In this election year, we can expect to be even more divided by the issues of “right to life” and “right to die.” I am constantly baffled by the arguments of those who insist life must be protected by any means necessary.
Whether insisting women risk their lives and well-being to bear a child, or assuming it‘s wrong to choose an early death to alleviate the pain of a terminal illness, there seems to be a common belief. Stated or implied, the argument is a religious one — that a sin is being committed.
As a certified death midwife, I know there are multiple beliefs about what lies beyond this physical life. It’s also been my experience that the people who have been most upset about a loved one dying have been the same people who strongly believed in the reward of an afterlife.
Death comes to all of us. Insisting an otherwise-competent adult live a few months longer with unrelieved physical pain is selfish. After all, in this case, are they not going to a better place?
Likewise, the insistence that every fertilized egg must be allowed to develop and be birthed is based on the belief that the soul has one and only one opportunity to experience life. Again, a belief not held by everyone.
There are many beliefs about the arrival and journey of the soul. Likewise, the state of consciousness may give priority to the life purpose of an already-incarnated woman over an accidental pregnancy.
When I hear people argue against allowing competent adults and their doctors to make life-and-death decisions, it reminds me of being a child. Before a spanking, Dad would say, “This hurts me more than it hurts you, but it’s for your own good.”
Medical laws cannot be enacted by those who believe they’re following God the father. This paternal approach to governance is similar to corporal punishment. It assumes people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
— Linda Finley Belan, Chicago
Medical aid in dying legislation
I am going to die. So are you. The one thing that each of us is absolutely guaranteed at the moment of our birth is that this life will end. The only question is when and how. If, when it is my time to go, I happen to be facing a prolonged and agonizing passage to that inevitable end, I would most certainly desire to have the option to end it on my own terms and to spare myself and my family the pain of that kind of death.
The House and Senate bills that have recently been introduced in the Illinois legislature would ensure that, given these circumstances, I could take control of my passing and to manage it on my own terms.
I don’t wish to have this event dictated by the medical profession or by laws made to prohibit my own freedom of choice in this. I see it as the most personal and important decision of my life — that given no other option, I am able to choose when and how to end it.
I ask that my legislators in Springfield have the wisdom and the compassion to enact the medical aid in dying legislation this session.
— Colin C. Campbell, Geneva
IVF ruling should be overturned
I appreciated the comments of Clarence Page in his column “Frozen embryos are people? In the world of politics, at least.” (Feb. 25).
It is a fundamental human right to decide whether to try to procreate or not. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has threatened women’s rights, is eroding the separation of church and state, and has enabled legal actions that are devastating people’s lives. Ironically, the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that embryos are “extrauterine children” has created circumstances that may prevent those embryos from ever becoming children.
The Fourth and 14th amendments should protect women’s rights to control their bodies free from government interference. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment defines citizens as people born here or naturalized. Legally, an embryo is not a person. It has neither been born nor naturalized and therefore has no rights under our Constitution. An embryo is property of the woman or couple, with their property rights protected by our Constitution.
When does “life” begin? Any definition that invokes the soul or God violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Realistically, life begins when a fetus is viable, meaning it could live independently outside a woman’s uterus. Viability generally occurs around the 24th week of a 40-week pregnancy.
Abortion restrictions based on detection of a heartbeat represent government overreach. The heart is an organ that pumps blood. A heartbeat might be detected at five to seven weeks when an embryo is approximately the size of a grape. Most U.S. abortions occur when a fetus is nonviable. Only 1% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks. Laws punishing doctors or women for abortions essentially permit government to dictate what happens inside a woman’s uterus. How are these laws permitted under our Constitution?
The Constitution is designed to protect the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens. It created a system of checks and balances and allocates authority between the federal and state governments. Our Founders recognized that citizens had different beliefs, and they sought to protect all individuals from persecution for holding varying beliefs. They included the Ninth Amendment to ensure that rights not specifically enumerated continued to reside with the people, not the government.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruling trampled the rights of the women and men who hoped that in vitro fertilization would enable them to achieve the basic human desire to create a child. This ruling is an unconstitutional travesty and should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
— Sally Munn, Crystal Lake
Why is Carter still CTA chief?
The Feb. 28 article “Aldermen grill CTA chief over service and safety” brings to mind the famous old sports cliche that statistics are for losers. As a regular rider of the “L” for work and to simply get around Chicago, I’m tired of CTA President Dorval Carter Jr. defending the lousy service and unpleasant experience of riding the “L” with numbers. Anyone who rides the Red Line has experienced harassment by angry, often intoxicated, riders, people sleeping on cars taking up several seats, terrible odors, crowded trains, late trains, unreliable times on the apps, etc. Many people don’t feel safe on the “L,” and on top of that, the overall service stinks. The CTA gets a letter grade of F.
Simple economic theory is that if you treat customers poorly, they will shop elsewhere — they will drive rather than take the “L.” Carter has his head in the sand if he thinks that he should be defending the status quo. The question of the day is how does he keep his job?
— Robert Kelter, Chicago
Cleveland Browns QB story
I’m always pleased to see Cory Franklin’s byline, and his latest op-ed on athletes who lived like regular people is one of his best (“Remembering when pro athletes lived next door,” Feb. 28).
Please allow me to submit another story in the same spirit about Cleveland Browns quarterback Frank Ryan and longtime Cleveland sportswriter Chuck Heaton, father of TV actress Patricia Heaton.
Apparently, Chuck Heaton had called Ryan’s home, and Mrs. Ryan told Heaton he’d have to wait a few minutes to speak to the Browns quarterback because he was outside tossing a football around with some neighborhood kids.
I don’t remember who told this story, but he concluded by saying that “I don’t know what seems more amazing: that an NFL quarterback would be tossing a football around with neighborhood kids or that a sportswriter had his home phone number.”
— Bill Kurtz, Milwaukee