Lack of reasoning blunts pro-choice argument
On Sept. 10, The Journal Gazette ran a piece about supposed inconsistencies in the pro-life movement.
Abe Schwab argues that if we were truly pro-life, we would support universal health care, more food stamps, Medicare and the like, a position which blithely assumes that socialist policies are the best and presumably only ways to ensure the well-being of a people. He likewise claims that pro-life people should necessarily advocate for contraception and safe-sex education, thus ignoring the overwhelming evidence that separating sex from marriage has led to every kind of societal ill, and to a generation in which half of our children do not live with a father at home.
Schwab also addresses the supposed hypocrisy of the pro-life person who also supports the death penalty. How can I support the death penalty? The same reason I support incarceration for guilty criminals but think that an innocent person should never be thrown in jail.
Schwab supports the goal of fewer abortions, but never tells us why. If abortions should be fewer, are they in some way bad? How so? Is it just a feeling on his part? Or is there something intrinsically bad about taking the life of an innocent human being? Whose face do we see in the ultrasound?
Until Schwab speaks about that child in the womb, he is simply playing a game of distraction. The ethicist must get to the heart of the matter, in this case the little heartbeat of the unborn child. If the ethicist says abortions should be fewer, he should let us in on his reasoning. And if he feels it is OK to take the life of an innocent human being, he should likewise let us know how he has come to such a conclusion.
Peter J. Scaer
“Unvaccinated Lives Matter” says 3rd District Congressperson Jim Banks. Matter to whom? Evidently not to the unvaccinated themselves.
Broad-brush statements discredit opponents
After painting abortion opponents with a broad brush during the first half of his Sept. 10 column, Abe Schwab puts the brush down and acknowledges his criticisms don't apply to all abortion opponents. He even acknowledges that some of his “they are” statements may be unfair.
Then he picks up the brush again to declare “they will” do certain things and reads their minds to determine their motives.
Schwab never mentions that many people oppose abortion because they believe it is taking an actual or potential human life. Let's look at his distinction of “I would never feel right doing that” vs. “No one should ever be allowed to do that” in the context of slavery or even racist discrimination in general. What would we think of someone who said, “I would never feel right owning a slave, but if other people want to, that's their choice.” Or, “I would never discriminate against people because of their race, but if other people want to, that's their choice.”
Schwab should think again about this issue – and put down the broad brush while doing so.