Abolishing abortion only creates different problems
To the editor:
Father Weary claimed that there is a moral outrage happening. I agree there is one. But we do disagree is what that moral outrage is.
He claims it is abortion itself, I say and will say to the day I die that the moral outrage is pro-life movement dictating to women what they do with their own bodies. According to a 2017 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, the pro-life movement is in the minority with only 31% in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.
As for Father Weary claiming that pro-lifers do care about children being shot on a daily basis, I have yet to see proof of this.
If pro-lifers were really pro-life then every single time that a child was killed by guns or a mass shooting happened they would actually be doing something more than just offering thoughts and prayers, which quite honestly do not do anything. The family is still devastated, the child still dead. No, if pro-lifers care, as Father Weary claims, then they would be protesting for gun control. Do they do this? Most do not because all they care about is what is contained in the woman’s womb.
And again I have yet see any pro-lifer come up with a plan to provide the unwanted newborn baby such things as being fed, housed and educated. I say this to Father Weary that by him saying that and I quote “If a moral outrage is being carried out in society, those calling for and working for an end to that moral outrage are not to be silenced just because they don’t have an answer to all the social consequences that happen when that outrage ceases” just proves one thing to any educated person — that pro-lifers only care about what happens in the womb. To no think about the consequences if the pro-life movement gets its way and has abortion banned is asinine at best and absolutely idiotic at worst.
Yet again Father Weary does not have the ability to answer the question of the 620,000 children in the adoption and foster care systems claiming that it is a “red herring fallacy” when in fact it is a quite simple question that by not answering it has just proven, yet again that all that the pro-life movement cares about is the fetus in the womb.
It is not diverting attention away from the issue but is actually part of the issue of taking care of the unwanted children by forcing women to have forced pregnancy such as that of the 11-year-old girl who was raped by a 26-year-old, but under the draconian abortion laws of Ohio will be forced to carry that pregnancy through. Does Father Weary think that is right for an 11-year-old girl to be forced to carry out a pregnancy when she is in fact nothing but a kid herself?
Now Father Weary makes the claim that women are carrying a separate body in their womb when pregnant. Really, Father Weary?
When a woman becomes pregnant the zygote actually attaches itself to the womb of the wall. making it a part of the woman’s body — an amazing concept. During this attachment, the zygote becomes an embryo, then a fetus, all while still attached to the woman’s body. When the fetus is born, it then and only then becomes a separate entity.
Even the Bible, which I know Father Weary is very familiar with, states that “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Genesis 2:7), meaning that life begins at the first breath.
Does the fetus breathe in the womb? No, due to being in a sac of fluid. Does the fetus, now a baby, breathe when born? Simple answer: yes. Another amazing concept: life beginning at first breath.
Father Weary makes the claim “it is our business.” Does he mean the church should be involved in the politics of the issue? If he does then he should remember the separation of church and state, meaning that it is not the church’s business to dictate, like it has done in the past, on what women should do with, and I say this no matter what people think, a woman’s body or in a woman’s womb.