BREAKING NEWS

A daring 8-hour rescue operation has rescued a dog trapped on a Te Araroa cliff

Lethal attack on the family

LETTER

The Government abortion bill is an unprecedented attack on women and their precious unborn disguised as healthcare.

Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not healthcare. This bill constitutes an increasingly lethal attack on the family, by attacking and killing its weakest and most vulnerable members, our unborn children.

This bill is being driven by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who believes that the killing of an unborn child is not a crime and that women have a “right” to kill their child in the womb if it is unwanted.

She sees the killing as “a reproductive choice for women”.

Why does the Prime Minister believe that the violent dismemberment of a defenceless child in the womb is not a crime and should be taken out of the Crimes Act, while at the same time stating that smacking a child is a serious crime that should be retained in the Crimes Act?

The state has a serious duty to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. This bill withdraws that protection. It will always be a crime to kill an unborn child and a crime against humanity.

Ken Orr, Christchurch

The Government abortion bill is an unprecedented attack on women and their precious unborn disguised as healthcare.

Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not healthcare. This bill constitutes an increasingly lethal attack on the family, by attacking and killing its weakest and most vulnerable members, our unborn children.

This bill is being driven by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who believes that the killing of an unborn child is not a crime and that women have a “right” to kill their child in the womb if it is unwanted.

She sees the killing as “a reproductive choice for women”.

Why does the Prime Minister believe that the violent dismemberment of a defenceless child in the womb is not a crime and should be taken out of the Crimes Act, while at the same time stating that smacking a child is a serious crime that should be retained in the Crimes Act?

The state has a serious duty to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. This bill withdraws that protection. It will always be a crime to kill an unborn child and a crime against humanity.

Ken Orr, Christchurch

Your email address will not be published.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

Lara Meyer - 11 days ago
Why is it that some men (like you Ken) insist on catastrophising about a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term? Why do you insist on flinging about emotive words like murder, dismemberment and lethal to demonstrate your displeasure?
What any woman chooses to do in response to an unwanted pregnancy is not your business.
Women and their life partner (if the woman so chooses) deserve the right to decide for themselves whether to go through with a pregnancy. Your hysterical hand-wringing letter is unnecessary and frankly annoying. I have said it before and I will say it again, men and some women who freak out about a woman's legal right to an abortion are probably associated with some kind of patriarchal religion.
Unless you have a womb, keep your opinion to yourself.

Rachel Merritt, Whakatane - 9 days ago
Ken, let's look at the abortion issue from another perspective. As men are 50 percent responsible for a pregnancy, don't you think they should also accept 50 percent of the responsibility for contraception, use of condoms, self control of sexual urges, etc? This would mean that there would be considerably less need (need not want) for "violent dismemberment of a defenceless child in the womb". Then any termination of pregnancy that was undertaken would largely be for health reasons. A health issue not a criminal one.

Martin Hanson, Nelson - 8 days ago
In all his fulminations on abortion, I don't think Ken has ever mentioned his views on contraception, which I think he would accept to be preferable to abortion. Yet I don't think we can take for granted that he finds even contraception acceptable, for there is still, to this day, to be found Catholic resistance to the very principle of contraception.
For example, Anthony McCarthy and Alexander Pruss, authors of a chapter "Condoms and HIV Transmission" in the book "Fertility and Gender", published in 2011 by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford, UK, conclude that:
"The use of a condom in consensual marital intercourse is, as we have argued, always wrong, regardless of whether the condom is used to block HIV transmission or to block procreation."
With "ethicists" like these, it is small wonder that the Catholic Church has lost all credibility on social issues.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Should the Gisborne District Council consider easing restrictions around freedom camping?​