labellementeuse | (no subject)

Well.....it's true. It's absolutely true.

Current legislation states that certifying consultants may only certify abortions if they judge in good faith that continuation of the pregnancy would resulth in serious risk to the life or health of the woman (mental or physical health.) Most abortions do not, really, come under that provisio. It's worth noting that the ASC has been reporting this every year for the last thirty years and the government has been duly ignoring it. No-one wants to challenge the status quo, basically.

That's not to say that Right to Life aren't misogynistic asses, etcetera; their spokesperson on Morning Report today smarmed his way through comments like "women need to be protected" and "the rights of the unborn child from conception need to be protected". But I'd look at this more as an opportunity to highlight the need for reform than a serious attack on the right to abortion in this country.

Agreed. Really the law should reflect concern for the mother first and foremost. Hopefully this palaver will lead to the law being updated, but given the current political climate, I doubt it.

Yeah, it's somewhere none of the political parties want to go, and that's the sad thing; we have a tacit agreement that women in this country should be able to access abortion on demand, but no-one's willing to legislate that. Out of sight, out of mind, etcetera.

we have a tacit agreement that women in this country should be able to access abortion on demand, but no-one's willing to legislate that.

Which is a pretty serious issue that women in this country (partiularly the women in leadership positions) really ought to address ASAP.

ITA, of course. Mum will bend your ear about it at length if you ask her. :P

I'm kind of torn. In a sense it would be nice to have the legislation tidied up, to prevent this sort of ambush-challenge. On the other hand, legislation is only valuable in what it achieves, and the current legislation was working well, albeit with a lot of fudge in practice.

The current legislation is definitely an artifact of an extremely fearsome debate and was probably a good compromise at the time. But attitudes to abortion have moved on massively in the last thirty years - there were only a handful of women in Parliament at the time, quite apart from anything else.

It's kind of a messy issue. I don't think there's a single party in Parliament, not even United Future, that has an issue with the idea of free access to abortion. On the other hand, plenty of them would be willing to pick up the votes of people angry at Labour's stance on abortion, even if such people are likely to be a minority. I suppose it's possible Labour or even National might move, but both groups are likely to depict it as legislative tinkering - a technical issue rather than a policy issue. That means they will basically step back from any ideological debate.

What I guess I don't understand is why this is happened now. The current consensus has always been opposed by groups like Family First. It's endured through thirty years of extremely tense political competition. Why is it only now that a Judge has made this finding? What has changed in the last thirty years - or even in the last five?

In 2004, 23/27 National MPs - including John Key - voted (unsuccessfully) for teenage girls being legally forced to inform their parents if they had an abortion. And Bill English's wife is part of a anti-abortion group. While that doesn't _automatically_ make him anti-abortion, it's worth noting. I think that there are more conservatives in Parliament on this issue than are willing to let on about it. Of course, the fact that they're unwilling to talk about it means they feel that the public attitude is against them, but....

I think the issue's come up now because the court case has finally gone through, basically. Maybe combined with growing anti-reporductive-rights views overseas.

I have a suspicion one could find some anti-abortion sentiment lurking around the fringes of the Labour Party too (although one less now that Phillip Taito Field has left the Party), to say nothing of Jim Anderton, but your point is well taken. I always viewed that teenage girls thing as a trojan horse for being anti-abortion - it would be very hard to argue that one of its main effects would have been less abortions occurring, so the Nat's stance is revealing (Shamefully, I was actually unaware it ever came to a formal vote).

But at least in the current Parliament I don't think there is actually a majority for the law as it formally stands. That might not be the case after November, particularly if National gets a significant new intake that reflects its' members views.

What I'd like to know is why these sorts of things always get shilled off as a conscience vote. I've never been happy with it. It must be very hard for a voter who feels strongly about reproductive rights (or for that matter prostitution law reform or civil unions) to decide which party to vote for on that basis, because the parties don't publish manifestos saying how each of their individual MPs will vote in these circumstances.

I think the issue's come up now because the court case has finally gone through, basically. Maybe combined with growing anti-reporductive-rights views overseas.

Technically, I think it's a Judicial Review of administrative decisions, rather than a Court Case. But given that Family First and their ideological predecessors have been banging on about this for donkey's years, why has it taken so long? Or did it just take them this long to decide (or get themselves sufficiently together) to mount a formal judicial challenge?

Or did it just take them this long to decide (or get themselves sufficiently together) to mount a formal judicial challenge?

That'd be my guess. In some ways I'm surprised it's taken this long.

What I'd like to know is why these sorts of things always get shilled off as a conscience vote. I've never been happy with it. It must be very hard for a voter who feels strongly about reproductive rights (or for that matter prostitution law reform or civil unions) to decide which party to vote for on that basis, because the parties don't publish manifestos saying how each of their individual MPs will vote in these circumstances.

I think it was the pro-choice lady on the radio this morning who said that conscience votes are dumb because they're just an excuse for MPs to break party lines and get away with it. I kind of agree. If your party can have a solid opinion on every other policy (and mostly people _don't_ break party lines for conscience votes) they can have one for things like abortion. The "will of the people" thing is bullshit; unless you're gonna go to your electorate and have a referendum on the issue, you're voting either a) what you feel like or b) what people lobbying you have made you think your electorate feels like, neither of which is actually reflecting your electorate's opinion. If you have one. If you don't....you were voted in as part of your party; have a party line and follow it.

You're absolutely right re: MPs, but it's even more of a blinder with List MPs in the mix.

Unfortunately there's no way to make parties enforce party discipline, and ultimately MPs who feel strongly may evade it anyway. But I do wish the public would be a lot more sceptical about conscience votes. Sadly the media likes them, possibly because they allow a lot of frenetic speculation, and many lobby groups do as well, presumably because it basically sanctions their attempts to get to MPs directly rather than to go through the public. I always feel rather cold when I hear a lobby group calling for an issue to be made a conscience vote.

IMO the only situation in which a conscience vote could be justified is one in which some genuinely new, unique, unprecedented situation came up which party manifestos hadn't even peripherally addressed. Short of alien invasion, I can't think of one.

IMO the only situation in which a conscience vote could be justified is one in which some genuinely new, unique, unprecedented situation came up which party manifestos hadn't even peripherally addressed. Short of alien invasion, I can't think of one.

And you can bet if there _was_ an alien invasion it would be party lines all the way on the grounds that it came under foreign policy. Or something.

We did have a change in the structure of our courts such that you no longer have massive legal fees to appear in England as our highest court level. This could be some form of ancillary effect of the (presumably) increased availability of judicial review of legislation.

Possibly, but my intuition is that a group like Family First, no strangers to large stacks of cash, would not find the need to travel to the UK to press their case a major obstacle.

Kind of funny if it was the case, since Family First are generally aligned with the political parties that opposed the setup of the Supreme Court.

I'm actually aware of the status of the law and agree that it's kind of a farce. HOWEVER, I do not think it's a good sign that impetus for change is coming from the Christian Right, and I am not impressed with the fact that Justice Miller's comments (as reported in the media - no time right now to read his/her actual statement) do not appear to address the fact that the way abortions are performed at least adequately conforms with what people *think* nis/should be the law - that is to say that (IMO) they reflect society's prevailing opinion. If impetus for change was coming from, say, the Greens? Or ACT (actually ACT's position on this will be very telling: this is the make or break on whether or not the party is genuinely libertarian or just pretending to be)? That would be one thing. Coming from Family First? A different concern.

The judge basically said that he noted Parliament was happy to let the law as it was be administered as it was. It certainly wasn't an overwhelming victory for the Christian Right by any standards.

I am not impressed with the fact that Justice Miller's comments (as reported in the media - no time right now to read his/her actual statement) do not appear to address the fact that the way abortions are performed at least adequately conforms with what people *think* is/should be the law - that is to say that (IMO) they reflect society's prevailing opinion.

It's not really a Judge's role to comment on whether any given law abides to public opinion or not, let alone to allow that to influence their decision. Shaping the law to respond to public opinion is the role of Parliament. That's not to say that some Judges don't step over this line, but they're not supposed to.

That's not to say that some Judges don't step over this line, but they're not supposed to.

I would accept that if judges never said anything other than "that does/does not conform with the law." But that simply doesn't reflect reality.

So you view the idea of Judges describing the process by which they decided whether or not something confirms with the law as undesirable?

Er, I don't think that's what I implied, is it? I'm not actually sure what you're asking here.

What I'm saying is that the situation is basically as you describe it. A formal judgement reduced to its essence consists of nothing but the statement "This does/does not confirm with the law", in the same way that when you write a 5000 word essay on gay marriage its essence consists of nothing but the statement "Gay marriage is good". But just as you need to show how you reached that conclusion, so does the Judge - except s/he needs to be even more explicit, since further decisions may hinge on that judgement, so ambiguity is not desirable. When Judges do this, it might sound like they're pontificating on areas outside of the pure legal technicalities, but they're not - or at least, they're not supposed to.

It's definitely not a perfect system and I'm not even sure it's a good system. But if you're advocating that Judges should take public opinion into account in their decisions, you're advocating an extremely radical break, and one that would have repercussions beyond the Courts. It also begs the question of how a Judge is supposed to inform himself about the state of public opinion without falling into the usual traps.

But if you're advocating that Judges should take public opinion into account in their decisions

I'm not. *double checks above comments* And it kind of sounded like I was. OK. No, I don't think that. (Although actually Supreme Court decisions... I mean. The law has, at best, been interpreted very, very liberally. Saying that the interpretation is too liberal has to come down to some kind of value judgement here.) I mean, I think this is the accurate decision. On the other hand I think it's worthwhile for someone to acknowledge that actually the law may be out of step with social convention, rather than social convention being out of step with the law.

Actually, I'm having this whole conversation very badly because I did a class last year on ethics that was heavily american-based and included a whooole lot of american position papers written by groups of judges on whether an issue should or should not be legal or illegal. Abortion obviously was one of these areas. it was all constitutional. And I know that that's not how NZ law is practiced, so really I should just shut up (but I do feel the stuff article is appallingly presented.)

I'm not. *double checks above comments* And it kind of sounded like I was.

It's a relief to hear you say that, I was worried I was carrying over preconceptions from other arguments I've had, not a good habit of mine.

Actually, I'm having this whole conversation very badly because I did a class last year on ethics that was heavily american-based and included a whooole lot of american position papers written by groups of judges on whether an issue should or should not be legal or illegal. Abortion obviously was one of these areas. it was all constitutional. And I know that that's not how NZ law is practiced, so really I should just shut up (but I do feel the stuff article is appallingly presented.)

Unfortunately the whole abortion debate in the English speaking world is quite Americanised, since that's where it's most fiercely contested, and that's where the majority of talking about it is done - talking which tends to mostly reflect America's quixotic constitutional arrangements. For all that you hear complaints about the Supreme Court 'legislating from the bench' that is, at least from a British-derived constitutional perspective, exactly what they're supposed to do.

As for the Stuff article being poorly presented, well... it's stuff. I don't expect much from them. I've pretty much given up on indigenous media, in fact, which is not really a problem outside of election year.

technically under current law the legality of most abortions in NZ is questionable.
It's pretty obvious why noone wants to change the law. It's only going to get a strong reaction from people who don't believe in abortion, whereas for people who agree with abortion, it's only gonna be a technicality.

Also, i'm not so sure whether i agree with abortion anyway. The fact of the matter is, they are actually alive. No, they're not conscious, but does that define human life? It's a difficult one, and i don't really have an opinion yet. Too many people go into the argument thinking "I'm conservative (or I'm liberal), what should my opinion be?"

The fact of the matter is, they are actually alive.

Sorry, when did you become a vegetarian again?

Too many people go into the argument thinking "I'm conservative (or I'm liberal), what should my opinion be?"

*yawn* Oh gosh, so sorry we forgot to make sure to explain all the ways we think to you.

"when did you become a vegetarian again?" ???
what type of argument is that? what a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously there is a difference between human life and all other forms of life. Address the issue! if you want to make insolent comments, at least have some type of formed argument.

Obviously there is a difference between human life and all other forms of life.

That is not obvious at all: vegetarians commonly argue that since animals' suffering and pain is the same as human suffering and pain, animals ought not to be sacrificed for humans' mere pleasure. However, that is hardly the issue at hand. To the extent that human life and other forms of life do differ, and I agree with you that they do, it is I believe in functions of humanity that a foetus does not share (for example, the ability to communicate, higher-level intelligences, learning, and society. A foetus is not equipped to do any of these things.) It is meaningless to say that the foetus' right to life is derived from some special right to life that all humans have, as firstly a foetus is excluded from the meaningful categories of human life except for genetics; and secondly as the universal right to life is all-too-frequently abrogated (hello, you're in the armed forces.) If, therefore, it is acceptable to sometimes sacrifice one life for another; and if the degree to which this is acceptable depends on the harm caused by sacrificing the life as opposed to the harm caused by not sacrificing the life; I submit that the harm caused to the unthinking, unintelligent foetus is not as significant as the harm caused to a woman or girl who is not in the position to care for a child.

Definitions of the foetus as "alive" depend very much on who is doing the defining. Your willingness to sacrifice the wellbeing of women and girls in order to save this dubious quantity is both controversial and offensive to me specifically. If you're going to come here and roll out glib phrases like "the fact of the matter is, they're alive" and "too many people come into the debate with a pre-formed opinion" - that is to say, "too many people don't THINK about their opinions like CLEVER people like I do - they think about silly things like their own experiences and their friends' experiences and their concern for women generally, those silly birds" and then a) be super-offended by me being as glib back to you and b) fail to actually respond to me and c) call ME insolent and claim that I am not addressing the issue - you can do that. But don't expect me to take you seriously. I am not around in order to baby you and agree with your I'm-so-cleverness.

i don't have a problem with abortion if it is going to harm the mother.
"or example, the ability to communicate, higher-level intelligences, learning, and society. A foetus is not equipped to do any of these things"
well, neither is a baby, is it ok to kill babies?

"I submit that the harm caused to the unthinking, unintelligent foetus is not as significant as the harm caused to a woman or girl who is not in the position to care for a child"
again, are you saying that it's not ok for a woman to choose abortion if it was a mistake?
And really, the issue here could be addressed in other ways. Benefits should help mothers anyway (to what extent they do, i don't know, but they should). Also the child could be adopted.

I can't think of any situation in real life where it is ok to kill a human being in cold blood. I don't agree with the death penalty, and unless someone can prove to me that there is a difference between a foetus and a baby (apart from the fact that the baby breaths and the circulation is in series rather than parallel), then i'm not sure whether i can agree with it, unless of course it would injure the mother.

You think i'm being smarmy? this is ridiculous. You were the one who first made snide replies to my comments, without even disagreeing with them.

well, neither is a baby, is it ok to kill babies?

Nope, but a baby can exist outside the mother so not killing a baby doesn't mean forcing an unwanted pregnancy and then either the emotional trauma of adoption OR a permanent reduction in circumstances. You can do other things with a baby. but a foetus is a foetus is a few small cells with few if any pain sensors, no brain - it's like "killing" an amoeba.

i don't have a problem with abortion if it is going to harm the mother.

I don't know if you're aware but pregnancy just by itself is actually quite dangerous? By "harm" I don't just mean physical harm, though, I mean emotional and socioeconomic damage. A teenager (as an example) who goes through with an unplanned pregnancy either has to deal with the serious emotional consequences of giving a baby up for adoption AS WELL AS the physical risks involved in pregnancy; or she suffers a serious handicap to her education and employment, and for a significant length of time her ability to work and earn money will be impaired, not just by having to support someone else, but by not being able to work full-time hours, by having to pay for childcare, by having to take time off to care for a sick child, and so on and so forth.

Benefits should help mothers anyway (to what extent they do, i don't know, but they should). Also the child could be adopted.

Yes, benefits should help mothers. BUT THEY DON'T. Unemployment benefit is less than student allowance. Extra benefits for families are small. Children of beneficiaries do not get the same tax breaks children of working parents do. And you know, it's all very well to say that benefits SHOULD do this and SHOULD do that, but you actually have to *change benefit law first.* I mean, you have to. You can't force a woman to go through with an unplanned pregnancy and say "oh, benefits should help you" and she gets to the end and she's like "where's my fucking benefits" "Oh, I was too busy protesting abortion decriminalisation to get those rights for you." Start with the other one first and then we can talk but even then I don't think criminalising abortion is a good answer.

again, are you saying that it's not ok for a woman to choose abortion if it was a mistake?

What?

I can't think of any situation in real life where it is ok to kill a human being in cold blood.

I don't think anyone thinks abortions are cold-blooded decisions. What I'm talking about, though, is military decisions to sacrifice one life (a soldier's life; or a civilian's life in collateral damage) in order to take care of other lives (that is to say our standard of living.) In general I think these decisions are very very VERY hard but I do think sometimes they have to be made and I think you would agree (because, again, you're IN THE ARMED FORCES.)

"but a foetus is a foetus is a few small cells with few if any pain sensors, no brain - it's like "killing" an amoeba."
hahahaha this is just getting silly. A foetus, by definition, has all its structures formed. We're not talking about an embryo or a blastocyst here.

i can't stop laughing about that. it's gonna take a while to compose myself

Wait, who's making snide responses to my comments without actually disagreeing with them now?

oh, and you should read this (http://stilltruckin.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/coathanger-versus-pill-in-which-we-quickly-debate-the-rights-of-a-fetus/), it's very good.

technically under current law the legality of most abortions in NZ is questionable.
It's pretty obvious why noone wants to change the law. It's only going to get a strong reaction from people who don't believe in abortion, whereas for people who agree with abortion, it's only gonna be a technicality.

if you would have read the comments to the rest of this post you would have realised that we already covered this. also, can you not tell people that we're related anymore?

Wait, you're related to this guy?

I feel for you. Then again, I used to be embarassingly pro-ACT when I was about his age.

i'm not pro-act, i'm not pro anything. Are you people just gonna snicker at me or tell me what's wrong with what i've said? All i've said is that i'm not sure about my view on abortion yet, and i would like to get some more scientific facts before i can make a judgement on such an issue.

I don't want to be in the position 10 years down the track of finding out something critical that changes my opinion, having supported it for 10 years.

And it's true, with many issues, people think to themselves "well, i'll just take the point of view that i'm meant too"

And it's true, with many issues, people think to themselves "well, i'll just take the point of view that i'm meant too"

Frankly, you could do with a bit of this right now. What kind of other scientific facts are you looking for? Because it's clear that when you say scientific facts, you mean medical facts, and you mean medical facts about the foetus. You don't appear to be interested in the body of scientific (that is to say, sociological science) information which deals with the impact of unplanned pregnancies on women and girls. I'm sorry for responding so curtly to what you said, but it was pretty clear to me from what you said that you are not interested in abortion law's ramifications for women: what you said was all about the foetus being alive and wanting scientific "facts." There are other things to think about but you did not position yourself to be responsive to them and that means that I'm going to react to you in certain ways.

I used to feel quite conflicted about abortion in high school, partly due to some skilled advocacy I encountered, partly due to my own family's experiences with it (not pretty). Part of what changed my mind was seeing some of the people who are pro-life. Groupthink, perhaps, but the idea of standing side-by-side with some pro-life advocates, even on a single issue, gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I accept that there is debate to be had about whether or not a foetus is alive, but ultimately I think that that's a debate for the woman to have with herself - or perhaps with others, but to reach a decision on herself. I know several women whose personal decision is that having an abortion would be wrong, but who don't expect others to abide by that personal decision, let alone expect the law to enforce it.

that's the thing. The law goes against many people's morals. A lot of people think stealing is ok, but we don't just let them steal.

A lot of people think homosexuality is really dirty and wrong but we don't just let them criminalise homosexuality, either.

my point exactly. thankyou. A lot of people think that. But! We don't let them criminalise it, because we don't think it's dirty and wrong.
Just as a lot of people may think murdering to avenge something is ok, but we don't let them murder.

Er, that's still you, right? Because if so I'm really... not sure point you're trying to make. Some people think abortion is dirty and wrong. But I don't think abortion is dirty and wrong. How come they're right when it comes to abortion, but I'm right when it comes to gay rights?

because it's a decision we have to make. I wouldn't let people do things to other people that i think would harm them in any way. Whether you think being gay is wrong or not, it most definitely doesn't harm anyone. With abortion, i'm not so sure. The rights of the foetus have to be defended.

True, but I think this is one of those situations where, no matter what the law says, it's going to go against many people's morals.

And I'll elaborate on that: the difference between you talking about abortion (or the christian right talking about homosexuality), and you talking about theft, is that when it comes to theft you're making a moral decision about something which affects you. You're saying people who are me should not suffer because of other people's morality. When it comes to abortion and homosexuality you're saying people who are not you should suffer because of your morality.

That's ridiculous. Are you saying we should let a paedophilic father do what he likes with his 5 year old daughter, simply because it doesn't affect us?

Are you saying we should criminalise homosexuality just because it's morally offensive to some people?

And no, because see, paedophilia hurts a child. The foetus(/embryo/blastocyst, thank you, smartypants) hurts the mother. You're saying "we should hurt X, who is not me, because we think Y." Laws against stealing, murder, and paedophilia are written "we should prevent X from hurting Y, who may be me." That is to say, stealing, murder, and paedophilia are crimes we may all be victim of (I mean, the latter has an expiry date on our susceptibility to it.) You can frame the abortion debate that way but it is misguided.

I'm too old to be a victim of paedophilia. I'm also too old to be aborted. I can't be person Y.

And i have no problem with abortion before differentiaton. Simply because, if a group of cells can be split into 2 (4,6,8) live beings, than i can't call them humanly alive. They are simply the things which give rise to human life (in the same way that eggs and sperm do).

thanks for your rationality. <3

He's my baby brother and only I'm allowed to diss him. Plus, he's usually pretty human.