The initial results of the Right to Life candidate survey on pro-life issues are available here.
As expected, both the Family Party and Kiwi Party candidate responses are a sea of green and yellow (pro-life positions).
The response from the major parties was very poor, with only 4 from National, 5 from Labour and 3 from Green, so it is hard to know how representative these are. But if we assume they are representative, the other parties in order from pro-life to pro-death(?) are something like:
- United Future
Alan Liefting of the Green party is the only candidate to have a full line of red dots as his answers – I have talked to Alan a bit in the past at university and this doesn’t surprise me at all. We must get rid of the Green party.
It is interesting that National looks better than United Future on a cursory glance, but there are few responses to judge them by. This does confirm why the Family Party will find it much easier to work with National than with Labour.
Hat tip: Right to Life New Zealand
October 27, 2008 at 9:09 am
I am not the only candidate with a full compliment of red dots. Jordan Carter from the Labour Party also disagrees with all of the questions posed in the survey.
The survey cannot be taken as an accurate reflection of what direction the government will head because there are very few responses from the main parties.
The questions that were asked of the candidates were all on issues that are of concern to conservative Christians. History shows that conservative Christians were wrong about their concerns time and again. Society is moving forward to a greater inclusiveness but there are some Christians who want us dragged back to the intolerance of the Dark Ages.
The history of opposition by Christians to the abolition of slavery, the Homosexual law reform Act, abortion laws, the Civil Union Act, the Human Relationships Act and now the repeal of section 59 is a telling one. Society has not fallen apart as they often claimed. Over time all the offensive attitudes that Christians cherry pick out of the Bible will be replaced with the refreshing, liberal stance that is becoming increasingly common.
Green Party candidate for Waimakariri electorate
October 27, 2008 at 10:47 am
Alan Liefting: with all due respect, you are a hypocrite and a liar like the rest of the Liberal Left.
You talk about “greater inclusiveness”: what about greater inclusiveness for those parents who want to smack their children? Your friend Sue Bradford outlawed that and lied in the process. The reality is that “greater inclusiveness” only means including those things that you and your Marxist friends agree with, whilst repressing by force everything else. It is you and your ilk who are intolerant, not christians, and the reason that you are intolerant is that you want to impose your Marxist values upon society: it’s called coercive socialism.
Conservative Christians are not “wrong about their concerns”, because parents have been criminalised for smacking their children, just as christians predicted.
Why do the Liberal Left always criticise Christians, as you do here, but never criticise Muslims who do not give equal rights to women? That is hypocritical, and the reason for it can be found here: http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/the-motives-of-the-liberal-left/
Your Party has a billboard with a picture of a child and the slogan “Vote for me”: only a Marxist who believes in subjective reality would publish such a billboard whilst also being pro-abortion. To put it another way, the billboard is hypocritical and and a deliberate deception.
When you say “The survey cannot be taken as an accurate reflection of what direction the government will head” you are lying, because history shows that the survey accurately reflects what direction the government will take.
For the record I am a Classical Liberalist and I am tolerant: if you want to be Green and worship Gaia that’s fine, just don’t try and impose your values on me (or impose mercury-filled long-life light bulbs on me). If homosexuals want to do their thing in the privacy of their home that’s fine, as long they don’t try and impose their their values on me.
Please don’t bother replying to this comment unless you can cease spouting the usual slogans and provide a **reasoned and logical** defence of your world view. Be careful: your world view has so many internal inconsistencies that a true examination of it will be a terrifying experience, akin to finding that the house you are living in is on the verge of collapse.
I know that my language is blunt, but the pernicious lies and motives of the Liberal Left must be exposed: unlike the Liberal Left I do not obfuscate.
October 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Good to hear from you Alan! Contrary to what you said, it was Christians who actually achieved the abolition of slavery – William Wilberforce for example. Jordan Carter has mainly orange dots, you are the only one to strongly oppose every point and get a string of red dots.
October 28, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Hey Samuel. With regard to slavery there was also a concerted campaign (mainly in the US?) to prevent its abolition since the Bible gives tacit approval of it.
It looks like I misinterpreted the colour of Jordan Carters votes. The red and orange are very similar on my monitor – or I am going colour blind.
October 28, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Alan, what always strikes me as odd is how you people are quite happy for people to kill babies in the most grotesque fashion, provided they do it before they are born. But as soon as they are born you won’t even let their parents smack them. You may campaign against slavery and other forms of abuse of adults, but don’t care about children until they leave the womb.
Why is this? What is the rational, scientific reasoning behind it being ok to kill children when they are in one place (the womb), but not once they have left it?
October 28, 2008 at 2:03 pm
To the kiwipolemicist:
Firstly, note that I have the courage of my convictions and do not hide behind a pseudonym.
You say “Liberal Left always criticise Christians, as you do here, but never criticise Muslims “. That is rubbish. Christians are rarely critised except in some of the opinion and humour columns and then it is from both sides of the political spectrum. Muslims are not critised in NZ since they are not the dominate religion. Any religion or individual using religion to stuff up our society deserves criticism.
“parents have been criminalised for smacking their children, just as christians predicted.” Rubbish. You have been reading the propoganda put out by the God botherers. Go and check police statistics.
You draw a rather long bow with regard to the children on our billboard and abortion. You seem to make the assumption that a foetus is regarded as a child. Is a zygote a child? Anyway, abortion would be a conscience vote so my stance it not a reflection of Green Party policy.
October 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Samuel. Did I say I want to kill babies in the womb? No, I did not. Please do not twist things to suit your agenda. I am opposed to abortion, especially in the last trimester. Every measure must be taken to avoid abortions. Let me repeat: every measure must be taken to avoid abortions. BUT, it is up to the mother, where she is able to make rational decisions, to decide whether to have an abortion or not. The God botherers have socially engineered a society that has stigmatised abortions and forced govts to pass laws making abortion illegal. It is time to reverse this and place the decision on aborting a child in the hands of the mother.
October 28, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Thanks Alan, glad to hear you personally are opposed to abortion. But you are still in favour of the mother being able to choose to have one.
Why should the mother be able to choose to kill the child before it is born, but not after? You have a double standard still as you are considering a child before it is born as able to be killed by its mother (even if you hope she will choose not to), but after it is born she cannot even smack it. The problem still remains.
To be consistent, either it is not ok to kill people at any stage of their lives, or it is ok to do so at any stage.
We don’t say the mother can freely choose to kill her ten-year-old if she likes but we hope she will choose not to, we say it is illegal for her to kill her ten-year-old. Why is it different before they are born?
October 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Samuel, you are also inconsistent in your view. Is a zygote a child?
October 28, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Yes. The only rational scientific definition of when life starts is at conception.
October 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm
So a bunch of cells with no consciousness is a child?
October 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So a person in a coma who cannot react at all is not a person, or are they? Life is never defined as consciousness.
Alan, if you can scientifically define when life starts as any other point than conception, I would be very interested to hear it. But in biology, you consider something a unique living organism from conception, whatever species they are.
October 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Life” is not a clearly defined biological term.
Anyway, this is getting away from the issue.
The question is: how can you arrogantly impose your values on to a pregnant woman? Whether a woman, who is able to make rational decisions, wants to have an abortion or not is up to her. The state or the God botherers should not interfere.
October 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Alan, I am not arrogantly imposing my values on to a pregnant woman. Biologically, life begins at conception. You have not been able to refute that – because it is completely true.
It is wrong to kill another person. It is not arrogant to tell a murderer they can’t kill their victim – or do you consider that arrogant? Should people be able to kill each other? Are we “arrogantly imposing our values” on the killers of Nia Glassie when we say that was wrong?
I am calling for consistency.
October 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm
There is no commonly accepted definition for life. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Yes, a human, a zygote, an embryo, a foetus are all part of “life”. The foetus is not a lifeform that is separate from its host.
Yes, the life of a human starts at conception but that does not mean the zygote has the same rights as a newborn child.
Now please do not come up with fallacious arguments. We are talking about the period form conception to childbirth. Nia Glassie was three years old. DON’T skew the argument. Samuel!!!
October 28, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Alan Liefting: you have failed to provide a reasoned and logical defence of your world view.
Why would I not use a pseudonym when free speech and privacy is under attack from your Marxist friends? The Electoral Finance Act is a breach of the Bill of Rights so the Left clearly has no respect for the rule of law. Privacy is a rare thing in a country where I can’t even change foreign currency without providing ID.
You say that christians are “rarely criticised” but your own words in your comments show this to be untrue. Just like Helen Clark attacking the Exclusive Brethren (who, unlike Helen, did nothing illegal) you take every opportunity to attack and besmirch christians. I only attack Greens/Marxists because they try and impose their beliefs upon other people: if you just sat up a tree and minded your own business I’d leave you alone.
Christians do not “stuff up society” because history will show that countries with a Judeo-Christian basis to their legal system are the most stable, safe, and inclusive, whereas those run on Marxist beliefs like your own have killed people by the tens of millions (think of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, et al) whilst repressing individual freedoms. Why don’t you go to North Korea and live as a commoner for a few years? You’ll find that Marxism isn’t so pleasant when you’re not one of the ruling elite.
Muslims have stuffed up society in Europe (creating no-go areas and illegally applying Sharia law over State law), so by your own definition they deserve criticism. Your Party is so PC that you have co-leaders, one male, one female. Why do you not criticise Muslims who do give equal rights to women? Because Green/Marxists are hypocrites who are attacking Christianity, which is the foundation of Western culture.
Those people who used the Bible to justify slavery clearly did not study the Bible: if they had done so they would have found that tossing Africans on ships was completely different to Biblical slavery, which was more akin to an employer-employee relationship. The Hebrew word that is translated as “slave” can also be translated as “servant”, so the use of the English word “slave” is questionable.
The conscience vote that you refer to is meaningless, because your Marxist sister Helen Clark forces her MPs to vote on party lines when there is a (supposed) conscience vote.
I agree with Mr Dennis when he says that life begins at conception and I consider abortion to be murder. However I do not believe that the State should be legislating morality.
Facts re criminalisation of parents who smack can be found here: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/CASES
Police statistics cannot be trusted because evidence has shown that they are not correctly recording all cases where they investigate allegations of smacking.
Labour/Greens/Marxists are the greatest danger to New Zealanders today: think of Stalin and you’ve got the right idea.
October 28, 2008 at 4:25 pm
KP, should murder be illegal or not? Or is that the state legislating morality? If you, as I, believe abortion is murder, would you consistently apply the same law to all murder?
October 28, 2008 at 5:48 pm
In making murder illegal the State is legislating morality, and in legalising abortion the State is contradicting itself by legalising murder.
While we are stuck with a Statist system I am in favour of making abortion/murder illegal.
Conception is the only logical point for the beginning for life because any point in gestation is arbitrary and birth is simply a change of address. A baby does not metamorphose during the birth process.
There is a case to be made for abortion when pregnancy will definitely cause the death of the mother (better one dead instead of two – I think that ectopic pregnancies are an example of this, but I haven’t checked that), but of course it is nigh impossible to find a doctor who will give a realistic assessment of the risk of maternal death, i.e. most doctors will err towards killing the baby and minimising risk to the mother.
When my friends’ baby died in utero the doctors insisted on calling it a “foetus”, which is an excellent way of dehumanising the baby: my friend insisted on calling it a “baby”. Medicine is one of those professions where it is extremely difficult to go against the flow, e.g. calling an unborn baby a “baby” would make you a marked person.
You put this link on Kiwiblog: how can anyone say that these are not babies? (warning – graphic pictures of the results of abortion)
October 29, 2008 at 8:20 am
Whoa, hold your horses there. You admit the zygote, embryo and foetus are alive, in some way, then say “but that does not mean the zygote has the same rights as a newborn child”. You then expect me to accept this statement, that in your opinion they should have different rights, and argue the issue on your terms.
Well, I completely disagree with the underlying presupposition you are making. Sure “the foetus is not a lifeform that is separate from its host”. The baby is not capable of functioning separately from its mother until the age of about one, until then it is reliant on her for breastmilk for at least part of its diet (in fact they are dependent on their parents and would struggle to survive independently for many years after that). We can now replace this with inferior artificial formula, and the more our science develops the earlier babies can survive – babies born at 24 weeks gestation can now survive with medical advances. This will probably be pushed earlier and earlier. “Separation from the host” has no bearing on life – I presume tapeworms aren’t alive because they are dependant on their hosts? Or lamprey fish?
It makes no difference whether the child is in the womb or outside, whether it receives food through a placenta, breast or its food is prepared for it by its mother. Or whether the person gets old and has to have food through a tube. They are still a human, with as many rights as any other.
I am not going to argue this issue based on your presuppositions. Because it is those presuppositions I am rejecting.
I note that everyone I meet who doesn’t oppose abortion has had the good fortune to be born themselves.