Pro-life viewpoint marginalizes women

In response to Lukas Drapal’s letter today (Oct. 19), “Not all choices are good,” we would agree, since it is obvious, but the idea that complex dilemmas can only be addressed by his religion’s ancient edicts, supposedly derived from “natural law” or “intuition,” is just another attempt to place his imagined “divine law” above all else. Just another “angels on the head of a pin” discussion to bolster an ultimately spurious argument. It is not the “right” of a woman to control her own body, as he puts it, it is the right, period, of a woman to control her own body.

Misunderstandings? No. It’s clear that “pro-life” Christians want to be seen as the heroes of the piece, saviours of the low-hanging fruit that is the fetus. But when Mr. Drapal says, “Those who exercise their rational faculty should use their freedom to protect those whose rational faculty is still developing, and who have no voice,” it is confusing. Is he still talking about the fetus or is he now referring to the equally incompetent woman in whose uterus it is lodged? The complete, breathtaking marginalization of that woman herself is what is truly shocking here.

“Radical autonomy?” Yes, we have that now in our evolved society, within the rule of law, to the extent that people can refuse potentially life-saving treatment if they wish as well as end their own lives with dignity. They can also choose to not have an abortion. This is the point when we are discussing choice. The “pro-life” agitators want to impose their views on others. The “prochoice” people do not.

All of the grand, sweeping concepts hauled out here by Mr. Drapal are just “inside baseball” as far as many truly rational people are concerned, people who have the courage to live their lives free of any and all religions, as mortal creatures within nature alone. Which is in fact where we all live.

Patricia and Tony Pargeter

Lethbridge