Moral high ground in abortion debate is debatable

Readers such as John Rutkowski must not understand that Garry Trudeau's series on the forced ultra-sound law for women seeking abortion is no attempt at being funny ("Idiotic 'Doonesbury' strip on abortion insults readers," March 20). "Comic" strip is a misnomer for Doonesbury, which is why The Sun runs the strip on the op-ed page and not the "funnies" pages.

I must also take issue with the series being a jab at all those with "some" morals and religious convictions. Apparently, those who don't feel the jab are totally lacking morals and religious scruples.

I will gladly concede that morals are absolute, which is implied by Mr. Rutkowski's logic, when someone can definitively explain to me how conservatives can be both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, and liberals can be both pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. The reality is that the moral stands that are taken in U.S. society are a complex blend of personal, political and perhaps religious codes that are subject to a great deal of individual interpretation. This moral relativism is subsequently more a matter of beliefs than morals.

Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Rutkowski appear to stake a claim to the moral high ground, with fundamentally opposed moral codes.

Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Not literally, but be highly suspicious.

Richard Ulrich, Glen Arm

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad