Monday, September 13, 2004

Abortion


Abortion for under 15-year olds is in the news again and groups like the FPA, NZ Medical Council, the Royal College of GP's and individuals like Helen Clark are WRONG, as they say kids do not need to tallparents or guardians of any impending abortions.

The College of GP's say that if kids who got pregnant were made to tell their parents that would lead to illegal underground abortions.

Well, what's new. Most abortions are illegal - ie, they are not done on mental health grounds. But as for driving teenage abortion underground if kids have to tell parents of their abortions - thats CRAP.
Come back after 8pm.

Update
Well its 8pm so here goes….

How many girls 16 and under who have an abortion refuse to tell their parents. Ummm…. we don't know because nobody keeps statistics. Maybe many do. I think all parents and caregivers should know if their child is having an abortion unless the girl concerned has been raped by that caregiver or is in an abusive household, in which case CYF should be told. However the medical associations have come out opposing any law change to the Care of Children Bill, saying that such a change will lead to dangerous and illegal abortions.

What a load of crap. We`ve had that argument before, when prostitution was supposed to be dragged underground once decriminalised. Was it?

How many abortions are done every day without danger to the mental health of the woman? Sheesh, more than three underage abortions are carried out every two weeks in NZ. They may or may not be dangerous but they are illegal under the law, but the law turns a blind eye to what's really going on.

National's Judith Collins effectively tells the medical unions to get stuffed saying that if kids are raped their parents have a right to know. If they get pregnant they have a right to know as well, in most cases. It's not the doctors or the medical unions who pick up the pieces and deal with the child post-abortion, they however are happy to collect the lump sums for every consultation. Collins has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the Care of Children's Bill to change the law as the select committee which she was on didn't have the balls to do so because they were full of Labour and Green lefties who had the "majority". The COC bill has been delayed and delayed because its such poor law and only a few Labour MPs and the Greens support it.

Of course the Minister of Nutty Statements, David Benson Pope, says of a 12-year old, "if she is sexually mature and she's pregnant ... she's also a woman." Does that mean that if she is not sexually mature and pregnant she's still a girl?

And PM Helen Clark, who has never been pregnant - no comment on her sexual maturity, though - has pretty much said that she supports the rights of the child more than the rights of the adults in this area. Don Brash OTOH, supports Collin's SOP, and the rights of the parents to take care of the child as does the majority of National's caucus.

It's a pity both leaders don’t think of the rights of the child - or the rights of parents to take care of children - when considering the Civil Union Bill, though.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Dave
I saw the breakfast news this morning and emailed the program this and to the leaders of all the parties. Don't know if it aired as they like a 10sec soundbite.
Unless it supports what they are pushing.

Dear Sir
It was revealing that both your commentators used the term children.
the MP open and clear about it The doctor corrected herself when she had realised what she had done.

The specious arguement that the present law is all for the safety of the child was shown up clearly to be the canard it is.

Let me get this straight,

An 11 yr old who is pregnant to someone who knows they are 11yrs old (that person could be an adult, a father, uncle or cousin in their household.)

goes to a doctor for an abortion.
the doctor doesn't want to tell the legal guardians or parents as it
A) breaches a minor patients rights
B) might make things worse if the parents know especially if the abuse is happening at home.

The police are not called.
The child after said abortion (assuming there are no complications) is sent home.

To be abused some more.
I got this right didn't I?

1. no adult is held responsible for the rape or rapes.
2. no parent who doesn't know about the rape is informed
3. no parent who does know about it is held accountable
4. the whole family isn't healed through counselling
5. the child can carry the trauma secretly for the rest of their life incl into their own marriage or relationships & children.
6. the extended family isn't able to counsel the child or other parent if they don't know about it
7. the teachers don't know why behaviour in school is affected

Please explain the logical good outcomes of the above.
I don't have a medical degree like the good lady doctor so go slow.
I'm just a voter.

a few other questions from an ordinary man, who isn't a lawyer.

1.Where is the natural law in taking away authority & responsibility from someone and not telling them about it?
Least of all making them pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

2. What clear legal process takes place?

3. who takes that authority & responsibility and is then held legally, fiscally and ethically accountable for it?

4. Is this same person (legal entity) available yrs later to be held accountable by the victim in the courts if need be?

5. an invasive medical procedure (with risks) is carried out on a minor without the parents and other extended family knowing about it?

Can you ask all the other MP's there what you actually do in the house when you debate bills and have select committees?
Does the question "what are the unintended onsequences if we do this ever get asked?"

And a cop out as was stated by the PM on TV the other day, "I think this bill has stood the test of time,
we don't intend looking at it at this time" will not be acceptable.
I actually do hold you accountable for occupying the highest court in the land.
I consider it a priveledge and a responsibility, maybe that's why poor law is written.

Anonymous said...

Hey Dave
I saw the breakfast news this morning and emailed the program this and to the leaders of all the parties. Don't know if it aired as they like a 10sec soundbite.
Unless it supports what they are pushing.

Dear Sir
It was revealing that both your commentators used the term children.
the MP open and clear about it The doctor corrected herself when she had realised what she had done.

The specious arguement that the present law is all for the safety of the child was shown up clearly to be the canard it is.

Let me get this straight,

An 11 yr old who is pregnant to someone who knows they are 11yrs old (that person could be an adult, a father, uncle or cousin in their household.)

goes to a doctor for an abortion.
the doctor doesn't want to tell the legal guardians or parents as it
A) breaches a minor patients rights
B) might make things worse if the parents know especially if the abuse is happening at home.

The police are not called.
The child after said abortion (assuming there are no complications) is sent home.

To be abused some more.
I got this right didn't I?

1. no adult is held responsible for the rape or rapes.
2. no parent who doesn't know about the rape is informed
3. no parent who does know about it is held accountable
4. the whole family isn't healed through counselling
5. the child can carry the trauma secretly for the rest of their life incl into their own marriage or relationships & children.
6. the extended family isn't able to counsel the child or other parent if they don't know about it
7. the teachers don't know why behaviour in school is affected

Please explain the logical good outcomes of the above.
I don't have a medical degree like the good lady doctor so go slow.
I'm just a voter.

a few other questions from an ordinary man, who isn't a lawyer.

1.Where is the natural law in taking away authority & responsibility from someone and not telling them about it?
Least of all making them pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

2. What clear legal process takes place?

3. who takes that authority & responsibility and is then held legally, fiscally and ethically accountable for it?

4. Is this same person (legal entity) available yrs later to be held accountable by the victim in the courts if need be?

5. an invasive medical procedure (with risks) is carried out on a minor without the parents and other extended family knowing about it?

Can you ask all the other MP's there what you actually do in the house when you debate bills and have select committees?
Does the question "what are the unintended onsequences if we do this ever get asked?"

And a cop out as was stated by the PM on TV the other day, "I think this bill has stood the test of time,
we don't intend looking at it at this time" will not be acceptable.
I actually do hold you accountable for occupying the highest court in the land.
I consider it a priveledge and a responsibility, maybe that's why poor law is written.

Anonymous said...

Hey Dave
I saw the breakfast news this morning and emailed the program this and to the leaders of all the parties. Don't know if it aired as they like a 10sec soundbite.
Unless it supports what they are pushing.

Dear Sir
It was revealing that both your commentators used the term children.
the MP open and clear about it The doctor corrected herself when she had realised what she had done.

The specious arguement that the present law is all for the safety of the child was shown up clearly to be the canard it is.

Let me get this straight,

An 11 yr old who is pregnant to someone who knows they are 11yrs old (that person could be an adult, a father, uncle or cousin in their household.)

goes to a doctor for an abortion.
the doctor doesn't want to tell the legal guardians or parents as it
A) breaches a minor patients rights
B) might make things worse if the parents know especially if the abuse is happening at home.

The police are not called.
The child after said abortion (assuming there are no complications) is sent home.

To be abused some more.
I got this right didn't I?

1. no adult is held responsible for the rape or rapes.
2. no parent who doesn't know about the rape is informed
3. no parent who does know about it is held accountable
4. the whole family isn't healed through counselling
5. the child can carry the trauma secretly for the rest of their life incl into their own marriage or relationships & children.
6. the extended family isn't able to counsel the child or other parent if they don't know about it
7. the teachers don't know why behaviour in school is affected

Please explain the logical good outcomes of the above.
I don't have a medical degree like the good lady doctor so go slow.
I'm just a voter.

a few other questions from an ordinary man, who isn't a lawyer.

1.Where is the natural law in taking away authority & responsibility from someone and not telling them about it?
Least of all making them pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

2. What clear legal process takes place?

3. who takes that authority & responsibility and is then held legally, fiscally and ethically accountable for it?

4. Is this same person (legal entity) available yrs later to be held accountable by the victim in the courts if need be?

5. an invasive medical procedure (with risks) is carried out on a minor without the parents and other extended family knowing about it?

Can you ask all the other MP's there what you actually do in the house when you debate bills and have select committees?
Does the question "what are the unintended onsequences if we do this ever get asked?"

And a cop out as was stated by the PM on TV the other day, "I think this bill has stood the test of time,
we don't intend looking at it at this time" will not be acceptable.
I actually do hold you accountable for occupying the highest court in the land.
I consider it a priveledge and a responsibility, maybe that's why poor law is written.

Anonymous said...

Dave

I've never thought of it that way.
The sheer hypocrisy of the selectional morality of Benson Pope et all.

Do you think the Labour party has a special process to weed out rational thinkers?

Anonymous said...

I wish the anti-abortion lobby were being honest about this issue, but that's expecting too much, I suppose.

Sorry, but I find this anti-minor amendment of Collins'
ridiculous. And as for the earlier remarks about medical degrees, yes, well, they do tend to mean that medical practitioners have practical experience dealing with these issues, and are aware of what has happened overseas. It is disgusting and cruel to force a vulnerable eleven year incest survivor to go through
a circuitous route to achieve legal enforcement of their particular sectarian anti-abortion views, which not all Christians share, in any case. Certainly not
many mainline Protestants of my accquaintance.

Craig

Anonymous said...

Craig
you once again use the canard of the very very small number of incest victims to deny the rights of the many law abiding decent people.

This is not about anti-abortion that's separate arguement.

this is about allowing that same incest victim to have an abortion without the other adults (parents/aunties/uncles/grandparents knowing about it.
and
then sending her back into the environment to be abused again.

That is not LOVE.
that is abuse of the worse kind.


as for abortion per se.

this is not a religious issue to me.
however my Christian friends are quick to popint out that those who support it are very much Humanists of one sort or another which is a religion too.

the reality is most women in this country who have abortions are not going to die from their pregnancy are they?

so it is a lifestyle choice to not have the baby.
for if they left it alone 9 months later it would come out the end as a mobile shit machine.

oops
my goodness how did that get there!
what did I do to deserve this?
It's not my fault!
I don't want to live with the consequences of my actions.
It won't fit in my life right now.
I'm not ready for this!

abortion is not a contraceptive method.
it is an invasive deadly procedure.
someone always dies.
do you honestly think the baby is ready to be
scalded?
cut into pieces?
burned?
have their brain cut out half delivered?
take your pick.

every woman who has an abortion suffers from post partum blues of some kind or another too.
what cost on society there mate.

14,000 kids a year is 466 classrooms a year china.
and we are closing schools ??

go figure.

Anonymous said...

Are incest survivors indeed a very small number?
Moreover, Collins is deliberately misleading the
public over the presence of optional abortion
counselling services at abortion clinics. There
is nothing to stop girls to access relevant
counselling services. See the Abortion Supervisory
Committee's booklet "Guidelines for Counselling Within Abortion Providers" (1998). According to this booklet,
counsellors are expected to have a multiple skill base, and some certainly have experience within the
field of child sexual abuse counselling.

Why further traumatise an already wounded child in this context? And if one is allegedly doing this for the sanctity of human life, then what about the question of suicide, which is both a human tragedy and
(for conservative Catholics) a mortal sin?

Craig

Anonymous said...

Previous correspondent:

In terms of your emotive comments about the
embryo or foetus, according to the American
College of ObGyns, the foetus doesn't have
sufficient neurological development to feel
pain until the twenty-fourth to twenty-eighth
week of pregnancy. Most NZ terminations are
performed within four to twelve weeks since
a woman's last menstrual period.

In reference to D&X terminations, those aren't
performed in this country in any case. And
moreover, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly
struck down D&X bans that don't include exemptions
for women's life and health. Added to which, such
terminations may be sadly neccessary in cases of severe foetal abnormality that means that the foetus is not viable in any case. Or would you rather that the pregnancy was carried to term and that the resultant baby would have a short, pain-wracked life in an incubator, until it expires in hideous pain,
to say nothing of the effect on its parents?

Craig