Abortion law an ass
The Herald reports:
There were 18,380 abortions in New Zealand in 2007. The rate (20.1 abortions per 1000 women in the 15-44 age group) is high compared to other countries, putting us on a par with Australia, the United States and Sweden.
Unlike those countries, we have what has been described as “one of the most restrictive pieces of abortion legislation in the Western world” – contained in the Crimes Act and the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act passed in 1977.
Yet despite our draconian law – abortion is a crime unless it is authorised by two certifying consultants – we have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. What gives?
On June 9 2008, High Court Justice Forrest Miller gave voice to what some had suspected for some time – there is “reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants” in New Zealand.
We effectively have abortion on demand, even though the law says an abortion should only be granted if there is physical or psychological harm by not having one.
Despite his “powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions”, Justice Miller notes that “Parliament appears untroubled by the state of the abortion law” and the previous calls for reform have gone unheeded.
Most MPs can think of nothing worse than an abortion law debate. Personally I think it may be necessary to change the law to reflect the practice.
Meanwhile in New Zealand, despite both factions being clearly unhappy with the state of our abortion law, and Justice Miller’s concerns that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended, our politicians speeches are much shorter.
“The Government has no current plans to reform the abortion laws,” says Justice Minister Simon Power in reply to the issues raised by Justice Miller.
There are some arguments for doing nothing – the law, despite being outdated, does actually allow women to get abortions, even if they do have to go through a cumbersome, some say demeaning, process that sees most of them granted an abortion because of the danger to their mental health.
On the other hand, the law is doing the opposite of what it set out to do – to provide restrictions on abortions. As Right to Life argued before Justice Miller, the effect of the law is that “New Zealand has abortion on request.”
The irony of the situation is that both factions in debate actually agree on one point – the law is an ass.
Nevertheless, I doubt we will see any change.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Damn right David; the law is an ass – somehow it allows for the slaughter of over a fifth of our most vulnerable without sanction.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Riled up christians go!
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Odd how the worldwide blogosphere is suddenly filled with anti abortion articles from catholicas and their fellpow travellers while the catholic church, yet again, ids dragged kicking and screaming in to admitting the hoorors and abuses it has perpetrated agianst the most helpless and defenceless living children.
They care about a few dividing cells, but think that not giving a fuck about priests fucking children leaves them with the moral highground.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
ah god. an abortion debate? let the carnage begin!
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
goonix you don’t have to be a riled up Christian to see that NZers have sunk to the level where a few squealing pigs cause more consternation than thousands of advanced human foetuses being ripped from the womb and flushed down the toilet.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Adolf, no need to lie about the process. If you disappove, argue your point. Leave the emotional blackmail to the priests.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
goonix you don’t have to be a riled up Christian to see that NZers have sunk to the level where a few squealing pigs cause more consternation than thousands of advanced human foetuses being ripped from the womb and flushed down the toilet.
Amen to that Adolf and on the morning supermarket run I noticed that the SPCA donations bin was overflowing while the local mission food bank bin held a couple of cans and a few soup mix packets.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Good, the law is working fine.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Yes, the law is an ass. But DPF, what’s your position on abortion?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
btw, I’d be a godless fucker of the first order, with blokes bits, and abortion is an issue that doesn’t concern me and, quite honestly, is none of my business.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Abortion is a mere sign-of-the-times, a mere piece of the destructive puzzle which is the modern social order.
It’s a shame that most people are content to sit by and just watch or rather, not even notice, as their world is destroyed around them by anti-family dynamics foisted upon society by a relatively few individuals bent on destruction of the social order.
As we observe teenage girls happily engaging in public group sex, divorces and abortions galore, no-one cares. It’s all about freedom, isn’t it.
Do what you want. It doesn’t matter, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
King Solomon’s Book of Proverbs contains timeless, areligious wisdom, to those who care to read it.
“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.” For example. Shame that feminism teaches precisely the opposite values, isn’t it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Adolf Fiinkensein: goonix you don’t have to be a riled up Christian to see that NZers have sunk to the level where a few squealing pigs cause more consternation than thousands of advanced human foetuses being ripped from the womb and flushed down the toilet.
Do Christians ever wonder why so many non-Christians don’t respect them when the ignore what society says and point at the Bible and say “God told me eating animals is OK but killing babies isn’t”. Imagine if the Christian attitude towards meat, the environment etc. caused non-Christians to stumble through rejecting the gospel due to their actions and opinions.
I don’t know how you can post this kind of thing and call yourself a Christian to be honest. You’re just giving a big fuck you to God’s creation because it suits you to not care about animal suffering yet show hypocrisy by being outraged by the killing of babies. It’s reasons like this exactly, the double-standards, that Christians have very little respect in the non-Christian society.
I wish you could see what it looks like from the outside. To look into a thread like this and see people claiming that their God lets them do all manner of things to animals yet act all self-righteously in terms of the abortion debate. It’s little wonder societies attitude towards Christianity is generally negative.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Crikey Rebel, why would you imagine that Christians care about what people in society think about them?
Don’t you know anything?
Christians of course do care deeply about people because (a) they’re human and (b) God loves us all and it dishonours His creation to do anything less than love the world and all that’s in it. However speaking for myself only, while I possess those attitudes, I care not a jot whether that attitude is reciprocated.
BTW, your comment about God allowing people to do “all manner of things to animals” indicates you really should trouble yourself to familiarise yourself a little more with the word of God for that’s not what He says, at all.
Edit: Sorry Rebel, I retract my last para, since I see you were saying “people claiming…” You’re quite right, many self-professed Christians are rather confused about that area, and many others too.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
DPF………”Personally I think it may be necessary to change the law to reflect the practice.”
We could then promote ourselves internationally as a refuge for those needing to neutralise their fetus in conjunction with our promotions for international students. Surprised no-one thought of it at the Jobs summit.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
OK guys, what’s going on behind the scenes that the politico’s don’t want us to know about?????????
This usually comes to the surface when the head politico wants the subject changed. Klark was best at it but maybe the Nats. are learning (or bought in a media minder to feed trash to the pigs.)
Maybe it has to do with pushing the Brash email saga back away from the media (who never reported it much anyway.)
Fi Fo Fi Fum I smell the hand of an ENGLISH man.
Cynical bastard aren’t I
Well should be, shouldn’t we??
Who looks to gain the most from diverting headlines??
MMMM
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Rebel Heart: …it suits you to not care about animal suffering yet show hypocrisy by being outraged by the killing of babies
You judge people as “not caring about animal suffering” with no basis — you don’t know. The hypocrisy is with those who consider whales and snails as immensely important, and babies-before-birth as disposable.
If an AirNZ jumbo jet crashes into Mt Erebus killing all 257 on board, it is a tragedy. But we’re content to doom more than a plane-load every week.
And to ease our consciences, we disguise it under all sorts of euphemisms:
- termination
- foetal tissue
- mental health (Yeah, right)
and instead argue about politics, economics and the environment.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
It isn’t too different from the legalisation of homosexuality debate we had a few years ago. Being gay had, through lack of enforcement, been legalised much earlier but that needed to be formalised. Hundreds of thousands of religious people went absolutely bat shit crazy, predicting the end of the world and presenting one of the biggest petitions ever to parliament. They were ignored, and now we wonder what all the fuss was about.
I predict an abortion debate would go the same way.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
“we observe teenage girls happily engaging in public group sex”
Where did you observe that?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Herald article last week.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
MajorBloodnok, you say that I “judge people as not caring about animal suffering with no basis”. I was responding to Adolf’s statement that “you don’t have to be a riled up Christian to see that NZers have sunk to the level where a few squealing pigs cause more consternation than thousands of advanced human foetuses being ripped from the womb and flushed down the toilet”.
Reid: I know quite a bit about Christianity as it’s been a large part of my life in the past – see the archives of my old blog, which even has a post on abortion on it: http://www.geocities.com/betterisonehope/Freedom.txt
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’d advise everyone not to search for that article in google, as “teenage girls happily engaging in public group sex” might bring up some unusual results.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
If we have abortion on demand should we then do away with public funding for it? After all it is a moral decision and a lifestyle choice and we must never impose the cost of either of those onto others, now should we.
I say open it up but leave those who cause the problem to pay for the consequences of their choices. Abortion supporters would of course be totally free to make personal donations to those who want to abort.
Is it not ironic that a mother can choose to abort her unborn child but not choose to give a deliberately disobedient child a smack on the backside.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I think Rebel Heart is wrong to attack Christians (and by inference anti-abortionists) as being cruel to animals.
The West with its Christian tradition is imperfect in the way it treats animals, but it is improving. We’ve long since abandoned bull baiting which was supposed to tenderise meat, for example. It looks like battery hens and factory pigs will be on the way out. Where there has been regression is in meeting medieval requirements for slaughter to meet Middle Eastern markets. Go to a food market in Asia or the Middle East and see the plight of live, tightly bound, hungry, thirst turtles and other animals and birds awaiting buyers.
Think of Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds and taming wolves. Animal lovers come in all shades of religious and non-religious belief.
Back to abortion… my bet is that Godwin’s law will be affirmed in this thread by the 30th post.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The abortion debate always frustrates me. Otherwise sensible people take totally unreasonable stances on it.
Im fully against it being used as a form of birth control which it does appear to be from time to time. But there are many times where two responsible adults take acceptable forms of birth control (even if using more than one at once none is totally infallible) yet something unintended happens. Why should at least three peoples lives be doomed where their mistake is totally correctable?
I agree the law should be changed, but it should be changed to where it is demonstratable that all reasonable precautions have been taken and it is in the interests of both the parents (not just the mother) it should be allowable. This mental health excuse is a crock, and not giving the father any input its downright descrimination.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Is it possible to have this debate without the religious fanatics endlessly quoting the fucking bible and the pinko/feminist wankers using this as an excuse to wind them up?, I despise both camps with a passion.
I have real concerns about the ease with which we offer abortions however the topic is a huge turn off when this most delicate subject is used and abused by those looking to score political points.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Is it just Christians who oppose abortion laws? Or is it just people who are not Christians who don’t care if the law is enforced?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The law is not an ass it is the people who are giving out abortion on request (not demand) who are the ass’s. Indeed far from preventing psychological harm, the easy abortions may be CAUSING psychological harm. Needless to say I am personally against abortion except where there has been rape, incest, physical risk to the mothers’ health, severe abnormality to the unborn.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Why worry?
Western civilisation is in an unstoppable spiral of destruction anyway.
We abort. Muslims and other religions/ societies breed like flies.
Be prepared for social subjugation, and you better learn to like it.
But hell, it was all worth it wasn’t it. So much fun while it lasted
All those “liberated” women really making it in the world. Selling real estate, doing journalism, demeaning motherhood.
Talk about crickets singing.
What a ball.
Got your bhurka size yet girls?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Rebel Heart: cause more consternation does not mean the mistreatment of animals does not cause consternation. It is a comparison.
The health cost to save a premature human baby could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. How much would you be prepared to spend on a premature piglet? I would hope that you, too, value human life similarly (ie far more important than animals).
Hence the questioning about who has their priorities right.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Hence the questioning about who has their priorities right.”
Narcissists- their priority is always themselves. Just look for the number of “I” s or references to themselves in their posts. Their ‘arguments’ are all about feeding their own insatiable desire for attention.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“I enjoyed myself, but I got pregnant.”
“I would find having a baby inconvenient.”
“I want an abortion, so that I can keep having fun.”
v
“The baby cannot speak for itself.”
“The baby deserves to be defended from harm.”
So, Redbaiter, you accuse those who stick up for the baby as being “narcissists”? It doesn’t stack up.
The ones being selfish are the one who regard their own lives as so important that they are prepared to kill their own offspring to preserve their “lifestyle”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Adolf said: …you don’t have to be a riled up Christian to see that NZers have sunk to the level where a few squealing pigs cause more consternation than thousands of advanced human foetuses being ripped from the womb and flushed down the toilet.
But it helps!
Personally I see no problem with a woman choosing to abort an unwanted pregnancy – it is a better option than the child growing up in a world of poverty, neglect and abuse. Although an even better option is that she and/or her sexual partner(s) show some personal responsibility and use contraception so she doesn’t get pregnant in the first place.
I do have a problem with the appalling conditions tantamount to torture that pigs endure in factory farming though, as well as a concern that those factory farms are the breeding grounds for new and potentially pandemic diseases such as swine flu.
Guess we have different value systems operating here.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“So, Redbaiter, you accuse those who stick up for the baby as being “narcissists”?”
Sorry Major, that is not what I meant. I’m talking about those who say the perceived mistreatment of animals is a matter that is more important than the killing of unborn children.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I’m reminded of DPF’s headline and comment on a similar topic last week – Jesus weeps Words again fail me, that I share a species with the person who did this.
Liberalism, feminism, marxism and all the other current misotheistic fads, have a million- fold more deaths on their hands than the middle-east crusades ever did! Jesus weeps…
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Guess we have different value systems operating here.”
One of the few accurate comments you have ever written on here.
There are those who value life and those who don’t.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Liberalism, feminism, marxism
OK everybody, lets sing along….
“One of these things is not like the other ones…”
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
reddy:
“There are those who value life and those who don’t.”
Interesting. Thought you’d be pro-death penalty myself. But I digress …
I actually think the right to lifers have shot themselves in the foot on this one. The existing law had a lovely dual-nature to it. It allowed NZ to pretend that abortion was restricted while allowing abortions to happen (virtually) on demand. Hypocritical/delusional? Sure … but it kept the peace, and most everyone (bar wingnuts from either extreme) were happy.
Now the right to lifers have peeled the facade off. If they lose their claim, nothing changes. But if they win on their claim and cause abortions to be more restricted, the political pressure will be overwhelming to undo that result. (That’s my prediction – there’s more liberals on abortion than right-to-lifers). Of course, the pollies won’t want to touch the issue, but eventually they’ll have to legalise abortion on demand. So it’s a bit of a lose-lose scenario for the right to lifers, I’m afraid.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
What it is with people who can’t grasp that having unprotected sex is likely to lead to pregancy? It’s not a behaviour I’d associate with being a competent adult.
How about the 2nd abortion due to potential mental harm comes with a free tubal ligation, and a snip for the father if he’s the same guy?
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“Thought you’d be pro-death penalty myself.”
Well hell, thought you’d be against it. Moron.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Once again religion fucks up an important discussion.
I have met a number of people who are pro-abortion (not pro-choice, that is newsspeak of the worst kind) simply because the catholic church is anti-abortion. And they were the most vocal/active. You couldnt have a discussion with them about the topic without THEM bringing up the catholic church.
The abortion debate would be better off without bringing religion into it. Fortunately the pro-lifers realised this and have been making non-religious arguments for decades. Unfortunately, the pro-abortionistas dismiss anything said by someone on the other side of the debate as being based on religion, especially if it is in any way philosophical. And simply because they dismiss the philosophical they consider themselves rational.
I wish those who are pro-abortion would atleast be honest. The “pro-choice” euphemism is the perfect example. You aren’t pro-choice. You are pro-very-specific-choice-to-do-a-very-specific-thing. You are pro-abortion, so just fucking say that.
I am not religious, as a rule, but i am anti-abortion. I am not PRO-LIFE, because I also believe in the death penalty as well as euthanasia.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Personally I see no problem with a woman choosing to abort an unwanted pregnancy – it is a better option than the child growing up in a world of poverty, neglect and abuse.”
So better death than poverty?
Better death than neglect and abuse?
Nice.
Lets rephrase that sentence:
You see no problem with a child being killed because its mother didn’t want to have to look after it.
“Unwanted pregnancy” those are just more weasel words. Be honest about what you are saying.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
AG: here’s more liberals on abortion than right-to-lifers
Do you have statistics on that? Or is it based on the people in your circles? (The same ones, I guess, who think that correcting a child with a smack of any kind is a criminal offence? And who are out-numbered 4:1 NZ-wide.)
I suggest that the figures are very dependent on how the question is framed.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Redbaiter said:
“Muslims and other religions/ societies breed like flies.”
That wasn’t a racist statement at all.
Back to the subject, I’m not a christian but I believe life begins at conception and abortion should be illegal. Abortion doctors should be tried for murder and women who have abortions as accessories to murder.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@ radar
It damn well was a racist statement. Comparing Muslims to flies?
You might as well argue that comparing Jews to rats isn’t racist either.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
If it is all about “choice” then shouldnt the father also have a choice in what happens to his child. It is made up 50% of his genetic material afterall. The argument could be made based on property rights alone. Couldnt we somehow get the RMA involved in this?
Also as a mental exercise, what if abortion was legal, but it came with compulsory sterilisation? Basically saying that if you kill this baby now, then you have shown your inability to be a parent and you wont be allowed to have a child later on.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
ephemera, your mistake is common. Islam is not a race. (Racism is based on race, FYI)
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@ephemera
It wasnt racist because muslim isnt a race.
Also, there is a teeny tiny chance that he was being sarcastic.
I think you should engage your brain and give radar the benefit of the doubt.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Are you really incapable of drawing the conceptual, moral, and legal distinction between a collection of cells inherently confined to a few cubic inches of space and a human life capable of range of senses, experiences, and emotions?
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Comparing Muslims to flies?
Racist?
Hey dumbfuck- Islam is a religion not a race.
Better re-check the listings in your speech codes advice pamphlet lamer.
Edit- ah well, I see others are on to it. Well done all.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Hell is it any surprise Catholics are against abortion, all those priests needing a fresh supply of children for some kiddy fiddling.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“all those priests needing a fresh supply of children for some kiddy fiddling.”
Pretty rich considering your race and its record with children.
(There you go Ephemera, you can really go spare over that.)
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@ Kimble and radar
Apologies – I think the irony filter was switched off on my browser this afternoon
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
look on the bright side it wasn’t for all the abortions , just think how many more labour voters there would be
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@ Ross Nixon
Fine, I can agree that Islam is not a race.
But comparing muslims to flies is still pretty damn repellent, whatever the semantics.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
So Danny, just exactly when, in your view, does “a collection of cells inherently confined to a few cubic inches of space” turn into a human being then?
BTW, you ever seen pictures of aborted fetuses? If not, suggest you force yourself to have a look, they’re not hard to find. It’s a very sad sight but does help clarify the reality of just exactly what the plain words in the legal definition is referring to.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“Muslims and other religions/ societies breed like flies.”
Also the point that is missed is that it is not “Muslims and other religions/ societies” who are being likened to flies. It is their birth rate. There is a significant difference.
Kimble: what if abortion was legal, but it came with compulsory sterilisation?
I was thinking a little along the same lines, today. If you’re prepared to kill this baby before it’s born, then you are demonstrating insufficient concern for human life and are likely to be a danger to any subsequent children.
(This should be a Green-friendly policy, since some climate change alarmists see human population as a disease on the planet. I’m waiting for them to lead by example.)
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Joke
Q. What do catholic priests have as a treat after an evening meal ?
A. before eights
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
rabbits, redbaiter, rabbits
no longer repellant
now cute
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“just think how many more labour voters there would be”
Leaving the sickness of such humour aside, its based on a mathematical fallacy anyway.
The low birth rate is what drives NZ’s immigration policy. In other words, NZers are not reproducing at a fast enough rate and have to turn to immigration to sustain their old age pension schemes and other socialist excesses.
Immigrants are only needed to compensate for NZ woman not having children and / or having abortions. Many immigrants, stupid, uneducated, culturally backward, broke and scrabbling frantically for welfare, vote Labour, the natural political home of dropkicks the world over.
So its more likely that abortion, as things go today, actually increases the number of Labour voters.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@ MajorBloodnok
If there was a point, it was lost amidst the intellectual rigor of Redbaiter’s argument.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
After seeing her outrage at imagined insults to Muslims, I’m waiting anxiously to read Ephemera’s complaints about the comments on Catholics.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
MajorBloodnok:
No – I have no statistics. As I say, it’s my prediction based on my beliefs about the Kiwi psyche, which are entirely subjective (but that’s the nature of these discussion posts, isn’t it?). As for your “I suggest that the figures are very dependent on how the question is framed”, yes, absolutely! Ask “should women be allowed to use abortion for birth control?” and you’ll get one response. Ask “should doctors/other experts be allowed to decide what is or is not a valid reason for forcing a woman to give birth against her will” and you’ll get another.
reddy:
You’re funny.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Really didn’t want to get into this debate but found I couldn’t help myself.
First thing I would say is, is there room for any civility on this blog? The use of the F word seems to be prolific and take the place of any thought whatsoever. “Point weak-swear for emphasis” appears to be the position of many on this thread.
Also are Christians barred from these discussions? So many start their comments with outright anti-religious abuse and antagonism one hesitates before entering the fray.
The trouble for the godless is that they have so little material with which to work. I mean natural selection and survival of the fittest are pretty harsh ways to order a society and really whats 18000 unborn children? Who really cares anyway?
In actual fact one needs to lean on christian principles, even if indirectly, to arrive at such basic concepts as the worth of a person and human rights. People ‘being created in the image of God’, does provide a sound basis for individual rights and human worth.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“I’m not a christian but I believe life begins at conception”
Wouldn’t that notion put an interesting twist on what could constitute child molestation?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I don’t agree with abortion, with current contraception and failing that, entitlements, there is little need for it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“rabbits, redbaiter, rabbits”
Thank you kimble.
BTW, know why flies have wings?
So they can beat the Labour voters to the rubbish tips.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@ scott
Or maybe Christian principles are inherently humanist…
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
But I would suggest that abortion is an issue that affects us all and can be understood by people with even a modicum of moral sense and good will.
Is abortion just getting rid of a lump of tissue? Of course not- after 6 weeks there is a beating heart. At 12 weeks there is definitely a recognizable human being, with little arms and little legs, little hands and little feet. Just look at a scan sometime.Its all there for all to see.
We should be deeply concerned about our culture’s abortion on demand and 18000 young New Zealanders who each year will never see the light of day. To our eternal shame we don’t appear to be.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I’ve always thought that the abortion debate was one which seems at odds with normal political belief. There generally seems to be greater support for abortion from those on the left, compared with those on the right. I am staunchly right, and fundamentally believe that an individual should be given the freedom to make his or her own decisions, within reasonable frameworks of law. That is why I will always support the right of abortion; the right of the individual to make that decision. The previous comment suggesting that the cost of abortion be met by the individual is a great idea, as whilst I am pro-choice I do not believe that the costs of abortion should be met by the state.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“In actual fact one needs to lean on christian principles, even if indirectly, to arrive at such basic concepts as the worth of a person and human rights.”
They arent christian principles. They are just principles.
Just because I live my life in ways that could be compared to a good christian, doesnt mean i believe or endorse your belief in your silly god.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“I am staunchly right, and fundamentally believe that an individual should be given the freedom to make his or her own decisions, within reasonable frameworks of law.”
I am Right as well and believe in individual liberty and freedom.
Your error is that you are considering the wrong individual.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“the right of the individual to make that decision.”
You pathetic propaganda swallowing joke. How can you repeat such outmoded nauseating and illogical feminist bullshit so shamelessly
It is the damn individual who is aborted. He (or she) gets no damn say in the “decision”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@scott
“18000 young New Zealanders who each year will never see the light of day.”
That is an appalling figure. What are *you* doing stop it?
I mean, do you genuinely think that many people are being murdered per year?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Nothing like an abortion thread to distract readers away from the Melissa Lee concedes thread when it all turns to shite with numerous Nat supporters urging Mt Albert voters to vote for Russel Norman, eh DPF?
I presume you’ve got the voluntary euthanasia post lined up for publishing after her next stuff-up.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“I mean, if I genuinely thought that many people were being killed, I’d be militant as fuck. Are you?”
Or maybe he takes his lords commandment of “thou shalt not kill” seriously.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Fuck off toad.
You are trolling and deserve a load of demerits for it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
@ Kimble
See, unlike you I don’t argue that your view is “wrong” and accuse you of an “error”. I accept you view this differently, and appreciate that you take a different perspective. I personally do not believe that an unborn child is an individual with rights, quite simply.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@ Redbaiter
I kindly suggest that you refrain from calling people names, like you have just done to me. If you can’t make discussion without resorting to “pathetic” attacks on those who have a different view from you then I suggest maybe you should not be commenting on such matters. Such behaviour is supposedly the domain of those on the left. Your actions certainly do not reflect the intelligence one would expect from someone of the right.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
So when do they get rights?
When they have a heart beat?
When they suck their thumb for the first time?
When they are born?
How long do they exist at the whim of another human being?
If they dont have rights until they are born, then you support partial birth abortion, right? Or at the very least, 3rd trimester abortion.
Both of which are abortions of children that could survive outside the womb, so it would really only be their location that determined their fate.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@kimble
“Or maybe he takes his lords commandment of “thou shalt not kill” seriously.”
I didn’t make mention of him killing anyone. I just think that 18 000 people getting murdered every year is an absolute outrage.
At the very least, it should be added to crime statistics.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
@ Kimble
Fair point. Whichever side you take on this matter you are going to be taking away rights from one of the “individuals”. The debate is purely about which “individual” you believe has those rights.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I think the present law could be tightened up quite easily by defining psycological harm as meaning the pregnancy is the result of incest, and rape, and there is severe abnormality in the foetus. Physical risk speaks for its-self. Third trimester abortions are illegal save for risk of physical harm to the mother. That could be done with the stroke of a pen from the abortion supervisory committee.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“I didn’t make mention of him killing anyone.”
Yes you did. You said you would be militant.
“At the very least, it should be added to crime statistics.”
If it was against the law, then yes it should. And I think Scott would like to see it done now anyway.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@ Kimble
You added more to your post after my response. I believe there has to be a limit on abortion, and that after a certain point it should not be allowed. I’m not an expert in this area medically, so can’t comment on where I think that limit should be. I’ve often heard of 12 weeks being the limit; whether that is right or not I do not know.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“The debate is purely about which “individual” you believe has those rights.”
If you think there are two individuals, then the debate is which right supersedes the other. And given that one of the rights involved is the right to exist, any other concerns have a very high hurdle to pass.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
PV
Not really, you see one individual has to live with consequences of their actions by becomming pregnant the other has committed no such mistake yet it is the one that is punished.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
@AG re statistics
It is interesting that Gallup is noting a significant move towards Pro-Life in the US: US abortion views shift, majority are ‘pro-life’: poll
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“I kindly suggest that you refrain from calling people names, like you have just done to me.”
Actually you knuckle dragging drooling refugee from the field mouse factory, I hadn’t realised that I had replied to you, and if I had by chance seen one of your posts, I’m sure it would have been easily recognisable by its arrogant snide posturing self importance. (Maybe if you apologise nicely for the false allegation I’ll revisit my opinion of you.)
That aside, you sneering self obsessed lamer, perhaps you would allow me to make a polite suggestion. When you see a post from Redbaiter, don’t read it. You do have the choice you know. (unless you’re suffering from some kind of compulsive obsessive disorder where the focus is Redbaiter. Is that the real problem?)
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
@ Kimble
In line with my previous post, I believe there is a point at which there are two individuals in this equation. It is at that point that I completely agree with you that the right to exist must supersede any other. It is before that point is reached that I believe there is only one individual, and that they should have the choice to make a decision. As I said before, I don’t have any fixed view on what that point should be.
I don’t think that there should be abortion without reason; there should certainly be a process involved to ensure that an individual considering such action is able to make an informed decision. I believe in personal responsibility, and if I was involved in a situation where my partner became pregnant there would have to be very strong reasons for me to support an abortion.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@ Kimble, being spurred into direct action doesn’t make you a murderer, killing someone does.
So abortion isn’t a crime in law.
Fair enough, but 18 000 people are getting killed. That’s six September 11ths… per year!
Why aren’t you making this an issue on every single blog comment? Where are your daily letters to the editor? Your posters on streets around the Beehive? Where is the mass movement? Where is your sense of outrage?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Life is full of choices.. to have a abortion or not is just but one of them..
As we all know it is always advisable to get as much information as you can before making that choice..
In the end it is your choice.. Not ours, not the churches, not governments.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“After seeing her outrage at imagined insults to Muslims, I’m waiting anxiously to read Ephemera’s complaints about the comments on Catholics.”
..and nothing was observed.
Ain’t that a suprise?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“In the end it is your choice.. Not ours, not the churches, not governments.”
Speaking to the embryo? Here’s some news. He/ she can’t tell you if he/she agrees to be aborted or not, but I reckon I know what he/ she would say if he / she could.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Kimble said: Fuck off toad.
That’s not very polite Kimble.
Suggesting a thread has been started as a deliberate distraction from another thread on the same site is not trolling – in fact it can be argued that it is the converse.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Considering Toad that as usual, you ran off bawling on that thread after Patrick Starr checkmated you, who the hell are you to be telling Mr. Farrar what to post on on his own blog?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Toad I agree with you
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I found from reading debates on abortion that the most passionate on both sides are really just scared of their own imaginations and cannot control the illogical constructs of their own minds. In short, the debates contain much evidence of no self control and little life experinence. One side refuses to believe they have the potential for any darkness within themselves, the other refuses to tolerate the possiblity of an uncontrolled manisfestation of it in others. The extremes of both sides require a passionate belief in authoritarian politics. Nothing is more amusing than the run-away argument of when life begins and when abortion becomes murder. Abortion debates are conducted in a clinical vacuum of theory and the act doesn’t translate to logical extrapolation in anything close to the way it happens in real life.
It is really a simple issue. A private issue. A personal issue.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Questions
Why has the anti smacking law done absolutely nothing to decrease the number of children in NZ being murdered and tortured in NZ every year?
At the same time how is it that we have another law that allows 18,000 unborn babies to be slaughtered in their mothers wombs?
What are Ms Bradford’s views on abortion?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
reddy:
“Speaking to the embryo? Here’s some news. He/ she can’t tell you if he/she agrees to be aborted or not, but I reckon I know what he/ she would say if he / she could.”
Well, that’s a rather silly statement. You’re predicting the views of what the embryo will become, and claiming that the embryo somehow holds those views prior to being able to have views at all. Which is irrelevant, if the embryo never actually reaches the stage at which it can hold views. This issue has nothing to do with “what does the fetus want” because a fetus cannot have “wants” or “opinions” or “preferences”. Instead, it is what we as a society think the appropriate balance is between the value of potential human life and the value of people being able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Now, of course, you’ll say something like “every potential life has overwhelming moral value”. To which I’ll sing “every sperm is sacred”, and ask whether you’ve donated one of your kidneys to help save the life of a person on dialysis (seeing as you set such a high moral value on life and all that). In fact, I rather wonder what your views on forced organ donation are (seeing as you place such a low priority on people choosing what to do with their own bodies, when set aside the overwhelming moral value of life).
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Questions
Why has the anti smacking law done absolutely nothing to decrease the number of children in NZ being murdered and tortured in NZ every year?
maybe because it wasn’t about that
At the same time how is it that we have another law that allows 18,000 unborn babies to be slaughtered in their mothers wombs?
We don’t have a law that allows 18 000 unborn babies to be slaughtered
What are Ms Bradford’s views on abortion?
and the relavence is ?
Thats almost like asking for DPFs view on the anti democratic policies of the current National Gov viz a viz Auckland
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“the value of people being able to do what they want with their own bodies.”
Spare me the worn out pseudo-liberal mantras. Any female of the species naturally enters into a contract to procreate and nurture merely by being born of that sex.
Someone has to do it. Bad luck girls.
Now shut the fuck up and get on with the procreating.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
this is disgusting…where can this be seen please…
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
FWIW, here’s an antidote to the Cresswellian “it’s only protoplasm” argument.
http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/22-weeks.html
http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/20-weeks.html
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“As we observe teenage girls happily engaging in public group sex”
..this is disgusting..where can I see it happening please…
excuse the last post…I was obviously excited…
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@Starboad
It might be disgusting, but it explains who is going to have a very lonely Saturday evening tonight.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
reddy:
“Someone has to do it. Bad luck girls.
Now shut the fuck up and get on with the procreating.”
This post explains a lot of your problems …
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
If an aborted foetus has no rights…
Why don’t we just dump those 18,000+ baby carcasses into one big heap
(Just imagine how big that pile of rotting flesh would be)
We could even invite the TV news cameras along to take some pictures for the evening news
Or do we care more about the plight of our nations’ pigs – than the outright genocide of NZ children?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The vast majority of god bothering pro life types are wimps when it comes to abortion.
Ask them if all life is sacred and they eagerly agree that it is.
Ask them if they would want their daughter to carry a child after she had been raped and you would find the majority of them would being saying, terminate with prejudice.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
@ AG
Chat-up line of the century: “shut the fuck up and get on with the procreating”
I’ve been using it for years, and have no idea why I’m a 50 year old virgin.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter which side of the abortion debate you sit on, if a woman doesn’t want to carry a baby, she can’t be made to. If we were to restrict abortions there’d be a rise in back alley abortions, drinking whisky in a hot bath, knitting needles. It is far better to have legal abortion, in a regulated environment which ensures the health and safety of the woman.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Redbaiter said: …who the hell are you to be telling Mr. Farrar what to post on on his own blog?
I wasn’t, it’s his blog and he can do what he likes on it. I was just speculating on what his motivation may have been starting this particular thread on this particularly controversial topic on this particular morning when the Melissa Lee concedes one looked like it might have been moving into day 2 with Nat supporters urging Mount Albert voters to vote for Russel Norman.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“urging Mount Albert voters to vote for Russel Norman.”
Mt Albert voters might be a sorry collection of knuckle dragging leftist morons, but they’re not that stupid that they’d vote for an Aussie commie from the Watermelon party.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“Suggesting a thread has been started as a deliberate distraction from another thread on the same site is not trolling – in fact it can be argued that it is the converse.”
No, it is trolling.
It is derailing a thread with the topic of another thread in the hopes of getting that other thread going again.
It is also a favoured tactic of those putrid Standard supporters who insist that DPF only posts on things to distract from the “real” story, even after he has already posted on that story.
You are speculating on why DPF brought up this issue, even though it is the NZ Herald that did so.
You are also deliberately inflaming a powder-keg poster like Redbaiter on this other topic.
It is trolling, you are nothing but a troll. You do not deserve to be engaged with politely. Fuck off and die.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
It seems like the law is out of date and should reflect current reality. However, I don’t know whether there’s any real proof that the current way the law is interpreted isn’t working.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@Tuija at 4:38pm in reply to this question:
Why has the anti smacking law done absolutely nothing to decrease the number of children in NZ being murdered and tortured in NZ every year?
wrote:
maybe because it wasn’t about that
Allow me to quote from Sue Bradford as reported on frogblog:
Sometimes when children are whacked or smacked they are badly injured. Sometimes they are killed.
James Whakaruru, for example, died in the name of toilet training.
That is why so many individuals and organisations who work with children and families put so much effort into supporting the passage last year of my bill which ended the right of parents to legally assault their children in the name of child discipline. [emphasis added]
Why? Children are “badly injured” or “killed”.
You cannot say that the anti-smacking law was not purported to be about decreasing the violence towards and deaths of children, when the architect of the bill plainly said that very thing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Hang on, lets just have a closer look at the David Farrar logic here. First he makes this basic observation.
“We effectively have abortion on demand,…”
…and then he says:
“Personally I think it may be necessary to change the law to reflect the practice.”
So Farrar supports abortion ON DEMAND. Earlier posts of his had indicated a pro-abortion stance but never close to this extreme. The truth as reared it’s ugly head.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“So Farrar supports abortion ON DEMAND.”
As do most civilised people.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Quite Right MajorBloodnok
MS Bradford would have us believe that your average NZ parent is prone to loosing control when smacking their child, resulting in severe injuries or death.
In reality parents who torture and/or kill their children have typically never wanted their children in the first place and subjected them to violence from the moment they were born.
By contrast, abortion, subjects a baby to grotesque levels of violence resulting in its death before it is born.
The only difference?
Technically a day and an umbilical cord.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I would support some liberalising of the law, although an abotion is not a light decision to make; I would stop well short of complete abortion on demand.
… but I do not blame politicians for wanting to avoid the sort of furore which always seems to result from this (from all sides)
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
“Abortion On Demand” has all the cheap power of emotional blackmail and complete lack of intellectual credibility as “Fire At Will”.
Once again the Left and Right can’t help but mirror each others’ stupidity.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
If theres a market for aborting babies, shouldnt the market be left alone and the gummint should back off ‘cos it shouldnt tell us what to do?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
The thing that gets me about the famous line”its a womans right to decide” is this,the so called father doesnt get a say so if its abortion then he has absolutely no say ,it just happens.
Taking that into account,why then if she decides that the pregnancy is to go full term the father again has no say if SHE wants the child,but the father has to pay,no say what so ever.
Please note I believe every father should pay,and pay well as I have 4 and no one ever has put a cent towards them as Im the father,the way it should be.
Taxpayers get flogged to much, my kids my responsibilty.
PS. No father on bitrth certificate ,no bennefit and if they dont know the father tough.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Interesting to listen to (what I assume to be) a bunch of men discuss abortion. Consider my comments to be continuing that fine, informed tradition. FWIW I believe everyone has a conscience. We can package up the issue of rights, the need to abandon religiously-derived moral codes and the legality of what defines a ‘person’, and present a neatly packaged argument that abortion is just fine. While the law may propel women down a path of statutory entitlement, do they live free of a nagging pang of guilt, a thought that they have ended a helpless life? I know three women who have had abortions. All of them thought it was the right decision at the time, yet all of them regret that decision today. I guess it’s possible I know the only three who feel this way. But I doubt it.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:10 am
There really shouldn’t be the conflict over this issue that there is, whether your a bible thumping God botherer (like me) or a ravenous Dawkins worshiping atheist, is irrelevant.
No sane person would say an abortion is an enjoyable experiance for any woman, no one would consider it a form of contraception, and no one would accept abortion as a positive trait of a civilised society.
So while all the bitching and name calling is going on, the problems that lead to the abortion rate climbing, are continuing unabated.
Abortion is something that everyone who gives a damn about our society should be trying to reduce.
It makes no moral sense, and it makes no evolutionary sense to kill the young of your species before they are born.
No one can assess the value of a human being before they are born, infact it would be more logical to do it at 2 years old!!
There should be a united effort to at least reduce the abortion rate, the extremists on both sides are as bad as each other.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Or do we care more about the plight of our nations’ pigs – than the outright genocide of NZ children?
This is always amusing – a question for all those who really believe that abortion is murder and that genocide is taking place, what are you doing to stop it (other than bickering on the internet)?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am
“This is always amusing – a question for all those who really believe that abortion is murder and that genocide is taking place, what are you doing to stop it (other than bickering on the internet)?”
I’ll tell you what is not amusing Mr. Mclauchlan. The smugness that oozes so overpoweringly from almost every post you write here, but especially so in this one.
The answer of course is that they cannot do much other than to try and change the consensus of a society whose morals have been slowly destroyed by the predominance of the likes of you, that it is not murder and not genocide. Most of them do that to the extent that they are able, and many pay the price for speaking out on the issue. They are physically attacked, arrested and jailed, slandered, their property vandalised, and they are of course routinely abused and maligned.
Its why I deem your kind Mr. McLauchlan, pseudo liberals, for while you profess to tolerance, anyone who speaks out against your Progressive religion will pay the price. Carrie Prejean is a recent and notable example. Just imagine what would have happened to her if she’d been asked about abortion.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Any women in this comments section?
And Penguin, whats yr stance?.
Is it ‘ a womens choice?’
Is it ‘ men decide?’
Is it ‘ too hard but a quiet news day?’
Is it ‘ none of your farking business, cause yr a dude and have no real cognition of whats its like to be enslaved to yr sex?’
You musta hada reason for sticking your claw into this pond?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am
“They are physically attacked, arrested and jailed, slandered, their property vandalised, and they are of course routinely abused and maligned.”
I haven’t heard of anyone working at an abortion clinic being arrested and jailed.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@ Danyl Mclauchlan
I concur. People cheapen the term ‘genocide’ when they throw it around in conjunction with abortion. If these people truly believe such a thing is really occuring in New Zealand, then they would be cowards if this blog was the only place they shared this belief.
They would be attending rallies and pickets every weekend, and building a massive social movement. Not pissing around here.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“They would be attending rallies and pickets every weekend, and building a massive social movement.”
Not everybody has the time to deal with issues as bludging lazy welfare supported leftists do. Too many people are held fast by the chains of socialism, and too busy making a living to find the time for anything else no matter how strongly they might feel on it.
..and of course your insufferably smug comment completely overlooks the point I made in my post above, that even if they do make an attempt to express their feeling publicly, they pay a high price due to pseudo liberal thuggery.
Don’t worry too much tho, the anger is growing steadily, and there will one day be a reckoning. You might get the uprising you wish for, but your sick little Progressive day dreams may be somewhat shattered when it does, for the “protesters” won’t be carrying placards and begging for your understanding, they be carrying Armalites and Uzis and firing real bullets.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:37 am
“You might get the uprising you wish for, but your sick little Progressive day dreams may be somewhat shattered when it does, for the “protesters” won’t be carrying placards and begging for your understanding, they be carrying Armalites and Uzis and firing real bullets.”
you’re not a left-wing uni politico are you?
May 24th, 2009 at 11:49 am
“Too many people are held fast by the chains of socialism”
The politically correct term for ‘Lazy’
May 24th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“That sounds like a politically correct term for ‘Lazy’”
That sounds like something a Stalinist/ socialist might say. A socialist who has gradually perverted our democracy and used legislative means to steal and disposses the citizens of their wealth and property and individual rights and all the while pretending to be motivated by a “social conscience”, and simultaneously doing all he can to disguise his real motivation, political power.
To call NZ’s working middle class, those families and parents struggling to carry the burden of socialist policies “lazy” displays a level of offense that you would be bleating about if it was directed elsewhere.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Go on, give us another.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“To call NZ’s working middle class, those families and parents struggling to carry the burden of socialist policies “lazy” displays a level of offense that you would be bleating about if it was directed elsewhere.”
I apologise if I offended your politically correct sensibilities.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I worked at Epsom Day Unit (as it used to be called) once upon a time. Not as a beneficiary of medical services, nor a counsellor nor a medical professional. I would turn up, perform my duties; then leave. When there were protests, I put my head down, did not engage (neither verbal nor eye contact) and just hurried inside.
I have been spat on, had tomato sauce (and once, animal blood) thrown all over me, had someone try to stub a cigarette out on me (thank goodness for my coat) and been generally abused many, many times.
If the anti-abortionists wish to hold a debate on this issue, I suggest that their methods of protest are not conducive to rational, national debate. And, in fact; are downright insulting.
However, as a society, if a significant portion of the population feels this way, then we need to have a formal response/debate on it. If its not a significant percent of the populace (i.e. vocal minority) then can we just all agree to ignore them … please?
May 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I have never meet anyone who choose to be aborted, have you? Or what would you have you answered if they could have given you the choice when you were in the womb?
Our problem with this debate is that it is only between people who have never been aborted!!
18,000 per year in NZ were never given a chance to participate.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“In actual fact one needs to lean on christian principles, even if indirectly, to arrive at such basic concepts as the worth of a person and human rights. People ‘being created in the image of God’, does provide a sound basis for individual rights and human worth.”
I am not going to argue that the bible doesnt give some good morals to lean on (i.e. dont steal, cheat, respect etc) however saying one relies upon it to find morality I think is wrong. Generally one can distinguish right or wrong with each’s own sense of what is right and wrong, religion doesnt have a monopoly on morals. Sure some use it to determine their view point on some issues which are more grey, abortion, same sex relationships, sex, womans rights, but that doesnt mean that view is right or wrong, it just gives them their reason.
In regards to Abortion, its a hard one which I respect both sides arguments. Personally I am in favour of having the ability of people to choose to terminate up to the first trimester, however if it ever happened to a person I was seeing I would rather not.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
FACT:
The un-born has no rights over the living.
A womans body is her private property and she alone will decide what she wants to do with it!!
If choice is removed from the individual, then the individual is a slave to the fascists who demand CONTROL of the said individual,
May 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Armoured Passionfruit (4)
You are correct to the extent that she is entirely free to have sex with whomever and whenever she wants. However when the consequences of that action produce another living being, then she has no right to destroy it. And yes it is living from conception otherwise it wouldn’t grow. That is why currently the womb is the most dangereous place to be living and all of us have lived there at one time.
A bit like picking up a gun and pulling the trigger because you like the sound of the BANG! However if that bullet went out and killed someone, then you would be held accountable for your actions.
Your argument is simply saying a woman can do whatever she likes without any accountability. Wishful thinking I say!
June 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
how would these christians be even able to make an opinion on this issue, how do they know wether their daughter or their sons girlfriend hasnt had one, most are kept totally secret and how would they know wether their ‘good christian daughters’ havent been into the sack before marriage and become pregnant.
There are so many valuable reasons why abortion should be an option for many mostly young women out there.
Would you rather be paying for a 17 year old mother to live on a tax payer paid benefit while she sat on her ass and looked after her toddler while that toddler grows up having a less substantial life that what its parents grew up with obviously knowing that at 17 its mother probably wouldnt of gotten pregnant by choice.
You have no idea how wonderful the people are who deal with these women who make a adult choice, they are supportive and in every way helpful and caring, think before you judge…!