Rape is attempted murder. War is murder. A woman is murdered every 2 and a half weeks. When you people start being shocked about that, I might believe you actually give a … about babies. But no. It’s all about control over women. If you can stop them having abortions you effectively control their very lives, because even their bodies are not their own.

The idea of men having the last say on a pregnancy raises all sorts of horror scenarios.

I knew the tax money argument would be raised for when abortions are safely performed in public hospitals. No one rushes out to pay women for raising children though and certainly begrudge the DPB, which is nothing more than a payment to shelter, feed and clothe the child. No one gives these women any respect, especially if they are solo or single mothers. All we hear is that mothers are worth nothing, which is obvious when everyone on this thread thinks they have the right to decide women’s futures. A perfect example is the disgraceful way some of you posters treat the Prime Minister.

Why on earth do women have children at all, in this sort of world? You spucs should be grateful the number of abortions is so small!

Also, many abortions are performed on non-New Zealanders here. What are the figures on that?

It’s ironic that most people opposing abortion do so from within a religious tradition but seem to consider their only options to be (a) do nothing, or (b) bomb the clinics. Wouldn’t a good old non-violent campaign of passive resistance be just the thing here? Earlier I suggested refusal to pay taxes and hunger strikes as valid approaches and this would probably be a good place to start.

A casual study of the lives of Gandhi and King would offer countless more ideas for ethical and peaceful protest.

Perhaps one of the reasons that society in general doesn’t believe abortion is murder is because – as has been shown on this thread – anti-abortionists themselves don’t actually act as if they believe abortion is murder. If people started going to prison and starving themselves to death they would show they have the courage of their convictions and have an unbeatable platform from which to argue their viewpoint, and thus a far greater capacity to effect change than the current strategy of writing letters and whining on blogs.

This approach does have a drawback though – it would involve anti-abortionists making sacrifices in their own lives instead of sitting around loudly demanding that the rest of society make sacrifices to suit them.

I like to think that if 5 year olds were being legally murdered down the street I’d be prepared to make some sacrifices in my own life (ie court fines, prison) to make it stop. But apparently no one in the anti-abortion movement feels the same way.

hah, get a fucking clue, please.

1. There are pro-lifers who claim that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering 5-year-old children.
2. If the 5-year-old children were being legally slaughtered in New Zealand, I would be “extremist” in my response.
3. Other people have similar morals to myself.
4. Pro-lifers are not “extremist” in their response.
C. Therefore pro-lifers do not really feel that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering 5-year-old children.

The objections were…

Disagreement with (2) – that if the situation was equivalent, including the overwhelming public support for the murders, the bias of the media against the idea that the murders are wrong, etc., then I would not actually do anything extreme (either because I would recognise it as ineffectual or because I would be too acclimatised to the murders to feel as outraged as I would if people started murdering 5-year-olds overnight).

Disagreement with (4) – that pro-lifers actually do far more than write their disapproval on blogs and letters to MPs and editors, and that their actions are more effective in bringing about an end to the slaughter than direct action would be.

Disagreement with (3) – that I’m strange and unusual for suggesting that I might react violently to people committing government-sanctioned slaughter of 5-year-olds in my neighbourhood.

…

Just as Nicholas can’t prove to me that he would not react differently if 5-year-olds were being murdered along with unborn children, I can’t prove to Nicholas that I would react differently from pro-lifers if I had grown up in a country where child murder was accepted, legal, government-funded, and opposition to it marginalised. When I say that I would resist the government by any means necessary if they started killing 5-year-olds, I’m imagining a situation where it happened overnight, rather than having grown up with it. People can get used to some very odd things.

Matthew suggests that it would be immoral to bring the country to a halt through the direct action of the pro-life minority, because of the collateral damage that would be caused. Certainly, cutting off power to a hospital that performed abortions would kill more lives than it would save, for example. If we ignore his chilling exhortation to obey authority regardless of its moral content, we get a rational reason not to rock the boat too much: others could get hurt.

That leaves us with a kind of dilemma between the action I’ve labelled ineffectual – letter-writing and blog-posting – and actions I agree should be labelled immoral – direct action that harms innocents. I can’t help but think that it is a false dilemma – there must be more that could be done to stop abortions (or, in our thought experiment, 5-year-old children being murdered) from occurring that doesn’t fall into one of these two groups.

I know that there are pro-lifers for whom opposing abortion is their life, and I respect that far more than those who hold “abortion is murder” as merely a kind of theoretical stance to be argued for and against. I would really like to think that, if I truly felt abortion to be as immoral as I currently consider the murder of 5-year-olds, and if there were others who truly felt the same, we could come up with action more effective than letter-writing, while avoiding the immorality of causing further harm.

If I was to become convinced by your arguments that you really do consider abortion to be morally equivalent to child murder, then I would also believe that people could become complacent in the face of such abomination simply by virtue of being outnumbered and used to it, and I would be very frightened indeed of mankind’s ability to get used to terrible things.

No one is going to go to such extreme lengths to prevent abortions from occurring, because none of them really consider abortion to be equivalent to murdering 5-year-olds. If abortion is murder, then Western governments are committing murder on a scale comparable to the Nazi holocaust. I’m sure that most people here consider armed resistance rather than hearty letter campaigns an appropriate response to Nazi murder camps.

Lucyna: You may well be correct that I wouldn’t save the child and would just get locked up and the child would still be murdered. That’s a good reason to find something else to do. But I still simply can’t believe my options would be whittled down to letter-writing and online handwringing. Would you alter your behaviour if 5-year-olds were being murdered along with unborn babies? Would it make any difference besides numbers?

dad4justice: You gave me your word that you would treat me respectfully in discussion, and only address what I’m saying, rather than making personal insults. Please keep that in mind, and do not break your word again.

Nicholas: You’re right, there’s no real way for you to prove that you would behave the same if the government started killing 5-year-olds. It’s a little unfair on you, I know. But I still can’t bring myself to believe it.

“It seems to me that it is you my friend who wishes to debate this issue on religious grounds, in fact it seems to me that you are more bound up with religious thinking regarding this issue than I am.”

You claim to want to have human society ordered around some thinking you got from Aristotle, an idea where you claim all human rights derive from right to life and a prime responsibility to right to life – yet focus on making this manifest only in one area, control of womens fertility. Not feed the world, not world health care, not a ban on military activity, not a ban on weaponry etc, but on womens fertility. Because you do not have the time to focus on the other issues – they are part of the one issue, that is if you really believe in your Aristotlian idea and it is not simply some ruse to see if a kite can fly. And given this is a secular society and the religious line taken in the USA would not work here …

“Oh, and the reason I have very little time for womyn’s studies is because it is nothing more than a propaganda class for outdated 60’s feminist rhetoric – it is a place where people go to learn how the sad world view of an aging minority of militant feminists – a world view that very few women have any time for today because they see it for the flawed ideology that it is.”

I think the attitudes expressed here explain why you wish to assert control over the fertility of women under your right to life banner. I have pointed to where religion asserted responsibility to women to be virgins who breed for men to justify themselves to the patriarchy as obedient brides (and how judgment of a woman of all peoples and nations for their sexual independence – as in the says of Noah – is a role taken on by churches trying to show they are the worthy bride of Christ in the end time). The desire to use law to judge humanity born to woman, is of course part of religious heritage in the rule of peoples and nations. Particularly in the case of daughters of “Eve/woman” who challenge male primacy.

In your position as moral law giver, you want conception of life to be defined as when the egg is offered sperm – thus you would deny the morning after pill, no doubt also ban the fertilisation of eggs by sperm (with storage) because there is no guarantee the embryo would be used. By the way, the morning after pill’s use is when no one in medical science can identify whether the woman is pregnant, so how could it be a threat to any known life – unless your actual arguement is potential of life, in which case you would next ban the contraceptive pill and condom on the ground that they prevented the possibility of conception of life while procreative sexuality was occuring. Then onto the idea that sexual acts have to be procreative to be valid etc. Exactly how far does your right to life directly parallel the policy platform of a certain church and does it differ on any issue?

A slightly cynical SPC, that men as anti-woman as TDO, do not have their comfort in some religion to justify their judgement as holy. Or is being a man enough validation for being holier than thou on women and their fertility issues. The issue of responsibility to bear life is how greater than the responsibility to sustain life born? Why are the same people big on this issue, not also passionate about fathers and support for their children and protecting the life of the children of others around the world. Why is the USA not full of passion for the .7% GDP foreign aid commitment made in the 1970′s … .

Oh and TDO, you evade the issue of your use of the term innocent unborn child – the cop out of the Americans who support the death penalty for the guilty … you obviously have a less than fulsome regard for the right to life of all humans … so what then again was your prime human right, the right to life … . If this is limited by later behaviour/other rights, then you make the right limited. Then the issue of a person’s right to have sovereignty over their own body.

et al

the issue of God and the creation of life and the sustaining of that life is relevant to the issue of right to life, even if only on the basis of an ideal world above and our attempt to progress our own. I know of no religious group that is pro life that can adequately say why a woman is responsible to birth all conceived life as its vehicle/procreator and yet God as Creator can condemn to hell and or death the guilty, show or have no equivalent responsibility. Unless they expect a higher standard of their mothers and daughters, sisters and wives than they do of God. Maybe because in claiming to be made in the image of God, they know they would want this better self or half in their own companion and family. That his companion be and family be full of compassion and be slow to judge.

But back to the underlying religious theology. A God authority to judge the “guilty”, those not innocent, and thus not worthy of life – except in punishment in hell or death. And the idea that it is only in birthing the male line of God child that a woman redeems herself and thus mankind, thus the condemnation of abortion this week was, of course, part of someones crusade of the Cross for Easter. For the church claims that Mary’s son was the one to place his heel on the snakes head and end the rebellion of man from God, bring in the rule of God over humanity. Thus of course for them, restoring their morality into the law of this world or at least “bearing” witness to their values and the religious heritage of their faith.

(a manager could delete the above post – too late completing the editing).

“It seems to me that it is you my friend who wishes to debate this issue on religious grounds, in fact it seems to me that you are more bound up with religious thinking regarding this issue than I am.”

You claim to want to have human society ordered around some thinking you got from Aristotle, an idea where you claim all human rights derive from right to life and a prime responsibility to right to life – yet focus on making this manifest only in one area, control of womens fertility. Not feed the world, not world health care, not a ban on military activity, not a ban on weaponry etc, but on womens fertility. Because you do not have the time to focus on the other issues – they are part of the one issue, that is if you really believe in your Aristotlian idea and it is not simply some ruse to see if a kite can fly. And given this is a secular society and the religious line taken in the USA would not work here …

“Oh, and the reason I have very little time for womyn’s studies is because it is nothing more than a propaganda class for outdated 60’s feminist rhetoric – it is a place where people go to learn how the sad world view of an aging minority of militant feminists – a world view that very few women have any time for today because they see it for the flawed ideology that it is.”

I think the attitudes expressed here explain why you wish to assert control over the fertility of women under your right to life banner. I have pointed to where religion asserted responsibility to women to be virgins who breed for men to justify themselves to the patriarchy as obedient brides (and how judgment of a woman of all peoples and nations for their sexual independence – as in the says of Noah – is a role taken on by churches trying to show they are the worthy bride of Christ in the end time). The desire to use law to judge humanity born to woman, is of course part of religious heritage in the rule of peoples and nations.

In your position as moral law giver, you want conception of life to be defined as when the egg is offered sperm – thus you would deny the morning after pill, no doubt also ban the fertilisation of eggs by sperm (with storage) because there is no guarantee the embryo would be used. By the way, the morning after pill’s use is when no one in medical science can identify whether the woman is pregnant, so how could it be a threat to any life – unless your actual arguement
is potential of life, in which case you would next ban the contraceptive pill and condom on the ground that they prevented the possibility of conception of life while procreative sexuality was occuring. Then onto the idea that sexual acts have to be procreative to be valid etc. Exactly how far does your right to life directly parallel the policy platform of a certain church and does it differ on any issue?

A slightly cynical SPC, that men as anti-woman as TDO do not have their comfort in some religion to justify their judgement as holy. Or is being a man enough validation for being holier than thou on women and their fertility issues. The issue of responsibility to bear life is how greater than the responsibility to sustain life born? Why are the same people big on this issue, not also passionate about fathers and their support for their children and protecting the life of the children of others around the world. Why is the USA not full of passion for the .7% GDP foreign aid commitment made in the 1970′s …,

Oh and TDO, you evade the issue of your use of the term innocent unborn child – the cop out of the Americans who support the death penalty for the guilty … you obviously have a less than fulsome regard for the right to life of all humans … so what then as prime human right the right to life …

et al

the issue of God and the creation of life and the sustaining of that life is relevant to the issue of right to life, even if only on the basis of an ideal world above and our attempt to progress our own. I know of no religious group that is pro life that can adequately say why a woman is responsible to bear all conceived life as a procreator and and yet God as Creator
can condemn to hell the guilty, show or bear no equivalent responsibility. Unless they expect a higher standard of their mothers and daughters, sisters and wives than they do of God. Maybe because in claiming to be made in the image of God
they know they would want this better self or half in their own companion and family. That it they and it be full of compassion and be slow to judge.

So if we’re so desperately under-resourced, how come not one single person misses out on their abortion before it was too late, because the service provider was short of resources?

I smell a further rat…….I don’t KNOW this, but I BET that the abortion clinics are all efficient privately-run affairs, with the only role of the State being payment for the “interventions”……….I bet those bloody hypocrite Socialists KNOW that this is what they HAVE TO DO when they REALLY actually WANT to get the job done……..

So don’t give up on the value of life in a human foetus.

And every time you see eco-freaks canvassing in public, engage them in conversation about “the value of every living thing”, get them well and truly committed, making extravagant statements about trees, whales, etc, then casually throw in; you mean that for human foetuses too, of course?………….

Gets them every time…….

People who oppose the routine abortion arrangement we currently have in NZ do act in ways other than ‘just’ blogging about it.

There are silent protests outside abortion centres such as the one in Dominion Road, Mt Eden. A large group of people standing silently outside, some praying, is quite a moving experience to observe. You might like to try it sometime. I think I will.

I’m by no means a single-issue person but when I saw the numbers on a government website (the Ministry of, er, Health?) a few months ago, I was astounded.

So I wrote to Ms Clark. As the PM, a woman and my local MP, I thought I’d ask her to comment on the rising abortion figures and ask if there is a case for encouraging alternatives. Her reply was a standard acknowledgement – nothing more – from one of her staff.

SAFE IS DEFINED AS: secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk.

In all cases of abortion, the baby comes out dead – even in the rare legal cases – how is that safe?

DPF,

Why should the baby have to suffer a grizzly death because of the actions of somebody else?

Was the baby responsible for the rape or the vasectomy failure?

The purpose of my comment is to put Ryan’s arguments about the (supoposed) inconsistency of your approach to how to oppose abortion in a wider context. I am NOT attempting to hijack the thread, or to engage in a character assisination of Ryan. Instead I want to show his his beliefs are dangerous and unsafe in our society. I do believe that his approach reveals a lot about himself and the damage he would do efforts to protect the unborn baby.

I have debated with Ryan Sproul extensively over at TBR before and it ran to hundreds of comments in the end. Ryan states that he used to be a Christian, but has now passed that worldview and is a Buddhist. Ryan’s approach is to legistimise the creation of anarchy and tear down all the parts of society that he thinks are relevant to the abortion clinics. This is dangerous for several reasons. The creation of disorder will bring a country to its knees and make it unable to have any positive impact for the people in that country. Abortion is rife today, but imagine if we added to that tragic disorder and destruction the following: riots, damaging property, attacking people, resisting arrest, fighting the army and ultimately refusing in your heart to respect authority. That is Ryan’s world and in part gives me a clearer understanding why he left Christianity and thereby ensure he doesn’t have to submit to authority. Secondly, and more seriously, it is true for all of humanity, in all times and in all places that no other human being can force another human being to go against their will. Jesus, when addressing his disciples who expected him to overthrow the government (or occupying power), said that you cannot overthrow governments, which undelies this principle. Furthermore, to subject people to violence and coersion to go against their wills in the area of abortion and say that it’s OK, then opens the floodgates in other areas. All moral decisions that one person makes would then be subject to the will of another person in Ryan’s world which in turn destroys both the good and evil in human affairs and ultimately ensures the complete downfall of all of human society. Imagine a world where everyone followed Ryan’s edict and at that point you can say goodbye to everyone, if you take his principle to its logical conclsuion. On that basis I believe it reflects Ryan’s approach to order and authority more than how to stop abortion. History is littered with many examples of one group of people forcing their will on others. Communism, parts of the church, governments, murderers, people who commit genocide, people who force others to love God have all failed and will fail if tried again. On that basis, only a free choice, within the confines of human knowledge and capacity, is valid. Note that I say “within the confines of human knowledge and capacity” as a precondition.

Ryan will continue to propsoe his path as the way forward, but in reality he is the same as the abortionist: a heart of rebellion towards others who do not agree with his version of how things must be. Restraint, humility, unconditional love towards both people who do right and wrong is the best way forward. (Of course there is the issue of a Hitler, but this post is too long already). Justice, on the other hand, can happen if enough people are able to dispense it with grace and without condemnation or hatred. (Just go into any Court room in New Zealand to see how that happens, especially with the more serious offenses in our Criminal Law.) Abortion, as morally wrong and despicable as it is, falls into that camp at present, and if we are to save the unborn, we will fail with Ryan’s method because of our rebellion. Do not follow Ryan’s path, and by every means see if he can be entreated back towards his Christian roots and a respect and submission to authority. For without it he has no hope. God bless you Ryan.

Okay then, and the circle of life comes around again.

Exactly how is one meant to be “more clear” about the problem of abortion without actually engaging in open and frank discussion about it?!!!!!

Can you see now why discussion is so vitally important?

What absolute nonsense.

One doesn’t have to resort to violence or vandalism in an attempt to get their message across.

Have you ever considered the possibility that I find such acts morally unacceptable?

Or have you ever considered that such action would harm the pro-life cause and simply turn more people away from the pro-life position, and thus harm any efforts to protect the unborn child?

You reasoning is riddled with holes, and I am quite astounded that you think that can actually pass such definitive judgments on the intentions and thoughts of people based purely on the way they act (or don’t act)!

Like I said, you must have superpowers to be able to know so much about people you don’t even know!

A lot of people do stop abortions from happening. Just because it is not blogged about or covered in the left wing main stream press doesn’t mean that a lot of work isn’t going on.

If people wern’t taking action, the abortion numbers would be even higher.

In the current climate, the actions that you suggest would do nothing to help the unborn children whose lives are at stake in this issue.

Taking violent action or using abusive rhetoric against pregnant women, doctors or clinics would only serve to cement the pro-abortion activists in their determination to succeed in mainstreaming abortion and it would give them a tool with which to swing public opinion in their favour – at the same time enabling them to avoid having to engage in the discussion about the fact that every unborn baby is a human life, that they are engaged in killing human life, and that the vast majority of abortions they are performing are under present law ILLEGAL.