Merit to all sides of debate subject

Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Editor: While I appreciate the calm disposition of Colleen Peric in her reply to my letter, I find it rather disingenuous of her to omit the other half of the quote she seemed convinced was proof of her opinion being fact. I don’t know what’s worse, the limbo-state of the issue itself, or the constant politicization of both women’s rights, and those of the unborn. When the quote is made whole, it is clear that there is merit to both sides of the subject.

“In the 1988 Morgentaler case, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled the existing abortion provisions of s. 251 of the Criminal Code (now s. 287) to be of no force or effect because they restricted a pregnant woman’s right to security of her person more than was required to meet the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the unborn.” - Gerard Mitchell.

People shouldn’t feel compelled to cherry-pick quotes in hopes to “win” a debate. On that basis, I suppose I could cut any number of quotes in half to serve as talking points for any debate that I cannot back up with facts, but then, I am not a federal Conservative cabinet minister.

Bobby MacLean,

Charlottetown

Organizations: Morgentaler, Supreme Court

Geographic location: Charlottetown

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page