Letters to the Editor

Abortion-related shootings, acts of vandalism and violence, death penalty, and a consistent ethic of life: After the recent fire at the local abortion clinic, the clinic spokesman said, "What makes pro-lifers think they have the right to bomb or burn a completely legal abortion clinic?" Everyone mourns when an abortionist is killed, but who mourns when an abortionist kills a woman? Since many more women killed by their abortionists than abortionists killed by pro-lifers, why is the government only worried about the pro-lifers? Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty. Increase in violence across all of society: A pro-abortion activist's recent column complained that it is wrong to oppose abortion when so many children are killing and being killed on the streets of our cities.

Back

Letter Number: 232 After the recent fire at the local abortion clinic, the clinic spokesman said, "What makes pro-lifers think they have the right to bomb or burn a completely legal abortion clinic?" It's astonishing that this spokesman claims to know the cause of the fire before the fire marshal has even looked over the case. There are plenty of explanations for a fire at an abortion mill. Some are set by the owners to collect insurance money. Some are set by pro-choice advocates to discredit pro-lifers. Given the frequency of fire-code violations at abortion mills, the fire could have been caused by faulty electrical equipment. Or maybe somebody threw a cigarette in a waste basket. The spokesman should wait until the verdict is in before he assigns blame. But I'll be charitable. I'll let the clinic spokesman's assumption slide. And, on behalf of the entire pro-life movement, I'll assume responsibility for the fire, and for every other nasty thing ever done by abortion opponents--on one condition. The pro-choice movement must assume responsibility for everything done by abortion supporters. That's every rape, every kidnapping, every incident of child molesting or child pornography. Every disembowelment, every gouged uterus, every woman left to gasp out her last breath in a pool of blood on the clinic floor. Every count of tax evasion and fraud. Every baby born live and then strangled or drowned. Every shooting, every bombing, every maiming, every death. Somehow I doubt many pro-abortion folks will take me up on my offer.
Letter Number: 233 After the recent fire at the local abortion mill, the mill's spokesman said, "What makes these people think they have the right to bomb or burn a completely legal abortion clinic?" First off, "abortion clinic" is the wrong term. "Clinics" are places where people go for treatment of an illness, injury, or disease. Since a pregnancy is none of those things, abortion could hardly be considered a treatment. Now, I can fully understand the abortion mill spokesman not liking the term "abortion mill." The Nazis also objected to the term "death camp." However, just because they called them "relocation centers" did not change what they really were. The same is true for the abortion mill spokesman. He can call the places where abortions are committed "clinics," but that can't change what they really are. Clinics are places where people go to get healed, and no one gets healed of anything during an abortion. As for his question, I am getting tired of the fact that every time something bad happens to an abortionist or an abortion mill, the entire pro-life movement gets blamed for it--often before the real culprit has even been identified. I do not condone acts of violence against people or property, including these abortion chambers. To use violence would be to concede that the pro-choice movement is right--that individuals can trample the right of others to get what they want. And if I believed that, I'd be working for the local abortion mill.
Letter Number: 234 The anti-violence vigils held after the recent abortion-related shootings were a good sign. I am pleased that abortion advocates have realized it is wrong to try to solve problems by killing. We pro-lifers hope that they will join us in condemning all violence and disregard for human life, not just when the victim works at an abortion clinic. Legalized abortion continues to take the lives of babies and women. They die not only in shabby mills operating on the fringes of legality, they also die in prestigious and respected abortion facilities. They die at the hands of non-physicians who pose as doctors, and they die at the hands of National Abortion Federation members. But we do not stop at condemning these needless deaths. We fear that the killing of children and the maiming and killing of women in legal abortion will lead to retaliatory violence by the families of these women. We ask abortion advocates to join us in fighting for greater regulation and accountability in abortion facilities. We hope that ultimately everyone will recognize that the violence of abortion impacts women, their families, and ultimately our communities. The recent shootings prove this.
Letter Number: 248 Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty. First of all, many pro-lifers oppose the death penalty. In fact, polls have shown that pro-lifers are more opposed to the death penalty than pro-choicers. They just don't see killing people as a legitimate way to solve problems. But let's look at those remaining pro-lifers who do not oppose capital punishment. Are they being inconsistent? For a criminal to be put to death, he must have been convicted of a horrible crime--usually a brutal murder. Abortion kills people who have harmed no one. By law, the criminal gets a trial, with an attorney and witnesses to speak on his behalf. By law, no one may speak on behalf of the fetus. Even the child's father and grandparents are forbidden to defend him. If pro-choicers really believed that abortion and the death penalty were related issues, wouldn't they want to give the unborn child the same rights a murderer has? Wouldn't they demand that the woman prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child will do her irreparable harm? Wouldn't they insist that a family willing to adopt the child be permitted to speak on his behalf? Pro-choicers will give a trial and appeals to the murderer, but not to the child. Pro-lifers want the innocent to have at least as much protection as the guilty. So, who is being inconsistent?
Letter Number: 249 Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty. First of all, many pro-lifers oppose the death penalty. In fact, polls have shown that pro-lifers are more opposed to the death penalty than pro-choicers. They just don't see killing people as a legitimate way to solve problems. Second, pro-choicers apparently cannot distinguish between victims and criminals. A young woman named Kimberly Antonakos invited a friend to bring her boyfriend and their child to live with her while their home was being worked on. The friend's boyfriend, Joshua Torres, kidnapped Kimberly. He and two of his friends took her to a vacant house and held her for ransom. But they couldn't figure out how to leave a message on Kimberly's father's answering machine. When they got tired of waiting for the ransom money, they poured gasoline over Kimberly and burned her to death. Torres then killed one of his accomplices for fear the man would confess. Torres is a fairly typical death-row inmate. The typical fetus slated for abortion is eight weeks old. He is fully formed, with a beating heart and distinctly human brain waves. Although he is very active, his mother can't even feel him moving. The worst thing he can be accused of is sucking his thumb. Pro-choicers want to give Joshua Torres a trial, a defense attorney, and a string of appeals before even considering killing him. The fetus they would kill without batting an eye. It seems the pro-choicers have misplaced priorities, when they expend as much effort to kill a harmless fetus as they do to protect someone like Joshua Torres.
Letter Number: 250 Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty. First of all, many pro-lifers oppose the death penalty. In fact, polls have shown that pro-lifers are more opposed to the death penalty than pro-choicers. They just don't see killing people as a legitimate way to solve problems. However, since these pro-choicers have raised the issue of capital punishment, I'd like to make a proposal. Why don't we treat abortion the same way we treat the death penalty? After all, the United States Constitution says that no one will be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." So the abortion fanatics can go ahead and charge each baby with whatever heinous crimes they say she's guilty of, give her a fair trial where a jury can determine if indeed this particular baby is deserving of death, give her an attorney to present her defense, and if the verdict is that indeed this baby is a menace to society, you can go ahead and execute her. But if they aren't willing to give that baby the same rights as Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy, then drop this whole death penalty argument and let's get back to discussing abortion.
Letter Number: 305 A pro-abortion activist's recent column complained that it is wrong to oppose abortion when so many children are killing and being killed on the streets of our cities. What she fails to see is that abortion means society has crossed a threshold of violence. Once that has happened, it's easier to cross the next one. Legalized abortion has condoned one person killing another for personal gain. Should we be surprised that our children have imitated us?
Letter Number: 409 Last week's shooting of an abortionist has produced a media circus. Groups on both sides of the abortion issue are tripping over each other in their eagerness to denounce the killing. What bothers me is that another kind of killing happens at these abortion clinics, and they get no attention at all. Right now, in the United States, women die from injuries sustained during legal abortions. After a dead woman's body is removed, business goes on as usual at the clinic. These deaths are rarely covered by the media. Everyone mourns when an abortionist is killed, but who mourns when an abortionist kills a woman? Why is it that dead abortionists count and dead women don't?
Letter Number: 427 I watched a television newscast the other night in which a pro-abortion member of Congress was saying that he was going to continue to push for legislation that would ensure the safety of women entering abortion clinics. I'm curious about something. Books like Lime 5: Exploited by Choice by Mark Crutcher are documenting that women are routinely maimed, raped, and killed inside American abortion clinics. Why isn't this congressman doing anything about that? The fact is, he couldn't care less about these women. It's crystal clear that his only interest is in protecting the abortion industry. If he was at all concerned for the safety of women seeking abortion, he wouldn't abandon them at the front door of the clinic.
Letter Number: 428 In July 1996, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health released a report on violence in the American workplace. Near the top of the list were law enforcement workers, convenience store employees, bartenders, hotel clerks, firefighters, etc. Number one on the list was taxicab drivers, with 140 having been killed between 1990 and 1992. On the other hand, only five abortion clinic employees have been killed in over 23 years. Yet every time that happens we instantly have congressional investigations, Justice Department press conferences, Presidential denunciations, round-ups of pro-life activists, new federal laws passed, non-violent pro-life groups investigated, United States Marshals assigned to protect abortion clinics, and front-page coverage in every newspaper in America. My question is, why does an abortionist count more than a cab driver or 7-Eleven clerk? Why does Janet Reno put federal marshals at abortion clinics, when far more people are killed at post offices? And since we know that there are many more women killed by their abortionists than abortionists killed by pro-lifers, why is the government only worried about the pro-lifers? The answer is obvious. Janet Reno, like all the other degenerates in the Clinton administration, couldn't care less about women, violence, or the enforcement of law. What they care about is abortion. Period.

Letter Number: 232

After the recent fire at the local abortion clinic, the clinic spokesman said, "What makes pro-lifers think they have the right to bomb or burn a completely legal abortion clinic?"

It's astonishing that this spokesman claims to know the cause of the fire before the fire marshal has even looked over the case. There are plenty of explanations for a fire at an abortion mill. Some are set by the owners to collect insurance money. Some are set by pro-choice advocates to discredit pro-lifers. Given the frequency of fire-code violations at abortion mills, the fire could have been caused by faulty electrical equipment. Or maybe somebody threw a cigarette in a waste basket. The spokesman should wait until the verdict is in before he assigns blame.

But I'll be charitable. I'll let the clinic spokesman's assumption slide. And, on behalf of the entire pro-life movement, I'll assume responsibility for the fire, and for every other nasty thing ever done by abortion opponents--on one condition. The pro-choice movement must assume responsibility for everything done by abortion supporters. That's every rape, every kidnapping, every incident of child molesting or child pornography. Every disembowelment, every gouged uterus, every woman left to gasp out her last breath in a pool of blood on the clinic floor. Every count of tax evasion and fraud. Every baby born live and then strangled or drowned. Every shooting, every bombing, every maiming, every death.

Somehow I doubt many pro-abortion folks will take me up on my offer.

Letter Number: 233

After the recent fire at the local abortion mill, the mill's spokesman said, "What makes these people think they have the right to bomb or burn a completely legal abortion clinic?"

First off, "abortion clinic" is the wrong term. "Clinics" are places where people go for treatment of an illness, injury, or disease. Since a pregnancy is none of those things, abortion could hardly be considered a treatment.

Now, I can fully understand the abortion mill spokesman not liking the term "abortion mill." The Nazis also objected to the term "death camp." However, just because they called them "relocation centers" did not change what they really were. The same is true for the abortion mill spokesman. He can call the places where abortions are committed "clinics," but that can't change what they really are. Clinics are places where people go to get healed, and no one gets healed of anything during an abortion.

As for his question, I am getting tired of the fact that every time something bad happens to an abortionist or an abortion mill, the entire pro-life movement gets blamed for it--often before the real culprit has even been identified. I do not condone acts of violence against people or property, including these abortion chambers. To use violence would be to concede that the pro-choice movement is right--that individuals can trample the right of others to get what they want. And if I believed that, I'd be working for the local abortion mill.

Letter Number: 234

The anti-violence vigils held after the recent abortion-related shootings were a good sign. I am pleased that abortion advocates have realized it is wrong to try to solve problems by killing. We pro-lifers hope that they will join us in condemning all violence and disregard for human life, not just when the victim works at an abortion clinic.

Legalized abortion continues to take the lives of babies and women. They die not only in shabby mills operating on the fringes of legality, they also die in prestigious and respected abortion facilities. They die at the hands of non-physicians who pose as doctors, and they die at the hands of National Abortion Federation members.

But we do not stop at condemning these needless deaths. We fear that the killing of children and the maiming and killing of women in legal abortion will lead to retaliatory violence by the families of these women. We ask abortion advocates to join us in fighting for greater regulation and accountability in abortion facilities.

We hope that ultimately everyone will recognize that the violence of abortion impacts women, their families, and ultimately our communities. The recent shootings prove this.

Letter Number: 248

Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty.

First of all, many pro-lifers oppose the death penalty. In fact, polls have shown that pro-lifers are more opposed to the death penalty than pro-choicers. They just don't see killing people as a legitimate way to solve problems.

But let's look at those remaining pro-lifers who do not oppose capital punishment. Are they being inconsistent?

For a criminal to be put to death, he must have been convicted of a horrible crime--usually a brutal murder. Abortion kills people who have harmed no one. By law, the criminal gets a trial, with an attorney and witnesses to speak on his behalf. By law, no one may speak on behalf of the fetus. Even the child's father and grandparents are forbidden to defend him.

If pro-choicers really believed that abortion and the death penalty were related issues, wouldn't they want to give the unborn child the same rights a murderer has? Wouldn't they demand that the woman prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child will do her irreparable harm? Wouldn't they insist that a family willing to adopt the child be permitted to speak on his behalf?

Pro-choicers will give a trial and appeals to the murderer, but not to the child. Pro-lifers want the innocent to have at least as much protection as the guilty. So, who is being inconsistent?

Letter Number: 249

Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty.

Second, pro-choicers apparently cannot distinguish between victims and criminals.

A young woman named Kimberly Antonakos invited a friend to bring her boyfriend and their child to live with her while their home was being worked on. The friend's boyfriend, Joshua Torres, kidnapped Kimberly. He and two of his friends took her to a vacant house and held her for ransom. But they couldn't figure out how to leave a message on Kimberly's father's answering machine. When they got tired of waiting for the ransom money, they poured gasoline over Kimberly and burned her to death. Torres then killed one of his accomplices for fear the man would confess. Torres is a fairly typical death-row inmate.

The typical fetus slated for abortion is eight weeks old. He is fully formed, with a beating heart and distinctly human brain waves. Although he is very active, his mother can't even feel him moving. The worst thing he can be accused of is sucking his thumb.

Pro-choicers want to give Joshua Torres a trial, a defense attorney, and a string of appeals before even considering killing him. The fetus they would kill without batting an eye.

It seems the pro-choicers have misplaced priorities, when they expend as much effort to kill a harmless fetus as they do to protect someone like Joshua Torres.

Letter Number: 250

Some pro-choicers have claimed that pro-lifers are inconsistent for opposing abortion but favoring the death penalty.

However, since these pro-choicers have raised the issue of capital punishment, I'd like to make a proposal. Why don't we treat abortion the same way we treat the death penalty? After all, the United States Constitution says that no one will be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." So the abortion fanatics can go ahead and charge each baby with whatever heinous crimes they say she's guilty of, give her a fair trial where a jury can determine if indeed this particular baby is deserving of death, give her an attorney to present her defense, and if the verdict is that indeed this baby is a menace to society, you can go ahead and execute her. But if they aren't willing to give that baby the same rights as Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy, then drop this whole death penalty argument and let's get back to discussing abortion.

Letter Number: 305

A pro-abortion activist's recent column complained that it is wrong to oppose abortion when so many children are killing and being killed on the streets of our cities.

What she fails to see is that abortion means society has crossed a threshold of violence. Once that has happened, it's easier to cross the next one.

Legalized abortion has condoned one person killing another for personal gain. Should we be surprised that our children have imitated us?

Letter Number: 409

Last week's shooting of an abortionist has produced a media circus. Groups on both sides of the abortion issue are tripping over each other in their eagerness to denounce the killing.

What bothers me is that another kind of killing happens at these abortion clinics, and they get no attention at all. Right now, in the United States, women die from injuries sustained during legal abortions. After a dead woman's body is removed, business goes on as usual at the clinic. These deaths are rarely covered by the media.

Everyone mourns when an abortionist is killed, but who mourns when an abortionist kills a woman? Why is it that dead abortionists count and dead women don't?

Letter Number: 427

I watched a television newscast the other night in which a pro-abortion member of Congress was saying that he was going to continue to push for legislation that would ensure the safety of women entering abortion clinics.

I'm curious about something. Books like Lime 5: Exploited by Choice by Mark Crutcher are documenting that women are routinely maimed, raped, and killed inside American abortion clinics. Why isn't this congressman doing anything about that?

The fact is, he couldn't care less about these women. It's crystal clear that his only interest is in protecting the abortion industry. If he was at all concerned for the safety of women seeking abortion, he wouldn't abandon them at the front door of the clinic.

Letter Number: 428

In July 1996, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health released a report on violence in the American workplace. Near the top of the list were law enforcement workers, convenience store employees, bartenders, hotel clerks, firefighters, etc. Number one on the list was taxicab drivers, with 140 having been killed between 1990 and 1992.

On the other hand, only five abortion clinic employees have been killed in over 23 years. Yet every time that happens we instantly have congressional investigations, Justice Department press conferences, Presidential denunciations, round-ups of pro-life activists, new federal laws passed, non-violent pro-life groups investigated, United States Marshals assigned to protect abortion clinics, and front-page coverage in every newspaper in America.

My question is, why does an abortionist count more than a cab driver or 7-Eleven clerk? Why does Janet Reno put federal marshals at abortion clinics, when far more people are killed at post offices? And since we know that there are many more women killed by their abortionists than abortionists killed by pro-lifers, why is the government only worried about the pro-lifers?

The answer is obvious. Janet Reno, like all the other degenerates in the Clinton administration, couldn't care less about women, violence, or the enforcement of law. What they care about is abortion. Period.