There should be a middle ground in the argument over abortion

Lifelong debate

Regarding “Opinion: Early abortion looks nothing like what you’ve been told,” (Jan. 25): This New York Times article published on your Wednesday opinion page sums up how we got to our present unacceptable position and away from the middle ground supported and endorsed by most of the U.S. population. My wife and I have been married for 58 years and came to the U.S. from England. When we had our first child, we needed to ensure that our gynecologist was not Catholic. We feared that, in the case of labor difficulties likely to cause the mother to lose her life, the Catholic doctrine, which does not accept abortion of any kind, might require the doctor to stand back and do nothing.

We both think that abortion should be permitted to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and in cases where the embryo is deformed or a baby would be born with severe mental or physical defects. But neither of us supports abortion as an elective method of birth control, which is exactly what this article seems to be about. A student in her early 20s who lives in Texas panicked because she felt it wasn’t the right time for her to have a child. An unplanned pregnancy is always a possibility if you have sex, and people should accept this as the price of love.

So the tragedy is that after Roe v. Wade, abortion became available as a method of elective birth control. My wife and I would never march on the streets in support of either side of the debate, but people who have strong views against abortion as a method of elective birth control have no other choice but to encourage and pass anti-abortion legislation, as we have done in Texas.

Can we not try and return to the middle ground and permit abortions for proper reasons?

Cyril E. Arney, Houston

I’m surprised that in reading columns and letters in the Chronicle’s Opinion section I’ve yet to see any mention of the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which has been used as the basis of similar laws in 38 states. These laws recognize an embryo or fetus in utero as a separate legal victim if they are injured or killed. The point here is that this federal law essentially says life begins at conception, and similar state laws say the same. If proponents of free access to abortion are concerned about state or federal laws, why is it that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of

2004 is never mentioned?

I was pretty indifferent about abortion until I spoke with then-U.S. Rep. Trent Franks one Sunday after church many years ago when I lived in Phoenix. Seeing the passion in his eyes and hearing the passion in his voice as he described learning that his mother had been advised by doctors to abort him because of his cleft lip and palate hit me on an emotional level I’d previously not felt. We’re left to wonder who all of the aborted fetuses may have become; what experiences, joys, accomplishments they’re denied.

The rationale for the vast majority of abortions seems to be inconvenience or economic hardship presented by a new child, and this is not really arguable — abortion is almost always used as the ultimate birth control method when other methods were not used. This issue is a major part of the culture wars in America that continue to divide Americans. Laws often can change people’s behaviors, but they don’t change people’s hearts. The push for abortion rights will not subside as long as some people feel their personal convenience and personal budget are more important than an unborn human, which means the debate will rage on indefinitely.

Greg Groh, Houston

More questions

Why didn’t the Chronicle publish the photographs with “Early Abortion Nothing Like You’ve Been Told” that the

New York Times did in the initial publication? Instead, there’s a photo of people’s lower legs, walking. You completely diluted the article. I am disappointed.

Elsa Kapitan-White, Spring

Regarding “Abortion,” (Jan. 23): Many on the right still seem to think of women as a separate species who need to be protected from the dangerous, complicated world. They believe that the patriarchy knows what’s best and can’t be bothered to listen when a woman speaks. A lot of women are of the same opinion.

If religion is the main reason for some people’s abortion beliefs, then why give the expresident a pass on his moral failings? Isn’t the Bible pretty clear on false prophets and how they should be treated? Bob Gayle, Houston

Regarding “A look at California’s deadly back-to-back mass shootings,” (Jan. 26): Why do we only hear the phrase “pro-life” or “prochoice” in relation to abortion debates, and not regarding deaths by guns?

Is it because “life before birth” is more significant than life after birth, or because those who take away lives through abortions are more sinister than those who take away lives using bullets? Venugopal Menon, Pearland