Huston's update on the old Paul Harvey column "If I Were the Devil" was well done and for the most part, translated well for current times, but I take exception to his claim that being opposed to the murder of unborn humans somehow entails an obligation on the part of the anti-abortion person to provide the necessities of life ("health and nutritional support") for the newborn.

That is a classic case of the logical fallacy known as a 'non sequitur' (Latin for "It does not follow").

It has always been the case that parents of children normally have primary obligation to provide for the welfare and physical needs of their offspring, and other people being morally opposed to killing of the unborn in no way relieves the parents of that obligation.

On Huston's logic, we could equally well conclude that people morally opposed to the death penalty have an obligation to provide "health and nutritional support" for murderers!

C. R. Stucki,

Pocatello