Shameless Plug

Check out imaginaryripples.blogspot.com if you're interested in reading some fiction that I've written.

Ignore the 'more' option at the end of this paragraph. I really should do something about that...

Could this be any more biased and ridiculous?

In the same feed-reading session that I am pleased to read that the ABC has passed the journalistic accuracy test, I am assaulted with this website they've put together for kids.

Whilst you are there make sure you play the "This is Your Lifestyle" game so that you can "Find out how much you suck".

I am at a loss for words.

Though, I won't be in my next post. Until then please comment below about your thoughts on the website and ignore the 'more' link - it lies.

Do I Have Time To Blog?

A valid question if ever I've asked one. This is just a quick post to list a few of the things that I've intended to blog about in recent weeks (months) but haven't made the time to do so.


Plastic Bags - The proposed SA ban (and the stupidity of it) and why GoGreen Bags are actually a good idea (my initial scepticism to the side).
Federalism in Australia - Why our current federalism is the worst of both worlds.
Saying Sorry - Was it pointless? How rude are some people? Why shouldn't we apologise? What was really all that wrong about Nelson's speech (aside from the fact that it was hideously written - which can be said for Rudd's as well)
Feminism, Equality, and a Fair Go - Why at least two of these are a pointless goal with no practicality and more than a little risk.
We Aren't All the Same - And nor should we be. Why I think the frequent equating of equality and homogeneity is naive, impractical, and hurtful.
The Erosion of Our Freedom - How the Rann (and Howard and Rudd) Government(s) are destroying our freedoms and why paying the full social cost makes better moral, ethical, and economic sense.
The Women's Officer - My complaint about the new SRC and its discriminatory ways.

I've also been keen to go back over some of my previous posts. When I started this exercise I wanted to write every post with four points in mind. Four dichotomies if you will. I think I may have strayed somewhat from the four along the way. My initial hope was to always keep in mind that every situation is Complex and no solution is Simple. That there is almost always a large discrepancy between our Perceptions and the Reality in which we live. That though two things may have a strong Correlation, that does not tell us anything about the Causation. And, because nothing is complete without a favourite catchphrase - Integrated-Solutions will top Single-Solutions every time.

Whilst I would now like to say that this blog will be reinvigorated in the coming weeks, I must confess that I find it unlikely that the frequency of posting will increase substantially in the foreseeable future.

Of course, I can be convinced otherwise.


Update: I forgot to mention before - I have started some (three) drafts for a section I had hoped to start (not likely) entitled Partial Solutions. The idea was that I would post my proposed solutions to problems, or to aspects of problems, and then everyone who reads this could tear them to pieces. I must admit though, with the forthcoming work for the QUAC Round Table on Marijuiana laws I am a unlikely to do the work required to finish these works. Which I suppose makes this update a little pointless...

Is Abortion Morally Acceptable?

In recent weeks, well, months really, I have been re-examining my beliefs around abortion. Historically, I have been pro-choice. Very pro-choice. I thought pro-lifers were a bunch of religious nutjobs – righteous, pretentious and judgemental.
That may not be an unfair description of many religious opponents of abortion, but I now appreciate that there is a non-religious argument against the moral acceptability of abortion. I write this post not to convince anyone of the validity of that argument. Indeed, I do not seek to sway anyone with this post. This post is an attempt to solidify my own understanding of the complex issues surrounding abortion and to reach some sort of position on where I stand. As such, I would be most appreciative if readers could point out fallacies in my arguments, make refutations, and provide other supporting arguments for both sides of the debate.

I shall only consider the purely optional, voluntary cases. That is, those where the foetus is, to the best medical knowledge, perfectly healthy and the mother is in no physical danger from the pregnancy itself. I would argue that it is this case in which the moral acceptability is most in question. If it can be proved to be acceptable here, then it would be hard to find a situation in which you could successfully argue that it is unacceptable.¹

I don’t know how many abortions that fit this category are performed each year in Australia. I don’t think that it matters how many occur for the context of this discussion. The frequency of an action has no real impact on the moral acceptability of individual cases of said action.

The heart of the dilemma seems to revolve around what rights are assigned to the foetus.
If one does not believe that a foetus is human, then abortion is acceptable. If one does not believe that a foetus is capable of thought or reason, then maybe abortion is acceptable. If one does not believe that the existence of a foetus has intrinsic value, then abortion is acceptable. I do not know if a foetus possesses any of these traits.
I am willing to accept that foetus’ do not possess these traits when we are talking about a small handful of cells.
On the other hand, if one does take this position, then there needs to be a point in time at which the growing embryo/foetus/baby suddenly becomes human and worthy of protection under our laws. How can we arbitrarily define a point in time at which a foetus becomes worthy of this protection?

I can see no easy way. I have heard some argue that a foetus is unaware and unintelligent and thus not worthy. But much the same could be said of infants, the mentally disabled, the severely psychologically ill, and the comatose. How many are willing to argue that it is not wrong for another being to decide the fate of these individuals?

A possible counter to that position would be that the foetus is inside the mother, these other examples are free-standing individuals. Many would argue that the parasitic nature of the foetus grants the mother the right to determine its fate. Whilst I will not argue that the power to choose the fate of the foetus lies anywhere but with the mother, I am not convinced that the mother has the right to determine its fate. Merely having the power to do so does not grant the moral right to do so.²

We must decide on a point somewhere on the timeline from formation of the sperm and egg through to the natural death of the individual to impart the protections that none would deny to a newborn infant.
I know of no simple way to determine this. We understand so little of the formation of the human mind, and agreement on when a foetus becomes ‘human’ seems a long way off. I would argue that in the absence of enough understanding to truly determine when humanity is imparted in the foetus, we are best advised to take a cautious approach to the determination. Far better to set the limit overly earlier than to set it overly late.

I argue that once you are aware of the pregnancy, once it can be confirmed, once there is a moderate chance of the foetus surviving to term, then one must treat the foetus as if it were a human. I believe this is most commonly around the 8-12 week mark (corrections appreciated).

Another reason I believe this is not an inappropriate point to choose is that many people react to miscarriages around this time as if a human life has been lost. How can we say that when the baby is wanted it is an horrific tragedy to lose it and then, when the baby is undesired, turn around and say we do not view such a thing as human?

Another tack to consider is that of responsibility, choice, and consequence.
In the Western world, there is no need to get pregnant if you do not want to. Contraceptive pills, condoms, and numerous other birth-control measures exist to enable us to enjoy a promiscuous lifestyle without fear of bringing a child in to this life when we are ill-prepared to care for one. Though none are perfect, solid success rates are obtainable with proper use and multiple forms (with proper use of both the oral contraceptive pill and the male condom, failure rates can fall substantially below 0.1%). People know the risk of pregnancy exists when they have sex. As such, they must face the consequences of their actions and not shirk it. If they are truly concerned about becoming pregnant they can choose to abstain.
One could argue that the failure rates of contraceptives are not well-known. I would say that this is not an argument for the moral acceptability of abortion, it is instead an argument for government support of an education program.

Abortions, for voluntary reasons, need not occur. It is easy enough for a person to avoid pregnancy in the first instance – a lack of responsibility and caution should not be sufficient reason for someone to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Many have argued that the child’s quality of life will be less than it could be and that the parent’s lives would be ruined.
I argue that the child’s quality of life being less than it would have been had the mother and father been more careful is blatantly untrue. The aborted foetus is not recreated when next the mother falls pregnant. That foetus, that child is having its life cut short before it has even experienced it.
If one could guarantee that the child’s life is going to be a wholly negative experience and that that child would rather not live than live a negative experience, then the abortion would be acceptable. But one can not guarantee these things. There may be an increased likelihood that the child’s life is more negative on balance than it may otherwise have been, but that does not mean that it lacks positive parts. Nor does it mean that the child’s life cannot turn out to be a positive experience for the child and those the child encounters.
As for the destruction of the life of the parents, they must face the consequences of their actions. Especially when one considers that there is substantial support available through charities and the government – and often the parent’s family and friends. In the most untenable of cases, adoption may be considered. Though far from ideal, adoption is surely preferable to oblivion.

There are still many more arguments both for and against the moral acceptability of abortion. I recognise that the above argument applies only to a small section of the abortions that are performed annually. I have totally avoided the more difficult cases of rape, genetic illness of the foetus and medical risk to the mother. I have more than likely overlooked numerous considerations.

My position on abortion remains unclear to me. I am leaning towards viewing it as morally unacceptable (in the strict, textbook clean scenario above), but that does not sit easily with me. Both options are unpalatable. I know not where to stand.
As such, I would greatly welcome any input others have on this topic.

As an aside, even if abortion is morally unacceptable, I do not believe that we should criminalise the act. I believe that it should remain legal. Criminalising abortion would simply drive people to backyard clinics, a result that is undesirable for all concerned. It seems to me that state regulation of abortion can provide for the least bad outcome.
Of course, if abortion is morally acceptable, then remaining legal but regulated is also the optimal course of action.



1: Possibly situations such as aborting to choose the genetic characteristics of your child – eye colour, height, intelligence, gender. (return)



2: On a side track, are fathers responsible for their child once it is born? Do they have an obligation to protect and provide? Do they have a duty to nurture and love?

I would argue that they most certainly do. Indeed, much of society is quick to condemn the deadbeat dad. Personally, I have naught but disdain and contempt for those parents who would abandon their children. They are your responsibility. It is your duty and obligation to be there, to provide, to protect, and to love to the utmost of your ability.

If a moral requirement exists for the father to raise the child, then one must accept that the father must also have some input into the decision to abort the foetus. It is, after all, as much his actions that have resulted in the foetus, and as much his responsibility to face the consequences to the best of his ability. I would argue that both the mother and the father should be required to consent to a non-medically based abortion. There is no law forcing a mother to raise their child once it is born. Adoption is an option, as is leaving the child with the father and disappearing into the night.

Even if society were to agree that the father’s desires are equally important with the mother’s the question still remains, is abortion morally acceptable?(return)

Can I Still Be Surprised By A Silly Union Campaign?

Apparently so.

As I discovered courtesy of A Road to Surfdom, the AWU (Australian Workers Union) believe that long service leave should be transferable from job to job.

As in, if I work at one place and accrue a couple of weeks long-service leave in my short amount of service then I should be able to take it to the next place I work for a short period of time.

I'm assuming I'm not alone in been somewhat surprised and amazed at the AWU's blatant stupidity. Regardless of whether or not you think that workers should be entitled to more paid leisure time, surely it shouldn't arrive through long service leave.

Long service leave should remain as it is - an incentive to encourage employees to remain loyal to their employer over the course of decades. There is little more valuable than an experienced and capable employee.

Though, I must admit that I believe that there are a number of systems that would generate far superior employee loyalty over both the long- and short-term than long-service leave ever has.
Decent wages, professional and enjoyable working environments, flexibility and team integration, an opportunity to develop both personally and professionally and, most importantly, a sense of appreciated importance to the work place.

Daniel O'Brien.


Elsewhere: A Road to Surfdom

What of Our Forgotten Children?

Well, after a month of enforced, exam-driven hibernation I'm back. With any luck, this will be the first of three posts between now and friday. At least then I can claim to post once a fortnight on average...

Reproduced below is an article I wrote for a linguistics course I took this semester. I'll leave it to speak for itself. I've neglected to write a headline because I seem unable to think one up. Any suggestions greatly appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abe wanted to go to school. It wasn’t because he particularly liked school. He didn’t really. He had few friends and little reason to want to be there. The only thing it really had going for it was that it wasn’t home. He wasn’t sure why it was he never wanted to go home. He tried not to think about the possible reasons.
To go to school he needed his younger brothers to get out of bed and get dressed. It never occurred to him that he could go without them. He took that responsibility upon himself without even realising it. They wouldn’t listen to him, they never did. So, he needed his mum to get up and tell them to get ready.
He couldn’t understand at the time why it was that she wouldn’t wake up. He just wanted to go to school.

Abe is now 21. He thinks he was probably 13 or 14 when this episode took place. Despite his vivid recollection of that particular morning, he isn’t entirely certain how old he was, largely because events like this were not uncommon. They happened with varying regularity from when he was about 8 until he was nearly 18.
She wouldn’t wake that morning because she had taken a non-fatal overdose the night before. He isn’t sure when he realised that was the case.
“For that whole decade, my home life is a tangled web of confusion. I’m not sure when anything happened. It’s just one big mess. Kind of like my life was. So I don’t know when I worked out she’d overdosed. It was probably on sleeping tablets. They were her favourite. Though it could’ve been anti-depressants or pain-killers. She’d take all of whatever they’d given her.”

He’d known his mum was unwell from shortly after she first got sick. It wasn’t hard to tell. Sometimes she was in hospital for months. Despite knowing she was sick, he has never understood her illness.
“Even now I don’t have much of an idea what’s wrong with her. Not even her diagnosis. She’s told me so many different things over the years. I don’t even think she knows.”

According to the South Australian-based Children of Parents with a Mental Ilness (COPMI) program, alarming numbers of Australian children are affected by their parent's mental illness. Though many children are not impacted, significant numbers face a multitude of challenges, including fear and confusion over their parent's illness, family stresses, disruption to their study, and an increased risk of mental illness.

When asked about whether he faced these challenges, Abe was quick to agree and add a few more of his own.
“It was really hard, I could never have friends over. That just wasn’t done. I don’t know that I faced the stigma directly, I certainly wasn’t aware of it. I suppose I was lucky in that way. But still, I never had any friends over. I always went to their place and that meant finding transport and that wasn’t easy. Especially since for years Mum was terrified of us kids catching the bus. It was too dangerous. The perverts would get us.”

Abe believes that his mother’s illness has affected him in many ways.
“It was definitely a difficult time. I had a lot more responsibility than a normal kid my age. I fed my brothers most, or at least many, nights. I got them ready for school. Once my Dad asked me to hide the razors from her, ‘cause he was afraid she’d cut herself. I hid them, but I felt really bad. I didn’t know what I was meant to do.”

For Abe, the hardest part was thinking that everything he was going through was normal.
“That’s what shocks me the most. At the time it’s all just normal to you. I never realised that life wasn’t meant to be like that. That it wasn’t meant to be that hard or that painful. I really wish someone had told me that at the time. For so long I thought I was weak and pathetic for not keeping everything together perfectly.”

At least one study has shown that mental health workers believe that learning more about their parent’s illness can be of great benefit to the children. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find any information on these topics, let alone child-friendly information.

Children of Mentally Ill Consumers, or COMIC for short, is a South Australian organisation that was formed in February 2000. They aim to provide education and information on these topics as well as advocating for these forgotten children. Unfortunately, there is currently no way of ensuring that all the children who would benefit from their services can find them. No one knows how many children slip through the cracks.

Abe believes he would have benefited greatly from such a service.
“I wish I’d known about it when I was younger. I know how to find things like that now, but when you’re twelve you don’t know these things. It wouldn’t have solved everything, but it would have made it better and even a little bit better would have been a big improvement.”
He also believes that it would be great if there was a support group service for children such as he was.
“Somewhere to go and talk with other kids who are going through similar things. Somewhere that people understand. Most people don’t. They feel sorry for you or disdain or indifference, they never really understand though and you can tell. It makes you feel so alone.”

This may be why studies have shown that the support of family members, especially siblings is a great benefit and should be strongly encouraged.

“My brothers are the only ones who really understand, and even then they went through it differently. They didn’t have to cook so much. They didn’t hide the razors. The youngest one doesn’t remember Mum when she was well.”
Abe described how, in some ways, he struggled not just because his mother was unwell, but because he had known her when she was well.
“I think in some ways it’s so much harder for me ‘cause I remember what she was like when I was five and she was like the perfect fairy tale mother. She read to me and taught me and my friends to read. She was always there and had all the answers and was always happy and smiling and cheerful. I know that’s through a five year-olds eyes, but that’s how I remember the non-sick mum and it’s just so much harder because I know she’ll never be back. It’s like my mother died and I’ve got a defective replacement. I still love her, but I hate her too.”

It’s a concept he spent quite some time trying to explain, how you can love someone and hate them and even wish that they would die.
“For the longest time I hated myself, because every time she tried to kill herself or overdosed or went in to hospital, I wished that this time she’d just bloody well finish it all off. It would be so much easier if I could just grieve for her once. Instead, I grieve for her every time it happens. I didn’t know how much more grieving I could survive. I didn’t want her to come to any harm, but I wanted to stop hurting.”

COPMI’s aim is “to develop these children into happy, healthy young adults regardless of their parents’ health”. The extra challenges these children face and the less-effective coping skills they learn from their ill parents leave them especially susceptible to developing mental illnesses of their own. Between ten and twenty per cent of children without mentally ill parents will develop a psychiatric illness in later life. Anywhere between one quarter and one-half of children with a mentally ill parent go on to develop such an illness.

Abe now works full-time in the retail industry and hopes to run his own store one day. He has been diagnosed with depression on two separate occasions in the past three years. Though he is quick to take personal responsibility for his illness, you can’t help but wonder if he would be healthier and happier had things been different.
“I lack the coping skills that many people have. I’ve learnt a lot of them in the last couple of years, since I took responsibility for myself and stopped blaming everything on my mum and everything that happened. I think that’s a key step. You have to take responsibility for your life.”
His mother is still ill and he has now distanced himself from her, seeing her only on special occasions and at infrequent lunches.
“It’s not something you want to do. I wish I could have a better relationship with her. But at some point you have to realise that being there in the middle of it all isn’t good. You have to realise that there’s nothing wrong about looking after yourself first. It’s okay to survive. It’s a hard thing to do. If there was one thing I would tell someone in a similar situation to what I was in, it would be that. I’d tell them, it’s important to protect yourself, you have to look after yourself and be well yourself before you can look after them and help them become well.”



Abe spoke with me on the condition of anonymity, as such Abe is not his real name.

Can the Democrats Side-Step Questions They Dislike?

Last night I attended a YACSA Pizza and Politics night in town. About fifteen people showed up to listen to short presentations from:

Senator Simon Birmingham - Federal Liberal Senator and #2 Senate Candidate for SA;
Ruth Russell - Lead Democrats Senate Candidate for SA;
Sarah Hanson-Young - Lead Greens Senate Candidate for SA; and
Tony Bates - Lead Family First Senate Candidate for SA.

Unfortunately, the ALP representative was a last minute apology.

The presentations at the start of the night were fairly routine. They all ran slightly overtime and were full of the standard policy statements.
Simon Birmingham proved himself an articulate and confident voice, with a sound understanding of a wide range of issues. Though I disagreed with a number of his positions, I was impressed with the depth and bredth of his knowledge.
Ruth Russell was her usual self and seemed to love to name-drop. You'd have thought she was stumping for Senator Stott-Despoja between ideological flights of fantasy with, seemingly, minimal groundings in hard facts or data.
Sarah Hanson-Young was a fairly typical young Greenie - fiery, passionate, and angry.
I have to give bonus points to Tony Bates. His speaking style was perhaps a bit reserved and formal for such an event and his spiel was not especially convincing. However, he was willing to come to an event where he was unlikely to have any supporters (and indeed, everyone present was anti-family first). That takes a certain amount of courage and determination. His willingness to engage with us was not unimpressive.

The question period went for over an hour and was by far the highlight of the evening. Numerous questions were answered and several things became apparent.

* The Democrats and the Greens agree on so much they could practically be one party.
* The Democrats like to say "Natasha Stott-Despoja" an awful lot. You could be forgiven for thinking that it was the Stott-Despoja Party and not the Australian Democrats.
* There is a big difference between experienced, competent candidates and fresh faces.
* Family First is not the pure evil it is often made out to be.

I was surprised when Mr Bates explained that Family First had a policy of completely free tertiary education. I was also somewhat appalled. I am, and always have been, fully against free tertiary education. The current pay-when-you-earn-enough system is fairer and more effective in my opinion. One could mount an argument that the current thresholds are too low, or the rates are too high. Overall though, it seems to me that it is unreasonable to ask people who are earning below the median wage to pay for other people to earn above the median wage.

I was less surprised when Mr Bates explained Family First's manufacturing policy. They are protectionists. I have seen this policy from them several times before, it is effectively an infant-industry argument and I am curious as to how well they could implement it. Personally, I think many Australian industries have been coddled for far too long. If they aren't export competitive after sixty-years, they aren't going to be.

Ruth Russell had to before the night finished, as did Sarah Hanson-Young. So, unfortunately I was unable to ask them my question. Fortuitously, Sandy Biar and Aleisha Brown stood in for Ms Russell. Mr Biar is the Democrats candidate for Adelaide and I have met him on several previous occasions through student politics at the University of Adelaide. Ms Brown is their candidate for Makin. I had never met her before, but know her name from around campus where she is the current President of the Democrats Club.

I asked them to explain how they reconciled Compulsory Student Unionism with a belief in Freedom of Association. Ms Brown demonstrated her inexperience in a stammered and broken response in which she outlined the importance of student services and how they have been cut since Voluntary Student Unionism was introduced.
Mr Biar then stepped in and delivered a more articulate response, albeit one that contained no additional content. I was most disappointed. The Democrats were once a bastion of civil-liberties and civil-rights. They now seem to be a collection of angry, bitter radicals.

After the formal proceedings closed, there was some opportunity to mill around and speak to the various candidates. I spoke with Sandy Biar about the VSU question I had raised and he indicated that he actually supported VSU, though that was not Democrats policy.

This came as a shock to me. What happened to the Democrats being a collection of like-minded individuals who were not hampered by a need to toe the party line? Is this indicative of a broader change within the party? Are the Democrats now as restricted as Labor and the Liberals? Does the policy of conscience voting exist in theory alone?


Events such as last night's YACSA Pizza and Politics are phenomenal means for young people to interact with their representatives and candidates. My only regret is that the evening couldn't last longer.

Furthermre, it seems to have had a limited impact on my voting intentions. My current intentions for the House of Reps remains the same (an unfortunate state of affairs induced by my disdain for the Liberal's Tracy Marsh and wariness of Sandy Biar, leaving me little choice but Labor's Kate Ellis). My impresions for the senate race have modified slightly. Family First shall move from their traditional place at the bottom of the ballot, to be replaced by long-time competitor for last place by One Nation. Family First will now sit at second-to-last (unless a particularly nasty one-issue party stumbles along). Simon Birmingham was fairly impressive and I'll probably include him in my top ten.

Yes, I vote below the line. Always have. Always will. This year I aim to meet every Senate candidate for South Australia and every candidate for the seat of Adelaide (along with as many other candidates as I possibly can). I suspect that shall be quite the tall order. This blog will hopefully record how I go and detail a few interesting meetings with politicians of various stripes and sizes.

Edit: I fixed a few spelling-errors and added the hyperlinks. Daniel. (22:30 17-Oct-07)