Beaufort, N.C.

May 20, 2019

TO THE EDITOR:

The abortion divide in this country has only deepened since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1972. Medical science has advanced the lateness of the termination of the pregnancy, at the same time that it reversed the earliness of the viability of life outside the womb.

Now more than ever, the topic is a value judgment concerning human life. One side of the issue values the existing life of the mother over the potential life of the child. The other side supports the promise of new life over the life of its host.

Viewed through this lens, it is easier to decipher the current dynamic. The same Republican men and women willing to take a bullet in the armed services for the greater good of the nation cannot understand the unwillingness to sacrifice, while the Democratic women fighting for the ERA in a #metoo world cannot understand the lack of personal validation.

So, let’s be honest. When we talk about life/abortion, national security, the death penalty or the Second Amendment, we walk into the debate with preconceived value judgments about which life matters more than another. We are discussing which life will be permitted to continue at the expense of another life being taken. And, we are often making that value judgment in the abstract and on behalf of others.

We need both sides at the policy table, and we need a renaissance of moderates in elected office. Each side keeps the other from going too far in favor of one judgment or another. Each side can offer expertise on an academic and applied level. Each side also has some who have lived the issue.

What concerns me more than the topic is the inter-personal destruction that is the new norm. It serves no end. It weakens everything from friendships to our country, and it leaves critical decisions in the hands of a tiny number of judges. Speaking as both an attorney and an activist with more than 25 years of experience in state and federal courts and legislatures, I strongly prefer grassroots driven legislation.

When we toss critical decisions into the hands of nine judges out of our 330 million Americans, we all stand to lose. I assure you: there is not such thing as a slam dunk courtroom. The sooner we get down to business by sitting at the same table, the more viable our collective future.

PALOMA CAPANNA

(7) comments

David Collins

Back in the day, unwanted pregnancies were just, taken care of. Some went on a European vacation, some went south of the border and the inner city gals went to a fixer down the street. Things did not always end well because of the clandestine nature of it all. Permanent damage was done. One thing is for sure, if there is a need it WILL be filled. Just the way things work. If abortions are allowed it should be in a proper facility. This is a decision between the female, the medical professional and if it applies, her God. Now, the devil is in the details as to when is allowable. First 60 days should be fair. I am leaving out any mention of morality because that is a personal problem. Not a particularly pleasant subject to begin with but in these times it is a hot topic with hotheads with polar opposes agendas vention for all to hear. Do not wish for it to become a Supreme Court decision to make because I do not consider this a Constitutional issue. Hopefully mature adults will figure this out. So, let the games begin!

David Collins

Really do find the auto fill function to be lacking. Hopefully things will be readable.

DeadBolt

Compromise on Abortion,,,,,,,,,,,,

Ok, lets place this topic in teal time , it is allowed and funded as disgraceful as it is to MURDER BABIES, so, exactly whats the compromise?

Collins mentioned back in the day, well, as i remember, and i may be from a different day, the children were not terminated based on a whim, in point of fact older generations owned their responsibility.

Did this practice go on back when, i'm sure it did, was it safe, probably not, which is another reason it should have never been permitted.

People call this genocide in other countries, here is an example from 1994.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide


Just to place this in prospective , Planned Parenthood funds over 350,000 (yes, thats over a quarter million ) of these per year.

For the past 12 years.

We are approaching Hitler's status on death's of our own peoples.

Not a great leap forward IMO.

Maybe we need things like this?

Discipline = Freedom


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBmVv2P-v2s


I do not know of any other country that actually promotes by way of the medical system , and social services , etc, this amount of KILLING.

Its one thing to de in a war, this is another level of sickness, especially when there are multiple other options.

Good luck squaring this one away though.

00rolf

One has to be a .... to compare the genocide in Rwanda to abortion. Not one, and I reapeat, not one of those killed in Rwanda was because of abortion.

(Edited by staff.)

David Collins

Back in the day refers to the time I became aware of this thing called abortion.1950s I believe and it had been going on for quite a while because it was common knowledge. Just seldom spoken of. Had a cousin that flew for TWA Airlines and revealed that plenty of folks flew to certain European Cities to have this done. So, with that said, it is highly doubtful that legislating an out right ban on the procedure would really be effective. Just like drugs and stolen guns, someone will provide. For a fee of course. Totally impossible to legislate morality no matter what the level of punishment. Have always said that Planned Parenthood provides a useful service because the government, that means D’s and Rs alike, would have shut them down if they did not. Think about that and what it means. Not exactly warm and fuzzy. Is it? That is the reason I totally hate this subject because there are no winners. Could elaborate for a good long time but what is the point?

CARTERETISCORRUPT

This should never have been a federal question at all. Each state should decide on its own on abortion. That way a person wanting to kill her baby can go to a state allowing infanticide, should she live in a state that does not allow abortion. Compromise, there you have it. Each state decides for itself, not the federal government. Medical issues are usually decided on the state level.

David Collins

Although I have no proof and am not going to visit Rwanda to find any, but in the process of genocide I would bet you that plenty of pregnant women were slaughtered. This has a tendency to kill the unborn within. Doesn’t it ? Different name, same results. The African Continent is such a nice, kind and loving place. Even the Hurricanes, that make up there, come to us bearing love.

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.