No Logic in Editorial Abortion Stand

I was appalled to see the editorial on abortion rights (“Edging the Court Out of the Way,” March 9) on the same page with the editorial concerning the Irvine Unified School District’s Board of Education (“Teaching Morals in the Schools”), (which states): “Schools are important tools in teaching that ‘morals’ and ‘values’ are not merely a set of beliefs . . . (but) part of a much broader set of social principles, goals and standards of conduct necessary for people to live peaceably together.”

In the adjoining editorial, your strong support of the proposed freedom of choice act that (states) “a state may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability” causes me to miss the logic.

Fetal (human before birth) viability depends primarily on nourishment and shelter by the parent (via a woman’s uterus); childhood (human after birth, no matter what period of gestation) viability also depends primarily on nourishment and shelter by the parent, man or woman or both. Either one would die without nourishment and shelter. The latter death is called murder.

I have empathy for those who believe that freedom of choice is the answer, but I believe our founding forefathers would unanimously support “fetal” life and their rights. Finagling or gerrymandering the intent of the Constitution by enacting new laws to circumvent the pertinent Constitution’s review by the Supreme Court should be abhorred.

LARRY E. BISHOP

Lake Forest