Don’t confuse abortion, contraception

It is unfortunate that the critical distinction between abortion and contraception is being muddied in our political discourse. Many who strongly oppose unrestricted abortion support with equal conviction the freedom to rely on contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

The axiom that human life is too valuable to terminate casually is deeply ingrained in our civilized consciousness, applying it to every person regardless of gender, age, race, or mental or physical condition. There seems to be no valid argument against the view that human life begins at conception. Thus, to terminate a life regardless of its state of development, or whether it is inside or outside the womb, should not be considered a woman’s inherent right. There are circumstances that may justify termination, such as rape, incest, or a mother’s health, but these are factors in a very small portion of abortions; such anomalies do not justify abortion on demand for lesser reasons.

On the other hand, the view that sexual intercourse must include the potential for conception has no legitimate moral foundation. It simply promotes artificial religious guilt and intrudes into the most sensitive and personal of human activities. The right to conceive or not to conceive should be entirely the right of the woman. Even beyond this premise, the record of religious tampering with sexual issues is abysmal, as exemplified by execution of adulterers, persecution of homosexuals, concealed pedophilia, female mutilation and other atrocities.

Abortion and contraception are not equivalent imperatives. Opposition to abortion relates to the value of human life; opposition to contraception is based on a religious dogma. We should not allow confusion about this difference to be exploited by political demagogy.

Paul Herman

Libertyville