Letters to the Editor

Our governor has said we dare not outlaw abortion in our state because we couldn't afford the resulting economic boycott of our state.

That sounds a lot like caving in to extortionists.

Let's make the insane assumption that enough rabid abortion enthusiasts exist to make a dent in our economy, and that there wouldn't be enough pro-lifers to offset the loss. Since when do we let terrorists tell us what to do?

The people of our state have too much integrity to sell women's well-being for a few measly dollars. Our governor, on the other hand, knows that women are killed, injured, and raped in America's abortion clinics, but is apparently willing to put a price tag on women's lives.

If we cave in to this kind of pressure, what will we do next? If the Hemlock Society promised to boost our economy if we kill all the old and sick people, would we do it? Would we base our decision on what is right, or on how much they would pay us per head?

I'm sure the governor doesn't like hearing it put this way. He'd rather sugar-coat it and pretend he's looking out for everyone's best interests. But can we trust a man who would sell out the lives of women for a few dollars each? I don't think so.

Advocates of legal abortion often refer to the supposed "pro-choice majority."

Nonsense. If these people really believed there was a pro-choice majority, they wouldn't fight the legislative process the way they do. Instead, they would want abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy put on a national referendum--and be willing to live with the results.

I think it's time we made them put their money where their mouth is.

Proponents of legal abortion have claimed "most Americans favor choice."

What abortion advocacy groups define as "choice" is government-funded abortion on demand, through all nine months of pregnancy, with no regulations whatsoever. The truth is, very few people who identify themselves as "pro-choice" agree with this. Even people who work in abortion facilities--who you would expect to be the most "pro-choice" of all--do not favor "choice."

New York Woman's ran an article about Eastern Women's Center abortion mill in their June/July 1988 issue. Eastern's director said that nurses in a training session were asked, if they could decide when abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal, where would they draw the line? She said, "Most put it at the first trimester."

If the nurses in abortion clinics are "anti-choice" by "pro-choice" definitions, how can there be a pro-choice majority in America?

Abortion advocates claim "most Americans favor choice."

They conveniently leave out the definition of "choice," which is abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy, funded by the government, with no informed consent or safety standards, without parental consent for minors, and even if against the wishes of the father of the child. And abortion advocates see "choice" as so noble that women being injured, killed, and raped by abortionists is a small price to pay for it.

Even if we asked all of our friends, acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, and relatives, I don't think most of us could find even one person who supports this radical agenda. To say that abortion on demand has the support of the majority of Americans is a bald-faced lie. I think if we asked everyone we know, we would find that most Americans want to see some measures taken to eliminate this grisly practice.

Just because some fanatics are enamored with abortions and maiming women doesn't mean the rest of us share their passion.

There has been a lot of debate over abortion in this newspaper. Why don't we each look at the down-side of our respective positions? What are the ramifications if we're wrong?

If those of us on the pro-life side are wrong, then our insistence that abortion be illegal will result in some women seeking illegal abortions. Tragically, a few of these women will have a bad outcome.

On the other hand, if the pro-choicers are wrong, millions of babies are killed by abortion. Plus, tens of thousands of babies conceived later die due to ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, placenta previa, and prematurity caused by damage done to their mother's reproductive organs in previous abortions. In addition, an unknown number of women die needlessly from legal abortion complications.

Clearly, the costs of being pro-choice and wrong are astronomical--which may be why you'll never get a pro-choicer to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Somewhere inside him, he knows how high the stakes are.

As I follow the abortion debate, I have seen some confusion as to precisely what "pro-choice" means. I am going to take the liberty of characterizing the official "pro-choice" position, and I challenge pro-choicers to tell me where I'm wrong.

The official "pro-choice" stand is that abortions must be legal for all nine months of pregnancy; for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age without parental knowledge or consent; with the abortionist allowed to withhold information about risks and/or fetal development; with the father of the child having no say whatsoever; paid for with tax dollars.