Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Reading the letters to the editor on Tuesday, I was struck by how easy it is to get caught up in categories and extreme positions that are not based in fact.

To the conservative white man who supports abortion rights, I say thank you and welcome to the struggle ("A time to welcome, not disparage"). One has to look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas or the many women who oppose abortion access to see that this position is not determined by race or gender. We should not disparage anyone on the basis of identity.

To the writer who critiqued ideologues on both sides: "those who want all abortions to be forbidden vs. those who support 'on-demand' access to full-term abortion," I agree that the ideologues who want all abortions to be forbidden are indeed a threat, as we see in states that are enacting bans with no exceptions. However, I challenge you to show me anyone or any state that wants on-demand access to full-term abortion. People who support Roe v. Wade accept a ban on abortions after fetal viability, which is the basis of that ruling. Under the Roe ruling, abortions after that could be restricted except to save the life or health of the mother, usually when it becomes clear that the fetus is not viable, or the baby will die soon after birth. It is terribly unfair to categorize these tragic situations as "on-demand access to full term abortion."

To the writer who laments demands to "kill their baby in the womb," I share your love and concern for babies, but please try to see the complexities of the situation. I often see pro-life billboards with photos of adorable babies who must be at least three months old. A fertilized egg may carry the potential to become that child, but it is not at that stage. Religions and people vary in views about when life begins and when the life and choice of the mother should matter more than the potential life that she carries.

As other letter writers demonstrated, abortion bans also have unintended consequences for lifesaving health care in cases of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies. It's complicated. Let's try to keep respectful conversations going and try seeing beyond the slogans.

•••

A letter in the July 15 paper presented a method of how to decide when a fetus is considered viable and then use this to determine how late in a pregnancy an abortion could be permitted. This is not necessarily a bad way of figuring out what the time should be set at. The writer's number is 20 weeks and this is based on his assertion that coordinated brain activity doesn't occur until 24 to 25 weeks, and he wants to provide some leeway.

He states that end-of-life decisions on when to "pull the plug" become legal when there is an irreversible loss of brain activity, even if the patient's heart is beating. He then recommends that a similar standard be used to decide when a fetus can be aborted. However, there is no irreversible loss of brain activity with a fetus because if the fetus is allowed to continue to develop in the womb, brain activity will occur at around 24 weeks. So this condition is reversible rather than irreversible, and it is therefore not similar to an end-of-life situation.

The writer also recommends that a national law be passed so that we won't have laws that vary from state to state. But there are all sorts of laws that vary from state to state. We just had July 4th celebrations and probably hundreds or even thousands of Minnesotans went to Wisconsin to buy fireworks because they are legal there. I was stationed in Tennessee for nine months when I was in the service. It was illegal to serve liquor by the drink at the time and so a person had to go to the liquor store to buy a bottle and then take it to a bar. They would pour you a "setup" and then you could add the liquor yourself.

With abortion, when you have dissenting opinions on when life begins, it is best left up to the individual states to decide so that liberal states like California and New York can decide what they want, and states like South Dakota and North Dakota can decide if they even want to allow abortions at all. Under Roe v. Wade this wasn't possible. It would also not be possible if a national abortion law were passed.

•••

Kudos to the conservative letter writer who attended the abortion rights rally at the State Capitol.

But it seems to me his concern regarding Rep. Ilhan Omar's remarks targeting ultraconservatives misses the mark.

The writer is clearly pro-choice. As a conservative, he is in a very strong position to influence his ultraconservative colleagues. Wouldn't this be a better use of his time and energy than railing against people supporting the same cause he does?

Sir, please! What an opportunity you have to support your four daughters. The Republican Party needs you. And your daughters do, too.

The main health care hurdle: Most patients and families do not have the power to act on marketplace choices.

When Dr. Richard O. Walker Jr. nobly returned to clinical psychiatric practice to help mitigate the adolescent suicide crisis, he re-encountered formidable obstacles to practicing his Hippocratic calling ("Hurdles galore hamper health care," Opinion Exchange, July 19). In his fine commentary, each of the health care "system" problems and their associated frustrations for doctors and patients detailed are related to one indisputable fact: In today's health care system by far most middle class patients and families do not know and cannot know either the prices of their personal medical care or the coverage benefits they'll get from their third-party health insurance. Rising health care costs, access to desired care, and patient care quality are all mounting health care concerns. Minnesota policymakers can give the tools to consumers (patients and families) allowing them to reform the health care system from bottom up. It's about supply and demand.

Voters want patient-empowering health care proposals on the table when choosing candidates in the Nov. 8 election.

Lee Beecher, Maple Grove

The writer is a retired psychiatrist.

If there is any blame to be had, blame the pro-gun mentality in this country that has some kind of delusional hold on the conscience of America: that gun ownership is an American right and privilege for anyone. Ludicrous. What a sad and tragic belief. The consequence of this is a fear and despair that is destroying the well-being of our country.