Letters to the Editor

In yesterday's editorial, a pro-choicer defended abortion by quoting the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that said, in part, "people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion."

In other words, people have gotten used to being allowed to have casual sex, free to kill any children they might conceive as a result. This is a pretty cynical reason to allow abortion.

A child is not a woman's property. Parents are the guardians of their children, not the owners. To say we should treat children like garbage because their selfish, wasteful parents are used to treating them that way is evil. We find homes for stray cats, give furniture to charity, and recycle soda cans, yet flush children down the drain. What sad priorities our affluence has led to!

In yesterday's editorial, a leader in the pro-choice movement defended abortion by quoting the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that said, in part, "people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion."

Let's translate this into plain English: People have developed sexual habits and made choices about what kind of people they want to be, based on the assurance that they can kill any babies they make but don't want.

In other words, this pro-choice leader thinks we should keep abortion legal because it allows people to maintain their hedonistic and selfish lifestyles of casual sex.

To put it even more bluntly, she defends abortion on the grounds that some people would rather kill their own children than give up their one-night stands.

That's a pretty disgusting defense.

A pro-choicer's column on Monday quoted National Organization for Women spokeswoman Jeanne Clark: "Abortion saves women's lives. It saves our futures. It saves our families. Indeed, it does personify our very right to exist."

First of all, I'd like to know what kind of person thinks her right to exist hinges on being able to annihilate another person. Most mothers don't have this burning desire to pulverize their children.

Second, I'd like to know how killing children saves families. What family could possibly be strengthened by its members killing each other?

Recently, Planned Parenthood ran a very pro-abortion ad in your paper.

However, in 1963, Planned Parenthood published a pamphlet that said: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it."

Now, I understand the financial reasons that made Planned Parenthood change its mind about abortion. And they have publicly rescinded their comments about abortion being dangerous, claiming they were referring only to illegal abortions. But I want to know what made them change their minds about what the unborn is? Why were they babies in 1963, but are now just "balls of cells," or "fetal tissue," or any of the other names they now use? What scientific discovery was made after 1963 that caused these people to suddenly decide that the unborn was not a baby after all?

The rest of us, through real-time ultrasound and advanced genetics testing, have learned that the unborn is more complex and sophisticated than we had ever thought before. It seems to me that if somebody made some amazing discovery that refuted all the rest of modern fetology, they'd publicize it, especially if it helped their cause. I mean, if all the ultrasounds and genetic tests were discovered to be as valid as Bigfoot sightings, wouldn't the scientific community be in an uproar?

I sure wish Planned Parenthood would divulge their sources. Don't you?