Recently, readers criticized my stance on abortion. They apparently missed my main point; then they didn’t address what I actually said but what they thought I meant. They also made demonstrably false statements.
I could justify abortion, but I don’t need to. The opposition to it is based on religion, and no one has the right to force their religious views on others. No matter how much you dislike a woman’s decision, you have no right to dictate your own moral views.
One reader stated flatly -- without support -- that abortion has increased child abuse, decreased adoption, and has created a “culture of death.” Untrue. One recent BBC report stated that U.S. child deaths (three times Canada’s, 11 times Italy’s, and totalling at least 20,000 in the last decade) are caused by abuse, neglect and lack of sex education and other social programs that support families (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/287-124/7955-focus-americas-child-death-shame).
My letter’s main point, unaddressed, was that anti-abortion crusaders are not pro-life as they claim. They want to force women to have unwanted children but then have no interest in helping single mothers and their children after those children are born. They oppose programs supporting women and children, as well as sex education programs (except for useless “abstinence Ooly” ones.)
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
One reader charged that I had no source for alleging that abortion opponents also oppose sex education. However, googling “sex education and abortion opponents” yields over 200,000 entries. Take your pick.
To conclude: if “pro-lifers” were really pro-life, they wouldn’t be so selective about the lives they value. As I said in my previous letter, the Right To Life is meaningless without the right to food, shelter and medical care. Children are the new poor; many sleep on the streets and go to bed hungry. If you really are pro-life, pay attention to them.