Sept. 8, 1967

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

Abortion issue - moral or practical

An estimated illegal abortion rate of 20,000 annually is a startling tragedy for a small and easy-going New Zealand.

No longer can we ignore this back-alley pathos. Someone has to do something, somehow.

Legalised abortion - on - demand may well reduce the illegal rate. But it would have disastrous effects on the social fibre.

The national psyche would change immeasurably - abortion being seen as merely another means of birth control. Japan has felt this change and is beginning to regret it. An editorial in Ashai Shinbun, Japan's largest daily, has bemoaned the national attitude toward the human foetus.

Surely we could not have so little regard for human life as to allow abortion-on-demand.

Changing the law will not wipe out the back-street abortionist. The most it could achieve would be a reduction of doubtful extent. Japan's experience and that of the Scandinavian countries provide sufficient evidence for this. One estimate puts Japan's illegal abortion rate at 600,000 annually.

Psychological attitudes towards the human foetus would be so changed as to induce some to seek an illegal abortion who would not normally consider terminating a pregnancy.

An abortion whether legal or otherwise usually has serious psychological implications for the mother. A shame in betraying the woman's dominant human duty pervades a lifetime.

Still something has to be done. Reforms are being mooted in this country to allow a consideration of the mother's social background when prescribing an abortion.

It is difficult to envisage how such a change could be kept within genuine limits. Only highly special cases could adequately justify the denial of life to a human being.

Each of us must face this issue squarely in the near future. It is too basic to shun as did the majority of the House of Commons in absenting themselves from the Chamber when the recent vote was taken in England.

At the nub of the issue is our assessment of the rights of the unborn. Many say these are such as to make abortion murder by another name. Many say there are no rights.

Whatever view is taken, the moral issues must not be swept aside by pure convenience.

Our culture has always found it a duty to protect the sick, the weak, and the defenceless. None is more defenceless than the foetus.

Those to be denied life at the hand of the abortionist can have no advocate in their cause but our consciences.

Censorship should go

The recent controversy surrounding the Indecent Publications Tribunal has served to expose censoring as an unnecessary restriction for a supposedly liberal society such as ours.

However, the dying forces of Victorian puritanism can be expected to rise again and swoop on a page or perhaps a piece of celluloid.

There are two most remarkable features of censoring in this country. Firstly the preoccupation with sex and not violence for instance. Secondly despite a complete absence of evidence which suggests youth is morally corrupted by seeing sex as portrayed in some books and films, the protesters continue to make this claim.

Why a campaign has not been launched against war comics and others which centre around violence and are sold in dairies is somewhat puzzling.

The underlying factor behind our censoring system is that sex is not acceptable to the older generations as a suitable topic for conversation.

These people are concerned about the rising sexuality of the younger generation which makes them feel very uncomfortable, especially if their own children start discussing it among themselves.

As corrupt governments wish to hide this side of their activity so many of the older generation want to keep sex out of mind and thus out of print and celluloid.

Censoring is a restriction placed on man's liberty and should be carefully considered before being applied.

Before it can be justified there must be evidence which clearly shows detriment or unhappiness which others will suffer if an individual is permitted to see a certain book or film.

In other words it must be shown the act of seeing will cause the individual to rise and cause loss of happiness to some other person or persons.

Probably only in times of a national emergency would some strictly limited censorship be justifiable.

However if literature which emphasises sex is to be subjected to this close scrutiny, should not other products of society be also carefully examined for possible detrimental side effects.

This of course would require thousands of tribunals. Cigarettes and alcohol might be the first to be axed as in both there is clear evidence showing detriment suffered by consumer and others.

With the current witch hunt on books in progress it is time the more liberal members of our society organised opposition to our whole censoring system.