The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I have to vent somewhere.

In 2020 New Zealand amended the laws surrounding abortion.
The laws for abortion prior to 2020 was that for <20 weeks abortion was legal, and >20 weeks a fetus could be aborted if it posed a health risk (including mental health, which was I'm sure abused) to the mother. The process was that the mother's doctor consulted a second doctor for approval, and then submitted a case to the abortion committee for it to be reviewed and approved. This was passed in 1977 with some amendments here and there. but mostly unchanged. The process of going through this committee is massively bureaucratic so reform to streamline this makes sense.

The narrative around the 2020 campaign for abortion rights was shrouded in misinformation. The public were told by the media it was about "decriminalizing abortion". This is because the 'Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act' was under the criminal code, however obviously when you use the term "decriminalizing abortion" it gives a false impression that abortion is illegal. I should say at this point the culture in NZ right now is niggercattle to the upmost degree. I don't even use that term but it's the only way to describe it. The NZ public is cucked and domesticated beyond belief. They're doormats who don't believe in anything other than what the media tells them to. There isn't even a socially conservative party anywhere near government, and those in the main right-wing party who are socially conservative won't speak up because they get crucified.

Newshub (1 of the 2 national news channels, but owned by globohomo instead of government) conducted a survey to which 69% of people said yes to "should abortion be decriminalized". This stat was thrown around like crazy over the news. Even in the article for this they say "Abortion is currently a crime - women have to use a kind of legal loophole to make it legal, and two doctors have to agree pregnancy would put her in physical or mental danger." This is a borderline complete lie, but it displays how misleading the media rhetoric was at the time. Other polls put the public opinion supporting abortion around 50-60% and around 30% being unsure, aka don't want to speak up. Like I said, cucked.

The actually important part of this, however, is the statistic that followed. There were 3 options of reform being chucked around in parliament at the time. The percentages are of people who already support decriminalization.

A) There's no test and the woman decides with her health practitioner. - 36%
B) There's a test and the woman would need to prove the abortion's appropriate. - 43%
C) There's only a test for late-term abortions beyond 22 weeks. - 12%
D) Don't know. - 8%

Now this tells quite a different story of public opinion. 50% of people who already support abortion want it to be less regulated than it is now, and 40% of people who support it want it to stay as it is but maybe with a change in process. This % is much higher than polls conducted where they ask directly when should abortions be cut off but I'm making a point.

So, what was the government's decision? Strap in.
  1. The committee that oversaw the abortion process is nuked.
  2. Health practices or practitioners no longer have to be licensed for abortion.
  3. Not even one doctor needs to approve or oversee the abortion. One "health practitioner" needs to agree, and they need to consult another "health practitioner". This could literally just be two nurses. A doctor doesn't even need to be present for the actual procedure.
  4. There is no upper limit to when abortions can be performed, it's pretty much up to their discretion. You can abort a perfectly healthy child a week before they're due as long as they deem it's "clinically appropriate". They make it as vague as possible on purpose.
  5. It is no longer illegal to abort based on sex. The document specifically says "This Parliament opposes the performance of abortions being sought solely because of a preference for the fetus to be of a particular sex" but make it clear it's not actually prohibited in any way.
  6. It is no longer illegal to try to give yourself a miscarriage.
  7. Abortions can be performed if it will effect the mother's "overall well being".
  8. Parents of underage patients don't have to be informed.
  9. If a baby is delivered after a failed abortion the health practitioner is not legally required to give them 'medical help'. Nor are they required to give the fetus painkillers before abortion.
  10. Partial-birth abortions are completely legal.
When polled only 4% of people said they supported abortions after 20 weeks. Only 4% of people supported abortions based on sex. 8% of people said abortion providers and premises shouldn't have to be licensed. Every single one of those things is now legal and the media (right wing or left wing, independent or government funded) has not said a single word about it.

Essentially under the new laws it is completely legal for two nurses on their own discretion without a doctor present in any health practice to abort a fully-developed healthy baby a week before labour because the mother doesn't want a boy by quasi-delivery and brutalising it without painkillers. The public never would have supported this if they knew what they were actually doing, parliament knew this and so they and the media lied to make it happen. It was even bipartisan.

Long live this great country!
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
  • Horrifying
  • Autistic
Reactions: BONE_Buddy, Puff, SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and 7 others
1658197885088.png

hoh boy its the most annoying subgroup on youtube: skeptics
 
Look at this homosexual larping as a medfag. I'm sure he has absolutely no bias to represent abortion providers this way. They're just OBGYNs.
Larry David's Crypto Fund said:
Same issue that abortion specialists have- that specialty has been recognized by med insiders for ages as a magnet for burnouts, alcoholics, and guys who can't keep a job because they keep groping nurses- the only "standard of care" is "DO SOMETHINGGGGGGGGGGG! Or else they're gonna an hero!!!" So as long as they do something, and do it on demand, no questions asked, they are heroes to the left. And when I say abortion doctors have a rep, I don't mean only among the fuddy duddy old Catholic docs who disapprove of what they are doing. I mean even among the young hip leftists. Everyone knows that it's a refuge for old creeps and drunks who can't keep it together enough to have a nice, well-rounded OB GYN practice.
Click to expand...
 
  • Dumb
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: secret watcher, Puff, SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and 1 other person
Scrolled through the highlights of this thread because I hate myself and FUCKING HELL.
Can the pro abortion people go two posts without calling someone an incel? It's like Twitter up in here.
Further, they'd be better served by admitting a fetus is human and saying killing them is pragmatic rather than the weird mental gymnastics they seem to be relying on.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Syaoran Li, Netizennameless, NoTimeToLose and 10 others
Puff said:
Scrolled through the highlights of this thread because I hate myself and FUCKING HELL.
Can the pro abortion people go two posts without calling someone an incel? It's like Twitter up in here.
Further, they'd be better served by admitting a fetus is human and saying killing them is pragmatic rather than the weird mental gymnastics they seem to be relying on.
Click to expand...
what an enlightening take.

btw a fetus is a clump of cells.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Syaoran Li, smeckt, Sparkling Yuzu and 3 others
Reading the countless pages of this thread show me that the sheer militancy of proponents on the issue of abortion rights or the pro-life agenda is so strong that I wonder if we can ever go back to a form of compromise like "safe, legal, and rare" anymore?

The Overton window has shifted so much to the point where the only acceptable sides seem to be "Women should be allowed to abort all the way up to birth and men have zero say in the matter" or "Every sperm is sacred"

The middle ground is so incredibly lost. I really wish Roe v Wade was overturned decades ago or, better yet, not enacted in the first place, as it was an act of brazen judicial activism that was not aligned with the Constitution.

I say this all as someone who is nominally pro-choice, but believes that abortion is a "necessary evil" and should not be used as a form of casual birth control, especially at later stages in gestation. That is a human in there after all.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Syaoran Li, secret watcher, zipper and 5 others
Kernel32 Sanders said:
Reading the countless pages of this thread show me that the sheer militancy of proponents on the issue of abortion rights or the pro-life agenda is so strong that I wonder if we can ever go back to a form of compromise like "safe, legal, and rare" anymore?

The Overton window has shifted so much to the point where the only acceptable sides seem to be "Women should be allowed to abort all the way up to birth and men have zero say in the matter" or "Every sperm is sacred"

The middle ground is so incredibly lost. I really wish Roe v Wade was overturned decades ago or, better yet, not enacted in the first place, as it was an act of brazen judicial activism that was not aligned with the Constitution.

I say this all as someone who is nominally pro-choice, but believes that abortion is a "necessary evil" and should not be used as a form of casual birth control, especially at later stages in gestation. That is a human in there after all.
Click to expand...
Check out the polling. First trimester only (with some exceptions) will probably actually win out, as it's the most popular. "Always" and "never" legal camps hover around 15%, but they're the ones who care enough to post about it.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Syaoran Li and secret watcher
One of the few things I am fine with the overton shifting on, but I want it renamed "babykilling" to clarify exactly what it is. Here's a fun fact. Regardless of how you spin it, if you aren't a fucked up individual, you will realize that what you did was abhorrent from a moral perspective. Doesn't matter how good the initial reasoning was. I've had to be therapist for a good few friends that got abortions (very early first trimester, pill through PP, etc) that were emotional wrecks for years afterwards, and their support network was fucking shiiiiiit because of the perception that abortion is a brave & stunning thing to do.

Fuck the abortion propagandists' they are actively against womens' mental health.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Feels
Reactions: Syaoran Li, Netizennameless, secret watcher and 5 others
Puff said:
Scrolled through the highlights of this thread because I hate myself and FUCKING HELL.
Can the pro abortion people go two posts without calling someone an incel? It's like Twitter up in here.
Further, they'd be better served by admitting a fetus is human and saying killing them is pragmatic rather than the weird mental gymnastics they seem to be relying on.
Click to expand...

No, of course they can't. Their brains are hardwired to value social status over morals or logic, this is why they are abortion proponents to begin with. Thus, when confronted with dissent, their instinct is to attack the opponent's social status--in their mind, this is the greatest blow that can be dealt to someone, to be seen as a "loser" or otherwise unpopular.

Kernel32 Sanders said:
Reading the countless pages of this thread show me that the sheer militancy of proponents on the issue of abortion rights or the pro-life agenda is so strong that I wonder if we can ever go back to a form of compromise like "safe, legal, and rare" anymore?

The Overton window has shifted so much to the point where the only acceptable sides seem to be "Women should be allowed to abort all the way up to birth and men have zero say in the matter" or "Every sperm is sacred"

The middle ground is so incredibly lost. I really wish Roe v Wade was overturned decades ago or, better yet, not enacted in the first place, as it was an act of brazen judicial activism that was not aligned with the Constitution.

I say this all as someone who is nominally pro-choice, but believes that abortion is a "necessary evil" and should not be used as a form of casual birth control, especially at later stages in gestation. That is a human in there after all.
Click to expand...

No, we can't, because this is an actual black or white issue. Some issues lend themselves to being wishy-washy and flip-floppy and fence-sitting, like tax policy. Murdering babies is not one of those issues. If you recognize "that is a human in there after all," when would it ever be a "necessary evil" to murder them, outside of ectopic pregnancy and the like? On the other hand, if it's *not* a human in there, then what would be wrong with using abortion as birth control?

Either it's a baby or it isn't. I've yet to see anyone try and seriously argue for some kind of "half-person" status, although that is the implied belief of people like yourself who don't want to have to pick a side.

Puff said:
Check out the polling. First trimester only (with some exceptions) will probably actually win out, as it's the most popular. "Always" and "never" legal camps hover around 15%, but they're the ones who care enough to post about it.
Click to expand...

Over time things will tend towards those all-or-nothing viewpoints for the reasons I outlined above. We're still barely a month out from Roe's overturning. Legislation doesn't move instantly, but over time, it will go towards the two viewpoints that actually make sense. Of course, in my opinion, only one viewpoint makes sense, but legal-up-to-point-of-birth makes more sense than the wishy-washy "well only in the first trimester." The passage from week 15 to week 16 of a baby's development obviously does not somehow magically confer it with a level of personhood that it lacked during week 15. At least with the leftie "until point of birth" standard, you are making the distinction that up until the cord is cut the child is still "part of the woman's body," so that's why it's okay to murder it up until then.

The whole "first trimester" viewpoint is driven by people like our friend Kernel32 Sanders who simply don't want to pick a side, because there are uncomfortable implications on both ends of the issue. They don't want to have to answer to leftists who will ask them "so you're okay with forcing a rape victim to give birth to the rapist's child????" As with any other cultural issue, these people will lose out to the activists who actually care about the topic, even if they are the majority of the population. They will just go along to get along while the issue will be fought out by autists like us who actually give a shit about it.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Syaoran Li, secret watcher, Muh Vagina and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back