We have differences over what you call “abortion,” “choice,” and “women’s right to choose.” We call it murder of an unborn child. You call it “women’s health care” while we think of it as correcting a mistake or avoiding what you would see as an inconvenience as opposed to a blessing. These differences and arguments have raged for years, even to the point of justifying this act up to the point of birth. It is not about these differences for which I am asking your help to understand. We know your justifications and as we learn more and more about the life of the unborn child, more and more people are rejecting your justifications.
It is about your new position I and many others are seeking understanding. The new position about which I speak is that position justifying the taking of the life of a child after that child has been separated from their mother; born. The description given by one of your own goes like thus; the child is born and is apart from their mother but still in the same room. The describer went on to state that the child should be kept warm and comfortable while the abortionist and mother discuss the fate of the child. If the abortionist and mother determine for whatever reason that the life of the child should be taken, your positions would support this act, an act which can only be described as murder. I believe you would agree with that assessment.
Please, help us understand how you justify that position. Please help us understand how you sleep at night knowing your position ends the life of a living newly born child. Please help us understand at what age, if any, you would deem the ending of the life of a child as being beyond your justifications.
There are many of us, with more and more becoming a part of the many every day, who do not understand your line of reasoning. You understand and we understand that hearing your line of reasoning will not necessarily change anybody’s mind, but it could certainly help bridge ravines and perhaps began some sort of rationale dialogue.
Thank you to any who would be a part of this dialogue. Please, no name calling or uncivilized discussion from either side. The question is very serious. My purpose for encouraging this discussion is because it is not only my belief, and the belief of many, that the action denies life and is detrimental to society. History shows that these actions, and yes they have been a part of past societies, have been regarded as a contributing factor to the downfall of those societies.