In blog

Earlier this week a die hard abortion activist posted a scathing anti pro-life attack piece on The Daily Blog.

The post makes a lot of very sensational claims about a supposed attack this woman was subjected to by pro-lifers in Auckland last week.

There’s just one problem – the story, as she tells it, reeks of falsehood and deliberate deception.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, this would not be the first time that abortion activists have participated in baseless allegations or acts of public deception in order to try and further their abortion agenda.

In his 1979 book Aborting America, Bernard Nathanson – former American abortionist and founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) – freely admitted that he and his organisation had regularly lied and completely over inflated figures for backstreet abortion deaths in order to try and scare the public into supporting their pro-abortion position.

And just last year, without ANY evidence whatsoever, abortion activists publicly accused pro-lifers of being guilty of cutting the fuel lines on the car of an Auckland abortion clinic worker. In reality, it was far more likely that petrol thieves carried out this act, but that didn’t stop abortion activists from making the totally baseless allegations against pro-lifers in the local media anyway.

In fact, this sort of deception and emotive sensationalism is a consistent pattern of behavior amongst abortion activists.

These sorts of irrational attacks are a ‘shock and awe’ tactic designed to scare people into keeping silent about the issue of abortion, and to distract attention away from the very serious ethical inconsistencies and logical flaws in the pro abortion-choice ideology.

So why do I smell deception in the sensational claims made in this latest blog post?

Well, firstly, the author of the blog post, after subsequently being questioned by a commenter named Mimi, has admitted that her blog post contains factual errors and totally unsubstantiated allegations.

In the original blog post she states the following:

“NZ’s Voice for Life is linked with several US-based groups whose entire foundations rest on old-testament religious nastiness.”


“The other day I happened to be going past the site at Dominion Rd, where four zealots stood praying and holding signs opposite the clinic.

Well. I will confess that I broke all the rules to stop and give them hell…

At one point, a stranger twice my size came over and pressed his body to mine.

Two women dropped their shopping and rushed over to support me. Things became chaotic; he was intimidating and verbally abusive. He pushed himself up against us, called us whores and sluts, told us he would use a hook to abort our faces, told us we should be killed if we didn’t fulfill our purpose in life (MAKE THE BABBIES), and elbowed me in the neck.”

But subsequently, after being questioned about these allegations by Mimi, the author of this blog post reveals the following:

1. Her first statement is not actually backed by any solid proof whatsoever.

The author admits to Mimi that her claims about Voice for Life are unfounded allegations based on nothing more than the accent of a narrator in some pro-life adverts from the 1990′s, as well as a supposed, and very vaguely referenced, phone conversation with an unnamed person (who was this person, and what exactly was talked about?!)

I know for a fact that Voice for Life NZ has no official ties with any foreign organisations. Period. So clearly these allegations are false.

2. More troubling is the fact that she also admits that she has deliberately mislead her readers with story about being assaulted.

The author admits to Mimi that: “the stranger was definitely not a formal part of the [pro-life] prayer group.”

But this VERY important fact is completely omitted from her original blog post, in fact, in the original blog post she clearly implies that this man was part of the 40 Days for Life group.

She also changes her original story when she tells Mimi that the negative comments she claims to have received were actually from a mix of different people (the stranger mentioned above, random passersby, and the pro-lifers in the 40 Days for Life group).

Once again, this VERY important fact is missing from her original blog post, which instead clearly implies that all the comments she received were from the pro-lifers participating in the 40 Days for Life.

But the dishonest presentation of events doesn’t end there.

A friend of mine has been in contact with one of the organisers of the 40 Days for Life, and that organiser has stated that, contrary to the claims being made in this blog post, NONE of the 40 Days for Life participants engaged with this woman apart from a brief interaction when she first approached them in her (self-confessed) enraged state. The 40 Days for Life staffer also stated that they witnessed an associate of the author slapping the stranger mentioned in this blog post on the face.

Basically I think that any sane person should be very skeptical of the accuracy of the claims being made in this blog post.

And with good reason.

The author openly admits in her blog post that (emphasis added):

“I bumped across half a footpath and right in the ‘out’ bit of the supermarket carpark. I screeched to a stop and got out of my car empty-handed. I was in such a rage I don’t even remember walking up to them.

That’s right folks, the author is admitting here that she was out-of-control, that she drove dangerously and that she was in a blind rage BEFORE she had even begun to engage this group of peaceful pro-lifers participating in the 40 Days for Life – yet she expects us to believe that she was an innocent victim in this scenario, and that it was the pro-lifers who were the raving and out-of-control “extremists” in this incident?!!

Then there’s also the fact that this blog post is riddled with totally over the top and inane hyperbole, and that it’s very first sentence is blatantly false in its claim that “abortion is illegal in New Zealand’ – no, abortion is NOT illegal in New Zealand. Instead, abortion is legally permissible in NZ via both the Crimes Act and the Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act.

This inaccurate statement clearly seems to be intended to deceive Kiwis into supporting the introduction of some new extreme abortion law in New Zealand under the false guise of ‘legalizing’ abortion in this country.

This sort of wild eyed and dishonest fanaticism from abortion activists does nothing but discredit their cause, and following so closely on the heels of the ugly cyber bullying attack on the 40 Days for Life it is starting to look like the minority of abortion activists who call New Zealand home are fanatics who are either incapable or unwilling to engage in mature and rational discourse about this issue.

Cross-posted from Brendan Malone at the Leading Edge blog.

Recommended Posts
Contact Us

Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text.