Let’s have a discussion without hate and anger

18 Smoky Mountain News

Opinion Let’s have a discussion without hate and anger

As a pediatrician, I spent many years on hospital call in Haywood County and many long hours in the middle of the night trying to keep a newborn alive. So, I do understand and share the passion and concern expressed in the recently published response to my July 6 column in The Mountaineer about political violence and the reproductive rights of American women.

I disagree, however, with several of its main points.

The author writes that I “forget that abortion is the murder of a viable child.” That’s a strong opinion, and factually wrong. For those of us with decades of experience taking care of newborns, it is understood that no baby born before 20 weeks is a “viable child.” Medically this means the baby cannot survive outside the mother’s body.

Fewer than one percent of abortions occur after even possible viability at 21 weeks. Almost all post-viability terminations occur because the mother’s life is in danger or the baby has terrible birth defects that will cause it suffering and death if carried to term. Over 93 percent of abortions are done before 13 weeks, long before the fetus is viable outside the womb. (kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortionslater-in-pregnancy).

Certainly no six-week embryo, about the size of a small blueberry, can be thought to be a viable child, although some would say this is still a person. It might instead be said that this embryo, just starting to lose its tail and gills and just starting to develop a brain, has the potential to become a person.

We should discuss this highly emotional issue without hatred and anger and threats of violence.

It is very difficult to have that discussion when people publish untruths that inflame and misinform. The column claimed that some states are passing laws that would legalize killing infants up to 28 days after birth. No such law exists or is being considered. This untruth spreads hatred and anger. (factcheck.org/2022/04/california-not-poised-to-legalizeinfanticide)

The writer reports that he himself suffered hatred and anger — pushed and screamed at — while protesting against abortion in Asheville. I join him in condemning that kind of behavior. But I hope he doesn’t mean to say that this was the equivalent of a sniper killing Dr. Slepian while he was standing in his kitchen, or the other murders of doctors and clinic workers mentioned in my July 6 column. When does life begin? There have been many ideas about this throughout history. Is it when the first breath is taken (an interpretation of God breathing life into Adam’ nostrils in Genesis)? Or perhaps when “quickening” occurs — around 16 weeks, when a woman first feels the baby move. This was a common belief in colonial times. The Catholic Church agreed with ‘quickening’ until 1869. The sperm meets egg story is a recent addition to the discussion. (irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religionand-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from1869-1.1449517)

Some people believe that life and personhood begin at the moment a sperm penetrates an egg. For them, the use of any emergency medications to end or prevent pregnancy, even after rape or incest, is regarded as killing a person. For them, in-vitro fertilization should also be outlawed, as well as intrauterine devices (IUDs) that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

A newly fertilized egg is slightly smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

I do not believe that this tiny potential life outweighs the right of a women to determine her own destiny. I do not want the government to force its control over a woman’s uterus and her future life. That decision should be between a woman and her God.

For those who do believe that life begins at conception, their right to express this religious conviction is protected by the Constitution. However, it is not a belief shared by many in the medical, scientific and faith communities nor by many Americans. It is understandable that there are different views on this most profound of questions. Religious teachers, saints (St. Thomas Aquinas for one), philosophers and scientists have pondered this for centuries.

Finally, and tragically, we should remember that one of every five women in the U.S. will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. About one-third will be between the ages of 11 and 17. Many women desperately ask for prescription drugs that can terminate a pregnancy at a very early stage. This can be an emergency, like rape or incest, or just a terribly difficult decision a woman may have to make. At least 22 states are already banning or severely restricting access to these medications and threatening to prosecute women who use them as criminals. Texas has set up a bounty hunter system to track women down and collect a $10,000 reward.

This could be in North Carolina’s future. The coming November election may decide these issues, and citizens who oppose this attack on the human rights of women must make their voices heard. (Dr. Wall practiced pediatrics in Haywood County for 30 years.

He was a founding member of the KARE child abuse task force and Certified Child Medical Examiner for the county.)

Stephen Wall Guest Columnist

Socialism is a misused word

To the Editor:

The only thing I learned from a letter in a recent edition is that the letter writer doesn’t have a clue as to what socialism actually is.

I am a veteran, and have received medical treatment at the Veterans Administration Hospital, but the VA is socialism, so I guess the previous writer hates the VA. The government owns the VA hospital and hires the VA doctors. I did not have a choice as to what doctor treated me or where I went for treatment. With Medicare, which is not socialism, I chose my doctor, and the government later paid (or partially paid) the doctor bill. That is capitalism.

I attended socialist public schools when I was growing up. The government owns the school and hires the teachers. I did not have any choice as to which school I attended or which teacher would teach me. Today, there are some charter schools, but these are limited in number; there are also private schools, but they are expensive, and not an option for most of us.

If someone runs a red light and destroys your car, you could avoid socialism by hiring a private detective, but the private detective could not charge the at-fault driver. The police and sheriff are, in fact, more examples of socialism. The law enforcement organization that you contact decides who will help you. The officers are hired by the government and the sheriff’s office and police department buildings are owned by the government. Clark Pearson Sylva

LETTERS

Most Americans support abortion rights

To the Editor:

I read with interest Mr. Crider’s “Another view on Abortion” opinion piece in the Aug. 3 edition of the Smoky Mountain News. Mr. Crider makes several correct points about who is anti-abortion and who is pro- abortion rights, and I appreciate that he admits that he has been hypocritical in his pro-life beliefs. He is not alone. Statistics on abortions in 2019 show that 60% of the women seeking abortions identified as having religious affiliations: 24% identified as Catholic and 13% as evangelical, 17% as other main line denominations and 6% as other. As these stats show, it is easy to be pro-life when it is an abstract concept, but when it is your body or the body of someone you love, it is a whole different perspective.

Mr. Crider also correctly points out that our “current horrible” maternal death rate and infant mortality stats have a been accrued while Roe v Wade was in place. What he may not be old enough to know or has chosen to ignore is the fact that these statistics were worse in the pre-Roe era. If fact one of the main reasons cited for passing Roe was to cut down on the number of women who were dying from illegal botched abortions from providers who were not trained in how to do it safely. It is also worth remembering that in 1973 when Roe was passed, the Supreme Court was all male, the decision to pass was 7 votes for and 2 against, and 5 of the judges voting for Roe were appointed by Republicans.

Mr. Crider also brought up the question of do the unborn have rights. He states, “I think they do, and so do most other people.” Mr. Crider certainly has the right to think that the unborn do have rights, but I differ with the “so do most other people” part. As the recent vote in Kansas shows, as do similar votes in three or four other states in recent years, 5560% of voters supported keeping Roe in place, while 40-45% voted to overturn Roe. Recent polling since the Dobbs decision was announced also show 60% favor keeping Roe in place. By my math, 60 is more than 40.

However, the argument isn’t really about being pro- or anti-abortion. The real issue is about who gets to decide about how to handle an unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy that threatens the life of the person who is pregnant. Having Roe on the books does not prevent anyone who is pro-life from practicing their choice not to have an abortion, nor is there any undue burden in exercising that choice. However, someone wanting to exercise their personal choice to have an abortion could be greatly harmed and be unduly burdened by taking away their right to a safe and legal abortion. By leaving Roe on the books, both sides get to safely exercise the choice that is right for them.