I would like to express my disapproval of the tactics used by a recent contributor to Public Opinion in which a comparison was drawn between a society that allowed abortions (ours, that is) and Nazi Germany.

WITHOUT applauding or criticizing the writer's beliefs. I feel that such a comparison is only possible by a long stretch of one's imagination, and was only adopted to further the author's cause. How can one not disapprove of Nazi Germany's actions as portrayed by the NBC-TV production "Holocaust"? What the author implies, however, is that abortion is in some way similar, so it too should be condemned. This practice of "implied association" is currently used by advertisers ("Use the right deodorant and you won't be able to keep the women away". etc.) and many Americans have been conditioned to accept these insinuations as truth. but I hone for our sake that the American people can think the abortion issue through on their own and formulate their own opinion. Only in a totalitarian state would it be acceptable for a group of individuals to try and impose their view of morality on a plurality of the population.

One facet of the abortion question that has always amused me was the nomenclature of the opposing groups. "Anti-abortionists" are quite rightly named, for they stand for the abolition of easily obtainable abortions for women who desire one. This attitude seems to stem from the belief that the quality of life (for both the unwanted child and the unprepared young mother) is unimportant, but any form of biological existence is preferable to abortion. "Pro-abortionist" conjures up images of a society where pregnant women are herded off to a hospital to have their pregnancies interrupted against their will. This seems to be a misnomer, since under present abortion laws nobody is required to terminate a pregnancy, but the provision is there for those who want to use it. Surely, a better terminology could be devised.

I HOPE that we can remain a democracy where freedom exists for our thoughts as well as our speech, and let us beware of those who attempt to alter our opinions to coincide with their own by methods other than intelligent, unbiased discussion.

To blindly accept emotional appeals or obviously prejudiced "facts" denies each person the right to an opinion which is truly a reflection of one's own feelings. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

MICHAEL P SHEAR

Yonkers

I