Letters to the Editor
-
Correction
I meant to type "her first prenatal visit at 26 weeks," not "21." The story is still true.
-
Nobody answered my question.
Does that mean nobody can?
-
Tragedy is right against right
This issue is so ethically and practically complex, that it isn't surprising that each camp has found an absolute foundation and stuck to it. Which is a shame, but to allow abortions is a binary system, so I suppose we're stuck with having to choose one side and stick with it. I would like to believe, for instance, that I would never have an abortion (at this point in my life I wouldn't, but not so long ago...), but we just don't know because we haven't been there. I, personally don't see a contradiction in saying that if I had a child, I would be awfully glad I didn't abort it, but that if I made the considered decision to have an abortion, I would be awfully glad I had done it.
To Mr. Hunt: I appreciate that you are trying to do good work in this world. I really, really do. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc., and if I were in your highly active position, I would want to question exactly what is influencing my stance. It seems to me that your argument, that your position, etc., is defined by graphics. The graphic image of a fetus at ten weeks, which is highly significant to you for some reason. It's the image you use to promote your position. But it's an image, not a set of lives or a series of causes and effects. Furthermore, using a few women who regret their abortions is entirely misleading. Would you respond as heartily to the (many more) women who stand behind their choices to have abortions? If you expect the general population to respond to the testimonies you present, would you also then expect the general population to respond the testimonies which counter that? (As a side note, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the abortion didn't cause any instance of depression; rather that a depressed or otherwise unwell person (and these people have stories of woe to explain their pregnancy, right?) clung to the abortion as a reason or a means of expressing that depression.) The point I'm trying to make is that these images and isolated testimonies don't actually MEAN anything, in and of themselves when taken outside the context of all the other information readily available. The image of a fetus with fingers doesn't MEAN that a fully formed human is represented, any more than the image of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west MEANS that sun revolving around the earth is represented.
Mssrs Hunt and Forman: Similarly, comparing abortions to the hollocaust or genocide has no purpose but to inflame emotion over reason, and is truly denigrating to what we KNOW. We KNOW that people die and have died in ways which stretch our comprehension. We KNOW that they SUFFERED. And suffering is not incidental to to the distiction between genocide and abortion. It is not, it is not, it is not. In a court room, decisions of punishment are often decided on the level of suffering of the victims. No one thinks that this is a small distinction, and by conflating abortion and genocide (among other forms of preventable or intentional suffering), you truly show an opportunists lack of compassion. So, please, do not use these methods of sophistry to back a position which you may have good reason to hold.
And while we're on that subject, if you (in particular Mr. Hunt) are truly concerned about the lives lost meaninglessly, capriciously, and hopelessly, may I suggest that you redirect your energy toward a far more devestating issue: starvation. In 2002 1,293,000 abortions were performed in the U.S., according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute (that was the most recent year for which I could find data). In contrast, a conscious, aware and suffering child dies every five seconds from hunger, according to a few different sources. That's 16,000 a day, or 5,840,000 a year. And that's ONLY from hunger, not from preventable or treatable diseases. Let alone war. Mr. Hunt, I truly believe that you have good work to do, and I truly believe that you strive to do it. So, please, do it. Go to those campuses and show those kids the photos of starving, ill, armless children. Tell them the facts about SUFFERING. In other words, get your priorities straight.
And back to all of those who are adamant against abortion: The real point of this article was about the tactics used by this particular group. Please tell me: do you support these inherently dishonest and dishonorable tactics? Do you really think it's okay to shove a disturbing images (and Mr. Hunt, at least truly finds them disturbing)in front of children? Do you truly think it's okay to lure women into counterfit offices? Distribute patently false information in the attempt to knowingly mislead people? Is that okay? If so, you really have to explain to me why because as far as I'm concerned, anyone who does such things is a cynic who knows that he or she cannot use honesty to make his or her point, which further implies that the entire position is untenable.
One last thing (I swear). What do you think leads people to the choice of abortion? Have you considered that if so many people consider it a necessary decision, that they might have very good reason? And having truly come to examine and understand those reasons, don't you think that a better, and ultimately more humane, approach would be to disolve those reasons and circumstances?
It's the issues above which make a whole lot of people believe that the underlying reason for outlawing abortions really has little to do with the cost of human life. Frankly, the whole thing seems highly cynical when these gaping holes become apparant. But I don't think any of the pro-life posters on this board are that cynical. So, please, do explain. Thanks.