To the Editor:
Second Opinion. Abortion Redux.
A tip of the hat to the election process in Virginia and New Jersey, and not for the reason you might think. Virginia elected Republican Glenn Youngkin governor over Democrat Terry McAuliffe last week by a not-insignificant margin. Youngkin ostensibly “ran without Trump," but his constant drum-beat against CRT was a Republican dog-whistle that Independents also heard and embraced, even if they didn't trouble themselves to find out what it actually means. The "don't-say-it-out loud" part was, "I've got this. I'll make sure that THEY will not replace [or criticize] us."
The tip of the hat is awarded because the elections were decided without hysterical sniveling from either defeated candidate (McAuliffe and Republican Ciattarelli of New Jersey) about the election being “stolen.”
Martin promised to further discuss abortion this week. I hope that he if he refers to my column, he attempts to quote me accurately this time. I was, however, impressed at how he managed to brandish “communists!” even on this subject, and how my comments lured him to mention human beings considered as rats. I didn’t think it could be done, but that Martin can surprise you.
If you are planning to relate the "history of abortion," Martin, you are aware that historically the rights of women were generally not recognized. It is only in a free society, where women are acknowledged as equals, that their rights over their own bodies are acknowledged. As opposed to those countries practicing Sharia Law, for instance, where women are considered “possessions to be ordered at will."
I clearly did not say that I am both “pro-life” and “pro-abortion.” I explicitly said that I am “pro-life” and “pro-choice” as not mutually exclusive, or a “contradiction”. And !Alert! I can think and argue whatever I like. It is up to the reader to decide if I am persuasive. I certainly did not advocate for abortion. On the contrary, I distinctly said that I know no one who is “pro-abortion.”
I unequivocally acknowledged that “life” begins at conception. I observed that the moment at which the fertilized egg becomes a “human being” is not known. Therefore, arguments that humanity begins at conception, or at some particular point in the gestational cycle before birth, is an opinion and not a fact.
Kudos to you on your knowledge of gestational biology, but this particular issue is at what point the human soul is infused into the body. You come from a religious tradition and are welcome to personally exercise your moral convictions. However, not everyone and more importantly, not every woman, shares your religious or secular beliefs. It’s her body, Martin, and the pregnancy is not in the public domain.
You at least appear to agree that Thomas Aquinas placed “ensoulment” during "completion of conception" (at 30 days for a female and 45-90 days for a male). Theologians have been massaging his statement for centuries. Your attempt to defend his assertion on this issue translates to, “he didn’t know what he was talking about.”
The real point was and is that in a free society a woman, and not the government, is the only entity with standing to assert a choice in the procreative biology of her own body.
Kelly Scoles,
Fillmore