Monday, January 23, 2006

More on "A woman's right to choose"

As I have made clear in the past, I'm not pleased with the phrase "A woman's right to choose". It's called abortion. Today I overheard some young adults talking about how the Conservatives want it to be illegal for women to vote. That's how they understood "A woman's right to choose". I'll admit these people were not the brightest lights I've ever met, but there are a lot of dim lights out there. That's one more reason that I hate the phrase "A woman's right to choose".

I'm also unhappy that the phrase is accepted so readily. If a pro-lifer called it "murdering an unborn child", he/she would be label as an extremist in a heartbeat. Yet, "A woman's right to choose" is just as extreme. Calling it "abortion" is the middle ground. In the same light, I don't like how it's becoming acceptable to say that somebody is pro-choice or anti-choice. Think of how extreme it would be if pro-choicers were called "anti-life". The middle ground here is pro-life/pro-choice. But it seems that more and more, anyone who doesn't fully agree with the social-left is an extremist. If I'm in favour of any sort of restriction on abortion at all, I'm an extremist. In fact, those who believe there should be no restrictions are the extremists (and also those who believe that there should be no abortions whatsoever). The middle view is that there should be some limits placed on abortion. The most obvious one is a time limit (before the end of the first or second trimester for example).

Most would agree that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape or a chance of the mother dying from complications. But I'm not big on irresponsible teens getting abortions so that they won't get in trouble from their parents or getting an abortion because the mother will be unable to care for the child. In the words of Jack Layton "There is a third choice": adoption. However, this kind of thing would likely be difficult to legislate and even more difficult to enforce.

If there were any restrictions ever legislated, it should be a time limit on abortions. That's a balanced approach that should be acceptable for most people who hold a moderate view on the subject.

1 comment:

dthuss said...

And, I believe, the Supreme Court has never said that time limits would be against the Charter. However, Martin has never read that document (the Charter) or any court decisions. He just flails his hands in the air and hopes that someone will believe him.

In the words of Jack Layton, "Come on people, lend me your votes and we can ensure that Canada will continue to 'keep it real.'"