Letters to the Editor Re: A case against abortion

The Cord’s opinion column sparked controversy last week, here is the response

Re: A case against abortion

I’ll do my best to ignore the social issue for now and focus on an area of study I rather enjoy, enough to go to university for it: biology. The argument that first caught my attention was that because it lives inside of us and has DNA, it must be considered a life. Ignoring the fact that human DNA isn’t as unique as we claim (only about 0.1 to 0.4% of human DNA differs from that of another), then, by Mr. Gibara’s claim, a tumour must also be considered a life and should not be removed from within the body, leaving the festering cancer to grow.

The next argument, quality of life, was somewhat addressed. Today, there are genetic screenings that a mother undergoes to determine the health of her baby and to test for any defects or disorders. As such, it can be determined whether or not a child would be born on death’s door, existing for a few brief months or years in pain, or needing constant care and requiring attention and potentially costing too much for a family to afford.

Every situation is different and, in this democracy, we should not ignore the few because they’re so few. They should not be looked down upon because of their situation. They are not monsters that killed an innocent life, but women who made a decision with a body that is entirely their own.

It is not sexist for a woman to say a man has no authority when it comes to her body, nor is it sexist for a man to say a woman has no authority in his. If there is a healthy, stable relationship in which a baby is conceived, then a discussion pertaining to the child would be undertaken, but the final decision is ultimately the woman’s.

Pro-choice merely means that women have a choice in their life and their body and one mistake or horrific event does not define them.
–Jill Nichols

Re: A case against abortion

While I agree with the fact that no voice should be silenced, expressing that the “right thing to do” is to end the ability for a woman to receive an abortion is a misinformed opinion.

You state that in “most-cases, women don’t just suddenly become pregnant,” but actually, they do. Have you ever experienced a rape where you have been impregnated? Have you experienced being in a loving relationship where you are surprised to find out that the contraceptives you use have failed you? Have you ever been to an abortion clinic only to realize that most of these cases are not young slutty girls who have no regard to safe sex, but in fact mothers, grandmothers, sisters and daughters. These are women who, because of the inability of others to accept that terminating a pregnancy is okay, do not speak of what they went through.

By saying that the right thing to do is to end the ability to provide abortions that need it, you too are going against your own statement of no voice being silenced.
–Stephanie Roy

Re: A case against abortion

As a member of the student body, myself and many others in the Centre for Women and Trans People and Rainbow Centers take issue with “A case against abortion,” by Spencer Gibara. The article is problematic because the view presented is not so much pro-life as it is anti-choice.
His “arguments” are filled with faulty logic and baseless claims, with more then a passing dismissal of body sovereignty. The “poor people” argument itself is a glaring ad absurdum fallacy, making the pro-choice movement seem unreasonable by constructing an argument that no one ever made. As he holds a different point of view, he should not be commenting on the “disingenuous” intentions behind our arguments.
His ‘sexism’ remark is absolutely true; my opinion is that people without uteruses should not be in the position of making comments or laws regarding them. In the same way that if there were a prostate debate, I would be more than happy to stay out of it. I do not have one, thus I am not in the position to dictate terms of use to them.

He is right when he says that there is not a law regarding abortion in Canada; there is no law formally limiting or controlling access to wabortion. This does not make them illegal as he implies, it makes it just not lawfully controlled, as for something to be illegal there must be a law restriction.

I understand that this is an opinion piece, but the arguments are questionable, his motives are dubious and his data is made up to support his point of view. He has in the recent past made some sexist and problematic public comments. He is also a member of the Board of Directors at the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union, giving him a measure of authority that I find troubling as it brings into question the board’s point of view on the topic.
–Rebekah Adams

    Leave a Reply