Guest editorial: Reader’s editorial about abortion got a lot wrong about the ‘pro-life stance’
Tory Welch’s guest editorial states “the pro-life stance is about right and wrong.” In this the author is completely mistaken. The pro-life stance is more about pushing an obviously religious-driven social agenda on everybody else regardless of what other people’s specific sets of religious (or otherwise) beliefs might be. One thing Tory did get right is the statement, “I don’t know when a soul or conscience or life enters a body. But neither do you.” After admitting that this is a complete unknown for anybody, Tory then goes on to push the current pro-life “heartbeat” agenda. This country was created to allow all people to embrace religious freedom without interference from the government, but in Utah this concept seems to be completely abrogated. Tory, please feel free to believe the religious agenda that has likely been spoon-fed to you since you were a child, but your right to religious freedom stops at the point that it impacts anybody else’s right to practice their sets of religious beliefs.
Tory is also wrong to label this set of beliefs “pro-life.” It is much better categorized as “pro-birth.” An actual “pro-life” stance would include some acknowledgment of an obligation to care for and nurture unwanted children who are born as a result of the pro-birth stance all the way through to adulthood, yet the vast majority of so-called pro-lifers are perfectly willing to emphatically renounce any responsibility for these children (e.g. education costs, health care costs, food, clothing, etc.) after they are born. This certainly could be accommodated through adoption and foster parenting. If Tory is actually “pro-life,” I expect Tory, as a stated pro-lifer, to be the first one in line to adopt every unwanted child that is born until Tory is completely unable mentally, physically and financially to accept another adoption (eight or 10 seems like a good number). Has Tory applied to be an adoptive parent yet? Perhaps, but likely not. Please consider adopting eight or 10 children rather than having eight or 10 of your own. This certainly would put your money where your mouth is so to speak. I have seen teenagers carry a pregnancy to term and then try to care for the child when they do not have the means or capacity to care for themselves. There is a devastating effect on quality of life for both mother and child, not to mention the significant adverse effect on society as a whole. The pro-birth proponents never seem to want to address this side of the problem, and continually pound the drum on the unborn child’s rights while completely ignoring the responsibilities to the born child.
The Supreme Court probably has it right in walking the fine line between a woman’s right to control her own body and the rights of the unborn child by determining that a woman has a right to an abortion up until the fetus is viable (second trimester). This seems to be a reasonable compromise on the issue. The pro-birth crowd just can’t seem to let this rational and reasonable view stand and they continue to waste our taxpayer dollars pushing their religious agenda and passing unconstitutional laws based on opinion rather than fact. Tory, until you have walked a mile in the other side’s shoes you will never understand the bigger picture. Please feel free to practice (privately) your beliefs (not facts or truths) but make sure that you are not pushing them off on the folks who may not believe as you do, as they have as much right to their sets of beliefs as you do to yours.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
In letters to the editor, one reader argues against allowing e-bikes on Park City’s trails, while another is fed up with congestion on S.R. 224.