“Pro-Choice truly close-minded”
Editor, Intentionally or not, it appears that the only truly close-minded side in the abortion debate is the pro-choice crowd. I’ve read several letters full of ranting and name-calling, but I’ve yet to see any of them address the primary issue. The real issue here is whether a baby is a human only after its first breath or before. Pro-lifers are called dictators who want to impose their will on other people. But who is trying to impose their will on unborn babies? The abolitionists were “anti-choice”. They felt that human dignity was too sacred to allow people to choose to keep other humans as slaves. Southerners argued that blacks were not real people and could therefore be treated like property. “Pro-choicers” argue that unborn babies are not real people (despite increasing scientific evidence to the contrary) and can therefore be treated as tumors or parasites. Pro-lifers believe that human life is too sacred to arbitrarily flush down some doctor’s sink. Anybody truly concerned with civil rights should definitely be concerned that 47 million people have had their right to life revoked without due process of the law. Pro-lifers don’t want to force women to have children. But it is a far worse evil to kill those children simply because of poor judgment on the mother’s part. Thousands of couples wait on adoption waiting lists as hundreds of thousands of babies are brutally tortured to death every year. Perhaps being open minded means being open to the possibility that other people are real too; that abortion affects a real baby with a heart, fingers, toes, and a complex nervous system that feels pain. By law, we are required to kill food animals more humanely than babies. Some still argue that we can never really know when a life begins. I would agree. But I would ask them to be open to the possibility of life. If the certainty of life is in doubt, isn’t society safer in choosing life over death?
Matthew Jones528536457797-6547 or512-0245