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