Phoenix Republic
April 10, 1976
I continue to read letters which seem to indicate a kind of Sesame Street logic and argumentation. One example of this disjointed reasoning is found in the abortionists’ plea for the “right to choose” abortion. Indeed, the “right to choose” is put forth as a moral position in itself!
It must be pointed out to clarify the debate that the phrase “right to choose” is only a clever campaign slogan and not a moral stance. The phrase has absolutely no moral or ethical content whatsoever. The corresponding moral slogan to “right to life” is no “right to choose” but “right to death.”
No one can rationally argue that one doesn’t have the “right (i.e. free will) to choose.” We all have the “right to choose” between various options, some ethical and some unethical. The question is: Do we have the “right to choose” unethical options with impunity? Society’s continually answered, “No” (i.e., safe driving legislation, civil rights legislation, protection of life and, property legislation, etc.).
It only confuses the issues to keep harping on one’s “right to choose” any given option. The debate must be waged on the question of the ethical and moral position of choosing one option against another.
Specifically, is it ethically and morally defensible (legality aside) to choose abortion without punishment from society? It is at this point where the “right to life” position has argued “no” and thereby taken the logical high ground. The “right to choose”, position has not argued the morality of the “right to death” only the option of “right to death.”
Let the debate continue in these pages between the “pro-death” abortionists and the “pro-life” non-abortionists. But let the debate be on the moral and ethical grounds of abortion and not on the vacuous ground of whether one has the “right to choose.
Filed under: Uncategorized, abortion, Arizona pro-life
Case in Point 