I was privileged to be in the gallery March 22 for the Senate debate of the heartbeat bill.
Of course the word “choice” was used repeatedly but never revealing what that “choice” was.
“Choice” is not a complete concept without stating what the choice is. The word “choice” has an attachment to it and that attachment is the right to take a life. It would be like saying someone has a propensity – without saying what that propensity is for.
It appears that we have exchanged the sanctity of life for the sanctity of “choice.”
It was hugely disappointing that some senators did not sound as though they were offering expert opinions – or had even done their homework.
Shouldn’t we all want to know or learn when life begins? Since science has progressed so enormously since Roe v. Wade, should we not take in that new information and allow it to function in the formation of our opinions?
I fear though (and I am being facetious) that if it could be shown that an unborn baby is doing calculus in the womb that some would still demand “choice.”
Surely for all to form an honest opinion, the fact that a great number of medical doctors have attested to the fact that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life ought to have been addressed. And please consider this: abortion is not the answer for rape, because then you have one damaged and one dead. The testimonies of those who are glad to be alive and are valuable human beings (although conceived by rape) speak volumes.
The pro-abortion side failed to give criteria for when it is OK to snuff out a life in the womb. They failed to answer the question as to why a 6-month-old baby has more moral value than a 6-month-old unborn baby. They failed to answer the question as to why they have the moral right to end a child’s life.
As Americans who work against discrimination in many areas, we have been blind to this blatant and horrific discrimination of the most vulnerable and most innocent. It’s a child — not a choice.
Barbara Buzzard
Fayetteville, Ga.
