I wrote an earlier comment and wanted to tell you also about the Christian Pro-Life action organization 40 days for life. www.40daysforlife.com Christians and pro-life supporters are praying and fasting and holding 24 hour vigils in front of abortion facilities throughout the US, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland — during the 40 days of lent. It is an exciting ministery that has been going on for a couple of years. They also have a vigil in the fall. Check out the website and let’s all pray and fast to end abortion.

Sincerely,
Catherine Hoover

Karen Siegmann

Mrs MADDIGAN (Essendon)

“Can I say also that people who perform abortions are not abortionists, they are doctors.”

Sad to say that Judy Maddigan is my local member, just goes to show how logic in the abortion debate was missing. This sorry story has certainly been a wake up call for me.

Dallas James

During the debate, every upper house member who voted for the legislation received an abusive email from an opponent of the bill.

“You have just condemned untold numbers of unborn Victorians to death,” the email said.

“Their blood is on your hands … you are, each and everyone of you, a disgrace to humanity.”

That hardly counts as “abusive”. It seems a pretty reasonable summation to me.

Ewan McDonald.

The position espoused by Peter Kavanagh is consistent with the position put out by The Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee for which Rabbi Shimon Cowen is the spokesman for.
The Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee’s position can be found here:
blogs.theage.com.au/thereligiouswrite/archives/2008/03/caring_for_just.html
The main objection to the government’s register apparently was its insistence on a ‘sex test’ as a criteria.

The Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee appears to be a task force consisting of representatives of the ‘fair dinkum’ religions to present a united front to lobby government against the bad legislation coming out of the Victorian government in recent years. It does include Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne representatives among others as can be seen here:
www.kairos.com.au/local-news-archive/fruitful-meeting.html

I did note and applaud the principled stand that the CDP took in preferencing the DLP ahead of FFP on the Victorian Senate ticket at the last Federal election.

I did also note that Family First Party saw fit to preference the LDP – Liberty & Democracy Party ahead on the DLP on its Victorian Senate ticket at the last Federal election. How Family First came to the view that the pro-abortion pro-euthanasia pro-pornography pro-gay marriage LDP was closer in policy to Family First than the DLP is beyond me.

I trust that all pro-life parties could see their way to cross-preferencing each other so as to maximise the chances of a pro-life candidate getting elected.
I understand that it is DLP practice to allocate preferences in pro-life order as far as the DLP is aware of the pro-life credentials of the other candidates. Even though this may not be to the DLP’s tactical advantage.

Kerry Smith

And just for the record lest any more DLP supporters want to jump on me, I have a great deal of respect for the DLP. When determining the allocation of second preference CDP votes, I strongly and successfully argued that they be directed to the DLP ahead of the FFP, even though some others were suggesting the opposite. After comparing DLP policies with FFP policies, I concluded that DLP policies are much more closely comparable to those of the CDP than are the policies of the FFP.

Ewan McDonald.

I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that Christians should not necessarily give up on the major conservative parties and should still consider joining the Liberal or National Parties so as to support prolife candidates in general and people like Bernie Finn in particular. And I well know how frustrating it is for a prolifer working within a major party because like you I have been there too, and it was partly due to that frustration that I left the National Party where I had been very active for many years and joined the CDP instead.

And neither did I question for one second the prolife credentials of the DLP – in fact I praised them – I simply said that from a Christian perspective the CDP has a better defined foundation on which our prolife view is based.

I already knew that Peter Kavanagh voted against the State government’s relationship register bill and I had read his claim that he was misrepresented by the press. I commend him for opposing the bill and I commend the DLP policy to which you refer. The newspaper article quotes Peter as such: “provided we retain a special place for traditional marriage . . . if it is necessary to change the law to avoid exploitation in a gay relationship, or to help with superannuation or to end unfair discrimination, then I would support it.” This is consistent with comments from the Hansard record to which you refer:

Why not simply create a register in which all people may mutually register to receive benefits such as superannuation entitlements, inheritance privileges in the event of death, automatic medical and other powers of attorney in the case of disability, and privileged access if either party is hospitalised, without making registration dependent on a sexual relationship? Why not allow people to register, without even asking if they are in a sexual relationship? Why not allow old friends, siblings or other relatives or lovers, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to register without asking the nature of their relationship and without making a sexual relationship a prerequisite to registration?

So this statement would seem to suggest that some form of relationship register is OK as long as it is not exclusively available to same-sex couples but would include them. Is this compromise? I don’t know, but I do know that it is unnecessary and confusing.

Ewan McDonald.