ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Op-ed missed mark on pro-life goals |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Op-ed missed mark on pro-life goals

| Monday, January 21, 2019 10:00 a.m

Tara Murtha & Susan Frietsche’s op-ed “Nothing ‘pro-life’ about overturning Roe v. Wade” (Jan. 12, TribLIVE) misses the mark on anti-abortion goals.

It begins with the subtle rhetorical move of “pro-life” in scare quotes that is often used to assert the absurd idea that the very people attempting to save lives are really the ones responsible for violence. The violence perpetrated against women and their children by opportunistic abortion providers prior to the Roe v. Wade decision is, of course, a horrible part of our nation’s past. However, it does not justify the continued violence against our children by abortion providers.

Every single human being deserves to live free from violence — including the violence of abortion. Every life lost as a result of abortion is a tragedy, whether they be women, children or the handful of abortion providers that have been murdered by anti-abortion terrorists.

The authors ask what is pro-life about overturning Roe v. Wade? I have to respond, what is pro-choice about ending the life of a human being who didn’t choose to die?

Herb Geraghty


The writer is director of communications for Rehumanize International, a Pittsburgh-based human rights organization.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.