By Steve McGourty

Aug. 7, 1995

After three rather derogatory letters appeared in this Editorial section in response to my pro-choice letter of July 20th, I felt compelled to respond. The one thing that all three letters had in common was well worn anti-abortion rhetoric. The only problem with this is that in their zeal to point out the error of my ways none of the people responding managed to understand the point of my letter. I will admit that my argument is unusual, which perhaps explains why the tried and tired rhetoric does not apply. The point that each of the respondents missed was that in order to follow through with their predilection on how to deal with the abortion issue, every American would have to submit to reduced freedoms. Instead they choose to give not too accurate graphic examples of the life and times of a fetus and its removal. I will make another attempt to explain my view on abortion, and try to help them understand the implication of their views as they apply to the fundamental rights of all Americans.

There is religious freedom in America. This freedom is guaranteed for all religions, no matter how different they are from the businesses dedicated to homogenizing America. (These businesses are sometimes referred to as organized religion.) My religious belief is that abortion is a matter of personal choice. This belief is not based on science, it is based on faith. Faith that my god is as right as theirs, and my god says abortion is not murder. It is un-American to deny my right to believe as I choose. The Constitution says it is illegal to deny religious freedom to anyone; anti-abortion legislation would change that. My beliefs on abortion are different from theirs. So be it. This should be no big deal except that certain factions in this country (factions I believe to be radical-conservatives) would force their religious ideology on me as well as millions of others who do not agree with them or their religion. As I see it forcing a divine sentiment on non-believers is immoral, and should not be allowed to take place in any free country, especially not in America. Fortunately the Constitution still agrees with my opinion and not theirs.

I did get a kick out of Steve Bogens' rebuttal (Aug. 3rd). My life's burden is reduced just knowing that he does not think I would condone murder (something Gail Martin, also responding in the Aug. 3rd issue, might not agree with). He managed to ask a dozen or so rhetorical questions and then insinuated that I might be trying to justify an aborted child. Just to satisfy his curiosity, I am unaware of any abortions of my would-be prodigy. It might perplex him to hear that I do not agree with him when he says that my opinions are based on fact rather than religious hysteria. I have my hysteria, he has his. Again, my opinion in support of the right to have an abortion is not based on science. I do not have a grand logic that justifies the act. I do not claim to have all the answers. Most importantly, I do not believe I have the answers for anyone but myself, unlike the omniscient Mr. Bogen and others of his ilk. I believe there is nothing wrong with letting each woman decide her own future. For America's sake we must not allow religious bigots to impose their fundamentalist deprivations on all citizens (like they do in Iran), nor should the government be compelled to enforce religious stratagem. I did not spend over six years in the U.S. Navy defending the Constitution so that right-wing fanatics could limit all American's rights based on a minority's narrow-minded puritanical proclivity. Please, if you want to live in that kind of country move to Iran or the Vatican, but leave America free of religious oppression.

Ms. Martin implies in her letter that there are at least as many people wanting to adopt as there are children aborted. While I am sure she has looked up the statistics to back up this statement (NOT!) reality does not seem to agree with her. If there are so many folks out there wanting to adopt unwanted children what are the thousands of kids doing in foster homes around this state alone? Where are the millions of people lined up to adopt them? It would seem that there is a difference between the facts and Ms. Martins' perception. I believe that is her right; she can believe whatever she wants, whether she agrees with my perception of reality or not. That same consideration is all I ask of her and the pro-life movement.

Apparently asking for mutual religious respect is asking too much of pro-lifers (as a student of history I am really not shocked by this revelation).

Back