Media Release 1 September 2018
Right to Life is disappointed that Dr Duncan Webb MP, Labour, in response to our Society’s letter of 9 August 2018, stated, “abortion does not constitute the violent killing of a defenceless child.” Dr Webb is a Professor of Law and it is with respect that we challenge this statement which raises many important questions.
The Crimes Act, section 182 Killing an unborn child, is emphatic in declaring that it is an unborn child that is killed and that it is a serious crime to kill an unborn child.
The killing is indeed violent, a suction curettage abortion entails the dismemberment of the child by tearing the legs, arms and head off the child. It is the responsibility of the assisting nurse to reassemble the body parts to ensure that all limbs are recovered.
It is indisputable that the child is defenceless it is unquestionably the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. Why is Dr Webb in denial that abortion violently kills a defenceless unborn child?
Right to Life in our letter to Dr Webb asked if he would support the retention of abortion in the Crimes Act and oppose the decrimialisation of abortion. He replied,” I do not support your position.” Abortion the killing of an unborn child has been prohibited in common law for more than 1,000 years. In 1856 the New Zealand Parliament enshrined it in the Crimes Act in sections 182 and 183 as a very serious crime.
It is a matter of great concern that a learned and highly respected Professor of law supports removing unborn children deemed to be unwanted from the protection of the Crimes Act and making their killing a “reproductive choice for women.” Dr Webb has declined to answer our question, “why do you believe that the violent killing of a defenceless unborn child, should not be a crime?”
Dr Webb has a distinguished record in defending the rights of prisoners and the marginalised in society. Right to Life strongly encourages Dr Webb to become an advocate for mothers and the unborn who are the most marginalised and disadvantaged members of our human family. Today the most dangerous place for a New Zealander is in its mother’s womb. Since 1977 more than 500,000 unborn have been killed in abortions, this is the justice issue of our era. Every day the equivalent of one and a half classrooms of children are taken to our Hospitals to be killed. Why is Dr Webb, his government and Parliament silent at this massive violation of human rights?
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life
Babies have survived outside the womb at 22 weeks gestation. The starting point of life is conception. When this is confirmed the announcement is made that a baby is on the way and technology shows every wonderful detail. Cows don’t foetus, they calve and sheep lamb. ‘The Hiding Place’ movie was shown tonight, the story of the Ten Boom sisters and other women in Ravensbruck concentration camp. It contrasted callous indifferent cruelty and caring suffering love. If women who had nothing could deny themselves to nourish a young pregnant mother why can’t we, as a nation, do the same?
Duncan Webb is a clever lawyer who seeks to push the boundaries of the law, make a name for himself, and educate NZers-at-large about why abortion is not killing life and why euthanasia promotes it!
I studied under Duncan at law school he was a professor at like 29, very smart guy; but it would appear the political lenses are strongly attached now – bias runs supreme. How anyone can arrive at the conclusion that this is not the illegal taking of life, blows my mind – he of all people should know that people are not social constructs, they are real, as real as all those cast aways he defended before the law…
Power corrupts?
I sent him an email asking how he came to the conclusion that “abortion does not constitute the violent killing of a defenseless child”.
He replied, “My view is that within the bounds of the law abortion is a choice for the woman involved.”
When I re-asked the question (which his statement did not answer) he responded with: “I am not in a position to enter into extended dialogues on matters. As I have made clear my view is that within clear constraints set by the law that the choice is one for the woman in question. Clearly careful medical advice must be taken on those legal constraints.”
I’m picking he doesn’t know how he reached that conclusion.