Regarding Paul Lundy’s June 10 letter “After heartbeat law, a slogan suggestion.”
Lundy seems to be mixing his biases: gun control, women’s rights and unborn children’s rights. The bill has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a child’s life in the womb.
Actions have consequences.
We are in times where many forms of birth control are available and fewer babies are available for adoption than there are adopters. A mother lovingly accepts the pregnancy. A woman, too lazy to use birth control, who gets pregnant and does not want the baby or the disruption to “her” life or lacks a committed father figure for the child or any one of many other “excuses” has no right to abort the fetus after a heartbeat is detected. Who will speak for the protection of the unborn child, if that woman won’t?
To me, it comes down to the fact that if morality is absent, as much as I dislike government interference, the government must stand for the innocent. If a pregnant woman is killed, the perpetrator is charged with a double murder. How is this different?
If the stopping of a beating heart signifies death, why doesn’t the starting of a beating heart signify life?