There is a sinister collection of character merchandise that continues to fall off department store shelves each Christmas and that should be cause for serious concern.
These days, it is difficult to find children’s clothing and basic toys that are free from character merchandising. Most display benign novel and movie characters like Winnie the Pooh and Cinderella. They cultivate the growing of little consumers in many homes, but apart from this, most have little impact on the personal and social development of the child who wears them.
The World Wrestling Entertainment Inc (WWE) range of products may have a different effect. The range includes clothing, action figurines, dvds and cds, sports equipment, calendars, books, posters, video games, manchester and jewellery. All products that children want and parents pay for. Or – perhaps more difficult to comprehend – that adults want and adults pay for.
The WWE dates back to 1952 and was formerly known as the World Wrestling Federation. With headquarters in Conneticut and offices in Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto, London and Sydney, the WWE employs over 550 individuals worldwide and in 2008 had a turnover of more than $500 million. Not a bad bottom line.
In the early 1990s, the WWE revolutionized sports entertainment and incorporated theatre, acting, swearing and a whole lot of bad attitude into its weekly televised wrestling matches. The programming continues to more closely resemble acting than sports.
Much of the WWE wrestler’s insignia combines Christian symbolism with a demonic twist, and names like Sgt Slaughter, Legend Killer, Hulkster, BossMan, Stone Cold and Undertaker surely must leave parents with a slightly uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach.
One wonders how parents can bear the black-painted nails, dyed hair, body piercings and tattoos that adorn images of larger-than-life males dressed in leather tights and knee-high boots. It is an interesting combination. Somewhat effeminate; mostly brutish. Not worthy of a child’s eyes.
Proper children’s toys are those which are grounded in reality and which enhance the personal development and social skills of the individual. How a half-naked Legend Killer plastic doll will enhance any child’s personal development and social skills is beyond comprehension.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Counter-Revolutionary
The daycare revolution is entirely unprecedented. For the first time in history, parents are choosing to have their children cared for by strangers. For the first time in history, parents are being told that commercialised care is and should be the norm for every child. Those who choose not to avail themselves of the childcare industry are perceived to be either religious extremists or shut-ins… or both.
We are reassured, over and over again, that childcare is good for children – socially, emotionally, educationally. We are told that one-on-one care does not afford a child the same wide table of benefits that a daycare centre can bestow. And we are told this, not by psychologists, child health experts or mothers, but by the industry itself who is trying to sell us its product.
In a clever marketing strategy, the childcare industry has made the humble stay-at-home-mother believe that what she gives her child on a daily basis does not stack up against what the local daycare centre offers her neighbours child.
What they fail to include in their advertising are the numerous studies conducted in the past decade which outline the many adverse effects of non-family based care.
Such harmful effects include increased risk of infectious diseases (1), lowered to non-existent one-on-one time with carer, (which lowers the chance of optimal brain development) (2) and increased incidence of disruptive behaviour in later years (3).
Internationally acclaimed psychologist and author, Steve Biddulph writes in his comprehensive book Raising Babies- Should Under 3s Go To Nursery that "Children at this age - under three - want one thing only: the individual care of their own special person. Even the best run nurseries cannot offer this."
This generation of children thrown into daycare centres en masse has become part of a hideous social experiment, which is proving to be nothing less than damaging for the child involved and his/her family life. Millions of parents have embraced the childcare revolution without any proof that it actually does a child good, and increasingly, in the face of comprehensive studies and reports which prove otherwise.
“Governments have failed to protect families from corporate pressures and many people can no longer afford to care for their own children," Biddulph continues. And he is right. A Government which rewards parents who thrust their children into corporate care by reimbursing them the cost, successfully strips children of their right to a full-time parent.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
(1) Ferson MJ. Control of infections in child care. Med J Aust 1994; 161: 615-618
(2) Australian Institute of Family Studies conference, February 12, 2003
(3) National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development, March 2007 (US)
We are reassured, over and over again, that childcare is good for children – socially, emotionally, educationally. We are told that one-on-one care does not afford a child the same wide table of benefits that a daycare centre can bestow. And we are told this, not by psychologists, child health experts or mothers, but by the industry itself who is trying to sell us its product.
In a clever marketing strategy, the childcare industry has made the humble stay-at-home-mother believe that what she gives her child on a daily basis does not stack up against what the local daycare centre offers her neighbours child.
What they fail to include in their advertising are the numerous studies conducted in the past decade which outline the many adverse effects of non-family based care.
Such harmful effects include increased risk of infectious diseases (1), lowered to non-existent one-on-one time with carer, (which lowers the chance of optimal brain development) (2) and increased incidence of disruptive behaviour in later years (3).
Internationally acclaimed psychologist and author, Steve Biddulph writes in his comprehensive book Raising Babies- Should Under 3s Go To Nursery that "Children at this age - under three - want one thing only: the individual care of their own special person. Even the best run nurseries cannot offer this."
This generation of children thrown into daycare centres en masse has become part of a hideous social experiment, which is proving to be nothing less than damaging for the child involved and his/her family life. Millions of parents have embraced the childcare revolution without any proof that it actually does a child good, and increasingly, in the face of comprehensive studies and reports which prove otherwise.
“Governments have failed to protect families from corporate pressures and many people can no longer afford to care for their own children," Biddulph continues. And he is right. A Government which rewards parents who thrust their children into corporate care by reimbursing them the cost, successfully strips children of their right to a full-time parent.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
(1) Ferson MJ. Control of infections in child care. Med J Aust 1994; 161: 615-618
(2) Australian Institute of Family Studies conference, February 12, 2003
(3) National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development, March 2007 (US)
Monday, November 16, 2009
Anti-Angels
Christmas after Christmas, parents fork out billions to support a booming toy industry, profiteering from little girls the world over.
The concept that Barbie dolls eulogize the unhealthy, unnaturally skinny (yet buxom) female, while Bratz dolls emulate the ever-offensive stereotypical tween, is apparently unfamiliar to most parents, as they pile their trolleys high with character beach towels, toys, clothing, underwear, shoes, school materials, cheap novelties and other stocking fillers for their daughters.
Holding pride of place on the shelves this year is a scantily clad collection of Bratz models whose knee-high boots, mini-skirts and midriffs give them away more as harlots than as children's play things.
Each Christmas there seems to be a greater array of character products than there were the year before, and each year the tween dolls are strewn in fewer clothes and display more cleavage than they did the year before.
These are not like the dolls of a 2 year old who carefully dresses, feeds and plays with her precious toys and whose playtime is actually a reflection of the reality in which she lives.
No, these dolls have no serious purpose, except perhaps for the manufacturer or creator whose bottom line is at stake. To the little girls who receive these dolls this Christmas, their use is totally unnecessary, perhaps even dangerous.
As Teresa Tomeo notes in her recent book on the media and modern culture, the incidence of breast augmentations on girls under the age of 18 has more than tripled in the past decade.(1)
Couple this with an unhealthy diet of ‘reality’ weight-loss programs and supermodel discovery chanels, and we have a lethal combination for creating materialistic, image-focussed, sexualized pre-teens.
(1) Tomeo, T. Noise 2007 Ascension Press, p. 106
© Eva Whiteley 2009
The concept that Barbie dolls eulogize the unhealthy, unnaturally skinny (yet buxom) female, while Bratz dolls emulate the ever-offensive stereotypical tween, is apparently unfamiliar to most parents, as they pile their trolleys high with character beach towels, toys, clothing, underwear, shoes, school materials, cheap novelties and other stocking fillers for their daughters.
Holding pride of place on the shelves this year is a scantily clad collection of Bratz models whose knee-high boots, mini-skirts and midriffs give them away more as harlots than as children's play things.
Each Christmas there seems to be a greater array of character products than there were the year before, and each year the tween dolls are strewn in fewer clothes and display more cleavage than they did the year before.
These are not like the dolls of a 2 year old who carefully dresses, feeds and plays with her precious toys and whose playtime is actually a reflection of the reality in which she lives.
No, these dolls have no serious purpose, except perhaps for the manufacturer or creator whose bottom line is at stake. To the little girls who receive these dolls this Christmas, their use is totally unnecessary, perhaps even dangerous.
As Teresa Tomeo notes in her recent book on the media and modern culture, the incidence of breast augmentations on girls under the age of 18 has more than tripled in the past decade.(1)
Couple this with an unhealthy diet of ‘reality’ weight-loss programs and supermodel discovery chanels, and we have a lethal combination for creating materialistic, image-focussed, sexualized pre-teens.
(1) Tomeo, T. Noise 2007 Ascension Press, p. 106
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Nationally Offensive
Sex education dominated headlines again over the weekend as discussion began about a new Health and Physical Development National Curriculum, which is the third phase in a curriculum overhaul, set to begin in 2011 with new Maths, English, History and Science programs.
For the moment, the Government has promised “a strong consultation process” when it comes to implementing a national program for sex education, but has refused to hint at the program content, including how it will treat topics such as homosexuality, contraception and abortion.
Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, has promised the concerned private sector that they will be consulted before the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) confirms any course content for national implementation.
The ACARA, a paid board of professors and educators, will determine age-appropriateness of certain topics and decide if parents will have the right to withdraw their children from the course if they disapprove of the content. The right of independent schools to completely withdraw from teaching the course does not appear to have been considered.
The NSW Teachers Federation maintains that sex education should reflect the needs of students, but how these needs are determined is uncertain.
How the ACARA will determine what is appropriate sex education content for my friend’s 10 year old is well beyond me.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
For the moment, the Government has promised “a strong consultation process” when it comes to implementing a national program for sex education, but has refused to hint at the program content, including how it will treat topics such as homosexuality, contraception and abortion.
Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, has promised the concerned private sector that they will be consulted before the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) confirms any course content for national implementation.
The ACARA, a paid board of professors and educators, will determine age-appropriateness of certain topics and decide if parents will have the right to withdraw their children from the course if they disapprove of the content. The right of independent schools to completely withdraw from teaching the course does not appear to have been considered.
The NSW Teachers Federation maintains that sex education should reflect the needs of students, but how these needs are determined is uncertain.
How the ACARA will determine what is appropriate sex education content for my friend’s 10 year old is well beyond me.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Modern Mother
If the modern mother suffers from anything, it is from low self-esteem. It is from the false idea that what she does in the home and for her children can be replicated in a child-care facility by a paid child-care worker; that the work she is trained for outside of the home is somehow far more important and a role in which she cannot be replaced.
The modern mother suffers from low self-esteem because for decades now she has been told that wiping noses, changing nappies and cooking meals are menial tasks that can be accomplished by anybody and are of so little value as to be almost meaningless.
Terms like ‘working mother’ and ‘working family’ have become synonymous with daycare. And the phrase ‘stay-at-home-mum’ is, for many full-time mothers, an embarrassing label that insinuates long hours in front of the television watching soap operas while the newborn sleeps and the toddler draws.
In subsidising paid childcare, the Australian Government has succeeded in raising the status of the so-called ‘working mother’ and lowering the status of the woman who chooses to raise her own children. It has created a favourable environment for successfully transferring the rearing of millions of children from within a family-based care environment to outside the home in state-run facilities manned by young women with university degrees who stand behind locked gates.
And what a paradox! That the work a stay-at-home-mother does is menial, and yet her tasks cannot be replicated but by a graduate of tertiary education. This alone should boost the confidence of a full-time mother.
Perhaps there is a need (real or perceived) for mothers to work outside the home. If this is the case, then the Government has abandoned its most valuable citizens to the office, the checkout, the factory. It has failed to support the most important career a woman could choose and fails to ensure that full-time motherhood continues to be a real option for thousands of women.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
The modern mother suffers from low self-esteem because for decades now she has been told that wiping noses, changing nappies and cooking meals are menial tasks that can be accomplished by anybody and are of so little value as to be almost meaningless.
Terms like ‘working mother’ and ‘working family’ have become synonymous with daycare. And the phrase ‘stay-at-home-mum’ is, for many full-time mothers, an embarrassing label that insinuates long hours in front of the television watching soap operas while the newborn sleeps and the toddler draws.
In subsidising paid childcare, the Australian Government has succeeded in raising the status of the so-called ‘working mother’ and lowering the status of the woman who chooses to raise her own children. It has created a favourable environment for successfully transferring the rearing of millions of children from within a family-based care environment to outside the home in state-run facilities manned by young women with university degrees who stand behind locked gates.
And what a paradox! That the work a stay-at-home-mother does is menial, and yet her tasks cannot be replicated but by a graduate of tertiary education. This alone should boost the confidence of a full-time mother.
Perhaps there is a need (real or perceived) for mothers to work outside the home. If this is the case, then the Government has abandoned its most valuable citizens to the office, the checkout, the factory. It has failed to support the most important career a woman could choose and fails to ensure that full-time motherhood continues to be a real option for thousands of women.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Parent's Right and Responsibility
It was never going to take long for Obama and his team of pro-aborts to cull $200 million of abstinence education programmes, so it comes as no surprise that the Obama Administration’s proposed 2010 budget will replace abstinence education with $110 million worth of safe sex messages for American school children.
Even from purely a fiscal perspective, the use of Federal funds to teach sex in schools is entirely objectionable. This simple fact is often lost in the moral morass surrounding sex education, but is not particularly relevant to this discussion. In a world without sin there would be no Federal funding for such programmes because all such education would occur within the family; the idea of classroom sex ed (and more particularly Federally funded sex ed) would be unprecendented.
Generally speaking, there are two types of sex education that are considered acceptable (by differing groups) to teach in schools. The first is referred to in the US as comprehensive sex education; the second as abstinence education.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the two is that the aim of abstinence education is to prevent pre-marital sexual activity while the aim of comprehensive sex education is to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Abstinence education is often faith-based, with a focus on marriage as the only proper context for sex. Comprehensive sex education teaches that casual sex is a normal activity for teens and focuses on STI awareness and prevention and contraceptive familiarity and know-how.
Because comprehensive sex education is obviously so evil, Christians have been led to believe that abstinence education is not just the lesser of two evils, but a good and healthy alternative.
From a Catholic perspective, neither programme is acceptable. Both reject the premise that sex education is the sole domain of parents. There are even Catholic sex education programmes which take sex education away from parents and place it in the hands of curriculum writers and teachers whose moral views are often less than truly Catholic.
These so-called Catholic ‘chastity programmes’ are humanistic at best and downright scandalous and indecent at worst. In her 1986 Love and Life abstinence curriculum for Catholic schools, Coleen Mast included an explicit description of the sex act, a guide for values clarification and displayed a distinct lack of reverence for sexuality.(1) Today, in the Parramatta Diocese, teachers are expected to teach some aspects of sexuality, such as reproduction, menstruation and sexual identity during the primary years, and to discuss topics like consent, privacy, safe sex, contraception, pregnancy and STIs to secondary students.(2)
It is true that abstinence education is also a motivational programme, which focuses on the family as the central unit of society, encourages chastity and teaches students to “attain self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity”.(3) But all of this should be taught in the home and not in a group or classroom setting.
When this argument arises, both sides come forward with studies and stories and both claim the moral high ground. The programme that ‘works’, it is asserted, is the one that produces fewer teen pregnancies, lower incidences of sexually transmitted infections and more ‘tolerant’ students.
Regardless of what ‘works’, we must reject the premise. “There is no classroom sex education that is proper or correct.”(4)
(1)Engel, R. Sex Education: The Final Plague, 1993 TAN, pp. 115-117
(2)Catholic Education – Diocese of Parramatta website: www.parra.catholic.edu.au Accessed: 13-05-2009
(3)Administration for Children and Families website (US): ww.acf.hhs.gov Accessed: 13-05-2009
(4)Thomas A. Nelson, page xvi of the Publisher’s Preface to Randy Engel’s Sex Education: The Final Plague
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Even from purely a fiscal perspective, the use of Federal funds to teach sex in schools is entirely objectionable. This simple fact is often lost in the moral morass surrounding sex education, but is not particularly relevant to this discussion. In a world without sin there would be no Federal funding for such programmes because all such education would occur within the family; the idea of classroom sex ed (and more particularly Federally funded sex ed) would be unprecendented.
Generally speaking, there are two types of sex education that are considered acceptable (by differing groups) to teach in schools. The first is referred to in the US as comprehensive sex education; the second as abstinence education.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the two is that the aim of abstinence education is to prevent pre-marital sexual activity while the aim of comprehensive sex education is to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Abstinence education is often faith-based, with a focus on marriage as the only proper context for sex. Comprehensive sex education teaches that casual sex is a normal activity for teens and focuses on STI awareness and prevention and contraceptive familiarity and know-how.
Because comprehensive sex education is obviously so evil, Christians have been led to believe that abstinence education is not just the lesser of two evils, but a good and healthy alternative.
From a Catholic perspective, neither programme is acceptable. Both reject the premise that sex education is the sole domain of parents. There are even Catholic sex education programmes which take sex education away from parents and place it in the hands of curriculum writers and teachers whose moral views are often less than truly Catholic.
These so-called Catholic ‘chastity programmes’ are humanistic at best and downright scandalous and indecent at worst. In her 1986 Love and Life abstinence curriculum for Catholic schools, Coleen Mast included an explicit description of the sex act, a guide for values clarification and displayed a distinct lack of reverence for sexuality.(1) Today, in the Parramatta Diocese, teachers are expected to teach some aspects of sexuality, such as reproduction, menstruation and sexual identity during the primary years, and to discuss topics like consent, privacy, safe sex, contraception, pregnancy and STIs to secondary students.(2)
It is true that abstinence education is also a motivational programme, which focuses on the family as the central unit of society, encourages chastity and teaches students to “attain self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity”.(3) But all of this should be taught in the home and not in a group or classroom setting.
When this argument arises, both sides come forward with studies and stories and both claim the moral high ground. The programme that ‘works’, it is asserted, is the one that produces fewer teen pregnancies, lower incidences of sexually transmitted infections and more ‘tolerant’ students.
Regardless of what ‘works’, we must reject the premise. “There is no classroom sex education that is proper or correct.”(4)
(1)Engel, R. Sex Education: The Final Plague, 1993 TAN, pp. 115-117
(2)Catholic Education – Diocese of Parramatta website: www.parra.catholic.edu.au Accessed: 13-05-2009
(3)Administration for Children and Families website (US): ww.acf.hhs.gov Accessed: 13-05-2009
(4)Thomas A. Nelson, page xvi of the Publisher’s Preface to Randy Engel’s Sex Education: The Final Plague
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Real Nappy Week in the UK
This year’s Real Nappy Campaign in the UK is advising parents to combat the credit crunch with real nappies.
The UK Real Nappy Week (April 27 – May 3) coincides with an announcement by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia has followed the world into a recession. During a time of economic hardship, the use of cloth nappies has been proven to save families up to $4000 per child.
Increasingly, cloth nappies are being seen as an economical alternative to disposables and Australia’s Fourth Annual Reusable Nappy Week (RNW) will be held from the 13th to the 18th of October. RNW is an advocacy event, used to raise awareness of the benefits of cloth nappying.
Outgoing RNW coordinator, Lucy Westerman, says she has seen a significant shift in awareness of reusable options during her time as a volunteer for the Australian Nappy Network.
“In the 5 years I have had my children in nappies, I have seen an incredible increase in availability, quality and awareness about reusable nappies in Australia. Anecdotally, there has been a distinct resurgence in the use of reusable nappies, with so many wonderful fabric, design and budget choices available.”
“When considering everything, including transport and laundering,” says Westerman, “Choosing reusable nappies can cost a meager 5c per nappy change, as opposed to throwing away more than 50c on a single use nappy.”
Rosa Bohan, mother of two from Dubbo believes there is no better time to switch to cloth. “The financial savings are enormous,” she says. “It makes such a difference to the family budget when you can save between $30 and $50 a week at the checkout, simply by using cloth on one or two children.”
A number of local councils around Australia are supporting the use of cloth within communities. The City of Casey in Victoria is offering rebates on the purchase of a reusable nappy system and the City of Melbourne offers free advice, information and support to parents who are considering the switch to cloth.
Last year, a study found that the use of cloth nappies can reduce carbon emissions by up to 40%. This, coupled with phenomenal savings and the ease of use of modern design cloth nappies, is effecting a shift in the way many Australian parents are choosing to nappy their children.
“When modern cloth nappies save thousands of dollars and require no pinning, soaking or folding, it’s getting harder for parents to find a good excuse to use disposables,” says a Sydney mum of one. “Even working mums are finding that it’s just as easy to take cloth nappies to day care and run them through a quick wash in the evening.”
© Eva Whiteley 2009
The UK Real Nappy Week (April 27 – May 3) coincides with an announcement by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia has followed the world into a recession. During a time of economic hardship, the use of cloth nappies has been proven to save families up to $4000 per child.
Increasingly, cloth nappies are being seen as an economical alternative to disposables and Australia’s Fourth Annual Reusable Nappy Week (RNW) will be held from the 13th to the 18th of October. RNW is an advocacy event, used to raise awareness of the benefits of cloth nappying.
Outgoing RNW coordinator, Lucy Westerman, says she has seen a significant shift in awareness of reusable options during her time as a volunteer for the Australian Nappy Network.
“In the 5 years I have had my children in nappies, I have seen an incredible increase in availability, quality and awareness about reusable nappies in Australia. Anecdotally, there has been a distinct resurgence in the use of reusable nappies, with so many wonderful fabric, design and budget choices available.”
“When considering everything, including transport and laundering,” says Westerman, “Choosing reusable nappies can cost a meager 5c per nappy change, as opposed to throwing away more than 50c on a single use nappy.”
Rosa Bohan, mother of two from Dubbo believes there is no better time to switch to cloth. “The financial savings are enormous,” she says. “It makes such a difference to the family budget when you can save between $30 and $50 a week at the checkout, simply by using cloth on one or two children.”
A number of local councils around Australia are supporting the use of cloth within communities. The City of Casey in Victoria is offering rebates on the purchase of a reusable nappy system and the City of Melbourne offers free advice, information and support to parents who are considering the switch to cloth.
Last year, a study found that the use of cloth nappies can reduce carbon emissions by up to 40%. This, coupled with phenomenal savings and the ease of use of modern design cloth nappies, is effecting a shift in the way many Australian parents are choosing to nappy their children.
“When modern cloth nappies save thousands of dollars and require no pinning, soaking or folding, it’s getting harder for parents to find a good excuse to use disposables,” says a Sydney mum of one. “Even working mums are finding that it’s just as easy to take cloth nappies to day care and run them through a quick wash in the evening.”
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Greens At It Again...
Earlier this month, Greens MP Lee Rhiannon called for New South Wales to follow Victoria’s lead in decriminalizing abortion. The Greens have launched a campaign which calls for abortion to be removed from the criminal code and to be recategorised into health legislation.
We must mobilize NOW so that this hideous campaign does not advance any further.
Write to your MPs NOW and tell them WE DO NOT WANT THIS.
Some points for your letters:
Many recent studies have proven a direct link between abortion and mental health problems. If MPs care about the health of women, they WILL NOT let this campaign advance.
Victoria’s liberal abortion laws allow for the killing of children who survive an abortion – do our MPs want this for NSW?
Victoria’s liberal abortion laws do not require that the abortionist ensure a painless killing for the unborn – surely even pro-abortion MPs could not concede to this.
In Victoria, nurses and pharmacists may dispense abortificient drugs to a woman until the 24th week of pregnancy. Apart from the obvious implications to the unborn child, this in no way protects the health of the mother who in most cases will go home to give birth to a dead child.
Victoria’s new laws allow for abortion right up until birth – WE DO NOT WANT THIS.
Victoria’s abortion laws allow for partial-birth abortion – that is, a child is partially delivered and then killed before he is clear of the birth canal. This hideous method of murder is even illegal in the US; but is legal in Victoria. WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN NSW!
Victoria’s new laws allow for sex-selection abortions. Only a sexist MP could want this campaign to go forward.
It is no longer compulsory in Victoria to offer counseling to a woman who is considering abortion. So much for a woman’s choice. There is nothing ‘informed’ about choosing abortion when one knows of no other option.
Nurses and doctors in Victoria are bound to assist in ‘emergency’ abortions. WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN NSW.
WRITE TODAY – don’t wait until the Greens develop a Bill and put it before Parliament. WRITE – RIGHT NOW!
Here is a list of NSW State MPs
Here is Rhiannon’s campaign overview
Feel free to write to her and tell her what you think. She won’t know how opposed we are unless we tell her.
We must mobilize NOW so that this hideous campaign does not advance any further.
Write to your MPs NOW and tell them WE DO NOT WANT THIS.
Some points for your letters:
Many recent studies have proven a direct link between abortion and mental health problems. If MPs care about the health of women, they WILL NOT let this campaign advance.
Victoria’s liberal abortion laws allow for the killing of children who survive an abortion – do our MPs want this for NSW?
Victoria’s liberal abortion laws do not require that the abortionist ensure a painless killing for the unborn – surely even pro-abortion MPs could not concede to this.
In Victoria, nurses and pharmacists may dispense abortificient drugs to a woman until the 24th week of pregnancy. Apart from the obvious implications to the unborn child, this in no way protects the health of the mother who in most cases will go home to give birth to a dead child.
Victoria’s new laws allow for abortion right up until birth – WE DO NOT WANT THIS.
Victoria’s abortion laws allow for partial-birth abortion – that is, a child is partially delivered and then killed before he is clear of the birth canal. This hideous method of murder is even illegal in the US; but is legal in Victoria. WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN NSW!
Victoria’s new laws allow for sex-selection abortions. Only a sexist MP could want this campaign to go forward.
It is no longer compulsory in Victoria to offer counseling to a woman who is considering abortion. So much for a woman’s choice. There is nothing ‘informed’ about choosing abortion when one knows of no other option.
Nurses and doctors in Victoria are bound to assist in ‘emergency’ abortions. WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN NSW.
WRITE TODAY – don’t wait until the Greens develop a Bill and put it before Parliament. WRITE – RIGHT NOW!
Here is a list of NSW State MPs
Here is Rhiannon’s campaign overview
Feel free to write to her and tell her what you think. She won’t know how opposed we are unless we tell her.
Monday, March 16, 2009
How Much Can a Child Take?
The Catholic Church - rather than the man who raped a little girl - has been turned into the monster in the latest heart-wrenching case of child abuse.
Brazil is reeling from the recent abortion undergone by a 9 year old mother of twins, but it is difficult to assess what is most heinous to the country. Much media commentary has focused on the excommunication issued against the girl’s mother and the abortionists, rather than on the abortion itself or on the step-father’s crime of rape.
Opinion writers across the globe have successfully averted attention from the man who sexually abused a 9 year old and her 14 year old disabled sister over several years, to the Church’s public condemnation of an act which has always been condemned by the Church.
One ‘Catholic’ feminist pro-choice writer, Mary Hunt, finds the Church’s actions “violent beyond defense.” Hunt is obviously suffering from some form of memory loss. It was not the Church who sexually abused two little girls. Nor was it the Church who forced a nine-year-old to undergo a traumatic and life-altering abortion.
The girl was in her fourth month of pregnancy when she was subjected to an abortion. The abuse had reportedly been occurring since the child was six.
In Brazil, abortion is permitted by law in the case of danger to the life of the mother and in the case of rape. By law, it seems, this little girl had a right to an abortion. But as her mother was unsuccessful in defending her against the awful procedure, the Church certainly tried. The Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife legally tried to stop the abortion from occurring, but was unsuccessful.
There have been a number of estimates of the girl’s weight – between 66 and 80 pounds – that’s between 30 and 36 kilograms. It’s been claimed that her weight alone would have caused serious problems had the girl carried to term. But the child’s ongoing psychological welfare seems to have been of no concern to the abortionists. In recent years, abortion-related mental illness has been heavily substantiated in numerous studies across the globe. To couple years of sexual abuse with the psychological trauma of an abortion is a death warrant for the girl’s mental health.
There has also been some discussion of the child’s future fertility. It is widely recognized that abortion impacts on future fertility even for older women. To subject a nine-year-old to the harrowing surgical procedure of an abortion would surely wreak havoc on her reproductive system.
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, commenting from Rome, stated, "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.”
When this little girl is still suffering from the consequences of the abortion in 20, 30, 40 years time, she may - it can only be hoped - feel some comfort in the fact that the Church tried to protect her from it, and that those who held her under the abortionist's knife were duly punished by the Church.
At the heart of all this are 4 children. Two have lost their lives in the womb. The other two have lost their innocence and any chance of a normal, psychologically healthy adulthood.
If there is an appropriate maxim for this case, it would have to be that two wrongs don't make a right.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Brazil is reeling from the recent abortion undergone by a 9 year old mother of twins, but it is difficult to assess what is most heinous to the country. Much media commentary has focused on the excommunication issued against the girl’s mother and the abortionists, rather than on the abortion itself or on the step-father’s crime of rape.
Opinion writers across the globe have successfully averted attention from the man who sexually abused a 9 year old and her 14 year old disabled sister over several years, to the Church’s public condemnation of an act which has always been condemned by the Church.
One ‘Catholic’ feminist pro-choice writer, Mary Hunt, finds the Church’s actions “violent beyond defense.” Hunt is obviously suffering from some form of memory loss. It was not the Church who sexually abused two little girls. Nor was it the Church who forced a nine-year-old to undergo a traumatic and life-altering abortion.
The girl was in her fourth month of pregnancy when she was subjected to an abortion. The abuse had reportedly been occurring since the child was six.
In Brazil, abortion is permitted by law in the case of danger to the life of the mother and in the case of rape. By law, it seems, this little girl had a right to an abortion. But as her mother was unsuccessful in defending her against the awful procedure, the Church certainly tried. The Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife legally tried to stop the abortion from occurring, but was unsuccessful.
There have been a number of estimates of the girl’s weight – between 66 and 80 pounds – that’s between 30 and 36 kilograms. It’s been claimed that her weight alone would have caused serious problems had the girl carried to term. But the child’s ongoing psychological welfare seems to have been of no concern to the abortionists. In recent years, abortion-related mental illness has been heavily substantiated in numerous studies across the globe. To couple years of sexual abuse with the psychological trauma of an abortion is a death warrant for the girl’s mental health.
There has also been some discussion of the child’s future fertility. It is widely recognized that abortion impacts on future fertility even for older women. To subject a nine-year-old to the harrowing surgical procedure of an abortion would surely wreak havoc on her reproductive system.
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, commenting from Rome, stated, "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.”
When this little girl is still suffering from the consequences of the abortion in 20, 30, 40 years time, she may - it can only be hoped - feel some comfort in the fact that the Church tried to protect her from it, and that those who held her under the abortionist's knife were duly punished by the Church.
At the heart of all this are 4 children. Two have lost their lives in the womb. The other two have lost their innocence and any chance of a normal, psychologically healthy adulthood.
If there is an appropriate maxim for this case, it would have to be that two wrongs don't make a right.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Jessica's Story - Worth the Reminder
July 14, 1998. 2:45 am. In the dead of winter; in the dead of the night, a baby girl was born.
She died 80 minutes later. Alone, unwanted, unloved. Her name was Jessica.
In early July 1998, an expectant mother met with Dr Henry Cho of Darwin Private Hospital and requested an abortion. Dr Cho became concerned about the “great psychological trouble” the woman would face if she continued with her pregnancy and although nearly half way through the pregnancy - at 19 weeks - booked her in for a second trimester abortion.
On July 13, Dr Cho admitted the mother into Darwin Private Hospital and prescribed Misoprostol, a drug which is used to induce labour. Misoprostol is the drug used to trigger labour for a stillbirth and is generally acknowledged to be safe for a live baby. Dr Cho’s intention in this case was that the baby would die during delivery, as a result of the trauma of birth at such a premature age.
In the early hours of July 14, after labouring for some time, the mother delivered her little girl, and the child was promptly placed in a kidney dish by the attending registered mid-wife, Nurse Carrie Williams. It wasn’t until Nurse Williams took the baby from the room that she realized little Jessica was alive. Jessica was breathing, moving, crying.
Nurse Williams noted in the Coronial Inquest that the child looked to be between 22 and 24 weeks gestation, and not the recorded 19 weeks. Dr Cho later agreed that the pregnancy had progressed to 22 weeks.
Nurse Williams wrapped the child in a blanket, covered her and left her alone, checking back every 15 minutes until little Jessica died at 4:05 am.
During Jessica’s short life, Nurse Williams continued to care for her mother. She phoned Dr Cho for some assistance in dealing with the child who had survived an attempted abortion, and was told that “nothing need be done”. Dr Cho had reportedly informed the woman that there was the possibility her baby may be born alive, but Nurse Williams was not aware of this.
During the coronial inquest, Nurse Williams stated that there was nothing further she could have done for the child. She said that the baby’s vital signs were good and that she “desperately wanted to do more” but she felt her hands were tied.
It is estimated that 1 in every 30 babies aborted between the age of 17 and 24 weeks is born alive and lives for between 1 and 4 hours before dying. Jessica’s story is not rare.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
She died 80 minutes later. Alone, unwanted, unloved. Her name was Jessica.
In early July 1998, an expectant mother met with Dr Henry Cho of Darwin Private Hospital and requested an abortion. Dr Cho became concerned about the “great psychological trouble” the woman would face if she continued with her pregnancy and although nearly half way through the pregnancy - at 19 weeks - booked her in for a second trimester abortion.
On July 13, Dr Cho admitted the mother into Darwin Private Hospital and prescribed Misoprostol, a drug which is used to induce labour. Misoprostol is the drug used to trigger labour for a stillbirth and is generally acknowledged to be safe for a live baby. Dr Cho’s intention in this case was that the baby would die during delivery, as a result of the trauma of birth at such a premature age.
In the early hours of July 14, after labouring for some time, the mother delivered her little girl, and the child was promptly placed in a kidney dish by the attending registered mid-wife, Nurse Carrie Williams. It wasn’t until Nurse Williams took the baby from the room that she realized little Jessica was alive. Jessica was breathing, moving, crying.
Nurse Williams noted in the Coronial Inquest that the child looked to be between 22 and 24 weeks gestation, and not the recorded 19 weeks. Dr Cho later agreed that the pregnancy had progressed to 22 weeks.
Nurse Williams wrapped the child in a blanket, covered her and left her alone, checking back every 15 minutes until little Jessica died at 4:05 am.
During Jessica’s short life, Nurse Williams continued to care for her mother. She phoned Dr Cho for some assistance in dealing with the child who had survived an attempted abortion, and was told that “nothing need be done”. Dr Cho had reportedly informed the woman that there was the possibility her baby may be born alive, but Nurse Williams was not aware of this.
During the coronial inquest, Nurse Williams stated that there was nothing further she could have done for the child. She said that the baby’s vital signs were good and that she “desperately wanted to do more” but she felt her hands were tied.
It is estimated that 1 in every 30 babies aborted between the age of 17 and 24 weeks is born alive and lives for between 1 and 4 hours before dying. Jessica’s story is not rare.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Euthanasia Debated
On February 3, I had the dubious privilege of attending a public debate hosted by IQ2, an Australian forum for live debate. The proposition: we should legalize euthanasia.
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
No Freedom for Drivers with Questioning Children
The Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (AHMRC) has invested an enormous amount of money in billboard advertising on the Hume Highway between Melbourne and Sydney.
On my return journey from Melbourne last week I counted 3 billboards carrying an advertisement for condoms as protection against STIs(1) and as a way to "enjoy your freedom".
This in spite of a wealth of studies which have found that condoms afford no protection against the most common STIs. A 2001 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health stated that “there is no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”. This seems to have escaped the developers of the campaign.
Some of the propaganda on the AHMRC website includes downloadable and printable wallet-size how-to guides in the art of condom application. Interestingly, the website currently contains no information about the importance of a nutritious diet or the benefits of immunisation. Considering the Council is about ‘health and medical research’ one would assume their wallet-sized how-to guides might be more appropriately developed to promote, for example, healthy eating tips.
These billboards are a serious affront to children and families traveling on the Hume. For parents, the freedom to choose when and how they explain the word ‘condom’ to their 8 year olds has been taken away.
(1) Sexually transmitted infection – previously referred to as a sexually transmitted disease.
AHMRC website accessed 12-01-2009
© Eva Whiteley 2009
On my return journey from Melbourne last week I counted 3 billboards carrying an advertisement for condoms as protection against STIs(1) and as a way to "enjoy your freedom".
This in spite of a wealth of studies which have found that condoms afford no protection against the most common STIs. A 2001 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health stated that “there is no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”. This seems to have escaped the developers of the campaign.
Some of the propaganda on the AHMRC website includes downloadable and printable wallet-size how-to guides in the art of condom application. Interestingly, the website currently contains no information about the importance of a nutritious diet or the benefits of immunisation. Considering the Council is about ‘health and medical research’ one would assume their wallet-sized how-to guides might be more appropriately developed to promote, for example, healthy eating tips.
These billboards are a serious affront to children and families traveling on the Hume. For parents, the freedom to choose when and how they explain the word ‘condom’ to their 8 year olds has been taken away.
(1) Sexually transmitted infection – previously referred to as a sexually transmitted disease.
AHMRC website accessed 12-01-2009
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
