Letters to the Editor

Abortion advocates say the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

I wonder if they'd say the same about child molesting, rape, or armed robbery? Of course not. They realize that there are some things that are wrong, and the state is right to decide that these things should not be done by anyone.

Simply put, there is no right to do wrong. And what could be more wrong than a mother having her own child killed? At heart, everyone knows this, even the pro-choicers. That's why they divert attention away from the reality of abortion and onto philosophical musings. If killing babies was really an okay thing to do, they would be honest about what they were doing. They would admit, "We kill babies, and we're proud of it."

The very fact that they try to pretend that right and wrong don't enter into it is proof that they know it's wrong.

Abortion advocates must think the American people are fools. They claim the issue is not the morality of abortion, but "who decides--the woman or the state?"

Most Americans favor stiff penalties for rapists. Clearly, laws against rape don't let the government decide who gets raped. Instead, these laws indicate that the government has decided rape is an unacceptable practice. Rapists disagree, but the rest of us decided to impose our morality on them. That is what laws are all about.

Americans opposed to rape are willing to impose their sexual morality on rapists. They are indifferent to the reasons rapists rape. They are indifferent to rapists' moral and religious views. They don't even care if a rapist thinks women are fully persons.

What is it about abortion that makes it different from every other human behavior? Why are the very people who are defending it unwilling to talk about it? Instead, they divert attention. Are we really foolish enough to fall for this trick? It's the first trick pickpockets learn--divert attention away from what you're really doing. Only we're paying not with our wallets, but with our children and with the lives of women who are killed, mutilated, and raped by their abortionists.

When some people want to commit evil acts, it is right for the government to impose morality on them. We jail rapists. We should jail abortionists.

Abortion advocates say that abortion is about who gets to make the most intensely personal decisions. They are right.

Many abortion advocates support federal funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund. Both of these organizations support forced abortion in countries like China and Tibet.

This tells us that abortion advocates support the government making the most intense, personal decisions for citizens.

Government funding of abortions here and overseas puts the government in the position of using our tax dollars to encourage, or even require, abortions for certain women. Pro-choice advocates apparently think this is a good thing. I disagree.

It is cruel for abortion advocates to ask every pregnant woman to choose if her child should live or die. It is even more cruel to decide for her that the child should die. As someone who is pro-life and pro-woman, I say that instead, we should give women the kinds of options they really want. Women want better housing, better education, better options for adoption or parenting. No woman wants an abortion.

When abortion advocates start making good options available to women, maybe they will start to earn the name "pro-choice."

Abortion advocates say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

To my knowledge, no one opposed to abortion has ever advocated the state choosing who should undergo abortions. Quite the opposite is true. Pro-lifers oppose anyone inducing a woman to undergo abortion. Pro-choicers have been supportive of governments making the abortion decisions for citizens. The best known example of this is the forced abortion program in China. When have you seen a pro-choice organization do anything but fight for U.S. funding for this atrocity?

For the state to decide who must participate in some activity, the activity must be legal. So obviously, outlawing abortion will not give control of women's reproductive abilities to the state. Keeping abortion legal, however, allows the government to influence abortion decisions. This has always been part of the pro-choice agenda. The debate over Title X proved that abortion advocates want to use government funds to promote abortion among certain groups of women.

The way to avoid government-mandated abortion is to outlaw abortion, not to promote it.

Abortion advocates say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

The whole "Who decides?" slogan is the brainchild of Frank Greer, a Democratic media consultant who developed this marketing ploy for the National Abortion Rights Action League.

"Who decides?" is like, "You've got the right one, baby," or "Finger-lickin' good," or "Coke is it." It is an advertising slogan, pure and simple. Greer would have come up with something just as catchy to sell underarm deodorant if he'd been paid to do so. Given a couple of million dollars, he could probably come up with an ad campaign to get people to want a toxic waste dump in their community.

To just nod your head, "Sounds good to me," in response to "Who decides?" is like brainlessly humming a commercial jingle as you go off to buy some product you don't even want.

When you hear, "Who decides?" you can either behave like a mind-numbed robot, or you can examine the product--abortion--and decide for yourself if this is a good thing that we want in our community. Or is it more like that toxic waste dump?

Abortion advocates claim, "It doesn't matter if you think abortion is right or wrong. What matters is "who decides--the woman or the state?"

I wonder if these people would say the same thing about rape. Like abortion, it is an intensely personal issue. Like abortion, it involves people making decisions about their bodies. Like abortion, it involves another person who is not consenting.

Laws against rape do not let the government decide who gets raped. They are based on civilized people deciding that there are some things you just can't be allowed to do. Forcing your personal desires and beliefs on another person should not be allowed.

Abortion clearly involves ending the life of another human being. Some people like to argue about whether this human being is a "person" or not. That isn't relevant. Many rapists don't consider women to be real people. We still don't let them act on that belief.

Civilized societies do not let some individuals decide to kill other individuals. Just because abortion advocates have an unusual belief does not mean we should let them impose that belief on others. Since we cannot ask the unborn children what they believe about their own personhood, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Isn't that the least we'd want for ourselves if our very lives were at stake?

Abortion supporters often declare, "We will decide!" They claim that the target of their decision is not important.

What could be more important?

Whenever we are in doubt about whether people are at risk, we take no chances. If a mine caved in, we would search for survivors before dynamiting the entrance shut. Firemen go through burning buildings looking for people who need to be saved. Hunters are taught never to shoot until they are sure the target is a deer, not a person.

Abortion advocates claim it is possible that unborn children are not "people." Based on this possibility, they kill them by the millions.

Shouldn't we make sure first? After all, if they are wrong, they are responsible for the biggest slaughter in history. Shouldn't we stop the killing until we can say with certainty whether we are killing people or not?

But abortion advocates aren't even willing to investigate. They want unborn babies to be non-persons. They treat them as non-persons. All based on an assumption.

That seems like a childish way to approach things. Let's act like the grown-ups we are. Let's get the scientific data and ask: is this a baby, or a formless glob of useless tissue?

Abortion advocates claim that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

America heard this rhetoric before--from slave holders. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas always claimed that although he was personally opposed to slavery, he felt it should be left to the voters.

Lincoln countered: "When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong."

Does our government exist to protect one person's right to do wrong to another? Lincoln said no, and we fought a bloody civil war over it. If we now decide that Lincoln was wrong, that some citizens have a right to do wrong, we destroy everything those men fought and died for.

The burden of proof should be on abortion advocates--let them prove beyond a doubt that unborn children are worthless lumps of flesh before we let them flush those same children down the garbage disposal.

As a civilized society, we can do no less.

Abortion advocates say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

To determine if this is right, we have to answer the question, "Why does the government exist?"

The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal,...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

So our government exists to secure these rights for all men. Now, there are two ways we can read the word "men." We can be literalists, and insist that it applies only to adult males, leaving women and children with no rights. Or we can be liberal, and recognize that all human beings are encompassed in that word. But we cannot do what abortion advocates say we should: apply it only to certain people. That, after all, is what King George did: one's rights were based upon where one lived, in the British Islands or in the Colonies. Like King George, abortion advocates want to give rights to people based on where they live, in or out of the womb.

Those advocating that the U.S. government continue to grant rights based on place of residence are turning back the clock to 1775. Is this really what we want? We might as well have remained British colonies.

Abortion advocates claim that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

These people don't seem to realize why the government exists. Since the U.S. government is based on the Constitution, we can assume that the Preamble says some important things about the purpose of government.

One purpose is to "establish justice."

What justice is there in a system that allows innocent people to be harmed at the whim of others? Just because women are bigger and stronger, should they be allowed to kill their own children? Because men wield more financial and political power, should women be abandoned to the despair of abortion?

What justice is there in a system that allows men to combine career and parenthood, yet demands that women choose between prosperity and their children's very lives?

Abortion is the most unjust institution this country has ever established. It pits mothers against their children, women against men, parents against their daughters. It usurps the rights of parents and fathers.

How long are we going to endure the injustice of 4,400 innocent people being killed daily? Do we deserve freedom if we abuse it in this way?

These are the questions we need to discuss. Does the government have a right to ban abortion? The better question is, what legitimate government would permit such an atrocity?

Abortion advocates often say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

These people need to consider the purpose of government. The Preamble gives one of the reasons for founding the U.S. government: to insure domestic tranquillity.

What has abortion-on-demand done to insure domestic tranquillity?

It has pitted husbands and wives against each other. The divorce rate has skyrocketed as men have been forced to watch helplessly while their children are aborted and their wives are injured or killed.

It has pitted parents against children. Mothers and fathers are powerless to protect their own daughters from unscrupulous butchers who rape, maim, and kill them in the name of "freedom of choice."

Whole communities have been torn apart. Citizens scuffle in front of abortion mills. Shouting matches erupt on once-peaceful sidewalks. One side pickets, the other side attacks the picketers with baseball bats and tire irons. Some people on both sides of the issue have gone over the edge, resorting to shooting their fellow citizens.

Unfettered abortion has opened the floodgates of violence and unrest. It is time we restored peace. Abortion advocates tell us that those who really want abortions have always been able to circumvent the law by bribing doctors or leaving the country. Must we have such civil unrest for the convenience of a selfish few? Pro-choicers say yes. I disagree.

Abortion advocates say that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

Haven't these people studied the Constitution? Even a superficial glance at what abortion has done to this country shows that the government has every right--indeed a duty--to stop abortion.

The Preamble enumerates the purposes of government, including to "promote the general welfare." Aside from the impact on over 30 million babies directly killed by abortion, what impact has abortion had?

Since abortion-on-demand was unleashed, child abuse has skyrocketed. More and more single mothers live with their children in dire poverty. Both of these problems have been linked to abortion.

Health problems associated with abortion have increased, including ectopic pregnancy, the fastest-growing killer of pregnant women.

Civil unrest has grown. Scuffling matches break out at abortion mills. Once-peaceful streets have become the scenes of shouting matches and brutal assaults. Some people on both sides of the issue have taken to arson, bombings, and shootings. Abortionists call for police and federal marshalls to restore order. Medical boards are swamped with complaints from women abused, injured, and raped by their abortionists.

Is there any evidence that abortion has done any good at all to offset the evil it has brought? Clearly not, and the government must put an end to it for the good of us all.

Abortion advocates claim that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

In issues that involve harming others, the state has every duty to be involved.

The Preamble says the Constitution was adopted to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." What blessings can we secure for our posterity when we are exterminating our children at the rate of 4,400 a day?

The birth rate in the United States has fallen below replacement levels. Any population growth is due to immigration. Our children--the ones we don't kill--will inherit not liberty but slavery in the form of a huge national debt and the support of an elderly population outnumbering those who can work.

How can it benefit our children to leave them with such a burden? The brothers and sisters who would have shared their responsibilities have been killed by abortion. We leave our posterity a legacy of debt.

Killing a third of our children and leaving the rest of them to slave an entire lifetime to support our debts is hardly securing for them the blessings of liberty. No generation has the right to lay such burdens on their own children and grandchildren. When future generations look back on us, it will be with disgust at our greed, selfishness, and short-sightedness. We should stop dressing irresponsibility in the garb of liberty.

Abortion advocates claim that the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

This statement relies on the myth that abortion is something women want and freely choose. That may have been true before Roe v. Wade, but it is far from true now.

Before Roe, women who wanted abortions could circumvent the laws against abortion any number of ways, such as claiming to be suicidal or having their doctors pass off abortions as D&Cs following miscarriages.

When a woman has an unplanned pregnancy now, it is assumed that she will have an abortion. It takes more effort sometimes to avoid an abortion than it used to take to have one. This problem is so widespread that one concerned woman published a book, Having Your Baby When Others Say No, to help women avoid unwanted abortions. It is full of stories of women's struggles to continue their pregnancies despite the efforts of parents, boyfriends, bosses, social workers, and doctors to make them have abortions.

How freely chosen can abortion be when women need a handbook on how to avoid it?

I would rather see women who really want abortions go to some trouble to get them than see women who want their babies having abortions they don't want. Anyone who is truly pro-choice would agree.

Abortion advocates claim the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

Americans once heard an opponent of Abraham Lincoln make the same argument in favor of slavery, to which Mr. Lincoln responded: "Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other?"

I suggest we simply replace the word "slavery" with "abortion" to show how hollow the "who decides" arguments for abortion are.

Abortion advocates claim the abortion issue is not about what is right or wrong, but about "who decides--the woman or the state?"

It's interesting that the only people claiming that it doesn't matter whether abortion is right or wrong are those who like abortion. If they think it's such a good thing, why don't they defend it on its own merits?

The answer, of course, is that it has no merits. There is nothing inherently appealing about abortion. A woman climbs on a table, a man invades her body with sharp instruments, and her child is literally torn limb from limb. When you look at it, it has nothing to recommend it. It doesn't really even do anything for the woman. She is just as poor, or uneducated, or ill-housed, or abused as she was before. The biggest difference is that she is now the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one, and it's hard to imagine that she is any better off for the experience.

Obviously, it's tough for these radical abortion-on-demand types to make this scenario seem anything but ugly, which is precisely why they try every trick in the book to avoid talking about it. One thing is for sure. If every voter spent just one day inside a typical abortion clinic, there would be no debate. Every one of these places would be shut down instantly.

Does it matter whether abortion is right or wrong? What else could?

Abortion advocates claim, "The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but who decides--the woman or the state?"

America has heard this rhetoric before from slave owners. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas said that, while he was personally opposed to slavery, he would not legislate against it because it was up to the people to vote it up or down. Lincoln countered with: "He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong."

Lincoln was right. The government is not empowered to protect one individual's right to do wrong to another, but to protect those who would be victimized from those who would victimize. Abortion fanatics opine that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, because they can't defend the act of abortion. They have to keep people from looking at the real question: is the unborn child a living human being? When people realize that he or she is indeed a living human being, there will be no debate about "who decides." Civilized societies don't leave the decision about whether one human being can kill another up to the individual who wants to kill.

Abortion advocates claim, "The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but who decides--the woman or the state?"

As with any issue, the question only becomes "who decides" once we know what the decision is about. If it's what color shoes to wear, that's one thing. If it's a life and death decision, that's another. Historically, even civilizations with almost no formal government never allowed one individual to decide whether another individual should die. The most libertarian view is that if there is only one legitimate function of government, it is protecting innocent human life. Governments should, and do, make so-called "personal decisions" every day. For example, our country has decided that citizens can't take certain drugs or engage in prostitution. But these "personal libertarians" don't march around screaming that prostitution and drugs should be legal, and that morality or harmful effects are not the issue. Only the hopelessly naive wouldn't see that the reason they don't demand that women have a right to decide those issues is because they're not in the drug or prostitution business. They're in the abortion business. These fanatical abortion advocates aren't noble crusaders trying to protect the rights of women. They're special interest lobbyists trying to protect a multi-billion dollar industry. Period. They want us to diddle with "who decides" because they know if we look at what's being decided we'll see what abortion really is--and the debate will be over!

Abortion advocates claim, "The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but who decides--the woman or the state?"

We need to address this bogus issue of "who decides?" Pro-abortion people try to make it sound as if we have to choose between women deciding whether to have abortions or the state deciding which women should have abortions. That's a lie on two fronts. First of all, most women today are railroaded into abortions by parents, irresponsible boyfriends, or greedy abortion promoters. I hardly call that letting her make the choice. Secondly, the choice is not between women choosing and the state choosing--it's between unfettered abortion and no abortion at all. The only people advocating that the state decide who should have abortions are the radical pro-abortion population-control zealots. And they are in cahoots with Planned Parenthood, which supports the forced abortion program we see in China today.

To say that outlawing something means letting the state decide is deceitful. Abortion advocates should be ashamed of themselves.

Abortion advocates claim, "The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but who decides--the woman or the state?"

Who does decide?

If you are contemplating abortion, you are forced by circumstances to decide quickly. As pregnancy progresses, abortion becomes emotionally more difficult and morally less acceptable, and the cost and risk increase. You feel the natural human desire to resolve everything immediately. Waiting seems unthinkable.

When you get to the clinic, you are required to pay for the abortion before you talk to anyone. You aren't sure if you can get the money back if you decide against abortion. In many clinics, counseling takes place in a large group setting where you will probably not feel comfortable talking freely about your personal circumstances. It is simply assumed that you will go through with the abortion. You hesitate to ask your questions, both for fear of seeming silly and because you don't want to bog the session down with things nobody else seems concerned about.

Before long you are on the abortion table. You still aren't sure this is what you want to do. The doctor walks in and gives you an injection. You try to ask him something, but he just says, "Too late now; it'll all be over in a few minutes."

In the recovery room, doubt washes over you. The woman next to you is sobbing, "I've killed my baby." Deep down, you feel the same way. But it's too late now. You numb yourself, get dressed, go home, and try to convince yourself you did the right thing.

Choice? Hardly.

Abortion enthusiasts say abortion must be legal. "Freedom is about letting people make their own choices," they say.

But with abortion, who is making the choices?

Even abortion advocates admit that women don't want abortions. They want good relationships, strong families, decent housing, adequate health care, etc. Given this kind of support, women will choose the things they really want.

Instead, one in three ends up having an abortion. How is it that women wind up with something they don't even want? The answer is that legalized abortion gives other people choices.

Abortion gives men the choice to abandon women, or use empty promises to convince them to have abortions.

Abortion lets employers make the choice not to provide decent options to working mothers. Why worry about family leave, day care, and flexible hours if women are willing to submit to abortion?

Abortion lets abortionists make the most choices of all. They can choose to lie to women to sell them abortions. They can choose to follow or to ignore safety measures. They can choose to let an injured woman bleed to death in the clinic or send her home to bleed to death, to call her a cab or call an ambulance.

Abortionists can choose what house or car to buy, what country club to join, or where to send their kids to college. They can choose how they want to benefit from other people's misery.

Oh, yes, legal abortion is about giving people choices--people other than the pregnant women.

Abortion providers often try to rationalize what they do with, "We don't advocate abortion. We are simply for allowing people to make their own choices."

When an abortion takes place, at least four people are involved: the mother, the father, the child, and the abortionist. Obviously, of those three the child is the one most affected as he or she is the one who will die. Of course, the only one abortion advocates believe should have a choice is the woman. Not only that, but they only want her to have a choice as long as she chooses abortion.

In fact, in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook (September 28, 1972), Rev. Hugh Anwyl of Planned Parenthood's Clergy Counseling Service is quoted as saying that he got sick of women having to justify their abortions prior to decriminalization. "Now," he said, "I feel about any pregnancy, if a woman can justify keeping a pregnancy, that's okay. But if she can't, get rid of it."

That bears repeating: a representative of America's largest abortion provider is on record saying that women should have to justify not killing their babies.

Some "pro-choice" attitude!

"We don't advocate abortion. We are simply for allowing people to make their own choices." That is the shopworn chant of the American abortion industry. It's also a lie.

The baby's father gets no choice. The only person so-called "pro-choicers" want to have anything resembling a choice is the mother.

Even then, they only want her to have a choice as long as she chooses abortion. People who used to work in abortion mills admit to being trained by marketing experts and even being paid a commission for each abortion sold. Are we supposed to believe that somebody who only gets her $25 commission if the woman buys an abortion is really motivated to help her make an informed choice? Their goals have nothing whatsoever to do with any choice other than abortion.

Some abortion clinic administrators may claim that their clinics do not pay counselors a commission. Nevertheless, abortion clinics exists to sell abortions. No abortion, no clinic. No clinic, no job. Either way, the counselor has a strong financial stake in selling each client an abortion.

Let's not be naive. We might as well believe that vacuum cleaner salesmen are selfless advocates giving women choices on how to clean their floors.

Abortion providers often try to rationalize what they do with, "We don't advocate abortion. We are simply for allowing people to make their own choices."

The so-called "pro-choice" movement has never had goals that have anything whatsoever to do with any choice other than abortion. Since 1973, pro-choicers have fought tooth and nail against every attempt to reduce America's staggering abortion rate.

They have opposed legislation to require that women be totally informed. They have fought viciously against laws requiring parental notification for minors. They have spent millions lobbying against legislation designed to make abortion mills meet the same medical standards as legitimate health care providers. They even oppose a short waiting period designed to give a woman the chance to be sure she's making the choice that's right for her.

The list goes on and on, but the point is that not one of these pieces of legislation would have, in any way, denied one single woman the ability to choose an abortion. So when these radical abortion advocates tell the American people that they support "a woman's right to choose," that's simply not true. The fact is, these people oppose even the most insignificant and reasonable limits on abortion, not because limits would reduce choices, but because they would reduce abortions. The cold, hard truth is that fewer abortions mean less money. And that's the bottom line behind the whole idea of legalized abortion. If desperate women were not buying literally billions of dollars worth of abortions, not one of these so-called "women's rights advocates" would be out here hollering that abortion should be legal.

"We don't advocate abortion. We are simply for allowing people to make their own choices." That is the claim of those who call themselves "pro-choice."

The truth is, the so-called "pro-choice" movement is a living example of the old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." Overpopulation doomsayers like abortion because it eliminates people. Radical feminists like abortion because it gives them power over men. Sleazy playboys like abortion because it lets them duck their responsibilities. Social engineers like abortion because it helps them keep minorities under their thumbs. Crummy doctors like abortion because it lets them get rich despite their lack of skill.

Although these groups have no common agenda, they have in common the fact that abortion is pivotal in achieving their goals. So one hand washes the other. Doomsayers, playboys, and social engineers inject money into feminist organizations to give abortion the appearance of being a women's issue. The feminist groups cover up for the bad doctors, knowing that their own members are rich white women who wouldn't have abortions by these quacks anyway. And everybody mouths the same slogans to give the illusion of high-minded ideals.

No, it's not a conspiracy, unless it's the conspiracy of a common agenda. But it is the way things happen. If you look at where "pro-choice" groups get their money, and what they do with it, you will see that what I'm saying is true.

The modern "Choice" argument is a fraud. The goal is, and has always been, power and money through abortion.

Radical pro-choice feminists often proclaim, "Nobody has any business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body."

Funny, I've seen pro-abortion feminists who are quite willing to tell women what they can or can't do with their own bodies--even their own reproductive lives.

Pro-choice writer Daniel Callahan pointed out how strange this is. "A number of prominent feminists--including Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, it might be recalled--came to reject a pure choice ideology in the case of surrogate motherhood (during the debate over the Baby M case). The choice of becoming a surrogate mother, they argued, is not necessarily a good choice or beneficial to women, however much it may have the virtue of being a choice that a woman can legally make."

Clearly, the concern is not choice--it is abortion. They don't want women to have any choices they want--they just want them to have abortions.

Abortion fanatics say, "We don't advocate abortion. We are for allowing people to make their own choices." They consistently argue that this debate is not about abortion, but freedom of choice.

This same diversionary tactic was used in the 1858 debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Douglas maintained that citizens should make their own "choices" about moral issues like slavery. He berated Lincoln for opposing the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision which upheld the "right" to own slaves. In his own words, Douglas said he was not pro-slavery, but "pro-choice"!

Now, did Douglas calling himself pro-choice make him right and Lincoln wrong? No. It was simply a pathetic example of someone who knew he couldn't defend his own position, so he distorted and corrupted the language.

And that's precisely what the abortion industry does. They contend that what's being chosen doesn't matter--the important thing is someone's right to choose it. They know their position is impossible to defend on its own merit, just like Stephen Douglas knew his was. So like him, they try to make "choice" the issue by saying it doesn't matter whether abortion is right or wrong. But as Lincoln countered, there is no right to do wrong. For pro-abortionists to look us in the eye and say that whether abortion kills babies is irrelevant, shows exactly how demented they are. And it is irrefutable proof that even they know abortion can't be defended.

Abortion advocates say, "We don't advocate abortion. We are simply for allowing people to make their own choices."

There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are plenty of choices--personal and otherwise--that a society can't allow individuals to make. The total freedom of each individual to choose anything he or she wishes would be anarchy. When civilized governments decide whether to allow individuals to choose a certain activity, the fundamental principal to consider has always been whether that choice will victimize someone else. And today, abortion is the only example of an otherwise civilized society granting one human being the right to decide whether an innocent human being lives or dies.

The government not only has the right to restrict choices, it has the responsibility. Every law ever passed was intended to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity. When a government allows choice in the matter of whether one human being has the right to kill another, it has abdicated its right to govern. That's obviously what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote: "The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government."

According to President Jefferson, the protection of human life is government's most fundamental responsibility. He clearly believed that if the government wouldn't keep one individual from killing another, it had no right to even exist.

Some of our legislators mistakenly believe, "The government has no right to interfere in people's personal choices. Our government was founded on the principle of freedom. Freedom to choose whether to bear a child is a profound and fundamental freedom."

There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are any number of choices--personal and otherwise--that a society simply can't allow individuals to make. The total freedom of each individual to choose anything he or she wishes would be anarchy.

Governments established by civilized societies, when deciding whether they will allow an individual to choose a certain activity, have always operated under the doctrine that the most fundamental principal to consider is whether that choice will victimize someone else. And today, abortion is the only example of an otherwise civilized society granting one human being the right to decide whether another completely innocent human being should live or die.

As for whether the government has the right to restrict choices, that's what it's meant to do. Every single law ever passed was intended to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity.

A government that says it will allow choice in the matter of whether one human being has the right to kill another has abdicated its right to govern. That's obviously what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote: "The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government."

Abortion enthusiasts espouse the notion that abortion must be legal. "Freedom is about letting people make their own choices," they say.

In his book Snap, Crackle, and Popular Taste: The Illusion of Free Choice in America, Jeffrey Schrank wrote of what he calls pseudo-choice:

"Freedom exits only in the presence of choices, but it does not follow that the presence of choices creates freedom. Some choices contribute only to the illusion of freedom; these we will call pseudo-choices...A pseudo-choice is a real choice exercised by a person using what is commonly recognized as free will, but the choice has carefully controlled boundaries that often exclude what the person choosing really wants."

Even those in the abortion-rights movement admit that women don't typically want abortions. But by keeping them ignorant of the risks and of the resources available to them, thereby exploiting their desperation, abortion clinics can channel women easily into the abortion choice.

Schrank also said, "Pseudo-choice serves nicely to create the illusion of freedom and preserve us from the introspection needed to determine what we really want."

That sounds like what abortion has been doing to the women of this country for the last 20 years. Do we want careers or motherhood, or both? Do we want men to be chivalrous, or to treat us like one of the guys? What do women want?

The only thing we really know after 20 years is this: we don't want abortion. So why is that what we settle for?

Pro-abortion people say that abortion must be legal. "Freedom is about letting people make their own choices," they say.

All choices are not created equal. Some choices are crimes. All crimes are choices.

We do not let people make their own choices to rape, rob, or drive drunk. We do not let them make the choices to embezzle, defraud, or write bad checks. We do not let them make the choices to speed, slander, or have sex with animals.

What is it about taking the life of a helpless human being that makes abortion enthusiasts so eager to embrace it as a valid "choice?"

Radical pro-abortion feminists say abortion must be legal. "Freedom is about letting people make their own choices," they say.

These people seem to think that women are the ones making the abortion choice. While that may sometimes be true, it isn't always.

Even prominent abortion advocate Daniel Callahan said, "That men have long coerced women into unwanted abortion when it suits their purposes is well-known but rarely mentioned. Data reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that some 30 percent of women have an abortion because someone else, not the woman, wants it."

Of course, I'm willing to give these pro-abortion feminists the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they support abortion not because they think women should be given choices, but because they think whoever benefits from abortion should be given the freedom to choose.

But we mustn't be tricked into believing that every one of the 1.5 million abortions committed each year in the U.S. is freely chosen by the woman involved. Even abortion advocates know that at least a third of them are coerced. That's 500,000 a year.

That's 500,000 too many, in my opinion. But it's a free country--and pro-abortion people are free to disagree with me.

Pro-abortion feminist extremists say that abortion "gives each woman the freedom to live as she sees fit."

Is that really true?

What about those women who watch helplessly while the man they were having the abortion for in the first place takes off as soon as the abortion is over; or those who immediately become pregnant again; or those who learn that their abortions have left them unable to carry another pregnancy to term; or those who end up brain-damaged, in a coma, or in a persistent vegetative state; or those who are raped by their abortionist; or those who can't accept what they've done and suffer devastating emotional problems for the rest of their lives? What about them? Do abortion advocates really think being suicidal or in a coma is liberating? How free are you to live as you see fit when you're strapped to a wheelchair in a nursing home or unable to function in a normal relationship?

Call me crazy, but I think that most women want family, home, friends, and meaningful work. Abortion advocates apparently believe that they would rather be drooling vegetables. Go figure.

Pro-choicers sometimes voice the accusation, "Pro-lifers won't let women have the freedom to run their own lives as they see fit."

I'd like to know where pro-choicers draw the line for women running their lives the way they see fit. How can they say it's an absolute right to kill a baby in the womb, then throw stones at Susan Smith for drowning her two young sons because they were coming between her and her lover? After all, if she'd been nine-months pregnant with twins and had aborted them to keep her boyfriend, the pro-aborts wouldn't have batted an eye. In fact, they'd have applauded her for making a sensible, morally correct decision based on her own best interests.

Although what Susan Smith did was undeniably terrible, pro-choicers have totally surrendered their right to say so. She at least gave her kids a chance. She didn't just think that they might interfere with her chosen lifestyle--she knew that she could never live her life as she wanted to if she was saddled with two unwanted children.

Pro-lifers have always said that mothers shouldn't be allowed to kill their children to better their own lives. Pro-choicers have said that they should. What gives them the right to draw the line at birth? Who are they to impose their morals on Susan Smith? Who are they to make her choices for her?

Pro-choicers say that abortion "gives each woman the freedom to live as she sees fit."

What kind of twisted mind considers killing one's own child necessary for freedom?

We all have responsibilities that weigh heavily on us sometimes. We get tired of our jobs. We want a break from our spouses. Sometimes a brother or sister is a nuisance. But we don't just shoot our bosses, spouses, and siblings in the name of freedom.

Nobody in the world lives exactly as they want to. We have to pay taxes, do our homework, keep our sidewalks shoveled in the winter time. Neighbors, co-workers, and family make demands. Life is a balancing act of fulfilling our responsibilities to others without letting others take advantage of us.

Nobody has the right to do exactly as he or she pleases. We have to wear clothes in public, turn down our stereos late at night, and stop at red lights. Only criminals and the severely mentally incapacitated think they can just do as they please all the time. The rest of us behave like the grown-ups we are.

Abortion advocates want to live in Neverland where there are no grown-ups to tell them what to do. Where they can be totally irresponsible and selfish 24 hours a day. Where they can get whatever they want with no consequences.

Pro-choicers need to grow up.

Abortion advocates say that abortion "gives each woman the freedom to live as she sees fit."

Who among us didn't envy grown-ups as a child? They seemed free to do whatever they wanted. They didn't have to do homework, eat their spinach, or go to bed by 9:00. It wasn't until we became grown-ups ourselves that we realized that with freedom comes responsibility. Instead of homework comes housework, yardwork, balancing the budget, and paying taxes. We are free to eat junk food, but quickly realize that if we do, we'll get fat and sick. And if we aren't in bed at a reasonable hour, we'll be miserable and nasty-tempered at work the next day. We learn to take care of the responsibilities that come with freedom.

Abortion advocates retain a child's idea of freedom. They think it means doing whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it. They never catch on to the idea that with freedom comes responsibility.

Freedom to enter into a sexual relationship carries the responsibility to refrain from killing the child you might create. To want to have casual sex without ever bearing a child is like wanting to live on soda and chips while having a body like Cindy Crawford. It is childish.

Abortion advocates need to do what the rest of us did: grow up.

Pro-abortion feminist extremists say abortion "gives each woman the freedom to live as she sees fit."

Do these feminists really believe women should have total freedom to live the lives they choose?

One of the reasons women abort their babies is because the baby would interfere with career plans.

Well, many people can interfere with your career plans. You may have a back-

stabbing co-worker who sabotages your work. Your boss may be a jerk. Or the other person applying for the job you want may be vastly more qualified than you are. It is easy to find situations in which other people interfere with career plans.

If women need the complete freedom to live as they see fit, we need tax-funded "hit" clinics. There, the woman can put out a contract on that nasty co-worker or boss.

But we don't do that. We recognize that the woman does not have an unalienable right to her chosen career path. Her career plans don't supersede another's right to life. So why should they supersede her own child's right to life?

The answer is, they shouldn't. It is warped to even pretend they should.

Pro-abortion extremists say that abortion "gives each woman the freedom to live as she sees fit."

Is that really true?

It may seem so at the time the woman is signing the consent form at the abortion clinic. She sees only the relief of getting out of the immediate crisis. She does not see the crisis she is taking on instead. She is exchanging a social crisis for what pro-abortion author Sue Nathanson called a "soul crisis." In her book Soul Crisis, Nathanson reflects on her own abortion:

"Alone, I sob for myself, my child, the remains, the child smeared into bits by the vacuum aspirator, sucked from the warmth of my womb in a violent moment of death. I am a shriek of horror and anguish, straining with all my might somehow to reverse what cannot be reversed, what is irrevocable."

How many women would willingly submit to an abortion if they knew they'd be such a wreck afterward? How many women who give birth would describe themselves as "a shriek of horror and anguish?" Does this seem to be any improvement on the typical pre-abortion state of anxiety and ambivalence?

The truth is, abortion gives the illusion of just going on with your plans as if the pregnancy had never happened. Too many women find out afterward that having an abortion exchanges a temporary problem for a permanent one.

That hardly constitutes living as you see fit.

In her recent letter, a woman defended abortion, saying, "Women need to be completely free to make decisions about motherhood."

Completely free?

What if a married woman found out she was pregnant after being raped by a man of another race? She decides that she wants the baby if it was her husband's, but she doesn't if it was fathered by the rapist. Should she be allowed to wait until the baby is born, so she can see what race it is, before deciding to kill it?

What if a woman considered abortion an unnatural invasion of her body, but wanted to avoid motherhood? She also believes life begins with the first breath. Should she be permitted to give birth underwater and let the baby drown? After all, it would never draw a breath.

What if a woman had an ultrasound, was told her baby was a girl, but she learned at birth that it was a boy. Should she be allowed to kill the child because she would have aborted it had she known it was a boy?

Clearly, society has certain expectations of mothers. The first is that they should not kill their own children. For these abortion-on-demand types to suggest that women can't be free without that ability, shows just how morally bankrupt they are.

There has been a lot of debate lately over the proposed handgun laws. Some people believe that an armed citizen can prevent crime. Others believe that too many armed citizens will lead to even more violence.

One thing is certain--making decisions about private gun ownership raises the question, "Under what circumstances may one human being justifiably kill another?"

How would our courts treat a citizen who shot dead an intruder if that intruder was threatening to kill his children? If the intruder was about to rape his wife? If the intruder was stealing his television? If the intruder was raiding the refrigerator?

What if a woman shot her abusive husband dead? What if he wasn't abusive, just thoughtless or unfaithful? What if she just didn't like him any more? What if she was having an affair and wanted him out of the way?

How would the courts view a man who shot his own child dead? Would it matter what his motive was? Perhaps the child was armed and attacking his sister. What if he just refused to clean his room?

What if the father had lost his job and said he couldn't keep his Corvette and his boat if he had to pay for the kid's education? What if his new lover wouldn't marry him because she didn't want children?

Under what circumstances may a parent kill a child? Shouldn't we consider limiting abortion to those circumstances?