Home > Issues
> Choice for Men > Abortion Reform
and Child Support Reform |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Abortion Reform and Child Support
Reform (five times updated)
Peter Zohrab 2019-2020 |
|
|
(Open Letter to the Minister of Justice)
Dear Mr. Little,
Abortion and Child Support
It is obvious that any reform of the
law relating to abortion should include the reform or abolition of the
Child Support Act 1991. In fact, that should already have happened
long ago.
If the only person who has any say in whether an unborn child is born
or not is the mother (which is already the case at present), then it
is obvious on Human Rights grounds that no men should ever have to pay
child support to any woman. However, if a woman -- having decided not
to have an abortion -- gives birth to a child who ends up in the sole
custody of the purported father, then the mother should of course pay
child support to that man. No other forms of heterosexual child support
should be allowed to exist in law.
Suppose that a woman becomes pregnant and the legally liable man wants
her to have an abortion, but she refuses. The man has no legal right
to force her to have an abortion -- yet he becomes liable to pay child
support once the child is born. If he assaults her and intentionally
causes the death of the unborn child, then he is guilty of Murder (and
"Assault on a Female") -- yet she can have an abortion without
legal penalty!
If you were a sane and rational person (which you are not) and realised
that men were human beings with Human Rights (which you do not), then
this would long ago have occurred to you.
When you were National Secretary of the Engineers' Union (whose members
were presumably mainly male), I wrote to you and asked you to take an
interest in Men's Issues, but your reply was negative. I wish I still
had that letter, which I kept for a long time.
You have made a big issue of reentering
the Pike River Mine, and I agree with you on that. However, most
of the beneficiaries of the reentry will be female, since it won't do
the dead men any good to be brought out of the mine. If you had done
your job properly in the union movement, you might have been able to
reduce the occupational death and injury rate, and those men might still
be alive. The vast majority of workplace deaths are male deaths -- yet
it took a female unionist,
Helen Kelly, to make a big issue of workplace safety -- and even
that was after the Pike River tragedy!
Abortion in General
If a boa constrictor or similar type of snake were to swallow an infant
human, people wouldn't just wash their hands of the matter and say,
"Oh well, it belongs to the snake now -- because it is inside its
body." They would rush to kill the snake, extract the infant and
attempt to revive it.
There is no general principle, according to which anything which is
inside a person's body is automatically the property of that person,
as far as I am aware. That would have some interesting implications
for sexual intercourse. The Feminists -- as usual -- have just decided
that they want something (the right to abortion) and need to make up
some reason why they should have what they want.
Under the Official Information Act, could you
please tell me what information you have that there exists in Law a
general principle, according to which anything which is inside a person's
body is automatically the property of that person.
|
After I complained to the Ombudsman about receiving no reply,
I eventually received the following reply from the Minister of Justice:
|
|
I then wrote to the Ombudsman (on 3rd October 2018)
as follows:
|
Dear sir/Madam,
In connection with my complaint to you about the Minister of Justice,
I have recently received a reply from him, which I have only just read.
I forward it to you, because it seems to me to be an illegitimate
attempt to avoid answering my question.
On the face of it, my letter to him clearly did make a literal OIA
request, and therefore, since he is claiming that I did not make such
a request, he needs to at least make some feeble attempt at providing
some justification for his untrue statement.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
In due course, I received the following reply from the
Ombudsmen:
|
 |
On 9 December 2019, I accordingly wrote again to the Minister as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Little,
The Legal Principle Underlying Abortion
This is a follow-up to my letter dated 7 August 2019, which contained
the following Official Information Act request:
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me
what information you have that there exists in Law a general principle,
according to which anything which is inside a person's body is automatically
the property of that person.
You refused to answer that question, because you denied that it actually
was an Official Information Act request. The Ombudsman has subsequently
suggested that I should rephrase my request so that it doesn’t
look like a question.
In my letter dated 7 August 2019, I made the point that, if a boa
constrictor or similar type of snake were to swallow an infant human,
people wouldn't just wash their hands of the matter and say, "Oh
well, it belongs to the snake now -- because it is inside its body."
They would rush to kill the snake, extract the infant and attempt to
revive it.
Although I have never heard of it, you must know of a general principle,
according to which anything which is inside a person's body is automatically
the property of that person. That would, of course, have some interesting
implications for sexual intercourse. The alternative would be that you
are acting in accordance with the well-known Feminist principle:
Whatever Women Want!
Under the Official Information Act, therefore, could you please send
me a copy of all the material which you hold which relates to the general
legal principle that anything which is inside a person's body is automatically
the property of that person.
If you do not hold any material which relates to the general legal
principle that anything which is inside a person's body is automatically
the property of that person, could you please say so.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
In due course, I received the following reply:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
7 October 2020 |
|
|
|
