Parliamentary select committee on Abortion goes from insane offensiveness from the religious right to just insane wokeness


First up.

I am pro abortion.

I’m so pro abortion I’m happy for you to have a months grace after the baby is born to get rid of it.

See, I told you I was pro abortion.

Facetious jokes aside, abortion is a decision for the women involved and no one else.

TDB Recommends

Simple, very simple. It’s an issue of self autonomy and agency, if a woman doesn’t want to proceed with a pregnancy then she has every right to have a safe and free abortion with all the wrap around counselling services she may require on tap.

No questions asked, if she wants an abortion, give her a bloody abortion, but not literally bloody. This is a medical procedure and the only ones privy to the decision is the woman and her Dr.

No. One. Else.

The rigid and sad joke of a law we have right now is a compromise nothing that was forged decades ago when naked prejudice was celebrated. It asks women to pretend to be having a mental breakdown in order to get an abortion so male egos at the time didn’t feel threatened, and that’s hardly a social policy benchmark to champion.

So Sir Bill English (he got his knighthood for services to the state in crippling and belittling the poor and vulnerable) was at the select committee making the most ridiculously offensive comments about abortion.

His farcical position is that those who don’t wish to morally participate in an abortion might be forced to and because the abortionists reassemble the broken snapped limbs of the foetus after an abortion, the mental anguish and post traumatic stress of such Frankenstein-esk obscenities against God shouldn’t be shouldered by the poor life worshipping abortion Dr or nurse.

I may be paraphrasing his bullshit, but effectively it boiled down to the above paragraph. And the funny thing is that it really did…

‘Disgraceful’: Bill English criticises abortion law changes to conscientious objection

Former Prime Minister Sir Bill English has returned to Parliament to protest proposed changes to abortion laws, saying the way they treat health workers who object are “disgraceful”.

…Bill’s description was for pure shock value and equates to religious sanctimony rather than objective and rational critique. There won’t be a situation where a medical practitioner will be asked to perform an abortion against their moral wishes, it just won’t fucking happen. Bill’s argument is that decision not to perform an abortion will impact that persons work opportunities – which I’m more than happy to be fine with.

If you have entered the medical field with a determination to stop abortions, you should be gleefully painted out as ‘that person’ and have your career opportunities curtailed.

So a pleasant unintended consequence from changing the law, excellent. The rule of thumb is that if it enrages Bill English, it’s probably really, really good for womens health.

But then suddenly, things went from insanely offensive to just insane…

Heated debate over using ‘pregnant woman’ or ‘pregnant person’ in abortion law

A heated debate broke out at a select committee considering changes to abortion law, after some submitters asked for the legislation to say “pregnant person” instead of “pregnant woman”.

The Abortion Legislation Bill – which would bring abortion out of the Crimes Act and remove the need for a doctor’s approval before 20 weeks – currently uses the term “pregnant woman”. 

But some submitters have asked the committee to consider replacing “pregnant woman” with “pregnant person” or “pregnant women and people” in the legislation to represent diversity.

…They. Are. Arguing. Over. Pregnant. Person. Rather. Than. Pregnant. Woman???

Remember when the Woke took over the Pride Parade and crashed that from an event that saw 30 000 Aucklanders celebrate the rainbow community down to just a mere 2500?

They couldn’t gate crash the abortion review and manage to destroy that too could they?

I mean, could they?

My understanding of this jaw dropping departure from the gravity of reason is that women who are transitioning into being men might get pregnant and could seek an abortion but won’t feel included if the literature refers to ‘pregnant women’ instead of ‘pregnant person’.


S-u-r-e there might just be a case like that, similar to Bill English’s claim that a medical practitioner against abortion might be forced to perform an abortion, but these are exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself.

Yes, some women transitioning into being men might get pregnant and require an abortion, but how tiny a fraction must that be? Similar chances of an anti-abortion dr being required to perform an abortion? Smaller?

Look, I don’t give a flying shit if you are a pregnant man, woman or alien – if you want the abortion you should be allowed the abortion. If we have to add ‘pregnant person’ alongside ‘pregnant women’ to shut the bloody woke up so that they can’t derail our best chance for real abortion reform in a couple of generations, give the aborted babies their bottle.

It’s far better that we shut the woke up before their super power of alienating every other rational person on the planet starts oozing out of this debate, but sweet Jesus on a unicycle it’s a reminder that the woke are unbelievable in their ability to crash into any issue and self-righteously hijack it for their own ends.

Just change the damned law already! Women deserve better than the awkward joke this abortion review is rapidly becoming.


  1. Conservatism!
    Rooted in rural NZ – from Dipton to Dargaville
    Catholicism is a root of the escape from perdition but not exclusively.
    Simply: Closely related heavily ‘policed’ by local society, scrutiny, handed down through the decades.
    This peer pressure saves country folk from REASON.
    FAITH is more important than LOGIC.

    Bill was a Dipton boy – Catholic and I a Dargaville boy – Catholic grand ma on one side and Huguenot (persecuted by Catholics) on the other side.

    Then I end up a father before the age of consent!
    I began to see the light. No surprise that today I’m a Pagan.

    Conservatism in my view is a weakness. An inability to accept that no one ever walked on the water and no one ever will return from the dead – 2,000+ years later. To believe that, one must have FAITH.

    I don’t. I prefer REASON.

    21 years in the police and 9 years in National Caucus- that was enough to convince me that conservatism is actually ignorance.

    No surprise that my REASONING to legalise dope – went down like a lead balloon –

    • Dope is illegal because of the fake news and scaremongering from the 30’s, since proven to be wrong.
      That politicians have not apologised for getting it so wrong and destroying the planet giving a free ride to the sequestered carbon exploiters shows just how low those troughers are.

    • Well put Ross. I am going to say something that has been said many times but remains apposite. As a young woman I believe I and all women have a right to make their own decisions about their bodies and their health.

      Conservatism, a concept controlled and distorted by many but not all men, but certainly many men in power so that they can have control and remain in power, is used by men to deny women their right to decide for themselves, not only on this issue but in many other women related issues.

      Bill English and people of his ilk impose their own subjective views and narrative on the rest of us on the basis that from his perspective what he believes is right, even if it defies logic, must be right so we, including us women, must accept it. And they refuse to listen to everyone else’s view yet they demand we accept their view.

      I respect the right of people to oppose abortions but English and those of the same mindset who rely on this conservative approach to justify their position are akin to the despots of the world who dictate to or impose their views on others with terrible consequences if they do not fall into line.

    • “Rooted in rural NZ – from Dipton to Dargaville”
      Are you sure that’s the turn of phrase you want to use within the context of this Post?

      Let me just point out that everywhere in AO/NZ is ‘rural’.
      We really only have one city that could be considered non rural and that city pumps out more blinkered, ignorant, racist, greedy, fascist wankers than anywhere else in this country, certainly.
      And if, as you suggest, ‘rural’ (AO) NZ is ‘conservative’ it may be because rural (AO) NZ’s been deliberately kept that way. You would have heard the old saying. ” Farmers are like mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit. ” while, of course, helping yourselves to their money which is, after all, why Auckland.
      ( Hmmm? Perhaps you’re right? Auckland’s help themselves to farmer money so perhaps they’ve caught conservatism from them in the process. How ironic? I hope nob herpies is also part of the deal. )

      You targeted bill English because he’s rural. Not, because he’s a liar, a cheap swindler, a traitor to his own people, a cunning idiot who’s managed to fall into the shoes of prime minister just because he can maintain the swindle that is AO/NZ agriculture?

      AO/NZ farmers, proper farmers, not cowsploiters, should make sure bill english spends the rest of his life on the run. Jimbo Bolger? You reading this? What about you, roger ‘the dodger’ douglas? You should be strapping on the Nikes mate.

      On topic.
      Women should never have to worry about an abortion as an only choice. If women don’t want to have an abortion her child should be ably cared for and nurtured by the collective us. All of us should pitch in via tax paid for services. And that should apply to the mother.
      If a woman decides that an abortion is the solution then we must respect that and make it as painless a procedure as possible on all fronts.
      It should be the ignorant haters and arrogant morons on the run. Not pregnant women.

  2. As an aside, how would English have gone in the 2017 election if his stance on abortion been put on the table?

    Most knew with his religious background where he’s at with abortion but he didn’t dare speak of it and Labour were too nice highlight it. If the boot had been on the other foot and it was Ardern with that perspective, National would have crucified her with it.

    I hope Labour have learned. Play nice in 2020 and come second. We as a country just can’t afford that. It will take us years to recover from the previous 9 years of carnage aka “the rock star economy. Don’t let the latrine rodents back in to finish the job.

    • Agree with you Jacindafan, nice people don’t win, if Jacinda won’t do it let someone else do it but they need to go for it, show the latrine rodents up for who they really are and stop the spin they are getting away with out right lies because our media are bias and weak. I see hosking was being nice about the coalition did this rodent get some funding?

  3. Arguing on possible gender ambiguities when there can only be one biological sex involved is embarrassing. The pious, virtue signalling was reinforced by wheeling out brimstone Bill to offer two cents on how to control a woman’s body.

    • I think te komiti were looking at it from the perspective of someone born biological woman but who now identifies as somewhere else on the spectrum Popeye

    • Popeye: “Arguing on possible gender ambiguities when there can only be one biological sex involved is embarrassing.”

      Agreed. One needs ovaries and a uterus to be pregnant. And anyone who has that equipment is female.

      Pregnant person, my foot!

    • Popeye: “….brimstone Bill….”

      I meant to say: nice! And very apt; it caused a lot of laughter in this neck of the woods.

  4. Agree with you Jacindafan, nice people don’t win, if Jacinda won’t do it let someone else do it but they need to go for it, show the latrine rodents up for who they really are and stop the spin they are getting away with out right lies because our media are bias and weak. I see hosking was being nice about the coalition did this rodent get some funding?

  5. He’s a fuckin’ Papist. What else can you expect?

    This is why religion and politics should NEVER be allowed to mix.

    • Jim A K Baily:

      I’ll tell you about how I think abortion and euthanasia should work because I can’t live in a world where free will is given to a foetus when the foetus belongs inside of another woman’s body. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a woman could get taken over like that. So I think you’d have to make sense of that first because I can’t analyse whether or not euthanasia is morally objectionable or not with out knowing who the policy will effect down the line.

      So I don’t think a murder charge can be given to someone when you don’t know who to charge and I don’t think assisted dying is morally objectionable because arguable animals can be euthanised for any number of legal reasons and if we are not allowed to give humans that same dignity in death then we will be treating animals better than humans. I think that would be a screwy world. So you’d have to be able to say to a foetus I think you should live and I think the cancer patient should live and so on but all the animal can die.

      I think whether we say you should live or you should die as in the foetus should be terminated: if we’re technical about it these are different propositions so there’s an argument for the same proposition to be true or false so if it is true that the foetus is apart of the woman and not some zombie body snatcher then it’s the woman’s decision to abort and hers alone (+Dr) and then we can say well that proposition breaks down to differently with each legally entitled free wiled individual.

      So would you agree that we can’t really figure out who the agent is and once we find out who has agency over the foetus then we can break that down (or up) into its different forms and find out if euthanasia is the correct medical procedure for people in great pain and distress who require medically prescribed dignity in death. Obviously agency can be signed over to the next of kin who can already legally decide to pull the plug or not so figuring out who the agent is, is fundamental to the process and giving the patient certainty Y’know we don’t want to be giving people a mental illness by allowing them to go into vegetative states or some bullshit.

      Now my question to you is – Why should you be an agent in the euthanasia debate. Do you speak on behalf of all woman? Who gave you that mandate? Can you prove a foetus has free will? Genuinely interested.

    • JIM E K B – Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being. Abortion is the interruption of the gestation of an embryo or a foetus before life is viable, i.e. before it has become a human being.

      As a lawful abortion occurs during an early stage of development, the legal definition of murder in accordance with statutory interpretation as being applicable to a living human being, cannot be extended to include an entity which is not a legal or actual human being.

    • Jim AK Bailey: “ABORTION and EUTHANASIA are 1st Degree MURDER”

      I think that you need to team up with Brimstone Bill. You’d make quite the pair.

    • Jim – Hans Kung, Catholic theologian has written in the UK ‘Tablet,’ two years ago, that life is a gift from God, and one can choose to return that gift to God.

      And the following:
      “Hans Kung considers euthanasia
      Paul Keenan October 10, 2013
      Switzerland – Hans Kung has revealed he is considering assisted suicide as he grows older. Now 85, Kung has argued in the final volume of his memoirs, Experienced Humanity, that people should have the right to voluntarily “surrender” their lives to God if life becomes unbearable through illness or pain.

      “I do not want to live on as a shadow of myself,” the theologian argues in his newly published book. “I also don’t want to be sent off to a nursing home. If I have to decide myself, please abide by my wish.”

      Suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Kung refers to the cases of Pope John Paul II and legendary boxer Muhammad Ali, both sufferers, as examples he did not wish to follow.

      “No person is obligated to suffer the unbearable as something sent from God,” Kung argues, stating that assisted suicide is compatible with his beliefs.”

        • Marty Thomson, Please do spread lies about a brilliant philosopher – who is certainly not a heretic. He is a good man.

          Hans Kung dines with Popes, he is a practising Catholic, not allowed to teach theology, but his priestly faculties have not been revoked. You could serve Mass for him.

          The Church sometimes stops people (Curran was another) from teaching theology which it disagrees with, as burning them in burning oil, or stretching them on a wrack, or castrating them, is now illegal. But this gentleman is one of God’s chums. Try reading him – he’s very readable – I have one of his earlier books, and sold a more recent one when I was broke, to my regret.

          “Küng was born in Sursee, Canton of Lucerne. He studied philosophy and theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was ordained in 1954. He continued his education in various European cities, including the Sorbonne.

          In 1960, he was appointed professor of theology at University of Tübingen, Germany. Like his colleague Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), in 1962 he was appointed peritus by Pope John XXIII, serving as an expert theological advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council until its conclusion in 1965. At Küng’s instigation, the Catholic faculty at Tübingen appointed Ratzinger as professor of dogmatic theology.[4]

          In a 1963 tour of the United States, Küng gave the lecture “The Church and Freedom”, receiving an interdict from The Catholic University of America, but an honorary doctorate from St. Louis University. He accepted an invitation to visit John F. Kennedy at the White House.[5]

          Küng’s doctoral thesis, “Justification. La doctrine de Karl Barth et une réflexion catholique”, was finally published in English in 1964 as Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth. It located a number of areas of agreement between Barthian and Catholic theologies of justification, concluding that the differences were not fundamental and did not warrant a division in the Church. (The book included a letter from Karl Barth attesting that he agreed with Küng’s representation of his theology.) In this book Küng argued that Barth, like Martin Luther, overreacted against the Catholic Church which, despite its imperfections, has been and remains the body of Christ.[6]

          In the late 1960s, he became the first major Roman Catholic theologian since the late 19th century Old Catholic Church schism to publicly reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, in particular in his book Infallible? An Inquiry (1971). Consequently, on 18 December 1979, he was stripped of his missio canonica, his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian,[2] but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996.

          For three months in 1981, he was guest professor at the University of Chicago. During this visit to America he was invited to only one Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame. He appeared on the Phil Donahue Show.[7] In October 1986, he participated in the Third Buddhist-Christian Theological Encounter held at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.[8]

          In the early 1990s, Küng initiated a project called Weltethos (“Global Ethic”), which is an attempt at describing what the world’s religions have in common (rather than what separates them) and at drawing up a minimal code of rules of behaviour everyone can accept. His vision of a global ethic was embodied in the document for which he wrote the initial draft, Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration. This Declaration was signed at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions by religious and spiritual leaders from around the world. Later Küng’s project would culminate in the UN’s Dialogue Among Civilizations to which Küng was assigned as one of 19 “eminent persons.” Even though it was completed shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (in September 2001), it was not covered in the U.S. media, about which Küng complained.[9][10][11]

          In March 1991, he gave a talk titled “No Peace Among Nations until Peace Among the Religions” at UCSD’s Price Center. He visited the nearby Beth El synagogue and spoke there on modern German-Jewish relations.[12]

          In 1998, he published Dying with Dignity, co-written with Walter Jens, in which he affirms acceptance of euthanasia from a Christian viewpoint.

          In 2003, Küng saw the beatification of Pope Pius IX as evidence of the degeneration of canonizations to “gestures of church politics”.[13]

          In 2005, Küng published a critical article in Italy and Germany on “The failures of Pope Wojtyla” in which he argued that the world had expected a period of conversion, reform, and dialogue but, instead, John Paul II offered a restoration of the pre-Vatican II status quo—thus blocking reform and inter-church dialogue and reasserting the absolute dominion of Rome.

          On 26 September 2005, he had a friendly discussion about Catholic theology over dinner with Pope Benedict XVI, surprising some observers.[14]

          Nevertheless, in a 2009 interview with Le Monde, Küng deeply criticised the lifting of the excommunications on the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. The interview drew a rebuke from Cardinal Angelo Sodano.[15]

          Based on Studium Generale lectures at Tübingen University, his latest publication, Der Anfang aller Dinge (The beginning of all things), discusses the relationship between science and religion. In an analysis spanning from quantum physics to neuroscience, he comments on the current debate about evolution in the United States, dismissing those opposed to the teaching of evolution as “naive [and] un-enlightened.”[citation needed]

          In his 2010 book Was ich glaube, he describes his own personal relationship with nature, how he learned to observe correctly, drawing strength from God’s creation without falling victim to a false and fanatic love of nature.

          In April 2010, he published in several newspapers an open letter[16] to all Catholic bishops. In the letter he criticized Pope Benedict’s handling of liturgical, collegial and inter-religious issues and also the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. In the letter, he called on bishops to consider six proposals, ranging from speaking up and working on regional solutions to calling for another Vatican council.

          He is a signatory of Church 2011, a German-language memorandum demanding reform of the Catholic Church that was promulgated by Catholic theology professors.[17]

          In 2013, Küng wrote in Erlebte Menschlichkeit (“Experienced Humanity”) that he believed people had the right to end their own lives if physical illness, pain, or dementia made living unbearable. He further wrote that he was considering the option of assisted suicide for himself as he was suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was losing the ability to see and write with his hands. Küng wrote that he did not wish to follow the example of John Paul II in this case.[18]”

  6. I have no problem with medical staff not being required to perform ops they have moral objections to (also in euthanasia).

    Maybe woman and biological females who identify otherwise … . It’s really part of the public debate about people having their preferred identity recognised and when (pre op or not and then adjusted back to their birth record or not – which takes us back to the born that way debate as to acceptance of homosexuality).

  7. “Bill’s argument is that decision not to perform an abortion will impact that persons work opportunities – which I’m more than happy to be fine with.”

    Workers rights? Does that include not being maltreated for following ones ethical or religous beliefs?

  8. This blog is disgusting. First you glory in the death of babies and then you rejoice in the persecution of religious minorities who might have an ethical objection.

    Life is sacred, and ending a life is a solemn decision, not one lightly taken.
    May God have mercy on your soul.

    • roblogic “Life is sacred, and ending a life is a solemn decision, not one lightly taken.” Indeed, I imagine that this is why PM Key shouted loudly in the NZ Parliament that the LP should get some guts and send other people’s offspring off to kill and be killed in Iraq. There was certainly nothing light about John Key that day. I am struck by the big-mouthed ugliness of Key’s visage when I view that news clip.

      I imagine that this is why the NZDF lied its head off about what the SAS did in the Tirigan Valley, because it knew that its decision making, from Key down, lacked solemnity.

      This is why I felt total revulsion when one of Prince Harry’s mates told the media that this so-called prince rode around Afghanistan in an Apache helicopter, shooting peasants.

      Know what ? When German troops occupied Paris in WW2, and they marched past the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arc de Triomphe, they all saluted him – as women knelt, and prayed.

      Do the poppies at Flanders Fields whisper to the dead that the decision to slaughter them was not lightly taken ?

      I think that the decision to abort is rarely taken lightly, and often taken with greater solemnity than the decision to dispatch millions of soldiers to death and destruction, and those not in the position of electing to abort, should be grateful that they are not. There is no ‘glory’ in it for anybody.

    • Roblogic: “First you glory in the death of babies….”

      No he doesn’t. Abortion is a matter of biology. Abortions can be spontaneous or induced: the end result is the same either way. If you’re opposed to induced abortions, logic says that you’d be equally opposed to spontaneous abortions. Good luck with preventing the latter from happening.

      “….then you rejoice in the persecution of religious minorities who might have an ethical objection.”

      No he doesn’t. Objections to abortion are religious, whether or not those opposed realise it. Religious views ought not to mandate anyone’s access to medical procedures. Please desist from overlaying biology with religion.

      In my view, it’s hypocrisy for medical professionals to object on religious grounds to providing gynaecological or obstetric medical procedures of one sort, when they’ll provide such services in different circumstances – for instance in the case of unviable fetal abnormalities, or imminent danger to the mother’s life. And they’ll prescribe the oral contraceptive, or long-acting contraceptives. Those objecting on religious grounds need to take notice of the doctrine of double effect.

      “Life is sacred…”

      Ha! To quote Monty Python: every sperm a wanted sperm, huh? Good luck with that, too….

        • roblogic: “what nice bland-sounding terms for Nazi style eugenics”

          It looks as if you know nothing about the eugenics programmes as practised by the US firstly, and then adopted by Germany. Abortion – being illegal in the US at the time – wasn’t a part of it. The Germans didn’t use abortion either; the Americans relied heavily upon sterilisation, as did the Germans. Though the Germans also did a sideline in forced euthanasia. I recommend that you read up on it: I did quite a bit of research on it at uni, back in the day.

          In any event, use of that loaded term – eugenics – suggests to me that you’re all out of substantive argument and must resort to epithet. Water off a duck’s back, in this neck of the woods, though. It’s just a silly assertion, to be honest.

          • The similarities between the Nazi and abortion Holocausts go far deeper than a high body count. There are many points of similarity between the Holocausts:

            Deceptive language
            Ideology formed by doctors
            The speed of the murders
            Philosophical justification

      • False equivalence. Spontaneous abortions cannot be reasonably prevented. Abortion is the deliberate intentional ending of the life of a preborn infant. Your lack of understanding and insensitivity are astounding.

        • A. It’s not a “preborn infant”. It’s a foetus. Correct language helps.

          B. If you can express a view on women’s bodies, should women be permitted to control/remove your fertility? Or is this a “one way deal”?

        • Marty Thomson Your ignorance and lack of veracity is astounding. As Pip notes above, you have defamed Hans Kung, a leading contemporary philosopher.

          You don’t really know what you are talking about here; I could quote analysis of persons such as you, but it would involve a leading American woman academic, and I don’t think you could cope, so I won’t.

    • Roblogic, you are of course perfectly within your rights to hold your views about abortion, and to express those views publicly, no matter how many of us disagree with you. Free speech and all that.

      However. It isn’t my business – or yours, or that of anybody opposed to abortion – if a woman decides to have an abortion. We aren’t being asked to carry the fetus to term. It’s a medical procedure, pure and simple.

      It’s not for the rest of us to attempt to dictate to women what they should do with regard to unwanted pregnancies.

  9. Abortions have been carried out for many years in this country. There have never been any repercussions that I am aware of, for doctors who exercise the option not to participate in carrying out abortions per se.

    However there was a situation at Masterton Hospital, where the Medical Superintendent, effectively exercised a total ban on all abortions for all women, as follows. › wiki › Abortion_in_New_Zealand

    “That same year, Leo Buchanan, the medical superintendent of Masterton hospital refused to apply for a renewal of the hospital’s license to provide abortion services, citing his conscientious objection to abortion. Buchanan’s actions effectively ended abortion services in the Wairarapa region.”

    Bill English may have forgotten to mention that Leo was his brother-in-law, being married to Bill’s sister.

    I think that the late Leo Buchanan was forced into having to resign from his medical superintendent’s job at Masterton Hospital as a result of this.

    This was not a situation of a medical practitioner’s job being affected by his refusal to carry out abortions. It was more than that, for in this instance, a medical practitioner’s conscientious objection to abortion made it impossible for other doctors to perform abortions at Masterton Hospital.

    Here it was doctors who supported abortion who were discriminated against in their workplace, and not, as may have been intimated to the select committee, anti-abortion doctors being discriminated against. It was quite a different scenario.

    • Pip: “…..Masterton Hospital, where the Medical Superintendent, effectively exercised a total ban on all abortions for all women….”

      I’d forgotten about that. It’s extraordinary, looking back, that anyone would take it upon themselves to deny services to an entire cohort of women. And prevent their colleagues from performing said services.

      But then: Catholics… men in particular. They are so convinced of their being on the side of the angels that they’d see nothing exceptionable in that sort of unprincipled behaviour.

      “Bill English may have forgotten to mention that Leo was his brother-in-law, being married to Bill’s sister.”

      I’d forgotten that, if I ever knew it. I’m sure that Labour was in power at that stage; and I’m pretty sure that English hadn’t yet been elected.

      • D’Esterre – I knew it, and I knew Leo as an undergrad at OU. He was a nice man.

        In the years I knew him, I didn’t know that Leo was Maori. A few years ago, one of his friends commented, apropos of nothing much, how Leo always had more money than the rest of us because he was Maori, and I gather that he had Maori Education Foundation funding – I was aware of that funding, at that time, but as I wasn’t aware Leo was Maori – those sort of race issues were simply not polarised back then as they are now – I didn’t know he had that money.

        I mention this, because there were a number of Maori students from that time who have gone on to be high public achievers, including one medical MP, and we all socialised through various student organisations with zero hint of any sort of racism, and certainly without the radical anger and hatred which young activists have towards Pakeha now. It didn’t have to be this way.

        Looking back, I think that I may have lived through one of the best times – albeit with holes in the soles of my shoes, and buying eggs one at a time for four pence each – I knelt for communion, a mortified soul realising that all behind me could see the green and white cardboard from a lily of the valley soap box, lining my my shoes.

        The girls of my generation who had pregnancies or babies faced a hellish reality.I know of one who had a horrific back street abortion; one who went to the West Coast where a prominent doctor did them illegally, and three who had babies taken away at birth to be adopted out.

        Catholics, then and now, were forbidden to use birth control, so yes, there were unwanted pregnancies, and some men who should be horse whipped – they could have whipped it out.

        The worst was a seventeen year old seduced by a friend of her parents in his 40’s, who told her he couldn’t divorce his wife because he was a Catholic, and it was a mortal sin. I have no idea what became of her, or her baby, I only know that her parents did not know, and that he was a man from Timaru whose name I do know.

        Countryboy has commented here, that we should support women who want to keep their babies, and for that I salute Countryboy as a rare, and very good man.

        Time after time after time we hear pathetic penis possessors castigating women who abort, without ever expressing any concern whatsoever, about what happens to the unwanted children. They simply do not care. They are the persons who the ghastly Bennett should be telling to zip it, when the horrors of the damage done to children in care in this country, is now being played out for all to see.

        Those who live happily ever after, should close their sanctimonious mouths, and be thankful that their lives do not carry histories which haunt them.

        • Pip: Amen to everything you say here!

          I grew up in an Irish Catholic family; I shucked off the Catholic bit when I reached my early 20s, for the most part because its strictures on birth control made no sense to me. I, too, saw women damaged or destroyed by the church’s rules. I’ve never in all my longish life returned to the church: in fact, the older I grow, the more implausible it all seems. Not only am I no longer a Catholic, I’m no longer even a theist.

          “…Leo always had more money than the rest of us because he was Maori, and I gather that he had Maori Education Foundation funding…”

          A couple of things about that: I’ve noticed that conservative attitudes to abortion are not uncommon among Maori, whether or not they’re Catholic.

          And with regard to the funding of Maori university students, back when I was young, it was mostly middle class Maori who went on to tertiary education. I went to school and on to tertiary education with them. Yes, they had access to funding not available to poor pakeha. I’d take a punt that Leo Buchanan was middle class: probably also South Island Maori.

          We were middle class but impoverished: people I knew, family members included, opted for teaching studentships and public service scholarships to fund their uni education. I think that Maori education funding was intended to help working class Maori; but for the most part, they didn’t go on to higher education. That looks to be still the case.

          “…we all socialised through various student organisations with zero hint of any sort of racism, and certainly without the radical anger and hatred which young activists have towards Pakeha now. It didn’t have to be this way.”

          No indeed: it didn’t. Some years back, Elizabeth Rata pinned the blame on Maori immersion teaching for rising levels of ethnic division. At the time – given that numbers of Maori in total immersion schools was fairly low – I didn’t agree with her. Now, all these years later, in my view she has a point.

          “In her report – Ethnic Ideologies in New Zealand Education: What’s Wrong with Kaupapa Maori – she described Maori initiatives such as total Maori immersion language schools, or kura kaupapa Maori, as being flawed.

          “Kaupapa Maori contributes to creating ethnic division, is anti-democratic and fundamentalist,” Dr Rata said.”

          She is worth a read: not least because people who disagreed with her flung that lazy epithet “racist” at her, without – as far as I recall – attempting to challenge her claims in any way.

          If you read these links, you’ll see Elizabeth Rata’s take on how we got to where we are now. She has changed my mind on these issues.

          “They are the persons who the ghastly Bennett should be telling to zip it…”

          Heh! Yes indeed: very neat and apt. Catholic – especially but not exclusively – male attitudes to birth control, and their callous response to the women who carry the burden of contraceptive failure, just infuriates me. It’s better for my blood pressure that I don’t think about them. I trust in the common sense of ordinary people to get this law reform over the line.

  10. This concern for employees from double dipper English is amazing.
    A treasury plonker using “economic” bs to shaft everyone except the already wealthy?
    He feigns concern for employees having to cope with terminating foetuses while he neglected under privileged children as finance minister.

    Bill English is a hypocrite of the first order. His religions include economics (treasury style).

    • peterlepaysan – This is the same Bill English who used his veto to block Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill being passed, when she had the numbers to get it through. What’s more, English lied to Parliament about the cost, presenting it as being four times greater than it really was. I think he later said that it was a mistake, which, of course, it was.

      So much for English being committed to giving children the best start in life. There’s this myth about English being a decent sort of person underneath, and I don’t believe it. I think he’s a jerk who uses his Catholicism to cloak himself with undeserved moral superiority, and that he’s not as smart as he thinks he is. You say that he’s a hypocrite, and I say that he knows he’s a hypocrite, but like the rest of that damaging bunch of Nats, too arrogant to care about how he is perceived – until election time.

      Last election English suddenly morphed as a Samoan chief in Auckland, and identified with the disadvantaged because he had teenage acne. He just doesn’t know.

      • Snow White: “….English lied to Parliament about the cost, presenting it as being four times greater than it really was.”

        Indeed. And he also – at the very least – handled the truth lightly over that Todd Barclay fellow, and the imbroglio surrounding him. Remember that? It was the final straw for me with that government.

        I’m glad he’s gone from Parliament.

        • D’Esterre – In haste – Do not under-estimate the talons of the Englishes –
          Bill & wife pop up doing double acts on certain issues, and I assumed Bill does what his missus tells him, with that awful sort lowest common denominator info about pins inserted into wombs etc. Bill’s s-i-law ran for WCC, I think the election before last, and I gather that a rellie could perhaps have shown a greater degree of courtesy towards a heckler or questioner. They may all have fingers in various pies- because Simple Simon met a pieman going to the fair, and he’s sure as hell picked up plenty of pennies since back then.

          I doubt if any of them know that in this rich little country there are still children of the poor living as described by John A Lee, nor could they give a tinker’s damn, because, after all poverty is a life-style choice, and the Catholic Church has moved on from barefoot poverty in the desert to the opulence of the Vatican. Poor is just so infra dig.

          To be cont !

          • Snow White: “Do not under-estimate the talons of the Englishes”

            Heh! Indeed: the reach of those big Mickey-drip families, especially when they have political pretensions. I earnestly wish that Bill and Mary in particular – plus any of their relatives – would desist from telling the rest of us what we ought to think about various social issues.

            I come from a very, very large Irish Catholic extended family. Fortunately, my relatives haven’t presumed to know best how the rest of us ought to live.They’ve mostly stayed out of politics and concentrated on making themselves comfortably-off. And nothing wrong with that, provided one isn’t blind to the harsh realities of life for too many people here in NZ.

            My own family was impoverished, due to factors beyond the control of my late parents; it was certain of my relatives who quietly supported us financially when times were really tough. Were I still a theist, I’d say that there’s a place for them at the right hand of God. They know who they are. Or were.

            “….the Catholic Church has moved on from barefoot poverty in the desert….”

            I’m descended from the Irish diaspora – or that part of it which fetched up here – and I can say with absolute certainty that the Catholic church in Ireland cared not a whit for the poor and dispossessed there. Unless, of course, they sinned against its harsh moral code.

            Some years ago, I heard a commentator say of the church in Ireland (anent the child abuse scandal) that it was “holed below the waterline”. And it’s true there: the emphatic public vote for gay marriage and to overturn Ireland’s harsh abortion laws were in both instances a giant middle finger to the church.

            I remain hopeful that members of our secular society will help get Seymour’s euthanasia bill and the abortion law reform bill over the line.

    • Of course they won’t. Too busy worshiping idols of selfishness and death. And congratulating one another for making conscientious objection illegal.

      • robbed logic and Martin you are as bad as each other.

        You are the sort of brutes who would force unwanted and unloved children to be born.

        You are no better than the other NZ’ers who batter, abuse, and kill babies and children in world leading numbers, and in fact you are probably worse.

        I don’t know who you think you are, and nor do I care; you belong in the same place as the ancient pagans who sacrificed babies and children to appease their terrible gods; you are cruel and primitive designating children to what is frequently a living hell.

Comments are closed.