Re "Bringing clarity on abortion," Opinion, Aug. 23
What both sides need to focus on is this simple fact: Abortion is unequivocally the termination of human life.
Regardless, all women must be allowed the freedom to carry out this difficult decision — no matter the circumstance — because the alternatives demand it. Further, women of means will always have access to this choice regardless of laws. You see, contrary to Meghan Daum's contention I, like most sentient people I know, am both pro-choice and anti-abortion; it is not an either-or proposition.
Only when both sides agree to this most basic fact will we be able to carry on the valuable discussion that might one day forge a path leading to fewer abortions, a result that I firmly believe we all want.
Frederic E. Bloomquist
I agree with Daum that the conditions of fertilization have nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal. What is still missing in the debate, however, is the level of development of the embryo or fetus. This can never leave us feeling morally settled, but it seems to me that there is a great difference between aborting a fertilized egg early on and aborting a five- or six-month developing baby.
Although there can be no perfect determination of when it is too late to have an abortion, we must wrestle not with the conditions of a woman's conception, but with how developed the potential child is.
I was in agreement with Daum until I reached the sentence, "If you believe in a woman's right to choose, the only logical position is that abortion should be available for any reason at any time." That knocked me for a loop.
Does "at any time" mean right up until the birth of the child? If the mother looks at her child and is not happy with what she sees, can she just go ahead and kill that baby?
There is a point at which abortion becomes murder. The Supreme Court needs to settle the debate on when abortion is no longer an option.
Letters: Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand
Letters: Social Security insecurities
Letters: Concerns of Jewish voters