Health?

 First published in Column 8 on the 7^th October, 1992

It had to come some time. And I know I’ll be shot down for daring to talk about a matter that supposedly men should keep their ethical views out of. Here goes – in for a penny, in for a pound.

Last Thursday I got hot under the collar seeing blarney passed off as argument, typical pro-abortion propaganda that’s churned out every time there is any mention of abortion. More particularly, it’s churned out any time there is likely to be a hint of pro-abortionists losing ground.

Let’s have a quick look at some of the ‘arguments.’

1.      Women shouldn’t have to pay the full cost of abortions. Why not? If they don’t, who will?

There’s one easy answer. You and I, whether we like it or not. At present the cost of killing 10,000 children a year, at the sum of $450 a child, comes to $4,500,000. That’s over $4 million being wrenched out of our health taxes, and those who aren’t in favour have absolutely no choice.

2.      A doctor fears that a lack of abortion services would lead to an increase in back-street abortions.

Now hang on a minute. Back-street abortions won’t be done for free. In fact, I’d say they’d be done for a darn sight more than public hospital ones. So you’re telling me that women wanting to get an abortion will go off and pay more, for something that at $450 will still cost them less in hospital?

And anyway, were 10,000 babies a year aborted in back-street abortions in the past? I doubt it. Abortion has become an industry in a way it never was in the past.

3.      Studies have shown that children born to mothers who were refused abortions cost health services more because of subsequent psycho-social family problems. (How there can be any women who have been refused abortions in these open slather days is anybody’s guess.)

Every child born brings about changes to the situation of the family (or lack of one) into which it is born. No baby comes complete with all expenses paid for the next twenty years. No baby comes with a guarantee that there’ll never be any trauma as a result of the birth. There will always be times when parents say, I wish I’d never had this child – and mean it. And with today’s economics, an extra child can be a difficult proposition.

None of these are reasonable excuses for slaying a child.

But there’s another option for the ‘unwanted’ child. Until adoption was made a dirty word, and selfishness a ‘decent’ one, there were homes aplenty for ‘unwanted’ children. There still are. Yes, I know there were some disasters in the adoption field – there will always be disasters where human activity is concerned – but there were also plenty of healthy adopted children brought up over the years.

Besides, there are other studies showing that mothers who do have abortions more often than not suffer greatly in the ensuing years from having killed their child. (And that’s from the horse’s mouth, as it were – women who have abortions have stated this repeatedly.) This is where the real mental health problems arise.

The guilt doesn’t just stem from religious feelings: it happens to women from all manner of philosophies.

4.      Anti-abortion groups are vocal in their opposition while people in support of abortions are often unlikely to speak out. Recent history shows the opposite to be true. The most vocal group in the abortion issue has always been the pro-abortionists. More often than not they also get all the publicity.

But how many of them have wound up in prison as a result of their pro-abortion protests?

Quite honestly, I don’t know what all the fuss was about. The Chairwoman of the National Advisory Committee on Core Health Services said their first report doesn’t advise major change, i.e. the core will start with the present services, which include abortion.

Besides, after nearly two decades of legal abortion it has become ingrained into our national psyche. Nothing short of a radical rethink will now change it.

 

Several letters were written to the Editor as a result of this column.

14^th Oct, 1992

Mike Crowl’s Column Eight, Midweek 7.10.92, is, to me, a crass exercise in boorish petty-mindedness. Mr Crowl has the right to express an honest opinion about any subject that interests him. However, I do not believe he has the right to pontificate on an issue of which he has no experience. There are not many things in nature of which man (with a small ‘m’) has no experience at all, but pregnancy is definitely one of them. Mr Crowl worries about his tax dollar being spent in areas which he regards as inappropriate. That is part of the price of democracy. I know a pacifist who does not like her tax dollars being spent on the armed services. For myself, I object to my tax dollars being used to jet our ministers around the world to meaningless conferences and similar ego trips for our politicians. I know we can all of us lack charity but is Mr Crowl so free from sin that he cast so many stones?

P Cottman

Fifteen years have gone by since the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act. It is clear from the debate which took place in the House at the time that it was the intention of the majority of members of Parliament to enact a law which would give great protection to unborn children. It is equally clear that the law is currently not being applied as it was intended. New Zealand now faces the same situation it faced before 1977 – a small minority of doctors being allowed to get away with an overly liberal interpretation of the law. The result is the killing of over 11,000 unborn children annually. The Royal Commission in 1975 considered that a figure of 4500 deaths amounted to virtual abortion on demand. What would they say about 11,000. The life chain scheduled for Sunday, October 18, is an opportunity for ordinary New Zealanders to come out and say that this killing has got to stop. The children deserve the same protection as the rest of us. Mike Crowl considers that the abortion mentality is now so ingrained that it would take a miracle to turn things around. Maybe he is right. But maybe a miracle is what is going to happen next Sunday.

Brian Kenny

 

In reply to Mike Crowl (Dunedin Star 7.10.92), who talks of killing children and blames women in gender terms, let us examine the record of men in the Killing Fields. From the year dot, men have been murdering other men as well as billions of helpless, innocent women and children including billions of foetuses – those of pregnant women slain by men. If the earth were to suddenly vomit up the corpses of these victims of male homicide, there would be mountains piled upon mountains, higher than Everest, as witness that when it comes to killing, men are experts. In fact, it could be said that women bear children so men can kill them. At this very moment, men are happily engaged in slaughter – turn on the telly and see mass extermination in Bosnia or listen to the latest crime statistics on the radio. It is known the majority of anti-abortionists support war while making pious claims about saving unborn babies. Please note these are white-skinned foetuses only. None of these zealots seems interested in the foetuses of African, Asian or indeed, Maori women. I wonder why? I presume it is because only the sperm of European males who still arrogantly claim they are the ‘master race’ is sacred.
Morgane Saille

 18^th Oct, 1992

I have never had an abortion. My first pregnancy was ‘shall I – shan’t I’ – I didn’t. I’ve now got four babies. But if this society wants women to stop having abortions perhaps more support for the single parent should come first. Having to answer humiliating questions to the DSW [Department of Social Welfare] about when, where, why, will you see this man again, and having to ask for food from them from time to time because ends don’t meet, isn’t exactly fun. These people who are anti-abortion aren’t going to be there if the woman doesn’t cope! Mistakes happen. Babies are born. Sterilisation is a major issue. It takes a few years to think about. Free child care would surely help us. Every parent needs a break. I love my children and don’t regret any of it – but I chose to be a mum, it wasn’t forced on me. Adoption isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The grief on the parent, the shock to the child. women are freer these days to express their feelings. Talk to the baby – tell it why it can’t stay. Love it but have to let it go? For whatever reason, they grieve deeply – but can get through it – as the death of any child. To be forced to have a baby must have been terrible in the ‘old days.’ Or did this really happen? Back-street abortion is a horrifying thing. Keep it legal. Hopefully for the right reasons.
Each To His Own.

You’re quite right about one thing, Mike Crowl, and that is you shouldn’t have got yourself involved in the ongoing abortion debate. It is a woman’s issue and a woman’s choice as well, and until men become pregnant it should stay that way.
Sorrel Bovett

I want you to know I entirely agree with Mike Crowl in his Column 8 (Midweek 7.10.92) and this irresponsible attitude of today. I believe that sexual relations should only happen between two partners who have decide to live together on a permanent basis. Sex is too intimate to be demeaned by casual relationships. Still if they cannot control themselves surely there are condoms and other means to prevent pregnancy. While there are rare exceptions to consider, abortion is killing.
J C M Van Alphen

Mike Crowl makes some engaging points, quite right of course, backed up by thought-provoking ingredients and rational deductions, for such is the science of discussion. Now, I’ll back and watch the opposing ‘views.’ Will they expand and enlarge on te topic? They haven’t yet. No, we’re now going to get the cry of ‘rights,’ and Mike Crowl personally attacked. Predictable and repetitive, free speech, and courage are dirty words in today’s furtive and covert society.
Gordon Weare

The predictable responses from the abortionist camp present the same tired ‘arguments’ – arguments that never address the issues and which mostly insult the intelligence of pro-life people. These arguments continue to be trotted out more than thirty years later.

I wrote a blog post on the topic in 2013.