- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Pro-life argument doesn’t stand up
I find Mr. Charles Lovekin’s attempt to equate abortion to Herrod’s mass murder campaign (“Join March for Life this month,” Jan. 8) completely absurd. Herrod’s genocide was motivated by politics, and his executioners butchered living children in front of their families. By contrast, nearly every woman who ends a pregnancy does so because she isn’t prepared to bear or raise a child, for medical reasons, for economic reasons, for lack of a father in the picture, or simply because she knows she doesn’t have the maturity or skills required to raise a child. These seem to me fairly rational, reasonable and mature stances, certainly not the murderous motivation of a despot. Yet Mr. Lovekin would force every pregnant woman to carry on through childbirth, regardless.
At the very least, this seems an uncharitable stance, especially since no god, not even Mr. Lovekin’s, can simply give a woman the maturity, education, financial means and partner she needs to raise a child to maturity. But maybe Mr. Lovekin would step in. Instead of marching in demonstrations and shouting slogans, might he be prepared to be charitable to a real person, and step up to raise a child a mother can’t — also providing free pre- and post-natal medical care for the mother — thereby putting his time, energy and money where his mouth is?
If not, how dare he presume to intervene in a woman’s right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as she chooses?
— Mark Nassutti