by frog
Religious fundies have looked like they have been trying for some time to find an issue that will allow them to wriggle onto the election agenda this year. And so, it was little surprise that this week they (they being the usual suspects; Gordon Copeland, Voice for Life, The Family Party, the Kiwi Party, Family First, the Vision Network) should take their chance at launching abortion as a topic into the media (with the help of a high court judge).
The Hand Mirror is responding to this initially one-sided barrage with some data and debate about the difficulty that feminists face arguing against an opponent that won’t respond to rational argument.
What bothers me is that religious fundamentalists appear to recycle this ‘debate’ time and again without ever adding anything new to it to move it forward. That and the fact that it is hardly the biggest issue around fertility and reproductive health that needs political attention. Wouldn’t it be nice if these groups worked with women and men who wanted children rather than against women and men who don’t. That might require them to talk to women though.
Published in Health & Wellbeing by frog on Wed, June 11th, 2008
Tags: , Abortion, Reproductive health, the hand mirror, women
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This gets me pretty mad. Who are the heads of these organisations that want to stop women from having control over their bodies? Men. Who are the people who grandstand with interviews on the media telling women what they should do with their lives? Men. Who are the people who stand around with banners and placades demanding women give up the right to govern their own lives? Men. And nuns.
I think these people would be better to put energy into a campaign to have men be more responsible when it comes to the act that makes a woman pregnant. And then realise that a woman’s life is her own, and every case of abortion is different, and they have no right to pass judgement.
No right at all.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
That said, I disagree with No Right Turn’s attack on the Standard and suggestion that blogs have a duty to comment on this issue. Here at frogblog I often gets emails or comments criticising me for not writing about this issue or that. It’ doesn’t mean I haven’t thought about them or am too scared to say anything – more often than not it’s because I don’t think there is anything new to add to the debate. Or I don’t have time. Or I find it boring. Or I’m distracted by silly news about celebrities and cats in trees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers Frog, the funny thing is it turns out a_y_b had actually arranged a guest post on the topic from Julie at the Hand Mirror that was supposed to go up yesterday but due to various people being busy in their real lives got delayed until today.
You can find it here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2159
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Abortion on demand to 12 or 16 weeks. After that, go buy nappies. All the time tested reasons still apply: A woman owns her body. Harm reduction: we don’t need to see desperate women start dying in back streets thanks to illegal abortions. We definitely don’t need to make them criminals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice work Tane and Julie. Personally I think Julie is right. A rational civilised debate on the issue could actually be good for NZ. But that’s not what this is about. There might be some who are honestly outraged by NZ’s abortion laws – but for too many it’s simply political oxygen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The issue is that some people believe that at conception a soul enters the womans body and that God sits up there poking them in. God is an old chap who is getting a bit senile and doesn’t see what is happening at the other end of things. It’s time he slowed down but he’s having too much fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The full judgment in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee is now available online from the MoJ’s site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Abortion is not just an issue of religion. So typical to try the “Fundamentalist Christian” as a slur. The other bits about religious fundamentalists not talking to women are equally vacuous, and barely deserve a response.
As for the stats on “males are the ones pushing abortion” – what a load of sexist claptrap. It’s the feminist dream to argue that the male has no say in protecting life I suppose. What about viewing it from the other direction for those who think this is a great intellectual leap? “82% of abortionists Doctors are males, and none of them will ever have a baby!” or what about the fact that abortion service providers are businesses overwhelmingly run and owned by the evil male?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, can we expect Green MPs to support a law change to preserve the practical status quo if as expected this leads to a more conservative interpretation of the law (either self- or court-imposed) and fewer women having access to abortion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J.A. Prufrock:
“Who are the heads of these organisations that want to stop women from having control over their bodies?”
The issue is not whether women should have control over their own bodies – of course they should. The issue is whether a fetus is the womans own body or an individual. And this is not a religious issue, but a scientific one. There is nothing in the Bible or any other religious text I know of that defines whether a fetus is a human or not – this is a scientific issue.
When does life start for a bacteria? When a bacteria divides into two, there are now two bacteria. No-one would argue with that. When does life start for a coral? When the sperm and egg combine while floating freely in the ocean, a new coral is formed. No-one would argue it was still part of the old coral – it is a new individual and is not even attached to its parents. When does life start for a fish? Again, the sperm and egg combine to form a new fish (in an egg), floating in the sea. I am sure we can all agree that for such lifeforms, life starts at conception (or division in the case of bacteria).
In a creature where conception occurs within the body, is there any reason to believe life does not start at conception but at a time after conception? There is no scientific reason to believe this. Scientifically, at conception a new organism is formed, with a completely different genetic makeup to either parent. This organism is, scientifically speaking, a human – it certainly isn’t anything else. Scientifically, life starts at conception.
Some argue life starts at implantation (this would justify the morning after pill but not abortion). Where is the scientific justification for this? There is none. All that occurs here is that the free-moving fetus attaches to the mother and starts to feed, this has no bearing on whether it is an organism or not. Someone could hold this view for religious or emotional reasons, but not scientific ones.
Others argue life starts at 12 weeks, 16 weeks, or some other time. These are even more arbitrary points, with no scientific justification. The view that life starts here is purely a religious or emotional one, not a scientific one. We could just as easily argue that life starts at birth, or weaning, or when the child first learns to talk.
Therefore, scientifically, if a fetus is killed, a human has been killed. The mother has not just done something to her own body, but another human has been killed. Most people consider it wrong to kill a human. This is where so-called “religious” people get involved, as they have a particularly strong conviction that it is wrong to kill. But this opinion is not a religious one, rather an opinion that anyone can hold if they don’t believe in killing humans. Many atheists have an even stronger view that killing is wrong – even becoming vegetarian in some cases to avoid killing animals. The view that life should not be killed is clearly NOT a religious view.
To state life starts at conception is consistent with the science. To state anything else is a religious/emotional view that is unsupported by the science.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Idiot/savant – As the Green’s Women’s Policy states:
Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.
I think it’s taken for granted that the Greens support the right to abortion, as it’s not stated explicitly anywhere except in our original Values Party Manifesto from way back.
I think that it is safe to say that the Greens will step up to preserve/improve equitable access for women in all situations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr. Dennis. All your question marks are nothing but question marks. Do you think that the issue is only about what happens inside a woman’s womb? How dangerously short-sighted. What about the physical, mental, financial and spiritual state of the woman? Or does all that mean nothing next to all your question marks?
We complain almost everyday about the demise of the family in New Zealand – child poverty, neglect, domestic violence, the cycle of abuse…and arguably all these things are created, or at least perpetuated by a lack of education and support. Yet you are advocating children be brought into this world for the sake of you being unable to answer questions about when a “life” becomes a “life”, or when a person gets a “soul”…???
Shame on all people who think they know better to tell a woman they cannot be in control of their bodies, and their futures. Men can walk away from the moment a pregnancy is confirmed. The reality of pregnancy, childbirth and bringing up a child is an experience that a woman will wear for the rest of her life, and have implications on everything she does.
Repealing abortion is just another way a male dominated society can control woman, and keep her ‘in her place’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J.A. Prufrock:
There are many issues with the family in NZ, as you have noted. One major issue is the fact that “Men can walk away from the moment a pregnancy is confirmed”. This desperately needs to be addressed. The man should have equal responsibility for his child as the woman, and be held to account for the life he has created by providing family support. I was just filling in the registration of birth for my son yesterday, and was appalled to find that while the mother’s details are recorded by default if the parents are unmarried, for the father’s details to be recorded both the consent of the mother and father must be given. The father’s details should be recorded in all cases – he is as responsible for creating the child as the mother. I believe we would actually agree on many of these issues if we were to sit down and discuss them.
The one area we disagree on is whether it is right to kill for a woman’s “physical, mental, financial and spiritual state”, or whether the right of the child to life is more important. Certainly all efforts should be made to help the mother deal with all the issues in her life. But can this justify killing the child? Certainly not. You don’t solve problems by killing people.
If the father was held to account, and the woman was not on her own to deal with her mistake, the mother’s financial state at least would be provided for, making it easier for her to raise the child they have brought into the world.
“Shame on all people who think they know better to tell a woman they cannot be in control of their bodies, and their futures.”
I am not telling any woman they cannot be in control of their own bodies. I am pointing out that the fetus IS NOT their own body, therefore it does not come under this statement. Please reread my post with an open mind, trying to ignore your religious / feminist or any other biases you may have. If you can show through logic that I am incorrect, you may have a point to make. I have yet to see a sensible reason to disbelieve what I have posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shame on all people who think they know better to tell a woman they cannot be in control of their bodies,
But you’ll ban pies and outdoor smoking areas.
Why should women get the right to kill? Why should men be allowed to walk away? And why aren’t women in control of their bodies up to the point they get pregnant? Do they not realise how they get pregnant? And why does everyone assume all women that have abortions wanted them, or will not be scarred by them, or will not develop medical complications in the future because of them?
Society makes it easy to kill a beating heart because society cannot be bothered extending anything more to a pregnant women than a free abortion.
It may be unpalatable for some-one to say “you killed a living being” and it may be unpalatable for a women to realise she is designed to nurture life, no matter how inconvenient it’s arrival. But no-one is controlling women by sticking up for the unborn. If anything, women are being objectified, used for sex, because they have been convinced that sex is a transaction, not an emotional commitment based on a relationship. Contraception and abortion is necessary to make that suggestion plausible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis.
I just don’t believe abortion is killing a child. I do not believe abortion is murder.
And feminism is not a bias. Anymore than thinking intellegently and humanely about a topic is, a bias.
And great, we get some good for nothing man’s name on the birth certificate (depending, of course, that the woman knows his name. Because surely to follow your argument through to the end, a woman that has been raped, and becomes pregnant as a result, must keep the baby), and this is supposed to provide financial stability??? In what world does that work???? And what about a woman’s right to work for her own money? Should a woman have to give up her entire life and independence to satisfy your rhetoric?
(note the spelling of foetus, by the way)
And Zen Tiger.
>>But you’ll ban pies and outdoor smoking areas.
I would love to see where you justify putting those words in my mouth.
>> may be unpalatable for a women to realise she is designed to nurture life.
It’s great you think you know what all women were put on this earth for.
>>If anything, women are being objectified, used for sex, because they have been convinced that sex is a transaction, not an emotional commitment based on a relationship.
Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? I do. Several. And none fit into that ridiculous statement of yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i don’t know how relative this is..but i can’t help but bring this issue back to the personal..
in that i have two children..to two mothers..
thru bad management..(or whatever)..both of these children were conceived in the fag-end of relationships..
..in the first case..i was a rabid junkie at the time..
..all i know is that in both cases..both mothers would in many eyes..have been quite within their ‘rights’..to have had abortions..
i am just forever grateful to them both for not doing that..
and had they done that..
..neither of my beautiful children would be here..
(and a western springs soccer team would be nowhere near as strong in defence..)
so..y know..!
life is messy/imperfect..
..and declamatory absolutes from either side..
..answer/prove nothing..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
ZenTiger said: But you’ll ban pies and outdoor smoking areas.
What utter rubbish. The Greens don’t propose any changes to outdoor smoking areas. The proposal re pies is to remove unhealthy food from schools (and a diet of meat pies every day for lunch is unhealthy). Kids can get all the pies they like outside school if their parents will buy them for them, and there is nothing the Green will (or can) do to change that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sorry JA Prufrock, my apologies – the pies and smokes are a Greenie thing (or at least I think the Greenies will jump on today’s call to extend smoke free bans to outdoor areas – can’t recall who made that call, but its bound to turn up soon.
It’s great you think you know what all women were put on this earth for.
I wouldn’t go that far. But it’s great you think women were put on this earth to kill their children I suppose….we are arguing responsibility for consequences here.
Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? I do. Several. And none fit into that ridiculous statement of yours.
I don’t think my statement is that ridiculous. Equally of course, you statement: Repealing abortion is just another way a male dominated society can control woman, and keep her ‘in her place’. I find totally ridiculous, and know of several women who totally agree with me.
Phil U; Thanks for sharing that story. And I know for sure that the father does count, and many wouldn’t walk away from their responsibilities, which, all going well, become gifts not burdens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>>But it’s great you think women were put on this earth to kill their children I suppose….
Yeah. You’re right. That is what I think. To the letter. Women where put on this earth to kill babies. I guess I should have just said that at the beginning, ey? Would have made my positions much clearer, ey?
And it’s nice that you and several of your woman friends know better than countless academics, historians and feminist intellectuals on the matter of a male dominated society, and the relationship between domination and childrearing. Sorry if I don’t buy it though.
And Phil U: I am truely very happy for you and your story, no sarcasm here. But your personal history is not the reality for all people, and the decision of your partners is not the same for all women. I too know what joy it is to look into another human being’s face and see yourself, and all the pride that goes into bringing life into the world and loving it unconditionally and unquestionably. But I will not take the decision away from others on what to do with their own bodies and their own futures. I would fight for a woman (and a man, for that matter) to have the right to choose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
> I think it’s taken for granted that the Greens support the right to abortion, as it’s not stated explicitly anywhere except in our original Values Party Manifesto from way back.
This reminds me of the conservative christian argument that assumes that Jesus must have disapproved of homosexuality, and concludes that the reason why he never mentioned it in the gospels must be because he disapproved of it too much to even mention it.
The Green Party does not have a policy for or against abortion because we have never resolved what position to take. It’s the same as the reason why we don’t have a policy on fluoridation of drinking water.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So when you put words in my mouth – that “I know what women were put on earth for”, which is just your flawed interpretation of my reasoning, you can’t stand the same when I throw it back at you amplified to make the point?
And I don’t buy that my opinion is “wrong” just because you claim to have the weight of “countless” people on your side. Next you’ll be arguing that the world is the centre of the universe because you and countless academics on times gone by haven’t updated their library.
My opinion that abortion may not be the all empowering boost for womens rights you and your esteemed peers is not isolated to just myself and 6 women. And personally, I don’t view this simply as a battle between women getting what she wants (supposedly abortion) versus child’s right to live. Women deserve a lot better than their choice for life being about only having access to abortion because they dont want to be a mother. If women were clear they could be given the support they need during this time, and know there baby could go to a loving family, maybe we could cut that abortion rate a little and do better.
PS: In your ideal world JA – If a women has the right to choose an abortion, does the man have a right to say “no – I will care for the child? or do they have a right to say “I will not pay maintenance you must terminate the child” ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s interesting kahikatea. Would the Greens be required to decide a stance if a bill is advanced to ensure abortion on demand is fully supported in law? Or would they abstain from a vote if they do not have a policy on this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea – this is a question rather than a rebuttal of your argument – If the Green’s policy states:
Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.
Is it not logical to assume implicit if not explicit support for a woman’s right to abortion from this statement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One can see how ridiculous the argument is that men should not have a say in abortion by using counter examples such as:
Non-farmers should not have a say on animal welfare on farms.
Non-scientists should not have a say on vivisection.
Non-fishers should not have a say on sustainable fisheries
Non-parents should not have a say on child abuse
oh, and women past their reproductive age should not have a say on abortion either.
What abortion comes down to is whether you consider the foetus has any moral status as a human being, (and how much status, at what age, etc.), not what sex you are. And not everyone who opposes abortion is a religious fundamentalist. If they are, their arguments need to be evaluated on their merits and not simply dismissed because of their religion, any more than because of their sex.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Never the less the people most opposed to abortion are religious fundamentalists who believe that God makes everyone (I would have thought). No doubt that’s not how they would phrase it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have always found it interesting that the mainly conservative (and often “religious”) people who oppose abortion are more likely to support the concept of armed conflict as a way of solving international problems (with young adults sent to the firing line and expected to kill or maim other young adults who they don’t know, or to blow whole communities of civilians to smithereens).
As a mother I would rate my adult offspring as MUCH more worthy of “thou shalt not kill” protection than any embryo or fetus.
I have never needed to have an abortion. I was much too knowledgeable, organized, and in control for that, and neither of my two planned pregnancies produced an abnormal fetus. (I did have each of them checked by scan and amniocentesis.) Not all women are as fortunate. I strongly believe that it is a matter for the woman who is pregnant to decide decide whether or not she wishes her body to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok Zen Tiger. Instead of putting words in your mouth I will let you do it for yourself:
“It may be unpalatable for some-one to say “you killed a living being? and it may be unpalatable for a women to realise she is designed to nurture life, no matter how inconvenient it’s arrival. ”
I disagree that women are designed solely to nurture life, in the sense of getting pregnant and bringing up babies. You seem to be saying that that is exactly what they are here for. N’est pas? It may be one of a series of biological functions, but it is not the reason d’etre for a woman’s existence. Not in this day and age.
>>I don’t buy that my opinion is “wrong? just because you claim to have the weight of “countless? people on your side.
For the record I didn’t say that you were wrong. I said I didn’t buy it. I would say it is rather like taking the word of your university professor over the word of your next door neighbour’s second cousin (who runs a bakery).
>>In your ideal world JA – If a women has the right to choose an abortion, does the man have a right to say “no – I will care for the child? or do they have a right to say “I will not pay maintenance you must terminate the child? ?
You are right to ask these hard questions, and I agree the situation is difficult and multi-faced. I cannot answer them unequivocally. And it is not my place to. Like I said, I will not sit there and tell someone that they cannot be in control of their bodies, especially when that event will change everything in their lives. I support a woman’s right to govern her own body.
Have you ever been pregnant? If not, then you probably don’t understand how totally all-encompassing the process is. You may think it sounds easy to just go through the nine months and then hand the baby over to someone else to raise, and then go on your merry way. But it just doesn’t work like that. If it did, we wouldn’t be here talking about this. I agree with you that adoption would be perhaps be preferable in many cases over abortion. But that isn’t my decision to make.
Kiore 1:
>>One can see how ridiculous the argument is that men should not have a say in abortion by using counter examples such as….
Actually I agree. Men have a valid place in the discussion about abortion, but I believe ardently that they should not have the final word on the issue. I don’t agree with your examples though. I would say it is more like: a non-farmer telling a farmer how to run their land; a non-fisher telling a fisher how to fish, where, and with what. Etc, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
The tone of this thread is low even for you, in typical socialist/communist fashion you label everybody who is uncomfortable with abortion on demand as religious extremists.
Why do you insist on doing that?, there are plenty of us who are uneasy about the current abortion on demand policy who are not religious in any way shape or form.
As I have said elsewhere if we must have abortion then it should be inside the first twelve weeks, anything after that is murder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Life IS simple for you big bro!
Let’s add a rider to that shall we … “The mother will then be sentenced to life imprisonment, and any man proved to have fathered the unwanted fetus will be castrated.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
You really have a problem with anybody who does not follow the party line don’t you!.
Tell me where I have said that I want abortion stopped?, if you stop foaming at the mouth for one minute you may well be able to see that I have said that if we must have abortion then it should be done a lot earlier in the womans pregnancy.
In my opinion (and yes I realise that in your world the public are not allowed an opinion that differs from the leaders) I think that it is murder after 12 weeks, of course at that stage the father has no say in the matter (another goal of the Greens and the left in general)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
> kahikatea – this is a question rather than a rebuttal of your argument – If the Green’s policy states:
> “Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.”
> Is it not logical to assume implicit if not explicit support for a woman’s right to abortion from this statement?
It’s certainly logical to assume from that that the Green Party does not oppose abortion in all circumstances. But note that it refers to equity of access rather than endorsing unfettered access. As such, it is compatible with anything from ‘we’ll just check to make sure she’s not going to change her mind next week and wish she hadn’t had an abortion’ to ‘we’ll only allow abortion if continuing the pregnancy would be likely to cause complications which would kill the mother’.
Currently New Zealand law allows abortion if continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Dr Margaret Sparrow, who is staunchly pro-choice, has said that the law is currently being interpreted much more loosely than that. She wants the law changed to reflect current practice.
Some people who generally argue against abortion are prepared to accept it if the foetus was conceived through rape. I can certainly understand why one might want to allow it in that case, but allowing it only in that case does seem to imply that prohibiting it in other cases is more anti-choice than pro-life.
Another issue that comes up is abortion of a foetus with abnormalities. Those of us who were born with abnormalities tend to be the most opposed to this justification. The argument often comes down to ‘aborting foetuses with birth defects saves money which can be spent on better care for people with birth defects who have already been born’ vs ‘aborting foetuses with birth defects encourages disrespect for people with birth defects by sending the message that they should never have been born’. And all that is without thinking of a foetus as an entity with any rights of its own. Currently, this justification for abortion is not mentioned in the law, but it is effectively allowed on the grounds that having a baby with deformities may affect the mental health of the mother. If the people who wrote the law intended it to be interpreted in this way, they certainly weren’t very clear about it.
Those last 3 paragraphs give an idea of three issues in abortion law that people can disagree on, while still agreeing that whatever level of access exists should be consistent throughout the country rather than relying on the potentially differing views of medical staff in different areas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
> I have always found it interesting that the mainly conservative (and often “religious?) people who oppose abortion are more likely to support the concept of armed conflict as a way of solving international problems (with young adults sent to the firing line and expected to kill or maim other young adults who they don’t know, or to blow whole communities of civilians to smithereens).
Indeed. It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, which had pictures representing the invasion of Iraq, the new nuclear weapons being developed under Bush’s presidency, and the huge number of prisoners Bush had executed as governor of texas, and then showed Bush saying “as you can see, I’m pro-life”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now, then, BB!
You who have so strongly proclaimed so-called libertarian ideals, now proclaim that you have the right to decide what women do with their bodies.
The reality, BB, is that when the penis is no longer physically engaged, the only responsibility for what may ensue is the woman’s.
All these guys who complain about women aborting children are complete hypocrites – they are in themain the same guys who have avoided parental responsibility (or, worse, belted the mother of their children) and left her no choices other than abortion or DPB.
Can’t have it both ways, BB!!!
Reality of life is that women now rule – at least as far as fertility is concerned, which from a Green point of view is not a bad idea in terms of populaton policy either.
Us guys just gotta get used2it, BB!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# big bro Says:
> As I have said elsewhere if we must have abortion then it should be inside the first twelve weeks, anything after that is murder.
How do you work that out?
I’ve always found it difficult to see how you can draw a line in the sand and conclude that it’s murder after that time, but not before that time. There would have to be something pretty fundamental that changes at precisely that time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> Or would they abstain from a vote if they do not have a policy on this?
No, they would make it a free vote.
Generally speaking (but not always) when it comes to concience vote the individual Green MPs votes for the liberal rather than conservative viewpoints.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
“I’ve always found it difficult to see how you can draw a line in the sand and conclude that it’s murder after that time, but not before that time. There would have to be something pretty fundamental that changes at precisely that time.”
Yes it is difficult to draw a line, however that line must be drawn somewhere or we get to the stage where we say that as long as we kill the child before it takes its first breath then it is abortion and not murder.
At the risk of repeating myself all I am saying is that IMHO abortions should be harder to get and be performed a lot earlier in the process, the current abortion on demand system is being abused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi JA Prufrock.
I disagree that women are designed solely to nurture life…
And where did I say “solely”?
You seem to be saying that that is exactly what they are here for. N’est pas? [sic]
Well, given you want to diminish the right to a male having a strong opinion on this, it seems you want it both ways. Yes, I am saying women are uniquely qualified to bear and better designed to nurture babies. I’m not saying that they are therefore obliged to do this for that reason alone. They can do what ever they want with their life, and more power to them. There are some basic responsibilities though that we all have as human beings. I wont spell them out here though as hopefully, my point has been made.
It may be one of a series of biological functions, but it is not the reason [sic] d’etre for a woman’s existence. Not in this day and age.
It can be one of the reasons for her existence, if she so desires. It doesn’t have to be the only one, and it doesn’t have to be one at all. On the other hand, if you (generic, applies to fathers and mothers) have a child, you (generic) are morally obliged to look after it.
You are right to ask these hard questions, and I agree the situation is difficult and multi-faced. I cannot answer them unequivocally. And it is not my place to.
Well, if not your place, then whose? I realise you have already decided. But there will be other situations that you see it would be your place to intervene and advocate for the life of a human. Say the Kahui twins for example. You might say “none of my business”, and that’s your opinion, but many people would, if asked, think that somehow, we collectively have a responsibility to work towards a society that cares for the helpless. That indeed seems to be the justification for the Greens and pushing the repeal of s59.
It seems my job, and others like me, need to argue that an unborn life is still a life, and that if people are going to put themselves in a situation where they create life, and then expect to end it when it turns out to be inconvenient for them, that this discussion happens, and we work out how we can help such people, in a terrible situation, in a way that maximises respect for life. I think we’ve pretty much won the debate for unborn life after 26 weeks, but their are still intellectuals such as Peter Singer who argue that termination is permissable within 30 days of being born, and many who agree with him. Do you? Am I proving a male is entitled to discuss where this line should be?
Have you ever been pregnant? If not, then you probably don’t understand how totally all-encompassing the process is.
Of course not, I’m male. But my wife has been pregnant twice, and she has shared that experience with me as much as possible. I was present for our two home births and I went through my own pain watching my wife struggle with the pain of child birth – I found I could barely cope with seeing her in so much pain, for so long. I let her dig her nails into my legs as I supported her in a position she found most comfortable until I too was shaking from the effort. I delivered my baby, and cut the cord. I had to endure seeing my wife struggle with losing the placenta, and losing far too much blood, and shared in her joy as she held our baby, thankfully healthy, thankfully normal. And then did it all again with our second. So, I agree, this is nothing compared to what she went through, but I don’t trivialise this for one moment.
You may think it sounds easy to just go through the nine months and then hand the baby over to someone else to raise, and then go on your merry way.
Err, no I don’t. I just happen to think that as hard as this all is, it is still better than willfully stopping a beating heart.
But it just doesn’t work like that. If it did, we wouldn’t be here talking about this. I agree with you that adoption would be perhaps be preferable in many cases over abortion. But that isn’t my decision to make.
And it’s not my decision either. But as I said, I’ve discovered some women were not happy about the choices they made, and some of it stems from the pressure single mothers are put under, from the father thinking they don’t need to be around and from lack of education. Bad choices are being made that lead to this situation where another bad choice might be made. Killing an innocent life shouldn’t be that easy, to me. I take a strong position on this because it is an opportunity to try to convince others that we must collectively hold life more sacred without getting in the face of people down at the clinic… I realise there are no easy answers, but to me, remaining silent is an abdication of responsibility to find a better solution. PS: And blogging about it is not the only thing I’m doing about this….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro
I have worked with young women who have experienced unwanted pregnancy and abortion. It is not an easy time for them, and some never really recover.
Every one of those fetuses also had a father who did not practise “safe sex”. That area should be a matter of urgent concern for our society.
I strongly believe that when and how an abortion is done is a matter for the medical profession to decide, in consultation with the pregnant woman who is the patient.
The optimum timing of that abortion is a matter that Society can discuss and can provide guidelines for the medical profession. Guidelines are all they should be.
We would do much better to spend our time working on ways to help stop the need for abortion in the first place, again remembering that every conception needs both a man and a woman who did not practice reliable safe sex .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad
Woman can do whatever they like with their bodies, and as it seems you are determined to accuse me of things I have not said I need to clarify that NOWHERE have I said I want abortion banned.
What they DO NOT have the right to do Toad is commit murder, IMHO anything after twelve weeks is murder.
You may also like to reconsider your stupid point about libertarian ideals, unlike those from the left I do not rigorously adhere to the party line, you know better than most that my feelings on animal welfare differ greatly from the traditional right wing “ideal” however in an effort to make a cheap political point you choose to overlook this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
I have had another read of your post and I have to say it is pathetic, that type of crap does not help the debate one little bit.
“All these guys who complain about women aborting children are complete hypocrites – they are in themain the same guys who have avoided parental responsibility (or, worse, belted the mother of their children) and left her no choices other than abortion or DPB.”
That type of “logic” is frighteningly similar to the crap that Comrade Bradford came out with during the S59 “debate”, who can forget her pearler “all men who smack their kids are pedophiles”, I sure hope she is speaking at a public meeting near me this year, I would love to ask her a few questions about that little gem.
Abortion on demand is going to be a thing of the past Toad, get used to the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
“Every one of those fetuses also had a father who did not practise “safe sex?. That area should be a matter of urgent concern for our society”
I am sure the mother also had something to do with it as well.
“I strongly believe that when and how an abortion is done is a matter for the medical profession to decide, in consultation with the pregnant woman who is the patient”
Agreed, but not after 12 weeks.
“The optimum timing of that abortion is a matter that Society can discuss and can provide guidelines for the medical profession. Guidelines are all they should be”
There MUST be guidelines, strange that a party who supports guidelines in every other facet of our lives is so relaxed about killing babies.
“We would do much better to spend our time working on ways to help stop the need for abortion in the first place, again remembering that every conception needs both a man and a woman who did not practice reliable safe sex ”
Agreed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# eredwen Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
> We would do much better to spend our time working on ways to help stop the need for abortion in the first place, again remembering that every conception needs both a man and a woman who did not practice reliable safe sex .
We do indeed. It’s worth noting that the United States, with its abstinence-only sex education, has one of the highest abortion rates in the OECD (I think Japan may be higher, but I’m not sure about that). Conversely, the Northern European countries that have the most comprehensive sex education have some of the lowest rates (Ireland probably succeeds in having a lower abortion rate by making it illegal). So generally, if we want less abortion, we need to have more sex education. The main anti-abortion groups don’t seem to recognise this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB: I actually think abortion on request (by the expectant mother) is a good idea. An unwanted child is the very child who is most likely to be an abused child.
I had thought that the law was reasonably settled in that regard. Seems now it is not.
But as a man I have to say: roll on the feminist revolution – hey, it’s actually been good to me, if not for all men here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roe vs Wade in Freakonomics is an interesting read. In summary, if you make abortions easier to access, you’ll lower the overall crime statistics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Its a “good idea” to kill babies?
Thats hardly a non violent attitude is it.
Really I am not surprised, and this is where you and I will always disagree, again it is the lefts refusal to ensure that the population take any personal responsibility for their actions, its a case of “don’t worry, the state will look after you”
For goodness sake, we have the pill, condoms, and the morning after pill, if a woman still manages to fall pregnant after all that lot then she should have to struggle to have the child killed, in no case should that child be killed after twelve weeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nature kills a lot of them after 12 weeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, BB, beter to kill them when after they are born, as with the Kahui twins, for whom whoever of the family got left with the kids on the day concerned could not cope!!!
Really!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“So, BB, beter to kill them when after they are born, as with the Kahui twins, for whom whoever of the family got left with the kids on the day concerned could not cope”
Think about it, that is what YOU are advocating, where would you have the cut off point Toad?, abortions at eight and a half months because the woman decides she no longer likes the idea of being pregnant? or should be just kill them as soon as they are born and call that abortion?
And really, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel when you use the Kahui family in support of your argument, the ironic thing is of course it is the left that allows the likes of the Kahuis to exist on benefits, in all honestly you (the left) are a big part of the problem.
Oh hang on…..I forgot, Sue B’s bill was going to stop child killings wasn’t it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is a good read:
January 22, 2008, 9:45 am
What Do Declining Abortion Rates Mean for Crime in the Future?
By Steven D. Levitt
John Donohue and I have argued that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s reduced crime in the 1990s. The logic is simple: unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to be criminals, and legalized abortion reduces the number of unwanted children. Consequently, legalized abortion lowers crime in the future.
So what does the steady decline in abortions performed in recent years predict for future crime patterns? The answer is not obvious, because it depends on why abortion rates are falling, and I’m not sure we know the answer to that question.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/abortion/?scp=2-b&sq=abortion&st=nyt
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro
Foetuses are not babies.
An abortion is not killing a baby. An abortion is terminating a pregnancy.
Making your opinions sound more severe by labelling things in such a melodramatic way doesn’t make your argument more convincing, it just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.
And to go back a bit, Zen Tiger: I pretty tired of running around in circles with you, and as this descends into a spellathon-to-make-one-feel-more-superior I prefer to leave you to your beliefs. But for the record, I made it pretty clear that I think men do have a valid place in the abortion discussion, I did take a stand, however, that they should not have the final say in regards to a woman’s person health and future. Women have the right to govern their own bodies. And it’s nice and all very touching for you to have shared in your partner’s experience, and congratulations on a home birth. But I stand by my point. If YOU have never been pregnant, then YOU do not understand the gravity of the experience, therefore YOU should think twice about telling another person how to make choices about their own bodies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
f#ck toad..!..go take a bath..!
abortion is a good idea..because a child ‘might’ be abused..?
and you cite the kahui tragedy to justify general abortion..?
does this indicate the depth of intellectual rigor you have applied to this question..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – Macsyna (or however she spells it) King, through the trial, came across to me, from the evidence I saw reported, as a woman whom I thought was likely to have never been fit to be a mother.
Don’t blame it on the DPB, because she actually had a partner, and I don’t think you can ever legally constrain people from having children.
But, on the evidence at trial, she was one who clearly should not have had their care, and, in hindsight, they should have been removed from her at birth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
prufrock..
when exactly does a foetus become a baby..?
(just wondering..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
your feckin point..?..toad..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u: I didn’t cite the Kahui tragedy to justify abortion. That was just putting a real situation into context.
I just believe it is a women’s right to choose. The father doesn’t have to carry the fetus for 9 months, and even after that quite often chooses to take no responsibility for the baby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
quite often chooses to take no responsibility for the baby.
That sounds just a bit negative. I think the majority of fathers take some measure of responsibility for the child. Many of these are in committed relationships. When we speak of abortions we are speaking of around 18,000 per year, versus around 61,000 live births. Of those live births, I’d expect that “quite often” the father is pretty happy. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but given that the lines of some arguments are heading towards “unwanted children cause crime, so lets assume the abortions are doing us a favour” that phrase seems a tad pessimistic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U
A foetus becomes a baby when it is born. Then it is a person and has legal rights, like the rest of us. Welcome to the world, baby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and it is ok to abort foetuses..?
do you put no time-limits on abortion..?
and the baby/foetus inside the mother has absolutely no ‘rights’..?
untill birth..?
do you also support the mothers’ ‘right’ during that pregnancy to get/be a serial drunk etc..
does the foetus/baby have no ‘rights’ in that situation..?
‘rights’ to grow in a poison-free environment i guess would be the gist of that argument..
and i guess if you were to concede that ‘right’..
that would raise the ‘thorny’ issue of posssibly..the right not to be ‘terminated’..?
your thoughts..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An abortion is not killing a baby. An abortion is terminating a pregnancy.
Making your opinions sound more severe by labelling things in such a melodramatic way doesn’t make your argument more convincing, it just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.
Denying that an unborn baby is effectively not a human being is equally as melodramatic.
We therefore need to stick with facts. A babies heartbeat starts at around 5 weeks of development. It is pretty obvious after 9 weeks, running at around 155-195 beats per minute. Terminating a pregnancy does end a beating heart.
Moving on, a premature birth is viable after 26 weeks, and we have many incidents of earlier births being successful. Terminating a pregnancy after this point is killing.
Whether the baby relies on a human incubator, or a machine, a doctor is still being sent in to kill, and the baby has no say in this.
So putting aside the morality of the situation, and who gets to say what happens with their body, I cannot understand why you choose to believe that killing an unborn child is not killing, as distinct from saying it is killing, but the mother has that right simply because it relies on her body for its continued survival.
Of course, the baby will rely on some-one for it’s continued survival once it’s born too, and if the mother doesn’t care for the baby can be found guilty of neglect. Arguing with your logic, why should she be once the baby is born? As you say, this baby will affect her life choices and can be a great inconvenience to whatever plans she otherwise has. What’s changed for you?
Science has shown us that the moment of birth is not the moment the child is “alive”, it’s much earlier than that.
Peter Singer defines human life as “self aware” and on that basis, believes children can be killed after they are born, up to a year I think (he suggests a month so that the Mother doesn’t bond with the child).
That’s a pretty flawed definition of human life, but I don’t have time to go into right now. It’s pointless unless others here declare support for Singer.
What is your rationale? Perhaps if you declared a line – like 26 weeks, or 12 weeks, I might be able to see better how you choose to define life. Do you have a line? Where is it? Are you saying if the women goes through 36 weeks of pregnancy and suddenly decides to “terminate” that is OK?
Do you support assisted suicide too? What if the mother is depressed and not thinking straight? Do we offer assistance to help her suicide if she asks (on the basis she’ll probably try anyway, just as we say that she’ll probably try to get an abortion illegally anyway)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a mess…
Frog, if I were you I’d not have bothered opening this up.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
Not one word of this as has not been said before.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
foetus, baby, pre-born, teenager, – all just words to describe human beings at various stages of their life. Using Personhood as the point of being born doesn’t account for the situation I asked about earlier – what happens if a women is in labour and decides to kill the baby (or whatever you want to call it), do you instruct the doctor to do this? What if the doctor refuses? Can he be sued for violation of her rights in that no-one stepped forward to kill her baby for her?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
c’mon b.j..
i know this is a subject that most people avoid..(the greens aren’t alone in that..)
but i feel this discourse is being held here in a reasonably civilised manner..which is rare in this debate..
and i am actually interested in the thought/logic processes people from both sides go through to reach their (often absolutist) conclusions/declarations..
i too am puzzled by the anti-contraception attitudes held by many anti-abortionists..
just as i am puzzled by the (often grim-faced) absolutist declarations that the mother has the absolute ‘right’ to terminate/kill/end the life-potential she carries inside her..
both positions to me are extremeist/anti-intellectual nonsense..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
just back to the personal again..for a mo’..
i am a vegan largely because of revulsion at the suffering/death of living/feeling creatures..
cos’ of the institutional violence against animals..
and abortion is..if nothing else..an act of violence..
..causing premature death..
so..y’know..!
and i do know/have known women who have deeply regretted having had abortions..
constantly reminded by the what ifs of seeing children the age theirs would have been..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wow. Well said phil. Couldn’t agree more with your sentiment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis,
I just have a couple of comment about whether aborting a pregnancy is murder.
A baby has pretty much no chance of surviving outside the womb before 20 weeks, so effectively they are not a living human. If the mother dies, or the baby is born before this time it will simply die. There is no comparison to even a single cell organism, as they can survive on their own. So I don’t believe you can truely call a foetus that is not viable a LIVING human, as they are effitively on life support untill they have developed enough to become totally seperated from the mother. It would be like saying that stopping CPR is murder because you are no longer providing the flow of blood to a patient’s brain.
Also. Would it be considered murder to remove an unformed parasitic twin from asymetrical conjoined twins if it improved the quality of life of the healthy twin?
Although I do support the use of abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, I don’t think it should be taken lightly. And I don’t think any woman who has an abortion should be treated like a murder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A fetus is a human from conception. The moment they go from 23 to 46 chromosomes, they are a distinctly unique being. Within weeks they will be a separate living entity within their Mother – with even possibly even their own blood type because they have their own circulatory system. It is a living human being, it just relies on it’s incubator. One day, no doubt science will even replace that.
A man dropped into the Antarctic in winter will die quickly unless he gets into an artificial incubator structure – like a tent with lots of insulation. Does he cease to be a living human being whilst in the Antarctic?
If he crashes his plane there, and you are in a helicopter with a rescue pack, is it manslaughter if you decide not to throw down the gear? At the least, isn’t it immoral?
I think this is clearly murder, we just don’t want to say it. That is different though than saying that there is no justification for it. I would agree that killing some-one in self defence is murder, but I wouldn’t want to send them to jail for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To quote some males (if I may) that work for the pro-choice camp:
Neville Sender, M.D., who runs an abortion clinic, Metropolitan Medical Service, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: “We know it is killing, but the states permit killing under certain circumstances.”
Warren Hern, M.D., of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder Colorado: “There is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers: “Women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing. You’re ending a life.”
You’d think they would know, wouldn’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis accurately reflects the actual cause of those seeking a review of the abortion legislation. They wish to define life as beginning at conception and thus ban the morning after pill as well as abortion. It is I suppose, the anti-abortion form of creation “science”.
Let us note that this science is not far from the view that sex is only for the procreation of life within marriage and that no other form of sex act is valid – thus a ban on condom use (and having sex knowing one is not fertile – off cycle or over age?).
I suppose, if one relates the point of the species having sex as to procreate, then in all science one would only have sex when one knew that conception was possible. The burden of knowledge of our kind indeed (or as the Church and bible puts it – the seed of Er and Onan should not be used in vain) or as Paul put in Romans Chapter 1 – we are in the “Creator” God’s image when we engage in procreative sex (bio-determinsim of the species) and not otherwise.
Knowing this creation science, we are told by the celibate ones not to marry and divorce – presumably so we take care of any children conceived.
The ultimate morality related arguement (where sex only results in life and where a result in death is minimised as far as humanly possible) leads to no condoms being available, the contraceptive pill as well as divorce being banned.
But if one wants to confine this to the issue of life and right to life and the prevention of killing and ignore the wider religious morality parameter … .
If murder is not just the act of killing, but also the act of neglect by those who could have saved a life. Is not the cause of life related to universal health care – so that not one human anywhere in the world dies for lack of food shelter, or health care?
We have the power to do this by organising the way the world operates to ensure this. Would such a world war with each other?
Yet the USA, home of a passionate anti-abortion cause, is not in leadership of such a cause. Now why is this, the reason is religion. They believe in the unrighteous being killed at the end time – they have death sentence law in their own nation, refuse to provide universal health care to their own citizens and they judge the world in this light and in the name of their own survival first security. This only brings conflict and division.
Now back to the welfare of the people actually involved in this case.
Who is in charge of a womans fertilty body? Who decides when she has sex and when she chooses to have children?
From the obvious answer – to who decides whether she gets pregnant when she did not intend to. We the citizens of the state where she lives can determine abortion law applying for her. The question is, do we wish to use it to take choice off her in this situation and decide for the women involved.
Well do we?
As the age at which the unborn can be kept alive after “delivery” from the birth mother” declines there would logically be an increasing public (capability) interest in sustaining the life (as it is less dependent on its host to be alive). And while people have the right to deny operations being performed society can end the right of the woman to her choice. This is why there is a worldwide trend to move to reduce the period in which the woman decides even as abortions are more readily available (with the possible exception of some areas of the USA).
Personally I would rather we focus on the grand compromise of the compromised man himself (Mr Hillary Rodham) – that abortions be rare, legal and affordable.
If we are to be co-operative about this – this means ways to avoid them while they are legal and affordable.
My favourites are – sex education (health/fertility basics, and then peer pressure and the morality/lifestyle debate), a minimum age for consent of 14 (the age 16 where over 18 partners are involved continuing), alcohol youth venues for those under 18, a double safe contraception campaign (condom plus), women restraining their alcohol intake when fertile, access to contraception and MAP, support for those raising children.
PS
Some want to use the poor unfortunates to solve the problem of infertile couples banned from using fertility treatment services by their church (which is indicative of one source of the line of argument, but also indicative that they do not want the cost of supporting the woman in keeping the child she did not plan to have. Here I note the link between those who cite some life science but ignore the wider issue of meeting the cost of supporting the unwanted children or of supporting the many people dying in the world by our neglect). The world is full of those concerned to impose their morality for life onto others, but who have no great cause in financially supporting the children of other families in need or of the poor abroad. This is why we are so easily divided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
clarification
to who decides “WHEN” she gets pregnant when she did not intend to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis accurately reflects the actual cause of those seeking a review of the abortion legislation. They wish to define life as beginning at conception and thus ban the morning after pill as well as abortion. It is I suppose, the anti-abortion form of creation “science?.
Let us note that this science is not far from the view that sex is only for the procreation of life within marriage and that no other form of sex act is valid – thus a ban on condom use (and having sex knowing one is not fertile – off cycle or over age?).
I suppose, if one relates the point of the species having sex as to procreate, then in all science one would only have sex when one knew that conception was possible. The burden of knowledge of our kind indeed (or as the Church and bible puts it – the seed of Er and Onan should not be used in vain) or as Paul put in Romans Chapter 1 – we are in the “Creator? God’s image when we engage in procreative sex (bio-determinsim of the species) and not otherwise.
Knowing this creation science, we are told by the celibate ones not to marry and divorce – presumably so we take care of any children conceived.
The ultimate morality related arguement (where sex only results in life and where a result in death is minimised as far as humanly possible) leads to no condoms being available, the contraceptive pill as well as divorce being banned.
But if one wants to confine this to the issue of life and right to life and the prevention of killing and ignore the wider religious morality parameter … .
If murder is not just the act of killing, but also the act of neglect by those who could have saved a life. Is not the cause of life related to universal health care – so that not one human anywhere in the world dies for lack of food shelter, or health care?
We have the power to do this by organising the way the world operates to ensure this. Would such a world war with each other?
Yet the USA, home of a passionate anti-abortion cause, is not in leadership of such a cause. Now why is this, the reason is religion. They believe in the unrighteous being killed at the end time – they have death sentence law in their own nation, refuse to provide universal health care to their own citizens and they judge the world in this light and in the name of their own survival first security. This only brings conflict and division.
Now back to the welfare of the people actually involved in this case.
Who is in charge of a womans fertilty body? Who decides when she has sex and when she chooses to have children?
From the obvious answer – to who decides WHEN she gets pregnant when she did not intend to. We the citizens of the state where she lives can determine abortion law applying for her. The question is, do we wish to use it to take choice off her in this situation and decide for the women involved.
Well do we?
As the age at which the unborn can be kept alive after “delivery? from the birth mother? declines, there would logically be an increasing public (capability) interest in sustaining the life (as it is less dependent on its host to be alive). And while people have the right to deny operations being performed, society can end the right of the woman to her choice. This is why there is a worldwide trend to move to reduce the period in which the woman decides even as abortions are more readily available (with the possible exception of some areas of the USA).
Personally I would rather we focus on the grand compromise of the compromised man himself (Mr Hillary Rodham) – that abortions be rare, legal and affordable.
If we are to be co-operative about this – this means ways to avoid them while they are legal and affordable.
My favourites are – sex education (health/fertility basics, and then peer pressure and the morality/lifestyle debate), a minimum age for consent of 14 (the age 16 where over 18 partners are involved continuing), alcohol youth venues for those under 18, a double safe contraception campaign (condom plus), women restraining their alcohol intake when fertile, access to contraception and MAP, support for those raising children.
PS
Some want to use the poor unfortunates to solve the problem of infertile couples banned from using fertility treatment services by their church (which is indicative of one source of the line of argument, but also indicative that they do not want the cost of supporting the woman in keeping the child she did not plan to have. Here I note the link between those who cite some life science but ignore the wider issue of meeting the cost of supporting the unwanted children or of supporting the many people dying in the world by our neglect). The world is full of those concerned to impose their morality for life onto others, but who have no great cause in financially supporting the children of other families in need or of the poor abroad. This is why we are so easily divided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen Tiger,
By contrast,
what about the behaviour of the United States in Iraq and … ? and … ?
the behaviour of Israel in Lebanon and Palestine and … ?
the use of (and consequent vaporization and spread of) depleted uranium which is a destroyer of life in perpetuity!
Most of THAT killing, and the killing elsewhere in the World, is instigated and done by MEN, and all the victims are viable human lives, many of them young children whose mothers bore them full term and cherished them.
But WOMEN who choose, for whatever reason, to terminate a pregnancy taking place in their own bodies, apparently need to be CONTROLLED (by men?)
As my kids would say “Yeah Right” ( followed by a shrug of dismissal!)
Let us make a bargain.
When the men stop their (seemingly acceptable) killing of other humans, that will be the time to work towards ensuring that women stop theirs. Come to think of it, if the men were responsible enough to ensure that they did not impregnate their partners unless that was wanted, almost all abortions would not be necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(doh) alcohol FREE youth venues for those under 18 – people who socialise more maturely than adults will probably not have the adult consequences to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, so some men kill, so some women can kill too. That sounds logical. Not.
Some of those Palestinians are mothers teaching their children to be martyrs. And you know, I don’t agree with that either. How about we just try to save lives, one at a time, wherever we can, and drop this “all men are evil” attitude.
And I haven’t actually stated that I believe women shouldn’t have some choice in this matter. After all, it’s their bodies, right? I’m firstly trying to get past this presumption that what is being killed, terminated, aborted or whatever is not human. Because I believe that women might see it differently if they see the truth in that.
And as for this being a control issue by men – I think toad gave the game away as a pro-choice male:But as a man I have to say: roll on the feminist revolution – hey, it’s actually been good to me, if not for all men here.
Maybe its the children who should be saying “why are our lives controlled by these feminists that only think of themselves?” At least, if they were around to hear that they were not wanted, you could understand them thinking it was an issue of control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen Tiger writes :
“I’m firstly trying to get past this presumption that what is being killed terminated aborted or whatever is not human. Because I believe that women might see it differently if they see the truth in that.”
Do you not realize how PATRONISING that statement is ?
Those poor little “air head” females. They have no idea that they are carrying a potential child. If only they could get the truth explained to them, all will be well and those fetuses will be saved and allowed to grow to full term …
What then Zen Tiger? Will the grateful mother thank you for pointing out the error of her ways and leap at the chance to bring up that little bundle of joy that she didn’t realize that she really wanted?
Or will she gladly and easily give up the baby to adoptive parents?
(Perhaps the child can grow up and have a meaningful career in the Armed Services … )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“J.A. Prufrock Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Phil U
A foetus becomes a baby when it is born. Then it is a person and has legal rights, like the rest of us. Welcome to the world, baby”
Oh really, so you favour abortions (killing) at eight months then do you?
“Big Bro
Foetuses are not babies.
An abortion is not killing a baby. An abortion is terminating a pregnancy.
Making your opinions sound more severe by labelling things in such a melodramatic way doesn’t make your argument more convincing, it just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.”
Since when is it a womans right to commit murder?, I understand perfectly well thank you very much, you however seem to have a problem with anybody who does not share your barbaric view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Think about it, that is what YOU are advocating, where would you have the cut off point Toad?, abortions at eight and a half months because the woman decides she no longer likes the idea of being pregnant? or should be just kill them as soon as they are born and call that abortion?
I said nothing of the sort, BB.
Actually, my position is that abortion is the worst form of family planning, but it better than no family planning at all. We could be doing moer as a society to encourage contraceptive use. There are still many men out there who think that condom use us unmanly.
But we also need to acknowledge that sometimes contraception will fail, or that contraception will be forgotten because of intoxication or just the sheer strength of the sex drive.
An unwanted fetus becomes an unwanted child, and an unwanted child is the most likely to be abused. We see far too much of kids being abused and neglected by incompetent parents already, without the State forcing incompetent parents to have more children.
As far as the cut-off point is concerned, I would suggest that, other than when the woman’s life is in danger if she were to continue the pregnancy, it should be the stage of development when the baby is likely to be able to survive outside the uterus. I’m no expert in paediatrics, but I understand that a fetus under 20 weeks has no chance of independent survival. Where do you get your figure of 12 weeks from BB?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“An unwanted fetus becomes an unwanted child, and an unwanted child is the most likely to be abused. We see far too much of kids being abused and neglected by incompetent parents already, without the State forcing incompetent parents to have more children.”
Ever hear of adoption?, I am also not sure that your stance on the state is consistent, at the moment we have the state telling us that we cannot allow kids to eat a pie or we cannot smack them yet you want woman to retain the right to kill unwanted babies at any stage of their pregnancy without reference to the state.
Look, I have no issue with aborting a baby if the mothers life is GENUINELY at risk, I also have no problem with abortions being performed when they pregnancy is the result of rape but there is no justification IMHO for killing a child after 12 weeks.
If we go back to the Kahui’s for a moment, what would be wrong with the “state” offering inducements to the likes of King and Kahui to undergo state funded sterilisations?
I have suggested before that I would not be against paying scum like them a one off sum of $50,000 and a guaranteed benefit for life as long as they are prepared to undergo an irreversible sterilisation procedure.
While $50,000 might sound expensive it is a lot cheaper in the long run and anyway there is the very real chance that these low life will kill themselves through booze and drugs as soon as they get their hands on the money, I fail to see a down side.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad..i am sure i am not the only one gob-smacked by your advocating abortion as a form of preventing the mistreatment of children..
what sort of convoluted logic leads you to that fall-back position..
another puzzling aspect of this whole debate..
..is that many anti-abortionists show their concerns end at the birth of the child..
..many/most(?) of them are rightwingers..
..who believe that sole-parents etc..and their children..
..should be left to rot..should get no state-support…
funny that..eh..?
(as i said before..the thought/logic processes both sides of this debate cling to..fascinate/puzzle me..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
there is a (sorta) related thread over at kiwiblog..
where i am arguing/supporting the thesis that rightwingers are selfih people..
..who don’t see/care past the end of their own noses..
(the thread dosen’t show them in a good light..
..and/but it is all in their own words..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(ahem)..here is the link..
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/06/selfish_righties.html#comment-454975
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s try again: Where do you get your figure of 12 weeks from BB?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But I stand by my point. If YOU have never been pregnant, then YOU do not understand the gravity of the experience, therefore YOU should think twice about telling another person how to make choices about their own bodies.
The things I am saying have all been said by women too. But to take your logic further, a women who has never been pregnant cannot possibly know the gravity of the situation until she’s been through at least one child birth. So abortion only to actual mothers then?
Would you think twice about telling a person not to do hard drugs, like P or heroin? None of your business?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, agree or disagree – terminating a pregnancy is ending a life?
If you agree then what I said is not patronising. If you disagree, then your position is one based on ignorance. People do not want to face the fact that they have ended a life. I’d rather debate the morality of that decision (rights of the women over rights of the unborn) than the prove to some-one that a human was killed.
Those poor little “air head? females. They have no idea that they are carrying a potential child. If only they could get the truth explained to them, all will be well and those fetuses will be saved and allowed to grow to full term …
No, all will not be well. If they don’t care for the child or they abandon the child, there is going to be heartbreak. The threat of that, from what I can see, is the common justification for killing. I can appreciate that stance, just as I understand people might need to kill in self defence. However, I don’t agree with it. Therefore, whatever we can do to reduce these situations is worth doing. I am in agreement on your earlier points around that idea.
(Perhaps the child can grow up and have a meaningful career in the Armed Services … )
Nice use of sarcasm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, 12 weeks is a fully formed human being. Recent studies indicate such beings can experience pain and stress. It is not a question of viability out of the womb, but one of the methods to kill a being at that stage of development will increasingly been proven to be “inhumane”.
I’ve also seen studies that show woman who abort during the 12-16 week stage are far more likely to suffer severe depression over women who experienced miscarriages at that stage. The “baby” is far more real and has a far greater impact on the psych at that point (from what I’ve read and can imagine).
At the very least in this debate, could we agree that the mother, if entitled to this decision, is incumbent to decide relatively quickly. I’d be interested in the pro-choice people indicating if they have a line of x many weeks – to see what the range is. I appreciate that BB has drawn a line – one that this society of ours in the main seems to accept as “an uneasy compromise”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a map of the abortion debate here:
http://debatemapper.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“Let’s try again: Where do you get your figure of 12 weeks from BB?”
“We therefore need to stick with facts. A babies heartbeat starts at around 5 weeks of development. It is pretty obvious after 9 weeks, running at around 155-195 beats per minute. Terminating a pregnancy does end a beating heart”
That sounds good enough for me, now how about you tell me when you would like the cut off point to be? or do you favour killing a child at eight and a half months if the woman decides she no longer wants the child?, after all you are the one who thinks it is a womans right to kill a child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U, there are actually a lot of people that put their money and efforts where their mouths are, rather than just holding an opinion. The people I know in this category are by and large are typically conservative, and some are religious.
It’s not so much a left/right divide for this topic, but I agree with you that it isn’t hard to find a self-centred righty in this debate and that does not impress me.
I wouldn’t necessarily mistake arguing for less welfare support as a rejection in supporting unwanted babies though. Would some “low quality” parents be more careful about having kids if they didn’t get a pile of cash for them that they spend on anything but the kids? Would they be more likely to give them up for adoption to a more loving home? Could we be funding school meals rather than bigger welfare checks (healthy ones of course)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: …now how about you tell me when you would like the cut off point to be?
I have already told you BB – here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, toad is down for 20 weeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Thanks, I had missed that.
Interesting that you do not consider stopping a beating heart to be murder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTIger
>>So abortion only to actual mothers then?
Yes! You have grasped it! Though I would replace ‘mothers’ with ‘pregnant women’. Exactly who else would you give an abortion to? I’m wondering? To illustrate my point, a good friend of mine historically held the view abortions were wrong. She was quite adamant on that point. Until she fell pregnant to a partner (long term partner, I add). At that point she changed her opinion. And had an abortion. So yeah. Until you are in that position yourself (which for you, is never), you should refrain from passing judgements and life sentences on others.
I will not be drawn into a debate over how many weeks a woman has before she is forced to continue an unwanted preganacy. I argue for a woman’s right to govern her own body. As soon as I start putting my own limitations and criteria on that argument, I become no better than you. I know you are not going to like my stance, and no doubt suggest that I therefore condone a woman can abort up until the baby is born. All I can say is that my experience (as a woman, and a mother – so I know better than all you males on this), is there is a point of no return for a pregnant woman. I would be interested if you can find ONE CASE of a woman wanting to abort a pregnancy at six months, or seven months, or eight months, without a sound medical explaination for it (natal depression, hormonal imbalances ect. And those extreme cases are incredibly rare). But trying to argue that if we cannot agree on a number of weeks for termination therefore we cannot allow abortions at all is sinister.
I am not surprised that the arguments against abortion here are held by men. Not surprised at all. Shame shame shame
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J A Prufrock
“I am not surprised that the arguments against abortion here are held by men. Not surprised at all. Shame shame shame”
Shame because we want to stop seeing babies murdered?
The argument about a womans body ends the minute she conceives another body insider her own, you support murder, nothing more or less.
It is people like you who would make me reconsider my stance on abortion, when ever I am faced with the selfish feminist view that it is a womans body blah blah…
You ask for one example and while I cannot provide that example the fact remains that YOU support the right of a woman to kill the child at any stage of the pregnancy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whatever big bro. Would be great if you could see me with my friends looking at your post right now…with the looks on our faces….the hand gestures…the smiles….You don’t affect me that way I am sure you would like. I am not intimitated by you. I don’t think you’re clever. You are not changing my mind on anything, however much you like putting words in my mouth.
I think we agree on something at last “It is people like you who would make me reconsider my stance on abortion, when ever I am faced with…” I was wondering how long it would take for someone to descend to that level. Glad it was you and not me!!
And just for a bit of perspective. Abortion has been around for thousands of years. So it makes me laugh that you little men think you can shake your “moralisitic” fists at us “murdering” women and stop abortions from happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J A
FFS, at NO stage have I tried to intimidate you, why is it that you lefties always insist on playing the victim?
I note that you have not refuted the allegation that YOU support abortions at eight months.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J A
Have a look at this post lifted from Kiwiblog, while you continue to accuse me of things I have not said you might want to consider what a qualified medical professional has to say on the matter.
“I have done many sessions as a GP and I have yet to have anyone I have referred for an abortion turned down. All my colleagues tell me the same thing. Therefore we have de facto abortion on demand. I have serious reservations about the absurdly liberal interpretation of the law as demonstrated by Dr MacKay. There is good evidence that abortion has significant long-term psychological effects. I find it very hard to understand how it can be considered ethical to grant an abortion to someone on the vague grounds that they might become depressed, when there is hard evidence that an abortion has a definite chance of causing that depression.
Abortion is a non-trivial medical procedure with established surgical and mental health risks. It even has a (very small) mortality. It is certainly not a minor procedure like “pulling teeth?. As such, it should not be used as a form of emergency contraception, which is what abortion on demand is, effectively.
As the very least, there should be a full and frank rational debate on the law as it stands. I am not sure a referendum would be suitable. I would favour a select committee as being more likely to remain rational.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro
I don’t have to refute that allegation. I think it’s a proposterous question. Here’s that deal. You show me ONE CASE of a woman wanting to abort the foetus at eight months. I will sit down and listen to her, and her explaination why. Then I will get back to you on whether I agree with it or not.
And for a the record, I cannot be claiming to be a victim if I actually said I wasn’t intimidated by you and your reference to changing your opinion on abortion for people with ‘selfish feminist views’. Or was that not what you meant?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And as for the quote pulled from kiwiblog (which you can’t blame me for reading with a grain of salt), I agree with the last statement. “there should be a full and frank rational debate on the law as it stands. I am not sure a referendum would be suitable. I would favour a select committee as being more likely to remain rational.? That way uneducationed, unexperienced people would not be able to dictate how women govern their bodies.
I am, of course, fully confident of what the results of that process would be too. I don’t think you would like it.
And for the record, I am under no illusion that abortions magically solve the problem and there are no further repercussions. It is untrue that all abortions lead to depression. But it is not a magic bullet. I agree. I don’t agree though, that that means we should take away a woman’s right to choose.
You will have to allow me at this point to bow out of this debate. It has taught me little, and expanded my mind none. Sigh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am not surprised that the arguments against abortion here are held by men. Not surprised at all. Shame shame shame
You don’t appear to get the point that the arguments we men have advanced, have also been advanced by women. So address the arguments, not the point a male wrote them.
though I would replace ‘mothers’ with ‘pregnant women’. Exactly who else would you give an abortion to? You misunderstand my point – until the women has given birth once, how would she know what it is like? You say she has to go through the pregnancy and how hard this is etc, except that one of the most common reasons for requesting an abortion at 16 weeks is that the women did not realise she was pregnant (about 70% cite this as a reason in the UK).
It is obviously difficult to find stats on women requesting abortions after 24 weeks, because that is illegal (except under exceptional circumstances).
I think something like 90% of abortions are carried out on week 13 or less.
But trying to argue that if we cannot agree on a number of weeks for termination therefore we cannot allow abortions at all is sinister.
When did anyone here argue this? I’m expecting there to be a push for a bill to legalise abortion on demand, and the number of weeks will no doubt be something heavily fought. Maybe the result will be a reduction from 13 weeks to 11 weeks? I don’t know, and if you have no opinion on that period, you run the risk of some-one else choosing for you. Maybe it will settle on 9 weeks?
Infanticide had been around for years too…doesn’t mean we should condone it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JA Prufrock – but others may have gained something new from this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J A
Like you I have learned nothing from this apart from the confirmation that you believe it is a womans right to murder a child at any stage of the pregnancy all in the name of feminism.
It must be hard for you going through life with such a big chip on your shoulder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
J.A. Prufrock,
Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zen said..
“..I wouldn’t necessarily mistake arguing for less welfare support as a rejection in supporting unwanted babies though. Would some “low quality? parents be more careful about having kids if they didn’t get a pile of cash for them that they spend on anything but the kids? Would they be more likely to give them up for adoption to a more loving home? Could we be funding school meals rather than bigger welfare checks (healthy ones of course)?..”
thanks for confirming that..
no matter how you wrap/slice it..
your ‘care’ ends at birth..
then you want the law of the jungle to kick in..
it’s a weird sorta ‘disconnect’ you righties have got going there….!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
> Phil U, there are actually a lot of people that put their money and efforts where their mouths are, rather than just holding an opinion. The people I know in this category are by and large are typically conservative, and some are religious.
The people I know in this category are typically liberal in most respects, and some are religious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I am not surprised that the arguments against abortion here are held by men. Not surprised at all. Shame shame shame”
Thats a bit unfair. I’m a male, and a father, but I totally agree with what you are saying.
I don’t understand how some of these anti abortionists can claim they have the moral high ground, when they know full well that they will never be put in the position of having an unintentional pregnancy themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry DougT, I should step back in to clarify I wasn’t implying all men were anti-abortionists. I was saying referring to the anti-abortionists blogging here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U, what I was describing was how I saw the generic right arguing on financial terms were positioning it, not what I personally do. The point I was trying to make is that welfare can be delivered in ways and sources other than simply a government payment – so your assumption that a right wing person advocates less government support doesn’t mean that they are not prepared to make up for it elsewhere.
I also said: but I agree with you that it isn’t hard to find a self-centred righty in this debate and that does not impress me.
Chill man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip – I heartily concede that there is little or nothing being said here that hasn’t been said before. However, the issue is relevant news of the day and I couldn’t justify avoiding it just for the sake of avoiding well trodden ground. I suspect that this conversation is happening all over the place due to the court’s recent ruling. For me, it is precisely the fact that as a society we will never resolve this debate that makes me resolve never to make such a difficult decision for someone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey greens, trolls, anti-greens. Sorry for not weighing in here but I’ve kind of been stuck to the more feminist side of the blogosphere talking about this one.
Frog- It’s always possible that something “more important” will catch their attention eventually, which is how I see the debate being “resolved”.
I’d have to say it’s unhelpful to refer to anti-choicers as fundies. I mean, if Destiny comes out swinging about abortion, by all means… but I think there are a significant amount of people who support Family First and Right to Life that aren’t fundamentalists.
Of course, they ARE hard to argue with, because they feel the right to life is incontravertible, which I disagree with. There are several ways you’d resonably forfeit your right to life- by trying to kill someone else you enable them to defend themselves even to the point of your death, for instance. You might also be braindead- is life without thought and feeling really life at all?
I also have to agree quickly with J.A.- men weigh in a lot on abortion, but we need to understand our views are of secondary importance. Women are far more likely to understand or sympathise with the idea of an unplanned or health-endangering pregnancy, and letting them into the debate without shouting them down or stripping them of their rights before they even weigh in is crucial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are a number of other issues being dragged in here, and I would like to set the record straight on two points (they have each been mentioned a few times so I won’t bother finding the quotes).
Anti-abortionists are NOT all against contraception. The Catholic church, an organisation which some anti-abortionists are associated with, is against most forms of contraception. I don’t agree with that, contraception in general is a great idea, much better than abortion.
Anti-abortionists are NOT all in support of the war in Iraq and other killing around the world. That is deliberate slander and a quite despicable statement. I am opposed to killing humans – this includes adults, children and unborn babies.
Having said that, although I oppose the death penalty, I consider it not quite as bad as killing an innocent unborn child. At least someone given the death penalty has done something to deserve it so it is not quite as terrible as killing an innocent child who has done nothing to deserve it. Anyone who opposes the death penalty (for scumbags who deserve it) yet supports killing innocent people, is being highly hypocritical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually I partly agree with BB. To say that the issue is about women having control of their own bodies contains the unstated premise that the foetus does not have a body, and his/her body is owned by the woman. I reject that premise.
To make irrelevent remarks about religious fundamentalist who disagree with abortion but agree with bombing Iraq is simply ad hominem. It is not dealing with the arguments at all. It is stating that if someone is wrong about Iraq then all their opinions must be wrong, which is totally illogical.
My own view is that if the foetus is a sentient being then it should have the same moral consideration as any other sentient being. I am consistent in this view, since I also believe that animals are sentient beings and should hae rights. A foetus before a certain time is not a sentient being, he/she is a potential sentient being, and its rights should be in proportion to his/her chances of becoming sentient. This corresponds to our moral intuitions regarding other potential sentient beings. So for example we would not consider it right to kill someone under anaesthesia (a non sentient being) who will come out of it soon, but we may allow someone to pull the plug on a comatose patient (a non sentient being with a small chance of recovery).
But I agree about life imprisonment of the mother. If we as a society decide abortion is wrong (as I hope we will), then we as a society must also look after the extra children.
Peter Singer supports abortion, and uses an analogy. Someone gets into a lift in a hospital and is kidnapped. When she wakes up she finds she is attached to the dialysis machine of a world famous violinist. The doctors tell her that if she walks away, this famous violinist will die, but if she just stays attached to the machine for 9 months, he will live. Singer argues that even though taking a life causes more harm than a few months imprisonment, the victim is not obliged to comply, and can simply kill off the violinist by walking away. Singer realises the foetus has a seperate existence (and in that way he is closer to reality than those who simply believe he/she is part of the mother’s body), but considers that because the foetus is totally dependent on the mother, the mother can take his/her life and it is not a moral issue
But in my analogy the victim does not only have 2 choices. She can say “okay I realise I have been given this responsibility against my will, and I now have an obligation to save this man’s life. But you also have an obligation to help me, by supporting me while I can’t work, and providing me with everything else I need”.
Also if we are using total dependence or “life imprisonment” as a justification for killing, then this would apply equally to babies once they are born and are still totally dependent for a long time. It would also apply to the intellectually handicapped or mentally ill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis
It’s not slander to note the most powerful anti-abortion lobby in the western OECD world is in the USA and they have death sentence law and a record – no universal health care, disparity of income, homelessness a harsh welfare support regime (mothers working on minimum wage jobs for their welfare in the lowest minimum wage country in the OECD) and a level of GDP aid way below the .7% committment made back in the 1970′s (far too low to be a serious effort to prevent unnecessary death around the world). Many anti-abortionist activists here get their argument and their example from the USA.
You say you are not against all contraception, but you favour a ban on the MAP do you not (you did claim life began at conception and prior to any heart beat etc)?
The attitudes against feminism and the attitudes against welfare support (including the In Work payment and other tax credit systems) to poor families – the all too strong synchronicity or crossover of those opposed to income distribution to the poor along with a ban on abortion, speaks to the issue of an deserving an undeserving worldview. This comes out of a middle class Christianity in the USA based on material blessings as a sign of God’s favour – as if the worlds poor deserve to be poor for not being successful Americans (and a sense that those who divorce and those who have sex while unmarried deserve to be punished with poverty or loss of their children to better Christian families), or for not being Americans at all. Their end time judgment world view allows the wrongdoers to be killed on death row or by the reach of the MI complex and for the poor to remain with us until God brings blessings of wealth (not some left wing government).
Thus the comments here disparaging the suitability of some people to be parents (thus opposing increasing welfare support to keep children out of poverty) appearing alongside the call for an end to abortions for children unwanted. Has anyone considered our rate of child abuse, child poverty
and why some people do not want to bring unwanted children into the world. There needs to be a serious effort to reduce domestic violence and improve our society attitude towards the raising of children.
Given the demographic growth amongst groups where the abortions and or solo parenthood occur in greater number (and a rise in number of young people coming through the school system), the abortion rate will probably increase again (it’s coming down off an artificial high caused by high foreign student numbers a few years ago) – especially if we do not change our society culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some great points in there Kiore1.
Analogies are useful, and the above is instructive, but can also be a little misleading by re-framing the debate.
I would add at least that the women was told in advance that if she got into the lift, there is a chance she will be kidnapped. The chance increases the higher up she goes in the lift (varying degrees of contraception). Her main reason for going up the lift is to get a look at the view, it’s supposed to be good
.
And the violinist is also a genetic relation.
Some might argue that that is unfair or irrelevant bringing something so personal as a genetic relationship into the equation, but that is an important factor to some people.
okay I realise I have been given this responsibility against my will isn’t that only in very few cases? Generally, isn’t this more about “this came as a complete surprise to me as I realised getting in the lift had a small chance of kidnapping, but I was only going a few floors and there are a lot of lifts and well, gosh, I’ve been up and down the lift quite often….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore 1
You make a distinction between the willingness to take life (kill in war and on death row) and abortion. There is no moral difference apart from determining some innocence or lack of innocence (but innocent “civilians” die in war as a matter of course). You also make a distinction between supporting the born child and supporting people around the world whose lives end prematurely for lack of the ame support.
It is I presume your desire to support a particular case against abortion and defend this position from critique by showing willingness to support the children born as a consequence. Can you make any guarantee that if abortion is banned that society will in fact support the children concerned?
Americans can call for a ban on abortion and still oppose universal health care (for the children and their parents both).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thus the comments here disparaging the suitability of some people to be parents (thus opposing increasing welfare support to keep children out of poverty) appearing alongside the call for an end to abortions for children unwanted. Has anyone considered our rate of child abuse, child poverty
and why some people do not want to bring unwanted children into the world. There needs to be a serious effort to reduce domestic violence and improve our society attitude towards the raising of children.
Except that people in NZ have effectively access to abortion, and by all accounts are taking this option if they feel they are not in a position to raise a child.
The child abuse is therefore coming from a small number of people who don’t mind having babies. To fix that problem, you might require forced abortions or forced sterilization.
Now, the one core argument I can appreciate on this thread is the women’s right to choose (in the sense that I am against “forcing” a women against her will to have the baby). I’ve noted about 18 different types of arguments by the pro-choice crowd, and only 2 make any sense to me, this point being the main one, and is quite a barrier to overcome, indeed I’m not sure the pro-life camp can overcome this objection, we can only seek to minimise the number of people who wish to take this option.
And in respect with that argument, I am certainly against forced abortions and forced sterilization. It’s one thing to say to some-one “you must let nature take its course” and another to hold them down and abort their baby because someone thinks they might be abusive, or demand too much welfare, or they are solo parents, or they fit the “abuse potential profile”.
Now, maybe the middle way for the people suggesting this is merely to offer up abortion and sterilizations under incentives, so to move from “supporting a women’s decision” to actually trying to convince women to kill their baby via abortion for some “greater good”. That to me, is very very scary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen Tiger
Any more scary than the idea that keeping families raising up children on welfare poor discourages these “low quality” parents (those who get pregnant while single or those who divorce) from having more children?
The problem with your earlier position, is that it is suggestive that we have to be careful we do not make too easy for some people to have children. Thus placing solo parents and or low income parents in poverty to encourage them to make other choices.
“I wouldn’t necessarily mistake arguing for less welfare support as a rejection in supporting unwanted babies though. Would some “low quality? parents be more careful about having kids if they didn’t get a pile of cash for them that they spend on anything but the kids? Would they be more likely to give them up for adoption to a more loving home? Could we be funding school meals rather than bigger welfare checks (healthy ones of course)?”
This is hardly consistent with helping people raise up any children they choose to have or any they are forced to have.
As to your last post – I am concerned at the existing rates of child abuse and seeking to provide increased support for families to reduce this. I would rather we had a better support for lowering domestic violence and support to parenting than we do and see this and reducing the need for abortion than change to the abortion law itself as the more progressive and useful approach.
If opponents of abortion want to educuate the public about the morality of the choices they make – go to it. If they want to support people if they choose to raise up their child go to it. But deciding for them by law and then opposing sufficient support to keep the child out of poverty – its just another form of inhumanity.
PS
There is a connection between supporting a woman making her own choice and supporting people raising up their families. It’s about empowering people. People who really are empowered and also informed tend to make better choices (before they get pregnant, after they get pregnant and after they give birth).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
114 replies!
always a bad mistake starting an abortion debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with your earlier position
Except it wasn’t my earlier position. Refer previous comments.
This is hardly consistent with helping people raise up
If you are looking for me to be inconsistent, you’d have to know what personally I do in my life around helping other people. I do my share. I am a believer in direct action rather than relying on government support, but I also do not reject the government having some role in assisting with welfare. This isn’t really a thread about this though. As you also say – it’s not ultimately about a dollar handout, it is about support, empowerment, education, participation and attitudes. That is exactly the point I am trying to make, and it is also a point I was trying to get across when some people characterise *all* right wingers as self-centred because they mention that it isn’t all about a $ handout. With that line, I was not speaking about my position and I was not disagreeing totally with Phil’s observations, but I was disagreeing that that sentiment could be taken as absolute proof of callous disregard from all right wingers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Only 114? Let’s keep going.
I’m not tired. Or Proud [Arlo Gutherie]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC:
“You say you are not against all contraception, but you favour a ban on the MAP do you not (you did claim life began at conception and prior to any heart beat etc)?”
On the contrary, if you read my posts you should find that nowhere have I suggested banning ANYTHING, whether abortion or the MAP. I have stated that I believe, for very logical reasons that no-one has even tried to refute, that these things are wrong. I have not said I wish to ban them.
As I feel abortion is murder, I do not feel we should have abortion on demand. However I would not push for a complete ban either, partly because this would never succeed because of the strong pro-abortion lobby in this country, but mainly because I too believe in freedom of choice. You are free to disagree with me. Much as I feel my arguments are 100% sound I am not infallible and I don’t rule your life, nor would I want to. I want the freedom to state what I believe without being slandered, and I want you to have the freedom to disagree.
I have pointed out that abortion is wrong, therefore should be restricted. I have never said ban anything. If you wish to argue with my points, show scientifically that life does not begin at conception, then we might have something to discuss. Don’t put words in my mouth then argue with your own invention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger, well done with the string of great posts here throughout the day. You present the conservative view very well, even when people try to drag the discussion in all sorts of directions to avoid the key issue of whether abortion is or is not murder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPD:
“It’s not slander to note the most powerful anti-abortion lobby in the western OECD world is in the USA … This comes out of a middle class Christianity in the USA based on material blessings as a sign of God’s favour – as if the worlds poor deserve to be poor for not being successful Americans”
It is not slander to just talk about people in the USA. It is slander to equate myself or any other poster with them and assume we believe the same as they do. I am not a middle-class American Christian, and I don’t even know who the most powerful anti-abortion lobby in the western world is. (I do happen to be a Christian, but that is as far as the similarity goes). Please stick to discussing the issue at hand and the actual points I have brought up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis
My initial response, to your attempt to dismiss inconvenient truths on this topic, as some sort of personal slander is to say, yeah right. I appreciate you want to establish talking points around framing the issue in a certain way, but bringing the wider issue of sustaining born human life into the debate, is not evasion of “your issue about when life starts”.
So you feel that abortion and the MAP are wrong (making the case that life begins at conception) and are murder.
Now that you have gone on to say that you do not want to criminalise abortion or ban the MAP “murders” – and thus distance yourself from those who agree with your argument and would ban both these things – one knows where you stand, where one did not earlier and would most logically conclude as one would, that you were standing with those who make such things “murder” illegal.
Quite how one allows some “murders” and not others, is for you and others to explain. Usually when someone defines something as murder, one naturally assumes they want to make it illegal until they say otherwise.
I find it interesting that you accuse people of slandering you for not appreciating the nuances of your position – declaring abortion and the MAP to be murder but because you cannot get support for a complete ban AND because you also believe in freedom of choice, you would decide to compromise your own parallel ideal dilemma by acceptng a more severe limitiation of access.
A cynic would call the divided sacrifice of two convictions – a tolerance for some “murder” (meaning some are allowed to murder) and a partial sacrifice of choice (meaning choice is taken off some people), as hardly the wisdom of Solomon?
I myself am unembarrased by “slanderous” association with those who oppose unnecessary loss of life and those who support choice. I want abortions rare, legal and affordable. Those who support choice and those who oppose “murder” can agree to work to reduce unintended pregancies and prevent the need for abortions.
PS There is no debate to be had on your position that life begins at conception – except to note when the heart debate starts (which you could comment on) and the impact of your position if applied in fertility services and some genetic science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Life Does Not “Start”.
It ends, but like individual leaves falling from a tree, they are never NOT part of the tree… until they grow old and die.
Arguments about when “life” starts are mistakes. The argument must be about when “RIGHTS” start. The one entity becoming two entails a shift and division of rights over time. One with growing rights and the other diminishing. That’s not a legal definition… nor a definition that a black-and-white law can encompass.
This debate is one major waste of time and effort on the part of a lot of people who are not going to move one millimeter.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis
You say you support free speech, but you are quick to make accusations of being personally slandered.
I find it interesting that my simply mentioning the American anti-abortion lobby is insinuated is the basis of your claim that this somehow associates you with it. You make it clear that any claim of such of an association would be seen by you as slanderous. I appreciate your embarrassment. But I ever claimed you were an American. I did not know whether you were a Christian or not.
“It is slander to equate myself or any other poster with them and assume we believe the same as they do.”
Not only was this not done, and your claim that it was is entirely of your own invention, what is most interesting is the degree of purported sensitivity about there being any suggestion of any connection.
The reason I raised the American angle, was over their singularity of focus on the abortion issue as part of a pro life cause at variance with equally passionate support for sustaining born life. Your own singularity of focus was on defining life as beginning at conception – all singularity is ultimately an empty thing. You yourself now admit you retreat from the following through to the consequences of your own line of argument – rendering debate about it somewhat pointless, I would have thought.
Some people say choice is paramount until 12-20 weeks and then its the health of the mother, some people say its preventing murder and its only about there being some exceptions to protect the mother’s health. You say they are both right. And if we are confused about what that means, we are puting words in your mouth/slandering you. Whatever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Quite how one allows some “murders? and not others, is for you and others to explain. Usually when someone defines something as murder, one naturally assumes they want to make it illegal until they say otherwise.
This was explained earlier in the thread – self defence might result in killing some-one, we might find it distasteful but understandable if the force seems justified. Thus, murder that is legal, versus (for example) murder that arises when deliberate and premeditated.
So asserting Usually when someone defines something as murder, one naturally assumes they want to make it illegal until they say otherwise. gives me the impression you misunderstand a fundamental point the pro-life side are trying to make.
BJChip perhaps makes that very point for me when he said that this is not about accepting a life ends but deciding when rights of the baby can out pace the wishes of the mother. In a sense BJ is most correct, but we can’t even have that conversation if people keep asserting that termination is not killing. It is killing. Like many accept killing self defence, and therefore arguably moral, we simply want to debate the morality of killing an unborn child.
It is precisely because some of us presenting this argument also show respect for the other position that we wish to debate if the mother has a moral or ethical obligation to complete the pregnancy and avoid the killing. It is precisely because we value free speech we want to hold this discussion. Sure, some on both sides say there is nothing more to debate, no opinions will change, no quarter will be given and leave the battle to the courtroom or the barricades at the abortion clinics. Give us a break SPC.
You say you support free speech, but you are quick to make accusations of being personally slandered.
Of course people can wish for free speech, and of course others can abuse it with slander and libel. Asserting both does not make him a hypocrite, as you seem to imply.
It’s fair to say that both sides of this debate occasionally fall to making generalisations, and it is easy for the other party to read those generalisations as direct slander meant for them. Mr Dennis reasonably inferred your generalisations tied his position to those of your middle class American Christians who want poverty for others etc…. To be honest, that is also the inference I got, thanks for explaining it clearer.
I think the last two paragraphs of your 10:41pm comment should just be deleted. I’ll pretend they are.
Regs, Zen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This debate is one major waste of time and effort on the part of a lot of people who are not going to move one millimeter.
I live in hope that the hundreds of potential readers who dare read this thread will gain something BJ.
Sometimes, it’s not about us, but those that cannot speak for themselves (I refer of course to blog readers not yet born as commenters).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m only doing this to help get Frog blogs stats up to #1 in the NZ blogosphere. How are we doing Frog? Whack up a Google Advert – maybe we can fund your election campaign, providing it doesn’t breach the EFA?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This debate isn’t a debate it is people on opposite sides of a moral divide throwing sticks at each other.
Surely the one thing the poeple on both sides of this “debate” have in common is a desire to reduce the need for abortions. Why isn’t “the abortion debate” about the failure of the fence at the top of the cliff instead of about whether this is an appropriate ambulance to have at the bottom.
Perhaps the first step in finding reasons and solutions is to begin by comparing actions and outcomes in the two areas of women’s health the WHO considers the most dangerous. Traffic trauma and birth/STDs.
Since 1980 the number of abortions has tripled but the number of female drivers involved in reported injury crashes has increased by only 30% despite a 130% increase in kilometres driven by female drivers. Can the difference be explained by the different approaches to risk management for sexual health and road safety. One focuses on wearing protection, not doing it when you’re drunk and not being in too much of a hurry, and is largely excluded from school curriculum because the De Kalb County study found that teaching teenagers too much too soon leads to overconfidence. The other?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Porritt warned that in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, population trends were increasing “disastrously” because of low spending on family planning.
In Kenya and Ethiopia, spending on family planning was now running at 2 per cent of spending on HIV/Aids. As a result the population of Kenya, which had been thought to be around 40 million by the mid-century was now expected to be 80 million.
“We are guaranteeing an unstoppable flow of problems like HIV and Aids into the future,” he said.
Mr Porritt said there were “complex cultural and religious reasons” why globally family planning had such a low priority.
“I’ve highlighted the malign combination of a Catholic church which sees contraception as a wicked sin, a religious, ideological approach to family planning in the United States, politically correct and ignorant environmentalists and development economists.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/06/eaporritt106.xml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Can you make any guarantee that if abortion is banned that society will in fact support the children concerned?”
If an act banning abortion except in exceptional circumstances is coupled with provisions for better societal care of children then this wold provide some sort of guarantee. In this regard the flexible working hours bill is a great innovation, as is a continuation and an increase of the DPB (though before BB starts sharpening his keyboard, I should say I consider that parents on the DPB should be better monitored to ensure the children are actually benefitting, and we are not getting the pathetic result in my neighbourhood where a Vincent de Paul truck is feeding children whose parents are busy drinking themselves into a stupor).
Zen Tiger. Point taken about the analogy. I think Singer was using the violinist as an analogy of a woman being raped. Of course the equation changes if she had been warned of the dangers of entering that particular lift, or if she willingly went into the lift then changed her mind, or wanted a female violinist instead of a male.
SPC “You make a distinction between the willingness to take life (kill in war and on death row) and abortion.”
I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have tried to point out that the issue of abortion must be judged on its merits, and not based on ad hominem attacks on the religion, sex, age, or otehr views held by the person making the argument. So if someone believes that abortion is wrong because it is killing a sentient being, but believes that capital punishment or killing in war is okay, then this says something about the person, but it says nothing about whether abortion is right or wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Porritt is a bit rabid when it comes to population control. He hints that he understands the solution (education and wealth) but typically falls back into demanding “family planning” as a necessary solution. He gushed over China’s harsh methods of population control, which actually didn’t work as well as the voluntary approach, which suceeded because of education and growing wealth.
The Catholic Church is popular in Africa because it cares about people, and it’s in there doing the hard yards. If we help Africans become wealthier and improve education, population growth will curb naturally, without resorting to eugenics.
I agree with Kevyn (not the sticks part) – the common ground is waiting for all of us, and it begins before the visit to the abortion consultant. In this regard, you’ll find some of these religious people that are so disparaged can also be very generous with financial and material support. Equally, we need to tackle poverty, and this is unfortunately another area where there is a substantial ideological divide on the best way of building wealth for all. Hopefully, we can find an interim plan, but for my part, it has to be one that doesn’t rationalise agressive population control because people are poor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The noticeable lack of “discussion” on this thread about the responsibility of a male partner to ensure that unwanted conception does not take place has been striking!
In my (extended) family, I understand that the use of condoms has played a major part in successful “family planning”, over several generations now.
I get the very uncomfortable impression that this thread is dominated by the opinions of a small number of noticeably self centred males … to whom I would say:
“If you don’t like the idea of a potential human being having its life terminated, make sure that YOU take responsibility for ensuring that your sperm is NEVER part of an unwanted conception.
It is that simple really!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s crazy talk eredwen.
The hardest thing for most people to grasp is that simple solutions are always better than complicated cures.
Sometimes (as you have pointed out) it is better to look at the cause of a problem and try to fix that, rather than concentrating too much on the symtoms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, so you would like to assume I’m self-centred because I am worried about the lives of children BEFORE you decide it is time to worry about them. That is not a good assumption. Try this back:
“If you don’t like the idea of people polluting the planet YOU make sure YOU don’t pollute the planet and make sure YOU take full responsibility for the waste YOU generate.”
And of course, the implied thought that YOU have no right to tell OTHERS they may be polluting the planet.
You might not agree with my opinion, and I respect that, but don’t try to make out I’m being a selfish hypocrite. Address the arguments.
BTW, I asked you earlier, and I’ll clarify the question further: Do you believe an abortion at 9 weeks of age stops a beating heart of an individual human entity, and effectively kills it? If you don’t think this is killing (and I do not dispute the right to kill here), why do you believe this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC:
ZenTiger has effectively answered most of the points in your last posts for me, so I will just answer this one:
“There is no debate to be had on your position that life begins at conception – except to note when the heart debate starts (which you could comment on)”
My personal view on the “beating heart” idea is that it is a great way of showing that death actually occurs with abortion, as we generally consider death to occur in an adult when the heart stops beating. It cannot however be used to determine where life starts. We could just as well say life begins when the baby first breathes, when the liver starts to function, when the eyes first open, or even when the child reaches puberty – we are just picking one biological process and equating this with life.
This is why I stick to the genetic definition of life, i.e. a new individual is formed once it is genetically distinct from the mother, at conception. At this stage you can no longer call the embryo part of the mother’s body, as it is genetically distinct from her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen:
“If you don’t like the idea of a potential human being having its life terminated, make sure that YOU take responsibility for ensuring that your sperm is NEVER part of an unwanted conception.”
Done. Now go tell it to the fathers of the 18,000 babies aborted each year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis Says:
June 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
> My personal view on the “beating heart? idea is that it is a great way of showing that death actually occurs with abortion, as we generally consider death to occur in an adult when the heart stops beating.
I’m not sure if it ultimately changes your argument, but actually doctors don’t use that definition any more. The definition they use now is that someone is dead when their brain stops (of course there are many different levels of brain function – the definition is that death occurs when they have all stopped).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea, a beating heart is a very acceptable sign of life.
In terms of measuring death, going off brain waves instead of a beating heart is to accommodate organ harvesting and the ability to terminate the life of comatose patients who are exhibiting no brain activity. It is usually more accurate to go off a stopped heart.
There have been many cases where brain dead people have “come back to life” on the organ harvesting table. I can dig up a few links if you are interested.
Destroying a fetus (after 5 weeks) stops a beating heart and ends a human life. Any brain wave activity would stop soon after.
We could have a longer argument around measuring life by brain wave, as their are many different studies drawing lines all over the place with regard to a fetus and brain wave activity. Years ago, it was thought to start at 40 days or so, and that was debunked, setting the line at 20 weeks, but then that too was seen as suspect, and its now somewhere inbetween.
But like BJ and others suggested, perhaps a discussion on when personhood is conferred (and rights of the unborn to live start to take precedence over the rights of the mother to terminate) would cover more ground?
I hope however, that people can accept the science that proves termination after 5 weeks ends a beating heart, kills the pre-born and it’s end of story for that human being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger Says:
June 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
> Kahikatea, a beating heart is a very acceptable sign of life.
> In terms of measuring death, going off brain waves instead of a beating heart is to accommodate organ harvesting and the ability to terminate the life of comatose patients who are exhibiting no brain activity. It is usually more accurate to go off a stopped heart.
It’s also because a stopped heart can be re-started, and this is now a reasonably common occurrence in heart surgery, and occasionally in emergency medicine.
> There have been many cases where brain dead people have “come back to life? on the organ harvesting table. I can dig up a few links if you are interested.
I would be interested – I hadn’t heard of that.
Actually, I don’t even know if the distinction makes any difference in the case of abortion.
Where the pregnancy is a serious threat to the mother’s life, I think the abortion should happen as soon as possible but as late as necessary. If the pregnancy is as a result of rape, there’s no reason why the abortion wouldn’t be done very early. I’ve never advocated abortion for any other reason, but if the state of any organ were a basis for making the decision, the brain seems to me a better definition of personhood than the heart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As to the sign of life being a beating heart – let us note that there is a lack of this sign of life at conception.
Thus the MAP does not end a beating heart.
Similarly in fertility services (frozen embryos) and in genetic science research there is not a beating heart involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip takes a somewhat Green angle – all life arises out of its environment – an environment which provides it with (food, air, water – nurture from the species/parents of its kind), the means of sustaining life.
Thus the inter-dependence of life with its habitat (and earlier life).
Within this environment there is, when sentient life is involved, (and this goes to the issue of humanity being aware) a related question about when one is seen as one of the sentient life kind of the group – when one is a “born citizen”, or when one has independent sentient life status before birth or when is a beating life form …
Thus the issues of rights and protections offered to members of the group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
The male is responsible for providing for any child conceived (if he wishes to avoid consequences of the any child conception he can play safe) – whether it is born at all is based on the birth mothers say so. What about that would you change?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zen tiger
It is not possible to debate, a conflict of rights to body sovereignty or to life, if any termination is defined as not killing but “murder”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis said: (initially quoting eredwen): …take responsibility for ensuring that your sperm is NEVER part of an unwanted conception.?
Done. Now go tell it to the fathers of the 18,000 babies aborted each year.
Yep, I’ve done it too Mr Dennis – got the snip over 10 years ago and before that was a responsible condom user from my teenage years.
But it is not eredwen’s responsibility as a woman to tell it to all the men who father unwanted conceptions. It is yours, and mine, and that of all sexually responsible men to educate our gender on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
heh, what an emotional thread. people are entitled to their opinions though i suppose.
policy however, should be informed not by personal emotions and opinions about what is moral but instead about what is in the best interests of society itself.
If the net benifits of giving people the option to make a choice exceed the net benifits of not allowing them to make a choice then they should be given the choice, and it seems quite clear that the social benifits from choice far outweigh those from non-choice. thought of course there should as always be limits and safeguards, but they are relativly small details (thouh terribly fun to discuss).
the argument as to if the body of cells is alive or not is irrelivant as killing is not, in itself, a moral or immoral act. but if you must define the start of its life, the point at which it can survive independant of the womb and/or medical machinary – that is when it is no longer a paracite – seems as good of a point as any.
and another thing, to the hypocrits who call themselves feminists (feminisim is ment to be about equality and ending opression of women is it not?): Why is it that you argue for the rights of women over their own bodies but at the same time deminish them by making women not resonsible for their own actions and what happens to their body? if an individual takes part in a sexual act and does not utilise protection, with full knowledge of the potential consequences of not doing so, and falls ill of those consequences, is it not thier own fault? if she ends up pregnant and with an ex-partner who refuses to support her, is it not her fault for failing to succesfully gauge her partner? you cant just blame men for everything. in this case i am of course discounting rape, and i do beleive child support has a place as the male makes the same decisions as the female, just doesint have the consequences, in the case of pregnancy atleast.
Feminisim, in most forms, is admirable is its idolisation of equality, i myself beleive that all should be equal before the law. however, many of the practioners of feminism seem to be more about female superiority and extra entitlement, a situation just as bad as that they claim to fight. in my experiance many ‘feminists’ also seem to adopt the ‘victim’ identity that so plauges the left.
Thats me for today, i try to limit the volume of critique for which people can (illegitimatly) claim me to be chauvinist or biggot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi STC
Brain dead, no heart beat, and baby survives
Zach makes it back
There was a case recently in the UK too, but I cannot remember where I saw it.
Slightly different topic:
Baby Survives Abortion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the net benifits of giving people the option to make a choice exceed the net benifits of not allowing them to make a choice then they should be given the choice,
Exactly, so once the baby is born and can speak, we ask them what their choice would be
the argument as to if the body of cells is alive or not is irrelivant as killing is not, in itself, a moral or immoral act. but if you must define the start of its life, the point at which it can survive independant of the womb and/or medical machinary – that is when it is no longer a paracite – seems as good of a point as any.
Why must you define it in terms of survival outside the womb? Only because that makes sense to you. The pre-born is not a parasite though. A parasite is of another species. The baby cannot survive once born either, unless people directly intervene to keep it alive. Ironically, they have to directly intervene to kill it whilst it is “safe” inside the womb. Refer to my point about a man surviving in the Antarctic way up the thread too, it’s somewhat relevant again.
You were brave for going with the last point.
To some extent I agree – the women had a choice to safeguard against pregnancy using a number of options. She didn’t. (Same applies to the man too) Guess what, she (and he) doesn’t get the right to kill after the baby is born too, even though the baby is dependent upon her for sustenance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Something that astonishes me about this topic is that there is absolutely no way that anyone here is going to influence anyone else to change their mind about their views on abortion.
And yet there are over 140 responses here.
The fact that so much emotion and effort has been put in by people on both sides of an argument that EVERYONE should realise is nothing more than a cat fight about individual views on moral ethics really amazes me.
If anyone thinks they can change the views of “the other side”, tell everyone what it would take to change YOUR mind on the subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen,
the survival part was only half serious, in all truth no human can survive without the environment regardless of if they are born or not.
As for letting the baby speak, thats already surpassed a point where-by society has been disadvantaged, so ultimatly not producing the largist net benifit. think of it in terms of return on investment
DougT,
Im a utilitarian, its easy to convince me, i mearly need a rational arguement that shows stongly that the net benifits to society of taking away choice and increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies which reach completion surpasses the net benifits of allowing choice in completing the pregnancy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…though i dont expect to be able to change anyones views
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T
It’s called politics – and politics is about values/ethics/morality/concepts of the social contract etc. There have been more passionate debates in Enzed about the Treaty, Maori seats, etc and Labour vs National society good economics vs Green sustainable economy etc and will be again.
Abortion law affects our social inter-personal relationship culture. As does divorce law and property settlement law, availablility of contraception.
People have opinions and will express them when an issue is part of our current events – see Trotter’s column in the Dom Post today?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen, If it really was that simple we wouldn’t have more abortions than car crashes injured. Sure, the “seatbelts save lives” message has been a key part of bringing down the road toll but only as part of a trifecta that also targets alcohol and speed (haste). I’m not sure that there is an equivalent of crumple zones unless it is vasectomies.
At least you focused on the cause of abortions rather than the morality. I’m sure thats the only way to make progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Something that astonishes me about this topic is that there is absolutely no way that anyone here is going to influence anyone else to change their mind about their views on abortion.
Yeah, yeah, look, if you don’t want a slave then don’t own one.
You anti-abolitionists aren’t going to change are you? Had slavery since, like forever and I can see it is pointless to try to talk you out of it.
Oh, hang on, we aren’t talking about anti-abolitionists then?
Gee, do I feel silly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At least you focused on the cause of abortions rather than the morality. I’m sure thats the only way to make progress.
One thing modern society doesn’t want, is to have to deal with morality. It is a new society based on rationalism. Rationalism without moral constraint leads us in a destructive direction.
By not continuing to debate morality and ethics, they seemingly become less and less important. Certainly, a big part of this debate for some people (and I’m not necessarily talking about people here) is to play with semantics to convince themselves that killing a pre-born is not really ending a life. If it were seen as that we might collectively try much harder to work on prevention and on expanding post-birth support options.
The cause of abortions is having sex for reasons where a baby is an unacceptable possible outcome. We need to debate morality and ethics. These are not things to be discarded like an unwanted baby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient:
Although I disagree with your views on abortion, I must heartily agree with the craziness of opinions shown by many feminists. In my mind, both parents have an equal responsibility for their child. The father should have as much say as the mother, and as much responsibility to raise the child if they choose not to have an abortion. The current situation where a woman can decide to have an abortion against the will of the father (killing his child) is ridiculous, as is the fact that the father can run off and leave the mother to raise the child without any support from him.
ZenTiger:
“Exactly, so once the baby is born and can speak, we ask them what their choice would be”
Hear, hear. It is fine to argue freedom of choice about someone’s own live, but stupid when you are talking about killing another human (or terminating the potential for another human if anyone doesn’t agree that abortion is killing). It makes as much sense as saying “the terrorist has the freedom of choice as to whether he blows up the bus or not”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My thoughts have been taken in a new direction with these recent comments. I have expanded my ideas on the essence of this debate, and created a post back on my blog, which explores this further.
In the interests of not throwing up a huge comment, here’s the link to those that might be interested. Abortion as an issue of Rationalism over Morals
A thank you to people on this thread – whilst others have not got anything new out of this debate, I have been fortunate to feel like another piece of the puzzle falls into place. And don’t forget the silent readers, who cannot speak for themselves
Both sides are speaking from concern for others – the effects on the Mother; the horror of potentially “unwanted” babies potentially living hard lives and those also that have an over-riding concern for the unborn – that with a degree of faith and optimism, like to think we as a society can value all life, even when it is hard. I turn to the wise words of the elephant, Horton: “A person is a person, no matter how small”.
Regards, Zen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok maybe I didn’t quite say it right.
Instead of arguing about the rights and wrongs of abortion (which seems to be a neverending argument) why don’t you try to figure out why the abortion rate has increased by around 50% over a 10 year period.
I’m sure even the pro choice people see such a high rise in abortions to be a concern, and would be keen to see that rate go down.
Anyway I can’t be bothered with this any more. Have fun with your arguments guys.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, I forgot to add the link
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/abortion-statistics/abortions-yedec06-hotp.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Life does not begin at conception. We would not consider someone to immediately be dead if half the chromosomes mysteriously vanished from their body, so long as their mind continued to function (although it probably wouldn’t be good for their life expectancy).
Life does not begin when a heart starts beating. We would not consider someone to be dead if their heart stopped beating, but their mind continued to function (again, probably not good for their life expectancy though).
Life is all about mind. That’s why we refer to a two-headed human as “Siamese twins”. That’s why we wouldn’t consider trying to revive a decapitated human, even if we could, and it wouldn’t be for quality-of-life issues, but rather because there wouldn’t be a life there to save, no matter how many of the remaining organs were functional.
Life begins when mind begins, as evidenced by brain waves, at around 20 weeks.
I support a right to life when there exists a life to claim that right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
james_g:
The definition of life changes as our medical knowledge improves. In the past life would have been defined by the heartbeat. Now we can detect brain function, so people decide to define life by this. Who knows what will be measured in future that people will choose to define life by. We cannot rely on the current level of medical knowledge to define life.
If something is not dead, it is alive. You cannot say an embryo is dead – it is growing. You don’t grow while you are dead. You cannot say it is inhuman – it is genetically a human. If it is both alive and human, then killing it is murder.
Clear and simple. But as it isn’t what everyone wants people will come up with all sorts of other definitions to justify what they want to believe…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis says:
Human life starts when a fetus has distinct DNA. At that point the fetus is a human life. It is wrong to kill a human. The fetus is human, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus.
“You don’t solve problems by killing people.”
Who knows what is going on in the fetuses head as medical science advances we might find all sorts of activity …. and the same for fetuses of other species. Carl Sagan in Shadow of Forgotten Ancestors asks: What is Human? and the disticntion isn’t as obvious as we think…..
One way of looking at it is to say that we shouldn’t have everyone at once (ie) we should spread the population out and those souls who are aborted come back in the future. [From the Inspired Wiki (make your own religion].
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> We cannot rely on the current level of medical knowledge to define life.
We rely on the best definition available, which is brain waves. The alternative is to ignore the best definition available, and just choose whatever makes you happy.
> If something is not dead, it is alive.
Dead means something used to be alive, and isn’t any more. A rock is not dead, but not alive either.
> You cannot say an embryo is dead – it is growing. You don’t grow while you are dead.
Tissue can be grown in Petri dishes, and yes, it’s alive in some sense. So’s my skin. But I don’t hold funerals for my dandruff. When we talk about “alive” for a person, it doesn’t just mean cellular function, it means a mind too. If someone’s decapitated, but the remainder of their body can be kept “alive” on life support, they’re still dead.
> You cannot say it is inhuman – it is genetically a human. If it is both alive and human, then killing it is murder.
If that is so, then removing tonsils is murder.
> people will come up with all sorts of other definitions to justify what they want to believe…
Indeed they will.
> Human life starts when a fetus has distinct DNA.
That would make identical/Siamese twins one person. Also, some people, due to errors in DNA copying, have different DNA in part of their body, so they would be two people.
> Who knows what is going on in the fetuses head as medical science advances we might find all sorts of activity
Maybe my tonsils think too, but current knowledge suggests otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)