Abortion defined
To the Journal editor:
On Nov. 13, 2019, the Mining Journal published an article concerning Mike Shirkey and his statement noting that in his mind, the existence of abortion today is as much of a scourge on our society as slavery was when that was still in practice.
The article cited Erika Geiss’ critiques which included a request for an apology. Regardless of who these individuals are, I am left wondering when we started to demand apologies from people because they have a different belief than we do?
If that is where we truly are as a society, then I would like to request that Geiss apologize for reducing abortion to “a reproductive health care choice” which I personally find offensive.
In addition, I would like to engage in a little thought exercise. Just suppose that instead of thinking of a fetus as an undefined thing that you can seek to eliminate like a virus, you viewed it as a unique human life filled with potential. Instead of limiting it to health care, you acknowledged that in order for this “care” to be administered, it would require intentionally ending the life of this child.
If that was how you interpreted abortion, wouldn’t you consider that to be as morally reprehensible as the enslavement of others? If not, would you make the case that it would have been better for all of those who were enslaved to have been aborted instead of subjected to a life of slavery? That seems to be quite shaky ground to me.
If Mr. Shirkey believes abortion is a scourge, why would we try to force him to hold to a position that is inconsistent with his worldview, conscience, and, dare I say, science?
JORDAN LANGNESS
Ishpeming