Late on Thursday, Morgan Healey, head of the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ) wrote a blog post which sees ALRANZ now publicly placing itself firmly in the extremist quarter of the pro-abortion camp.

Firstly, Healey titled her blog post, which was written in anticipation of today’s official release of the 2010 NZ abortion statistics, ‘Auspicious ‘Abortion Stats Day’ – yep, that’s right, she called the official release of NZ’s abortion stats an ‘auspicious’ day.

Auspicious for whom?

The thousands of NZ women who were left to deal with the reality of the after-effects of abortion?

The thousands of unborn human beings whose lives were ended?

Such a callous disregard for the true nature of what abortion is, and its serious impact upon the lives of real people is really quite astounding.

In the post not only does Healey make the completely unscientific statement that it is “medically inaccurate” to state that abortion has “long-term physical and psychological implications” – a claim that is easily refuted by various reliable research papers – but she also bemoans the fact that people get upset when abortion rates are high.

Yes, that’s right, Healey and ALRANZ think that having a high rate of abortions is just fine.

If you don’t believe me, simply read Healey’s own words on the matter (emphasis added):

I honour the sentiment of Anne Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS, when she disputes the phrase that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. While calling on the absolute necessity of the first two, she queries why abortion should or could ever be rare… Abortion is a means to an end, not the demon some wish it to be. So why does society vilify it? Why the constant calls for the need to reduce numbers?

What Healey has failed to see is that the reason society is so uncomfortable with a high rate of abortions is because a high rate of abortions gnaws away at our cultural conscience, constantly reminding us that thousands of unborn human beings are having their lives ended in public hospitals and private clinics up and down the country.

Our culture can live with the idea of a small number of abortions, but when the numbers of abortions are in their thousands, it starts to get a little bit uncomfortable, because ultimately most people aren’t actually pro-abortion (like Healey is), instead they are morally indifferent to the issue of abortion, and they see it as a necessary evil, but when its happening in the thousands it starts to look more and more like a rather callous and unnecessary taking of human lives than a necessary evil.

But this isn’t actually the worst of Healey’s extremism, instead that comes in the form of the suggestion that abortion should be considered as nothing more than a form of birth control.

Again, these are Healey’s own words on the matter (emphasis added):

“…what is so terrifying about a sexually active woman taking steps to ensure that she can control the timing, spacing and number of children in whatever manner meets her needs?”

In other words, ALRANZ is now advocating abortion should be viewed simply as a form of birth control, as a way to control the number and timing of your children that is on a par with things such as condoms, the Pill or abstaining from sexual intercourse.

Truly frightening.

Tagged with:
 

The Statistics New Zealand has just released the official abortion statistics for 2010, and they make for some encouraging reading.

From the official Statistics New Zealand press release:

The number of abortions performed in New Zealand decreased in 2010, Statistics New Zealand said today. A total of 16,630 induced abortions were performed in New Zealand in 2010, 920 fewer than in 2009.

The general abortion rate (abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) decreased from 19.2 per 1,000 in 2009 to 18.1 in 2010.

“The 2010 abortion rate is the lowest since 1999 when it was 18.0 per 1,000,” Population Statistics acting manager Deb Potter said. “This lower abortion rate indicates that the decrease in the number of abortions was due to fewer women having abortions rather than to changes in the size or age structure of the population.”

Non-invasive Down syndrome test available next week

On October 26, 2011, in Blog, by Miriam

down syndrome nz Non invasive Down syndrome test available next week

Cross posted from Michael Cook at BioEdge.

A new non-invasive test for Down syndrome will be offered in 20 cities from Monday. According to an article in the journal Genetics in Medicine, it picks up 98.6% of DS children and has a false positive rate of only 0.2%. This is a vast improvement on existing screening tests, whose false positive rate can be as high as 5%.

The test can be used as early as 10 weeks into a pregnancy. It will cost about US$1,900, and if insurers cover it, privately insured women will only be about $235 out of pocket.

Sequenom has named the test MaterniT21, ironic in view of the fact that nearly all of the children detected with the test will be aborted, a fact around which press releases from the company and the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Genetics in Medicine carefully tiptoed.

Down syndrome experts fear that non-invasive tests will eliminate Down syndrome children, even though a recent survey shows that nearly 99% of people with Down syndrome are happy with their lives and 79% of their parents. The test is being marketed even though some researchers believe that drugs may become available to treat the condition.

One scientist, Alberto Costa, told The New York Times Magazine: “It’s like we’re in a race against the people who are promoting those early screening methods. These tests are going to be quite accessible. At that point, one would expect a precipitous drop in the rate of birth of children with Down syndrome. If we’re not quick enough to offer alternatives, this field might collapse.’’

A cloud of suspicion hangs over Sequenom after a 2009 scandal. It was forced to announce that the results of another DS test could not be trusted because the data had been manipulated. Several executives were fired and the senior vice president of R&D, Elizabeth Dragon, was convicted of securities fraud. She had made “materially false and misleading statements” to inflate the company’s share price.

Tagged with:
 

Last week our ProLife Auckland president Amy Blowers wrote an excellent semester end wrap up newsletter which is worth sharing with our wider community. Enjoy.


Hey Everyone:
 Well it’s the last week of classes before exams, and ProLife Auckland’s 2011 draws to a close. It seems only yersterday that we were setting up the O-Week stall! I’d like to thank all our members for their support over the course of the year- it’s been fairly epic.
The club continues to grow, and we’ve put on a great lineup of events over the course of the two semesters. Between the JustThink campagin in May, Brendan Malone’s bioethics lecture earlier this semester, our volunteer day at the 0800 U CHOOSE pregancy help centre, and the recent screening of ‘The Biology of Prenatal Development’ (not to mention the myriad of speakers and discussions we’ve had during our fortnightly Wednesday meetings!), ProLife Auckland has made a real contribution to intellectual discourse here at the University of Auckland.

These have all been great opportunities to really engage with ordinary students on the issue of abortion in New Zealand society, in a friendly non-confrontational environment. Though not everyone agrees with us, it’s been great to see students opening up about such a taboo topic. And that’s what makes life interesting, am I right? University is about challenging yourself, your beliefs; making ourselves think about our place and our duty to our world.

In this, I think we young people (and maybe not so young!) have a profound contribution to make to society. It reminds me what John Fox noted during his presentation last month; about how ‘a culture of life’  is not some cerebral academic exercise but a paradigmatic cultural shift which derives from a profound respect and love for all members of humanity.

It makes one realise that being a part of something like ProLife Auckland, as well as being at uni in general, is actually hugely special. We’ve been given an awesome chance to actually think about ways to enact positive, momentous cultural change here in Aotearoa-New Zealand, and across the world. Even if we don’t necessarily come to a resolution, as Joseph Jourbert put it, “it is better to debate a question without settling it then to settle a question without debating it”.

Some might call this youthful idealism, but during these days when we’re hearing a lot about the need to curb the excesses of the West, to protect the interests of students, to meet ecological challenges, it’s important to remind ourselves that the essence of today’s global crises are a crisis of humanity, of a fundamental discordance over the nature of human dignity. How can we expect bankers and politicians not to exploit the poor, to secure educational and economic rights for all, and to act on environmental issues, if in the end, their view of the human person is essentially of a creature which has merely aquired special licenses we call ‘human rights’ through social construction and convention?

In this sense, while prolifers are too often accused of wanting to deal with only ‘the baby’ over the ‘the mother’, in fact we ultimately seek a greater compassion for all persons. That’s what motivates us: a true intellectual, empathetic and personal principle; not ideology; not social convention.

On that note, have you got any plans this summer? While the club’s year might be finished, there’s plenty of weet prolife stuff happening all over our beautiful country. Why don’t you start by looking at the Stayin’ Alive Summer Workshop, an awesome event for young people happening next month on the Kapiti Coast. The two-day workshop consists of talks and discussions on the prolife issue and will be attended by youth from all over New Zealand, from Kaitaia to Invercargill! A meagre $30 covers accomodation, all your meals and administrative costs. Just bring a pillow and sleeping bag and you’re away! Click here for more information and to register ASAP.

In fact, we’ve had such a good response from Aucklanders that we’ve secured a bus to drive down to Kapiti- so there’s your transport qualms sorted! Flick us an email at auckland@prolife.org.nz, and for an additional $10 each way, we can book you a seat.

Look forward to seeing you all at Stayin’ Alive! Otherwise, have an enjoyable and safe summer, and good luck for exams!

G’wan the All Blacks!

For life,

AMY It is better to debate a question without settling it then to settle a question without debating it

Amy Blowers,

President, ProLife Auckland.

Tagged with:
 

Last week we launched our new YouTube series – Abortion and Human Rights FAQ with Brendan Malone – a series of factual and informative answers, from bioethics and life issues speaker Brendan Malone, to frequently asked questions concerning abortion.

We are going to be adding a new video to our YouTube Channel on weekly basis. This week we have the next video in the Abortion and Human Rights FAQ series which has Brendan answering the question “Do we have the right to terminate and expel a fetus from the womb?”.

Make sure you check back next week to check out the next video. To see all our current videos, head to www.youtube.com/prolifenz

Stayin’ Alive – have you registered?

On October 20, 2011, in Blog, by Simeon
LOGO Stayin Alive   have you registered?
Stayin’ Alive – Make sure you register!It is that time of year again, Voice for Life Kapiti is once again putting on the annual Stayin’ Alive pro-life workshop – an awesome opportunity for ProLife young people happening next month!

Stayin Alive is a two day event, happening on Friday 18th and Saturday 19th of November on the Kapiti Coast. It’ll be an awesome couple of days of ProLife workshops, featuring speakers from all over NZ, plus a chance to hang out with fellow pro-lifers! The purpose of the workshop is to Network, Educate and Equip the next generation of pro-lifers to develop a diverse, well-trained, grassroots network of new generation pro-lifers in New Zealand. It only costs $30, which covers application fees, accommodation, and meals for the weekend- just bring your own sleeping bag and pillow!

Whether you’ve had a lot of involvement in the ProLife movement or not,  this is a great opportunity to really engage with the abortion issue in NZ, and to network with a bunch of fantastic people from around the country who are passionate about building a pro-life New Zealand! Check out the website and facebook page for details, plus awesome reviews from previous participants:

Also check out the Facebook page for the latest updates!

Applications to register are open now, and places will be filling fast, so make sure you registers as soon as possible. Just go to the Stayin Alive website to fill out your application form!

We suggest that you get in touch with local pro-lifers from your area and car pool to save on transportation costs. If you are unsure of other pro-lifers in your area, send us an email at contact@prolife.org.nz and we will see if we can help with transportation.

If you live in Auckland, ProLife Auckland has chartered a bus to drive down to Kapiti, so that’s your transport issues solved! The bus will be leaving at 7am on the morning of the 18th of November. If you are unable to make this time, other transport options will be available, email us at auckland@prolife.org.nz as soon as possible so that we can help get you down there!

Tagged with:
 

Life with Down syndrome overwhelmingly happy, says study

On October 19, 2011, in Blog, by Alisdair

down sydrome new zealand Life with Down syndrome overwhelmingly happy, says study

Cross posted from Michael Cook at BioEdge.

The latest research on life with Down syndrome paints a very positive picture. In a major feature in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, Dr Brian Skotko, of  Children’s Hospital Boston, and colleagues report that “The overwhelming majority of parents surveyed report that they are happy with their decision to have their child with DS and indicate that their sons and daughters are great sources of love and pride”.

Of the 2,044 parents who were interviewed 79% felt their outlook on life was more positive because of them; only 5% felt embarrassed by them; and only 4% regretted having them. Similarly, nearly all siblings regarded their relationship with a brother or sister with Down syndrome as positive and enhancing. Of older siblings, 88% felt that the experience had made them better people.

Unfortunately, laments leading bioethicist Art Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania, the message is not reaching doctors or parents. In an article in msnbc.com, he says, “This is clearly information that ought to get more play among doctors, genetic counselors, relatives and neighbors — all of whom often weigh in with nothing good at all to say about Down kids to prospective parents.”

Dr Skotko says that doctors need to be better educated about life with Down syndrome so that they can inform their patients. With a non-invasive test which will detect Down’s early in a pregnancy, it is likely that many women will choose to abort them. Already, studies show that about 90% of women do abort their child after a positive test result. He calls for a “gold-standard” packet of information for all expectant parents, guidelines on how best to deliver a prenatal diagnosis, a public awareness campaign, and quality training on how to deliver a diagnosis. American Journal of Medical Genetics, October

Tagged with:
 

Queen’s cousin introduces San Jose Articles

On October 17, 2011, in Blog, by Alisdair

UN Building Queens cousin introduces San Jose Articles

Lord Nicholas Windsor writes for The Telegraph  on abortion and introduces the San Joe Articles. For more information on the San Jose Articles see the end of this article.

If I were to imagine the voice of a rather sensible relative, or just a concerned bystander, addressing me on the subject of abortion, the words I hear them using go something like the following: “Why on earth get yourself mixed up in/wade into a matter like this?” (Aside) “And isn’t it rather distasteful?”

Well, I don’t think my well-meaning voice has it far wrong. I can’t be altogether wise to join this debate (on the side I’ve chosen, anyhow) and, no, it’s never going to be the stuff of polite conversation. But just why is it that this question generates so much heat in politics, in the media and around the dinner table? Not just, I think, because it belongs somehow to the category of “bedroom and bathroom” subjects that nice people don’t broach too freely. Much more than that, it seems to be a highly reactionary position, one that, probably without a precedent, would seek to take back a “right”, specifically a woman’s right, that was conferred by Parliament in 1967 in the Abortion Act. What could be more illiberal in our culture than that? No wonder there is fury and resistance.

Three generations have had a legal option they didn’t have before, and here comes a jumped-up minority that has the gall to say we should “turn back the clock”. That’s how bad it looks. You’d have to have a superlative reason to do it. That, of course, is just what we insufferable pro-lifers say we have. What we suggest is this: the cost is too high because the cost is paid in innocent human life.

Abortion is perceived as a solution to a problem called unwanted pregnancy. A real problem, then. A real “solution”, too. But it’s not a just solution for all concerned. It leaves out of the picture the consequences for “the entity”, about whose nature we’ve disagreed so passionately in the last decades. Was it always like that? Didn’t we used to know in our heads and feel in our guts that if one had conceived, then that meant one was pregnant, which meant in turn that one was going to wait patiently, if uncomfortably, for nine months and then go on “to have” a baby – to really give birth to one and hold it in one’s hands. All being well, that’s what happened. It used to be that basic a consideration. It’s got a lot murkier in recent years. We’re told we can’t afford such simple knowledge any longer. Now we need interminable philosophical debates to establish the status of the embryo, or the foetus, or the unborn child, or whatever it is. To me, a lot of this is sheer sophistry. Who’s kidding whom here?

So why don’t I think much of abortion? First of all, for the above reasons and not because (as that brilliant writer Philip Pullman would put it) “the Vatican” told me to. But it became visceral for me once I started thinking hard about the subject. It hit me in the stomach that terminating a pregnancy equalled none other than the destruction of a human being. It knocked the wind out of me the first time, as it does every single time I think of it.

Look at it this way: I was born in 1970. My dear mother would have been within her rights to find it inconvenient to have me. Bad luck, she didn’t. But my generation has had a close shave. Whether we were born depended on lots of factors: not just on a mother’s decision, but also on the fathers’ influence and that of the surrounding culture – friends’ advice and the views of the philosophers I mentioned earlier. Others of my generation weren’t that fortunate, and some of those were our siblings. That’s why we take this thing seriously, if you want to know. We were the first generation that really were vulnerable in the womb. Surely, the womb should be the safest place in the world to be. Not any more.

So, how many don’t have those sisters and brothers whom the law, in my view, should have protected? And how many of those siblings didn’t go on to compose the symphonies they should, by rights, have composed? How many didn’t go on to give birth in their turn? This is eugenics, isn’t it? Hell, that’s another story.

Speaking of another story, but on the same subject, an important project is launched today in the House of Lords by parliamentarians and experts, as it was last week in the United Nations General Assembly and around the world.

The aim of this, based on a document called the San José Articles, is to stop the practice we’ve been talking about from being foisted on to countries that don’t want it. The Articles aim to show that there is no “right to abortion” to be found in international law that would oblige such countries to “conform, or else”. This is in spite of the UN and other agencies’ claims to the contrary.

Human rights lawyers of a certain stamp around the world are taking the same pro-abortion line, manipulating the current provisions of international law. Frankly, officials and politicians in developing countries are being bullied into writing such a right to abortion into their domestic law. This project aims to help them to fight back.

For more information on the San Jose Articles see the San Jose Articles website .

To see the United Nation Webcast video of the launch of the articles at the United Nations in New York click here.

Tagged with:
 

 

Earlier this week I drew your attention to the August edition of the Abortion Law Reform Association of  New Zealand newsletter, in which ALRANZ, in their haste to support the eugenic abortion of people with Down syndrome, actually ended up giving their support to the sex-selective abortion of NZ girls (in fact they opened the door up for abortion on ANY grounds).

Today I think it is worth focusing on the confused and contradictory logic that is employed by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ), in this same August newsletter, in order to try and maintain support for both disability rights, and the eugenic abortion of people with disabilities.

So let’s get started with the dissection of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand article…

“ALRANZ takes a firm position on valuing all life…”

Okay, so from the get-go we know things aren’t quite right because ALRANZ, the staunchly pro-abortion, ‘unborn human beings have no right to life or intrinsic worth’ organization is suggesting that it firmly values “all life”.

If that truly were the case then they wouldn’t support abortion, because, obviously, abortion is the act of terminating an innocent human life.

“…and believes that negative social attitudes toward people of varying abilities diminishes the worth and value of such people. In these situations, the availability of abortion is not the reason women make decisions to terminate pregnancies after confirmation of a disability.”

Uh, yeah, something tells me that if abortion wasn’t actually available then there wouldn’t be the en masse aborting of disabled babies human beings going on (73% of babies with Downs in NZ alone).

Having said that, you are definitely right that abortion isn’t a ‘reason’ to have an abortion; that would be like saying that ‘stealing a car’ is a reason to steal a car – it doesn’t make any sense.

“Abortion is not the problem…”

You’re right, abortion is only part of the problem here, the other part is that it is being used to selectively destroy persons with disabilities or genetic variations that aren’t socially acceptable in this oh-so-enlightened modern era.

“…stigma and lack of social services to help families is the driving force behind such decisions.”

Is this an admission from the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand that a large percentage of these abortions are taking place because of social prejudice against people with disabilities, and because of a lack of resourcing and funding in this area?

It certainly looks like one to me.

So why then do ALRANZ later in this same article go on to give their full support to these eugenic abortions?

“Some of the media coverage around the use of voluntary screenings seems to suggest the medical profession and pro-choice activists are only interested in producing abled-bodied individuals.”

Firstly, I can’t recall any direct accusations against pro-choice activists in this regard, and secondly, the focus of the groups opposed to this eugenic screening is not so much about the motivations of the system, but rather the fact that it is inherently unjust in its targeting of people with disabilities or genetic differences.

“Tapping into such a hard and emotive issue makes it very difficult to sort out the anti-choice rubbish from the great work being done by disability rights activists.”

This sentence really doesn’t make a lot of sense, what the heck is meant by the phrase “tapping into”?

And what does the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand mean by disability rights activists, because surely that also includes those disability rights groups who oppose the eugenic screening of unborn human beings based on their genetics or abilities/disabilities?

“It feeds into most people’s discomfort about talking about such issues, both abortion and disability.”

As Yoda would say: ‘a very telling sentence this one is’.

Firstly, it sees ALRANZ actually acknowledging publicly that mainstream NZ is not at all comfortable with the idea that we should be aborting human beings based on their disabilities and genetic variations – yet that’s exactly what ALRANZ give their full support to later in this article, thus putting themselves well outside mainstream NZ.

Secondly, why should there be any issue with talking about abortion, if, as ALRANZ keep trying to insist, abortion is a simple and straightforward process with no ethical implications to be considered (apart from those regarding the actual lead up to, and execution of the procedure)?

Most people don’t have discomfort with an openness about having appendectomies, or laser surgery, yet when it comes to abortion it’s a completely different story.

Perhaps it has something to do with conscience and the ethics of the act.

“In short, anti-choicers continue to be vigilant, seeking out new opportunities to promote their own anti-woman agenda.”

Three ad hominem attacks in one little sentence:

1. calling pro-lifers ‘anti-choicers’ has a nice little pro-abortion ring to it, and it helps to perpetrate the myth that anyone who opposes the act of aborting human beings on ethical grounds is somehow out to deny us a legitimate choice (not sure when ending innocent human lives became a legitimate choice though).

2. calling it ‘their own’ agenda implies that the pro-life ethic isn’t grounded in sound and universal ethical logic, instead it sounds like something kooky and fringe (and maybe even a little bit conspiracy theory-esque)

3. referring to the pro-life ethic as ‘anti-woman’ is a pretty lame, outdated and oh so cliched piece of meaningless nonsense

But wait, there’s more, and the logic doesn’t get any better…

“For our part, ALRANZ opposes the current abortion regime under which the state controls abortion access through a set of narrow grounds, including the ground that targets “seriously handicapped” fetuses… This singling out of the “seriously handicapped” by the abortion law is one more reason all specific grounds for abortion should be eliminated and New Zealand’s abortion law should be decriminalized, giving women the right to make their own abortion decision for their own reasons.”

How’s that for a logical black hole?

‘We oppose the singling out of people with disabilities for abortion, instead we’d rather have it so that people can abort unborn human beings for any reason whatsoever’

Sounds like equal opportunity discrimination to me.

‘Don’t think that people with Downs syndrome should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’

‘Don’t think that females should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’

‘Don’t think that mixed race babies should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’

They’ve really covered all their bases with that last statement where they give their full support to a NZ law which would allow abortion for ANY reason whatsoever.

Scary stuff.

“We also reject as offensive and exaggerated claims that the screening programmes constitute ‘genocide’, ‘eugenics’, or ‘ethnic cleansing’, as some abortion opponents claim.”

I would suggest that the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand might want to do a bit more research about what actually constitutes eugenics, because one of the key aspects of eugenics is the attempt to eradicate those who have undesirable genetic traits.

“This is certainly not to deny the societal pressure some women feel to both undergo screening and to abort fetuses identified as having disabling conditions.”

Hold on, so now you’re actually supporting one of the key arguments AGAINST prenatal screening – the fact that unexpected adverse prenatal diagnosis is difficult for many couples, and this, coupled with the social undercurrent of prejudice against Down syndrome creates a form of very powerful coercion towards abortion.

“As a pro-choice group, we fiercely oppose any form of coercion in medical care, including coerced abortion and coerced pregnancy in all its forms, both subtle and overt, and will continue to advocate – as we always have – for adequate support for all pregnant women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.”

No offense ALRANZ, but this statement, particularly the last part of it, just doesn’t ring true at all.

Where is the intense lobbying against the Chinese coerced abortion policy, especially considering that NZ has entered into a free-trade agreement with the Chinese, and we have reasonably regular visits from their dignitaries.

And where is all the lobbying for easier access to adoption in this country, after all, that’s another pregnancy related choice, yet it is one that is woefully legislated and managed in this country.

Telling people that you are something doesn’t make it so, and anyone with half an ounce of commonsense can see that the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is simply a group dedicated to lobbying for liberalized abortion laws.

“Choice also means being fully informed about your pregnancy – something anti-abortion advocates frequently invoke in their efforts to introduce restrictive “informed consent” requirements for women seeking abortion. So why would they want to prevent women from accessing that information by shutting down antenatal screening programs?”

The twisted irony in this statement is truly something to behold.

What ALRANZ is saying here is that they oppose informed consent when it comes to abortion (they call it “restrictive”), yet when it comes to informing women that they are carrying human beings with disabilities they think women should definitely be informed about that.

The only reason that ALRANZ supports the later, while scorning the former, is because the former poses a threat to their pro-abortion ideology, whereas the later doesn’t.

And let’s not forget that this is the same ALRANZ who just sentences ago was telling us that there is a “societal pressure” to abort unborn human beings identified as having disabling conditions.

So why now would you give unqualified support to thrusting such pressure upon women in the form of prenatal screening?

“The answer to concerns over the pressure to produce “perfect” babies is not to end antenatal screening, but to join with disabilities rights groups and others in fighting for a society that welcomes everyone, and gives each woman the freedom to make her own decision.”

Logically speaking, this is starting to feel like swimming in a vat full of philosophical treacle.

So ALRANZ believes that we should be fighting for a society that “welcomes everyone”, does that also include the unborn human beings that are unwelcome and aborted as a result of ALRANZ’s pro-abortion ideology?!

And the answer to eugenics is to support the ideology that says that people should be able to choose eugenic abortions if they want to?!!!

That’s like suggesting that encouraging people to embrace the freedom to be racist is the answer to racism.

Honestly, this is like watching a married man, whose just been caught out in public with his mistress, by his wife, desperately trying to keep both women happy while attempting to explain the whole incident away.

“As Dr. Marsha Saxon of the World Institute on Disability put it so well: “Real ‘choice’ must include the choice to have a child with a disability”. If that is not a reality for some women, the cause is not information but discrimination.”

Actually, I think there is a typo in here, and that this is meant to be a quote attributed to Dr. Marsha SAXTON, and if it is then I don’t know if she would appreciate being used to bolster support for prenatal screening.

My understanding is that she is not supportive of genetic screening practices. Just consider this quote from one of her public presentations…

This must be our concern with genetic reproductive technologies, but the stakes are much greater. The marketing of reproductive genetic products, like diet foods, sells us the option to choose an individual solution to what are really deep social problems. The price for this genetic fix can sometimes be enormous personal, economic, emotional and physical health costs. But we are often so desperate to get what we want and that we are willing to pay any price…

Are reproductive technologies, dispensed as individual solutions to personal medical problems, actually nurturing and empowering the lives of all women, and thus the life of each woman?

Is our defensiveness about, and our romance with “choice” leaving us vulnerable to exploitation by commercialism, tricking us into thinking we are empowered by all these options, when we are not?

In the late 1800’, medical “science” brought us eugenic ideology, which resulted in racist, and disability-discriminatory public policy in the U.S. which then migrated to other countries and evolved in more virulent ways. There were fewer products to sell in that early era of capitalism but what was created was a trendy ideology we are still haunted by.”

Somehow I think that Dr. Saxton would be none too pleased (assuming that its her that ALRANZ is quoting here) with the suggestion from the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand that choosing disabled people should be coupled with the ability to reject and destroy disabled human beings via abortion.

Tagged with:
 

ALRANZ confusion In their haste to support abortion for Down syndrome, ALRANZ also commits itself to supporting the sex selective abortion of NZ girls

Cross posted from the Culture Vulture.

Okay, so the August newsletter of the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ) contains some absolutely classic commitment to ideology, even to the point of becoming downright scary.

In their newsletter they take exception to the fact that a group of NZ parents of children with Down syndrome are refusing to quietly roll over and accept the new prenatal screening program which specifically targets people with Down syndrome, and then results in something like 73% of people with Downs being aborted in NZ.

This is eugenics folks, pure and simple – a group of human beings are being singled out based solely on their genetics, and then the vast majority of them (as high as 90% in some countries) are killed before birth because the genetic traits they posses see them deemed unfit, or unwanted for continued existence.

As a thought experiment, it would interesting to see how ALRANZ would react if geneticists were able to come up with a simple blood test which was able to show that an unborn human being had a genetic predisposition towards being pro-choice, and the NZ Government then began offering free prenatal screening to parents so they could identify these pro-choice human beings and then have them terminated before birth if they only wanted to have pro-life babies.

I guess ALRANZ would have no problem whatsoever with this, after all, they do state in their August newsletter that:

“…New Zealand’s abortion law should be decriminalized, giving women the right to make their own abortion decision for their own reasons.”

Hold on, stop the bus for just second.

Doesn’t that last statement from ALRANZ mean that they now also support the sex-selective abortions of NZ females too?

Yep, it certainly does my blog-reading friends, because choosing to abort a baby due to the fact that it is a girl is also a case of a women making “their own abortion decision for their own reasons” – the very thing that ALRANZ states, in their August newsletter, that they are committed to.

Now that would be an interesting thought experiment, how would ALRANZ react if the NZ Government started offering parents free prenatal screening for gender, so that parents could identify female babies and have them aborted before birth if they didn’t want any girls in their family.

We’ll have more on this ALRANZ August newsletter tomorrow.

Tagged with: