"Be it resolved that member locals [of the CFS] that refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space be supported. And further, be it resolved that a pro-choice organization kit be created that may include materials such as a fact sheet, buttons, contact information for local pro-choice organizations and research on anti-choice organizations and the conservative think-tanks that fund them."
Their statement leaves an important question un-answered: How is an organization “pro-choice” or “anti-choice”?
It all depends on “who” makes the choice.
The woman? The Man? The child? The doctor? The mother (of a minor)? The law (society)? The Church?
Any one of these “choices” excludes all the others.
For example, if the law stated that the “choice” is responsibility of the doctor, then presumably women’s groups would be against this choice.
Would then women’s groups be banned from University Campuses as “anti-choice”? Of course not. They do not mean that.
Or, if a "Fathers For Choice" group started today, would this group be banned as “anti-choice?”
They have no rational answer. It depends on whether they would agree with the objectives of this group.
The CFS cannot define the terms they use, because the issue is not “choice”, but whether a person (mother, father, doctor, etc.) can terminate another human life: legalized abortion or protection of the unborn.
Today the majority of “student representatives” in Canadian Campuses want abortion on demand. This is an ideology that does not permit logical arguments or cares about the Truth.
This is “democracy” at work in an organization of young people, the product of our "public" high schools, who are not mature enough to express (let alone exercise responsibly) their newly acquired freedom from parental supervision.
Ironically, while they call for "choice", they are carelessly suppressing freedom.
Posts
