Abortion rights

Enshrine immediately.

@rogenasterling about 92% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Diagnosis

I don't think it's a problem; Raising a child is a huge effort and expense, so people should be allowed to abort if they don't want the burden of a disabled child for life.

I find this murderous attitude sickening.

Well @lailaharre u have just shown your true colors - you have not only lost my vote, but I will be withdrawing from this Party now. Have you ever seen images of 10 week old humans fighting off surgical knives as they scramble to the back of the mothers wombs, fighting for their lives? In what is supposed to be the safest place in the World for a child? Disgusting. That is my view- I would hope you do not delete my valid opinion in an attempt at censorship. Absolutely horrific.

@hannahmcquilkan Hannah - the entire population of the Globe could be housed in 3 bedroom homes with backyards and vegetable gardens in land the size of Texas and L.A. You need to check where you are getting your information from - Bill Gates? Or MSNBC? These people are not 'liberals' Hannah. They are lying to you.

Definitely.

And, frankly, anybody who cares so little about women's rights that they want to ban abortion probably has no place in this party.

My child was 'murdered' 2 days ago. I am still coming to terms with the loss, its very hard to deal with knowing that I wasn't given an opportunity to offer a solution and the decision was made without me.

To Laila Harre,

I agree with you: Abortion is a medical procedure. It involves 'medicine' and uses a procedure.

However its not just that - Laila, If you can tell the People of Internet Mana when life starts? I think many of us would greatly appreciate that. Is there rights for a new born child? Is there the same rights for an unborn child?

Laila, you say you have talked to people in Internet Mana - Who are these people? What was discussed? Why did they confirm support for 'your' new policy?

Laila, you also state that because we are part of certain treaties and to be inline with current international 'human rights' practices you are proposing this 'mandate' of a policy. Laila, what happened to Internet Mana's line of breaking the trend, questioning tradition, fighting big government?

Have you considered adding a Child-centered approach to your 'policy' lineup or is it solely based around the Mother? Laila, why must the decisions about pregnancy be left up to the "person who is pregnant and medical professionals"?. Why not ask the child?

Laila, these are all genuine questions, and for yourself as the author of this proposition and Leader of the Party, we the people ask for answers.

As a reminder we the People 'ARE' the party and without the people, there is no Leader.

Kind Regards

At the end of the day it is your body.It is each individual womans right to decide on what happens to her body.

Jane, the body of the woman is owned by the woman. The child in the woman is not owned by the woman. Please make the distinction.

You set an example of rape? Are you referring to personal experience or a guess at what might happen?
Abortion 'due' to rape is less that 0.5% of cases.

When you use the word "terminate" are you referring to to terminating the child that you spoke about? Because if you are, then that is an impressively efficient description of "murderer".

@cohenglass "Hannah - the entire population of the Globe could be housed in 3 bedroom homes with backyards and vegetable gardens in land the size of Texas and L.A."

L.A. is Los Angeles. LA is Louisiana. Presuming you meant TX and LA, lets look at some numbers.

3 bedroom "house" with garden would be at minimum a half section - 400 sq. m

People on the planet" 7 Billion
https://www.google.co.nz/search?client=opera&q=world+population&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

area of TX+LA is
695,621,000,000 square meters+134,264,000,000

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

695,621,000,000 + 134,264,000,000 = 829,885,000,000 sq.m

829,885,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 118.555 sq.m/person

I doubt you could get a decent sized "3-bedroom house with backyard and vegetable garden" in 118.55 sq. m.

With a 400 sq.m. section (though with a back yard, I'd consider that 800+, for a full section), you are looking at a bit larger area. Where have you been getting your numbers from?

http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/

@simonmoore "The child in the woman is not owned by the woman."

So you have decided its a 'child' instead of say, a potential life. At what point in your mind does it become a child, therefore no longer 'owned' by the vessel carrying it?

I'm not "pro-abortion". In a perfect world, nobody would need or get abortions. But that's not the world we live in. People should be able to get them.

We should be making sure that schools teach in-depth sex education. That would seriously reduce the amount of abortions that are had.

We also need to look at rape prevention. I'm not sure what can be done to prevent it, but if we can, it would also seriously reduce the amount of abortions that are had.

Those two moves would basically eliminate 99% of all abortions.

@terangikaiwhiriake - I never decided it was a child. When a child is in the womb, it is alive, there is no potential about it.

A Parent is not a vessel.
Here is a quick search for you to Google of "vessel" - https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=vessel

The dictionary states -
1. any object used as a container, esp for a liquid
2. a passenger or freight-carrying ship, boat, etc

What my mind or your mind thinks is of no consequence to the reality of what a Child is.

Squeezing the global population into the state of Texas seems like a novel way of disposing of vast numbers. They would drown in their own sewage

@simonmoore "I never decided it was a child. When a child is in the womb, it is alive, there is no potential about it."

That is not a universally agreed upon thing. So you decided that it is a child and not a life potential, or fetus, or embryo or whatever other views that are held around the world - depending on its advancement.

My question to you , which you seemed to have avoided in answering was:

At what point in your mind does it become a child?

That means, how many months into a pregnancy do you consider there to be a 'child' growing inside a women's body?

@lailaharre

So are you also ending child support for men at the same time? The responsibility for the decision is 100% the woman's, but that leaves the man fiscally responsible for a decision he had no part in. Yes, I understand that he had a part in acts prior to that decision, but that act was 50/50. The decision that follows is 100/0.

I'm fully behind having the decision be hers, but it just seems unfair to have the man have no choice after conception, and a system that leans towards giving custody to the woman and demanding the man pay.

It seems cruel to have a man fight for custody, get denied, then have to pay for the care of the child he's denied access to.

I don't have the answer, but it seems unfair.

Though one of my children is from a man who waited until my wife left to visit her mother (with baby in tow) and moved out, no forwarding address. He abandoned them, and was involved every step of the way before that. He's got to jail twice since for failure to pay support, and has not taken a "legal" job since he ran out, in an attempt to prevent an order for support from being executed.

So yes, I am familiar with deadbeat dads, but most I meet try for custody, and are denied (some with unsubstantiated accusations of abuse, as that's perceived to work), and end up with a large bill for the child that they'd rather live with than pay to have the child live with someone else.

"Fixing" the problem with abortion, without addressing the other parts to give back some rights to the men seems cruel and heartless.

I fully agree it should be taken out of the crime act. Would love to see better support for people involved as well as there are many people looking to adopt in New Zealand. And it takes a village to raise a child

@reidalexanderwicks "I’m not “pro-abortion”. In a perfect world, nobody would need or get abortions. "

I'm anti-abortion, but more strongly pro-choice than anti-abortion. I'd like nobody to choose it, but I'd like it to be available for the option. Anyone that would choose it shouldn't be a parent at that point, so it's better to have it available than not.

Abortion should be accessible and legal, but contraception and education should be accessible and free as well

@marcwhinery "So are you also ending child support for men at the same time"

Women can already get an abortion in this country up to about the first trimester, and sometimes later under certain circumstances. So, what has this got to do with removing abortion from the crimes act?

I am grieving right now over a life that could have been saved if I had been brought into the discussion.

What section(s) of the Crimes Act are you proposing be deleted - or is the proposal for an amendment to one or more of the sections on abortion? Surely we want to protect women from those that might carry out unlawful abortion procedures ... so the proposal really needs to be a bit more specific. Seems to me maybe 187A(1)(a) might be the only section requiring minor attention? In my opinion any such proposal in this respect needs to be well qualified.

The Hippocratic Oath (English Translation):
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

@seanmoore You know, I'm getting really tired of people posting poetry and other quotes in the middle of discussions with no context or other justification.

@katharinemoody Thanks for reading the proposal and looking at what is actually proposed, this is about removing abortion out of the Crimes Act and get rid of the state-mandated “legal grounds” for abortion. No one is making abortion easier, nor is anyone is making abortion harder.

@marcwhinery I think you are talking about two separate issues, this proposal is not about promoting abortion in any way. It is about removing the need for a woman who chooses (as I believe is her right) to have an abortion to prove she is not a criminal for doing so.

Women who claim the right over their bodies to choose abortion are violating the rights of another body within their own.

I have seen a bumper sticker that said "Choice. What a Beautiful Right." The word "choice" has become a code word among the more liberal element for abortion rights. Therefore, I would assume that the owner of the car is expressing her belief in a woman's sovereign right to have an abortion.

Those who truly believe the Bible understand that abortion is wrong. One of the seven things that are an abomination to the Lord is "hands that shed innocent blood" (Prov. 6:16,17). And what more innocent blood could be shed than that of helpless unborn babies? However, it is interesting that the pro-abortion crowd wants to frame the argument solely in terms of "choice." We all like choices, We do not want to have to buy only one kind of car constructed by a state owned monopoly, we want a choice between Ford, Holden, Toyota, Mazda, etc. We do not wish to be limited only to one government approved television station but wish to choose from TVNZ, Sky, Freeview, internet TV (Netflix etc), even though there is probably not much on any of them that is worth watching!

However, there are some choices that are absolutely wrong and, because they are harmful to others, are prohibited by law. The choice to rape a woman would be an example. What the bumper sticker actually means, but does not say, is, "Choice. What a Beautiful Right for a woman to be able to kill her unborn baby." That, of course, would frame the subject entirely differently and make it much less "noble" sounding. Some bad choices, such as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, are allowed by law primarily because they harm only the individual involved. But when they begin to harm others, they are more strictly controlled (drinking and driving, or smoking in public places, for example).

One of the arguments made for abortion is that a woman has a right to do with her own body what she chooses. However, the problem is that it is no longer only her own body under consideration, but a new body that is growing within hers. Some claim that the child is not really a human being until it is born. They say that it is just a mass of tissue in the woman's body, but that is genetically not true. If it is not a human being, what is it? A rock? An kiwi? The law protects the unborn kiwi in kiwi eggs because they are exactly that -- unborn kiwi. The law, however, does not protect the unborn human beings in their mothers' wombs.

This argument for abortion, of course, centers on the concept of "rights," as indicated in the bumper sticker mentioned earlier. Yet, we all recognize that rights are not absolute. No one has the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater. The right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins. Again, the exercise of the "right to free speech" and the right to freedom of movement is limited when it conflicts with someone else's rights. Since it is now medically clear that at conception the unborn baby is a distinct and separate human being, and our law guarantees the "right to life," we have to ask why any woman should have the right to kill another human being, even if it is unborn and inside her body? Of course, the pro-abortionists continue to deny these facts in the face of all contrary evidence.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights.
Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)

Have a look at these images, you you tell me that this unborn child has not been subjected to torture, cruel and severe treatment!
WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10424359_713840878681929_1904124164832419590_n.jpg
https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10464330_712174258848591_4772032549141128675_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/10337745_710497939016223_9087915672428178939_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10440845_707165866016097_3802974498479621987_n.jpg

One way that some people, especially many politicians, "waffle" on the abortion question is by saying, "Well, I personally oppose abortion, but I cannot force my opinion or 'values' on others, so we have to keep abortion legal." That is mere sophistry. To these people, the word "values" simply means personal viewpoints. However, there are some things that are absolute truth, and in those areas a society imposes its values on people. I am waiting for the politician who will boldly say, "Well, I am personally opposed to gangs eliminating their competition by gangland killings, but I cannot force my 'values' on others, so we should make this kind of assassination legal." I will probably be waiting a long time, but in principle there is no difference.

Another way to "waffle" on abortion is for someone to say, "I am not pro-abortion, only pro-choice." Again, this is just a dodge. The prefix "pro" means "for." If an individual is "for" a woman's choice to have an abortion, then he or she is "for" the abortion when the woman chooses to have it, hence "pro-abortion." Those who support abortion rights prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because the one sounds better. Those of us who oppose abortion often call ourselves "pro-life" because that is what we are, but I for one do not mind being identified as "anti-abortion" because that is accurate as far as it goes. I am against abortion. The pro-abortion group likes to call us "anti-choice." Although that is not an entire picture either. I will agree that in this case I am against a particular choice in the same way that I am "anti-choice" when it comes to rape, murder, etc.

This whole issue is part of the greater "culture" war that our society is fighting. While one might argue whether our country was ever really a "Christian nation" or not, there is no doubt that at one time the laws of our country were based on a biblical worldview drawn from our Christian heritage. Do not be deceived. While it is true that our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom, it was founded by people who identified themselves as Christians with Biblical values. However, once the humanistic worldview became dominant and a majority of people believe that we are but mere products of evolution for who a subjective "quality of life" is the only standard, it is nothing to accept the deaths of countless unborn children via abortion. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34).

The Hippocratic Oath is hardly poetry.

Maybe you should revisit your opinion and come back after you've had a long hard talk with him.

@seanmoore

The Hippocratic Oath is hardly poetry.

Maybe you should revisit your opinion and come back after you’ve had a long hard talk with him.

Are you addressing me? I can't tell because you didn't @ me.

@janebutter Applying pro-abortionist logic to life:

"If your biological father was a rapist, you do not have a right to live."

@janebutter The baby is not responsible for the sins of his father.

We must of course be concerned with helping the rape victim to heal and recover, as fully as possible. Shall we propose that one who has been so violated, so violently treated, then engage in her own act of violation and violence toward the baby in her womb? The answer to the evil in the world is never more evil.

How many forcible assault rapes result in a pregnancy?

I believe the percentages are statistically quite small. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent. I believe this number should probably be more like 2% from what I have read on the subject.

In a rape in which pregnancy does occur there are two victims – the woman and her unborn child. The unborn child should be classified as a victim along with the woman. The naïve component of the abortion-rights movement likes to continue the outdated mantra that in the early stages of the pregnancy it is merely a blob of cells. As such it is of no value compared to the needs of the mother.

The more sophisticated element of the abortion rights movement are more honest in their evaluations and shocking in their conclusions. The sophisticated advocate admits that in an abortion a child dies. It is not profound logic that leads to this conclusion. After all, upon fertilization it is a chromosomally unique individual that grows and migrates down the fallopian tube and implants in the uterine wall.

Many women who have had an abortion after being raped report that their abortion felt like a degrading form of 'medical' rape.

In the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.("Pregnancy and Sexual Assault, The Psychological Aspects of Abortion.")

One lady, Kathleen DeZeeuw, said:
"I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side."

The rape argument in trying to justify on demand murder of a baby's life, however, is a red herring.

What are the percentages of abortions performed on the unborn child who was conceived in rape? As a total of all the abortions performed, it is extremely small, so this means that the vast majority of abortions are performed on babies who were conceived in consensual sexual activity. Not in rape.

The rape argument is invalid.

I believe this is the part of the crimes act being discussed?
http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act_abortion_noresel#DLM329351

So abortions are currently legal only if a woman (or girl) claims 187 (1) (a) applies, for the "common" types of abortion? And the point of this is to not require an affirmation of 187 (1) (a) to obtain an abortion?

@andrewlepine " No one is making abortion easier, nor is anyone is making abortion harder."

It seems it would make it easier, by definition, to remove one hurdle. You seem to agree yourself when you say "get rid of the state-mandated “legal grounds” for abortion." Which is an artificial hurdle imposed by the Act.

Wouldn't removing a state-mandated legal requirement make it easier, by definition? If not, why go through the trouble to do something about it?

@harleyfnordgreenbr - Are fetuses not human also?
A fetus is a living human.

With the masses not entirely understanding the geometry of a Women's uterus, the term "child" is a comparable compromise. Unless, the fetus only becomes a 'child/baby' once born?

Which then means after said abortion, it is a 'child/baby' which now dead, has therefore been terminated (as 'choicers' like to put it) or murdered/killed.

Also, my writings are not arguments, therefore not flawed, merely truth grounded in absolutes (which I can explain further if you like).

@wadevuglar

Those who truly believe the Bible understand that abortion is wrong

This is where I stop reading. I will accept literally any other argument over a religious argument when it comes to politics.

Not everyone shares the same morals or point of view. I support a woman's right to terminate a fetus. It is not the place of anyone to decide what a woman can do with her body. It seems so absurd that in our time we have people who would still try to control a persons freedom. A fetus before a certain development time is not considered a person in the same sense as you and I. You may have a religious belief that says that the an unborn fetus is a life, but not everyone shares your belief and if you impose your will on others then you are everything wrong with this world. For too long we have let our selves be controlled by others. Well I, for one am taking a stand against those who would subdue others freedoms. I don't believe in any gods and that is my right as a free person, but that does not mean I do not respect life. I will not take away another persons freedom as long as they do not take mine ether. To the main point I agree with Laila, it should not be in the criminal act.

@marcwhinery well done Marc - except for this:

"118.555 sq.m/person
I doubt you could get a decent sized “3-bedroom house with backyard and vegetable garden” in 118.55 sq. m."

Thats 3-5 times 118 sq/m per house (presuming at least one couple). Chuck in Aussie if it makes you feel more comfortable. and we still have 90% of land mass available.

The world is NOT overpopulated - and those who think it is are under very serious, and negative (eugenicist) mind control- which is fitting given this topic debate.

A 10 week old human child scrambles to the back of its mothers womb as the suction cup and / or surgical knives approach- it then fights violently for its life as it is sliced or sucked up into different parts and dies. I would encourage people to look at some images of this procedure - then ask themselves, at what point did I lose my soul and how might I get it back?

@lailaharre a very politically sensitive area, I do agree it should be removed from the Crimes Act, it has no place in this act.

In thinking about the issue, I did notice after we updated the 52nd UN Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on our progress back in 2012 it was singled out that NZ has not been willing to have a political debate on the subject, so maybe we should.

In supporting taking abortion out of the Crimes Act I would want to know what framework would we be supporting to guide these future decisions? Those who have agreed what are they really supporting?

Are we just talking about abortions of an embryo up to the 9/10th week of pregnancy as a medical procedure and not those beyond this which would be surgical? Or do we mean that we would be supporting the right to terminate by elective abortions up to/or beyond the 20th week? - I think the UK allows up to the 24th.

I still think we need an absolute abortion cut-off with exceptions that doctors can assist in making that call to protect the life of the mother. I'm happy to contribute in the discussion that I would be happy to draw the line at 20, but I find it harder and harder to add each extra week up to the UK's 24th week cutoff.

I'm not going to argue against anyone's alternative view, I don't feel qualified enough to vote on the proposal apart from agreeing that we should remove it from the Crimes Act.

It looks like this is quite a contentious issue based on what everyone is saying. I agree with having women centric policies but I do feel this is quite a polarising issue leading into the election, As women in NZ have reasonably unrestricted access to getting an abortion, I wonder if a law change would make any real difference to the current process.

@cohenglass But when we cover the US and Australia in dens-ish city, we also pave over the resources and farmland to support those cities. Until we have hydroponic farms in orbit and ocean-based algae-food production, with Moon-based solar colelction http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/lunaring.html

Then we are over-populated.

But the number-1 reduction in population growth is education and reduction of poverty.

"The world is NOT overpopulated - and those who think it is are under very serious, and negative (eugenicist) mind control-"

anyone who doesn't agree with me is under mind control by a global conspiracy

No, I don't see that as an argument that improves your position or increases the likelihood anyone will be swayed by your words (at least not swayed to believe in your words, you could hardly sabotage your own point better than claim evil global conspiracies to control our minds, of which I have already lost - do you wear a tinfoil hat to prevent the mind control?).

Is there something inconsistent in thinking that the state should not claim ownership of the internet, but believing the state should claim protective ownership of the contents of every uterus? While the current law generally allows for abortion in most cases, it insists on a bit of hypocrisy in the process. It does seem better to limit the crime act to real crimes.

'Abortion' appears nine times in the Crimes Act. To propose removing it entirel is very poorly thought out. Below is the whole lot, and as you can see every appearance is aimed at differentiating between criminal and lawful activity, which should always be the case where lives are concerned. Whatever anyone may think about whether lawful abortion should be lawful, criminal abortion should never be. It should remain criminal. This proposal and the discussion that has followed it is badly misinformed, misleading, and its real aim is obscured.

Here is all the law on abortion in the Crimes Act:

182 Killing unborn child
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that he or she would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being.
(2) No one is guilty of any offence who before or during the birth of any child causes its death by means employed in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother.

183 Procuring abortion by any means
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman or girl, whether she is pregnant or not,—
(a) unlawfully administers to or causes to be taken by her any poison or any drug or any noxious thing; or
(b) unlawfully uses on her any instrument; or
(c) unlawfully uses on her any means other than any means referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).
(2) The woman or girl shall not be charged as a party to an offence against this section.

186 Supplying means of procuring abortion
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or any drug or any noxious thing, or any instrument or other thing, whether of a like nature or not, believing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure miscarriage.

187A Meaning of unlawfully
(1) For the purposes of sections 183 and 186, any act specified in either of those sections is done unlawfully unless, in the case of a pregnancy of not more than 20 weeks' gestation, the person doing the act believes—
(a) that the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl; or
(aa) that there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped; or
(b) that the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse between—
(i) a parent and child; or
(ii) a brother and sister, whether of the whole blood or of the half blood; or
(iii) a grandparent and grandchild; or
(c) that the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse that constitutes an offence against section 131(1); or
(d) that the woman or girl is severely subnormal within the meaning of section 138(2).
(2) The following matters, while not in themselves grounds for any act specified in section 183 or section 186, may be taken into account in determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), whether the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to her life or to her physical or mental health:
(a) the age of the woman or girl concerned is near the beginning or the end of the usual child-bearing years:
(b) the fact (where such is the case) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the pregnancy is the result of sexual violation.
(3) For the purposes of sections 183 and 186, any act specified in either of those sections is done unlawfully unless, in the case of a pregnancy of more than 20 weeks' gestation, the person doing the act believes that the miscarriage is necessary to save the life of the woman or girl or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health.
(4) Where a medical practitioner, in pursuance of a certificate issued by 2 certifying consultants under section 33 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, does any act specified in section 183 or section 186 of this Act, the doing of that act shall not be unlawful for the purposes of the section applicable unless it is proved that, at the time when he or she did that act, he or she did not believe it to be lawful in terms of subsection (1) or subsection (3), as the case may require.

I agree with David Currin. The text of the proposal is misleading and superficial, because any 'procedure' carried out on the human body can be good or bad. If a 'medical procedure' is carried out by someone properly trained and licensed and registered in premises licenced and registered, and the procedure is a lawful one, that is a far cry from the same procedure carried out where none of those parameters apply. There is lawful and unlawful: unlawful must remain criminal.

And to classify abortion as just a 'medical procedure' as if it were in the same category as removing an appendix or a cancerous breast, and to say it can never be done in a way that is not criminal, is foolish nonsense. Which is why there is a line drawn in the Crimes Act.

But the wording of the proposal makes it sound as if abortion is classified as a crime, so it has raised the hackles of the pro and anti groups.

Go to the Crimes Act and do a search on 'abortion' in it before you comment. Or read my earlier posting in which I quote all nine hits.

It seems that a lot of voters here have not actually read what has been proposed.

I believe that abortion should not be considered as a criminal matter, but at the same time I DO NOT support a blase 'abort because I can' attitude.

The ending of a life, even one so young as to not even recognise itself as being alive, is only ever going to be a reasonable consideration in the most dire of situations.
I speak of the mothers health as I have seen mentioned, both physical and mental, must be able to be stated prior to any operation being started as being extremely dire. And this would be recorded with proper accountability in place to forclose any potential loopholes which would let unnecessary operations take place.

@nobilangeloceramal "This proposal and the discussion that has followed it is badly misinformed, misleading, and its real aim is obscured."

And you are part of that "badly misinformed, misleading, and obscured-aim" discussion.

"http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act_abortion_noresel#DLM329351
182-187A"

Would have been a much better way of annotating your comments. Your way seems preachy and condescending. But then, from the rest of your posts, that seems to be your goal. To dismiss anyone who disagrees as unworthy, like your insults to those who posted before that I included above.

If you want to join the discussion, please do so. But at this point, it looks like all you want to do is stir up trouble and insult others.

@nobilangeloceramal "Go to the Crimes Act and do a search on ‘abortion’ in it before you comment."

I have (well, I had already read all the sections you quoted, I didn't search on "abortion" because you obviously didn't). You quoted 182, 183, 186, and 187A, when only 183, 186, and 187A (4) contained the word "abortion".

Sadly, you'd have a point if you could form a coherent argument without the vitriol twisting it into an anti-abortion rant.

If 182-187A were simply deletedto legalize abortion, wouldn't that make it legal to poison a woman in a manner as to cause a miscarriage?

I think that's your hidden point, but you can't get there because you are too busy spreading insults and hate.

Though, even that point would presume ignorance and incompetence from all who disagree with you.

Any law passed to remove "abortion" from the Crimes Act could also amend the Crimes Act to make non-abortion killing of a child who is not yet a human an illegal act, solving the only stated objection.

@nobilangeloceramal "But the wording of the proposal makes it sound as if abortion is classified as a crime, so it has raised the hackles of the pro and anti groups."

Abortion is a crime, if the courts don't agree that her circumstances met the exemptions listed in 187A(1)(a) (presumed by me to be the standard exemption used) or 182(2) (a much more restrictive exemption).

As it's listed, abortion is a crime, and women must "petition" for an exemption to the criminal act to be allowed to get one.

Go on, prove me wrong. If 187A (and 182(2)) were not in the list you quoted, provding a list of exemptions, would the rest of it define all abortions as crimes? Even if the doctors would be the criminals, not the women? Show me a reasonable explanation that has abortion being legal, rather than abortion illegal, "except" for a few explicit exemptions.

I think that gets to the point of this proposal, to make the "default" legal, rather than illegal. As the words you quoted make it quite clear @nobilangeloceramal "182(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that he or she would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being."

That sounds like abortion is illegal (with exceptions). Do you want to weigh in on that issue, or continue to insult and distract?

@marcwhinery

Sadly, you’d have a point if you could form a coherent argument without the vitriol twisting it into an anti-abortion rant.

There already are controls dictating where an abortion can be administered. See section 18 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 [link]

wow, so many people against abortion?

Lets have teenagers getting pregnant and having no option but to sacrifice their hopes and dreams and commit to being parents despite still being kids themselves.

Lets have kids feeling like a burden as they are being raised by parents that don't want them, yay for neglect and child abuse!

I know many young females that would have ruined their lives if they were unable to get abortions. Yeah, it wasn't easy for them, but bringing a kid into the world while not being in any position to take care of them is just irresponsible. (and no i was not the inpregnater)

@lukewilliams

Lets have teenagers getting pregnant and having no option but to sacrifice their hopes and dreams and commit to being parents despite still being kids themselves.

Hopefully the party will work to promote sex education, so that both sides will be happy. Even though I think people should be able to get them, I'd like us to help people avoid having to make that decision in the first place.

@lukewilliams - its more like: Stop procreating like irresponsible juveniles that get pregnant, Grow up and become responsible adults that can have sex within the confines of a healthy relationship.

Will society please stop trying to put a theoretical band-aid on every major problem and just get to the heart of the issue.

I hate to be so sexist, but it is obvious that the vast majority on the "nay" side are male. Perhaps we need to amend our proposal to include "No man should be forced to undergo abortion against his will." /sarc
There seems to be a paternalistic urge to apply big moral principles without a real gut understanding of what this question means to women. Life is messy.

@stephenschoenberg

Perhaps we need to amend our proposal to include “No man should be forced to undergo abortion against his will.” /sarc

Another approach would be to define male masturbation as attempted mass murder.

The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 already regulates where a legal abortion can take place, the rest is something that should take place between a patient and her doctor.

This patriarchal set of laws in the Crimes Act needs to be repealed.

@lukewilliams "wow, so many people against abortion?"

Only about 20% here, and mostly males. Though until people started pointing that out, I didn't notice how male-dominated the forums are.

Even with @miriampierard1 and @lailaharre, there doesn't seem to be a huge draw to the forums, I hope the party is more diverse than the forums. My wife joined the party, but can't be bothered with the forums.

@terangikaiwhiriake

Another approach would be to define male masturbation as attempted mass murder.

This is where a much less mature man would make a joke about locking up parliament for being a bunch of wankers.

But I'm much more mature than that.

@simonmoore "Will society please stop trying to put a theoretical band-aid on every major problem and just get to the heart of the issue."

What is the heart of the issue? Bodies develop faster than brains? How would you propose we fix that? Hormone therapy in the water to delay first ovulation until 18+, or 25+?

@simonmoore "Stop procreating like irresponsible juveniles that get pregnant,"

So abortion should be legal for anyone under 18, as they are irresponsible juveniles, who apparently get a free pass from you?

How are we to get to the "heart of the issue" when even those who decry our ability to get to the heart of the issue, apparently don't get to the heart of the issue.

@marcwhinery And the whole reason these "irresponsible juveniles" get pregnant is because certain people want to deny to young people that sex is even a thing that happens, and so our sex education is awful.

There's this weird group who don't want sex education or even contraceptives, who don't want legal abortion, who also want to cut welfare. So a human life is precious until it leaves the womb?

@wadevuglar

You need to "@" people so we know which of us murderous scum you are addressing.

Thanks,
@marcwhinery

@marcwhinery It's a passive-aggressive thing that certain people do on this forum.

"Shit, I want to make a comment, but I don't want somebody to come back with a rebuttal. I'll just not tag them in my post, so they won't see it."

@reidalexanderwicks is obviously not a Catholic.

"So a human life is precious until it leaves the womb?"

No, humans are inherently evil and must be shamed and punished at every turn. The baby is punishment for the parents, so it must be born to cause as much harm as possible, and the guilt for the parents about not being able to care for it is more important than the health of the baby.

Yes, I tried Catholicism for a while, but found I was allergic.

Abortion is just one of those topics. Its hard for people to reason it out, get to the heart of the issue for themselves.

There are many voices adding into the abortion discourse; religious ( Christian dualism ), male centric dogma/patriarchy, tradition/culture, belief about what is a life/ where does it begin, a woman's view, belief in the soul, science, fear, misogyny and more.

The ones that get the least attention are usually a woman's view and science. This inclusion in the Crimes Act IMHO also ignores those two voices.

@reidalexanderwicks

I just assumed @wadevuglar was addressing @nobilangeloceramal

It's much more amusing that way.

@marcwhinery A non helpful comment I must admit. Hence I deleted it.

But in general, anyone who supports the murder of babies.

@wadevulgar

anyone who supports the murder of babies

Religious ( Christian dualism ), male centric dogma/patriarchy, tradition/culture, belief about what is a life/ where does it begin, a woman’s view, belief in the soul, science, fear, misogyny and more.

@josephhogan "Policy should aim to provide this support, "

Then why haven't you proposed that policy? You just prefer to heckle from the sidelines? That makes you complicit in the baby killing.

So many organizations claim support would help, but the support doesn't materialize. You can make abortion legal, and provide the support you are talking about. They are orthoginal. Blocking one and blaming the other isn't logically consistent, and just makes people like me question your real motives.

@marcwhinery I'd rather pay for someone's condoms than pay for their abortion. I'd rather pay for their abortion than pay for their childcare. I'd rather pay for their childcare than let children starve.

@marcwhinery

Thanks for the ad hominem. Why not just suggest that I vote for a party with policies I believe work? Or why not just suggest I campaign to make men more responsible in relationships, seeing that 64% of women report feeling pressured into abortion.

Well that is exactly what I am doing :)

Support comes in the form of family and partners primarily, and secondarily in the form of crisis pregnancy centres - which do by the way make a big difference.

Change will come from the bottom up NOT from the top down - so a grass roots movement rather than an imposed policy would be the most successful. However there are things that can be done, policy wise.

Would you aim towards making abortion unnecessary rather than just make it illegal?

I would tactically prefer this approach. Then once our culture has changed the law can reflect the changes and demonstrate that we believe every human has the right to life.

@kieranreid

Hi Kieran

just thought you should know that sperm only contain 23 chromosomes and is not a human life. A zygote containing 46 chromosomes with unique DNA all there at conception, is however shown scientifically to be a human life. This is why science says a homo-sapien has been created at conception.

cheers

@josephhogan Yes. I'd rather prevent the abortion discussion from ever being necessary. Sex ed means fewer accidental pregnancies and makes both sides happy.

@fredlook

You are absolutely right Fred it is a terrible decision for anyone to make. So why does our culture frame it as a burden to be held by the women alone?

Why do we frame it as a women's choice when stats show that 64% of women are pressured into aborting. We also know that most 73% of women would keep their child if they had the financial support.

We should be supporting the women by acknowledging these facts and asking where the men are? Why are they not financially supporting their partners and why are they all too often forcing women to abort, against their will?

I think you should consider taking a less simplistic approach - you acknowledge that it is a terrible decision to make, thereby showing you recognize that a life is at stake.

@chandradevansubram

Hi Devan

The situation is so much more complicated than just a rational choice between a women and a few doctors. First of all wouldn't you agree that the doctors should be impartial ? yet all too often they are not.

There is also to be considered the fact that the women are often pressured into aborting. And the fact that if they had financial support they would generally keep their child.

These two considerations (among others) at least have to be taken into account rather than assuming an abortionist and anesthetist can rightly counsel a women into the right decision.

@harleyfnordgreenbr

harley

Medical science recognizes that a homo sapien is created at conception. A unique one-of-a-kind human being is created at conception with all it's DNA in place determining its sex, blood-type and hair eye colur.

Shouldn't we give this human the fundamental human right to life?

Why should another human beings non-fundamental human right abrogate another innocent human beings fundamental right?

@lukewilliams

Hi Luke do you see that your ideology of being pro-abortion is itself being forced on not only everyone in NZ but on the voiceless unborn human beings?

Your comment is self-defeating mate.

@stephenschoenberg

"if you oppose abortion don't have one"

I have seven female friends who oppose abortion and didn't want one - yet they were coerced into it by the man that got them pregnant.

Don't you think it's about time we asked where the man is in all this and why are they abusing women and forcing them to abort against their will rather than supporting them?

@peterbarron

All too often though Peter a women is forced against her will to abort by the boyfriend. 64% of women report feeling pressured to abort.

If only it was as simple as your suggestion.

Women need to be supported - this policy does not do that. Not to mention that half of every abortions are female babies.

@josephhogan "Thanks for the ad hominem."

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Attacking the person isn't an ad hominem. Attacking the argument through the person is an ad hominem.

@josephhogan smells funny
That's not an ad hominem.

@josephhogan shouldn't be listened to because he smells funny
is an ad hominem.

But as for the topic, how does the presence or absence of support for women facing the choice affect the presence or absence of the wording in the Crimes Act?

That is the distraction you are forcing on us now. We can address the "pregnancy support" question separately. It is independent of the Crimes Act, unless you want to make getting pregnant a crime.

@josephhogan "Why do we frame it as a women’s choice when stats show that 64% of women are pressured into aborting."

Because the's the point. 64% feel pressure, when it often ends up where the man pressures her to not have one, then runs out after the birth (or after the decision window has passed). So the point here is to reduce the "pressure" on a woman with regards to the choice, positively or negatively. When the choice is hers alone, and nobody else's, then nobody else should be offering pressure.

@josephhogan "We also know that most 73% of women would keep their child if they had the financial support."

If you gave me $10,000,000, I'd keep the child. But as the man, I don't get the option to bid on my baby.

But again, the question of whether one "should" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal or not, once the choice is made. Or what level of cash payments we should make to mothers of unplanned babies. I'd prefer to look for solutions that don't reward irresponsibility.

It's complex enough already without people deliberately trying to derail the discussion with calculated irrelevancies.

Based on the Crimes Act, an abortion is an unprosecuted crime. The policy suggested above is to remove the criminal aspect. That is the question for this policy. If you don't like it, you are free to start another discussion.

Anything else is an anti-choice distraction wrapped in "I didn't mean to show my true intent, and accusing me of what's true is unfair, when I didn't state it explicitly enough for me to think you should be able deduce my true intentions".

There are no "do overs" on the Internet. Everything is archived forever. Little statements like @josephhogan "every human has the right to life." make your intentions quite clear. "taken out of context"? The context was a discussion on abortion. I don't think it's taken out of context, even if you think you intended to "soften" the sentiment.

@lailaharre This is very much a wedge issue that is not black and white. I sincerely hope IP does not proceed on this policy without further discussion.

The rights of women come first but the rights of unborn should not be thrown under the bus. At what point does a baby become human? I'd really like some non-emotive rational discussion around this issue that isn't dogmatised by one side of the question over the other.

I know there is certainly an element of the populace that still considers eugenics a good thing but modern science has disproven eugenics as bad science at best.

@marcwhinery

I mentioned your ad hominem (yes, it was) because it distracts from the main topic.

I know plenty of women who have aborted their babies.I don't know one who considers themselves a criminal. I do however, know 7 women who would have kept their child had the man who got them pregnant been there to support them rather than forced them to abort.

I also know of many women who had abortions and say their conscience makes them a criminal, not the law.

I don't think this policy will benefit either the women or the unborn. It will simply make it easier for irresponsible men to bully their girlfriends/wives/one-night-stands into abortions.

Your comments take away from the discussion, rather than add to it.

@josephhogan
"I have seven female friends who oppose abortion and didn’t want one - yet they were coerced into it by the man that got them pregnant."
You are throwing in lots of rhetoric that is irrelevant to the issue. The existence of coercion, the preferability of contraception, and the need for child care have nothing to do with decriminalizing abortion. Everyone would like to see the need for abortion vanish, but here in the real world, that is unlikely. Why make a difficult decision more difficult? Note too that abortion exists even when the penalties are very high.
I wish we could also dispense with the imprecise nonsense of "murdering babies." A fetus is not a small baby. Just having 46 chromosomes does not make one a person under law or in fact. Woe be it to us should we decide that is the legal definition, since only about 30% of fertilized eggs make it to delivery. The police would have to investigate the other 70%.
The bottom line to me is: "does society benefit from having abortion in the Crime Act. No, would be my answer.

@marcwhinery
Most people do not read the proposal discussions.

Add that to the fact that no matter what the wording and intent is, people still read it as an issue that is for or against a women's right to her own body rather than what the proposal is actually about.

So for example, for a conservative christian: should abortion be removed from the crimes act? Answer: Abortion is murder.

Try to point them to the proposal topic....then it becomes anyone supporting abortion are murderers.

Most of those in that category should have actually abstained or blocked

@josephhogan "I mentioned your ad hominem (yes, it was) because it distracts from the main topic."

Hahaha. That's rich. You complaining about distracting from the main topic. Did you even read the proposal? Do your comments even apply to it? Or are you just giving your opinion on abortion, unrelated to the "main topic"?

Because, despite your complaints about others, I see no relation between your comments and the "main topic".

@josephhogan "I do however, know 7 women who would have kept their child had the man who got them pregnant been there to support them rather than forced them to abort."

What, do you hang out at groups dedicated to women who regret their abortions? I don't even know 7 women who have had abortions, let alone had them, regretted them, and were pressured into them.

@josephhogan "Your comments take away from the discussion, rather than add to it."

Yes, that's what people who have their opinions challenged always think.

"I also know of many women who had abortions and say their conscience makes them a criminal, not the law."

Then why have the law also make them a criminal? Are you trying to save women from themselves and all the bad men they slept with?

First we'll save them from bad law, then we'll save them from the bad men, so that one day they can all find you and be saved.

Without a doubt abortion should be taken out of the crimes act; it's an unenforced law that serves no practical purpose save for stigmatizing a practice that occurs in society.

I fully support a woman's right to choose and have autonomy over her own body. However abortion is a traumatic process both physically and emotionally.

The debate and conversation that is crucial here is education and prevention. Abortion rates are going down in New Zealand (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276652) and that is a good thing; it highlights that our current process of education is working.

As I've stated; given the choice no one wants an abortion - they would have rather not gotten pregnant in the first place. A focus on educating our young people about the vast range of contraceptive options available today is key.

However in the times that an abortion is necessary it should certainly NOT be a crime.

TL:DR Education on contraception should always be at the forefront of this issue.

Abortion should be three things; Safe, Legal and Rare.

What sickens me is that people have zero compunction over endorsing, supporting or generally approving of the vile practice of killing a human child.

To me, this image sums it up.

https://www.anonimg.com/img/39f3e407164e44ba8e201f65209c25bd.jpg

Hi Joseph,

I think the fundamental issue is if a woman has the right to have an abortion if she chooses. I agree with this.

Her doctors are just one among many she could engage to give her support in this decision. She may also have her partner, family or a social agency.

When we start setting rules and conditions to have an abortion, we go down a slippery slope. In the interest of the unborn child, you might want to dictate what the woman may or may not eat, what activities she may or may not perform etc. And worse, potentially criminalizing many actions she takes that may not otherwise be a crime.

Of course, you are right to say that some woman maybe coerced to abort when they don't want to. These women should be supported with protection and counseling. However, lets not make the rights of these women impose conditions on those who are wanting to abort.

And what does the "Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" have to do with the topic of removing the crime of baby killing?

Moronic.

I thinking, it is a women body , she have to make this decision.
Anyway it is also danger for a women , she can die !
And on top of it, the psychological factors ,it is hard to do .
Why we need it also in the crimes Act.
I absolutely agree

@wadevulgar

And what does the “Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women” have to do with the topic of removing the crime of baby killing?

Well apart of the emotive use of language you employ, here's a few issues that come to mind concerning discrimination of that section of the crimes act:

• Section 187a of the Crimes Act stipulates a number of rigid requirements for pregnant women applying for an abortion, whose circumstances are often outside of the restrictions listed in the Crimes Act.

• Section 187a does not take into account the social and economic factors which most of the rest of the world now accept as valid basis for terminating a pregnancy ( in the first trimester ).

• Section 187a restrictions in practice can lead to huge delays in applying for and being authorised to get an abortion, many times pushing the pregnancy unnecessarily past the first trimester.

• While it appears to continue to exist in law, principally to appease the anti-abortion people - such as yourself, it fails even in that because it authorises the termination of a women's pregnancy thereby legalising ( in your view ) the killing of a baby.

• For these and many many more reasons, Section 187a of the Crimes Act is a section that no courts in this country have, or will enforce, so it should get repealed.

@hugheldredgrigg
@oliverfindlay @kawanawallace @peterbarron @sanjayvalavil @loismcclintock @nicktaylor1 @anthonymilas @isabellagrigg @harleyfnordgreenbr @haraldgerhardt @nigelmcnie @grantkeinzley @tiffaneymatthews @simonlayton @billymckee @allancleverley @lailabehmeleit @katemiller
@neilscott @francesmcinnes @marcwhinery @jessicacopping
@stephenschoenberg

For all you people who think it is okay to kill innocent humans, I challenge you to watch this.
If you cannot stomach what you see then you should not advocate abortion.
This is footage of an abortion via ultrasound. If you can't watch this and you still support abortion you are being hypocritical, plain and simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

@marcwhinery

????? (Facepalm) :) Marc how difficult is it to understand my point, really? It shows that the proposed policy will just make it easier for women to be bullied into abortions, abortions they themselves DO NOT WANT.

Abortions are easy to acquire as is - why make it easier for a "women's right" to be abused by her husband.

No women who aborts thinks of themselves as a criminal - never come across that before.

And I guarantee you that you will know many women who have had abortions. Why don't you ask around the females you know, you'll be surprised at what you discover. You'll no doubt find that many women were not supported by their man, and felt they had no "choice". So much for a women's choice.

This policy will just make it easier for women to be abused.

Not to mention that abortion is the killing of an innocent life.

@josephhogan "If you cannot stomach what you see then you should not advocate abortion. "

I can stomach a lot, but the fact that abortions look gross doesn't make them bad.

Have you ever seen bowel surgery? That's pretty disgusting, blood and shit everywhere. I doubt many people could stomach watching a video of one, but that hardly makes bowel surgery immoral.

@josephhogan

For all you people who think it is okay to kill innocent humans, I challenge you to watch this.

This proposal presupposes a certain level of lawfulness of abortion as a starting base and seeks to remove the criminalising aspect of the procedure. I challenge you to start another discussion and proposal to support your anti-abortion beliefs.

@lailaharre

All my discussions with IP people to date have confirmed support for this proposition. I am keen to see it included in our health policy when it is published shortly. Is that all good with you?

In reality the opinion is pretty much split along the lines of society with about 30% holding to the conservative view that ranges from the most strict religious beliefs on abortion like that of the Catholic church, through to the moderate to slightly progressive approaches of the Muslim faith.

The majority would most likely have a scale of support for such a proposal ranging from full support for a complete removal from the Crimes Act, through to a partial repeal, partial amendment.

People will often tell you to your face what you want to hear, that's unfortunately the nature of the beast.

@josephhogan I have my wife's laser eye surgery, and my ACR replacement surgery on DVD. My work mate considering the eye procedure borrowed the disc once and watched it. Other than that, nobody has ever seen either, nor wants to. That I can't stomach my own knee surgery doesn't mean that I think it should be illegal.

That's highly irrational logic. If I ever have a colonoscopy, I guarantee I will not be looking at it. But it should be legal, even if nobody likes looking at it.

Oh, and your video is a propaganda piece by The Apologetics Group, Discipleship & Evangelism for the 21st Century. And it's not just a video of the procedure, but 10+ minutes of preaching and sensationalism before, and another 10+ minutes after. Anyone making it through to the actual ultrasound without falling asleep will not be scared off by the grainy images on the monitor, but the graphic (and for all the viewers know, improperly sensationalistic)descriptions, with speed altered (both fast and slow) and multiple replays, designed to give a false impression of the act. If it were so bad, why couldn't they let it stand on its own? Why is there such a long commentary trying to convince us it's bad before the actual video, then when the actual ultrasound comes on, it's stealfully edited for effect (no mention or notes that the ultrasound is edited, to exaggerate the motions when the instruments are in by speeding it up, and to slow it down overall to make it seem longer and more brutal).

This is a lying propaganda piece only. I "watched" it all, but refused to listen to the commentary.

Watch the entire video on mute, as I did, and it's no more shocking than watching an airplane fly across the sky (provided it isn't a Malaysian Air plane). You end up watching the progress marker, more than anything else. Is it over yet? I want to be able to say I watched the whole thing...

@josephhogan "It shows that the proposed policy will just make it easier for women to be bullied into abortions, abortions they themselves DO NOT WANT."

Ah, that's all?

I have a differing opinion. I believe you are wrong. I'm sure you believe I'm wrong. But since it's a matter of opinion only, there's nothing to say.

And since you have given nothing to help with that situation (other than ban all abortions, and you'll make it impossible for anyone to pressure a woman into one, which doesn't seem like a realistic suggestion), I presume you aren't interested in protecting women from abusing men.

If you can't come up with a solution to a problem you assert, complaining that others ideas are bad because they don't solve the problem either, then your confound is unfounded.

"If you cannot stomach what you see then you should not advocate abortion. "

Who here is advocating abortion? Only the hypothetical pressuring husbands are doing that. We are advocating allowing a choice. There is a difference.

Abortion is a personal decision and nothing to do with people who are not
affected.

Kind regards,
Billy Mckee.

@josephhogan

Watching your propaganda piece has absolutely no relevance to this discussion or my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided I think you are - just please don't insult me by practicing your zealotry on me

@marcwhinery

Well nothing will get through to you evidently - but the footage I linked you actually can have an effect, without sound. In fact it was so profound that it changed Dr Nathansons mind. And who was he? He founded the National Association for the Repeal of abortion laws. You know, the organisation that claimed, out of thin air, that illegal abortions were killing thousands in the states. When in reality it only killed a handful, and still does in legal procedures too.

This shows that it can appeal to someones conscience, but evidently not yours? It's called desensitization.

@peterbarron - just what you what say to something you don't agree with - disregard it with the wave of a hand! Great work.

@billymckee What about the choice of the unborn human?

@josephhoughton

it increases "mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders"

Does Fergusson realise that mental health issues are the very grounds for an abortion? Should we then be surprised that a women who ends a pregnancy for mental health reasons, would then go on to have mental health problems?

@marcwhinery @hugheldredgrigg

The film is not meant to "gross you out" of supporting aborting innocent human life. It is meant to appeal to your conscience. May have no impact on you. But it does reach some.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/29/seeing-a-baby-on-ultrasound-made-abortionist-quit-become-pro-life/

Making it worth sharing.

@Diana
Your countries laws says its ok to carry out abortions ( in your words, to kill babies ) and has done so officially for close to 40 years. All parties agree on current laws that allow for abortions, including the Conservative Party. So who will you vote for then?

Such a perverse and crooked generation!!!

@terangikaiwhiriake "Well apart of the emotive use of language you employ"

How can this not be an emotive subject?

Did the country not get all up in arms and emotional over the murder of poor little Nia Glassie? Or the myriad of other cases in New Zealand when children are horribly killed? Apart from having been born, there is no difference between a life in the womb and a life out of the womb.

How can this not be an emotive subject? You are heartlessly talking about ripping little bodies apart like it is of no consequence.

Next @lailaharre will be campaigning for post birth abortions because it is a womans right. Lets give the mother three months to decide if she wants to keep the baby? Or maybe its just too much hard work and an inconvenience.

Or maybe, instead of killing the kid, adopt him or her out?

Or maybe, just maybe, if you don't want to have a child you shouldn't have sex until you are ready to bear the responsibility of the consequences.

"Next @lailaharre will be campaigning for post birth abortions because it is a womans right."

Riiiiiight.

@wadevulgar

There is no disagreement in the known universe that the death of a baby Nia is a tragedy.

Apart from having been born, there is no difference between a life in the womb and a life out of the womb.

But as you WELL know, not everyone in the world shares your views about the life status of a human embryo/fetus throughout its development.

Some like the Catholic faith, Tea Party members, Anti Abortion/Pro Life groups believe that any form of abortion is murder/evil...yunno, the sign of a perverse and crooked generation....fit to be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah....

Other faiths like the Muslim faith, Reform Judaism, and others, hold a more pragmatic view of abortion, agreeing to first trimester abortions, and case by case after that.

Then you have progressives who have a more open mind to the advancements of science and understanding the scientific stance on what is a life and what isn't.

You have your view, and other people have theirs.

So when you preach your view of what is the status of a developing embryo as being the absolute truth, when you know full well that this is not a universally accepted dogma, then you are purposefully being contentious.

This is a very contentious topic, and people do it all the time. I just try not to get caught in moral absolutism, and will point it out when I see it. Hence my pointing out your emotive use of not only absolutist language, but also to pass off a false dilemma in an attempt to re-frame this discussion to be between the elimination of discrimination against women in the Crimes Act, and basically murder.

@JosephHogan
Thanks for tagging me, but if I am going to change my opinion, it won't be because someone is telling me to watch a youtube clip on an internet discussion. Everyone has different views on it and you should learn to accept that.

@josephhogan "Well nothing will get through to you evidently"

Well, nothing provided by an irrational zealot, certainly.

If you could stop the posturing, lecturing and rhetorical games, you might be able to make a point. But we might also all see that you have no point other than passing "I don't like it" as some greater purpose.

Try using "I" statements, rather than "you" statements or talking about others.

I think abortion should be legal because
I see it as a means to prevent child abuse
I see it as a way to ensure every baby born is wanted and more likely to be well cared for
I see it as the choice to be made by the person who is growing that baby

Can you drop all the posturing, blustering and propaganda repeating to state how you feel about it on a personal level?

That's the only way to convince people. Linking to highly edited and commentated propaganda pieces made by churches just makes you look like an irrational zealot, and I don't listen to those.

@wadevuglar "How can this not be an emotive subject?"

Nobody said it wasn't. But using deliberately inciteful language guarantees nobody will listen to your message. Is that really what you are aiming for? You get ignored 2 sentences in, "Oh, another one of those crackpots."

"How can this not be an emotive subject? You are heartlessly talking about ripping little bodies apart like it is of no consequence."

The fact you don't spend as much time or effort advocating tougher drivers standards makes you look like a liar.

You aren't interested in the damage to innocent little bodies. If you were, you'd be advocating self-driving cars, PRT, or other transportation options that get tourists off the wrong side of the road, where at least one family a year gets killed (including torn apart little bodies).

Why do you hate the children?

There, you aren't listening to me. You are upset at me and my language. Why? Emotive language.

@oliverfindlay I don't know about you, and it's probably closed minded of me but there are few ways to dissuade me of the truth of an argument more effective than "If you don't agree with me, watch this video!".

@marcwhinery No. I am not talking about those things because they are not PERTINENT to the topic which is abortion.

The other things you mention, self drive cars etc are a wonderful idea that I truly hope come to fruition at some stage in the very near future. In fact, I believe that we should be focusing on this technology and driving it forward. Lets be a world leader in self drive cars. But this is not the topic under discussion, so why include it?

Why is it "crack pot" to not want to have little babies killed in the womb, the place they should be the safest?

@kathrynshirley Do not fall for the LIE that the baby's body is the woman's body.

It is not. The babies body is the babies body. The woman's body is the woman's body.

The woman has no right to kill the baby on the premise that it is her body.

@wadevuglar "The woman has no right to kill the baby on the premise that it is her body."

So you believe the woman's body is the woman's body, and she should be free to do with it what she wants?

What if she evicts the baby?

Or, more clinical, how about she severs the umbilical where it becomes "hers" and when the baby's heart stops, it's then a dead trespasser with no more rights than if my neighbor died and her husband threw her body over the fence, and I wanted it off my property.

@wadevuglar "Why is it “crack pot” to not want to have little babies killed in the womb, the place they should be the safest?"

The question is :
Do you want abortion to continue to be a crime under NZ law.

Your answer is:
Yes

Your aggressive and abusive style, accusing entire groups of being murderers is what sets you as "crack pot". You are entitled to your opinion.

Also, your incorrect wording is "crack pot". I'd call "Why is it “crack pot” to not want to have little babies killed in the womb" a lie.

Nobody here has said they want more abortions. So you are a liar for implying that. Everyone wants fewer. The question is, do we do it in law, making it a crime, or by providing support and resources to reduce the demand?

Your continued lies about what everyone else is saying is what makes you a crack pot. Quit lying. Nobody here wants to have babies killed, in the womb or otherwise. Your insistence that making it legal but discouraged would kill more babies is flatly wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Abortion is on a decline, as people get more educated and stable, the demand decreases. If it's made legal, but the number of abortions keep falling, why would you object to that?

I am so glad this discussion is ending soon. I guess the other good news is that the anti-abortion side has changed memes from "loose women" to "coercive men" as villains.

Abortion is murder.

All other arguments are irrelevant.

@wadevuglar "All other arguments are irrelevant."

Yet you've managed to come up with so many other arguments. We knew they were irrelevant, we just weren't sure you knew.

@hugheldredgrigg
Another way that dissuades me from agreeing with people is spouting abuse at everyone, should be renamed Wade Vulgar.
It's not about approving of abortions, it's about the decriminalization of those who feel they need an abortion. Nowhere does it say that Abortion should be handed out any easier, or that they are going to be promoting the idea of abortions. Bible thumping is the least persuasive argument for changing anyone's opinion.

@oliverfindlay hahahahahhahahahahahaha oh, lets make fun of someones name everybody hahahahahahaha

I certainly don't appreciate anyone (no need to name names) using my comments to further their own agenda. So I ask everyone to refrain from using my comments for their statements - I am not here to have a conversation, I am stating my position on the proposal.

@WadeVuglar
Sorry here are some reason for why I am pro this policy,

A) It is about decriminalizing those who feel they NEED an abortion, it is not promotion, it is not making them more accessible. I don't like people feeling like they are criminals for doing something they feel is a necessity.

B) You can show me all the gross, over the top, invasive abortion you like, but I don't actually agree with abortions after the first trimester. At a point the fetus is aware and at that point abortions should only be allowed out of medical necessity and the like.

C) With this should come a large improvement to sexual awareness amongst youths, which in my mind, might not be so necessary were it not for the sexual repression brought about by your beloved bible.

D) I'm sure my logic is fallible compared to your accusation that everyone who agrees with this is a murder, or condones murderer. So obviously I would make a nice low blow with my expert joke skills.

@oliverfindlay

So obviously I would make a nice low blow with my expert joke skills.

If kids were distributing more low blows, there would be no abortions within that demographic.

Tauranga is the first city in New Zealand to run a recovery programme for women struggling after having an abortion.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20143043

@wadevulgar

I think its safe to say you have not been able to persuade anyone with your dogmatic approach to debating abortion Wade. Using pre-enlightenment styled values to try to inform post enlightenment rational minds who are driven by reason, is a fools errand mate.

Try adjust your approach on the next one, you might just get some traction.

@terangikaiwhiriake Thanks for the advice.

Unfortunately that is my position. Maybe not the best at arguing for it, but hey, gotta try, and you don't get better if you don't try and fail.

Likewise, I have not been convinced by any of the pro-abortion arguments.

@reidalexanderwicks
Well I know what I'm teaching any of my daughters then . . .

@wadevuglar "Likewise, I have not been convinced by any of the pro-abortion arguments."

Probably because there aren't any. Nobody here has made a "pro-abortion" argument. I've only seen anti-abortion arguments. It's just some are pro-choice, and some are anti-choice within that segment.

But it would be funny to see what you'd do with an actual pro-abortion person. But eugenicists are rare these days.

@marcwhinery I consider myself pro-abortion.

First, I apologise for being so blatantly off topic here Laila, but if you are going to be this risky and brave with policy, for heaven's sake would you please tackle the issue of regaining our monetary sovereignty as outlined in many proposals here.

@amandavickers Are you referring to the queen on our coins?

@reidalexanderwicks No! ... it is about removing the ability of private banks to create money out of thin air and then charge interest on it. I have already hijacked this thread, so see www.amandavickers.co.nz, or look up the previous discussions for further info if you wish. I just raised it here because it is another highly charged topic. If IMP can address this, they can address that! To relate this topic to abortion though, having less inequality and poverty would certainly reduce the number of pregnant mothers considering abortion, because lack of support seems to be a major determining factor.

Wow, I step away from Loomio for a few days and this gets rammed through quickly in my absence?! Proposed just 4 days ago and closed 1 day ago! WTF?

FWIW, I would have voted against this if I'd had a chance to. I don't condone murder of adults, children, babies, infants, or unborn children. If we allow abortion for just any reason whatsoever, then we might as well remove murder of adults from the law books too.

@robertfrittmann Well if it's any consolation your vote wouldn't have made any difference

@amandavickers I noted on your site that much of the complaint is against the banks, not "money". As such, I'd like to plant the seed for you to consider leaving money as it is (not that I'm saying we shoul leave it as it is, but as a mental exercise to separate "banks" from "monetary policy").

Change the banking laws so that every household in NZ could be a bank.

Change the RBNZ to be a facilitator of bank2bank transactions (including running the EFTPOS network).

When every household can be a bank (with every person in that house with 2+ accounts within that one bank), then the only "need" for a "real bank" would be for cash handling, on the government's instructions.

The money the banks lend out for homes and such comes from deposits from people, or loans from the government. That can sustain without the big Australia-owned banks. The RBNZ would need to offer loans into the system to imitate current monetary policy.

But we could become bank-free without changing monetary policy. This makes all the other changes easier. An individual household wouldn't have any real issues with changes in the monetary policy, so the changes later wouldn't be opposed by the big banks.

That, and the big banks make about $10,000 per year per household profit, and send that profit back to Australia. Working around the big banks would save billions. Banks aren't needed anymore in the world of the Internet. So lets be the first to cast them off.

Borrow for your house from your neighbors. You already do, but the banks takes $20,000 from each of you for the privilege of dealing with them.

Loomio is unusable. If it worked, I'd be able to click on @amandavickers name and see all previous posts. I don't recall seeing the other posts in the more on-topic threads, but maybe I just don't remember them. So it's hard to follow this up in a more appropriate place when Loomio is built to block that.

@marcwhinery I'd love to discuss this but we simply cannot do this on an abortion thread - (As I said, I only started it because both issues are brave and bold and so I was hoping this would transfer to the "money-as-debt" issue too) Could you either email me directly (details on my site) and/or start and new discussion - and email me think link to it. Thanks! PS: I agree Loomio can be difficult to use - I've tried to click on names to find previous posts too and couldn't.

@hugheldredgrigg If you think one person's voice can't have an influence then you clearly haven't caught on to what the InternetParty is all about. @lailaharre herself quoted, at the Road Trip meeting in Kelston, the famous quote by Margaret Mead...

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

My one vote against this proposal reaches well beyond Loomio, through Twitter, to reach many people who would be opposed to this baby-murdering proposal. People who may not use Loomio but are still part of the general NZ voting public.

@hannahmcquilkan

"the world already has too many people and children that are not wanted"

There are NO children that are not wanted. If you know of any infertile couples, then you will know this to be true. Every child is wanted by someone, even if the genetic contributor doesn't want them.

@chandradevansubram

"Forcing the pregnancy to go full term may result in significant risk to the woman's health and well being of the child."

Ever thought what abortion does to the well being of the child? It poses a vastly greater risk than allowing a full-term pregnancy. Adoption is a better option.

@billymckee

"This is a basic human right."

What about the basic human right of the child? You can't get any more of a "basic human" than an embryo, and they should have rights too. The right to live being foremost.

@lukewilliams

"It's just another means for one ideology to force its views on the rest of the population."

One ideology, that an embryo is nothing more than a wart, a growth in a woman's body, is being presented here. So it is okay for certain ideologies to be present but not others? This one ideology proffered by @lailaharre, taken to the extreme, could encompass any "unwanted" child. Pre-birth or post-birth, what difference does it make? Shall we just increase NZ's deplorable child abuse statistics by calling for an open season on any "unwanted" child, of any age?

Anyone who has voted to agree to this proposal should go right now and thank their own birth mother that she didn't decide to abort them.

@robertfrittmann
Yes I do know of quite a few infertile couples and guess what? Most of them don't want to adopt/foster someone else's, they want their own. Of course there are unwanted children, unicef reports there are between 143 and 210 million orphans worldwide. And to be honest in answer to your other comment, if my mother had truly felt that she didn't want to have me and had chosen to abort me, then I would rather that than having grown up with a mother who resented my existence.

unenforced laws inevitibly corrupt the police force. If it is a crime, lock them up! if not enforced then decriminalise!
Oh and I agree with @amandavickers that removing the right of banks to create money as debt is important and suggest that there is more connection between economic enslavement and abortion than may be immediatly apparent

@wadevuglar I assume that based on your use of the quote"One of the seven things that are an abomination to the Lord is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:16,17), that you are a pure vegetarian and don't consume animals and chicken fetus (eggs)? Or do you just quote the bible when it suits your agenda? Do you really condone the suffering of women and men forced to give birth to an unwanted child? To force such a thing is an act of violence and by bringing a child into the world who is unwanted by their own parents, how can this be anything other than unnecessary cruelty for all involved. Prevention and sex education is what is most needed here but humans are not perfect and abortion is an unfortunate necessity in some circumstances.

@robertfrittmann

If we allow abortion for just any reason whatsoever, then we might as well remove murder of adults from the law books too.

Drawings on cave walls show that people have been avoiding pregnancies for the last 150,000 years. Contraception has improved a little since then but it is not bulletproof. This is why women need both a universal and easy access to emergency contraception and a working process to quickly abort a pregnancy.

I believe it is the biological function of a pregnancy to deliver to the world a living breathing person, this differs from the more religiously charged belief that life begins at conception therefore any termination after that is murder.

That means between the time of conception, the formation of the zygote, through to the point of delivery, that is effectively a pregnancy, and therefore in my mind, a woman must have legal agency to be able to prevent the development of that pregnancy at the earliest stage if that pregnancy was unintended or is untenable for whatever reason.

That means emergency contraception and abortions.

The first question then is, should the the status of lawfulness have any place in a woman's choice to prevent the progress of her pregnancy? Currently it is unlawful by default - but allowed with restrictions.

The second question is, is the interference of law in this process the cause of longer pregnancies where a pregnancy could have been aborted much earlier and safer had it just been left up to a counsellor, a doctor and her patient?

Those two questions then should be the basis that people make their choice about supporting that proposal or not.

For those that hold religious and culture beliefs that a human person / person-hood begins at conception or implantation, or believe that babies are preordained by a bearded old man living above the clouds, or a stork delivering babies from a pond to the families of good children, there was the block button.

@hannahmcquilkan

"Of course there are unwanted children, unicef reports there are between 143 and 210 million orphans worldwide."

Of those millions, I wonder how many would be living in a country that NZ's CYFS has an adoption arrangement with? There are only very few countries that we are allowed to adopt from.

@terangikaiwhiriake

"I believe it is the biological function of a pregnancy to deliver to the world a living breathing person, this differs from the more religiously charged belief that life begins at conception therefore any termination after that is murder."

So at what point do you believe a zygote formed of two gametes becomes a "person"? Having been through three unsuccessful IVF rounds with my wife, and seen the miracle of life being formed first-hand, I am left with the firm opinion that life begins at conception.

During one of our IVF rounds, my brother and his partner lost a child to miscarriage. There are some here who would argue that their child was unborn, and so was not a "person" as such. Medical history shows that many such stillborn babies were disposed of as rubbish, with the parents not allowed to see them. In these more enlightened times, stillborn children, such as my nephew, are treated with respect and allowed to be properly buried. I hope one day society may become even more enlightened about this issue. We didn't get any sympathy over the loss of our babies at the earlier stages of IVF, yet to my wife and I, they were no less children than my stillborn nephew was.

"there was the block button"

That would have been great if it wasn't rushed through in just 4 days.

@robertfrittmann

In these more enlightened times, stillborn children, such as my nephew, are treated with respect and allowed to be properly buried.

Its a cultural belief system though Robert, not an advancement through enlightenment. If a stillborn / miscarriage were of an official 'living child' then each stillborn / miscarriage would invoke a police investigation beyond a doctors report, of possible wrongful death as is the case with any loss of a child in the care of another.

So there's the law on one hand and its inconsistent views, there's cultural views which differ with each other, religious beliefs ranging from the Catholics and their no contraception no abortion beliefs through to many other religions that allow for first, and second trimester abortions, and of course political parties can hold diverse external views, often playing on the emotionally charged beliefs people hold.

But what there isn't.....is an absolute universal truth on when a person comes into existence other than the one we all individually, culturally or religiously believe in.

@robertfrittmann "So at what point do you believe a zygote formed of two gametes becomes a “person”? Having been through three unsuccessful IVF rounds with my wife, and seen the miracle of life being formed first-hand, I am left with the firm opinion that life begins at conception."

Having known a women who lost the ability to conceive because of an ectopic pregnancy, I'd say it unrelated to the generation of a unique DNA code from fertilization, and is certainly after successfully attaching to a viable location. It's not "uncommon" for a fertilized egg (embryo, zygote, baby, or whatever you like to call it) to pass with the period. So until it's viable, it's no more a "life" than sperm is, every one a "potential" life, with the right conditions, same as an embryo/zygote/baby.

@terangikaiwhiriake

"But what there isn’t…..is an absolute universal truth on when a person comes into existence other than the one we all individually, culturally or religiously believe in."

@marcwhinery

"So until it’s viable, it’s no more a “life” than sperm is, every one a “potential” life, with the right conditions, same as an embryo/zygote/baby."

You both make the same point, and I concede that the answer is that no-one really knows. And therein lies the problem. Medical science doesn't have all the answers either, no more than religion or cultural norms do. When I looked into the face of our fertility specialist and asked him why none of our IVF babies that were implanted "took", he told me that he honestly doesn't know why. Science is progressing all the time though.

@amandavickers

No! … it is about removing the ability of private banks to create money out of thin air and then charge interest on it.

Oh, it's just that you said risky and brave, and I thought you meant as far as voters. I figure most people (unfortunately) care more about what's on the money rather than where it comes from.

@robertfrittmann
In my opinion all of this discussion about when an embryo might become a viable human misses the point regarding the importance of having the option of abortion available. Without it, women (and men) who are undeniably viable people will suffer by being forced to give birth and care for a life they didn't want. This is an act of cruelty far greater in my opinion than terminating the life of something that no one can even determine is actually a viable human or not.

@hannahmcquilkan
In my opinion the discussion about whether or not an embryo should be afforded the right to live is at the crux of the matter. Nobody is advocating for the death of the genetic contributor, only for the murder of the innocent.

@hannahmcquilkan

In my opinion all of this discussion about when an embryo might become a viable human misses the point regarding the importance of having the option of abortion available.

Yes the issue is having agency, which is what I was alluding to here:

...therefore in my mind, a woman must have legal agency to be able to prevent the development of that pregnancy at the earliest stage if that pregnancy was unintended or is untenable for whatever reason.

@amandavickers

First, I apologise for being so blatantly off topic here Laila.....................as outlined in many proposals here.

I get the feeling that this proposal might have been triggered by the Greens putting out a similar policy on abortion a few days back. Which really was Laila Harre's whole push back in the 2000 Labour Government when she was minister of women's affairs.

Just a guess, but that may be why this suddenly appeared on Loomio.

See [link]

@marcwhinery "Abortion is legal in New Zealand for women of any age, if two certifying consultants agree that the pregnancy will seriously harm a woman's physical or mental health."
http://www.abortion.gen.nz/
http://acultureoflife.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/decriminalisation-of-what/
I'm a father, who also supported a partners choice to abort earlier in life. Killing unborn babies is a crime not a misdemeanor and needs to remain as such if a change to encourage consultation between the parties, and education of prospective parents is not to be circumvented prematurely. I do agree the final decision for a pregnancy is with the person bearing the child. This does not mean that unlawful abortion should not have legal repurcussions. Consent makes euthanasia more palatable, but again only after alternatives have been exhausted.

Seems to me that some believe that the woman becomes just a vessel for the delivery as soon as she is pregnant and she must not abort the pregnancy under threat of the law and the rights of the unborn child supersedes hers. While education, support groups and adoption options are great, if the right to abort is taken away by law then you will end up with just child bearing machines.

@robertfrittmann " If you think one person’s voice can’t have an influence then you clearly haven’t caught on to what the InternetParty is all about"

I believe what the Internet Party is about is everybody's vote being worth the same. The anti-abortion voters are in the minority, both here and in the national electorate.

Still if you think you can use Twitter to make your vote count for more than mine, good luck with that.

@chandradevansubram

"...some believe that the woman becomes just a vessel for the delivery as soon as she is pregnant..."

Fair enough comment. As I said above, science is always progressing. In vitro fertilisation may one day give way to in vitro gestation. Feminists are often quick to separate men from the equation. What if women were no longer needed for pregnancy either, only as ovum donors?

@hugheldredgrigg

"Still if you think you can use Twitter to make your vote count for more than mine, good luck with that."

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying my one vote on this is worth more than your one vote. If this proposal had been left open longer than a mere 4 days, I would have encouraged others to vote against it as well through Twitter.

Wanted to draw attention to the fact that abortions don't have rights, people do. Including the child. I see the child getting less to no rights if unlawful abortion is taken from the crimes act and mothers rights unchanged. Polarizing issue for sure. I'm not anti abortion I am pro human rights. Perhaps we should reopen the poll as I think the description was very one sided and unfair to the child.

For those following this discussion, another similar discussion has been started by @reidalexanderwicks which you may also want to take a look at here.

I feel a need to respond to Diana's (no surname given) emotive comment "I will never vote for a party that says it's o.k. to kill babies"

1] I am unaware of any political party which says it's o.k. to kill babies

2] The current abortion laws were voted in by a majority M.P.s on a conscience vote.

3] Both National and Labour have no plans to change the current law, as far as i am aware. Presumably Diana wont be voting for eiter of these parties either.

4] Voters who are anti all abortion have other options open to them to vote for conservative right wing parties.

5] Perhaps Diana's views might be better expressed and more welcome in a different political group.

@rossburrows
See, that's the real problem with this proposal by @lailaharre. Your points 4 and 5 above really spell it out quite succinctly. Most people, myself included, who are attracted to the Internet Party are here because of our common agreement with the Party's stance on Internet-based policies, because we want to see NZ unshackled from monopolistic Internet backbone operators capping data and governing speeds, because we believe the raid on Kim Dotcom was a farce, because we oppose the TPPA and other fake trade agreements (FTA's) that will stifle creativity on the Internet, because cats. That's what we're here for. That's what we've come to expect from the Internet Party. Anything that deviates from that in such a broad way as this proposal does is an outlier. Maybe your point 5 above should be reworded as...

5] Perhaps @lailaharre's views might be better expressed and more welcome in a different political group.

I'm not saying that the Internet Party shouldn't have policies on anything that isn't related directly to the Internet. I'm saying that, as this is such, it should have been discussed a lot more than the allowed 4 days of the proposal poll, because it is so wide of the mark and such a polarizing topic.

Most of the policies on this discussion medium that have received OVERWHELMING support have been socio-political based policies not 'internet' based ones.

Most of the Internet/tech base policies have failed to reach 7% participation, some barely get 1% participation.

You have to roll with the spectrum of people participating in the party, unfortunately most here are either not interested in tech infrastructural advancements or its all a bit over their heads.

BTW, abortion is supported to varying degrees by all political parties including the Conservative Party.

The solution for those holding minority views is to either bite the bullet, create another party, or come up with a better method of conveying their view that, for example with this debate, doesn't have a starting point of accusing about 60-70% of the country of supporting murder because they support the current parliamentary stance on abortion.

@terangikaiwhiriake

"Most of the Internet/tech base policies have failed to reach 7% participation, some barely get 1% participation."

Maybe that depends on who is asking the question. @lailaharre has more "pull" than most here, and has a strong Twitter following as well...

So what are you proposing @RobertFrittmann?

@robertfrittmann

@lailaharre has more “pull” than most here, and has a strong Twitter following as well…

The person who started the legalise cannabis proposal is not famous but managed to get at least twice the percentage of participation on their proposal. The Exit 5Eyes proposal scored just as high as well.

These are the topics of interest to the majority of the people in the IP.

• The KimDotCom case ( Snowden, GCSB/5Eyes/Mass Spying )
• Unjust Laws ( cannabis laws, abortion laws )

And this is the stuff that only seems to interest the geeks in this forum:

• Digital currencies
• Economic reform
• Renewable energy
• Preventing Illuminati plots...

While this is an Internet Party per se, there is no restrictions on its members as to the genre of proposals it could accept. So if you feel so passionate about the fact of abortion being allowed in this country then put together your own proposal and put it up for vote.

Hi, me again, to respond to comments about my earlier post.

I thought Rangi's comments were excellent, and very consistent with my own position, laila's policy and the general drift of I.P. members.

Here are some more bullet points to consider.

1] Robert either ignored or failed to deal with my points 1,2, & 3.

Like Rangi, I am still in the dark as to wether Robert is proposing zero abortions or supports the existing laws.

2] There were 117 responses to the proposal, of which there were 88 agrees. This means a clear cut majority of I.P. respondents supported Laila's proposal. (66% in favour)

3] Robert's rewording of point 5 is therefore unsupported by outcome of the proposal, and out of step with the general drift of I.P. social policies, which tend to be liberal, pro freedom, and reformist. Robert is the one who is 'wide of the mark', not Laila.

4] Of the 117 responses, Diana was the only respondent that withheld her surname. I will leave members to ponder that statistic.

5] The rate of abortions in N.Z. has been steadily falling since 2003, and is now the lowest it has been since 1995. Check out the last 32 years graph here ;-

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/health/abortion/AbortionStatistics_HOTPYeDec12.aspx

The current population of N.Z. is approx. 4.5 milllion.
The abortion rate for 2013 was 14,073. This ratio is therefore approx. 0.3% of women and declining.

6] I have been closely acquainted with quite a few orphans who were adopted out at an early age. All of them had behavioural and\ or mental health issues.

7] I recall a T.V. interview with Richard Fisher of Fertility Associates where he spoke about a lady member of SPUC who brought her own daughter in for an abortion. A sudden change of heart do you think?

8] I don't wish to second guess Laila, but I imagine she would also support better sex education and availability of contraceptives.

9] I support the right of Robert and Diana to hold strong views and express them. They are welcome to be members of the Internet Party.

10] Whilst I agree abortion is a contentious issue, this doesn't mean we should avoid dealing with it in a typically democratic way

@terangikaiwhiriake I think the "problem" here is that most people agree on the tech stuff, so there's no discussion to be had. It's not controversial.

"Should we have internet freedom?"

"Yes."

"Okay."

@rossburrows and @terangikaiwhiriake
I think I've said all I need to say on this issue. I'm not offering a counter-proposal because I think it would be pointless to do so. I am disappointed that the poll was closed so quickly, after only 4 days. If this proposal does become part of the Internet Party's official policy, then I will be voting against the Party, despite the other good work the Party has done on other issues that matter to me. This one just came from out of the blue with no warning at the Road Trip meetings.

I was never convinced about the appointment of Laila Harré as leader of the Party, and from this proposal it seems that my doubts were justified. She has her own agenda which has nothing to do with the core reasons for the formation of the Internet Party.

@robertfrittmann

If this proposal does become part of the Internet Party’s official policy, then I will be voting against the Party, despite the other good work the Party has done on other issues that matter to me.

I hope it does go into the health policy, and I also hope they also take on any proposal that gets as much support as this one did and input them into policy as well, which appears so far to be the case.

@robertfrittmann

I was never convinced about the appointment of Laila Harré as leader of the Party, and from this proposal it seems that my doubts were justified

When you start off with unfounded doubts it doesn't take much for a persons actions to confirm them. That's the bias that unfounded doubts have on the ability to make sound judgement.

Now if I saw this proposal entered into policy without it first coming from the incubator, and later found out that it was Harrés idea, then I would have a problem with that. But this is the process the party has in play, its the fairest and most open one I have seen of any party, Harré employed it where most leaders of party's would not have.

Can't see any other party abolishing abortion Robert, so you might have to start your own?

@terangikaiwhiriake

"...abolishing abortion..."

Who is proposing to abolish abortion? I thought this proposal was about the removal of abortion from the Crimes Act. That is what I'm against, and I would have voted against that if the proposal hadn't been closed so quickly.

The real question that needs to be asked is ( keeping in mind that 1/ the clauses in the crimes act are not enforced by law enforcement, and 2/ the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act is not proposed to be under repeal here ), what will effectively change if the Crimes Act clauses are repealed and the choice of abortion is left up to the doctor, the patient and the counsellor.........which by the way, is exactly what has been going on here for the last 30 odd years?

If the answer is that it will cause more abortions, then show evidence where this is the case, keep in mind even under the no-enforcement of current rules regime, abortions are dropping.

If the answer is nothing, then what?

@terangikaiwhiriake
A very good question. So, if repealing the current law won't make one iota of difference to the status quo anyway, in your surmation, what was Laila's motivation for suggesting it anyway?

To Robert,

Sounds like you are favour of abortion remaining as defined by the current crimes act.

This is ipso facto in favour of abortions being legal in some situations.

What this proposal is about is not putting additional pressures on pregnant women in a situation which is already fraught.

Why should women be required to feign a mental illness in order to have a termination of an undesired pregnancy?

Can't they be allowed to chose wether to bring up and financially support a kid for the next 20 odd years, and way beyond?

Why can't they make the decision with dignity and consistent with their best interests for the rest of their lives?

What's good for the Mother is usually good for the child.

An unwanted baby isn't going to be all that blessed if mum's unhappy, and particularly if the Dad's buggered off and left her to it, as is often the case.

As for your comments regarding Laila, boy are you in the wrong party!

Laila enjoys almost universal support amongst I.P. party members, Hone (kia ora bro), K.D.C., (evening gov. lol) the general public, and I have no doubt other politicians of all creeds.

If you worked your arse off for the rest of your life, you wouldn't acheive but a small fraction of the good she's done for the many thousands of people and this country.

We are lucky to have her as leader, and if given half the chance, I'm sure she will carry on with the excellent service she has demonstrated over such a long time.

What have you done with your life that could qualify you to criticise a person with her track record?

Please go, we don't need naysayers like you in this awesome party . . .

We love you laila, go girl!

@robertfrittman

I should state that there is 'an iota of' difference, but not in the abortion rate, but rather its about the added encumbrance the law brings to the process that can result in pregnancies that could have been terminated in the first trimester dragging out into the second trimester increasing the danger and stress.

So that is something that would change, along with of course, the removal of the added mental stress of someone traversing a difficult process such as termination with an esoteric jail sentence hanging over their head.

Those were mine and many other peoples stated reasons for supporting the proposal. As for Laila Harrés, ultimately you would have to ask her I suppose.

@rossburrows

"Please go, we don’t need naysayers like you in this awesome party"

That seems a bit strong doesn't it? What ever happened to your own previous comment, only 3 hours ago?

"I support the right of Robert and Diana to hold strong views and express them. They are welcome to be members of the Internet Party."

Just because you don't agree with what I'm saying, that doesn't give you the right to tell me not to say it.

@robertfrittman

Its only natural to assume that when you give an ultimatum like If this proposal does become part of the Internet Party’s official policy, then I will be voting against the Party, that there is a certain assumption that goes along with it that you would also be intending to part ways with the IP.

So I would read @rossburrows comments as more of a parting wave due to this proposal being a certainty in the upcoming healthcare policy, rather than, reading it as a shooing away because you disagree with the proposal. But I could be wrong on that.

Having strong views on issues is one thing, slagging off the leader of our party is another.

Why don't you join a party whose leader you can support?

Doesn't make any sense to stay in a party whose policies you oppose, and whose leader you don't like or support.

If you had the courage of your stated convictions, you'd pack up and leave immediately,and I'd respect you more for it than I do now.

I stand by all my comments.

Go bro, you are surplus to requirements
. . .

@terangikaiwhiriake

"...due to this proposal being a certainty in the upcoming healthcare policy..."

That remains to be seen. If it does, as I say, I will gladly leave the Party without looking back. Until then, I thought my opinions might have equal weight with everyone else's, according to what Ross had said previously about supporting my right to hold strong opinions.

@rossburrows

"Go bro, you are surplus to requirements"

If attitudes like yours are representative of the Party, this will be a very short-lived Party, with supporters being ousted like that.

@robertfrittmann

That remains to be seen.

I would say that its a certainty Robert, if not then this whole Loomio thing a Zero Theorem exercise in futility.

@robertfrittmann

Until then, I thought my opinions might have equal weight with everyone else’s, according to what Ross had said previously about supporting my right to hold strong opinions.

Yes of course it does.

You are not being ousted, nor do my views carry any more weight than yours.

My views are not the views of the Internet Party unless adopted by a majority of members.

This party will prosper long after you've gone and been forgotten.

Just be aware, if you slag off Laila in the way that you have, you are picking a fight with me, o.k.?

I was simply inviting you to be a man and vote with your feet to back up the bold talk.

"I will gladly leave the Party without looking back"

Make it so dude . . .

@rossburrows
Ah, okay, so now it comes out. You support my right to hold strong views, unless those views oppose the views of the Party leader. Understood. Good night.

Finally, the penny dropped .. . yawn . . . goodnight

@terangikaiwhiriake .....puts down his packet of kumara chips....

@terangikaiwhiriake Are you sure they're kumara chips? They might actually be sweet potatoes.

Unusual posts for a disussion on abortion law, but I guess things needed lightening up so thanks.

I won't be wasting any more time and space debating wth Robert, who seems to be an expert on missing the point of the conversation anyway.

Do what you do Robert, I wish you well regardless of our obvious philosophical differences.

Actually, I had a further thought that might help Robert come to terms with the environment of the Internet Party and perhaps convince him that his ideas are unlikely to be widely adopted by a majority of members despite his passionate personal belief in the 'rightness' of them.

In the top right hand corner of this page Robert, you'll see a button titled "Create new proposal".

It's very easy to write a headline topic and write a blurb to go with it that explains your proposal.

Examples might be, in your case, "Biff Laila Harre out as leader" (lol) or "Ban all abortions" etc.

The responses and comments you get will give you a better idea of the degree of support you could find in this party, should you float a proposal.

Best of luck with that, hope you can appreciate my helpful and concilliatory attitude. . . (:-)

@robertfrittmann " supporters being ousted like that."

You claimed you didn't like the party leader (or the appointment mechanism), and claim you'll be voting against the party.

You have an odd definition of "supporter"

I'd vote to abolish abortion.

I joined the party before I knew "tovarishch" Laila was being chosen to become the leader.

Crunch time then for you guys, aint it.

Laila has been chosen and endorsed by the leadership and membership of the I.P.

I don't recall a single heckler during her rousing speech if I may say so to a hall (in the words of John armstrong, award winning Herald political commentator) "packed to the gunnels" with cheering I.P MANA supporters. John also commented on a groundswell of enthusiasm that quote "millions of dollars couldn't buy".

I am in two minds about the anti abortion lobby manifesting on this topic.

I am a passionate supporter of your right to have your say and express your views.

However, and it's a big however, let me tell you flat that I find your comments about Laila offensive and tell you straight up to pull your head in or get lost.

Slagging off the current leader is inherently distructive in any political party.

"A house divided unto itself cannot stand"

I am reminded of the religious fanatics in the states who plant bombs to kill doctors who terminate pregnancies and the hate campaigns that go along with them.

So now that you know you are so in the wrong party, kindly pack your bag and kick the dust off your shoes when you go.

Wayne Vulgar, oh sorry, did I misspell your name . . .

You've even got a hitler moustache . . . how poetic

Looks aside, people have their opinions Ross, even the right to criticise a leader. Laila is a trooper from way back, and no doubt has grown the usual thick skin to deal with personal or political attacks on herself.

I would not spend too much time sweating this one Ross, people with strong religious beliefs lost at a poll by overwhelming support to a proposal they despise. Thats the only lesson here.

@rossburrows How infantile.

And how have I "slagged off" Laila?

Not sweating it, happy to answer questions.

" joined the party before I knew “tovarishch” Laila was being chosen to become the leader."

The comment clearly imples you wouldn't have joined the party had you known she was going to be selected.

Now that she has been, and you do know who is the leader is, it would seem be a logical next step to go find another party who's leader and policies you can support.

@wadevuglar

Honestly, Laila aside, it seems clear that the majority of users here support the current abortion laws or a liberalisation of them. So, while the IP might well lose some supporters if it adopts a pro-abortion policy, it seems it would lose even more of it adopts an anti-abortion policy. This is a pretty cold reality that no amount of concerns about process or freedom of speech can undo. So, sorry @wadevuglar and @robertfrittmann, you are in the minority here and there's not much to be done about it. And I'm not gloating - believe me, there are plenty of issues where the majority of IP users support policies that are quite contrary to my preferences, but I've made the choice to bite the bullet and stick with the party. If you find yourself unable to do that, fair play to you, but it's really down to you and your conscience, and not something other party members can be expected to allow to shape their views.

Or, to look at it another way - @robertfrittmann, you are unhappy that the policy was only up for 4 days. Let's say that it was put up again, say for a good long time, like 30 days, and the vote was still solidly pro-abortion. (I know you have hopes that more time would give anti-abortion members more time to vote, but you must concede that another pro-abortion vote is a serious possibility, if not a certainty). Would you accept the result and remain a supporter, or would you withdraw your vote and/or membership?

Because if it's the latter, I'd suggest that the procedural/technical issue of how long the vote should be up isn't really the key issue here.

@hugheldredgrigg
Thank you for taking the time to engage in reasoned and objective dialogue, without reverting to the trolling and childish antics that have plagued this discussion of late.

As I explained earlier in this discussion, the reason that I am so strongly against removing legal barriers to abortion is that my wife and I have been through 3 unsuccessful rounds of IVF, and I've seen first-hand the wonder of conception as few people get to see it, under a microscope. My argument comes from a position of science, not of religious bigotry or "societal norms" as some here have assumed. Life exists outside of the womb. I know. I've seen it. Here are some of our babies, at only a few hours old, you can see the cells have begun to divide...

The reason I missed the quick-fire 4 day vote on this issue was because it happened on the week that our 10 year old cat was killed by a car. The trolls here can poke fun as much as they like, but until they've been through 12 miscarriages as we have, ended up childless, focused all of that familial love on a companion animal, and have it die suddenly too, I won't take any notice of their trolling.

As for my comment about leaving the Party, it was qualified by "if this proposal becomes Party policy". I've been checking the Better Healthcare policy, and so far the pro-abortion stance hasn't been included in it. Therefore I haven't bowed to the trolls' pressure to leave the Party yet. Oh, and just so you know, if I do leave, it won't be because of any wasted effort of the trolls.

But if it was policy, you would leave, even if that policy was the result of a vote among members?

In short, yes.

However, I would personally see it as the Internet Party having left me, rather than me leaving the Party. When I joined the Party, there was nothing on the horizon that even remotely resembled this proposal. Laila Harré didn't share her intention to introduce such a policy, at the Road Trip meeting in Kelston that I attended. It is a major departure from what I expected of the Party. Had I known that the Internet Party was likely to become the Pro-Abortion Party, I would never have joined in the first place.

The train has already left on this one guys, all the women moved on long ago. (you probably hadn't noticed)

The Internet Party has left you Robert, spect you'll now unjoin the party now that it has become the pro abortion party in your eyes at least.

We'd probably see it as pro contraception, pro choice, but then we would, wouldn't we.

incidentlly, i fathered 4 children by being an IVF sperm donor in the early days of Fertility Associates, 2 boys and 2 girls.

i agreed to this proposal because I believe bringing a child into an unstable situation is never a good idea.

Condolences about the cat, sorry to hear that . . .

I am getting somewhat tired of repeating myself for your benefit, @rossburrows, but here goes...

As for my comment about leaving the Party, it was qualified by "if this proposal becomes Party policy". I've been checking the Better Healthcare policy, and so far the pro-abortion stance hasn't been included in it.

I'm leaving this thread now. Don't bother replying. If this proposal becomes official Internet Party policy, don't expect me to come back to say farewell.

For your own benefit Robert.

You can clutch on to this last straw as long as you like, but that is what it is and it's the short one.

I was featured in a segment on TV3 news in the early days of IVF Robet.

They said later that after the show went out, they ceased to have any more problems finding donors.

Just thought I'd let you know that, seeing you are in the recipients situation.

I understand why this thread has been placed in the Healthcare Subgroup but from consideration of the thread dialogue it clearly embraces multiple issues which extend far beyond Healthcare.

In actual fact by placing the thread within Healthcare it can be said to be prejudging the debate to a certain extent, perhaps rather akin to the MSM position that KDC's $$$ were buying votes and any consequent discussion/analysis was seemingly then predicated upon that basis only.

I suggest that this thread would be more properly placed within its own special subgroup.