Providing a legal and sought after service

April 5th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

A fiercely anti- lobby group is putting pressure on the Party not to select an experienced doctor whose job has involved authorising and performing abortions.

Right to Life said the potential selection of medical practitioner Rosemary Fenwicke as a candidate in “would have serious consequences for the National Party at the forthcoming election”.

Abortion is legal in this country, and regardless of one’s personal views on it, I don’t see any issue with a candidate being a doctor who has performed a legal service that women have requested.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said: “The National Party would be most unwise to nominate Dr Fenwicke for the Wellington Central electorate or any other electorate, or even for a place on the National Party list.

“Those in our community who defend a culture of life would be deeply concerned should Dr Fenwicke be nominated as a candidate for Parliament.”

He claimed that she supported abortions at any time during pregnancy “for any reason, or for no reason”.

I don’t believe that to be true. Can Orr provide a quote?

Dr Fenwicke has previously been the target of conservative MPs who unsuccessfully tried to prevent her from being elected to the Abortion Supervisory Committee in 2007.

Independent MP Gordon Copeland argued at the time that her appointment was a conflict of interest because in her roles as a consultant and surgeon she had power to both authorise and perform abortions.

The committee’s latest report in December showed abortion rates were at their lowest in 20 years.

The Wellington Central seat has been held by Labour since 1999. Labour MP Grant Robertson won it in 2011 with a 6376-vote majority over National’s candidate Paul Foster-Bell.

Mr Foster-Bell – who entered Parliament on the list in April – is seeking the nomination to represent National in Whangarei.

I can’t comment on who may seek that National nomination for Wellington Central as it is during the period when names can’t be revealed. But what I will say is that I don’t think someone’s day job should be a reason for people not to vote for them. Their views on political issues is a quite valid consideration, but I don’t think their job is.

Tags: , , ,

93 Responses to “Providing a legal and sought after service”

  1. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    DPF: I don’t see any issue with a candidate being a doctor who has performed a legal service that women have requested.

    Killing babies in the womb isn’t an issue?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,870 comments) says:

    So you would have supported the selection by National of a hangman during the time of the death penalty?

    David,what ever your views on the issue of abortion may be, don’t count. What does count is the number of votes which might be lost because many many other people have views opposite to yours.

    Some people call it ‘realpolitic.’

    [DPF: Wellington Central includes Aro Valley. I'd almost suggest being an abortion provider is an electoral plus in Aro Valley :-)

    And no if we still have the death penalty I wouldn't judge the person who is the hangman. Someone has to do it.]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Right to Life will be sadly mistaken if they think such a selection would have any impact whatsoever for the National Party vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Matt (224 comments) says:

    I believe it should be spelt with a ‘k’. Adolf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Matt (224 comments) says:

    “Right to Life will be sadly mistaken if they think such a selection would have any impact whatsoever for the National Party vote.”

    in fact, giving in to this sort of bullying would be more likely to lose them votes from centre or undecided voters

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    Mr Ken Orr (the recipient of a Papal Award) should be told to bugger off (given Mr Orr is a Catholic he and his church will be well familiar with the term)

    The last organisation on earth who have a right to tell others how to live their life’s is the bloody Catholic Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    I look forward to Cunliffe’s ‘National is full of baby killers’ speech …

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    Two excellent comments above serve to illustrate just what an explosive issue abortion is…

    Adolf asks DPF the perfectly reasonable question: “would you have any problem with a hangman being a candidate?’

    While BB notes – quite rightly in my view – that the Catholic church is in no position to be lecturing anybody on questions of morality.

    Watch the comments on this thread reach triple figures in short order…

    My two cents? We have abortion on demand in this country, and we should stop hiding behind the charade of “danger to the mental health of the mother” as the grounds for most of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. metcalph (1,426 comments) says:

    Being a prostitute and a legal high dealer are lawful occupations in this country but I daresay most voters would vote against people with such backgrounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Don the Kiwi (1,686 comments) says:

    Living in a secular society, anyone has the right to put their name forward for election to public office.

    Having said that, with abortion being such a polarising social issue, and the fact that in the USA and around the world, abortion is being looked on over time with less and less favour, I would suggest that it could well cost the National party votes, in a similar way to which National’s promotion of gay marriage has probably cost them some votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    metcalph: …unless you are the Labour Party…Former working boy/girl Georgina Beyer not only got selected, but elected…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    Being a prostitute and a legal high dealer are lawful occupations in this country but I daresay most voters would vote against people with such backgrounds.

    Possibly true. But I daresay most voters would not vote against a doctor who, as a part of her medical practice, performs abortions. Some might. But some might actually want to support such an individual.

    And as there’s no actual survey evidence on this question, this entire thread is just going to trade “I daresays” based on how we’d like to think the world is. Another day in the blogosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DG

    That is a tricky one, regarding the mental health issue, because whilst at the time of applying for an abortion the mother may not be suffering from stress/depression/mental health problems, if she is made to carry and give birth to a child she does not want – then mental health issues could become a big problem.

    David, as a lawyer, do you know anything about employment law? Is there any way, that if this was a standard job application that the person could be legally refused the position based on the fact they, as part of their previous employment, they had performed legal abortions?

    I can see both sides of the argument – the answer I think rests with whether National think these (and I would argue minority) group of people, will actually have the power to make any difference. In a population that is considering euthanasia seriously, I don’t think they will.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    metcalph: …unless you are the Labour Party…Former working boy/girl Georgina Beyer not only got selected, but elected…

    Yeah – those goddam urban liberal elites in … Wairarapa. Prefering her over … Paul Henry!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. iMP (2,354 comments) says:

    …and Georgie was unemployed ever since (decades).

    In an open democracy, an abortion doctor can stand, and an anti-abortion lobby can attempt to broadside his/her selection.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (3,950 comments) says:

    *** “:…I can’t comment on who may seek [emphasis added] that National nomination for Wellington Central as it is during the period when names can’t be revealed…”
    ***

    Eh ?

    The NP rules do not prevent anyone mentioning any potential candidate. They proscribe >b>a nominee’s right to campaign publicly ( but not to members) from the closing of nominations until selection. – Rule 100(b).

    Mentioning a potential candidate is NOT contrary to any rule that I can seer,,,, and no one can give directions that contravene the rules since (Rule7a) ” all members are equal and all agree to be bound by and observe by these Rules….”

    But that does not stop a few from telling porkies and making up their own rules. :-)
    Paul Foster-Bell, incidentally was unsuccessful in Whangarei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    Judith: Yes, I know a little about employment law…the short answer to your question is there is nothing compelling any employer to reveal why he she or it did not select any particular candidate for a job…unless they are stupid enough to give some reason such as “we were looking for a New Zealand born man” or “we think you might have got pregnant” there is nothing an unsuccessful candidate can do…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Form a personal viewpoint, it is an easy one. I would never vote for a person with this professional background, so yes, National would lose my vote in this case. ( not in my area so not really an issue but it would actually make me think about where my party vote goes and I am only thinking this way as I write, interesting…)
    From a political perspective I don’t see why National would take such a risk. It is such an emotive issue that this one (possible) selection could literally hijack their election campaign, chew up valuable media time and create a huge distraction during a time that National will be trying to get their big picture message across.
    Pro lifers may be a minority but they will make a lot of noise and get a lot of traction should they choose to make a big issue of this. Why would National take that risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Thanks DG. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrei (2,547 comments) says:

    National can put her up as a candidate which will provide another good reason not to vote for National

    Perhaps a protest vote going New Zealand Firsts way will allow normal people to get their country back from the clueless “progressives” whose values are in the sewer

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    Andrei

    If the selection of Rosemary Fenwicke causes the religious nutter element to all piss off and vote for the CCCP then how is that going to be a bad thing for the Nat’s?

    As far as I am concerned Fenwicke would be better placed continuing her current line of work instead of wasting her talents in the house. We need people like Fenwicke to keep performing abortions, when you look at the number of feral parents producing equally feral kids it is clear that we need far more abortions in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thePeoplesFlag (242 comments) says:

    It is always a good to get a reminder of what these guys were like when people paid attention to the Catholic church.

    My response would be to put up a private members bill to confiscate their property. No church can have all that stuff and not be corrupted by the concerns of mammon, take it off them and help save their souls.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    ThePeoplesFlag…..the people want their flag back you filthy thief! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mandk (954 comments) says:

    mikenmild: “Right to Life will be sadly mistaken if they think such a selection would have any impact whatsoever for the National Party vote.”

    What makes you so sure? My wife and I live in Wellington Central and although we normally favour National, we would have difficulty supporting a candidate with an abortion-on-demand standpoint – if that is, indeed, what her standpoint is.

    The evidence shows that abortion carries the increased risk of harm to the mental health of the woman (check out the research by David Fergusson, if you are interested). So, if abortion becomes easier, the inevitable result will be more women harmed and more pre-born babies killed. It’s hard to favour that outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mandk (954 comments) says:

    Matt: “… giving in to this sort of bullying …”

    What Right to Life are doing is perfectly legitimate in a democracy.

    Labelling people as bullies simply because their views differ from your own, and who happen to engage in lobbying, makes you intolerant and anti-democratic. That way lies fascism.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tvb (4,326 comments) says:

    Abortion is basically available on request in this country. The law is a mere fig leaf. But individual Doctors can refuse to perform the procedure. A person’a occupation is relevant for a parliamentary candidate. It says something about the person. Some people will not vote for this person because of abortion others including me will support her.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fentex (922 comments) says:

    I don’t think someone’s day job should be a reason for people not to vote for them.

    I don’t believe you really think this. I believe your comments about Kim Dotcoms ownership of Nazi memorabilia shows you’re quite capable of drawing implications from one facet of a persons life to another.

    And from that reaching conclusions about whether or not to vote for them. That is unless the comments you make about these things are entirely about justifying decisions already made for other reasons.

    A persons career in which they invest decades of training and experience and perform actions required to succeed is a much stronger indicator of their personal beliefs and abilities than occasional actions focused on in considerable detail in blogs such as this when such detail catches the authors eye and is drawn into debates that interest them.

    Personally I find a history of dealing technically and capably with intimately stressful concerns of patients a positive recommendation for a person asking for authority to govern. And I wouldn’t pretend that knowing about it is irrelevant.

    To put it simply; It’s more than obvious a person attentive to anti or pro abortion politics is going to care if a person who performs them has a vote in legislation over it.

    It’s comical to suggest otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    “But individual Doctors can refuse to perform the procedure.”

    Then it is about time the law was changed. Any doctor who refuses to perform the procedure should be struck off. In 2014 it is simply not acceptable to allow stone age superstition to get in the way of a patients medical needs or wants.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mandk (954 comments) says:

    bb, are you saying that conscientious objection should not be tolerated? If so, is conscientious objection ever permissible?

    And when you refer to stone age superstition, I take it you mean religious objection. But you don’t have to be religious to have an objection to abortion. Atheists on this site have made it clear that you don’t need to be religious to have a moral viewpoint.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    DPF: I see you have answered the question about selecting a hangman as an MP or candidate: “I wouldnt judge the hangman…someones got to do it”..Not judging is quite different from “would have no problem supporting such a person as a candidate”

    Please do clarify…and no, I dont think the comparison is fatuous…The most famous British hangman of the 20th century was a very well liked publican, and his pub gained rather than lost trade because of “the guvnor’s” other job..

    BB: Can’t agree with you there old boy…doctors swear an oath to preserve life, not take it…Although it makes me very uneasy, there is obviously a need for abortions and thus people to do them…but no way should any doctor be compelled to do so…

    (Yes, of course I understand there is a debate as to whether abortion is (taking life)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. WineOh (629 comments) says:

    Knowing Rosy as an individual personally, she is a very intelligent and strong willed woman, with robust personal ethics and a no-nonsense manner. I knew her politics leaned to the right, but had no idea that she would have put herself up for candidacy. All power to her if she is successful in the nomination.

    Central Wellington has been a Labour stronghold for years though, due to the high numbers of public servants and students that inhabit the central city (as opposed to suburbs like Khandallah that are part of Ohariu)… so highly unlikely that she will be a successful MP in the electorate and would depend on where she ends up in the party list rankings. Would she keep practicing medicine if joining public office?

    Incidentally, Foster-Bell has been very quiet since joining Parliament, I can’t recall a major issue that he has weighed in on or contributions to policy. Is there any more info on why he is seeking nomination in Whangarei instead of closer to home-turf? Nothing against the guy, I voted for him in the last election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. backster (2,141 comments) says:

    Like Mandk……..It wouldn’t affect my party vote but my conscience wouldn’t allow me to give her the candidate vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    ” In 2014 it is simply not acceptable to allow stone age superstition to get in the way of a patients medical needs or wants.”

    It will however be acceptable in 2015.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. artemisia (234 comments) says:

    Very tough job, performing abortions. Doctors who do this must have great strength of mind and vast compassion. Just what we need in MPs. She will get my vote, if selected.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    “Doctors who do this must have great strength of mind”

    No, that’s not necessary at all. They do however need stethoscopes and and white lab coats.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    Or is it green lab coats? I can never remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Richard Hurst (834 comments) says:

    Mr Orr has secured the selection of Rosemary Fenwicke as National cannot been seen to be bullied by the likes of religious fundamentalists like Orr.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    Can anyone confirm? White or green?

    And does anyone else agree that they should be dark lavender?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    DG

    “BB: Can’t agree with you there old boy…doctors swear an oath to preserve life, not take it…”

    I understand that, however we all know that they break that oath every day of the week. Hiding behind the oath is something that allows religion to spread its poison into other peoples life’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ShawnLH (4,482 comments) says:

    Poison, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ok now I’m hungry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    The National candidate for Whangarei is Dr Shane Reti who was selected a couple of weeks ago.

    Paul Foster-bell has strong family connections in Whangarei but was unsuccessful in gaining nomination there. In addition the Herald reporter seemed to give the impression in the article, by referring to April that Foster Bell entered the house in April this year when it was May 2013. I picked up 2 errors as noted, one wonders therefore what credence one can place in this ‘trained journalist’s’ reporting at all.

    Furthermore I consider much of what mr Orr is reported to have said about Dr Fenwicke to be unlikely, especially the reported statement as to supporting abortion at anytime. I strongly question Mr Davidson’s motives and the Herald’s motives for running this story now. Perhaps they do not wish to see a candidate selected?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    “It will however be acceptable in 2015.”

    What makes you think that Shawn?, what gives you the right to inflict your stone age beliefs upon others?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    mandk

    “bb, are you saying that conscientious objection should not be tolerated?”

    Not when it comes to a medical procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (6,995 comments) says:

    Shawn: Is whatever you have ingested legal or illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “……Very tough job, performing abortions. Doctors who do this must have great strength of mind and vast compassion. Just what we need in MPs. She will get my vote, if selected…..”

    LOL……….she uses lethal weapons on the unarmed – and a baby at that – an act of cowardice – and you say that is a ‘very tough job’ and ‘she is compassionate’?

    Are you fucken serious? She’s a fucken pathetic individual who is prepared to kill an inarmed baby because the mother doesn’t want the consequences of her chosen actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mandk (954 comments) says:

    bb: Not when it comes to a medical procedure

    Even when it is known that the medical procedure causes harm overall?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. BlairM (2,314 comments) says:

    I’m practical about this. I’d never personally choose to have someone like Rosemary Fenwicke in Parliament. I despise abortion. But this is Wellington Central, which is full of bludgers and commie ratbags, so the likelihood of getting someone decent elected there is minimal. Best to have someone who is indeed electable, to take and hold the seat for the Right so that good people can do good things and bad people don’t get elected instead. Nikki Kaye does a similar sterling job in Auckland Central – it’s pretty much all she is good for. If she is a good campaigner and can win hearts and minds, who am I to complain? I’d prefer someone like Stephen Franks, but apparently the Wellington electorate disagree with me. That’s democracy I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    mandk

    “Even when it is known that the medical procedure causes harm overall?”

    Known by whom?

    Modern medicine should make no allowance at all for stone age superstition.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “………..“But individual Doctors can refuse to perform the procedure.”
    Then it is about time the law was changed. Any doctor who refuses to perform the procedure should be struck off. In 2014 it is simply not acceptable to allow stone age superstition to get in the way of a patients medical needs or wants….”

    LOL Big Bigot…………..you can’t MAKE people kill other homosapiens – simply because a 3rd party wishes them to. There’s laws against that.

    Why don’t you learn about biology before you open your stupid mouth?

    Contrary to popular opinion – life is NOT created at conception – instead life is passed on – where only a NEW homosapien is created – because everything needed to create a homosapien is already LIVING inside the parents and they simply pass that life on.

    The womb nutures the new homosapien AFTER THE MOTHER HAS PASSED ON LIFE TO A NEW HOMOSAPIEN. And it is nature that provides the womb – the women does not – as you can’t buy or make a womb Big Bigot!

    Companies can become individual legal entities – and when a NEW homosapien is created then they too should become individual homosapien legal entities.

    Abortion is and always will be about killing defenceless homosapiens – an act of cowardice – in the belief that women can then live like men!

    Well the real men I know Big Bigot arn’t cowards like the disgusting National associated female – the baby killing Fenwicke – instead they support the welfare of women and female infant homosapiens.

    Fenwicke doesn’t give a fuck about the Sanctity of Life. Fact.

    If the death penalty were legalised – I’d gladly be the hangman for that cowardice cunt! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. s.russell (1,601 comments) says:

    Right to Life has increased the chances of Dr Fenwicke being selected as National members (especially in a place like Wellington Central) will NOT want to be seen kowtowing to such a conservative organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Crazy quotient is quite high with Harriet today.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mandk (954 comments) says:

    bb: try this from a “pro-choice” humanist:
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/193/6/444.abstract

    And why do you keep referring to stone age superstition? I don’t think anyone on this particular thread who has argued against abortion has made any reference to religion. You don’t have to be religious to find abortion objectionable:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-atheists-invade-the-american-atheist-convention.
    Atheists and agnostics hold all sorts of positions:
    http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/AtheistsAbort.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    doesn’t want the consequences of her chosen actions.

    and what if they weren’t her chosen actions. What if her actions were taking measures to ensure she didn’t get pregnant, and they failed? What if she didn’t want sex, but was forced? What if she was told she couldn’t get pregnant, and then did? What if she is mentally unable to understand her actions regarding having sex?

    What if her circumstances change?

    and…
    what if the child will inherit some dreadful circumstance (I remember a young woman who carried the Huntington’s gene, something she was unaware of before she got pregnant).

    What about those situations?

    Should the ‘child’ also have to live with the consequences?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kowtow (8,186 comments) says:

    Smoking is legal.

    I want my tobacco packaged the way the legal companies present it.

    But the Nats don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Monique Angel (272 comments) says:

    What BlairM said.
    Knitting Needle Fenwicke is a silly old teat sucker who should know better and leave the debate to the next generations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    Judith medical reasons and rape account for about 1% of abortions.

    The other 99% is nothing more than extreme selfishness. Due to drunkeness, forgetfulness[contraception] or straight out carelessness.

    We all make mistakes in life and have to live with them – men have to pay for children they don’t want – but women – they are excused. They don’t have to pay at all. Even the wasted pre-natal healthcare that they use before they terminate they don’t have to pay for.

    Why is that Judith – do you want to explain to us your inferiority and uselessness as a ‘woman’? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RichardX (324 comments) says:

    Harriet, Can you point to any evidence, anything outside you own head that supports your assertion on when an individual life begins?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Harriet

    Women do have to pay child support if they are not the custodial parent, so you are incorrect, women are NOT excused.

    Mother’s don’t have to pay? What about loss of income whilst they are unable to work? What about loss of potential to careers etc? What about lost dreams and aspirations? Women don’t pay? What a crock of shit – it is the mother that ‘pays’ her entire life – because it is she that is expected to be there 24/7.

    I realise that you are probably arguing from the perspective of a person that takes their fathering role seriously, and is supportive, but a lot aren’t. A lot of women are left to cope with the child alone – but according to you, that is her punishment for having sex – WHAT ABOUT THE MAN’S PUNISHMENT – what does he lose, what is the cost to him? A bit of child support – OH PLEASE !!! His career isn’t affected, his social life isn’t affected, he (if he is the non-custodial parent) does not have the sleepless nights, the worry, the responsibility –

    You can physically examine a women and tell when she has a child – your can’t do the same for a man –

    As far as being inferior – like hell I am – and as for useful – that is a subjective decision – and open to interpretation – but I consider myself to be more useful than many I see whinging on here – but doing absolutely nothing to help the ‘women’ they can do nothing but criticise.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Life begins when a being can ‘live’ – as long as it is dependent on a ‘host’ in order for it’s heart to beat, then it is in a parasitic state, and not a viable human being because its brain and body is not geared for independent life. I believe that occurs for the human fetus at about 20 weeks.

    This varies from fully formed humans, who may due to illness or injury need mechanical support, because in those cases the body is ‘faulty’ but normally fully independent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Psycho Milt (2,405 comments) says:

    If the death penalty were legalised – I’d gladly be the hangman for that cowardice cunt!

    I expect you didn’t pick up the difference between cowardice and cowardly because you were busy coming as you typed that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wf (420 comments) says:

    Bugger. I had to give Judith @ 6.47 a tick.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “….Harriet, Can you point to any evidence, anything outside you own head that supports your assertion on when an individual life begins?…”

    Yeah…..all first year biology books…….nothing other than what is currently living inside of ‘mum and dad’ is passed onto the new homosapien – nothing new from anywhere else is added – what soever. Mum and dads dna is about all that there is to create a new homosapien. Fluid and nutrition do come from the mother – but they are only to aid the new homosapien in it’s development.

    It’s only something like a second or two for fertilisation to take place, as everything that is needed for a new homosapien is already there. Once fertilisation is complete – you then have a new homosapien LIFE FORM!

    How do we know it is a new life form? – because it’s DNA is different to it’s parents.

    In other words – nothing on this earth is created from anything that is not already alive. Seeds for example which are alive create plants, but if they are dead, then they don’t germinate.

    There is no denying that abortion is all about taking a lethal weapon – and killing defenceless homosapiens.

    The act of a fucken coward! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “……Mother’s don’t have to pay? What about loss of income whilst they are unable to work? What about loss of potential to careers etc? What about lost dreams and aspirations? Women don’t pay? …”

    So fucken what Judith?

    Men have to pay for children they don’t want. Women should too. How come women can be excused yet men can’t? You didn’t answer the question Judith!

    And I see you went on about men leaving the woman and children – but as usual you won’t advocate for getting rid of no-faults divorce. And why shouldn’t we get rid of no-faults divorce Judith – as it’s quite socialy acceptable to have children out of Marriage for those who don’t like the idea of ‘contractual committment’.

    In other words – if you don’t like the idea of the responsabilities of STRENGTHENED Marriage, then people can simply not get Married. I find it amusing that all you progs think being progressive – is about lowering the standards of everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. nasska (11,184 comments) says:

    Harriet

    You are a religious nut & as such faith will normally trump fact. Have a quick read of this link & although you’ll doubtlessly still be a fruitcake you’ll be a better informed fruitcake.

    Ref: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @Harriet (3,953 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Harriet – calm down.

    Women do have to pay, if they are not the custodial parent they must pay child support, and recently the law was changed, and the custodial parent (usually the women) also has their income assessed. This results in a decrease to the non-custodial parent (usually the male) if her income is over a particular level.

    Clearly you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

    Whatever the custodial parent does, they have to make sure their childs needs come first – mothers throughout history have ‘gone without’ for their children. That is a cost – simply not being able to get out and socialise is a cost. A single mother must get out of bed, even if she is ill herself, to see to her child – that is a cost, she must clothe her child before herself, that is a cost.

    But regardless of all that – you are simply WRONG – in law the women/custodial parent’s income is included in the child support calculation. A recent change, but still makes what you say – incorrect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises that:

    “…..The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science….”

    FFS Nasska!

    A homosapien is a fucken homosapien – dogs, cats and fish don’t get ‘personhood’ status – therefor, to NOT give a new homosapien the status of personhood – is to believe they are then of the status of dogs, cats and fish!

    What ever happened to your commonsense Nasska? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “…..Clearly you don’t know what the hell you are talking about…”

    Rubbish. you won’t answer the question.

    Why do women NOT have to pay for their mistake of fucking the wrong man – and have an abortion instead. Men can’t – they have to live with the decision of fucking the wrong woman. If the woman wants -she can make the man pay for 18 whole yrs!

    So why are women being excused for their mistakes Judith? And men not?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (11,184 comments) says:

    ….”A homosapien is a fucken homosapien – dogs, cats and fish don’t get ‘personhood’ status”….

    If you cleared your mind of all the extraneous Godcrap you’d realise that humans are only another form of life….albeit a highly developed one.

    This is where your whole viewpoint turns to custard. If you ignore the religionutter tripe all you’re banging on about is a sperm & egg omelette.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Huevon (217 comments) says:

    Right, so the choice for Wellington Central will be a pudgy troughing militant homosexual vs an abortionist. Charming. I’ve really gotta get out of this place.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Harriet (3,955 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Do you think having an abortion is like a ‘walk in the park’?

    Do you need to be taken through the process, the physical pain, the possible complications etc?
    Then there is the psychological trauma, not to mention the trauma of having self-righteous fools, who can do nothing but judge, without experience, constantly laying their personal self-righteousness on them.

    EITHER way, the woman has to pay –

    She either goes through the torment, the pain, the shame (ever had your legs stuck up in stirrups and had a medical team view your privates?), and the emotional trauma of an abortion,

    OR she goes through the torment, the pain, the shame, the birth, and a life with a child who she not only didn’t want, but probably whose father she cannot stand, and possibly hate.

    Yes, she has the child, and for many women, that is a joy, but for many it is also a torment.

    No fucking cost for having sex? Every minute of every fucking day she is reminded of that ‘screw’ – are you going to try and tell me the male gives it much more thought after he’s blown his load?

    She is reminded every time she looks at her child, every time she feels that baby kick, every time she throws up from morning sickness, every stretch mark she gets, every change to her body – she NEVER is allowed for one minute to forget – and in all chances, she probably never even got an orgasm out of it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Grant Michael McKenna (1,158 comments) says:

    Life begins when you vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “…….If you cleared your mind of all the extraneous Godcrap you’d realise that humans are only another form of life….albeit a highly developed one.

    This is where your whole viewpoint turns to custard. If you ignore the religionutter tripe all you’re banging on about is a sperm & egg omelette…..”

    So if that’s the case Nasska – then what the fuck does ‘personhood’ have to do with it – as walking talking homosapiens are then just hard boiled, scrambled or sunnyside up ‘personhoods’!

    So if life is then so pointless and we have no purpose, why then do most atheists support the idea of feeding starving Africans – as they’re gonna die anyway? What? – we feed them because of ‘personhood’ LOL…..what a waste of fucken time!

    You have to have a God above you Nasska and pass the Truth onto those who will follow us. Telling children that life is pointless and meaningless will not end well. Most kids would probably then take their own lives at the first of life’s hurdles.

    http://www.happyfamilies.com.au/advice/losing-my-religion#sthash.mhrsmYr9.dpbs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (11,184 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Life is not purposeless or meaningless without religious hocus-pocus. All that it requires is to treat others as you’d prefer them to treat you & most of the rest falls into place.

    The point is that if your faith guarantees your happiness then all is good & well & I wish you luck. The only caveat is that it is YOUR faith, not mine & I’m going to do everything within my power to make sure that your hallucinations don’t dictate the way that I or my family live their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “….Do you think having an abortion is like a ‘walk in the park’?…”

    No of course not. I’m the one who has been saying all year that it is women who are being misinformed about abortion and their mental health.

    But the reality is this: Nearly all women who have abortions do so because they have been IRRESPONSABLE with regard to their sexual healthcare. That is undeniable. Contraceptive failure can only amount to about 20%.

    80% of women use the most pathetic of reasons to end the life of a new homosapien. “I forgot to take the pill…” Fuck me.

    Like I said Judith – women are being excused for their irresponsable behaviours – while the man is held accountable if the woman SEE’S FIT!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    “You have to have a God above you Nasska and pass the Truth onto those who will follow us. Telling children that life is pointless and meaningless will not end well. Most kids would probably then take their own lives at the first of life’s hurdles.”

    More evidence of how religion poisons the mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “…..Life is not purposeless or meaningless without religious hocus-pocus. All that it requires is to treat others as you’d prefer them to treat you & most of the rest falls into place….”

    Soooooo……………by ‘others’ do you mean homosapiens or ‘personhoods’?

    Let me quess – personhoods. right?

    You’re talking through a hole in your arse. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    It’s just as well we are not blessed with foresight.

    If that was the case I am almost certain my Mummy would have aborted me! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi (1,296 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Living in a secular society, anyone has the right to put their name forward for election to public office.

    Having said that, with abortion being such a polarising social issue, and the fact that in the USA and around the world, abortion is being looked on over time with less and less favour, I would suggest that it could well cost the National party votes, in a similar way to which National’s promotion of gay marriage has probably cost them some votes.
    ====================================

    Might very well be bloody good for the National Party to not have the pompous Catholics pulling their strings. NZ would be much better off. Between them and the Maori’s they have buggered a dam good country.

    Hopefully they will all go and leave the rest of us to get on with having better policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (13,242 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    What? And deprive the flock of all that pleasure ? No I’m sure she knew what joy you’d bring to all god’s little creatures, especially the woolly ones. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “….More evidence of how religion poisons the mind….”

    Well life is rather pointless without a God and the Truth.

    Just look at the gay marriage debate – all based on changing the meaning of words. And the result – the equal status of a pregnant married couple with excrement covered dicks. Go figure.

    Without God society devolves into base human behaviour. And debased human behaviour!

    Do you really think that sodomy should be celebrated Big Bigot – given what it actually really involves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Thank you Judith for those kind words.

    Feel free to pop down to Wainui dressed in just a little woolly jumper whenever you like. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    “Well life is rather pointless without a God and the Truth.”

    Rubbish, ask any one of the millions of atheists, well all see a point to our life’s and manage to get on just fine without worrying about stone age superstition.

    “Without God society devolves into base human behaviour. And debased human behaviour!”

    You have NO evidence to support such a lie.

    “Do you really think that sodomy should be celebrated Big Bigot – given what it actually really involves?”

    It’s called anal sex Harriet. All over NZ tonight heterosexual couples will be giving it a go. Tell me, why is your god so worried about what we all do in the privacy of our own bedrooms (or barns for Johnboys sake)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. SGA (983 comments) says:

    Harriet at 8:56 pm

    Well life is rather pointless without a God and the Truth.

    Oh dear – no wonder you are so angry all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “Do you really think that sodomy should be celebrated Big Bigot – given what it actually really involves?”

    It’s called anal sex Harriet. All over NZ tonight heterosexual couples will be giving it a go. Tell me, why is your god so worried about what we all do in the privacy of our own bedrooms (or barns for Johnboys sake)

    ———————————–

    Gays arn’t private – they parade their ways up and down Queen St – and hold a Big Gay Out – amongst hundreds of other media announcements.

    And they also have a Victorian Society – where if you say anything about sex that isn’t comfortable with them – they get all Victorian like and won’t discuss sex.

    I reject the homo thing completely. It’s all crap. It really is. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Disclaimer by Johnboy:::::

    Neither I nor my flock have ever engaged in anal sex. All our sexual relations are pure and wholesome! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. nasska (11,184 comments) says:

    Well, goodnight Harriet…..Godbless & remember to keep your hands above the bedclothes.

    That way Huey will write it off as a nocturnal emission rather than giving you a big red cross for having a wank. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    I’ve got a pillow with a big hole in it that I cuddle all night so Huey can’t see where my appendages are nasska! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Just why are you so interested in what poofs do?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Harriet (4,794 comments) says:

    “…..Just why are you so interested in what poofs do?…”

    I’m concerned about how children perceive society and it’s expected behaviours when they are adults.

    I really don’t care what adults do in their bedroom. But then diseases ect and their costs to others don’t stay in the bedroom do they? So I’m interested in those matters too – just like the health dept that I pay for are interested!

    It’s how people behave in front of children and what they teach them that matters most. Some things, like sex, don’t have very good outcomes.

    Both homosexuals and hetrosexuals should be expected to be responsable with their sexual healthcare.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. big bruv (13,679 comments) says:

    Harriet

    “I’m concerned about how children perceive society and it’s expected behaviours when they are adults.”

    Then if that is the case stop brain washing them with stories of stone age superstition, if you did that you would be teaching them that science is indeed where all the answers are. That there is no such thing as a sky fairy and that they need not waste their short lives worried about pleasing a sadistic narcissistic god.

    You could also teach them that if they want to stay safe they would be best advised to stay away from anybody claiming to be speaking the word of god, in particular the Catholics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RichardX (324 comments) says:

    Harriet, Is English your second language?
    Between your spelling and comprehension I can’t imagine it comes naturally to you
    How many first year biology books have you actually read?
    You do not understand the role of DNA and you have clear logical fallacies even if your facts were correct. Maybe it is just your definitions that are once again completely unique
    You claim that life begins before conception but then you go on to say “How do we know it is a new life form? – because it’s DNA is different to it’s parents”
    Are you saying a new life and a new life form are 2 different things?
    It can’t be new if it existed before contraception as you claim.
    But until the sperm fertilizes the egg, only the sperm and egg exist. There is no logical argument you can possibly make to support your position without redefining the meaning of life
    Were you this stupid before you became a Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. SPC (5,563 comments) says:

    Sorry I thought this was the thread about providing people in apartments with a pet in a cat house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    Oh- *that* Right to Life… :)

    http://www.nzcatholic.org.nz/2014/03/28/right-to-life-struggle-after-losing-court-case/

    Right to Life may be wound up, after losing a long-running court battle and facing huge costs that is it is struggling to pay.
    The Abortion Supervisory Committee, which Right to Life took a case against, starting about nine years ago, insists they be paid the full amount of their costs, amounting to
    $77,575.13.

    Right to Life struggle after losing court case Right to Life spokesperson Ken Orr said his group has proposed the payment of $50,000 upfront and for the balance to be paid in instalments, but this offer was rejected.
    “Our counsel said they could petition the court to have us wound up. They haven’t actually made that threat, but he believes that’s what is on their minds,” he said.

    The cost stemmed from the legal case filed by the group against the ASC which argued that many abortions were wrongly approved, based on mental health grounds. The group asked for a judicial review of the committee’s assertion that it has no oversight of the individual decisions made by certifying consultants who approve abortions.
    Although the High Court ruled in favour of Right to Life in 2008, the Court of Appeal overturned this in 2010, and awarded costs to the committee. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

    —————————————————————————–
    Wow, and they can afford to do rabble rousing against Dr Fenwicke as well? I know this woman. She’s an excellent, highly qualified and thoroughly professional doctor and will be a great asset to the National Party caucus, much as Paul Hutchison was. Yeah, she’ll struggle against Grant Robertson, but one hopes that National has the sense to place her well up the party list.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.