To the Editor:
Re: Sheila Feeney’s letter (Jan. 22).
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court showed curious logic. Using words most of us don’t understand, it had previously found in the “penumbra of emanations” from the Constitution that Americans have a right to privacy. While these words are not in the Constitution, we would agree that we do have a right to privacy. But in Roe v. Wade, the court discovered that this right gives a woman the authority to have a doctor kill a living being within her.
Some people do believe abortion should be permitted only in the cases of rape, incest or the mother’s life; such cases would hardly account for the 55 million abortions in the past 40 years. That shocking total comes from the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Many say that a woman has a right to what she does to her body. Guess what? I agree, but in abortion we are talking about what is done to a different body, the tiny boy or girl in her womb. In my logic, the financial hardship and emotional embarrassment of a woman do not justify killing a human being.
Can anybody explain how the Supreme Court was being logical? Or did they just have to find some pretext of logic to justify what in their minds is a societal good?