My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« I'm Goff and she's off (the ghost of Palmer) | Main | Peak Oil Theory »

Comments

mickmac

No.

But neither is killing her.

Would Solomon have cut the baby in half?

Rick

The baby would not have survived in Solomon's day.

And if you were aware of the parable you quote, you'd know that Solomon never intended to cut the child in half. He wanted to find the mother.

dad4justice

mickmac, abortion is murder one and no one is held accountable ,but so is brutally bashing twin baby boys to death.

oh that's right - that's ok 'cause it was a Kahui abortion procedure, ask the lawyer!!

peter

I see nothing unethical about a photograph of real life like this.

24 weeks (6 months)seems an incredibly long time into pregnancy to allow abortion to a layman like myself. What is the maximum here in NZ?

I have said this before - I am not fan of abortion, but I do accept that women from ALL walks of life and from ALL backgrounds/cultures/religions avail themselves of the service for a diverse variety of motives.

Jim

Peter

The limit for abortion in NZ is 20 weeks (unless the Mother's actual life is in danger, medically).

Personally, I view abortion as an extremely poor substitute for adequate contraception. As DPF blogged in March abortion should be "legal, safe and preferably rare". I agree with that sentiment with the proviso that "legal" does not include "on demand" as this will certainly not be "rare".

The current liberal interpretation of the law which allows so many abortions through on extremely questionable grounds is, in my opinion, extremely dangerous, allowing women, as it does, to use abortion as an alternative form of contraception. Complications of the procedure, including probable long-term psychological effects, make this substantially less safe than adequate contraception and promotes a more promiscuous lifestyle with all its attendant side-effects.

A good article on the legal position of doctors can be found at http://www.abortionlaw.co.nz/abortionlaw.pdf, if you are interested. Be aware the article is wordier than my posts and has a lot of legalese!

Treetop

Any form of child abuse is not acceptable. What a sick society I live in as abortion is condoned. There is always an exception when a woman's life is seriously at risk.

I would be interested to know the stats for women who have had an abortion and later had a full term pregnancy. I think this would be telling.

It is up to an individual what they do with their body, but an embryo or a fetus is not a possesion which its host can discard just because it is not wanted.

fletch

Jim, hmm, OK, but do you include the Pill in the definition of "adequate contraception"?

Some forms of the Pill work as an abortifaceint; this means that the Pill treats the lining of the womb in such a way as not to be conducive to receiving a fertilized egg. eg, egg and sperm join but because of the contraceptive cannot attach to the wall of the womb and the new life is flushed from the mother.

This doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. I'm not saying this to make a big thing about it but because some ppl aren't aware of it.

fletch

Oh, and yes, it is ethical to show. To me, that's kind of a silly question. It's kind of like asking if it was ethical to show the piles of Jewish bodies after they had been gassed in the Nazi gas chambers.

The 'little feet' have been an emblem for the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child since they started.

fletch

Oh, and yes, it is ethical to show. To me, that's kind of a silly question. It's kind of like asking if it was ethical to show the piles of Jewish bodies after they had been gassed in the gas chambers.

The 'little feet' have been an emblem for the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child since they started.

fletch

opps, sorry for the double post. The system didn't seem to like some of the words in my post the first time.

fletch

Opps, sorry again. Didn't read the whole story first...
I thought the thread was asking about whether it was ethical to show pictures of aborted babies ala the furore created in Sydney recently.

Jim

fletch

essentially all oral contraceptives render the womb hostile to a fertilized ovum. This is why the Catholic church banned them initially. The abortifascients (abortion pills), however, actually cause the implanted ovum to slough off (hence this is a true abortion - there is nothing "mini" about it).

All forms of contraception have risks (although the biggest risk for a condom is that it may not work!). The order of increasing risk is:

Condoms
Oral contraceptives
IUCDs
Abortifascients
Abortion

The risks jump substantially for the last two, making the very poor "choices" for contraception. Worse, in my opinion, is that the last two require substantially less preplanning and therefore promote poor choices of sexual behavior.

John Boy

"...promote poor choices of sexual behavior."

That, dear Jim, is the govt's plan (left or right as its a UN directive really) or have you been asleep for the last 30 years?

Jim

John Boy

I wish...

Hydrocodone no prescription

Outstanding! I am overwhelmed with it. I have not enough words in positive reception. Thanks for sharing with me. I will keep visiting.

The comments to this entry are closed.