Franks and teh gays

Written By: - Date published: 5:47 pm, September 22nd, 2008 - 85 comments
Categories: Social issues - Tags: , , , , ,

National’s candidate for Wellington Central, Stephen Franks, is having a wee cry on his blog today over Agenda’s decision to air that embarrassing Youtube clip where he complains about “grumpy Christians and whining gays” and compares civil unions to marrying your dog.

Apparently he’s been “cited out of context” by “the militant gay media” and his Labour opponent Grant Robertson, a man who “makes a feature of being a gay activist” and “mentions it at every opportunity.”

Franks’ only crime, he’d have you believe, is that he tells it like it is. “In a PC world”, he laments, “PC opponents gain weapons from such plain speaking.”

Now Franksie’s been playing this shtick for a while and it’s starting to wear thin. ‘I’m a classical liberal,’ the excuse goes, ‘I just happen to vote against gay rights for highly principled reasons that nobody else understands, and I’m constantly getting misquoted saying bad things about gays because I’m a plain speaker.’

Problem is, you can only run that line for so long before people start to recognise a pattern of bigoted behaviour as the behaviour of a bigot.

See Stephen, Liberals don’t compare civil unions to marrying your dog, even in jest. They don’t describe the gay community as “riddled with pathologies“. And they certainly don’t try to amend the Human Rights Act to make it legal for landlords, employers and taxi drivers to discriminate against homosexuals.

There’s no “militant gay” agenda out to get you Stephen. They’re just responding to your attacks on their community, and your going on like this does make you look rather silly. Is it really so hard to admit that you’re just not that fond of the gays?

[Hat tip: Russell Brown]

85 comments on “Franks and teh gays ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Monty 1
    22 September 2008 at 6:00 pm

    I was at a candidates Meeting with Franks, Bradford, Robertson and Rahui Katene (who I was very impressed with). The subject of the night was Social Justice. Bradford’s solutions were a disgrace and I advised her that the Greenie policies were economically stupid. Stephen was there and I had a chat afterwards –

    As a Practising catholic (therefore christian) I take absolutely no offence at what was said. I think that Stephen is right on the money and totally endorse what he said. More interesting is the fact that Grant has a poodle who basically takes a video camera to eery meeting waiting for any comment from Stephen which can then be used to take anything he says is jest or otherwise right out of context. I am sure that If I did the same then I could get the same sort of trivial crap on Grant-

    Are you lefties so threatened by Stephen (who is certainly a very good chance in Wellington) that you need to record his every word in the hope of getting a statement out of context? Following dear Leaders directive to be a nasty and dirt as it takes to try and win the election (ha – at 18% points behind you are toast regardless)

  2. Simple (renamed RC) 2
    22 September 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Im no fan of stephan franks but he is more experienced in the real world than grant robertson, yes i am alleging that unionists are absent from the real world

  3. Scribe 3
    22 September 2008 at 6:13 pm

    See Stephen, Liberals don’t compare civil unions to marrying your dog, even in jest.

    You’re right, Tane. They compare pro-lifers to the Taliban, and are dead serious when they do it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4582677a1861.html

    You liberals must be proud.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    22 September 2008 at 6:32 pm

    They compare pro-lifers to the Taliban

    They’re comparing one bunch of lunatic religious fanatics with another. Seems reasonable to me.

  5. Tane 5
    22 September 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Monty. The flat meeting was a public event. TV3 was there. I understand it was openly recorded. Watch the clip again, you’ll see Franks dug his own hole.

  6. Quoth the Raven 6
    22 September 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Scribe – Who are the people that bomb abortion clinics?

  7. Anita 7
    22 September 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Let’s not forget that Stephen Franks tried to gut the Human Rights Act and make discrimination against homosexuality, children born outside marriage, and a variety of other “sins” explicitly legal.

  8. George Darroch 8
    22 September 2008 at 6:40 pm

    More interesting is the fact that Grant has a poodle who basically takes a video camera to eery meeting waiting for any comment from Stephen which can then be used to take anything he says is jest or otherwise right out of context. I am sure that If I did the same then I could get the same sort of trivial crap on Grant-. More interesting is the fact that Grant has a poodle who basically takes a video camera to eery meeting waiting for any comment from Stephen which can then be used to take anything he says is jest or otherwise right out of context. I am sure that If I did the same then I could get the same sort of trivial crap on Grant-

    No, it was a candidates meeting, with the novelty of being held in a living room. TV3 were there, as were various spectators of differing persuasions. It was a Public Meeting.

    If someone says something once, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they say the same thing multiple times, and back those statements up with action, we have no choice but to take those words seriously.

    As for the comparison between anti-abortionists and the Taliban. I think it is a valid one. The Taliban are certainly much worse, but the difference is in how much they think a woman’s body should be controlled.

  9. roger nome 9
    22 September 2008 at 6:41 pm

    hah! Classy. Surely franks knows that Wellington Central, as a cosmopolitan centre, has a large queer-friendly population? Bigoted and politcally stupid. Well played stephen … well played.

  10. Piggy 10
    22 September 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Franks’ behavior there was pretty terrible, but maybe in the interest of fairness you should also post this clip, from somebody who acts as badly as him. Is this the way a ‘liberal’ ought to treat their ‘friends?’

  11. randal 11
    22 September 2008 at 9:19 pm

    getting crazy now dudes. all the dweebs have bought all these sleazo tactics from spindoctors inc., that are simple replicas of the tactics used by rich american seekers of ooffice. all this stuff used to go on before underground but with the advent of the net and the impossibility of polcing everything at once and the psychological desire for stimulation necessary to running comlex advanced cultures at full capcity then then this is what you get now. its still sleazy because no matter how much it is attmepted to be reported in the press it is usuallyy counterproductive as people are repulsed by over exposure to abhorrent claims and grpahci pictorial representation in the press and tv. people have their own needs and will reject over exposure to prurient material adverting deviant perverted behaviour ad nauseum.
    and besides their is a good movie ona t the moment..roger and out

  12. Russell Brown 12
    23 September 2008 at 8:22 am

    More interesting is the fact that Grant has a poodle who basically takes a video camera to eery meeting waiting for any comment from Stephen which can then be used to take anything he says is jest or otherwise right out of context.

    No, he doesn’t. That’s just Franks’ paranoid belief.

    The video was taken by James Barber, a young Green Party member who sent it in to Agenda after the programme solicited such “citizen journalist” material and offered a mobile phone as a prize. The Robertson camp didn’t even know who Barber was until he explained it yesterday.

    For me, the story is less Franks’ “dog” analogy, which he’s expressed before, than his extraordinary string of allegations against Robertson (which might be summarised as “the gays are coming to get me!”). These were not only idiotic, they were baseless. A decent man would apologise to his opponent, but I think Franks’ anger runs too deep for that.

  13. Scribe 13
    23 September 2008 at 8:35 am

    They’re comparing one bunch of lunatic religious fanatics with another. Seems reasonable to me.

    Many intelligent atheists are prolifers, Draco.

    Scribe – Who are the people that bomb abortion clinics?

    Usually people who have some sort of mental problem, Quoth. And the acts, rare as hen’s teeth, are immediately condemned by pro-life organisations.

    Most attacks on abortion clinics are performed when they are empty, so they’re to make a point, not hurt anyone.

    Alveda King, the niece of a guy who knew a thing or two about civil rights, has said abortion is the greatest civil rights injustice of our time.

    What do others think is the greatest civil rights injustice of our time? And what would you do to protest against it?

  14. Dom 14
    23 September 2008 at 8:43 am

    I don’t understand the right-wing rage about Franks’ true opinions being ‘outed’ (so to speak).

    Franks has claimed that the gay lobby is trying to paint him as homophobic. That’s misdirection. Franks clearly is homophobic but doesn’t even have the guts to be upfront about it.

  15. Trouble 15
    23 September 2008 at 9:28 am

    “Many intelligent atheists are prolifers”

    Which ones? The only sound argument I’ve ever heard in favour of treating an embryo with the rudiments of a central nervous system as if it has the same moral standing as a newborn and semi-independently functioning infant, or a reasoning adult, is that it has a soul.

    The US violence figures of 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 assaults and 655 anthrax hoaxes isn’t hen’s teeth, and it isn’t attributable to mental illness. While most pro-life organisations don’t support such violence, a handful certainly do, and a bunch more do their best to make excuses and minimise its impact, as Scribe has just done. Threats might not “hurt” anyone, but they certainly scare them.

    And Alveda King’s opposition to abortion is not some religion-free thing – her outfit is explicitly Christian. Sure, there’s some overlap between civil and religious rights, but many people support the latter without buying into the former.

  16. Trouble 16
    23 September 2008 at 9:33 am

    I meant valid, not sound. Sound implies that all the prepositions in a logical argument are correct, and many people including most atheists do not accept that souls exist.

  17. Policy Parrot 17
    23 September 2008 at 9:44 am

    “Which ones? The only sound argument I’ve ever heard in favour of treating an embryo with the rudiments of a central nervous system as if it has the same moral standing as a newborn and semi-independently functioning infant, or a reasoning adult, is that it has a soul.”

    Not only that, but all the while the same people want to deny human rights to children after their birth, by allowing for, and even condoning in some cases explicit assaults against them.

    These are also the same people who constantly assert that the current government is authoritarian, and yet they propose even more draconian population control measures as a so-called deterrent. As if they were a deterrent in the first place?

    The very same people who decry Winston Peter’s corruption as total unethical are in many cases just as guilty, or even worse? Do you really think Peters learned all of his funding tricks since 1992?

  18. Scribe 18
    23 September 2008 at 9:53 am

    Trouble,

    Comments like “who’s bombing abortion clinics?” (further up) try to paint a picture of pro-lifers causing massive death and destruction. It’s a fallacy. I think you’d find many more religiously motivated attacks than the wikipedia numbers you cite above, which were supplied by a pro-abortion agency.

    I never said Alveda King’s opposition to abortion was religion-free, just as her uncle’s opposition to segregation etc wasn’t religion-free.

    What is the greatest civil rights issue of our time, Trouble?

    And when does life begin? Should abortions be performed at any stage of pregnancy?

    Regarding pro-life atheists:

    Nat Hentoff is the best known: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/28/abortion-senator-to-abortion-president/

    Here’s a group Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

    Another pro-life atheist profiled here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100503.html

  19. Scribe 19
    23 September 2008 at 10:03 am

    Policy Parrot,

    These are also the same people who constantly assert that the current government is authoritarian, and yet they propose even more draconian population control measures as a so-called deterrent. As if they were a deterrent in the first place?

    Can you explain this? What are these “draconian population control measures”?

  20. Pascal's bookie 20
    23 September 2008 at 10:06 am

    And when does life begin?

    Define life.

    I don’t think that there is any single point that you can say where an individual’s life ‘begins’.

    There is certainly no point at which you can say, before x the tissue is not alive and after x it is alive. So I think the question is very poorly formed.

  21. Scribe 21
    23 September 2008 at 10:38 am

    Pb,

    I think it’s a fine question, but how about we try another one. Well, another two?

    What happens to an unborn child between conception and birth to change its “status”? Do you think women should be able to abort at any stage of their pregnancy?

  22. randal 22
    23 September 2008 at 10:52 am

    It shoudl always be a womans right to abort at any stage of the pregnancy. there are over 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens sapiens running around the planet now grabbing anything and everything they can and by and large stinking the joint up so any attempt to lessen the number is to be applauded.

  23. Scribe 23
    23 September 2008 at 10:57 am

    there are over 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens sapiens running around the planet now grabbing anything and everything they can and by and large stinking the joint up so any attempt to lessen the number is to be applauded.

    Death penalty OK too, then?

    captcha: emotions few

  24. Anita 24
    23 September 2008 at 11:04 am

    Franks is homophobic, and a number of current National MPs supported his attempt to make discrimination against homosexuals legal.

    Key, English, Ryall and Collins (among others) voted for an attempt to restrict access to abortion.

    It’s not surprising they’re trying to shut down every discussion about their social conservatism.

  25. Pascal's bookie 25
    23 September 2008 at 11:13 am

    Scribe,

    Firstly ‘conception’ is a process, not a point. And why start at ‘conception’ in any case.

    That’s the problem that you are not seeing. What happens in between ‘conception’ and birth is development. Just like what happens during the process of ‘conception’.

    Development is, by definition, changes in what it is at any given point in time. It’s ‘status’ changes, and any marker points you care make are artificial, based around your assumptions rather than on what is actually happening to the tissue.

    But the underlying point is that there are different ideas about when we should confer human being rather than human tissue status.

    These different beliefs are honestly held, and unresolvable. The question from a policy point of view becomes “what should we allow?” Pro lifers usually assert that no view other than there’s is legitimate. They reject pluralism in this instance. Pro choice folk say that a person should be able to follow their conscience, given that there are these unresolvable, honestly held differences of opinion.

    Stepping outside of your personal opinion about the status of a fetus, what’s wrong with that from a policy point of view?

  26. randal 26
    23 September 2008 at 11:15 am

    its really interesting that the people who grab and snatch for everything are the same ones who want an unlimited supply of supplicants to their monuments of greed and self gratification by the accumulation of property and goods.

  27. Scribe 27
    23 September 2008 at 11:21 am

    Anita,

    Key, English, Ryall and Collins (among others) voted for an attempt to restrict access to abortion.

    I assume you’re referring to the attempt to have girls under 16 notify their parents before they have an abortion. Can you please list other medical procedures 12-year-old girls should be allowed to have without parental knowledge and/or consent.

    Heck, they can’t even get vaccinations to help stop illness without consent, yet a process that increases the likelihood of drug/alcohol abuse, depression and suicidal tendencies, not to mention physical complications, shouldn’t need permission?

    Please tell me you were objecting to their vote on another issue.

  28. Scribe 28
    23 September 2008 at 11:26 am

    Pb,

    I just struggle to reconcile the notion some people have that it’s OK to abort an eight-week-old preborn child but it’s not OK to abort a 39-week-old preborn child. Some think either is fine, but many people of good intention have those ideas, which I find muddled.

    Abortion is legal in New Zealand now but the law is being flouted. People range in views from no abortion ever to abortion at any stage, and children from botched abortions shouldn’t even receive medical attention.

    It’s time the issue was discussed again. Legal proceedings may lead to that discussion.

  29. Anita 29
    23 September 2008 at 11:27 am

    Scribe,

    No, I’m referring to them supporting Peter Brown’s attempt to put Peter Hall, an anti-abortion doctor, on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I wrote about it over here.

    If Brown and Copeland’s amendments had both succeeded (and both gained the support of the majority of voting Nats) we would have an ASC where the majority of members want to move from the status quo to a more restrictive regime.

  30. Scribe 30
    23 September 2008 at 11:42 am

    If Brown and Copeland’s amendments had both succeeded (and both gained the support of the majority of voting Nats) we would have an ASC where the majority of members want to move from the status quo to a more restrictive regime.

    Anita,

    The status quo is, for all intents and purposes, unlawful. A High Court judge has said so.

    When you say “more restrictive” do you really mean “applying the law”?

  31. Lew 31
    23 September 2008 at 12:37 pm

    The fact that a couple of the homophobe apologists (yes, Scribe, though you’re one of the more reasoned Christian conservatives about, you’re one) have managed to turn this debate from being about the extreme statements of a candidate for an allegedly mainstream, moderate and inclusive party into yet another pointless debate on abortion is a great example of agenda control. Why argue the points your opponents want you to argue about? Argue your own points. Argue the initial topic of the post. Engaging with the pot-kettle-black and misdirection arguments is simply fuel for the fire. Ignore it; it’s irrelevant.

    The issue here is transparency. We’ve got a politician actually saying what he means, apparently meaning what he says, and then getting pissy for the fact that it was reported. That’s the story – not the merits of what he said. Such clarity is all too rare – we should be thanking Stephen Franks for his – ahem – frankness. As we should be thanking John Hayes for his on the minimum wage; and John Key for his forthright position on Winston Peters, and Hone Harawira for his views on John Howard, and so on.

    Or are Franks’ defenders here arguing that he’s not being homophobic? Because I’d like to see that argument fly.

    L

  32. Anita 32
    23 September 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Lew,

    I’m one of the people happily including abortion within the debate; and I’m pretty sure I’m not a homophobe apologist 🙂

    Franks’ statements are the statements of a single bigot.

    Taken within the context of National Party (and its leader, senior MPs, backbenchers and candidates) positions on GLBT issues, abortion, gender equity, Māori issues, poverty, families and so on we see that rather than a stand-alone bigot we are seeing a socially conservative party ready to legislate for a conservative, uptight and bigoted New Zealand.

  33. Scribe 33
    23 September 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Lew,

    My first comment on this thread was to demonstrate Tane’s hypocrisy. I’m sure I could have found other examples, but Trotter’s Taliban comparison remains firmly in my mind. I — honest to God — didn’t mean to turn the thread into a discussion on abortion.

    I don’t know enough about Franks to know if he’s homophobic or not. Opposing civil unions or gay marriage doesn’t necessarily make one homophobic. Some homosexuals opposed the CUB, after all. And there were homosexuals in California who opposed the recent change there to allow gay marriage (vote still to come in November).

  35. Anita 35
    23 September 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Scribe,

    I don?t know enough about Franks to know if he?s homophobic or not. Opposing civil unions or gay marriage doesn?t necessarily make one homophobic.

    Franks tried to change the Human Rights Act to make it explicitly legal to discriminate against homosexuals. I’m sure that a well trained legal mind can explain that away, but it sounds an awful lot like textbook homophobia to me.

  36. Scribe 36
    23 September 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Anita,

    McDonald’s or Foodtown shouldn’t be able to refuse employment to someone because they are Maori, gay, female or all three.

    But should, for argument’s sake, a Muslim school be able to refuse employment to someone who lives a lifestyle incompatible with Islam?

  37. Lew 37
    23 September 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Scribe: Yes, and your initial comment was classic pot-kettle-black. Irrelevant in this context, unless you believe Tane is Grant Robertson, or someone else of similar civic standing. Just distracting from the actual issue at hand.

    I don’t know Stephen Franks personally, and as such I can only judge him from his publicly-held positions. So I don’t personally know he is a homophobe, but his statements indicate that in all likelihood he is one. That’s fine – his right to be so; our right to know about it.

    I agree that opposing civil unions or gay marriage in the isolated case doesn’t make one a prima facie homophobe. However there are three other issues here:

    1. Your appeal that `some homosexuals opposed the CUB, after all’ is fallacious unless you look at the reasons for their opposition. Many, for instance, opposed it because it created a separate category for gay marriage rather than allowing queers access to the same cultural status as straights. That’s quite the opposite of what you imply. If you can find a significant body of queer opinion which is arguing `we don’t want the right to be joined in a relationship similar to marriage because it will harm NZ’s notional family unit’ then I’ll grant you this point. Good luck.

    2. Stephen Franks’ grounds for opposing the CUB on the basis of a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality the what’s at issue – not the fact of his opposition to it, the justification. The belief that homosexuality and bestiality are in any way comparable is an explicitly, unambigouosly homophobic position – like the assertion that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable. You are free to hod these positions if you choose – but be advised that they are homophobic positions, and people have some justification in considering you to be homophobic if you hold them.

    3. In the context of Stephen Franks’ attempts to repeal provisions in the BORA which generally preclude discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, I don’t think his statements here should come as a surprise or a shock to anyone. They are entirely consistent. The comparison of sex with (or love for) a dog to sex with (or love for) another human being of the same gender makes his view quite crystal clear: homosexuals are animals. His view that queers shouldn’t have the rights afforded all other humans is also crystal clear: homosexuals are not humans.

    So you tell me: does he seem homophobic, or not?

    L

  38. Killinginthenameof 38
    23 September 2008 at 1:22 pm

    “Scribe
    I assume you’re referring to the attempt to have girls under 16 notify their parents before they have an abortion. Can you please list other medical procedures 12-year-old girls should be allowed to have without parental knowledge and/or consent.”

    Personally I’d have anyone above 12 have final say on what happens to their body. You do realize it’s blatantly obvious that the only reason you want parental consent is to try and prevent more girls from having abortions. At least be honest, you don’t give a fuck about their health, hell your looking to use pregnancy and child birth as a punishment, you practically have no moral ground to stand on.

    Its also fairly hypocritical that you claim that a parent should have complete control over a 12-16 year old, hell 16 year old’s can move out of home and disown their parents (another freedom that family fist is highly aggrieved about) yet a 12 to 16 year old should not have complete control over a fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning.

    “Scribe

    Heck, they can’t even get vaccinations to help stop illness without consent, yet a process that increases the likelihood of drug/alcohol abuse, depression and suicidal tendencies, not to mention physical complications, shouldn’t need permission?”

    Flawed ideological agenda pushing research. Most teenage girls who get pregnant engage in multiple high risk behaviors, and its that that raises the likely hood of depression. The researches need to establish causation, but even if they did it could probably be solved by you bloody bible bashers leaving others the fuck alone and stop trying to guilt trip them into your religion.

    Personally I don’t like abortion, I just think its a greater evil for force my beliefs on someone else.

  39. Anita 39
    23 September 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Scribe,

    McDonald’s or Foodtown shouldn’t be able to refuse employment to someone because they are Maori, gay, female or all three.

    Franks wants it to be legal for McDonalds and Foodtown to refuse employment to someone because they’re gay or have an illegitimate child.

    He’s a lovely man.

    But should, for argument’s sake, a Muslim school be able to refuse employment to someone who lives a lifestyle incompatible with Islam?

    Want to give me more detail?

    Drinks alcohol in non-work related contexts (e.g. a family dinner) no the school shouldn’t be able to discriminate.

    Wears tshirts with pictures of the Virgin Mary on it to school while employed as a teacher? The school should be able to set an appropriate dress code (no representational art, no religion symbolism, whatever) and enforce it.

  40. Scribe 40
    23 September 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Anita,

    Franks wants it to be legal for McDonalds and Foodtown to refuse employment to someone because they’re gay or have an illegitimate child.

    I’ve never liked Franks. If this is true (and I doubt it is), that’s just another reason.

    What if a teacher at a Muslim school is openly gay? Should the school be able to dismiss him/her?

  41. Scribe 41
    23 September 2008 at 2:04 pm

    KITNO,

    You’re right, I don’t want girls to have an abortion. But if they’re under 16 (note UNDER 16), at the very least I want them to consult with their parents and be given full information from health professionals on the development of the foetus and the possible flow-on effects from having an abortion.

    If a girl has an abortion and suffers from physical or mental problems, which is very likely, at least the parents might have some inkling why that is.

    fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning

    Funny how you went from “a fetus that is only human but the most tenuous of reasoning” to someone fully human, without any outside intervention.

    Flawed ideological agenda pushing research.

    Shame for you that the research, conducted in New Zealand, was led by a pro-choice atheist. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK now require doctors to discuss the possible impacts on mental health with women seeking abortion, so it’s obviously much deeper than the agenda-driven claims you make.

  42. Draco T Bastard 42
    23 September 2008 at 2:31 pm

    You’re right, I don’t want girls to have an abortion. But if they’re under 16 (note UNDER 16), at the very least I want them to consult with their parents…

    You do realise that the reason why pregnant girls under 16 don’t have to consult their parents about an abortion is to protect them from their parents don’t you?

  43. Killinginthenameof 43
    23 September 2008 at 2:52 pm

    “Flawed ideological agenda pushing research.

    Shame for you that the research, conducted in New Zealand, was led by a pro-choice atheist. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK now require doctors to discuss the possible impacts on mental health with women seeking abortion, so it’s obviously much deeper than the agenda-driven claims you make.”

    Girls who get pregnant are more likely to engage in multiple high risk behaviours. These include drugs, binge drinking, promiscuous sex, abusive boyfriends and crime. A large part of the reason people get into those kind of situations and lifestyles is because they engage in very little long term planning and evaluation of previous actions. They live here and now, with very few long term goals. I think than having and abortion weighing on their conscience (the guilt from which is a social construction from you lot) is much less of a factor than abusive boyfriends and sustained heavy drug use.

    You’re right, I don’t want girls to have an abortion. But if they’re under 16 (note UNDER 16), at the very least I want them to consult with their parents and be given full information from health professionals on the development of the foetus and the possible flow-on effects from having an abortion

    Any response to my criticism that parental notification is just another way to force a teenage girl not to have an abortion?

    The only way I could accept parental notification is if it occurs after the abortion, and even then I don’t fully support it.

    Why is the development of the foetus relevant for any reason other than to guilt trip a girl out of having an abortion? You might have some more creditability if anti abortion campaigners didn’t have such a long history of misrepresenting the facts on this issue.

    And if its for the parents to decide what’s best for their daughter, why shouldn’t the government be able to decide what’s best for you?

    This is all regardless of the fact that a girl getting pregnant under the age of 16 is likely to be the result of very bad parenting in the first place.

    You not really one for harm minimisation though are you?

  44. Scribe 44
    23 September 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Draco,

    Yes, and I find it strange — nay, crazy — that young girls can make a massive decision like this without parental input.

    As much as some people might like to downplay abortion and its impact, this isn’t the equivalent of getting a filling at the dentist.

  45. Killinginthenameof 45
    23 September 2008 at 2:57 pm

    2. Stephen Franks’ grounds for opposing the CUB on the basis of a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality the what’s at issue – not the fact of his opposition to it, the justification. The belief that homosexuality and bestiality are in any way comparable is an explicitly, unambigouosly homophobic position – like the assertion that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable. You are free to hod these positions if you choose – but be advised that they are homophobic positions, and people have some justification in considering you to be homophobic if you hold them.

    I’ve always found this one of their most laughably weak talking points, only for bandying about amongst themselves or on fox news. Simple simple reasoning, is it consensual? Yes, then its fine. No, it’s not fine. Animals cannot consent, simple as that, but still they try pull that line, its beyond belief almost.

  46. Robinsod 46
    23 September 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Scribe – you are a Neanderthal. I recall you were the main pain in the arse on the abortion thread too. Why don’t you f*ck off back to your theist cave and your daddy-god and let the rest of us get on with living as grown adults? F*ckin pathetic…

    [Tane: Lay off the personal attacks Sod. I don’t want to have to ban you again.]

  47. Scribe 47
    23 September 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Robinsod,

    Sorry. I thought blogs were places where people discuss ideas. My mistake.

    Don’t worry; I’ll pray for you 😉

    [lprent: It is, and the ‘sod is lucky that Tane got to him first. I think that you’d probably have to pray pretty hard. ]

  48. Quoth the Raven 48
    23 September 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Scribe – Your first comment on this thread was facetious little remark and I countered it with something deserving. So just relax, we’ll get our guns out and shoot some unitarians… BANG.. BANG.

  49. Scribe 49
    23 September 2008 at 7:37 pm

    I’m relaxed, Quoth. I’ll pray for you and the unitarians as well.

  50. Killinginthenameof 50
    23 September 2008 at 7:47 pm

    “Scribe
    September 23, 2008 at 7:37 pm
    I’m relaxed, Quoth. I’ll pray for you and the unitarians as well.”

    I’ll have some of my gay friend pray for you next time they are having anal sex.

  51. Scribe 51
    23 September 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Thanks KITNO. Much appreciated.

  52. Lew 52
    23 September 2008 at 8:30 pm

    KITNO: Well, the logical flaw is present in the very language of the clip – the question (put by Franks) is `if two people love each other, why can’t they be married?’

    Two people. Then he goes and uses an example containing one person and one non-person. And wonders why he gets shot down in flames.

    Incidentally, I think it’s amazing how some of you lot make people like Scribe (sorry, Scribe, you’re in the gun here as a bigot for defending Franks) seem progressive and compassionate. The dude wants to deny people the same rights as others based on the teachings of an old book, and yet you guys (Sod, QtR and KITNO) make him seem reasonable.

    And then you wonder why people give social liberals such a hard time.

    L

  53. Killinginthenameof 53
    23 September 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Thats your perception, not ours.

  54. Lew 54
    23 September 2008 at 8:38 pm

    KITNO: Thank you, Captain Obvious.

    L

  55. Killinginthenameof 55
    23 September 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Sorry, just looks like some of the righties these days think that saying something makes it true.

  56. Pascal's bookie 56
    23 September 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Scribe, You didn’t really answer this question:

    Pro choice folk say that a person should be able to follow their conscience, given that there are these unresolvable, honestly held differences of opinion.

    Stepping outside of your personal opinion about the status of a fetus, what’s wrong with that from a policy point of view?

    You sort of said that you don’t understand how someone sees a difference between a fetus at different stages of development, but that is nowhere near the question I asked. Which is about policy and what we should do, given we don’t agree with each other.

    Repeating that we disagree is pointless, unless you think, like the Taliban, that your revealed truth just, must, be law. Please don’t be offended, I’m asking, not accusing. And bear in mind that pro lifers say some truly terrible things about pro choice people, simply because they disagree.

    In answer to your question about Muslim schools, no, I don’t think they should be allowed to sack someone just because they are gay. If the person is teaching the courses as the school wants, in the way they want, then I see no reason to fire them. But I’m open to argument, though not if the school receives one cent of government funding. Do you disagree?

  57. Anita 57
    23 September 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Scribe,

    Here is the SOP containing Franks’ attempt to make discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and marital status legal.

  58. Draco T Bastard 58
    23 September 2008 at 11:18 pm

    Scribe:

    Yes, and I find it strange — nay, crazy — that young girls can make a massive decision like this without parental input.

    Jesus Scribe – did you read what I said?
    I said that the law is the way it is to protect the girl from her parents. I’m pretty sure that a girl would go to her parents if she was in a loving and supportive home. If she was pregnant to her father from rape she would probably have second thoughts. Think the father would be overly supportive of the police becoming involved as well or do you think he may be inclined to go further than rape?

    Laws like this allows those kids in such abusive situations to get the help that they need.

  59. Scribe 59
    24 September 2008 at 9:03 am

    Pb,

    Pro choice folk say that a person should be able to follow their conscience, given that there are these unresolvable, honestly held differences of opinion.

    Stepping outside of your personal opinion about the status of a fetus, what’s wrong with that from a policy point of view?

    Sorry, didn’t mean to dodge the question. I’ll be honest and say that I struggle to step outside of my personal opinion, though I empathise with couples who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy.

    From a policy point of view, I think it’s indefensible that women and girls seeking abortion aren’t required to give informed consent. I understand that it would be very difficult (ask Bill English), because of the ideologies of people on both side of the debate, but abortion must be the only major surgical procedure that doesn’t require informed consent.

    Hope that answers the question (though not sure it does).

    And bear in mind that pro lifers say some truly terrible things about pro choice people, simply because they disagree.

    I agree. I find that disappointing. And let’s not forget pro-choice people have some pretty nasty things to say about pro-lifers too.

  60. Anita 60
    24 September 2008 at 9:11 am

    Scribe,

    Actually all women undergoing an abortion are required to give informed consent, for example here is Capital Coast DHB’s process description.

    I think the issue you’re referring to is that what English wants to be included in the “informing” part of informed consent is different from what is currently included.

  61. randal 61
    24 September 2008 at 9:12 am

    well this thread is a bundle of larfs. why dont you lot just accept the legislation and move on. Freaks like Franks are always going to try and make some mileage about others sexuality but that is to be expected in a conflicted personality. just ignore him!

  62. Anita 62
    24 September 2008 at 9:22 am

    randal,

    Which legislation?

    Franks and his more senior National mates have a clear agenda of moving toward a more socially conservative New Zealand.

  63. Scribe 63
    24 September 2008 at 9:23 am

    If she was pregnant to her father from rape she would probably have second thoughts. Think the father would be overly supportive of the police becoming involved as well or do you think he may be inclined to go further than rape?

    Is there a less likely way to get pregnant than a girl being raped by her father? I can think of one — circa 2008 years ago.

    There will be incredibly rare circumstances when a parent shouldn’t be informed. Health professionals and social workers should have limited discretion to make that decision. Notifying parents should be the default position, unless there is adequate reason. And “Mum will be mad” is not adequate reason.

    This isn’t cheating on a test at school. It’s not shoplifting a packet of chewing gum. Abortion is as serious as a heart attack.

  64. Scribe 64
    24 September 2008 at 9:27 am

    Anita,

    Women are giving consent, but I wouldn’t call it informed. All medication prescribed comes with a list of side effects; women getting abortions are given full and frank information about the impact of abortion.

    When he was Minister of Health, Bill English devised — with representatives from both sides of the fence — a booklet. Ministry officials basically refused to distribute, with the idea eventually being scrapped.

  65. Scribe 65
    24 September 2008 at 9:30 am

    Franks and his more senior National mates have a clear agenda of moving toward a more socially conservative New Zealand.

    But if they’re voted in, hasn’t the public given them a mandate to do so?

    I’m sceptical that they would have the numbers to bring about any real change in terms of social issues. There are social conservatives in National, but not enough to change things like abortion.

  66. Pascal's bookie 66
    24 September 2008 at 9:34 am

    Thanks for your reply scribe.

    “And “Mum will be mad’ is not adequate reason.”

    How about, “Mum and dad will be real mad, girl might well get a beating, be removed from school and forced to carry the pregnancy against her will”

    How rare do you think that situation would be across many different cultural groups?

    I don’t know, but I’d say it would be a sizable percentage of the few abortions that are performed under the circumstances you are concerned about.

  67. Lew 67
    24 September 2008 at 9:36 am

    Scribe: It’s not necessary that you consider it to be informed. What’s necessary is that the clinicians in charge consider it to be informed. It comes back to the central question I asked (and which was never answered) in the original epic-length abortion thread: who is more qualified to oversee the process of abortion than clinicians vetted by and affiliated with of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? In specialised situations like this we (as a society) delegate discretion to recognised experts such as these. If you can satisfy me that there’s anyone better-qualified, I’ll back them. Until then, I’ll be taking their medical expertise over your religious beliefs any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

    L

  68. Lew 68
    24 September 2008 at 9:38 am

    Scribe: “But if [National]’re voted in, hasn’t the public given them a mandate to [implement a more conservative social agenda]?”

    Yes, on the assumption that they’re reasonably transparent about their intentions. At present there’s tension within the National party on this one.

    L

  69. Scribe 69
    24 September 2008 at 9:50 am

    Lew,

    My religious beliefs agree with my pro-life stance, but as I’ve said before, one needn’t be religious to be opposed to abortion.

    It comes back to the central question I asked (and which was never answered) in the original epic-length abortion thread: who is more qualified to oversee the process of abortion than clinicians vetted by and affiliated with of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists?

    The RANZCOG usually follows the lead of their British counterparts. I hope they do so on the topic of the mental health impact of abortions, because in the UK they are now requiring that women be warned of the mental health risks associated with abortion.

  70. Scribe 70
    24 September 2008 at 9:57 am

    Pb,

    How rare do you think that situation would be across many different cultural groups?

    I don’t know, but I’d say it would be a sizable percentage of the few abortions that are performed under the circumstances you are concerned about.

    I don’t know either, so won’t hazard a guess. I think parents who would beat their teenage daughter are pretty unlikely to take her out of school and force her to carry on with the pregnancy. Those two responses seem incompatible to me.

  71. Pascal's bookie 71
    24 September 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Those two responses seem incompatible to me.

    Why?

    I don’t know either, so won’t hazard a guess.

    You don’t have to. The question was whether where such an outcome was considered likely, should the parents be informed.

  72. Scribe 72
    25 September 2008 at 10:47 am

    Pb,

    Beating a teenage girl yet wanting her to choose to have the child rather than abort it seems incompatible to me. Violence begets violence.

    And don’t try the “anti-abortion folks want to be allowed to beat their children” line. First of all, smacking a three-year-old is different from beating a 14-year-old girl. Not to mention the fact the people who opposed the repeal of section 59 don’t beat their children.

    Parents who truly beat their children usually can’t even count to 59.

  73. Anita 73
    25 September 2008 at 11:31 am

    Scribe,

    Parents who truly beat their children usually can’t even count to 59.

    Best line so far this week IMHO 🙂

  74. Pascal's bookie 74
    25 September 2008 at 11:40 am

    Don’t put words in my mouth Scribe. It’s got nothing to do with s59. Stop avoiding the question.

    I don’t care if it seems incompatible to you. People do things all the time that are incompatible with their asserted convictions. Pro lifers sometimes get abortions, and people who believe that God is merciful and just fly planes into buildings.

    I know you don’t understand why they do these things, but they do. They are people Scribe, and that’s people for you.

    But never mind that, really never mind it, just address this:

    “And “Mum will be mad’ is not adequate reason.’

    How about, “Mum and dad will be real mad, girl might well get a beating, be removed from school and forced to carry the pregnancy against her will’

    I’ll even drop the beating bit seeing it’s confusing you so much. Would that be adequate reason to not inform / seek parental consent?

    And cut the ‘wanting her to choose’ framing. The question is about not allowing her to choose. This may be done via beatings, sending her away to an ‘aunties’ place for a while, threatening her with hell and damnation, disowning her etc and so on. All the while pileing on the guilt and blame and throwing around muderer talk.

    Don’t try and pretend that this sort of thing would never happen when strict prolifers are trying to prevent a ‘murder’ in their family Scribe.

  75. Scribe 75
    25 September 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Pb,

    I’m not trying to avoid the question — honest.

    I think parents are entitled to make decisions for daughters aged 15 or younger, especially decisions with major implications like abortion. This isn’t like picking an outfit for school.

    Sorry, I just don’t believe 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls are able to make a decision like this by themselves. Maybe there can be provisions for trusted adults (family friends etc) to be consulted rather than the parents, but as more and more studies point to the ongoing implication of abortion, to allow someone so young to make the decision themselves seems irresponsible.

    Anita,

    Glad you liked it 😉 Not sure if it’s an original line. I don’t recall ever hearing it and I’d never thought of it before. Just came to me.

  76. Pascal's bookie 76
    25 September 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Thanks Scribe.

    I apologise if it seems like I’m trying to play gotcha, I’m just trying to work out where you stand, policy wise.

    I think parents are entitled to make decisions for daughters aged 15 or younger, especially decisions with major implications like abortion.

    Crystal clear.

  77. Scribe 77
    25 September 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Pb,

    Now that I’ve “finished my homework”, do you think there are any decisions a 13-year-old girl should have to run past her parents?

    At what age do children free themselves from the shackles of their parents and become free to do whatever they like?

  78. Killinginthenameof 78
    25 September 2008 at 1:09 pm

    “Sorry, I just don’t believe 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls are able to make a decision like this by themselves.”

    Personally I think your underestimating them.

    And yes beating your pregnant daughter then forcing her to keep the baby go hand in hand. They are both ways for an unstable parent to release anger and punish their daughter. Any harm or defect caused to the baby is a punishment from god for the mothers sinning.

  79. Pascal's bookie 79
    25 September 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Of course there are Scribe. But I’m not an absolutist about things. I think the present system is about right.

    I think abrtion has it’s own problems. It’s a special case. Many parents will be bringing all sorts of crazy baggage to the situation. Like you say, it’s not like getting a tooth filled. The consequences, no matter the decision, are large, and at the end of the day are the result of the young womans choices. (assuming consensual sex)

    I don’t think that parents should be allowed to force a girl to carry a pregnancy she does not want, or to abort one against her will.

  80. Matt 80
    7 November 2008 at 10:10 am

    This is a totally dishonest portrayal of an equally dishonest YouTube clip.

    The real story is here: Fisking Grant Robertson.

Links to post