Pro-life and pro-choice
Regarding the Guardian editorial on May 29 — ‘Mixed Message’ — I fully support the views expressed in the following days of Eric McCarthy, Marion E. MacCallum, Philip Allen, and Julia Donahoe MacDougald.
I am surprised at such an extremely negative taken by the Guardian against Robert Mitchell. He is pro-choice. It means, I believe, that he will support a woman’s decision to deal with her body the way she likes. An unborn child is a separate body growing in a woman’s body. It is not her body. Support for pro-choice is not the denial of an unborn child’s right to live. By being a Liberal interim leader and legislator, it is not a must that he positively supports abortion and euthanasia. As a member of the Liberal party, he may go with the legislative position of his party. That may not be, and need not be, an article of his faith and personal stand.
I appreciate and admire Mr. Mitchell for his bold stand along with the pro-life group, and for not conceding to any wrong doing.
I believe that many Liberal and other party lawmakers in the country are pro-life. Unfortunately, most of them do not have the guts to express it because of the fear of the one-sided and powerful media onslaught and their party leader’s positions.
Coming to the pro-choice and pro-life debate, every sensible human person knows that the pro-life group is advocating for the right to life of a human being, a human child, a human person, which begins at the very moment of conception. Pro-choice means terminating the life of an unborn child. I believe it is not a constitutional right, not a Charter right, not a fundamental right — it is a legal right imparted by the lawmakers and by the judiciary. The right to life of a human child is a fundamental right, which these bodies and the pro-choice group deny with the help of legislation and judicial ruling. Pro-life people take a definite stand to defend the right of an unborn person to live. This right is much superior to pro-choice right, which is onesided, cruel and unethical.
When women claim that aborting, which is dismembering and killing of a human being, is their right and their freedom, the questions involved are — what about the right of the child to live? Also, it involves the question of the right of the man involved in the generation of that child. Does he have no right on his child that is being killed? It must have been a conscious or unconscious decision and action of the man and woman, or boy and girl, together that resulted in the pregnancy. Are they not equal partners of the life of the unborn child? How can it be the right of the woman alone?
Ours is a country which invites, encourages, and solicits immigration because we need people to populate it and have a workforce. By resorting to abortion, are we not positively blocking the growth of the essentially needed population for our very survival? Think about those aborted children through the past decades; if they were allowed to be born we would not have the need for such hunting for a work force.
What we need is to rebuild our education system to teach our children before they reach reproductive age the process of human generative biology, physiology and psychology. They must be taught to prepare themselves for the processes, about the pleasures, perils and consequences involved, which include the generation of a human being, its nurturing and giving birth to it, its physical and psychological health and well-being.
These youngsters should also know all, and the different processes involved, in terminating a pregnancy, its physical, psychological and moral implications and consequences.
I believe the pro-life people are trying to be involved in this process, which is a very positive endeavour necessary for the very survival of humanity.