Letter 114

Pro-abortion extremists have asked, "What gives the government the right to come into our bedrooms?"

Do these people really believe abortions are routinely done in bedrooms? Abortions do not involve going into bedrooms, and abortion fanatics know it. When abortion was still illegal, the police intervened when women were injured or killed. They did not go into people's bedrooms.

They went to the hospitals where the injured women were. They went to the morgue where the dead women had been brought. They went to the abortion mills where the injuries took place. They took the abortionists to court and eventually to jail.

Now, when a woman is injured or killed in an abortion, nothing happens unless her family sues. Nobody investigates and tries to put the butcher behind bars.

Thanks to Roe v. Wade, women are on their own. Roe didn't protect them, it simply guaranteed that seedy abortionists could kill them without any risk to themselves.

Letter 115

Those favoring legal abortion have made strange statements that outlawing abortion amounts to "letting the government in our bedrooms."

The government does indeed come into our bedrooms at times--when necessary to protect people. This has never harmed innocent citizens.

Let's face it--if I were about to be raped in my bedroom, I would want the government to interfere.

Most incest takes place in bedrooms. The government--quite rightly--works hard to stop this. The police go into those bedrooms, collect evidence, and put the perpetrators in jail. Nobody objects.

The bedroom is not exempt from laws. If you rape your daughter, beat your wife, or bag drugs for sale in your bedroom, the government can and will interfere. This is as it should be. Otherwise, all criminals would have to do is commit crimes in bedrooms to be immune from prosecution.

This government access to our bedrooms has not resulted in the police monitoring our sleep patterns or lovemaking. And abortion advocates are insulting all of us to suggest otherwise. They should stick to the subject. Abortion is not about two people making love--it is about two people killing a baby. We should not let pro-abortion fanatics throw up smoke screens to hide the issue. Is killing babies civilized? I say no.

Letter 141

A radical pro-abortion feminist ranted, "The government has no right to tell a woman she must have a child."

She must have seen some strange legislation the rest of us don't know about. I don't recall a law being passed--or even considered--requiring women to have children.

Would it be something like the draft? Is this gal saying that women would have to register their wombs with the government at puberty? Then, perhaps, they would be rated according to race, health, socio-economic status, and so on. When the Census Bureau noted an imbalance, random women from a certain group would be selected and inseminated. Is this what she's talking about?

When you take what she says seriously, you realize how ridiculous it is. Only kooks like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger ever came close to proposing such a thing. Pro-lifers certainly haven't. Nobody is proposing congressional insemination squads.

We are simply saying that once a woman is pregnant, she should not be allowed to kill her unborn child. There is a big difference between saying, "Do not destroy this new life you have conceived," and, "You must conceive and carry a child."

If this abortion fanatic has trouble making this distinction, perhaps a refresher course in biology would help.

Letter 142

A pro-abortion slogan is "No Mandatory Motherhood."

What about mandatory fatherhood? If a man and woman have sex under an agreement that if the woman gets pregnant she will have an abortion, should she be allowed to change her mind? Should he be able to force her to live up to her side of the bargain? Should he be forced to pay child support for a child she originally agreed to abort?

Letter 143

Pro-abortion propaganda uses a lot of strong terms to defend abortion. Terms like "forced pregnancy," "violation," "imposed suffering," and so on.

You would think they were describing the rapes in Bosnia. But no, they are describing the results of pleasurable sex between consenting adults.

It is a terrible insult to the rape victims in Bosnia to compare their ordeals to the situation of comfortable, middle-class American women who had sex willingly but don't feel like taking care of the resulting babies.

This whole disgusting approach to selling abortion was developed by public relations consultant Larry Letich. He wanted pro-abortion people to use language that would "pack an emotional wallop." As Letich said, "To link 'unwanted pregnancy' to 'unwanted sex' is to connect it to a universally hated and morally repulsive experience."

Every woman who has ever been forced to have sex--by an abusive father or husband, or by a rapist--knows how disingenuous Letich's tactic is. That he can compare the situation of a woman who chooses to kill a baby she conceived of her own free will with that of a terrified woman forced into unwanted sex shows his utter disdain for abused women.

This whole ploy tries to steal the compassion we have for the victims of unwanted sex, and give it to women who freely choose irresponsible sexual activity, planning all along to kill any child that might result. The pro-abortion people who use this propaganda ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Letter 155

Advocates of legal abortion have come up with yet another asinine argument. They say, "If the government can tell a woman not to have an abortion, it can tell her she has to have one."

Can you name one thing the government outlawed, then required people to do? Have you ever seen people forced by the government to snort cocaine, run red lights, or cheat on their income tax? Let's be serious.

The only places where the government forces women to have abortions are places where abortions are legal. In fact, when abortion is legal, it is far easier for women to be coerced to have them by husbands, parents, governments, social workers, or clinic staff.

Letter 156

Abortion advocates have come up with one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. They argued, "If the government can tell a woman not to have an abortion, it can tell her she has to have one."

Was the government forcing women to get abortions before Roe v. Wade? Abortion proponents need to look at what happens in China. It is the governments that permit abortions that are most likely to require them.

Letter 157

Pro-choice groups sometimes argue, "If the government can tell a woman not to have an abortion, it can tell her she has to have one."

Since when has anybody seen the government outlaw something, then turn around and require people to do it?

The only people agitating for government-mandated reproductive control are the pro-choicers. Larry Lader, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, wrote, "Since abortion and sterilization have been such important factors in bringing down the birth rate, it would seem logical that the government would do everything possible to extend their impact. The Presidential Commission on Population strongly supported both techniques as well as calling for immediate stabilization of our population." He goes on to say, "The voluntary approach just cannot work fast enough, and we have delayed even mild forms of population control too long." He proposed setting the minimum marriage age at 23, encouraging abortion of premarital pregnancies, and economic penalties against families with more than two children.

I have never seen a single so-called pro-choice group try to distance themselves from Lader. In fact, he is usually lauded as a hero.

Again, the only people who want government control of reproduction are all on the pro-choice side of the abortion battle. It makes you wonder whose choice they are supporting--the woman's or the abortion industry's.

Letter 158

Pro-abortion fanatics express concern that, "If the government can tell a woman not to have an abortion, it can tell her she has to have one."

Are they unaware of current anti-natal initiatives being suggested by the so-called pro-choicers, or are they being deliberately obtuse?

For example, Family Planning Perspectives, published by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, included a letter by Richard M. Bowers of Globally Responsible Birthing. According to Bowers, "The goal of our Globally Responsible Birthing is to have deaths outnumber births in all nations on earth by the year 2003."

Who says pro-choicers aren't actually pro-death? Here we have this guy complaining that there aren't enough deaths! We can each only die once, for Pete's sake!

Bowers also complained about the "extreme pronatalist proposal to give an annual tax credit of $500 for every child that a family has." Evidently he believes that this tax credit would somehow motivate people to have babies for profit. Obviously, Bowers hasn't raised a child, or he'd know that no $500 tax credit would offset parenting expenses.

To top it off, he wants income tax deductions to be limited to the first-born child of each family.

If this guy and his accomplices aren't a bunch of pro-death, child-hating misanthropes, I don't know who is.

Letter 397

Abortion supporters have started another public relations campaign, claiming that opposing abortion means women will be forced into "mandatory motherhood."

Are these people equally opposed to "mandatory fatherhood?"

Let's say an unmarried man and woman are having a sexual relationship, and both parties agree that if she gets pregnant she'll have an abortion. Let's also say that she does indeed get pregnant, but decides not to have an abortion. If she goes to him for help, what is his obligation? After all, they had an oral contract that he is still willing to honor, but she is not. In light of that original agreement, is he legally responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy and/or resulting child? Obviously, any man who would not take responsibility for fathering his child--regardless of any such agreement--is a pretty despicable character to begin with. However, from a legal standpoint, people have won court cases with a lot less going for them than this guy has, and I predict you will one day see this scenario played out in court. And when that happens, it will be just one more irrefutable piece of evidence that abortion always protects men--not women. I can assure you that every day of the year people all over America have sex with the understanding that if a pregnancy results it will be "taken care of" with an abortion. And that simple fact absolutely guarantees that one day this situation won't be hypothetical at all.

Letter 398

Abortion supporters have started another public relations campaign, claiming that opposing abortion means women will be forced into "mandatory motherhood."

Are these people equally opposed to "mandatory fatherhood?"

Once a woman is pregnant, the man legally has no choice. If she refuses to have an abortion, he must support the child to adulthood. In other words, although she cannot change the biological reality that he is a father, she decides for him the legal question of whether or not he must be a father. If she aborts, he was never legally the father of the baby. If she refuses to abort, she forces the legality of fatherhood on the man. His wishes and plans don't matter.

Since one man is capable of fathering many babies by many women, it is possible for a man to be financially and socially crippled for life by the obligations to pay child support for children he did not want.

Granted, the responsible thing for him to do is to legally accept fatherhood and support his children. But there is a double standard. The woman can avoid the legal ramifications of motherhood for any reason by slipping off to the abortion mill. The man must accept the legal responsibility even if it means the breakup of his marriage, the loss of his home, and the sapping of his income.

Why is it that for the man, fatherhood begins when his partner decides it does?