Letters to the Editor

An abortionist recently insisted that he and his accomplices are not Nazis.

First off, they weren't being called Nazis. We simply point out that the way they justify killing unborn children is chillingly similar to the ways Nazis justified killing Jews, Poles, and Gypsies. We can disagree with people without calling them Nazis. But if the shoe fits...

The reason abortion fanatics rail about being compared to Nazis is that it hits too close to home.

Abortion fanatics use terms to describe the fetus which are very similar to terms the Nazis used to describe people they were preparing to kill: parasites, sub-human, vermin, and so on. The abortion fanatic, like the Nazi, speaks of "removing" the victim to avoid admitting that the victim is being killed. And, like Nazis, those who participate in abortions frequently suffer excessive drinking, sleep disturbances, and disrupted relationships.

In fact, I often think that comparing abortionists to Nazis insults Nazis. However evil the Nazi's actions were, he acted for a cause, not for his own profit. The abortionist just wants money. It's like the difference between a terrorist and a hit man. Both are cold-blooded killers who belong in jail, but at least the terrorist has an excuse.

Abortion enthusiasts insist that it is unfair to draw an analogy between abortionists and Nazis because abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany.

This half-truth is worse than a lie. As anyone who studied the subject knows, the Nazis implemented a policy called Lebensborn. Yes, it made abortion illegal--but only for Aryans. For those they considered less desirable, abortion was not only legal, but sometimes required. In other words, abortion was reserved for your enemies, for the people the Nazis wanted to eliminate from the face of the earth.

Isn't it interesting that abortion advocates are always agitating for government-funded abortions for the poor, for minority women, and for the handicapped? It seems they are quite eager to follow the Nazis in using abortion to wipe out people they think don't deserve to breathe the same air.

Some abortion advocates insist that abortion is not murder because it is legal.

Since abortion is legal, technically speaking, abortion advocates may be right that it isn't murder. But I wonder if they would have a problem applying that same standard to Adolf Hitler and his thugs? Keep in mind that Nazi concentration camps, and the more than six million executions that went on inside them, were perfectly legal according to the laws that existed in Germany at the time. If you heard someone say that Adolf Hitler was a murderer because he put six million people to death in his concentration camps, would you argue he wasn't a murderer on the basis that these executions were legal?

An abortion enthusiast recently expressed annoyance at people who call abortion murder. She said that while abortion may be a "sad and necessary" kind of killing, it isn't murder because there is no malice.

But according to my Webster's Dictionary, murder requires that the killing be done either with malice or in a premeditated manner.

What could be more premeditated than setting up an appointment for the killing to be done in a place that exists for no other purpose than to perform killings?

And while the mother might not have any malice toward her baby, one has to wonder about the people who carry out the abortions. To make killing babies your life's work, it seems that you must at least dislike them, if not hate them outright. And when you consider how many women are maimed and killed by abortion, you realize that somebody must have malice toward those babies, to be willing to sacrifice so many women's lives to keep the baby-killing places open.

If there isn't some malice behind abortion, there must be an even more sinister motive. These people would have to be killing all those babies, and many of their mothers, purely for power, money, or perverse pleasure.

Malice is an innocent motive compared to these.

An abortion enthusiast recently expressed annoyance at people who call abortion murder. She said that while abortion may be a "sad and necessary" kind of killing, it isn't murder because there is no malice. She couldn't quite explain how killing your fellow human beings could be anything but murder, other than to say that abortionists, "who are closest to the act," don't consider it murder.

I guess that makes the Nuremberg Trials the greatest miscarriage of justice in history. After all, nobody who was hanged as a result of the Nuremberg Trials considered what they did to the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles "murder." It was all perfectly legal. They were just following orders! They all had their reasons. They all had their excuses.

Since when do we let a killer decide for himself whether or not his crime constitutes murder?

Jeffrey Dahmer could have defended his crimes as private sexual practices. Ditto for Ted Bundy. The people who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building could define their crime as "free speech." Defense attorneys would have a field day. Why bother with trials at all? We'd only ever have to jail people who confess!

This abortion enthusiast might feel differently about letting the killer define the crime if the knife was coming at her, instead of at a helpless baby.

Proponents of legal abortion say that abortion is medical care, not killing.

In her recently released book, abortion apologist Naomi Wolf addressed this ridiculous claim better than I could. She said, "Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...With the pro-choice rhetoric we use now, we incur three destructive consequences--two ethical, one strategic: hardness of heart, lying and political failure."

Wolf defends the old pro-abortion technique of dehumanizing the baby on the grounds that it was emotionally necessary at the time to boost women's self-image. Now, she says, it is necessary for pro-choicers to admit that abortion kills a baby, and that most abortions are for less than altruistic reasons.

It's refreshing to see this kind of honesty from an abortion advocate. My question, though, is this: if abortion kills a baby, and most abortions are done on a woman's whim, why do we allow this barbaric practice?

That is one question Wolf hop-scotched around.

An abortionist complained yesterday that just because she does abortions, people assume that she hates babies. "I love children," she protested.

I find it hard to swallow the idea that abortion advocates don't hate babies. Let's be logical.

They claim their only motive is their undying devotion to the overall well-being of women and families. But abortion hurts women. Among other things, it can leave a woman sterile, or with a colostomy, or in a coma, or dead. The guilt and anguish over an abortion often destroys families, and sometimes puts the woman in a mental hospital.

Now, what kind of reason can people who love women possibly have for causing women so much pain? Obviously, there must be some feeling motivating them that is even stronger than their devotion to women's well-being.

That motive seems to be hatred of fetuses. The fetus is seen as a dreaded scourge. It is called a disease, a parasite. The unborn are blamed for everything from overpopulation and deforestation to crime and alcohol abuse.

It is in the drive to stamp out fetuses that abortion enthusiasts kill, maim, and injure women.

Obviously, even if they do love women, they hate babies more. Otherwise, why would they hurt women so much, just to make sure those babies get killed?

An abortionist complained yesterday that just because she does abortions, people assume that she hates babies. "I love children," she protested.

How horrible it must be to kill those whom you do not hate!

Yesterday's story on the local abortionist mentioned framed letters he has received, supposedly from women out there heaping gratitude on this guy for killing their babies.

The question is: so what? Does that make what he does right?

The man who is having an affair is probably grateful to his neighbors who keep his wife in the dark. The hit-and-run driver who kills a pedestrian is probably grateful to his friends who were in the car with him and never report his crime to the police. The alcoholic who is always late for work and never gets his projects done is probably grateful to the co-workers who cover up for him.

Gratitude just means that you did what somebody else wanted you to do. It doesn't mean that what you did was defensible. The gratitude of a woman to the person who killed her child is a classic example.

A column yesterday defended abortion on the grounds that all the women the author knows who had abortions never regretted it. Nazi Adolf Eichman went to his execution saying he had no regrets about his participation in the German holocaust. Is the author of yesterday's column ready to defend those killings on the same basis?

Lack of regret is a measure of the conscience of the person acting, not a measure of the rightness of the act committed.

Yesterday's interview with an abortionist raised an interesting point. The abortionist said that abortion disturbed him at first, but that as he did more of them, he began to find them more interesting and less morally troubling.

Forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy made a similar analysis of serial killers who become used to doing what they do: "Once they start to murder, the act becomes habitual. As it becomes habitual, it becomes easier."

Why is it that when someone finds it easier and easier to kill adults, we brand him a criminal and throw him in jail, but when someone finds it easier and easier to kill children, we call him a doctor?

Often when the media cover abortion, they present abortionists as such nice people. There are stories about how they do volunteer work or feed stray puppies or whatever. And people think, "Gee, they're such nice folks. I'm sure abortion must be okay because such nice people could never do anything nasty."

There was once a nice young man who sent his girlfriend flowers on the anniversary of the day they met. He did yard work for his elderly landlady. He never forgot to send cards to his friends and family on birthdays and holidays. He worked at the crisis hot line and helped people get psychiatric help instead of committing suicide. He was smart, handsome, friendly, and just an all-around wonderful guy--providing you could overlook one thing: he was a serial killer of young women. His name was Ted Bundy.

When Ann Rule was promoting her book about Bundy, she spoke about how he was a prince to most of the people he came into contact with. Everyone agreed that he was an all-around nice guy most of the time. But some people would ask Ms. Rule, "What about the victims?" They were right. Being nice most of the time did not excuse the hideous things Bundy did the rest of the time. He was only mean to a few dozen people in his entire life, but what he did to those few people came to define who he was. Some acts are so hideously evil that they can't be brushed aside.

So it is with abortionists. They may be nice to everyone else they encounter, but we can't brush aside what they do to women and children. Volunteering at the battered women's shelter, or even being a good parent, cannot erase the hideous evil of dismembering live babies day in and day out. Some day this country will come to its senses and abortionists will be remembered for the evil that they did.

It is our responsibility as citizens to ask, as we asked Ann Rule, "What about the victims?"

Letter 259>

Some pro-choicers have attacked politicians who oppose abortion. They complain that legislation restricting abortion would cause women to be jailed for having abortions.

The only people who propose prison sentences for abortive women are pro-choicers. The goal of pro-lifers was always to put abortionists in jail, where they belong. Pro-choicers don't think this is fair. They want abortionists to be able to injure and kill women, free of fear of prosecution. But if abortionists are going to jail for injuring women, pro-choicers want the women to go to jail, too.

Laws against abortion have always targeted the abortionist. The injured woman is the best source of information and evidence. If the woman faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion. The butcher would be free to harm others. It's like granting immunity to drug users in exchange for information on the big-time drug dealers. It doesn't excuse the woman from criminal behavior--it just recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society. It is a matter of priorities. Why jail one woman if she will kill once in her lifetime if we can instead jail one abortionist who may kill tens of thousands of babies and maim and kill thousands of women?

If pro-choicers want women to go to jail for having abortions, they can write legislation requiring it. But pro-lifers are interested in going after the career criminal.