(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Fucking what now? The review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (conducted under pressure from Right to Life NZ) has led Justice Forrest Miller to say that the legality of many abortions in NZ is questionable.

Fucking christ. I'm giving money to Women's National Abortion Campaign right now. This is such a big deal, people. D: D: D:

Comments

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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?

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

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.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

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"

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

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.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

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.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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?

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

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.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

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.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

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?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

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).

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

thanks for your rationality. <3

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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