(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]

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.)

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

"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

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

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