Right to Life New Zealand

Upholding the sanctity of Human life and Standing Up for the Vulnerable

You are here: Home / Home

Coerced Abortions – A Violation of Human Rights

by Leave a Comment

An important study conducted in the United States in 2004 found that 64 per cent of those women surveyed reported that they were pressured by others to have an abortion. Many abortions are the result of pressure, emotional blackmail, coercion, threats, or violence from boyfriends, parents, employers, doctors, counsellors or from other people of influence in the woman’s lives. Right to Life believes that a similar situation prevails in New Zealand.

Having abortion on demand has made it easy for others to bring pressure and even force women and girls into having an abortion they do not want. The great majority of women if provided with real support, options, and resources to allow their children to be born will continue with their pregnancy. In some cases women have been assaulted and even murdered by the father of their child. In the United States murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women. A 22 year old male is currently before the High Court in Auckland charged with procuring an abortion after violently assaulting a 17 year old girl with the objective of causing a miscarriage.

Inadequate, inaccurate or deceptive counselling can also act as a form of coercion. A woman’s right to choose is touted as a woman’s right. This is a monumental lie. For many men who wish to escape their responsibilities towards the mother and the child that he has fathered, abortion becomes their choice. This is a violation of the human rights of the vulnerable woman and her child in the womb. Women deserve better, they deserve to have the law protect their right of women not to be pressured, coerced, or even violently forced into unwanted and dangerous abortions.

Right to Life recognises the right of women to receive the full protection of the law from being coerced into an unwanted abortion. Our Society will now lobby Parliament to promote the necessary law change. A petition has been prepared to present to Parliament. Citizens concerned about the coercion imposed on women are invited to sign a petition displayed under the abortion link on our Society’s web site at www.right-to-life.org

Capital Punishment

by 2 Comments

Right to Life applauds the Prime Minister’s announcement at an event in Parliament on Wednesday 10 October 2007. She stated that she is working with other nations to put a resolution to the United Nations seeking the abolition of the death penalty. The Prime Minister states that capital punishment was removed from the statute books in 1961. It is encouraging that she seeks to defend the right to life.

There is however a serious inconsistency, because New Zealand still retains the death penalty for its unborn children. Since 1977 the government has presided over the killing of more than 350,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children, in a system that is approved and funded by government. Since 1999 the current Labour led government has presided over the destruction of more than 140,000 unborn New Zealanders. This is a violation of the human rights of our own children. New Zealand is therefore a major violator of human rights.

The Prime Minister said at the event at Parliament that “Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” She also said that “The death penalty violates the right to life….it is known to have been inflicted on the innocent.” These statements could be associated with the plight of unborn children. The abortion approval process is conducted by doctors behind closed doors; no witnesses may appear in defence of the child. There is no right of appeal and the death sentence is carried out quickly. Every abortion results in at least two victims, one dead child and a wounded mother.

Between 1842 and 1957 a total of 83 persons were executed in New Zealand. The number executed pales into insignificance when compared with the number of unborn children executed by abortion.

The killing of our unborn children is a cause of national shame and an intolerable burden on the conscience of this nation.

If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned with upholding the sanctity of life and promoting a culture of life, she should move with urgency to stop the abortion holocaust by providing effective legal protection for the right to life of all New Zealanders from the moment of conception.

Right to Life also requests that the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 be amended to remove the discrimination against the unborn. Section 8 should read; ‘No human being shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Right to Life wins ruling in court

by 10 Comments

A Christchurch group taking a landmark legal bid to overturn the way abortions are done in New Zealand has won the latest round of its battle in the High Court in Wellington.

After failing in its political fight to change abortion laws, Right to Life New Zealand launched a judicial review in the High Court, claiming that the Abortion Supervisory Committee was failing to safeguard the human rights of unborn children. The committee oversees the more than 15,000 abortions performed each year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4230522a6530.html

Peter Singer: Infanticide, Yes; Kangaroo Cull, No

by Leave a Comment

image Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world’s foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be higher if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn’t why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/labels/Peter%20Singer.%20%20Utilitarianism..html

Unbearable Pain Argument Not Borne Out as Valid Reason for Euthanasia

by 1 Comment

Lets be very clear when the next major push comes from those who wish to promote Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in New Zealand. Lets learn from the experience of others when we hear of emotive reasons behind the "need" for the killing of those who are dying. This debate as we know is characterised by passionate debate on both sides of the fence. But as one commentator in the state of Oregon has recently commented, the implications for all of us must be studied very carefully. Looking at all the evidence and good law requires far more than emotion, passion and feeling.

Oregon’s law relating to Physician Assisted Suicide (H.168), was sold to the people of that state as a way of compassionately ending the pain of those suffering from uncontrollable degrees of it and who had less than six months to live.

The facts however are that there has not been a single documented case of PAS being used for a terminally ill patient with uncontrollable pain. Each case in which a person has been killed has been based on psychological and social concerns.

A study of 129 cases from 1998 to 2002 in Oregon, reveals the following reasons that a person chose to exercise the PAS option.

44 – burden on family, friends and caregivers;

99 – decreasing participation in activities;

73 – losing control of bodily functions;

106 – losing autonomy

28 – fear of pain.

There were no citations of experiencing uncontrollable pain.

In addition, PAS has been used in Oregon to remove those who are seen as a "burden" on their families and that state, has taken the first steps leading to euthanasia.

What can we in New Zealand learn from Oregon’s experience? If one thing is for sure it is that our legislators now have no excuse for using the pain argument when the facts so clearly speak for themselves.

Chris O’Brien

(President Right to Life New Zealand Inc.)

This is the website of Right to Life NZ Inc.
%d bloggers like this: