Prioritize a child’s rights

I’m writing in response to two letters that appeared in the July 9 Altoona Mirror.

In the first letter, Matthew Smith goes to great length to criticize another writer for calling Barack Obama “our worst president, bar none.”

Smith’s criticism is centered on the opinion that the previous writer failed to research other presidents who were worse in Smith’s view.

After his lengthy tome on learning and understanding a topic before writing on it, Smith then jumps to making some completely baseless assertions regarding “God’s Law.”

One such assertion is the claim that “God’s Law” requires parents to stone their disobedient children to death.

I would suggest that Smith follows his own advice and “get his facts straight” before spreading false and harmful information.

In the second letter, John DeBartola defends the “right” of a mother to kill her unborn child. He believes in abortion because “a person has a right to control their own body.”

I agree that a person does have the right to control their own body. I, however, also understand that one person’s rights end at the point where they infringe upon the rights of another.

One can swing a baseball bat freely, until such action causes harm to the person or property of another.

As medical science advances, the point at which a fetus develops qualities such as feeling pain is found to be earlier and earlier. These unborn children are created human beings, deserving of rights just as any other.

Moral arguments aside, a woman does have the right to choose whether or not to engage in relations with a man. She also has the right to choose which man to have relations with, and whether or not to utilize easily available protections against getting pregnant.

The end result of one set of choices is the possibility that a new life is conceived. Any woman making these choices must understand that she has, by choice, accepted that possibility and the responsibility that comes with it.

Once new life has been created, ending it because of its inconvenience to the mother is not a right.

That new person, defenseless and dependent on its mother, has a basic right to live that supercedes the mothers’ right to choose her lifestyle.

Kirk Mitchell