‘Pro-choice’ equals ‘me first’

THE EDITOR, Sir:

IF WE are going to be honest, pro-choice is just a less aggressive way of saying, I’m anti-red light, but if it presents no inconvenience to me in my travel, I also have the choice to obey it.

To access any convenience of having an abortion requires that the developing life is seen as subservient to the mother’s. It needs no comparative valuation of the mother’s vs the unborn. So if the mother decides to carry a pregnancy to term, but midway realises it’s going to restrict her freedom to do other important things, abortion is justified because a developing embryo has no independence or objective value in itself.

If a pregnant woman decides to carry a rape pregnancy to term and celebrates it because it’s her only child, quite likely it will be celebrated by her friends too if she has no issues with it.

This is so much a case of blatant unfairness that hardly separates a growing embryo from a bad tooth that must be extracted. Yet, doctors will encourage a pregnant woman to eat well and avoid alcohol, smoking and things inimical to her health, for she is not just caring for herself now but another life which is on the way.

So the value of a pregnancy has nothing to do with any individual existence it is claiming to have, but hinges solely on our own turn of minds, our joys or disappointments.

It is a very sad state of affairs when we can allow LIFE – pure, unvarnished and authentic – to be adjudicated by our gaping needs and self-interest.

Considering Jesus’ advice could be the most satisfying answer in the long run – “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving” (Acts 20:35). Maybe, for a change, claiming our own freedom and advantages over an ‘awkward growth’ may be less satisfying than giving life to that soul.