Abortion. The very word in a medical context or a religious context is enough to provoke a very emotive, not necessarily properly informed, and sometimes deliberately misleading debate. And yet, at the same time, there is no doubt regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it cuts right to that most fundamental, most inalienable right – to that of life. I deliberately sit on the fence here. Not because I have no empathy or heart, but because to make an accurate assessment of the issue without being partial to one aspect or another, one needs to be remote.
It has been commented many times over that very often the people making the moral calls about abortion in places of authority such as Government ministries or in churches are men with no understanding of the biological changes a woman must experience in the course of pregnancy. It is probably the most profound thing a woman will have happen to their body. They have no understanding of the medical hazards a woman who is pregnant must navigate through successfully to give birth. Or they DO have the understanding, but either their individual principles or – if they are working for a Government ministry – political ideology or other indoctrination gets in the way.
Which is why I was delighted that today it was announced New Zealand will permit abortions up to 20 weeks. It is part of a sweeping law change that will liberalise the 1977 Sterilisation, Contraception and Abortion Act, . The compromise reached derives from the liberal position that the medical establishment wanted which said that there should be no statutory test at all and the more conservative position that wanted a statutory test to determine whether there is a heart beat at an early stage.
I have no problems with a medical test being done. For me the test should be more construed as a medical check up, rather than some sort of red line or other limitation on abortion.
Now we watch the opposition mobilize. I expect to see massive opposition from religious groups. Conservative pro-life organizations such as Right to Life however will strongly resist this happening, saying that the sanctity of life from conception to ones natural death is endangered by abortion. On their website R.t.L. have the following stated aim:
To work purposefully towards, the achievement of the realisable ideal of no abortions within our society
There are however two massive and – in my view fundamental – flaws to Right to Life’s argument. First, Right to Life in no way acknowledge that a victim of rape or incest was subject to a grave criminal offence against her will. Second, if the female develops medical complications in any pregnancy brought on by the act of rape, again the choice as to whether she aborts or not should be hers alone. It should also be exempt in all respects from Section 187A of the Crimes Act (see below).
Another group, Family First, headed by Bob McCroskie are calling it “deeply anti-human rights”. Which is interestingly hypocritical because guess what Mr McCroskie? Women make up half the worlds population and have human rights just like us and one of those rights is an absolute right to life. Are you trying to say that that most holy of human rights is not inalienable when it comes to women? That is the intonation.