Skip to main content

Chris Trotter is in trouble with the feminists

On Friday, the Dominion Post published an opinion piece by Chris Trotter that has the pro-abort feminists in a frenzy. So, what did Chris actually say?
The first question I'd like to ask Labour list MP Steve Chadwick is: "Why now?" What's convinced her that the time is right to reopen the abortion debate? What ill-omened denizen of the current political environment has told her that this is the moment to introduce a members bill permitting abortion-on-demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy?

I would really, really like to know who it was. Because, try as I may, I'm finding it really difficult to make the cost/benefit analysis come out in Ms Chadwick's, her party's, or even her gender's favour.

Oh dear, criticising opening up the abortion debate.

Her decision might, of course, be driven entirely by ideological considerations - by an unwavering conviction that every woman has an incontestable right to do whatever she pleases with, and to, her own body. That would make a sort of sense - providing, of course, she's willing to accept the consequences of making ideology the battleground upon which this issue is decided. What's sauce for the ideological goose must also be sauce for the ideological gander.

Don't know about Steve Chadwick, but that appears to be the line that NZ feminists are taking. Except for the consequences of that position, which is hardly a surprise as they don't want to link the consequences of sex to having a baby. But anyway ...

Clearly, Ms Chadwick's proposed bill has got me perplexed. I simply cannot see what difference - in practical terms - changing the present legislation would make.

According to statistics supplied by the Abortion Supervisory Committee, there were 18,382 abortions carried out in New Zealand in 2007. That's 12,437 more than in 1980 - barely two years after the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act came into force on April 1, 1978.

Does Ms Chadwick not believe that 18,382 abortions are enough? Does she think there should be more? Has the existing legislation created an unfulfilled demand for abortion which her proposed bill seeks to satisfy?

There will never be too many abortions. How dare you even make an issue of how many abortions there are now! That would be like, like .. bringing morality into it, and we don't want to do that!

And now Chris does the unthinkable. He recognises the enemy. Those that empathise with the unborn child who is killed in every abortion.
But there were hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who did not agree with me - decent, well- meaning people who could not get past the fact that something human always dies when an abortion is performed.

Their passionate contention was, and remains, that there is more than one individual involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy, and that every person is morally obligated to speak up for those who have yet to attain a voice.

And he worries. As I said on the Hand Mirror, in probably my first ever defence of Chris Trotter:

I think what Chris is doing is recognising the social gains the left have made. But he's becoming increasingly worried those gains could be undone due to the desires of those who would push them further without seeing how unpalatable to the everyday public their views are.

Basically, you'll end up triggering the pendulum effect, where you'll push too far to one side and unwittingly created a massive swing to the other side.

While I want abortion banned, I don't want a country that buries women to their breasts and stones them to death for adultery.

The Hand Mirror considers that The Queen of Thorns, who was mentioned in Trotter's opinion piece and then retaliated with a post of her own, won the exchange. But I don't think so, I think she ended up just proving Trotter's point, that ordinary people will be turned off. Especially since she finishes off her post with: 
**And speaking for myself, I Google “abortion” pictures for shits and giggles.  QUICK, SOMEONE FIND A REALLY SHINY NICKEL FOR SIZE COMPARISON.
Related link : Are 18,382 abortions in a single year not enough? ~ From the Left, Dominion Post, Stuff
Bitter Fruits ~ Chris Trotter's Blog, Bowalley Road


  1. That "shits and giggles" woman is not just misguided, she's evil..

    Who would say such a thing? Even women who believe in abortion would know down deep what they're doing and try to block out that side of it.

  2. Fletch,

    Yep. Just like that woman that dedicates all vasectomies to her hero, Satan, that commented on our blog a few weeks back.

  3. **And speaking for myself, I Google “abortion” pictures for shits and giggles. QUICK, SOMEONE FIND A REALLY SHINY NICKEL FOR SIZE COMPARISON.

    That is truly disturbing! I can understand someone arguing for pro-choice, but being that ambivalent to the human tragedy of abortion (no matter where one sits in the argument) is a picture of someone who has lost some of their own humanity.

  4. Melva: to you, 'sarcasm' is just a seven letter word starting with S, isn't it?

  5. Writing "QUICK, SOMEONE FIND A REALLY SHINY NICKEL FOR SIZE COMPARISON." may be delivered as sarcasm, however the point she is making can only be interpreted as her being dismissive of abortion photos simply because of the size of the fetus.

    Her point is obviously that because the foetus is at one point in it's development about the size of a nickel, that we can assume it isn't really human enough to care about treating it as anything special.

    Brilliant logic.

    "Quick, some-one get me an adult and I'll compare it to this newborn baby and see if it's big enough to be considered human."

    See, if I reply using sarcasm, I'm still making a statement of opinion.


Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.

Popular posts from this blog

Sine dominico non possumus

This post was inspired by posts on TBR and A Servant's Thoughts on male vs female church attendance. ... "We Cannot Live without Sunday," takes us back to the year 304, when Emperor Diocletian prohibited Christians, under pain of death , to possess the Scriptures, to meet on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist and to build premises for their assemblies. In Abitene, a small village in what today is Tunis, 49 Christians , meeting in the home of Octavius Felix, were taken by surprise on a Sunday while celebrating the Eucharist, defying the imperial prohibitions. Arrested , they were taken to Carthage to be interrogated by the proconsul Anulinus. Significant, in particular, was the response given to the proconsul by Emeritus, after being asked why he had violated the emperor's order. He said: "Sine dominico non possumus," we cannot live without meeting on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. We would not have the strength to face the daily difficulties and not

Greenism a symptom of the intellectual decline of the west

People have got to eat. To eat they either have to grow food or do something useful which they can exchange for food. Squid is good food so some people go and catch squid and exchange it for the things they need to survive and prosper in this sorry world. Some people think catching squid is bad because it impacts on the sealions or something and therefore the Government shouldn't let people catch squid. The people who think other people shouldn't catch squid are very often people who are prospering, they are often employed in secure jobs and paid from taxes extracted from the people who do useful things, things like catching squid funnily enough. Squid that can be consumed in fancy eateries where University lecturers can dine upon dishes like calamari green salad and seafood chowder while lamenting with their colleagues how "greedy humans" are raping the planet. And killing the sea lions and polar bears in order to "line their pockets". Really of


The University College London Union will probably never see any irony in this. The president of a London university atheist society has resigned over a row about an image of the Prophet Muhammad. The society at University College London (UCL) published an image on its Facebook page showing "Jesus and Mo" having a drink at a bar. The atheist group was asked by the UCL union to remove it, but refused and started a petition defending its freedom of expression. A student Muslim group began a counter-petition asking for its removal. The cartoon in question of course is designed to be offensive to Christians as well as Muslims. "The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs." Source: Muhammad cartoon row leads to resignation