Letter of the Day | Law must protect most vulnerable: the foetus
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I read Kimon Blackwood’s letter titled ‘The right to choose a basic human right’ (The Gleaner, August 8, 2019) in earnest, searching for the ever-elusive logic of the pro-abortion argument.
The obvious and persistent contradictions continue to boggle the mind. Blackwood, pitting the intrauterine child against his/her mother, hopefully unknowingly conveys some dangerous ideas. She insinuates, for example, that one’s self-determination/choice is more important than another’s life. This is illogical, of course, because the one whose life is taken can no longer choose or determine himself to be anything by virtue of the fact that someone had his brains sucked out.
Who knew ‘self’-determination could have such a diabolical impact on another human being? Such is secularism: desire without limits bringing death, with the law as its vector.
The Western world, the laws we have enjoyed for decades, and our understanding of human rights were built on biblical determinations of right and wrong, and the fact of Imago Dei (the image of God). The Bible outlines right and wrong and describes the just reward for each. The law states what is illegal and worthy of consequence. You may choose to break the law at any point and pay the price for doing so. Since spiritual consequences are set in stone, the question here is: Should killing an innocent child have legal consequences?
No one can reasonably claim that religious or secular ideas are superior by virtue of existing. Rather, each idea must be thoroughly assessed with respect to what is best for society. A good litmus test of an idea is its impact on the weakest and most defenceless among us. Killing them is clearly a failure and should attract consequences more serious than stealing from or abusing them.
The State and every individual should be concerned about any law that can normalise killing our children.
President, Love March