Letters to the Editor

There’s no justification for killing children

I've read so many letters recently championing abortion in the guise of women's rights. I believe the original goal of women's rights was equal pay for equal work, the right of women to obtain mortgages and credit cards in their own names, and later the right to family leave for medical or personal reasons. Other rights apply as well, but the so-called right to abortion is not an inherent imperative. Have you noticed that turtle eggs are treated with reverence? Remember the pictures of elephants slaughtered for their tusks? The baby seals who were clubbed to death for their pelts? We were appalled, and rightly so. Pictures are very powerful things. Those practices have ended.

Why, then, are there no pictures of late trimester babies born feet first with their heads punctured in the womb so they can be described as aborted? Why, then, are some babies who have survived abortions subsequently killed? Why are women allowed to abort babies for gender preference? We must gather our courage and stand against these practices. They are wrong, they are unethical, they are medically unnecessary.

Some will trot out the usual suspects, rape and incest. Yes, they are horrible, and yes they should be discussed openly and with civility. But to say a baby should be aborted at will because it won't have a chance in life, or because the government won't take care of it is beneath our consideration. When is killing ever preferred over

hardship? There is no good reason to kill an innocent child.

The writer lives in Conway.

  Comments