Rights: For people, not fetuses
Re. the letter “No right to abortion,” by Lara Stunkel (May 15): She may think it infuriating that there is a right to abortion, but what is truly infuriating is the misuse of the concept of rights that allows Ms. Stunkel to confer them on a fetus.
A right is moral principle that sanctions freedom of action in a social context. A fetus, wholly contained within a woman's uterus and physiologically dependent upon it, has no freedom of action and no social context. To speak of rights in such a setting is to destroy the entire concept.
Yes, abortion involves killing a fetus or embryo, but it is not a violation of rights. On the contrary, the government forbidding a woman an abortion is the height of nullification of rights.
Also, the May 19 letter “Multiple Bibles: It's OK,” from Bruce Braden, highlighted the sectarian disputes over mythology that consume Christians. The letter provides context as to why the Framers of our Constitution so painstakingly sought to keep such meaningless squabbles out of government.
As government has a near monopoly on education, allowing the display of the Ten Commandments at a government school not only nullifies the ideas of the Framers, it invites irrational sectarian disputes about the supernatural into a system aimed at instilling knowledge about reality.
Amesh A. Adalja
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Shame on Wolf
- Wolf is the right choice
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Keith Rothfus is the right choice