Roe v. Wade stirs heated discourse

A reader wrote, "I hope that the justices interpret law and not public opinion" ["Roe v. Wade draft provokes readers," Letters, May 8]. I hope so, because the Constitution does not grant the right to force anyone to bear a child. A possible exception went to slave masters, but slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.

Another reader wrote, "It has been established that life begins at conception." However, there is no right to be born except as a religious belief. To establish a religious belief in law, whether by court or Congress, would violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

Another reader wrote, "Politico, which released the leaked brief, must have been aware that this never occurred before." But it has happened before, coincidentally regarding Roe v. Wade. In July 1972, The Washington Post revealed that, while a clear majority of the justices supported abortion as a constitutional right, Chief Justice Warren Burger opposed it and tried to stall the decision until President Richard Nixon could appoint two new justices.

If Nixon had had Mitch McConnell as the Senate majority leader, I wonder whether "We the People" would still have any constitutional rights.

James Moyssiadis, Mount Sinai

Ireland, a majority Catholic country, in 2018 threw out its prohibition against abortion by a national vote. Why can’t we do that in this country and thwart the goals of the five conservatives who plan to allow abortion to become a criminal act in some states? This is an issue adversely affecting far too many Americans to be mandated by five unelected people who weren't up-front during their Senate confirmation hearings.

Karl Bean, Mount Sinai

Two readers claimed hypocrisy on the part of abortion opponents in that “my body, my choice” applies to abortion but not mask and vaccine mandates [“Debating hypocrisy of ‘my body, my choice’,” Letters, May 15]. But these readers miss the major difference between the two.

Abortion rights advocates believe that people have the right to not mask or vaccinate — unless they interact with others. Because once they do, their choice to not vaccinate or wear masks is no longer just their own choice. They are affecting other people and interfering with those people’s choices.

So there is no real hypocrisy by the abortion rights advocates, but there is a real hypocrisy on the part of the anti-abortion crowd that wants to control a woman’s reproductive rights but maintain their right to not mask or vaccinate.

Scott Diamond, Levittown

A reader says that a "zygote is not a person" even though it contains the complete genetic plan of a person ["Court draft devaluing the life of a woman?" Letters, May 15]. He compares that genetic plan to a set of architectural plans for a building, saying that "Even revised plans with lumber, nails and bags of cement are not yet a building."

I agree that if we returned to the same lumber, nails and cement nine months later, they would be exactly the same, completely unchanged. However, if left in place, zygotes do not remain unchanged. In fact, if left untouched in the womb for nine months, they are usually born healthy humans -- as intended from the moment of conception. Abortion does not simply ignore the plans. It breaks apart a building already in progress.

The court draft is not attempting to "elevate the zygote to super personhood" but is merely recognizing it for what it is -- a human, separate and apart from its mother.

Dolly Kalhorn, North Babylon

Most Americans polled have indicated the belief that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended an impending Supreme Court decision by pointing out its 1989 decision that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag.

Yes, most Americans polled would certainly regard the act of flag burning as odious despite its First Amendment protection. But comparing what is strictly a freedom of expression issue with that of a woman’s health and substantial obstacles to her livelihood is an inexcusable exercise in noxious sophistry.

Nicholas Santora, Roslyn Heights

We need to keep our New York State government in check with the way they spend our money ["State abortion plan irks NYers," Letters, May 15]. If the cry is "my body, my choice," then I will add "your wallet." It has been great to hear how people want responsibility for their decisions. Then let it be totally their responsibility and don't put the cost on others for their desires.

Our Democratic leaders in Albany want to suck $35 million of our money to pay for “reproductive freedom and equity.” Really?

We need to stop wasting our tax dollars. Abortion opponents need to let their voices be heard loud and clear in Albany. The life you save may not be your own.

David L. Solano, Bayside

I concur with Cathy Young that the standing decision to remove state and federal restrictions on abortions is not perfect and created political division, but from “the abortion rights standpoint, Roe had many positive consequences” [“The confounding legacy of Roe v. Wade,” Opinion, May 5].

This is one of the most difficult, emotional and personal decisions anyone could face. We should respect the right of a woman to control her own body. We need to be sensitive to individual cases, such as rape, incest and health risk to the mother. Moreover, the strict interpretation of “conception” limits the potential merits of leveraging stem cell research to save or prolong that same sanctity of life.

If we, as a democratic and humane society, are genuinely concerned about the “sanctity of life,” let’s focus on better child care and gun safety.

Any decision, among the options of parenthood, adoption and pregnancy termination, should be the choice of a family and, primarily, the woman to best provide the required financial, emotional and spiritual support of a loving family.

Kevin Hoepper, Long Beach

The controversy between abortion opponents and abortion rights advocates in the United States is a microcosm of a world problem that will continue long after any Supreme Court decisions are made. The reason is that in the evolutionary battle for survival as a species, humans face unlimited population growth, yet the Earth is of finite size and resources.Without birth control, it will be more challenging  for the world to support this population.

Abortion opponents do not want any pregnancies terminated, and there are those who oppose abortion who also oppose birth control. It is not a solution. Serious family planning programs, which include contraception, must be promoted throughout the world with the same effort as those made against polio, AIDS and COVID-19.

No matter what the Supreme Court decision is on Roe v. Wade, the problem with overpopulation cannot be ignored.

Bill Domjan, Melville