Opponents of a woman’s right to choose should mind their own business

Scott Fenstermaker

This is response to Dennis Pertrucelli’s recent opinion piece advocating legislation to outlaw a woman’s right to have an abortion. While I disagree with Mr. Petrucelli’s lengthy exposition on abortion, I think that he presented a well-reasoned argument against a woman’s right to choose – well reasoned but wrong. In response, rather than addressing all his arguments, I would like to make just two points:

FIRST, the earliest recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus (which was basically an instruction book for doctors) in 1550 B.C. That is, abortion was being practiced when the Bible was written.

I have read the Bible cover to cover. The Bible lists over 650 sins, but, despite being practiced at the time the Bible was written, abortion is not one of them. If abortion is a sin, one would have thought God would have told the authors of the Bible to specifically say so, since the authors (and presumably God) knew about it. Citing the Book of Job, as Mr. Petrucelli did, to condemn abortion is a distortion of the actual text to support his own views.

In fact, the origination of a legal prohibition of even early-term abortion (as well as outlawing “artificial birth control”) originates with the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy. It is a hierarchy composed entirely of men – men with a record of corruption, personal immorality (including pedophilia), concealing such corruption and immorality, and having an economic interest in increasing the size of their tithing flock.

If, despite this history, Mr. Petrucelli and others want to look to the Catholic Church’s for moral guidance, then they shouldn’t have an abortion. But, please, don’t impose your views on all women. In other words: Mind your own business.

SECOND, one issue that is seldom mentioned in the abortion debate is global overpopulation and the potential of the human race (whose existence is a mere fly speck in the history of the universe) to over populate and/or pollute itself out of existence– through starvation/thirst and/or climate change. Mr. Petrucelli’s letter cites a concern about the economic effects of under population. A more serious concern is the risk to the continued existence of the human race if our numbers continue to expand exponentially.

While no one advocates abortion as a means of birth control, the anti-abortion fanatics, in their effort to restrict a woman’s right to choose, are cutting off funding from legitimate family-planning organizations. This is both short sighted and potentially dangerous.

IN CONCLUSION, the issue of abortion is an emotional one, and reasonable people can disagree – depending on their views of morality. However, public policy should be formulated on the basis of reason and practicality, not emotion.

Villager Scott Fenstermaker is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com.