French feminist, Elizabeth Badinter, has written a new book, “The Conflict: how modern Motherhood undermines the status of women”.

She says, “The object of this book is to defend the right of women to make their own choices and to take issue with this idea that you are a bad mother if you bottle feed your baby, if you put your kid in daycare and if you work . . . .”

Motherhood, she says “has become crushing for women, in the sense that it monopolises women’s time, 24 hours a day . . . dangerous for their desires and their ambitions and their freedom as women.”

* * *

Another article, by a lady calling herself simply Tanya, said:

“I didn’t feel clucky before I became pregnant. But as my body grew to accommodate our child, my mind and spirit also grew to welcome the new life within . . . .

“The demands of a child have shown me that I am able to give far more than I ever thought possible.

My child excels when she feels secure and confident. I am the one person in the world most able to implant that feeling of security in her heart . . . .

Even the most high-flying executive doesn’t have the same influence that I have over the universe. They deal only in material things which are perishable. My career is to raise up a soul which can live forever with God.”

* * *

Which of these two would you prefer to have as your mother?

A recent study reports that only 4 per cent of women aged 18 to 44 see having a baby as their top priority.

Seven out of ten want to have children at some stage, but apparently want to feel financially secure and have lots of “experiences” before eventually getting around to it.

These ladies delay trying to conceive until they are past their biological prime.

A Sydney professor, Dr William Ledger, said, “It’s significant and surprising that having a baby is not a top life priority for Australian women in the fertile age group”

* * *

Surprising?

Is it surprising that in a community where 90-plus percent vote for political parties that support contraception, sterilisation, in vitro fertilisation, abortion, childcare subsidies etc. . . .

. . . that women and girls having been brought up in such an atmosphere put babies more or less last in their priorities?

* * *

Significant?

What does it signify?

That they consider having molto mod cons around the home trumps being part of the human family?

That they consider bearing and caring for a new developing human being – being a co-creator in partnership with God — is boring compared with going to an office, factory or other workplace?

The concept of International Women’s Day (IWD) was invented just over 100 years ago by Communists in USA and Germany.

The choice of March 8 was made by the Russian Bolsheviks after the 1917 October Revolution.

Since 1977, the United Nations has promoted IWD — this year nominating its theme as “Women’s Empowerment”.

IWD organisers, even in non-Communist countries, love employing Communist-style policies and lingo when boosting it.

* * *

The Australian Labor Party used IWD 2012 to promise, yet again, state recognition of homosexual coupling — terrible news for a future generation of children if they succeed.

The Liberal-National Coalition likewise used the occasion to promise a “paid parental leave” scheme which will ensure that next generation’s toddlers won’t see much of their mothers.

The annual March 8 event might be better called, not IWD, but IACD (International Anti-Child Day).

A Senate inquiry has investigated the issue of young mothers forced to give up their children for adoption between the 1940s and 1970s.

Those days, a pregnant teenage girl was often accommodated away from home — and after the birth encouraged to let the baby be adopted — and then return home to get on with her life.

No doubt some happenings in those days were pretty rough — girls lied to about their rights and browbeaten into signing documents they didn’t understand.

But in the long run, might it be that the children were, in fact, better off adopted than they’d have been with the mum?

Don’t say that out loud.

It’s a not a permitted opinion.

* * *

Will we now be treated to a formal “apology” — like Kevin Rudd’s 2008 “Stolen Generations” apology?

It would be a longer job trying to find ways to convince young people not to have sex until married and in a position to take some responsibilty.

A long job even to get our society to decide that it’s worth trying to do.

Judith Wright’s book “Cry for the Dead” describes a drought in outback Queensland during the early 1800s.

Water-courses dried up.

Only one lagoon remained to supply water to the settlers’ cattle.

A party was sent out to shoot the local aborigines camping by the lagoon, so that the cattle would not be deprived of that water.

* * *

How could those settlers have been so heartless?

Easy.

They were comfortable in their belief that certain human beings are not real persons.

A person is someone who, if you shoot them, it is murder.

But to those settlers you weren’t a person unless you were white.

* * *

Unborn babies are alive. They are human.

Yes, they are human beings.

But in 2012 Australia being a human being isn’t enough . . . ask any member of the Greens Party . . . or almost any member of the Australian Labor Party.

A community which doesn’t treat abortion as murder has made no progress since that Queensland massacre of the 1800s.

Watch this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_C-jBMOJaI

Last year a technician employed by the Canterbury District Health Board in New Zealand refused to assist in preparing surgical instruments to be used in performing abortions.

She was called before a disciplinary board and given an ultimatum – do your job or be dismissed.

She sought legal advice and discovered that NZ law states that “no registered medical practitioner, registered nurse, or any other person, shall be under any obligation . . . to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion . . . .”

The lady was NOT sacked.

Since then, two of her co-workers have joined in refusing to assist in abortion.

* * *

This couldn’t happen in the state of Victoria, Australia, where there is no such conscience clause.

And the Queensland government is now preparing similar legislation.

Why do something so controversial just before a state election?

What little hope the Queensland government has of being re-elected will depend on getting each and every single Greens Party preference with no leakage.

The guaranteed way to get the Greens onside is to have policies which undermine the sanctity of human life.