All entries for March 2006
March 01, 2006
Where do I start? Yep that heading should suffice.
I think it (and maybe last term's referendum decision) is down to a basic misunderstanding of what exactly 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are.
'Pro-choice' is NOT about silencing the people among us who think abortion is wrong. It is about giving the woman the CHOICE to make her own mind up - the key word here is choice. Each option is viewed with no bias and will be presented neutrally. Women will in no way be pushed in either direction, they will be given guidance on BOTH.
Compare this if you will to 'pro-life', in this ideology abortion is inherantly 'wrong' and should NOT be up to the woman.
Now make your choice. Should the union be 'neutral' and have no view as to which is of these ideologies are better? Or should it take a stance?
I think overwhelmingly it should take a stance and that stance is clearly 'pro-choice'. It is not about restriciting people's free speech (a ridiculous argument to appeal to on this issue) it is simply about setting in stone the belief held by the majority of the student body – that women should have the right to choose and not be forced to keep a baby.
I'm willing to bet that if another vote was taken and the labels 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' dropped and in their place the actual facts presented – it would come out that the union should uphold the right of women to make individual decisions. (ie 'pro-choice').
Edit: As I have said in the comments of the above blogs, I dont believe this motion is intended to bring it through the backdoor as it were, but simply show via contradiction why we can't keep the union with a 'no stance' outlook.