- About Us
Let’s widen the discussion on abortion | Letter to the Editor
Difficult as it is to challenge the opinions of someone you respect, I feel compelled to weigh in on abortion and its political implications (“Choose someone who won’t fund abortion,” Oct. 24) and perhaps expand the debate.
First, straining at the gnat of abortion requires swallowing the fly of “why” — the harsh realities leading a woman to make the choice. The Bible warns against telling someone, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” without doing anything about their physical needs. Similarly, abortion prohibition that does nothing about poverty, education, daycare, health care, abuse, etc., only forces it underground. It would be better, not to mention more affirming of all life, to concentrate on these primary problems and see abortion as a consequence that might be eliminated if the others disappeared.
Second, equating abortion with murder paints adherents into a moral corner. The opponent, to be logically consistent, has to reject any exemption for rape or incest. How can just a little murder be acceptable? But if society takes away a woman’s options in coping with the consequences herself, society itself assumes responsibility. Would Paul Ryan put down the budget axe and agree to have the public take up the care and nurture of any children born out of these horrendous acts? His abortion scruples would fold long before his passion for forcing cuts on all the whiners and freeloaders in Romney’s 47 percent.
Finally, for a serious conscientious objector to abortion, there simply has to be a better candidate than Mitt Romney, who in times past has supported, verbally and financially, abortion rights (and many other things he now opposes) for reasons obviously aligned more solidly with political expediency than conviction. Neither President Obama nor the Affordable Care Act “supports” abortion, and both work toward a day when it will be, at worst, an unnecessary option for any woman.
— Dennis Drewes