Hi from Jim Reiher

A quick update.... and two short speechs I have given recently:

I survived 5 meet the candidate nights in the last week: 4 run by the Australian Christain Lobby group and the 5th in a Uniting Church.

The ACL ones only gave upper house candidates 3 minutes to speak. I changed my speech each night as I tried to weigh up how useful or effective it was or wasnt.

The last one (last night) might get me into some spew. If you hear that I am pro-3rd trimester abortions, or anti-life... etc, from other sources, it will probably be based on my talk last night. Here is the talk - so you will know what I said, and what I did not say.

You may not personally agree with what I said, or you might, but at least you will know what my position really is.

I had to cut the speech down to fit 3 minutes so the bits in smaller font did not get said.

Thanks Jim ...........

The abortion dilemma

In the 1950's a law was made making abortion a criminal act with the penalty of jail for the woman and doctor.

In 1969 a judge made a ruling that if a mother's physical or mental state was at risk, then an abortion could take place.

Ever since there have been thousands of legal abortions yearly in Victoria. They are medicare funded and there is never any prosecution. There are even occasional 3rd trimester abortions under this rule.

If anyone can get an abortion any time for any reason in Victoria, and they all fall under the 1969 excemption to the criminal law, then what would change if we decriminalized abortion? If anyone can get one now for any reason any time, how will decriminalizing it, increase abortions?

What else might happen?

1) Women will no longer have the stigma attached to them that they are criminals or could possibly face jail.

2) Studies in Europe where decriminalization has taken place show no significant increase in 3rd trimester abortions as a result.... Is that a surprise? Isn't that the horrible possibility that everyone is screaming about? ... Well... Women do not decide on late term abortions flippantly. People who want an abortion for all the usual "lesser" reasons like socio-economic stress; personal convenience; a form of contraception; shame; guilt; distress over who the father is; - they do it early. Not late. And the very rare late abortions are for tragic reasons: perhaps a serious deformity has been detected late; perhaps the mother has contracted cancer; - horrible scenarios.

I have been asked: would I vote for decriminalization? Yes or No. Results will be published in major newspapers next week.

I find the request offensive and simplistic. Here is what I wrote back:

"I am distressed that this debate has worked from the assumption that there are only two positions:

(1) You are either for the current criminal law and therefore love life, believe in the sanctity of life, and oppose abortions, or

(2) You are willing to decriminalize abortion and therefore you hate the unborn, think nothing of them, are happy for third trimester abortions for any reason, and are a cruel and anti-life person who has a total disregard for the sanctity of life.

Well, I believe that there are other categories.

For example:

(3) A person might be against decriminalization of abortion but that person might not actually hold to the sanctity of life. Some people say they value the life of the unborn, but they do not hold the same value for the living. Some such folk support our countries involvement in the war in Iraq that has seen over 600,000 deaths of men, women, and children. They support capital punishment. ... They do not hold to the sanctity of life.

And then there is a 4th position:

(4) A person might be willing to decriminalize abortion but still love life and would like to see less abortions in this state. To cite an example of a politician from a more conservative party: recently in the federal RU486 - abortion pill - debate, Mr Costello voted for its easier access into the country. And yet he is not a keen abortionist. He is pro-life and pro-choice. This is similar to the current debate.

To simplistically say all people must fall into either category (1) or (2)

is to ignore deep complexities.

I am of the last position. Register me as someone who would support decriminalization, but I hope you put these comments with my name.

....Well..... I sent my response off. They are not going to print my qualifications, just my Yes answer.

So I will now be publicly labeled as someone who hates babies and supports late term abortions.

What do you do when people ask you to do Yes/No replies, to deeply complex questions?

It actually makes me wonder what on earth am I doing this for? Why am I putting my head above the parapet - just to have yes/no Christians with lots of financial backing and a big email tree, ridicule me publicly?

But what can you do when the need to serve and be involved burns deep in your spirit? At the end of the day I am both pro-life and pro showing grace to women who have abortions. And I will stand up and say so.

I believe in working to change society so that there will be less abortions. Work on poverty issues. Work on attitudes and values.

But I do not believe in criminalising women who have abortions. And I believe Jesus would hold this view, too.

I want to see our whole community change over time: change attitudes to be more willing to have babies to full term and either keep them or give them up for adoption. But I want to show grace and mercy to women, just as Jesus did in his day.

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

And if you are interested, this is my earlier speech from the first night:

-----------

Hi, my name is Jim Reiher.

I am a Christian, proud to admit it, and I have the freedom to admit it in the Greens Party.

I am a member of the Berwick Church of Christ.

I am married to Julie for 30 years next April.

Four adult children in their 20's, and four grandchildren.

I am a devoted family man.

My key values that direct my life and in fact, have ended up drawing me to work with the Greens, include:

· The two great commandments and the exhortation to treat others better than yourself. This means God first, Others 2nd, and Self last. It also means that family comes in-between 2nd and 3rd.

· Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This means treating all people equally with dignity and respect, even if we don't agree with their lifestyle or worldview. Unless someone is hurting someone else, then we live and let live and we give each human being the same rights as every other human being. The same rights we want for ourselves.

· The greatest is the one who serves. Christians are not called on to impose their laws and rules onto non-Christian people. We are not called to dominate worldly structures. That is not our mandate in the NT. We are called on to serve. We are meant to go out and make disciples of all nations, not go out and impose Christian rules on non-Christian people. We are meant to attract outsiders to the faith by our love, our lifestyle, and our grace and mercy.... Not our rules.

· We are meant to make the church holy: and tell Christians how best to live. But I Cor 5:9-13 makes it clear that we are not meant to do that to those outside the church.

As a Christian, too, I find the Greens to be a terrific party that resonates so much with my Christian views.

Of course, the Greens are not a Christian party, but we have policies that sit well with the Christian faith, not least of all:

· our love for the creation and our desire to protect and preserve it

· our love for the poor and our desire to assist and help them

· our commitment to reduce poker machines from 30,000 in this state to 10,000 and to work more with problem gamblers

· our commitment to healthy living, and getting people off their addictions, whether it be nicotine, alcohol, or illegal drugs.

· our commitment to refugees and their families

· our abhorrence of war and belief that war must be seen as a last resort

· our commitment to promoting social justice

· our view that all people must be treated with dignity, equality, and respect, even if they have a different world view or lifestyle to oneself

My encouragements to you tonight are simple:

1) Please don't trust the Herald Sun, or, our political opponents, for any accuracy at all about the Greens and our policies. We get lied about all the time. Please read our website for yourself. Take one of our handouts on our drug policy, from our table, just as one example. You might be surprised to learn we want to get people off drugs and have no plans to legalize recreational drug use.

2) Don't be a single issue voter. Look at all the policies of each party. You will find that as Christian folk, every party will have some things you like and some things you don't like.

3) Then choose to vote for the party that sits best with your values and beliefs. For me, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the Greens.

4) Please take one of these "Christian Values Checklist" from the Greens table up the back. Especially if you have the other checklist that gives the Greens a hard time. This one, will offer a different angle and it gives us a much better wrap!

So.... Please consider the greens this election.

We need new voices and fresh ideas in the parliament.

Even if there is only 3 of 4 of us in the upper house. Not enough to push our whole program onto the state, but another voice that will debate and raise issues that the two big parties so often ignore because they are soooo similar to each other.

Vote for democracy this election, vote for the Greens!

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

Feedback welcome! Prayers very welcome.

Jim. November 2006