Abortion. There is probably no greater danger to New Zealanders than abortion. The physical danger to babies is obvious – abortion stops a beating human heart. Abortion claims the lives of almost one quarter of all New Zealand babies. The New Zealand rate has been as high as 248 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies (330 abortions for 1,000 live births) in 2003. There were 15,863 abortions in New Zealand in 2011. Some more figures are included in the Election Results PDF (69KB). Abortion also presents a physical risk to the mother – for example, abortion has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. Quite apart from the physical danger to babies and mothers, it is staggering the amount of deception involved with convincing young women that abortion is the answer to dealing with the life growing within them. Some examples include telling them that a baby is not really living until it is born, implying that the abortion will somehow solve all the mother's (and family's) problems, and omitting to mention that the mother will very likely live with huge guilt for killing her baby. Perhaps as many as 98% of abortions in New Zealand are illegal; the primary position of New Zealand law is that abortion is a serious crime and is unlawful.

Karl du Fresne writing on Stuff in November 2018 highlights some of the inconsistencies in the position and arguments used by those who would kill unborn children. He writes:

The Big Lie, which you can expect to hear repeated endlessly, is that abortion is a health issue. This is now a feminist article of faith. But no amount of repeating makes it true, because pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses or disorders, and it's impossible to imagine anything less healthy for the unborn child than to have its life terminated.

Indeed, abortion is fatally unhealthy for unborn babies. When did so many New Zealanders become so callous about life? He finishes (emphasis added):

Journalist Alison Mau gave an early example of the fatuous arguments likely to be deployed when, in a one-sided panel discussion on Radio New Zealand, she proposed that men should be required to get permission from certifying consultants before getting prostate checks, as women seeking an abortion have to do.

This reduced the whole issue to a puerile game of gender tit-for-tat. It got her a cheap laugh, but the nature and purpose of the two procedures are fundamentally different. Prostate checks are about identifying and treating a potentially fatal disease. Their purpose is to save life.

But pregnancy is not a disease, a foetus is not a tumour, and the consequence of an abortion is that life is extinguished, not saved. If a high-profile journalist like Mau can't grasp that crucial difference, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Alison Mau (who we note has a history of making poor choices, albeit not so life-extinguishing) is not the only columnist to compare abortions to prostate checks. This underlines the problem that those in favour of abortion are promoting an ideology, and pushing an agenda. They don't have a well thought-out position, and the position they have does not for a moment consider the well-being and life of the unborn child.

Danger: The group/person or belief/practice is considered dangerous due to mind control or particularly bad doctrine. These groups (or people) have a strong tendency to damage their members/followers.

Very Hot Topic: At present we only have four listings which are so hot they deserve two flames – Abortion, which claims the lives of thousands of New Zealanders each year, Scientology which actively tries to suppress the rights of personal freedom, in particular free speech and religious freedom), and Mark Holloway and his book The Freedom Diaries because they are so unbiblical but so widely supported. Note that this rating has nothing to do with the "cultishness" of a group.

Printed on 20 January 2021 at www.cults.co.nz.
Close window