A matter of choice

Re “Abortion’s battle of messages,” Opinion, Jan. 22

Certainly a woman has a right to decide if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. But at some point in her pregnancy, she should lose that right.

Almost everyone agrees that if a woman waits until her baby is born and then kills it, she has committed a homicide. But what about two weeks before the due date? Or two months?

The Supreme Court must decide at what point abortion becomes murder. Of course, exceptions must be made in cases of rape or incest or if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. But even in cases of rape or incest, there is no reason a woman should delay her decision. After the permissible time expires, a woman forfeits the right to make that decision.

Elvira Mastro

Los Angeles

As a person who is pro-choice, I am dismayed at how the way we talk about abortion has devolved. It seems one of the messages that gets lost is that we should strive to have every child born be a child that is wanted. It is plain to see the difference in the lives of children who were wanted and the children who were considered a mistake.

Unless we give up on sex entirely, there always will be unplanned pregnancies. Even when people are careful, mistakes happen. We need to strive for honest, up-to-date sex education. When that fails, Plan B, or the morning-after pill, is the next best thing. Then, finally, we must have abortion available.

If abortion opponents have their way, there will be more unwanted, unhappy, unhealthy children struggling through life -- a much crueler fate, I would argue.

Gina Medeiros

San Diego

The allegation that the “pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground” is ridiculous and unattainable.

The moral high ground cannot be claimed by anyone pro-choice because they are not pro-choice at all but rather pro-mother’s convenience.

Every abortion, excluding those related to the health of the baby or the mother, is morally repugnant, because the mother’s decision is always based on selfish considerations. She can’t afford it, doesn’t like the father, is not with the father, may not know who the father is, is too young and on and on.

Balancing a baby against any of these claims precludes the pro-choice lobby from ever being able to claim the moral high ground.

Old people are inconvenient. People with diseases are inconvenient. The mentally impaired are inconvenient. We do not murder human beings out of convenience. It is morally wrong to do so.

Rene Sanz

Los Angeles