I eventually got through the article but I was fascinated, and offended, by the assumption the writer of the New York Times made in the second paragraph. He alluded to Alabama and Georgia pro-life lawmakers as not only pushing to have Roe overturned, but also to "recognize the personhood of the fetus." Why do I find offense in this? Let me count the ways.

It seems to me that you are talking about the potential of human life, both male and female, in a crass or callous way. You give little or no thought to the One who designed and affirmed the only creative process we humans have. Birth and family is His gift to us, not to be taken so lightly. Overturning Roe v Wade has been an ongoing argument of many since its inception in 1973, yet your "but also" comment reminds me of a server asking what you want for a "side" with your main course. Finally, the phrase "despite our medical advances over time, which have given us much more information about the life of the 'fetus'" still signifies a cheapening of human life.

That's enough. I will rely on the mercy and forgiveness of God to help get us thinking rightly regarding abortion before it's too late, as we continue to fall down the slippery slope of immorality, heading toward imminent destruction. Google '"History: Civilizations that have come to ruin on this earth ... 'Internal factors.'" For 46 years, the "tone" has been set. God help us.

Thomas Welsh

Barre

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.