Arguments of pro-choice crowd do not pass muster

To the editor:

Mr. Fisher seems to be one of the Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood disciples, linked knowingly or unknowingly.

He does not realize that many who are opposed to abortion usually would not bar its use for those who became pregnant due to rape, incest or if a real medical heath threat upon the woman. Mr. Fisher would claim such an exception does not exist. I would prefer the child in the womb under any circumstance be brought to fruition but I would not demand others be forced to accept my opinion.

Mr. Fisher, I totally agree it is a woman’s body to do with as she chooses. But you seem to miss the point. It was the woman who made the initial choice and should have been fully aware of the possibility of her becoming pregnant. She chose the event and, unless a total idiot, knew of the possible consequences. The baby conceived was devoid of that choice.

I would further argue that it is no longer the act of abortion that is bothersome. It has progressed long past the taking of life in the womb. It has now become legally acceptable in some quarters to take the life of a baby able to survive post-birth. That, sir, is without doubt murder. What is the next goal of those who would devalue life, the Margaret Sanger advocates — forcible euthanasia of the non-productive elderly or sick?

Yes, there are many born who would not be cared for properly but with all of the food and health programs now available the excuses you mention are empty arguments. Yes, the mother and the father, if he is available, should be held responsible for the baby’s care and that is their responsibility, not something shoved off upon others and never the favorable argument for abortion.

Mr. Fisher, you would hold society to blame and therefore make claim for the right of abortion. Of course you never mention that statistically the majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mother’s health or her inability to give proper care to her child. The fact is that most abortions are simply a means of birth control. How dare this child in the womb interfere with a woman’s lifestyle, seemingly is the mantra.

I find the argument that it is not a baby until birth ludicrous. It has been described as a cell, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus without connection to the existence of a living being even though heart and brain functions are easily determined long before birth. To argue the formative stages of life is not life is an irrational argument. The human being is continually in advancing stages of life from the moment of conception through the evolution of growth from birth through maturity to adulthood.

The pro-abortion argument flies in the face of fact. Two extremes: Do we not consider the first signs of cancer as being cancer and treat it as a threat to life? Why not the same recognition of the first sign of life in the womb as the gift of life it deserves?

Diane L. Logan