Want Some Answers ???


To (requested his name be with-held)
Parliament House

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your brief and concise letter. I can understand why you have no desire to defend your comments [Heard Apr. 18th] with any pro-lifer. Not because it’s “an emotive issue” but because how can anybody in their right mind put pen to paper and argue for the killing unborn children.

The philosophy of the Nazis was that the Final Solution appeared the most logical answer for many unwanted people. The 100,000 of the Master Race involved with the Holocaust had the philosophy that the Jew was not a complete human being.

Today, Politicians [like yourself] find it very difficult to stand against the philosophy of this day and dispute what seems to be a logical answer to unwanted children.

Sir, I’m not seeking to argue for the sake of arguing, only that as a pro-abortionist you consider three simple facts.

[1] Abortion is Illegal according to the law.
The relevant Legislation says that abortion is illegal except under certain circumstances. The fact is, abortion is illegal and only legal by exception. And so to say abortion is legal in NZ is a half truth which has allowed the law to be misused and the “full regard to the rights of the unborn child” ignored. If you read the Crimes Act, headed “Crimes against the person” you will see what NZ law has to say about abortion. It follows then that 99% of abortions in this country according to the Crimes Act are “unlawful”.

In the first 20 weeks of pregnancy abortion is unlawful unless “serious danger” “seriously handicapped” “severely subnormal” “Age - end of child-bearing”. After the first 20 weeks of pregnancy abortion is unlawful unless “serious permanent injury”.

Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that every member of the human family has an inalienable right to life. It appears we are constantly in breach of our own law and of international instruments which reflect the natural law written in the human heart.

[2] The Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion said in 1977 “...the unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable, and most defenceless forms of humanity, should receive protection.” The intention of the CS& A Act was to provide protection for unborn babies yet today we have abortion-on-demand. If the law is at fault, it needs to be reviewed to establish why it is failing. Mr Bradford you seem to be suggesting that there are some people in our sociality who have the right to break the law.

The prime reason for approx. 11,000 abortions last year was said to be “Psychological damage” to the mother. [Mother’s don’t blame lack of contraceptives or lack of sexual knowledge]. In most cases bearing a child is not convenient and they don’t want parental responsibilities. Or the child is a product of an relationship that began and ended in the heat of passion. Invariably most abortion in NZ is simply a matter of ‘choice’.

A recent radio report indicated that 1% of all abortions in USA were due to incest, rape, or threat to the mothers life. While the other 99% were “literally human sacrifices on alters of a word we call choice”.

[3] If Parliament really wanted to reduce abortions, it could replace the present members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee with people - preferably including a lawyer - who will end the authorisation of pseudo-legal abortions. And under section 30 of the Act revoke the appointments of certifying consultants who offer easy abortions because they have extreme pro-abortion views that are “incompatible with the tenor of this Act”.

Presently, abortion is open slather and the committee a bad joke. It’s annual reports indicate a sloppy abysmal performance, they come before Parliament late, their English is poor, their tables sometimes incorrectly headed and totalled. One would almost think their purpose was to facilitate abortion rather than police a life-and-death piece of legislation.

What actions are taken by the ASC to protect the rights of the unborn child ? I will tell you. They appoint certifying consultants whose views are not strong in one sense or another. In other words its not their job to care about whether abortion is good or bad, or care about numbers. Many certifying consultants are also the operating abortionist and so have no consideration about the rights of the unborn.

When it comes to the subject of abortion, do you have any understanding about the issues above? I wonder, because of your comments about Mr Banks - “
His outburst effectively says women should not have the right to choose how they should deal with an unwanted pregnancy This gives the impression of someone who doesn’t know the law, cares nothing for abuse of the law, or is ignorant. To say you stand by those comments confirms my concern for you.
Yours sincerely

Mark Purchase