Jim Drummond’s July 10 letter to the editor (‘Abortion in a democracy’) was discouraging.
Drummond states that in a democracy, the majority decides the well being of society. While this is true as far as it goes, it makes the mistake of equating popular opinion with what is actually right or wrong. Sometimes the majority gets it wrong.
Drummond implies that society condemns murder, rape, etc. just because the majority agrees. What would happen if the majority agreed that rape was wonderful? Would rape suddenly become morally acceptable? No. Majority rule is not the ultimate standard by which we determine right from wrong. This confuses subjective truth (majority’s agreed favourite ice-cream flavour) with objective truth (what is morally obligatory for everyone).
Addressing abortion, Drummond claims it’s a private affair and no business of society. The pro-life view sees the unborn as an innocent and valuable human being. If this is truly the case, then protecting the unborn’s human rights is the very duty of society. Is the unborn someone like you and me, or something we can discard flippantly like unwanted junk mail? If it is human, then outside of medical emergencies, no justification for abortion is adequate.
Drummond claims those with religious objections to abortion should be allowed to hold their views but not force them on others. This view is conveniently one-sided. He applauds Justin Trudeau, who says MPs should not use their positions to prevent abortions. But MPs should use their positions to support them?
Either way, democracy will “force” someone’s view through law; there is no neutrality here. It seems Trudeau and Drummond want to be able to force their views on society, represented through government, and extinguish any discussion of reform. Sound like democracy to you?