Well, I’m a little dissapointed today – but let’s face it we all new that the Obama win was coming, right? I just hope and pray he changes his mind on the abortion issue. In moments like these it hard to see how God has a hand in things. Nevertheless, where there is evil, more grace abounds. We have to trust that Our Lord is going to use this for the good.
Now to the next election – our own. Unlike the American election each one of us could make a real impact in this one. I am sticking to my guns on this one. The below letter may seem like a blantant support of one particular party, and actually you would be spot on. This is my day to blog and my opinion. Vote Kiwi as they seem like the only party who will do anything to reduced the abortion rates, which should be our key concern this election.
Dear Friends,
The 2008 Elections and Abortion
A unique opportunity to roll back New Zealand’s very high number of abortions arises in connection with this year’s elections.
Traditionally abortion has not featured in the manifesto of New Zealand political parties because it is a conscience issue. That is well understood. However that reality also means that parties have no commitment to doing anything at all to change the status quo since to do that they have to bring a bill before Parliament.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no other individual MP intends to raise this issue by way of a Private Members Bill. Indeed, following the recent High Court ruling on abortion (Right to Life vs Abortion Supervisory Committee), I was the only MP who was willing to comment on it to the media! Sadly, abortion has become a ‘no go’ area even for pro-life MPs.
However the Kiwi Party, which is contesting this year’s elections, has a commitment to “change the law and practice so that the number of abortions is greatly reduced and require parental consent for under age abortions”. If we cross the 5% threshold (about 110,000 party votes) we will have 6 MPs and will enter into supply and confidence negotiations with National in the formation of a new government. We will not be part of a Labour-led government.
My Abortion (Informed Consent) Bill will be part of these negotiations and will, I believe, be supported by National. Unlike Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, I do not believe John Key and Bill English will be opposed to my Bill.
That is the opportunity now before us. If all pro-life New Zealanders give their party vote to the Kiwi Party, we can see this issue addressed in the new Parliament.
It is our best opportunity in more than 30 years.
Please do all you can to make it happen.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon F. Copeland M.P.
PH: 027 472 6998
E: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Who is excited about Kiwi Party???
I am.
Pax
Oh and to be fair, yay Family Party and Pacific Party and what ever else you are all going to object about, yay United Future.
If Jesus asks us to lose our lives for the Kingdom, what need we fear that we (at the very worst) lose our earthly votes in order to do what is right by God’s laws?
Pax
A few months back I was going to vote Kiwi Party too.
But when I realised that Kiwi have almost no chance of getting anyone elected I decided to vote for the party whose candidates will be elected and whose polices and actions I think, after much prayer, soul searching, research and discussion, will most reduce the abortion rate.
That party is the Greens.
I’ve never voted for them before, but I think their polices will make a real positive difference to the abortion rate because they’ll fight hard for the poor and those on low wages.
God Bless
Watch out Filia – I don’t see an authorisation for that election advertisment LOL!
Go kiwi/family parties!
I was really excited about the Kiwi Party however I didn’t vote for them (I voted early) because:
a) I dont’ think they’ll get in (I realise that that’s a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy which is why I think it would be interesting to conduct an election campaign with no polls prior.)
b) I don’t think they have good leadership.
I myself have reservations about Christian parties. I often think that they isolate your voting pool (as the Maori seats have done although was almost going to vote for them over their getting rid of the benefit comments!) and I think perhaps Christians can do more in their respective parties, rather than an official Christian party.
I was torn between Nats and U Future, so went with United Future. Given euthanasia is most likely going to be coming up in next few years, I think National/United Future would have a better chance of not bringing that in.
Christopher,
do you think the Greens’ policies will truly have an impact on the next government?
Aren’t they more likely to be in opposition?
Just wondering.
Go Kiwi Party!
But Chris, how is that substantially different from saying, ‘well I want slavery to remain legal so that I will throw my hat in with a group that makes a highly unproven claim that they can bring slavery to an ‘acceptable level’ by economic means’?
But even then the Greens policies might be well intended, but emperically, results of such policies are shown to harm the sitution of the weak and vunerable more.
I wouldn’t rule Kiwi out, they have huge support in the Asian communities, which are a grossly underpolled (if not polled at all) group.
Please stop applying standards inconsistently, if both X and Y are transcendally bad, then it is time to take a stand and support Z.
Pax
I’m signing out for a while. See you all in late February, I am going to be occupied with research (and God willing a nice summer!)
Pax
A vote for the Greens is a vote to maintain the Clark/Cullen clique in power.
The Greens are really atheistic communists in drag. There policies are veiled, and are very dangerous.
The photo of Jeanette Fitzsimons and the pregnant women — writing “Vote for Me” on their bellies — was one of the most ironic photos I’ve ever seen. Even pro-choice blogger David Farrar recognised that.
I’ve spoken to people about the Kiwi and Family — and Pacific, for that matter — parties and said they should feel comfortable voting for them if they have discerned it’s the best vote for the issues that matter for them, typically abortion.
From an electoral perspective, it almost certainly won’t make a difference. But when you look in the mirror and say “I voted for party X, which is pro-choice but was going to get into Parliament”, as opposed to “I voted for party Y, which is strongly pro-life but didn’t get in”, how are you going to feel about that?
Food for thought.
The US Catholic Bishops state :-
So, there are two things, both of which we need to do to reduce abortions :
1. Provide economic help and support for pregnant women
2. Law changes to protect the innocent unborn.
Unfortunately, there is no chance of the later in the term of the next government so, realistically speaking, we’re left with doing the best we can on the former.
The Greens support to
* ensure beneficiaries get boosts from tax cuts;
* raise benefit levels and index to food, energy and housing prices.
* restore universal child benefit.
* increase minimum wage to $15/hour and ensure it can’t fall below 66 per cent of average wage.
* no tax on incomes under $10,000
will provide the economic support to pregnant mothers that will reduce abortion rates.
Especially given that we are heading into serious recession.
http://www.nzcatholic.org.nz/viewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=1626
FXD: Labour can form a coalition with Greens and others.
God Bless
But when you look in the mirror and say “I voted for party X, which is pro-choice but was going to get into Parliament”, as opposed to “I voted for party Y, which is strongly pro-life but didn’t get in”, how are you going to feel about that?
I was always very comfortable when I voted for party Y, which is strongly pro-life but didn’t get in.
But St Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Bishops have helped me see that my voting choice wasn’t as prudent as it could have been.
God Bless
A vote for the Greens is also a wasted vote, apart from the fact that they are the most pro-abortion party in the country.
National are gonna win by a landslide :grin: :mrgreen:
Don,
And last time National was in office the abortion rate rose 43% from 14/1000 to 19/1000.
God Bless
Interesting post. Without talking about the issue of wasted votes as much as I admire the stance taken I’m not completely sure I’d trust Gordon Copeland on his promise. I’m curious as to why (after how many years in parliament 3? 6?) he hasn’t put this forward in a members bill before. Some might say he knew it would be defeated, but then he would have had an excellent platform to run on showing how pro abortion the parties actually are, (particularly the greens).
I have a fear that even if they do get 5% of the vote, they may not be as strong on this single issue after they enter parliament.
OH MY GOSH
ROGER RABBIT this has been discussed before and you were ripped apart!!!! GET A LIFE!!!!
And on a serious note, I had a look at their (Kiwi Party) website, and I am liking them more and more
jodokaast,
Gordon has had this member’s bill in the ballot for at least all of the last three years, and I think before that in the previous Parliament. It goes in with all the other private member’s bills and they are pulled out randomly. Gordon’s never got pulled out.
You’ve got to be joking!
That’s like saying that you’re gonna vote for the pro-slavery party because their economic policies are more likely to reduce slavery.
Talk about ludicrous.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion on demand, population control, and euthanasia.
The Greens also voted against increased penalties for child pornography, and they support the legalization of cannabis.
If you think that voting Green is the Christian thing to do then you really are deluded.
Someone has to say it – Chris; if you vote for the Greens then you are supporting a party that works against Christ and His Church, and you will be complicit in any evil that they carry out during their next term.
jodokaast,
I was told by a senior member of the Kiwi Party that when their MPs where in United Future they were not allowed to raise the issue of abortion directly on orders from Peter Dunne.
I’m not sure I entirely believe what he said but it might account for Gordon Copeland being less outspoken on abortion than he would have liked to have been when he was with United Future.
Scribe,
Do you think it was really a good choice of wording on the front page of NZ Catholic to say that Gordon Copeland was “using” the issue of abortion. It may have been meant well but it didn’t read well. It sounded like NZ Catholic was saying that Gordon was just using the abortion issue to promote himself which I’m convinced is not the case.
God Bless
Ox,
Yes, I’m fully aware of the problems with the Green policies you raise.
But, with the possible exception of euthanasia, none of the issues you raise in #19 are proportionate to abortion which is the reason I’m voting Green.
I rate the defense of human life as the #1 issue. To me, everything else is less important.
God Bless
If that’s the case Scribe I retract my comment. You may be right.
Chris,
Having re-read the front page story in that cracking good read, in my personal leather bound and embossed archive, I doubt many people read it the way you did.
Others can decide; here’s the sentence in question:
Independent MP Gordon Copeland has tried to highlight abortion during the final stretch of the election campaign, hoping to use the issue to galvanise support for his new party.
jodokaast,
Not wanting to sound arrogant, but I am right
Chris,
I feel like we have been down this path before. But as you continue to re-litigate your points, others may not read the other posts where your logic has been challenged, so I feel the need to bring up the same questions and points to you…again.
But then I noticed that you forgot to carry the one.
Chris, have you actually checked your maths there mate? The stats you quoted from Stats NZ show that aobrtions rose from 11,613 in 1991 (National’s first return to government) to 15,501 in 1999 (their last year) or 1 in 18 (not 19 as you quote).
Now, unless I’m totally off here, that’s an increase of 33%, not 43%. Let me show you my working.
15,501 (in 1999) – 11,613 (in 1991) = 3,888 more dead babies.
3,888 is actually 33% of 11,613.
Therefore, the figure increased by 33% from the 1991 figure.
This is very important, Chris, as the actual figures show that under the previous Labour government to that period, abortion increased 57%!!!
Now, you have two choices open to you.
1) If you believe that the increase in abortion rates while a particular government is in power is the best way to dictate your vote (rather than the actual policies of the government), then you’ll have to admit by your own figures that National is a more pro-life option than Labour (and Labour’s associated cronies, the Greens).
or
2) If you acknowledge that there are lies, damned lies and statistics and that just because a government is in power doesn’t mean they are actually responsible for everything that happens during that period in history, then you can stop throwing around that red herring that is the increase under National.
Which one is it Chris – 1) or 2)?
“I rate the defense of human life as the #1 issue. To me, everything else is less important.”
Well why are you voting Green then ya fool?
That’s like saying that reducing crime is your number 1 priority so you’ll be voting for the Mongrel Mob at the next election.
If you truly rate the defence of human life as your number 1 priority then you will not vote Green on Saturday.
I agree with Ox. If defence of human life is your top priority, Chris, then I implore you to vote for someone — just about anyone — other than the Greens.
Labour has better pro-life credentials than the Greens (though that’s a bit like saying Clinton was more pro-life than Obama).
As I said before.
Greens = Communism in drag.
Dressed up with nice rhetoric and billboards, but wanting to control everything, and ban everything they think is wrong – which includes large families.
Their Population policy would allow the NZ population to peak at 5.1 mil. Then, if they had their way, there would be forced abortion as in China, and contraceptives in the water supply.
But, grow as many trees as you like and hug them each morning before you saunter off to milk your cow – only one cow, because their carbon footprint is bad (too much farting don’t y’know)
Buy a bike, dump your car, and make gas fuel for heating, lighting and cooking from decomposing pig dung.
Yeah – that’s it , back to the stone age.
YABBA DABBA DOOOOOOO !!!!!!
Flintstones, here we come. :lol:
My weight went up 5% under this Labour government; yet under National my physical fitness improved and my grades improved by a whole GPA.
You can guess who I’m voting for – I’ll be thinner AND smarter!
Chris,
Why don’t you just vote Labour, instead of the Greens!?
Helen may eventually pack us all off to the Gulags, but at least it’s less likely you’re whole family will be euthanised to make way for a grove of Macrocarpas!
James,
I’m talking abortion rate not abortion numbers.
The abortion rate is the number of abortions per woman aged 15 to 45.
The number of abortions, of course, increase as the population increases so are not so helpful when comparing abortions over time.
It’s a fact that family economics influences the abortion rate.
But, as I expect Don is right that some 65% of Being Frankers probably vote National, that’s a fact that many here run to avoid because its inconvenient for their conservative politics.
I didn’t just dream this up. This is a point the NZ Catholic Bishops also made in their election statement :-
The US Catholic Bishops made exactly the same point in their voting guide Faithful Citizenship.
My vote is very much informed by what the bishops teach. And hardly any by what conservative Being Frankers say.
God Bless
Why don’t you just vote Labour
Because I don’t think Labour has done enough for the poor and the Greens would.
God Bless
Chris.
Vacant unbelieving stare into a timeless void
Even if the Greens come in on the coat tails of Labour – which is unlikely at this stage – did Labour listen to the Greens during their last term in office?
Not on your Nellie.
A vote for Greens is a vote for Labour which is a wasted vote.
Bye bye you pro-death abortionists.
I applaud the kiwi party for the courage to put the abortion issue to the fore and for their stand on it.
I hope the Greens are never seen again in our parliament – because they are unfit to govern, in their ruling out of a section of our community as having the right to live. No other policy they have can make them fit to govern, while they hold onto that irrational and tyrannical prejudice.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for abortion on demand.
Chris – you may think you have come up with a clever twist, in trying to justify voting for the most pro abortion party as a way of reducing abortion. My advice is, in place of novelty, try seeking the truth. That swollen surge that runs through your body when you manage to make black mean white and when you know it will get everyone else riled up is no substitute to the deep sense of peace that could be yours if you were to discover the simplicity of seeking the true and the good for themselves and vigilantly rejecting what attacks and limits them. The humble and simple way of voting for a pro life candidate because that is your main priority might not be so intellectually interesting or immediately striking. But it is a truer path. It is letting your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything else comes from the evil one.
I don’t think anyone argues that economic pressure can contribute to abortion rates but your data range is far too selective to make such a broad conclusion, i.e. National = abortionists.
You haven’t considered social acceptance over time, media presentation, sex ed curriculum changes, generational cohorts…
Correlation is not causation.
Cuba, which is an equitable socialist paradise according to Michael Moore’s flick “Sicko”, has the highest abortion rate in the world.
National has never been in charge of Cuba so how could this be?
oops, selection bias? Or is it? Please explain.
You haven’t considered social acceptance over time, media presentation, sex ed curriculum changes, generational cohorts…
Yes, I have.
Those factors, in my estimation, would have had about the same influence over the 9 years of National government as the 9 years of Labour government. In fact, in light of declining public morality I would expect these factors to have had a much greater effect under Labour than under National.
But still the abortion rate rose by 5 points under National but only 1 point under Labour.
There has to be another reason than your factors Greg.
And there is.
The Nats got in and slashed average income of the poorest 10% of Kiwis by 20% from $11,000 to $9,000.
They raised state house rents to full market rents forcing many to live one family per room and in garages and caravans.
Things got so bad that Churches had to start running food banks to feed the poor – something never seen in NZ since the 1930’s depression.
The Nats employment contracts act slashed wages and conditions. My wife worked in a rest home laundry and her wages were cut 50%.
And we’re expected to believe that this National Party economic slash and burn on the poor had no effect on the 43% rise in the abortion rate under the Nats ?
PUUULLLEEEEZE
God Bless
poorclear,
The most pro-life party is the one who’ll fight hard to do the most to protect the poor in the deepening recession and who’ll fight hard against war.
That’s the Greens.
I know it doesn’t fit preconceptions.
It didn’t fit mine either.
But it’s the facts.
God Bless
Chris, every day in New Zealand, which is the country we are seeking governance of, 50 living children are decapitated and have their limbs ripped from them. It is life and death for them. Your wife was not dismembered under national, nor will she be under any of the parties that are standing. Neither will you be. Neither will the people who go to the food banks be. But 50 children will be. Today it happened. And tomorrow it will happen. And on average, every day.
The green party are in favour of this continuing to be legal and they are opposed to any moves to limit this in law. They are opposed to parents knowing that their young daughters are being helped by schools that they trusted to do this to their grandchildren.
It is clear that this issue is not your priority at all. Be honest enough to admit it. Your priority is perhaps that poor people have a few more dollars in the hand each week. Ok – some people think like that. It is not a bad thing for poor people to have a few more dollars in the hand each week. I am in favour of that too. But it cannot be my priority while 50 children are being killed every day in my country. If I was to vote for a party that believed that that killing should be a matter of free choice and should be state assisted and widely available whenever wanted, just because that party would give a few extra dollars to the poor each week, I could rightly be acused of not giving a tinker’s cuss in practice about those little lives. Thems the facts.
The Communists are the best people for the people.
Huzzah. – Long Live the Revolution.
(Sounds of the Red Army destroying the last vestiges of freedom rise, surge, then fade.)
Don
Your twisted logic that a vote for Greens or Labour is a vote for killing the unborn could also be applied to the Pope.
He has failed to act, note {ACT} decisively to stop the war in Iraq,in which hundreds of innocent children and mothers have been killed
Even the simple act of forbidding Catholics to participate in combat,which is well within his
realm of authority,he has failed to do so.Therefore, he has put something else before saving the lives of born and unborn muslim children.Therefore he is in favour of killing unborn muslim children and their parents.
The same argument applies to President Bush as well. Extending the argument those who supported President Bush are also resposible for the murder of hundreds of innocent muslim children born and unborn in Iraq.
Helen – are you Helen Clark by any chance? Welcome aboard. I hope you can find meaningful employment in the years ahead.
How do you imagine the pope could have acted decisively to stop the war in Iraq, when the only soldiers he has are determined to be neutral the whole time?
Helen – the Greens support abortion on demand. That is more than failing to act to prevent it. That is being in favour of it. If you are not in favour of it, I suggest you do not vote for them. And if you are not Helen Clark, I suggest not voting for her either, as she and many others of her party have consistently supported the availability of abortion and its ‘normalisation’ in our society.
If you care about that at all, let it influence you. If you don’t care about it all, go to the mirror and look in it and say: Even though 50 little children are killed every day in NZ I don’t give a tinkers cuss” and then go and vote green or labour or whoever else supports the things you really support. And maybe come out of the closet as pro-abortion.
Chris,
What the heck are you talking about?
Your economics=abortion theory has been proved to be completely false!
Not only did abortion rates rise at a much higher rate under Labour, but they also rose to their highest levels under Labour.
How insane in the membrane do you have to be not to understand that the facts (let’s call them “reality”) do NOT support your theory.
Yet despite this, you are going to use a totally false and completely debunked theory to vote for the most pro-abortion party in NZ.
That doesn’t just make your vote a stupid vote, it actually makes it terribly immoral and irresponsible.
It would be better for the 18,000 if you didn’t vote this weekend.
First the UN couldn’t stop Bush; you think the Vatican could???
Second, despite being in a weird world where pacifism is the ONLY choose a Catholic can make (note I didn’t say it was a BAD choice), aka Chris’s world, Catholics are free to participate in combat.
I’m not supporting the war or saying that it was good. But if we continue to kill our innocent unborn, I’m not surprised we so easily go to war, or abuse our children; if we accept that level of violence in our society then almost anything will be accepted.
Pax Helens; one more exam tomorrow then I’m free!!
Helens Bay,
Have you been hitting the whiskey a bit hard today?
Please do tell how the Pope could have stopped the Iraq war?
Maybe he could armed all the clergy and bishops in the Middle East and sent them on another Crusade?
Maybe he could have used the Catholic navy and airforce to create a naval blockade and a no-fly zone around Iraq to prevent allied troops and supplies from getting in.
Maybe he could have used his secret Papal decoder ring to call forth the mighty robot Voltron to stop the invading US forces?
A little less time reading the Communist Manifesto and The Population Bomb, and you might realise that you’re backing the wrong horse brother.
Haha. Voltron. Sorry that was funny
For those who don’t understand the Voltron comment…
Ohmigosh. I so remember this program. This was when cartoons were cool!!! Bring them back I say
Chris,
Fair point.
Although the numbers still support my original point.
The rate, according to the figures you provided, at the start of the National era was 14/1000 and ended at 18/1000. That’s an increase of 28%.
However, the rate for the Labour government prior to that was 9.3/1000 at the start, and 14/1000 at the end. That’s an increase of 51%!!!
That’s a fact that I don’t hear anyone disputing. However, what I am questioning is how big an influence they are than, say, promiscuity and inconvenience? This is where you have no facts that support that economics is the main reason, right?
And another thing: if economic situation was the main reason why women get an abortion, why is that no considered a valid excuse in the law? The law says abortions are only valid when the mother’s mental or physical health is in jeopardy. Not the health of her purse.
You’re really clutching at straws here, I think Mr Sullivan.
I would say that economics may pay a small part in a woman’s decision to choose to abort, but I doubt very much that that is the main reason. I would wager that it will more often be because they don’t think they can “handle” being a parent (tip: don’t have sex until you’re ready!), or that they don’t “want” a baby, or that the thought of having a baby stresses them out.
None of these would be helped in any substantial way by the Greens. What would be helped by them and Labour is support for the woman’s “right” to kill her baby. Having this “right” promoted and entrenched in law is going to be far more damaging than influencing how much power unions have. Fact. Their mentality of it being a “right” is the kind of thinking that makes women in the promiscuity/inconvenience camp think it’s a valid alternative.
Wake up Chris – the Greens aren’t pro-life…well, not as we know life anyway. Pro-trees, sure.
Voting for them is not being pro-life, and you are basing that choice on false assumptions you’re making that they are going to reduce abortions…they won’t.
Yet, your main reason quoted is actually not based on what the bishops teach at all. It’s based on the false assumption that economics are the main reason behind a woman’s choice to abort. Please show me one statement from any bishop supporting that. Remember: key word there is “main”.
poorclear,
It was an ironic reply to twisted logic of other posts that inferred that Obama was a killer of unborn children.
Though in fact the pope could have spoken out and called it an injust war as did many nations.
Dumb Ox
i know its hard for you to understand irony.
I wonder how many of the self righteous blogers on this site justify the killing of innocent children born or unborn in a war just ,or unjust one,why not for the abortion for a young teenager raped by a priest,her brother or father.
The “moral judgement’ on this blog is blatant hypocrisy.
I wonder how many of the “moralists” are out there helping people who are considering abortion in a physical prescence rather than pushing their own barrow on this blog.
By the way I am against abortion.
I’m sorry Helens Bay, but your attacks against others on this blog are nothing more than a lame distraction, designed to draw attention away from the fact that your arguments lack substance, reason or moral truth.
Talk about straw men…
No one here supports the killing of ANY innocent human person, whether they be in a womb, or in a warzone.
So don’t come around here and try that old chestnut on – it’s an old trick to try distract attention away from the real issues by claiming that people who are anti-abortion don’t care about innocent people dying in other situations like poverty or war, etc.
But this is just nonsense, and it is nothing more than a shallow distraction, designed to shut down genuine discussion and debate about the greatest social issue, with the largest death toll, of our time.
You try and claim some sort of high ground by accusing people here of hypocritical moral judgement – but in doing so, you are passing your very own moral judgments on us – thus making you the very hypocrite that you accuse others here of being (afterall, you are the one claiming that being a “morialist” – whatever that means – is an evil thing, yet you are more than happy to be one yourself when the situation suits).
It seems to me that many of your posts on this blog are nothing more than incendiary and reactionary, replete with lots of emotive and baseless accusations against the people involved in the discussions here.
How about you start presenting some actual reasoned arguments and opinions, rather than just popping in every now and then to call people names and to hurl a few rotten verbal cabbages at the other posters?
Chris said “Things got so bad that Churches had to start running food banks to feed the poor – something never seen in NZ since the 1930’s depression.”
And this is something that always astounds me – “Why is this a bad thing?”
Surely corporal works of mercy are the domain of the church and not the state? My understanding of what happened is that the government stoped supporting the poor – and the church started again. How are we meant to feed the poor when its the government’s job to make sure that they aren’t poor?
stylistically, irony, sarcasm and subtle inflections don’t work on blogs.
Only relentless volume and staying on message works.
Speaking of which, the matter of single variable correlations and National=death on two legs.
Cuba still has the highest abortion rate and is a socialist state.
If Rodger/Thatcher/Trevornomics are solely to blame for economic-stress abortions is it true that Castro is a closet thatcherite?
Tangentially, it’s notable that Castro is personally wealthy. Amazingly, Fidel is richer than George W Bush.
The well regarded right-wing-nut Castro is worth over $50mil whereas W stumps up only $20mil.
Abortionistas Castro’s $50mil… must be the money saved on maternity care, kindergartens, and primary schools!
So many abortions and not a Tory for miles. How does that fit into the hypothesis?
Dumb Ox
Maybe I should aquiesce to your bully boy tactics and stay silent.
Many on this site approve of “just wars” and justify the killing of innocents as justifiable in the circumstances.
reasoned arguments mean nothing to you as you demean those who do not agree with your opinions
e.g Chris sullivan is a fool, and I have been drinking too much whiskey.
You are not the only one whose only method of defense is to attack and denigrate Chris Sullian.
There is no debate here, any opinion contrary to that of the majority of right wing posters is ridiculed especially Chris.
your charge of me being reactionary is a joke.
reactionary:opposed to liberal or progressive change,opposed to social or or political changes that the speaker considers liberal or progressive.
Liberal posters on this blog are few and far between
One interesting point about the Greens, which does not appear to have been mentioned in the media, is that their party vote has gotten lower each election, and at the last election the received less than 5.1% of the party vote (I think) and no electorates, meaning they only just got in.
I think the Greens are currently polling at about 8% of the party vote, but if their trend continues then there is a really chance that they don’t meet either of the threseholds to get in to parliament, meaning that a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote.
Just some food for thought.
“Why is this a bad thing?”
Because Social Justice requires that the state be so ordered that everyone has a proper standard of income.
The Popes teach that every worker is entitled to a living wage sufficient to support their family.
It’s a travesty of Catholic social teaching for Catholics to say that a society which has to have food banks to feed the poor is a good thing.
It’s not.
It’s an indictment on society, it’s government and a population who don’t care about the poor.
God Bless
James,
I’m not assuming economics are the main factor in abortion decisions.
I fully support laws to protect the unborn. That’s why last time I voted United Future and before that I voted Christian Heritage.
But I’m being practical.
Sadly, no party in the next term of government is likely to introduce laws to protect the unborn. Even if they did, they would not have the numbers to pass.
That’s tragic. And something we need to keep working towards.
But we need to be realistic that it isn’t something we are going to be able to acheive in the term of the next govt.
But what we can influence are the economic factors encouraging abortions.
And I agree with you that Labour’s 1994-1999 Rogernomics were just as devastating to the poor and low paid and also caused a big increase in the abortion rate.
Which again underscores my point that the facts support the conclusion that economic attacks on the poor by right wing governments 1984-1999 caused a big surge in abortions which have sadly become engrained in social attitudes to crisis pregnancies.
It’s sad fact that the current National Party front bench is full of the same failed 1990’s National politicians who attacked the poor and low paid so I fully expect they will attack the poor again if elected just the same as they did last time in office.
http://botheyesopen.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/large_national-party-2008-cartoon.jpg
Take Pakuranga for example, where National Front Bench MP Maurice Williamson wants to build private toll roads costing Pakuranga commuters $50 per week in extra travel costs. That’s $200 per month in extra costs on family. Pro-life ? Certainly not.
God Bless
Poorclear,
Your insinuation in #40 that Helen and I are pro-abortion or don’t care about abortion is completely wrong, uncalled for, and very judgemental.
That we happen to have a different voting strategy to reduce abortion than you do in this election does not mean that we do not care about abortion.
We do care but we just have different ideas about how best to use our vote to defend innocent human life.
You don’t need to be in judgemental attack mode all the time.
Jesus taught a better way:
Why not try it ? It will bring you peace, I promise you.
God Bless
“Why is this a bad thing?”
Because Social Justice requires that the state be so ordered that everyone has a proper standard of income.
I’ve read the compendium of social doctrine (which is what I’m assuming you’re refering too. It says every [b] worker [/] has the right to a proper wage. It doesn’t say every unemployed person.
“It’s a travesty of Catholic social teaching for Catholics to say that a society which has to have food banks to feed the poor is a good thing.
It’s not.
It’s an indictment on society, it’s government and a population who don’t care about the poor.”
Excuse me Chris but you appear to put the choice between the government providing food, and the church providing food. it’s not a question of whether the food bank exist or not, there will always be poor, and they will always need caring for. So WHERE do you find the claim that it ought to be the state that cares? For hundreds of years it was the church providing care and support for the poor, why in the 21st century is the assumptionn that the state ought to be the provider?
“And I agree with you that Labour’s 1994-1999 Rogernomics were just as devastating to the poor and low paid and also caused a big increase in the abortion rate.”
For the third time (also #34,#52) I say that your assertion is based on a simplistic correlation.
I draw your attention for the third time to the fact that Cuba has the highest abortion rate in the world followed by several former Soviet states.
None of these high abortion states have had a Tory government so how does that mesh with your hypothesis of Rogernomics driving abortion?
No one debates economic pressure is a factor but to correlate market economics with abortion when Cuba is the world leader is polemics not analysis.
jodokaast,
From the 1930’s depression until the last National government in the 1990’s New Zealand had a social system where there was no need for foodbanks because we had decent jobs at decent wages and decent welfare benefits for those unable to work.
Which is exactly what the Church teaches about how society ought to be ordered.
Since National gutted wages and benefits in the 1990’s we’ve needed food banks.
And it’s an indictment on Labour too that, despite the considerable good they have done, they have not moved far enough to restore society to the point where foodbanks are no longer needed.
You’re right about historic Catholic charity.
What happened was that as Christian values permeated society, we moved to introduce Catholic ideas about free health care, free education, decent wages, strong trade unions etc into the structure of society as a whole through the state.
Now, as society de-Christianises, we’re moving away from that and back to individualistic greed and self interest.
The only reason that there will always be poor is because there will always be sin and a large part of that is slashing of wages and social benefits available to the poor.
In the Torah, Moses taught that God did not intend there to be any poor amongst Israel which is why Torah law provided social welfare systems to lift people out of poverty.
The Old Testament prophets clearly describe how it was human sin and greed which led to the exploitation of the poor and the creation of a poor underclass.
It is not the will of God that there be poverty and Christians are failing in our duty if we do not do what we can to ensure that there is a proper social structure to lift peopl eout of poverty.
It simply isn’t good enough to sit back, vote National, and give a few dollars to foodbanks.
God Bless
Chris,
Based on what you have said here, I am pretty confident that you would have voted for Hitler had you been living in Germany all those years ago.
You see, many of the people who voted for Hitler did so based on economic reasons – Germany had been seriously wounded by the Great Depression and people were prepared to elect an extremist like Hitler because he seemed to offer solutions to poverty.
I hear you expouding pretty much the same reasoning here – that you are prepared to vote for the most extreme anti-life, ant-marriage and anti-family party in NZ right now purely for economic reasons.
I would suggest that think long and hard about this before your get into the booth tomorrow.
Chris,
Oh but you are. You’re saying that the reason why you would vote Green is because they have the best policies for helping the poor. And, despite them being pro-abortion as a right for women to have, you’re going to support them because you think that those policies will have greater impact because you (errantly) think that economics are the main factor in abortion decisions.
You’ve said as much on this post and pretty much every other one in the last few weeks? I’m not making this stuff up – I’m reading what you’re writing.
Good on you then. But how can you “fully support” such laws when you’re voting for a party that definitely would oppose them.
Say, Chris, that a Catholic member of parliament gets a pro-life bill pulled form the ballot – say a change to the abortion laws, or parental notification or something like that. And it becomes a conscience vote. Now, which way do you think your Green MPs are going to vote? History tells us they will vote 100% against it. Whereas even Labour has some right-thinking people who (if released from the party line) would vote for it.
Think past your current loop of craziness for a second there Chris – you know as well as the rest of us how the Greens think and vote…because they are totally upfront about their agenda.
Such issues are nearly always conscience votes. Think about how formed (or ill-formed) the consciences of the Green caucus are. Demonstrably so.
Sigh. Don’t “agree” because I wasn’t making this case. I was simply showing you your numbers were wrong.
Chris, let me put it to you this way – are you telling me that there is no chance that there weren’t other, totally un-political factors involved in that 15 year period that would have affected abortion rates more than what the government fiscal policy was?!?
Are you seriously that blind?
No. They. Don’t. The facts don’t support that any more than Three Veg’s facts show that the change in government will positively affect his waistline! You’re attributing that change to their policy with nothing more than very spurious logic.
Take your beloved Greens policy on euthanasia or population control. Pro-life? Certainly not…and a heck of a lot more certainly than a road toll.
You need to reset, Chris. Go and get some fresh air and take another look at your crazy logic with some fresh eyes.
Please?
You can call me emotive names all you like buddy, but ultimately the truth remains that you don’t provide arguments and evidence to back up your opinions.
Instead you simply use emotive and reactionary leftist slogans and name calling.
All I am asking for is a decent REASON why you oppose the other opinions, ideas and truths discussed on this blog.
No more smelly cabbages please!
For the sake of the children.
Ox,
The Greens are not Hitler.
Neither are Labour.
If you can’t see that then you’ve lost contact with the real world.
The reason I’m voting Green is that I think they will defend the poor and by so doing prevent more abortions in the term of the next government than any other party.
That makes the Greens actually the most pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family party.
Because what they’ll actually do will, overall, most benefit life, marriage and family.
But you’re free to disagree.
Who are you voting for ? And why ?
God Bless
Chris,
So, how do you plan to fix that with a vote for the Greens?
Please back that up with some facts about God’s Will?
Chris, you have obviously got some bias against National due to the impact their changes to union-power did to your wife’s salary (I think that was the connection you’ve expressed before). But tell me, Cris, personal emotive hatred aside, what expressed policy of this National party don’t you like and why?
James,
I’m in Pakuranga. The local National MP is pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. The Labour candidate Brian Kelly is more pro-life (he’s against euthanasia and against killing embryos for medical purposes) so I’m voting Kelly.
http://catholicjp.blogspot.com
None of the pro-life parties are going to get anyone elected.
All the other parties have a pro-abortion majority.
I don’t honestly see how giving my party vote to any party likely to actually get anyone elected is going to help create a majority to vote in laws to restrict abortion.
Eventually the Greens will change to pro-life. Because pro-death is anathema to their basic philosophy.
Voting National won’t change abortion law. It didn’t under Muldoon or Bolger. Because most National MPs are not interested in anti-abortion laws.
John Key isn’t either as he told Campbell on TV Tuesday.
God Bless
Chris,
Once agian you are proving that you just aren’t listening!
I never said that the Greens or Labour were Hitler.
I said that it’s highly likely that YOU would have voted for Hitler had you been living in Germany when he rose to power.
Why?
Because you would have been prepared to overlook his extremist ideas in favour of his economic policies which promised the German people relief from poverty.
This is exactly what you are doing with the Greens – ignoring their extreme anti-life, anti-marriage and anti-family policies in order to vote for them on purely economic grounds.
Such a vote is contrary to Catholic moral teaching regarding voting and ultimately it is contrary to the common good.
Just think about it for a moment Chris.
You do realise that the best way to address poverty and to protect the environment is to vote for a pro-marriage and pro-family policies?
You see, if a family stays together in the same house and doesn’t divorce then they have less of a carbon footprint – but when if they seperate and live in different houses their carbon footprint increases (if you’re in to that kind of thing).
And societies that don’t have strong marriages and families are more likely to face economic issues, and they do not have the support system of family to shelter them from economic storms.
You see, voting for the Greens on economic grounds makes no sense, as their anti-marriage and anti-family policies actually undermine the most effective weapon we have against poverty, and the protection that marriage and family gives to those in need.
“The Torah provided social welfare systems to lift people out of poverty”
Name them. Name an aspect of the Torah that was legally compulsary to lift people out of poverty.
We’ll start with housing. Houses that were unclean due to mildew were TORN DOWN. And incidently were not obligated to be replaced by the Levis.
Or perhaps the unclean people were … relegated to begging outside the camp.
Also Chris you say that it is “decent welfare benefits for those unable to work.
Which is exactly what the Church teaches about how society ought to be ordered.”
I’ll agree about decent wages, but ummmmmmm…. I’m still looking for the quotes about where decent welfare benefits from the state are a good thing. In fact JPII was highly critical of them.
Eventually the Greens will change to pro-life?? Hahahahahahahahaha.
Sorry.
Haha. Where is the evidence of that? Is it in the same place as your evidence that only poor poeple have abortions, and hence by eliminating poverty we eliminate abortion? That must be locked away next to the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s body.
Labour won’t change the abortion laws, the Greens won’t change the abortion laws. The only people that have even mentioned anything about the abortion laws have been the Kiwi Party.
I am however saying this without the benefit of whatever crystal ball you possess Chris.
Didn’t the Greens out this year with some statement saying how they wanted to limit the amount of children NZ families could have??
what expressed policy of this National party don’t you like and why?
National have no pro-life policy.
National are pro-war.
National don’t support raising minimum wage to $15.
National don’t support raising welfare benfits to the poor.
National want to cut state sector (will increase unemployment).
National want to cut employer kiwisaver contributions in half from 4% to 2% of wages.
National want to sell state houses and not build any more.
Get real.
The best guide to what National will do in office is not what they say they’ll do. They’ll say anything to get into power and John Key flip flops all over the place.
National said anything to get into power in 1990 – promising the decent society but actually delivering serious poverty.
The best guide to what National will do in office is what they did when last in office.
The National Party front bench, the guys who’ll will form a National cabinet, are pretty much the same gang from the 1990’s.
God Bless
jodokaast,
Deut 15:4,11 :-
Connan,
Didn’t the Greens out this year with some statement saying how they wanted to limit the amount of children NZ families could have??
No they did not. Read their actual policy. Nothing there about limiting children. Sue Bradford is a green MP and she has 5 kids.
God Bless
Um excuse me, but National do have at least one pro-life policy – Bill English has an informed consent bill for abortion that is almost certain to be introduced at some point.
Also, John Key stated on Wednesday night during the leader’s debate that National will not change the current abortion laws in NZ, but Helen Clark would not give the same assurance, and in fact they have indicated a preference for legalised abortion – similar to what was passed into law in Victoria recently.
Margaret Sparrow (a close ally of Labour) was proposing that we change our law to imitate Victoria just two weeks ago on Newstalk ZB.
Helen Clark has also recently stated that she would prefer to see full gay marriage legalised in NZ.
And she also told Right to Life that she supports leglaised euthanasia in NZ.
So voting for Labour or the Greens is a vote that is likely to result in some very anti-life policies coming into effect in NZ, whereas a vote for the other major party is a vote that is almost certain to limit such evil.
Remember, National has a couple of pro-life MPS, one of whom is second only to John Jey within the party hierarchy.
The same cannot be said of Labour.
If you are interested, here is a video of Helen Clark talking about the possibility that Labour would legalise Cannabis in their next term…
Chris,
The Greens do actually have a population control policy to limit the NZ population.
You can read more about it here:
http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/the-green-party-promotes-population-control-and-abortion/
BTM,
Tell me more about Bill English’s informed consent bill. Hadn’t heard of it but it sounds good.
I’d be very doubtfull if there are enough MPs to pass it, but interested in your thoughts.
God Bless
Chris,
You stated that you think that the Green Party will eventually become pro-life.
Sadly, this is never going to happen while the maintain their current eco-fascism ideology.
You see the NZ Green party is actually more red than it is green – their anti-smacking policy proved this beyond a doubt – and their particular brand of environmentalism places the environment before the good of the human person.
Until they ditch such anti-human ideology they will not become pro-life, as being pro-life requires a foundational commitment to the fact that the human person is the highest priority in any moral, social, economic, legal or environmental policies.
The Green Party does not understand that the pinnacle of creation is the human person and that the environment is ordered towards the ultimate good of the human person.
Sadly, they often see the human person as a blight on the environment, which they often view as the ultimate end in and of itself, and they place a higher priority on “the order of things” than they do on the human person – something that the Church clearly teaches as being contrary to the common good.
Chris,
Bill English’s informed consent bill would require full informed consent to be given to any women who wanted to have an abortion.
This would include things like full information about the risks of abortion, the known harm that it causes, the development of the baby in the womb and the procedure itself.
It would also include full informed consent about other alternatives and any practical support that was available for women in crisis-pregnancy.
BTM,
Are you sure the informed consent bill is Bill English’s ?
The only one I know of is Gordon Copeland’s and, sadly, it looks likely to die tomorrow when the Kiwi party fail to get any MPs elected.
I do agree that this is precisely the kind of law change we need to work for. I mean, what feminist or Green can really argue against informed consent ? Its a no-brainer !
Gordon Copeland is a very good man, an friend and someone I’ve worked closely with on a number of issues. If I thought Kiwi had a chance I’d vote for them tommorrow. Unfortunately they are not even in the latest polls which means they won’t make the 5% threshold and therefore no Kiwi Party MPs will get elected.
You say that “National has a couple of pro-life MPS”. Good on them for being pro-life, but, realistically, I wouldn’t have thought that a mere couple was enough to acheive any meaningful change. It hasn’t any time National has had a majority since the Muldoon era.
God Bless
Yes, I am sure.
I was talking to him about it just two weeks ago.
Gordon’s Bill is not quite the same as Bill English’s informed constent policy, but they are both good policies.
That’s good news. What support does English have for his private members bill ?
God Bless
Hey Chris, just coming in with my 2 cents;
Eventually the Greens will change to pro-life.
Are you basing your support of the Greens on that hope? If so it seems, to me at least, to be a strange premise.
Given the High Court judgement on the implementation of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, we may (may) see things coming to a head in the next three years – it may galvanize the pro death people into trying to get a law change to legally allow abortion on demand.
If that happens, we’ll need all the MP’s that we can get to oppose it, and I can’t see the Greens doing that at all.
I’m praying that the Greens don’t get over the 5% threshold (and yes I have seen the recent polls putting them at 8%).
Anyway I’ll be voting early, after work. I won’t tell who I’m voting for as I don’t know much about the Electoral Finance Act but I hear that it’s a stinker and the last thing I want is to be taken away in the middle of the night.
GO KIWI PARTY!
Sometimes we need to stand up and be counted.
Normally I would agree, but the difference is that these are senior MPs within the party, and they have the power to effect and propose important changes at policy level – I know this for a fact.
Secondly, not only does Labour not have any such MPs currently, they also have a core of influential MPs who support pro-abortion, anti-marriage and anti-family policies.
As I see it, we are not currently in a “change” cycle of politics when it comes to pro-life and family issues, and therefore no matter who wins this election, it will not result in the massive advancement of pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family policies.
But, if the current government retains power then it is almost certain that there will be a massive advancement of pro-death and anti-marriage and family policies.
So this election isn’t actually about change, speaking of pro-life and family issues here, instead it is an election that offers an opportunity to stifle and put a halt to anti-life and anti-family legislation.
If the current Labour machine can be halted for 3 or maybe even 6 years, this would give enough time for some new MPs to take power within the Labour ranks and hopefully signal a change in policy direction (all depending on the will of Labour supporters).
Sure, the smaller parties may not get the 5% tomorrow, but even if they only get 3%-4% it will put them on the map for the next election, where they are likely to grow that support base.
I am personally a little bit annoyed that the family vote has been split this election by the fact that there are two minor parties running in direct competition to each other, but I wish them both well and hopefully one of them will get some traction tomorrow.
Are you basing your support of the Greens on that hope?
No (hey – I may appear far out but I’m not stupid!).
Purely on pragmatics. Which party will save the most lives in the next term of govt.
I’ve never voted Greens in my life, and I may never again either as I’m not attached to any political party.
But look at it logically.
The Green philosophy is for creation and against threats to creation. Logically that’s pro-life.
The Socialist philosophy is for the workers and for the poor. Logically, that’s pro-life too because there are none poorer than the unborn.
The problem with the Greens and the Reds is not that they are Green or Red.
It’s that they are not Green or Red enough.
God Bless
BTM,
I think the important thing is to build coalitions on the ground to oppose bad laws and promote good laws. As Proposition 8 did in California.
We could have stopped Civil Unions and Prostitution Law Reform if enough people had got off their bums to oppose them. Instead, there was enormous Catholic apathy which was part of the problem.
Too often I think we tend to see politics as a vote once every 3 years when we ought to be active in politics throughout the election cycle.
There may be some truth in what you say in young Labour MPs coming thru. I was impressed with Labour candidate Brian Kelly in Pakuranga and there are some others not too bad either (Ross Robertson springs to mind in neighbouring Papatoetoe).
God Bless
But that’s not actually pro-life.
Being pro-life requires a prioritization of goods, and the good of the human persons must always come before the good of the environment.
Unfortunately, the Greens do not prioritize the goods, instead they generally view the human person as equal with the environment, and some policies place the environment ahead of the good of the human person.
This is not pro-life.
Actually Chris, this isn’t what Socialism is about at all.
Socialism is inherently unjust because it seeks to redress poverty and inequality by injustice and force – neither of which are acceptable to true Christian social justice.
Also, the unborn child does not benefit from Socialism at all – in fact, generally speaking, Socialist systems have far higher rates of abortion than other systems do.
In fact, the human person is harmed by Socialism, because it is built on Collectivism, which reduces the individual person to a mere part of the whole, and as such the group is given greater priority than the individual person is.
This is contrary to the common good which proposes that the good of the individual and the good of the group must both be considered.
BTM,
You’re right about the failings of the Green and Socialist movements.
But, the way to convert a Green or a Socialist is not to argue against being Green or Socialist.
It’s to argue that the fulfillment of everything good and noble in being Green or Socialist is Christ.
Or, in political terms, the fulfillment of what’s good in every party’s position (and there is good in every party’s position, even ACT and National) is in Catholic Social Teaching.
Christ is what they are all looking for.
God Bless
Just to throw a sparkler on the gunpowder.
The Maori party have released ideas saying they’d like to get rid of the benefit and instead have government subsided jobs as the recognise its not good for their people.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Maori-Party-seeks-radical-tax-and-welfare-reform/tabid/423/articleID/75757/cat/64/Default.aspx
And in fact B16 has said that a state that takes care of every need of the human person is a society that will forget that the one thing a human person needs more than anything is love. So I think B16 wouldn’t advocate whole scale socialism
I agree with you Chris, but to find fulfillment in Christ a Green or Socialist supporter would need to reject and move away from the foundational and key tennants of the Green/Socialist movement.
You can’t marry Christ to Socialism or Greenism for two reasons:
1. Christ did not come to build a political corporeal kingdom
2. Christ could never be married to any political system which uses injustice to achieve its end, or that rejects the priority of the human person that is created in His Father’s image
Gianna,
As long as they are proper jobs at proper wages, I think that’s a good idea.
A Maori friend (he’s a factory worker) and I were discussing voting Maori this election. We’d both considered it but didn’t like the prospect of Maori going into coalition with National as we both thought that would be a disaster.
All the poor and low paid I know are voting Labour.
I think that listening to the voice of the poor and low paid is part of listening to the voice of God.
God Bless
BTM,
We disagree on what’s actually foundational in Green/Socialist.
What you see as foundational in them I do not.
The first Labour government was socialist and was much closer to Catholic Social Teaching than any party we have today.
The challenge before us is really to get back to something like the First Labour Government type of party.
Fr Benedict Groeschel said much the same thing on EWTN a few weeks back in the US context wrt the New Deal Democrats.
God Bless
And therein lies your problem Chris – you don’t actually understand the foundational philosophies which underpin these movements, and the fact that they are philosophies guided by the culture of death.
It seems to me that you have reduced Christ to a political figure and Christianity to some sort of NGO or political movement, but this is terribly misguided and it is not the way of Christ.
The sonner you see this, the sooner you will realise that voting for the culture of death can never be justified in the eyes of Christ.
A vote for the Greens or Labour is a vote AGAINST the very little ones of the Gospel who Jesus commands us to do everything in our power to safeguard.
BTM,
A vote for the Greens or Labour is a vote AGAINST the very little ones of the Gospel who Jesus commands us to do everything in our power to safeguard.
It is not.
If you think that it is then why not take it up with the NZ Catholic Bishops and see if you can persuade them of your bizzare views ? They won’t have a bar of your way out views and you know it.
What the NZ Catholic Bishops teach is this :-
I suggest you think about what the bishops teach here before coming up with outrageous statements like yours above which just discredit the pro-life movement.
God Bless
And thus their lies the truth about Chris. You can’t listen to what he says because he is ROGER RABBIT. Seriously Chris, I would like an answer to my very simple questions. Where you can’t misquote anything or anyone to answer it. Stop being a loose cannon.
WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT LISTEN TO HIS OWN ADVICE?
and
WOULD YOU VOTE SOMEONE IN TO POWER BECAUSE OF HIS/HER RACE OR BECAUSE OF THE MORAL VALUES THAT THEY HOLD?
If you do not answer this Chris me and the thousands of other people who have to put up with your rubbish shall be very dissapointed. ESPECIALLY as you are the one that is putting alot of people in to doubt about the false claims you make which you attribute to the Catholic Church and Her Bishops.
I’m sorry Chris, but it is you who is not in union with the NZ Bishops, or other Catholic teaching, on this issue.
Here is what the NZ Bishops teach…
The Greens do not promote a policy where every human person matters, only those who have been born matter to the Greens, and even then the environment is sometimes given a higher priority than the human person by the Greens.
So it is you who has a bizzare view here, because you wrongly believe that you can ignore the common good, and the great dignity and rights of the unborn person, in order to vote for parties who oppose such things, merely for economic reasons only.
As Poorclear clearly pointed out earlier, this shows that you are really more concerned with economics than you are with unborn human persons and their rights.
Further to my last comment, if you read the NZ Bishop’s statement on the 2008 NZ Election you will see that they have ranked the issues in order of their prioity, and according to the Bishops they are…
1. Abortion, Stem Cells and Euthanasia
2. Family
3. Marriage
Economic policy is fourth on their list, because the Bishops consider economics far less important than the good of the human person, marriage and family, etc.
BTM,
My point is not that economics is more important than human life. It isn’t.
My point is that, in this election, where, as you admit above, the incoming govt will not be passing prolife laws, it will be the economic impact on the poor and low paid of the deepening recession which will be key to influencing abortion decisions.
That’s a point the NZ bishops also make in their election statement :-
In my prudential judgement (and I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong) the Greens will best promote the bolded part of the bishops statement.
And, btw, economic rights are also central to #2 on the bishops list (family rights) so they come in at both #1 and #2 on the bishops list.
God Bless
In my prudential judgement (and I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong) the Greens will best promote the bolded part of the bishops statement.
To remind readers, this is the part in bold: “and also supporting pregnant and single mothers, and ensuring all children are welcomed and supported.”
Chris, and I don’t say this lightly, you are wrong on this matter.
Chris, do you really think that the Greens are the most likely – out of all the parties that are looking at getting into parliament for the next three years, in ensuring all children are welcomed and supported.?
Do you really think that?
Really?
Scribe,
I’m open to a good reasoned argument and evidence but just telling me I’m wrong won’t get us very far.
God Bless
But Chris,
Your economics and abortion theory is not correct at all, and the Bishops do not endorse such a theory either.
The statement they make is that true pro-life work also must include “supporting pregnant and single mothers” and also “children”, but not once do they state that:
a) Certain economic policies equal more abortion
or
b) Certain economic policies equal less abortion
or
b) That the “support” they speak of is purely economic
You have completely misconstrued one small statement in their election document in order to support a theory that the Bishops do not espouse anywhere in that document, and even that one small statement does not support your theory.
On top of this, the true facts show that economic policies do not actually do the most to reduce or increase abortions.
So in actual fact, you aren’t actually listening to the NZ Bishops at all, instead you have selectively misused small segments of their much larger document in order to support a theory that has been proved completely false.
Why are you doing this?
I don’t know for sure, but I am starting to think that James the Least is right, and that you are actually so opposed to voting for anything other than a left-wing party that you are inventing reasons to try and avoid voting for parties which actually promote a policy line closer to the guidelines laid out by the NZ Bishops.
el wardo,
Re: 99
Yes I do.
Green policies will most protect the poor and families on low incomes because they will fight hard for
* $15 minimum wage
* No tax on incomes under $10,000
These will make a real difference to poor families.
Just look at their billboards – they are the only party saying vote for the kids.
And my old friend Sue Bradford is a Catholic with 5 kids. She’s lived pro-children.
God Bless
I am starting to think that James the Least is right, and that you are actually so opposed to voting for anything other than a left-wing party that you are inventing reasons to try and avoid voting for parties which actually promote a policy line closer to the guidelines laid out by the NZ Bishops.
There you go again. Judging the motives of others.
Listen to Christ. Really Listen.
Actually, last 2 elections I voted for right wing Christian parties and I’d vote Kiwi Party tomorrow if I thought they had a chance. But they don’t and its their own fault they don’t because they foolishly split from United Future over relatively trivial issues (the smacking bill).
God Bless
Theres a bunny named sully and his name is Chris,
Wow Roger Rabbit you really act like a dousche sometimes. I want to call you some names but really its such a waste. A mind like yours so easily led astray, you certainly have the means but you dont use it. Such a sad state of affairs.
Hey Chris,
Re #102, when you say:
Yes I do.
Green policies will most protect the poor and families on low incomes because they will fight hard for…
The issue I raised was if you thought that the Greens are the best party at ensuring all children are welcomed and supported.
Your response doesn’t address the issue at all.
A party that is for abortion on demand is the DIRECT OPPOSITE to ensuring that all children are welcomed and supported. If a party wants people to have the option of aborting babies at will, that party is not ensuring that all children are welcomed and supported.
Such a party is ensuring that the right to kill children is welcomed and supported.
If you do vote for the Greens tomorrow then I sincerely hope that you can justify your actions my friend, because one day you will have to.
Chris,
Sue Bradford is strongly pro-abortion.
She also sponsored the anti-smacking law which contravened the Catholic moral princiapl of subsistence.
On top of that the $15 minimum wage is not going to do anything to stop abortions, and neither is the no tax on incomes under $10,000.
What you have done is place financial gain ahead of saving the lives of unborn human persons.
You are saying that you would rather vote for certain economic policies than you would for policies that will protect the unborn members of our society.
el,
None parties likely to get elected tomorrow are against abortion.
Don’t threaten me with going to hell for voting Green because that will achieve the exact opposite of what you think.
The Holy one and I spoke last night and he’s fine with my voting intentions. We’re going to eucharistic adoration tonight and I’m at a retreat tomorrow so I’ll be in prayer before I vote and still open to changing my mind.
BTM,
I have not placed financial gain before saving lives. I personally stand to loose financially under Green policies. If I voted for my financial gain I’d be voting ACT and they know that too which is why Rodney Hide just rang up asking for my vote.
What I’m saying is that economic support for the poor and low paid will reduce the financial pressures to abort. And, lacking any party going to promote pro-life laws, that’s the best way for govt to reduce abortions in the next 3 years as we go into serious recession
The Christian voting scene is just crazy. We have 3 Christian parties fighting each other which might appear Trinitarian but it ain’t because its a complete absence of unity. The result will probably be that only Peter Dunne gets in.
God Bless
Anyway, Brendan, who would you advise me to vote for, and why ?
It sounds like El is going with Kiwi. Good on him, I think that’s a good voting decision.
What will actually happen, as it happened before, is that the Holy One will take all our voting decisions, apparantly conflicting as they are, and bring something wonderful out of them, even if it might be hard for some of us to see that and some of them will be long term not short term.
God Bless
Hey Chris,
I hope you’re not confusing my concerns with threats. Say I saw you lying down on a railway track, and told you that trains often travel along that track and that you should get off it.
I would say that to you because I do not want to see you get hurt.
Would you then accuse me of threatening you with being run over by a train? I hope not.
And I repeat my concern – if you do vote for the Greens tomorrow based on the reasoning that you’ve given on this blog, then I earnestly hope that you can legitimately justify your choice.
None parties likely to get elected tomorrow are against abortion.
No argument there, but what I simply cannot see is why someone would then go and vote for the worst party as far as abortion is concerned.
From what you’ve written here, it seems as if you think that given the unlikelihood of a party being in parliament that strongly advocates life, someone could then ignore a party’s view on abortion entirely and concentrate on other issues that are not as important as abortion and vote for the worst party as far as abortion is concerned.
Not only do I not see any sense in that, none of the Church’s documents on voting (from here, the US and the Vatican) actually state that the above is a valid position.
Incidentally Chris, if someone did actually threaten you with hell if you voted a certain way, and that galvanised you to vote for that party – surely that’s a irresponsible way to vote?
I agree with Chris that Maurice Williamson is a twat.
I’ve never liked him, and most times he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. I suspect he will not feature very highly in the incoming National Govt. – but that’s surmise, not inside info.
And that’s probably one of the few times I agree with my friend Chris.
Bill English is hugely pro-life, and has acted in the past to push pro-life and anti abortion issues. He has (I think) seven children, his wife is Samoan, and an MD (doctor)
Simon Bridges is pro life.
Tony Ryall is pro life.
I know there are more but cannot bring them to mind right now. (check the voting record in a previous blog topic here.
The Key National govt. is committed to maintaining all current benefits, and in fact improving wages by reducing taxes. They have very possitive policies on Education , Law and Order, more efficient use of taxpayer funds within the bureacracy (not by firing the excess bureacrats, but letting natural wastage and relocation to constructive work reduce it.) Infrastructure, and Broadband introduction. Key is recognised as a leading financial manager and recognised internationally. He is arguably one of the leading strategic planners in economic terms in the world.
I think we will have a National govt. come Sunday. This will be good for the country and ALL our citizens.
Cheers.
I earnestly hope that you can legitimately justify your choice.
I can.
I’ve spent a long time in prayer, conversation, and study on whom to vote for.
I’m voting Green because I think they’ll save the most innocent babies from being aborted.
That’s because they’ll fight hard for the poor which will reduce the economic impact on abortion decisions as we head into serious recession.
I have produced solid evidence of how slashing the real income of the poor in the 1990’s and late 1980’s resulted in a dramatic rise in the abortion rate.
We simply can’t let that happen again.
Too many lives depend on it.
You might not agree with my reasons and they might appear counter-intuitive.
But I assure you, my reasons are entirely rational and fully in line with Catholic teaching.
God Bless
Don,
You might want to rephrase the expression you used about Maurice. Round here that’s slang for a women’s private parts !
If you, a member of the National Party’s Tauranga campaign team, can only think of three National candidates which are pro-life, then I think that speaks volumes for the lack of pro-life comittement amongst National MPs.
God Bless
Hey Chris,
I’m voting Green because I think they’ll save the most innocent babies from being aborted.
I’ve been thinking about that. Say, hypothetically, that greens/labour etc get into government tomorrow for the next three years. During that time, the greens push for abortion law changes to allow abortion on demand, and they get such passed into law.
Now I’m not talking about the likelihood of that happening, or if the public would allow it, or if we made all sorts of peaceful protests against it, but say the above did happen – if the greens were able to pass abortion on demand into law, would you still be glad that you voted for them?
Forgive me if the word is as you suggset.
I understand the word you refer to is spelt differently.
I am not a member of the National Party campaign team. Because I support Simon Bridges and have helped in some areas does not make me a member of the campaign team.
Over at Kiwiblog there are ten good reasons to vote National. If you want to know what National intends to do, check it out.
Farrar’s final remark, though , is- Whoever you are going to vote for, make sure you vote!!!
Good advice.
Also Chris:
I have produced solid evidence of how slashing the real income of the poor in the 1990’s and late 1980’s resulted in a dramatic rise in the abortion rate.
It’s worth noting that no one else on this blog has come out and agreed with your statement quoted above, as to the solidness of the evidence and that you’ve shown a direct result between the two. In fact a lot of posters are disputing your claim.
Chris,
You are confusing the issues.
Please take my word, as someone who represents a pro-life organisation working in NZ, voting along pure economic lines simply will not decrease (or increase, for that matter) the number of abortions in NZ.
Economics have a role to play in the abortion issue, but they are not the most important factor in the reduction of abortions, or the protection of the unborn child, in fact economic policies have almost nothing to do with saving unborn babies, unless such policies are directed at funding direct pro-life ventures – in other words, a vote based on taxation, wage rates and other similar economic policy is not a pro-life vote.
Yes, you are right, apart from the Christian parties there are no other parties with an exclusively pro-life position, but – AND THIS IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT BIT – there are some parties in NZ who have a position on abortion that is more extreme than other parties.
Labour and the Greens have the most anti-life, anti-marriage and anti-family policies and voting record of all of the parties.
As Catholics, when there are no real pro-life alternatives, we have an obligation to vote in a manner that will reduce the harm and evil that is being caused, or will be caused, if a certain party(s) were to take power.
As I see it, there are two options for people of goodwill who want to vote for life, marriage and family tomorrow.
1. They could either vote for the Christian parties in an effort to get a pro-life voice in parliment
2. They could vote for National in an effort to put a halt to the evil being perpetrated by Labour and the Greens, or in an effort to reduce the harm that such a coalition would cause
3. They could split their candidate and party vote to try and achieve option 1 and option 2
Well said Big Turkey Man.
Say, hypothetically, that greens/labour etc get into government tomorrow for the next three years. During that time, the greens push for abortion law changes to allow abortion on demand, and they get such passed into law.
Big IF !
In practical terms it would make no difference to the abortion rate because we already have abortion effectively on demand – a mother just has to claim mental health and she always gets approval to abort.
God Bless
It’s worth noting that no one else on this blog has come out and agreed with your statement quoted above
It’s worth noting that most participants on Being Frank are on the political right.
And those who aren’t get shouted down and either leave or keep quiet.
God Bless
Don,
National are not embarrased by Maurice Williamson because he’s lying about what National intend to do.
National are embrassed because Maurice is honest enough to admit what National intend to do – introduce private tolls on NZ roads. Which is exactly what they tried to do last time they were in power.
I’ve known Maurice for many years and one thing he is not is a liar.
I’m not making up my contention that National now will do what National 1991-1999 did.
They will. And Maurice is honest enough to admit it.
God Bless
BTM,
in fact economic policies have almost nothing to do with saving unborn babies
Sorry, but they do.
And the US Conference of Catholic Bishops say that they do in the Cdl Rigali statement last week where they list decent minimum wages and welfare policies as one of the pro-life positions the US bishops advocate for.
And a $15 minimum wage indexed to the average wage is a key Green policy and key reason for my support for them.
I’m not making this up – I’m just following what the bishops teach.
They could vote for National in an effort to put a halt to the evil being perpetrated by Labour and the Greens
At least you are honest enough to admit that you are for National.
And illustrate again the right wing preponderance on Being Frank.
If National get elected and the abortion rate rises as much as it did last time National were in power – 43% from 14/1000 to 19/1000 – then I expect you’ll be regretting your decision to encourage people to vote National.
God Bless
well, I credit you that you certainly are a true believer.
Greg,
Well, I’m not attached to voting Green, I’ve never voted Green before, and many of their policies repel me.
If someone gave a good reason to vote some other way to defend innocent human life, I’d listen.
But I’m not hearing any.
Here’s what the US Catholic Bishops said last week about voting wrt abortion:
They clearly make the point, in opposition to BTM, that economic hardship is a factor in abortions and the urgent need to address that.
That “universal health care coverage, generous family leave policies, increases in the minimum wage, humane welfare policies for women who are pregnant” which the US bishops advocate for to reduce abortions are all in Green policy but not in National.
Labour gave us more annual leave – 4 weeks – and paid maternity leave. national opposed both.
Labour increased the minimum wage from $7 to $12. National opposed that and only increased it less than $1 in the 9 years they were last in office.
Labour has actually implemented much of the economic support the US bishops call for to reduce abortions. The Greens would do even better.
I’m sure Brendan will understand if I give more weight to the considered views of Cardinal Rigali, chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities than I give to his.
God Bless
Excuse me Chris, but I need to correct some false allegations you are making here:
1. I am not a right wing voter and I do not endorse National. I have been a Labour voter in the past, and the only reason I am proposing National as an option for people of goodwill is because they are the only other large party in NZ, and they are the only other party that can put a halt to, and limit the harm and evil that will be caused by a Labour/Greens coalition.
I am not a traditional National voter though, and I support good policies and sound moral voting tactics, rather than supporting any one political party.
2. I have worked for more than 4 years fulltime for the largest Catholic pro-life organisation in NZ.
During which time I have spent part of every day tracking pro-life research and trends from all around the world, and I have witnessed the work of our crisis-pregnancy and post-abortion team.
So I like to think that I know a little bit about this issue, and I am telling you categorically that while economics do have a part to play in abortion rates, they are not the most important factor and they do not provide any real protection for unborn human beings.
The facts are that the NZ figures do NOT support the claims that you are making about economics and abortion, and neither does the evidence from the rest of the world.
As some here have already pointed out to you – Cuba is a socialist country, which runs on a policy of wealth redistribution, yet they have one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
Poland on the other hand has a population of more than 38 Million, and they are not considered a rich nation, yet they have less than 500 abortions per year there – all due to strict anti-abortion legislation.
Interestingly, when Poland was under Communist rule (where wealth was redistributed by the government) they had legal abortion, and the abortion rate got as high as 26,000 abortions in one year.
Also, the Philippines has a per capita abortion rate very similar to ours, yet they are a country living mainly in poverty, and well below the standard of living we have in NZ – if your theory is true then they should have a terribly high rate of abortion when compared to us.
So, to be terribly blunt, you are the one is actually wrong about this issue.
If you’d like to converse with me more about this issue via email, I’d be more than happy to provide you with many, many more relevant facts and figures which show that you are wrong in what you assert here.
Chris,
Once again you are misrepresenting the truth.
Cardinal Justin Rigali does NOT say that general economic polices are the most important consideration for pro-life voters, and he certainly does not say that they are the most important weapon in the fight against abortion.
He is agreeing with what I have already said – which is that economics has a small part to play in the abortion issue.
Look at what he actually says…
You’ll notice three things:
1. He says that “SOME women”
2. He does NOT say “all” women
3. He does NOT say “the majority” of women,
He only says “some women” – so he is NOT supporting your false assertions at all Chris – far from it, instead this is exactly what I stated earlier.
Not only that, but he dos not say that voters can vote for extreme pro-abortion candidates based on tax policies or minimum wage policies.
Once again you are misrepresenting the facts, and actual statements from Church leaders in order to try and support false assertions.
And here’s something from a recent interview of an American Bishop on abortion and poverty (he disagrees with the point Chris is trying to make on the USCCB statement):
link
Lucyna,
Bp Finn is on the far right pro-Republican wing of the US Bishops.
Catholics in his state resoundingly rejected his very partisan position and his threat they’d go to hell if they voted Obama. They voted Obama.
God Bless
Hmmm.
I understand the pro-life argument for voting for the economic policies you think will reduce abortions. I happen to disagree with you that the Green Party does offer those policies, because I think more government welfare simply entrenches dependency, and fails to lift people out of poverty.
I also second the argument already given that, although the abortion law is bad as currently applied, it could get worse–and the Greens are in the forefront of the push to do just that.
I like the Kiwi Party. I don’t think they will get in. The constituency for the Christian democrat type parties, ie: Family Party, Kiwi Party, United Future and the Pacific Party is around 6-8%. Split five ways, that means no-one gets in. All of the above: Get your crap together, wash one another’s feet, and come back when you have some leadership, and I’ll think about it–until then, all the good policies in the world aren’t going to help.
I think the urgent thing at the moment is to change the government. I think this for the following reasons.
1. Four terms of anyone is too long.
2. We desperately need a pro-life movement, and we won’t get one while we’re always on the back foot. A centre-right government won’t be brilliant, but they will change less than a centre-left one, and give us crucial breathing space.
3. I’m a Conservative, not a liberal.
4. Sending Labour into opposition will mean Christian Socialists can come out of the woodwork and assert their identities
Hence, I voted to do just that–change the government.
In response to #129 – Priceless!
Chris–the majority of National voted for parental notification–and you can add into the list the sponsor of the Bill, Judith Collins.
Well said Andrewesman, I too will also be voting for change tomorrow.
Oh, and well said Bishop Finn!
As is obvious, Chris has very strong socialist views. (Not Marxist BTW).
I have no problem with someone voting the way they in conscience believe they should vote. I disagree with many Labour policies, but they are not all wrong.
But I do disagree strongly with someone who would vote for the Communists in Drag – The Greens. Once again, they are not all wrong, but most of their policies are anti human – anti life -ie. pro death for humans.
But pro life for trees, snails, lizards, and carbon-free footprints.
Pol Pot is one of Russel Norman’s heroes
I’m voting for change.
A National landslide for honest government which will benefit All New Zealanders.
Be sure to vote – for whoever you believe in good conscience will work for the greater good for all our people.
I look forward to a Great Day
Jesus was poor.
Jesus is poor.
Vote for the poor.
God Bless
I found the following comment about the American Bishops to be most enlightening:
link
Now, I would guess that Chris’s definition of “far right pro-Republican wing” Bishops and “hardliners” are exactly the same thing. Funny, that. I would also venture to guess that the hardliners are the ones that are closest to the Pope on their opinion of things Catholic, ie in closest communion with him.
g’dday cobbers,
an extraordinary homily from bishop fin, of kansas, from the eve of the american election.
chris, you should read this brother. he has some words that you might find helpful.
some of what he says also applies to our election.
this man is incredibly courageous.
here is Fr Z’s commentary on it
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/11/bp-finn-on-the-eve-of-the-election-woe-to-those/
howdy all,
i’ve just read that homiliy again, and it is superb.
it is excellent how he shows that obama’s promises (if carried out) will constitute a direct attack on religious liberty. so true.
howdy people,
i hope everbody has voted today…
this is interesting; biden’s bishop has sent him a letter asking him to account for his abortion stance after receiving communion last Sunday.
this is some great leadership being shown here…the Holy Spirit is raising up some strong voices among these bishops. God bless them. thank you Lord. great to see some genuine episcopal governance.
Bishop of Diocese Where Biden Received Communion Calls Him to Account over Abortion
By Kathleen Gilbert
as more and more bishops stand up, and speak the truth, other weaker ones will feel stronger, and join the throng…please God, may this continue…
peace all
Obama can’t be that bad if the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, rushes to send Obama a Telegram congratulating him on his election success.
Bp Fin is very far out of line in his rush to judge and condemn those voting Obama.
God Bless
Ho-ray for Bishop Finn and the Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee! God bless and keep these men
hello,
chris, me-ol-mate, if you read about what the holy father sent him, it wasn’t just a telegram of congratulations, but also had many other facets to it. you’re reading far too much into it if you think that the pope will be clapping and cheering for obama.
he sent him a message to say, “well done. you are now president of the most powerful nation in the world. we look forward to working with you. please use your power to built a world founded on justice, peace, and solidarity. i will pray for you. we all will pray for you to help you in this difficult job. don’t forget the most weak and defenseless in your society who depend on you…”
etc…etc… apparently there was a private bit that they haven’t divulged. i’d say that the pope, in his usual brilliant and masterful writing style, may have written something about obama being the first coloured president, and living up to his potential, and protecting those who need him…especially defending minorities, most of all, life from conception to natural death…
pope’s mesage
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805616.htm
chris, i believe, you’re confusing two things…
(1) before the election, it was about trying to help catholic voters to discern correctly according to true human ethics, and Christian ethics. many bishops stood up and proclaimed the gospel to their flocks, and gave them guidance according to the Heart of Jesus. some of them chose to say it very clearly – and remind overybody of what is at stake, like bp fin. he is a truly good man. what he did is exemplary. he will receive his reward in heaven.
(2) now that obama is elected, one takes a different approach. we can’t turn back the clock. we have to just get on and try to improve the man and government that is there now, through open dialogue, and counsel, and prayer. the church now uses her prudence to think about how to deal with this unfortunate and difficult situation. she wants to engage with the obama “presidency” and keep the doors open – so the pope sends him a message, says “well done” in a polite way, and gives him some advice; and says that he’ll be praying for him to make the right and good decisions.
however, that doesn’t change the fact that many americans, and many catholic americans, voted badly by voting for obama, when they had the chance to vote for a man and woman who would have worked very hard t overturn roe vs. wade.
in a certain way, we can actually blame bush for this problem. bush was very good on the abortion front, but his silly war in iraq has lead to a backlash, which now means that we have the most pro-abortion president in american history, who not only wants abortion on demand in the usa, and all restrictions removed, but also wants to completely fund it with tax payers dollars; and he wants to fund it around the world…especially through the un.
hundreds of thousands of more murdered babies, here we come…
:cry:
chrispopher #136 ;
“Jesus was poor.
Jesus is poor.
Vote for the poor.”
You might as well add; vote ‘poor choice’?
and you have!
(Also Jesus was ‘not’ poor and neither ‘is’ poor)
this is hillarious:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10542460&ref=rss