The abortion vote

April 8th, 2011 at 3:35 pm by David Farrar

Derek Cheng in the NZ Herald reports:

Parliament had a rare personal vote yesterday when Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia sought to appoint a doctor strongly opposed to to the Supervisory Committee.

Mrs Turia’s amendment threw a spanner in the works of what was meant to be a simple vote on a motion to appoint Dr Tangimoana Frances Habib and reappoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway and Rev Patricia Ann Allan to the committee. …

In addressing the House, Mrs Turia said the issue of abortion was central to family well-being. “The protection and preservation of whakapapa and genealogy is fundamental to the broken health of our whanau.

“I think about the precious heartbeat of every child, and I think about the comment that Ngati Whatua leader Naida Glavish once made, that there is no such thing as an unwanted mokopuna.”

She asked for a personal vote on the amendment to appoint Wellington doctor Ate Moala to the committee instead of Ms Allan.

Dr Moala has advocated chastity and abstinence, and last year was a guest speaker at the All For Life conference in Nelson.

The article lists who voted which way. Around 20 Mps were absent and one abstained. The only party with split votes was National. All four Maori Party MPs voted in favour. No ACT, Green, Labour or United MPs voted in favour. Hone voted against. Of the 52 National Mps who voted, 27 were in favour, and 25 against. I’m relatively pleased with that. A few years ago I suspect many more National MPs would have voted in favour. National has a blend of socically conservative and socially liberal MPs – and it is a strength to be in a party tolerant of diverse viewpoints. But my concern in the past has been that there hasn’t been enough balance – ie too few social liberals. Things seem to be moving in the right direction (from my point of view)

Tags:

192 Responses to “The abortion vote”

  1. Vinick (216 comments) says:

    I fail to see how *only* having 27 MPs who are anti-abortion can be construed as a good thing.

    Excellent to see ACT, the Greens and Labour all sending the proposal to the scrapheap, where it belongs.

    [DPF: A 50/50 split on this issue is a lot better than 80/20. Remember only four National MPs voted for civil unions. Today I think you'd have 20+ votes for it. For me it is about the direction]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    Whatever people preach about chastity and abstinence, couples will still have sex and some will result in unwanted pregnancy and women will seek abortions.
    Our choice as a country is whether they get a safe abortion or an unsafe one, not whether they get one at all.
    In my view it’s between a woman and her doctor and politicians should stop poking their moralising noses into private business.

    Interestingly Japan has a 2% rate of single motherhood as the Japanese apparently place the welfare of the child first, believing the best outcome for the child is to have two parents. So, for most Japanese women, the choice is clear – marriage or abortion. Is Japanese society more stable and family-oriented than ours as a result?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    No such thing as ‘unwanted mokopuna’? Tell that to the sad little ghosts of Maori children beaten, tortured and neglected to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    The greatest evil of our time, little different to Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobidor, Treblinka, and Jasenovac.

    Mass murder on an industrial scale – New Zealanders should be ashamed that this is being done in our name with our money to our most vulnerable people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    In addressing the House, Mrs Turia said the issue of abortion was central to family well-being. “The protection and preservation of whakapapa and genealogy is fundamental to the broken health of our whanau.

    Is there any way Turia and her collectivist comrades could ever think of people as individuals and not as cogs in a machine operating in aid of whatever collective goal Turia can muster 51% support for? It is deeply inhuman, in fact it is obscene, to take the view that racial preservation should ever be allowed to override the many varied personal circumstances and values of individuals in the population. Turia reduces personal trauma to statistics, individuals to being her slaves. Stalin had a quote on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei, you’re a total fruitcake for making that comparison. Based on that post I’d say you’re one short step from blowing up clinics or mailing bombs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    ……socially liberal…….moving in the right direction…….

    National really is becoming Labour Lite. And how many of those 27 took their oath on the Bible ,quite a few I’d warrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    BeaB, that crossed my mind when I say the ‘no unwanted mokopuna’ reference as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    It was obviously a simple vote for Labour and the Greens, they voted how they were told to vote.

    It seems that free speech is still not something the left are comfortable with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    ben

    You’re the fruitloop to draw that inference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    BeaB 3:50pm: good post. It’s an important point that nutbars like Andrei never address: the tremendous downside of requiring women to go to term with children they do not want, which is that those children are much more likely to be abused and go on to become criminals as a result. The effect is measurable and found real. Women know when they are not ready for a child, surprise surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. joe90 (273 comments) says:

    Abstinence is a real winner if your name is Palin.

    Bristol Palin earns $262K for teen pregnancy work

    But she didn’t earn $262k, she made $427,500, seven times as much as the organisation actually spent on teen pregnancy prevention programmes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    andrei – bahahaha

    love it when dudes are so anti-abortion. its up there with chicks who are against circumcising boys

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    I don’t get it, you people are outraged, rightly so when an abused child is dies but are quite happy to see a child a few months younger dismembered in her mothers womb. Pulled limb from limb.

    Odd, really odd

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    Oh Andrei
    Go and look after your own behaviour and stop trying to ape the Taleban. We women don’t need you to tell us how to order our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    Which ever way you dress it up, abortion is murder pure and simple of the most vulnerable members of our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    BeaB

    Some of you do need to be told, in particualr those of you who favour late term or partial birth abortions.

    Inside the first three months…I have no problem with it, after that, it’s murder as far as I am concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei, I think you’ve simply gone off the rails on this issue and got to a position that is unrelated to what abortion actually is in any sense. In the great majority of cases it occurs in the first 12 weeks and usually in the first 8, before any question of sentience or pain or awareness comes up. I think most people, including me, are against late term abortion because suffering becomes a real issue.

    I can tell you it is patently offensive to be labelled a murderer because the real world does not accord with your naive misconceptions of it, or because others’ values are not your own. I can also tell you abortion is a big decision for at least some people who go through it, life changing in fact, and not something frivolous that you seem to think it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    ben,
    “life changing in fact”……indeed it is!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    andrei (831) Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    The greatest evil of our time, little different to Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobidor, Treblinka, and Jasenovac.

    Mass murder on an industrial scale – New Zealanders should be ashamed that this is being done in our name with our money to our most vulnerable people.

    Strong opponents of abortion are almost all deeply religious. The sincere supporters of abortion, whether personally religious or not, are likely to follow a non-religious, consequentialist moral philosophy, perhaps invoking Jeremy Bentham’s question, ‘Can they suffer?’ Paul Hill and Michael Bray saw no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a doctor except that the embryo was, to them, a blamelessly innocent ‘baby’. The consequentialist sees all the difference in the world. An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. A doctor is a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of humane knowledge, the capacity for deep emotion, very probably a devastated widow and orphaned children, perhaps elderly parents who dote on him.

    Paul Hill caused real, deep, lasting suffering, to beings with nervous systems capable of suffering. His doctor victim did no such thing. Early embryos that have no nervous system most certainly do not suffer. And if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

    Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn’t affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, ‘When does the developing embryo become a person – a human being?’ Secular moralists are more likely to ask, ‘Never mind whether it is human, (what does that even mean for a little cluster of cells?); at what age does any developing embryo, of any species, become capable of suffering?’

    Richard Dawkins

    Might be also worth checking out http://www.abolitionistapproach.com – see the statistics on the sidebar. What these living beings go through is a whole lot worse than non-sentient fetuses.

    Furthermore, let me just remind you of what the Lord Jesus Christ Saviour of mankind lover of souls bringer of salvation Who is One and the same as Jehovah YHWH etc. Has to say about babies (post-birth):

    1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”

    The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered.” O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.” (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

    “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

    And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

    The Bible

    Little different to Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobidor, Treblinka, and Jasenovac, wouldn’t you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Dime – I think the correct comparison there is ‘chicks who ARE in favour of circumcising boys’…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. joe90 (273 comments) says:

    No doubt the nutters will agree with this wee gem.

    State Rep. Shannon McMillan (R) argued that women who were impregnated under “violent circumstances” should have no choice because it’s not the fetus’s fault. State Rep. Brent Crane, the bill’s sponsor, took it a step further. Believing that “tragic, horrific” acts of rape or incest are the “hand of the Almighty,” Crane said women should trust God to turn the consequences of their sexual assault into “wonderful examples”:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Kowtow, nice to find some common ground, but actually I didn’t mean it in the rabid, abortion-is-the-spawn-of-Satan, maniacal sort of way that you do. But thanks.

    It would be nice if the opponents of abortion would be consistent and deduct from the numbers they count murdered through abortion the number of people killed, and deduct something further for all the additional abuse, poverty and crime that is the measurable result of banning abortions and forcing women to go to term against their will. Ideally, the fact that all that all the extra murder and crime is against sentient beings, and not collections of cells, to borrow from the quoted passage above, would be properly reflected as well.

    Courage Wolf – spot on. Great post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. calendar girl (1,243 comments) says:

    ben@4:00pm

    You smear a fellow poster with suggestions of serious criminal tendencies on his part. How do you avoid DPF’s demerits for that kind of extreme personal abuse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf,

    So ending the lives of human beings is evil when the Creator of the universe does it, but not evil when his female creature allow their unborn babies to be ripped out of their wombs?

    That must therefore mean that murder is ok, but dying peacefully in your sleep isn’t.

    As for National, what craven fools. In a country where women are more likely to support limits on abortion, where abortion is the hell mouth in the middle of a number of public hospitals, any potential to stem the number of brutally killed tiny babies is unceremoniously quashed.

    Good on Tariana Turia. Except, I wish she’d be just as concerned for all the non-Maori babies as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    …Lord Jesus Christ Saviour of mankind

    I was thinking about this the other day. What exactly is Jesus saving mankind from? Not the Holocaust. Not the 100 million killed by Communism. Not the 20 million killed by Hitler, or the 30 million killed by the environmentalist ban on DDT in the third world. Or abortion, come to think of it. Ok, he gives us a shot at saving our souls, which by all accounts, including the bible, most of mankind will not do, provided we’re prepared to pass the extraordinarily odd test of believing in him, which – no doubt coincidentally – works out great for church attendance, tithing, and the construction of large cathedrals.

    It seems like a lot goes unsaved by a supernatural, omniscient being that claims to like us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    calendar girl – oh please. There’s no smearing left to do when someone has again argued from Godwin’s Law and just labelled thousands of New Zealanders murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (644) Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    So ending the lives of human beings is evil when the Creator of the universe does it, but not evil when his female creature allow their unborn babies to be ripped out of their wombs?

    You obviously missed the first blockquote I pasted from Richard Dawkins. There is a huge difference between a sentient, living, breathing human being and a non-sentient fetus with no conscious or nervous system.

    Just as there is a difference between a human being and a sperm cell (obviously not in God’s eyes though, who murdered Onan for murdering some precious sperm). And obviously for you Christians – God murdering babies is OK, but abortion is not? Pfft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Okay, a non religious male’s point of view. We don’t have to carry the fetus & to their shame many of our sex want nothing to do with the full term baby. It is a woman’s body & her decision, not ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. sassycassy (45 comments) says:

    Don’t forget Teletubby Turias’ advocacy to Maori in 2004.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3607668

    “Mrs Turia said it was disappointing the annual growth rate of the Maori population was projected to decrease, reflecting our “reduced fertility”.
    “Maybe one of our policy goals in the Maori Party should be to go forth and multiply!

    Hitler also had a fervent stance of encouraging selective (Aryan) stock didn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    Oh well…the god squad have turned up, there goes any notion of a rational debate on this subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. TripeWryter (716 comments) says:

    The arguments of proponents of abortion never change.

    * The humanity of the unborn child has to be denied. So it’s easier to call it a ‘foetus’ (or ‘fetus’). That does it best of all, because as long as it connotes an insentiate glob or globs or cells then we don’t have to think of it as a human being.

    * Then there must be the religious angle. It’s all the bloody Catholics and the fundamentalist Christians’ fault. I was one, but I am neither now.

    * It’s a woman’s right. Yes, well: we give women the right to do what we give no other human being to do.

    It’s a woman’s body. Yes, she carries the eggs. And after the ambush of sperm and egg at the most propitious moment of her cycle she goes on to carry a new, distinct entity — an embryo, which would not and could not have been an embryo unless sperm and egg met. Everything that person will be is already in that embryo. All that is needed is nine months or so to enable the baby to get to the stage where it does not need to stay inside her womb for its survival. The baby the woman carries ain’t her body.

    * Men should not tell women what to do. In some cases, that is true. Just as in some cases women should not tell men what to do. But in this case it is a human rights matter — the right to life of our youngest and most vulnerable. As I said, we accord women the right to do what no-one else can. Arrange for the killing of their unborn children. To deny that is to deny the humanity of their children. If men don’t stand up for this right, who will?

    * There shouldn’t be unwanted children. Let me tell you there are many ‘unwanted’ children living in this country. They were unwanted when their mothers found they were pregnant. For many reasons pregnancy and another mouth to feed were compelling reasons for them to have an abortion. I know this from experience.

    * A woman should not have to carry a child conceived in rape or incest. Those are the most compelling reasons, and down the years I’ve found it’s always been used as the emotional and emotive juggernaut to derail the argument of opponents of abortion, and to knock them on to the back foot.

    Who could be so heartless as to make a woman or girl go through to term with a pregnancy started in such circumstances? I have a great deal of sympathy for this position. But rape and incest are already covered in law, and always have been. The emotional and emotive argument was used to ram through in 1977 a more liberal position on abortion. Rape and incest do not account for our abortion totals of averaging 17,000 for each of the last 10 years.

    Nor does that other plank — the mother’s emotional wellbeing. That’s provided for in the law. But an average of 17,000 women’s emotional health at risk from pregnancy each year?

    I can also tell you that from personal knowlege I have known people in this country who were conceived in rape and incest and their mothers did have the choice of abortion, and who could judge and condemn them if they did? One got as far as the operating table in Epsom, and backed out.

    * Then there’s the name-calling. You only have to look at some of the replies to Andrei. Things haven’t changed.

    * Then there’s the judgmentalism and hypocrisy of the opponents of abortion. I know from experience that that has been true, too, but not in all cases.

    Really, we have the abortion regime we have in this country because it’s what a certain group of women wanted. And to get what they wanted they had to be elevated above everything else: work, careers, work, careers …

    The role of the mother had to be denigrated. What intrigued me in the 1990s when I was a solo parent was the number of mothers — bright women with degrees and had had careers, some of them — who resented the condescension and contempt of their ‘sisters’ who virtually called them cabbages for putting their children first.

    I could go on, but I think this will do. The argument has been going for 40 years, and I’m sure it will go for … perhaps until someone, or someones, will wake up and ask: “What the fuck have we been doing?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria. You know as well as I do that God doesn’t exist. Except you won’t admit it to yourself.

    Fundamentalist Christians ruin any debate from anti-abortists who are non-religious and can think for themselves. There is no murder. It’s a bunch of cells. Millions of our cells die every day. Every day we flush our cells down the toilet.

    And stop going on about heart beats. Cells can contract and beat. It’s nothing special. If you removed your intestines they’d still contract slowly. Think of sperm – it has a beating tail – like a living organism – you don’t have laws making it illegal to waste sperm. (Although I’m sure the Vatican would love it.)

    Religion is all about controlling people. That’s why it persists. (See Islam). Assholes love controlling others for their own benefit. In Christianity thee benefit is usually financial or sexual. The JWs made Antonie Dixon. Brian Tamaki is making a fortune out of religion.

    Now religios may want to subject themselves and their kids to a group who want to control want they do. Good for them. But stop trying to control the government!

    As for Maori abortions – if they had smaller families, with wanted children, they’d do a lot better. They’re very lucky NZ is still rich enough to pay for them all. But it can’t last.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. william blake (109 comments) says:

    Tariana Turia is a bloody menace Whanau Ora reuniting the abused victims with the perpetrators; for the love of god.
    Now stacking the Abortion Advisory Committee, is she related to Brian Tamaki?

    The only time first trimester abortion is questionable is when ultra sound is involved and it discovers that the fetus has that common birth defect; the lack of a Y chromosome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tvb (4,431 comments) says:

    I am more interested in the abstentions. I bet they were all Labour. So when the Labour party enforces the party whip on a conscience issue the ones who are unhappy find something else to do during the vote. It is the moral cowardice of the Labour MPs that interests me. I am personally anti abortion except in limited circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    tvb (1,719) Says:

    April 8th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    I am more interested in the abstentions. I bet they were all Labour. So when the Labour party enforces the party whip on a conscience issue the ones who are unhappy find something else to do during the vote. It is the moral cowardice of the Labour MPs that interests me. I am personally anti abortion except in limited circumstances.

    What you gunna do, take out a contract on them?

    I do find your last statement very surprising. I would never have guessed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    Anyone who supports abortion believes in the right of society to force a woman to give birth against her will. I don’t believe in that.

    I would never have an abortion. That’s my choice. My daughter might have an abortion, that’s her’s. Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    There is a virtual prize for the number of comments on this post by 5pm Sunday. My pick is 575.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Mr Nobody NZ (391 comments) says:

    Maggie, I could understand your viewpoint from a pro-life perspective but not from the pro-choice one that you seem to be comi from. Have you mad a typo or have I missed something?

    Personally while I am pro-choice I am completely opposed to NZ’s abortion laws as I understand them as they state that an abortion should only be available if the mothers life or mental well being is at risk. Despite several studies now linking long term mental risks to women who have abortions they are still freely available here despite the law and no politician is willing to resolve this issue because of a lack of willingness to have the debate. Well the debate needs to had and the issue should be resolved properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    Fuck off anyone who thinks men can’t have a valid opinion on abortion. It affects everyone. And it’s not “your body”, it’s a body inside of you. The issue is how valuable we should regard that body, and whether its rights override yours.

    I hate the label “pro choice”. It’s not a fucking choice, it’s a balance of rights issue that every woman with an unwanted pregnancy has to res

    Abortion makes me ill, but that’s not the same as believing it should be illegal. What is the point of arresting people for having or performing abortions? What earthly purpose would that serve?

    Really it’s the same as killing and eating the family dog because you ran out of food. It’s distasteful, it’s disgusting, and how dare you do such an abominable thing when there are always alternatives available. But it’s hard not to be sympathetic, and should it be illegal? No.

    I agree with the current law in New Zealand despite its flaws and the whiff of bureaucracy it has about it. It should be hard to get an abortion. And I think the ASC is a joke, and if we had someone on there who finally took it seriously, I would support that. I would have voted for Dr Moala.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    CourageWolf,

    You obviously missed the first blockquote I pasted from Richard Dawkins.

    Yes, I tend to ignore Richard Dawkins on reflex.

    There is a huge difference between a sentient, living, breathing human being and a non-sentient fetus with no conscious or nervous system.

    It’s called maturity. Or age. Not biology, because if you wait a number of months, amazing changes occur.

    Just as there is a difference between a human being and a sperm cell ….

    What is it with you men and your sperm cells????

    A sperm cell, by itself, will not mature into anything except a dead sperm cell. However, a sperm cell that makes into an egg sets off a whole chain of events that results in an immature human being in a very short space of time. It’s like a key, it needs a door in order to get anywhere.

    (obviously not in God’s eyes though, who murdered Onan for murdering some precious sperm).

    The Creator doesn’t murder, He merely ends the life of each human being when it is their time. It was Onan’s time when he had sex just for pleasure, thus allowing him to treat target of his lust as an object rather than someone who might end up carrying his child.

    And obviously for you Christians – God murdering babies is OK, but abortion is not?

    Yeah, because we are not God. Again to what I said in my original comment, do you think someone killing you is ok, but you dying in your sleep is not?

    Pfft.

    Try that again, this time with feeling …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Awful post Trypewriter. Just knocking over straw men, one after the other.

    The argument promulgated by pro-lifers amounts to the idea that the world would be a better place if their (personal, religious, spiritual) values were coercively forced on to everyone else, against their values and their will. A shameful argument that I suspect would be rejected by most pro-lifers were it made for nearly any other cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    Mr Nobody NZ (316) Says:

    April 8th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    Maggie, I could understand your viewpoint from a pro-life perspective but not from the pro-choice one that you seem to be comi from. Have you mad a typo or have I missed something?

    Personally while I am pro-choice I am completely opposed to NZ’s abortion laws as I understand them as they state that an abortion should only be available if the mothers life or mental well being is at risk. Despite several studies now linking long term mental risks to women who have abortions they are still freely available here despite the law and no politician is willing to resolve this issue because of a lack of willingness to have the debate. Well the debate needs to had and the issue should be resolved properly.

    Couldn’t agree more. I hate the idea of abortion, would much rather see every child grow up secure, fed and loved. But I don’t have the right to impose that view on others. They must make their own choices, even if I don’t like them. Isn’t that what God gave us, the right to make our own decisions?

    Politicians will run away from abortion, largely because when it is debated all the extremists emerge from the woodwork. Just look at some of them here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria, ok, you’ve made an argument from the human potential of a fertilized egg. You attach great significance to that. Fair enough. But some people do not accept that view. Some people choose other thresholds.

    Please explain why your value judgment on this issue is so much better than that of other people that they should be forced, against their will, to live by your values, and not by their own.

    The alternative, note, is not that you be forced to live under their values, but that each person is free to live according to their own values, at least on this issue.

    Please explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Ben. I agree with almost everything you have to say, but have one correction. DDT has not been banned in the Third World. It is still used. The problem instead is that a few DDT resistant mosquitoes get through each time and breed like crazy.

    I would add that I hesitated to have a look at the comments here, because I just knew that it would degenerate into what it has. There are the extremists, more on the anti-abortion side. There are those who attempt to argue logically, but you cannot use logic against the extremists. And then there are a few stirrers and nutters.

    And I use the term “anti-abortion” because I do NOT consider them pro-life. What sort of life does an unwanted child have?

    I suggest that anyone interested in the economic argument have a look at Freakonomics, which showed that the drop in crime in New York City was due to Roe vs Wade, 18+ years later, and that the ouster of Ceaucescu in Romania was largley the result of the imposition of a ban on abortion, again 18+ years later. Whatever you think going in, it is an interesting read.

    Oh, and Lucia Maria … let’s apply your argument about the sperm to the zygote. Take the zygote out and what happens? It dies. Same end. And yes I am taking your argument to an extreme, but I suggest that that is what you are doing too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Julie from THM (7 comments) says:

    For those interested there was a pro-choice blogswarm of NZ bloggers yesterday, quite coincidentally (the date was picked several weeks ago, for World Health Day, didn’t know there would be an ASC vote on). The index post, with links to the 25 (at my last count) separate posts, on the theme “Abortion: it’s a health issue not a crime.”
    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/04/abortion-its-health-issue-not-crime.html

    This issue isn’t going to go away, so politicians better get used to being asked about it, and think about what they think instead of continuing (for some anyway) to come up with the pat “it’s a conscience vote”. Yes it’s a conscience vote, but that’s not an answer, it’s a dodge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    I never thought that I would be forced to admit to agreeing on something Maggie wrote….

    …”Anyone who supports abortion believes in the right of society to force a woman to give birth against her will”…

    Which group of people have rights superior to the woman that allows them to dictate the use of her body? The sperm donor, the government, the lurking religious nutbar, maybe the next door neighbour should have their say too. There would be no other circumstance in which non involved people could pretend to have the right to dictate the functioning of another’s body.

    Pro choice is a woman’s basic human right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Maria Lucia: what if God doesn’t exist? Then all of the acts committed in his name are based on the wants of humans, including executing other humans. Nice! So, every month, women have a period and an egg is disposed of. And men ejaculate sperm, or the sperm are reabsorbed back into their bodies. Isn’t that wasteful? Quite often, women are accidentally impregnated. And every month, women are impregnated and their bodies expel the resultant embryo, due to various factors. You would say that it is God’s will. I say it is part of nature. I was at a wildlife park in Australia many years ago. Apparently dingo females, if they detect some defect with a pup, will kill it out of hand. Is that wrong? If a woman is impregnated against her will, why should she carry another person’s genetic material to term? And then who should care for that child? The father obviously won’t. Of course, you would have me believe that a God exists, and therein lies a major point of difference. There is no such entity. Our only commitment is to ensuring our own genetic material is passed on to a wanted and cared for child. Bringing up an unwanted child, a child that is won’t be cared for by it’s parent, is indeed shameful. I would suggest that most women are deeply scarred emotionally by the experience and don’t need others to make them feel any more ashamed. I love the way that people pontificate on this subject. It is a very emotive subject and the only people who should make the choice are the women themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dog_eat_dog (782 comments) says:

    Religion should get a say when it pays its taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    “This issue isn’t going to go away,”

    No, it’s not going to go away, and nor should it.

    There will always be debate about abortion, you will have the lunatics from the religious right demanding that abortions are never carried out, conversely, you will have the insane far left feminists pushing the idiotic and murderous line that abortion should be on demand (including late term/partial birth)

    Somewhere in the middle is a solution, and while it might not please everybody it will at least be something that both parties can live with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    While I agree with you Big Bruv, I suggest that the more realistic wording of your last sentence might be “that both parties should be able to live with”. The arguments here indicate that neither side would be happy to live with the middle ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    “Abortion: it’s a health issue not a crime.”

    Bullshit arguments like this do not help matters Julie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Crikey David, not enough social liberals in parliament for you? Only gonna be happy when all conservatives are purged? Factor in the leftist fruit loops from Labour, the Greens & (gag) UF….and now half of National, a balanced and representative parliament on social issues it is not!

    National = Labour lite….oh yes.

    Ah, dog_eat_dog, so non-religious tax-exempt organisations should also STFU too? You wanna pull the trigger for free political discourse on Plunket, Barnardo’s, Red Cross, etc.? Remember that the first 2, and one would assume Red Cross & others, make submissions regularly. Ignorant twit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Campbell (6 comments) says:

    This is one debate that I just cannot resist adding my two cents worth… I am astounded at Tariana’s well-meaning, but hopelessly hypocritical statements over abortion. I do believe that many, many young Maori (and Pakeha) mothers are actively encouraged to continue with their pregnancy, when they simply cannot, or will not care for these children in an appropriate manner. For an amusing/interesting take on the current abortion laws in the US – you should read ‘Freakanomics’.

    Also – sorry guys – but I do believe that abortion is a womans choice, and you blokes simply cannot possibly understand the moral dilemma that many women find themselves in. I commented a few days ago, that it is simply outrageous that a NZ woman has to declare her mental health to be at peril before she can access an abortion. This is disgraceful, and insulting to all of us. It is particularly disgraceful that the women in Labour had nine years to actually sort this legislation out – but even they were too scared..

    The decision to abort, should be a private one, between the woman and her doctor. It is no-one elses business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    No bailout for aborted kids…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    And remember, Campbell, that the icing on the Freakonomics cake, as I mentioned earlier, was the fall of the Romanian dictator who had banned abortion, and it was that next generation that were instrumental in deposing him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Also – sorry guys – but I do believe that abortion is a womans choice, and you blokes simply cannot possibly understand the moral dilemma that many women find themselves in.

    It’s called being “without natural affection” Campbell. But then you wouldn’t know about that,…flick the knife about in the womb & then back home to cook dinner aye. You people are pure nuts!! Try some more reasoning away of murder though…I’m listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Haha, David in Chch….silliest post ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    I see, Dazzaman. So if your sister (presuming you have a sister) is raped by some low-life, and is made pregnant, you are going to make her go to full term? You are going to make her bear the product of her assault to full term? That surely adds yet more mental torture and anguish. That is cruel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    sigh. Dazzaman, you obviously haven’t read Freakonomics, otherwise you would get it.

    You DO read something other than the bible, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dog_eat_dog (782 comments) says:

    Pssst, Dazzaman, Barnados and Plunket and the Red Cross aren’t using their taxpayer exempt status to try and tell my partner, daughter or grandkids that they aren’t fit to make decisions about what goes on with their bodies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Campbell (6 comments) says:

    David In Chch – good on you. You prove that there are sensible blokes out there.

    Dazzaman – you are a neanderthal, and the thought of the likes of you having any say about what happens in MY womb is revolting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Radman (143 comments) says:

    Anti-abortionists are moral absolutists. There is no discretion and for women who are raped and fall pregnant, it is just too bad.

    At a certain historical stage, normal absolutism played an essentially progressive role, combating the separatism of the feudal nobility, subordinating the church to the state. But these moral absolutists want the reverse: The state, or worse, individual liberty, to be subordinate to the church.

    Moral absolutism is always strictly secular. The secularists regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.

    The likes of Lucia Maria believe the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. Their stance on homosexuality is inherent in this. They consider homosexual behavior as fundamentally wrong, even in a consensual relationship.

    Lucia Maria and Andrei think that individual circumstances and differences make no difference in their moral evaluations.

    Another example: Traditional sexual morality says that sex should be with one partner throughout life.

    But these morals were developed when there was no birth control technology and peoples’ life spans were probably 35 years. Now that life spans are pushing 80 and not everyone chooses to raise children why do we have to keep the same old sexual moral systems; when it is obvious that most people don’t even follow them anymore?

    I guess that is why their blog is called NZ Conservative.

    Although societies and people move and change, every day, the moral absolutists pine for stagnation, and for a world that has actually never existed.

    One wonders how they sleep at night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    and for a world that has actually never existed.

    That would be the good old days that never were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Now, now, Radman, you are attempting to introduce a rational discussion here. I expect to see that you (and I ;) ) will be condemned to the fires of hell (or whatever) for our moral relativist ways, and for attempting to bring evidence and discussion to this to-and-fro of emotional and emotive posting.

    Good on ya, mate. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. noodle (151 comments) says:

    I am old enough to remember the abortion situation in NZ during the sixties and seventies. Women with unwanted pregnancies were in a very bad position. Those with wealthy families went to Australia for abortion. Others went up north for a while, had the baby then had it taken away. Others went to back-street abortionists or had the child that was not affordable or wanted. My GP at the time spat tacks telling me how sick he was of pulling blood clots out of the utreri of women who resorted to knitting needles in desperate attempts to abort unwanted pregnancies.
    Societal acceptance nowadays of single parenthood notwithstanding, I detest the idea that polititians should have anything to do with changing a system that has worked well enough for the last 30 years.
    Have these bastards got nothing better to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. James (1,338 comments) says:

    I never thought that I would be forced to admit to agreeing on something Maggie wrote….

    …”Anyone who supports abortion believes in the right of society to force a woman to give birth against her will”…

    Same…..I’m stunned.Well said. See….you can talk sense when you try. ;-)

    Now if you can grasp the same principle about force in regards to all other facets of human interaction you will understand why Socialism…be it left wing or the rightwing God squad type you see from the anti-abortion crowd here, is wrong and you will be well on your way to Libertarianism.

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Radman @ 9.41pm

    …”One wonders how they sleep at night”…

    In separate beds & in a state of sexual frustration would be my guess. These people who are so desperate to inflict their moral straightjacket on us all are perfectly free to spend or waste their lives on their knees, mumbling over their rosary beads should they wish. Should it be their desire to not have an abortion, visit the Vatican or devote Sundays to crossing themselves that is their business & let them get on with it.

    All I ask is if they are Pro Life then let them get one & stay out of mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. tvb (4,431 comments) says:

    The other side of the abortion debate are unwanted abortions which occur and are then deeply regretted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    tvb, they must have been wanted when they had the abortion.

    People have regrets about all sorts of things, getting pissed and pregnant on the same night, not having an abortion and having a baby when it’s a bad time to be trying to raise a baby, going out with a prat, breaking up with a partner, getting bossed around by religious peeps on pedestals (many of whom have excluded themselves from understanding the practicalities and experience sex and pregnancy and childraising and struggling to survive financially).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Campbell…burn your bra. It’s obviously too tight.

    doggie_do, they bloody well do…you ignorant dope.

    David, yawn…your list of pathetic replies just keeps growing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Those preaching the most against abortion are those with the least relevance to the issue – supposedly celibate old men who view women as second class and should just be obedient to male domination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Shit! I agree with Pete George too…….! What are the odds? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Dazzaman, that wasn’t an answer, merely an insult, and not a very good one at that.

    One can only assume from your postings that you would FORCE your sister (whether literally or figuratively) to go full term in a pregnancy caused by a violent rape. Yes or no.

    If No, then you are not anti-abortion, not in all circumstances. And you then enter the grey zone where real life exists, where life isn’t black and white.

    If Yes, then you are exacting cruel and unusual punishment on the victim.

    And so instead of answering, you obfuscate.

    And on that note, I am off to bed. I have a lot to do this weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. James (1,338 comments) says:

    The thing to remember about religious opposition to abortion is that its really about the believers insecurity and faltering faith in their God. Deep inside they feel the fear that their God is impotent and unable to stop human beings “playing God” themselves be it preforming abortions or many of the other medical marvels man has created like stem cell research,immunisation etc.

    Like a little kid who hears his Dad being criticised and revealed not to be the perfect being the kid imagines him to be the religious types lash out using their supposed concern for the unborn as their cover for their secret guilt over their slipping faith in their once perfect and all powerful deity.

    As well as this the anti-abortionists are hypocrites.Find me one who engages in sexual intercourse ONLY for the purpose of reproduction and never recreation.If we get technical about things then every episode of sexual intercourse preformed by a religious opponent of abortion that is done with no conscious intention of creating a child damns them as hypocrites and their opinion not worthy of bothering with.

    If we count their kids then we should have a pretty close estimate of how often the have “done it”….no? ;-0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria:

    A sperm cell, by itself, will not mature into anything except a dead sperm cell. However, a sperm cell that makes into an egg sets off a whole chain of events that results in an immature human being in a very short space of time. It’s like a key, it needs a door in order to get anywhere.

    Here you are drawing an arbitrary line. As Dawkins argues – there is a consequentialist and an absolutionist approach determining where the line should be drawn (at consciousness and when the nervous system develops).

    If your dad had masturbated in the shower that day instead of fucking your mum, you and all of your ‘potential’ would have gone down the drain. By not banning masturbation, every single time a sperm cell is wasted, so too is its potential for ‘maturity’ (as you put it). This is the same as a sperm cell that goes into an egg. Bear in mind that most conceived sperm/egg cells die within a woman’s body without her even realising that she is ‘pregnant’. So all of those potential lives that failed to mature are ‘naturally’ aborted anyway. You say a key needs a door in order to get anywhere. Following from that parable – why is it OK to take the key away before it has the chance to get to a door, but not OK once it gets to a door? They just happen to be at different stages. What is more appropriate is to allow for the key to be removed from the door before the door opens. You, as someone who is pro-life, should technically believe that everytime a man releases his sperm it should be inside the womb of a woman, in order for no (potential) lives to be ‘wasted’. Everytime a man masturbates instead of fucking a woman, there is a life that could have come into this world that didn’t. So why aren’t you rallying against that?

    In fact, who are you to question ‘God’ in saying that wasting sperm is OK, when He clearly found it to be not OK with regards to Onan? You’re simply watering down the Bible to suit your idea of what is allowed and not allowed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    In fact, I would be interested to see where in the Bible the arbitrary line you believe murder begins of ‘conception’ is drawn as to when God considers such ‘death’ to be murder. The likelihood is that the people who wrote the Bible and created this fictional angry character did not have the necessary medical knowledge to know how pregnancies worked down to the sperm/egg detail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf….High five! Slap!

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    David in Chch 10:28 etc.

    Why does the abortion debate always hinge on the fate of some poor woman who has been raped?

    Ridiculous way to argue your case. Using an extreme example to argue for something is silly and illogical.

    The debate is whether abortion on demand is a good thing or not.

    At least be honest about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. James (1,338 comments) says:

    The debate is whether abortion on demand is a good thing or not.

    No one has a “right” to an abortion…same as theres no “Right” to a car,house,education,food etc etc……but they certainly have a right to seek and procure one from someone willing to consensually preform one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    In line with the ‘Social Liberal’ view of things, I see South Australia are having a vote on euthanasia – ie: to make it legal for a doctor to give medication to someone who wants them.
    Its a bit difficult to check later on if the person that was euthanased “did they want them really?”

    Euthanasia is no different to abortion – sure thers an arguement about some of the differenecs – but the elderly and fetuses
    both cannot survive without help – and they can be both have their existance shortened only buy the action of other humans.

    Im not sure about this social Liberal concept. The Nazis would have fitted that description in some of their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    MAORIS + CHRISTIANS. I was very interested in this Maori position based on Whakapapa. In 1996 – the first MMP election – the Christian Coalition was the most active of the new parties off the start line and , apart from hideous Capill’s interjections, polled well above the other minnows (incl. ACT) until the last fortnight of the campaign, when the gay lobby lobbed some bombs. Of significance is, the CC’s final result was well above all the Maori votes combined, so if Maori voters and Christian voters united around this issue, they would be a significant force of change. I hate MMP, but the scope for cross party/philosophy unities is an intriguing political scenario for social change in NZ (viz capital punishment, dealing with school bullying, smacking, euthanasia, immigration, educational emphases, alcohol law, abortion, etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. tvb (4,431 comments) says:

    Abortion is a highly complex emotional experience. It involves the deliberate ending of a human life. Those that see it as a mere medical procedure available as of right to remove a growth inside their bodies are probably not fit to be parents anyway. So let them have their procedure and strerilise them as well, just to make doubly sure for the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    It is good that Christians are here. We respect human life and are not always angry like atheists are.
    Horrible comments from many people- this blog is more of a madhouse every day.

    My comment would be that socially liberal and economically conservative are not very compatible long term. Social liberalism is a high cost exercise-it leads to broken families,extensive need for social welfare and high medical costs-such as abortion clinics,lots of STD’s etc. Plus family breakdown causes high crime rates and welfare dependency.

    There are less and less well adjusted productive citizens paying taxes to fund all of these costs. The welfare state gets bigger and more bloated and left wing governments get elected in perpetuity because they are the ones that keep feeding the welfare state because it provides their future voters.

    So wise up people! We need those future citizens-born to married parents who will look after them and provide the responsible citizens and taxpayers of the future. Abortion is not the answer to anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Right tvb, lets leave the parenting to morally sound people like Capill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    I’m a fan of sci-fi; of both kinds. The popular kind like Star Wars, but also the kind that tries to make a point – like stuff by H. G Wells, Aldus Huxley, Orwell, etc.

    I’m wondering how we would see ourselves if a super-advanced civilization visited Earth and these aliens queried us about what the female of our species were doing, going in for these “medical procedures” to dispose of their hatchlings. How would we explain it to them? Many science fiction novels explore the subject of a civilization living in seeming Utopia with not a care in the world (ie, the Eloi in Wells’ Time Machine), but there’s always something sinister or evil lurking beneath the surface.

    Or if you’ve seen Torchwood: Children On Earth, it’s the sacrifice of a tenth of the world’s children to appease alien invaders (who turn them into a narcotic they use).

    In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, a short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the city’s one atrocity: the good fortune of Omelas requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens should be told of this upon coming of age. Some choose to walk away.

    I think it’s the same with abortion, if you step back and examine it critically. Humans have fooled themselves that they can have sexual pleasure without the consequence and responsibility that comes along with it. In trying to do so, we’ve invented pills – and when they don’t work as they should we have the fallback of killing the results of our pleasure-seeking ways.

    In other words, we’re sacrificing our own children for the utopia of short-lived sexual pleasure.

    To me, it’s that simple. There’s no denying that when a sperm and egg meet that if it’s not interfered with, a child will result. Your baby son or daughter. Stopping the growth anywhere along its timeline (in or out of the womb) destroys that unique life.

    If you look at the stats in the US (and I bet they’re similar around the world) 98% of abortions are for “personal choice” (eg,

    –too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
    –economic
    –to avoid adjusting life
    –mother single or in poor relationship
    –enough children already
    –sex selection)

    The abortion for reason of rape is only 0.3%
    For reasons that affect the health of the mother is 1.0%
    For reasons that affect the life of the mother is 0.2%
    For the reason of incest is 0.03%

    So it’s really just an excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    ps, on the case of abortion because of rape, people just assume that it’s the best thing for a woman. There’s a book Victims and Victors that talks to 192 women and finds that this isn’t the case –

    Most people assume that a woman who becomes pregnant through rape or incest would want an abortion. But few people have thought to actually ask women who have been there to talk about what they want or need, or to share their stories.

    In this compelling book, 192 women reveal the seldom-heard truth: most women who become pregnant through rape or incest don’t want to abort!

    Instead, many of the women in this book are calling for compassion, meaningful support, a chance to heal, and real choices for women like them and their unborn children.

    Based on the largest survey ever done of women who became pregnant through sexual assault, Victims and Victims reveals that:

    * Nearly 80 percent of the women who aborted a pregnancy conceived in sexual assault reported that abortion had been the wrong solution.

    * Most women who had abortions said that abortion only increased the trauma they were experiencing.

    * In many cases, the victim faced strong pressure or demands to abort and in some cases, especially those involving teenage girls, was even forced to have the abortion by others.

    * In cases of incest or ongoing sexual abuse, abortion was frequently used by the perpetrator to cover up the abuse, and in many cases the girl was given an abortion with no questions asked and then returned to the abusive situation.

    * None of the women who gave birth to a child conceived in sexual assault expressed regret or wished they had aborted instead.

    Victims and Victors tells the stories of women who became pregnant through rape or incest and either had an abortion or carried to term. It also tells the stories of children (now teens and adults) who were conceived through sexual assault — including the story of Julie Makimaa, one of the book’s co-editors, and her birthmother, Lee Ezell.

    These women deserve to be heard. Here is what some of them are saying:

    “After my daughter was born, it was love at first sight. I know I made the right decision in having her.” —Nancy

    “Often I cry. Cry because I could not stop the attacks. Cry because my daughter is dead. And I cry because it still hurts.” —Edith

    “I think that rape victims with pregnancies are discriminated against because people think you’re nuts to have a baby by a man who raped you. We are looked upon as being liars, or stupid” —Sharon

    “Abortion does not help or solve a problem—it only compounds and creates another trauma for the already grieving victim by taking away the one thing that can bring joy.” —Helene

    “The effects of the abortion are much more far reaching than the effects of the rape in my life.” —Patricia

    “I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,’ feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape or incest. I feel that we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story.” —Kathleen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Scott at 10:09 am:

    It is good that Christians are here. We respect human life and are not always angry like atheists are.

    Quaint generalisation Scott. I don’t get angry about a woman’s right to choose about her own body. Do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Fletch – “on the case of abortion because of rape, people just assume that it’s the best thing for a woman. ”

    No, no one assumes that. They think the best thing is for a woman to have a choice. The only assumption going on is the religious nutters assuming it’s the best thing to force her to have the baby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    I don’t get angry about a woman’s right to choose about her own body. Do you?

    Me neither. I get angry about the right to choose whether the body inside her lives and dies. I think a woman’s “choice” only goes so far as to the point where she decides to have sex or not. It’s interesting that we talk of a woman’s “choice”, or being “pro-choice”. No one completes the question – the choice between what and what? The choice is as to whether the growing life inside her lives or dies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    “I think a woman’s “choice” only goes so far as to the point where she decides to have sex or not. I”

    Fletch, going by your 10:22, it seems like you don’t even support the choice not to have sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    put it away, there’s nothing “nutty” about having respect for all life. What is nutty to me is the total disrespect for the life inside you, that you yourself had a 50% part in creating, so much so that you’d rather kill your son or daughter because you consider him or her an accident.

    Again, it’s this total divorce of pleasure from the act of procreation, and man-kinds ultimate quest to that end. Pills, condoms, abortions, IUDs, pills under the skin. I was in a class that included a girl from a foreign country, who came in one day looking very sick and pale. She’d had to have an operation to remove a birth control device or pill from the skin in her arm that wasn’t working or something.

    All this trouble to try to gain our utopia of sex-without-consequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Fletch, going by your 10:22, it seems like you don’t even support the choice not to have sex

    Huh? You’re saying that I support rape? You’re putting words in my mouth now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    So Taffy Hotene or his ilk was to father your sisters child you’d oppose a termination Fletch?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    Ooh Fancy having sex without consequences, Fletch. Next thing we might even start enjoying it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    cha – don’t take his word for it, take the word of that publishers blurb he quoted at 10:22 from an impressive outfit called the “Eliot Institute” ( staff: two), founded by a “Dr” David C Reardon, an electrical engineer with a worthless “phd” in bioethics from an unacredited correspondence school degree mill used by religious nutbars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    BeaB, I believe that sex is good and enjoyable, and that you should have as much of it as you want if you’re in a committed relationship, preferably marriage. That is the place that sex was intended for – within the confines of a loving family unit, because with sex comes the responsibility of children. Has no one told you that that’s where babies come from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Put it away, does it matter who the publishers are? Or do the words of the women affected who tell their stories in the book matter more – the women who have been through it and experienced both sides.

    You’re setting up a very obvious straw man. In fact, your point about who publishes the book is actually meaningless. Does a publisher have to be an expert on the subjects of the books he publishes? of course not, that’s bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    I’d say Fletch is one of those who thinks uterus is a dirty word.

    At one point [Democratic State Representitive Scott] Randolph suggested that his wife “incorporate her uterus” to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn’t want to further regulate a Florida business.

    Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn’t like the one-liner.

    They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    FLetch – well actually the publisher is the author, one and the same “Dr” David Reardon wrote the book and is half of the two man “Eliot Institute” that publishes it. So yes, it is quite relevant that this “study” is published/written by someone with utterly fraudulent credentials in the field. If he claims a phony PhD, why should we believe he has honestly chosen and edited the “words of the women”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Fletch you’re 100% entitled to your views, but it is beyond absurd to insist the state coerce other people to behave as if they agree with you. It’s absurd on two levels: one, you wouldn’t accept for a moment the state coercing you around to my way of thinking, and rightly so. Second, it’s all very well when its your guy in charge and writing the rules for everyone else, but sooner or later it won’t be your guy, it’ll be someone else’s, and you’ll then realise how fun tyranny is when someone else’s values are being forced on to you. Better, always, to let free people decide for themselves on their own principles.

    What is wrong with Christians on this issue: this is a value judgment, some people simply do not and will never give the significance to early stage pregnancy that you do. What is so wrong with recognising that reasonable people can disagree on this matter and allowing people to choose the approach that suits their values? You would never accept somebody else’s religious ideals being forced onto you. Yet that is precisely what you are doing to everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    What strange things some human beings are. On one hand they protest in the name of humanity against using the death penalty on murderers who have destroyed their fellow humans. Yet on the other hand the self same people have no qualms about destroying vast numbers innocents who have done no harm to anyone. And the sad thing is that the majority of them think of themselves as compassionate caring people.

    Strange, very strange.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    I don’t think Freakonomics should be used as an argument to support abortion – whoever does so is on dangerous moral ground. It seems true that one effect of legal abortion in the United States has been its contribution to decrease in crime, but that is not a good reason to support abortion, any more than the subsequent doubling of the road toll in six years is a good reason to reintroduce six o’clock closing. Good things can have bad side effects and bad things can have good side effects, but they are still side effects, and the real issue is the morality and legality of the matter at hand, and its direct effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    To me, it’s that simple. There’s no denying that when a sperm and egg meet that if it’s not interfered with, a child will result. Your baby son or daughter. Stopping the growth anywhere along its timeline (in or out of the womb) destroys that unique life.

    Of course, the Church’s position on abortion takes no more notice of the details of biology than it does of the reality of human suffering. It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing that she was pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.

    Sam Harris

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Good job Fletch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    yesjg/andrei: the rather obvious distinction is that many people choose not to equate a small collection of cells with a sentient, conscious human who can feel pain. What is stranger is that you could think for a moment your opponents don’t think this distinction is important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Of course Scott,Fletch,Blair etc have only ever had sexual intercourse with the express purpose of having children….count their kids and you will be pretty close to the number of times they have engaged in “the deed”.Anything else would be hypocrisy writ large….mmmm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    I applaud Tariana Turia’s stance on this issue. Hopefully people will realise that it is Maori children that are being aborted in vast numbers. I see in the United States they are waking up to this. The amount of black children aborted in places like New York is more than the number of live births.

    But I also hope that National does lead in this area and become more conservative rather than less so. I want exactly the opposite of DPF. If National becomes more liberal than they will become even more like Labour lite than they are now. Who wants John Key to become like Helen Clark?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    David in Christchurch

    Oh, and Lucia Maria … let’s apply your argument about the sperm to the zygote. Take the zygote out and what happens? It dies. Same end. And yes I am taking your argument to an extreme, but I suggest that that is what you are doing too.

    David,

    The zygote’s natural environment is in the womb. Yes, if you remove it from the womb, it will die just as most sperm will die when they leave the male body. However, leave the zygote where it is, and it will, in most cases grow, mature and be born. Leave the sperm where it is, and it’s still a sperm.

    So, what is your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    Scott

    It depends on who is having the abortions, if the likes Chris and Cru Kahui’s mother and the mothers of Lillybing, James Whakaruru, Anaru Rogers, Delcelia Whittaker are the type of Moari mothers having abortions then how on earth can you say that high abortion rates are a bad thing?

    When it comes to feral parents there are simply not enough of them having abortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    ben (1,657) Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Lucia Maria, ok, you’ve made an argument from the human potential of a fertilized egg. You attach great significance to that. Fair enough. But some people do not accept that view. Some people choose other thresholds.

    Please explain why your value judgment on this issue is so much better than that of other people that they should be forced, against their will, to live by your values, and not by their own.

    The alternative, note, is not that you be forced to live under their values, but that each person is free to live according to their own values, at least on this issue.

    Please explain.

    So you want to know why you should care. Well, very simply, we either define human life as sacrosanct from conception, or decide that the line is arbitrary. That if enough agree, then the undesirables can be disposed of. Today it’s unborn children. In times gone past, it was the members of a particular race. Define them as non-human, and then dispose of them. In a humane way, of course. Tomorrow, maybe the slow ones called Ben. Or maybe when we are old, we’ll be put in a rest home for a year or so before we are quietly put to sleep. Against our will, but because the values of the people caring for us mandate that old people don’t have much quality of life beyond a certain point, and they’re expensive to look after, so why not just put them out of their misery?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    Big Bruv,

    So it’s ok for abusive mother to kill their babies before 3 months gestation, I presume, but not when they are born.

    I’m curious, why is 3 months a line for you? What happens at that moment when the 3 month mark is reached?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    Ben

    I love the way that apologists for abortion use the argument that an unborn child is merely a ‘small collection of cells’ not worthy of being human. How arrogant: and pray tell when does an apologist for the destruction of an innocent human being decide that it ceases to become a ‘small collection of cells’ and become a child and therefore worthy of being allowed to live?

    From the moment of its conception that ‘small collection of cells’ as you so disdainfully call them is a living entity, so who gives you or any of the other pro abortionists the moral right to end its life? As I said previously abortion is nothing more than the murder of the most innocent members of our society and in my view the fact that we as a society allow it puts us at the same level as child murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Lucia Maria (2,468 comments) says:

    # Courage Wolf (135) Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    Lucia Maria:

    A sperm cell, by itself, will not mature into anything except a dead sperm cell. However, a sperm cell that makes into an egg sets off a whole chain of events that results in an immature human being in a very short space of time. It’s like a key, it needs a door in order to get anywhere.

    Here you are drawing an arbitrary line. As Dawkins argues – there is a consequentialist and an absolutionist approach determining where the line should be drawn (at consciousness and when the nervous system develops).

    Both a consciousness and a nervous system are a result of maturity. That is what is arbitrary. It could easily be the requirement that a person be able to breathe by themselves or have control over their bladder, both of which are also a result of maturity. It’s just convenient to define humanity as having consciousness and a nervous system. Though, how that prevents someone from being smothered in their sleep because their consciousness is not active, I’m not sure.

    I’m very absolute about what a human being is, and it’s not dependent on what it can do. It’s dependent on what it is. If the question, is it human is answered yes, then it’s worthy of protection to natural death.

    If your dad had masturbated in the shower that day instead of fucking your mum, you and all of your ‘potential’ would have gone down the drain. By not banning masturbation, every single time a sperm cell is wasted, so too is its potential for ‘maturity’ (as you put it). This is the same as a sperm cell that goes into an egg. Bear in mind that most conceived sperm/egg cells die within a woman’s body without her even realising that she is ‘pregnant’. So all of those potential lives that failed to mature are ‘naturally’ aborted anyway.

    I’m actually having trouble following your line of thinking. You are quite clearly stuck on the concept that a sperm is a miniature human being. But I’m sorry to have to break this to you, it is not. It is just a sperm, that doesn’t really do anything, is not any sort of potential until it gets to kick start the egg.

    Yes, conceived eggs do die. People die as well. Many, many people die every day. Still doesn’t make murder any less heinous.

    You say a key needs a door in order to get anywhere. Following from that parable – why is it OK to take the key away before it has the chance to get to a door, but not OK once it gets to a door? They just happen to be at different stages. What is more appropriate is to allow for the key to be removed from the door before the door opens. You, as someone who is pro-life, should technically believe that everytime a man releases his sperm it should be inside the womb of a woman, in order for no (potential) lives to be ‘wasted’. Everytime a man masturbates instead of fucking a woman, there is a life that could have come into this world that didn’t. So why aren’t you rallying against that?

    Masturbation encourages people to think of sex as self-gratification only. While as sex is far more than that, it is an act of love, a renewal of marriage vows, a gift of the self and an acceptance of the possibility that the love multiplies into another human being, mirroring the creative impetus of God.

    A person who can only gratify the self can never really be there for their wife or children, because their life is all about them.

    In fact, who are you to question ‘God’ in saying that wasting sperm is OK, when He clearly found it to be not OK with regards to Onan? You’re simply watering down the Bible to suit your idea of what is allowed and not allowed.

    Or I understand something that you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    David in Chch (349) Says:
    April 8th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    Dazzaman, that wasn’t an answer, merely an insult, and not a very good one at that.

    One can only assume from your postings that you would FORCE your sister (whether literally or figuratively) to go full term in a pregnancy caused by a violent rape. Yes or no.

    If No, then you are not anti-abortion, not in all circumstances. And you then enter the grey zone where real life exists, where life isn’t black and white.

    If Yes, then you are exacting cruel and unusual punishment on the victim.

    And so instead of answering, you obfuscate.

    And on that note, I am off to bed. I have a lot to do this weekend.

    Well, still going I see David.

    By the way if you haven’t noticed, life is very black & white indeed….but then you’ve fallen under the spell of the socialistic conditioning of the last few decades I see.

    Here’s an answer if you really want one, not that I really feel any obligation to actually answer you, but if it makes you feel happy “Force your own sister jack….and find out”.

    You know the old one about asking silly questions…well there you go, now eat shit & die you misery guts. LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. big bruv (13,933 comments) says:

    Lucia

    You can be as curious as you like :)

    The three month cut off is nothing more than that…a cut off, for a compromise to be reached you inevitably have to have a point in time, it may as well be three months.

    I would far rather an abusive feral mother have an abortion (paid for by the tax payer) than have her bring any more kids into the world, of course, in an ideal world she would be sterilised so she could no longer have any kids but failing that she should have easy access to an abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria:

    Masturbation encourages people to think of sex as self-gratification only. While as sex is far more than that, it is an act of love, a renewal of marriage vows, a gift of the self and an acceptance of the possibility that the love multiplies into another human being, mirroring the creative impetus of God.

    Wow. Thank you for reminding me why it’s impossible to debate logically with Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    So you want to know why you should care. Well, very simply, we either define human life as sacrosanct from conception, or decide that the line is arbitrary. That if enough agree, then the undesirables can be disposed of. Today it’s unborn children. In times gone past, it was the members of a particular race. Define them as non-human, and then dispose of them. In a humane way, of course. Tomorrow, maybe the slow ones called Ben. Or maybe when we are old, we’ll be put in a rest home for a year or so before we are quietly put to sleep. Against our will, but because the values of the people caring for us mandate that old people don’t have much quality of life beyond a certain point, and they’re expensive to look after, so why not just put them out of their misery?

    Lucia Maria, the essence of the distinction that has been made again and again and again in this thread is that abortion does not involve the killing of a sentient, aware, feeling, ake person, which every one of your examples does. That is precisely why I expect most people in favour of choice are prepared to go along with that, and one reason why, among others, that all your examples are also utterly rejected as acceptable in any sense.

    Is this really the argument for state intervention to force mothers to term against their will? The theory that allowing this leads to the murder of human beings? Is it your idea that state coercion is necessary to produce good people willing to stand up against the evil you cite? That is plainly wrong. Without a single exception of which I’m aware, where atrocities have occurred they have been at the hands of a coercive state, and not at the hands of one that is prepared to let its citizens be too free to make up their own minds. People do not need to be coerced to be good. Although plainly coercion is what it takes to come around to your idea of what’s ideal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria:

    Masturbation encourages people to think of sex as self-gratification only. While as sex is far more than that, it is an act of love, a renewal of marriage vows, a gift of the self and an acceptance of the possibility that the love multiplies into another human being, mirroring the creative impetus of God.

    What hubris. You need to recognise that is nobody’s business but their own, and that there is no value at all in your speculation, or in the rules you’d force everyone else to live under if you could. That overriding of people’s choices is the source of endless misery, however well intentioned. The world cannot be made a better place because you and your buddies can convince the state to do your bidding and force your values onto me. I’ll still have my values, it’s just that I’ll either be pretending to have yours, or paying fines or going to prison. You cannot make the world a better place by making it conform to your own preferences, for any number of reasons, however clever you think you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    I love the way that apologists for abortion use the argument that an unborn child is merely a ‘small collection of cells’ not worthy of being human. How arrogant: and pray tell when does an apologist for the destruction of an innocent human being decide that it ceases to become a ‘small collection of cells’ and become a child and therefore worthy of being allowed to live?

    From the moment of its conception that ‘small collection of cells’ as you so disdainfully call them is a living entity, so who gives you or any of the other pro abortionists the moral right to end its life? As I said previously abortion is nothing more than the murder of the most innocent members of our society and in my view the fact that we as a society allow it puts us at the same level as child murderers.

    Yesjg/andrei – I’m not saying they are not worthy of being human. Those cells are not human. They are not aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate. Because of that, I am comfortable that abortion is reasonable. That is not arrogant. It is a fact. If I were convinced those issues arose, I would not be comfortable. For me, the test is whether somebody without a choice suffers. I am satisfied they do not.

    You have a different test. Now, it is not my place to tell you you are wrong, because I recognise that the question is a pure value judgment, and I have no basis to point to and say my values are better than yours.

    But apparently, you do, and you’re so convinced you’d have a law written and put me in jail were I to choose to violate your rule. When all I have done is disagree with you. I simply choose a suffering threshold where you would choose a spiritual one, and yet somehow for no reason other than its your opinion and not mine, you expect me to bow to your values and toe the line. I do not accept your religion or your authority on the matter. It would be pure arrogance for you to insist that I do, yet that is precisely what you are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. James (1,338 comments) says:

    So Lucia Maria….how many kids do you have….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Yesjg/andrei – I’m not saying they are not worthy of being human. Those cells are not human. They are not aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate. Because of that, I am comfortable that abortion is reasonable. That is not arrogant. It is a fact.

    But ben, there is no getting past the fact that if you left it alone in the womb and didn’t cut it out, a baby boy or girl (your son or daughter) would be the result. Does it really, really matter how old it is? Or what stage of development?
    If the Maori’s decided to plant a new tree on One Tree Hill – a sapling, or even an acorn, was planted, and a protester yanked it out of the ground, threw it on the concrete, and smashed it to a pulp with their spade, would that not be still killing the tree? I am sure the Maori would think so, and anyone else with half a brain.

    In this way, I think the word “abortion” is a misnomer. To really “abort” having a baby in the true sense of the word would be to decide not to go ahead and have sex. Once you’ve had sex and the sperm and egg have joined it then becomes a choice between your new son or daughter living or dying – being brought to full term or being destroyed.

    Fletch you’re 100% entitled to your views, but it is beyond absurd to insist the state coerce other people to behave as if they agree with you. It’s absurd on two levels: one, you wouldn’t accept for a moment the state coercing you around to my way of thinking, and rightly so. Second, it’s all very well when its your guy in charge and writing the rules for everyone else, but sooner or later it won’t be your guy, it’ll be someone else’s, and you’ll then realise how fun tyranny is when someone else’s values are being forced on to you. Better, always, to let free people decide for themselves on their own principles.

    What is wrong with Christians on this issue: this is a value judgment, some people simply do not and will never give the significance to early stage pregnancy that you do

    You see, I don’t see it that way. I see the killing (or not in this case) of a human as an unchangeable law given by God – as unchangeable as the law of gravity. Joni Mitchell has a song in which some of the lyrics go –

    If you’re smart or rich or lucky
    Maybe you’ll beat the laws of man
    But the inner laws of spirit
    And the outer laws of nature
    No man can

    You can try to mess around with the laws of spirit and nature, but in the end you’ll only get burned if you try to.
    As far as the “state coercing you to my way of thinking”, if there is no God then we’re left with an ad populum or a ‘might makes right’ fallacy. Ex-atheist puts it well –

    When we legislate any morality, we are actually forcing other people to live by our opinions. Majority rule is an ad populum fallacy; so is rule by force, because might does not make right. When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.

    You can’t have a justice system based on what’s the most popular at the time. As the quote above points out, then it just becomes the enforcing of the opinions of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    The nice thing about unchangeable laws of absolute truth is that there are so many to choose from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    What I’m trying to say is that you can’t base what is morally right and wrong on the opinion of the State. Let’s say Hitler had won WWII and progressively brought in his Aryan ideology. He killed anyone who disagreed with him, and any babies that were born that weren’t up to par were destroyed as not being racially pure. After a few decades his views became accepted world wide as being both lawful and moral.

    Would that be OK with you?

    Or is there a Higher Law above all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    If the Maori’s decided to plant a new tree on One Tree Hill – a sapling, or even an acorn, was planted, and a protester yanked it out of the ground, threw it on the concrete, and smashed it to a pulp with their spade, would that not be still killing the tree? I am sure the Maori would think so, and anyone else with half a brain.

    An acorn – that is a good parable for a fetus. If you can’t see the difference between destroying an acorn and a tree, or an acorn and a sapling, then you are an idiot.

    Another example would be breaking an egg. Obviously there is a huge difference between breaking one that has already developed a little ChickyDee inside, and one that is only yolk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    At the end of the day I think deep down you Fletch, Scott, Andrei and Lucia know deep down that abortion is not murder. If you truly believed it was as bad as the holocaust as originally argued in Andrei’s post – then you would not be sitting here in front of computers typing away. You would be spending every waking moment stopping it – heck, if I believed that abortion was as horrible as killing Jews I would be organising covert operations to be bombing the clinics and assassinating the doctors or politicians myself. If Jews were still being killed today and in such significant numbers, every single Sunday Church service would be on that topic, you wouldn’t get the crap you hear in Church every Sunday about singing and worshiping God or topics like homosexuality and what have you because these things pale in such comparison.

    But the truth is you just say that to dramatise and win the argument – you don’t feel a thing at all for the aborted fetuses because you know that they are just a cluster of cells, no different from destroying an egg or an acorn, that is why you have time to muck around on the internet and go about your daily lives just like you always have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Fletch, repeat your first sentence with the word “church” substituted for “state”. Lets look at the list of people your religion has demanded to execute for not “being up to par” ( full list below). Don’t you think it’s rather dangerous for people who think this way to believe their Higher Law is eternal and unchangeable? Presumably eternal sharia law would be OK with you, with no possibility of reform, ever? Incidentally if your higher law is unchangeable, what are you doing to enforce your god’s holy hitlist:

    Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

    Kill Witches

    You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

    Kill Homosexuals
    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    Kill Fortunetellers

    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

    Death for Hitting Dad

    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    Death for Cursing Parents

    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

    Death for Adultery

    If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

    Death for Fornication

    A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

    Death to Followers of Other Religions

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

    Kill Nonbelievers

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    Kill False Prophets

    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

    Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

    But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

    Kill Followers of Other Religions.

    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

    Death for Blasphemy

    One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

    Kill False Prophets

    1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

    2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.’ You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?’ If the prophet predicts something in the LORD’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

    Infidels and Gays Should Die

    So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

    Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle

    For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’ (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

    Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

    The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Studies have shown that people that promote abortion etc, are actually usually suffering from a subconscious disorder that causes them to default to nihilistic destructive attitudes.
    It is related to a narcissism and an extreme form of selfishness that is the result of functioning in a society that has moved away from what is best for our species to “what is best for me”.
    They hide this with a bizarre sort of devotion to “social progression” which they claim is the most constructive thing we can do as a species, bit is actually just a wanky load of crap people so utterly selfish come up with to assuage the tiny bit of conscience that exists in their self centred minds.
    Abortion is sick, and sick people promote it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Studies that I just completely invented have shown that shunda barunda is a complete shrieking loon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Rather be a loon than a murdering bastard :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    So you disown the bible then, I take it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Where did Jesus tell anyone to kill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    But your god’s moral laws are eternal and absolute. Are you telling me they’re subject to change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria:
    “Masturbation encourages people to think of sex as self-gratification only. While as sex is far more than that, it is an act of love, a renewal of marriage vows, a gift of the self and an acceptance of the possibility that the love multiplies into another human being, mirroring the creative impetus of God.”

    I thought that was pretty good Lucia! I get it. Sadly many on this blog do not or will not.

    Shunda- good comment as well. There are certainly a lot of nihilistic attitudes represented by the atheists on this blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    But your god’s moral laws are eternal and absolute. Are you telling me they’re subject to change?

    No.
    The wages of sin is death.

    Why do you think God sent Jesus if he was happy with the way things were going?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    But the whole point of this is the claim that real world laws today should be based on what the bible says, because this is eternal and unchanging as opposed to man’s changeable opinions, and yet your god seems to be prone to rather dramatic changes of opinions himself.

    Imagine you’re a good old-testament believin’ fundamentalist in the years BC, cheerfully executing your daily quota of homosexuals, followers of other religions, people who cursed their parents, etc etc all according to god’s eternal, unchanging moral law ( and I’m certain that if shunda and fletch had been born 2000 years earlier, they would have been doing exactly that , and with great enthusiasm) , and then suddenly this guy Jeebuz turns up and now the eternal, unchanging moral law says all your holy executions were actually wrong after all and you should forgive them instead ( except the blasphemers).

    Does that make sense to you as the basis of a system of reliably unchanging real-world laws?

    What happens 600 years later when this other guy Mohammed comes along, and he says it’s all about killing infidels and holy war again. Do you switch back? You have no more evidence that he is right or wrong than you do for Jeebuz or Moses. Or Baha’u’llah, buddha, zoroaster… well you get the picture. At the end of the day it’s just opinion and personal preference which of the thousands of possible eternal absolutely unchanging laws is the ( current ) true one. It is of no possible value for endorsing a legal code.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    # ben (1,662) Says:
    April 9th, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    I love the way that apologists for abortion use the argument that an unborn child is merely a ‘small collection of cells’ not worthy of being human. How arrogant: and pray tell when does an apologist for the destruction of an innocent human being decide that it ceases to become a ‘small collection of cells’ and become a child and therefore worthy of being allowed to live?

    From the moment of its conception that ‘small collection of cells’ as you so disdainfully call them is a living entity, so who gives you or any of the other pro abortionists the moral right to end its life? As I said previously abortion is nothing more than the murder of the most innocent members of our society and in my view the fact that we as a society allow it puts us at the same level as child murderers.

    Yesjg/andrei – I’m not saying they are not worthy of being human. Those cells are not human. They are not aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate. Because of that, I am comfortable that abortion is reasonable. That is not arrogant. It is a fact. If I were convinced those issues arose, I would not be comfortable. For me, the test is whether somebody without a choice suffers. I am satisfied they do not.

    You have a different test. Now, it is not my place to tell you you are wrong, because I recognise that the question is a pure value judgment, and I have no basis to point to and say my values are better than yours.

    But apparently, you do, and you’re so convinced you’d have a law written and put me in jail were I to choose to violate your rule. When all I have done is disagree with you. I simply choose a suffering threshold where you would choose a spiritual one, and yet somehow for no reason other than its your opinion and not mine, you expect me to bow to your values and toe the line. I do not accept your religion or your authority on the matter. It would be pure arrogance for you to insist that I do, yet that is precisely what you are doing.

    Ben

    On what basis do you so confidently declare that the ‘small collection of cells’ are not human. “They are not aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate.”

    Please provide proof to back up this statement. Not heresay but actual proof. If you can’t do this then please don’t reply.

    If you can’t provide proof then maybe you need to take a close look at why you are advocating the death of innocents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,740) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Studies have shown that people that promote abortion etc, are actually usually suffering from a subconscious disorder that causes them to default to nihilistic destructive attitudes.
    It is related to a narcissism and an extreme form of selfishness that is the result of functioning in a society that has moved away from what is best for our species to “what is best for me”.
    They hide this with a bizarre sort of devotion to “social progression” which they claim is the most constructive thing we can do as a species, bit is actually just a wanky load of crap people so utterly selfish come up with to assuage the tiny bit of conscience that exists in their self centred minds.
    Abortion is sick, and sick people promote it.

    Studies have shown that people that are Christians etc, are actually usually suffering from a subconscious disorder that causes them to default to nihilistic destructive attitudes.
    It is related to a narcissism and an extreme form of selfishness that is the result of functioning in a society that has moved away from what is best for our species to “what is best for me”.
    They hide this with a bizarre sort of devotion to “social progression” which they claim is the most constructive thing we can do as a species, bit is actually just a wanky load of crap people so utterly selfish come up with to assuage the tiny bit of conscience that exists in their self centred minds.
    Christianity is sick, and sick people promote it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    yesjg (7) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Ben

    On what basis do you so confidently declare that the ‘small collection of cells’ are not human. “They are not aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate.”

    Please provide proof to back up this statement. Not heresay but actual proof. If you can’t do this then please don’t reply.

    If you can’t provide proof then maybe you need to take a close look at why you are advocating the death of innocents.

    yesjg

    On what basis do you so confidently declare that the ‘small collection of cells’ are human. “They are aware, or feel pain, or are conscious, or anticipate.”

    Please provide proof to back up this statement. Not heresay but actual proof. If you can’t do this then please don’t reply.

    If you can’t provide proof then maybe you need to take a close look at why you are advocating the death of innocents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    But the whole point of this is the claim that real world laws today should be based on what the bible says, because this is eternal and unchanging as opposed to man’s changeable opinions,

    Sounds to me that you are just ignorant of what the bible says, and that’s your problem for possibly developing lazy self serving opinions.

    There is no point in me explaining my position on this, you don’t want to hear it.
    But I will say that there is a totally logical way to understand the violence of the old testament when you consider the whole message of Christ, you clearly have not considered the message of Christ, so what is the point in discussing this further?.

    And for the record, one does not have to be religious to oppose and make a strong case against abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    yesjg, I ask the same question of you as I always ask of religous nutters ( and I think I’m right in assuming you’re one of those) who think blobs of cells are humans. Why does your god kill about 50% of them? Approximately half of all the conceptions that ever happen, die at the blob of cells stage or a little later, usually without the mother even being aware she was pregnant. If you believe that those blobs are a living human being capable of suffering, do you ever ask your god why he creates so many of them just to murder them and make them suffer without even having a chance of life? Do you consider such a god great and good? Perhaps you need to take a close look at why you are advocating the god who carries out death of innocents on a scale that absolutely dwarfs any human efforts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    shunda you are dodging and changing the subject. THis has nothing to do with salvation, it is about the validity of making real world laws based on these allegedly eternal immutable moral truths of the bible, when such laws have clearly changed in the past and are not as eternal as they’re being advertised.

    “And for the record, one does not have to be religious to oppose and make a strong case against abortion.”

    But it does seem to require a religous mindset to want to force everyone to agree with your case. Funny that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Studies have shown that people that are Christians etc, are actually usually suffering from a subconscious disorder that causes them to default to nihilistic destructive attitudes.
    It is related to a narcissism and an extreme form of selfishness that is the result of functioning in a society that has moved away from what is best for our species to “what is best for me”.
    They hide this with a bizarre sort of devotion to “social progression” which they claim is the most constructive thing we can do as a species, bit is actually just a wanky load of crap people so utterly selfish come up with to assuage the tiny bit of conscience that exists in their self centred minds.
    Christianity is sick, and sick people promote it.

    Making it up and sounding intellectual is all so easy…your post is the perfect example of the phrase “full of shit”, lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Wow, Courage Wolf displays for all to see that he is incapable of forming an original thought.

    “I know you are because you said you are” Cries the narcissistic queen!!

    :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,741) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Sounds to me that you are just ignorant of what the bible says, and that’s your problem for possibly developing lazy self serving opinions.

    There is no point in me explaining my position on this, you don’t want to hear it.
    But I will say that there is a totally logical way to understand the violence of the old testament when you consider the whole message of Christ, you clearly have not considered the message of Christ, so what is the point in discussing this further?.

    And for the record, one does not have to be religious to oppose and make a strong case against abortion.

    Sounds to me that you are just ignorant of what medical evidence says, and that’s your problem for possibly developing lazy self serving opinions.

    There is no point in me explaining my position on this, you don’t want to hear it.
    But I will say that there is a totally logical way to understand the abortion of a fetus when you consider the whole procedure, you clearly have not considered the medical evidence, so what is the point in discussing this further?

    And for the record, one does not have to be non-religious to oppose and make a strong case for abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Making it up and sounding intellectual is all so easy…your post is the perfect example of the phrase “full of shit”, lol

    Oooooo!! burn!! :shock:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf is clearly really struggling with this, as is typical of his “type”. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    CW – “considered the medical evidence,”

    Evidence schmevidence! The only evidence that counts for shunda is the hallucinations of some barbarous primitives who thought the earth was a flat disk with a solid dome of sky over the top with stars stuck to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,744) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Oooooo!! burn!! :shock:

    Shunda barunda (1,744) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Studies have shown that people that promote abortion etc, are actually usually suffering from a subconscious disorder that causes them to default to nihilistic destructive attitudes.
    It is related to a narcissism and an extreme form of selfishness that is the result of functioning in a society that has moved away from what is best for our species to “what is best for me”.
    They hide this with a bizarre sort of devotion to “social progression” which they claim is the most constructive thing we can do as a species, bit is actually just a wanky load of crap people so utterly selfish come up with to assuage the tiny bit of conscience that exists in their self centred minds.
    Abortion is sick, and sick people promote it.

    Dazzaman (606) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Making it up and sounding intellectual is all so easy…your post is the perfect example of the phrase “full of shit”, lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,744) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Courage Wolf is clearly really struggling with this, as is typical of his “type”. ;)

    Shouldn’t you be out there saving ‘babies’ from the holocaust? One’s probably being ‘murdered’ right now – how you can you just sit here and type on a internet forum when such ‘atrocities’ are being committed?

    What’s that Christian saying – the worst thing is not doing evil things, but allowing evil things to happen. How many ‘babies’ have been ‘murdered’ since you’ve been posting here? How do you think these aborted cluster of cells would feel about you not saving them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    I am only doing this to alleviate some Sunday afternoon boredom, you do realise that don’t you?

    Enjoy your foetus soup.

    What is really barbarous is killing your own young and then making it righteous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Typical of Christians, I must say.

    Are you coming on to me Courage Wolf? because though I am very flattered I am not interested.

    You horny devil!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,746) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    I am only doing this to alleviate some Sunday afternoon boredom, you do realise that don’t you?

    And this just goes to show how you don’t really see it as the evil you claim it is. Yes, very typical of Christian – all judgment and no action.

    You could be visiting some woman who is considering aborting her fetus and talking her out of it. Do some Jehovah’s Witnessing. But you don’t. Because you don’t really believe it to be the ‘horrific’ thing you are arguing it is. Clearly going to show that your view is the same – it’s not the same as a living, breathing human being.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Excellent point CW. If anyone seriously believes an abortion is equivalent to murder, they would not waste a second of their lives on the internet when they could be out saving lives. They don’t really believe that of course, it’s just a stick to beat women with to gain more control over them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Put it away!!!

    I am not into you either!! stop it!
    you need to put it away dude!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    You could be out shouting and waving a loony placard outside a clinic, that would have more chance of discouraging someone planning to have an abortion than you would by posting loony religious comments on a politics blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    If I knew a one year old baby was going to be murdered say here in Auckland (where I live) and it was on the news, and the legal system somehow made it legal, I would probably drive out to the father/mother’s house, and talk them out of it. If that was not possible I would organise a group of my friends and we would break into the house, use violence if necessary, and kidnap the baby. Because that is the comparison you are making – that killing a fetus is the same as a one year old baby.

    Heck, I’d fly down to do it even if it was in Dunedin.

    You could be outside abortion clinics protesting, heckling/convincing the women that are going in, going to the doctor’s houses and evangelising – all sorts of things. Selling your house to buy ad slots on TV, be creative, whatever. But not sitting here on the internet making ridiculous statements and defending the God of the Old Testament’s actions of wiping out entire nations etc. As being perfectly OK just because Jesus later came so therefore everything God did such as advocating stoning of people was OK now.

    I see that you’ve ninja-edited your post, which originally asked what you could be doing to stop it.

    Next week more fetuses are going to be aborted. Let’s say a bunch of Jews were going to be murdered next week and you know it’s going to happen (statistically). What steps will you take to change this, other than post on Kiwiblog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Feeble jokes instead of argument Shunda? Oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Because you don’t really believe it to be the ‘horrific’ thing you are arguing it is.

    Oh, it’s horrific.

    I just don’t believe Kiwi blog is of any great significance like you seem to do.

    It is good for understanding and exposing peoples real agenda though……………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Feeble jokes instead of argument Shunda? Oh dear.

    I told you dude, I am not into it!! no means no!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Shunda you seem to have a lot of difficulty following a simple logical argument. Your 4:47 seems to completely misunderstand wolf’s argument, which is that you would be doing something more significant than posting on Kiwiblog if you were serious about abortion being murder, and you respond to that by saying you don’t think Kiwiblog is significant. Huh? That’s the entire point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Ok guys, you win, lets have a debate.

    I would like you to watch a short video clip that helped me to understand that an a week old foetus appears not to be just a blob of cells.
    I would like you to watch it and then give me some feed back as to whether you still hold your position and whether “medical science” backs you up.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9jttr_this-is-abortion_webcam

    I predict that you will now disengage and probably refuse to watch the whole video.
    Have a nice day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    My first question about that video, Shunda, is the one I always ask when these stats come up. Why does your god create approximately twice as many foetuses as he ever intends to let live, just to kill them? Those stats that open the video are miniscule compared to the number of spontaneous abortions. I have never managed to get an xtian to answer how they believe their god is great and good when he’s by far the greatest abortionist on the planet, totally many times more than all human efforts put together. If you think anything in that vid is gross, you ought to ask your god why he does so many of them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    And none of this changes Wolf’s point, which is that you don’t seriously believe this is murder, or you would be out trying to do something practical to prevent it rather than chatting on the net about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    I watched it – it doesn’t give much information in terms of whether any of those earlier fetuses have any conciousness or nervous system – and no-one here is advocating late-term abortions. Now in return I would like you to have a look at this video, of living, conscious and feeling beings being tortured:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    But courage, you don’t seriously believe that meat is murder, or you’d be out doing somehting about it rather than posting on the net. LOL. Time for a hamburger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    And none of this changes Wolf’s point, which is that you don’t seriously believe this is murder,…

    Silly is, as silly does….

    I know CW is a confirmed fool, the evidence being evident above, but PIA you usually have some coherent thoughts together. What gives with the inane banging on with this absurd question?

    For what it’s worth, God as the creator has put in place natural processes which will take their course, spontaneous abortion being one of them. Not being a biologist, I would guess the body does so based on some physiological reason….gene deformity/deficiency or whatever. There’s no big secret, sin has corrupted the creation and this is likely a result.

    …or you would be out trying to do something practical to prevent it rather than chatting on the net about it.

    Maybe we should all be out trying to stop wife burning in India, human trafficking, the drug trade, pedophilia, etc, etc…..[I sez while sighing & rolling eyeballs] ummm, do you have the time to save the world? Get it together man!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    The point I am making is – who’s shoes would Shunda rather be in – the aborted fetuses in the video, who have no consciousness or nervous system, or those pigs – that suffer a lifetime of agony while living and breathing. And yes, I do volunteer quite a bit of my time in the animal rights scene and donate to the cause, as well as abstaining from meat and showing documentaries such as Earthlings (www.earthlings.com) to the people in my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Dazzaman (607) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    For what it’s worth, God as the creator has put in place…

    Everything you wrote from this sentence on, was, how do I put it… The perfect example of the phrase “full of shit”, lol.

    It would seem God as the Creator, if such a Creator existed, has put in place a world full of sin that He knew would be this way before He even created it, yet He went ahead and created it anyway, knowing that wife burning in India, human trafficking, the drug trade, pedophilia, etc. Would occur. And furthermore He has put in place a system where a large proportion of His creation is going to end up going to Hell. A grand experiment that has obviously been costly to the lives of many human beings that have suffered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Maybe the Creator of the universe should all be out trying to stop wife burning in India, human trafficking, the drug trade, pedophilia, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Dazzaman your argument is nonsense. Wife burning in India happens in, well, India. Likewise there is no local human trafficking around these parts. No doubt there’s drug traffickers and pedophiles around here somewhere, but since I’ve got no idea who they are there’s not a hell of a lot I can do about it. The point is that the xtians who rant on the internet about abortion could plausibly go and do something that has more practical effect than commenting on here, if they really took it as seriously as they posture. It wouldn’t be hard to find a site that does abortions and stand there waving a placard. There was a loon who used to do this all the time in chch back in the day opposite the Womens Hospital ( if I rmember the location rightly). Why are they not out doing the same instead of wasting their time in here?

    God as the creator has put in place natural processes which will take their course, spontaneous abortion being one of them. Not being a biologist, I would guess the body does so based on some physiological reason….gene deformity/deficiency or whatever. There’s no big secret, sin has corrupted the creation and this is likely a result.

    Can you tell me what sins the blobs of cells did to deserve this? All you are doing is restating the problem in different words, you have not attempted to answer the question: Why does your god make it this way, and how do you see him as good and great for choosing this arrangement where one foetus dies for every baby born?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Jeez what happened to shunda? Predicted that we would “disengage” but we didn’t and he/she hasn’t been seen since…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    You have no right to discuss what ‘God’ would do PIA, because you don’t require yourself to listen long enough to the real foundations of the Christian faith.

    The world is also a physically dangerous place, does that make it a bit shit too?
    Your stringent requirements of what a ‘good’ god can do would mean we would have to effectively exist in a carefully controlled test tube.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Let me get this straight, Courage wolf has a big problem with drowning puppies, but has no problem what so ever with ripping tiny humans limb from limb?

    What tortured f@cking logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    what are all my “stringent requirements” for this carefully controlled test tube again, shunda? Oh wait, I never gave any and you’re just making shit up again, in lieu of an argument. All I’ve suggested is that a 50/50 live birth/dead blob of cells ratio is a bit of a poor effort if you belive blobs of cells are living human beings. For what it’s worth, I suggest it might have been a good idea if your god could had kept his personal abortion count lower than mankind’s, then you wouldn’t look so silly holding the moral low ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    So put yourself in their shoes Shunda. Would you rather be a fetus that was ripped from the womb (say 0 to 6 weeks), or a factory farmed pig who lives out its entire life only to end up at the slaughterhouse? Which one do you think suffers more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Logic is lost on you guys, absolutely totally and utterly lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Put it away, I can see from a mile off that you googled that list and don’t actually understand what the Bible says. You believe what others have taken out of context and pasted it here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    You want to tell me which one of those things is negated by the context then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Re: the God of the OT, here are some thoughts from ASA Jones from ex-atheist.com. The whole thing is worth reading, but I’ll highlight the pertinent bits.

    Secular Humanism teaches us that morality is relative; different people at different times view morality differently. It teaches us that we cannot condemn other cultures for their moral codes, just because we have a different perspective. Because cultures are simply collections of people, to avoid an ad populum fallacy (where right and wrong are determined by majority rule), the argument has to be extended to the individual; just because you and I may have a different perspective on right and wrong than does another person, does not mean that we can condemn them for their personal moral codes. The end result of such a philosophy is that there really isn’t any right or wrong at all.

    I’m always surprised, therefore, when atheists attack Christianity using moral indignation over the slaughter that took place in Numbers 31. Let’s examine the issue from a strictly logical, non-emotional perspective.

    Moses obviously thought that killing the Midianites was a good and proper thing to do, just as Bin Laden thought that it was good and proper to kill 3,000 Americans by flying airplanes into the Trade Towers, and just as America thought it right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end WW2. Is killing always ‘wrong’? If so, is that not a declaration of a moral absolute? Isn’t a moral absolute a direct contradiction of moral relativism? If so, is moral relativism wrong? Is it proper to make the observation that different cultures have different moral values and to then make the statement that they are immoral, simply because their moral values differ from our own? We must admit that we are immoral by another culture’s standards; can you see the resulting hypocrisy?

    When I first read Numbers 31, I wanted to condemn Moses and the God that commanded him to kill. But what made my opinion on the matter carry any more weight than Moses’ opinion that it was a moral decision? Is there no such thing as a ‘just war’? You may not think that there is. However, what gives your opinion on the matter any more authority than those who think that wars can be just? How, then, can a person who accepts secular humanism’s view that morality is relative be in a position to condemn Moses?

    In simple terms, such condemnation merely exposes the personal bias and emotionalism of the moral relativist. If one doesn’t like the idea of God, then one will be quick to condemn God for His actions, even if the result is hypocrisy. On the other hand, if a moral relativist is fair minded, he will take the time to see the moral perspective from the other side.

    When we read the Old Testament, we discover that the Caananites are described as wicked. What this means, described loosely in secular terms, is that the moral culture of the Caananites differed dramatically from the moral culture of the Israelites. It is known that the people of Moab sacrificed their babies by placing them into the red hot hands of a heated statue of their god. Their standards of honesty, respect for life, and sanctity of marriage were different than Israel’s. What Moses tried to prevent with warfare was the unpalatable mixing of two diametrically opposed societies. If a person honestly thought that sacrificing babies was wrong, how would they feel when they saw this practice spreading, perhaps even seeing some of their own people who had married into the other culture, performing this act on their children? They were outraged. But from the Moabites point of view, to be made not to sacrifice children to their god was equally offensive and wrong! In Numbers 25, we see that this inter-marrying was taking place. Moses did not want his people to become as wicked as the Midianites, and so he did what he thought was proper – he destroyed all whom he considered to be a threat to his culture. The men and women were killed because they would both fight to have their way of life preserved. The boys were killed because they would grow up resenting the Israelites and cause problems later on. The young girls were not seen as a threat because, submissive and young, they would form bonds and babies with their captors and become absorbed into the culture.

    When there is a clash of cultures with diametrically opposed values, there can be no peace. We see this being played out in the Middle East. The western world believes in freedom for ALL through democracy, Islam believes in submission to God for ALL through theocracy. Israel wanted ALL to have its values and worship its God, the Caananites and Moabites wanted ALL to have their values and worship their God. Any compromise would have been found unacceptable by both sides.

    The liberal mindset in America today is that war is to be a gentle act of persuasion, and that those who win any war fought with weapons are monsters and that those who lose, are noble victims. But no matter the cause of war, at its height – at that instant when the battle can go either way, and at that moment when both sides fear they will lose – both sides, if given the weapons and the option, would logically choose to annihilate the enemy. When soldiers were slaughtering native Americans, had those native Americans had access to modern weaponry, does one really think they would not have used it? Can you imagine an Indian chief, his people dead and dying, the white man moving in, having no respect for the buffalo or the land, saying, ‘Gee, we could win this war, but we respect life so much that we won’t destroy the lives of our enemies. We’ll just lie down and die for them’?

    The Midianites were not noble victims. They fought hard. They would have loved to have killed every Israelite and to have wiped them off of the planet. They were not a peaceful village in a sleepy valley that was one day attacked by vicious hordes of Jews. They were constantly waging war, burning Israel’s crops and leaving them with nothing to eat. In my opinion, the war was a just war, especially when viewed through the lens of moral relativism. It is laughable when a person, 3500 years after the fact, sitting in his comfortable house, sipping a latte’, who adheres to the principles of moral relativism, emphatically claims that God was immoral for having conducted such a war.

    The next time a secular humanist starts ranting about how immoral our God is, remind him of his hypocrisy. Morality may just be a little too relative for his intellectual comfort!

    The title of the article is “There Are No Moral Absolutes; The God of the Bible is Absolutely Immoral!”

    To be honest, if you believe in God and that He created everything – that He gave life, does He then not have the right to take it back as well? When He so chooses? You might not like the rules that God gives, but you have to play by them because you’re in His universe and they are His rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Fletch (1,910) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    To be honest, if you believe in God and that He created everything – that He gave life, does He then not have the right to take it back as well? When He so chooses? You might not like the rules that God gives, but you have to play by them because you’re in His universe and they are His rules.

    To be honest, if you believe in Allah and that He created everything – that He gave life, does He then not have the right to take it back as well? When He so chooses? You might not like the rules that Allah gives, but you have to play by them because you’re in His universe and they are His rules.

    The liberal mindset in America today is that war is to be a gentle act of persuasion, and that those who win any war fought with weapons are monsters and that those who lose, are noble victims. But no matter the cause of war, at its height – at that instant when the battle can go either way, and at that moment when both sides fear they will lose – both sides, if given the weapons and the option, would logically choose to annihilate the enemy. When soldiers were slaughtering native Americans, had those native Americans had access to modern weaponry, does one really think they would not have used it? Can you imagine an Indian chief, his people dead and dying, the white man moving in, having no respect for the buffalo or the land, saying, ‘Gee, we could win this war, but we respect life so much that we won’t destroy the lives of our enemies. We’ll just lie down and die for them’?

    The liberal mindset in America today is that Jihad is to be a gentle act of persuasion, and that those who win any Jihad fought with weapons are monsters and that those who lose, are noble victims.

    But no matter the cause of Jihad, at its height – at that instant when the battle can go either way, and at that moment when both sides fear they will lose – both sides, if given the weapons and the option, would logically choose to annihilate the enemy. ‘Gee, we could win this Jihad, but we respect life so much that we won’t destroy the lives of our enemies. We’ll just lie down and die for them’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    And if you want the context of the Bible, here is a more accurate explanation for it:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Fletch you seem to be entirely missing the point, still. The whole question under discussion is not whether the butchery is morally acceptable to us, the question why it is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, and how this bears on the legitimacy of the bible as an unchanging, eternally correct and reliable moral guide ? Your absolute moral standards have an awful lot ifs and buts and exceptions and alterations over time, and they apply to some people and not others. It’s either one or the other: “thou shalt not kill” or it’s “thou shalt exterminate them all”, can’t be both at different times and different contexts and remain an “absolute”.
    Do you think it would be acceptable behaviour today to exterminate an entire race include the boy children, but kidnap and rape the girls? If not, then your “absolute” standards are not absolute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Maybe the Creator of the universe should all be out trying to stop wife burning in India, human trafficking, the drug trade, pedophilia, etc.

    Ah! OK, you’re a bit of a dog in a manger type. Argument for arguments sake….cest la vie.

    The point is that the xtians who rant on the internet about abortion could plausibly go and do something that has more practical effect than commenting on here, if they really took it as seriously as they posture.

    Umm, still pushing this specious barrow?

    Gee PIA, I think I gave you too much credit last time….the non-sensical, argumentative ramblings of your mate CW have got the better of you.

    Fletch & Shunda have more than answered you both. A bit of reading comprehension could do you’s wonders. “Pearls before swine” sums up this whole little soiree!

    Early start tomorrow, and this posting will soon be on the “older entries” pages….where I never go!…Peace out, boys!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    Keep putting your fingers in your ears and trying hard to not to understand the argument, dazza.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Still waiting for one religious anti abortionist here to fess up on how many children they have and if this number is equivalent to how many times they have had sex.Hell….I’d love one of them to tell me straight out that have never masturbated either if they are consistent in their views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    # Put it away (1,650) Says:
    April 10th, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    yesjg, I ask the same question of you as I always ask of religous nutters ( and I think I’m right in assuming you’re one of those) who think blobs of cells are humans. Why does your god kill about 50% of them? Approximately half of all the conceptions that ever happen, die at the blob of cells stage or a little later, usually without the mother even being aware she was pregnant. If you believe that those blobs are a living human being capable of suffering, do you ever ask your god why he creates so many of them just to murder them and make them suffer without even having a chance of life? Do you consider such a god great and good? Perhaps you need to take a close look at why you are advocating the god who carries out death of innocents on a scale that absolutely dwarfs any human efforts.

    Put it away

    Maybe you should ‘take it out’ instead of making absurd assumptions.

    Firstly this has nothing to do with religion.

    Secondly you didn’t answer the question which I asked of Ben. All that you did was spout some anti religious nonsense.

    I will ask you the same question which was: when do you consider that ‘the few cells’ become a living breathing human and what proof do you have to back up your position.

    It is a simple question and if we are in the business of killing innocent children it is one that humanity needs to get right. Killing is a very serious business so I would expect that you have thought very carefully about it and that you will be able to give a logical reply.

    I look forward to hearing your reply but please don’t try and turn this issue into a religious one. It is a moral and ethical issue which affects all humanity regardless of nationality, colour or religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    yesjg:

    I will ask you the same question which was: Why do you consider that a fetus is a living breathing human and what proof do you have to back up your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    # Courage Wolf (153) Says:
    April 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    yesjg:

    I will ask you the same question which was: Why do you consider that a fetus is a living breathing human and what proof do you have to back up your position.

    Because Courage Wolf I believe in logic, which dictates that something always comes from something. In this particular case that something is the combination of certain male and female human body fluids. Once that event takes place human life has been created, and for people to say without a shred of evidence that a fetus doesn’t become human until it is 3 months old is both illogical and demeaning to us as human beings.

    Let me say this in case I again get accused of being a religious nutcase, my argument against abortion is based on logic and not on religious convictions. All life especially human life is precious and if are to we destroy part of it then we need to understand that it is a living human in its most vulnerable state that we are destroying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    I note you chose to ignore the part which said ‘living and breathing’. Again, a sperm cell is technically alive, however we do not consider it a human being.

    Again, as posted in my first reply:

    The sincere supporters of abortion, whether personally religious or not, are likely to follow a non-religious, consequentialist moral philosophy, perhaps invoking Jeremy Bentham’s question, ‘Can they suffer?’ [An anti-abortionist] sees no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a doctor except that the embryo was, to them, a blamelessly innocent ‘baby’. The consequentialist sees all the difference in the world. An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. A doctor is a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of humane knowledge, the capacity for deep emotion, very probably a devastated widow and orphaned children, perhaps elderly parents who dote on him.

    Early embryos that have no nervous system most certainly do not suffer. And if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

    Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn’t affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, ‘When does the developing embryo become a person – a human being?’ Secular moralists are more likely to ask, ‘Never mind whether it is human, (what does that even mean for a little cluster of cells?); at what age does any developing embryo, of any species, become capable of suffering?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. yesjg (43 comments) says:

    Who is “we”Courage Wolf? I an the majority of other people certainly do, and also why do you call it a sperm cell?
    Also as I asked originally when does that “sperm cell”become a human being? I have shown you when logic dictates that event occurs now I think that you need to give your view and explain the reasons behind it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Again, with emphasis:

    Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn’t affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, ‘When does the developing embryo become a person – a human being?’ Secular moralists are more likely to ask, ‘Never mind whether it is human, (what does that even mean for a little cluster of cells?); at what age does any developing embryo, of any species, become capable of suffering?’

    This is clearly something you choose to ignore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote