The Observer is a student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame, Saint Mary's & Holy Cross. Learn about us.



Counter for Schwartz

Letter to the Editor | Monday, October 27, 2008

I’d like to respond to Lindsay Schwartz’s letter to the editor by identifying and countering some points she made in the letter.

1. “If anyone really cared to dissect the issue …” This statement insults all those who have taken a lot of time, often much of their lives, to really dissect the issue and defend their stances.

2. “They’d see that the real issue at stake has nothing to do with abortion per se.” This issue revolves around abortion and has everything to do with it. This is not a matter concerning a woman’s right to choose to vote. It is a matter concerning the so-called right to choose abortion. If one thinks abortion is a grave evil, he could not lovingly condone the choice of a fellow human being to partake in that action.

3. “Whether a woman has the right to have domain over her own body …” Her own body is the vessel for the small one inside of her. There are two distinct bodies, two human beings. And we cannot forget who gave her that body, so where does she derive the right to destroy that gift and that of her child?

4. “The pro-choice viewpoint dictates that it’s her right, not the government’s.” It’s a fairly shocking belief that any one individual has the right to choose death for another innocent human being. It’s a more acceptable and logical belief that the government has the right, the duty, to protect the right to life of its citizens. The pro-choice viewpoint upholds that first belief and rejects the second.

5. “Pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints don’t necessarily contradict each other.” The pro-life viewpoint rests on the fundamental right to life of every human being from conception until natural death. The pro-choice viewpoint does not. It rests on a conditional right to life, by which the right to life of the child is determined by the mother, and the “fullness” of her life is more valuable than the chance of life for her child. They contradict.

6. “Abortion is a tragedy for all parties involved and not ideal.” Abortion is a moral evil, a grave infraction of the moral order; to say that it is not ideal is an understatement.

7. “What about the right of would-be mothers to live that same full, healthy life?” What idea do we have of motherhood if one of the “rights” is to choose to have her child killed? I think most of us are glad that our mothers didn’t view their vocation in this way.

8. “While it is a regrettable situation …” This terminology once again trivializes the gravity of the situation. A mother’s choosing the death of her child is more than just a regrettable situation. It is an evil, disordered, unloving action. And how cruel are we that we’d want to allow women to enter into such situations? So, if one cares to dissect the issue, he’d uncover all that’s buried beneath the term pro-choice, from its basic denial of rights to the unborn, to its disregard for the good of fellow human beings. To answer the question, we all have a right to life from our conception to our natural death, and the sooner we realize that the better.

Laura Lindsley



Oct. 13