Editor: The catchphrase âa womanâs right to chooseâ has a whole universe of possible endings. So how can anyone âjudge, prime minister, politician, university professor, Guardian editor, or ordinary citizen like myself â determine whether to support or oppose her choice?
Itâs 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 neighborâs house? We shouldnât have to fill in the blanks.
In the current Canadian context itâs most likely all about a womanâs right to choose to have her unborn baby killed. So why donât we speak plainly and say it like it is.
It seems clear that when Justin Trudeau says all federal Liberals must support âa womanâs right to choose,â he actually means everyone in his party is expected to support a womanâs right to kill her unborn child if she chooses. So why doesnât he come right out and say so.
Politicians who say âI am pro-life but I will vote for a womanâs right to choose,â are not talking about shoes or coffee. Theyâre saying, âI support life in all circumstances from conception to natural death, but Iâm prepared to vote to let women kill their unborn children if they choose to.â Those mutually exclusive positions suggest some disorientation. Temporary, one hopes.
Many Islanders believe itâs wrong to deliberately kill any helpless human, no matter what age â 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 âA womanâs right to chooseâ be completed every time it is used. Then we would all know exactly what weâre talking about.