By Tom Quiner
Intractable issues clash on a daily basis in this blog.
For example …
Should marriage be based on children or feelings?
One side says put the kids first. The other side says, no, put passion first.
Should the politics of global warming be based on science or faith?
One side says science, the other claims it as an article of faith, even in the face of dissenting science.
Should our rights be based on the Constitution or the political party in power?
One side says the Constitution. The other side says not really, since the Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to lavish and whimsical revision whenever they get their hands on it.
And then there is human abortion.
One side is against free choice on the issue. The other side is virulently pro choice.
Quiner’s Diner proudly joins the virulent.
How could any rational person NOT be pro choice? Seriously?
Here’s what it boils down to: every choice has an object.
Will I order a cheeseburger or a chef salad?
Will I attend Harvard or Yale?
Will I vote for Obama or Romney?
With human abortion, the only question is: who gets to make the choice?
The mother is biased. She may be experiencing pressure which skews her decision.
The father is biased. He may be applying pressure which skews his decision.
The doctor is biased. She is going to make money if the human abortion takes place.
There is only one person in a position to make the objective choice, and that is the person whose life is on the line. Since the arc of the life of the person in the womb has not reached the age of discernment, the logical pro choice position is to defer the choice until the person in the womb reaches twenty-one years of age.
Quiner’s Diner is proudly pro free choice.