Friday General Debate

Last day of the week, and I’m sorry to scare you, but you need to start thinking about sorting the Christmas presents.  It’ll rush up on you – you’ll see!

For those who have only recently joined us, the General Debate posts are open for anyone to start their own conversations.

If you need a little help, today’s Debate Topic is

Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable to you?

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Whafe

    May more and more Aucklanders whom can vote, wisen up to the destruction Lyin Len Brown has caused and will continue to cause unless he is voted out

    • OT Richter

      Is there a viable alternative? It’s a real shame Maurice didn’t run as now we are left with Mad Minto and that Italian bloke.

      • GazzW

        You go with the ‘Italian bloke’ (his name is John Palino and he’s a highly successful New Yorker) and you give him a C&R stacked council to work with.

        • Whafe

          Well I would sooner give John Palino a go than Lyin Len Brown. At least John Palino has made it in the commercial real world, can’t really say the same for Lyin Len Brown

          • Dave

            Len has made it in the commercial world. He has a big home, he is using the town planners to protect it and surround the area with amenities, he is borrowing and doing as he pleases, and promises the great unwashed in sth and west Auckland so much, they believe he is the Messiah, and will vote him in again so he can continue his gravy train and taking from the rich nth shore ppl to give to the sth and westies. LBIAFC.

          • Bunswalla

            And his quarter-million dollar a year salary, plus all the perks. Oh yes, he’s made it in the commercial world alright.

          • sheppy

            JP certainly talked a good talk when I went to one of the first of his public meetings at Milford

          • Whanga_Cynic

            He was good yesterday up this way (Rodney) too. LB didn’t turn up!

          • sheppy

            That’s the problem, he has a lot of good ideas including getting a forensic accountant in to see where the money is going. BUT our biased MSM have until now given Brown a free pass.
            If people knew all of what Browns been up to as well as just half of Palino’s ideas Brown would be history along with his facilitators!

        • LesleyNZ

          Yep but very disappointed with C&R. Their adverts say it is “not about the Mayoralty”. Well it IS about the Mayoralty. Can’t understand them.

    • Team ENZ

      unfortunately only in our widest dreams can lying Len be ousted…Jaffa lemmings will prevail.

      • GazzW

        You still vote for Palino and you vote C&R for your councillor. That way if Palino doesn’t make it Brown could well end up as a lameduck mayor with a council opposing every crazy move that he makes.

        • Dave

          And that GazzW would be a victory for common sense, leaving Brown high and dry.

  • LesleyNZ

    I am supposed to be getting outside and digging in the garden! Gorgeous day coming up. Think of all the babies who have been aborted who will never experience such a beautiful day. For me – no circumstances. Very rarely is the mother’s life in danger – abortion has become a form of birth control here is NZ and is very easy to obtain one. Recently I heard about a someone my husband knows whose wife had a an abortion. A very successful wealthy managerial businessman (not a NZer) who has since left NZ to work back overseas. He was to chair a meeting. He walked in and said he was sorry he was late but he had to take his wife to hospital. Concern was shown for the wife. She was fine – she was having an abortion because they didn’t want a Kiwi baby. No emotion – just cold and blunt. No value for human life. Totally selfish. Sickening. Our abortion laws here in NZ are unacceptable and criminal and are murdering innocent lives.

    • OT Richter

      What about Russell Norman?

      • justin

        Are you proposing a post birth abortion?

        • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

          A very late term abortion.

    • Kimbo

      “For me – no circumstances. Very rarely is the mother’s life in danger”

      Uh huh.

      But what if the mother’s life is genuinely in danger, such as with an (unviable) ectopic pregnancy?

      Or even if the child could survive, but the mother almost certainly die/suffer severe and irreparable physical or mental harm?

      I don’t dispute that abortion seems like a matter of convenience, and the law, as passed in 1977 is being rode roughshod over (as most suspected it would at the time).

      However, you haven’t really answered the question of GENUINE danger to the mother’s life.

      Care to have another go…?

      • justin

        Yes I will what rate of death per 10000 pregnancies come from unviable ectopic pregnancy?
        Rate of death per 10000 pregnancies in NZ – 2500

      • LesleyNZ

        Under that circumstance a decision would have to be made………. difficult one for me. Most likely an abortion would have to be performed as the baby has no chance of survival. However – the majority of abortions are a form of birth control.

        • Kimbo

          “However – the majority of abortions are a form of birth control.”

          I appreciate the response, but you are still ducking away from the issue. Again, I don’t dispute that abortion is being used, contrary to the intention of the law, as a form of pregnancy.

          However, that is a distraction from the question. Let me repeat it:

          “Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable to you?

          You’ve specified that if the baby has no chance of survival. However, I didn’t ask that, or rather just that.

          What about if the child might likely survive, but the mother likely die, or suffer death or sever physical and/or mental harm? You may indeed find it “difficult”, but you aren’t really advancing the discussion by saying, “a decision would have to be made”. Yes, of course one has to me made – that is what the debating topic is trying to elicit from you.

          When you say, “For me – no circumstances”, would I be right in deducing you would value the yet-to-be-born child’s life above that of the mother? if it was a case of one will likely live and the other die (irrespective of how many genuine cases that scenario applies to)?

          • justin

            I won’t duck this one. Save mum. There out of the 20000 abortions I’ve kept 12 or so.

          • Kimbo

            Good on you for not ducking.

            How many deaths/complications from botched back street abortions do you think you would need to factor in as well?

            Likely less than 20,000 no doubt, but how many?

            Also, do you restrict overseas travel for pregnant women so they can’t get abortions, like they used to do flying to Sydney before 1977?

          • justin

            Fair comment there. But currently we still have babies that are dumped in rubbish bins, mums that drink their way to miscarriage. I’m not suggesting the panacea on this issue.
            But one quarter of all pregnancies in NZ are aborted, this is crazy (and certainly the Act is not operating as it was intended when drafted).
            Here is a potential idea… sell the baby. Seriously don’t dismiss to early. Say unwanted/expected pregnancy happens – right now abortion is contraception method. Mum doesn’t want to be a parent, it’s not convenient so on. Well there are literally 100’s and 100’s of thousands of want to be parents out there.
            Make it a standard value for an adoption [hypothetically say $30k] – I think that this would be a workable solution for all parties involved.
            FYI there are less than 100 adoptions in NZ every year (excluding the Maori Whangai practice).

          • Kimbo

            “currently we still have babies that are dumped in rubbish bins, mums that drink their way to miscarriage”.

            Hmm. Yeah, but the number is surely infinitesimal – 12 in 20,000 perhaps? – since 1977.

            Also, I’d suggest your idea of “sell the baby” would run afoul of the law of unintended consequences by producing even more aborted pregnancies. After an initial uptake, an over-supply would flood the market.

            I’m not saying the present policy making adoption almost impossible is right (in fact it is almost certainly not right), but adoption used to address some of the problems of unwanted pregnancies. There is a current bureaucratic ideological opposition to adoption, courtesy of what are perceived as statistically significant negative social and cultural outcomes for kids who are adopted.

            However, I can see why those who are opposed to abortion consider adoption as by far the lesser of the two evils…

    • justin

      1 out of every 4. Just nuts with so many people going through the hard yards of infertility treatment.

  • snakebit

    Never. Abortion is murder. Adopt the child out…there are plenty of good people who cant have children and want them.

    • justin

      Exactly

    • Polish Pride

      In the case of Rape? In the case of Incestual Rape? In the case of Gang Rape?

  • Phar Lap

    Watched the politically lascivious arse hole Cunliffe on last nights news.His stop at nothing with no holds barred to get into power in 2014 beggars belief.He is acting like a psychopath when he makes out first home buyers are being denied by the Reserve Bank to buy a home at borrowings around 95%.He is not the least concerned that if interest rates leap to 8% ,the very people he is encouraging to buy ,could end up in dire financial straights.Like a true psychopath he will take their votes ,yet will blame them for being so financially illiterate.By that time he hopes to be running the country, just another clone of the socially engineering female Lie-bour Party has been, Helen Clark.

    • Team ENZ

      ahhh, only the gullible numpties will believe him..like meg..

      • snakebit

        Hmmm anyone heard of dr alexander tytlers cycles of democracy? Sure we have, but we would be the minority. Its playing out for all to see. Tell me im wrong.
        Edit Spelling

    • GazzW

      Cunliffe won’t give a stuff about rising mortgage repayments. It will be a golden excuse to bring in yet more taxpayer funded welfare to help those in dire financial straits. Nett result is more voters purchased for labour with yours and my money.

      • justin

        That’s why it is sensible to have a LVR of 20% so that those in dire financial straits have some wriggle room before the govt has to come in to the rescue.

        • GazzW

          Look at John B’s maths further down.There’s the logical answer.

          • Polish Pride

            Or we could accept that everyone has essentially the same needs and put in place a system that meets them. What a novel concept.

    • Whafe

      He is indeed a frightening man, the sooner he is shown up for the hay seed he is, the better NZ will be..
      Once again, NZ needs good opposition, this clown pants is not the answer. As always, people have been sucked in that a new leader will solve all of Labours factions etc etc, what a crock of the proverbial brown steamy stuff

    • cows4me

      You give cunny far to much credit Phar Lap ,”yet he will blame them for being so financially illiterate”, don’t think so. He’ll probably shake his head, take his thumb out of his mouth and say “geez how the fuck did that happen”.

    • johnbronkhorst

      Time to remind people of the largest reason for the GFC…Sub Prime mortgages!
      They need to be shown the maths.

      • johnbronkhorst

        The maths
        $300 000 house
        20% deposit, $60 000
        ie $240 000 borrowed
        5.75% interest (ASB)
        fortnightly payments…$644.34
        as above at 8%
        Fortnightly payments….$810.21
        With mr cunliffes lower deposit at 5% deposit
        ie $15000
        $285 000 borrowed
        Interest at 8% (as per reserve bank prediction)
        Fortnightly repayments…….wait for it.
        $962!!!!
        So an increase of $318 per fortnight under cunliffes plan!!!
        Who’s going to make housing unaffordable for first home buyers????
        NB…Table mortgage No.s over 30 years.
        So over 30 yrs your will pay an extra $318 x 26 x 30 = $248 000
        for your extra borrowing!
        ie a total of $750 000 +$15 000 = $765 000 for you $300 000 home
        Compared to $502 585.

        • justin

          Exactly JBH.
          The factor that’s wrong is not the historically record low interest rates (“emergency rates” as they were called when introduced). Rates will go back up. The problem is the over inflated asking price and the too low deposit.

          • johnbronkhorst

            That’s why I used $300 000…not a palace in central Auckland.
            It is also the number cunliffe/labour/greens use, when saying they can build 10 000 houses a year for 10 years. HAHA HA

      • Polish Pride

        And the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.

        • cows4me

          The point is PP nothing has changed.

    • justin

      Anyone borrowing over the last five years (since interest rate were last 8%) who haven’t factored in rates going back up are just crazy.
      Worse still are the banks who have allowed the borrowing knowing that there “customers” will not be able to handle interest rate increases.
      We learnt nothing from the GFC. You can see this in the reaction to the LVR.

      • johnbronkhorst

        True but it is still YOUR responsibility to do the maths and review what YOU can and can’t afford.

        • justin

          But we all know that it will be our taxes that go to bail out these aussie banks when it all goes bad.

          • johnbronkhorst

            Don’t lay all the blame on the banks.
            They only offered the money, you still had to borrow it!!!
            Nobody forced you!!
            Be sensible and do the maths.

          • Polish Pride

            The shareholders should wear the loss plain and simple. Banks should never be bailed out.

          • johnbronkhorst

            Agree, BUT we should still be aware that should ALL the banks fail there will be many citizens hurt by this and our society would collapse.
            If people won’t be responsible for their own borrowing, and banks won’t put rules in place to allow only responsible borrowing. The reserve bank needs to act as they have.

          • Polish Pride

            Current Reserve bank legislation is likely to trigger an almost full scale collapse.
            Consider that the recently introduced ‘haircut’ legislation states that should a bank become insolvent the Reserve Bank will step in and give depositors a one time hair cut in order to get things back on track.
            Now once the ‘haircut’ consider that the rest of the population with their money in other banks, can if needed, be given a ‘haircut’ and lose a percentage of their deposit. But those with money in the bank that has just had a ‘haircut’ cannot be given another one. This could result in people moving their money to that bank en mass to avoid losing their money at a future point in time if their current bank runs into trouble. The result could be that the only safe bank at that point is the one originally in trouble and all other banks that were trading well could become financially unstable.

          • johnbronkhorst

            A lot of IF’s in there PP.

          • Polish Pride

            There is but……if :) it were to happen it could be far more damaging to the system than just letting the bank simply fail.

          • cows4me

            Yeah it’s total bullshit PP the banks should only be a utility that lend at a certain interest rate. In this country we pay interest way over what the bank needs to live. Banks should be owned by the community. It’s the fucking interest that kills development. If len wants to build a train set the biggest cost is the interest. I’m a capitalist but there’s greed then there’s greed.

      • Michael

        I haven’t factored any interest rate rises into my budget. If interest rates rise to 8% I think my mortgage payments will go up by a huge amount. No, wait. Four payments to go! Yippee!

        We own a four bed in a middle class Wellington suburb, wife is mid 30s and I just turned 40. We’re single income, three kids. People my age who moan about house prices are the ones who wasted their youth on booze, drugs and OEs. Now they think the rest of the world owes them a house in the same range as their parents. They should do what my wife and I did when we were in our twenties and buy what we could afford – for her a flat in Upper Hutt, for me a house in Porirua. When we got together 10 years ago we had $100k in equity between us.

    • Patrick

      You are wrong, if his voters are found to be in dire straits (particularly prior to an election) Cunliffe & Labour will dole out more taxpayers money to them, they will extend the welfare state even further, we have Working for Families, they will implement Houses for Families where everyone “earning” under $65k (Cullen’s rich pricks definition) will have their mortgages paid for them.

      • johnbronkhorst

        It wouldn’t surprise me!!

  • blokeintakapuna

    Abortion is acceptable anytime the woman wants it. It’s her body, her choice… And no one else has any right to say to her otherwise.

    Opinions are like arseholes and belly buttons – everyone’s got one, but that doesn’t mean we need to see of hear it.

    • snakebit

      Thats what my sister used to say. She is a nurse and one day during the corse of her work she saw first hand the ‘medical waste’ that once was a baby. Looked just like a normal baby just smaller and in bits…she changed her mind right then a there. Its not womans body…its the babies body. How that so hard to understand?

    • LesleyNZ

      And who owns the baby’s body?

    • justin

      A valid argument WHEN abortion was legalized. We only thought of the baby as being a jelly of goop. Now science has shown that it is human beings inside the womb (even toenails are formed by 10 weeks).

      • Polish Pride

        It to me would depend on the belief or not in the existence of s soul or life essence and the question would be at what point does the soul or life essence enter the body.

        • justin

          No PP it’s just science. The inutero baby is a genetically whole human at conception (a fully unique dna sequence) and by 5 weeks a heart beat… it’s all very rapid. The baby is human.

  • middleagedwhiteguy

    Abortion. Often know in America as the “third rail” of politics. Touch it and die. However, what I find laughable about the whole issue, if you can find anything about abortion laughable, is that the most vociferous voices against abortion are quite often just as vociferously against contraception.

    If I was to categorise my own stance on abortion, I would have to say that i am pro-choice and anti abortion. I find the idea of abortion abhorrent, but I do understand that parenthood should be planned. I would much rather that happen through contraception. While I know that contraception may not be 100% effective, but the consequence of not using it is generally 100% predictable.

    • justin

      hence adoption.

  • Michael

    Personal choice. This is were too many “do gooders” interfere with other peoples lives.

    My personal opinion (yes, I am showing my bellybutton;) ) is that it shouldn’t be your first choice, but it should not be denied as a choice. There are many reason why people choose to abort, medical or other.

  • Col

    Up to person or persons.
    Always people who want for adoption.

  • LesleyNZ

    True………..very true

  • middleagedwhiteguy

    Time to throw the hand grenade……..

    Abortion is often portrayed as a woman’s choice as it is her body. Lets consider that statement.

    If we are to take that statement at face value, then it logically follows that a woman quite simply cannot be forced to become a parent if she does not want to be. Fair enough, you say. One night stand, up the duff, not ready, one procedure, no worries.

    However, what if she decides that abortion is not an option, and keeps the child, forcing the burden of parenthood onto a bloke who has no opt out clause. The man has been forced to become a parent, if not emotionally, certainly financially.

    So a woman can’t be forced to become a parent, and has the right to opt out, but the bloke can not only be forced to become a parent, but also forcibly have his income tithed as a result.

    Is this a double standard?

    • Polish Pride

      ^ very interesting and theoretically valid view point. Not one generally considered either.
      It raises a number of scenarios:
      Should therefore a man be able to insist on an abortion if he doesn’t want the financial burden?
      Should a man be able to insist she carry a baby to term if he is prepared to look after and provide for the child where the woman is not prepared to, and wants an abortion?

      • middleagedwhiteguy

        or should a man be legally allowed to abrogate all responsibility for the child on the basis that if the mother cannot be forced to become a parent, then neither should he.

        For the record, I wouldn’t if it were me, but if a woman has the choice, and chooses to be a parent, the man has to lump it.

      • justin

        I think at times it’s best to ask what is best for the baby. We get to myopic and think what about the ‘rights’ of mum, what about the ‘rights’ of dad. FFS millions of years have gone by and when baby comes along mum and dad do whats best for baby.

  • sheppy

    Looks like we stand a chance of getting rid of Brown – Palino only 4% behind according to http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/auckland-mayoral-race-exit-poll-has-john-palino-within-4-len-brown-ck-146702
    If you want shut of the wasteful fool get your votes posted!!!!

  • Hazards001

    I’m pro choice..not my body so no opinion on abortion…but if there was a circumstance I’d find totally acceptable it would be retrospective abortions for the mothers of people like Adolf Hitler, Jozef Stalin, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Helen Clark, David Cunliffe, Gareth Hughes, Russel Norman, Michael Cu…you get the idea!

40%