Let’s Not Make 2023 About Abortion

54
1638

WHETHER OR NOT ABORTION emerges as a major issue following next year’s elections depends on National’s candidate selections. National lost 13 seats in 2020, and on current polling can be reasonably confident about reclaiming most of them in 2023. Much then depends on the beliefs – pro-choice or pro-life – of the candidates selected over the next few months. If National replenishes its caucus with pro-life MPs, and ACT emerges with a reasonable number of pro-lifers in its own, then the debate may well be rekindled.

The reignition of the Abortion Debate will become a dead certainty, however, if Brian Tamaki is successful at bringing together the fractious Far-Right political parties under a single banner. Should his new conservative coalition crest the 5 percent MMP threshold, the outbreak of an American-style culture war will be very hard to prevent. Moreover, if Labour and the Greens sustain significant losses in 2023, as current polling suggest they will, then that war will be very hard to win. Certainly, a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion would be the first casualty.

This state of affairs will not be attributable entirely to the electoral success of the Far Right. In both Labour and the Greens, a defeat of sufficient magnitude to bring the likes of Tamaki’s Christian soldiers into Parliament, will likely generate a particularly vicious backlash against the social-radicalism which conservative leftists will be quick to blame for their party’s punishment at the polls.

After all, it’s not as if Labour’s te Tiriti-driven, feminist and LGBTQI factions will be able to point to a proud collection of policy successes in relation to poverty, housing, health and education – quite the reverse, in fact. Working-class party members (if any remain) will have every reason to demand a thorough-going purge of middle-class social-radicals from Labour’s ranks. A similar purge, mutatis mutandis, will sweep away the identarian Greens.

If such purges do not eventuate, and the two left-wing parties remain in the grip of identity politicians, social-radicals and ethno-nationalists, then it is difficult to see them making a swift recovery at the polls. At least initially, the voting public is likely to cast about for a political movement less alienating, and more encouraging, of “mainstream” electoral support. If the rightward tendencies within Labour and the Greens do not succeed in providing these conservative left-wing voters with such a vehicle, then they will call forth somebody better equipped to offer them a ride.

Historically, however, the damage inflicted by such right-wing re-settings of left-wing parties’ ideological compasses is enormous. Convinced that a Labour Party as left-wing as Norman Kirk’s could never be re-elected, the rightward elements that would eventually give New Zealand “Rogernomics” spent fifteen years destroying Labour as a party of economic redistribution. After years of bitter factional strife, the party’s left-wingers were finally driven from its ranks. Labour only survived to reclaim the Treasury Benches in 1999 on account of being restrained from veering too far from its electoral base by the competitive presence of Jim Anderton’s Alliance and Jeanette Fitzsimons’ and Rod Donald’s Greens.

The New Zealand of the 2020s is not, however, the New Zealand of the 1990s. Our thoroughly digitalised society no longer possesses the human resources capable of creating new political parties dedicated to the nation-building and/or nation-restoring missions of the Alliance and NZ First. Corny though it may sound, at the heart of these two essentially patriotic electoral projects lay an undeniable love of country.

Thirty years on, the creation of political movements is driven much more by the voters’ intense hatred of what their enemies: neoliberals, colonisers, patriarchs, heterosexuals – take your pick – have done to Aotearoa-New Zealand. Where once the urge was to build and/or restore, today’s activists seek only to tear down, punish and destroy.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

In relation to the issue of abortion, these destructive and punitive impulses will make it virtually impossible for the debate to proceed on a rational, let alone a civil, basis. Indeed, the very idea that those on both sides of the abortion issue might be decent and caring individuals, whose opposing positions are based on reasonable and eminently defensible philosophical propositions, religious principles, medical facts and socio-economic realities, will be rejected as dangerous nonsense. Pro-lifers are no such thing, they are simply misogynistic religious bigots. Pro-choicers stand condemned as monsters for whom human life matters less than personal convenience.

In these circumstances, simply to raise the issue of abortion is to set up the conditions for the most reckless expressions of hatred and loathing. In the Age of Twitter, Tik-Tok and Instagram, which is to say, in the Age of Declarative Solipsism, extremism will always arrive on the battlefield firstest, with the mostest. Small wonder, then, that Christopher Luxon is so determined to make sure that the battle never takes place.

Sometimes, as the US Supreme Court may yet discover, to its cost, doing nothing is the only sensible thing to do.

54 COMMENTS

  1. So, do you support the reform of NZ’s abortions laws – so NZ women do not have to jump through loops to get one? I ask, because Labour is not interested in reform…despite the clear need…yet, Jacinda from announcements, has the nerve to lecture the USA on the same matter…

  2. Technically if that was the only issue the election campaign focused on, it would be good for Labour because they could actually win by committing to do nothing and giving their track record of the last 5 years, that would be well within their achievement range. However there are too many more important issues gnawing at average Kiwis for this to be little more than a distraction, and these are onlygoingtoget worseformost people.

    For the US though, welcome to Gilead, it’s been what you’ve been working towards for some time now.

    • The US constitutions is full of things that have been rendered obsolete by time and current concerns.

      Things like the Right to Privacy, for example must yield to the State’s need to be able to defend the nation, thus the individual must surrender their right to the privacy of their financial affairs, writings, as well as what you’ve been reading.
      The same goes for the right to association, in the name of security, they need to know the names of anyone you have spoken or written to.

      Perhaps even the right to travel needs to be circumscribed, in order to make it more difficult for terrorists to move, we should be required to apply for permission to travel from nation to nation, perhaps even village to village, similarly if one wants to move to a different city, that should require approval from Homeland Security.

      • When you surrender rights & freedoms for the promise of security, you will often find that you no longer have rights, freedoms or security. Be careful what you give up for the illusion of security.

          • Problem is that all except the last paragraph is already US policy (which extends well beyond US borders) and the no fly list reduces rights to travel for undesirables. National security already trumps all those rights you thought you had. Rendition to Black Sites for foreign citizens overseas for hard interrogation? Now tell me about those inalienable rights of yours?

    • XstraightXedgeX. Not necessarily so. One can be pro-life, and also pro-choice, but not necessarily anti-life. There’re nuances here, and many definitions, but abortion occurs during the gestational period before life is viable. This is far from Herod slaughtering new borns perceived as political threats.

  3. Yes indeed, PLEASE let’s not make it about abortion.

    Some home truths in this article. These two in particular:

    “After all, it’s not as if Labour’s te Tiriti-driven, feminist and LGBTQI factions will be able to point to a proud collection of policy successes in relation to poverty, housing, health and education – quite the reverse, in fact.”

    “Our thoroughly digitalised society no longer possesses the human resources capable of creating new political parties dedicated to the nation-building and/or nation-restoring missions of the Alliance and NZ First. Corny though it may sound, at the heart of these two essentially patriotic electoral projects lay an undeniable love of country.”

  4. ah, you are one of those that will never need one. right?
    Never mind, this is NOT about Abortion, this is about female centric healthcare and the access to it without interference by government. And in the US it will mean that pre-pregnant women might be refused alcohol at a diner, might be refused medication that could cause a miscarriage even if they are not pregnant as they might be pregnant soon, it might mean that they can’t start cancer treatment if pregnant as that treatment could hurt the pre-born, and so on and so forth.
    But then, women, are they actually human? And what is a women? And can we call women women? and are men the best arbiter of what women should and could do, or who to vote for, and so on and so forth?

    Unite Gestational Carriers of the world and vote for those that don’t give a shit about you, be they red or blue.

  5. “Thirty years on, the creation of political movements is driven much more by the voters’ intense hatred of what their enemies: neoliberals, colonisers, patriarchs, heterosexuals – take your pick – have done to Aotearoa-New Zealand. Where once the urge was to build and/or restore, today’s activists seek only to tear down, punish and destroy”

    Bingo.

    Everyone wants to destroy and dismantle but no-one seems to have a positive plan to put into action in its place.

    It’s like some sort of Sid Vicious Nihilism on steroids right now on all sides

  6. We should not underestimate Tamaki’s appeal.

    I’ve met guys who consider they’ve had their lives improved by Destiny. In one case, a man who’d been illiterate- basically able to transpose numbers from weighbridge scales, and not much more- learnt to read as part of reading the Bible in his group.

    A lot of them were getting to their mid 30s, and starting to veer away from some of the s**t that was fun in their younger days already. If we had a more functional socialist movement then they’d have been great recruits for that. But certainly, neoliberalism has nothing to offer these people.

  7. Elections are about personal predilictions
    For most abortion is low on the list of motivational drivers, they are indifferent.
    The coming election will be virtualy totaly honed on economics = how well am I surviving under Jacinda ?
    Will my life be better under the “other” outfit?

    Only those who are not finacially stressed have the option to vote for “wouldn’t in be nice” issues.
    The Green vote is founded on this group of afluent voters, potentialy they, the Greens, face a colapse next year as a consequence of the tight economic conditions.
    Abortion will only be mentioned in passing.

  8. ‘Pro-lifers are no such thing, they are simply misogynistic religious bigots. Pro-choicers stand condemned as monsters for whom human life matters less than personal convenience.’
    When I first read that paragraph written by Chris, I thought it was pretty thought provoking. On reflection I see how complicated the issue is. Those woman who scream at men to butt out of woman’s affairs when it comes to their bodies, are of course not considering the thousands of pro life woman who are also exercising their right to choose. By the same token there will be bald white and brown men who will stand on both sides of the debate. we are all guilty of pigeon holing people and then assuming the majority agree with us. Even among Labours female voting stock there will be thousands who are pro-life and see that as pro-choice. Some women who comment on the TDB, describe Luxon as a slimy revolting disgusting person yet there he is happily married with two kids. We like to believe we think the same but we don’t. If the electioneering next year comes down to a debate over abortion we are all the losers. Labour will have more to gain from this and may be tempted down that road. Robertson was like a pig in muck with his political point scoring yesterday. In the end the precarios state of our nation will trump the side issues and the people will vote accordingly on how they are personally affected. Whether a change in Government will mean meaningful change is highly debatable, and depressing. Change will happen but will it be meaningful.

    • I dont see how it can be meaningful. Ardern is as they say on the right, ‘Cindy4UN’ and Luxon is no Maggie Thatcher or Rob Muldoon for that matter.

      “Without a vision, the people perish’. I dont see that vision in Luxon, Seymour (a little but he swims with the fishes to the next sound bite) or Robertson.

      The best I think we can hope for is a change of government and at least 3 years of standing still whilst Labour’s labyrithine government is dismantled. Followed by a decade of relative austerity and increasing poverty.

      All we can hope for in the interim is the rise of a new Nation builder party, perhaps TOP but with a bit more Kiwi flavour.

    • New view, of course its a complex complicated issue, of course there are pro life women. The simple truth is that even pro life women have had their choice taken away. Who knows what happens in a woman’s life when she needs to make a choice but can’t. Bad things can happen to anyone. The USA decision affects all women including pro life. This is the biggest threat to women in the so called free world. We all know what Christopher Luxon stance is on abortion, we also know about the god squad in the national party . There will be pressure on our abortion laws make no mistake about that and just maybe we should be thanking the grotesque Facebook post by the National MPs . At least they gave a clear signal where the National party will go on abortion laws in the future.

      • Queeny. I’m not disputing what you say and don’t need you to tell me the US decision is a bad one. Merely pointing out that the issue is an emotional one and that apart from the freedom to choose, there are no rights or wrongs here. What you think of Luxon and the National party is your business and your opinion. There are plenty of people out there who disagree with you and are capable of making their own mind up about what Luxon would do if elected and who they will vote for.

        • Sorry new view didn’t mean to post twice!. Surely the freedom to choose is a democratic right. You are right I have my opinion and plenty of other people have different opinions to mine ,probably billions have different opinions to mine, however in a democracy i am entitled to verbalize my opinion same as you. All of a sudden Luxon becomes untouchable and only the right are right, all of a sudden only right wing politicians don’t tell lies I wonder why that is.

    • New view, of course its a complex complicated issue, of course there are pro life women. The simple truth is that even pro life women have had their choice taken away. Who knows what happens in a woman’s life when she needs to make a choice but can’t. Bad things can happen to anyone. The USA decision affects all women including pro life. This is the biggest threat to women in the so called free world. We all know what Christopher Luxon stance is on abortion, we also know about the god squad in the national party . There will be pressure on our abortion laws make no mistake about that and just maybe we should be thanking the grotesque Facebook post by the National MPs . At least they gave a clear signal where the National party will go on abortion laws in the future.

  9. Let’s keep it simple. Why does everyone need to tell others what they should do?
    Why is abortion not an issue to be decided between a woman and her doctor? Doctors who object to abortion can opt out. Women who object, likewise. Men can mind their own bloody business and if they want progeny can make the necessary alternative arrangements.
    Possibly most abortions are required because of a lack of paternal support so consider that, all you men who are telling women what to do with their unwanted pregnancy.
    Not to mention our old patriarchal society where all unwanted pregnancies were dealt with in secret removals to distant locations to protect the pride of the patriarchy. And the children adopted into secrecy and sometimes unhealthy situations. So tell me again why men even have an opinion on abortion?
    If everyone minded their own business we wouldn’t even be having this debate. With the diverse opinions and solid beliefs held by all and sundry, male and female, it appears that would be the best way forward. Or we could have a referendum of women only.
    Everyone minding their own business would actually solve a lot of issues. Keep it simple. We won’t be accepting abortion control in NZ.
    Abortion clinic protesters should also be told by law to mind their own business.

    • Let’s not.

      Choosing to abort a baby isn’t some sort of taboo subject only for woman. Having wealth and power doesn’t lessen choices, it increases choices.

      If woman would choose riskier jobs rather than woman only rights then they will have increased choices as well.

      Since males are extremely liable for childsupport it is arguable that males have the right to choose a finanacle abortion if it turns out she’s a disagreable fembot or what ever.

      Creating a nuclear family was never meant to be the domain of only one of the sexes. Each person both male and female must play there role properly.

      The male protects and the female nurtures. That is the way.

    • Why does everyone need to tell others what they should do? Good question but it’s not just about abortion, it’s everything. Maybe we need to tell others what to do because we know better than everyone else about everything and why the hell should someone be telling us anything? We should be telling them.

      I mean, in very short order two years ago I got to know all there was to know about virology and epidemiology, vaccinology, immunology and all facets of protecting public health. There was no way I was going to have people I’ve never heard of from Dunedin and Auckland and Wellington telling me. The good thing is that I was confident enough to share all my knowledge about those things.

      Fortunately also my expertise in sociology, anthropology, ethnography and the economics of other countries meant I could immediately tell (everyone) which facets of dealing with Covid from wherever were best to be introduced here.

      I admit I do get pissed off when religious people knock at my door trying to tell me that they know the real god because I already know who she is. It’s funny how they love to tell me their stuff but don’t like me telling them to fuck off and mind their own business.

  10. No lets not have abortion as an election skewing arguement; but in the meantime life goes on and women have to deal with fertility, pregnancy, rape culture, sexism, pay equity and so on.

    I offer solidarity to women on a class left basis at any time, but perhaps some of the grey beard pundits should listen to what women have to say for a bit on this?

  11. contraception is on the religious nutters hit list too,
    then ‘every sperm is sacred’
    then no more wanking….good luck with that….
    back to victorian internally spiked cock rings though some of the fundamentalist sexual deviant pastors would be first in line for one.

      • Bratwurst, you are not only reactionary: you are out of touch. Pointless waffle.
        The corollary of ‘Every sperm is sacred’ is: ‘Every ovum is sacred.’
        Any woman who ovulates without having sex to allow the sacred will of God to operate is effectively an abortionist.
        You get it? Abstinence is abortion!
        The cruel destruction of a potential human life!
        Yes, abstinence is effectively murderous abortion.

        Can you argue with that?

  12. Chris ; an unfortunate title. Pandoras Box has been opened with Roe v Wade and it will inevitably become part of our narrative in the next election ; particularly now Chris Luxon thinks he speaks for what women want. It is a legitimate issue for elections and a legitimate question for the Simon O’Connors of the world ; and a discussion for the many women like me who have had to make hard decisions and understand exactly how abortion or unwanted pregnancy impacts their lives.

  13. The abortion debate is a distraction.

    What people do in the US, a completely different country with different constitutional arrangements and population is totally irrelevant to NZ. We are just hearing about it non stop because it is a button pushing issue that detracts from the fact the country is completely in the toilet and people are struggling hugely with no relief in site. Did anybody catch the economists prediction yesterday? that mortgage rates would go to 12% over the next 12 months? Probably not because of all the noise this issue is generating.

    It is a wholly orchestrated situation designed to detract. If anything occurs to change the status quo on abortion in NZ over the next 4 years I will eat my hat. NZers arent called the ‘passionless people’ for nothing despite identitarianism’s best efforts to divide and conquer, most people in NZ really believe in the doctrine of “Do what you want mate, just stay in your lane’. And abortion is quintessentially that – your decision is not going to affect me so have at it. Also clearly there is no political mileage in it except at the fringes.

    But Chris makes a great point, our pride in our country and our identity as Nzers has been tragically damaged by vitriolic culture wars and the undermining of our institutions by politico’s who are guided by self interest rather than nationhood.

    As others have said Luxon (the Fence Sitter in Chief) needs to do nothing in order to win as Labour will lose the election all by themselves. Another reason why Capt Underpants wont touch abortion with a bargepole.

    • Absolutely, Fantail. The US is a far more religious country than NZ, and founded by religious zealots in fact. Roe vs Wade has bugger all to do with NZ, despite foolish tweets and diatribes by various local commentators.

    • But can you believe Luxon? The man who said he had not been to church for ages? Giving the general impression that he is not overly religious?

      Well, it turns out that he belongs to a fundamentalist group called, “The Open Room”. They have no churches – they meet regularly, but only by renting empty town halls or gyms, etc. No churches at all.

      You see the deception? Hadn’t been to church for ages..

      Did he say how many religious meetings he had attended? No, not on your nelly.

      That is a half-truth = effective lie.
      Clearly, that man is a two-faced politician who cannot be trusted

      • It doesn’t matter what Luxon “really” wants. His caucus is dominated by social liberals (Bishop, Willis etc), so he would stand no chance of passing laws to suppress abortion. Last time I checked, NZ PM’s didn’t have dictatorial powers.

  14. To me, it is an issue of due process. I do not feel as if though women should have to jump through hoops in order to get an abortion; simply that there should be reasonable regulations so that these women do not get hurt in the process of obtaining an abortion, and so they know, without a doubt, that there is more than adequate assistance available to them if it is required.

      • Bert In at least one Sth American country recently, a woman who miscarried has been charged with the criminal offence of procuring an abortion. Those of us, and we are not a few, who have experienced the anguish and the pain of miscarriages beyond our control, can only tremble in fear at these horrendous developments. Many miscarriages occur naturally for reasons not necessarily discernible to the medical specialists. To have these sorrows politicised or criminalised is wicked- and unnecessary.

        • Appalling Applewood and my thoughts go out to you, as my wife suffered the same experience with her first pregnancy.

    • Daniel Lang – that sounds far too sensible and caring. As Chris says the extremes appear with the suddeness that my work disappears off the screen when I inadvertently press the wrong key on the computer. Everything happens superfast these days – wait till we communicate directly from our ‘brains’ without any mediation at all.

  15. Sorry Chris I beg to differ. Abortion is not a matter of CONVENIENCE. Unfortunate word choice by you.
    Abortion is a most difficult decision driven by the inconveniences of rape, poverty, unemployment, coercive marriage,sexual abuse,homelessness, zero support of any kind by other humans, judgement by bigots ,immaturity and cruelty by one’s peer group and family etc etc etc. Massive factors for consideration when ANY male presumes to put himself in the shoes of the young women( 13, 14, 15 16 years of age) who are forced to make this decision. And as for the reality of backstreet abortion well let’s not talk about that! It might make the blokes a bit squeamish and we can’t have that now can we?

    • Sumsuch. Agree. It’s up to Labour now to not make unplanned pregnancy issues into election issues. They are capable of doing so to deflect attention from their own failures, or as part of the woke ‘Divide and rule tactic.’ They need to back off.

  16. just like legalising dope, multiple births keep certain sectors of society down, which of course is the actual intention.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.