to the editor

Unborn doesn’t mean unliving

To the editor:

I read with interest Pat Wick’s views on what constitutes human life. When human life begins has always been of interest to me. I look to two places — science and religion.

Science recognizes DNA as the basic building block of life and an organism acquires that unique code at conception. The DNA of a unborn baby is distinct from the DNA of the mother and has all the code necessary to grow. To claim that the unborn baby is just part of a woman’s body is to deny this scientific fact. Most religions agree that human life begins at conception.

Pat Wick believes that she alone knows when life begins. She argues that an organism must be able to breathe on its own in order to be human. In her view, if my grandfather is on a respirator he is no longer “human” and thus would not have a right to life.

Through history, certain groups with agendas have tried to redefine personhood. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, made the argument that a black slave was not a person. Nazis convinced their followers that Jews were not persons. Pat tells us that feminists believe that unborn babies are not persons. Her agenda? Women’s rights. I have no problem with women’s rights but have a problem when those rights involve the killing of another human being.

Our society is judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

The handicapped, poor, and now unborn babies are targeted and exploited simply because they are vulnerable.

Just as a hunter should not take a shot when he is uncertain as to what he is shooting, our society must, in our uncertainty, take the side of the unborn and not kill them through the brutal act of abortion.

Greg Davidson, Marion

 

Quantcast