Neal Boortz…coward or just a pompous “Big A”?

One of the reasons I decided to start blogging is I would see certain news items and feel a need to respond in some way. What better way to blow off that steam then to write down some of my thoughts. I suppose I could instead write down some stuff on a piece  of paper, roll it up, stick it in a bottle and toss it in the river. They say that can be cathartic. But, maybe this way a few people will actually read what I have to say, and might even comment.

One issue I feel strongly about is abortion. The coverage on the news is one-sided and generally never gets to the core question of the debate. The pro-life movement is depicted by images of radical protesters, bombed abortion clinics, and murdered doctors, while on the pro-choice side they present emotional stories of poor, unfortunate woman who are fighting for their rights to decide what they can do with their own bodies.

And then there is Neal Boortz. I like Neal. I’d enjoy sitting down over a beer and chatting with him. It would be a hoot, and we’d probably agree more than we disagree. One thing we don’t agree on, though, is abortion. He usually avoids the subject, which is a good thing, because he will not take any calls about it on his show.  He and his staff call it the “Big A”. Sometimes, though, he can’t help himself and violates his own rule. He’ll make a crazy, inflammatory statement and then not allow for rebuttal. It sure seems cowardly to me.

Something he said on the air about six months ago got me riled enough to take the time to figure out how to load WordPress and get this blog thing going. Okay, so it may look like it took a while for me to get motivated, but in fairness to myself, I did send in a  letter to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC)–actually, twice.  Neither time was my letter published. Now that I think about it, that was kind of like throwing them in the river, and it didn’t make me feel any better.

So, I figured I would publish the text of my letter here. Thanks, Neal, for giving me the final push to get started blogging. I feel better already.

To the editor:

Neal Boortz is usually fearless when it comes to defending his opinions, and much of the time I agree with him. There is one topic, though, in which he will not engage, and that is abortion (or as he and his staff call it, the big “A”). Since he is happy to make his opinion known on air, but will not allow responses, I hope the paper will run an opposing viewpoint.

A few weeks ago Neal was complaining about a story that referred to a person’s stance against abortion as “pro-life”. He said those against abortion should instead be called “anti-choice”. He further said that the government should not be able to force a woman “at gun point” to have a baby she doesn’t want to have. Since he will not take phone calls, emails, or even “tweets” on the subject, I can only assume that he either knows he cannot defend his position against a logical argument, or he thinks those he would interact with would be religious fanatics, and therefore not worth his time.

The fact is, anyone who is presented with the facts and gives it some thought will eventually agree that abortion should be illegal. It all comes down to one simple question – what is the unborn? There is no reason to complicate that. At the moment of conception, a new human life is formed, with its own unique DNA, and its own intrinsic value. All that changes over time is the level of development. Like any human person, we all start as a single cell, and we progress through a variety of developmental stages throughout our lives. We don’t value toddlers intrinsically more than babies, or teenagers more than toddlers. This is a case where size or ability doesn’t matter.

Furthermore, Neal is a lawyer and fan of the Constitution, so I would like to hear him defend why the Constitution should grant a woman the ability to take the life of her unborn child based on a contrived decision around the “right to privacy” in the fourteenth amendment. I also hope he would agree that the government should not allow a mother to kill her newly born baby simply because she decides she doesn’t want it. If we don’t permit that, why then should we let her kill her unborn child, at any point. A newly conceived life is an innocent human being that is intrinsically valuable just as a new born baby is. We grant the government the power to protect the weak and helpless, and who fits that description more so than the unborn.

Tell me what you think. Blow off some steam in the comment section below. It’s way better than a bottle and a river–or even an unpublished letter to the AJC.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.