I read your comments on this letter from Mr. Cornelius.

While reading them, it struck me that I have never had the pro-abortion arguments presented to me by ladies who either have had an abortion, have had babies, or plan to have babies. It is invariably either a lesbian (such as the extremist "reverend" you allude to in your comments), a homosexual male, or a male who, when I get to know him, I find out has very little respect for women as people. Despite all the claims of concern for the women involved, these are always the three groups who argue for the right to abort, "no matter what." I don't know whether you fall into one of these groups, so maybe you are an exception, but I do suspect you are not a lady who has had an abortion, who has had a baby, or who wants to have babies, because I am assuming you are not a woman at all, based on your name.

"Pro-choicers," as you like to call yourselves, always use extreme examples of horrible circumstances surrounding pregnancies to defend abortion. I wouldn't be surprised to hear one of you argue, "Abortion must remain legal because some day Satan may rape someone, and the young, innocent girl will be forced to give birth to the Antichrist!" Let's deal with reality. Why are most abortions, at any stage of development, performed? Have you ever looked into that question?

Your argument that pro-life people are against the artificial inducement or intervention for removal of a stillborn baby is ridiculous. I don't know any pro-life person who is against the removal of a stillborn baby who is not naturally being born. They may advocate waiting a prudent amount of time, for the health of the mother, but nobody that I know of argues that a stillborn should be allowed to decompose inside the mother! If you know anyone who makes such an argument, they do not represent general pro-life thought.

Another of your key arguments is based on a piece of fiction written (poorly so, in my opinion) by a lesbian Episcopal priest who is as radical as they come, and has even expressed a desire that health workers not be allowed to refuse to participate in abortions due to conscience.

The argument of the child being raped is a stronger argument, but again, is a worst-case scenario that matches a tiny percentage of the actual abortions taking place. Also, why do assume that an abortion, versus a pregnancy and birth, in such a scenario, would be better for the mental health of the child? Much research, and I say logic, once it's thought through, points the other direction from your assumption. Why should the baby produced be killed, instead of the vile uncle? Just because there is no easy answer to some horrible situations does not mean there is a right and wrong answer.

You say, "...any rule that starts out with 'no matter what,' is absurd." Yet, if you agree with Roe vs Wade

Every time the proposal is made that we ban all abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger, you "pro-choicers" say "no deal." That fact, along with well established statistics regarding the reasons for abortions in the West, make your extreme examples for the defense of all abortions ring hollow.


> >