NRT: The Greens support abortion

Written By: - Date published: 12:19 pm, June 6th, 2014 - 216 comments
Categories: abortion, health - Tags:

no-right-turn-256Reposted from here, No Right Turn looks at the Greens policy on abortion.

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-greens-support-abortion.html

The Green Party has ratified a formal policy on abortion, making it the only party in Parliament to have one.

It would legislate to decriminalise abortion and protect the right to end a pregnancy.

Having an abortion in New Zealand is still a crime under the Crimes Act, unless a pregnant woman faces a danger to her life, physical or mental health.

Abortion law has always been a subject about which politicians have tried to steer well clear, despite repeated calls for the laws to be reviewed and updated.

Green Party MP Jan Logie said it is time that abortion is removed from the Crimes Act, and brought out from that shadow of judgement and mistrust of women, because ultimately it is a health issue.

The full policy is here. While there’s an obvious focus on removing our absurd thirty-year-old abortion law, which effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill to access a basic medical procedure, it also addresses availability, requiring medical professionals who object to abortion to provide an effective referral, and ensuring that women don’t have to travel hundreds of kilometres for a basic medical procedure. It would be a major positive step, and I look forward to the Greens bringing a bill to implement it.

216 comments on “NRT: The Greens support abortion ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. shorts 1
    6 June 2014 at 12:25 pm

    well overdue, well done Greens!

  2. tinfoilhat 2
    6 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Can we do something about the title……. it might be just me but it comes across as suggesting the Greens as trying to promote abortion.

  3. Puckish Rogue 3
    6 June 2014 at 12:43 pm

    I agree with this

    • lprent 3.1
      6 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

      I am actually surprised that more parties don’t have a policy on it. I suspect that nowhere is it as laden with moral indignation as it was in the 70s and 80s.

      They did pretty well back then in making the procedures safe to do and destroying the industry of backstreet abortionists. But the strange convolutions of defining yourself as being mentally ill are (too put it mildly) strange these days.

      Counselling yes; as part of the decision making process and to make damn sure that it doesn’t happen again. Who hasn’t had someone drip on their shoulder with regrets for hasty decisions made decades ago? Especially those made by their parents or spouses. But the rest of it is pretty strictly a medical decision in my view. The morality of the decision is in my view something that an individual can decide themselves.

      That being said, I personally find the whole idea of abortion rather repugnant, and that we still require it speaks volumes about the lack of effective education about sex and contraception.

      • Merrial 3.1.1
        6 June 2014 at 6:07 pm

        “Who hasn’t had someone drip on their shoulder with regrets for hasty decisions made decades ago?”

        I haven’t. On the other hand, I’ve seen the distress caused by women being forced to give up a baby for adoption, which was the norm when I was young. Miscarriages and stillbirths can also leave long-term scars.

        Full marks to the Greens for a courageous decision. It’s long years overdue, but welcome for all that. Let’s hope a) that they’re in a position in the next government to make the necessary changes and b) that maybe Labour will have the guts to listen to their female members and adopt a similar policy. Perhaps IMP will consider such a policy? Here’s hoping.

  4. MrSmith 4
    6 June 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Another vote winner for the Greens, can’t wait to hear colin craig’s reaction, we haven’t heard much from the bigot lately, maybe he is just busy putting together his deformation case against Russell.

    Go the greens.

  5. weka 5
    6 June 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Good on the GP. There has been substantial work done on this by women’s groups in the past year or two, to raise awareness of the current situation and how ridiculous it is, and to promote change.

    An important step by the GP, making this a normal policy issue, and not being afraid of “you can’t talk about that in election year”. Bugger the reactionaries and the Colin Craig crowd, the GP are speaking directly to the people who are most likely to vote for them.

  6. Will@Welly 6
    6 June 2014 at 12:53 pm

    I am pro abortion. I believe it should be the woman’s right to determine whether or not she wants an abortion, but at the last election, I watched as some anti abortionists tried to derail a meeting, and make the whole meeting about the issue of abortion. The majority of us had gone to hear the candidates speak on various topics and to answer questions across the board.
    I can see the same thing happening up and down the country. The Greens have given the anti abortionists a platform. And watch them use it.
    Watch the Conservative Party ‘milk’ this for all its worth, as well as United Futures. Yes they might be losers, but they will hog the lime-light with their stance on this topic.
    The issues had to be jobs, jobs, jobs, economic growth and credibility – honesty. Clouding the issues plays into NACT’s hands.

    • karol 6.1
      6 June 2014 at 1:54 pm

      Didn’t Lynn and swordfish state yesterday that policies that are strongly contested encourage more people to vote?

      Didn’t swordfish’s poll analysis show that women and the young tend to be most strongly in favour of a change of government?

      IMP are going for the youth vote. In the past some have said that the IP most strongly appeal to young males.

      Greens are showing themselves to strongly support policies that distinguish them from other parties – gender equity, environment, practical support for low-middle income families, engagement with local communities….

      • lprent 6.1.1
        6 June 2014 at 2:16 pm

        Yep. That is why National will be trying to run the most boring election campaign they can.

        • JK 6.1.1.1
          6 June 2014 at 9:37 pm

          That’s what they did last time, and it worked …. for them !

        • Kiwiri 6.1.1.2
          7 June 2014 at 8:50 am

          And I wonder what Labour’s campaign will be?

          Support National with the most boring election campaign?

          Or push for popular policies like increase the retirement age?

          We already have child poverty and perhaps Labour can help the country take a step towards impoverishing the elderly.

    • Will@Welly 6.2
      6 June 2014 at 2:37 pm

      karol, lprent – it actually took an anti-abortionist National M.P. Chris Finlayson to finally shut the ‘discussion’ down. I’ve never ever contemplated voting National, but I gave him a big round of thanks for telling the anti abortionists to “fu!k off” and stop trying to gerrymander what had been a reasonably good meeting till then.
      But the Conservative Party candidate had to get up and recite what was like the start of Monty Pythons “The Meaning of Life”, where “Every Sperm is Sacred”. I just wanted to get up and give him a right bollocking for being such a turd-thumping arsehole. The guy was a lunatic.

  7. fisiani 7
    6 June 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn child has always been a crime in New Zealand. It is still a crime. It is not however illegal if it is certified to protect the physical or mental health of the woman. If it is carried out by a non medical person it is a crime.
    Jan Logie is utterly misguided. Making it no longer a crime could lead to abortion privatisation and back street abortions. They would no longer be illegal. Unintended consequences.

    • weka 7.1
      6 June 2014 at 1:50 pm

      Don’t be daft. You can’t practice medicine without a licence (and a medical degree). No-one is suggesting that this would change.

    • karol 7.2
      6 June 2014 at 2:02 pm

      Can you provide evidence that this happens in countries where abortion is not a crime, and is available to all women who request it? That includes most of Europe and North America, and Australia.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3
      6 June 2014 at 2:51 pm

      Backstreet abortions are a result of abortion being illegal and stigmatized.

    • Daveosaurus 7.4
      6 June 2014 at 7:13 pm

      A zygote is not a child.

    • Merrial 7.5
      6 June 2014 at 9:06 pm

      @ fisiani: “Abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn child has always been a crime in New Zealand. It is still a crime. It is not however illegal if it is certified to protect the physical or mental health of the woman.”

      This is an inconsistent stance. Either abortion is a crime (or morally wrong, the Catholic church’s stance) always and everywhere, or it’s not. It can’t be the case that it’s not a crime when the law allows it, but otherwise it is.

      There is no biological distinction that can plausibly be drawn between abortion and all other forms of contraception; if those other forms of contraception are legal, abortion ought also to be legal.

      • weka 7.5.1
        6 June 2014 at 9:16 pm

        Not sure about your argument there. It’s not legal to perform brain surgery, unless you are licenced to do so. It’s not legal to manufacture opiate-based drugs, unless you are licenced to. We qualify legalities like that all the time.

        There are two main biological distinction that I can see between abortion and contraception. One is the division of contraceptives between barriers to contraception, and those that allow fertilisation but prevent it from going to term. The other is age of the foetus/embryo. There are all different things.

        • fisiani 7.5.1.1
          7 June 2014 at 10:05 pm

          Abortion is a crime under NZ law. Undeniable fact. Read the post above carefully. It is only legal under specified conditions listed above. Making it no longer a crime actually means that future illegal abortionists would not be committing a crime.
          There is no law in NZ forbidding anyone from carrying out surgery even brain surgery like weka. That will surprise some people. If you remove a splinter from someones finger using forceps you are carrying out surgery. That is why there is no legislation. You cannot define types of surgery. It is however illegal to call yourself a surgeon unless you are a properly qualified medical practitioner.
          The Greens proposal could bring back the scourge of amateur abortionists. An unintended consequence I’m sure but a potential money spinner for anyone who can find out how to do it on Google.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.5.1.1.1
            7 June 2014 at 10:22 pm

            You truly are a moron. By making it easy to get in a hospital removes the need to go to back yard abortionists. It is prohibition that causes the problems.

            • fisiani 7.5.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2014 at 10:38 pm

              Try telling that to scared Pacifica women too afraid to tell even their family. No records are kept by the illegal abortionists. Think beyond your Eurocentric blinkers.

              • Psycho Milt …
                7 June 2014 at 10:58 pm

                These women are better served by the current system how, exactly? Not to mention, practicing medicine without a licence would remain as illegal under the Green Party legislation as it is right now, and amateur abortionists would find themselves at the upper end of the scale when it came to sentencing. There’s no more reason for them to exist under the Greens’ proposed law than there is now – if anything, less reason.

                • fisiani …
                  7 June 2014 at 11:05 pm

                  You cannot practice medicine without a licence but you can carry out surgery without a licence. What part of that is too hard to understand?

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    7 June 2014 at 11:18 pm

                    Tell you what – set yourself up as an amateur surgeon, and we’ll see how many appendixes you get to remove before you find a cop on your front doorstep.

                    • fisiani …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:10 am

                      You really don’t get it do you? Strawman argument. There is no profit in taking out an appendix. There are profits to be made as an amateur abortionist and under the Greens proposals you would be committing no crime. No sensible person would ever consent to surgery from an amateur but we are talking about scared, ashamed and not too bright young women or perhaps simply those who do not want their details officially recorded. Jan Logie’s simplistic sloganeering could cost women their lives.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      8 June 2014 at 7:40 am

                      If you’re serious about this idiocy, rather than just winding up the locals, you need some evidential backing for the following claims:

                      1. NZ law permits the practice of surgery without a licence.
                      2. There is significant currently-unsatisfied demand for unofficial abortion services.
                      3. The fact that abortion is illegal despite effectively being freely available is the only thing currently preventing that demand from being filled.

                      Good luck…

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    8 June 2014 at 12:02 am

                    You cannot practice medicine without a licence but you can carry out surgery without a licence.

                    [citation needed]

                    • fisiani …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:12 am

                      Ever had someone take a splinter out of your skin. That constitutes surgery. My statement is so self obvious is does not require a citation.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:17 am

                      Nope, that sounds like the normal RWNJ BS that you spout that has no relationship to reality. So:

                      [citation needed]

                    • blue leopard …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:22 am

                      Are you drunk Fisiani?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:07 am

                      be kind to fisi – he only just got the memo that “lefties arguing about abortion” could be an opportunity for tory spinners to drive a wedge.

                      Won’t work, though:
                      1. he’s incompetent;
                      2. this is not a new debate.

                    • fisiani …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      wrong again weka I am NOT taking about decriminalisation of medical surgical abortions at all. These are not illegal. The Greens proposal is to remove abortion from the Crimes Act. That could/would open the floodgates to illegal abortions. Their sloganeering does a disservice to women.
                      I actually know a great deal about this from personal experience.

                  • weka …
                    8 June 2014 at 12:02 am

                    “What part of that is too hard to understand?”

                    Probably the bit where someone would have grounds to cut open someone’s body and do something medical but weren’t practicing medicine.

                    Removing a splinter isn’t surgery, it’s first aid.

                    • fisiani …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:30 am

                      OK Smart arse. Define surgery. No Medical Council anywhere in the world has been able to do so.
                      Also you don’t have to cut open a body to carry out an abortion.

                      remove a really big splinter and then suture the skin, is that surgery. Course it is.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:41 am

                      No, Fisiani, you come up with the law that allows anybody to perform medical surgery.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 June 2014 at 12:45 am

                      fisi,
                      If no medical council has ever been able to define surgery, how to you know splinter extraction “constitutes surgery”?

                    • weka …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:12 am

                      “Also you don’t have to cut open a body to carry out an abortion.”

                      Ok, so under what circumstances would someone dilate a woman’s cervix if they weren’t doing so medically?

                    • fisiani …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:17 pm

                      Draco. Medical surgery and surgery are two separate issues. Carrying out surgery on someone with their consent does not breach the Crimes Act. Claiming to be a surgeon is not allowed.
                      Use your imagination and picture a scenario where you and weka were on safari and had no cellphones or reception. Weka gets foot caught in a rockslide. If you leave him to go for help he will be eaten before the night is out. He is defenceless. You both agree to cut off his foot. Tie a ligature and carry him to safety. NO crime has been committed. I hope you would agree that constitutes performing surgery.
                      The simple sloganeering of the Greens ushers back in amateur abortionists currently deterred because their actions would be a crime. I know that the Greens have not even considered this possibility for a moment but check with any lawyer. There is a really good reason why abortion is a crime and should remain a crime (unless carried out under legal reasons). Keeping abortion a crime protects women from amateur abortionists.

                    • weka …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:29 pm

                      Yes, but that is practising first aid not medicine. I’d still like you to present some scenarios where someone could perform an abrtion and that not be considered practicing medicine.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:35 pm

                      Traditional and indigenous culture abortifactants.

                    • weka …
                      8 June 2014 at 1:43 pm

                      yes but I think you will find those are on use already despite the way the law is written currently. I doubt that changing the law will have any affect on that. Fisi’s argument is that decriminilising medical/surgical abortions will lead to an increase in medical and surgical abortions by people who aren’t licensed to practice medicine.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                8 June 2014 at 12:03 am

                That’s a different problem and needs a different solution. Women shouldn’t be afraid to go to the doctor.

        • Merrial 7.5.1.2
          7 June 2014 at 11:23 pm

          @ Weka: “There are two main biological distinction that I can see between abortion and contraception. One is the division of contraceptives between barriers to contraception, and those that allow fertilisation but prevent it from going to term. The other is age of the foetus/embryo. There are all different things.”

          Nope. The purpose of all forms of contraception is to prevent pregnancy; if the intended outcome is the same, you’re on shaky ground trying to draw a plausible biological distinction between them. And I have on my side in this matter that august body, the Vatican, which has applied all its intellectual and philosophical firepower to the issue. It’s come to the same conclusion: it isn’t possible to draw a plausible biological distinction between abortion and all other forms of contraception. Therefore the Catholic church opposes all forms of contraception.

          Just in case this statement is familiar to readers, I happily admit that I’m quoting myself from other comment threads on this subject. It saves the bother of having to repeat my arguments…

          • weka 7.5.1.2.1
            7 June 2014 at 11:58 pm

            Lol, sorry but I am not going to take the Catholic Church as an authority on contraception and abortion.

            There ARE biological differences (and medical ones). Whether we want to ascribe ethics to those differences is another matter. I’d also point out that most women will feel quite differently about using a condom vs taking the morning after pill vs having a surgical abortion at say 12 weeks. Those aren’t insignificant differences.

            Obviously the current law should be changed to decriminalise abortion. I just don’t think arguing there are no differences is the best underlying rationale. We still regulate how contraception and abortion happen differently.

            • Merrial 7.5.1.2.1.1
              8 June 2014 at 3:39 pm

              @ Weka: “Lol, sorry but I am not going to take the Catholic Church as an authority on contraception and abortion.”

              Apologies, Weka, my original comment about implausibility was aimed at Fisiani, not you!

              And you’ll get no disagreement from me about the Catholic stance on abortion. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t dismiss the church’s argument out of hand. They don’t have all those Jesuits in the Vatican for nothing. The argument put forward by the church is theologically, philosophically and biologically coherent and internally consistent.

              But here’s the thing: strip away the theology (as those of us who aren’t religious can do), and it’s still an internally consistent and coherent argument. And pared down thus, it’s an effective tool for us to use as support for the legalisation of abortion.

    • SPC 7.6
      8 June 2014 at 12:49 am

      fisiani, are you arguing for the legalisation of drugs, because if drug supply is illegal then leads to criminals supplying the market (people say that if drugs are provided legally, then back street supply would end).

      After all with abortions provided legally there have been no back street abortions.

      So how does even easier access to legally provided abortions result in back street abortions?

      The health system already allows for public and private facilities to provide medical services.

      And no, I see nothing in the proposal that allows a non medical person to provide abortions.

      This sounds like a resort to the tactics uses in other morality related issues – if we allow this then something worse will happen later. The then does not follow.

      Divorce and same sex relationships do not result in polygamy or coveting of ones neighbours ass becoming commonplace.

  8. Enough is Enough 8
    6 June 2014 at 3:11 pm

    As I said in relation to carbon:

    it is fantastic that the Green party continues to lead in almost every policy area. There are not really any progressive policies in mainstream politics that do not have their roots in the Green Party.

    The main differences with Labour are their idiotic policies like austerity measures against the pensioners.

    Labour will do what they always do. Have meeting after meeting for the next 6 weeks. Argue, annoy each other, leak some dirt to the media, and then release their “new” abortion policy (with the name “kiwi” in there somewhere) with great fan fare.

    And guess what that new policy will look almost identical to the Greens policy.

    • the pigman 8.1
      7 June 2014 at 1:35 am

      Well that is a pretty boring meme. No way the NZLP would follow the Greens down this path.

      Quite a lively discussion on this issue over at the Daily Blog earlier this year (March maybe?), but not the kind of discussion I can be bothered having again.

      It is a pretty depressing thing to be campaigning about and thus I expect it will win the Greens very few votes.

      • lprent 8.1.1
        7 June 2014 at 5:07 am

        “No way the NZLP would follow the Greens down this path.”

        Agreed. As much as some members would like to, others would dislike it. Same with the MPs, and the voters.

        But it is MMP. Parties can and damn near have to be different

  9. Rosie 9
    6 June 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Congratulations Jan Logie and The Greens on being the ones to step up – ahead of the times and speaking for the times when others are still stuck in the past.

    Personally this is such a welcome policy it makes me a little misty eyed. I’ve never been in the position of requiring an abortion, thank god but a friend was many years ago. I went with her to the clinic to support her. It was among one of the most miserable days of my life and something that my friend would never forget. She cried her eyes out for days while she was with us, recovering in our flat.

    The trauma of what happened to her was compounded by the shame and secrecy surrounding it and the fact that she was made to feel bad by her family, that she was a tart and an embarrassment, at a time when she needed their love the most.

    The pregnancy could have been prevented had her Dr mentioned to her that the medication she was on made her contraceptive pill ineffective.

    The additional hurt and shame could have been mitigated or eliminated altogether had she been treated respectfully by the medical profession as a woman will do in the future if the Greens make good progress with their policy.

    • Chooky 9.1
      6 June 2014 at 6:35 pm

      +100 Rosie…i have never had an abortion either because I was bloody careful…and i did /would not trust any male to use contraception properly….But I do have a very good, very well educated friend who did have an abortion in London …and I dont think it affected her adversely!…For her it was a relief!. She is very sensitive but she did not want a child with her lover of the time …she was too young…..he wasnt the right man !….and …much later, well into her thirties and early forties, after she had travelled and had a career ,she eventually had three children who are very much loved and well cared for and thriving

      …I also knew a girl at school who had an abortion….at 16 , although very bright and from a well- to- do family , she was way too young to be a Mother …here again she has gone on i think to have a career and other children.

      While some women are traumatised by their choice, it is their choice! ….and how much MORE would they be traumatised by having a child that is basically not wanted, to a man who is NOT wanted in their lives, or as a father to their child?.

      It amazes me how some so- called Lefty males who supposedly support human rights have a black spot when it comes to womens’ rights to control their own fertility…and this in a grossly , grossly overpopulated world !….and this by men who are not prepared to sacrifice a good part of their lives looking after their own children!…let alone other peoples unwanted children!

      …imo it is a POWER and CONTROL ISSUE and the prognosis for this planet is bleak while there are such insecure and sexist men around

      GO GREEN! Ecology and the viability of this Earth is an issue of women’s rights and is a feminist issue!

      • bad12 9.1.1
        6 June 2014 at 10:36 pm

        Chooky, ”and how much more would they be traumatised by having a child that is basically not wanted, to a man who is not wanted in their lives or as a father to their child”,

        Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, you should be hired on as the Green Party campaign manager for ‘decriminalization’,

        That statement of yours, the piece i reprint above,(and a lot of the other that i wont bother with),it reeks of some serious irrationality,(in my world it would be described as having too many screws loose),

        i can empathize with the child that is basically not wanted,( i was pretty much one of them myself),

        i can empathize with the ”man that’s not wanted in their lives or as a father to their child”,

        BUT, how the hell can an abortion be the result of any of this, surely the two statements i repeat just above what i am saying here would preclude the woman from ever being pregnant to such a person,

        Seriously what woman in her right mind would be having sex with a man that she didn’t want in her life,

        Snigger, perhaps the song was right all along, ”just one look that’s all it took just one look”/sarc…

        • Disraeli Gladstone 9.1.1.1
          6 June 2014 at 10:46 pm

          “Seriously what woman in her right mind would be having sex with a man that she didn’t want in her life,”

          I think you should vote for Colin Craig and the Conservatives. You two have a lot in common it seems.

          It’s like I’ve gone back in time to the 1950s. Casual sex is a thing now. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not for everyone but we shouldn’t judge people for lifestyle choices. What we need is better sex ed, better access to and cheaper birth control, and an abortion law that does not have government (and largely men) regulating what a woman does with her body.

          • bad12 9.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2014 at 11:00 pm

            Gallstone, ”casual sex is a thing now” and such casual sex justifies equally ”casual killing of the end result”???,

            So totally Laissez Fairre of you Gallstone, so Liberal, so encouraging of woman to in effect behave as casual unpaid prostitutes so men can get their ends away, and its so great we never have to worry about unwanted babies we can just flush em all down the sink and never hear a whimper nor a scream…

            • Disraeli Gladstone 9.1.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2014 at 11:04 pm

              In bad12’s worldview, women who choose to satisfy themselves with a healthy sex life are “casual unpaid prostitutes”.

              Good to know, you idiot. Your ranting today has veered from beyond sexism to outright misogyny.

              You sad, sad, little man.

              • bad12 …
                6 June 2014 at 11:27 pm

                Concentrate Gallstone, i know that’s virtually impossible for you after having come up with such a stunning idea that casual sex is a justification for killing any babies that might result from your casual ignorance as you zip the fly and stroll on by,

                There is a ”consequence” of such casual sex, You, so obviously if that consequence were to occur couldn’t give a shit and would be long gone befor such a consequence was known…

                • Disraeli Gladstone …
                  6 June 2014 at 11:39 pm

                  Personally, neither casual sex or abortion is something I’m comfortable with at a personal level.

                  But you know what? I don’t get to impose my own personal morality onto other people’s lives.

                  It’s a woman’s body. It’s their choice.

                  • bad12 …
                    7 June 2014 at 12:16 am

                    Perfect Gallstone, the perfect argument, now you argue against casual sex after first extolling the virtues,

                    The perfect gentleman’s escape clause, she let me root her, that was her choice, its Her body, i’m off now as soon as i can get this zip to stop biting me on the prick,

                    If there were any consequences of your actions Gallstone you wouldn’t know of them but to you that’s alright tho, after all its Her body and Her choice…

                  • the pigman …
                    7 June 2014 at 1:40 am

                    How did you get from characterising casual sex as for “women who choose to satisfy themselves with a healthy sex life” to “Personally, neither casual sex or abortion is something I’m comfortable with at a personal level.” (so personal!) in just 2 posts?

                    You’ve at least got to pretend you believe in your position!

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      7 June 2014 at 9:08 am

                      I see no contradiction in it at all. People find different things attractive, people like different things, people feel different things. Just because I don’t like something myself, doesn’t make it bad. It’s a very simple position to not engage in casual sex yourself but find others who do perfectly normal and healthy people.

                      If you find that weird, it just shows in some way you think your own worldview should be imposed across society.

          • Chooky 9.1.1.1.2
            7 June 2014 at 10:43 am

            +100

        • McFlock 9.1.1.2
          6 June 2014 at 10:49 pm

          Seriously what woman in her right mind would be having sex with a man that she didn’t want in her life,

          triple face-palm with a double-take

          • weka 9.1.1.2.1
            6 June 2014 at 10:59 pm

            Yeah, but it’s actually kind of fascinating seeing some of the stuff coming out of bad today in a trainwreck kind of way.

            • bad12 9.1.1.2.1.1
              6 June 2014 at 11:02 pm

              The pair of you weka, are simply engaging in low browed insult because you fear the gaping holes in your ability to debate the issue leaves you exposed…

              • McFlock …
                6 June 2014 at 11:05 pm

                if two people have consensual sex, why is it women behaving “as casual unpaid prostitutes so men can get their ends away”, and not the men being a foil for women to get their ends away?

                Don’t women like sex, too?

                • bad12 …
                  6 June 2014 at 11:31 pm

                  Right Mac, you are a fan of casual sex got that, have any of you tho heard of the responsibility to use contraceptives???

                  Or in your grand irresponsible Utopia is killing the end result of such casual irresponsibility by abortion to be applauded…

                  • McFlock …
                    6 June 2014 at 11:33 pm

                    rubbers break, pills are missed, operations fail to take…

                    But my point was that you seem to think that women don’t like sex. Why would you think that?

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      6 June 2014 at 11:37 pm

                      I just want Bad to answer this point.

                      Are you aware that birth control is not 100% effective? Don’t seek to hide behind poorly constructed sentences and lackadaisical grammar. Yes or no. Are you aware that birth control is not 100% effective?

                    • bad12 …
                      6 June 2014 at 11:44 pm

                      Who does and who doesn’t like sex, if you havn’t noticed Mac isn’t a topic i have specifically commented upon,

                      That possibly has a lot to do with the above NOT being the topic of the post,

                      i get you loud and clear tho Mac, casual sex is a grand master-piece of the modern world, condoms and other devices of contraception might fail,

                      Abortion as a means of contraception is then the absolutely obvious means of not being personally responsible for your actions and this seems to apply to both parties in a consenting casual bonk, that encapsulates what your promoting does it Mac,

                    • bad12 …
                      6 June 2014 at 11:49 pm

                      Gallstone, heard of the morning after pill, oh thats right you got the end of your dick caught in your zipper as you scarpered off looking for another casual sexual hookup and having a prick as well as being one requires nothing more of you in the act of casual sex to get your rocks off zip it and run…

                    • McFlock …
                      6 June 2014 at 11:54 pm

                      Who does and who doesn’t like sex, if you havn’t noticed Mac isn’t a topic i have specifically commented upon,

                      Oh, but you have.

                      But you are aware that contraception isn’t 100%, or not always medically safe for some people (e.g. latex allergies)?
                      Assuming that no abortions are the result of complications of pregnancy (bullshit), what do you suggest happens if a couple in a loving long-term relationship (seeing as you also think casual sex is your business) who don’t want children (for whatever reason) have their contraception fail?

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      7 June 2014 at 9:16 am

                      Taking the morning after pill assumes that you know that something went wrong. That’s not always the case.

                      Your argument is disingenuous. You have a terrible understanding of modern society and also the science and function of birth control methods and abortion.

                    • bad12 …
                      7 June 2014 at 10:27 am

                      Gallstone, Bullshit, unfettered, unadulterated Bullshit, the fact that you can string a pile of words together is undoubtedly not in question here,but,

                      You simply fire off a pile of accusations at and about me, providing not an iota of factual discussion nor any context in how you have arrived at what is essentially Bullshit,

                      From your previous comments,you are happy to indulge in unprotected casual sex not caring that pregnancy would be a likely result as you see abortion as a perfectly legitimate form of contraception,

                      You, well not you in person being the advocate of unprotected casual sex that you are, claim that befor you use the ”morning after pill” you have to KNOW that a pregnancy will be forthcoming, or, that a contraceptive whether male or female has gone wrong,

                      That Gallstone as i say above is an unmitigated pile of bullshit,

                      Here get a education befor you start accusing other’s of not knowing what they are talking about,

                      Plan B morning after pill, effectiveness and Side effects,
                      http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b

                      or,
                      Emergency contraception/Minstry of Health NZ,
                      http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/…/emergency-contraception

                    • weka …
                      7 June 2014 at 10:43 am

                      “From your previous comments,you are happy to indulge in unprotected casual sex not caring that pregnancy would be a likely result as you see abortion as a perfectly legitimate form of contraception,”

                      Bad, you just made that up. Take a step back eh?

                      I don’t see how the casualness of the sex is relevant unless you are saying that a woman having casual sex is less likely to want a baby than someone in a relationship.

                      If a woman is on the pill, has casual sex, and the pill fails, she won’t know about the failure until some weeks later. The morning after pill won’t even be on her mind, why would it be? Unless you are suggesting that all women take the morning after pill every time they have sex.

                      The main problem with your argument is that you are trying to justify your anti-abortion view via things that happen in RL, but you don’t seem to understand that despite best intentions and actions conraceptives fail. The only way to prevent a woman from getting pregnant absolutely is to remove her ovaries. ALL other ways of preventing conception after sex have failure rates. So, either you let those women have abortions (in which case, how do you choose who are allowed), or you just come out and say that all abortion is wrong under all circumstances and stop wasting everyone’s time trying to come up with rational explanations.

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      7 June 2014 at 10:44 am

                      “you are happy to indulge in unprotected casual sex not caring that pregnancy would be a likely result as you see abortion as a perfectly legitimate form of contraception”

                      I’m married, so no I don’t indulge in unprotected casual sex. Before I was married, I never “indulged” in unprotected casual sex. Even if I were to, frankly, whether abortion occurs or not isn’t my choice because I’m a man. It’s not my body that is in question during the pregnancy process. It’s the woman’s choice.

                      But let’s make this clear: you’re now advocating that a person should take the morning after pill after every time they have sex? Because if you don’t know that something went wrong, why would you take the pill unless you’re taking it every time?

                    • bad12 …
                      7 June 2014 at 11:17 am

                      Gallstone, i am not advising anything, the links are to the NZ Ministry of Health and the WebMD, exactly what you claim i advocate is what both those organizations advocate,(along with 100’s of others on the web-page i might add),

                      You really do have something deeply wrong inside your head dont you Gallstone, now i am not a gynecologist,nor any other ologist for that matter, but what i do fucking understand Gallstone is that it takes a damn sight longer than 72 hours for a woman to ‘know’ that She is pregnant after having had sex,

                      So, obviously the advocates of the morning after pill with a success rate of stopping unwanted pregnancy of 96–99% are advocating that if a woman even thinks that She may have had sex the night befor then if She wishes to avoid an unwanted pregnancy She should take such a pill,

                      You are akin to talking to either a particularly dense four year old Gallstone, or a brick wall, what exactly do you think the morning after pill was designed for,

                      ”You would have to know something went wrong befor you took it” if i didn’t think you were commenting seriously that utter piece of your latest bullshit would be hilarious…

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      7 June 2014 at 11:31 am

                      We’re done here.

                      The Ministry of Health does not advocate taking the morning after pill after every sexual encounter, you daft plank of wood. You cannot read. You know nothing about what you’re talking about. You don’t understand the concept of the morning after pill and its usage.

                      We’re done.

                      You also can’t even link a webpage.

                    • bad12 …
                      7 June 2014 at 12:48 pm

                      Gaallstone, your use of semantics as a tool of debate is what has me thinking of a deliberately thick four year old,

                      The Ministry of health advocates Gladstone the use of a number of contraceptives, after that it advocates the morning after pill even if a woman ‘thinks’ she may not have used a contraceptive or is worried about a contraceptive not working,

                      My links are stink!!! wow now that shows just what a plonker you are, one of my links works for me, the other, the NZ Ministry of Health one doesn’t reach the page,

                      Again this is why i view you as some willfully dense four year old, it takes all of 10 seconds to bring up a page on your screen,

                      Now see the headline i use above the www its there so if the www fails you can Google Emergency Contraception/Ministry of Health NZ, guess what the top story on the web page is,(the prize is a dummy for you to suck on),

                      Oh i would say you were finished here in this little discussion Gallstone with your little show of last nights advocacy and then denial surrounding casual sex and abortion…

                    • The Al1en …
                      7 June 2014 at 12:55 pm

                      Is the morning after pill not just a day one abortion?

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      7 June 2014 at 12:57 pm

                      “after that it advocates the morning after pill even if a woman ‘thinks’ she may not have used a contraceptive or is worried about a contraceptive not working”

                      So it does not advocate the morning after pill after every sexual encounter. It only advocates it in cases where the woman thinks she has not used contraception or is worried it did not work.

                      Which is exactly what Weka, McFlock and I have been saying.

                      Well, glad we cleared that up and you agreed we were right.

                      So long and thanks for all the fish.

                    • bad12 …
                      7 June 2014 at 1:02 pm

                      Alien, well no, from what i have read it directly prevents either fertilization of the egg, or, the egg lodging in the wall of the womb,(think i got that right)…

                    • The Al1en …
                      7 June 2014 at 1:06 pm

                      “Alien, well no, from what i have read it directly prevents either fertilization of the egg, or, the egg lodging in the wall of the womb,(think i got that right)”

                      I googled. http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/our_clinics/need_help_now/emergency_contraception

                      “The ECP prevents pregnancy by

                      Preventing the passage of sperm through a womans genital system
                      Delaying the release of an egg from the ovary until sperm are no longer active”

                      Edit:
                      Googling ‘is the morning after pill abortion’ and ignoring the christianliferesources first hit, I found this on the Beeb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/methods_1.shtml

                  • Chooky …
                    7 June 2014 at 10:46 am

                    @ bad12.re-“have any of you tho heard of the responsibility to use contraceptives???”

                    ….the Catholic Church opposes contraceptives…and any sex that is not for procreation

                    • bad12 …
                      7 June 2014 at 11:23 am

                      Chooky, i have got it now, you manage the ”loose screw factory” right???there has been a serious and ongoing bout of over-production at the ”loose screw factory” so you have decided to dispose of them here right???

                      What exactly has anything the Catholic Church said or not said, opposed or supported, got to do with anything i have posted as a comment anywhere anytime,

                      The question Chooky, is entirely rhetorical, there is no need to answer, unless of course you have got yet more loose screws to dump in this particular post…

              • weka …
                6 June 2014 at 11:22 pm

                “The pair of you weka, are simply engaging in low browed insult because you fear the gaping holes in your ability to debate the issue leaves you exposed…”

                Lolz, stealing my lines now bad?

          • bad12 9.1.1.2.2
            6 June 2014 at 11:04 pm

            Mac, a triple face palm with a double take i would expect from the primates caged in the Wellington Zoo,

            My advice, check your knuckles for skin loss after each attempt at perambulation….

            • McFlock 9.1.1.2.2.1
              6 June 2014 at 11:08 pm

              well, apparently only women can save me from my impulse to have sex, because I iz just a walking penis without willpower…

              • bad12 …
                6 June 2014 at 11:21 pm

                What you do when you get a series of NO’s as you make the urges of your impulse apparent Mac i suggest you are doing right here in this Post…

                • McFlock …
                  6 June 2014 at 11:24 pm

                  You place all the emphasis on the party that (in your worldview) says “yes” or “no”, and yet ignore the fact that either is the answer to an implied or explicit question.

              • Chooky …
                7 June 2014 at 10:52 am

                “well, apparently only women can save me from my impulse to have sex, because I iz just a walking penis without willpower…”

                lol…i am sure this is not the case

        • Chooky 9.1.1.3
          6 June 2014 at 11:20 pm

          bad 12…you sound to me like a Catholic Priest with some serious hang ups and quite divorced from the reality of this century …dont you think you are over-identifying with the foetus?( in an overpopulated world)

          …i really dont want to have to spell it out to you…but people have sex for all sorts of reasons, especially the young, and it isnt always for procreation ( as the Pope would like)..in fact it almost NEVER is for procreation …(more like recreation…lol )

          ….and when you are young it isnt always with someone you have calculated you want to spend the rest of your life with, or who would make a good father …sometimes it is for SHOCK HORROR … FUN!..LUST!…sometimes it is an infatuation with entirely the wrong sort of philanderer…sometimes it is out of boredom or curiosity …or maybe you just got drunk!…Get real ! ( what do you know of young people?..or any real people? )

          I am sorry you weren’t wanted and loved as a child …but I was …and I was brought up with a healthy scepticism of Catholicism and SIN, which really amounts to power and control! …in other word hypocrisy !…given the recent events of Priest abuse of children and Catholic institution abuse of unmarried Mothers and their children, who are the real sinners here?!…

          • bad12 9.1.1.3.1
            6 June 2014 at 11:36 pm

            Chooky you sound to me like either a pile of seriously loose screws, a psychopath or a cross of the two,

            Amazing what the written word divulges to us as we read it and make our little judgments over the persona of the author aint it…

  10. vto 10
    6 June 2014 at 3:39 pm

    pregnant person: “get your morality out of my vagina”

    unborn person: “get your knife our of my heart”

    • McFlock 10.1
      6 June 2014 at 9:23 pm

      obviously they lose those language skills during the third trimester. /sarc

    • bad12 10.2
      6 June 2014 at 10:06 pm

      But they are not unborn people vto, Zygotes be their title, much easier to consign a Zygote to the garbage than an unborn person,

      Apparently until they actually learn to scream those words, get you knife out of my heart, they have no human rights,

      Neither hearts nor wairua are attributed to these mere piles of cells and because rats and mice have the ability to promote their own miscarriage in the face of a male of the species being present that is not the father of the baby rats and meeces there is justification then given for the humans to perform abortions on unborn humans,

      Having the birth of these Zygotes get in the way of a career, promising or otherwise, also seems to be a valid reason for the termination of life,

      If nothing else proposing such ‘decriminalization’ will make for an extreme point of difference to become glaringly apparent in the election campaign and just how politically savvy the proposal is we will have to wait and see,

      My view, like the proposal to raise the age of entitlement to superannuation, such ‘decriminalization’ would have been in terms of the politics best promoted by a Government in its third term…

      • McFlock 10.2.1
        6 June 2014 at 11:12 pm

        they’d have to have a reasonably coplete brain before they can learn shit

        • bad12 10.2.1.1
          7 June 2014 at 12:00 am

          There is a glaringly obvious rejoinder available to me to follow your comment with Mac, you have tho been given the grace, unlike those you would have snuffed out after your acts of casual sex, to have developed enough of a brain to think of it yourself,

          Then again maybe not…

    • Stephanie Rodgers 10.3
      7 June 2014 at 12:16 am

      Pregnant person: I don’t consent to let you use my body.

      “Unborn person”: nothing, they’re not even self-aware yet

  11. Will 11
    6 June 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Nah vto. More like:

    Pregnant person: “get your morality out of my vagina”

    Unborn person: .

  12. Craig Y 12
    6 June 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Wow, talking embryos/fetuses! Shame they don’t have the cognitive or physiological development at that stage. Or are those ‘voices’ a bad Christian Right ventriloquists act?

    • McFlock 12.1
      6 June 2014 at 9:25 pm

      and where does the Christian Right ventriloquist stick their hand to work the foetus…

  13. Glenn 13
    6 June 2014 at 5:23 pm

    My 91 year old mother can still recite the names of all the many girls who had to get married when she was a young adult. She still gets off on the shame of the families and the disgust of the neighborhood especially if the father of the babe was a yank (war years) who disappeared to Guadalcanal or similar and left the mother in “permanent shame”.

    NZ’s grown up a bit since then however theres a way to go. Decriminalise abortion and stop religions and government from interfering in the rights of women.

    Their bodies…their choice.

  14. millsy 14
    6 June 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Its been 25 years since the Iron curtain, and it appears, that in Poland at least, the communist dictatorships have been replaced with Catholic dictatorships, with women finding their sexual, reproductive and social freedoms gained under the communist regime, rapidly curtailed by the “democratic” governments in Eastern Europe, especially Poland. Even Lech Walsea, Mr Solidarity himself says he is against abortion and homosexual marriage, which leads me to belive that totalitarianism is OK in his eyes when it is enforcing the moral codes laid down by the Bishop of Rome.

    The clouds are gathering here, with the Conservatives, who plan to erode our sexual, social and reproductive freedoms.

    Good on the Greens for taking a liberal stand, against the moralists who wish to impose on us a theocracy, where people would line up outside the houses of adulterers and bash pots and pans, or parents would kick their kids out for getting pregnant.

    We need to burn some bibles.

    • Chooky 14.1
      6 June 2014 at 10:36 pm

      +100 millsy…for me this issue sorts the closet fascists from those who are truly and genuinely humanitarian and liberated… ecologically aware and for the survival of this planet Earth

      ….all the rest is cant

      • bad12 14.1.1
        7 June 2014 at 12:04 am

        Laughs out loud, i cannot understand why i have not fallen all over myself in support of what apparently is ”open slather abortion for any old reason”,

        Damn my archilles heel in the form of closet fascism has been exposed…

  15. Debbie Brown 15
    7 June 2014 at 9:11 am

    Well I was seriously considering voting green, but now I won’t be.

    I don’t agree with Bad12 on many political issues, but in this case I do. At 20 weeks, it’s a baby, it has a beating heart and brain activity, but more than that it has life. And what gives any of us the right to kill the innocent?

    By all means, make contraception free and widely available. By all means, give out condoms no questions asked. But abortion is NOT contraception.

    My own experience with abortion was this: when I became pregnant at 20, the father threatened, yelled at me, did everything he could to persuade me to abort. Even issued an ultinatum: if I kept the baby, we would never be together again, and he would do all he could to make me suffer. Or I could abort, and he’d stay with me… Much as he was an asshole, I don’t think he was unusual. He simply believed the line about “it’s just a foetus” and took the logical conclusion that “why should he have to take any responsibility for it, if it’s her choice to keep it”?

    I saw it as a baby though. And I couldn’t kill my own child, no matter what pressure was put on me. I ended up homeless, briefly. I lost my job because of it. My friends deserted me because I wouldn’t drink or do drugs anymore, for fear of harming my unborn child. It was undoubtedly one of the hardest times in my life. And it was ALL WORTH IT.

    I looked into adoption during that time. I was broke, single, unemployed, young – what did I have to offer a baby? I found CYFS amazing through that process – they were fully supportive, didn’t apply any pressure, but what they did offer was choice. As the birth mother, I was given literally dozens of portfolios of prospective adoptive parents to peruse at my leisure; I could choose who I wanted to adopt.my baby. Each couple provided huge amounts of information about themselves – jobs, photos, religious beliefs, sporting interests – and most were agreeable to open adoption. Some provided photos of their homes, too. It would’ve been entirely possible for me to put my child into a home with loving parents who could give them EVERYTHING I ever dreamed of – and still be a part of her life too.

    I didn’t adopt in the end. I couldn’t do it. But it was definitely a viable option, had it not been for the fact my own maternal instincts kicked in stronger than any amount of logic or reason ever could. And keeping my daughter was the best decision I ever made for myself. But still – I KNOW that there are dozens, hundreds of wonderful couples who want desperately to adopt, most of whom will never get the chance. It seems cruel to know that so many babies are aborted each week, when other people are so desperate to become parents yet unable.

    And it IS a baby. Human life is precious, not something to be squandered or thrown away because it isn’t convenient. Abortion is already legal in those small number of cases where the mother’s life is at risk; I don’t see that it is necessary otherwise.

    • karol 15.1
      7 June 2014 at 9:56 am

      You made your choice, Debbie. Let other women make their own choices. It’s not for you or some other people who don’t fully understand each woman’s situation to make that choice for them.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 15.2
      7 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

      The number of abortions done at anywhere near 20 weeks are vanishingly small, and usually performed for serious medical reasons or because the pregnant person has been prevented from getting a termination sooner. This story is a good example of why that can happen:
      http://thewireless.co.nz/themes/free/an-unresolved-issue

      The meme that women are just lounging around the house pregnant and then go “Oh, whoops, I don’t want a baby after all” halfway through is an anti-choice myth.

      The irony is that policies like the Greens’ will make it easier for people to get early medication abortions, long before there’s any argument to be made about whether or not “it’s a baby”. So if you really oppose “unnecessary” 20-week abortions, you should support this policy.

    • Psycho Milt 15.3
      7 June 2014 at 11:09 pm

      …I don’t think he was unusual

      Gee, thanks. To me, he looks very fucking unusual.

    • SPC 15.4
      8 June 2014 at 1:37 am

      Debbie, yes it would be nice if those with unwanted pregnancies and related inability to cope with raising a child at that time would take the child to term as a service to those who want to adopt.

      So would you support “surrogacy” incentive payments being made to them by those who want to adopt, or just use the law to compel them to do this?

  16. Craig Y 16
    7 June 2014 at 9:52 am

    Which is all very well, Debbie, but my family’s experience of anti- abortion laws is this. My grandmother’s sister was raped and impregnated in the thirties. She went to a backstreet abortionist and bled to death in a dark alleyway. My own mother is named after her. Abortion should be a woman’s choice. End of discussion, end of debate.

  17. PictishMonster 17
    7 June 2014 at 12:10 pm

    I am continually amazed that there are people in the world who think they (or the state or anyone else) have the right to force a woman to gestate and give birth against her will. In what universe does that sound like a good idea? In what universe is that morally acceptable?

    I believe anti’s talk so much about foetuses to turn attention away from what is being forced on the woman.

    • karol 17.1
      7 June 2014 at 12:14 pm

      Agreed, but with this addition – the anti-abortion campaigners also want to make decisions on behalf of the foetus. They want to decide for the foetus to become a birthed child, with no consideration of the circumstances the child would be born into.

      • weka 17.1.1
        7 June 2014 at 1:22 pm

        That is such an excellent point karol.

      • PictishMonster 17.1.2
        7 June 2014 at 4:22 pm

        While that’s all true, the focus on the foetus disappears the perspective of the woman gestating it. Anti-choice rhetoric takes no account of women except as sinful, malfunctioning vessels whose wishes and rights are irrelevant.

        The fact that anti-choice framing puts the foetus at the centre strongly suggests that they don’t want to talk about the women involved. Possibly because forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is hard to justify unless you believe pregnancy is punishment for having sex, which is an unpopular position. It’s much more palatable to project their fears, desires, and judgments onto a foetus that is unable to object, and talk about that. We should resist their framing.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1
          7 June 2014 at 4:57 pm

          It’s much more palatable to project their fears, desires, and judgments onto a foetus that is unable to object, and talk about that. We should resist their framing.

          Well I can see why it’s important to some not to allow any sentimental humanisation or characterisation of the foetus as a complete human being work-in-progress.

          Just as it is critical to resist attempts to suggest that the foetus, which is the party here that is powerless, voiceless and unable to act on its own behalf, should be given any special protections, consideration or advocacy under law.

          Ironically, as soon as 3-4 months down the tract that same baby could have the full protections of citizenship, the police, CYFS, the healthcare system, “anti-smacking” legislation, free GP visits, Plunket etc. all the things the Left is so keen on for caring for NZ children.

          • McFlock 17.1.2.1.1
            7 June 2014 at 5:04 pm

            a complete human being work-in-progress.

            🙄
            if it’s complete, work is not in progress. Work is finished.

            • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1.1.1
              8 June 2014 at 7:36 am

              I mean “complete” human being in the sense of “comprehensively” human, “well rounded” human, “thoroughly” human, “100%” or “fully” human.

              In other words, no less human they you or I, and while certainly a more tenuous and vulnerable existence, it is not a lesser one than we have.

        • blue leopard 17.1.2.2
          8 June 2014 at 12:13 pm

          @ Pictish Monster
          I omitted to acknowledge your comment yesterday.
          I hadn’t considered this angle and found it very insightful, thanks.

      • Colonial Viper 17.1.3
        7 June 2014 at 4:35 pm

        Agreed, but with this addition – the anti-abortion campaigners also want to make decisions on behalf of the foetus.

        No one I’ve read in these comments has been “anti-abortion.” Who are you referring to?

        Bad12? He doesn’t like abortion, but that’s the same as a lot of people. Does he want abortion banned?

        • weka 17.1.3.1
          7 June 2014 at 4:39 pm

          Karol is referring to anti-abortion campaigners in NZ. But bad12 is in this discussion and is anti-abortion. So is Debbie and minarch.

          Edit, I see you have edited to acknowledge bad12. It’s not just that he doesn’t like abortion (plenty of prochoice people don’t like abortion either). It’s that he is against abortion. You could always ask him to clarify if you don’t get what he means by that.

    • blue leopard 17.2
      7 June 2014 at 12:23 pm

      +100 Yes, from reading the comments here and on Open Mike yesterday that is how I have been left too – those putting forward an anti-abortion stance appear consistently content not to consider the implications /consequences of what they are asserting by consistently ignoring any points raised in this regard. They appear to be going by the ‘if you don’t acknowledge the issue it doesn’t exist’ theory it appears….

    • Colonial Viper 17.3
      7 June 2014 at 12:35 pm

      Who has been putting forward an anti-abortion stance? I’ve seen no one say that abortion access should be further limted or banned. 15,000 abortions are conducted every year in this country at womens’ request. Who has been saying that women should be forced into anything?

      • Stephanie Rodgers 17.3.1
        7 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

        Well, for example, you have been constantly throwing out the “15,000 abortions! That’s heaps!” statistic a lot. bad12 has been spamming threads with arguments like “personal responsibility” and “keep your legs shut if you don’t want to get pregnant”.

        Here’s the thing: until Southern DHB began offering abortion services at Southland Hospital last year, anyone in Invercargill or Gore who wanted to get an abortion would have needed to travel to Christchurch and put aside 5-6 hours to be at the Lyndhurst clinic. Do you really think every unwilling pregnant person in Southland would have had the resources or ability to do that?

        There are still no certifying consultants or abortion providers on the West Coast. Do you think it’s easy for a woman – who probably already has children, or work, or can’t tell other people her plans – to get over the Southern Alps for at least two certifying appointments and a procedure?

        If you argue for the status quo to continue (or, like Judith Collins, that the status quo is “working”), you are arguing against pregnant people having a legal right to end their pregnancies, or the access to do so.

        That means people are forced to remain pregnant against their will. That is the reality of opposing abortion law reform in NZ.

        • Colonial Viper 17.3.1.1
          7 June 2014 at 5:05 pm

          If you argue for the status quo to continue (or, like Judith Collins, that the status quo is “working”), you are arguing against pregnant people having a legal right to end their pregnancies, or the access to do so.

          I’m not arguing for the status quo. I’m for change.

          I’m for the decriminalisation of well regulated, professionally performed, medically appropriate abortion. I’m also for the Green initiative of requiring that doctors provide proper referrals whenever that is needed.

          You say that the current law is a mish mash of work arounds and inconsistencies – and I agree.

          …anyone in Invercargill or Gore who wanted to get an abortion would have needed to travel to Christchurch and put aside 5-6 hours…

          There are still no certifying consultants or abortion providers on the West Coast. Do you think it’s easy for a woman – who probably already has children, or work, or can’t tell other people her plans – to get over the Southern Alps …

          If you are concerned that abortion services are not located close enough to where they are needed that’s fine and a valid concern, as are your concerns that some people may not have the finances to undertake such extensive trips.

          The Green Party policy isn’t about addressing those service resourcing and service delivery location issues though, is it.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 17.3.1.1.1
            7 June 2014 at 7:07 pm

            Masterful avoiding of the point, CV. My discussion about access issues was quite clearly a rebuttal to your insistence that there’s no issue with accessing abortion … but somehow you missed that. 🙄

            • Colonial Viper 17.3.1.1.1.1
              7 June 2014 at 8:25 pm

              I have no problem with ensuring that abortion services are properly located and funded for appropriate population accessibility. Of course, this Green Party policy doesn’t address that.

              • weka …
                8 June 2014 at 11:48 am

                Actually, it does. Specifically in the policy, and generally by recognising that current inequity of access is because of how the law is written. Have you read the policy? It’s been linked by blue in one of her replies to you.

                It’s also been explained multiple times how the current law enables restriction of services in some areas. I have to wonder now if you are even reading what people are writing.

        • SPC 17.3.1.2
          8 June 2014 at 1:23 am

          The “West Coast” should establish a teleconferencing system for contact with expert professionals they cannot provide locally. For this and other (medical) services.

      • weka 17.3.2
        7 June 2014 at 1:23 pm

        CV, bad12 is blatantly anti-abotion, how can you have missed that?

        • McFlock 17.3.2.1
          7 June 2014 at 4:30 pm

          he sees only what he wants to see.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 17.3.2.1.1
            7 June 2014 at 7:14 pm

            I think the way it works is until someone literally says “I am anti-abortion”, then you’re not allowed to look at their comments and infer the obvious conclusion that they are anti-abortion.

      • blue leopard 17.3.3
        7 June 2014 at 8:16 pm

        @ CV

        “Who has been saying that women should be forced into anything?”

        Let’s cut to the chase.

        You have been saying that.

        You have done that by repetitively stating on other threads (at least three times – I believe it is closer to five)

        “There is no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.”

        If you believe that a fetus is a human being – which it is plain from your line of arguments that you do – then stating the above repetitively, it is clear that there is some point where you believe the women’s right to choose what goes on in her body and in her life is of lesser import than the life of the fetus. In this instance, when it occurs, it would appear that the ‘right thing to do’ – taking your reasoning into account – would be to force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her wishes.

        • Colonial Viper 17.3.3.1
          7 June 2014 at 8:21 pm

          In this instance, when it occurs, it would appear that the ‘right thing to do’ – taking your reasoning into account – would be to force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her wishes.

          But that is exactly what would happen now 21 weeks into any pregnancy, unless there was an extraordinary medical reason otherwise. No change there.

          “There is no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.”

          I stand by this and believe that it is a principle that many people would support whole heartedly.

          • blue leopard 17.3.3.1.1
            7 June 2014 at 8:29 pm

            🙄

          • weka 17.3.3.1.2
            7 June 2014 at 8:29 pm

            The numbers of women who would want a termination after 20 weeks for reasons other than risk to herself or because the foetus is severely abnormal would be so small as to render your argument nonsensical.

            I notice that you yet again avoid answering bl’s question directly.

            • Colonial Viper 17.3.3.1.2.1
              7 June 2014 at 8:34 pm

              I notice that you yet again avoid answering bl’s question directly.

              I answered it pretty directly – its no change from the current situation where for most women at 21 weeks, there is zero choice, and that is probably the right balance.

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                7 June 2014 at 8:37 pm

                There is choice. The choice to go to Australia. It’s not a choice anyone makes lightly, but obviously you know better than them what they should be allowed to do. 🙄

              • weka …
                7 June 2014 at 8:39 pm

                I think you are just here to wind people up now.

              • blue leopard …
                7 June 2014 at 9:13 pm

                @ CV

                By saying “There is no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.” you are actually putting forward the argument that a woman shouldn’t be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy full stop. In other words, you are not actually supporting what occurs under law now even.

                It is not the doctor who decides – they simply enable the process – and if they don’t, the woman will simply go to another who will.

                i.e women do have the right to choose whether they continue with a pregnancy or not now, and they are the only ones with that right and they will continue to make this decision (as others have pointed out) whether there is a law against it or not.

                Only the woman has that right to choose to end the life of their fetus because the converse would mean she didn’t have the right to choose something about her own body and life and that would be very wrong.

                Any conditionality in this process now, therefore, is simply nominal. The Greens actually mention this somewhere in their policy (or perhaps it was the press release) – that they are simply removing the hypocrisy of the process (my words). Yet you appear to be objecting – and that is actually ending up being an objection to what is already the case now.

                • weka …
                  7 June 2014 at 9:22 pm

                  Spot on blue

                • Colonial Viper …
                  7 June 2014 at 9:53 pm

                  you are actually putting forward the argument that a woman shouldn’t be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy full stop. In other words, you are not actually supporting what occurs under law now even.

                  That’s an argument for someone else to bring. I’m only interested in ensuring that access to abortion is not liberalised all the way to a late stage 20 weeks, and if there is a proposal for that, that it should go to a full referendum.

                  • blue leopard …
                    7 June 2014 at 10:23 pm

                    @ CV

                    From the Greens press release on the policy:

                    “By keeping abortion a crime, New Zealand has created an unnecessary stigma around abortion that has led to delays, erratic access to terminations depending on where you are in the country, and unnecessarily late terminations.

                    "Decriminalisation will reduce the stigma and judgement that surrounds abortion, and enable abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, which is safer for women.

                    It appears that your concern is one they are attempting to address by this very policy.

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    7 June 2014 at 10:26 pm

                    I don’t believe you. You have been uninformed, judgemental and deceptive throughout this conversation – your quote about “immutable right to take a human life” proves it. Nobody has made any such claim, or even suggested anything like it. That’s why all you deserve is 🙄

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      7 June 2014 at 10:42 pm

                      your quote about “immutable right to take a human life” proves it. Nobody has made any such claim, or even suggested anything like it.

                      Of course they did. It may possibly have even been you in fact.

                      The statement IIRC was along the lines that a pregnant woman has the sole right at any time to choose not to be pregnant any more, it being up to her will and her will alone to terminate the pregnancy as she saw fit.

                      I responded that a right to take a human life could never be unconditional nor immutable. Which is of course true, and doubly true if the power of the state is involved.

                      Nobody has made any such claim, or even suggested anything like it

                      Yeah they did, as described above. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so judgemental and deceptive?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      7 June 2014 at 10:59 pm

                      The statement IIRC was along the lines that a pregnant woman has the sole right at any time to choose not to be pregnant any more, it being up to her will and her will alone to terminate the pregnancy as she saw fit.

                      Feel free to correct the statement if you think that it is spin; I’m pretty sure that it encompasses your position but I am quite happy to be corrected.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers []
                      7 June 2014 at 11:00 pm

                      No you’re not. 🙄

                • PictishMonster …
                  8 June 2014 at 8:47 pm

                  Well said.

            • blue leopard 17.3.3.1.2.2
              7 June 2014 at 8:39 pm

              I take it that is because CV doesn’t have an answer to the question that is sufficient to continue covering the failings of his stance.

              Which is odd, because it is all there in black and white for anyone to read if they can be bothered trawling through the debate that has been going on….

              IMO the inability CV is showing toward owning what his position really is on this matter doesn’t say much for the merit of his position and I think CV ultimately knows that too.

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 June 2014 at 9:58 pm

                I’ve described what my positions are quite fully.

                At this stage I’m mainly interested in two things:

                If a policy of liberalising access to abortion to a late 20 weeks was to be put into law that firstly, a referendum is taken to the public. And secondly, that it be a conscience vote amongst MPs, which is standard practice for this kind of vote.

                And as a reminder, I have no issues with the decriminalisation of well regulated, professionally performed, medically appropriate abortion, and I am quite fine with a simultaneous stance that “there is no immutable, unconditional right to take another human being’s life.”

                • blue leopard …
                  7 June 2014 at 10:18 pm

                  @ CV

                  From the Greens press release on the policy:

                  “The Green Party believes the time has come for New Zealand to take an honest approach to abortion, to treat it as the health issue it is, and remove it from the crime statutes.

                  “The fact that 99 percent of abortions are approved on ‘mental health’ grounds and that rape is not grounds for an abortion reveals the dishonesty of the current legal situation.

                  “By keeping abortion a crime, New Zealand has created an unnecessary stigma around abortion that has led to delays, erratic access to terminations depending on where you are in the country, and unnecessarily late terminations.

                  "Decriminalisation will reduce the stigma and judgement that surrounds abortion, and enable abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, which is safer for women.

                  You appear to be shadow boxing on this matter.

          • McFlock 17.3.3.1.3
            7 June 2014 at 8:33 pm

            “There is no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.”

            I stand by this and believe that it is a principle that many people would support whole heartedly.

            Of course they would. It sounds noble until you consider a baby that lives 6 months in pain with half a brain and a variety of other malformations.

            Or, indeed, you consider euthanasia arguments, self defense, or indeed the likelihood of sentience for a zygote that doesn’t have a brain or nervous system.

            Then your statement looks like trite arsewipe.

  18. Gareth 18
    7 June 2014 at 9:05 pm

    My wife had a 21 week abortion after the 20 week scan showed a rare condition which meant that our baby would develop with all the major organs outside it’s body. A friend of mine had a casual sexual encounter with a guy. It was one night, she was on the pill, he used a condom. It broke and she had triplets. The guy didn’t stick around.

    The main thing I want to say though is that it’s my opinion that if there’s a discussion about abortion and you have a penis, then shut the hell up and just listen. For once in your life you don’t get to voice an opinion.

    • Murray Olsen 18.1
      7 June 2014 at 9:13 pm

      I’ll go along with that. I’ll add that, even if I do have an opinion, it’s not compulsory for me to shout it from the rooftops.

  19. dimebag russell 19
    7 June 2014 at 10:04 pm

    act is about to abort banksie.
    very messy.
    they will support this bill.

  20. Merrial 20
    7 June 2014 at 11:59 pm

    @ Gareth and Murray Olsen: Well said! You are of course entitled to hold an opinion – as am I. But you’re quite right: you don’t have to shout it from the rooftops – and neither do I.

    What I think about abortion is irrelevant, because it isn’t any of my business if other women choose to abort. What I do want is for abortion to be safe and legal, because it is a medical procedure. I trust other women to make their own decisions about it, in conjunction with their doctor – and their partner if they have one; just as they would about other medical procedures, whether or not they’re gynaecological. But it must be women who have the final say, because they are the ones who must carry the fetus to term.

    I’m sad and angry that we still have this cockamamie law, so many years after many of us campaigned for safe legal abortions. I’m delighted at the Greens’ courageous stance on this issue: I hope that this time we’ll get the law change that campaigners were after all those years ago.

  21. SPC 21
    8 June 2014 at 1:18 am

    The simplifying of process and improved access to pregnancy termination request services could reduce the time factor. I say could, because it would, but should it?

    There is a purpose to expert counsel and to subsequent reflection on the informed choice to be made.

    Personally I support the concept of “post process informed” on demand availability – but not to 20 weeks (would not be required with the enhancements). Why not a lesser time period, after which medical reasons are required?

    • weka 21.1
      8 June 2014 at 12:22 pm

      I would expect the same processes to be in place as for any other similar surgery. You go to your GP and get info and a referral, you get offered counselling, you go see a specialist who confirms pregnancy and procedure, you have the operation. No-one is suggesting that women walk off the st and get an abortion on demand.

      It’s better to do a termination earlier rather than later, another reason to change the law.

      Re 20 weeks, what cut off do you have on mind and why?

      • SPC 21.1.1
        8 June 2014 at 3:15 pm

        weka, except in the matter of the MAP as a contraceptive back stop is very much on demand off the street.

        Otherwise my point is that a period of time to reflect on whether they wish to go ahead with the termination should be part of the process.

        An easier to access procedure should still ensure that this means an earlier termination than now.

        The time of an earlier cut off is not as important as the concept of a distinction – this occurs now and that should continue. An earlier cut off speaks to the quicker process being the goal of the change.

        • weka 21.1.1.1
          8 June 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Sorry, not following that. Like I said, no-one is proposing walk off the st abortion on demand, there WILL be time for reflection just like there is for other medical decisions. If you think this is insufficient can you please give an example of what you would like instead so it is clear.

          “The time of an earlier cut off is not as important as the concept of a distinction – this occurs now and that should continue. An earlier cut off speaks to the quicker process being the goal of the change.”

          Are you suggesting an earlier cut off? What date and why? What do you mean by concept of distinction?

        • PictishMonster 21.1.1.2
          8 June 2014 at 9:05 pm

          Reflection? A woman has plenty of time to reflect between the time she has a positive pregnancy test and her abortion consultation. Pregnant is pregnant, not that hard to understand. Most women don’t change their minds and don’t regret their decision, according to this US study.

          http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

          The ‘wait and reflect’ thing looks like creating more hoops for women to jump through. The point of the Greens proposal is to eliminate the hoops, not change their configuration.

          • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.2.1
            8 June 2014 at 11:13 pm

            Although interesting these studies are of lower relevance in NZ due to the completely different societal and political attitudes toward abortion in the USA, including massive levels of community polarisation.

      • Merrial 21.1.2
        8 June 2014 at 10:59 pm

        @ Weka: “No-one is suggesting that women walk off the st and get an abortion on demand.”

        I don’t really see what the problem would be with this, if abortion is legalised. On the other hand, I’m a bit dubious about the notion of counselling being part of the process post-legalisation. It sounds rather patronising and paternalistic: exactly the features of the current system with which so many of us take issue.

        “It’s better to do a termination earlier rather than later, another reason to change the law.”

        Agreed. In an ideal world, of course, as many others here have pointed out. Once the weight of criminality has been lifted from abortion, and it’s recognised as being a medical procedure, decisions about when to terminate can be made by the woman herself, in conjunction with her doctor. We can’t have a state of affairs where the law attempts to set an upper limit on when abortions can be performed; in my view, that defeats the purpose of legalisation.

        In practice, late term abortions would be rare, simply because the survival rate of very pre-term infants is so much higher now than it ever was in the past. But there will be occasions when it’s judged medically necessary; that’s a judgment which must be left to the woman and her doctor.

        • weka 21.1.2.1
          8 June 2014 at 11:41 pm

          Informed consent requires time to process information. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for time to be taken for that for any major intervention into ones body.

          Mandatory counselling is indeed patronising. Am glad the offer of counselling would be available.

          I don’t have too much of a problem with your argument re upper limits in theory. In practice I think I’m not so sure. There are some pretty complex ethical issues.

    • Merrial 21.2
      8 June 2014 at 4:08 pm

      @ SPC: “There is a purpose to expert counsel and to subsequent reflection on the informed choice to be made.”

      And this stuff also applies to other forms of contraception now, does it? It certainly didn’t when I was young and needing to use contraception.

      The idea of expert counselling and “time to reflect” sounds paternalistic and patronising to me. I assume a priori that women are grown-up enough to make their own decisions, without interference – well-meaning or otherwise – from the counselling industry.

      • Colonial Viper 21.2.1
        8 June 2014 at 4:16 pm

        Human beings make bad, poorly considered decisions all the time, without sufficient reflection.

        The idea of expert counselling and “time to reflect” sounds paternalistic and patronising to me.

        Maybe you had a spot on track record of judgement and reflection through your teens and twenties, but most people do not, and at critical junctures some outside facilitation and input is usually helpful.

        And this stuff also applies to other forms of contraception now, does it? It certainly didn’t when I was young and needing to use contraception.

        In NZ abortion has never been treated as just another form of contraception. You can’t buy one from the chemist or supermarket.

        • weka 21.2.1.1
          8 June 2014 at 5:14 pm

          You can’t buy an IUD from a chemist either.

          We already have processes re information sharing and informed consent for medical decisions by patients. In addition, women wanting an abortion will be offered counselling. Why is this insufficient? Should there be mandatory counselling for other surgeries?

          • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.1.1
            8 June 2014 at 5:17 pm

            Should there be mandatory counselling for other surgeries?

            In many cases it would be helpful.

            You can’t buy an IUD from a chemist either.

            Correct; that requires a surgical procedure which distinguishes it from other commonly used methods of contraception.

            • weka 21.2.1.1.1.1
              8 June 2014 at 6:45 pm

              Lots of contraception methods require a visit to a doctor.

              “In many cases it would be helpful.”

              How so? I’m asking about the mandatory bit.

        • Merrial 21.2.1.2
          8 June 2014 at 11:37 pm

          @ Colonial Viper: “Maybe you had a spot on track record of judgement and reflection through your teens and twenties, but most people do not, and at critical junctures some outside facilitation and input is usually helpful.”

          You’re missing the point here: we all make mistakes, and we have to learn to live with our decisions: it’s called growing up. But women making such decisions are by no means all in their teens and twenties; and even so, many young women are mature and well able to make their own choices. They don’t necessarily need counselling; a fortiori, they don’t need to have it foisted on them by law.

          “In NZ abortion has never been treated as just another form of contraception. You can’t buy one from the chemist or supermarket.”

          Sigh….. That’s the whole point of legalisation: decriminalise abortion, and its status as a contraceptive method becomes clear. As to buying it from a chemist or supermarket, once abortion is legalised, there’s no in-principle reason why abortifacient drugs couldn’t be sold by a pharmacy. It’s currently possible to buy the morning-after pill from pharmacies.

          • weka 21.2.1.2.1
            8 June 2014 at 11:49 pm

            Interesting. There are medical issues with miscarrying at home depending on how many weeks along one is. You’d have to figure out how to create safe use for over the counter pills.

            • Merrial 21.2.1.2.1.1
              9 June 2014 at 11:49 am

              @ Weka: “Interesting. There are medical issues with miscarrying at home depending on how many weeks along one is. You’d have to figure out how to create safe use for over the counter pills.”

              Couldn’t agree more. I’m not suggesting that over the counter stuff would apply in every case, but there’ll surely be times when it’s quite appropriate. And I’d be in favour of a system that has as few rules and restrictions as possible.

              As I understand the current situation, women having a medical abortion aren’t required to stay in the clinic until the abortion has taken place. Pharmacological developments in future are likely to change the environment, and women need to be able to take advantage of those developments without well-intentioned but outdated legal constraints getting in their way.

              To clarify: I’ve used the term “medical procedure” as a catch-all for both types of abortion procedures. Surgical procedures will of course need to be carried out in a clinical setting, but I’d hope that legalisation might result in many GPs being trained up in abortion procedures. That would make it much easier for women to access services.

Links to post