SOUNDING OFF:

Michele Marr’s “History calls abortion murder” is a very poorly argued column.

While this column is labeled “Faith,” it should still present information in a truthful way so as not to mislead people. As far as I have studied, history is not limited to only Christian history, which is all this article refers to. History also refers to the history of other religions, the history of national and international laws, and general human history.

This presentation of history in no way represents the ideals of people with beliefs other than Christian ones.

Furthermore, history may not even be the best test, or even a valid test, for our ethics and morals. I am sure Marr is aware that ethics and morals related to how we treat other humans have evolved over time. At one time, stoning, slavery and multiple wives were all part of “history” and surely would not be acceptable now.

Marr quotes from the Declaration of Independence. However, the translation of that document into law is the Constitution. The Constitution defines the human rights that the Declaration declared. However, it defined the “all men” clause to not include women, slaves or men who did not own land. This is what history tells us. Are we to believe that this history is better than the actual evolution of rights that has happened?

How we treat other people should not be based on history, but on what we now believe.

There are two moral questions related to abortion: One is how we treat the fetus, and the other is how we treat the other human being involved, the mother. While there may be no consensus on when a baby gets human rights, there surely is consensus that the mother deserves human rights.

And that human right is the choice for her to choose what is best for her family. No one has any right to tell her what the definition of “human life” is. I cannot believe that being born to a mother who does not want you is the best approach in a world with many overpopulation issues.

Furthermore, Marr’s assertion that the Roe decision has led to a holocaust can be defended only if she had presented statistics to show that the rate of abortion increased since the Roe decision. She provides no such evidence, and thus has presented no argument to prove that Roe is responsible. She has presented a weak, false premise.

So I respect Marr’s right to print her column, biased as it may be.

While I would not choose an abortion within my own family, I also respect the right of my fellow human beings to make their own decisions on this matter, based on what is important to them.

IRA WERNER is a resident of Cypress.