Whanganui letters to the editor: Abortion rights and human rights

The abortion debate has enflamed passions on both sides. A reader writes in response to Lizzie Marvelly's column about abortion law reform. Photo / File

In 1977 Parliament passed the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (CS&A) Act into law. This was done, they told us, to protect mothers and their babies, from the dangers of unsafe and unnecessary abortions.

In the years since that law was passed, we have learned so much more about the development and the humanity of the unborn child. We have also seen a push to ignore all that knowledge and treat the child as something not human and not deserving of their rights simply for being young and reliant upon their mother. Some even cry that the child is "just a bunch of cells" or "a lump of tissue". Well, technically, that is true, in the same way that every reader of the Chronicle is a "bunch of cells" or "a lump of tissue". Calling us such things shouldn't negate our human rights either.

Lizzie Marvelly (Whanganui Chronicle 48 Hours, July 27) told us that the CS&A Act is "narrow and restrictive", as if that is a bad thing when dealing with the deliberate taking of human life, but then tells us that the Act is being routinely flouted in practice. She said "most women seeking an abortion" must "lie to two unfamiliar doctors about the state of their mental health" to get their child killed.

This should be shocking. But for Ms Marvelly ending the life of the unborn child so totally reliant upon you is a "right", without regard to any rights of the child, and she clearly finds any effort to protect the human rights of this unborn person quite unacceptable. That is a view both extreme and frightening. Whose rights do we ignore next?
K A BENFELL
Gonville

Enlightened TV news
How enlightening it is to watch the hourly news on the Al Jazeera channel which, perhaps surprisingly and definitely justifiably, is free-to-air.

Populist news channels both in this country along with those large overseas media news channels, such as those that can be accessed on Sky, have in common the avoidance of sources of overseas stories that reveal less palatable truths relating to enormous widespread human suffering and concerning the actions or inactions of Western nations ... all given an honest airing on Al Jazeera.

What seems to be the case through a combination of monetary gain, politics and a form of dilution to prevent us from experiencing a sense of unease, is that news these days is as much about entertainment as it is about passing on information objectively.

The demon of ratings and the competitive drive to win the largest portion of viewers, equating to $, are, I would suggest, responsible.

What is popular becomes the fare. Can this ever be justified for something like news? What we see reflects poorly on the worthiness of the Western appetite. News was never meant to be an entertainment or presented as that. We are not witnessing the true nature and status of international affairs and issues.

Indeed so far short of that is mostly true that it might be appropriate to adopt a Trumpism and classify what is witnessed on news channels as "fake news".

There has to be a system where news can survive viably outside of the competition for viewers and hence $.
PAUL BABER
Wanganui

Transport and climate change
In response to Barron's letter (Chronicle, July 26): Emotiveness does not help in a discussion. Words like "greenies" "hate" and "self-righteous" signal that the user is not probably not going to use rational unbiased argument.

The problem is not so much a matter of the use of oil reserves as their misuse.

In this context, public land transport (bus or rail) is better than the private car because it's much more efficient. A trip by bus or train uses a tiny fraction of the fuel per person than a car. An electric vehicle (EV) uses none at all.

Many of your correspondent's arguments are in fact red herrings. If the topic is the desirability of motive power coming from an electric motor rather than an internal combustion engine, then Norway's exports or traffic congestion do not address that issue.

For me the main problem is the emissions resulting from burning fuel.

The world faces a climate crisis which is all but out of control, and although private petrol and diesel vehicles are just one of many causes, it is one that we can control by reducing their use. That seems to me a pretty good argument for EVs.
COLIN McKINNEY
Whanganui

Have your say

The Chronicle welcomes your views on all manner of topics. Letters should not exceed 350 words and must not be abusive. Include your name, address and phone number for verification purposes. Noms de plume are not accepted. The Chronicle reserves the right to edit, amend or reject any letter. We do not guarantee all letters will be published. Views expressed in letters are not those of the Chronicle or its staff. Email your letters to letters@whanganuichronicle.co.nz or mail them to 100 Guyton St, Whanganui. Handwritten letters must be legible.