Credit: ISTOCK

In “We should always consider, protect the unborn” [Opinion, June 29], the Rev. Raymond J. Schroth writes, “It would help if the church put aside its opposition to contraceptives,” which I believe the Jesuit priest erroneously implies leads to the prevalence of abortion.

As a Catholic, I believe that artificial contraception can lead to greater self-centeredness, people caring only about themselves and their own pleasure, which is among the church’s objections. In addition, a 2016 Pew Research study found that 89 percent of Catholics polled said artificial contraception was either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all. And a 2016 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that 24 percent of abortion patients were Catholic. (These statistics were reported in America magazine, of which Schroth is editor emeritus.)

Obviously, artificial contraception isn’t a panacea to minimize abortions. But I believe that following the church’s teachings of unselfish love is.

Christopher L. Turpin,



In his op-ed, the Rev. Raymond A. Schroth cited Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), who said that at a latter stage of her life, she “could not responsibly” follow through with a pregnancy and had an abortion. Schroth concluded that this decision showed “little consideration for human values or religious beliefs.”

Why did he have to mention religious beliefs, which have no relevance to the moral issues our country faces on questions of whether and to what extent it should restrict abortions at certain states of gestation? Religious beliefs should never be allowed to affect our country’s decisions on legislation.

Whatever value Schroth’s column may have had in protecting the unborn, it was virtually wiped out with the mention of religious beliefs and could only add fuel to argument of people who believe there should be a right to choose abortion.

Robert Wilson,

   West Islip