Saturday, November 15, 2014

Citing the Law is No Argument


This afternoon a young man came to the door, canvassing for Megan Leslie, the NDP member of Parliament here in Halifax. 

I told him immediately that I could not support the New Democratic Party because they are pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage, neither position I support. He asked if I would reveal which party I did support. And I told him that my husband and I often have to destroy our ballot because there is no one for whom we can vote.

He then said "well, I guess you don't want one of these cards?"  and I said no. As he turned to leave, his last words were "well, the Supreme Court has decided that these are so." I didn't have a chance to reply as he left quickly.  I wished he had stayed for a moment longer, or perhaps more, because what I wanted to say was that the law is no defense of a moral position.

There have been many cases of bad laws throughout history. One has only to recall the life of William Wilberforce who spent his entire adult life, from his early twenties until the day he died, working to overturn the slave trade in England. And he finally succeeded, a lifetime battle of some 40-50 years.

So many people have no idea of history. They do not know that the slave trade was legal, that slaves were not considered "persons" under the law, that women were not considered "persons" either. And now the unborn are not considered "persons". Is it not possible that there will come a day when we also look at that law and say that it is a bad law?

I have heard this defense of abortion many times. While on the vigil of 40 Days for Life, many people who passed by would say that abortion was legal and that we should just get over it. But there is no evidence that what man passes as law is also moral. In fact, the evidence shows that the opposite has been the case in a number of important issues. 

Saying that the decision of nine judges in one country is the reason why something is therefore right is ridiculous. Why do those nine people have the right to determine what is moral for the rest of the population?  And in the case of abortion in Canada, those nine judges did not say that abortion was the legal right of women, but they removed the barriers to abortion granting women access to abortion throughout their entire pregnancy. Those judges also turned the issue back to Parliament and said that the House of Commons had the duty to impose some restrictions on abortion, something that they never did.

So much ignorance surrounds this subject. And so many people simply don't want to hear anything that isn't the mainstream opinion. I hope this young man thinks more seriously about this issue and does some searching on his own. It is truly frightening that our future is in the hands of people like him, who have swallowed the party line on this issue and many others.






No comments: