Why acorns and an eggs are important to Ohio’s abortion debate

Many letters have been written about abortion; unfortunately, it is most often portrayed as a “yes” or “no” proposition which leads to endless debate.

First a few facts, a fertilized egg is not a person, as a zygote it is a mass of undifferentiated cells; as such there is no nervous system, no circulatory system, no digestive system and it is not sentient.

Calling a fertilized egg a person is like calling an acorn a tree, the potential is there but that potential may or may not be realized.

Letters: Issue 1 opponents want Ohio to have the most extreme abortion ban in US. Don’t let them.

Having said that there are valid reasons for limits to be made on the timing of abortions because as things develop personhood becomes more evident.

A fetus has not become conscious let alone sentient until around 20 weeks; these are necessary attributes that define personhood; accordingly, a reasonable compromise is a time limit consistent with that.

Exceptions should be made for the life of the mother, rape, incest and non- viable fetus.

The Constitution provides protection for religious beliefs which includes not having any; such beliefs are individual and cannot be imposed on others who choose to not believe.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Steven Donatone, Dublin

More: How to submit a letter to the editor for The Columbus Dispatch

Anti-abortion TV ads bogus

The anti-abortion TV ads suggesting that legally performed abortions are associated with maternal deaths are extremely deceptive.

Illegal abortions that will again become common place if legal abortions are eliminated will be associated with a much greater rate of maternal deaths. This deceptive advertising is despicable.

More: I am in an ad supporting Issue 1. Cruelty of ‘Christians’ opposing it is staggering

Also, with Republican cuts to social programs who is going to care for the children of these unwanted pregnancies. We already have a foster care crisis due to the unwanted children of drug addicted parents. This crisis will just get worse if abortion is outlawed by the rejection of Issue 1.

Ian Alexander, Delaware

My choice shouldn’t be taken because you are against abortion

I found Dr. Lindsay Rerko’s article interesting. At first I thought she was pro-choice.

And I certainly sympathize with the poor girl who didn’t want an abortion but her husband forced her. (By the way, why didn’t the good doctor suggest she go to the police?)

Then Dr. Rerko said she’s anti-choice.  No. Actually, she said, Vote No on Issue1. I call that anti-choice. 

The poor woman with the nasty husband made a choice not to go to the police. The doctor made a choice to have her baby. It’s all about choice. If your choice is to not have an abortion — well, don’t have one.

But don’t make a choice for me. I may believe life begins at a different moment than you. But don’t take away my ability to make a choice. Vote “yes” on Issue 1.

Marian Harris, Columbus

Issue 1 takes away the fetus’ choice

In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that the federal government has no business telling a slave owner what he can and cannot do with his “property[i]” If such language sounds familiar to you, that’s because it is. 

Issue 1 proponents frequently argue that the state has no business telling a woman whether she can or cannot terminate her “product of conception.”

 While the target of injustice may the different, the playbook is the same.

 Dehumanize the victim. 

If we value freedom of choice, let us not deny a lifetime of choices to a vulnerable baby because we, who don’t know the future, have decided for her that her life is not worth living. 

I fully support equal rights and respect for women’s autonomy, but I can think of no context other than abortion where I can exercise my personal autonomy in a way that ends someone else’s life.

More: Election 2023: Why anti-abortion Ohioans say Issue 1 is far too extreme for Buckeye State

We all began our lives as a fetus inside our mother and we didn’t just magically become a human when we exited the uterus.

We need just laws in Ohio that provide the basic human right of equal protection under the law for everyone. 

Jamie Reed, Mansfield

Issue 1 will stop people from inflicting their choice on you

I can remember when there was smoking in restaurants and bars, movie theaters, on airplanes, at most places of work, and even on college campuses.

I didn’t like walking out of my classroom smelling like a cigarette. This was way before we even knew about the more serious health risks regarding secondhand smoke, but I didn’t have a choice.

Some people are against abortions and they have the choice not to have one but that does not mean they have the right to impose their choice on someone else who, in consultation with their doctor, family and clergy have made the choice to have one.

Syd Lifshin, Columbus

Issue 1 opponents don’t truly care about despair.

I am very disappointed that you published Rev. Brian William’s guest column against the abortion amendment.

Issue 1 is not saying abortion can be done at the end of the pregnancy term and I believe the U.S. had passed a bill against late term abortion anyway. 

Medical experts have not said a fetus can feel pain. It is also not a baby until it breathes. You want despair?

More: Abortion industry wants to sink its hooks further into Black women. Issue 1 proof| Opinion

Try not allowing women to have this procedure and then you will see despair. 

Just because you believe that your God is to be obeyed is not a reason to force others who have a different

God to follow your beliefs. 

That is the biggest enemy in this world anyway and the cause of so many wars. 

For 49 years abortion was legal and there was no “extreme” view of it. A cartoon I saw once showed St. Peter at the gate with a sign that read “No religion beyond this point.” 

It is amusing but sadly true as people like Brian Williams want their religion to rule. 

Thomas W. Billing, Springfield

More: How to submit a letter to the editor for The Columbus Dispatch

Defeat of Issue 1 would give Frank LaRose another well-deserved black eye

Secretary of State Frank LaRose will truly stop at nothing to take away our reproductive rights. First, it was the August special election that cost us $18 million.

Yes, Frank LaRose spent $18 million to try to silence Ohioans and take away our reproductive freedom.

Then, when he lost, he rewrote the language for this month’s abortion amendment.

His ballot language is blatantly inaccurate and shows his true agenda: to mislead Ohioans. But, Ohioans persevered.

We still fought for our rights. So what did LaRose do? He removed thousands of voters from Ohio’s voting system.

I would call it his hidden agenda, but there is nothing hidden about it. He doesn’t even try to be sly. How can we excuse this behavior from our Secretary of State – or even worse, a potential senator?

Passing Issue 1 is the first step to defeating LaRose and his anti-reproductive rights agenda. The next step is re-electing Sherrod Brown because he is the only Senate candidate who is fighting for us.

Robyn Harper, Upper Arlington