We’re pretty lucky here in NZ, really, that we aren’t plagued with too many pro-abortion fundamentalists. Sadly, we aren’t totally immune to this particular brand of fervor however, and Richard Boock is fast making a name for himself as one of NZ’s foremost proponents of pro-abortion extremism.
Earlier today he decided that he was going to jump on the international pro-choice bandwagon and exploit the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, in an Irish hospital, in order to make all sorts of lunatic assertions about Ireland, the pro-life movement, etc, etc.
The breadth and depth of the ignorance and the wild-eyed crazy on display in his column really is something to behold – you can literally hear the hissing from his neck bolts intensifying with each passing (and crazier) sentence.
Just in case you think I’m being a little too harsh, here’s a sampling of quotes from Boock’s column:
“A Catholic country decided killing her was preferable to allowing her the right to terminate her pregnancy.”
“Savita Halappanavar died because, in Ireland, the state controls the womb.”
“Every sperm is sacred. Women [in Ireland] are effectively farmed, like some sort of nationalised livestock.”
“These [pro-lifers in NZ] are the people who would kill the Savita Halappanavars amongst us. These are the zealots who, so deluded by their own personal belief system, would put the rights of a cluster of cells ahead of the rights of the women who carry them.”
“Bottom line? [pro-lifers are] fighting for the right to harm women.”
“Women seeking abortion services [in NZ] are being obstructed at every turn by busybodies with personal ideological agendas.”
“…the people in New Zealand who should be made to identify themselves for the greater good are those GPs who, because of their personal convictions, are not prepared to refer women to abortion services, or even to other doctors who would. They should be forced to reveal themselves as compromised.”
“Yes, Savita Halappanavar died unnecessarily. But her death doesn’t need to be meaningless. At the very least, we should remember her as a monument to what “Pro Life” groups really stand for.”
Now apart from one or two other sentences, what I have posted here is pretty much the entirety of Boock’s opinion piece (which is actually more of a childish, ignorant and hateful poison pen letter than a professional newspaper column).
So now that we’ve heard the extremist hate of Richard Boock, let’s actually present a summary of the important facts surrounding the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar:
1. Much of what we have heard about this case in the media is speculative. Savita Halappanavar’s death is still the subject of two official investigations, and the findings of those investigations have still not been completed or released.
2. Based on what we know so far, Savita Halappanavar died of Septicaemia (the very first sentence of Boock’s column even states as much), which is quite clearly NOT the same thing as dying because of the fact that she was “refused a legal [abortion]” (which is the claim of Boock and the other pro-choice activists presently exploiting this case for reasons of ideological self-interest). There are still many questions about why, how and when she actually developed Septicaemia, and whether the response of the medical staff treating her was as professional and as prompt as it should have been.
3. According to the pro-life ethic (and also the Catholic moral principles which are so influential in Ireland), Savita Halappanavar could (and should) have been offered the option of a premature induced labor in this situation, and if she had chosen such an option she would NOT have been acting contrary to well established pro-life ethical principles (or Catholic ones). This is because, in such a situation, this sort of treatment would not have been used with the intention of killing the unborn child, instead the death of the child would have been an unintended secondary effect of the treatment aimed at saving her life.
4. While there is some debate going on about the point at the moment, there seems little doubt that current Irish law also allows for such treatments (those that have the unintended secondary effect of causing the death of the child) to be used to save the lives of pregnant mothers.
5. According to a report in the Irish Independent newspaper, pro-choice activists knew about the death of Savita Halappanavar approximately 3 days before the story was published in the media, and they held a special meeting just over 24 hours prior to the story breaking to discuss how best to use the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar to promote their pro-choice agenda.
6. Ireland is still one of the safest countries for women who are pregnant, with one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.
Ultimately though, none of these facts really seem to matter to Richard Boock, because, as far as he appears to be concerned, the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar was simply something to be exploited and misrepresented in order to promote his extreme pro-abortion views in public yet again.
And as if this wasn’t bad enough, Boock goes even further than most of the other pro-choice activists presently exploiting this case by turning Savita Halappanavar’s death into a cheap political football that he uses to try and push for the further liberalization of NZ abortion laws – laws which have absolutely nothing to do with the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar whatsoever.
Latest posts by The Radical Feminist (see all)
- The anti-women abortion activism of Rolling Stone Magazine - February 28, 2014
- Censoring talk of Charlotte Dawson’s abortion isn’t good for women - February 26, 2014
- I just thought harder, but I’m still not convinced - September 27, 2013