotten ‘programmic specifcity’ (i think that is kind of close…i have no idea what he actually said or it’s meaning). I am not an intellectual slouch, i hope, i was initially proud to have such a smart well-educated and travelled man as PM but he was so-over eager to impress that he spoke like a first year uni student doing their first essay and thinking big words is how to get big marks.
People should be HAPPY with Julia’s accent and how she speaks, it’s an improvement on KR. If it wasn’t stuff that sent us running to the dictionary from Rudd it was trying to go too low brow “fair shake of the sauce bottle”.
I think the Southern US accent is a good example, and not just on the comprehension level but because just like a ‘strine accent people with Southern accents are often picked on, called stupid and face discrimination. Many people work to drop their Southern accents so they can advance their careers when working in the North. You either work it to your advantage to appeal to a certain audience as a politician or media person or it is a hindrance. Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar, did all this good work at improving how Southern accents are treated and then George W. went and undid all the good work….
Who cares about the accent, what matters is what she is saying.
loading...
I think it’s marvellous and I’m so proud of her. I have high hopes for Julia Gillard and I’m sure she knows there are higher expectations of her as PM, particularly because she is a woman. It’s a bloody business and the wolves are ready to tear her down, they’re already getting stuck into Wayne Swan. So let’s give her a chance and see how she sets about getting the Labor Party and the nation into shape. Kevin Rudd’s speech was hard to watch, more so with Therese looking like she bore the brunt of this turmoil (mega baggage under her eyes) and instinctively wanting to protect her family from further pain. Yes, can we keep Therese please? Oh, these are going to be very interesting times. I’m riveted.
loading...
Excellent couple of primers! I didn’t realise the factions were so formal, but I shouldn’t be surprised, I guess. All these metaphors about “execution” and “stabbed in the back”, it’s a vicious game, politics. Lucky we’re not in Ancient Rome, I guess, back before these terms were metaphors.
By the way, the fifth point of the Julia cheat-sheet needs two wee edits: “Formally chief of staff to Victoria Premier John Brumby’s chief of staff”…
loading...
Ah, thanks! Early morning oversight. Wrote it without having my cup of tea.
loading...
Yes Mia, Julia Gillard
has been pivotal to an organisation called Emily’s List, which is a national group that focuses on getting more progressive Labor women elected to Parliament”" but let’s just make it clear that Emily’s List aims to get LAbor women who are pro abortion elected to Parliament.
Julia has recently said she wants to represent the weakest members of our society but who is more defenceless than an unborn child.
I won’t be voting for Julia, not because she’s a woman, not because she is a Labor politician,not because she doesn’t have any children, but because she doesn’t believe the unborn child has a right to life.
loading...
It’s interesting that the Labor party wants to make sure we know what Tony Abbott is against and how he has voted in the past on certain sensitive issues related to women. For some people his attitudes are deal-breakers. But why has no one let the cat out of the bag about what Julia Gillard is pro … like Abortion. For some people this would also be a deal-breaker. Two standards anyone?
loading...
Julia Gillard’s views are fairly well known, I would have thought. Emily’s List is an international organisation supported by people like Hillary Clinton. The Australian version was founded by Joan Kirner. They support female candidates who work for equity, choice, childcare, equal pay etc.. I’m not sure what exactly there is to let “out of the bag” and I’m not seeing the two standards here.
loading...
Now that she is PM, Julia Gillard’s pro feelings about abortion are just as relevant as Tony Abbott’s anti views about abortion. There’s lots of coverage about what Tony Abbott is against but you just don’t have the same level of coverage about Julia Gillard’s personal views. I think it makes for an interesting point of difference.
loading...
Yes, Katherine, Emily’s List is an international organisation and I would like to point out that Emily’s List supports late term abortion. When US Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu ( who was pro abotion but voted against partial-birth abortion) Emily’s List would not contribute any further to her campaign funds.
The US Supreme Court supported the ban on partial birth abortions stating
“A moral, medical and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion … is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited”.
In order for a politiciana/aspiring politician to have the financial and political support of Emily’s List, a candidate must support the abortion of a fullterm baby right up to the moment of birth.In Victoria recently, members of Emily’s List voted in support of an abortion bill which has made it legal in Victoria for full term babies to be aborted.There does not have to be anything wrong the babies, just get two doctors to agree to the abortion. Julis Gillard is a member of Emily’s List, what more can I write.
loading...
“In Victoria recently, members of Emily’s List voted in support of an abortion bill which has made it legal in Victoria for full term babies to be aborted.”
Can you quote your sources, please? I live in Victoria & I don’t remember this bit.
loading...
Hello. If you go to the Hansard of the Victorian Parliment you can see who voted in support of the Abortion Law Reform Bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia This article provides a summary of the restrictions on abortion at present. Now it is legal to abort a full term baby provided you can get 2 doctors to agree. The legislation is worded so loosely you could drive a truck through it.
loading...
Can you please provide a source for these assertions? Are you referring to the 2008 decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria? If so, I think your characterisation of this bill is grossly misleading.
In case anyone else is interested the Australian website for Emily’s List is here: http://www.emilyslist.org.au/
loading...
I am a female member of the ALP and I worked for a Victorian Member of Parliament when the 2008 legislation was passed. To say that the laws support full term abortion is hyperbole in the extreme. The current legislation allows women to terminate up to 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, any terminations need to be signed off on at least 2 doctors and counselling etc needs to be completed. It is extremely rare for this to occur and would only be in the case of severe, life threatening medical conditions for the unborm baby or the mother.
I will also say this – no-one is every ‘pro-abortion’. They are pro-choice. There is a big, long chasm between the two.
Also, Emily’s List is a group within the Labor Party that promotes the ascension of female Labor MP’s. That is all. Because the Labor part is the ‘left of centre’ side of politics and because they’re concerned with women and women’s issues, they tend to be progressive. That is why many of them also tend to be pro-choice. This is not a unifying feature of this group of women or a prerequisite to join OR any formal or informal pressure group within the party.
loading...
Jess2, you took the words out of my mouth: No one is “pro-abortion”
I think it’s very telling when people feel the need to use this term.
loading...
Thanks so much for clarifying that Jess2
loading...
I agree. What heartless soul would be PRO-abortion? What a ridiculous claim.
When I lived in Melbourne I used to pass the clinic near Jolimont Station every morning and see the huddled few outside the gate holding up a foetus in a jar and pictures and such and badgering the women who aproached the gate about what they were about to do.
They needed a security guard to escort people in and make sure they were not harassed. It was pitiful. I know people care about this issue, but until you are in the position where abortion becomes an option (last resort) you cannot know how it would feel for a woman to have to make that decision. I’m positive they don’t just say “oops I’m pregnant, oh doesn’t matter I’ll just make an appointment.”
The people who presume to judge these women have no right. They know nothing of the circumstances of the individual. Some people just don’t have a choice and then to have to be villified because of it…?
Let’s have some compassion here people. It’s a terrible thing that abortions have to be necessary at all, I would like to think I would never be in the position to have to choose that path for myself, but for those in different circumstances I know that it wouldn’t be an easy or flippant decision.
loading...
You are leaving out the fact that these 2 doctors have to agree that “it is appropriate, based on the women’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances” to abort at 24 weeks.
loading...
No I did not leave that out, I referred you to the Wikipedia article for further information.However you seem not to grasped the fact that the law now allows abortions after 24 weeks ( there is no limit on how late the abortion takes place) as long as 2 doctors agree that “it is appropriate , based on the women’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances”.
How can 2 doctors know for sure what someone’s future physical, psychological and social circumstances will be? Noone has a crystal ball to predict the future. It is clear that nothing needs to be wrong the baby, the mother just has to say she can’t afford a baby, or that she will be stressed, etc.
loading...
No I grasp it ok. But thank you for your concern.
loading...
So would you prefer a woman to not be able to access an abortion at all?
I think a doctor is more adept at making that decision than a government suggesting that it has no impact at all, and banning abortion (which is what you appear to be suggesting)
loading...
I think it’s that Catherine is concerned about the loopholes in the legislation to be able to have an abortion, and NOT that she prefers women to not be able to access one…
loading...
Catherine, do you think that health professionals enjoy giving Abortions, ESPECIALLY late-term ones? Who else should be instrumental in making that decision? The church?
loading...
I had a baby who was not diagnosed with congenital heart defects until 35 weeks gestation. At that point the cardiologist told me that if his heart defects had been found earlier termination would have been recommended as an option because his particular prognosis was poor, however as he had survived to near full term it was better for my mental health to continue the pregnancy. I can’t see where you get the idea that doctors are just going to willy-nilly agree to abortions for women who elect to no longer continue a pregnancy. Even if I had asked for a termination the subtext of our conversation implied that they would counsel against it at that point.
The one person I know who had a termination after 20 weeks did so because her daughter’s spina bifida was first found at 20 weeks, further testing and counselling was required before a termination would be performed and each day put her further and further past that “magic” 20 week date. Nothing would have made that process any faster
loading...
Linnea thanks for sharing your story, I can’t imagine how traumatic that must be (and continue to be) for both your situation and your friend’s.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was sent for amniocentesis as there was grave concerns for the condition of my baby. Thankfully the tests proved fine. However, I was dealt with by a public catholic hospital who, while the staff showed support throughout the process, constantly reminded me that I would not be allowed to have an abortion through their hospital if I was unhappy with the results and would have to make my own arrangements in regards to a referral to another hospital. I think I was told this on at least 6 different occasions during the couple of hours I was there. This was during week 16 of my pregnancy and all I could think was ‘what kind of alienation/judgement must a woman feel who has to go through this process at 20 plus weeks??? I was made to feel like a second class citizen and I hadn’t even spoken of my wishes should the test have been not good. And this was from a publicly funded bloody hospital that I was specifically referred to because they had the best state funding facilities to safely do the amniocentesis procedure.
So to me it is laughable when people infer that doctors are quick to agree to abortions.
loading...
Obviously you don’t trust doctors.
loading...
Thanks Catherine, you have made me feel happier about Julia Gillard.
I have been feeling very sad about losing Kevin, but I am so happy to know that Julia cares about some of the most vulnerable people in society; women who are pregnant, that for varying reasons feel they cannot continue the pregnancy.
loading...
HI Rainbow,
Yes I am sure some people agree with Julia Gillard’s position on abortion ( and be delighted with it) but not everyone does. People who are pro -life would appreciate knowing her stance on this issue.
loading...
Catherine,
The regulation of abortion is a state issue. It is regulated by the states.
Julia Gillard may have a stance on abortion, however you may be more interested to know your State Premier’s for actual policy change.
loading...
Gee I don’t even know Catherine but I seem to be accidentally standing up for her a lot in the last 5 minutes (lol). This is more a watch-out-for-double-standards rather than being pro or anti Gillard/Abbot:
Ok so, good call Anon about abortion being regulated at the state level and Julia obviousby being at the federal level.
BUT don’t forget Abbot’s also federal yet everyone always makes a fuss about his stance on abortion, when by this reasoning perhaps we shouldn’t..
loading...
There is good reason that people ‘make a fuss’ about Abbott and his stance on abortion. Firstly, he heavily promotes his OWN rigid stance on it, he has from the moment he entered parliament. Also, during his time as Health Minister he attempted to use his own personal stance to influence changes to policy surrounding contraception.
loading...
I think also the fuss of Abbot’s stance of the issue of abortion has been made because it involves the view of taking away the freedom for women to make a choice to practice something they believe.
In comparison Gillard’s view does not involve taken away a woman’s freedom to choose, therefore little fuss is to be had. Gillard’s view allows women’s to practice the beliefs and values they hold where as Abbot’s view involves taking this freedom away. Her view says yes if a woman’s makes the choice to have an abortion she is able to do so, his says even if a women’s should want to have this choice they should not be able to.
loading...
Well said Rainbow, couldn’t agree more!
loading...
ps Rainbow, yes pregnant women can be vulnerable. They can be coerced into having abortions by their parents, partners etc. This fact is even acknowledged by the research arm of PLanned PArenthood! Yet Emily’s List politicians would NOT support any ammendments offering protection from coercion such as a mandatory cooling off period, or mandatory counselling before undergoing an abortion.
As a psychologist I have met many women who deeply regret their abortions and who had them under duress.Self declared Pro choice NZ psychiatrist, Professor Ferguson found that post abortion women were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol problems( than women who carried their pregnancies to term) so I would think if people were interested in helping women and preserving their mental health, they would assist them in continuing their pregnancies .
loading...
Probably because mandatory cooling off periods and mandatory counselling are delaying tactics used by anti-choice groups in the hope of coercing women not to have abortions. However, we are going wildly off-topic here and are certainly not going to convince each other so feel free to have the final say.
loading...
Katherine , even the research arm of Planned PArenthood, (the Alan Guttmacher Institute) produces research stating that women are coerced into abortion. I have heard mothers say they forced their daughter to have an abortion, I have seen men nag their partners into having an abortion.
What is your reponse to that? We have evidence from Planned Parenthood ( major abortion providers) that women are coerced into abortion. Aren’t you interested in protecting the rights and mental health of women who do not want to have abortions, but are being compelled to do so?
Certainly members of emily’s List had no interest in providing women with any protection from being coerced into having an abortion. Furhermore, medical evidence was produced showing that the fetus can feel pain and an ammendment was put forward that it be mandatory that the fetus be given pain relief before being terminated. However, Emily’s List members voted against that too. Go to Hansard and you can see for yourselves.
loading...
You make some wild assertions about the experience of a woman who is considering undergoing an abortion procedure.
Some women (yes, perhaps some) experience coercion. However, this simply cannot be the experience of all women.
And I think its a ridculous response to suggest that all women cannot exercise independent thought as to the impact that a child will have on their own lives.
loading...
Anonymous
I did not post that all women experienced coercion.
loading...
Hi Anonymous, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research Arm of Planned Parenthood ( major abortion provider) found that 30% of women reported being coerced into having an abortion, so what about giving women some protection from coercion?
loading...
HI Sarah
Partial birth abortions are legal in Victoria. I believe an ammendment was put forward to ban them but the ammendment did not get enough support.
loading...
So we have a new term now: “Anti-Choice”? – I don’t think it’s appropriate.
loading...
The abortion thread on this post has been thoroughly done. Can I please ask that we move on.
loading...
Catherine, have you even checked the Emily’s List website (which someone kindly linked to earlier)? In the “what we believe in” section, under “choice” it says the following:
“We believe women must have control over their own bodies and choices in their lives. Reproductive Freedom empowers women and men to choose if, when and how to begin the important journey into parenthood, without fear of discrimination, coercion or violence.”
loading...
Thank you Rainbow, well said.
loading...
Emily’s List is not just for LABOR Female candidates. if you look at their website, you will see that they have many members who are not from the Labor party.
loading...
To paraphrase Barack Obama, I don`t think there`s anyone who`s actually `pro- abortion`. Do you honestly think Julia Gillard is going to encourage every pregnant woman to go out and get an abortion? That is no-one`s goal, not hers, not Emily`s list, not anyone in the `pro abortion` Lobby because there is no `pro-abortion` lobby. There is a pro-choice lobby, who work to ensure women can have access to an abortion IF they want/need it. You don`t want an abortion- that`s great. But other women might.
loading...
“If they want/need it”- there’s an important difference between wanting and needing. Women should definitely be able to have access to an abortion if they need it. Not sure about if they want it though..
loading...
Catherine what is your position and what does it have to do with Australia’s newest PM?
What exactly is the point of you bringing Emily’s list into this forum?
The post is entitled: “julia-gillard-australias-first-female-pm” – i’m not sure what your point is nor your facts are based.
A childless politician must be for abortion because she has no children?
Why are you bringing US politics/ policy into this?
http://www.coloradoblueflowerfund.org/julia-george.html
aka aussieyogachic
loading...
Mia’s summary of Julia Gillard’s life and achievements notes her involvement with Emily’s List, but the platform of the organisation was not clearly stated in Mia’s article
If Julia Gillard is a member of Emily’s List then I assume she supports their platform; one plank of their platform is that they are pro abortion.
Emily’s List also exists in America and it was an illustration of how Emily’s List operates.
I do not care whether or not Julia Gillard has children, that has no relevance to this dicussion, and you are the one who is raising that point not me.
loading...
I too am concerned that apparently Julia Gillard was a co-founder of Emily’s List in Australia. Yes Emily’s List is “pro-abortion”, no matter whether they stipulate “pro-choice” being the correct term. They are not ANTI-abortion, are they?
In Victoria now, we allow late-term abortion – even up until birth. Requested amendments to the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, such as anaesthesia, a ban on partial-birth abortions and other humane amendments were all rejected!!
From Emily’s List site:-
“EMILY’s List is confident that EMILY’s List and other pro-choice MPs have worked hard through the
negotiation process to secure the fullest possible expression of pro-choice principles in the Abortion Law
Reform Bill 2008.”
“We encourage the Parliament to reject any amendments which seek to place additional restrictions on
access to abortion. Such restrictions denigrate women’s decision making capability. They are regressive, and
not in line with the aims of the legislation, nor community attitudes on this issue” said Ms Rayner.
One can only assume that Julia Gillard must have supported the bill in its entirity, as she did not speak out against it to my knowledge.
loading...
Are you implying that being NOT anti-abortion you are automatically pro-abortion? The issue is not that black and white!!
Personally I am pro-choice. This is because I firmly believe I have zero right to force my beliefs or values on another person, I believe each and every person should be free to have their own beliefs and values and be free to practice these. I am not anti-abortion but I am not pro-abortion either. I believe that each and every woman should be able to make the choice of whether or not to have (and when) an abortion themselves.
This is my belief and I believe you are free to have yours but I do not think you can assume that when people’s view are different to your own that they are directly opposite. It would be extremely extremely hard to find a person who would call themselves ‘pro-abortion’ which is what you implied but you statement -”They are not ANTI-abortion, are they?”
loading...
Well said and totally agree ….
loading...
Perfectly said. My best mate and I were discussing an abortion thread that was on here a few months ago. She is a very committed Christian, and is completely anti-abortion, however she is pro-choice. Because she realises that although SHE would never have an abortion, SHE is not in anyone else’s position except her own. She also pointed out that should her son (who is 2) get someone pregnant at 14, under current law she or the girl’s parents could NOT force an abortion, nor could they FORCE the baby to be born. She is also not overly distressed (although perhaps a bit saddened) by the fact that I had an abortion years ago.
loading...
Catherine, I’ve watched this topic unfold within the context of the commentary about our new PM.
My questions for you – and Ms Gillard if I ever have the chance- are these:
What is your position on capital punishmentt?
Can you tell me how many women and children die in childbirth each year – world wide?
Should those who love life, also wage war?
Thank-you
loading...
Hi Margi, I am opposed to capital punishment.
I do not have the stats for how many women and children die in childbirth each year but I am sure many women and infants in third world countries die because they do not have access to appropriate medical care such as midwifery, caesaereans etc.
I personally support the Hamlin Aid and Fistula Trust, run by an Australian Doctor Catharine Hamlin. She cares for Ethopian women who have been left incontinent of faeces and urine post childbirth and provides obstetric care for these women should they become pregnant again.
loading...
And war? What about war Catherine?
Should we send young men and women to war?
Should we send people out into the world, with the specific task of killing others?
loading...
Very few people are “pro-abortion”. I assume however you are referring to people who are pro-choice, which is quite different to being pro-abortion.
Pro-choicers believe that each woman should be relatively free to follow their own ethical beliefs concerning the termination or continuation of a pregnancy. They recognize that there is a diversity of beliefs about abortion access, and that the government should not attempt to enforce a common belief system on all pregnant women.
I assume you would not appreciate someone forcing you to not practice something in which you believe you should be able to do.
loading...
Catherine, I believe the term you’re looking for is pro-choice.
I know nobody who is pro-abortion.
loading...
Hi Mia,
When we are looking at a life issue e.g. say the death penalty, one is either for the death penalty, or against the death penalty. If I say, I personally wouldn’t electrocute that felon but if you want to kill him, I won’t stand in your way, I can hardly say I was against the death penalty as I let someone be killed, I didn’t object, I didn’t try to save the victim.
Could I say I was anti slavery, If I said”I personally wouldn’t keep a slave, I think it is wrong but if other peoples’consciences tell them it is alright to keep slaves, then I should stand idly by, ,mind my own business and do nothing”.
I am not trying to offend anyone here, I am just explaining how I feel about this issue. Science says life begins at conception. Human life is being ended.
loading...
Well said Catherine! I’m with you…
loading...
Looking at something like the death penalty is completely different. That person on death-row has an established personhood.
While it is your belief that life begins at conception you are definitely well within your right to believe that. Science does not state life begins at conception. There is not a consensus on when personhood begins, nor should there be as people should be able to make the choice on what they believe.There are varying views on when life does begin which include (taken from religioustolerance.org):
It happens at conception. because that is when a unique DNA first appears.
Some believe it happens very shortly after conception when the ovum first divides and becomes a pair of cells. This is the first evidence that the pre-embryo is truly alive.
A case has been made, based on a biblical theme, that personhood begins when blood first appears in the pre-embryo at perhaps 18 days after conception.
Most pro-choicers say that personhood happens later in pregnancy. Some say that it happens:
When the embryo loses its tail and looks vaguely human;
When the fetus’ face begins to look fully human;
After 21 weeks gestation
When the fetus is viable — able to survive outside its mother’s body with current medical technology;
At about 26 weeks, when the fetal brain’s higher functions are first activated and the fetus attains consciousness;
When the fetus half-emerges from is/her mother’s body.
At birth, when the fetus becomes apart from her/his mother — a newborn.
When the newborn’s umbilical cord is cut and she or he is breathing as an independent, separate person.
loading...
Sorry just re-read my first few paragraphs, there was extremely bad grammar, just did a quick edit.
loading...
An embryo’s heart begins to beat at I think eight weeks – it could even be earlier. With current technology (ultrasound) we can see fully-formed little babies moving about in their mother’s wombs very early on. They are unique individuls, not a part of their mother – with their own chromosones, blood-group etc. They are not a part of their mother’s body – they are a little body inside another body – in what should be the safest place in the world – their mother’s womb. Oh, but what an unsafe place that has now become! We know that babies can live outside the womb at four-five months! For goodness sake – isn’t it obvious that to abort a fetus at this stage is downright killing an innocent life, ie murder!! Anyone who condones this is not pro-choice, but pro-death…
loading...
Just to clarify as I did state, the varying views I posted in my previous post were taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/. I.e I do not hold all the views, that would be quite silly and I would contradict myself.
The statement made from ‘religioustolerance’ : “After 21 weeks gestation: When the fetus is viable — able to survive outside its mother’s body with current medical technology” Is one view, it is not a view all pro-choicers share, as I stated there is not a consensus on when personhood starts nor should there be, people should be free to believe what they choose to.
Your statement: “They are not a part of their mother’s body – they are a little body inside another body” In my view, not sure if others would agree but I would say the existence of the ‘umbilical cord’ would argue with your statement that the fetus is not a part of their mother’s body. An umbilical cord “is a connecting cord from the developing embryo or fetus to the placenta”, which a placenta is “an organ that connects the developing fetus to the uterine wall to allow nutrient uptake, waste elimination, and gas exchange via the mother’s blood supply”.
Your other statement: “For goodness sake – isn’t it obvious that to abort a fetus at this stage is downright killing an innocent life, ie murder!! Anyone who condones this is not pro-choice, but pro-death…” No it is not obvious that that abort a fetus at the stage of gestation of 21 weeks. It is definitely arguable that it is the killing of an innocent life when you arguing to the point that was made was that there is a view held by some of that personhood (i.e life) only starts after this period (21 weeks) so not it is not ‘obvious’.
As I have stated many times tonight, pro-choicers believe that each woman should be relatively free to follow their own ethical beliefs concerning the termination or continuation of a pregnancy. Condoning the belief that personhood is only starts after 21 weeks of gestation is being pro-choice, it is condoning that a person holds this view and allows them the free to practice this belief.
I find your statement “pro-death” extremely offensive, in condoning this belief it is not promoting death. I have said and I will say it again, in holding this belief that personhood i.e life only begins after this period, the belief is that undergoing an abortion before 21 weeks is not committing murder nor does a death occur.
As I said I am pro-choice. I firmly believe I have zero right to force my beliefs or values on another person, I believe each and every person should be free to have their own beliefs and values and be free to practice these. I am not anti-abortion but I am not pro-abortion either. I believe that each and every woman should be able to make the choice to have an abortion or not to, and they should be able to make the choice of when this is abortion occurs.
loading...
Catherine, I respect and appreciate your opinions.
But I am Pro-Choice and I understand that its certainly not a simple choice. This is a very personal issue and I do not think it is fair for people who have gone through Abortion for THEIR OWN REASONS to be faced with arguments such as this in the forum of a blog.
loading...
I also prefer the terms pro- and anti-choice. Like Mia (and others) have pointed out none of us (even us evil people who have had abortions) are pro-abortion. We are pro the choice to have an abortion or not, and do what is best for you in your situation.
loading...
Completely right Kris2040. People make the choices that are right for them. I see nothing wrong with that. Props to you for never shying away from sharing your own experiences x
loading...
Catherine, you say you ‘are not trying to offend anyone’. Well, you doing a great impression of someone who is setting out to provoke/offend. I think you have more than said your piece here. Given that this post is not even about abortion, I hope you will call it a day
Peacexx
loading...
Miss Fifi,
How can you put PeaceXX at the end of that comment?
Catherine is expressing her concerns about the new Prime Minister being pro-abortion. She is not setting out to provoke/offend. And this being a free country (I think) she has the right to say what she wants and as many times as she wants! This post is about political issues, and abortion is a political issue. And as Kris states “I prefer the term pro-choice and anti-choice” – that’s because they sound more pleasant than the reality. The Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 removed the true terms “Child Destruction” from the act – also because it didn’t sound pleasant. The term “Pro-Life” expresses respect for life of the innocent unborn as well as the life of the mother – whose life can also be destroyed psychologically and physically through the act of abortion, which is not always their choice when under extreme distress.
loading...
‘she is not setting out to provoke/offend’ – No, but you are. Next time you decide to put a link in a post through to a You Tube anti-abortion website have the decency to title the post to indicate to the viewer what exactly they are being made privy to – you risk unnecessarily upsetting some women who have already had to live through the trauma.
loading...
I put ‘peacexxx’ at the end of my comment, because that is what i want. If the result was otherwise, then I apologise. I feel that the abortion issue has been discussed from every possible angle here and with so many view points at opposite ends of the spectrum, consensus is not going to be reached.
I’m only asking that we respect there are differing view points on the issue, and move on xx
loading...
Mia – can you get this nutter Catherine off the comments?
She is really offensive.
This doesnt feel like the appropriate place to have an anti-abortionist ranting and raving and taking over
loading...
Sam,
YOU are offensive in calling Catherine a ‘nutter’. As Julia Gillard is a co-founder of Emily’s List which supports late-term abortion (without anaesthetic, and allows for partial-birth abortion) – this is a very relevant political topic here, as this woman is now the Prime Minister of our country! In my opinion you are being abusive and discriminatory about people whose views differ from yours, yet this is supposedly a democratic nation!
loading...
Amen. By the way Mia, I suggest talking to Tanja Kovac, the National Co-ordinaor of Emily’s List (nationalcoordinator@emilyslist.org.au). I sent her a link to your Twitter call out for someone connected with Emily’s List.
loading...
Catherine, it’s simple. If you are so anti-abortion just make sure YOU don’t have one.
loading...
Hitting reply here because i am not scrolling alllllll theeeee waaaaay to the top through all the anti-choice agenda pushing preachy blow-ins back to the top (hello Cos though).
Just want to say Catherine how come this is announced so dramatically like we are supposed to be upset? Personally i am pro-choice like the majority of Australian’s are. (yes, they are whether you like it or admit it or accept it, they are. We wouldn’t have legal abortion if the Australian’s were clamouring for it to be gone, i have a low opinion of politicians and i’m sure that they will do near anything for votes and if being anti-choice was what people wanted then politicians would be pushing for it. I do not accept that the parliament is just somehow so out of touch with what people want. Face facts. Majority rules).
So really i’m THRILLED i hope that Emily’s list, whatever the real story, is helping pro-choice women into parliament because i want my rights protected.
Now, where was that Emily’s List web address….i hope they take paypal….
loading...
Catherine, in the spirit of fairness, can you please declare any movement or political or counsel group or other relevant affiliations? Apologies if you have stated them above by i can’t wade through it all.
We are getting alot of blow-ins when certain topics are trending here who when pressed it suddenly turns out they have affiliations to the movement. As someone so well informed you know exactly what i am talking about, even if you’re not part of it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mama Mia is on some kind of hit list. The polite, firm organised and well-informed (sometimes questionably and selectively) comments that strike at certain times are just too much of a coincidence for me.
You proud of the lies and manipulations of the movement associated with your cause? I wouldn’t be. I know what parts of the pro-choice movement i dislike and i don’t pretend they don’t exist. You would be doing your cause, or movement if you are part of the movement, a favor if you declare yourself. People would respect your honesty and insight and experience. What we don’t like is a co-ordinated attack by people who just ‘happen’ to be dropping in.
Me? No formal affiliations of any sort. Only club i’ve ever been part of was Brownies. Studied a BA, nothing to do with feminism or anything like that. Never worked, volunteered or handed out flyers for any pro-choice anything or politicians. Simply a concerned citizen worried about my rights who keeps an eye on the relevant news.
If you say you too are a concerned citizen then fine with me. But if you’re not and you lie you are only hurting your cause by perpetrating dishonesty.
loading...
Hi Apples,
I am a clinical psychologist and therefore in the course of my work I see women both pre and post abortion ( and I am not working for any pro-life organisation).
I have heard many women’s experiences of being pressured into having an abortion by their parents, partners etc. I have seen women heart broken and sobbing about an abortion they regret that took place 20-30 even 40 years ago. Some of these women have told me that they received little or no information about the possible physical and psychological rammifications of having an abortion.
I know that some women who “choose”to have an abortion are in desperate or difficult circumstances, e.g. domestic violence, badgering husbands/partners who do not want another child,or lacking practical,financial and/or emotional support. I believe more should be done to support pregant women and single mothers. I believe abortion is a poor option.
Do people ever reflect on how abortion is a man’s “get out of jail free card”? I dated a doctor once and he told me on the first date how he was in a casual relationship with woman and the wicked woman got pregnant and refused to have an abortion. Thus the poor man(sarcasm), who by the way did not use a condom LOL, ended up paying child support for the next 18 years. He had no concern for any ill effects the woman might have sustained from the abortion as long as his life was not inconvenienced in any way.
loading...
hmmmm…..Catherine – I have to say I find it rather puzzling that a clinical psychologist uses restrictive terms such as ‘pro-abortion’ and ‘pro-life’ as the ONLY two ways to describe a women’s view on this issue.
loading...
Catherine,
Curious to know what amendments you’re suggesting to protect women from coercive partners? Also wondering why your concern is only with female politicians potentially blocking these amendments?
loading...
Also, can you please tell us what has drawn you to Mama Mia tonight? I understand that on abortion related posts it draws visitors with only an interest in the topic not the blog. That’s fine, special interest people come to various topics that interest them and add hugely to the general and usual commenters with speciality knowledge and views and are very welcome.
But this was a pleasant discussion about politics and then BAM here comes some never before seen commenter highly informed on abortion seeking to discuss abortion in a general context hanging it by a THREAD on the new PM? A quick “JG Emily List” attempt at relevancy and we’re off.
It’s very suspicious. You want to talk abortion in a related thread, declare yourself honestly and let’s talk. But this feels like a hijacking and not only is it irritating it is actually unhelpful to your cause. This is not the time or thread for this discussion. Again, speaking of tactics if you have to infilitrate and disrupt perfectly congenial discussions on largely unrelated topics you need to re-consider your approach. It is winning you no fans and is bad manners (aren’t you supposed to be polite anyway you lot?).
I hate to use the world troll but there it is. And just like you shouldn’t feed the trolls, this conversation is over. Please, everyone else ignore these people.
I am not trying to shut down your points or your discussion. Happy to discuss this, when you are honest about who you are are represent. But this is not the appropriate time.
Quit the hijacking we are on to you. You will wear out your welcome on the relevant posts if this continues.
Look forward to debating with you on a relevant post in the future.
Goodnight.
loading...
Hi Apples,
I was bored and otherwise unoccupied on a Friday so I thought I would pop in and see what Mia was discussing.Actually I have posted on this site a number of times before, but not super regularly, as I have a life outside of internet blogs.
There is no conspiracy here, I am just exercising my right to free speech. You do your side of the debate a disservice by seeing reds under the beds”when there are none. There is no need to be frightened by the exchange of differing viewpoints.’Mia’s site would be incredibly boring if we all posted endlessly on how we all totally agreed with each other.
I am very interested in Julia Gillard and I think she is a very intelligent, skilled politician.I am glad Australia has reached a point where a woman can be Prime Minister. I am just pointing out what she believes in. Given that the vast majority of voters are pro abortion I am probably doing her a favour by highlighting her stance on this issue. Hey , was it you or someone else on this blog who was running off to make a donation to Emily’s List thanks to my comments.
Julia said she wanted to protect the weak and defenceless when she became Prime Minister and I am pointing out she is not protecting the unborn. I am not stopping others from blogging about other aspects of Julia.
loading...
Catherine this blog seems to be getting regularly hijacked by pro-abortion people. This is off-topic the thread of relevancy you are trying to hang this on about protecting everyone or Emily’s list is weak. At best this is simply you using this as a sounding board for entrenched views which you have no interest in properly debating with people, you are clearly here to convince not discuss, because you are bored. At best. Even if this is true save it for a relevant post. I have many views on many things and i don’t go ‘so seeing we have a new PM and she has the power to change laws lets have a massive distracting discussion about the death penalty or the road rules or whatever.
If you really want to get your info across then you will do better to save it for a relevant post as the more you drag threads way off topic the more people who came here to hopefully discuss the closely related issues to what just happened or what the post is will simply be put off and leave and never come back and they wont be here when this issue genuinely comes up and you will find yourself talking to an audience of none.
Again, happy to hear from you but don’t like having to scroll through a massive off-topic abortion crusade argument when trying to follow what people are saying about the topic. This is rude.
loading...
Perhaps worthy of consideration is that women who abort are more likely to become depressed, anxious and have drug and alcohol problems than women who carry their pregnancies to term is because the anti-abortion movement are so prolific at inducing the ‘guilt’ factor onto these women (using emotive words such as ‘murder’), as is a large section of general society. You can also add to that the confronting, involved process these women are subjected to in order to be able to gain access to an abortion. And lastly, perhaps it’s because they are saddened that what was meant to be a positive, beautiful pregnancy/motherhood experience was tarnished by the ill-health of the baby and/or mother.
loading...
Anon, I am sure Professor Fergusson and other psychiatrists/psychologists doing research into this area are trying to tease out what factors are involved in post abortive women’s adverse mental health outcomes.
loading...
Catherine may I ask how did you turn the statement made by Apples “Personally i am pro-choice like the majority of Australian’s are.” to your “I would agree with you that most people are pro abortion.” Apples did NOT say pro-abortion instead she said pro-choice, she is NOT saying most Australian are for abortion instead she is saying that most Australians are for the CHOICE of having one.
I will say it again, no-one or at least very very very few people are pro-abortion(if there was an underline button on here I would underline that).It is about being pro-choice (again I would underline this), which says ‘I believe a woman should be able to make the choice to have an abortion should they want/need to’ AND ‘I believe I do NOT have the right to tell some other woman that a choice in which is available to them in the country/state they live in, should not be available to them’.
I assume you would not appreciate being told by someone else you should not have the choice to have a, say for a loose example… hip replacement surgery because it was against that person’s beliefs yet it is not against yours.
Pingback: julia: a few talking points for the weekend. | Sarah Wilson
loading...
Her voice is softer and she seems much warmer these past 2 days but there was still a shrillness evident in Julia Gillard’s press conference when she spoke about things like hard-working, working families. I know about hard-working, working families, I came from one too. But Julia Gillard uses this stuff like an honour badge and a weapon.
Until she becomes a consensus politician in the manner of Bob Hawke and until she can manage and oversee proper economic reforms like both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, she will not get my vote. She may try to distance herself from Kevin Rudd but she was there alongside him (through good days and bad) as part of his unity ticket.
Julia Gillard needs to be Prime Minister for all Australians and show that she is above class warfare and understands how to run a country (a little better than she did with her BER). And most important she has to show that what she has to offer is more than just a better style of communication.
loading...
How about we just give her a chance to see what she will do. She’s only been in the job for a day and already people are forming opinions about her. I belive the position of Deputy Pm is quite different to that of PM, so let’s see how she goes at that and not judge her on the shrillness of her voice and a half hour press conference given only minutes after she became leader.
Why can’t she use the “hard working families” card as a badge of honour. Isn’t that a good thing? If she said she was from a well-to-do family and never had to struggle for anything what would that say about her character? What would people be saying about her then?
You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.
loading...
I hope that we hear more about Ms Gillard and what she stands for, how she is going to run the country better than her predecessor rather than talk about what she is wearing today and the colour of her hair. I would prefer that she had become the first female Australian prime minister by winning an election. I hope she uses this time to prove to us that she is more than capable of running our country because she is good at her job, not just because she is a woman. I don’t like Mr Rudd and what he stands for, however I feel sorry for him having his job ripped away from him overnight. As much as I don’t agree with him, I believe him when he said he did his best and I think he really believed in what he was doing.