Judging Roe vs. Wade

Re “The reality of Roe,” editorial, and “The new abortion warriors,” Jan. 22

If it weren’t a man’s world, if our religions and cultures didn’t elevate the status of the sperm donor while condemning the failings of the egg producer, if creating a new life wasn’t honored and esteemed for men under all circumstances but for women only in marriage, if we truly thought life precious and valuable, impregnating a woman outside of the marriage bed would be a felony, and failing to support the woman and her fetus would be a “special circumstance” crime.

When “boys will be boys” becomes a forgotten phrase, there will be no need to argue about abortion, to manipulate the naive passions of adolescents or to remember the slow, painful deaths women suffered at the hands of unskilled, backroom abortionists.

Ellen Zunino

Monrovia

--

The subhead of the editorial said, “The landmark abortion ruling is established law. Overturning it would cause severe upheaval.” The text called the case “ ‘part of our national culture’ and therefore deserving of protection.” The logic of those statements -- that issues of a moral nature cannot be reconsidered and reformed because of inconvenience to society -- scares me. Remember that slavery, segregation and women not having the right to vote or own property were “established laws.” Were they deserving of protection?

Anne McCarney

El Segundo

--

Your argument that the Supreme Court should keep Roe vs. Wade because of precedent is badly flawed. Should the court respect the Dred Scott decision? I submit that a bad ruling should be overturned and good ones upheld. Blindly bowing to precedent serves no one, and no matter your position on whether abolition should be legal, Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision. It invented constitutional rights and is a perfect example of judicial activism. The matter of abortion’s legality should be left up to state legislatures.

Mathew Andresen

Lompoc