To the editor
With the editorial on “A Woman’s Right to Life”, (May 23, 2019) the Spotlight is virtually guaranteed to be on the proposed government list of “State Approved Media Outlets For Purposes of Getting Public Money” (CBC Canada) and also qualify for the financial subsidies required to survive. It’s the only way the progressive mainstream media has any future.
Thanks to the internet however, our Spotlight publisher’s editorial on the issue of abortion is now only one voice among many. And these voices aren’t just “domestic terrorists stuffed in a Volkswagen van hoping to slip through customs”. Last year over 10,000 people attended the pro-life rally in Ottawa. These are voices of women and men who share a different view. Canadian women and men. Name calling pro-life people “domestic terrorists” divides and polarizes, shuts down public discussion and is a poor example of diversity and inclusivity.
Related: EDITORIAL: A woman’s right to life
It is difficult to discuss moral questions on a public platform because the questions are in the end, quite personal. Every decision we make has a moral dimension to it and we live with the consequences. If anything, an open minded public discussion on this subject could have the benefit of giving us a few more tools to make good decisions.
The title of the editorial is disingenuous because it cleverly masks the (beating) heart of the matter, that the life inside the mother, from the moment of conception is, well, human too. There is no such thing as unfettered freedom. There are always limits. Pro-life and pro-choice people just draw that line differently. This is to be expected and respected in a pluralist society.
It is something of a mystery, but the more we take responsibility for our actions, the more burdens we willingly carry, the more we tie ourselves down with duties and obligations, the happier we are. That’s what leads to living a meaningful life. Focusing on rights won’t do that for you.
This recent spate of pro-life activism in the US doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Recently, a black Democrat state legislator was quoted as saying “Kill them now or kill them later”. That level of honesty isn’t usual for the pro-choice activists. 60% of abortions in Alabama are within the black community. New York now allows for abortion to take place right up to birth and removes protections for babies who accidentally survive abortions. The law also prevents pregnant women whose babies are killed as a result of a physical attack from getting justice because the unborn child is now officially no longer a person.
This has gone way beyond what Hillary Clinton once said about abortions being safe, legal and rare. Alabama is push back against New York. Those voters have a right to their views and a right to act on those views just like New York voters do.
So, before our newspaper publisher waxes too expansive and philosophical in her musings I would urge her to take a critical look at the ideology that has shaped her. Her sky may be falling, but that’s only because she sees the world through the narrow ideological lens of “power and oppression”. Not everything can be explained through those lens and not everyone shares that lens. There are other comprehensive and coherent world views equally legitimate as hers and those views should be treated with respect, not disdain.
Mutually respectful and meaningful conversations on this subject are happening. For a marvellous example of it, watch our own eminent Canadian public intellectual Dr. Jordan Peterson address it on his YouTubeVideo, “Abortion is clearly wrong, but it’s not that simple”. The issue is nested inside larger questions that deserve open public discussion, not name calling.
Jerome Tjerkstra