It wouldn’t be far wrong to claim that we already have a defacto situation of ‘abortion on request’ in New Zealand.
This is certainly true for the first half of a pregnancy (up to 20 weeks gestation) where the law requires there to be a serious threat to the woman’s mental and/ or physical health to have a legal abortion. It is also very debatable that the ‘threat-to-the-mother’s-mental-health grounds’ is being rigorously applied. I’m pretty certain that the many abortions done under such grounds would not proceed if they had to undergo the same scrutiny over mental health diagnoses that ACC applies to sexual abuse victims when seeking funded counseling. (Besides, applying the ‘threat-to-the-mother’s-mental-health’ justification needs to be re-examined in the light of recent evidence that links abortion with an increased incidence of later mental health problems in the woman, rather than the reverse.)
The proposed new abortion law reform bill would see, for the first time in this country, a serious overlap between what medical science is able to deliver and what liberals would demand as their right. Premature babies are surviving when born as early as 23 weeks. So an application of Ms Chadwick’s new bill could lead us into the horror world of abortion-on-demand-to-term which can be found in the United States. This occurs when an abortion can be legally performed on a ‘fetus’ that would easily survive if it was delivered normally.
Imagine a situation where a woman comes into a doctor’s surgery with abdominal pains. After being examined, she is discovered not only to be pregnant; she is at full term and is in early labour. Many doctors know this scenario.
Just imagine that this woman discovered that she was pregnant at, say, 23 or 24 weeks. It is unplanned and unexpected. Because some of her friends suggest that it is not a good thing for her, she should have an abortion (“. . .you can always have a baby when you’re older and more ready . . . ” — if only that could be guaranteed). Others encourage her to continue with the pregnancy. While she is weighing up her options, her waters break and she goes into premature labour –- she now has to make a decision. Under the newly proposed law, she can ask for an abortion. Technically, this would be easy — give some hormones to bring on the labour and ensure the delivered fetus does not take a breath (that would mean that it is a live birth). This is not only a simple task but also very inexpensive.
That is, in comparison with what it would cost if she decides to keep the baby and would like everything done to ensure its survival. She would have to stay many weeks in hospital under the care of highly trained medical and nursing staff. And when the ‘baby’ is finally delivered (hopefully after 30 weeks), nothing will be spared to keep it alive. Even after discharge, the demands of aftercare and ongoing health problems due to the prematurity will be covered by our excellent public paed-iatric service.
This scenario highlights the dilemma we have yet to resolve; does this unborn life have value in and of itself or is its value solely what the woman attributes to it? The way the law withholds legal status seems to reflect this arbitrary state of mind.
If seems we are being encouraged to believe it is a woman’s right to terminate the life of the fetus she is carrying (ie … an abortion) but no-one has the right to choose to terminate that same life after it has been born (ie…infanticide).
So do we have the courage and the maturity to re-address this problem? Or maybe the abortion debate should be left in the “too-hard” basket.
Maybe we don’t want to see the ultra-conservatives in one corner and the radical liberals in the other corner talking at one another all the time creating more heat than light. But yet, maybe there is a better way . . . ?
