Abortion debate

Face of the day

A baby smiles inside the womb.

A baby smiles inside the womb.

The Greens have brought Abortion back into the light and are making it an election issue. I feel that it is only fair to make the face of the day the face of those that the Green’s feel should be more easily disposed of. If you have been hiding under a rock the past few days you may not be aware of a law change that they are proposing that will take away the few weak restrictions that we have left that stand in the way of a Mother having Abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.

I could try and shock by showing you horrific, graphic photos of aborted children. Many people are not aware of how they are killed or how late term abortions are performed. If you want to face the nasty reality do a Google search. I warn you now that only the seriously deluded will be able to look at those photos and maintain that they are a) Not babies b) Part of a woman’s body.

Read more »

Greens fighting battles past, this time it is abortion

embryo

For some reason the Greens have decided that abortion should be a defining issue of this campaign.

They have decided to have as a policy a change to abortion law to streamline the killing of children faster.

The Greens have ratified a policy on abortion, which would get rid of a process a certified consultant says is “perfectly workable”.

Abortion is a crime under the Crimes Act, and is legal only if two consultants agree that the pregnancy would seriously harm the woman’s physical or mental health, or that there is a substantial risk the child would be born seriously disabled.

The Greens want abortion removed from the crime statutes, saying it would reduce stigma and judgment surrounding the procedure. This would mean a woman seeking one would not need external approval.

“The Green Party trusts women to make decisions that are best for them and their whanau/family,” women’s spokeswoman Jan Logie said.

That’s nice…they make a decision that another kid isn’t wanted, so reef it out…never to be part of a family so someone can decide what is best for them. ? Read more »

Dr Kermit Gosnell – a New Zealand media perspective

After highlighting the Dr Kermit Gosnell trial, and the strange situation where this most outrageous of trials was effectively being ignored by the media, one of our readers, LesleyNZ created a little project for herself: ?She wanted to see if the NZ media would pick up the story now that it was being highlighted here and other widely read blogs world-wide.

Cam ? Follow up to media black out of the Dr Kermit Gosnell trial. I have been doing a bit of research this morning to see whether our mainstream media have picked up on the US Dr Kermit Gosnell trial after your blog post the other day. Interesting results.?Very little to none in NZ apart from your Whaleoil Blog. There is still a media blackout in NZ.

This is the latest about the US media blackout. Seems CNN has taken notice:

Look who?s discovered the Gosnell story -?http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/look-whos-discovered-the-gosnell-story

?CNN’s Anderson Cooper is only one of several mainstream media figures who have responded to Friday’s “Tweetfest” by covering the Gosnell story.?

Read more »

The Abortion story that the MSM won’t cover [GRAPHIC IMAGES]

kermit-gosnell_original-e1365801819890

Abortion…or terminations in polite speak is a topic many dare not write about. For men to write about it we get attacked for all sorts of reasons. For women it is doubly hard. If they go too soft the hard-core feminists attack, too hard and they risk being labeled as such.

No one is?prepared?to have a grown up debate about abortion in the same way that we can’t have a grown up debate about same-sex marriage. The whole topic is as divisive as it is awful.

At one level I can see how abortion can be justified and I can understand it. I admit I struggle with the concept of killing a child. But I also struggle with the concept that the moment conception occurs that by the definition of the pro-life lobby that immediate it is a sentient, living being.

Science being the way that it is the time frames for survivable early birth is shortening ever more. We are getting close to over lap between legal abortion and survivability.

Personally I have a number of friends who have had terminations. They each have their own story, they each are beautiful loving people who had a choice to make. Thankfully it has never been a choice I have ever had to make. I’m not sure I could do it.

This story that the mainstream media refuse to cover though is not about them, and not about legal abortion in New Zealand, it is about late-term abortion in the United States and one doctor in particular who has been indicted for truly awful crimes. It does bring into serious question the ethics of late-term abortions. But in a society, even in New Zealand where we tolerate the killing of children even after they are born at the hands of dead beat parents is it something that we can ignore.

Conor Friedersdorf at?The Atlantic has covered in grisly detail the case of ?Dr. Kermit Gosnell. He asks why the media won’t cover the story when;

The?grand jury report?in the case of Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I’ve read. “This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors,” it states. “The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”

He states at the end of his article and ask a very pertinent question;

[T]his story has numerous elements?any one of which?would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought?to be a big story on the merits.

The news value is undeniable.

Why isn’t it being covered more? I’ve got my theories. But rather than offer them at the end of an already lengthy item, I’d like to survey some of the editors and writers making coverage decisions.

Andrew Sullivan too asks why?

What this story is about is horrifying brutality, extreme incompetence, mass murder of innocents, and a complete, consistent and continuous failure of government oversight. That the details may have been buried by a free press because of squeamishness about portraying abortion in a bad light is worrying, to say the least.

The MSM haven’t dared touch this murder “abortion” story because it is truly sickening and for once, truly outrageous. ?They have been running a sanitised version. ?It once again up to the blogs to expose the true nature of the story. ?But be warned, this is upsetting at a number of levels. ?Proceed with caution. ?(The rest of the story, including graphic images, over the break).? Read more »

Why now?

Chris Trotter has written an excellent piece on abortion, questioning just why Mr. Steve Chadwick, scum List MP has decided to make a stand on abortion right now.

THE FIRST QUESTION I?d like to ask the Labour List MP, Steve Chadwick, is: “Why now?”

What?s convinced her that the time is right to re-open the abortion debate? What ill-omened denizen of the current political environment has told her that this is the moment to introduce a private member?s bill permitting abortion-on-demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy? I would really, really like to know who it was. Because, try as I may, I?m finding it really difficult to make the cost/benefit analysis come out in Ms Chadwick?s, her party?s, or even her gender?s favour.

My bet is orders. Orders from New York. Trotter tries to work out why, and this is the best bit.

Clearly, Ms Chadwick?s proposed private members bill has got me genuinely perplexed. I simply cannot see what difference ? in practical terms ? changing the current legislation would make.

According to statistics supplied by the Abortion Supervisory Committee, there were 18,382 abortions carried out in New Zealand in 2007. That?s 12,437 more than were carried out in 1980 ? barely two years after the Contraception, Sterilisation & Abortion Act came into force on 1 April 1978.

Does Ms Chadwick not believe that 18,382 abortions are enough? Does she think there should be more? Has the existing legislation created an unfulfilled demand for abortion which her proposed private members bill seeks to satisfy?

That seems unlikely ? given New Zealand?s undoubted competitiveness in the international abortion stakes. Among a selection of twelve of the world?s low-fertility countries we jostle with Australia, Sweden and the USA for the honour of recording the highest abortion rate. We?re consistently well ahead of countries where abortion-on-demand is already legally enshrined.

Could it be that Ms Chadwick is hoping to bring down New Zealand?s gold-medal-winning abortion rate?

This is the nub of the issue. The same liberal elite that demand a woman’s right to murder a baby at any time, in this instance up to 24 weeks, also express concern at our abortion rate. This is of course a nonsense. If, according to them, it is ok to kill a baby up to 24 weeks then why the big fuss over the abortion rate? Indeed why the big fuss of any abortion no matter the timing? In fact why limit it to time measured in weeks, I mean one of the arguments of the liberal elite is succinctly explained by Chris Trotter and a supporter of Mr. Steve Chadwick.

In the words of one blogger calling herself the Queen of Thorns: “Dear anti-choicers: go get yourself a fucking tapeworm already and sit down to a marathon of the Alien quadrilogy and then whinge to me about ?it?s no big deal, just wait X months?.”

Yeah, no big deal. Having the child will punish the poor woman for the rest of her life. Well the logical extension of that is if say the child gets to 5 years old, and has become a bit of a burden on the mother then why not advocate for the putting down of unwanted children, no fuss, no bother, I mean we shouldn’t expect someone to be burdened the rest of their lives should we? It would sure save a lot of child abuse, it could be argued.

If abortion is to be legal then can we please stop the hand-wringing over the abortion rate and the time limit, just get on with the killing. After all, what’s the big deal? We are already killing 612 classrooms of children every year. It is saving the government billions in education, health care, and a myriad of other social ills like murder, rape, bashing, alcoholism, and death by cigarettes are all solved by abortion.

Some pro-killing advocates say that it is just like pulling a tooth, well I can see a real boon in commercial real estate with that. I mean, even in Howick there are 3-4 dentists, imagine if every suburb had 3-4 abortion clinics and all the ensuing staff, imagine the employment, tax gains and so forth….oh now I’m starting to see where Mr. Steve Chadwick is coming from. Hell, you could even shop around for the cheapest extraction or get a two for one deal, or even better have loyalty cards like the coffee shops have, every 10th abortion is free.

Nothing will convince me that abortion is nothing short of murder. If murder is wrong then why isn’t abortion?

×