LETTERS News Weekly
, November 9, 2013
Farmers need a reconstruction bank
The proposed sale of two Northern Territory beef export properties to Indonesian interests, with the approval of new Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, is another sad day for Australia agriculture.
It illustrates the conundrum faced by farmers after decades of destructive agricultural policies that are forcing farmers to do what they don’t want to do — either sell to foreign interests or walk off the farm.
The two NT properties sought by Indonesian buyers will supply only 5,000 head to Jakarta.
Indonesia has increased the quota from 50,000 to 70,000 head, while it used to be 200,000 head.
Even this low quota probably won’t be filled. The Gillard Labor/Greens government’s live export debacle and the drought in the Top End have together conspired to leave NT beef properties with crippling debt.
Some farmers have walked off their properties while others are de-stocking. Some are driving their cattle down the old stock trails to southern NSW to find feed and markets.
NT beef that was once exported is now being pushed into the domestic market, causing an oversupply of beef and collapsing prices for southern beef producers.
How should NT graziers have been helped? With a rural reconstruction bank that would have allowed farmers to continue operating until their markets were re-established.
Such a bank won’t solve all the problems of farmers, but it would be a start to finding a new range of policies badly needed to make farmers profitable once again.
Biology and marriage
No sane farmer puts two bulls in a paddock and expects calves. And no sane person expects same-sex unions to produce children.
Same-sex couple who want to be regarded as “married” and a “family” by having children artificially are admitting they really want to enjoy sex as a recreation and to have a child as an optional extra, if or when they please.
Such couples deny a child its natural rights to be born to a loving natural father and mother and to have the bonding identity and security it needs for a healthy life — as all experience and measures show.
Any laws which undermine marriage and family weaken a nation, as has been seen in the collapse of civilisations such as ancient Athens and Rome.
A strong and just society cannot be built on what has been traditionally called sodomy, and regarded as one of the worst social disorders, often punishable by death — as it is still in some societies today.
This is plain biology and not ideological bigotry. We must preserve a healthy society.
President, Bendigo-Eaglehawk branch of the
Australian Family Association,
“Fourth trimester” abortion is infanticide
Bill Meuhlenberg, in his article, “Culture of death and our missing moral compass” (News Weekly, October 12, 2013), reports the student advocacy at George Mason University, Virginia, of the legalisation of abortion after birth, something they call “fourth trimester” abortions.
Their usage of such a term needs immediate correction. It is not abortion; it is infanticide, one of the recognised categories of murder, such as parricide or matricide.
Sadly, their choice of word indicates that “abortion” has become a term without negative valence, sufficiently approved to be used to hide what is really intended: the killing of a term baby at any time in its first three months of life, a baby no longer part of or dependent on its mother’s body for its survival — but simply killed at her behest.
The feminist argument for abortion, that a woman has the right to decide for her own body, no longer applies. Her body is free of the baby; it can survive without her.
What is the motive for this driving further of the wedge? Is it in the mistaken belief that, if a mother finds the bond to her baby is inhibiting her work commitments and changing her life, killing her baby will obliterate the bond and free her emotionally?
Is it as an assurance that (as with marriage these days) she can turn back the clock if having a baby turns out not to be what she expected, and does not please her?
Is it dog-in-a-manger-ish that she does not want another woman to know the joy of loving and being loved by the baby she has rejected?
Our moral compass is surely in disarray if, on the one hand, we will do all we can medically to save a second trimester baby whose mother values its life but we will kill a three-month-old baby (at the end of its “fourth trimester”) at its mother’s asking.
Never yet in human history (or pre-history) has an individual been given such unqualified power of life and death over another.
Victoria has already legalised infanticide at birth. Will it go on to legalise it in the fourth, fifth and sixth trimesters? This was advocated by the little clutch of ethicists at Monash University led by Peter Singer. I wonder if he is happy to see what he justified in theory being put into practice?
Dr Lucy Sullivan,