New Zealand’s Court of Appeal has declared that unborn children do not have the right to life. This is not the New Zealand version of Roe v. Wade; abortion was already allowed in some circumstances, although not on demand. But the decision is a huge step backward for human rights. If the unborn have no right to life, what’s the justification for having any abortion limits? There is no question that pro-abortion groups will latch on to this misguided decision.
Bob McCoskie of Family First NZ commented on the cognitize dissonance created by the decision, which is very similar to what we see in the United States:
It is also concerning that the Court of Appeal believe that the law does not recognize or confer a right to life on the unborn child. This is completely inconsistent with warning messages about prenatal alcohol and drug use, assaults on pregnant women, and even the report released today by Sir Peter Gluckman referring to ‘environmental risks that occur prenatally’. Just when does a child obtain a right to live? 30 weeks? 40 weeks? In the birthing room? Abortion can harm women – yet groups seeking to decriminalise abortion refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women.
Of course, pro-life advocates in New Zealand are not standing idly by. There, as here, the pro-life movement is working hard to reach people with the truth. I encourage you to check out Pro-Life New Zealand’s Just Think campaign, which is starting a conversation about pro-abortion inconsistencies.
This is also as good a time as any to plug Pro-Life Planet, which will help connect pro-life advocates across the globe.