The Green Party will decriminalise abortion and assert the right of women to make decisions regarding their own health and the wellbeing of their family or whanau.
But will the Green Party assert the right of unborn women to make decisions regarding their own health? Check your born privilege!
Abortion is currently a crime under the Crimes Act. It is only legal if two consultants agree that the pregnancy would seriously harm the woman’s mental or physical health or that the fetus would have a serious disability.
So let’s get this straight. Abortion is already legal if “the fetus would have a serious disability.” That’s disability based discrimination, isn’t it?
“The Green Party trusts women to make decisions that are best for them and their whānau/family,” Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie said.
“The Green Party believes the time has come for New Zealand to take an honest approach to abortion, to treat it as the health issue it is, and remove it from the crime statutes.
I think the time has come for the Green Party to take an honest approach to abortion, and acknowledge that abortion is killing an unborn child. Abortion is a form of infanticide.
“The fact that 99 percent of abortions are approved on ‘mental health’ grounds and that rape is not grounds for an abortion reveals the dishonesty of the current legal situation.
“By keeping abortion a crime, New Zealand has created an unnecessary stigma around abortion that has led to delays, erratic access to terminations depending on where you are in the country, and unnecessarily late terminations.
Perhaps there should be a stigma around killing babies. Nice to have?
“Decriminalisation will reduce the stigma and judgement that surrounds abortion, and enable abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, which is safer for women.
“The Green Party’s policy would allow terminations after 20 weeks gestation only when the woman would otherwise face serious permanent injury to her health or in the case of severe fetal abnormalities
“Our policy will ensure that women have access to neutral counselling, if they want it, and that women who choose to continue with their pregnancy are given more support and are not financially penalised for doing so.
“We would also ensure parents are fully informed about the support available for families and people living with disabilities and address discrimination against disabled people that exists in the current laws around abortion,” Ms Logie said.
I don’t see how the Green Party can “address discrimination against disabled people that exists in the current laws around abortion” by amending the abortion laws to make it legal to kill disabled people in the womb. But maybe my head’s just too muddled by smoking too much of the other thing the Greens want to decriminalise?
When is a disability not a disability? When it’s a severe fetal abnormality.
Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie also posted this clarification on Facebook.
Some people have raised concerns that our policy might allow abortions post 20 weeks based on disability. This is not the intent of the policy. The Greens have a commitment to human rights and the acknowledgement of international obligations runs under all of our policies. The UN Committee with responsibility for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has already ruled that any distinction in abortion law on the grounds of fetal abnormality breaches the CRPD so our policy will not do that. The intent is to re to allow abortion after 20 weeks for a baby who has conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth.
So the intent is to allow abortion after 20 weeks for a baby who has conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth. But not if those severe conditions are fetal abnormalities. What other severe conditions are such that a baby is unlikely to survive post birth? Being sucked out of the womb with a vacuum cleaner?
Provisions later in the policy make it clear that we wish to extend protections against disability based discrimination.
We just read (above) that abortion is already legal if “the fetus would have a serious disability.” Is this the disability based discrimination the Greens want to protect against?
Also, if a baby has “conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth,” why not just let nature take its course? That would be the Green thing to do, after all.
I’m not sure what disgusts me the most. Killing babies in the womb or the Green Party’s blatant contradictions, Orwellian newspeak and senseless rape of the English language.
Here’s what every single open letter to New Zealand abortion providers sounds like to me.
To New Zealand baby killers,
The Infanticide Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ILRANZ) would like to thank you for all the amazing work you do, often unseen and unacknowledged. While we do not write this type of letter nearly as often as we should, those of us who pursue a pro-death agenda admire and respect the enormous role you play in ensuring and enabling access to baby killing services. We know that providing these services is all too frequently done at a cost to your own safety and wellbeing. We honour your bravery; bearing the brunt of pro-life rebukes, threats and attempts to expose clinic/medical providers as villains.
ILRANZ and pro-death supporters know better. We know that in an ideal world, one we strive to attain, that what you do should be understood as a basic health service. That killing babies should be one part of a wider sexual and reproductive health strategy that enables access free of charge and without barriers to those who need it; without judgement, without recrimination, and without fearing for one’s safety. There would be no stigma and no shame because baby killing would be conceptualised as a basic human right and an integrated health service.
We also know that inside the four walls of slaughterhouses and butcheries around the country that women get some of the best baby killing in the world. You play a fundamental role in ensuring these services continue, but also that pregnant people (especially women) are cared for, listened to and provided with the best option based on individual need. The time spent holding someone’s hand as they explain why killing their own unborn child is their only option. …
That’s enough of that. The cold hard fact of the matter is that the above adaptation is exactly how the original letter sounds to many. (It didn’t always sound that way to me.) Anyone interested can read more at the link above.
What I’d like to do now is present an argument against abortion.
It’s called the Argument from Caution.
(The following is closely based on this article by Matt Flannagan.)
Suppose one morning you are in the bush hunting deer. You have been informed that at some point that morning a party of school children is going to be hiking along the deer trail where you are hunting. Mid-morning you hear rustling and see movement in the bushes. Despite careful examination you are unable to ascertain whether the movement you see is a human being, a deer, or another animal. Are you justified in shooting at the target?
The answer is clearly no … This is because
(i) You know that at some point in the morning, in that place, a human being will be present;
(ii) It is morning and you are perceiving a living object in that place; and
(iii) You are unable to identify whether what you perceive is a human being or not.
It would be an act of gross recklessness or negligence to destroy the target because these three facts are in play. A similar argument applies in the case of killing a pre-natal human being.
You know that at some point between (and including) conception and birth, a human being with an unalienable right to life comes into existence. You know that a pre-natal human being is in existence during this period of time. Hence, unless it is beyond reasonable doubt that a pre-natal human being does not have an unalienable right to life, it is seriously immoral to destroy it.
Now I don’t know what theory of human rights the author of the original open letter subscribes to (or even if she has one) or when she thinks human life begins. I subscribe to a Jeffersonian theory of human rights, and I think that human life begins at conception.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But, for the sake or argument, it matters not whether my theory of human rights, or view about when life begins, or hers, are true. That’s the whole point of the Argument from Caution. Caution mandates that we assume that human life begins at conception and that an unborn child has an unalienable right to life from that point onwards.
See also Butchered at birth.
POSTSCRIPT. Please don’t confuse evincing a quite staggering degree of hypocrisy with exercising a prerogative to change one’s mind. Do as I say, not as I have done.
It’s not wrong to kill people if the killing is justified (this is a necessarily true statement).
Killing people in war is justified, killing people in self defense is justified… even killing people that deserve death is justified. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life principle is not obsolete.
When considering euthanasia a killing can be justified by mercy – the principle being do to others as you would have them do to you. In a situation where a person wants to die and a person kills them compassionately the killer has not wronged anyone.
Some appeal to the Sanctity of Life to oppose euthanasia but if the Sanctity of Life doctrine were true it would condemn the other justified killings mentioned above.
The Sanctity of Life doctrine is false – it’s a sacred cow that needs killing.
Talking heads are touting the Conservative Party as the post-2014 replacement for ACT as National’s coalition partner. History will remember ACT as sadly schizoid, consisting of two factions, a conservative faction (e.g., Muriel Newman, John Banks) and a libertarian faction (e.g., Heather Roy, Rodney Hide, Don Brash), one faction being in ascendancy at one time, and the other faction being in ascendancy at another.
So, I thought I’d briefly consider the Conservative party from these two perspectives, a conservative perspective (this post) and a libertarian perspective (next post).
Check out the Conservative Party’s founding principles. Here they are, in short form (below) and long form.
The Conservative Party has the following beliefs:
- The rule of law and government by democratic process including [binding] citizens initiated referenda
- Responsible, accountable, and limited government
- Careful stewardship of natural and financial resources
- That government must protect life, freedom and property
- Equal rights and privilege[s]
- The freedom of the individual
- The responsibility of the individual
There’s nothing objectionable here—indeed, as stated these principle are more libertarian than ACT’s founding principles and echo the libertarian mantra of individual freedom and personal responsibility—but for one thing, viz., binding citizens initiated referenda.
The idea of binding citizens initiated referenda is a populist one. It’s been promoted in the recent past by populist (although not necessarily popular) parties such as the Direct Democracy Party, the OURNZ Party, and the NZ First Party.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. But democracy plus binding citizens initiated referenda is even worse. It’s like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. Except that if the wolves win the referendum vote, a good government cannot simply ignore them. Popularity must trump principle. And this is inimical for the CCCP’s credibility as a conservative party.
One of the principles of the Conservative Party (see above) is that government must protect life, freedom and property. But the Conservative Party would put our property, our freedoms and our very lives at the mercy of citizens initiated referenda!
Would you vote for the Conservative Party on a single issue, viz., abortion? David Farrar asked Colin Craig, Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it? Colin Craig replied
A challenging situation could arise if a Conservative Party candidate is elected as the MP for an electorate. He is then being sent to parliament to represent an electorate (not a party). I do believe that an MP is required to faithfully represent those who sent him even if he does not agree with them. A simple servant-master situation.
If the electorate required the MP to vote in a way that was against his conscience (and “yes” abortion on demand is against mine), he has in my view the following options:
- To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
- To abstain on the issue
- To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
- To ignore the electorate and vote as he pleases
The first and last options (1 & 4) I believe to be incorrect choices. The first, because it breaches conscience, and the last because it usurps the servant role of the representative (it would be unfaithful to those who sent him). This leaves only 2 & 3 as options in my view. Personally I would elect the third option.
To close then, “no” I would not vote for “abortion on demand” but I would recognise that as an electorate MP this might require my resignation. If so then I would be pleased to stand aside so that a representative who was “more in tune” with the electorate could take my place.
Farrar describes this as “a thoughtful nuanced response.” I think that “show stopper” is more accurate. Colin Craig prioritises the will of the majority over the life of the unborn child. A simple case of the people’s wishes being done and that my friend is democracy.
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic reports.
The grand jury report in the case of Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I’ve read. “This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors,” it states. “The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”
Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate’s coverage includes testimony as grisly as you’d expect. “An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions,” the channel reports. “Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.’ He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, ‘it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.'”
One former employee described hearing a baby screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” she testified. Said the Philadelphia Inquirer in its coverage, “Prosecutors have cited the dozens of jars of severed baby feet as an example of Gosnell’s idiosyncratic and illegal practice of providing abortions for cash to poor women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania.”
The grand jury report includes an image of a particularly extreme case (the caption is theirs, not mine):
That photo pertains to an unusual case, in that the mother had to seek help at a hospital after the abortion she sought at Gosnell’s office went awry. The grand jury report summarizes a more typical late-term abortion, as conducted at the clinic, concluding with the following passage:
When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.”
Over the years, there were hundreds of “snippings.” Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the “snipping” was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff.
But all the employees of the Women’s Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all. Most of these acts cannot be prosecuted, because Gosnell destroyed the files. Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant — seven and a half months — when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.” Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times. And these were not even the worst cases.
There’s plenty more to this story, but I expect by now you’ve heard and seen more than enough.
Bloggers are asking why this story has received only scant, sanitised coverage in the MSM.
To sum up, this story has numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought to be a big story on the merits.
The news value is undeniable.
Why isn’t it being covered more?
I think the answer is
The mainstream media won’t cover this trial because it makes their pro-abortion views look bad. Plain and simple. They are advocates for their own pet causes. NOT objective journalists.
Mark Steyn says
Relatively few people wish to commit mass murder on the scale of Gosnell – that’s the good news. The bad news is that the vast ranks of newspaper publishers, TV executives, editors, news producers, radio assignment editors, and reporters somehow reached an instant, near universal consensus that a man who may well be America’s all-time champion mass murderer isn’t a story at all, never mind one to hold the front page for – because they didn’t see him as a murderer; they saw him as a “choice-provider” who got a little out of hand.
Cameron Slater calls this The Abortion story that the MSM won’t cover and asks
If the media won’t cover this story, what else aren’t they covering?
There’s nothing original in today’s blog post, but … well, I think that you should know.
[Hat tip: Whale Oil]
The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”
But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.
Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” (NIV)