degrees of rights

There’s no denying that a woman has rights, but since when did we grant a right-to-choose over a right-to-life?

With the recent Supreme Court appointments of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, it looks like the right-to-life of an unborn child will trump the right-to-convenience of a mother and be protected at the federal level, and rightly so.

We can only hope as a nation that the genocide that 1973’s Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision sanctioned will be undermined.

Yes, a woman has rights. And a woman’s rights are important. No one is denying that. But amidst all the clamor and arguments surrounding the national abortion debate, rarely do you hear about the unborn child’s right-to-life trumping a mother’s right-to-convenience. The issue isn’t whether a woman has a right to choose; the issue is whose rights trump another.

Life always trumps convenience and preference. Abortion-on-demand has to go. We have no authority to protest against the war in Iraq taking innocent lives when we turn a blind eye to the mass genocide happening in our country. Over 43 million abortions have occurred since the practice was legalized.

If we don’t speak out against abortion, we have, in effect, just as much moral responsibility as those in Nazi Germany who refused to speak out against Hitler. Are we willing to bear 43 more million Americans’ blood on our hands?

Christen Patterson
April 11, 2006