Editor,
In response to the column Bush
barter your Bible for the Bill of Rights that appeared in The Post on April 29, I see the political stance of President Bush on abortion as a step in the right direction for the Baby's Bill of Rights.
The arguments against morality and Bible-belt conservativism-driven decisions may give a negative connotation to the truth that we finally have a president who is standing up for the rights of the child. Yes, I agree with Bush's stance and am pro-life, but does that mean I am against women's rights? No.
All women should, and are guaranteed, all of the rights of any other citizen of the United States of America. But, to fully cover the basis for any decision, all sides of the argument should be heard and evaluated. We should also turn our focus to all of the unborn children whose rights before birth were tossed out with the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Some might see pro-women's rights and pro-life as impossible, but I beg to differ. If I am not mistaken, our laws protect people from harm inflicted by others. To have a choice to abort a baby to me gives conditionality to a law that has been in place for quite some time, and a principle that our country was founded upon: one certainly cannot take away another's life, and doing so certainly would not guarantee life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, to those who are upset, enraged or elated by my defense of moral principles and the life of a child, take this as a challenge. In this presidential election year, take it to the polls. Use your voice in government to make a difference. After all, I realize that a letter to The Post can only do so much.
-Austin Nixon
an333201@ohio.edu
17
Archives
Letter to the Editor
