Abortion foes don't have to be religious

David Paschal's March 12 Fence Post letter states "to say that the abortion issue is not about religion is absolutely laughable." While certainly no mainstream religion I am aware of supports abortion, a perfectly logical argument may be made without regard to religion in denouncing abortion. Anyone who has taken any class on biology knows that from the moment of conception, the human body begins to grow. There are various "mileposts" along the way to full-term birth that let you know a human being is residing in the mother's uterus. The advent of ultrasound photos and other technology allow the parents and doctor to follow the baby's development. One may ascertain a heartbeat from the baby in around six weeks. A baby in the uterus can feel pain around the seventh week. I could go on, but the point is ... name one nonliving being that continually grows, has a heart beat and feels pain? I am not aware of any. Here is another nonreligious point: There are numerous laws that outlaw injuring or killing a fetus; think of Laci Peterson's law, which statutorily uses the term "unborn CHILDREN " throughout the text. These laws are completely consistent with acknowledging the baby in the uterus is a living being and completely inconsistent with the so-called "right" to abortion. Paschal goes on to state that a previous letter writer "is not entitled to force his religious beliefs on everyone else in this country." From this statement, Paschal appears to want to be able to pick and choose which rights people exercise. Paschal is all for the exercise of the abortion law, but against the exercise of freedom of speech.

Paul Gennuso

Itasca