New Zealand Passes a Very Liberal Abortion Bill
Abortion is simply health care, nothing else. Religions have been successful in creating the illusion it has something to do with crime or morals. This latter is a modern adaptation. I recall reading about natives in Alaska where people were very well versed in how much food would be available during the coming season and how many children could be successfully cared for. They limited the population through various means and did not consider that to have any negative moral connotation. In fact, the opposite was the case. Too many people meant the tribe might not survive.
New Zealand has turned the corner to a better public policy. No doubt we can look forward to a successful country.
Even more dramatic was the national vote a couple of years ago in Ireland. Abortion was made legal for the first time in recorded history. This followed years of Catholic hierarchy's immersion in Ireland's government and scandals about priest sexual abuse of children. The Catholic Church in Ireland campaigned to continue laws against abortion but its time of influence seems to have passed.
We can't say for certain what attitudes will prevail about abortion in the U.S. in years ahead. I predicted a year ago that the Trump reelection would referendum on abortion. Just today I read an article by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He urged conservative Christians to vote for Trump for only one reason, abortion.
New Zealand is off on a new and progressive adventure.
Other examples of "health care" in Jon's world.
ReplyDelete1. Infanticide is simply health care. The mental health of the mother is paramount.
2. Euthanasia is simply health care. Our resources for caring for the elderly is paramount.
3. Assisted suicide is simply health care.
4. War is simply health care.
5. Killing in the name of racial justice is health care.
Matt--"Other examples of 'health care' in Jon's world."
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the "right to life" whistle right on by the important questions. The questions are
(1.) Why is the human-being-at conception anything but just a religious idea?
(2.) What right does a woman have in the decision about her fetus?
The right to life religion is morally corrupt at its core. For example, why does it demand the pregnant woman look at an image of her fetus and require her to listen to false information about the effects of abortion while not requiring the woman to hear the statistical fact that carrying her pregnancy to term is more dangerous than an abortion?? It does not promote honesty because it is morally corrupt.
Here is an example of your "safe, legal and rare" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=jxwHPt5dx-0&feature=emb_logo
DeleteToo bad the abortionist (physician?) can't actually treat a bleed out complication.
I've answered those questions countless times before. You know the answers.
DeleteLet's address your attempt to deflect from the point that in your world, death is health care. It is your desired outcome. It doesn't matter if it is a tiny baby, an elderly person, a despondent person, BLM violence and death or war.
We might as well rename the Republican party the Life Party, and, in truth, rename the Democrat party the Death Party.
there is a lot of moral corruption in the world. but in my view intellectual corruption is one of the worst of the kind. keeps one from viewing the world in a way that keeps one honest, giving as it does a badly distorted view of reality. it's certainly one of the chief aspects of fanaticism.
DeleteUnknown "intellectual corruption is one of the kind."
DeleteI agree. When "right to life" bumpkins say a "baby is killed" every time there is an abortion and that "abortion is dangerous" with no data or reasoning behind it they have entered a moral abyss to with high walls.
Matt--"Let's address your attempt to deflect from the point of your world..."
DeleteIt is you, not me, who is the champion of miss direction and deflection. You fail to present anything that establishes the one fertilized cell is a human being. You fail to acknowledge what rights the pregnant woman is entitled to. And, you like to join Unknown with isolated stories you find in the news. Objectively collected statistics beat you up so you don't go there.
we are bumpkins? way to go, right up there with Hillary and Obama when it comes to talking down to the unwashed masses. remember 2012 and 2016?
DeleteUnknown "we are bumpkins?"
DeleteI'm sure you are smart and informed on most everything else. In terms of abortion you are bumpkins.
thanks.
DeleteIs your BIG STUDY to end all studies AKA the "Turnaway Study?
ReplyDeleteUnknown "to end all studies"
ReplyDeleteYes, it is the Turnaway Study. It does not "end all studies." But, it is the only professionally done one so far.
testing
ReplyDeleteI have given some attention to what you pro-abortion zealots consider to be your definitive response to those who dare to suggest that some, perhaps quite a few women, suffer mental and/or physical problems after an abortion, especially a "late" abortion. Looks like another Throw Away study done by folks who are seeking to prove their a priori assumptions (in logic 101 it's called begging the question.) Admittedly, I am playing your game by attacking the motives of the authors of the study: it takes two to tango as they say. Be that as it may, I am dealing with some medical issues just now: consequently, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue further. You can do your own research and, as you are wont to do, conclude that any criticism of the Big Study is nothing but pro-lie propaganda. Anyway have a good day: the weather here is great.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--Best wishes for a successful and rapid resolution of your medical issues. I say rapid knowing that at our age everything is slow. I also hope that when you are recovered you will be able to actually read the book. You can read how the study tried to measure the respective states of mind of those who had abortions and those who gave birth.
Deleteoops: Dr. Priscilla Coleman.
Deletequickly, there are rejoinders. you might try Dr. Patricia Coleman. thanks for the best wishes. heart attack in May followed by dermatology surgery that didn't go well.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--Yes, Dr. Patricia Coleman. I looked for critiques of the Turnaway study on several conservative sites. I thought there would be several different scholars who would weigh in with suggestions of how results might be different if this or that had been done. On all the sites where the Turnaway was discussed, the same comments were repeated by the one critic, Dr. Coleman. She really didn't have a lot to say, the sample should have been bigger was her criticism. I have not seen a rejoinder but if the author bothers I think she would say it is the largest sample ever taken (while agreeing a larger sample is always better than a smaller one.) Coleman also said the author(s) should have cited other studies. There can be no doubt the author knew every study ever done on abortion and did refer to some in the book. As Dr. C. Everett Koop found years ago, there were no studies that were not flawed back then and I have not heard of others that had a large number of patients, selected representatives from a common population and followed them for a decade. What right to life lobbyists need to do is follow carefully every step the Turnaway study did with their own study. Then if they come out with a different result they have a right to question the results. Until then, they should admit there remains no evidence of physical or psychological damage to women resulting from abortion.
Delete