(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

[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).