A LETTER WRITER recently asserted that “in order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off
a developing brain and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs”.
Yes, these events should be considered lawful acts when:
• someone’s wife, sister or mother is impregnated by a rapist.
• a prognosis determines the life of the mother or child is at risk.
In order to help the writer better understand pro-choice, the following should be considered:
• Doctors, and not legislators, should determine if abortions are necessary, just as doctors, and not legislators, determine who need blood transfusions and kidney transplants.
• Laws against abortions do not stop abortions. Laws only make abortions less safe with approximately 78 000 women worldwide dying each year.
• Pro-choice as a concept alone is a morale booster and huge empowerment tool for women.
• If a law would never apply to a man, it is neither justifiable nor gender-equitable for a man to institute that law.
• As it currently stands across the globe, anti-abortion legislation is passed by majority men. Should this type of legislation not be within the sole purview of women?
• Victims of rape and incest should not be forced by law to finalise a pregnancy.
• Anti-abortion laws have the potential to create another level of poverty, with statistics showing that the poorest one billion people on planet Earth are females.
It is my hope that the light from my candle has shed some light on Charles Knighton’s pathway.
– MICHAEL RAY