Viewport width =
August 1, 2011 | by  | in News | [ssba]

VUWSA Chooses To Keep Pro-life Club

The latest club to be affiliated to VUWSA, LifeChoice Victoria, had an energetic start on Thursday when they were joined by feminist activists at an anti-abortion presentation they hosted.

Speaker Brendan Malone flew from Christchurch to offer a pro-life perspective on ethical debates about abortion.
When asked about why he believes human life begins from conception, Malone argued that we cannot simply rely on biological evidence because the “essence” of human existence must be differentiated from that
of animals.

“Chickens don’t have human rights. It’s okay to have KFC as long as it’s Kentucky Fried Chicken, not Kentucky Fried Children,” he explained.
His presentation drew expressions of concern from the audience when he suggested survivors of rape can use pregnancy and childbirth as a “soothing healing process” rather than have abortions.

Malone, who works at the John Paul II Centre for Life in Christchurch, said it was one piece of advice his organisation may give to women considering abortion.
“However we would prefer that that sort of advice is given to them by the women who have had those experiences,” he told Salient.

LifeChoice’s President, Joshua Vergunst said one of the group’s aims would be to offer information about alternatives to abortion to women on campus in the form of pamphlets from organisations like Malone’s.

Vergunst also hoped to host more public events like Thursday’s, but did not plan to campaign for law change.
“University is a place for debate and we want to start discussions,” he said.

As the group is now affiliated to VUWSA they will be eligible for funding from the students’ association for their activities.
Both were pleased with how the evening went.

“Obviously it’s an emotional issue with different points of view, but things remained civil,” Malone said.


About the Author ()

Comments (49)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. Prolife's Reply says:

    Brendan’s reply via the Prolifers’ Facebook page:

    “Don’t you love the bias and misrepresentation (and I’m pretty sure I never used the word ‘soothing’ either)…

    1. My answer around the biological evidence was not at all like what is reported here in this article (interestingly it was the reporter herself who actually asked the question about the biological evidence during the presentation), it was much more complex and complete, and I stated that the biological evidence supports the pro-life position (as opposed to the suggestion in this article that it does not – which, once again, was something that the reporter herself was angling at when she asked her question).

    If you think about what is actually being proposed here the stupidity of it all becomes rather evident pretty quickly, because, from a biological perspective, human beings ONLY ever conceive and give birth to human beings, so from a purely biological perspective the fetus has to be human, because our human biology does not allow us to conceive or birth anything other than a human being.

    2. I actually said that rape survivors who have kept their babies often talk of pregnancy, and the baby, as being a therapeutic and healing process to an otherwise very dark and horrific act of violence.

    And it was actually this point that our pregnancy centre would advise women (who were pregnant after rape) of – as opposed to the article’s statement that we advise women who have been raped that they can use pregnancy as a “soothing healing process” (telling someone that other women have found pregnancy and motherhood therapeutic after rape is obviously not the same thing as advising someone to use pregnancy and childbirth as a therapy tool).

    4. She completely failed to quote the key response I gave every time that rape was raised as an issue by an audience member, and that is: ‘should a human being being given any less rights because of the manner in which it is conceived? Is a rape conceived person any less human, and therefore any less worthy of the right to life than the rest of us conceived in other ways?’

    A question that none of the pro-choicer’s present actually had a direct answer for.”


  2. Nicola Wood says:

    Hi Brendan, thanks for your response.

    Re: biological evidence, I asked what biological evidence you based your belief that human life begins from conception on. You listed a range of things like the potential to live/learn/love etc, and the value of being able to do these things. I pointed out that these are social concepts, rather than biological evidence. I then received your response about the “essence” of being human.

    Your answer about abortion in cases of women who have survived rape was given in response to a question from a pro-choice member of the audience, who asked whether you would support abortion in situations where the pregnancy serves as a daily physical reminder to the woman of the violent ordeal she survived. I am sorry if you feel I misinterpreted your answer but in the context it was given I – and I think many other members of the audience – interpreted it as you suggesting that instead of being a reminder of the violent crime, it is possible for a pregnancy resulting from rape to help a woman cope with what they have survived. Telling women that people who’ve been in situations similar to their own made certain decisions and felt a certain way because of those decisions seems to me to be positing to those women that they should seriously consider that decision for themselves.

    I did note your point that you strive to at least have the women hear that advice from the women who have had the experience themselves.

    Nicola Wood
    (PS: If there is meant to be a #3 between #2 and #4 in your response I’d be happy to address it.)

  3. Clement McBigglewaddle says:

    “Is a rape conceived person any less human, and therefore any less worthy of the right to life than the rest of us?”

    I dunno, is a woman being forced to produce a child regardless of a) whether she desires one and b) her mental and physical health in carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term more important than respecting the rights of a sentient adult woman (as opposed to the rights of her zygote, embryo or foetus)? Tough questions, tough questions.

  4. La Ranita says:

    Until the rape survivor decides to continue the pregnancy, there is no “rape conceived person”, there is a “rape conceived embryo/foetus”, and said embryo/foetus has no rights of its own.

  5. Ellie says:

    La Ranita:
    Are you saying then that until the pregnancy is wanted a fetus/embryo is not a human being? Why should being wanted or unwanted determine your humanness?

  6. Nicholas O'Kane says:

    “and said embryo/foetus has no rights of its own.”

    On what basis, and it will be interesting if you can apply this basis consistantly (i.e. if no rights due to not being sentient then do you apply the non-sentient=no rights to comatose people too? If not, why not?)

  7. La Ranita says:

    I didn’t say it was due to being non-sentient that a embryo or foetus doesn’t have rights of its own. There are plenty of sentient beings to which we don’t extend human rights – all non-humans. A comatose person is a person. An embryo/foetus is not yet a person. Right to Life recently attempted to extend the definition of person to include foetuses, but failed at the Court of Appeal.

  8. A says:

    La Ranita: Are you stating what is merely law? I think you will find the position of ProLife is centred on what is and is not moral, not what is or is not law. To state that an embryo/foetus is not yet a person under law is interesting but irrelevant. Ignoratio Elenchi.

  9. GoodGravey says:

    La Ranita is perfectly correct in that, under the law that deals with abortion, a foetus is not human. And far from being irrelevant, it is very much the point.
    It is not “merely” law. If you say that law is irrelevant, then I proclaim that it is every woman’s right to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy just because I say so. There you go, problem solved.

    What is being discussed here is opinion and morality. However, it is very selective morality. You say that the foetus has rights, but the mother does not. How does that work?

    Does someone who has suffered a horrific attack have to bear the burden of that attack (ie. the unwanted child) for the rest of their lives? And how, exactly, do you consider it to be in the best interest of the child to be unwanted?

    Brendan – the answer to your question is that no foetus has a right to life in law. Morality is another matter, but law is what governs what actually happens. So in that sense, there is no difference between a rape-conceived embryo and chosen embryo’s right to life. Neither of them has any.

  10. La Ranita says:

    A – I prefer not to engage with people who begin their argument with, “I think you’ll find”. Qui vir odiosus.

  11. C says:

    Brendan never said that a mother does not have any rights…merely that the foetus’ right to life, as a human being, supercedes that of the woman’s right to comfort, mental health, etc. He is saying that while women have many choices, killing humans is not one of them. A foetus is a human, therefore women do not have the choice or right to end his/her life. As for the law, obviously we are bound to obey the law, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong. Such as Hitler’s law allowing anyone to kill Jews…it was law, but it was wrong.

  12. GoodGravey says:

    Sigh. Under. Law. A. Foetus. Is. Not. Human.

    If you want to argue that morality supercedes law, then you are in a whole different game, and a bloody dangerous one at that. Your morality is different from mine. So who says your morality supercedes mine?

    Yes – at one point it was legal in New Zealand (until surprisingly recently) to kill Chinese. You don’t need to look so far away as Nazi Germany, we had it right here in our own little pond.

    But when you say “it is wrong” you are introducing opinion and morality which differs from person to person.

    You want to get into the realm of stupid hypotheses – Question: If a foetus is human, and the mother dies in childbirth, does the foetus get charged with murder or manslaughter. If not, why not?

  13. Tess says:

    Ellie- I think what La Ranita is saying is that there is no person unless the woman decides to continue the pregnancy- and so a person is born. Not that a wanted embryo/ fetus is a person and an unwanted one isn’t. Neither are people but one will later be a person.

  14. La Ranita says:

    Yes that’s right Tess, thanks for clarifying that. That is what I think. An embryo conceived through rape has no more or less right to life than any other embryo – in all cases it is up to the pregnant person to decide whether to continue the pregnancy. In some cases rape survivors will choose to continue the pregnancy, and that is their choice. Others will choose an abortion, and that’s their choice too.

  15. ME says:

    Hi all!
    So, re: the salient article:
    I was actually quite content about it. Sure, it was biased, (as discussed in earlier comments) but what else can you expect? We all have differing opinions, and inevitably that is going to come out in our publications. While it wasn’t a raving article about how good we were/are (not that I was expecting that) it could’ve been worse.
    If I were to write up on a pro-choice documentary event, I’m sure my article would be biased too…

    Biological evidence:
    I think biological evidence very clearly supports the pro-life position; in a nutshell, cows give birth to baby cow – calves, humans give birth to baby humans. It’s a human right from the start, and doesn’t change somewhere in between conception and birth, or after. Admittedly, this wasn’t articulated extra clearly in Brendan’s answer, but I would not agree that he argued that “we cannot simply rely on biological evidence”. Rather he used the argument of “the essence of human existence” to support this.

    From the discussions that I’ve had the main argument seems to be “it’s the women’s choice; she should be able to do what she wants”.
    The problem with this argument is that it is not consistent, or applied across all of humanity. Women are not allowed “to do what they want” when it comes to other adults, children, or even a new-born baby. Why then can they “do what they want” i.e. keep or abort, to a foetus (which means little one)? And this is the essence of the argument: What is the difference between an adult and a foetus that makes it alright to kill one and not the other?
    Pro-lifer’s say there is none, and therefore disagree with abortion, whatever the circumstances (to a certain degree). Following off from this is the commitment to support women who are facing an unwanted pregnancy.
    I am yet to be convinced by pro-choicers what the difference is between killing a foetus, and killing a born human.

  16. Nicholas O'Kane says:

    I would concede that differences do exist between foetuses and born humans (i.e. location, one located inside the body of another person, one not), but it would be difficult to see these differences as great enough to give one zero rights (less than animals, the unborn child/foetus is in the latter stages of pregnancy capable of experiencing pain, but if the abortion methods were applied to live animals, possibly unborn ones crinimal charges of cruelty to animals would not be unexpected) and one full human rights.

    I sympathise very much with the pro-life position that even for earlier stages, the mere existence of being human is what we owe our rights to (i.e. young babies do not have lesser human rights (with minor pratical exceptions such as the right to vote) than adults due to less intelegence, full dependency on others for survival) and that this exists even for the unborn, making abortion save extreme cases the moral equivalent of murder.

  17. Lady Grace says:

    I don’t care if the foetus is human or not, I don’t care how old it is, whether it’s 1 week or 36 weeks in the woman’s body, I don’t care if it can feel pain or even if it’s already born – if a woman doesn’t want it, it should be killed. The woman should have priority over her things. Even if it was a living child, if it was in the way, why not be rid of it? You know Roman fathers had the right to kill the children at any age, from birth to death, stated by law? That’s how it should be, except that the woman should have the right, not the man.

  18. Ellie says:

    GoodGravey: Firstly, if a mother dies in childbirth, what does she die of? Did the child actively kill her? Or was it birthing complications? The child doesn’t get charged with murder or manslaughter because nothing the child did actively made the mother die. Whereas, with abortion the mother actively consents to an action which ends the life of the human being inside her.

    In response to your other objections: Laws are in place to keep morality central to our society. They are founded on morality. The reason why we have a law about burglary is that humans have a right to own private property. The same goes for murder: no one has the right to take away your life. It is true that for a lot of people morality is relative. However, I think we can all agree that taking a human’s life is amoral. Thus my question to you is:

    Can you scientifically prove to me that a fetus is 1. not human and 2. not living?

    Tess: Could you explain to me what makes you a person? And at what stage during pregnancy would this occur?

  19. Ellie says:

    Lady Grace: I suppose you are rather thankful that your mother didn’t have that same attitude! With that attitude all child abuse is ok. I find that appalling.. :(

  20. Gina says:

    Elle: in response to “Can you scientifically prove to me that a fetus is 1. not human and 2. not living?” I know I cannot, and it’s insignificant. The crux of the issue is this: Woman’s body, Woman’s choice. It doesn’t matter whether it’s human or not, it matters whether a woman wants it inside her body or not. Her life is more important than the cells/embryo/child.. etc, inside her body. Her bodily autonomy comes first.

  21. Chris Wood says:

    Clearly a biased article. The points Brendan made in his reply (first comment above) were clear to me when I first read it.

    It presented an argument from Brendan in a way suggesting an “anti-science” perspective: “we cannot simply rely on biological evidence” rather than something like “the biological evidence goes either way”, or better, an actual quote “biological evidence supports the pro-life position”.

  22. Lady Grace says:

    In response to Ellie … I’ve been rethinking what I said and it does come across as harsh. To be honest, there is a lot of hatred in me – I’ve had an abortion and have suffered for it. I thought it would help my life. I thought it would give me freedom but rather it has simply made me close in upon myself and I’m not happy. I was very angry when I wrote that comment.. I feel that I have not been offered enough support, and perhaps I have looked for it in the wrong places. Those who I have dared to look to and ask for help just tell me not to worry, that there’s no need. I don’t think they understand what it’s like to be a woman who’s lost her child. I now have a wonderful boyfriend who is supporting me, though sometimes I lapse and am on anti-depressants. I think you pro-choicers should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of you don’t know what it’s like to go through with having an abortion and life afterwards. Thanks Brendan for supporting women in the right way.

  23. Clement McBigglewaddle says:

    Oh dear Lady Grace. Plant much?

  24. Lady Grace says:

    That being said I think that those of you who prefer to argue using silly words instead of thinking and trying to put themselves in the shoes of humanity are completely off the point. Who cares about law and rubbish, it’s beside the question. Law can’t save anyone. People make mistakes. People change their minds. I wish we’d stop arguing about things which don’t relate to the topic and think more about people and humanity. Have an abortion if you want. It’s up to you. I don’t care. Use what philosophies you want. Just don’t turn out like me. I’m more worried about me not you.

  25. Lady Grace says:

    Haha that’s just what I mean. You don’t care about women do you, Mr Waddle? Just ideas. Which don’t apply to any one, woman or man.

  26. Clement McBigglewaddle says:

    No definitely not. I hate women. Which is why I’d rather see their wishes in whether they wish to continue a pregnancy respected over the “wishes” of a foetus.

    When are pro-lifers (let’s just be honest and call them anti-abortionists) going to own up to the fact that they hide behind “rights” retoric but actually are in favour of denying grown women the right to decide whether they wish to have child or not?

    It’s anti-abortionists who hate women, or at least value their role in producing children over their ability to decide for themselves their own reproductive fate.

    If we’re going to talk about rights, let’s call out those who advocate for taking away the rights of a women in favour of a foetus. It’s sick and terrifying that these people want to ignore the wishes of the person whose life would be most impacted by an unwanted pregancy and then spout crap about “rights”.

  27. Clement McBigglewaddle says:


  28. Clement McBigglewaddle says:

    Also dicks, I’m pretty sure that if there really were parallels between Hitler and people who get abortions, the World Health Organisation (you know, the ones who try and help out after *actual* genocides) wouldn’t have classified abortion as a “medical health intervention”. And that’s that.

  29. C says:

    Pro-lifers (anti-abortionists is misleading, because many groups also are concerned with the lives of the elderly) do not deny that a woman has a choice to have a child or not to have a child. Our argument is that once a woman is pregnant, she already has a child, and thus the choice is no longer valid. We do say that no woman should have the right to kill a child that she already has, born or unborn.

  30. Constance Cravings says:

    Right so presumably you guys are leading the battle in trying to get comprehensive sex education in all schools, achieving greater access to contraception and improving young people’s knowledge of of sexual health to decrease the rates of unplanned pregnancy?

    You’re also presumably leading the way in supporting the medical community to come up with more effective contraception given that many forms of birth control have shocking failure rates?

    You’re also probably working on campaigns to promote and acknowledge the rhetoric that women who end up pregnant aren’t lazy or uninformed or slutty, and that just because their contraception has failed or they were made to have sex against their will, or circumstances didn’t allow them to take precautions against unplanned pregnancy they shouldn’t suddenly become the forcible bearers of children they don’t wish to have?

    Except, hang on, you’re doing none of those things. Not only are “pro-life” groups often based on conservative religious beliefs and thus promote ineffective and archaic abstinence only sex education, and sometimes even advocate against the use of contraception because…I dunno…every sperm is sacred or something, you THEN try to curb women’s reproductive choices when the options (or lack of) to prevent pregnancy have failed her.

    The decision to not allow a woman’s opinion on whether she wants to go through with having a child is completely and utterly a disgusting and controlling tool of misogyny. It reeks of the historical belief that women are here to breed and care for their children, regardless of the circumstances that saw them become pregnant or their wishes for their own bodies and lives.

    There are thousands and thousands of women in New Zealand (and indeed the world), who have had abortions and feel that they made the right choice, and are continuing their lives and living in ways which carrying an unwanted pregnancy would not have allowed them to do. Women choosing to have abortions are taking their reproductive decisions into their own hands, and rather than being ashamed of terminating the *potential* for a child, they (and groups like yourselves) should trust that women know what is best for themselves and their families. Rather than removing their rights.

    If you are truly “pro-life” then you wouldn’t advocate for law changes which would see many many women die in attempts to procure illegal and unsafe abortions, as has happened throughout history. If you want to talk about silent genocides, maybe do your research on the deaths your beliefs would cause if anyone was ignorant enough to enshrine them in law.

  31. AAA says:

    I think things are getting extremely heated here. Please control yourself. Clement, go ahead and hate women and call us dicks. I’m glad that’s that. Also, please take some time to think about the things we say instead of going off on a tangent into entirely unrelated territory. *cough* Yup, abortion is a medical health intervention when THERE’S RISK TO THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, (then of course it’s ok to have an abortion). The times it’s not, which happens to be most of the time, it’s a medical health interference. Do you believe something because the word or phrase used to describe something seem to want you to believe it? Do you believe something because those in power say you should? Even if the majority says you should? If so, why? I wonder how many women actually KNOW that an abortion is harmful, or can be harmful, or actually REALISE this as well as knowing it. If you like, I can provide you with information on how unhealthy it is. Just ask. Discover. Try l0oking at both sides of the argument. Then decide. And please keep it civil. I don’t want to hear your emotional reasoning. Just your logical reasoning. Keep emotions out of your argument, they let you down rather than enhance what you say… or try to voice them in a way which will not be offensive to anyone who chooses to read this on the internet.

  32. J Vergunst says:

    1) Lady Grace, LifeChoice asks this question: why isn’t society, all those that care about women, mums, dads, boy friends, husbands, brothers, sisters etc etc not providing more support to women who are presented with the difficult situation of an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy? Why is the choice presented as abortion vs hardship? We believe its because people don’t know… People don’t know why we should care about fetuses. People don’t know that abortion hurts women! So far, society has failed women in not providing a better option than destruction vs suffering. We want to change that! We would love to talk to you at LifeChoice! Maybe one of us could be a friend who cares?

    2) When Brendan suggested at his talk that pro-lifers care about women, it was met with laughter. That response hurt. For two reasons:

    First, we actually do care and really want to help women find support who are struggling with grief or maybe even guilt, while pregnant or after an abortion.

    Second, this notion that pro-lifers don’t care about women is there, sadly, for good reasons. Too many in the pro-life movement have forgotten themselves that there are two lives at stake in any pregnancy. I call these people “anti-abortionists”. In my view, there isn’t much difference between these anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists because both choose one life to support and forget/don’t care about the other. True “pro-lifers” support both lives in concert.

    I think this is an important distinction. Many women think that the pro-choice movement is where they will find support for what is best for women and that pro-lifers are a bunch of men who don’t care about women’s rights. We hope that LifeChoice will show many that this is not true. If any are interested, look up Feminists for Life on Facebook

  33. Rowena Whightington says:

    Constance Craving: the fact that your argument consists of a series of unfounded assumptions and hysterical accusations (mainly that LifeChoice Victoria has a policy against contraception, and advocates law reform), followed by a gratuity of childish and ignorant stereotypes, does not do your cause any justice. Actually, it warms the hearts of your opposition because they know that it’s wildly neurotic and intellectually-shallow people like yourself who front the pro-choice position.

    Despite the many red-herrings and digressions of the pro-choicers, this debate is (as Brendan Malone and others have pointed out) in essence about the nature of human rights, that is, whether they are inherent and unassailable by government or ideology. Human beings have rights by virtue of their humanity- they are not given them by an exterior authority. As a fact, scientific or otherwise, an unborn human (that is, distinctive from an unborn animal) shares in that common humanity. Therefore, it has human rights. Only in such an absolute framework can any understanding of inherent human rights operate. It has nothing to do with ‘feelings’ as one comment above intimated. Otherwise, by that logic we should read the history of women’s suffrage along the lines of “In the nineteenth century, women were gifted the right to vote because men woke up one morning and felt like giving it to them”.

  34. Number 1 says:

    Man, Rowena, for someone with such a good name you sound really crap.

  35. Constance Cravings says:

    Hah, what a bunch of sexist misogynistic crap. Invoking the “hysterical neurotic argument” line and requesting that emotions be kept out of a debate is a pretty typical and disgusting silencing tactic levelled against women.
    What I am allowed to do with my body *is* emotional, and guess what? Your discourse of “Oh my God, let’s save all the dead children” is the ignorant, emotive and frankly terrifying side.

    I’m pretty sure that first response was neither heated nor offensive, but I find your attempts at silencing to be both of those things. If defending my right to choose, and the rights of other women to do what we want with our bodies is deemed neurotic by the supporters of this group, I think that is a pretty clear summation of their view of women.

  36. J Vergunst says:

    Constance, please keep in mind that all those that comment here both may or may not be supporters of LifeChoice. Certainly they do not speak on behalf of our organization. If you would like to find out more on where our group stands and why, we encourage civil debate and therefore invite you to attend our events and discuss the issue.


  37. Terel says:

    Oh yes lets use our real names – Anti abortion and what … pro murder? Cool. Works for me.

    Don’t try and agrue that women have the right to have an abortion that is such, such utter crap – no one has a right to murder. So the baby is a week old. A month old. A year old. Twenty years old. It is still murder. I have no right to kill you – so why should you have the right to kill another? Goodness knows I’d love the right sometimes. Especially when driving lol.

    To say that the baby is part of her body is also rubbish.
    A mother has saimese twins. They grow up and one of the girls decides to kill her sister (the killer believes she will survive – and let us say that she does). Does she stand trial for murder? Yes. Will “Oh but she was part of my body” wash with the judge? No. A woman is with child. She kills it and survives. Should she stand trial? Yes. Should “Oh but it was part of my body” work? No.

    What box some external agency places abortion in does not prove that it is right or wrong – or unharmful. Smoking was healthy twenty years ago. Gee that worked out well…

    I find it amusing that Constance harps on about contraception. Moving the debate from the abortion to preventing the desire for one first place. Welldone! I agree.
    But your logic is lacking … Let me help :-
    Perhaps girls could practice restraint instead. I have no sympathy for any girl that has a one night stand with some random twit and get caught out – they should have considered the possible ramifications of their actions. I don’t place this all on the female gender of course – men who push for sex are equally to blame. Still, it takes two.

    Then we wouldn’t have to read rubbish like this:

    I do have sympathy for women who are raped but the law can’t really pass such exceptions. So I guess it is all part of the aftermath of such a horror. It isn’t her fault. Nor is it the fault of the child.

    Call me old fashioned if you like but lets be realistic – unless you are raped or something you have to have known exactly what might have happened when having sex. Unless you were raised under a rock or something. As Constance took great pains to say, prevention techniques are pretty poor. If you aren’t adult enough to live with your own consequences then you shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.

    That is like someone eating KFC every day for ten years and then trying to get the state/Govt to pay for a procedure to remove excess fat( or worse, hire a lawyer to try and get money out of KFC). What the hell? No I wont help you. Try the gym. It’s hard work but you asked for it.

    Don’t expect me to pay taxes or support some rubbish medical system to save you from something perfectly natural – from something you don’t want just because it inconveniences you/your partner. If the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother then fine.

    See you want to have the cake and eat it too. All pro with no con. This is the real world you know – life has consequences. I know that the state tries hard to wipe the collective backside of the country with every reform it makes but for goodness sake you can restrain yourselves. You aren’t animals. I hope.

    I can just imagine the first words coming back – some kind of “But a woman should have the right to have sex!” *blah blah blah*
    I agree. A woman should have that right. She does. Just like a man does.
    Everyone does. That doesn’t mean that others should have to fix up your life for you … You aren’t in nappies anymore, deal with your own problems. Think about what you are doing. That is what young people have forgotten today. Don’t try and put the blame on prolife to educate people about contraception – anyone, male or female, knows exactly what is going on (and if they don’t then wtf are they doing?!), further education is hardly needed.

    Don’t blame prolife. Don’t blame the baby. Blame yourself.

    Adopt or something. I really don’t care. But don’t ask for a law change, taxpayer money, education in contraception or any other form of sympathy. You did the deed. You live with the fallout.

  38. JJW says:

    “Chickens don’t have human rights. It’s okay to have KFC as long as it’s Kentucky Fried Chicken, not Kentucky Fried Children,” he explained.

    This is potentially the funniest thing I have read in Salient since… forever. Is Malone suggesting we should be able to eat foetuses?

  39. Tania says:

    I’d love to see a breakdown of how many “pro-lifers” help support adoption clinics, help single mothers who struggle to financially support their children, and help educate (as Constance said) young people on the serious consequences of contraceptive failure. As Emily Manuel put it, “Being pro life would mean fostering the conditions for life to fully flourish. That makes taking care of every child after it’s born.”
    Her manifesto on what would it truly means to be pro-life can be found here

  40. Electrum Greenstone says:

    It might just be possible for the rest of us to develop a little more respect for some of those religious right-wing types if they genuinely extend their compassion to all sentient lifeforms, instead of cheering and applauding the killing of offenders, “heretics”, “enemy combatants”, “collateral damage”, as well as non-human animals.

  41. Jenny says:

    People: you shouldn’t judge prolifers based on a stereotype. The above article is talking about the prolife group at victoria. Not all prolifers in general. There obviously has been some radical prolifers in the past. But you should not just transfer your view of them straight onto LifeChoice. If you observe LifeChoice “applauding the killing of offenders, etc, etc,” then you will be justified in saying that of them. But until then, you shouldn’t just box them. Also on the LifeChoice facebook page, I noted that they are actually a non-religious club….

  42. Nicholas O'Kane says:

    Of course its a strawman arguement but does highlight some pro-choice beliefs taken to their logical conclusion

  43. Nicholas O'Kane says:

    Sorry, inserted with the above coment was meant to be “asuming the the fetus has no rights, is merely part of a womens body (meaning that a pregnant women with a male foetus has 2 heads, 4 arms and a penis), then why shouldn’t she be able to eat her aborted foetus, or sell it to others to eat? After all, its her body, so her choice to eat it or not?”

    Also while some people on the pro-life issue support the death penalty e.t.c, they are seperate issues (to some degree). I am personally opposed to the death penalty, and it does to some extent contradict the every life is sacred position. However there are many big differences, i.e. a death penalty inmate, enemy combatant chose to comit a crime or join a terrorist groupo with some understanding of the consequences.

    The crime of the unborn is their very existence

  44. Nicola Wood says:

    I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to eat or sell other things removed from your body in medical procedures either, Nicholas…

  45. Weasel Incarnate says:

    Ok so that’s racist…

  46. Peanuts says:

    Totally. It’s racist isn’t it? We’re talking about race now instead of the fact that fetuses are eaten? Nice reasoning :D To me, all humans are humans, whether their practices are different or not!

  47. QoT says:

    Dear lifers,

    You can have all the “right to life” you want.

    Unfortunately it still won’t actually stop abortion, since no human being, born, “unborn”, undead or otherwise, has the right to unilaterally take over another’s body and breath and blood and organs.

    Unless y’all are willing to live in a world where I get to walk up to you and demand a kidney because I need it to live, the “right to life” and “potential” and “humanity” of a zygote means diddly-squat.

    Now do please try to formulate a response which doesn’t out the entire antichoice movement as the woman-hating anti-sex pregnanct-as-punishment-for-“immoral”-behaviour fundies that y’all are.

  48. Iso says:

    @QoT: Malone’s response to that kind of argument was that while random strangers don’t have the right to demand a kidney, there is a special bond (I think he meant because of the biological relationship) between the fetus and the womb-holder, direct vs indirect harm etc. Since I am pretty sure most of us don’t want to live in a world where people HAVE to give their kidneys to their children, this argument does not hold a lot of water for me.

  49. QoT says:

    @Iso: It’s an interesting response, but still comes very close to pregnancy-as-punishment-for-sex to me – just because I can’t imagine antichoice people positing that in a world where we have the technology to allow males to carry zygotes, the bio-dad has to do the gestating if pregnancy threatens the bio-mum’s life. So then the “special relationship” is quite akin to the argument that “you brought this on yourself by having sex, you slut”.

Recent posts

  1. VUW Halls Hiking Fees By 50–80% Next Year
  2. The Stats on Gender Disparities at VUW
  3. Issue 25 – Legacy
  4. Canta Wins Bid for Editorial Independence
  5. RA Speaks Out About Victoria University Hall Death
  6. VUW Hall Death: What We Know So Far
  8. New Normal
  9. Come In, The Door’s Open.
  10. Love in the Time of Face Tattoos

Editor's Pick

Uncomfortable places: skin.

:   Where are you from?  My list was always ready: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, puppy dogs’ tails, a little Spanish, maybe German, and—almost as an afterthought—half Samoan. An unwanted fraction.   But you don’t seem like a Samoan. I thought you were [inser

Do you know how to read? Sign up to our Newsletter!

* indicates required