In blog

Sue Kedgley 

FridayLife is a weekly opinion column which appears on the ProLife NZ blog every Friday morning.

The band Casting Crowns have a song called ‘While You Were Sleeping’, the third verse of which features the line: ‘United States of America, looks like another silent night, as we’re sung to sleep by philosophies that save the trees and kill the children.

A few years ago in New Zealand we witnessed our very own version of this evil hypocrisy, except it wasn’t philosophies about saving trees that took priority, but ones about saving cows.

Sue Kedgley of the NZ Green Party issued an official press release which passionately attacked the NZ dairy industry for inducing the premature birth of unborn cows, a practice which often results in the death of the calve.

Yes, you did read that right; unborn cows, and look at the language used by Kedgley when talking about this issue, and the sort of action she wants the government to take against it…

“This inhumane and cruel practice could put our international dairying reputation at risk”

“Voluntary efforts have clearly failed… It is time for the Minister to show leadership and intervene to require the practice to be stopped.”

“Under the Veterinary Code, vets have a specific duty to protect animals and alleviate their suffering… By dispensing drugs that allow induction to take place for economic rather than animal welfare reasons, vets are deliberately inflicting suffering on healthy animals.”

There’s no real surprise about the fact that a Green Party MP such as Sue Kedgley would take a stand on an issue of animal welfare, the irony here lies in the fact that Kedgely is also an abortion supporter.

The very same Green Party website which features a copy of this Sue Kedgley press release chastising farmers, vets and government ministers about killing and causing pain to baby cows, also features the transcript of a speech that Kedgley gave in Auckland last year titled: ‘The Working Women’s Charter, from a feminist perspective.’

That speech devoted a reasonable amount of attention to the issue of abortion, including the following statement…

“It’s incredible that abortion is still such a contentious and divisive issue, and that no political party has had the courage –or the stomach –to seek to amend or update the 1977 Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act—or that it is still being challenged by SPUC, this time through the judicial system.”

So there you have it, on the one hand it is considered terribly ‘inhumane’ to cause pain or death to cows, but at the same time killing unborn human beings is perfectly acceptable for Green MP Sue Kedgley.

Adolph Hitler would have right at home with this sort of approach.

Yes, that’s right, I did dare to mention old A.H., and rightly so, because Adolph also had some seriously confused ideas about animals and persons.

Hitler was such a devoted animal lover that he never ate meat, he reportedly covered his eyes during scenes of animal cruelty in movies, and his Nazi party passed animal welfare laws in Germany that were unparalleled for their era.

In the final hours of his life Hitler became inconsolable after Blondi, his German Shepherd dog, was put to sleep, not long before Hitler took his own life.

Yet at the same time Hitler led the regime which implemented the mechanisms and then carried out the systematic genocide of millions and millions of innocent human beings.

And why did this happen?

Quite simply because the victims of this genocide were reclassified as non-persons, or ‘Untermensch’.

Is it just me, or is anyone else here also seeing some clear parallels?

All of this highlights the very real danger and evil that results when philosophical realities about personhood and truth are rejected in favour of popular or relativistic ideologies.

The end result is a moral confusion where otherwise good, sane and rational people support or participate in the most evil of acts, all the while failing to see the true reality of the evil they invest themselves into.

So my advice to Ms. Kedgley is that, before she next comes out publicly in support of animal welfare, she first reassess the inconsistency and confused priorities inherent in her continued support for the killing of innocent unborn human beings.

If she doesn’t, then when the history of our age is read in the history books of future generations, her concern for animal welfare will not be the thing she is remembered for, instead that will be completely dwarfed by her support for one of the greatest evils of our era.

Recommended Posts
Contact Us

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

Not readable? Change text.