One of the great marks of our time is our moral confusion and schizophrenia about the most basic issues of life. For all our technological prowess, we are moral babes.
A classic case is the issue of unborn babies. Are they human beings with all the dignity and rights that come with that, or are they just a bunch of cells that can be removed at will? The answer is…it depends.
Last year, one of the hosts of Breakfast, Hayley Holt, suffered from a miscarriage during one of the lockdowns. Quite rightly, Holt was devastated, and suffered greatly especially with the lack of support due to the lockdown. It was absolutely wonderful to see her co-hosts grieving with her and offering her words of hope and support.
What makes this incident so striking, is that a few months earlier, Holt interviewed Dr Alison Knowles, euphemistically termed ‘abortion practitioner’ (rather than cold-blooded baby killer) about the abortion law reform. In this interview Holt says in passing, “whilst it is a women’s right,” suggesting she herself might be pro-abortion. In the same segment, her colleague John Campbell, although congenial, does grill the pro-life interviewee in a way that slants the whole piece as supporting the law change.
An implication of this double-minded approach is that the value and worth of a human being (in this case an unborn one) is based on something extrinsic. An unborn child has rights and value to the extent his mother wishes him to live or not. But surely this is a reprehensible moral system. We know that in 2020 a four-week-old baby, Maree Kiwana-Makanihi Takuira-Mita Ngahere died as the result of a brain injury. She had been beaten multiple times by her father Jahcey Te Koha Aroha o te Raki Ngahere. Clearly, despite having Aroha in his name, Jahcey did not value his poor daughter. But in this case, we say that what he has committed is murder. Maree’s value is not based on whether her father or mother values her…at least it isn’t after she is born.