Others have brought up that the post that was posted earlier was from 2005.
I certainly don't think that if Tony Abbott gets in that my rights as a woman (or my daughter's rights as a woman) will be taken away.
The very idea of assuming because Tony Abbott may oppose non-medical abortion means that it would happen under a government he leads seems over the top to me.
Julia Gillard said no to gay marriage, but it wasn't her decision to make - it was taken to vote in the lower and upper house, and opposed.
The same would happen with any anti-abortion bill - it would have to be taken to vote in the lower and upper houses. Then again, with the greens in power in the senate - could they vote it in? If that happened, would that mean that the greens had taken away a woman's right to body autonomy?
Just a reminder to keep this thread away from personal attacks and keep it on track of issues which may arise if Tony Abbott gets in.
Confirm that women in Australia never had that 'right' prior to 2006? How can he take a 'right' away that was never there in the first place? I can understand if you were complaining that he tried to block its introduction. But I think it is a bit rich to say that he was trying to take your 'rights' away.
I think the definition of 'rights' has become too loose.
Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
I think you are arguing semantics. You asked for examples, I have given them. You don't have to agree with me, you can believe and support Abbott's stance. But clearly RU40 is a less invasive option. I would never have a non medically necessary abortion but I support women's right to avoid surgery to access the drug. It existed in other countries and he tried to openly block women's access. That is taking their rights away imo.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!