SitNews - Stories in the News - Ketchikan, Alaska


Abortion, Re-Cross Examination: Part Two
By Rob Holston


April 08, 2011
Friday PM

This letter concludes my response to Laura Allen’s letter of March 24 re: abortion. You seem indignant that I cited Wikipedia as a source describing “viability”. Yet you offered no better definition and no source at all. I used this information in my letter, published March 7, 2011, because it seemed in complete agreement with what I had learned in my university classes in biology, anatomy and kinesiology. If you can site a source describing viability as an exact point of development along the continuum from conception to birth then you probably will find numerous pediatricians arguing that they can deliver babies with less weight, less gestation and less development who are viable. Indeed if any point is determined it will always be seen as arbitrary and the question will begged to be asked “Can viability exist 5 seconds before this chosen point? 5 minutes before? 5 hours? 5 weeks?

We eventually wind up back at conception. The Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life. Science has the answer to the question that Barack Obama could not answer. Conception is when human life begins. It seems logical that human rights would follow, as there are now two lives involved, NOT just the mother to be. The Creator created a new life at conception.

Until a woman can get pregnant without a man or a sperm donor we have three people with human rights at the moment of conception: the father, the baby and the mother.

Laura, I place quotations around women’s rights because the “rights” in question are being questioned. You have the right to go to a tanning salon. You don’t have the right to go to a tanning salon WHILE you leave your two year old daughter in the back seat of your car, in Phoenix, in August, in 120 degree temperatures. When the child dies, the mother is guilty of manslaughter unless the prosecution can prove intent. Then the charge becomes murder. Your child’s right to life trumps your “right” to take a tan.

I believe that with parenthood there comes responsibilities to care for their child. Likewise I believe a woman has responsibilities to care for her child when she becomes pregnant. Society cares. It is built into our DNA to care for the unborn. Example: Two women in different 3rd world countries are raped and brutally killed by attacking militias. One woman was pregnant. We mourn for both but the news accounts focus on the woman who was pregnant. Our collective compassion is drawn to the additional loss of a baby as being especially repugnant. Most humans value human life, born or unborn. Yet under the guise of “women’s reproductive health”, society turns its head when a woman decides to kill her own unborn. I realize that my Abortion, Re-Cross Examination: Part two position is not shared by the majority and is contrary to existing law. That does not make my position wrong or unworthy of contemplation and study.

Ms. Allen, your position is typical of pro-choice females and lawmakers too who only tout a woman’s right to do with her own body what she wants while totally ignoring any meaningful discussion of human rights for the unborn human. Senator Mark Begich recently wrote me “I have long supported a woman's right to make private decisions regarding her reproductive health in consultation with her doctor.” What is missing from his position statement is: no mention that her doctor is earning a living providing abortions i.e. part of the abortion industry, (no conflict of interests here?), no mention of abortion, no mention of paternity rights, no mention of baby’s rights (human rights), no mention of viability, no answer to the question “When does human life begin?” Any argument can be won by totally ignoring the opposing view!

Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. This decision fully recognizes the increasing rights of the baby by enumerating few restrictions during trimester I, increasing restrictions during trimester II and subsequent to viability of trimester III the state is allowed to deny abortions. Their decision cited with ambiguity the application of the 9th & 14th amendments. Both amendments refer to the rights of “people”, due process for “people” and equal protection for “people.” Based upon 1973 science the Court seemed to recognize that an embryo gradually becomes a “people”. Unfortunately for all unborn “people” the court was unaware of the DNA and genetic laws of science that we now know to be true. Lacking the science of today, the 1973 Court compromised itself to a sliding scale of acceptability that leaves the souls of ALL those conceived screaming, “I’m a “people” too! DON’T I HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?” Perhaps, in a small way I have provided a voice on behalf of the truly innocent and defenseless unborn “people.” Their rights are also upheld and debated on these sites.

Rob Holston
Ketchikan, AK

Received April 05, 2011 - Published April 08, 2011


Related Viewpoint:

letter Attack on Women's Rights By Laura Allen

letter Abortion debate By Rob Holston

letterAbortion, Re-Cross Examination: Part one By Rob Holston

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

letter Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor



Note: Comments published on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.


E-mail your letters & opinions to
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.

SitNews ©2011
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska