McCain supports right-to-life principles, Obama does not

In 1970 the California Journal of Medicine carried an article advocating a "New Ethic for Medicine and Society" to replace our Judeo-Christian heritage. I quote, "It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives. ...

"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.

"The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected."

The article questions "whether or not and to what extent responsibilities to bring this about are to be exercised on a compulsory or voluntary basis."

The civil rights issue of the inalienable right to life must be defended regardless of political persuasion. However, the Republican Party platform has defended this right for some time. Only recently, realizing that many have left their party because of this, have Democrats begun to move away from the direction of being the party of abortion. As regards this election, John McCain has voted to protect infants born alive in late-term abortions, to prohibit use of federal funds for abortion and in support of parental consent for abortion. Obama voted four times against caring for live aborted babies, to block a parental consent bill on abortion and against legislation to prohibit use of Illinois state tax dollars for abortion.

The Oct. 19 Tom Blackburn article in the Watertown Daily Times reported Roe v. Wade said states could not interfere in first trimester abortions. What it didn't say is that because of the interpretation of the word "health," abortion on demand is available throughout pregnancy. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the issue would return to the states where restrictions such as parental consent, informed consent, offer of sonography and other issues which the majority of people overwhelmingly agree with would then be possible.

Mildred Squier

Watertown