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

« Re-education camps, anyone? | Main | Response to left-wing reviews of Absolute Power »

Comments

Matthew

Newstalk ZB didn't even have this in their 8am news bulletin; the NZ Herald didn't have it on their front page, while Radio NZ (that great bastion of the left in NZ) has it as their lead item. What gives?

This IS newsworthy and it is simply the wimpishness of our media outlets at the beginning of the day to be unwilling to report it.

The issue is, regardless of the opinions on induced abortion (read: murder), the law is not being applied in New Zealand as it has been intended, and it is a pathetic Parliament (apart from Gordon Copeland) that is too sacred to debate the issue and enforce the law.

Women do suffer both physically and mentally BECAUSE they HAVE abortions, not be cause they don't (even Ferguson's study gave some credence to that opinion). And thinking about it at a rational level, how can you not be affected when a baby is murdered inside of you - murder affects everyone, both the baby who was murdered, the mother who was pregnant and the abortionist who murdered.

If the pro-abortionists want to make it open-slather, then bring your own law forward and try and pass it through Parliament. Don't use the current law as a guise for your own values.

It's not just little old me saying that this law is being misapplied, it's our Judiciary. So don't go attacking me.

Lucyna

Wow!

What next, I wonder?

ropata

Matthew, don't worry, I listened to Radio NZ this morning; at 8:45 they were reading out emails from irate fembots ranting about patriarchal oppression or whatever.

Matthew

Hi Ropata, yes I heard that too. They have a very narrow mindest when it comes to murdering babies.

Gordon Copeland tried to get leave to introduce a Bill to the House a few months ago regarding abortion but some pathetice Labour Party MPs blocked it.

Funny how all those who support abortion haven't appeared yet - they try to avoid debating the issue because they know they can't win the argument. Wait for it...

scrubone

Agree, National Radio was all over this this morning.

usabikes

Hooray! and Thank You Jesus!

What took so long...

fugley

Just as many catholics are the result of premature ejaculation (thanks to the withdrawl measure of contraception), all the above posters seem to be suffering from premature celebration. As i read it, this jusdegement will have very little practical effwect. It hasn't outlawed abortion. And, the governement can, if necessary, amend the legislation.

ian

Fugley...it is too late for this government to try it, and three decades on public sentiment is moving against abortion on demand because ultrasounds have pierced the fetal "black box" by showing people what human babies in the womb actually do look like.

A National administration won't be dying in a ditch to legitimise existing practices, so I suspect the ASC will have no option but to toughen up or face increasing judicial reviews.

The research now showing that abortion CAUSES mental illness is something that, again, goes to the heart of the current practice.

Danyl Mclauchlan

it is too late for this government to try it

But . . . doesn't Clark have ABSOLUTE POWER?

Matthew

Fugley,

wow you are so simplistic sometimes:

"all the above posters seem to be suffering from premature celebration. As i read it, this jusdegement will have very little practical effwect."

Have you read all 158 clauses of the judgement before you wrote your comment? Thought not.

"It hasn't outlawed abortion."

This comment proves you misunderstood the whole court case. It's not about outlawing abortions, but about the failure of the ASC to apply the law as Parliament intended. If the government saw that the ASC had not being fullfilling its Statutory functions under the law (like any reasonable sane person would, like, oh let me think for a moment, a HIGH COURT JUDGE) then it would have amended the law already. Like to guess why it hasn't? Because it know that to do so would be wrong and risk becoming even more unpopular then they already are.

Let's not also forget that abortion has increased the rates of breast cancer, and the last time I checked my medical book, breast cancer is NOT good for women. In addition, abortion results in increased depression rates for women, so it seems to me that the ASC is about to discover that in appointing CCs who are pro-murdering babies, they will be harming the women's mental and physical health. Not really a great case for those of you who support murder, but then again it must be difficult to rationally argue in defence of stopping a beating heart.

fugley

Actually, matthew I can argue rationally for stopping a beating heart.

If it was my child that was going to be born with a debilitating life sapping disease, I would have no hesitation in aborting.

If it was my parent or partner that was in the final stages of a painful and incurable disease, I would have no hestitation in asking for, or helping with, euthanasia.

And, I do find that life is lived easiest with simplicity, so thanks for noticing. :-)

fugley

Oh, and I do find it intriguing that those who oppose abortion are almost always those that suport capital punishment. Odd, isn't it?

peter

"The research now showing that abortion CAUSES mental illness is something that, again, goes to the heart of the current practice."

This statement from Ian presented as a fact does not strike me as factual at all.

Bearing in mind that childbirth can cause post natal depression. And I dont see that giving birth to a child that a woman can not support is conducive to good mental health.

I think you are in a cause and effect spin here Ian, accepting uncritically something that the medical profession would hotly dispute.

Matthew

Fugley,

so you haven't read the judgement yet. I guess I'll have to listen to uninformed comment from the sand in the Sahara Dest.

you lost the argument already...setting up the strawman argument that ignores that 98.2% of abortions in NZ are because the women wants them, which I need to remind you is ILLEGAL. Once we've dealt with the illegality of the 98.2% then we can debate the remaining few cases. Again you've proved that you haven't read the judgment or even what the case was about. Goes with the Sahara Desert mentality I guess.

So I support capital punishment do I?

Peter, go and read the research on abortion and its affect on mental health and breast cancer. "Does not strike me" is so subjective in the face of scientific fact.

peter

If the link between abortion and mental health/breast cancer could be sustained without qualification..

we would have nothing like the statistics we have today.

Matthew, you have fallen into same hole as Ian!

peter

Just as I thought. The alleged link between abortion and breast cancer is a politicisation, a beat-up.

There is NO basis to claim your opinions as FACTUAL - Ian/Matthew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis

The mental health issue would show the same characteristics but I cant be bothered following up on that now that I have disproved the Breast cancer case!

Matthew

"If the link between abortion and mental health/breast cancer could be sustained without qualification..

we would have nothing like the statistics we have today."

oh, let's apply that logic to global warming and car driving. Yeah, thought that strawman wouldn't work. Peter, think about it, people do what they want to do if they feel it's right and ignore the incovenient truth as let's think, hearsay. Can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile all those nasty Christians are having lots of babies while those who don't profess to believe in God are busy killing off their next generation. Apart from being incredibly sad, it seems your side is scoring an own goal of enourmous proportions.

Is Wikipedia your god Peter? I prefer to reply on medical experts rather then some online resource which claims it is the authority on all things (at least it appears that way on your books).

Anyway this is all a red herring as the issue is the ASC has been told, by no less than the JUDICIARY, that it is not applying the curent law. It seems to me you are arguing from a very weak platform when the your approach isn't even legal in NZ. Read the judgement!

usabikes

"Oh, and I do find it intriguing that those who oppose abortion are almost always those that suport capital punishment. Odd, isn't it?"

Some might say Fugley that it is odder still when those who support the live dissections of unborn babies - whose only crime is that their presence is an inconvenience - almost always oppose capital punishment for the worst criminals clearly convicted of multiple atrocities.

Seems quite schizophrenic to me...

peter

Matthew

Wikipedia as you know accepts the inputs of diverse contributors. It is a useful resource and in your case highlights some inconvenient matters.

I stand by my contention that a link between abortion and breast cancer has not been established. A link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer on the other hand is demonstrable (in spite of protestations of Tobacco lobby)

Breast cancer sadly is a common disease among women from all walks of life and to consider abortion as a common denominator seems illogical to me. Child birth of older women is also suggested as a driver of breast cancer later on. Lots of things could increase risk of breast cancer and that is why encouraging women to get checkups and check for lumps is so important.

Matthew

Peter,

if Wikipedia accepts "the inputs of diverse contributors" then it doesn't make it accurate by definition.

"Breast cancer sadly is a common disease among women from all walks of life and to consider abortion as a common denominator seems illogical to me."

And did I say it wasn't a common disease? That doesn't mean that women who have had an abortion don't have a higher risk of suffering from breast cancer. The same logic applies to 20-a-day cigarette smokers who live until they're 100 years old. You remind me of the A2 milk issue sometimes.

"I stand by my contention that a link between abortion and breast cancer has not been established."

So all you are left with is an assertion.

Besides, because breast cancer can be a matter of life or death, it is wise for a women to go ahead and take the risk? Let me remind you - everytime a "successful" abortion happens 100% of the time a baby dies and there is an increased chance that the women will die. All you are doing is defending a cruel practice, and in New Zealand 98.2% of the cases it is NOT due to a serious impact on the women's mental health. The illegality of that is what the debate in this particular thread is about.

I see that you still have no answer as to how to counteract all those nasty Christians having lots of babies while the non-Christians are busy killing off their next generation. What a tragic own goal. Do you think I should encourage the non-Christains in that goal? You should know what my answer already is.

The comments to this entry are closed.