Without debating the morality of abortion or who should be allowed to perform the procedure, I would like to point out one error in your editorial, “Maryland’s choice to back women’s reproductive rights — and medical science” (April 11).
Your reference to “deeply-held religious beliefs about pregnancy and whether women should have control over their bodies” is a mischaracterization of your opponents’ viewpoint so you can quickly arrive at your conclusion about the imposition on others of religious belief (and presumably its outrageous inappropriateness in a democracy). As if pro-lifers were trying to enshrine in law the divinity of Christ (a true religious belief which requires that the will compel the intellect to assent).
By labeling opposition to a woman’s right to choose a religious belief, The Baltimore Sun Editorial Board is asserting that it is not based on any evidence and therefore should be, for the health of the Republic, completely dismissed. This is philosophical legerdemain. One’s opposition to abortion is not necessarily a religious belief. It is like one’s opinion on stealing or assault (opposition to which most, if not all, societies have legislated against based on the evidence). That religious systems include such opposition in their moral codes does a not make it an instance of religious belief.
I think atheists who oppose abortion might be surprised to learn that they are, in fact, religious believers. Opposition to abortion is an opinion based on evidence. People may disagree on how to interpreted that evidence and in a democracy the citizenry has the right to debate their opinions and persuade with argument.
John R. Devine, Baltimore
Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.
