37 Comments:

Being a busy student / 3 part time jobs man I didn't have hours to trawl for the information! I was looking not in health, but in family. In family is where it mentioned the other abortion policy.

And I asked if others could find it and they did. So I'm glad they do have a policy on it.

As to not CHNZ not making it illegal... What does "Amend the Bill of Rights Act 1990 to include the right to life from conception until natural death." mean? Haha. In other simple words, life will be protected by law - life from conception. In other simple words - no abortion. Thank you! :) Cracks me up too.....

By  Scotty, at 11:11 pm, August 20, 2005  

UMMMM sorry you are wrong, they would have to underturn a little thing called the CONTRACEPTION, STERILISATION AND ABORTION ACT 1977!!!

Don't you think that if CNHZ was really serious about making abortion illegal then they would get rid of this act???

By  Anita, at 9:20 am, August 21, 2005  

Ummm sorry I'm not!

"Our ultimate objective is full legal protection for unborn children with abortion only being an option where the life of the mother is at risk."

By  Scotty, at 12:00 pm, August 21, 2005  

Anyways - whatever, I'm glad we are now in agreement on the whole Christian party thing.

Good spotting on Destiny.

By  Scotty, at 12:01 pm, August 21, 2005  

Anita, I was wondering if you could tell us why it seems you support Destiny over CHNZ?

By  Dan, at 7:42 pm, August 21, 2005  

But abortion is still legal- just only in some circumstances!

I will Dan- but the long and the short of it is that Destiny is a more credible party- more candidates 45 compared to only 6 for CHNZ and it policy statement doesn't look like in belongs at a preschool

By  Anita, at 10:33 am, August 22, 2005  

Anita - this:-

policy statement doesn't look like in belongs at a preschool

was entirely tactless considering you know how highly involved Dan is with CHNZ.

By  Scotty, at 10:44 am, August 22, 2005  

Anita,

So presentation (colors, number of candidates etc) is more important than content (experience, quality and commitment of candidates, scope of policy etc)?

That's pretty superficial of you.

By  Dan, at 10:45 am, August 22, 2005  

Yes, thank you Scotty.

I personally designed the ABC logo, but I wasn't the only person who had a say in it, so it's not entirely how I would have prefered it to look, either.

But that's beside the point.

So tell me - what are Destiny's main policy points off the top of your head? Myself, I can't tell from a quick skim of their website.

By  Dan, at 10:48 am, August 22, 2005  

Anita... do you know anything about any of the Candidates who are running for Destiny? What their Christian Values are? I remember you being very much opposed to the thought of a Christian person owning a car worth more than $100,000 dollars. You could be supprised if you go Meet and Greet the Destiny Candidates.

By  Jonathan, at 10:51 am, August 22, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Anita, at 10:58 am, August 22, 2005  

Speaking from personal experience, and I totally realise you could see me as biased, I have developed a bit of a feel for Destiny.

We (CHNZ) had a stand near them at Parachute a few years ago, just after the Destiny party had formed. The Destiny people working there were very forceful and intimidating - most of them were what you might call 'beautiful people' wearing tight, black t-shirts, enhancing their already-defined gym-frequenting bodies, with slick hair, and cocky attitudes. Notice how Richard Lewis has Brian Tamaki's hair, only a little shorter?

These are all personal observations, but their focus was on looking good, not necessarily presenting their gospel-founded policy.

As I say, that was some time ago, and I do see they've toned down the black a bit. But their attitude, whilst founded on biblical policy, doesn't enamor me.

By  Dan, at 11:02 am, August 22, 2005  

Scott I have not problem saying what I do about the logo because I knew that Dan wasn't 100% excited about it

A political party can't only be about Marriage, Abortion and I forget what the B one is.

Destiny's main point is tradtional family values and the rest of stuff. I can't say cause I have looked at their website.

By  Anita, at 11:03 am, August 22, 2005  

Hmmmmm.

Didn't UF say last election that their party was traditional family values orientated.....

By  Scotty, at 11:06 am, August 22, 2005  

Anita,

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I can't help feeling you're being a little bit silly about this.

CHNZ has an extensive range of policy that has been developed over the last 13 years. Just one click from the front page of the CHNZ website gives you this.

If you've not looked into the policy of either party even just a little bit - and that is what it appears you're telling us now - then I'm afraid your comments and opinions carry far less weight that we should give them credit for.

By  Dan, at 11:10 am, August 22, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Scotty, at 11:10 am, August 22, 2005  

Anita you are referring to 3 focus areas.

These areas are not the only policies.

By  Scotty, at 11:11 am, August 22, 2005  

Yes I can agree with you on that one Dan- that are a bit flashy for us conservative Presbyterians.

Yes I think UF did Scott and your point is........

'So presentation (colors, number of candidates etc) is more important than content (experience, quality and commitment of candidates, scope of policy etc)?'

The number of candidates is really important Dan- it show how many people are making the effort to throw their hat in the ring and stand for a party they believe. Only having 6 candidates is a joke! I mean it they really think that are going to get over 5% they better not get 6% cause they won't have enough MPs! And what happens is one is hit by a bus.....the party folds?

By  Anita, at 11:12 am, August 22, 2005  

Yes! Has anyone seen Nationals policy?

On www.nzvote.org, a few days back, I could find little or no policy. It seems they are still making it up as they go along.

By  Scotty, at 11:12 am, August 22, 2005  

My point?

...is that heaps of Christians voted for them last time and they did not deliver. Just because a party says something does not mean they deliver it.

(In the case of Destiny however, I believe they probably would if they got the chance.)

By  Scotty, at 11:15 am, August 22, 2005  

When it comes to a commitment to politics, quality is far more valuable than quantity.
That was made fairly clear in the last election, where UF got more seats than they anticipated and the MPs elected were embarassingly unprepared.

How many years political experience have these 45 Destiny candidates?

By  Dan, at 11:19 am, August 22, 2005  

Dan- I haven't really commented on anything except to talk about abortion and to say I don't feel like they are a credible party compared to Destiny because of two reasons. I am not being silly about anything - that is want I think at the moment. You asked and I told you. You are trying to discredit Destiny based on how they look and Jono on how much their cars cost- same thing silly superficial stuff.

The only way is to argue on policy- which Scott tried to do on Abortion and it didn't stack up. And the fact of the matter is - is that they are probably pretty similar on policy. So what have you got left to justify your vote to either party- well the fact that Destiny has heaps more candidates and is has more media coverage and is polling higher and has a better chance of getting into parliament.

Yes Scott and who think CHNZ will deliver of their 20 year plan to get rid of abortion?

And for the people that vote CHP last year- did that deliver? At least Peter Dunn didn't turn out to be a __________ (insert your own word!)

By  Anita, at 11:30 am, August 22, 2005  

And for the people that vote CHP last year- did that deliver? At least Peter Dunn didn't turn out to be a __________ (insert your own word!)

Anita that really saddens me!

I think i'll vote CHNZ now.

By  Jonathan, at 11:37 am, August 22, 2005  

It saddens me too Jono. Vote however you feel you should.

By  Anita, at 11:40 am, August 22, 2005  

Scott- a crazy idea I know but I am thinking that you are better off looking at national.org.nz for policy statements.

By  Anita, at 11:46 am, August 22, 2005  

Haha Anita - you make me laugh sometiems!

All I along I have argued it's not about pragmatism, its about principles. All along I have said a vote which represents what you believe is not wasted.

By the way if you thought what I said about Destiny was an argument - think again.

Suggested word to fill the blank with "sinner". Ha.

By  Scotty, at 11:57 am, August 22, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Scotty, at 11:59 am, August 22, 2005  

By the way - if you agree that UF didn't deliver. Consider this

UF gets in doesn't deliver (and you don't share their worldview).

CHNZ doesn't get in, so can't deliver, (but does share your worldview).

So what is the big deal. You might as well vote on principle because outcomes are essentially the same.

By  Scotty, at 12:00 pm, August 22, 2005  

Anita, that is downright mean, and I am disappointed that you'd say something like that.

CHNZ no longer has a paedophile (see, I have the guts to actually use the word) for a leader, whereas they did at the last election.
All the more reason to vote for them this time!

Where do you get the '20 year abortion' thing from - your grammatical errors make it difficult to understand.

By  Dan, at 12:06 pm, August 22, 2005  

Yes Scott - I agree and.......not sure what you are laughing at? We are not talking about voting in general but specically the difference in a vote between Destiny and CHNZ.
I could of used the word debate(?) but argue was a better word to use. I don't think it is a arguement- you were just trying to prove a point that they were different on this policy.

By  Anita, at 12:06 pm, August 22, 2005  

What is so mean about it? It is the truth- and I didn't use the P word cause I didn't want to offend Scott was trying to make a point that UF didn't deliver. I was trying to say that I am much less disappointed with my vote to UF than others must be with their vote to CHP.

Sorry for the errors- bump on on the head yesterday :):) (?)

Anyway I am bowing out- it is getting a tiny bit personal for my liking. Nice chatting with you all and I respect where you are coming from and happy you are passionate about it.

By  Anita, at 12:20 pm, August 22, 2005  

I am not dissappointed with my CHP vote. I voted for the priniples of the party. The fact that the head of the party did not live by those principles does not change that.

By  Scotty, at 1:26 pm, August 22, 2005  

At least Peter Dunn didn't turn out to be a Christian

By  Jonathan, at 1:40 pm, August 22, 2005  

im beginning to think this issue of who to vote for has bee thrashed out enough as it is...it is an important election (well you could say that about every election i guess, but this one in particular seems more crucial) but i think we'd all be better off if we voted prayerfully and with our conscience, now that we've heard everyones viewpoints. and keep our mouths shut after the election as to who we voted for.

who wants more division among Christians than we already have??? not me.

over and out.

By  Priscilla, at 1:48 pm, August 22, 2005  

I think the fact that nine of the ten points in the CHNZ ten-point-plan to 'Celebrate Life' deal either directly or indirectly with the issue of abortion means that they will do as much as they can to reduce abortion to just the cases where abortion may in fact be necessary (ie: if the life of the mother is endangered).

By  Dan, at 8:00 am, August 23, 2005  

Paulie, sorry if I wasn't clear.

The point I was trying to make is that making abortion outright illegal is not necessarily the right thing to do, nor is it the intention of CHNZ policy.

By  Dan, at 12:31 pm, August 23, 2005  

Hehe - no worries.

It can get a bit hairy in here :)

By  Dan, at 3:32 pm, August 23, 2005  

Post a Comment