< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: What if Abortion Laws were Enforced


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

What if Abortion Laws were Enforced

The NZ Right to Life organisation is challenging the implementation of the abortion laws in NZ. The current law restricts access to abortion, but this restriction is not being adhered to resulting in abortion on demand in the many place in NZ.

David Farrar and NZ Pundit have both blogged about it.

Consider for the moment that NZ Right to Life are successful. That the Abortion Supervisory Committee actually goes: Whoops, you're right, we've been letting lots of perfectly healthy women who are at no risk of serious mental harm to dispose of their inconvienient babies, we'll get onto that quick smart and tighten everything up. What do you think would happen?

An international feminist group funded by the UN that uses the courts to try and liberalise abortion worldwide would suddendly notice New Zealand, that's what.

Columbia does not legally allow abortion. Here's what's happening in Colombia right now;: UN-funded lawyers sue to change Colombia abortion laws :
The case [to liberalise Colombia's anti-abortion laws] was filed in Colombia's Constitutional Court by Monica Roa, a director of Women's Link WorldWide (WLW), a radical feminist organization that promotes the legalization of abortion around the world. WLW has also challenged the abortion laws of Spain, Poland, Australia, Thailand, and South Africa. WLW is funded by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the European Commission, alongside private donors such as the Ford Foundation.
The reason I noticed the above was because I check up on what's happening with Poland regularly. Poland is in trouble with the UN for it's abortion laws. During the communist era pre-1989, abortion was available in Poland on-demand. Now abortion is only available in very limited circumstances, with a three year jail term for anyone who performs one illegally. Poland's laws are pretty close to New Zealand's abortion laws, except that in Poland their abortion laws are enforced. Hence they've made into the WLW's gunsights for action.

From Women's Link WorldWide's website:
Through case studies gathered from local litigation efforts to advance women’s rights across six countries--Spain, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, Australia and Colombia --Women’s Link’s Gender Justice project seeks to systematize lessons-learned from advocates asserting social change through national courts.
Kind of flies in the face of national sovereignty, if the UN can finance this sort of group to agitage in a nation's courts to change law, doesn't it?

Posted by Lucia Maria | 6/07/2005 04:28:00 pm


Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Its not that different really from the US financing and supporting regieme changes is it? Its just another external entity having a say on how they think a country should be run? If you're up for supporting the US in Iraq, then you've got to support other organisations taking their message to countries - like the case you present above. Note I'm not comparing at a detailed level here US in Iraq vs abortions and feminists. I just wanted to make the point related to sovereignty. I support personal choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion, there should be no legal reason why they shouldn't be able to have one.

However, the number of abortions must be limited to a small number. You should perhaps be limited to one or two general purpose abortions. There should exist other special cases such as rape that should allow abortion, of course, and detection of life-threatening genetic disorders etc would be another. There may be others. I recall that having too many abortions can cause problems, though I don't have any evidence at hand to back that up. If you don't learn the lesson the first time...

But abortion should not be seen as a form of contraception by healthy females with healthy fetuses. Its not. It is the last option available. Couples still have to take enough responsibility for their copulation so that they haven't always got abortions to fall back onto.

Of course, I'm just a guy, so I'm talking about an area that I'm not qualified to speak on, nor necessarily understand much of the detail. :)

6/07/2005 05:05:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Hi Bernard. I might write a book to comment on the entire post, so I'll just start with a few points:

"Its not that different really from the US financing and supporting regieme changes is it?"

I think it is different. Explaining that will be saved for later. In the meantime, lets agree it is exactly the same.

In that case, lets look at the logic the other way around: just as the US comes under fire for funding regime changes, then so too should the U.N.

I can vote a party in or out (sort of) and then they decide how much funding to give the UN. Then the UN spends the funds on different groups that go and lobby the government I voted in to change the laws I may have voted for.

Its an even more complicated version of struggling to hold the government accountable for the money it spends on Wananga, Job Jolt etc that I didn't really want, even if I am happy with paying the current pension scheme.

Love to discuss the other things; I think this post raises a few interesting questions to grapple with. Unfortunately, I'm also grappling with Amnesty, my kids, the accounts and some real work...

6/07/2005 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger Kimble said...

Hey guys can comment on this too! I am sick of the uterocentric myth that men have very little to do with reproduction!

I broke up with a girl once because of this sort of debate. I was adamant that simply because it might reside in another human-being the child is still mine, and I should have equal say in its future.

Funny how feminists are all about equal-rights but back pedal when presented with this case of discrimination, saying that a child is the sole responsibility of the mother, who has the RIGHT to dispose of it as she sees fit.

6/07/2005 06:00:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Of course you can comment Kimble, it's just that there are sometimes unexpected consequences...

Anyway, on this one I agree. When I last checked, men do have something to do with reproduction, and I agree that they should have a say in the outcome.

It's obviously a tricky issue if you are pro-abortion. It's less tricky for me, because I am more on the pro-life side.

That being said, I'm understanding of the varied issues and circumstances that might lead to termination, but at the least that process should allow a discussion from all vested parties, and the biological father is vested.

Along the lines of the SPCA saying "we speak for those that cannot speak for themselves" I'm all for the interests of the unborn and the desires of the mere males having some kind of voice.

Women might not like that, but tough. I'm going to listen to what they have to say, so they can listen to what I have to say. It's a life at the centre of this discussion - doesn't it deserve at least a conversation?

6/07/2005 06:33:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Since I'm short on time right now, all I'll say for now is: comment away, guys. It's only the feminists that want to shut you up.

6/07/2005 06:50:00 pm  
Blogger TomV said...

Why should the pro abortionist in New York have any more or less right to interfere than the anti abortionist in Wellington?

6/07/2005 08:36:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

I lost you after the word "should" TomV. Not quite sure what you mean?

Did you mean: why do people in New York feel prepared to spend time, money and resource to change the outcome of a policy in NZ, other than "because they can"?

Well maybe they'll commission a "study" to report on the collective changes they have helped make around the world, and then use that study to say "everyone's doing it, so why can't we?"

I'm not sure "rights" are ever given, they just get taken away. That is to say, you do something until some-one or some-thing stops you.

6/07/2005 08:59:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Ok Bernard, I'll give it a go.

Its not that different really from the US financing and supporting regieme changes is it? Its just another external entity having a say on how they think a country should be run? If you're up for supporting the US in Iraq, then you've got to support other organisations taking their message to countries - like the case you present above.

I don't support the US financing and supporting regime change when it suits them. In the case of Iraq, there were many factors at play. I personally did not support the war initially, but once it was happening, I hoped it could be done swiftly and with minimal loss of life. I felt that the war would have a good side to it - Saddam would be gone the Iraqi people would have a chance. This is a chance they would not have been able to give themselves - Saddam's grip on power was too strong and he was too ruthless with even suspected opponents.

Obviously, there were a number of reasons why the US invaded Iraq. But comparing the US to the UN is a real stretch. The UN is representative of all countries in the world, even countries we don't agree with. We presumably pay or donate to the UN, and then it goes and finances groups that try to subvert the laws of other democracies.

Poland and Australia are not tin-pot dictatorships that somehow need to be rescued from their own laws. They have elected governments that put in place laws that presumably reflect on some level the will of the people. I'm sure they don't want their own money used to fund a group that will try and subvert those laws.

I'm not against people taking a message to other countries. If the arab countries wanted to use the UN to take a message of stoning as a good deterrant against adultery accross the globe, and to do that they used other country's courts to push that message into law there - do you think you'd be against it, then?

6/07/2005 11:18:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh yeah, abortions do cause problems - infertility, miscarriages, inability to carry babies to full term. Not for everyone, of course. There was a study published recently on the premature babies link. Something I'd noticed years ago just by talking to lots of women online, many of the ones that had had abortions had problems.

6/07/2005 11:22:00 pm  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Campbell Live is having a section on abortion tonight. 1900 on TV3.

6/08/2005 06:19:00 pm  
Blogger TomV said...

Zen: I suppose I'm talking about the wider issue of sovereignty.

Nations are arbitrary things. Outside interference in a sovereign nation is generally frowned upon, but the same interference within a nations borders is condoned or even encouraged.

6/08/2005 11:38:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Thanks for the reply TomV. Point now understood!

Yes, the irony is that if you can use the methods allowed by the system to effect change, its all well and good.

However, just as we get finicky when we suspect Labour (or any party for that matter, but the examples easier with Labour as they are in power) of using non-party funds to provide political advertising, we get very annoyed.

The irony of donating to the UN to then fund special lobby groups to work against our countries laws is not lost on me.

As Lucyna pointed out, maybe stoning will be promoted one day using NZ's own small donation. OK, it might end up being a very small campaign, but I can just see some-one giving it a go based on a brochure from a print run of 55.

6/09/2005 12:14:00 am  
Blogger peasant said...

Leftists tend to believe that the state should insulate everybosy from the consequences of their actions. Observe the continual refrain of Labour ministers: "I am not responsible". Too many Kiwis think the Gummint should pick up the tab for the mess they created.

These days its easy to get laid, but hard to find love. Hard to get married, easy to break up. Hard to raise children, easier to kill them.

The value of walking the straight and narrow way is continually derided. This generation is one of the most selfish in history. The next will be narcissistic and cruel, because we have taught them to devalue themselves and life itself.

6/13/2005 04:17:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home