Over the weekend the NZ Herald featured an opinion piece by Marama Davidson.
What wasn’t made clear to the readers of the Herald on Sunday is that Marama Davidson is a Green Party candidate, and a blogger for The Daily Blog – which last week featured a vitriolic attack on Auckland pro-lifers that made serious accusations that have subsequently have turned out to be misleading and false.
I think Herald readers should have been informed of these facts, because: a) this is an election year, and we have the right to know the ideological commitments of the various party candidates, and b) because of Davidson’s intimate connection to the blog that published last week’s factually problematic and ugly anti pro-life attack post.
The major issue I have with Marama Davidson’s op-ed piece in the NZ Herald is that it is rife with confusing contradictions and dishonesty.
For example, after passing judgment on the motives of various pro-life individuals and groups, Davidson ends her column with the ironic declaration: “we should give up judgment” when it comes to the issue of abortion.
She also refers to abortion as “healthcare”, but her opening salvo suggests that it is something far more serious than just healthcare when she declares that “no woman should ever have to reveal that [she has had an abortion] to anyone for any reason.”
If abortion is merely healthcare, then why the need for such grave secrecy about the act?
And if it truly is healthcare, then why does Marama Davidson later refer to abortion as a“lifestyle choice” in her opinion column?
And then there is the dishonesty…
Davidson declares that: “Abortion is only legal if two consultants agree that there would be serious physical or mental harm to the woman’s health, or if the foetus has a serious disability.”
This statement is clearly intended to imply that abortion is currently illegal in NZ, but this is little more than inaccurate abortion activist spin intended to deceive Kiwis into supporting the introduction of an extreme abortion law in this country – something that Davidson actually lobbies for in her opinion column.
This is kind of like saying ‘driving is only legal in New Zealand if you are over 16, you hold a valid drivers license and you obey the road rules’ – yep, this is totally true, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t have easy access to driving in this country as a result of such restrictions.
The same is true when it comes to abortion in this country.
Access to abortion is actually relatively easy here (many would even argue that it is far too easy, and is lacking in basic safeguards for informed consent, etc. as a result), and inserting the word “only” before the word “legal” doesn’t change that fact.
Such verbal shenanigans are little more than a cynical ruse to try and deceive New Zealanders into believing the lie that abortion is almost impossible to access in this country.
Davidson also declares that she and “many others” who have had abortions in NZ are criminals.
Again, this is a falsehood.
If you have an abortion, as per the current legal guidelines, then you have NOT broken any law, and therefore you are NOT a criminal.
Anyone trying to suggest the opposite is actually engaging in a deception intended to fool Kiwis into accepting the introduction of a new extreme abortion law in this country – one that would allow late term abortions, and possibly even abortion through all nine months, according to the stated aims of some NZ abortion activists.
I think you can see now why I believe that Marama Davidson’s vested political interests should have been clearly spelt out to the readers of the NZ Herald.
Is support for the introduction of extreme abortion law in New Zealand also an official Green Party policy plank?
I have many Green voting friends who I am sure would like an answer to this important question.
Let me leave you with the most serious, and tragic of the contradictions in Marama Davidson’s op-ed piece (emphasis added):
“I acknowledge that abortion is not the ideal solution to unplanned pregnancies. I support the continual plea for better education, improved access to contraception and more support for adoption and whangai avenues.”
Now I’m really confused.
First abortion was merely “healthcare”, and now it has become “not the ideal solution”.
So which is it? Because authentic healthcare can never be “not the ideal solution”.
But more importantly, if there is nothing ethically wrong, or inherently risky to women about abortion, then how could it ever possibly be considered to be “not the ideal solution” to a pregnancy?
One can’t help but sense that, despite Marama Davidson’s suggestions to the contrary, such a statement betrays the truth of the matter: abortion is an act which deliberately and brutally ends the life of an innocent human being (making it a serious violation of social justice and human rights) and exposes women to harm.
Which is ultimately why I am pro-life.
Cross-posted from Brendan Malone at The Leading Edge Blog.