Crud from Rudd

Since being elected leader of the Labor party Kevin Rudd has said he offers a new style of leadership and an alternative policy platform rather than an echo of the Government. Really?

On the issue of legislation which will implement the recommendations of the Lockhart review into stem cell research, including a new process of allowing embryonic cloning, Kevin certainly has an alternative policy platform, but it’s alternative to former leader Kim Beazley. What I’m really looking for is an alternative to HoWARd.

Kevin Rudd: “I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life”

John HoWARd: “I don’t think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view (since the 2002 vote to ban therapeutic cloning).”

My concern is that Kevin has articulated his belief that human life begins at conception. What may be the implications on choice this may have for Australian women in the future.

The Lockhart review suggests that,

A fundamental judgement needs to be made about when a fertilised egg becomes a potential life form deserving of special ethical respect and treatment. A key recommendation of the Committee was for a clearer definition of what a human embryo is. The current statutory definition catches embryos from about the age of 22 hours to about 8 weeks. This is in stark contrast to the definition which many in the scientific community would prefer.
The UKs Warnock Committee were of the view that until the fourteenth day of development most cells of the embryo had the potential to develop into tissue which would not even form part of the ultimate foetus (such as placenta or the amniotic sac), and that cells which were identifiable as dedicated to the development of the foetus itself would not be determined until at least day 14 after conception. Defining an embryo before this stage as a ‘potential life’ therefore, according to the Warnock Committee was ‘inaccurate and misleading.’


Image from here

Comments spamproofed by Akismet

Trackback disabled until further notice.

28 Responses to “Crud from Rudd”

  1. weez Says:

    Smashing, Suki.

    Could Rudd be Australia’s Bill Clinton, often said to be the best Republican president the US ever had?

    Gillard could come out swinging at the idiocy of religious restrictions on science at the peril of making Labor look like a buncha wet lefties. But will she?

  2. Alastair Says:

    This is a silly example to point to. Stem Cell Research is a controversial issue to which many (from all sides of politics) have different moral and ethical viewpoints. Hence, this was not voted upon along party lines but a conscience vote was taken.

    I’m sure you’ll see a clear-cut difference between Rudd and Howard on a number of mainstream issues. If for some reason there isn’t, then you’ll be justified in handing out such criticism.

  3. gandhi Says:

    Did you see this story about last year’s “biological agent” scare?

    It seems to me that the Howard government has engaged in a deliberate act of terrorism, possibly premeditated. At best, they knowingly distorting facts to terrify the public. At worst, they were personally involved in the planning and execution.

  4. Suki Says:

    Alistair if you don’t see the significance of Kevin’s reasoning for his vote that’s your loss, but don’t think I’ll accept you assertion that the right to reproductive rights is not a mainstream issue for women and the men who love them.

  5. Suki Says:

    gandhi, thanks for pointing this out. HoWARd is certainly implicated in this one.
    As an aside, how did anyone get FOI to work- as in actual data?!

  6. Armagnac Esq Says:

    I’m half way between you and Alistair, Suki.

    I was concerned at this, but also note that Rudd voted for RU486 (was that the number?) on the side of removing the power from the mad monk, in a conscience vote where a number of labor fundies voted the other way, so I think his cred on choice is still pretty strong.

  7. Graham Bell Says:

    That “biological agent” beat-up was similar to the “death-threat-by-cartoon” farce and beat-up featuring Veterans’ Affairs Minister Billson (which now seems to have been an attempt to intimidate ex-service organizations and make them toe the line).

    A real test of Gillard and Rudd’s leadership will be WHEN Howard and his cronies pull on a fake “security threat” in order to suspend more of our rights and liberties – such as postponing the next federal election.

    Will they show themselves to be a real government-in-waiting by defending us against an abuse of power and by exposing political stunts ….. or will they merely mumber a grumble or two and then follow meekly the “bipartisan” line on “terrrorism” like obedient servants?

    Time will tell.


    Cheer up. A bill that will give tremendous hope to paraplegics and those suffering serious illnesses has gone though despite the efforts of the Anti-Christ fundamentalists.

  8. ab Says:

    I’ve seen a lit of pretty heartless things in relation to pregnancies and babies, but almost invariably they result in cruelty to the woman carrying and not a foetus. I look forward to a day when a woman’s body, future and human rights are as valuable as a man’s and Kevin Rudd should get over his superstitious & ignorant fear of women being able to create life, and stop trying to control our choices and rights – because that’s where his ignorant beliefs stem from, patriarchal control. Pathetic.

  9. Anna Winter Says:

    As you know, Im staunchly pro-choice, but I’m not concerned that Rudds opposition to SCNT will affect his views on choice. Its possible to think that life begins at conception and still accept that that doesnt mean women should be forced to incubate it.

    While I was disappointed about Rudds position on stem cells because I believe it is very important research, I dont think we need to worry about its implications for women. As well, he still leads the only one of the two major parties that a. will never force its pro-choice majority to vote against abortion, and b. decides policy based on a vote in caucus, rather than a decision of the leader. Its the plus side of the whole binding party line thing that the whole caucus gets to vote on what that line is.

  10. Brownie Says:

    I like this wot ‘ab’ said:
    “superstitious & ignorant fear of women being able to create life, and stop trying to control our choices and rights – because thats where his ignorant beliefs stem from, patriarchal control.”
    If ‘men’ (as an entire species) went through psychoanalysis, it would be revealed that the Abbott-thinking ones, never ever get over the fact that a FEMALE has physical control, for 40 weeks, of one of their sperm, and the foetus it creates. When we ‘do that to them’ it makes them feel they are not in complete control.

    I am pro-choice and pro-stem cell research. Save The Michael J Fox! (read his book ‘A Lucky Man’, the chapter on his brain surgery for Parkinsons is rivetting).

  11. Marcus Says:

    Yeah – The one thing that’s always had me worried about Rudd is his repeatedly pronounced identification as a Christian, as well as that talk of his a while back of somehow bringing Labor closer to religion and the churches, or some such nonsense. It’s called a secular society numbnuts, and its actually worked pretty bloody well in this country so far.

    The last thing this country needs is a greater influence from fundies and faith heads. Who the hell are they to try to bloody well assert that god has given them some divine right to violate a woman’s autonomy over her own body? Personally I have no doubt that the comments by Kevin Rudd that you mentioned were based on nothing but his own faith based idiocies. I’d be curious to know how Peter Garrett voted on that stem cell legislation, what with him being a pretty public christian and all.

  12. Marcel White Says:

    Kevin Rudd is still pro-abortion, but to use your terminology for a moment he does have ‘potential’. He did vote the wrong way on RU486.

    Kevin Rudd was baptised a Catholic but has since fallen for the Henretian fallacy (Anglicanism). I know the Anglican Bishop in Queensland is not opposed to embryonic stem cell research, so that leads that particular flock into confusion.

    I find it interesting that pro-abortion activists are so keen on embryonic research and cloning. Far from being a scientifically discerned position, me thinks it is a subconscious desire to see the value of human life further diminished so as to make the efforts to retain legalised abortion easier.

    Suki, do you think the 14 day limit is appropriate for experimentation? How old do you think a fetus should be able to grow to for the purpose of experimeting on? Is birth the line?

  13. Suki Says:

    Marcel you said,
    “Suki, do you think the 14 day limit is appropriate for experimentation? How old do you think a fetus should be able to grow to for the purpose of experimenting on? Is birth the line?”

    Marcel, no talk of babies?
    Are you aware that you used the term fetus?
    Women miscarry all the time and where possible tests are done to determine why.
    Are you against this experimentation?

    As to your question- I’ll defer to the evidence coming out of the UK’s Warnock Committee, hence my concern about Kevin’s concept of where life (and possibly his thoughts on rights) begin.

  14. ansteybranchopolous Says:

    Thanx for the survey of Rudd – a complete wanker in my estimation – a dangerous self opinionated religious whoopsy doosie who is already dropping on his kness towards the eco rationalists. The ALP is so full of tossers that Rudd perfectly symbolises the party’s gutlessness.

  15. weez Says:

    Marcel, my imaginary friends can beat up your imaginary friends.

    Now, could you kindly go back under your rock?

  16. Brownie Says:

    aawww Weez, don’t be friendly – it will just encourage him.

    If Marcel cared about little babies he would be out there lecturing model mothers to KEEP YOUR DAMN EYES ON THE PUSHER WHILE YOU ANSWER YOUR MOBILE.

    It is much more horrible for an unwanted 5-month old to drown, than for a 12-week fetus to be sacrificed.

  17. weez Says:

    Brownie, you’re right… I could be slippin’. 😉

    Anti-choicers don’t give a fuck what happens to the clump of cells once expelled from a woman’s body. In fact, they’re willing to kill a few of the older clumps all by themselves.

    I still fail to see how Marcel has a right to dictate how anyone should operate their pink bits… This is the pivotal question that in all his years of his stalking Suki, Marcel has completely dodged.

    Marcel wants to live in a theocracy. Considering that’s not what Australians want, he should fuck right off to Vatican City… but I hear the immigration restrictions for Popeville are pure hell.

  18. marcel white Says:

    Weezil, if you’re happy to pay, me and my fiance will move to the eternal city.

    Suki, baby and fetus mean the same thing to me. I am intrigued that you want to outsource your passionate inquiring mind to a committee in Britain. Does that mean other people determine your view on human life?

    In anticipation of the quid pro quo, yes other persons determine my view when human life begins: ie the Holy Trinity and the authors of scripture. it is nice that science agress with them on this point.

  19. Suki Says:

    I’ll take the evidence Marcel…you can keep your beliefs.

  20. weez Says:

    If we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly take up a collection to assist Marcel’s deportation. We ARE getting a binding agreement that you stay out of Australia for the rest of your natural life, right Marcel?

    Marcel, if ‘baby’ and ‘foetus’ mean the same thing to you, so should ‘tree’ and ‘house’ as well as ‘iron ore mine’ and ‘Toyota Celica.’

    Still dodging the issue of your authority to dictate by law how others should operate their pink bits, I see. 🙄

  21. marcel white Says:

    Let’s take your logical construct of tree to house. A tree sits in forest. If no deliberate human action against that tree takes place it will reamin a tree sitting in that forest.

    A newly conceived embryo implants in a uterus. If no human intervention to deliberately remove the embryo or fetus takes place, he/she will devlop more, grow and be born.

    Hardly analogous to iron ore mine to car (obviously an attemp at humorous hyperbole), as there needs to be hundreds of deliberate interventions. Once conceived, the new life moves inexorably towards birth, unless someones intervenes and the life succumbs.

    I am not dodging anything. I am using the same authority that you use when you denounce hoWARd. Or when you offer opinions on Bush. Or when you are abhorred with how refugees are treated. Imagine your frustration if anytime you pointed out an obvious injustice committed by a person in a position of power and it was answered with the boring refrain ‘their body, their choice’. Anyway, I’m just sharing with you Our Lord’s objection to abortion, so I guess the authority is his, and I, a poor wretched sinner have no authority over life and death, so I’ll defer always to his judgment.

    Merry Christmas

  22. weezil Says:

    Marcel, a foetus still isn’t a baby and you still have no right to put your moral opinions in public law. Public laws affect all in this secular (did you get that secular part?) society, not just those whom you think you can force your religious will upon.

    If you want theocratic rule as aforementioned, there’s places you can get that- just not here…

    Unless of course, I can have it legislated that you must have a kilo of cooked pasta in your knickers at all times, under penalty of death, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whom I passionately believe in with all my being, has dictated that this must be so.

    Fuck off with your faerie tales, Marcel.

  23. Suki Says:

    This post is called Crud from Rudd.
    The comments section can be called Shite from White.

  24. weezil Says:


    You only say that because the pasta in your knickers has gone all cold and squishy, Suki. 😉

  25. marcel white Says:

    When you can point to A Spaghetti Monster who has inspired the greatest Rennaisance painters, who has given courage the thousand upon thousands of Holy Martyrs, who has inspired the best poetry, literature and song, whose Incarnation is such a celebrated event that you still get a day off from work thousands of years later in secular country, the invocation of whose name draws millions of economically impoversihed people to their knees because they know what’s eternal is greatest; if your Spaghetti Monster preached a philosophy of share with all, forgive all, endure all and enjoy all for the sake of love, and he became like us, to endure death unto a cross, because he loved his creation despite its disobedience and arrogance, and through it all stayed with his Church and kept his promise, despite our one sided estrangement, and delivered us from evil and used his very own sacrifice to ransom our wrongdoings… then yes, I would put the Spaghetti in my pants. 🙂

  26. weezil Says:

    Oh, so your god is bigger and better than my god? Don’t think so, bud.

    Submit to His noodly appendage or wear tagliatelle with bearnaise sauce until death!

  27. Brownie Bwca Says:

    reality check
    ‘inspired the greatest Rennaisance painters’
    who were very mostly gay boys now reviled by your fab sect.

    ” a celebrated event that you still get a day off from work’
    I WISH ONLY PRACTISING church attending christians got the holydays. then we would sort out who is who pretty quick.

    and delivered us from evil

  28. Hurdling Girdles » Suki Has An Opinion Says:

    […] I have been watching Kevin Rudd intently and frankly, I have been concerned about some of his statements. […]

Leave a Reply