Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Some in "the community" might want her to have a baby, some might not.

Some in "her family" might want her to have a baby, some might not.

If this were really about the community or her family, they'd be given a vote in this, case by case. Not that I think they should, but even that would be better than banning it altogether.

Women. Are. Not. Property.
Let's put vasectomies up for vote and see how fast you all try to weasel out of it.

I said "not that I think they should." What exactly are you objecting to here?

[Crockerland]

Well sex is pretty far from a basic biological need, but regardless, your need for sex does not justify harming another human being - hence rape being criminalized. You're free to have sex or not have sex, you're not free to kill an innocent child because you don't like the consequences of your choice.

Then we extensively promote contraceptives and the morning after pill to limit the need to have an abortion. In addition we should also increase funding for single parents and children so that if someone decides to keep the child they can

And implement universal healthcare, like every other civilized country. We also need to help eliminate the costs of adoption (Currently it costs, on average, around 43,000 dollars(!) to adopt), it may be in our nation's best interest to simply nationalize the adoption "industry."

[The American Free States]

When the mothers life is threatened, yes. Getting an abortion just because you don’t want a kid is selfish and you should have practiced abstinence.

Abstinence doesn’t work. We need to promote contraceptives to reduce the number of abortions. Abstinence does the opposite

Why not both?

[Strahcoin]

Some in "the community" might want her to have a baby, some might not.

Some in "her family" might want her to have a baby, some might not.

If this were really about the community or her family, they'd be given a vote in this, case by case. Not that I think they should, but even that would be better than banning it altogether.

Women. Are. Not. Property.
Let's put vasectomies up for vote and see how fast you all try to weasel out of it.

True, but... neither are unborn children. I don't believe in forcing anyone into pregnancy or vasectomy, but I don't believe in forcing an innocent unborn child to die, either.

Women. Are. Not. Property.
Let's put vasectomies up for vote and see how fast you all try to weasel out of it.

I agree, I'm opposed to vasectomies for the same underlying reason we as Catholics are opposed to contraception and abortion.

Eh, I - an atheist - am not necessarily opposed to vasectomies or contraceptions (as long as they are voluntary). I oppose abortion not necessarily on religious grounds, but rather on the ideas of natural/constitutional rights, equality under the law, and logical consistency.

Free pregnancy-related healthcare and comprehensive sex ed would go a long way as well.

Definitely agree. However the Christian Right refuses to allow such things.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It should be a matter of last resort

Statistically speaking, legalizing something tends to make it less rare and used before all other options are attempted (the vast majority, if not all, abortions performed in the modern-day are examples of this). I say murder should be illegal.

A sad day for New Zealand. Jesus wept.

The liberalization of abortion is something I lament. However, the feasibility of an outright ban needs to lead to certain conditions. Most specifically, a society which values life.

The vast majority of pro-lifers only care about the life of the "Child" until they pop out of their moms, after that they're leeches of the welfare system and burdens to good, hardworking countrymen.

Not necessarily.

• Every good, hardworking individual was once a child.
• Children are the future of our nation/species.
• There are many young conservatives/pro-lifers in this generation.
• We don't oppose voluntary charity.
• Not all parents will put that welfare money to good use.
• A public welfare system will discourage the poorer population from working hard and rising themselves upward (because why work for money when you can get it for free), thus perpetuating poverty (as well as income inequality).
• There's the national debt (at least in the U.S.).
• A notable number of us recognize rights in terms of negative liberties (right to life, right to pursuit of private property, right to speak your opinion, right to believe or disbelieve, etc.) rather than positive liberties (right to quality healthcare, right to quality education, etc.). Of course, quality healthcare/education is good for all to have, but forcing others to be responsible for people they don't even know does kind of interfere with negative liberties (and there's the argument that privatization -> competition -> innovation, but I won't delve into that).

[Crockerland]

What's sad is that people are losing reverence and respect for human life.

Remember that time God in the bible destroyed sodom and gmorrah and killed everyone inside for what the men did? What was that about respecting human life?

Well, as usual with your anti-Christian tangents, this is false, easily disproven, and probably primarily inspired by willful ignorance.

If you actually bothered to read the passage, it's very specific that God wouldn't destroy Sodom if he found any good people remaining therein who he would have to destroy along with the wicked. There were no righteous women within the city aside from Lot's wife and daughters. Once they had been evacuated, he annihilated the cities, which means no other good people (women or men) remained.

The attempt to gender this as God punishing them for the actions of the men is also completely baseless.

Genesis 18, verse 20-33

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Sodom and Gomorrah were full of rapists and murderers, they were not sending their best. Lot and his family, specifically his daughters and wife, were the only good people remaining in either city.

[Albrenia]

So I'm assuming both cities were entirely absent of children and babies then?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Sodom and Gomorrah were full of rapists and murderers, they were not sending their best.

You say that satirically, but that actually goes to show how barbaric the Bible is. It appears designed to legitimize the idea of thinking of entire regions as exclusively consisting of those deserving of death. In real life, it's doubtful that any entire city consists exclusively of people who deserve to die; even the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't based on the idea of their civilians "deserving" to die but of the fear of them otherwise being drawn into the conflict in a ground invasion.

But a book with a track record of demonizing rival faiths should be looked at with extra scrutiny when it tries to encourage its readers to think of whole cities as deserving of death.

[Celritannia]

Not necessarily.

• Every good, hardworking individual was once a child.
• Children are the future of our nation/species.
• There are many young conservatives/pro-lifers in this generation.
• We don't oppose voluntary charity.
• Not all parents will put that welfare money to good use.
• A public welfare system will discourage the poorer population from working hard and rising themselves upward (because why work for money when you can get it for free), thus perpetuating poverty (as well as income inequality).
• There's the national debt (at least in the U.S.).
• A notable number of us recognize rights in terms of negative liberties (right to life, right to pursuit of private property, right to speak your opinion, right to believe or disbelieve, etc.) rather than positive liberties (right to quality healthcare, right to quality education, etc.). Of course, quality healthcare/education is good for all to have, but forcing others to be responsible for people they don't even know does kind of interfere with negative liberties (and there's the argument that privatization -> competition -> innovation, but I won't delve into that).

1. Yes they were. But that's besides the point. You also have bad hard working individuals.
2. The world currently has 7 billion people and still growing, a few abortions in comparison globally won't curb that
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough.
5. You can't possibly know that unless you have evidence to back up this claim.
6. Incorrect. A public welfare system helps those who may need it at the most vulnerable. Plus, many poor people do work hard, but don't reap any of the benefits. CEOs and Corporate barons that exploit workers reap the benefits, not those who work the hardest. Take Social Democracies such as the Nordic Countries are a fantastic example of a highly efficient welfare system alongside capitalistic principles.
Also, a welfare system is actually far cheaper, and depending how it is implemented, can help every citizen in times of need.
7. Okay.
8. Please don't otherwise I will be forced to show you how a universal healthcare system is cheaper and far better for the people than private healthcare. In fact, the US is the only major power without any form of Universal Healthcare.

[Celritannia]

Remember that time God in the bible destroyed sodom and gmorrah and killed everyone inside for what the men did? What was that about respecting human life?

Well, as usual with your anti-Christian tangents, this is false, easily disproven, and probably primarily inspired by willful ignorance.

If you actually bothered to read the passage, it's very specific that God wouldn't destroy Sodom if he found any good people remaining therein who he would have to destroy along with the wicked. There were no righteous women within the city aside from Lot's wife and daughters. Once they had been evacuated, he annihilated the cities, which means no other good people (women or men) remained.

The attempt to gender this as God punishing them for the actions of the men is also completely baseless.

Genesis 18, verse 20-33

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Sodom and Gomorrah were full of rapists and murderers, they were not sending their best. Lot and his family, specifically his daughters and wife, were the only good people remaining in either city.

So God killed babies too then.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh Cel. Rape, slaughter, butchering, pillaging, murdering and genocide were perfectly ok stuff as long as you did it to the unbelievers in 10th century BCE.

[Neanderthaland]

Well, you just said that the termination of pregnancy "should never be an option." And this is what happens when it's never an option.

No!

During tubal pregnancies, the intention of the physician is not to terminate the pregnancy but rather save the mother's life because she is their patient. That being said, if it ever becomes possible to save both lives in this instance, save both.

"No abortion!"

"How about when abortion is clearly a good thing?"

"Then it's not abortion anymore, somehow!"

[Crockerland]

So I'm assuming both cities were entirely absent of children and babies then?

Babies? I think you mean "a clump of cells."

The Bible tells us next to nothing about the cities aside from telling us that they went to war with Elam and then how sinful and awful they were and then recounting their destruction, but yeah, there could be many circumstances in which there would be no children in the towns.

For example, considering half the population are rapists they could easily spread enough STIs and STDs like chlamydia and gonorrhea to (along with the physical damage) make almost everyone infertile. Even for the women that weren't infertile, the STDs could kill any babies they gave birth to. It's not clear how long the towns have been evil, so they could easily have gone 20 years or so with no new babies surviving infancy, leading to a town consisting entirely of adults. Especially with the medical technology and contraceptive options available to people in 3,000 BC.

Sodom and Gomorrah were full of rapists and murderers, they were not sending their best.

You say that satirically, but that actually goes to show how barbaric the Bible is. It appears designed to legitimize the idea of thinking of entire regions as exclusively consisting of those deserving of death. In real life, it's doubtful that any entire city consists exclusively of people who deserve to die; even the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't based on the idea of their civilians "deserving" to die but of the fear of them otherwise being drawn into the conflict in a ground invasion.

But a book with a track record of demonizing rival faiths should be looked at with extra scrutiny when it tries to encourage its readers to think of whole cities as deserving of death.

The entire point of the story was the exact opposite of that: that there were good people to be found even in such a reprehensible and despicable place as Sodom, and that God cares for good individuals even when they find their compatriots and neighbors doing evil. Lot could not do much of anything to stop the evil that flourished around him, but he did what was within his power to do the right thing and treat others with kindness, and as a result, God judged him a righteous man.

The message to take from the tale of Lot is that you don't have to build a temple, or be a prophet, or lead Israel to victory in a war, or kill a bunch of Philistines with the jawbone of an ass to be righteous in the eyes of God, Lot was judged only for how he acted within his own walk of life, and he was saved.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lot also tried to have his daughters presented for a mob to be gangraped along with the companion of his guest so... I doubt he's of particular use as a source of moral inspiration.

[The New California Republic]

So I'm assuming both cities were entirely absent of children and babies then?

Babies? I think you mean "a clump of cells."

Nope. Pro-choice folk only use that term to rightly refer to the foetus in its very early stages in the first weeks, i.e. the time when the vast majority of abortions are carried out.

[Albrenia]

God's habit of regularly committing acts of enormous slaughter upon populations that displease Him until he suddenly stopped doing that for some reason isn't really the topic of this thread.

I'm still highly doubtful of how a real town could be entirely absent of children, even with STDs and the like taken into account, though.

[Celritannia]

So I'm assuming both cities were entirely absent of children and babies then?

Babies? I think you mean "a clump of cells."

We are refering to children, born and of different ages.

Which is different to a clump of cells, and why the NZ abortion law is doesn't harm anyone.

[Myrensis]

A sad day for New Zealand. Jesus wept.

The liberalization of abortion is something I lament. However, the feasibility of an outright ban needs to lead to certain conditions. Most specifically, a society which values life.

The vast majority of pro-lifers only care about the life of the "Child" until they pop out of their moms, after that they're leeches of the welfare system and burdens to good, hardworking countrymen.

It's almost like a good portion of the pro-life movement is less concerned with the 'sanctity of life' and 'saving the precious babies' than they are in ensuring that those dirty sluts are punished for their sinful ways. Or at the very least that their commitment to that sanctity ends where their wallet begins.

Relevant as ever:

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Relevant as ever:

(Image)

For the record I think private "medical insurance" is a fancy term for "give us your money or you will die a pauper".
<.>

[Sundiata]

The vast majority of pro-lifers only care about the life of the "Child" until they pop out of their moms, after that they're leeches of the welfare system and burdens to good, hardworking countrymen.

It's almost like a good portion of the pro-life movement is less concerned with the 'sanctity of life' and 'saving the precious babies' than they are in ensuring that those dirty sluts are punished for their sinful ways. Or at the very least that their commitment to that sanctity ends where their wallet begins.

Relevant as ever:

My commitment to life's sanctity is never-ceasing.

[New haven america]

It's almost like a good portion of the pro-life movement is less concerned with the 'sanctity of life' and 'saving the precious babies' than they are in ensuring that those dirty sluts are punished for their sinful ways. Or at the very least that their commitment to that sanctity ends where their wallet begins.

Relevant as ever:

(Image)

My commitment to life's sanctity is never-ceasing.

Then instead of arguing against abortion, why not argue for helping those who are already around? Because in turn that'll make it more likely for people to keep the pregnancy they're aborting and make life easier for those who are born.

Also, if God didn't want abortions to happen then why did he invent them? How do you know they're not part of God's plan?

[Sundiata]

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."
Matthew 25:40

Throwing people into poverty? Of course not. I have an obligation to impoverished people through my preferential option for the poor. However, I am under no illusions that our economic system is perfectly just.

The economic ideal that will make our communities more just? Distributism.

I presume you're not a laissez-faire capitalist, then? If so you're at odds with the vast majority of people who oppose abortion rights.

Then the question becomes how society can afford the six figure price tag per child.

There's numerous ways to help families with the costs of parenting: mutual-aid societies, credit-unions, sharing medical costs (health sharing ministries).

That being said, the state has a responsibility in forming a more perfect union. Regarding economics and political order, I take the Distributist position which would place me at the solid center of the left-right political spectrum, I believe.

[Godular]

It's almost like a good portion of the pro-life movement is less concerned with the 'sanctity of life' and 'saving the precious babies' than they are in ensuring that those dirty sluts are punished for their sinful ways. Or at the very least that their commitment to that sanctity ends where their wallet begins.

Relevant as ever:

My commitment to life's sanctity is never-ceasing.

Could always just advocate for policies that encourage a woman to keep an unplanned pregnancy, rather than just trying to stop her from getting an abortion if/when she decides she cannot afford to carry it to term. Just sayin’

[Sundiata]

My commitment to life's sanctity is never-ceasing.

Then instead of arguing against abortion, why not argue for helping those who are already around?

I already do, in fact, I do both. It's how I live my Catholic faith.

[New haven america]

Then instead of arguing against abortion, why not argue for helping those who are already around?

I already do, in fact, I do both. It's how I live my Catholic faith.

Action speak louder than words and you spend pretty much every abortion thread you go into claiming that it's evil.

Also, since you ignored them the first time: If God didn't want abortions to happen then why did he invent it? How do you know abortions aren't part of God's plan?

[Sundiata]

My commitment to life's sanctity is never-ceasing.

Could always just advocate for policies that encourage a woman to keep an unplanned pregnancy, rather than just trying to stop her from getting an abortion if/when she decides she cannot afford to carry it to term. Just sayin’

I already do.