Abortion, like politics and religion, is a topic we strive to omit from dinner table banter at family gatherings.

They are highly volatile subjects and usually lead to heated arguments.

I’m personally conflicted as I support the woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body while saddened by the loss of potential life.

The writer of the letter to the editor, “Abortion Critic” [Peninsula Voices, June 1] believes that the reason abortions are performed is simply that the fetus is “unwanted.”

Oh, that it were so simple.

There is not enough space on this page to annotate all the issues and consequences of being the child who is born unwanted.

The role Planned Parenthood clinics play in abortions is fractional compared to the work they do in women’s health, contraception and education.

But you may say that even one lost fetus is too many.

OK.

Fair enough.

I’ve never quite understood the dichotomy of thought by those “don’t tread on me” fans that fear government intrusion into their lives but find it OK for the government to dictate what a woman can choose about her own life if she experiences an “unwanted” pregnancy.

So, hey, if Roe vs. Wade is reversed, I think the letter writer should support a new law requiring that all middle-class couples, including retirees, adopt and raise an unwanted child.

The government should force you to want the unwanted child.

And while we are being concerned about the unwanted fetus, how about getting the old picket signs out for the lives of “unwanted” refugee children?

Les Carnahan,

Port Angeles