Men count, too, Jacinda. As do our littlest people.
There are two main areas in which Jacinda Arden’s shortfalls in thinking are potentially, when they’re not already, damaging to the country. One is with regard to her party’s socio-economic agenda, very much contributing to the fact that among the 35 countries in the OECD we have fallen to second worst, with business confidence understandably low. Her new tag of Taxinda Ardern is not unearned. The other is her unsubtle push to enable even more babies to be killed before birth – an obvious consequence – if what many New Zealanders rightly regard as a horrific procedure is removed from the Crimes Act.
In recent years, even hardened pro-abortion doctors have walked away from what they eventually found an accumulatively sickening procedure –See https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/abortionist-who-performed-over-1200-abortions-becomes-pro-life/10155873761783728
Yet the attack continues against pro-life doctors for following their consequences. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-wins-landmark-pro-life-conscience-rights-case-in-norway
The unbalanced representation of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is highly questionable. That there are apparently no very much-needed conservative thinkers there, among these government appointees, has doubtless contributed to our sad statistics of over 13,000 unborn children put to death last year. Shockingly, there are no males on the panel, although a man is as much involved in the creation of a new life as is a woman. Moreover, this all-women committee, especially a committee of liberally-inclined women, is more than unbalanced: Who is there on it to represent the rights of a child already conceived? And when a growing infant is now basically regarded as disposable by the usual extremist groups (always a stroppy minority, to whose radicalised demands our politicians so typically capitulate) what is disregarded are the consequences for a society which treats the unborn child so cavalierly as killing it – and disregards the emotional pain and guilt so many women, given no other real help or choices, will feel for the rest of their lives.
For all Ms Ardern’s claim that she simply wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act, where it resides for very good reason, abortion can never be a simple health issue, so she should stop fudging this fact. The law is now farcical when by far the majority of women wanting an abortion can simply advance a mental health issue, and end up in the obliging hands of those with no wish to disbelieve them. We’re all well aware that the widely-used excuse of the mental health of the mother provides a virtual state of abortion on demand. Moreover, no real help by any government funded agency is offered to desperate women who fundamentally do not want to take this step. Why not? The government needs to be challenged on the fact that all it offers is death, death after one-sided “counselling”?
What very real help does come is from the voluntary, non-government funded pro-life organisations that work indefatigably to help both worried women and the babies that many of them long to keep. They deserve all our tangible support.
At least let’s have more intellectual honesty from those agitating for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, well knowing that the deliberate killing of an unborn child, already someone’s son or daughter, is involved. But then pro-abortionists have always been very evasive when dodging any question of moral or ethical liability. We all know that the perennially pushed propaganda claiming – “a woman’s right” – deliberately dodges the fact that the rights of another human being are now also very much at stake – perhaps even that of another female child on her own way now to eventual womanhood, with her own right to life.
And of course the rights of the father are also involved. Ignoring this has seen some fathers desperately asking for a son or daughter to be allowed to survive, broken-hearted that they may never see, nor get to hold their own child. So why is abortion wrongly represented as “a woman’s right“alone? No woman conceives a child alone. And no-one (yet) advocates “ a woman’s right “to kill her child after birth. So why pre-birth?
We are all very well acquainted with the untruths abortionists have always felt necessary to deal in. At what stage do they become lies? Certainly, using euphemisms to gloss over the actual facts of what happens to a tiny child both if it is dismembered to be removed – or if it is born alive and then disposed of – should have alerted any Western society to the intrinsic badness of this act.
We are all aware that initially there was a total denial of the reality of a human being now on its way after conception until science challenged this. I recall the outrage which greeted a very brave Dunedin MP years ago when, an effort to illustrate to his colleagues the reality of the unborn child, he held up a tiny, already perfectly formed unborn baby of about three months, completely recognisable as such, in a test tube. The howls of outrage that ensued were a sobering reminder of the venom with which, even today, so many pro-abortionists attack those arguing for protection for these most vulnerable of all human beings. No doubt Brian MacDonnell’s proof that this unborn child was demonstrably not “ just a mass of red cells”- the most fashionably invoked phrase at the time, contributed to the outrage expressed. The truth of an issue is never palatable to those profiting from this to be withheld.
I was reminded of this recently when one of New Zealand’s practising abortionists had the gall to claim that the personhood of the unborn child is not recognised until birth. This nonsense is just playing with words. Its intrinsic untruth is shown by the fact that when a premature baby is born not at approximately the normal birth time, of 40 weeks – but even as early as around 23 – 24 weeks – the fact that this is a living child, a son or daughter, is never disputed! Extraordinary efforts by dedicated staff are then made to save this baby – while another late term abortion may be performed on a child the same age in a theatre next door – a situation which one doctor has described as utterly barbaric.
So what is driving Ardern’s agenda – out of step as she is with the tide of revulsion now growing overseas as the reality of the effect of an abortion on the living, intrauterine child has now bought been brought home to so many – not only through ultrasound scans? That abortion, in the eyes of many, is the act of murdering the most vulnerable human being of all is beyond dispute. The damage this killing has done not only to individuals …to desperate now-mothers persuaded that this is a mere surgical procedure, but are later haunted with regret for the rest of their lives, is swept under the carpet. It has extended consequences for all those involved in this act of deliberate killing. And as people have become better informed with regard to Family Planning’s shocking practices, including the considerable money made out of selling of the results of abortions – the dismembered parts of an unborn child – more horrific revelations have come to light. The facts of Dr Gosnell’s practice has shocked the conscience of America. They are now publicised in a film, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, showing in theatres which pro-abortions are trying to have closed down. See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gosnell-film-convinces-abortion-agnostic-to-recognize-murder-of-the
Given the compliance of the Law Commission, with its also highly contestable recommendation that abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act, it is time for the all too silent majority – who too often leave an important fight to others – to now stand up to be counted. It has never been easier to ring Parliament (04 817 9999) to be asked to be passed through to the office of a party leader, your electorate MP -or any other of our supposed representatives. Nothing is simpler than to then ask for your strong objections to leaving the unborn child even more defenceless than it is to be noted – and acted upon.
Alternatively, we can do nothing. But then we will ultimately have to face the consequences of this, too.
For next time. She promised that taxes would not be raised… And does she really believe, after all these failed precedents that socialism can be taken seriously as a workable philosophy?
© Amy Brooke. Read my “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.