Conscience issues

April 23rd, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance in a lengthy article looks at three controversial conscience issues which are unlikely to be debated by Parliament unless a member’s bill on them is drawn. They are , and .

My positions on the three issues are:

  • Euthanasia should be legal under strictly defined circumstances
  • Abortion should be legally available on demand (which is the practice but not the law) up until the point where the foetus or unborn child could live unassisted
  • Same sex couples should be able to adopt
Tags: , , ,

64 Responses to “Conscience issues”

  1. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    I’m pretty much in agreement with those three positions, I could quible about a bit of detail but broadly I think they are all sensible and logical views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Richard (97 comments) says:

    Agree on one and three (which you correctly to refer to as “same sex couple adopting” not “gay adoption”)
    Two: I’m a bit more conservative there, so it’s a general “No, except ….” type policy.

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

    I differ slightly only on one point:

    Euthanasia should be legal – as with you – based the NZ law on other countries experiences.
    Abortion – legally available on demand at half the age which an unborn child could live unassisted – that way we aren’t aborting close to a viable baby – as the estimates of fetal age is not that exact, I would prefer the law to err on the side of caution.
    Adoption – same sex couples can adopt, if they have a civil union – but good luck to them if they try – they’ll set themselves up for a great deal of heartbreak.

    Adoption is a joke in NZ, the Adoption Unit of CYFS I’d characterise as rabidly anti-adoption, they and the process they have created does almost everything possible so birth mothers would not consider it an option – my wife and I are adopting from Russian – adopting from NZ is pretty much non-starter. When we did our information days (2 days of anti-adoption propaganda) Wellington alone had 200 couple on the waiting list and 12 adoptions that year – now be a same sex couple in that pool – there’s your odds. The worse bit is that the adoptions are almost all open adoptions, so the birth mother swans in and out of their child’s life – getting the best of both worlds, while the parents have to deal with the aftermath of her occasional visits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    It would be helpful if you could specify what “living unassisted” entails.

    In respect of same sex couple adoption, it would also be helpful if you could specify as to whether you would include stranger adoption.

    If so, and assuming the excess of “demand” over “supply” for such children, it would also be helpful if you could explain whether the justification for such a law change is:

    a) providing validation to gay couples;
    b) demonstrating how tolerant you are; or
    c) the interests of the child involved.

    [DPF: I would be guided by doctors on approx when the threshold for living unassisted is. And then set the legal deadline a reasonable bit before that so there are no borderline cases.

    With stranger adoption, I note that type of adoption has almost ceased in NZ, and is unlikely to ever be a factor. I would not have a ban on same sex “stranger” adoption, but if there were multiple couples competing to adopt, then if all other things were equal would rank a different sex couple higher in priority. However that would be just one of many factors, such as job stability, parenting skills, income, home size etc. So in some cases a same sex couple would be ranked higher than an opposite sex couple.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    Not a total green flag for same sex couples to adopt.

    Same sex couples should only be able to adopt children from abusive families , or , they are tremendously wealthy and able to pass significant benefits to adopted children.

    Also, for some reason I’d feel more comfortable with gay female parents than with gay male parents. Maybe because it is less likely to result in abuse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Garrett (7,532 comments) says:

    Wreck 1090: I am not a fan of gay adoption by either type of same sex couples…but with respect, assuming a male gay couple is more likely to abuse (by which I assume you mean sexually abuse) is way off beam…gay men are no more likely to be paedophiles than straight ones…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dick Prebble (60 comments) says:

    Irrational post with a dash of superiority complex incoming from Andrei in five, four, three…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Probably not while Bill English is the Deputy Prime Minister.

    But once Grant Robertson becomes PM (if he does) it will probably become illegal for NZers to publicly disagree with a gay adoption law.

    Liberals. Aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    1 Agree
    2 Agree
    3 Not sure, I would only consider Gay adoption when there are no straight couples looking, or available, to adopt a child. (A situation that will never happen)
    Given that there is a shortage of kids being put up for adoption (and our stupid rules that mean a white couple cannot adopt a Maori child) then I see the push for Gay adoption as being nothing more than a publicity stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    I agree with EWS comments in the main.

    1. No, that’s a slippery slope.
    2. No, unless the mother was likely to die.
    But if it was for her mental health, then maybe if she was sterilised at the same time to avoid another abortion :-)
    3. No as a Mum and a Dad are what is best for a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    @David Garrett:

    By abuse, I mean all kinds. Males are more likely to abuse children. In my opinion appointing 2 male adopted parents is more risky than 2 female parents. Just a suspicion based on my personal prejudices only, I could be quite wrong .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. TEO (33 comments) says:

    1. No. Unnatural. Life is pain. Get used to it. We come into this world painfully; no harm in leaving it painfully.
    2. No. Unnatural. If you choose to make the love, be prepared to make – and raise – the babies. With rights/pleasures come responsibilities.
    3. No. Unnatural. Every child has the right to a female mother and a male father. Non-reproductive lifestyle choices = non-reproductive outcomes. Let’s not fool ourselves or nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. TEO (33 comments) says:

    I’m with you in this one Wreck. All my male homosexual mates were sexually abused (by men) as children. What are the chances? Would love to see some *honest* research on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    It saddens me greatly to hear so many agreeing that we, as a society, should be allowed to murder our next generation on a whim.

    Abortion on demand (effectively what NZ has) was one of the most disgusting and inhumane public relations exercises ever perpertrated on our society. That so many fell for the propoganda and have decided that a newly conceived child is so readily disposable says more about human nature than any other “horrors” we endure as a population.

    I’m not entering into a diatribe of debate, mearly stating an opinion. The day we allowed women to start killing their babies at will, evil won.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. MT_Tinman (3,255 comments) says:

    Abortion should be legally available on demand (which is the practice but not the law) up until the point where the… child could live unassisted

    18? 21? 25 (my choice)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MT_Tinman (3,255 comments) says:

    wreck1080 (2,154) Says:
    April 23rd, 2012 at 10:46 am

    By abuse, I mean all kinds. Males are more likely to abuse children.

    Statistics please?

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

    Based on Wreck1080’s personal prejudices it appears only lesbian couples and single women should be allowed to adopt children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    I notice one of those cults saying people should suffer when approaching death.
    I have no problem at all with their members suffering if they are stupid enough to join a cult, in fact I would go further and ban the use of any pain relief at all for those cult members when they have bone cancer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    DPF – if same-sex adopting is legalised, should birth certificates also be amended so that instead of “Mother” and “Father” the document only shows “Parent A” and “Parent B”?

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

    There are some obvious incorrect understanding on how adoption (other than prearranged inside the family adoption) works.

    The social workers, and the prospective adopted parents have NO INPUT into the decision making – the birth mother gets, for want of better words, a huge pile of sales documents put together by those couples wanting to adopt – and they get to pick one. Yay! From a 5 – 10 page series of pictures and happy words showing what the adoptive parents will do for their child.

    So a young mother going through all the emotional turmoil of giving up a child to a better future, probably because she is at least recognises she not capable enough to raise the child herself, gets to pick the child’s parents from a pile of ‘CVs’. There is not restriction on non-maori adopting maori children, it just doesn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. berend (1,715 comments) says:

    DPF: Euthanasia should be legal under strictly defined circumstances

    Just as strict as The Netherlands I assume? They now kill up to twelve year olds, and basically any adult who feels like it (with mobile euthanasia units).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Agree with all 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Adoption should not be a ‘right’ – for any person. In contrast, a needy child has a right to be adopted by a family whose structure and experience is scientifically proven to offer the optimum environment to raise children

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    DPF

    1. Disagree as we have seen with abortion the strict guidelines have become fluid to the point of an expectation when dealing with unwanted pregnancy. A very slippery slope.

    2. We have >16,000 abortions in NZ. 1 in 4 live births if I recall correctly. Abortion has been legitimised by the medical profession as an acceptable form of birth control and for those who champion the rights of women who champions the rights of the children. If the law was applied as it was written then you might get the balance right in terms of rape victims and those women whose lives are at risk.

    3. a more difficult one but on balance I think not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    DPF,

    1. I agree as long as one of those conditions is that informed consent can be gained at the time and can clearly be shown to be the will of the ‘patient’

    2. Adding a + or – 1 to count for or against abortion won’t add anything meaningful to either proposition, but one thing I vehemently oppose is women having to be classed as mentally unstable in order to be granted an abortion. I cannot believe that, in this day and age, we would require such a stigma to be placed on anyone in return for a medical procedure. It is wrong and should be changed! (and could be changed without changing the fundamental position on abortion.)

    3. It is completely unjustifiable that a gay, single person can adopt and yet a gay couple cannot. Clearly our society (as expressed through the law) accepts that a gay individual can be an adoptive parent. On that basis alone, there is no moral or logical reason why a gay couple should not be able to do likewise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. EverlastingFire (286 comments) says:

    1. Agree.
    2. Agree, but if it’s just the result of some slut who wanted to fuck one night, then the male/female should have some punishment, in an attempt to discourage this kind of thing.
    3. Hard to make a judgement call. If it’s proven that on average queers can bring up a child as good as a mother and father, then there’s a case for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    @Fost
    “Adoption is a joke in NZ, the Adoption Unit of CYFS I’d characterise as rabidly anti-adoption, they and the process they have created does almost everything possible so birth mothers would not consider it an option – my wife and I are adopting from Russian – adopting from NZ is pretty much non-starter. When we did our information days (2 days of anti-adoption propaganda) Wellington alone had 200 couple on the waiting list and 12 adoptions that year – now be a same sex couple in that pool – there’s your odds. The worse bit is that the adoptions are almost all open adoptions, so the birth mother swans in and out of their child’s life – getting the best of both worlds, while the parents have to deal with the aftermath of her occasional visits”.

    Fost I am sorry that your experience with the CYFS adoption unit has been so negative and sadly I have to agree they are ridiculously anti adoption which results in mothers being talked out of adoption as an option and into abortion which is tragic.

    Have to disagree with you on the open adoptions however. We have two adopted children who were both adopted in NZ. One is open and one is not and our experience of open adoption has been very positive and in many ways is easier than a closed adoption.

    It is no doubt however that there is an anti adoption bias in CYPS that has to be experienced to be believed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “gay men are no more likely to be paedophiles than straight ones…”

    What do you base that view on David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “(and our stupid rules that mean a white couple cannot adopt a Maori child)”

    Is that actually written into law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dime (10,100 comments) says:

    Dimes issue with gay adoption..

    TRANNY ADOPTION!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Males are more likely to abuse children.”

    Just like males are more likely to initiate domestic violence. Yeah Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dick Prebble (60 comments) says:

    TEO (24) Says:
    April 23rd, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Every child has the right to a female mother and a male father. Non-reproductive lifestyle choices = non-reproductive outcomes. Let’s not fool ourselves or nature.

    Throughout history and in other mammals children tend to be raised in communities. In the wild, alpha males reproduce with various mates whilst betas act as servants, thus defeating the concept that marriage is the natural order of raising families (unless you believe in the bullshit that is known as the Bible post Solomon who had thousands of concubines). Thus we should allow polygamy and a hierarchy of kings where men fight for their right to have sex with the babes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,120) Says:
    April 23rd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “(and our stupid rules that mean a white couple cannot adopt a Maori child)”

    Is that actually written into law?

    No it is not and whilst there tends to be discouragement of interracial adoption by CYPS as the birth mother chooses it is not the case that European parents cannot adopt Maori children. The adoption of our eldest child explodes that myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    This is just slightly off topic. Is there any evidence that on average MPs have more of a conscience than the average voter? I think there is some evidence to the contrary. New Zealand has not Upper House. Why should the voters have the final say when there is a conscience vote by MPs – usually on a moral issue? This could be done by a voters veto after the bill is in its final forum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Dazzaman (1,144 comments) says:

    NO on ALL counts. The uber-liberal right have given up on decency I see….not surprised. Farrars always been a righty in drag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    @tinman : Statistics please?

    Like i said , just a suspicion and I could well be wrong.

    Heterosexual couples should always get first priority on adoptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    No to euthanasia. Just a return to pre-Christian barbarism in my opinion. Apparently the Comanche Indians used to knock the old relative on the head when he or she was too old. Presumably those in favour of euthanasia will be happy to knock their dear old mum on the head when she decides she is past it? Of course “she decides” is only an interim position. Once we decide there is a right to be killed at your own request, it is a very short step to there is a right to be killed when you are too old, when you have no quality of life, or when you are just too expensive to provide health care for. The Netherlands is an excellent example. Apparently about 1000 people a year are killed when they have not given any consent to euthanasia. That is why old people in that country do not go to hospital. Because when they are asleep maybe the doctor can decide that bed is needed for somebody else. So that old person has to go.

    No to abortion – again a return to pre-Christian barbarism. Presumably DPF’s criteria – “where the unborn child could live unassisted” – can give even more scope for abortion? I mean a new baby cannot live unassisted? Once that becomes the criteria we can surely open the door to infanticide? I mean the Romans used to leave unwanted babies outside to die. Surely unbelieving unchristian New Zealanders will have no moral qualms with such a practice given sufficient time to adjust to the idea?

    No to same-sex adoption. Given there are plenty of married couples who are desperate to adopt children why would we indulge in such a thoughtless experiment to give unrelated babies to potentially predatory male couples?

    Again homosexuality was prevalent and accepted in pre-Christian Greek and Roman times. We seem to be returning to those bad old barbarous times. Once you stop believing in God then you lose all moral restraint. It takes time but it will happen. When people started believing in Jesus Christ then they had a higher view of humanity and a high view of human life. If people are created in the image of God then it is not right to kill people at the beginning or the end of their lives. Human life has an inherent dignity.

    However given the secular nature of many New Zealanders presumably we can also look forward to the return of the Roman Coliseum and people being fed to the lions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. aitkenmike (95 comments) says:

    @Wreck

    Macsyne King and Chris Kahui over Mrs and Mrs Smith, the accountant and OSH manager?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    It is not illegal for gay couples to adopt.

    The law states that to adopt a couple must be married. If the law was changed to allows gay people to marry then they can adopt.

    As someone currently trying to adopt it is not easy, police checks and paper work. Each year in Chch there are 4-8 adoption yet 20-40 couples trying to adopt (the ratios are the same throughout the country.

    If kids are taken from parent then the state has no right to have those kids adopted. They are placed in foster care. There is a shortage of foster parents. There is nothing to stop gay people from applying to be foster parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    Inky

    “If kids are taken from parent then the state has no right to have those kids adopted”

    Well that is one stupid law. Remove the kids from their feral parents and place them in a home where they grow up knowing they are foster kids, seems like the (slightly) lesser of two evils to me.

    If the state does remove a kid at birth (this is not done nearly enough) then that child should be available for adoption into a loving and caring straight family where the child will not be used as a fashion accessory or simply as a political statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    “Just a return to pre-Christian barbarism ”

    One of the classic blatant lies!

    To suggest that Christianity came along and “saved the work” from barbarism is pure bullshit. There were well ordered societies before the con man J Christ arrived on this earth, there were well established rules and society ‘norms’ before he started peddling his bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    @aitkenmike:::

    What a nutty statement.

    On what basis do you think I condone killers and child abusers to adopt children over gay people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Given the mountains of people Christians have slain in crusades, for witchcraft, in the inquisition, for heresy, for being Jewish, for the pogroms & in the wars of religion one could not conclude that it had a high regard for human life. Rather the resemblance to being a crime against humanity is more apt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    BB
    Parents (more often mothers) have the right to chose what is best for their children. Do you think the state should have more rights than parents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Man you guys write some crap! Big bruv- the situation is as I said it is. Pre-Christian Rome approved of many of the things that DPF is keen on- abortion and homosexuality. And bumping off the elderly was common in tribal societies. Christianity gives a reason to treasure human life and once Rome became Christian then the practices of abortion and infanticide and condoning of homosexuality were stopped.

    Chthoniid-you learn nothing but spout the same old bollocks you always spout. You know the answers but always just spout the same nonsense. For example (once again) the crusades were a response to the war on Christianity from Islam that the Muslims are never asked to apologise for. Christianity was driven out of north Africa by the Muslims who conquered Spain. The desire to defeat Islam is quite understandable given centuries of warfare from the Islamic nations. Rodney Stark has written extensively on this subject for those interested.

    And (once again) Stalin and his atheist communist mates killed more people in an average week than the inquisition killed in 2 centuries. Dinesh D’Souza is a good source for material on the difference between Christian and atheist regimes.

    And Christianity gave us hospitals and free speech and most of the good things our civilisation enjoys because our God is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    Inky

    Perhaps you and I are talking about two different things.

    I am talking about the situation where a Macsyna King type mother is due to give birth, the state (as it has a right to do) is there at the birth of the child and has decided that the child will be taken away soon after birth.

    In that case the feral mother should have no rights at all, the child should be put up for adoption and no contact at all should be allowed between birth mother and child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Scott

    You are accusing others of writing crap, please………………………………………..civilisation enjoys because our God is good.

    Now have a think, a serious think and get back. I get sick to fucking death of all the “good” things being god and all the shit that happens is not god its ” because we aren’t good,” don’t be simple .
    and you 4.38………… such a thoughtless experiment to give unrelated babies to potentially predatory male couples?

    What rubbish, I’m potentially a god bothering murdering son of bitch, but there is not a jot of proof to this, just like your ridiculous statement FFS

    and was there no medicine prior to christanity?
    no art, no beauty, read a couple more books please

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    Scott

    Just because you keep telling the same lie does not make it true?

    There is NO evidence that society before the arrival of the conman J Christ was lawless, there is NO evidence that society had no morals at all, of course there were laws and those were based on simply human decency, it had nothing to do with the word written in a book of fiction.

    “And Christianity gave us hospitals and free speech and most of the good things our civilisation enjoys because our God is good.”

    Where is the evidence Scott?…from what I can see a good portion of the world lives in abject misery (and always has done), if your god exists (and lets face it, we both know he does not) then he sure is a sadistic prick. Given that according to you lot he “sees all” then I can only imagine he loves watching famine, plague, pestilence and death because there sure as hell is a lot of it going on.

    Oh..one more thing Scott, you can choose to believe in the sky fairy but please stop calling it “our God”, he might be yours but he sure as hell is not the “god” most Kiwis follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    It’s the God stalkers’ answer to everything:

    If it turns out good: Praise the lord!

    If it doesn’t: God works in mysterious ways…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    According to this New Scientist Infometric 15 million lives were lost during the conquest of the Americas by Christian Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    And Scott again

    I’m reading ‘Cats Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut at the moment. In chapter 4 there is this little beauty

    “Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not be able to understand this book either”

    I love that, just because there are some great guides for living in the bible etc doesn’t make it whats written a true, full and frank account, there are great examples in literature through the ages for living a good life.

    Bruv’s correct some of us may have something to get us out of our ego but don’t rope us all into yours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Scott- neither the Albigensians, Prussians nor Guelphs were Muslims. The crusades were not simply a response against Muslim aggression, they were the manifestation of organised violence against anyone deemed enemies of Christendom. Helpless Jewish communities got massacred. S French cities were stormed and the population’s slaughtered with the refrain ‘god will know his own’. You confuse assertion with evidence.

    Christendom gave us neither science, nor or systems of government, nor our legal system. That came from the “barbaric” classical world and Germannic tribes. Christendom did not give us free speech. The laws on blasphemy and heresy alone prove that false.

    Hospitals predate Christendom- the classical world had them first. What Christendom has given us is children who die every year of medical neglect because their parents are brainwashed into thinking bronze-age chants are a substitute for medicine. Oh, and any entity that is able to effortlessly cure cancer in babies but refuses to, is neither moral nor good.

    The issue however is whether the Christian high regard for human life can be corroborated. And history firmly comes down against that claim. Too many have suffered and died.

    (And there is no such thing as an atheist regime. Atheism starts and stops at a single point. The rejection of the theist claim god exists. It is not a system of government or a political philosophy).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. edhunter (552 comments) says:

    Hmmm just watched the mother-in-law die from “starvation” meaning her alzheimer’s had reached such a stage that the most humane thing that could be done was to let her starve to death, there was no dignity, there was no celebration of life, there was no relief, modern medical treatment had artificially prolonged her life the least they could have done was know when to quit. I’m not talking about at the initial diagnosis stage although it was effectively a death sentence but at the the very least 4 years later after the 1st stroke & we had lost any semblance of the woman we had all loved & not a further 12 months & another stroke later. Have seen enough good people both of faith & without die to know your god is a fraud.

    Abortion & Adoption, as a happily adopted baby both my sister & I can fully endorse the beautiful thing that is adoption, unfortunately a lot has changed in our society in 40 odd years since my inception, at the time of my birth mothers slight indiscretion she had very few options but to have me & then adopt me out. The pill became more readily available, the stigma that was attached to being a single mother lessened & became more acceptable, the curse that was is & forever will be DPB was introduced & abortions became easier to receive. So the choices available to how to deal with an as yet unborn child have become more numerous & the option of carrying a baby & putting your life on hold for 9 months only to give that baby up adoption is now very low on the list of what shall I do with said unborn baby.
    I doubt there are any women addicted to abortion & I know for a fact there is a bit more involved than a slightly uncomfortable procedure. I would be interested in knowing if the morning after pill is considered an ‘abortion’ for statistical purposes i.e. is it inflating the number of abortions reported.
    I’m still to be convinced as to the merits of gay adoption & even the thought of gay surrogacy irks me more than just a little bit but dog forbid there was ever a surplus of children to people wishing to adopt then consideration should then & only then be given to gay adoption.
    So in summary 1. YES. 2. YES. 3. yes but weighted in favour of Adam & Eve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Our views are not going to have any effect on these issues now or in the future.

    How should these issues be decided – by the so called conscience of MPs or by a general referenda?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Man the godless are out in force!
    Look I think western civilization is great and is great because of its religious foundation.Chthoniid you are so wrong about the crusades. Christianity was driven out of North Africa by Muslims and the crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression. That is a good thesis and I have given you a credible author to check out my claim. But with you it is always the same thing. Christians are responsible for what happens in Christian societies but atheists are not responsible for what happens in atheist ones. How does that work?
    Hospitals were invented by Christians.
    Man you guys are awful! If someone gives a christian view stop jumping on them. Big bruv,pauleast bay etc- man you guys are complete jerks!

    But look God if he is real,will hold you all accountable for all you write and you will meet him face to face and account for what you have written today. If there is no God then yes we can do what we like including murdering infants and old people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,677 comments) says:

    It is simplistic, to sat the very least, to allege that the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression.
    But on the main point:
    ‘Christians are responsible for what happens in Christian societies but atheists are not responsible for what happens in atheist ones.’ That was not Chthoniid’s point, of course. There is no such things a christian society or an atheist society, a religion is just on characteristic of a society.
    Also, there is nothing uniquely christian about hospitals, which have been developed in many times by many cultures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Ok I am calmer now.
    My point-until I was distracted by the usual Chthoniid rave- is that as far as euthanasia and abortion and homosexuality are concerned we are not advancing. We are regressing to pre-Christian barbarism. We are returning to the days of Imperial Rome-infanticide and abortion. Those practices were stopped when Rome became Christian.

    As for euthanasia-that is a return to the savage days of tribes knocking their old people on the head.

    That is my point. Note to self-do not let the godless distract me in the future.

    Scott -out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Just while I am here- this from Wikipedia re hospitals-

    The declaration of Christianity as accepted religion in the Roman Empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. Following First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun. Among the earliest were those built by the physician Saint Sampson in Constantinople and by Basil, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Turkey. Called the “Basilias”, the latter resembled a city and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[17] There was a separate section for lepers.[18] Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts.

    Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[19]

    Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and the orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[20]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (14,137 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “Man you guys are awful! If someone gives a christian view stop jumping on them”

    I cannot and will not speak for the other, however I will always jump on any god botherer who starts telling the same age old lies and then demand that I accept those lies as the word of your “lord”.

    I note that in your reply to Chthoniid you persist with the ridiculous claim that society was saved by the arrival of the con man J Christ. A quick glance through the history books (real ones, not the work of fiction that is the Bible) will tell you that this claim is patently untrue.

    Indeed, there is a fair weight of evidence that would suggest that the world would be a far better place had it not been for the unfortunate rise of middle eastern superstition.

    As for your “note to self”. As one of the “godless’ (and proud to call myself the same) I am more than happy to not distract you, come to think of it I would be bloody delirious if I could go through life without giving you lot a second thought. The problem is Chris that you buggers just will not leave us “godless” alone, you insist on trying to run our lives based on a work of fiction and you insist on pushing those same lies down our throats.

    The answer is simple really, STFU and leave us alone, let us live our lives how we see fit (within the laws of NZ) and we will let you practise your ridiculous religion unimpeded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “however I will always jump on any god botherer who starts telling the same age old lies and then demand that I accept those lies as the word of your “lord”.

    I doubt that many have actually done that. I would ask all people to investigate Christianity with an open mind, and by both reading widely and experiancing church. But your claim that we “demand” you accept because its the word of the Lord is, I suspect, a fantasy in your own mind.

    Of course you will. Because your unabale to mount a rational and intellectually rigorous argument against Christianity. “Jumping” on people is so much easier and requires less intellectual effort.

    “and we will let you practise your ridiculous religion unimpeded.”

    No, you won’t. Stop lying. Liberalism, ALL forms of liberalism, are totalitarian by nature. Sooner or later, (and sooner is likely if Grant Robertson ever becomes PM) you will find an excuse NOT to leave us alone, in the name of “tolerance” and prorecting people against “discrimination”.

    “The answer is simple really, STFU and leave us alone”

    I would be happy to do so. The problem is that liberals will not STFU and leave US alone. You continue to pollute, degrade, vandalise and destroy OUR civilisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    Lee01

    Look on the bright side……God loves you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “A quick glance through the history books (real ones, not the work of fiction that is the Bible) will tell you that this claim is patently untrue.”

    Ahh yes, gotta love thise “quick glances”. So much better than an actual education and real in depth reading :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Look on the bright side……God loves you!”

    God loves everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Indeed Big Bruv- why do you not shut up and leave us alone? Who made you king of the world?

    What I said is not lies. The truth about Christianity and how it changed Roman practices of abortion and infanticide and homosexuality have not been refuted by anyone on this thread.

    But as Lee01 points out if you want to inflict your godless beliefs on the rest of us then expect a push back.

    However before I go reflect on this. How come you are so angry and irrational about Christianity and about God in general? Perhaps your conscience is trying to tell you something?
    Or even perhaps God is trying to speak to you? Maybe you should stop and close your eyes and listen? Maybe God might reveal himself to you?

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