- BC Games
Connect with Us
Pro-life banner: What someone chooses is critical.
Thank you for your coverage of the pro-life banner hung over Kamloops streets in September.
As a conservative Christian, I fully support every woman's right to choose. It would be a moral wrong to regress to the laws of yesteryear when women had far fewer choices.
It used to be that women were not considered persons under Canadian law and, consequently, they were denied many choices that today's women enjoy.
Among the most significant was that they could not vote — and what right could be more basic in a democratic society than the right to choose who will represent you to the government?
Well, I suppose the right to life is more basic.
The trouble with this so-called "woman's right to choose" is that it is an incomplete sentence. That someone has a choice is irrelevant. What someone chooses is critical.
The right to vote is clearly a moral good and we ought to exercise that right to choose.
Other choices are morally neutral, such as choosing the colour of your new iPhone. It does not matter whether we exercise these choices or not. Furthermore, very few people would argue that anyone has a right to a particular colour of iPhone.
A third category of choices are clearly immoral, such as choosing to fumigate innocent children. These choices ought not to be exercised and they are certainly not rights.
One way we know these immoral choices ought not to be exercised is the fact we have moral responsibilities that outweigh any imagined right to make those choices. In fact, it is obvious that parental responsibilities to their children are so strong that it cannot be considered rational to speak of a parent's right to kill their child.
The right to make that choice does not exist.
Consider a single man who is legitimately unemployed and struggling financially. He is in a relationship with a woman and he is clear with her that he does not want to have children with her due to his financial circumstances and the fact he doesn't feel ready to be responsible for a child. Even though he and his partner take all reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy, she gets pregnant.
If his partner acts in accordance with her responsibilities to their child, he remains legally and morally responsible to support his partner and their child. He is responsible even though it means he will be forced to find a job, change his lifestyle and possibly sacrifice his career ambitions for a while.
He certainly does not have the right to kill his child before or after she is born simply because she would be a financial burden or she would be inconvenient.
So, the abortion issue isn't about rights or choices; it is about the responsibilities we all know parents have to protect their children from harm.
If we are travelling in the wrong direction, the only progressive course of action is to turn around and travel in the other direction.