Mailbag: Ill-conceived talking points clutter abortion debate

I believe reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which abortion should be permitted in a just, free and humane society. However, some of the arguments advanced to justify the more absolutist, pro-abortion positions require a great deal of willful thoughtlessness to swallow.

For instance, there’s “If you were really pro-life, you would advocate expanding [already extensive] public welfare spending; if not, you can’t object to abortion.”

Does that really make sense? If you won’t buy me a car, are you really barred from objecting to my stealing yours?

This is debate imitating “Blazing Saddles”: “Pony up to the welfare state, or the kid gets it!”

As bad as neglect may be, aggression is worse. It may be mean not to give the beggar on a street corner a buck. It’s even meaner to shoot him in the head. You are not disqualified to argue that it should remain illegal to shoot beggars, just because your practice is to give one loose change instead of a $5 bill.

People who call themselves “pro-choice” have potentially thoughtful arguments to make, particularly when it comes to balancing the competing rights of liberty and life of the born versus the unborn, at least in the early stages of a being’s development. They should make them, and not clutter up their cause with talking points that don’t bear thinking through.

In the end, it all depends on denying the humanity of the unborn. If they’re subhuman, or subhuman enough for government work, we can do away with them, strip them for useful parts and sleep soundly. But if not ...

Thomas J. Eastmond

Newport Beach

*

Do not go backward on women’s rights

As a mother of three lovely daughters and a grandmother of a lovely one year old baby girl, I want to weigh in about this article. The piece by (ret.) Judge Lynne Riddle (“Commentary: Planned Parenthood is getting a bad rap,” July 31) about this organization so inspired me that I thought I might just volunteer to help them in the work they do for women.

Since, I have tracked the articles for and against this non-profit. The latest one in the Daily Pilot from Aug. 19 is so obviously biased from the view of the religious hard right.

“Community health clinics also provide prenatal care, childhood immunizations, asthma treatments, and cancer screenings,” is one statement by a letter writer.

Obviously, what they do not provide is abortions.

It does not matter who you are, rich or poor, having options for your personal health is your individual right. No one should be allowed to dictate what a woman can or cannot do, and it is no one’s business. It is between the woman and her doctor.

Please do not go backward. Our forward progress in this country as women was not so easily won. I don’t want the next generation to be required to start over, just because someone takes issue from a religious (or any other) standpoint.

We won our bid for religious freedom centuries ago. A wonderful thing and the start of this great country.

I am not religious, but I certainly don’t mind it if you are. Let’s respect others for their differences and stop fighting about your beliefs. Your beliefs belong to you, but mine belong to me too. I like my democracy, don’t make it a dictatorship.

Jen Copeland

Newport Beach