Abortion law 'being used too liberally'

i had to have a hysterectomy due to problems with my first husband but the man i have met now has no children of his own i wish i could give him one but this is impossible because of wat i went through with my first husband i am only 44 gosh it would be nice to give my new partener a child .a as he is excelent with children. he never had a serious relationship in the past can some one help me please jill

Its funny how the world had developed. Over the years people have managed to kill their enemies,then people they didnt like, then eventually started killing their family. And now we are even killing our unborn children. What is next! Ask yourself, religeous or not, who the hell gives you the right to choose to take a life that a greater god created. I am 17 years old and i am smart enouf to understand the concept of death, and the beuty of life. If 11-17 year olds are not fit to have children, why in heavens name are they having sex. Abortion is murder. Ask yourself if you are a murderer the next time you tell yourself abortion is ok!

All of these comments go to show how ridiculously feminised and hedonistic New Zealand society has become. Men do have a right to their opinion, to enforce law and to create law that protects equally the rights of all human beings from conception til death. It is also in womens interests not to have abortions as it often adversally affects their mental health. No man or woman has carte blanche rights to damaging themselves (they can sectioned under the mental health act) and the issue of unnecessary abortions of unborn children (many of them female) needs to be dealt with. How many New Zealanders have come from difficult upbringings but would chose their own surgical oblivion in preference? It is typical for the public and media here to confuse issues. Underage sex is not being solved with abortion on tap. Perhaps if the consequences of promiscuity for both the boys and girls involved was a commitment to their child then their would be more incentive to practise safer sex and abstinence. Besides which teenage motherhood is not the end of the world for either party but it certainl is for the aorted foetus.

The arguement that presented by Lina in the first post following the lead article, namely "i cant see how any male has the right to judge this issue, abortion is a womans choice" makes to me as much sense as someone who says "i cant see how any male has the right to judge in a trial involving a homicide committed by a women". Or for that matter a male judge sentencing a woman on a charge of careless use of a motor vehicle.

It will also not mattter how much money the Government throws at sex education and sexual health clinics. This is just fuel to the fire.

And to Coralie if mental health issues are the rationale to kill children then I might have been tempted to kill my children years ago. What parent does not have mental health issues with children??? Does this mean we can kill them because at times they inconvenience us??

And to Michelle who talks about the world being over-populated. How invasive the Malthusian lie has become. There is not an over-population problem in the world. There is a wealth distriburtion problem. It always astounds me when I hear those who advocate abortion for those born into poorer circumstances than their own. Surely in itself is this not preaching eugenics?

When we decided to allow the State sanctioned killing of our unborn children, New Zealand started to go downhill, and we sure are on a downhill slide right now.

As usual the figures have not been explained. How many of the 18000 are from overseas, eg international students? How many of the 18000 are the same person? How many of the 18000 were from rape or incest? etc etc. If there is free contraception to every woman, none of the Bush push to abstinence with no other advice, and perhaps a user pays for more than 3 repeat abortions, fine.

Otherwise, a sale on knitting needles with a hook please. Or, an elongated crochet hook. Also be prepared for more death by bad abortion doctors.

McCoskrie should be spending his time guiding young men into not pursuing sex with young women or using/raping young women when they are drunk, with no affection or respect or use of condoms.

Condoms = few abortions. McCoskrie has an agenda to reverse all rights for women. Why can't women see this? Men should never again be allowed the power over women that they once had.

The most frightening picture I have ever seen was a 19thC photograph of a ladies' knitting circle printed in a history of contraception in New Zealand.

Back to the past for women unless they recognise what they are in danger of losing here. Women are not equal with men in wages, in individual rights or in safety. Whatever rights have been secured for women, many only recently (rape in marriage still legal until 1986) will be reversed if women are not eternally vigilant.

I would mention to Anne Harrison that while I agree the numbers are too high, no one ever seems to take men to task for these numbers. Or are pregnancies immaculate conceptions? Religion is certainly gaining in media coverage and male support.

If women's freedom to access free safe abortions comes under threat so should the freedom of men who caused/part caused the pregnancy whether they were just sperm givers, rapists, 'incestors' or abused women while either/both drunk. All users should be responsible.

78: Said "At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup..."

So an egg and sperm are not living before they join together during fertiliZation- how does that happen??? It is completely false to say that life begins at conception- as the egg and sperm are alive way BEFORE that process!!

As for your weak DNA argument- well guess what a tree has DNA. The Flu has DNA. Your liver is full of DNA. How does DNA get you into the legal human club? Can you claim an unborn child on your taxes?

Who died and made you all God? The highest value is life not convenience. If a woman can't manage her own contraception she should live with the consequences and not take the right of another life away. We should not have the right to terminate life because it is an inconvenience or as you have said "a lesser of 2 evils to be killed before birth than suffer after birth". When people can choose to end life based on our own personal judgements we are walking on very dangerous ground...if you take that train of thinking to its full conclusion and apply to people who are living but suffering...it's ramifications are huge!

This is a just ruling today in court & one which should be applauded. Abortion is the highest level of child abuse in our nation. It can never be excused by any selfish reason or inconvenience. Woman's rights over the unborn child is crazy logic(especially if its a female unborn child). Common sense is being restored to this area at last. The consequences on woman's mental, physical & emotional health of abortion is in itself enough to persuade people from pursing this option. Yes - to help for the mother & child, adoption if necessary, but not to sucking the life out of an unborn child & disposing of it in the garbage.

Exactly - Society owes much to the very few (to paraphrase Churchill) - Where, for instance, might WWII have gone without the brilliance of Turing?

Questions of morality are best left alone by legislation, each and every person must answer to God and conscience. Of course most people know someone who has had an abortion, the unfortunate reality is that society is not well structured at the moment for people to support children, requisite education/maturity from the possible parents is probably lacking and often finances also. I'm sure not many (young) women go into such an operation without a certain amount of reflection, it is how much time spent subsequent on that self same reflection that only they can answer.