O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Look it won't be any surprise to the committee that I oppose this bill. I think one of the things I've noticed in initial contributions is the assiduous avoidance of the fact that we're talking about an unborn child and when we try to reconcile that with discussions here around human rights it's the inescapable fact that what is gestating is a human child. I have yet to see any scientific evidence of a woman giving birth to anything other than a human child.Fundamentally I suppose the challenge I put to colleagues as they consider Supplementary Order Papers is to consider what they're asking for post-utero—outside the womb. It's been put to us I think by a Green contribution much earlier around children with deformities and so forth. And while one can I suppose begin to appreciate the argument the absurdity if not the horror of it of what happens post - nine months—the idea that a child completely dependent on their parents or their mother for a singular argument could be dispatched for want of a better word simply because of their medical condition. Our lack of hope or compassion is as I say horrifying. So I suppose it's just a simple thought experiment: if one accepts it's a human being—and it's hard to understand scientifically how one couldn't—then human rights must apply. That has to be noted right from the start.The other is in response to the initial Minister's comment and it is unfortunately coming from some members in the House who are effectively arguing with themselves. Again a Green Party contribution earlier about how people feel around abortion and suggesting that others in this House see those decisions as frivolous—again that's argument with oneself. I don't think anyone believes the decision to abort is frivolous or easily taken or one without emotion.Jan Logie: Why don't you trust people?SIMON O'CONNOR: That's not the point. The simple thing in human life is that we don't decide whether something is morally or ethically right based on emotion. If it were we'd be in a very very strange place. I suppose to basically illustrate it to that member it doesn't matter how compassionate upset worried a person is about whatever the subject is it doesn't make something right or wrong. And just to really point it out for post - 20 weeks there is in effect absolutely no medical reason for either mother or baby that an abortion has to happen. Put it again in a very different way—the baby can be birthed and it has no medical consequences at all. We are now talking a very deliberate decision—a very deliberate decision—post - 20 weeks to end that child's life. And again it doesn't take away from the fraughtness of the decision but I stand here very clearly to point out that the emotion of the decision has very little impact on whether the decision is right or wrong.There's also been the suggestion from the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little that there are people who disagree here in principle and therefore are blocking the bill—well of course that's what's happening. I do disagree with abortion in principle and therefore I will oppose this bill. I mean heavens if we were going to apply this to other topics would we have said this to William Wilberforce when he was opposing slavery and changes? Oh no no Mr Wilberforce you can't oppose this bill on slavery because the Parliament already decided it's OK." You know train drivers in the 1930s and 1940s taking whole groups of people to terrible places—"Well I'm sorry you can't disagree; we've already passed some laws saying that taking people to a concentration camp is OK." I mean it's an absolutely absurd argument. So no offence to the Minister—I have respect for him—but if people are going to try and bring rational arguments here that take me for more than a J-1 level of understanding then bring it.Secondly this whole notion of that distrust—distrust OK. This whole Parliament I've pointed out before exists on the absolute premise that we do not trust people—men women anything else. Our entire job is making laws because we don't trust people. And if you want me to illustrate the point really simply to those who are saying "Just trust women with this decision." well why should the police ever prosecute a woman for driving in any other way than she chooses right? Just think about it—just think about it. And then we had the question around doctors. We should have no structures around what doctors do. I just want to point out to the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little that one of his colleagues has a bill in the ballot around therapy and conversions that will be limiting what doctors do—and I'm not trying to get into that debate itself. What I'm pointing out is that arguing that doctors should just be allowed to do what they want to do is contradicted by one of his own members. And then on top of that we've got the wider discussions around the whole conscientious—[Time expired]"