This page was last updated on February 10, 2017.
Abortion issue remains a woman’s choice; Patricia Powala; Beaver County Times; January 29, 2017.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Nice of letter writer Michael Puz – ‘Shouldn’t the unborn have right to live?’ -- to paint a picture of all sunshine and roses concerning what could be if abortions were not legal.
“Along with the born Florence Nightengales and John F. Kennedys, also are born the Ted Kaczynkis, Timothy McVeighs, Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers of this world.
“I always find it very interesting when men become so invested in an issue that is solely a matter between a woman and her conscience. As long as the decision in Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, and until the day that men sprout uteruses, it is a woman’s choice.”
[RWC] PP appears to be okay with the seven Supreme Court justices – all male - who gave us the Roe v. Wade opinion. To the best of my knowledge, none of those justices had a uterus.
I don’t get people who not only don’t bat an eye at doctors and mothers killing unborn children for convenience, but also vigorously defend it as “a woman’s choice.”
Should we assume because abortion for convenience “is solely a matter between a woman and her conscience … [and] is a woman’s choice,” the father has no obligation from the time of conception through the child’s life?
The issue is when does life start. Does life begin before conception, after conception, between conception and birth, after birth, and so on? Apparently, PP believes life doesn’t start until sometime after delivery. It makes no sense for an unborn baby to be a thing one second and a person the next.
The federal “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004” recognizes an unborn baby to be a legal victim should he/she be injured or killed as a result of an attack on the mother. As of 2015, 38 states had similar laws, including Pennsylvania. Does PP support those laws?
© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.