Legal doesn’t mean ethical

Regarding Mr. deLaubenfels’ letter (“No tolerance for murder,” June 3): They say the surest way to win a debate is to define its terms.

Allan would like to hide behind the term “legal” and deny there is an ethical dimension to abortion. However, because something is legal does not make it right. Slavery and segregation used to be legal, too. Allan’s definition of when “rights” begin is flawed as well, and he should acquaint himself with the concept of “fetal homicide.” Have we not, in cases past, tried individuals for the killing of an unborn child?

No, Mr. deLaubenfels, I reject your convenient and morally bankrupt definition of what constitutes a human being. I further submit that you have a huge tolerance for murder. You simply apply sterile euphemisms such as “choice” or “reproductive freedom” because “I support murder” does not roll well off the tongue at social gatherings.

So we arrive at the inexcusable actions of Mr. Roeder. In keeping with the most ancient traditions of mankind’s base nature, a murderer has murdered another murderer. Sadly, I can’t seem to muster an ounce of sympathy for either man. Instead I lament how far we have declined as a society.

Philip Katona

Chewelah