The "pious rhetoric" Jonas is talking about ...

is all on the pro-abort side. 

Taking the other side (for this column, anyway -- I don't think he considers himself actually on it), he comes up with some impious rhetoric: Alan Borovoy is out "presumably to stem the tide of fetal menace threatening to engulf us all".

 And this:

Hmm. Should we legalize holdups, too? People keep robbing banks anyway.
Well, robbing banks is wrong.
Ah, and killing unborn babies isn’t.

This too:

Indeed, Borovoy argues that “even if we assumed that personhood begins at conception, why should that ‘person’ have sanctuary in the body of someone who doesn’t want it there?”
Well, ahem, because she put it there in the first place, Alan, wouldn’t you say? But Borovoy raises the point only to make clear he doesn’t want to hear about it . . .

This column by Faye Soniera few days ago put it more poignantly:

Borovoy’s comparison is not morally relevant. He takes a stranger-to-stranger relationship to rationalize lethal force in a mother-to-child relationship. A child is not a stranger, trespassing onto a foreign property, to seek sanctuary from another stranger.

Someone in the letters today said in response to that that religious arguments were, by definition, irrational, and we must ignore "irrational, religious arguments".

What about irrational secular arguments? 

Oh, those must be gone to the wall for -- and no one can ever admit they are irrational.