This post shows two self-referentially incoherent beliefs in Terry Bellamak’s oral submission to the select committee that show her argument necessarily false. It also looks at some already established law that contradicts the proposed abortion law legislation.
Terry Bellamak, Chief of ALRANZ (Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand), stumbled during her oral submission to the select committee when recommending abortion be liberalised.
She admitted the object inside a pregnant mother’s womb is alive with its own unique human DNA. “It’s objective truth.” She meant is confirmed by science and undeniable. She then stated the status of personhood for that living human was a matter of belief – not of the objective variety. Since the New Zealand public should not have enforced upon them matters of mere belief – the kind that are not objective or confirmed by science, we should value the pregnant woman’s choice to kill her unborn offspring over the life of the unborn she carries.
Her argument here suffers at least two self-contradictions, and contradicts established law.
First, the distinction between a human life and human person is a philosophical belief – the unscientific, unconfirmed by science sort of belief that is supposed to be wrong to impose upon others. Yet she uses this distinction to frame the issue and foists it upon the public. I shall not here probe how this distinction is a false one, setup only to remove the value from human beings to the various properties of personhood that someone will more clearly exhibit later in life.
Second, by advocating for the abortion law reform she would impose upon others her unscientific and beliefs regarding how the killing of unborn children is permissible.
That which is self-contradictory is not only false, it is necessarily false. It cannot be true. These two self-contradictions in Bellamak’s submission therefore show her advocacy here is severely misguided – if that were not already clear.
Finally, her response contradicts established law. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 8 affirms the right not to be deprived of life. It says “No one.” It gives no further qualifications for personhood. Nor does it specify that a human life should only be considered valuable when their parents believe it to be valuable. It covers all human life. Of the subsequent three sections, only section 10 specifies “person.” This means the rights of unborn babies are quashed thrice, for not only does abortion deprive an unborn child of life, but it subjects them to torture or cruel treatment and deprives them of the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment.
The 1993 Bill of Human Rights protects against discrimination. Especially relevant for the proposed law reform on abortion is Section 21, subsection (l, iv), where it states that it is prohibited to discriminate against someone on the basis of their family status, in particular, for being a relative of a particular person, in this case the mother. My own submission to the select committed highlighted the infraction of subsection (a) sex, including pregnancy and childbirth.
When asked if it were not possible to value both the mother and the baby, she stumbled again. “It is possible… I think we do.” Long pause as she gathers her thoughts. She then goes on to explain how valuing both means allowing mothers to “take care or their children the way they want to,” “fulfil their goals as a family and live the lives that they want to live,” – euphemisms for permitting them the choice to kill their unborn children. This is not valuing both lives. This is answering the committee woman’s question with a veiled NO, while trying to maintain the appearance of her initial answer in the affirmative.
What can you do?
- Pray. Pray for our leaders. Pray that righteousness in our nation increase. Pray that the deceptions propagated by Bellamak be exposed. Pray that those like her change their view. Pray that the media stops promoting this barbaric practice.
- Speak out. Don’t privatise your beliefs. Tell a friend, tell a stranger, sign a petition, post on social media. If you can write, write about it. One of the best things you can do is contact your local MP.
- Vote pro-life. Use your vote to elect MPs that will stand up for the unborn. Don’t vote for parties that make this a matter for personal conscience vote and especially not for parties that favour liberalisation policies. Vote for parties that will prioritise the unborn as a matter of principle.
- Stuart McEwing, “Does the abortion legalisation discriminate against men?“