Dear Mr. Bradley,
My greatest concern with your campaign is your position on the
“right to choose”. Reflecting on your statements above, I doubt very
much that you understand the pro-life position on the issue. If you did,
you would not make such statements as the ones above. Let me try to
illustrate the problem.
The pro-life position is that the unborn are human persons, and as such
are worthy of the same love, respect, and protection as the rest of us.
If the unborn are not human persons, then I agree with your remarks
completely – the decision should be up to the woman. In fact, if
pro-choice advocates could demonstrate that the unborn are not human,
I and the vast majority of pro-life individuals would walk away from this
debate. If they’re not human, no justification for abortion is required.
But if the unborn are human persons, abortion is rarely justified – and
certainly not in its most common, elective form – as it deliberately
results in the death of an innocent human person.
With this in mind, consider the following: You remark that,
“...the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is a private
one between a woman and her doctor, and we must protect that privacy.”
Privacy? Do we allow parents to abuse or kill their children as
long as they do it in the privacy of their own home?
At this point, you may be thinking, “No, that’s a very different case
altogether. Those are children you’re talking about!” And that is
exactly my point: personhood is the issue. You are assuming that the
unborn are not human persons, but that is exactly the point of contention
– that is why pro-lifers are in this debate in the first place! You’ve
begged the question, and assumed what you must prove to make your case for
It would be far more rational, and more straightforward, to say that
abortion should be allowed and protected as a constitutional right
because the unborn are not human persons. But then the focus of the
debate would be on the personhood of the unborn. Arguments for and
against would have to be heard, and that is one thing that pro-choice
advocates do not want.
What is your response to the above? Certainly you believe that your
position (pro-choice) is the more rational of the two. Demonstrate that
the unborn are not human persons, and I walk away from this debate.
I would certainly be much more open to voting for you. As it stands,
I cannot possibly consider you as a candidate – that would make me
complicit in the deaths of millions of unborn children. Give me a reason
to change my opinion about your presidency: make a case for the pro-choice
position openly, and allow it to be subjected to analysis and opposing
arguments. I contend that once all the arguments are on the table, the
pro-life position is the more reasonable position to hold.
Sincerely, and in the interest of our country and humanity,