Point-by-point counter to letter

This is a response to Jennifer Booker, “Three points regarding abortion” (West Hawaii Today, Dec. 23).

1. Bodily autonomy: “Even after death, you have the right over what happens to your body. … Even after death, your organs cannot be donated without your previous well-documented consent. How is it possible for law to override this right for living people?”

That’s because, collectively, we haven’t yet shown the moral courage to define personhood. Pro-lifers would simply respond that your logic doesn’t apply as that thing that’s in the womb is a person.

2. “Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet most arguments make wild assumptions about the origin of a person’s soul … often disguised as the start of life, but there is no agreement among religions or science when that occurs.”

And that’s precisely why abortion should not be legal. Think about going hunting with a buddy who goes downfield, returning some time later, but before the first hunter sees his buddy, he sees and hears rustling in the brush, thinks it’s a deer, takes a shot and kills his friend.

He then goes to court and makes the argument that since he thought it was a deer, and didn’t know it was his friend, he ought to be held blameless.

With regard to resolving the moral question as to when life begins, the onus for its resolution rests with the ones who wish to have the freedom to kill whatever that thing is that’s in the womb.

3. “Practicing medicine without a license is illegal in every state. Lawmakers, attorneys general, and the Supreme Court are all making life-altering and often life-threatening medical decisions for people, even though they are not medical providers and without consent of the people involved. How is this legal?”

Are you really suggesting that there should be no one regulating medical decisions except doctors?? (So, then it follows that the 15 Republican and 4 Democrat physicians in the current 118th Congress should be the ones to regulate such decisions?)

It would be very interesting for you to further lay out who is and isn’t qualified to make environmental or food and drug or consumer product regulatory decisions. I think you would very quickly find yourself in an impossible morass of additional rules and regulations as to who is and isn’t eligible.

Peter J. Braun

Hilo

Board stands firm in key vote

On Dec. 8, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources voted unanimously to grant a formal public petition to initiate rule-making to prohibit the destructive commercial collection of reef wildlife for the aquarium pet trade.

During the final vote, unknown parties attempted to derail the board’s unanimous approval by raising a “legal question” regarding the BLNR’s ability to prohibit aquarium collecting (West Hawaii Today, Dec. 25).

Fortunately, BLNR saw through this last-minute attempt and continued to vote in full favor of the petition.

Any legitimate legal issue would have been raised sometime during the 49 days preceding the vote, when the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the state attorney general were reviewing and approving the rule language, which is required prior to its consideration by BLNR.

The Division of Aquatic Resources must now begin rule-making as the full board rightfully directed them, and as the community has long desired.

Rene Umberger

Kihei, Maui