|
Post by sandmangeorge on Sept 4, 2005 23:02:08 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by hmm on Sept 14, 2005 1:11:06 GMT 10
Interesting how Guy hasn't mentioned the anti-abortion support clinic since.
|
|
guys antiabortion clinic
Guest
|
Post by guys antiabortion clinic on Sept 26, 2005 3:17:56 GMT 10
any more news in this?
|
|
|
Post by World Vision Guy on Oct 1, 2005 18:59:57 GMT 10
Got his mind on other things.
|
|
did guys fingers get burnt
Guest
|
Post by did guys fingers get burnt on Oct 5, 2005 17:43:47 GMT 10
Thank God for that. Permanently I hope.
|
|
|
Post by world vision guy on Oct 8, 2005 11:31:43 GMT 10
He is the same caring Guy as he has always been.
He is an ambassador for World Vision and has supported Merry Makers, Mercy Missions, Youth Alive and stacks of others. There are very few other celebrities that work as tirelessly for charities as him.
|
|
|
Post by anti abortion Guy on Oct 16, 2005 6:05:43 GMT 10
Please stick to those charities, Guy!
|
|
|
Post by wonderful Guy on Oct 18, 2005 19:57:49 GMT 10
he's doing wonderful things. he's our great Guy.
|
|
|
Post by SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY on Dec 20, 2005 18:16:47 GMT 10
Abortion drug ban debated in Senate The World Today - Thursday, 15 December , 2005 Reporter: Catherine McGrath KAREN PERCY: The Senate inquiry into the abortion pill, set up to examine the appropriateness or otherwise of the drug RU-486 as a treatment is instead revisiting the entire question of abortion in Australia. The hearing panel is dominated by those who are against abortion. This morning, Family First Senator Steve Fielding and the Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce were focusing on the 'right to life' issues, while outside the hearing another Queensland National, Senator Ron Boswell, described RU-486 as the 'worst possible way to have an abortion'. Supporters of the drug want it to be assessed for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and this morning the Australian Medical Association outlined why it believes it's safe and appropriate for use in this country. From Canberra Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath reports. CATHERINE MCGRATH: To allow in or ban RU-486, the so-called 'abortion pill', is an explosive issue and as Victorian Nation al Party Senator Julian McGauran explained when he arrived in Parliament, most on the Committee have already made up their mind. JULIAN MCGAURAN: We want to know the medical effects of RU-486, but there's an underlying issue and that's whether you're pro- or anti-abortion. You can't get away from that. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Using Julian McGauran's terminology, Democrats leader Lyn Alison is pro-abortion and she's pushed for RU-486 to be considered for approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. LYN ALLISON: Overseas, roughly 50 per cent of women choose a medical option rather than surgical and I can understand the reason for that. That avoids having an anaesthetic and it's something that can be done in the privacy of one's home. CATHERINE MCGRATH: On the other side, Senator Ron Boswell was asked what he thinks of RU-486. RON BOSWELL: The worst possible way to have an abortion. CATHERINE MCGRATH: And on this issue, Barnaby Joyce is right beside his Senate leader. BARNABY JOYCE: This is an issue that is… it's not just a health issue, it's an issue that deals with the lives of two people, one, we know that there are some serious consequences for if they get the prescription wrong and of course the life of the other person is terminated. CATHERINE MCGRATH: When the Committee opened, Senators Joyce, Boswell and Fielding wanted to focus on the anti-abortion issues, but not before the Australian Medical Association had outlined its case. "RU-486 is safe for Australian use," the group says, "as long as it's given under medical supervision." Recently the AMA changed its position of RU-486, as AMA President Mukesh Haikerwal explained. MUKESH HAIKERWAL: In this revision we took great care to make no judgment about the rights and wrongs of abortion, as many of our members do not support abortion. However, we all support the need for where abortion is legal, for it to be performed safely and to the highest possible standard to ensure that women who choose this option do not suffer unnecessary harm. The change to our position statement was made because we believe the necessary research on non-surgical forms of abortion has been done and has reassured us that the risks to women of using RU-486 is acceptably low. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Family First Senator Steve Fielding had questions about the procedure and how women would cope. STEVE FIELDING: Would the AMA draw up guidelines for women about how to dispose of their foetus at home and what options do they have? ANDREW PESCE: I'm an obstetrician and gynaecologist, I take about seven or eight women a week who book in for pregnancy. One or two of them turn up and have a miscarriage. Sometimes they've turned up and they've miscarried at home. I understand what you're saying, it must be very, very distressing to miscarry at home, planned or unplanned. We don't currently have any guidelines as to what to do with foetal tissue that's miscarried. I don't think the AMA would involve itself in making recommendations across the board. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Dr Andrew Pesce. Ron Boswell quoted more than once from a letter he'd received from a Northern Territory doctor. RON BOSWELL: David Gawler was a surgeon, or is surgeon at the Royal Darwin Hospital and he's written to all the Senators outlining the concerns of RU-486. He consults regularly in remote Aboriginal communities. Dr Gawler says that RU-486 in rural and remote locations is not ill-considered, but dangerous. I take it you don't agree with Dr Gawler. MUKESH HAIKERWAL: Senator, no… in the context where there is no follow-up surgical facilities available it would not be used. RU-486 is a medication which would be used under the same strict guidance as surgical terminations, because there is a need for surgical intervention in five per cent of women. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Dr Mukesh Haikerwal. Next year the issue of RU 486 will be decided in the Parliament. KAREN PERCY: Catherine McGrath reporting there. www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1531832.htm
|
|
|
Post by SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY on Dec 20, 2005 18:19:09 GMT 10
Abortion cool-off plan under fireBernadette Condren 17dec05 A MANDATORY three-day cooling-off period for women who want an abortion would stigmatise and disadvantage them, a leading Brisbane obstetrician said on Friday. National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists vice-president David Molloy was responding to comments this week by Family First senator Steve Fielding, who called for the cooling-off period after urging the Federal Government to make it mandatory for GPs to provide independent counselling to a woman wanting a termination. Dr Molloy said the proposal was troubling. "It's demeaning for women," Dr Molloy said. "They're saying that you can't have a publicly funded termination with Medicare unless there's evidence that you've had a talk with a doctor and you've had a cooling-off period." Children by Choice spokeswoman Cait Calcutt agreed that mandatory counselling was not appropriate. "Counselling services that offer women information and support on all options should be available to women who feel they need to access them," she said. "But most women are competent decision-makers and they can make this often difficult decision with family and friends and may not need professionals." Ms Calcutt also said women in Tasmania had been prescribed the anti-cancer drug methotrexate in the past because of lack of access to surgical terminations. Yesterday, The Courier-Mail revealed that the powerful chemotherapy drug was being prescribed for use in conjunction with the anti-ulcer misoprostol for medical terminations. The revelation came amid an ongoing discussion about the banned abortifacient RU-486, currently the topic of a Senate debate. The issue will be put before Parliament next year for a conscience vote on lifting the ban. Ms Calcutt said the availability of RU-486 in large regional centres such as Mt Isa would benefit many women. "Surgical abortion isn't readily available there and women have to travel a long way to Townsville or Cairns," she said. "Here, RU-486 is a very viable alternative because there are medical practioners and there are emergency hospital facilities if there are complications." www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17593028%255E953,00.html
|
|
|
Post by leebella on Dec 30, 2005 13:47:01 GMT 10
The Courier-Mail December 1, 2005 RU486 is a unique drug in that no other drug is designed to end a human life, and so its importation demands a unique level of public accountability. That is the answer to the recurring question put to me this week by MPs and senators: Why should this drug require special approval by the federal health minister, when all other drugs are simply assessed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)? RU486 is out there on its own. You may think the life of a very young human being matters, or think that it does not, but there is no dispute scientifically that after using RU-486, where there once was a tiny beating heart and an unfolding human destiny, there is now death. That is unique, and of deep public concern. Further, all other drugs are designed to treat a specific medical condition, but not RU486. Pregnancy is not a disease; RU486 is used on the entirely healthy offspring of entirely healthy women. That is unique, and medically unjustifiable. That is why in 1996, when the current arrangements were set in place, both Labor and the Coalition supported Senator Brian Harradine's amendment that required the responsible minister to confirm any importation of RU486. In 1996, a former senator, Belinda Neal, spoke on behalf of Labor with a moral seriousness lacking in the current debate: We acknowledge that this issue raises large concerns within the community. It raises issues beyond purely health issues. These issues need to be addressed by the executive of this government and addressed with absolute and direct accountability. The parliament in 1996 aimed to prevent recurrence of the debacle in 1994 where a junior official in the health department approved the importation of RU486 without the minister's knowledge. Fast forward a decade, and the Democrat amendment to remove the need for ministerial "signing off" is nothing more than an undoing of this accountability, so once more a departmental lackey can approve RU486 without the minister taking responsibility or the parliament knowing. This parliament is not being asked to vote on the merits of RU486, but only on a Democrat amendment which undermines, for ideological reasons, proper ministerial accountability on a matter of public importance. It would be a triumph of underhandedness over transparency in our public life. And remember, RU486 has never been banned and can be imported tomorrow if a genuine medical need exists. If RU486 was being imported for treatment of brain cancer or Cushing's syndrome, or even for those rare situations where abortion is medically essential to prevent grave physical harm to the mother, that should be approved. But we are not being asked to import this drug on medical grounds, to treat a disease or for authentic medical abortions, but on ideological grounds - a matter of "increasing choice", as the AMA's Dr Mukesh Haikerwal puts it, in the context of social abortion for reasons of financial or emotional distress. The medical profession and the government should draw the line at importing a medication when there is no authentic medical condition to be treated. And both the profession and the government should instead be diverting their energies to relieving the underlying social pressures that drive women to abortion, rather than treating social problems with a chemical. Just over a week ago in Brisbane 700 women gathered to demand this sort of constructive approach. Melinda Tankard Reist, spokeswoman for Womens Forum Australia, said: We've got all this political will to give women a drug, a poisonous drug, a chemical cocktail, to abort their pregnancies. What about some political will into providing them with support and bringing about structural changes so that they can have their children and don't have to have unwanted abortions? RU486 is a uniquely complex social challenge and its fate should be decided by those elected to judge on matters of public concern - not by bureaucrats dealing only with sterile technical matters of safety and efficacy. If parliament votes to dodge responsibility, by supporting the Democrat amendment, it will by timid default give its imprimatur to the misguided and unjustifiable practice of abortion on demand for non-medical reasons. Instead of addressing the root cause of those social abortions through creative social policy initiative, it will callously permit a human pesticide to be inflicted on mothers and their babies, a drug which will be part of this terrible disease, not part of the cure. Dr David van Gend is a family doctor in Toowoombawww.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3914
|
|
|
Post by leebella on Dec 30, 2005 13:51:23 GMT 10
The Australian Renate Klein: Abortion drug not the safest methodDecember 09, 2005 I AM not a Catholic. I am not a man. I am not a right-to-lifer. But I oppose the abortion drug RU486. I am a long-time feminist and health activist who is committed to women's access to safe and legal abortion and I am getting exasperated with the pro-choice movement's simplistic message about RU486. It is not safe and it will not expand women's choices. A well-tried and simple abortion method exists: suction abortion. It is done in a doctor's surgery and it is over in minutes. If complications occur, emergency treatment is at hand. Compared with this, RU486 is messy and unpredictable. RU486 tablets and prostaglandin, taken two days later, can draw out the abortion process to two weeks or more with bleeding, nausea, vomiting and painful contractions. One in 10 women will then need a dilation and curettage to complete the abortion. Ironically, as Australian pro-RU486 lobbying is reaching fever pitch, discussions in medical circles about the deaths of five women in the US and Canada after an RU486-prostaglandin abortion are increasing (there were two additional deaths in Britain and one in Sweden). No one is sure why these deaths occurred. The Canadian woman's death in 2001 was explained by pointing to the antiglucocorticoid effect of RU486, which weakens a woman's immune system, making it impossible for her to fight bacteria and leading to septic shock and rapid death. Canada stopped the trial and RU486 (Mifeprix) is not licensed. Conversely, in California, the four deaths were first attributed to contaminated prostaglandin tablets (in contravention of the approved US Food and Drug Administration protocol, a woman is given the prostaglandin tablets to insert into her vagina instead of returning to a doctor's surgery and taking them orally). But this hypothesis has been disregarded; the tablets were tested and were not contaminated. So the experts are back to the drawing board. All they can offer is a warning to women that an RU486-prostaglandin abortion may incur an infection. (One wonders if they will tell them that healthy women have died.) But the symptoms of infection are exactly the same as those that follow an RU486-prostaglandin abortion: nausea, vaginal bleeding, cramping and back pain. How is a woman to know if she is simply going through the drawn-out stages of the abortion or if her body is developing a life-threatening infection? Three lawsuits are in progress. And another worrying fact has come to light: as the cause of death of one of the Californian women the coroner stipulated cardiac arrest. Only when her family ordered a private autopsy was sepsis discovered as the cause of death. How many other deaths remain unattributed to RU486-prostaglandin abortion? And how many adverse effects remain unreported? In the US, reporting is not mandatory and the FDA considers that only 10 per cent of adverse effects of any drug are reported. As of October last year, official figures for RU486-prostaglandin abortion were 676 adverse effects, 17 ectopic pregnancies and 72 women requiring blood transfusions. If that is only 10 per cent, then the real figures are substantial. As Australians are increasingly going organic to limit the poisons we put into our bodies, how can anyone suggest that it is a good choice for women to do exactly that in an RU486-prostaglandin abortion? I suggest we stick with conventional suction abortion and demand of providers to do more for women who live in remote areas. Surely those using their conscience should vote against exposing Australian women to abortion drugs that can kill. Renate Klein, a biologist and social scientist, is co-author of RU486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals. She is an associate professor in women's studies at Deakin University in Melbourne. www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17506669%255E7583,00.html
|
|
|
Post by Social Abortion on Dec 31, 2005 16:00:50 GMT 10
The Courier-Mail December 1, 2005 RU486 is a unique drug in that no other drug is designed to end a human life, and so its importation demands a unique level of public accountability. That is the answer to the recurring question put to me this week by MPs and senators: Why should this drug require special approval by the federal health minister, when all other drugs are simply assessed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)? RU486 is out there on its own. You may think the life of a very young human being matters, or think that it does not, but there is no dispute scientifically that after using RU-486, where there once was a tiny beating heart and an unfolding human destiny, there is now death. That is unique, and of deep public concern. Further, all other drugs are designed to treat a specific medical condition, but not RU486. Pregnancy is not a disease; RU486 is used on the entirely healthy offspring of entirely healthy women. That is unique, and medically unjustifiable. That is why in 1996, when the current arrangements were set in place, both Labor and the Coalition supported Senator Brian Harradine's amendment that required the responsible minister to confirm any importation of RU486. In 1996, a former senator, Belinda Neal, spoke on behalf of Labor with a moral seriousness lacking in the current debate: We acknowledge that this issue raises large concerns within the community. It raises issues beyond purely health issues. These issues need to be addressed by the executive of this government and addressed with absolute and direct accountability. The parliament in 1996 aimed to prevent recurrence of the debacle in 1994 where a junior official in the health department approved the importation of RU486 without the minister's knowledge. Fast forward a decade, and the Democrat amendment to remove the need for ministerial "signing off" is nothing more than an undoing of this accountability, so once more a departmental lackey can approve RU486 without the minister taking responsibility or the parliament knowing. This parliament is not being asked to vote on the merits of RU486, but only on a Democrat amendment which undermines, for ideological reasons, proper ministerial accountability on a matter of public importance. It would be a triumph of underhandedness over transparency in our public life. And remember, RU486 has never been banned and can be imported tomorrow if a genuine medical need exists. If RU486 was being imported for treatment of brain cancer or Cushing's syndrome, or even for those rare situations where abortion is medically essential to prevent grave physical harm to the mother, that should be approved. But we are not being asked to import this drug on medical grounds, to treat a disease or for authentic medical abortions, but on ideological grounds - a matter of "increasing choice", as the AMA's Dr Mukesh Haikerwal puts it, in the context of social abortion for reasons of financial or emotional distress. The medical profession and the government should draw the line at importing a medication when there is no authentic medical condition to be treated. And both the profession and the government should instead be diverting their energies to relieving the underlying social pressures that drive women to abortion, rather than treating social problems with a chemical. Just over a week ago in Brisbane 700 women gathered to demand this sort of constructive approach. Melinda Tankard Reist, spokeswoman for Womens Forum Australia, said: We've got all this political will to give women a drug, a poisonous drug, a chemical cocktail, to abort their pregnancies. What about some political will into providing them with support and bringing about structural changes so that they can have their children and don't have to have unwanted abortions? RU486 is a uniquely complex social challenge and its fate should be decided by those elected to judge on matters of public concern - not by bureaucrats dealing only with sterile technical matters of safety and efficacy. If parliament votes to dodge responsibility, by supporting the Democrat amendment, it will by timid default give its imprimatur to the misguided and unjustifiable practice of abortion on demand for non-medical reasons. Instead of addressing the root cause of those social abortions through creative social policy initiative, it will callously permit a human pesticide to be inflicted on mothers and their babies, a drug which will be part of this terrible disease, not part of the cure. Dr David van Gend is a family doctor in Toowoombawww.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3914 Glad he's not my doctor.
|
|
|
Post by leebella on Jan 4, 2006 9:42:00 GMT 10
Clergy Asked to Reach Out to Post-Abortive and At-Risk Women During Sanctity of Human Life WeekCOLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Jan. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- As churches prepare to celebrate Sanctity of Human Life Week, January 15-22, 2006, Focus on the Family has challenged clergy members to consider recent statistics on abortion in the church when addressing their congregations. A survey by The Alan Guttmacher Institute conducted among women who had abortions found that one in five self-identified themselves as Evangelical Christian. Kim Conroy, Sanctity of Human Life Director for Focus on the Family believes that it's time for churches to be proactive on this issue. "Every post-abortive woman sitting in our churches needs to know that there is help and forgiveness available -- and it's our hope during this Sanctity Week that pastors and other clergy will extend that to her." Conroy added that while abortion is always a tough topic to discuss, especially when considering the emotions of someone who has experienced it firsthand, it is vital that churches prioritize talking about this growing problem. "Justice, mercy and compassion must be at the forefront of the conversation if we truly desire to extend healing to the women in our churches affected by abortion -- both those who've already experienced it and those who are right now contemplating it," Conroy said. For more information, or to request resources on Sanctity of Human Life Week 2006 or Option Ultrasound(TM), visit www.beavoice.net. Focus on the Family is a leader in the pro-life movement because of its many effective initiatives. Among them is Option Ultrasound(TM) which was started in 2004. The program's purpose is to make ultrasound machines and sonography training available to medical clinics that meet the professional requirements. In a recent survey the organization found that 79 percent of pregnancy resource center clients decide to carry their babies to term after viewing an ultrasound image of the baby inside them. Focus on the Family, founded in 1977, is a Christian non-profit organization dedicated to nurturing and defending families worldwide. The "Focus on the Family" broadcast has over 1.5 million listeners daily in the United States alone. Focus on the Family has offices worldwide with a total audience of over 200 million. SOURCE Focus on the Family Web Site: www.beavoice.net
|
|
|
Post by leebella on Feb 10, 2006 23:49:57 GMT 10
The Courier Mail Time to listenIt's time to listen to other voices in the abortion pill debate, writes Ruth Limkin 09feb06The drug RU486 causes abortions. A Senate inquiry reviewing whether ministerial control over the importation of the drug should be removed will hand down its report today. The Therapeutic Goods Administration would then determine the availability of the drug. The inquiry has received more than 4000 submissions opposing these changes. Some lobbyists are saying this isn't about abortion – just drug regulation. Senator Lyn Allison, leader of the Democrats and co-sponsor of the Bill, says it is about a woman's choice – which infers that it is indeed about abortion. Senator Stephen Fielding of Family First says it is a public policy decision and, as such, should stay in the hands of elected representatives, not unaccountable bureaucrats. Obviously many questions are being raised, yet you can't escape the feeling that we are treating this issue too narrowly. It's time to recognise that abortion is an element of a much larger issue. Failure to do so excludes many who need to be a part of this discussion. Where are all the other voices in the abortion debate? Where are the voices of courageous doctors calling for good medical practice? The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, recently angered many of the association's members by supporting the wider availability of RU486. He called for people to "make their decision based on the real facts and what is important". More than 200 doctors in the Medical Guild of St Luke think it's important that ethical criteria have some bearing on medical practice. Further, they believe that the Therapeutic Goods Administration's inability to take ethical criteria into consideration leaves it ill-equipped to assess drugs designed to take life. These doctors convened a meeting on Sunday to consider resigning from the AMA in protest at its stance. Where are the voices of the childless couples? I find it disconcerting that the only option our society is discussing – with regards to women with unwanted pregnancies – is abortion. In a nation where countless childless couples ache to hold a baby in their arms, there are fewer than 80 Australian children available for adoption in a year. There are also more than 90,000 pregnancies ended each year. Do we not find it a curious tragedy that in our nation women will weep with the grief of childlessness, while other women will grieve because they feel they have no choice but to abort? Why have we made it easier to end life rather than nurture life? Imagine if our community considered adoption as an alternative that we would support, emotionally and economically? Imagine the dignity we would bestow upon women if we empowered them, in the midst of uncertainty, to be givers of life. No one is denying that adoption can be emotionally difficult. However, once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, there are no detached, easy options. We are simply naive if we think that abortion has no psychological or emotional side effects. In fact, where are the voices of post-abortive women who experience great grief and regret? Why are they not a part, and a vital part, of the policy decisions we make as a society? After all, they can tell us, more than most, what the costs of these procedures really are. They may be the voices who challenge us to come up with constructive solutions for women who face an uncertain future. Where are the voices of courageous women who give birth, despite their child being diagnosed with chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome? The immense pressure placed on women to abort children who are seen as "less than perfect" not only fails to affirm the value of those in our society living with such conditions but it also fails to give women true choice. We should celebrate the courage of women who defy society's quest for perfection and choose to love extravagantly and unconditionally instead. In all of this we would be wise to remember that abortion is big business, and that those who profit from it do so at the expense of women across our nation. If the choice we are fighting for is between a medical and a surgical abortion, we have failed women. That is not real choice. We must make a place for the many voices that now are being silenced in this issue. At the very least, someone needs to speak for the women who are calling for a pro-woman approach in its fullest sense. To be truly pro-woman, life-affirming choices should be as passionately and creatively supported as any other. If we really care about the rights of women in our nation, let's listen carefully to all their voices – for in a multitude of counsellors, there is wisdom. • Ruth Limkin is a Brisbane pastor and commentator www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18084563%255E27197,00.html
|
|