030579 Court ruling didn't automatically OK abortion

The Rev. R. Bricker Gibson, whose White Plains church was picketed recently by youths carrying anti- abortion signs, said the action was probably brought about "because I have been identified as pro-choice." He emphasized that this does not mean that he is pro-abortion.

In making this distinction he seems to mean that he objects to having abortion forced on women, but he has no objections to permitting women to destroy their pre-natal children if they elect to do so. All this seems to boil down to his condoning feticide.

If he is willing to allow women to choose whether or not to kill their preborn children, is he willing to allow men to rape women if they choose to do so? Is he willing to allow thugs to divest people of their possessions if they choose to do so?

Mr. Gibson said "since abortion is legal, I don't think it should be denied to those who can't afford it." He seems to be saying that abortion is acceptably' simply because of the Jan. 22, 1973, action of the U.S. Supreme Court. He certainly would not argue that blacks are chattel! Yet, an earlier Supreme Court made that ridiculous ruling. Because seven venal men said abortion is legal does not necessarily make it so. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret laws, not make them.

The Declaration of Independence states clearly, specifically, and unequivocally that it is self-evident that the Creator has endowed all men (in the sense of all people) with the "unalienable" right to life. Hence, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant to women the "right" to kill their pre-natal children neither with a " coathanger" or a "knitting needle"; nor to employ an abortionist to do the killing. Even if a substantial majority of the electorate went through the motions of giving women the "right" to kill their children, the women would not have the "right" since the child's right is "unalienable."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that no layer of government is under any obligation to pay the fees of abortionists. In this decision it went on to say that funds should be used to favor life. Several states have approved bills requiring doctors to give women seeking abortions printed material containing details on what happens to aborted fetuses, the physical characteristics of developing babies and alternatives to abortion.