This is in response to a letter written by a Michael Voisinet in the Dec. 1st issue of the Times-Union. He had responded to our letter that the Times-Union published Nov. 28.
We would also like to point out beforehand that Mr. Voisinet is apparently only able to read the word "abortion" because our letter merely mentioned the word (it certainly did not focus on the subject), and he was quick to jump to conclusions about our personal character.
Mr. Voisinet, we would like you to know that we were simply addressing the question, "What if a woman's life were to be put in great jeopardy during pregnancy, and she was forced to make a decision between her life and the baby's?" I'm sure that is an extremely difficult decision. We are not necessarily for abortion and would not choose do to do that ourselves, but I would not tell someone they cannot choose their own life. In these particular instances, one of the two isn't going to make it.
You cannot condemn a woman for making her own choice, even if it is in fear of losing her life. If she were to decide to take the chance against her own life, then she deserves recognition for her sacrifice that gave her child the chance to live. But then there are other instances in which a woman may have made the mistake of failing to use birth control, or was a bit too promiscuous or whatever the case.
Of course, it's not fair for that woman to go have an abortion. She should have been thinking about the consequences in the first place, and should probably be looking at alternatives such as adoption. This is not a black and white issue. There are some legitimate shades of gray. And that's where the problem lies, and that was exactly our point in the original letter we wrote.
There is no possible way to make all of these situations equal. It's impossible. And it's ignorant to think it's always wrong or it's always right.
Also, in regards to your suggestion that we attend church this Sunday: No thanks. We like to think independently.
