Inhumane, ugly views

LETTER

Re: Rejection of state’s duty to protect (June 2 column).

When you conflate abortion and slavery it seems to me that your stance on abortion denies a woman the freedom to choose in the same way that slavery denies an individual’s basic freedoms. Yes, we have a serious duty: provide the circumstances for women to make decisions about their own health and well-being.

Invoking intelligent design and the miracle of creation as facts not to be questioned give no weight to the position you take on this issue. Apart from being intellectually lazy to assign the supernatural to that which is not yet understood, it also ignores the humanist views of an increasingly large percentage of the population. Science has provided and will continue to provide the answers to many questions previously described as miraculous or mysterious. As Arthur C. Clarke stated, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Finally, your repeated use of emotive terminology is so transparent: always describing the foetus as a child, the violence of abortion, the pain and suffering, it is killing of the unborn etc. This language does you no credit and merely reinforces to me that you appear to have quite an inhumane and ugly view of the world in general and of women in particular; resorting to psychological blackmail when you think it serves your purpose.

I think that The Gisborne Herald has been overly generous in providing column space for you to air your hateful views on homosexuality and your opinions on abortion and euthanasia. I doubt there is much more you could add that would give further information or validity to your position on these issues. I’d hope that the editor will now be able to say, “enough is enough, Mr Orr.”

Tony Lee

Re: Rejection of state’s duty to protect (June 2 column).

When you conflate abortion and slavery it seems to me that your stance on abortion denies a woman the freedom to choose in the same way that slavery denies an individual’s basic freedoms. Yes, we have a serious duty: provide the circumstances for women to make decisions about their own health and well-being.

Invoking intelligent design and the miracle of creation as facts not to be questioned give no weight to the position you take on this issue. Apart from being intellectually lazy to assign the supernatural to that which is not yet understood, it also ignores the humanist views of an increasingly large percentage of the population. Science has provided and will continue to provide the answers to many questions previously described as miraculous or mysterious. As Arthur C. Clarke stated, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Finally, your repeated use of emotive terminology is so transparent: always describing the foetus as a child, the violence of abortion, the pain and suffering, it is killing of the unborn etc. This language does you no credit and merely reinforces to me that you appear to have quite an inhumane and ugly view of the world in general and of women in particular; resorting to psychological blackmail when you think it serves your purpose.

I think that The Gisborne Herald has been overly generous in providing column space for you to air your hateful views on homosexuality and your opinions on abortion and euthanasia. I doubt there is much more you could add that would give further information or validity to your position on these issues. I’d hope that the editor will now be able to say, “enough is enough, Mr Orr.”

Tony Lee

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

John Fricker - 3 months ago
Mr Orr is entitled to think and say whatever he likes, if The Herald decides to print his view that's OK by me.
What makes you think your opinion is superior to his? His is different, that's all.
Intolerance and censorship of the views of others is an increasingly common phenomenon these days.
One doesn't have to agree with others but I would have thought that anyone with a scintilla of common sense would have seen that freedom of speech is the only hope democracy has.

Tony Lee - 3 months ago
Mr Fricker, you can't have read my last paragraph carefully. Censorship no, cut-off to avoid repetition without new ideas, yes. Common sense dictates that you think and examine prior to comment.

Of course some opinion is better than other; how otherwise do you describe opinion based on absurdity. Some opinion shrieks to be exposed for its underlying baseness and absence of fact.

Richard - 3 months ago
In the "Freedom of Speech" debate the test must be: how broad is the rhetoric allowed to stand before harm becomes the net result of the content of the essay? At what point in the discussion do we flip from a passionately held point of view to psychological indoctrination? And if that point has been breached - does society permit it to stand and by what reason?

K. Orr referenced over a billion abortions, half a million of which occurred in NZ alone, but did not substantiate the source of those highly-emotive numbers. He referenced the holocaust (which in many communities is caustic) without verifiable provision of how or why he justifies that inclusion, and therefore one must question his veracity in the debate re foetal terminations.

It is very difficult to establish how much oxygen one gives or does not give to "opinions" expressed in the public domain whilst protecting the right to free speech within a democratic society. The issue goes beyond simple intolerance or indeed censorship. It is a complex expression matrix built to be all embracing but it is not perfect - and neither are societies. But if (and when) we get the balance wrong we risk losing more than freedom of expression.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    ​Do you think Gladstone Road Bridge should have its concrete parapet walls converted to steel railings on one or both of its sides as part of the upgrade and widening under way?

    See also:

    Opinion: