h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But the basis of that opinion is sloppy logic in the extreme. Just because a local pastor isn't haranguing his charges on the topic of abortion doesn't mean it isn't a hot-button issue. In fact, I would be quite surprised to see local preachers carrying on about the subject, considering that they're talking to members who share the same convictions. They would be literally and metaphorically preaching to the choir. Local preachers are involved in the personal lives of their charges. Matters of national policy are above them.

Della may not have heard of the abortion topic at a Salvation Army service, for instance, but this makes it abundantly clear that the national office has given the topic plenty of attention, and are likely lobbying on behalf of legislators who share their position: http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_about/Positional_Statements/Abortion.asp

You could have politely pointed to that link as providing more authoritative information, without having such a dig at Della.

I'm curious to know why you think I owe Della any sort of courtesy.

Just trying to avoid a resurgence of the Della wars as well as keeping this thread civil. Personally, I think her style of posting has improved. I try to afford her no more, no less courtesy than I would any other poster. Perhaps your approach is different.

<>

I don't think a couple of somewhat less-than-offensive posts actually constitutes a *new improved style* of posting, Teasswill. But I suppose we can live in hope . . .


az

Actually Blathers, Della did have quite a good point in the New Zealand context. If I had to pinpoint a religion in the early 90s that was actively opposing abortion rights it'd be the catholic church and even then it wasn't the church as such but individual catholics that belonged to organisations like SPUC, and Pregnancy Counselling (the people who offer counselling and then show women pictures of aborted foetusses) (I'm sure there were people of other denominations too). That too is based on my personal experience and to be honest I don't remember the churches being directly or formally involved in opposition to abortion rights. I used to work in that area and I really don't remember the churches being major players in the national scene or even locally. This is not a comment on what they were doing within their own congregations of course and it I'm sure that some were actively supporting SPUC from behind the scenes.

At the moment it's a church called Destiny (happy clappys of the more dangerous kind), who get alot of airtime mainly because they are so extreme. But they are kind of an anomaly in NZ- for the most part the religious fundamentalists don't have the same kind of power here that they do in the US (it's the economic fundamentalists that got control here).

The general situation re abortion rights is quite different here than in the US.

But where were SPUC and Pregnancy Counselling getting their money? I would be surprised if the Catholic Church were not an important donor to the cause, as well as various other religious groups and individual Christian donors.

The SPUC itself can hardly be considered a secular organization: http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/evangelicals/
http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/evangelicals/bible-teachings

I've already said that SPUC is made up of religious people, and that some churches are probably funding them. It's well known in NZ that SPUC is a christian based organisation.

The point I am making is that the Christian churches in NZ aren't involved publically in the anti-abortion movement in the way that they are in the US. Hence Della's statement that she didn't come across the abortion debate in the churches she was in at that time makes sense beyond her personal experience.

Another way of saying that is if you wanted to be actively anti-abortion you joined SPUC not your local church.

I'm not sure I see your point.

Do you want to? I'd be happy to clarify

Sure. The point Della was trying to make was that Christians were largely unconcerned with abortion, based on the fact that it got little attention in church. If it were demonstrated that there were significant secular organizations in the anti-choice camp, then that would be validated. But Christians being vocal through PACs instead of through their churches doesn't change the fact that they're Christians. I don't see what has been proven.

<>

I hadn't thought about it in that much depth - but yeah, I probably did. It's a justice thing - just as with my opposition to war, and to capital punishment. The opposition to war thing was hard, because to my father who fought in WW2, it seemed like disloyalty.

<>
For the clinic staff who are with for-profit chains, prison. Some are already there, for the gross negligence and careless killing of the women that they have done.

<>
For these, not prison, but counselling and help... Yes, some murder is worse than others, obviously! There are mitigating circumstances in many cases.

Essentially, this is never going to happen...

OK, Blathers. We're talking about different things. I was meaning that at that time (early 90s) in NZ, there wasn't alot of official church activity around contesting abortion rights from what I remember. I can see that people in some (probably alot) of those congregations wouldn't have come across the debate very much.

I agree that the anti-abortion movement here is essentially a Christian one

It's an interesting thing for me because NZ is a much more secular society than the US apparently, and I would guess that most people opposed to abortion here (even religious people) would see it as a personal conscience matter rather than something to get political about. So while there is a definite prolife movement here it tends to be a fringe thing, and is seen as perhaps marginal or odd. Whereas I get the impression that in the US it's much more integrated into the general population.

btw, what's a PAC?

>>Yes, some murder is worse than others, obviously! There are mitigating circumstances in many cases.<<

I don't really understand that. Are you saying that killing a 3 months old foetus is less murder than killing a 3 month old baby (assuming the motive was the same, say to not have to raise a child)? I'm really curious about this because if there is a difference, then is there also a difference between killing a 7 day foetus compared to a 12 week one?

<>

I was thinking more about the difference between a deerstalker shooting his mate (which IMO would be manslaughter anyway) and a drug dealer killing a woman who witnessed him beating a fellow druggie to death. (Both recent cases in NZ, as you'll recognise. There is no way that induced abortion will *ever* be legally defined as murder, so there's no point in discussing the legal ramifications of it.

IMO, there are differences between the cases you mention. Obviously, aborting a 3 month foetus is much less culpable than killing a 3-months- after-birth baby. (Both could result in the same level of psychological harm to the woman doing them, IMO).
Between the abortion of a 7 day foetus and a 12 week one, not so much.

Hey Della,

You missed answering this question I asked:
Why do you believe/think that a one-week ball of undifferentiated human cells is a human, seeing as you came about this decision without religion?



So you do think there's a qualitative difference between different stages of pregnancy. Can you see how aborting a one-week old foetus is acceptable?

Ste

>>There is no way that induced abortion will *ever* be legally defined as murder, so there's no point in discussing the legal ramifications of it. <<

Killing an unborn child is already legally murder:

>>> C
CRIMES ACT 1961
PART 8 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Abortion
182. Killing unborn child—

182.Killing unborn child—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that he would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being.

(2)No one is guilty of any crime who before or during the birth of any child causes its death by means employed in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother.

Cf 1908 No 32 s 220
<<<

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=102555&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1961-043%2fs.182&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1961-043/s.182

I think it's a totally relevant discussion - if people are going to accuse someone of having an abortion as being a murderer that is not a light assertion. Do you want the law changed? If so, what would the penalities be for a woman who had an abortion. And the person that did the abortion?

Because it's not outside the realms of possibility that abortion will become illegal and in fact end up being defined as murder. Certainly there is alot of concern about this in the US. What I want to know is where people who are anti-abortion stand on this, what they want to see the law changed to.


Or are you saying that abortion is manslaughter?

<>

When I was 19 (which is when I got religion) it wasn't possible for a woman to know she was pregnant until she was at least six weeks... one missed period, and a test... So one week old pregancies and aborting them was never an issue.

Yes, there is a difference between a one week old foetus and say, a 12 week one, but it's quantitative, and not qualitative. Aborting a one week foetus is more acceptable than aborting a 12 or 14 week one, just marginally. Left to herself, a one week one will become a 12 and eventually a 40 week one, and will be born. (By 40 weeks, the word will probably applies, as the most recent research I am aware of shows that the unborn child probably triggers labour herself.)

The human products of conception are human, not a rabbit, or a dog. That alone, makes it more of an issue. The foetus contains DNA from two parents and therefore is clearly not just 'a part of the woman's body'.