Phil Goff on Abortion

Phil Goff, Forum on the Family 2009

In September I attended the Forum on the Family. Here two questions were asked of Phil Goff relating to abortion in New Zealand (video here). I asked, "Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?", however Phil ignored the specificity of the question and spoke about abortion in general. A couple of interesting statements from his response,

"I have a deep unease about the taking of life - even at a foetal stage"

And yet throughout 9 years of a Labour Government, nothing was done to reduce the increasing number of abortions in New Zealand. If you're "uneasy" about the taking of foetal life, why don't you reconsider your position on abortion. Most of us are uneasy about the taking of infant life, and we take action on this and (supposedly) punish perpetrators of infanticide.

"It's better to prevent the conception of an unwanted child than to abort that child afterwards"

Well there you have it, Phil states that a foetus is a child - he's dead right and good on him. The second question to the leader of the opposition on abortion was from president of Voice for Life, Catherine Gillies who asked "what would your government do to ensure that women were able to make a truly informed decision?". Phil said that he would support a greater level of objective, neutral information being made available to women. He also said that he wanted to see a hell of a lot more done to,

"prevent unwanted pregnancies that may result in abortion or result in the bringing into this World of kiddies who were never wanted and are destined to have miserable lives right from the start".

Firstly, it is not true that all unwanted children that are born are destined to life of misery. Secondly, following this logic, it would be acceptable to kill an infant if it was decided that that infant was destined to a life of misery.

Key's UN Agenda vs. Anti-Smacking Law

John Key meets UN Secretary, Sept 2009 (NZPA)

I've thought if for a while now, but Brendan Malone over at the Semper Vita blog sums up very nicely the Prime Ministers's ulterior motive in what seemed to many like political suicide and blatantly ignoring the voice of 87.6% of his constituents.

So what has the UN Security Council got to do with the NZ anti-smacking law?
Well, quite simply, the UN is politics on a global scale, and that means lots and lots of wheeling and dealing and unprincipled compromising in order to gain the perfect outcome that one desires.
In this case, Mr. Key has made no bones about the fact that he is definitely keen to secure a NZ seat on the UN Security Council, but to do that he’ll have to dance the dance of the UN faithful – and that doesn’t bode well for a change to New Zealand’s anti-smacking law.
Why?
Well, in 1993 New Zealand became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Then in 2003 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report which criticized New Zealand regarding it’s failure to revoke the old Section 59 law.

Continue Reading. Brendan writes a Life Matters column every Friday, worth checking out.

The Foolishness of the Christian Gospel

In the first Century AD the Apostle Paul whose former occupation had been hunting and killing members of an annoying new belief-system called Christianity, went out on a limb, stating that the "Good News" was foolishness - here's the context in the book of Corinthians.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

- 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

Because I believe that the Bible is God's infalible word to all people, and that within it I find the most reasonable path to peace with God, I visited a rest-home today with two friends and we shared the Gospel with the fifteen or so people gathered in the lounge there. I'm no Spurgeon (he started preaching at the age of 18), and I'm not perfect just forgiven - in fact, I might just push back the next time you shove. Paul states later on in Corinthians that people who share the gospel are like jars of clay containing treasure. What he means is that it's not necessarily through persuasive words and a quality presentation that God saves people, but rather through the inherent value of the message itself. Further, the Christian gospel being the most reasonable path to peace with God is important as it is subsequently the only way to gain peace with God. Anyway, above is my reasoning for sharing the gospel with the residents at the rest-home - below is a summary of my message based on a section of the Apostle John's version of the gospel...

Jesus was talking to His followers, teaching them about how to be good disciples. He was essentially giving them the instructions they needed to understand how to be like Jesus, how to be Christians.

John 3:15 Whoever believes in Jesus shall not perish but have eternal life.

What does it mean to believe in Jesus? First, we are all sinful – we are kind and good a lot of the time, but we are also often sinful. Since God is absolutely holy, He cannot abide sin and must punish it. But God, very graciously provided a solution to our problem. God sent His only Son Jesus to the World as a sacrifice to pay for our sins. If we believe that Jesus did this for us, and we ask God to forgive us for our sins, God will not punish us.

Then Jesus said, “you will have eternal life if you believe in Me”. What is Eternal life? Jesus says that if we believe in Him, we will have eternal life, which means that when we die, we will go to Heaven to be with Him there – forever*. It’s hard to imagine…

Now, here is what Jesus said about God’s plan to save His people from their sins… Listen to Jesus’ words,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

As I was saying before, God sent His Son to the World to provide a way for us to escape punishment and go to Heaven to be with Him. God is extremely loving and gracious to provide us with this way out. Because by nature, we all deserve the punishment for our sins – however God amazingly has given us this way out.

Can we please God with the good things that we do? The Bible says that we cannot be good enough for God. This is because God is so perfect, He is absolutely perfect and so – as the Apostle Paul said, even the very best things we do are as filthy rags in God’s eyes.

This puts us in a bad position because by ourselves, without Jesus’ help, we have to face God’s righteous wrath. But as Jesus said, God loved us so much that He sent His Son – Jesus to pay the price for our sin. Instead of us having to try to please God with good works – which is impossible, God promises us that if we put our trust in His Son, Jesus, then we need do nothing but have faith in Jesus’ death.

But how can God accept Jesus’ sacrifice? Can Jesus’ death really pay for our sins? Yes He can because Jesus was God and man. Because Jesus was God, when He died on behalf of us, that was sufficient payment to cover the sins of all people in the World. And because Jesus was also man, He was able to be tempted as we are tempted and to suffer as we suffered – but it is important to remember that through all of His earthly life, Jesus never ever sinned – He was absolutely perfect. Of course it spins back round here - Jesus was only able to be perfect because He was God. God is therefore able to accept Jesus’ death as a perfect sacrifice, payment for our sins.

By itself, this was not enough. Jesus also rose again – this meant that He had the power over death, and we are then able – after we die, to also be resurrected and go to Heaven forever – if we first put our faith in Jesus.

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that,

the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Jesus is here talking about how people so often do the things that are wrong. Often men and women hate to do the things God has said we must do. For instance, Jesus says to us in the Bible that we must love the Lord with all our hearts. Now, often this is true, and we do love God, but there are times when we do not love Him with all of our hearts.

But not only this, they also delight in doing the things God has said we must not do. For instance The Ten Commandments is a list of rules that God has given us. The 5th commandment says “you shall not murder”. Now we all know it is wrong to murder! And we think “well I haven’t ever killed anyone, so perhaps God will be happy with me…” But Jesus said to his followers, “If any of you hates your brother, it is the same as murdering him”. This is a high standard, Jesus said that hating someone and murdering them were the same. I don’t know about you, but from time to time I have hated people.

John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Jesus continues talking about human-nature. He says, people who are sinful do not want to come to the light – because if they did, people would see that they were sinful.

John 3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

This means that if we are followers of Jesus, and we try to do what God has commanded us to do, then we won’t want to be in the dark, but instead we will want to be with God’s people – in the light. This is essentially a reference to the need for Christians to do good works. For without good works we cannot see Heaven - yet at the same time we're not saved through our good works - rather, they're an outworking of faith.

* I do not believe in the concept of eternity. I hold that everything that is not of this World operates outside time - a natural conclusion from my understanding that God created time itself. The terms "forever" and "eternity", then are an simplified expression of the reality, as many struggle with the concept of an existence outside of the dimension of time.

Watch David Tua Destroy Shane Cameron

Tua knocks out Cameron

I will update this post later with details of the fight, however for now, below is the only link you need to watch the fight. Youtube keeps deleting copies of the video but users keep uploading new versions, so checking the search-results page will probably get you a version of the fight you can watch before Youtube yanks it down!

Watch the Tua vs. Cameron fight

Bradford to Leave Parliament

The NZ Herald has confirmed the rumour that 57yr old Green MP Sue Bradford has announced her retirement after ten years in Parliament. She will be leaving Parliament at the end of the month. Bradford will be replaced by David Clendon who is currently at number 10 on the list. She stated in the Green Party's press release, “I’ll always be politically active and Parliament is just one vehicle for political change" - she's absolutely correct, and good on her.

She's not a very popular lady, with 87.4% of Kiwis opposed to her Anti-Smacking law which the Prime Minister continues to support. The majority of MPs are also in disagreement with the law which criminalises good parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children - though they are unable to state this publically. And of course her own colleagues in the Green Party are sick and tired of the smacking issue and want to rebrand and move on to other issues. Refusing Bradford the position of co-leader after the announcement of Fitzsimons' retirement was quite likely a hint from the caucus that it was time for her to pack her bags.

"I’ll be going back to the grassroots”

A few quotes from Sue Bradford...

"The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children" - Stuff, NZ Herald

"Smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn't" - Scoop

"Parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children." - Newstalk ZB

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Forum on the Family

Flew up to Auckland early Friday morning for the Forum on the Family. If I had paid more attention to Whale's damning criticism of Jet Star airline, I wouldn't have bothered with them, but as it was they got us to Auckland two hours late, so got to the forum at 10am, without any coffee... Met up with irrepressible fellow blogger Dave Crampton who has done a few blog posts on the forum, Matt and Madeline who are thinking about doing a blog post (now published), and David Farrar who I think would probably print his blog out and eat it before he admitted he was present at the forum ;) Anyway, here's a few comments from speakers and thoughts from the forum...

Political Panel
Ross Robertson (Labour), Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (National), Judy Turner (United Future - list MP, not in Parliament), Gordon Copeland (Kiwi Party - list MP, not in Parliament)

All the politicians wanted to keep prayer in Parliament saying it was a time of reflection, silence - it's part of history of NZ and so important to keep it... It doesn't bother me either way.

On abstaining from voting, none of them were very keen on it - Gordon in particular, however he was the only MP to miss the third readings of the Anti-Smacking Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. Kind of ironic however by no means the unforgivable sin.

On the best way to get in touch with an MP, they all agreed that bulk/form emails are only useful for gauging numbers in terms of support or opposition to a proposition, however made it clear that it was often very annoying. One of them stated "the Government does listen to numbers" which elicited a wave of laughter from the crowd. Gordon had a spiel about the number of supportive postcards he had received on the subject of the Therapeutic Bill (2006), and beaming told us that he had held the balance of power at one of its readings, choosing to support the bill (61-60 votes for). For crying out loud, if you're a list MP you shouldn't get up there and skite that you held the balance of power - it's a part of the reason why people are so cynical and scared of our electoral system of MMP.

John Angus, Children's Commissioner
John stated accurately that child abuse isn't a child problem, they don't cause it and aren't responsible for it - it's an adult problem. Apparently there's 100,000 incidents refered to CYFS each year (over 300 per day), but of these a relatively small (but horrific) 13,000 are found to be actual cases of abuse. Child abuse costs the country an estimated $2b yearly. John erroneously stated that 8 children die as a result of child abuse each year, however the figure is more like 18,000 when the children dying from abortion are accounted for.

Bruce Pilbrow, Families Commissioner and Director of Parents Inc
"you can complain and moan... no, you should either do nothing or get stuck in and do something"

On the Families Commission he said, six months ago I would have said can it, kick it - but it's not going to go, so let's get involved - we've got a chance and this is it - if we can't do it then no-once can, and then we should kick it. Bruce reckons more money should be funneled into third-party organisations as "they know how to turn $1 into $2, and they have something called accountability" hah, good call.

---

Opposition leader Phil Goff and Prime Minister John Key both addressed the forum, speaking for 40 minutes each but saying very little... Got to give Key some credit for tackling the Smacking issue first off, but of course his comments on the subject were as usual, unprincipled and embarrassing for any National supporters listening. He said that he wanted to make sure that Nigel Latta is comfortable that parents won't be prosecuted for smacking their child. Nigel has been appointed onto the review board for the smacking law. "Nigel voted no!"... wow John, what a concession... who cares how comfortable Nigel is, what bearing does that have on the law? Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 currently classes a corrective smack using reasonable force as a criminal offence, and whether Nigel is comfortable or not, and whether the police prosecute or not it is still bad law, and 87.4% of Kiwis hate it. Anyway, I put the following question on one small aspect of the abortion issue to Phil Goff,

"Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?"

Phil simply dodged the question and discussed the need to prevent conception so that there is no need to abort - said he doesn't want to see a law which would criminalise abortion - because he says that would mean botched up abortions would be done in back alleys. Of course this is incorrect. Prior to the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977, an average of only one woman died from complications in an illegal abortion each year.

Newly-elected president Voice for Life asked Phil if he agreed that more should be done to enable women to make a truly informed decision regarding their pregnancy. Phil concurred, but made the false and emotive claim that if an unwanted baby is allowed to be born, it will necessarily be destined to a life of misery.

---

Overall the forum was worthwhile, preeminently on account of the wonderful networking opportunities which I took advantage of. Heh, the food was a bit ponsy but Dave and I knocked back quite a few cups of good strong coffee.

Voluntary Student Union Membership on the Cards

Had my second TV interview on Monday. The first was with TV3 just prior to election '08, about Jacket-gate. TV3's reporter, Sia Aston covered the issue of voluntary student union membership today, with Roger Douglas's reform bill set to go to its first reading with Government support on Wednesday. She googled "compulsory + student + union", clicked through to my article about the corruption at VUSA, followed it through to my Facebook page and messaged me, asking for an interview.

The interview went well, however Sia took just one of my comments, focusing instead on a confused NZUSA rep, and UCSA president Steve Jukes verbosely defending the current fascist structure of student politics. While I acknowledge that many student associations and their respective execs, (my own at Canterbury included), do a great deal of work on behalf of students, it is clear that there is an unacceptable level of corruption going on, among a list of other undesirable outcomes of having compulsory unions. As I said to the reporter Lachlan,

"Look at the UCSA for example. At the recent student union elections candidates were called upont to submit a photo and a summary of what they stood for, for the student mag CANTA. One candidate didn't even submit anything but still got elected onto the exec. Or the AGM which took place shortly before the election, CANTA advertised "Free hamburgers, sausage sizzle and $5 jugs of beer" for those who attended the meeting. It was held in the casual setting of an outdoor amphitheatre, adjacent to the student pub, with a quorum of 200 students from a student membership of over 15,000. And no surprises as to what was on the agenda: a move to increase the salaries of those on the exec, with the president on well over $40,000 pa. - money taken forcefully from thousands of other students who probably didn't even know this was going on."

I will say more about the University of Canterbury Students Association in the future, but the above is a sumamry to give you an idea of why I and so many others throughout New Zealand are glad to see the VSM bill before Parliament, and to see the all-too-often anti-democratic National government pledging to support the bill to it's first reading and the select committee process.

The Abortion of a Pro-Lifer

Jim (James Lawrence) Pouillon, 63, of Owosso

On 11 September 2009, Jim was murdered as he sat outside an abortion clinic, protesting the injustice being carrried out behind its doors as he had been doing for many years. The president of the pro-life group Jim was a member of described him as, "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces." The murderer shot Jim several times to kill him - a comparatively quick and painless death when compared with the slow and brutal methods of killing unborn babies he was standing up for. Jim has saved many babies' lives and many women from the harm of abortion - but finally paid the ultimate price, something he had said he was prepared to do long before. Read more.

What a legend.

Smoking Harms Unborn Babies... Really?

Was surprised to see this smoking warning from the Australian Govt. on a pack of cigarettes. The warning reads,

"Smoking during pregnancy reduces the flow of blood in the placenta and limits the oxygen and nutrients that reach the growing baby. This increases the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, complications during birth or the baby having a smaller brain and body."

But who cares? The Aussie Govt. sure as heck doesn't. Look at Victoria where they've removed the right of doctors to be able to choose to have nothing to do with abortions for conscience' sake, and have decriminalised abortion up to birth. Or Queensland where in 2007 alone, 19 babies over 20wks survived an abortion attempt but were left to die, refused life-saving help.

Hypocrites.

Blossom

I'm in Sydney, Aussie for two nights for the Liberty & Society Conference. Sitting in the departure lounge at Christchurch airport I pulled out the iBook G4 (thanks Lyd!) and pulled a scrap of paper out of my wallet. During the fairly stolid Local Govt. lecture that morning I had started writing a poem. Hammered it in and kept working on it. Finished it off on the train (they're double-deckers here in Sydney!) to St. Leonards which is in North Sydney. Caught a glimpse of the Opera House too, hope to get a better look at Sydney Saturday or Sunday. Anyway, here's the poem - admittedly pretty sentimental but it was just as spontaneous!

Blossom

half-past midnight; it's dark out here,
blossom petals floating through the air -
defy gravity, time and space;
the warm breeze blowing against your face

dewy grass, my jandals slippery,
holding hands, we walk very quickly.
stars come out in a cloudy sky,
the moon is shining for you and I

forever young I want to be,
walking forever; just you and me.
we need no sleep, we'll talk all night,
thinking out loud til' the sun is bright

we speak of doubt; uncertainty,
and if what's happening is meant to be
we can talk our problems away -
and everything's gonna be ok.

you've got to go, i understand,
things never happen the way we'd planned
lifting my head I see again,
blossom petals floating down like rain

Move to Amend Barbaric UK Premature Birth Law

baby Jayden, 21 weeks, 5 days

Baby Jayden was born halfway through pregnancy at 21 weeks and 5 days old. Despite the doctors' declaration that the child would be born dead with his skin peeling off, young Jayden was instead born alive, healthy - albeit extremely premature. Devestatingly for Jayden and his parents, UK law states that babies under 22 weeks are "unviable" and therefore not eligible to receive assistance if born alive. After two hours of life, and refused basic medical assistance, baby Jayden passed away. His heart-broken mother Sarah shares her story here.

Sarah has set up a Facebook group, Justice for Baby Jayden which has over 260,000 members calling for a change to the barbaric law that allowed this attrocity to take place.

The Daily Mail reports,

"When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over," said Miss Capewell.
"A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat and described him as a 'little fighter.'"
"I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, 'They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him.'

baby Jayden's mother Sarah, 23

Are you disgusted? I am. This tragic case is ultimately no worse than the 46,000,000 other abortions which will be committed place this year. However what makes this case really stand out is that the (a) the law is terrible, and (b) the doctors were so heartless as to stand by and refuse to attempt to help the young child. Sarah makes mention of one little girl, Amillia Taylor who is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days - just one day older than her poor son

I acknowledge the value in debating the morality or necessity for legalised abortion. However it is absolutely crucial that all those taking part in the debate have an objective understanding of what it is that we are talking about. Was baby Jayden to have been killed within his mother's womb, advocates for legalised abortion would not have batted an eye-lid. However when his environment changes (he is placed outside the womb), suddenly the story that he was killed by being refused essential medical attention becomes an international story. In the video below, Scott Klusendorf explains the SLED theory - well worth a watch.

hat-tip: Jill Stanek

Distinctions in Killing

Philosopher Alexander Pruss briefly discusses a question for proponents of abortion.

If you hold that abortion is not immoral because a foetus has no future-directed desires (e.g. no desire to live), would it then follow that it is not immoral to kill an adult who has no future-directed desires?

That's my simplified, summary - but here is Pruss's proposition...

According to some defenders of abortion, what makes it wrong to kill an adult but not wrong to kill a fetus is that the adult has future-directed desires while the fetus does not. But now imagine an innocent adult who has only one future-directed desire: to die. Nonetheless, it is uncontroversially wrong to kill this adult without her consent (it's wrong to kill her with her consent, but that's controversial). Thus, it is wrong to kill this adult without her consent. Why? Well, on the theory in question, it's wrong because she has future-directed desires, or, more precisely, a desire. But the desire is a desire not to be alive. It is absurd that the presence of that desire is what makes it wrong to kill her.

So what makes it wrong to kill her? I see two answers: The first is that she is being deprived of future life. And that future life is valuable even if she does not recognize it as such. The second is that the killing is a destruction of a human body.

It is important to realise that Pruss is not here comparing abortion with euthanasia, but rather with the non-consensual killing of an adult who has absolutely no desire to continue living - something generally accepted to be an immoral action.

Why I Oppose Legalising Marijuana

a marijuana/cannabis leaf

On 2 July I discussed Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei's bill to decriminalise marijuana for medicinal purposes. A couple of weeks later I posted an exclusive interview I took with a marijuana user. Today I will explain why I oppose legalising marijuana but support its decriminalisation for both medicinal and recreational use. However I will make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to and would discourage people from using marijuana for recreational purposes.

First I need to clear up my intentionally misleading title and perhaps confusing introduction to this post by drawing a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in society that the government should specifically legalise, as such an action implies that the government has the inherent authority to permit or deny a particular thing or activity. For example, what would you wish to happen if it were currently the case that the possession, trade and consumption of bread was illegal? Should the government pass a law legalising bread - or would it be better if they instead decriminalised bread - on the grounds that the state has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against it? What about your very existence: should living be legal? The government has no authority to specifically permit the continuation of the life of an individual. Such a decision can surely only be made by the individual. So in the case of marijuana, it should either be either illegal or simply not ruled upon at all. Refraining from making a ruling on something allows for individuals to make decisions unaffected by an assumed belief that the government has endorsed it by actively legalising it. It is preferable to passively permit a harmful activity (such as bungy-jumping) or substance (such as marijuana) than to actively permit it as would be the case if marijuana were legalised.

I could employ the argument that the use of marijuana is justified for the purpose of pain-relief and then follow on from this that it therefore has a legitimate use, and subsequently question the justification of a statuatory line of distinction between medicinal and recreational use. Alternatively I could take the line that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than glue-sniffing or methamphetamine for instance, and should therefore not be legislated against as these other harder drugs are. Again, I could compare the adverse effects of the recreational abuse of marijuana with the destructive effects of drunkeness, concluding that if alcohol is not legislated against then neither should marijuana be. However useful these arguments may be, this post will support decriminalisation from another angle.

The issue of whether an action or thing should be permissible or not is usually blindingly simple. If it does not adversely affect a third party against their will, then the law has no place in the matter. Although I hold that our very bodies are a gift to each of us from God, and that we should value and care for these "jars of clay", the government does not have jurisdiction to force us to be good. The question of how far this principle is to be taken is fundamental to the euthanasia/suicide debate. Should people have the right to choose how to end their own lives - and in what circumstances? But this is an issue for another post.

But what about when marijuana harms innocent bystanders such as children living in the house of a marijuana user, or neighbors upset with the odour wafting over the fence in the evening? First I must demonstrate that this question is baseless as it directs blame at the medium of the damage instead of accusing the perpetrator of the damage. If, on the subject of loud music I asked, "What about when loud music harms innocent bystanders...", it is generally accepted that it would be an incorrect response to ban music. Instead, people should be free to play music so long as it does not adversely affect others. Music played too loud is harmful to the ears and is therefore should not be imposed upon anyone without their prior consent. If certain people wish to enjoy such loud music and knowingly damage their hearing, then that is their prerogative. The government has no mandate to legislate on acceptable decibel levels for music when nobody's hearing is being damaged against their will. Our frustration and anger at loud music played at night by the neighbors should not be targeted at the music itself, but at the immature idiots who are abusing it. They are welcome to either turn down the volume, plug in headphones or drive out into the country and crank up the stereo, but it is unacceptable to harm others against their will.

The question should then be rephrased, "What about when marijuana-users harm innocent buystanders..." The subject then becomes the perpetrator of the harm rather than the medium. Marijuana use is detrimental to the human body, and it is therefore unfair to subject young children to its smoke as they do not have the ability or knowledge to know how to handle such an environment. The solution is clear: people who are unable to give consent (children), or who do not give consent to be affected by others using marijuana in their environment - must not have the same imposed upon them. Since we have already found that the problem is not the medium but the perpetrator, it is clear that either the perpetrator or the bystander must be removed from the environment. An example of this would be where marijuana users find some place else to smoke their weed so that harm to bystanders is significantly reduced or completely removed.

Lets decriminalise marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes and allow New Zealand to move forward into the 21st Century on this matter.

Australian Abortion Mills Born Alive Horror

Is there no justice in the World? the state of Queensland in Australia has approximately the same population as New Zealand. In 2007 alone, 19 babies are on record as being born alive as the result of botched abortions: and left to die, wrapped in cloth on the cold hard steel bench in the abortion mill.

It defies imagination and boundaries of cruelty - I can make no further comment, but below are excerpts from the article.

A growing number of induced babies are born alive following failed late-term abortions.

New Queensland Health figures show 19 babies were aborted at 20 weeks or more in 2007, but rather than dying at birth as intended, the newborns were able to breathe unaided.

The babies, some as advanced as 26 weeks, were aborted using drugs to induce labour. Once born, no medical help was offered and they died soon afterwards.

"If babies are born alive after this they are likely to die within a few minutes, although it can take up to half an hour," she said. "We can only keep them wrapped up warm. It is up to the parents whether they want to see the child."

Some were life-threatening, but they also included cleft palates and club feet.

I lol'd

Scrubone can be relied upon to dig up a good joke - here's one he posted today.

A man, who smelled like a distillery, flopped down on a subway seat next to a priest. The man’s tie was stained, his face was plastered with red lipstick, and a half-empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat pocket. He opened his newspaper and began reading.
After a few minutes the disheveled man turned to the priest and said, “Say, Father, what causes arthritis?”
“Mister, it’s caused by loose living, being with cheap wicked women, too much alcohol, and a contempt for your fellow man.”
“Well, I’ll be jiggered,” the drunk muttered, returning to his paper.
The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized.
“I’m very sorry, I didn’t mean to come on so strong. How long have you had arthritis?”
“I don’t have it, Father. I was just reading that the Pope does.”

Self-Confirmation

Was chatting with a friend online when I used the term "self-confirmation", imbued with the concept of seeking to confirm one's own self-worth to one's self. However context and facial expressions don't travel so well over Facebook chat, and I wasn't sure at all that I was using the right term, which is to say that I had come up with it on the spot. Anyway, googled it - it appears to be a psychological term which the below excerpt from this article discusses.

The tremendous fear and publicity right now about swine flu is out of proportion with the actual number of deaths (however sad these individual cases may be). Apparently, during the 1990s approximately 36,000 people died each year due to the flu in the United States. So the current number of deaths, which is in the low hundreds, pales in comparison.

“Self Confirmation” [is] where we ignore data that does not support our fear, and only embrace data that does back our contentions. A good example would be the failure to think about the greater number of people who die from normal flu outbreaks instead of the swine flu.

Thought it was pretty interesting as the word is tied in with the (not so current) panic over swine-flu.

Motivation of Govt. Advertising Questioned

An article over at MercartorNet takes a look at Government advertising in the States - is it aimed at informing, or controlling?

Mornings on radio in the United States are filled with advertising. From the time we wake up until the time we fall asleep, it seems the advertising never ends. The jingles, catchy and appealing, sometimes want you to adopt a child or to pony up for National Parks. Sometimes they pressure you to wear a seat belt or to use a booster seat (4.9 is the magic age for using a booster seat -- according to the ad brought to us by the Department of Transportation). For its part, the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to adopt a teen. And so on, and so on…

Of course, they are all good ads with clever jingles and cute lines. At least they seem that way the first few times you hear them. And, obviously, listening to such ads is the price we pay for hearing the news or the music, or whatever the radio is offering. What is surprising, though, is the reversal that has taken place in radio sponsorship. Once the domain of private enterprise, it is now increasingly becoming the voice of government. Our own tax money is put to work to convince us of something politicians and bureaucrats think we ought to do...

...Once again, the messages do promote good causes. We all agree that people can eat too much or guzzle too much gas. And it is certainly a good thing to adopt a teen. But, what are the ads really selling? Why should citizens be urged to use more services which make them more dependent on Uber government? What is the real goal? To have us grateful for all the hovering government? Is this an effort to have federal and state governments dispense all goodies to a grateful populace? To me, that type of government has an overreaching, imperial ring, like the rule of the Caesars or Louis XVI or Czarist Russia.

Click here to continue reading.

Just Say No

...to National.

The National Party under John Key has determined to ignore the result of the referendum - 87.4% of Kiwis voted No to criminalising smacking, but John Key says "the law is working". John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow light hand-smacking was drawn from the ballot on Wednesday, but John Key says "the law is working", and subsequently has determined that National will vote against the bill at its first reading.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are criminalised for a light smack, then he will change the law. The law specifically bans smacking for the purpose of correction, which means that parents are criminalised if they give a corrective smack. "But they won't be prosecuted; the police have discretion," retorts Dear Leader.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are prosecuted for a light smack, then he will change the law. It follows that he believes that until parents are prosecuted for a light smack, the law is working well. However the law is not working well - it is simply a case of a bad law (which John Key has admitted to), which the Govt. has instructed the police to ignore or adhere to at their discretion.

I'd expect more sense from a three-year-old at the pre-school down the road. However it's 1am and I expect the pre-school down the road is closed. So my brother Nathan's debut in political blogging shall suffice. Forthwith, an excerpt...

So a few months back old Larry drove his kiwi party caravan up to the B-hive, and loaded off the box's...and box's...and box's of signatures. Yeah!!! Score....but hey what do you know...uh oh suddenly, whoops, Labour decides to have the referendum at another date...hmmm interesting...another $9,000,000 later, and it comes round. Most people vote except for those who found the multi choice YES or NO quite confusing...

heheh, quite clever.

Have you made "The Pledge" yet?

John Key has ignored 88% of New Zealanders who voted No in the referendum, and in response Trevor Loudon is encouraging people to make "The Pledge". I think it's a good idea and encourage everyone else who feels strongly about this to also make the pledge.

I, Andy Moore will never vote for the New Zealand National Party, or any National Party candidate, in any future General Election in my lifetime, until the right of parents to responsibly smack their children is legally restored

To make the pledge, simply copy and paste and insert your own name.