No Right Turn on abortion:
For the past thirty years, New Zealand has had an uneasy compromise on abortion.
No, for the past 30 years, we've had laws that people ignore and that are not enforced. That seems to be one of the main problems in our society. There was no compromise, there was a law passed on the way things were to be, and then there was the practice. But it's not an uneasy compromise by any means - it's corruption, lack of moral fortitude or hypocrisy.
Technically, the law limits abortion to cases of rape, abnormality, or serious danger to the life or physical or mental health of the woman.
And we'd never expect to follow the letter of the law would we? Apparently, the "law of common sense" can step in whenever we don't agree with the laws we have legislated.
In practice, the latter clause is interpreted liberally by certifying consultants to allow abortion on demand
Thanks for admitting it so clearly.
(though with far too many hoops to jump through).
18,000 dead a year says the hoops are pretty easy to get through. Are these the same inconvenient hoops that the liberals hope to remove to allow euthanasia - the right to kill their parents when they become inconvenient and threaten ones life style?
This has allowed us to avoid the ugly abortion politics seen elsewhere (e.g. the US) and get on with our lives in peace and quiet.
Because people should be able to live in peace and quiet after terminating lives.
Only the Christian fundamentalists have really continued to care about the issue, and in an overwhelmingly secular society (particularly when it comes to issues of sex and reproductive rights), who listens to them?
True. Secular Society here means amoral, self-centred, lack of respect for life, for consequences of actions etc. Secular Society used in this context is a plea to separate ethics from actions. Everything in secular society is merely a transaction. And transactions don't value relationships. Sex as a transaction doesn't require emotional attachment, so abortions are just another necessary transaction to tidy up. Nothing to do with life and death.
Unfortunately, it seems the High Court did. And as a result, we have a judgement which questions the lawfulness of many abortions done in this country.
No, they merely said that if we make laws, we should mean them.
...That poses a direct challenge to the right of women to control their own bodies. And that challenge is likely to be unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders.
Women have a right to control their bodies. They can say no to sex. They can use contraception. They can be more responsible. What some are expecting after failing to do this, is to over-ride their natural bodily functions, designed to nurture and grow life and intervene medically to kill the beating heat within.
If the compromise is broken and we are going to have a debate,
It's not a compromise, the hypocrisy has been found out.
then it is time to push for New Zealand to join the modern world and introduce abortion on demand. If its been the effective practice for the past thirty years and most of us have been happy with the status quo, then we might as well formally codify it.
Sadly, you are correct. You may as well codify it and acknowledge that what you want is the right to kill, and kill on demand. Wouldn't the truth be refreshing after 30 years of lies? "Modern" indeed.
Somewhere in this debate might be a commitment to tell the whole truth - that some women deeply regret having an abortion, and feel they were never really educated or prepared to understand other options. Some will have medical complications arising from multiple abortions, and some will become deeply depressed and their relationships will suffer. And the baby dies, of course.
And while some are likely to be uneasy with that recognition, I think most are likely to be even more uneasy with the alternative of fundamentalist Christians forcing people to have kids.
Christians aren't forcing anyone to get pregnant. Christians are merely saying "killing for convenience is wrong". And it's not just Christians that have this position. There are also non-Christians that genuinely see abortion as ending a beating heart. Of course, by framing the argument as against religion, and as issues of right to choose instead of right to life, we're back where we started - making laws that people have no intention of respecting, and making believe that the choices people make to become pregnant continue to give them choices to pretend it never happened.
It happened. 18,000 times last year.
Related Link: NRT - Time to legislate abortion on demand
Related Link: Lucyna Maria covers the High Court Ruling
For the past thirty years, New Zealand has had an uneasy compromise on abortion.
No, for the past 30 years, we've had laws that people ignore and that are not enforced. That seems to be one of the main problems in our society. There was no compromise, there was a law passed on the way things were to be, and then there was the practice. But it's not an uneasy compromise by any means - it's corruption, lack of moral fortitude or hypocrisy.
Technically, the law limits abortion to cases of rape, abnormality, or serious danger to the life or physical or mental health of the woman.
And we'd never expect to follow the letter of the law would we? Apparently, the "law of common sense" can step in whenever we don't agree with the laws we have legislated.
In practice, the latter clause is interpreted liberally by certifying consultants to allow abortion on demand
Thanks for admitting it so clearly.
(though with far too many hoops to jump through).
18,000 dead a year says the hoops are pretty easy to get through. Are these the same inconvenient hoops that the liberals hope to remove to allow euthanasia - the right to kill their parents when they become inconvenient and threaten ones life style?
This has allowed us to avoid the ugly abortion politics seen elsewhere (e.g. the US) and get on with our lives in peace and quiet.
Because people should be able to live in peace and quiet after terminating lives.
Only the Christian fundamentalists have really continued to care about the issue, and in an overwhelmingly secular society (particularly when it comes to issues of sex and reproductive rights), who listens to them?
True. Secular Society here means amoral, self-centred, lack of respect for life, for consequences of actions etc. Secular Society used in this context is a plea to separate ethics from actions. Everything in secular society is merely a transaction. And transactions don't value relationships. Sex as a transaction doesn't require emotional attachment, so abortions are just another necessary transaction to tidy up. Nothing to do with life and death.
Unfortunately, it seems the High Court did. And as a result, we have a judgement which questions the lawfulness of many abortions done in this country.
No, they merely said that if we make laws, we should mean them.
...That poses a direct challenge to the right of women to control their own bodies. And that challenge is likely to be unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders.
Women have a right to control their bodies. They can say no to sex. They can use contraception. They can be more responsible. What some are expecting after failing to do this, is to over-ride their natural bodily functions, designed to nurture and grow life and intervene medically to kill the beating heat within.
If the compromise is broken and we are going to have a debate,
It's not a compromise, the hypocrisy has been found out.
then it is time to push for New Zealand to join the modern world and introduce abortion on demand. If its been the effective practice for the past thirty years and most of us have been happy with the status quo, then we might as well formally codify it.
Sadly, you are correct. You may as well codify it and acknowledge that what you want is the right to kill, and kill on demand. Wouldn't the truth be refreshing after 30 years of lies? "Modern" indeed.
Somewhere in this debate might be a commitment to tell the whole truth - that some women deeply regret having an abortion, and feel they were never really educated or prepared to understand other options. Some will have medical complications arising from multiple abortions, and some will become deeply depressed and their relationships will suffer. And the baby dies, of course.
And while some are likely to be uneasy with that recognition, I think most are likely to be even more uneasy with the alternative of fundamentalist Christians forcing people to have kids.
Christians aren't forcing anyone to get pregnant. Christians are merely saying "killing for convenience is wrong". And it's not just Christians that have this position. There are also non-Christians that genuinely see abortion as ending a beating heart. Of course, by framing the argument as against religion, and as issues of right to choose instead of right to life, we're back where we started - making laws that people have no intention of respecting, and making believe that the choices people make to become pregnant continue to give them choices to pretend it never happened.
It happened. 18,000 times last year.
Related Link: NRT - Time to legislate abortion on demand
Related Link: Lucyna Maria covers the High Court Ruling
Its apparently ok to kill 18000 a year, but effective self-defence is illegal because one or two innocent people could be killed by firearms..
ReplyDeleteWhat a bizarre world we live in.
It has been too liberal for too long.
ReplyDeleteWhichever way you look at it, the practice of abortion (if you're the mother) is that of ending the life of your son or daughter. Does it matter when that life is ended? For instance you wouldn't take a baby's life a day after it was born - that is murder. What about a day before it is born? Or a week before? I think that is illegal now as well.
Some will argue that if the foetus is small enough and young enough then it can't think or feel pain. Again, does that really matter in regards as to whether it lives or dies? If you or I were "terminated" a week after conception then we wouldn't be here would we? So that termination would have ended our life.
The test is: if you are to leave that growing foetus alone, will it grow into a human being? If the answer is yes, then it means to kill the foetus is to kill a human being; it's as simple as that.
If you kill the tadpole, you're killing the frog it will become. If you dig up the germinated seed it will never become the tree it should have.
If you're OK with that, then it's up to you and God but don't let yourself be fooled by the rhetoric that you're not ending a life - you are.
Everyone talks about a woman's "choice" but what about the unborn woman's choice?
I agre. Abortion is terrible, but its worse that its been going on in this country under a guise.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to debate abortion, we need to debate the worth of the unborn. If we can determine whether or not an unborn is a human being (and I believe it is) then abortion is no longer viable.
Not just the fundy right dislike abortion as you say Zen, but the right has a problem here -- the same people who don't want women to abort hate welfare and are quite happy to throw women and kids overboard in that respect once the child is out of the womb.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think no woman should have to abort, or feel she has no option but to give up a beloved baby because she does not have enough money. That does not mean endless welfare, but more compassion is needed. And more responsibility from men as well. The very least they can do is provide for their offspring.
Agreed Ruth. This is such a difficult situation, and is far more complex than my black and white ranting above. I'm aware of that. The purpose of the above is to really lay down the point Hoolian makes - is life precious?
ReplyDeleteAfter that point is acknowledged, we have some major problems - women who "need" abortion for genuine medical reasons, women who will procure illegal abortions, and potentially many many unloved children, and children up for adoption.
To care for those kids, we'd have to have a more openly compassionate society, and as I mentioned above, secular society is increasingly dropping the valuable aspects of its Christian heritage. It has become a transaction based society where (other) life is not valued, where relationships are not valued beyond what it delivers to the "me,me,me" mantra.
Longer term, less easy access to abortion would mean more prudence towards casual sex, as the effects of such imprudence would be harder to hide. Instead of education on how to use condoms, just imagine if the education was on coping with your young child - on the job experience in day care centres might be an eye opener for teens.
I agree that these women need help. Bishop Pat Dunn has pledged to help any woman considering an abortion as much as he can -
ReplyDeleteBishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland announced in April that his diocese will offer any kind of help necessary for women who choose to bear their child rather than have an abortion.
Bishop Dunn said the effort is a personal undertaking and will give every possible help, including money, to girls and women undecided about whether to have an abortion. He added that he will use his own money if necessary.
“I make this pledge to any woman regardless of creed or circumstances and without any conditions attached,” he said. “It is a scheme that will allow women the right and freedom to choose life instead of death.”