Abortion is, and should be, legal

The abortion letters fly again, this time about dog-fighting vs. abortion. One of the latest letters asserts that it's about "morality, not legality."

That's exactly the point. I have yet to find an argument for banning choice on abortion, especially in the early months, on anything other than religious belief. The arguments have no clear scientific data behind them, and there is still no general consensus pointing to the moment when life as a human being begins. It's a matter of what people believe and what their religion says.

The May 2004 issue of Discover magazine has the most readable summary of scientific data on this matter that I've found. Arguing about dogs is a distraction from the issue. When reasonable people in a democracy disagree, the majority, using the clearest objective data available, makes the law, while preserving the rights of the minority. A reasonable argument can be made, without religion, that the potential for human life should be prepared for with responsibility and treated with respect. I also think a reasonable argument can be made for saving third-trimester procedures for tragedies such as hydatidiform moles and anenchphaly. Not so with outright bans.

Has anyone noticed that fertility clinics cull fertilized eggs for implantation, lose some because they never implant, and destroy those left over after couples have completed their families? I don't understand why the anti-choice crowd spends so much time opposing facilities (like Aurora's) which offer medical care promoting healthy women and healthy, wanted babies. If this crowd truly believes that a few cells equal a whole human being, why aren't they out picketing every fertility clinic in the nation? It makes one wonder what their issue really is.

Barbara Muehlhausen

Schaumburg