Court made the wrong decision

To the editor:
I would like to respond to Samm Quinn’s column concerning Roe v. Wade.
I will disagree with you on several issues without name-calling because, as you and I have experienced, it only serves to alienate people.
When a decision is made by a court system in this country, even if it is the Supreme Court, for one side or the other does not mean the losing side just rolls over and plays dead. It does mean in our society that we will have to live with it to the best of our ability but we can still work to have it change when we feel it to be a wrong decision.
Now this is just something to think about, even if 51 percent of the population is in favor of something and 49 percent is against, that’s still almost half the population that is against and when you are talking about something that is as sensitive to some people as taking a life, the debate will go on.
Let’s go to the debate that took place in your school. I would agree with you that the instructor should have set some parameters on what could or could not be said, but in the instructor’s defense, she might have thought that, considering our society today, someone would file a lawsuit against her and the school because of not-allowing free speech. It is unfortunate that sometimes in the heat of battle or, shall we say, in a heated discussion words get said that are not very appropriate, the words you used when describing your classmates as ignorant and arrogant. And well they might have been, but I could say the same thing about the people who back Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court that upheld it. In my view, they are just deceived and misguided.
When I opened the paper to your editorial, I really did not want to read it after I read the headline, for I knew it would be very contrary to my views. But I really believe you are a sincere and thoughtful personal and courageous for putting in print what you believe not knowing what will come back at you. As much as I disagree with you, I will thank you for writing it, for it got me out of my easy chair to express in writing my point of view.
One of your arguments for not outlawing abortion is that if abortion is outlawed it will make it more dangerous for the women and the babies. I am so glad you called it a baby and not a fetus or mass or fungus.
I agree if an abortion has to be done it should be done in the best possible environment but even in the best of environments how is this less dangerous for the baby? The very definition of abort is to put an end to or stop what is going on. In this case, it’s a life. So how is this safer for the baby? The end result is the same.
I will have to say there are some areas where I have not come to a final decision concerning this issue, but by and large if I err, I will err on the side of caution so for now I will do what little I can do to have Roe v. Wade overturned, for I believe it was one of the worst decisions this country ever made and it will, if it has not already, come back to haunt us.
I would ask one thing: If that baby, and that’s what you called it, could vote, how do you think he or she would vote? I don’t know and you don’t know, but for me, I will vote for him or her to have life. As I said, if I err, I will err on the side of caution. For, you see, I find it hard to get my mind around how destroying a life can make a person feel good about their life.
When your or my rights greatly infringe on someone else’s rights, especially the innocent, we have no rights.
Ralph Guingrich
Portland[[In-content Ad]]