By Laura Allen
March 21, 2011
First of all, Mr. Holston's argument is completely devoid of legal analysis, despite advancing the idea that unborn children have legal rights. As he should know, per his completion of junior high school, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause precludes the government from endorsing any religious precept. Therefore, I suggest to Mr. Holston that the advancement of a legal argument, such as the legal rights of an unborn child, is untenable when based on Christian scripture.
Mr. Holston also attempts to support his view against abortion by spouting off scientific facts that would support his claim. However, the facts, as he presented them, are completely devoid of citation to authority. This strongly suggests that the "scientific" claims he makes are merely his own viewpoints masquerading as science. Indeed, Mr. Holston, anyone who has recently taken a writing course in college knows that Wikipedia is not, by most academic standards, a credible source of information. The way in which anyone with Internet access can edit the posted articles means they are constantly changing to reflect subjective viewpoints.
As an aside, it is unfortunate and quite offensive that Mr. Holston feels the need to use quotation marks when referring to women's rights and women's health. This country, and indeed, humanity, has a long history of discrimination against women. I would suggest that Mr. Holston not use punctuation that calls into question the validity of the women's rights movement given this history. Furthermore, Mr. Holston, I believe that this discriminatory effect is something you will never experience, so it is offensive to me, and I would hope the rest of my female counterparts, that you would seemingly mock it.
As a pro-choice female, I will entertain the idea that women should subject their bodies and, consequently their lives, to the whims of this country's pro-life movement once I hear a compelling argument for doing so. Mr. Holston fails in this, as do other pro-life advocates who would force their own views of morality on other individuals. He therefore shouldn't be surprised by the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, per Roe v. Wade, for nearly four decades.
About: "I am a former resident of Ketchikan, and I like to keep up by visiting SitNews from time to time. I am currently in my first year of law school."
Received March19 , 2011 - Published March 21, 2011
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.