This entry was posted
on Tuesday, June 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Nothing is as simple as it looks, but in there is the nugget of why ACT is where it is in the polls. For all the merit’s of Hide’s campaign on perk busting, it was overplayed & critically diluted what ACT stood.
A shame really as a party pushing low taxes & minimal government to it’s extreme limit getting 6-8% of the vote would make for a very interesting coalition partner with National.
As it sits as much as Rodney appears a nice guy, it’s hard to see his party going anywhere significant with him leading it & Key/English having all the momentum, though it’d make it very interesting indeed if someone like Theresa Gattung was to enter politics as ACT leader.
Rodney, while being an inspiration, is also a politician. If I want a dancer I can hire a Fred Astaire movie or a dvd of the famed negro Michael Jackson. For weight-loss I can call weight watchers.
For downright focus on go-for-the groin politics to help pull this dump out of the shite, then Prebbo is ahead by a country mile.
that’s bullshit James. there’s a fuckload of issues needing attention right now (eg. police corruption). Rodney needs to get his head out of his ass and start working like a hardworking MP (as he was in 1996), holding the government to account and being righteously angry, not wasting time on pathetic publicity stunts
we vote for ACT so they can attack the government and stand on their high horses when debating economics and social issues and telling Labour their ideologies are bullshit (because the top 7% of the country need Rodney to tell it like it is). if we wanted a party that gives a shit about what the most strategic thing to do politically is (such as not being fired up until a few months before the election to get the most out of a publicity stunt, or attack the government only when it’s election year) we’d vote for fucking National
Parliament does at least 100 dumb things every day, Rodney ought to just fucking send out press releases and give interviews talking about why everything that’s being done is bullshit at every opportunity. starting today, with that stupid ban on journalists taking embarrassing photos of politicians
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Today’s ban on journalistic freedom by Parliament’s rules committee was total bullshit.
“I think the general public of NZ give more shit about the issues facing their lives than what politicians look like on the front of their newspapers. I think Michael Cullen is a self-serving cunt” Rodney said.
ACT fully supports the rights of photographers to take whatever photos they like within the law, and would like to point out to the government that it is a fucking waste of time to be even looking at this issue.
“Why should politicians have exceptions to what their ugly mugs should look like in the newspapers when the average Kiwi doesn’t? When is the government going to deal with the police corruption issues in Dunedin?”
Following recent coverage by Investigate Magazine, ACT is very concerned about Annette King’s dodging of responsibility for police corruption.
“Why was there no government outrage with regard to the first letter to the editor in Investigate, where a girl obviously had her rights breached and value raped out of her when she was illegally detained overnight and forced to piss in front of the police officers for their enjoyment and suffer their abuse? Why is Annette King not holding an official inquiry into the incident in order to find out which mother fucker it was that did it to her?” Rodney asked.
If Annette King is not gonna fucking deal with these issues then Labour really need to get the fuck out of government. ACT justice spokesperson Heather Roy will be in the ACT office on Wednesday for anyone who has suffered abuse at the hands of police to come in and have a chat.
“I think it’s pathetic that Howard Broad is not fired yet, as he is obviously a dick. Why will he not front up to a Parliamentary select committee to answer my questions, and why is the government attacking Ian Wishart personally rather than defending the women who were taken advantage of by the top police officers in New Zealand? We cannot let this power culture continue”, Heather said in a speech at the Women’s Refuge club this afternoon.
26/06/07
…you get my point. Andrew Falloon if you’re reading this you better fucking hurry up and get on with the job properly
Stan I like the tenor of your above press releases. Unfortunately you do not do ACT or yourself any favours with your obscenities. ACT
ACT has had my party vote since the first election it contested – however if you are representative of the people at the heart of the party I would have to give my future support serious consideration. Generally people who cannot get their point accross without having to resort to obscenities have little credibility.
It’s obvious why Rodney doesn’t go on about issues anymore. That got us 1% in the polls. With Rodney we got 1.5% at the election and held on to that with 2 MPs instead of the 9 we used to have.
not true Mike, that was because of Don Brash, so he had to turn from tough gun into MP for Epsom. now that Brash is gone Rodney should definitely get back into being hardcore and not screw around trying to be John Key Lite
Stan… Rodney would be an idiot to jump onto any bandwagon Wisharts pushing until there are crystal clear facts presented.Ian has a habit of offering up seemingly juicy scandal that fades to nothing when examined.This time I think hes onto something but lets see what’s what
“Stan I like the tenor of your above press releases. Unfortunately you do not do ACT or yourself any favours with your obscenities. ACT
ACT has had my party vote since the first election it contested – however if you are representative of the people at the heart of the party I would have to give my future support serious consideration. Generally people who cannot get their point accross without having to resort to obscenities have little credibility.”
Just to make it VERY clear to pdm and any others, Stan is not a member of the ACT Party and in no way represents the people “at the heart” of the organisation.
Neither does Rodney, judging by the balderdash he’s now talking about and engaging in.”
Such as what? He did DWTS and a few swims etc…he lost weight,got healthy and has a new spring in his step …whats wrong with that? It will stand him in good stead come election time.He has been pushing a taxpayers bill of rights and rates caps…what else do you want right now?
“Just to make it VERY clear to pdm and any others, Stan is not a member of the ACT Party and in no way represents the people “at the heart” of the organisation.”
meh, who wants to waste $10 every year to renew their membership anyway, the only thing that matters is who you give your party vote to. until Rodney pulls another Steve Forbes and changes his position on abortion of course i don’t want to be representative of that kind of party
meh, who wants to waste $10 every year to renew their membership anyway, the only thing that matters is who you give your party vote to. until Rodney pulls another Steve Forbes and changes his position on abortion of course i don’t want to be representative of that kind of party”
Yes….we don’t want that freedom and individual rights rubbish and for Women to control their own bodies! Its against God etc…
it’s their freedom whether or not they decide to have sex in the first place and risk the potential of becoming pregnant. once they bear a child they are responsible for it, just like child welfare laws. just like how it’s the responsibility of people to raise their kids and not expect to be dependent on the DPB. and if you argue some people don’t intend to be pregnant, well same applies to DPB – not everyone is in that position because it was outside their control
reposted from Investigate’s letters to the editors page:
Good to see the old abortion debate being inflamed once again. Personally I don’t see the problem. If you are against abortion don’t abort. If you are for it go ahead. If there is an anti-abortion chromosome the antis will win out in the end. As for the foetus, surely its soul will go to heaven …if there is a God, that is. If there’s not then what it doesn’t know won’t hurt it. Simple really! Interesting too that the pro-abortion group aren’t pro-abortion for every pregnant woman – that is, they don’t want a blanket ruling, but merely the right to choose – whereas the anti-abortionists want absolutely no-one to abort.
Julian Matthews
Waiheke Island
Your analysis doesn’t go far enough. You have adequately covered the rights of both the pro and anti abortionists, but have overlooked the third party: the foetus.
Does a baby have rights? I would argue quite obviously that it does. It is as human as you or I. The new in-utero soundscans clearly illustrate that it is merely a smaller version of ourselves, complete with habits like playing and sucking its thumb. To ignore the rights of the baby, by assuring that somehow the mother has more rights “because it’s her body”, is no different to turning a blind eye to child abuse or child murder because “a man’s house is his castle”.
Ultimately you have to decide on what basis someone has human rights, you can’t just draw an unscientific arbitrary line in the land for the sake of convenience and say blandly, “anything younger than this is not human”. Says who?
If a baby has rights the moment it is born, why does it have no rights before that? On what grounds?
If it is wrong to kill a six week old baby because it is unwanted or unloved by its mother, why is it not wrong to kill a 20 week old baby in utero?
If it is wrong to kill a one year old simply because the family find the child a financial burden, why is it right to kill a baby in utero on the same grounds?
All the arguments used by the pro-abortion lobby that women should have a right to choose because of the impact of a pregnancy, can equally be used to justify child homicide up to the age of 18 years.
The bottom line is that there must be some measuring stick upon which we apply human rights, and the only logical one is the presence of human life.
The abortion debate is not actually about either a woman’s “right to choose” (which assumes she has such a right), nor about an abortion group’s right to oppose. It is actually about whether the foetus has rights, and on what grounds those rights can be denied.
Clearly, a foetus can’t speak for itself. Nor can a one year old. Clearly, a foetus is totally dependent on its mother for food. So is a one year old.
The truth is, a mother takes on the responsibility of motherhood from the moment of conception, not from the moment of birth. She has a “choice” about whether or not she had unprotected sex, or whether she had sex fullstop. We all know that pregnancy can result from sex. That’s our choice, we don’t – or shouldn’t – have the choice to kill for the sake of inconvenience.
And from a Libertarian perspective, it is actually more rational to support the anti-abortion lobby, because they are standing up for the non-initiation of force against a weaker party – the baby.
I’ve actually read Prebble’s book. Couldn’t have written a better political comedy if I’d tried. Unfortunately for Richard though, the comedic value of the book was unintentional.
When it’s your body you can do what the hell you like with it. Yes you can even have a vasectomy, which in all probability will prevent a life from entering this world. Yes a foetus is different from a potential foetus, but it’s an argument of semantics really. The real issue is the preventing the potential of a sentient being from coming into the world, and both vasectomies and abortions (and any form of birth control for that matter) achieve this end. Up to a certain point in development, a foetus is no-more a sentient being than a carrot. The difference between them is clearly potential. So the prevention of the prevention of the potential is the ethical issue (it’s determining the point where the mass of cells becomes a sentient being that is the tricky part). So, logically you are either for all forms of potential prevention (abortion and methods of birth-control) or you are against them.
Where it gets tricky is when different belief systems clash. i.e, if you believe that a foetus has a “soul”, and you believe that it is immoral to extinguish a “soul” then I can understand your opposition to abortion. However, if you don’t believe in the existence of a soul then I can’t see that there’s a rational reason to be against other people using abortion.
Ultimately however we live in a secular state, which means that you can’t force anyone to do anything because of your religious beliefs. This is a good thing in my opinion.
your argument is only valid if it stands on the strawman that i am either for all forms of potential prevention (abortion and methods of birth-control) or against them. as Ian wrote in his post, the rational line to be drawn is at the point of conception – your whole argument is a philosophical position rather than a scientific point, and the current abortion laws are the ones that are based on a ‘religious’ viewpoint rather than nature
(see Muriel Newman’s recent column on “Junk Science” at http://www.nzcpr.com for the definition of religion i’m referring to)
“Ian wrote in his post, the rational line to be drawn is at the point of conception”
Why?
“the current abortion laws are the ones that are based on a ‘religious’ viewpoint rather than nature”
Why?
“your whole argument is a philosophical position rather than a scientific point”
All I need is a scientific determination of when the mass of cells becomes a sentient/conscious being, then I have a rational philosophical argument that is backed up by up by science. So here’s some science to get the ball rolling.
“The pictures showed foetuses of 12 weeks’ gestation, bouncing and kicking in the womb, before the mother is usually aware of such movement. At 16 weeks, they can be seen sucking thumbs and yawning, and at 18 weeks opening their eyes.”
“John Watts, Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics at University College Hospital in London, said. “It is clear that a vast amount of activity is happening mainly in the last three months of pregnancy. We will never know at what point foetal consciousness and awareness start. But the link between cortex and the rest of the body doesn’t come into play until 23 to 24 weeks, when the first connections are created.” ”
to all discerning readers,
ACT is dead,
new politik will be decided on environmental issues,
laffer now if you wish,
but watch closely while your country’s currency
floats totally out of control,
the country is in crisis, and bank reserves are floating away, the helmsman has no rudder,
in response to roger nome, the reason why i say your argument is based on a ‘religious’ view is because you talk about life beginning when a baby has a conscience, and say Christians (or whatever other belief) believe it begins when it has a soul
what i’m saying is at conception, that is where the development begins as the sperm has fertalised the egg, in which case if left unaborted will grow into a full human being, whereas contraception prevents conception in the first place and a sperm or egg is incapable of growing into a human being independently
It all depends on when you want to draw the line in the temporal continuum stan.
If your parents had been using an effective form of contraception during the period before you were conceived, your life would have almost certainly not come into being. It would have almost certainly stopped the egg and the sperm that created you from coming together. Effective contraception would have extinguished the potential for you, a sentient being, from being born. An abortion at an early stage of pregnancy would have had the same effect.
So the point is that both contraception and abortion involve the wilful prevention of sentient beings from coming into existence. Whether this is achieved prior to, or soon after (say, for the sake of argument, up to 20 weeks) conception is irrelevant, as no conscious being exists at either stage. And as we’ve already established, the foetus is valuable because of its potential to become a human. It has no physical value in and of itself. i.e. when a baby is miscarried, it is the loss of potential conscious life that is mourned, not the loss of a mass of cells (unless you have a religious belief that places a kind if “spiritual” value on the foetus).
The only difference you seem to draw is that each individual usage of contraception possibly prevents the life, where as an abortion probably prevents a life (the foetus might have been miss-carried etc). However, if you consistently use contraception then you probably stop several lives from coming into existence. So really, for all intents and purposes contraception and abortion are ethical equivalents.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Nothing is as simple as it looks, but in there is the nugget of why ACT is where it is in the polls. For all the merit’s of Hide’s campaign on perk busting, it was overplayed & critically diluted what ACT stood.
A shame really as a party pushing low taxes & minimal government to it’s extreme limit getting 6-8% of the vote would make for a very interesting coalition partner with National.
As it sits as much as Rodney appears a nice guy, it’s hard to see his party going anywhere significant with him leading it & Key/English having all the momentum, though it’d make it very interesting indeed if someone like Theresa Gattung was to enter politics as ACT leader.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Rodney, while being an inspiration, is also a politician. If I want a dancer I can hire a Fred Astaire movie or a dvd of the famed negro Michael Jackson. For weight-loss I can call weight watchers.
For downright focus on go-for-the groin politics to help pull this dump out of the shite, then Prebbo is ahead by a country mile.
Unfortunately he has left the building
June 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
hahaha
yous right farrar,
i spit blood,
we deaded,
June 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Its a personal bio about Rodney…not an ACT political manifesto…plenty of time for that before the election.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
ACT need 3 or 4 A-list personalities to step forward and get themselves involved asap.
Rodders and Roy at best are simply marking time – at worst they’re spinning helplessly around the plug hole.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Would a real ACT person please stand up , please stand up , please stand up – yeah right !
June 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
How disappointing. How is this supposed to make me want to give ACT a vote?
I don’t want a leader to live dangerously – I want a leader show me what they and their party will do to make my life better!
June 26th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
that’s bullshit James. there’s a fuckload of issues needing attention right now (eg. police corruption). Rodney needs to get his head out of his ass and start working like a hardworking MP (as he was in 1996), holding the government to account and being righteously angry, not wasting time on pathetic publicity stunts
we vote for ACT so they can attack the government and stand on their high horses when debating economics and social issues and telling Labour their ideologies are bullshit (because the top 7% of the country need Rodney to tell it like it is). if we wanted a party that gives a shit about what the most strategic thing to do politically is (such as not being fired up until a few months before the election to get the most out of a publicity stunt, or attack the government only when it’s election year) we’d vote for fucking National
Parliament does at least 100 dumb things every day, Rodney ought to just fucking send out press releases and give interviews talking about why everything that’s being done is bullshit at every opportunity. starting today, with that stupid ban on journalists taking embarrassing photos of politicians
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Today’s ban on journalistic freedom by Parliament’s rules committee was total bullshit.
“I think the general public of NZ give more shit about the issues facing their lives than what politicians look like on the front of their newspapers. I think Michael Cullen is a self-serving cunt” Rodney said.
ACT fully supports the rights of photographers to take whatever photos they like within the law, and would like to point out to the government that it is a fucking waste of time to be even looking at this issue.
“Why should politicians have exceptions to what their ugly mugs should look like in the newspapers when the average Kiwi doesn’t? When is the government going to deal with the police corruption issues in Dunedin?”
26/06/97
June 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Following recent coverage by Investigate Magazine, ACT is very concerned about Annette King’s dodging of responsibility for police corruption.
“Why was there no government outrage with regard to the first letter to the editor in Investigate, where a girl obviously had her rights breached and value raped out of her when she was illegally detained overnight and forced to piss in front of the police officers for their enjoyment and suffer their abuse? Why is Annette King not holding an official inquiry into the incident in order to find out which mother fucker it was that did it to her?” Rodney asked.
If Annette King is not gonna fucking deal with these issues then Labour really need to get the fuck out of government. ACT justice spokesperson Heather Roy will be in the ACT office on Wednesday for anyone who has suffered abuse at the hands of police to come in and have a chat.
“I think it’s pathetic that Howard Broad is not fired yet, as he is obviously a dick. Why will he not front up to a Parliamentary select committee to answer my questions, and why is the government attacking Ian Wishart personally rather than defending the women who were taken advantage of by the top police officers in New Zealand? We cannot let this power culture continue”, Heather said in a speech at the Women’s Refuge club this afternoon.
26/06/07
…you get my point. Andrew Falloon if you’re reading this you better fucking hurry up and get on with the job properly
June 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Stan I like the tenor of your above press releases. Unfortunately you do not do ACT or yourself any favours with your obscenities. ACT
ACT has had my party vote since the first election it contested – however if you are representative of the people at the heart of the party I would have to give my future support serious consideration. Generally people who cannot get their point accross without having to resort to obscenities have little credibility.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Perhaps Steven Franks would’ve made a better leader? I’m sure he could’ve won Epison.
Rodney is a nice guy but he’s not being very effective @ promoting the Act’s ideology.
I would vote for Act if Dr Brash became leader.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
It’s obvious why Rodney doesn’t go on about issues anymore. That got us 1% in the polls. With Rodney we got 1.5% at the election and held on to that with 2 MPs instead of the 9 we used to have.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
That’d include DPF if his thread on ;’Helen texting Mallard’ is anything to go by.
However I agree with his sentiment…. why the press is reporting Helen’s texts is beyond me.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“Generally people who cannot get their point accross without having to resort to obscenities have little credibility.”
With you perhaps they don’t PDM, but should I give a fuck???
June 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
To fully appreciate NZeds boy scout constipation you have to leave it.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
not true Mike, that was because of Don Brash, so he had to turn from tough gun into MP for Epsom. now that Brash is gone Rodney should definitely get back into being hardcore and not screw around trying to be John Key Lite
June 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Stan… Rodney would be an idiot to jump onto any bandwagon Wisharts pushing until there are crystal clear facts presented.Ian has a habit of offering up seemingly juicy scandal that fades to nothing when examined.This time I think hes onto something but lets see what’s what
June 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
pdm said-
“Stan I like the tenor of your above press releases. Unfortunately you do not do ACT or yourself any favours with your obscenities. ACT
ACT has had my party vote since the first election it contested – however if you are representative of the people at the heart of the party I would have to give my future support serious consideration. Generally people who cannot get their point accross without having to resort to obscenities have little credibility.”
Just to make it VERY clear to pdm and any others, Stan is not a member of the ACT Party and in no way represents the people “at the heart” of the organisation.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am
” and in no way represents the people “at the heart” of the organisation.”
Neither does Rodney, judging by the balderdash he’s now talking about and engaging in.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Neither does Rodney, judging by the balderdash he’s now talking about and engaging in.”
Such as what? He did DWTS and a few swims etc…he lost weight,got healthy and has a new spring in his step …whats wrong with that? It will stand him in good stead come election time.He has been pushing a taxpayers bill of rights and rates caps…what else do you want right now?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“Just to make it VERY clear to pdm and any others, Stan is not a member of the ACT Party and in no way represents the people “at the heart” of the organisation.”
meh, who wants to waste $10 every year to renew their membership anyway, the only thing that matters is who you give your party vote to. until Rodney pulls another Steve Forbes and changes his position on abortion of course i don’t want to be representative of that kind of party
June 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
meh, who wants to waste $10 every year to renew their membership anyway, the only thing that matters is who you give your party vote to. until Rodney pulls another Steve Forbes and changes his position on abortion of course i don’t want to be representative of that kind of party”
Yes….we don’t want that freedom and individual rights rubbish and for Women to control their own bodies! Its against God etc…
June 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
it’s their freedom whether or not they decide to have sex in the first place and risk the potential of becoming pregnant. once they bear a child they are responsible for it, just like child welfare laws. just like how it’s the responsibility of people to raise their kids and not expect to be dependent on the DPB. and if you argue some people don’t intend to be pregnant, well same applies to DPB – not everyone is in that position because it was outside their control
reposted from Investigate’s letters to the editors page:
Good to see the old abortion debate being inflamed once again. Personally I don’t see the problem. If you are against abortion don’t abort. If you are for it go ahead. If there is an anti-abortion chromosome the antis will win out in the end. As for the foetus, surely its soul will go to heaven …if there is a God, that is. If there’s not then what it doesn’t know won’t hurt it. Simple really! Interesting too that the pro-abortion group aren’t pro-abortion for every pregnant woman – that is, they don’t want a blanket ruling, but merely the right to choose – whereas the anti-abortionists want absolutely no-one to abort.
Julian Matthews
Waiheke Island
Your analysis doesn’t go far enough. You have adequately covered the rights of both the pro and anti abortionists, but have overlooked the third party: the foetus.
Does a baby have rights? I would argue quite obviously that it does. It is as human as you or I. The new in-utero soundscans clearly illustrate that it is merely a smaller version of ourselves, complete with habits like playing and sucking its thumb. To ignore the rights of the baby, by assuring that somehow the mother has more rights “because it’s her body”, is no different to turning a blind eye to child abuse or child murder because “a man’s house is his castle”.
Ultimately you have to decide on what basis someone has human rights, you can’t just draw an unscientific arbitrary line in the land for the sake of convenience and say blandly, “anything younger than this is not human”. Says who?
If a baby has rights the moment it is born, why does it have no rights before that? On what grounds?
If it is wrong to kill a six week old baby because it is unwanted or unloved by its mother, why is it not wrong to kill a 20 week old baby in utero?
If it is wrong to kill a one year old simply because the family find the child a financial burden, why is it right to kill a baby in utero on the same grounds?
All the arguments used by the pro-abortion lobby that women should have a right to choose because of the impact of a pregnancy, can equally be used to justify child homicide up to the age of 18 years.
The bottom line is that there must be some measuring stick upon which we apply human rights, and the only logical one is the presence of human life.
The abortion debate is not actually about either a woman’s “right to choose” (which assumes she has such a right), nor about an abortion group’s right to oppose. It is actually about whether the foetus has rights, and on what grounds those rights can be denied.
Clearly, a foetus can’t speak for itself. Nor can a one year old. Clearly, a foetus is totally dependent on its mother for food. So is a one year old.
The truth is, a mother takes on the responsibility of motherhood from the moment of conception, not from the moment of birth. She has a “choice” about whether or not she had unprotected sex, or whether she had sex fullstop. We all know that pregnancy can result from sex. That’s our choice, we don’t – or shouldn’t – have the choice to kill for the sake of inconvenience.
And from a Libertarian perspective, it is actually more rational to support the anti-abortion lobby, because they are standing up for the non-initiation of force against a weaker party – the baby.
Ian Wishart
June 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I’ve actually read Prebble’s book. Couldn’t have written a better political comedy if I’d tried. Unfortunately for Richard though, the comedic value of the book was unintentional.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
stan:
When it’s your body you can do what the hell you like with it. Yes you can even have a vasectomy, which in all probability will prevent a life from entering this world. Yes a foetus is different from a potential foetus, but it’s an argument of semantics really. The real issue is the preventing the potential of a sentient being from coming into the world, and both vasectomies and abortions (and any form of birth control for that matter) achieve this end. Up to a certain point in development, a foetus is no-more a sentient being than a carrot. The difference between them is clearly potential. So the prevention of the prevention of the potential is the ethical issue (it’s determining the point where the mass of cells becomes a sentient being that is the tricky part). So, logically you are either for all forms of potential prevention (abortion and methods of birth-control) or you are against them.
Where it gets tricky is when different belief systems clash. i.e, if you believe that a foetus has a “soul”, and you believe that it is immoral to extinguish a “soul” then I can understand your opposition to abortion. However, if you don’t believe in the existence of a soul then I can’t see that there’s a rational reason to be against other people using abortion.
Ultimately however we live in a secular state, which means that you can’t force anyone to do anything because of your religious beliefs. This is a good thing in my opinion.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
your argument is only valid if it stands on the strawman that i am either for all forms of potential prevention (abortion and methods of birth-control) or against them. as Ian wrote in his post, the rational line to be drawn is at the point of conception – your whole argument is a philosophical position rather than a scientific point, and the current abortion laws are the ones that are based on a ‘religious’ viewpoint rather than nature
(see Muriel Newman’s recent column on “Junk Science” at http://www.nzcpr.com for the definition of religion i’m referring to)
June 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“Ian wrote in his post, the rational line to be drawn is at the point of conception”
Why?
“the current abortion laws are the ones that are based on a ‘religious’ viewpoint rather than nature”
Why?
“your whole argument is a philosophical position rather than a scientific point”
All I need is a scientific determination of when the mass of cells becomes a sentient/conscious being, then I have a rational philosophical argument that is backed up by up by science. So here’s some science to get the ball rolling.
“The pictures showed foetuses of 12 weeks’ gestation, bouncing and kicking in the womb, before the mother is usually aware of such movement. At 16 weeks, they can be seen sucking thumbs and yawning, and at 18 weeks opening their eyes.”
“John Watts, Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics at University College Hospital in London, said. “It is clear that a vast amount of activity is happening mainly in the last three months of pregnancy. We will never know at what point foetal consciousness and awareness start. But the link between cortex and the rest of the body doesn’t come into play until 23 to 24 weeks, when the first connections are created.” ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article658385.ece
June 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
to all discerning readers,
ACT is dead,
new politik will be decided on environmental issues,
laffer now if you wish,
but watch closely while your country’s currency
floats totally out of control,
the country is in crisis, and bank reserves are floating away, the helmsman has no rudder,
June 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
in response to roger nome, the reason why i say your argument is based on a ‘religious’ view is because you talk about life beginning when a baby has a conscience, and say Christians (or whatever other belief) believe it begins when it has a soul
what i’m saying is at conception, that is where the development begins as the sperm has fertalised the egg, in which case if left unaborted will grow into a full human being, whereas contraception prevents conception in the first place and a sperm or egg is incapable of growing into a human being independently
June 28th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“God” kills/prevents millions of potential humans every day in one way or another….why not deal with him first Stan?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
It all depends on when you want to draw the line in the temporal continuum stan.
If your parents had been using an effective form of contraception during the period before you were conceived, your life would have almost certainly not come into being. It would have almost certainly stopped the egg and the sperm that created you from coming together. Effective contraception would have extinguished the potential for you, a sentient being, from being born. An abortion at an early stage of pregnancy would have had the same effect.
So the point is that both contraception and abortion involve the wilful prevention of sentient beings from coming into existence. Whether this is achieved prior to, or soon after (say, for the sake of argument, up to 20 weeks) conception is irrelevant, as no conscious being exists at either stage. And as we’ve already established, the foetus is valuable because of its potential to become a human. It has no physical value in and of itself. i.e. when a baby is miscarried, it is the loss of potential conscious life that is mourned, not the loss of a mass of cells (unless you have a religious belief that places a kind if “spiritual” value on the foetus).
The only difference you seem to draw is that each individual usage of contraception possibly prevents the life, where as an abortion probably prevents a life (the foetus might have been miss-carried etc). However, if you consistently use contraception then you probably stop several lives from coming into existence. So really, for all intents and purposes contraception and abortion are ethical equivalents.