Thank you to those who wrote the Gazette’s June 20 editorial, “Support human rights, support the ROE Act.”
I found it to be quite consistent with the liberal perspective on abortion in our Valley, and therefore worth responding to. First, after reading the piece, it has become increasingly clear to me that the mantra, “safe, legal and rare,” first coined by Bill Clinton in 1996 to characterize the Democrats’ position on the abortion issue, has become outdated.
Indeed, the use of the last part of the slogan, “rare,” by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates has itself become increasingly rare. For instance, the piece itself explains that the ROE Act would protect and ensure access to “safe and legal abortion,” and the word “rare” is notably absent.
It would appear the ROE Act does not fundamentally seek to make abortions rare. Indeed, it is doubtful that greater access to abortion would decrease the frequency with which it occurs.
Second, the real “national nightmare” is not an increase in abortion restrictions since 2011, but rather our inability to recognize the humanity of the unborn child in the womb (whose life begins at conception) of the mother and to give them the human rights they deserve.
To believe that the ROE Act fully protects human rights, as the editorial’s title suggests, is to believe that the developing baby (1) is not human and (2) thus has no human rights, and so (3) killing the baby is not a violation of its right to life. Only if one is willing to deny the humanity of the baby in the womb can one reasonably argue that a “woman’s right to choose” is a “human right.”
I admire how we here in the Valley work to stand up for the most vulnerable in our society — from infants and kids, to the ill and the elderly — and we often make great personal sacrifices to express such love for our neighbor. And what better testament is there of our love for humanity than to sacrifice our real or perceived “reproductive rights” in order to protect the life of an innocent, unborn child?
François Venne
Florence