Comment and information on timely matters.

With International Women's Day drawing near, there is much moaning and groaning amongst the vocal feminists that there is not a 50/50 male/female spread amongst the top corporate jobs here in Australia.  This seems to cause them endless frustration.

However, should we look at the situation logically, as was borne out by a recent survey, many women aren't hitting the glass ceiling by choice.  According to the said survey, their Number 1 priority was raising their families.  Other studies have shown women like to "be there" for their and enjoy the option of working part time.  

Women don't like being forced to work due to rising costs.  They want to be raising their children themselves, not dishing them out to paid caregivers.

IWD never seems to be about supporting women in their homes, only in the workplace.  Why?  Is there some hidden agenda working here?  We know many women are hesitant to have a child as they will lose their 'place' in the corporate world.  The constant pressure on this is that by the time they return post-birth, they may have been left behind in the race to the glass ceiling.  Hence, abortion becomes a thought (frequently translated into action) if a baby is created not at the "right time".

Perhaps some pressure should be brought to bear on the organisers of the events of IWD to consider helping raise the profile of the joys of really choosing — between being a stay-at-home-mum, a mum who works part-time, and those who choose to work full time.

On 2 March 2010, an online news article reported that a Florida mother Angie Jackson, who calls herself "Angie the AntiTheist", has created a video that she subsequently posted on YouTube and also twittered, of her abortion done via RU-486 on 22 February 2010.

There are a number of issues here — firstly, was she really pregnant as she states?  Did she really use pills to create her own abortion?

If she was and she did, how has she reached a point of such emotional callousness that she can abort with an almost glee-like attitude? 

This woman states that she has “high health risks” (late stage pregnancy).  If that truly is the case, why not continue the pregnancy until danger is likely and then have the baby early and hope and pray the little one survives (which is highly likely if the baby is around 22 weeks).

However, having listened to the YouTube clip, it seems to be more a promo for Planned Parenthood and one has to wonder if there is any financial or other benefit in it for her.

She states she has a 4 year old son — I am sure he will be incredibly proud of her when he finds out that his mum destroyed his little unborn brother/sister, and not only did that but decided to boast about it to the world.  How will he feel about her then as he becomes another abortion survivor ie a baby that managed to get out of the womb without being aborted?

There was a report on ABC Online (17 Feb, 2010) of where a Canberra Hospital recommended a late-term abortion for a baby who was later born healthy.  Fiona Vanderhook was advised to abort her son Diesel, now 14 months old.

When she was five weeks pregnant, a trainee doctor told Ms Vanderhook she had lost the baby and recommended termination using the drug misoprostol, but the drug did not work and a follow-up scan showed the baby was still alive.

According to the report, later scans revealed the baby had fluid on the brain — a condition likely caused by the abortion drug Ms Vanderhook had been given.  Despite six other specialist opinions that the baby would be born normal, Ms Vanderhook says a senior obstetrician at Canberra Hospital continued to press her to terminate the baby, even at 31 weeks, when termination would have involved inducing labour, the report said.

"To have a baby induced and to watch him just die and not do anything about it?  I was disgusted," Ms Vanderhook told the ABC.

We know a few years ago there was a young lady (Ms Pierpoint) from Toowoomba who was also told her baby had died in the womb and was waiting for a D & C when she decided to go somewhere else and get a second opinion.  That second opinion saved the life of her baby that would have been ‘D & C-ed’ out of this world.

How many more pregnant women has this happened to that we will never know?  The moral of the story?  Get a second opinion, and a third and a fourth …  Whatever it takes til you are sure you are being given an accurate diagnosis.

Read the full article at


In November 2009, a woman in Philadelphia, USA,  died during an abortion at a doctor’s office.  Reports state an unlicensed person in the employ of the doctor administered a number of drugs to the woman.  Upon the arrival of the doctor, he too administered drugs.  The woman subsequently suffered heart problems and died in the doctor’s office.

As if that is shocking enough and totally knocks the “safe” abortion rant off its feet, the police investigators found 30 frozen unborn aborted babies in freezers at the surgery.  

Woman do die from abortion, even now in our ‘modern’ society.  Abortion is not and never will be totally “safe” even if made legal.  If it was legal to go through red lights, would that make for a safer place?   If it was legal to get high on drugs and then drive your car or fly a plane, would that make for a “safe” environment?  Of course not.  Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it safe, moral or right.

See the story and video here

Last week (Feb 2010) the Surrogacy Bill 2009 was passed in Queensland.  Being such a “progressive” state, we can now claim the great joy of creating children who will spend 9 months in a 'gestator’s' womb and then be handed over to whatever combination of parents that are prepared to finance the arrangement.  

The problems for the child start immediately they are conceived — they will be implanted into the wombs of females who will spend 9 months trying not to get attached to that little precious one growing in their womb.  How very unnatural.

Once they are handed over to daddy 1/daddy 2, mummy1/mummy2 or if they fluke it, a daddy/mummy combination, the secret of who their biological parents are will be kept a secret from them.  

It is not discriminatory nor homophobic to state that two female or two male parents are not ideal or natural for a child to have as parents — nature has already ‘discriminated’ by the very fact that biologically they cannot create a child within the context of their relationship.

Over and over again, it has been proven that the best place for a child to be raised is with his/her natural mother and father under the same roof.  This is a nature-designed environment where the child is best able to reach his/her full potential.

However, this will be just the beginning — no doubt in the coming weeks, we will see yet again abortion put back on the agenda and a rush to push it through while everyone is still reeling from the surrogacy issue.