Abortion And Competing Priorities

To the Editor:

Regarding last week’s letter concerning abortion:

Most articles dealing with abortion seem to be polemic in nature and rarely, if ever, accurately represent the opposing viewpoint.

You claim that by putting forth this initiative the representatives of South Dakota “do not have the best interests of women at heart.” Wouldn’t it be fairer and more accurate to say that these politicians have placed a primacy on what they believe to be the constitutional right to life of the unborn child over the right to privacy of the woman carrying that child? And that you disagree with this.

As one who opposes abortion, viewing it a great stain on our society not unlike slavery was to a multitude of abolitionists when forced servitude was legal in our country, I would draw this parallel. With the abolitionists, while those seeking freedom for the enslaved may have considered the concerns of the slaveholder; those concerns could never be a factor in the ultimate judgment of what was right and what was wrong. The same mindset I would argue exists in those that seek to overturn Roe.

This does not make pro-lifers bad people or people who do not care about women, as you have intimated.

Unfortunately, your letter seems to represent a stridency that transcends debate and whose sole purpose is more or less the demonization of those who work to change this law.

Many pro-lifers and pro-choice people believe that Roe was a poorly argued decision from a strictly legal, constitutional viewpoint. I would agree with this opinion, and it is my hope that this decision is overturned and the matter decided in each state individually by elected officials, not our Supreme Court.

James Swift

11 Cedarhurst Trail, Sandy Hook                                 March 8, 2006