Opinion

A clash of rights

pregnancy-black-2

Common sense. It’s what tells you not to chew that wad of gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. It’s what makes you aware that things like stealing from the poor and murder are wrong. It’s what makes everyone know the Broncos are way cooler than the Steelers. Just kidding… but seriously.

We believe many of life’s most difficult questions could be simplified with a healthy dose of common sense. Unfortunately, modern American culture seems to prefer catchy slogans and empty eloquence. The abortion dilemma is a great example of this, and that’s what we are here to talk about.

The abortion dilemma is, at its core, a simple clash of human rights. The “right to choose” is basically a woman’s right to decide if and/or when to have children. Obviously, every woman should be free to have children whenever is convenient for her, or not at all. The right to choose is therefore valid, at least in a way.

The “right to life” is, well, self-explanatory. It is every human being’s right to go on living. It is the right to not be killed for the sake of someone else’s convenience. The problem arises when these two rights clash. Thus, the basic question is:

“When an unborn child’s right to life clashes with her mother’s right to choose, which right should overrule the other?”

Whenever two rights clash, the winner must be the right which is more fundamental, more vital to universal human ethics.  Regardless of religion, code of ethics, or political persuasion, every free-thinking woman and man should know that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a universal right to life, all other human rights exist only for those fortunate enough to be allowed to live. The right to choose is indeed legitimate! But in many ways it is a right to convenience, and therefore one human’s right to choose must be overruled by another human’s right to life. There is simply no logical way around that; it’s common sense.

READ NEXT
Comments4
To Top