Writer misses point of merger breakdown

To the editor:

John Stanton’s religious tunnel vision (Letters 7/19) refuses to recognize the sizable number of moral and religious people in the area served by Abington Hospital who do not take the point of view that the Catholic Church takes on the termination of pregnancy.

The failure of the merger between the Abington and Holy Redeemer systems was the result of a protest both by the hospital staff and the community which Abington serves. Stanton cannot get past his catechism to study the beliefs of others with different points of view. If he had done so, he would have found that Jews have had a remarkably different point of view on abortion, arguing from virtually the same scriptures, but refusing to accept the Greco-Roman restrictions on abortion, which places a higher value on the life of the living mother than on the life of the still-developing, largely reflexive fetus, which under- stands the exception for the “life or health” of the mother because it was part of our religious response for centuries and not the situational ethics of recent times. This is something that Abington’s Jewish staff and Abington’s Jewish community understand completely.

We recognize the necessity of Catholics and fundamentalist Christians to pursue their beliefs and to enforce their ethics on their own faith communities. I categorically reject Stanton’s insistence on enforcing his beliefs through corporate mergers or restricting the free practice of moral individuals who disagree with them by passing laws tending to enforce a national religion. The same legal arrogance which attempts to enforce religious beliefs by straightjacketing doctors and patients is the same arrogance which now attempts to restrict our commonwealth’s right to vote. Ben Burrows

Elkins Park “… since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires, and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now.”

On the July 11 airing of Talk of the Nation (WNPR), the guest was John Foley, director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Minnesota. At the top of the show he stated: “The climate science, I would argue is very, very clear that, you know, we’re warming the climate. We are responsible for that.”

During this election cycle, let’s use our power as voters to demand that candidates address their plans for using the technologies that exist and those within our reach to push toward a more climate-friendly economy. Theresa Deckebach

Glenside