Letters to the Editor

Early abortion laws focused on "quickening"-- "Pre-Roe abortion laws were meant to protect women, not babies, and therefore they should never be reinstated," they claim, "Pre-Roe anti-abortion laws were just attempts by the male-dominated medical establishment to drive non-doctors out of business." The shortage" of "abortion providers" certainly shows a change of attitude in the medical profession. If we "turn back the clock, seedy old men" will demand sex from desperate women "seeking" abortions.

Letter Number: 331

In Saturday's "Women's Lives" rally, a major theme was letting women do what they want with their bodies.

Somehow I doubt this is the real agenda of the rally attendees. The only thing they seemed to want women to be doing with their bodies is having abortions.

For example, not one speaker demanded that prostitution be legalized. But if they are really interested in women doing what they want with their bodies, it seems they'd put at least some of their efforts into legalizing prostitution. Abortion, after all, is already legal. Women can have abortions if they want to. They cannot legally offer to rent their own bodies for sex.

Nobody at the rally protested the anti-drug laws that prevent women from putting whatever substances they want into their own bodies. Nor did we hear about any of the many other things women are forbidden to do with their own bodies; things like sell their organs for transplant, walk about nude in public, have sex with animals, etc.

The rally had one purpose only: promoting abortion. It's just very strange that they have trouble admitting it.

Letter Number: 332

One candidate's senate campaign is based largely on her support of abortion, or, as she calls it, "a woman's right to control her own body."

If what she says is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't her agenda include drugs and prostitution? After all, laws against those are just as restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will or will not do with her own body as are laws against abortion.

If this candidate won't tell us what her real agenda is on abortion, how can we trust her to tell us her real agenda on anything?

Clearly a vote for this candidate is a vote for...who knows?

Letter Number: 347

Yesterday's coverage of the abortion rally was biased beyond belief. The bias started with the headline, "Women's Groups Rally." As if the abortion industry was a women's rights lobby!

For almost 20 years now, the abortion industry has made billions doing abortions on American women, while contending that their only interest was protecting and helping women who are in problem pregnancy situations. But other than offering abortions to them, what are they doing? Let's say a woman comes into one of these abortion mills with no money, no one to help her, no home to go to, but no intention of having an abortion. What services will that abortion mill provide for her? The answer is, absolutely none.

You print their press releases virtually verbatim--which amounts to tens of thousands of dollars of free advertising a year. So if the abortionists ever did anything worthwhile, I'm sure you'd cover it. But I've never heard a peep about abortionists taking pregnant women into their homes until they can get decent housing--something pro-lifers do all the time.

The abortion lobby is a special-interest group protecting an industry. Your readers deserve better than being misinformed--lied to--with the old line about them being a women's rights group.

Letter Number: 420

Recently, your paper published an article about the positive changes that have occurred in America because of the women's movement; changes that the author said have empowered women. While there are many areas with which I can agree with her, I take strong exception to the contention that the legalization of abortion serves the interest of women. I am constantly amazed--and as a woman, embarrassed--that so many of us have bought this incredible nonsense.

Pro-life feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green once observed that women have abortions for the same reason that an animal will gnaw off its own leg to get out of a trap. She pointed out that abortion is not a sign that women are free, but bitter proof that they are desperate.

From the woman's position, there simply is no better description of abortion than that. If someone wants to argue that women often feel forced to have abortions because of men who won't live up to their responsibilities, and because American society is indifferent to the needs of children and pregnant women, fine. But it is utterly laughable to suggest that submitting to an abortion in some way empowers the women with their feet in the stirrups.

Letter Number: 421

Last week, your paper published an article about how legalized abortion has been such an integral part of the progress women have made over the last twenty years or so.

Surely, you can't be serious. When a woman is pregnant, what she wants is a man who will be there for her, and a society that truly values children and pregnant women. If because those things are not there she feels forced to destroy her own child, she certainly isn't the one being empowered.

The fact is, the legalization of abortion--and the willingness of women to submit to them--has been the single greatest thing that ever happened to those irresponsible men who see women as sexual toys. It makes certain that if she gets pregnant, and he doesn't want her to be, she can be vacuumed out and used again.

If some American women want abortion to be legal so they can provide responsibility-free sex to the men in their lives, so be it. But they should not fool themselves into believing that they are the ones being liberated. For women, abortion is not an act of achievement, but one of surrender. It's not about power, but an admission of powerlessness.

Letter Number: 422

I recently read an article about the concern some older feminists are having about the fact that young women are increasingly reluctant to label themselves as feminists. Several possible causes for this were put forth, including the theory that because these women weren't around back in the "bad old days" they have no firsthand experiences to keep them motivated. It was also suggested that they were rejecting the "hairy-legged-men-haters-in-flannel-shirts" stereotype that many Americans have of women who call themselves feminists.

Both of these, and others, could at least partially explain why this phenomenon is occurring. But there is one possibility that the author, a hardcore advocate of legalized abortion, conveniently ignored. Perhaps these women are rejecting, or at least questioning, the party line that legalized abortion is the cornerstone of their freedom and equality with men. And maybe they are doing so because they have had more "hands-on" experience than their older counterparts with the real--not theoretical--practice of readily available and legalized abortion.

Perhaps they have discovered that when a woman submits to abortion, a lot of people might be better off, but she isn't one of them. It could be the guy who got her pregnant and doesn't want to face his responsibilities, parents who don't want to be embarrassed that their daughter got pregnant, an employer who doesn't want to come in second to a woman's baby, or any number of others; but it's unlikely to be her.

Maybe these young women feel betrayed and exploited by these so-called "women's rights advocates" who've sold them out to the abortion industry. Maybe they're discovering that the world of "choice" isn't the utopia it was promised to be.

It seems that these young women are starting to be justifiably suspicious of people who claim to have only their best interests at heart. And, of course, one could argue that this is not a bad life lesson to learn. But it's been a long time coming and the price has been awfully high.

Letter Number: 423

Your newspaper recently published an article about women in combat. In it, both local and national "women's rights advocates" viciously attacked the government for not allowing this practice. They contend that a woman is fully capable of handling a young, 200-pound, armed-to-the-teeth, male aggressor.

My question is this: aren't these the same people who claim that women are so fragile, and such bad problem solvers, that the thought of having to deal with a seven-pound baby sends them screaming into the nearest abortion clinic?

Letter Number: 424

Recently, your paper published an article about how legalized abortion has been such an integral part of the progress women have made over the last twenty years or so.

You can't really be stupid enough to suggest that the legalization of abortion was progress for women. Today, even most hardcore abortion advocates openly admit that no woman ever wants an abortion, but feels pressure to do so because of circumstances beyond her control. Please explain to me how that is supposed to be some sort of act of empowerment.

The reality is, the willingness of women to submit to abortion is the best thing that ever happened to irresponsible men. For them, a couple hundred bucks paid to the local abortionist sure beats standing behind the women whose bodies they use, and it's certainly cheaper then raising the children they father. And the icing on the cake is that even if something goes wrong during the abortion--if somebody gets raped, maimed, or killed--at least no harm will come to him. All in all, it's a pretty good deal.

How these guys must laugh at American women. We'll jump out of their beds and onto an abortionist's table, just to let them off the hook; all the while pathetically talking about how we're exercising our power.

The reality is, powerful women don't kill their children for anyone or any reason.

Letter Number: 425

Why do I get suspicious when I see male politicians like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy on national television talking about how they completely support "a woman's right to choose?" Why do I get this uneasy feeling that when the cameras are turned off and the press goes away, these guys put their arms on each other's shoulders and burst into laughter?

Of course, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy favor abortion-on-demand. They are precisely the kind of men that abortion has always been intended to protect. It seems safe to assume that more than one woman has jumped onto an abortionist's table to let these guys off the hook. And there's ones thing I know for certain. If America's sexually irresponsible men ever have a national convention, the busiest concession will be the one selling "I Love Abortion" buttons and bumper stickers.

Letter Number: 426

As the battle over abortion continues to rage, I want to encourage young women not to just buy everything these so-called "women's rights activists" say about abortion. Study the writings of people like Susan B. Anthony, or Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, or Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president, or Tennessee Claflin, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or any number of others.

As you read, you'll find that these early feminists--lacking any ties to the abortion industry--were free to see abortion for what it really is: something that is done to women, by men, for men.

Now, with over twenty years experience, we can clearly see that they were absolutely right. Since Roe v. Wade, America has committed more than thirty million abortions, and the only ones who have profited are the abortionists and those sexually irresponsible men who see women as nothing more than sexual playthings.

Of course, there may be some women out there who truly want the "right the choose" to climb on an abortionist's table and liberate the men that impregnated them. And as long as abortion-on-demand is legal, nothing can stop them from doing so. However, none of us should be so naive that we believe they are the ones being empowered in the process. Real feminists--those like the women mentioned above--have always known that abortion is never an act of power, but of surrender.

Priests for Life
PO Box 236695 • Cocoa, FL 32923
Tel. 321-500-1000, Toll Free 888-735-3448 • Email: mail@priestsforlife.org