‘Pro-Choice Intensity’
William Schneider’s “Pro-Choice Intensity Puts Politicians to the Test” (Opinion, Oct. 29) boils down the issue to “a conflict of values--faith vs. reason.”
While I would agree that it is a conflict of values, I don’t buy that it is faith vs. reason. Schneider makes an error that is all too often made by the pro-choice camp. He sidetracks the issue into a “religious” or “faith” issue.
The issue, clearly, is a constitutional issue. Simply stated, does the Constitution of the United States protect the life of the unborn child or doesn’t it? Neither Roe vs. Wade nor Webster determined that issue.
Until that issue is dealt with, we will continue to have division and strife in our nation regarding abortion.
Additionally, Schneider’s clear implication is that faith and reason is an oxymoron. Our nation’s finest centers for higher learning (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc.) were founded by men and women who understood the proper relationship between faith and reason.
Values, by their very nature, are subjective and situational without a rule book. Our Constitution seems to place high value on life, no matter the stage of chronological maturity. If, in fact, it is our nation’s “rule book,” then we must follow it.
Our alternative choice is to degenerate into a nation of situational ethics without the absolute values that revere, protect and preserve life.
ERIC R. SNYDER
Westminster
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
