Rights of child should be considered in debate

TO THE EDITOR:

I am writing in response to the Nov. 13 article, “Abortion funding should be covered.”

The columnist wrote that the government insurance plan should cover abortions in all cases, and not just in rape and other extreme cases, because of the woman’s rights.

What about the rights of the child? The child didn’t ask to be made. The child doesn’t get a choice as to whether or not it wants to survive.

The columnist says “a woman is more than a vessel for children.” Though this statement is true, the child is not a simple burden to be cast aside.

The child is another human being, with 23 pairs of chromosome just like all people. Why should he or she not receive the same right to life as the parent?

Why should my tax money be used to fund abortions? Why should it be used to fund something I believe is completely wrong? Why should my tax dollars be used to fund the murder of an innocent human being?

The columnist says that she “value(s) women’s lives.” Women’s lives are valuable, but the lives of the innocent children are equally valuable.



Jody Upright
Freshman
Physics, Math