Debate goes beyond 'religious zealots'

John Gleason opens his recent letter with this: "Religious zealots are entitled to their beliefs, but in no way, shape, or form must the rest of us adhere to them." Hmmm … do you mean things like, "thou shalt not steal"? Or "thou shalt not kill"? Those are both laws given to man by God, two of the Ten Commandments, and have been around somewhat longer than this country has. As such, is he suggesting that only "religious zealots" are to obey them?

He also writes that, "The argument that life begins at conception is solely a religious one, and one that is subject to personal beliefs and faiths." I've got news for you: one does not need any religious beliefs at all to understand that life does indeed begin at conception. If it does not, then I suppose we all just crawled out from under a rock somewhere, the result of a cosmic accident in a pool of primordial soup?

The human egg is itself alive, even before conception, as is the human sperm. Once the two come together, an individual is created, unlike any other that ever lived or will live. It's simple biology.

You can argue against "religious zealots" all you want, but are you also going to argue against that biology? Dare I ask: are you a science denier?

John Babush

Big Rock