Fundamental morality and abortion

Allan deLaubenfels’ letter of June 11 asserts that “if you oppose abortion, don’t have one.” This ignores the fundamental question about abortion’s basic morality. Others have discussed that issue in relation to slavery, such as Justin Dyer’s “Understanding the Slavery-Abortion Analogy,” in Public Discourse, Dec 13, 2013. This letter addresses deLaubenfels’ assertion and summarizes key points from Dyer’s article while adding my own comments.

Imagine pro-slavery advocates using the same specious logic, “If you oppose slavery, don’t own a slave.” It doesn’t address its morality. The abolitionists opposed slavery on moral grounds; so they not only didn’t own any slaves, they vehemently opposed the institution of slavery itself. They knew it was fundamentally immoral for human beings to own other humans as just property to use or dispose of as they saw fit. Part of the justification for that control was that “Negroes” were not really fully human; they were more like just another kind of farm animal whose fates were entirely in the hands of their owners.

A similar argument has existed for unborn children since Roe v. Wade was decided: The “embryo” or “fetus” is not really human enough yet to have any legal rights, so the mother has complete power over its existence, including terminating it. Abortion abolitionists vehemently oppose this fundamental immorality and recognize the full humanity of an unborn child’s life.

Meanwhile, millions of “tell-tale hearts” torn from dismembered, aborted infants are beating on the walls of justice to stop this madness.

Bob Strong

Spokane