Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 13. June 5 1977

Dear Sir,

Once again the streets of Wellington have been intimidated by our iconoclastic sisters, the 'Feminist movement, and for what great purpose None other than to manifest their totally irrational and trendy beliefs concerning abortion.

Frequently I have heard pleas for a totally objective and non-emotional discussion of the abortion issue from our 'cool' sisters. Well. I shall endeavour to fulfil their desire, in a logical manner. Most feminists demand abortion on demand, or at least, to generalise, a woman's right to choose. To choose what? Simple... abortion on demad (i.e. the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.) Of course 'terminate' is a very subtle euphemism for kill or murder. After all, for a 'termination' to occur, there must be something to terminate. And what is it that is terminated? (or to be more precise; kill, murder, deprive life from). A piece of meat? Flesh? If it is ignorantly referred to as flesh, that implies that it is organic (i.e. cellular). The foetus, as most of us know (or should do) is a cellular organic 'thing' — or more correctly a multi-cellular organic 'thing'. As it is multi-cellular and organic, as opposed to inorganic, it therefore can only be termed Living - and to continue, an organism.

So now we have two important axioms clarified. Firstly, to terminate implies halt or discontinue — and as it is unwilling it is murder. Secondly, the 'thing' terminated (sorry, killed) is a multi-cellular (complex) organism, with the potential of the capacity to to reason. Therefore the foetus belongs to the soecies of organisms known to most as Homo Sapiens, or Human beings.

The foetus, if it is not sufficiently complex for our 'Feminist' sisters, at least has the potential to become overwhelmingly complex and acquire the capacity to reason within a relative short space of time. On the other hand, a dog or a cat is not as complex insofar as the capacity to reason, and potential to evolve into that state would require a time span beyond one's imagination.

Thus it has been proven beyond any doubt that, in a logical manner, to 'terminate an unwanted pregnancy' means nothing else than to ill a multi-cellular, complex organism (i.e. human being). If anyone can logically approve of killing fellow human brings whether they be two weeks, two months or two score years old, then indeed I do believe our society has taken a turn for the worse.

Yours etc,

G.L.C.

P.S. The slogan 'Right to do to our own body' would seem reasonable if not for one slight factor — the pregnant woman is not an individual, she is not alone. She carries within her another human being (as proven above). Thus her right to do unto her own body what she wishes dors not hold ground for the simple reason that she is responsible for another human being's life. On the other hand if she is willing to accept responsibility for murder, and suffer the consequences....