042179 Response to Luddy Yamrone

To the Editors

Luddy Yamrone asks [RD, 4/16/791 how I feel about the destruction of an already born child. She lists several instances of child abuse, Those working to have a Human Life Amendment added to Our Constitution have worded the amendment in such fashion that the lives of all human beings in the continuum from fertilization to death in old age are protected.

Right-to-Life opposes feticide, infanticide, mercy killing, euthanasia. Because of the magnitude of the problem of killing and the technicalities involved, different groups focus attention on only a portion of this continuum. Right-to-Lifers conduct educational programs to bring to the attention of the public the heinousness of killing intrauterine and recently born children. They support legislation that protects human life particularly preborn life. Companion Birthright organizations provide guidance to those who are pregnant and material, emotional, and moral support to those who elect to carry their child to term.

Those who oppose child abuse carry on from there since they have more expertise in making sure that born children receive humane treatment. Those who have witnessed cases of severe spouse abuse have banded together to help victims of this violence. Many individuals and groups have rallied to make the last days of the aged as comfortable as possible.

To answer the specific question, "how do I feel...?" the answer is that since all the cases cited involved "born" children, such cases are best handled by child protective agencies. I, along with other right-to lifers, react to such atrocities with the same revulsion that other normal people do. We leave acting to those who can do a better job, and concentrate our efforts on only this one phase of child abuse, namely abortion.

 

Ignoring that the right to life is "unalienable", Ms. Yamrone continues "Maybe if abortions were encouraged, then we would not witness these inhuman acts." Why are pro-abortion groups who focus attention on "abused children" thrown into a tizzy when pictures of aborted children are shown? Is not viewing the m scerated remains of an unborn child just as nauseating as viewing the braided, or cigarette-burn.-warred body of an I8-month old infant? Pro-abortionists have developed a system of euphemisms to mask the reality that in each abortion a child is killed, and not infrequently the reproductive organs of the mother are irreparably damaged. They adamantly refuse to deal with the "reality" -the dead, not yet born, baby.

To close the gap between abortion as an "abstraction" and abortion as a "reality". I suggest that there be inaugurated a variation of the So Straight technique that has been so effective in turning delinquents from lives of crime. Have centers set up in the fashion used in training doctors in operating procedures-bright lights, mirrors, a balcony from which spectators may watch the actions of the abortionist. At the end of each procedure, on TV screens, let the doctor point out the arms, legs, thorax, skull of the abortus. I suggest that all legislators, governors, county executives, mayors, judges and the chief aides of each of these people be required (or at least urged) to visit for a morning such a demonstration before they act on any measures favoring or financing abortion.

If this first-hand viewing of the gory reality of abortion does not stem killing-for-profit, then we have already started down the slippery slide to Holocaust II.

We have not only started on the slippery slope ,we are at the bottom sitting in blood.-JPG

Cordially

Patrick H. McHugh