|
|
On the other side of the coin, the pro-life
contingent argue she should have made that decision before she had unprotected
sex, and now she does not have the right to end the life of the infant
within her womb, just as a new mother does not have the right to drown
her persistently distressing child in a bathtub to rid herself of the
stresses associated with motherhood. Pro-life or pro-choice? Like a game
of tag, the two sides taunt one another with rebuttals of the other side’s
responses, only to have their own response refuted.
Well, I’m sick and tired of it. After four years at UBC, I’m
tired of seeing abortion being equated to the Holocaust. I’m tired
of seeing stomach-turning graphic images of discarded fetuses. I’m
tired of being pestered by the protesters who try to stop me and remind
me that it should be the woman’s choice. I’m tired of it.
When will they realize that they are not that dissimilar? Pro-life?
Pro-choice?
The fact of the matter is that both sides are BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice.
Some of you may have heard this argument from others already, but just
amuse me as I think out loud (or in this case, type out loud). The “pro-life”
people argue that abortion is bad. Life is precious and we don’t
have the right to end a life just because it may be inconvenient. But,
at the same time, inherent in that argument is the fact that they are
also pro-choice. They believe that the unborn child has a right to make
his/her own choices in life, and in order to be able to make choices,
he/she must first be born and live.
The “pro-choice” people argue that the woman has a choice.
She does not have to let one drunken one-night stand (or whatever the
circumstances happen to be) dictate how she leads the rest of her life.
Bringing a child into this world and raising him/her to maturity take
a major commitment and investment on the part of the mother (and the
father as well; at least that’s how it should be), and can choose
not to head down that path at this point or ever, for that matter. At
the same time, in this sense, they are also pro-life in that the woman
has the choice as to how she will lead her life. Her life could be ‘ruined,’
as it were, with raising a child. She may need to drop out of school,
for example, in order to raise the child, in which case perhaps, neither
mom nor child has a particularly good shot at a good life. Granted there
are successful single mothers out there, it is still clearly possible
that the former rather than the latter will occur.
So, where do I stand in all of this? Call me Switzerland, but laissez-faire.
Just let them be. I am not particularly averse to either view, but I
am pro-choice in that I think each person has their own choices to make.
If you, in your heart of hearts, think that abortion is morally wrong
and should not be done, good for you. Don’t do it. Have the child
and raise him/her to the best of your ability, or even put the infant
up for adoption if you want. If you, in your heart of hearts, think
that it is in the best interest of both mother and child alike that
this baby not be born, then go talk to your doctor about the possibility
of abortion. Talk about the associated risks and long-term effects,
and if you still think it’s the right thing to do, go ahead and
do it.
Pro-life? Pro-choice? You decide.
|