Home > Issues > Choice for Men > Abortion Reform and Child Support Reform

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Abortion Reform and Child Support Reform (three times updated)

Peter Zohrab 2019

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

 

(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:

 

Letter from Ombudsman 6.12.2019

 

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

 

See also:

 

-- Hamill, Jasper (2019): "Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim." Metro, 4 Jan 2019.

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

9 December 2019

Top