Episode two of the television panel discussion I participated in on parental consent/notification for abortion is now available for viewing online here at Pacific Viewpoint TV. (Episode one can be viewed here).
The show runs for 30 minutes; in this episode I appear as a panel member (last time I was an audience member). Panelists are host, Setita Millar, Family First’s Bev Adair, National Party MP Paul Hutchison, Reverend Tavale Matai’a, Ula Sangyum, Cushla McNabb and moi!
A lot of the dialogue made the editing room floor, some of which was frustrating, and the conversation did stray more onto sex education – state v home – but it was still all good.
NOTE:
In this footage I make a comment stating I used the pill as a form of contraception. I wish to make it clear that on learning of the pill’s abortifacient properties (this applies to both the mini and combined pills) I ceased using it some years ago.
As a protestant I have no issue preventing conception. However, the pill permits conception but prevents implantation (often sneakily worded on your pill packet or by your doctor as “preventing pregnancy” where pregnancy is re-defined as beginning at implantation and not conception). I reject the common protestant argument that because plenty of conceptuses fail to implant anyway it is ok to actually cause that to happen by taking the pill – if you view life beginning at conception this is like saying it is ok to shoot children in 3rd world countries because plenty will die of hunger and disease anyway.
Tags: Abortion · Bev Adair · Cushla McNabb · MandM on Video · Pacific Viewpoint · Paul Hutchison · Reverend Tavale Matai’a · Setita Millar · Sex Education · Ula Sangyum17 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Paul kept on saying life is precious and about the importance of parents, but what kind of laws and what kind of teachings at schools is he supporting? Do they reflect his talk on these debates?
I didn’t see the programme and am commenting on the last paragraph of your post.
You Say:
“I reject the common protestant argument that because plenty of conceptuses fail to implant anyway it is ok to actually cause that to happen by taking the pill – if you view life beginning at conception this is like saying it is ok to shoot children in 3rd world countries because plenty will die of hunger and disease anyway.”
So if life begins at conception then conceptuses that fail to implant are as alive and human as conceptuses that implant. To fail to rescue these conceptuses and enable them to implant is no different than standing by and doing nothing while a starving child dies.
Fact check…
Dr. Evil said “…In countries where there are repressive laws against abortion there are high rates of illegal abortion leading to significant deaths among women, although it might be contestable, the world health organisation estimates 20 million women a year die from back street abortions…”
It certainly is contestable. If true it would mean that illegal abortions caused 40% of all deaths (not including the unborn).
The WHO report the doctor is mis-remembering is here – http://www.wpro.who.int/internet/files/pub/360/141.pdf – The 20 million figure is for unsafe abortions where “unsafe” includes abortions performed in poor countries where abortion is legal. The same report estimates deaths from unsafe abortions at 100,000 to 200,000 – although another report (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1), presumably based on the same study, only claims 67,000 deaths.
Not that any of this is relevant to parental concent.
Madeleine –
An interesting problem for considering the beginning of a human life as happening at fertilisation is that identical twins come from the same fertilised egg. And, zygote division may occur up to 15 days from fertilisation.
Also Lev 17:11 states “the life of a creature is in the blood” which could mean that there is no life until there is blood.
Mark,
“To fail to rescue these conceptuses and enable them to implant is no different than standing by and doing nothing while a starving child dies.”
If we can watch as the conceptuses fail and we actually can implant them, then yes it would be the same as watching a starving child dies.
“Dr. Evil said”
Reed. I do not think personal attack’s gain anything.
However, I must say good spotting on the 20 million figure. I did a little mental arithmetic and the 20 mil did not stack up.
Madeleine, you did very good on the show.
The sex ed is a big problem. School should not be putting parent’s down – like your parents may be a little old fashion or religious. The is no way you will change the law but if you can make the public aware or the rubbish that is being taught in the sex ed classes you are doing a public service.
Mark V Matt plans to address this point in a post at a later stage.
Reed, I have discussed the twinning argument on this blog before. The article Matt refers to in this link, by Alexander Pruss, also has a good discussion of this issue.
Anon, I think you are onto something, the claim we should not let children starve is plausible when certain qualifications are built in otherwise it runs into counter examples, for example my going to a movie one Friday night strictly speaking involves letting someone die. I could after all forgo the money and give it to world vision and assist in saving a life, but it does not follow from this its wrong to go to movies. Matt and my piece on Sustenance rights addresses some of these issues.http://www.mandm.org.nz/2008/11/what-about-the-poor-sustenance-rights-examined.html
.-= My last blog-post ..Does Abortion Benefit the Fetus? A Critique of Himma Part 1 =-.
“It certainly is contestable. If true it would mean that illegal abortions caused 40% of all deaths (not including the unborn).”
Yeah, I quoted the WHO stats in my post on backstreet abortions a while back. http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/during-sherwin-hutchison-on-backstreet-abortion.html
Madeleine actually questioned Hutchinson stats on the panel but that part was edited out
.-= My last blog-post ..The Philosophers’ Carnival is Nearly Here – Submit your Entry Now =-.
Chuck –
The doctor is promoting evil hence Dr. Evil.
Would there be any gain in saying someone was like a whitewashed tomb – beautiful in appearance but on the inside full of dead men’s bones? 🙂
M and M –
1) You can’t kill a creature that has no life.
2) The life of a creature is in the blood.
Therefore;
3) You can’t kill a creature that has no blood (i.e. a human embryo prior to blood development).
Reed, the majority or the population support abortion being legal at least in some circumstances. Are you saying that the majority of the population are evil?
I have had a drink with Matt and Madeleine at bloggers evenings. Many of the people present are far more liberal than I let alone Matt and Madeleine on matters relatiog to abortion and homosexuality. I hope they do not think everyone including me who holds a different view on moral issues is evil.
Name calling – whether on these issues or ETS does little to promote ones cause. The may be exceptions like Al Gore whose main motive appears to be making money. However, in the case of Dr Hutchinson it appears to me he is genuine in his beliefs.
Chuck –
Are you saying that the majority of the population are evil?
The unjust killing of an innocent is evil.
Promoting evil is doing evil.
An evil doer is evil.
The above statements are true irrespective of “majority” or being “genuine in your beliefs”. Do you disagree?
If you want to know Matt and Madeleine’s perspectives about you and other liberals you’ll have to ask them. I should have guessed you were a liberal when you first tried to impose your “name calling” morals on to me. 😉
I should have guessed you were a liberal when you first tried to impose your “name calling” morals on to me. 😉
Reed, what are you trying to achieve? Calling names anonymously over the internet is hardly going to achieve much. It says more about you than the person you are anonymously attacking.
I cannot recall being called a liberal before. I guess if it is defined as someone who does not share your point of view then I am guilty.
As I said in an earlier post Madeleine did very well. She raised public awareness about sex education. I know her and Matt view abortion as murder or homicide. However, if she had refereed to Dr Hutchison as Dr Evil she may have impressed you but not that many more.
To put is simply if you want initiate change in society you have to act in a mature civilised manner.
If you want to know Matt and Madeleine’s perspectives about you
I do not think that will be necessary. I have observed them in discussions with people far more liberal than I am. You should come along to a bloggers evening. You might learn something. I would be very surprised if you called most of the people there evil as that is what they are by your definition.
MandM’s Madeleine on a TV panel about abortion …
Madeleine Flannagan of MandM.org Blog has just appeared on a very interesting TV panel on Abortion and Parental concent on Pacific Viewpoint.
…
Ohmigosh, you read them, too? That’s one of my favorite blogs ever! I knew about her appearing on…
Chuck –
I cannot recall being called a liberal before
You called yourself liberal… “Many of the people present are far more liberal than I”.
I guess you consider yourself liberal but not a liberal.
Reed, what are you trying to achieve?
Well, with my liberal comment I was trying to convey (in a light hearted manner!) that people that call themselves liberal often try to impose their (im)morality. Some readers would understand.
I understand that you didn’t like my “Dr. Evil” comment.
Cheers,
Reed.
Reed, to say I called myself a liberal is stretching things. If you put conservative at one end of the spectrum and liberal at the other I would definitely be much closer to the conservative end. I guess you may consider everyone who is not an extreme conservative as liberal.
I really wonder if you have considered what you are trying to achieve. I do not think I will become a Christian anytime soon or radically change my views on what the law should be on abortion. However, I would far more likely be to change my view by listening to Matt or Madeleine than you.
I feel very strongly about the law banning smacking which undermines parental authority. I have lobbied against it and collected thousands of signatures. John Boscawen has arranged public meetings where MPs supporting the law have attended. If those lobbying for a law change were to abuse these MPs it would reflect badly on the rest of us.
I think you should look at the latest post by Matt on St Matthews on the Terrace. An aggressive and anonymous response like yours does nothing to aid your cause.
If you look at the comments on Kiwiblog in relation to the destruction of the billboard many atheists viewed the billboard at this time of year as provocative.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/christian_intolerance.html#comments
I have many Christian friends. Fortunately most are not holier than thou.
There is only one way the law on abortion will change and that is it will be more liberal than restrictive. The only way the abortion rate will reduce is to change public attitude. That will not be achieved by name calling. It might make you feel good but it will just alienate people.
“Life is precious” we must fight to stop abortion!