Moral arguments tired in abortion debate

Although columnist Cal Thomas seemed somewhat conciliatory toward President Obama's approach to abortion policy, he persisted in reciting many of the tired ideological arguments that social conservatives have clung to for many years.

He suggests, for example, that the only reason to want to reduce the number of abortions is because it represents the taking of a human life. But abortion is a medical procedure that carries with it the risk of infection, reduced fertility and psychological problems - good reasons to want to reduce the numbers. If we only focus on the inflammatory moral argument, we often miss the opportunity to utilize more pragmatic arguments in discouraging abortion.

Thomas predicts a "new push for contraceptives and the kind of sex education that has failed to reduce and some believe encourages sexual activity." Cal must be talking about those abstinence programs that have been such a roaring success; but if he's not, then exactly how does he expect unintended pregnancies to be reduced if our children are kept in ignorant bliss about what causes pregnancy and STD's?

It is nothing more than urban legend that responsible sex education programs encourage sexual activity. As for distributing contraceptives, if a distribution program stops only one pregnancy or one case of AIDS for every thousand that are distributed, it's worth the cost.

I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion - it is not something that anyone wishes for, and yet abortion persists as one of the most divisive issues in American politics in large part because it has become politicized.

If we fail to take a pragmatic and nonideological approach to the problem, it will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Our government must remain a secular and pragmatic force with regard to such issues; the U.S. government was never intended to be a guide for our personal moral decisions.

William S. Hicks

Carpentersville