Same game, different name. They call it an S.G.M. this week, but they may as well have entitled it "The Young and the Restless — Vic. Style", as those present were treated to emotion in every form except throbbing violins.

The meeting really began with the election of Sue Hanna to the recently vacated position of Woman Vice President. She expressed concern at the lack of student involvement on campus, due possibly to very demanding workloads and lack of finance, and stated equal opportunities for women (perhaps appropriately timed, in the light of the subsequent tone of the meeting) as one of her objectives as W.V.P.

Faculty Reps Elected

There then followed yet another attempt to complete the episode entitled: "Your Faculty Needs You!" Thanks to the abundant propaganda distributed by the Thorndon Apathy League, the majority of those present decided their faculty needed them like a dose of constipated prosophilia. Eight brave souls (approximately) (approximately eight and approximately brave) fought visciously through the press of eager bodies, and emerged battered, bruised but egos intact — duly elected to the exalted mystical realms of Faculty Reps.

Despite the overwhelming success of its advertising campaign, the I.A.I. could point out that there are still at least three positions vacant, (on the Language and Literature Faculty) but it probably won't bother and "Wanted: Faculty Reps!" will become as regular a feature of S.R.C.s S.G.M.'S, B.U.M's, (oops: who said that?) as frustrated aviators with itchy fingers who haven't heard of the paper shortage. (That Was a mouthful, wasn't it?)

Now we must not be flippant for we come to the high point of this week's attempt at a meeting — the abortion issue.

It was thanks to a successful procedural motion, "that item 6 be discussed before item 3," that abortion was discussed so lengthily, or even discussed at all.

Item 6, moved: Shields/Evans

(a)	"That this Association calls for the repeal of all abortion laws and believes that abortion should be a woman's right to choose."
(b)	"That this Association gives support to the Women's National Abortion Action Campaign."

Reform or Repeal?

Joan Shields spoke to her motion saying it called for repeal rather than reform because existing reform policy was messy. At present, the policy provides for women wanting abortions, jointly with their doctors to make the decision whether the abortion will take place. This policy may have implied that women couldn't make up their own minds as to their own rights, and that since doctors were often hostile to the idea of abortion, they should not have a say in a decision in which their only involvement was a subjective opinion.

There followed a cry which some might call emotive, which was to become characteristic of future opponents of the motion. The view expressed in the motion was "selfish" and a mother had a "responsibility" to "her unborn child"; life was an "ongoing process" and it was "totally irresponsible" to deny that life.

In an attempt to illustrate his desire for democracy, Gerard Winter announced his intention, if Item 6 parts "a" and "b" were passed, to foreshadow a motion calling for a General University Ballot on the abortion question. He believed that every student should have a say, since the issue was so important. He also spoke to part "b", demanding to know how the Young Socialists could both announce their active support for W.O.N.A.A.C., and claim that W.O.N.A.A.C was "apolitical". Lindy Cassidy answered the first part of of Gerard Winter's argument by saying that since it was an S.G.M., all motions to be discussed at the meeting had to be lodged a certain time before the actual meeting, so he would be unable to put his foreshadowed motion before the meeting.

Bruce Robinson claimed that the Commission's report would make already restrictive legislation more vicious (for example, forcing, as the result of a court order, handicapped people into compulsory sterilisation, as is proposed in the Report) and force many women into back street abortions. This Association was to continue the fight against that which was being offered to us as "Abortion Law Reform", and to re-affirm our support for the Coalition Against the Abortion Laws.

A Call for Reality

Those against the motion and debating "When does life begin?" were accused, of being "Ivory-tower Intellectuals" by Gerard Couper, very fervent and obviously fully recovered from last week. There was, in his opinion, no point in debating the question of when life begins, for the problem still exists, and while the debate continues, people suffer.

Speaking time was limited to one minute, which did nothing to deter the number or the fervor of the speakers. Numerous aspects of basically the same views were put forward by each side, with nothing really original emerging and debate going repetitively round in circles.

God Ineligible to Vote

Just before the motion was put to the vote, however, one rather extreme, but much applauded view was expressed condemning the gall of Catholics. "God spoke to the Pope and told the Pope he didn't like abortions. So the Pope spoke to the people and told the people he didn't want them to have abortions. So now the Catholics tell everyone else they shouldn't have abortions."

Voting was extremely close. The first vote on Part "a" was 115-112 in favour of the motion, but owing to the closeness, another vote was held, this time in the form of a head count. Part "a" was eventually carried, 135-130 while part "b" was lost.

To summarise the abortion argument is difficult but it was basically centred on two main points: When does life begin? and whose responsibility and right is it to decide whether a fetus shall be aborted. There was a view expressed that those two questions could never be convincingly resolved. Because of the nature of the questions and because each individual has her/his opinion, all answers by necessity would be subjective.

— Rire Scotney