I guess I must start by describing myself as part of that religious right this article so much insisting on highlighting. That means that I am in the group of believers as opposed to unbelievers. The use of the religious connotation is designed to imply something that is related to what people think about religion, like implying that most of the people is not religious and therefore the ones that are actually pro-life as opposed to the ones that are against-life, sorry, pro-choice to kill a human being because, just because; are all religious.
The truth however, is that everyone believes in something and even the most atheists do keep a focus in their own god(s) that of course, start on themselves. But the issue here is about the debate that supposedly the Toronto Star, wants, but already wants to place the other side as religious. Hence, even if about life or human dignity, no society of good standards should find necessary to 'debate' about, the Toronto Star wants to dismiss life as something of lesser importance, something that is only relevant for statistics, or for selling papers (?), and wants a debate. How about just establishing for once and for all that a human being is alive from conception to natural death? Therefore a human being possesses dignity, individuality and identity since that miraculous moment, when out of the union of one man and one woman, became a love deserving human person.
Comments