In response to Laura Becherer’s column titled, “Church makes serious error in judgment regarding abortion” printed in the March 12, 2009 issue of the exponent, the views of two people with opposing religious standpoints (a faithful non-denominational Christian; and a non-believer of any kind of organized religion) came to light. There were three discrepancies in this column that these seemingly conflicting mindsets found common ground regarding:

First, while neither of us fully agree with the Catholic faith, we do agree with the church’s right to “uphold very specific rules within the church.” And why shouldn’t they? Without maintaining presumed “silly” doctrines, whether it be in terms of religion, or business practices, school, etc., society would not be able to function. Whether or not you agree with the church’s decision to reprimand to individuals involved in this unidentified BBC News web site article is irrelevant. (Although, we agree the church should not have gone as far as excommunicating the aforementioned persons involved).

Secondly, the notion of defining rape and/or abortion as a “modern-day situation” is foolish and short sighted.

Lastly, a contradiction is made in reference to making a moral judgment. In one sentence Emily Hadorn is quoted as insisting that morals are “impossible to argue,” then immediately states her own moral judgment with only the backing of a web site. The Catholic Church is at least backed up by a long history of tradition, a substantial following of members, and the most documented collection of written books in history-the Bible.

Overall, a controversial issue requires more reinforcement than simply a web page and the opinion of a colleague.

Jacob Gitter
UWP STWEA PR