Abortion and ‘Neutral’ Law

I appreciate that The Times has been printing a variety of positions on the issue of who decides whether a woman can have an abortion legally. I would like to comment on the position taken by Philip A. Lacovara.

He claims to show that the pro-choice position does not stand up to analysis by “neutral” legal principles. He then proceeds to present distorted and incomplete versions of pro-choice positions and criticize them from positions that are not in the least neutral. His claim to neutrality is a sham, and he apparently does not really understand the essence of the pro-choice position at all.

He does not deal with the most basic principle of all--that a person should have control over what happens to her body. The decision to have or not have a baby is fundamentally different than any other decision because the woman’s own body is involved.

I believe that there may be a middle ground possible, but no middle ground violates a person’s right to control their own body, any more than a true middle ground treats the issue of abortion as if it were no more significant than a face lift.

KENDALL SEGEL-EVANS

Los Angeles