To the editor:

Carolyn Sumariwalla’s letter asked us to “allow logic and reason to reign” and yet does not work out her arguments for allowing abortion in a way that stands up to reason or logic. No one is ordering “what course a woman’s life will take.” We simply seek a way to help the mother and child.

She says “My body is my property.” She uses that argument to imply that she may dispose of a child when inside her body because her body is her property. Do we accept that one has the right to end another’s life inside their own property, or use our property to harm others? Such a notion is deplorable to most of us. This argument also removes the child’s right to their body.

Women are not forced to give up the right to their bodies because a “life can take root there.” In most cases a woman has made a decision that she knows can result in the formation of a new, unique life. Why should a fertilized bald eagle egg have more federal protection than a human? She claims that a woman is “assigned a primary job for the entirety of their lives,” but adoption is an option as many couples would love a child of their own. Women are not “enslaved by motherhood.” The only enslavement is that of the child who lives or dies based on the mother’s desires. With Amendment 3 passing, we haven’t saved women from enslavement, we have guaranteed that all people are slaves before they are born with the mother as the slaveholder and occasional executioner.

For those women that are truly in difficult situations, we can offer help and love. For the children, we can support them, teach them and help them with all of life’s challenges instead of ending their lives simply because one person doesn’t want them, or a group of people think that their lives have less value than another’s.

Nathan Decker

Affton