Letter to National Review of Medicine: We are not 'anti-choice'

January 18, 2008

Mr. Sam Solomon
Associate Editor
National Review of Medicine

Re: "MD conscientious objectors' rights safeguarded," January 15, 2008

Dear Mr. Solomon,

Thank you for your coverage of conscientious objection in the National Review of Medicine. For the most part I thought it was quite fair.

I appreciate your using the term "pro-life" to generally describe those who oppose abortion. However, I was disturbed by your use of the label "anti-choice" to describe our organization.

You may not be aware of this, but "anti-choice" is a derogatory label often used by abortion advocates to describe those of us who hold an alternate viewpoint to their own. It is insulting and demeaning to us, and please let me explain why.

Everyone in a free and democratic society believes that the concept of choice is a good thing. Prefixing the word with "anti" and attaching that label to a group of people is meant to discredit and marginalize those people by making it sound like they are against a good thing. But we who are pro-life are not against choice. We are against something else which we believe, for numerous reasons, is not a good thing--abortion.

If someone is against smoking, do we say they are "anti-choice"? No, we say they are "anti-smoking." Those who are anti-smoking believe the choice to smoke is a "bad choice" and the choice not to smoke is a "good choice." What about female circumcision, which is permitted and even promoted in some cultures? Many in Canada would oppose this practice. Does that mean they are "anti-choice"? No, it means they are against one particular choice, that is, the choice to circumcise their daughters. And many, hopefully all, Canadians are against the choice of a husband to beat his wife--in fact, as a society, we have collectively condemned this particular choice to the point of making it a criminal offence--but that doesn't make all Canadians "anti-choice."

So what I'm saying is, in any given context, people support and oppose particular choices, not the abstract concept of choice itself. In the context of pregnancy, there are two possible choices available to a woman: termination of the pregnancy (abortion) and continuation of the pregnancy (birth.) As pro-lifers, we oppose one particular choice, that is, the choice to abort.

So choice is not the issue in the abortion controversy (any more than it is the issue with respect to smoking or female circumcision or wife assault); abortion is.

In fact, pro-life persons are often far more supportive of freedom of choice than some who claim to be "pro-choice." In a country like Canada where abortion is legally permitted for the full nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, those who subscribe to a pro-life ethic do believe a woman should have a choice--a real choice. Her choice to have an abortion should be completely free from any coercion by a boyfriend, a parent, a doctor, or anyone else. And for a woman's choice to be completely free, she must be offered information about the potential health risks of abortion, alternatives to abortion, prenatal development, and community resources that can help her cope--all in a manner that is non-judgmental, compassionate and respectful. If this information is withheld, if social supports are not in place, if she feels abandoned, then she may feel forced to "choose" abortion. That is not choice. Freedom to choose can only exist within the context of knowledge and truth and viable options.

And what about the choice not to be complicit in an abortion? The National Abortion Federation claims to be "pro-choice," yet it would deny doctors freedom of choice by forcing them to make abortion referrals against their consciences.

Which brings me back to my original point: the issue being debated is not choice, it is abortion. There are those of us who oppose abortion  (because we believe it has tragic consequences for children, women, men and society) and there are those who support it. Calling those of us who oppose it "anti-choice" is derogatory and offensive.

As such, in the interests of fairness to both sides, I would like to offer the following suggestions to the National Review of Medicine editorial team regarding nomenclature when discussing the abortion controversy:

1. use the label each side uses to describe itself; that is, "pro-life" and "pro-choice"; OR
2. use a label that refers to each side's view on abortion; that is, "anti-abortion" (or "opponents of abortion") and "pro-abortion" (or "pro-abortion-rights" or "proponents of abortion" or "abortion rights supporters," etc.)

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Barbara McAdorey, Administrator
Canadian Physicians for Life
PO Box 1289
Ottawa ON  K0A 2Z0
ph/fax: 613-728-LIFE(5433)
www.physiciansforlife.ca