Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic

Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.

On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.

Fairey sums up her talk as follows:

1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.

Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.

She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.

"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."

And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.

The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...

Continue Reading

NZ: Emergency Contraceptives Free + No Prescription Required

On Friday I was at the pharmacy, picking up some outrageously expensive antibiotics. I had just been on the dentist's chair and was standing at the counter waiting for the girl in the white lab-coat to turn around and notice me. The right side of my face was pretty numb, and it was almost closing time. The phone rang and the girl in the white lab-coat went to answer it. I stood resting on one leg, leaning on the counter, flicking my credit-card with thumb and forefinger.

I glanced around the room; a fairly typical chemist's. It was with disbelief that my eyes lighted on a big brown poster hung in a prominent position behind the counter. It read "Emergency contraception available here without prescription". I had heard that this was the case; that contraception could be had without first getting approval from one's doctor, however it was a shock to see it promoted like this. I am not opposed to contraception - unless that contraception is abortifacient (pronounce: abort-if-a-shent). Abortifacient contraceptives are ones that do not merely prevent conception, they in fact destroy a young life.

Emergency contraception differs from other forms of contraception in that it is taken "the morning after", and is intended to prevent the implantation of the embryo in the womb. However in many cases the sperm and the egg have already fused, creating a new embryo: biologically speaking, a new life has begun - a child with separate DNA from its mother. Therefore in many cases, emergency contraception is simply a polite if deceptive way of saying "early abortion".

Incredible to think that a little girl who needs a panadol at school must have her parent's permission, is allowed to be handed an emergency contraceptive pill over the counter without her parent's or her doctor's permission or notice. Maxim Institute summarises the hypocrisy:

In New Zealand, parents must be consulted and their permission sought before their child can be given a Panadol at school. However, a young girl can have an abortion without her parents ever knowing, let alone giving their permission.
Section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004 says that a girl of any age can give consent to an abortion and that consent operates as if it were given by her parents. Therefore, her parents need never know that their daughter is having such a procedure."
- Maxim Institute

Believe it or not, New Zealand's abortion law does not specify the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion - or the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion without her parent's permission or notification. New Zealand's government wants abortions to take place. Why else would they take such extreme measures to enable them to go ahead?

Unsurprisingly then, the fully-government-subsidised and often abortifacient pills are promoted to women of all ages, and every attempt is made to ensure that the pills make it into the hands of those who want them.

What other medication can you get for free - and with no prescription?

$%@#!