Kia ora tātou,
There is more than one side to the abortion issue
The decision of the USA’s Supreme Court to overturn Wade v Roe and the nationwide “constitutional right” to abortion has been met with dismay and outrage by many people, both in the USA and beyond. Many are understandably upset at the winding back of what they consider an inalienable woman’s right: the right of any woman to end any unwanted pregnancy with an abortion.
The public and political rhetoric in the USA and in New Zealand has tended to be quite one-sided, with an emphasis on women having autonomy over their own bodies and about abortion being simply a women’s health measure. We acknowledge that many women who seek an abortion do so with distress, because they feel alone or abandoned, or because they feel it is too difficult for them to proceed to birthing and raising their child. The claim, however, that abortion is purely is a woman’s health measure is clearly untrue. Abortion can never be just a woman’s health measure, because abortion invariably involves another person, an unborn human being whose life is being deliberately ended by those who have already been born. Whatever the law of any country may say or allow, abortion remains a profound ethical issue. Particular societies, ethicists, and individuals may weigh differently the competing rights of women and unborn babies, but the moral issues are not in any way erased by legal and parliamentary decisions, or by the pronouncements of politicians. New Zealand’s previous abortion legislation at least tried to balance the rights of women and the unborn. In practice, however, we ended up with something very close to abortion on demand. New Zealand’s new abortion law in 2020 was passed by the margin of 68 to 51. Sadly, the new law contains no recognition at all of the rights of an unborn child. Politically, the new law may endure. But the deep ethical issues around abortion continue, and public discourse needs to more generous in acknowledging that.
Family First and charitable status
Earlier this week New Zealand’s Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the deregistration of Family First’s charitable status, on the grounds that Family First’s “advocacy” for traditional marriage and family is “discriminatory” and not working for benefits to the general community, that its purpose is mainly “political”, that it had “crossed the line between education and advocacy”, that “its research reports lacked the balance that is required to further an educative purpose”, and that its “advocacy is not fair, balanced or respectful, so its advocacy is not charitable”.
Some of that seems not very convincing. Marriage and family is good for society, and every human society has always believed so. It is quite a stretch to argue that advocating for marriage and family is somehow “discriminatory”. Surely, too, it is legitimate for Family First to speak out in the public interest against trends and policies which it sees as socially harmful.
Some people dislike Family First's views or object to its particular style. But that does not establish the conclusion that Family First is therefore “not charitable”. On the contrary, it seems self-evident that Family First’s motivation is to speak out for what it sees as the benefit of general society. How is that not charitable?
Ironically, many other “advocacy” groups – some of them highly politicised, but with opposite views to those of Family First – retain their charitable status. But Family First has been deregistered as a charity.
While people might not agree with every single thing that Family First has ever said, or how they may have said it, we should nevertheless absolutely defend their right to say it.
The wider principle is that, in a free society, the State should refrain from trying to restrain those groups whose views it finds unpalatable. The State should be careful not to discriminate.
|