Abortion - Pro Life - Sample Pro-Life Letters to the Editor

Letter 74

Many pro-choicers say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

Are these people as tolerant on other issues? Surely they are also opposed to holding up convenience stores, running red lights, and wife-beating. Do they balk at imposing their beliefs on others regarding these issues?

If one is opposed to abortion, he must recognize that it involves taking life. It is possible to hold up a convenience store, run a red light, and beat your wife without taking a human life. It is not possible to practice abortion without taking human life.

Why are abortion rights advocates willing to impose their beliefs on robbers, reckless drivers, and wife-beaters, but not on women? Why are women entitled to a special grace pro-choicers won't grant to others?

Pro-choice people seem to think that masked gunmen, reckless drivers, and wife beaters can be held to a higher standard than ordinary women. Masked gunmen, drunk drivers, and wife beaters can be required to act civilized. Why do people who advocate women's right to have abortions think women can't be civilized as well?

I suggest that these people hold women just as accountable for their behavior as they do everyone else. Women should refrain from harming others. It's not too much to ask.

Letter 75

Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

What do these people think we elected them for? Every time they vote for a law, they are imposing their beliefs on somebody. Recently, environmentally conscious legislators imposed their beliefs on motorists, requiring them to have emissions testing done on their cars every other year. Many people believe this was a thinly veiled attempt to keep poor people dependent by taking their cars away. That didn't stop these legislators from acting on their belief that the emissions test is more important than poor people having transportation to get to work. Many people will no longer be able to afford their own cars, and will lose their jobs as a result. This law will have a powerful impact on their lives.

Obviously these politicians were willing to impose their beliefs on the working poor, regardless of how much their beliefs hurt them. Why are they so unwilling to act on their beliefs when it comes to abortion? They won't let poor people drive old cars, but they'll let women abort their children.

Such legislators have some strange priorities. They'll take away a poor mother's car, then tell her to take heart--sure, she'll have to go on welfare, but she'll always be able to get an abortion!

Small comfort that is. These lawmakers should be ashamed.

Letter 76

Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

This is a classic example of fence-sitting--of trying to please both sides. This kind of politician says what one side wants to hear, then does what the other side wants him to do. This is called hypocrisy. It is a sign that somebody can't be trusted. As the Indians used to say in the old Westerns, this sort of person "speaks with forked tongue."

If a politician who engages in fence-sitting believes what he says--that he really is opposed to abortion--then he is publicly admitting that he can be bought. After all, the major pro-abortion groups can be among the biggest campaign donors to this sort of candidate. If a politician really is opposed to abortion and accepts these contributions, he is willing to sell his own beliefs.

If he isn't selling out, then he doesn't see anything wrong with abortion. That makes him a liar. It means that all his talk about opposing abortion is a trick to avoid losing pro-life votes.

Either way, this sort of politician is a snake in the grass. I believe he is untrustworthy, and I will impose that belief in the ballot box next election. Unlike him, I stand up for what I believe in.

Letter 77

A congresswoman recently said that she is "personally opposed to abortion." But she also said, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

What she is really saying is, "I'd rather be popular than honorable."

The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics.

This congresswoman has never said why she opposes abortion. She has just made it plain that whatever her concerns are, she is willing to lay them aside for the sake of popularity. We have names for people like that where I come from, most referring to a willingness to lay one's lips on the posteriors of others.

So congresswoman, if the name fits, wear it.

Letter 78

Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others.

It is hard for me to imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics.

In either event, this person is willing to look the other way while these things happen if doing so allows them to avoid taking a courageous political position. I really hope that American society hasn't fallen so low that statements like this pass for political leadership. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill saying they wouldn't stop someone from committing murder as long as the person who did it said it wasn't murder? The real question is: What will the long-term consequences be for a society that elects leaders who say they wouldn't do anything to stop what they admit is wrong? That doesn't fit any definition of courage or leadership I know. It's certainly not the kind of political and personal courage this country was founded upon. In reality, it's just your standard, garden-variety political cowardice.

Letter 79

Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others.

During the Second World War, Oskar Schindler risked everything--his reputation, his business, his life--to rescue Jews because he was opposed to what his countrymen were doing. He pretended that he approved of dehumanizing the Jews in order to divert attention from the fact that he was saving them. People like the politician mentioned above do the opposite. They pretend to disapprove of what their countrymen are doing in order to let them continue to do it.

If Oskar Schindler was a hero, what does that make these folks?

Letter 80

Some people say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose this belief on others."

It is sickening how many people are willing to embrace this cowardly philosophy.

French existentialist and Nobel Prize-winning author Albert Camus wrote, "We shall know nothing until we know whether we have the right to kill our fellow men, or the right to let them be killed."

Have the "personally-opposed pro-choicers" ever sat down and really thought about whether they have the right to look the other way while their fellow human beings are killed? Do they have the right to go about their business while their youngest brothers and sisters are brutally torn limb from limb? Do they really have the right to allow such barbarity against others?

When it comes to abortion, the question is not whether others have the right to step in. It is whether they have the right to remain silent while the killing continues.

Letter 81

Some people express the notion that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area where one person has the right to impose his beliefs on others."

Would they feel that way if they were in the baby's shoes? I know that if someone was about to slice me up with a knife, I'd want somebody to impose his beliefs on the situation for my protection.

It's easy to take the "I shouldn't be involved" attitude toward abortion because once you are born, you will never be a target of abortion. If any other kind of killer were on the loose, I imagine these people would have a different attitude.

Letter 82

Some politicians say that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area in which the government has a right to interfere."

What do they think the government should interfere with?

It is the job of the government to protect the weak from the strong. To protect ordinary citizens from burglars and carjackers. To protect children from child molesters. To protect consumers from seedy con-artists. If one person or group tries to wrong another person or group, it is the job of the government to intervene.

Is the government supposed to intervene when no wrongdoing is afoot? Would these politicians rather have the government control what color cars we drive, how many people attend baseball games, or the amount of ice cream on pie a la mode? If the government won't intervene when life is at stake, it has no business governing.

Abortion is an unregulated industry that produces injuries, death, and sexual assault of women at an alarming rate. One would think that of all industries, one that produces only corpses, mutilated bodies, and rape victims would be the one held most accountable--if not shut down entirely. The politicians I mentioned earlier are probably not opposed to government regulation of the transportation, manufacturing, and service sectors. What is it about producers of dead babies and victimized women that these politicians consider them to be above the law?

Letter 83

A political candidate recently stated that although she considers abortion wrong, "the government should not interfere with people's private choices."

What nonsense! The government interferes with people's private choices all the time. That's why we have a government.

There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are many choices societies simply can't allow individuals to make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy.

The government has forbidden many choices, both public and private. The choice to have sex with children and the choice to dump antifreeze in the city reservoir are both forbidden. I have never heard this candidate protest these limits on choices.

Restricting choices is exactly what laws are meant to do. Every law ever passed--from speed limits to bans on insider trading--were passed to deny someone the legal ability to make a particular choice.

Many choices that we may not legally make are not nearly as deadly and far-reaching as abortion. We may not legally choose to fish without a license, sunbathe nude in our front yards, or pick flowers in state parks. The decision of the government to interfere is based on what is in the best interests of the community. Considering that abortion results in dead babies, injured women, and damaged families, it is certainly a better candidate for government interference than nude sunbathing. The shame is that this candidate is too infatuated with abortion to see this.

Letter 84

A leader in the pro-abortion movement quoted Richard Nixon as saying, "On abortion the state should stay out of it. Don't subsidize and don't prohibit."

That's like saying that if we neither subsidize nor prohibit lynching blacks, we're staying out of racism.

To permit something is to give it official sanction. Imagine for a moment saying that the government was going to "stay out of" domestic violence by taking this kind of hands-off attitude. No more restraining orders. No more jailing abusive husbands. Are we supposed to believe that this would solve the problem?

Allowing abortion is being involved. It is promoting and protecting abortion.

Is that what we really want to do?

Letter 85

A local pastor recently commented that he must remain "abortion neutral." He said his job "is to save souls, not to save bodies."

Obviously he's recognizing that human bodies are involved here. The bodies of babies--of children.

People who drag their religion into their beliefs about abortion seem to have some strange ideas. They recognize that abortion kills children, then claim that the Bible thinks this is a fine thing to do.

Perhaps this pastor thinks that when Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me," he meant we were supposed to dispatch them directly to the afterlife.

Or perhaps the pastor has a unique interpretation of "as you do to the least of these My brothers and sisters, you do to Me." I guess he figures that if Jesus was willing to be crucified once, He won't mind being dismembered 4,000 times a day.

If the pastor meant what he said about saving souls, not bodies, he'd put it into practice. He'd drown people at baptism. That way he'd make sure they go straight to heaven.

In all seriousness, it isn't the preservation of souls that seems to concern this man. It's the preservation of pro-abortion dollars in the collection plate.

Letter 86

I've heard pro-choice pastors say some interesting things regarding abortion. The strangest was, "As a pastor, my job is to nurture souls, not control bodies. And besides, an aborted child would just go to heaven anyway."

This is the way a so-called "leader" in the church justifies not taking a stand. People who claim to be church leaders, but who won't stand up against an evil of this magnitude, deserve no more sympathy than someone who actually does the killing!

Would this pastor apply this "they-go-to-heaven-anyway" standard across the board? If he saw that one of his own children was about to be murdered, would he try to stop it or would he shrug it off because they're going to go to heaven anyway?

Or imagine for a moment that he was on a jury that just convicted someone of murder. If he was convinced that the murderer's victim went to heaven, would he let him go free? By this guy's logic, the very best thing to do is murder saintly people like Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa since then the saints will go straight to heaven without the possibility of turning away from God later in life! The fact is, this whole line of reasoning is ridiculous.

You don't excuse the guilty for killing the innocent. You hold them accountable. Pro-abortion pastors know this and they ought to be ashamed.

Letter 87

I've heard pro-abortion pastors say some interesting things regarding abortion. The strangest was, "As a pastor, my job is to nurture souls, not control bodies."

How can any pastor nurture souls if he never looks at the spiritual implications of things his parishioners are doing?

This same pastor encourages his congregation to embrace abortion in the name of "the individual spiritual journey."

What about other options open to souls as they "discover meaning?" After all, some of his flock might want to explore cheating on their spouses. Some might be sexually attracted to children. I've never seen the pastor celebrating these "deeply personal explorations of the meaning of life."

Some of his flock might want to explore their dark side. But the pastor has not fought to decriminalize rape, torture, and murder. How can he allow the law to limit his parishioners' access to these deep and significant explorations of human limits?

It is interesting to note that a number of this pastor's parishioners are employed at the local abortion centers. Could it be that this guy is only concerned with those spiritual journeys that lead toward the collection plate?

Letter 88

A pastor at the local church claimed that as a pastor he must remain "abortion neutral." He said his job "is to save souls, not to save bodies."

He went on to argue that aborted babies, being sinless, go to heaven anyway. I wonder if he applies this "they-go-to-heaven-anyway" standard across the board. If, after the alter call, an ax murderer came into the sanctuary and started hacking at the new converts, would he look on with a smile, pleased to know that all of these people were going straight to heaven? Or would he intervene, if only to call the police?

If he was a juror on a murder trial, and was convinced that the victim had gone to heaven, would he vote for acquittal?

Does he really think that killing is fine as long as one only kills the innocent? This is a strange morality, indeed.

The fact is, the pastor wants to fool himself into believing that there is some excuse for him to stay uninvolved. But in the meantime, babies are dying, and women are bringing great grief and remorse upon their souls. You'd think a pastor would care about that sort of thing. And maybe he would if it didn't require courage.

Letter 89

In March of 1964, the killing of a New York woman made national headlines. Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered while dozens of people looked the other way. Many bystanders, when interviewed later, said they ignored Kitty's cries because they did not want to get involved; it was none of their business.

This ugly scenario is repeated over 4,000 times a day, as children are killed in America's abortion mills while the church looks the other way, does not get involved, claims that it is none of their business.

The most powerful enemy of women and children is not Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, or any other pro-abortion group. It is the church.

Pastors who know abortion is murder do not speak out for fear of offending someone. Others claim that the church is supposed to save souls, not bodies, although they might take a different attitude if it was their bodies that were about to be dismembered.

Other pastors claim they are not taking a position at all. But when a man sees evil and does nothing, he has taken a stand, giving the evil his tacit approval. Whatever excuse they give, these people are moral cowards who would rather be popular than right. They choose the comfort of being Satan's silent partner rather than face the risks of being an outspoken servant of God.

Letter 90

Every day in this country, over 4,000 babies are killed, and an unknown number of their mothers are maimed or killed in abortion clinics. The abortion industry would collapse if the Body of Christ would stand up and say, "No more!" But it isn't happening.

There are people with strong views on both sides of the abortion issue sitting in front of every pastor every Sunday morning. The pro-lifers want him to speak out against abortion and engage the church in the pro-life effort. The pro-aborts, on the other hand, are content if he says nothing, because silence means approval. If he starts speaking out, angry pro-aborts will cut off financial support and leave the church. On the other hand, pro-lifers prove every Sunday that they are willing to attend, participate in, and financially support a church that says nothing and does nothing against abortion. They might rail at him occasionally, but next Sunday they'll be in the pews, dropping their money into the collection plate.

Clearly, the pro-aborts have provided more incentive to pastors to keep quiet than we have for them to speak out.

We need to send out a new message that if the church is going to remain silent, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of God, they are going to do it without our money. We may discover that if we make the risk of silence as great as the risk of speaking out, the church might decide to start preaching the truth.

Hey, don't laugh. It could happen.

Letter 91

Because the church has traded its moral authority for comfort and popularity, it has gotten to the point where if you show Americans a plastic garbage bag full of aborted babies, many will be more concerned about whether the plastic bag is going to be recycled than about the babies inside.

The reason abortionists can go on killing babies and maiming and killing their mothers is the silence of the churches. Every time a pro-lifer puts tithes or offerings in the collection plate of a cowardly church that won't take a stand, he is giving money to the pro-life movement's biggest enemy.

We refuse to support politicians who abandon the unborn, and we refuse to give our money to businesses that support Planned Parenthood, yet we give our money and support to pastors who passively support abortion with their deafening silence. We hold our church leaders to a lower standard than we do our plumbers, or even our political leaders. This has to change.

Pro-life Christians should give their tithes to organizations that practice Christianity. A crisis pregnancy center is far more active on the behalf of Christ than a church that stands idly by as the least of our brothers and sisters are maimed and killed. I would encourage every Christian to sow seed into the Kingdom, not give it to a church that, in its silence, is aiding the enemy. It's the least we can do.