Sulianet Ortiz’s column, “It’s a Woman’s Right,” (April 20) fails to deal with the most significant issue involving the abortion debate. The vital question left unaddressed is this: What is the unborn?

Because the unborn is not simply an organ or a lifeless grouping of tissues, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is, in fact, a living organism. Further, is there really any question as to what type of living organism the unborn is?

It should be clear that the species of the unborn is that of the homo sapiens. The unborn simply being dependent upon the woman does not make it less human, any more so than it would a 1 year old being dependent upon its mother.

If the unborn is actually a human being, then all of the rhetoric about women’s rights fade away to irrelevant details. If the unborn is in fact a human being, then the destruction of the unborn is the killing of innocent human life.

I think it is also safe to assume the destruction of an innocent human life is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to destroy the unborn. Even things like rape, though the act is wrong and the perpetrator ought to be punished, do not allow for the further wrong of taking innocent human life. When trying to solve the problem of not having a good home for the child, does anyone think that the real solution is to kill the child? All the things in the article about trapping women then seem beside the point.

If destroying the unborn is the killing of innocent human life, then no one should be free to destroy the unborn. If the inability to kill human beings for your own benefit somehow “traps” a person, then by all means, let them be trapped.

Caleb Ehlers

Junior

Management Information Systems