Donna’s Letter to Canada’s (Would-Be) Leaders

(Subtitle: Why Pro-Choice and Pro-Life makes a matching set)

Dear {candidate’s name}:

My name is Donna Harris and I am Pro-Choice. I am also Pro-Life. These two statements are not inconsistent.

A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. She can choose to engage in sexual intercourse with the full knowledge that a possible outcome of that choice is becoming pregnant when she does so. She can choose to abstain from sexual intercourse with the full knowledge that she will not become pregnant when she does so. She can choose to make use of contraceptive measures to lessen the likelihood that she become pregnant when participating in sexual intercourse with the full knowledge that it is still possible for her to become pregnant when she does so. She has a right to choose what she eats, what she drinks, who she spends time with, where she lives, and any other number of things. These are choices available to her and they are hers to make. I may or may not agree with all of her choices, nor she with mine, but she is free to make them.

But, if that same woman decides that she cannot tolerate her neighbours for some reason, she will also choose what to do about that situation. She can choose to try to work out some arrangement with her neighbours in an effort to improve their relationship, or at least make living nearby more tolerable. She can choose to move to another location, another city even, so she doesn’t have to be anywhere near them. She can even choose to knock them off, ending their lives and also the inconvenience of having them as neighbours. The latter is a choice that she is free to make — but it is neither moral nor socially acceptable. Why? Because it is murder, ending the life of other human beings. It is a blatant violation of human rights. While it would be her choice to do so, the woman has no right to kill her neighbours. And if she did so, she would be tried under the fullest extent of the law and face the consequences of making such a horrific choice.

We, as a society, make abortion a legal option for a woman to choose. But by doing so we have told her that she has the right to choose to end a human life. This same woman does not have the right to end the life of her neighbours — nor should she have. She, like any human being, has the right to choose — as long as her choices do not violate the human rights of another human being. We should not be giving her this option, nor should we be telling her erroneously that she is right to have this option. In addition, we should not be employing medical professionals to provide this option.

I understand that there seems to be some confusion as to when human life begins. But this is something which is made far more complex than it needs to be. The fact is that at SOME point human life DOES begin. Everybody has to agree to that. If we, as a society, are in any way uncertain of when this happens then we simply have no moral right to guess. It isn’t something we can afford to be wrong about. Neither do we have any right to say “this is the point at which life begins to count” or “this is when life starts to matter”. It is a violation of human rights to abort a pregnancy. When an abortion is conducted, the rights of an unborn — yet alive — person are given no regard whatsoever and, to make this more deplorable, an unborn person has no voice of their own to use in self-defence.

Some people will say that abortion is no longer an issue and bears no relevance to political campaigns or day-to-day business of the government. But when our society readily accepts the message that some human rights matter and others do not we have a serious problem. What does it say of our nation — which supposedly prides itself on being a safe, peaceful, fair, and just society — when we cling so tightly to this duality under the guise of making a “choice”?

If we live in a free country, where human rights are upheld and human life is honoured, being Pro-Choice will also mean that one is Pro-Life. In a free society, an individual’s choices in all arenas would always ensure that life is preserved and respected. There would be no conflict between these two.

But because we live in a country that considers abortion to be a moral and legal medical procedure — when in truth it cannot possibly be moral and should not be legal — we do not live in a free country at all.

I want a Canada that is a free country. A nation that other nations will look to as a true example for human rights, clearly demonstrating how human life is precious and to be treated with the utmost respect. I want leaders who respect all human life. Only then can I know that the government’s activities and decisions rest upon a foundation that places the lives of all residents as highest priority. This is a foundation worth having in our country.

With respect,
Donna Harris.


Some food for thought:

With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there’s one individual who’s not being considered at all. That’s the one who is being aborted. And I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.

— Ronald Reagan