'Ethicist' defends abortion poorly

  • Follow Letters

Regarding David B. Dillard-Wright's letter "Court strikes blow to women's rights" (April 23):

First, I would like to comment on Mr. Dillard-Wright's self-label of "ethicist." Because he makes more than just one blanket statement over society, I have to say something. No human being is the determining factor over what is right or wrong for the rest of us. Thus, the idea that he is the determining factor of morality in society is not only foolish, but also narcissistic.

Now, Mr. Dillard-Wright says that the Supreme Court failed "to consider the health and safety of women." However, he is wrong - the court's decision allows a partial-birth abortion in the event that the mother's life is threatened. He also claims that the "fetus does not have a life of its own; its life is the life of its mother."

So let's ponder this: Many children with severe mental retardation cannot function on their own; their sole survival rests on the life of another person, i.e. their parents. So does that mean that we can kill them? No, because they're human beings, the most wonderful creations on Earth. Mr. Dillard-Wright's claim that the fetus is not a life of its own is absurd in the light that, at some point, many of us have depended on the life of another.

He also claims that the anti-abortion movement used "distorted images and misleading terminology." Inasmuch as the Supreme Court doesn't have a spot on C-SPAN, his knowledge of what occurred is limited, and he cannot make such a claim justifiably.

He ends his letter by saying, "Failure to resist this measure shows a lack of concern for life." No comment.

Timothy L. Van Vliet, Evans

Comments (13) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/27/07 - 06:20 am
0
0
I think it may be considered

I think it may be considered OK to make killing children illegal regardless of your party lines or religious affiliation.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/27/07 - 09:24 am
0
0
How about you perform the

How about you perform the delivery and extraction without removing the child's brain....then try to save the mother AND the child. The only reason to remove the brain is to kill the child.

LynxRHot
0
Points
LynxRHot 04/27/07 - 01:15 pm
0
0
For those who argue that any

For those who argue that any kind of abortion is favorable when the life of the mother is endangered, how do those people feel about expectant women who are diagnosed with gestational diabetes or preeclampsia (high blood pressure)? Both of these ailments can be fatal to a pregnant woman. Where do we draw the line? Why not propose abortion to "cure" the expectant mother of her diabetes or high blood pressure? As ridiculous as this seems, it is no more absurd than the excuse the pro-choice movement is using to support their "rights". It would be interesting to see the statistics for the number of abortions due to "inconvenience" versus "life endangerment".

anjhest
0
Points
anjhest 04/27/07 - 01:39 pm
0
0
LRH, there is a HUGE

LRH, there is a HUGE difference for women who are diagnosed with gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia because both of those conditions are TREATABLE (as in, there are highly effective treatment alternatives to simply aborting the fetus). Whereas a woman with, say, Congenital Class III heart disease has no option but to either die giving birth or have an abortion.

THESOUTHLOST
3
Points
THESOUTHLOST 04/27/07 - 01:50 pm
0
0
Well if you listen to most so

Well if you listen to most so call " Pro Lifers ", the mother just has to die trying to deliever.

anjhest
0
Points
anjhest 04/27/07 - 02:00 pm
0
0
And that's the beauty of the

And that's the beauty of the choice. They can CHOOSE to do that if they want.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/27/07 - 04:12 pm
0
0
Anyone ever heard of

Anyone ever heard of cesarean? Women with congenital class III heard disease can do that. I'll give the same challenge I have in the past. At what point does a fetus become a human with rights? Now....why was it not a human 5 minutes prior to the point you defined?

LynxRHot
0
Points
LynxRHot 04/27/07 - 06:22 pm
0
0
KPC....No one is going to be

KPC....No one is going to be able to give a valid answer to that question because there is none. I am so sick of hearing about a woman's life being in danger, We put our lives at risk EVERY DAY when we get in our cars and drive on the roads with drunks, drug addicts, wreckless drivers. Why don't we just kill them off, too? Why should my life be at risk because of some idiot on the road? Why was Scott Peterson charged with the death of his unborn child when Laci could have legally aborted him?

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/27/07 - 06:45 pm
0
0
Actually I CAN answer the

Actually I CAN answer the question. At conception, 2 halves of DNA form to make the complete DNA of a human. 5 minutes prior, it was just an egg and a sperm, neither of which can grow into a sentient being by itself, but together makes a human.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 04/27/07 - 06:48 pm
0
0
My favorite defense is when

My favorite defense is when people say, "what if the mother can't afford a baby....you guys don't like wealfare!" Well...what if the father can't afford child support? Can he force the mother to kill the baby?

LynxRHot
0
Points
LynxRHot 04/28/07 - 05:11 pm
0
0
Good point, kpc. If the egg

Good point, kpc. If the egg donor or sperm donor can't afford a baby, birth control and abstinence are much cheaper options.

anjhest
0
Points
anjhest 04/30/07 - 08:47 am
0
0
Actually, according to Dr.

Actually, according to Dr. Michael Earing, pregnancy itself proposes a significant risk of "premature death" for women with Class III & IV heart disease who become pregnant. So it is not just the process of giving birth (even a cesarean delivery is dangerous), but actually being pregnant that puts the mother at significant risk of dying. True, women with this type of disorder should not become pregnant in the first place, especially if they know the risk. Unfortunately, the reality is that sometimes, they do. Semantics aside, I understand the pro-life stance. I understand that Christians believe that life begins at conception. But not everyone is a Christian...and for that and a number of other reasons I am strongly pro-choice. Did you know that over 40% of women between the ages of 16 and 44 have had an abortion? That is a LOT OF WOMEN who, given the choice, chose to have an abortion.

anjhest
0
Points
anjhest 04/30/07 - 09:02 am
0
0
I'm not trying to change

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine. But it's fun to discuss!

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs