Chisholm responds to Gmerek column about adoption issues |

Chisholm responds to Gmerek column about adoption issues

Donald Chisholm, MD - Keystone    

Your columnist, Andrew Gmerek, used his weekly column Jan. 23 to misinterpret my Jan. 21 letter to the Summit Daily News. 

I must have pushed some hot buttons in his personal psyche to receive the attention he gave to my thoughts on the protection of the unborn child and the common sense it makes to keep that protection of children as the rule of law in America.

Mr. Gmerek informs the readers that he was forced to “physically” scratch his head because of my thoughts on the nonsense consequences of allowing the termination of the life of the unborn (abortion).

In his mind my article was “blatantly ignorant” and “easily dismissed as the ramblings of another good old boy living in our current version of America” (apparently his cute way of saying a racist in a less than politically correct America).

His headline “fires back at abortion letter’s fallacies” when in truth my letter was about the fallacies of abortion.

First of all, I would like to commend both Mr. Gmerek and his wife on their adopting a Chinese child. 

It is a wonderful and loving thing for them to do. I am sure their life and the little girl’s life will be so enriched with the human love that parenting can bring.

It is exactly what my editorial thoughts on the common sense of adoption-not-abortion were intended to mean. 

I am sure that good parents such as they can appreciate the wonder and beauty of the start and progress of human life in a child.

As they watch and marvel at each great moment in their child’s growth, they must think how important it is to give every human child the gift of life.

Many parents in America cannot afford the travel time and money to adopt a foreign child.

I would ask Mr. Gmerek to read again my Jan. 21 letter to the editor in the light that it was intended, not the interpretation his prejudices have wrongly given it.

I was pointing out the nonsense of removing the protection of the life of the unborn child in American. 

Roe versus Wade removes that protection. I believe we should return to common sense and protect human life in all ages, in all conditions. 

As a physician, I have dedicated my life to that concept. 

We cannot provide protection for the lives of the unborn children in other countries with American rule of law but we can in America if we begin in our own hearts and minds.

We can call it the rule of law but in reality it is the common sense rule of love. Love of human life in all it’s wonderful expressions and we can find it especially in the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Donald Chisholm, MD



Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User