Finish expression on right to choose

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

Send this article to a friend.

Editor:  The catchphrase “a woman’s right to choose” has a whole universe of possible endings. So how can anyone —judge, prime minister, politician, university professor, Guardian editor, or ordinary citizen like myself — determine whether to support or oppose her choice?  

It’s important to know what she is choosing. Tims? Starbucks? Running shoes or heels? To become a vegan? To hold up a bank? To cheat on her taxes or her husband? To set fire to her annoying neighbor’s house? We shouldn’t have to fill in the blanks.  

In the current Canadian context it’s most likely all about a woman’s right to choose to have her unborn baby killed. So why don’t we speak plainly and say it like it is.  

It seems clear that when Justin Trudeau says all federal Liberals must support “a woman’s right to choose,” he actually means everyone in his party is expected to support a woman’s right to kill her unborn child if she chooses. So why doesn’t he come right out and say so.

Politicians who say “I am pro-life but I will vote for a woman’s right to choose,” are not talking about shoes or coffee. They’re saying, “I support life in all circumstances from conception to natural death, but I’m prepared to vote to let women kill their unborn children if they choose to.” Those mutually exclusive positions suggest some disorientation. Temporary, one hopes.

Many Islanders believe it’s wrong to deliberately kill any helpless human, no matter what age — or to support such an action in any way, including silence. They hardly deserve the recent mockery in The Guardian.   

It would be more helpful if the paper would insist that the expression “A woman’s right to choose” be completed every time it is used. Then we would all know exactly what we’re talking about.   

Doreen Beagan,


Organizations: Starbucks

Geographic location: Charlottetown

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page