Supporters of abortion rarely use science and moral reasoning in their arguments but instead they usually appeal to appetite and self-indulgence masked as a "right to choose."
This was clearly manifest in Bonnie Erbe's recent paean (Record-Courier, Feb. 22) directed at "hero" New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed Reproductive Health Act.
Among a variety of abortion facilitating regulations, this legislation would allow non-physicians to perform abortions (not mentioned by Erbe) and promote late-term abortions (even after eight months) for "health" reasons.
This act is proposed for a state whose principal city already is the abortion capital of the country. For example, in 2009 New York City had an astounding abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of 688, which is more than double that for the country and means that 41 percent of all pregnancies brought to term in the city ended in abortion.
Erbe correctly noted that Cuomo's proposals for New York are in stark contrast with those enacted in an increasing number of states that have recently passed laws that, in general, only provide transparency regarding the abortion procedure or guidance by parents if minors are involved.
Regarding these laws, Erbe's response is: "The findings are quite troubling to those who believe a woman should have control over her own reproductive functions."
Is she suggesting that the small, independently developing human being housed in his/her mother's womb is a "reproductive function?" Certainly "reproductive functions" cannot be literally torn limb from limb by scissors and suction.
Frederick Walz, Ravenna