051679 GANNETT Editor believes that "The key debatable point seems to center on when human life begins."

Didn't any of these moronic liberals ever take Biology 1 ???-JPG

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

I compliment you for your decision to publish opinions, pro and con, relating to abortion as you stated in Your May 7, 1979 article in the Reporter Dispatch.

You seem to believe that "The key debatable point seems to center on when human life begins." It is true that the coordinator for the Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion and seven members of the Supreme Court do not accept as fact that the zygote is a human being. They are out of step with many outstanding biologists who are avidly pro-abortion, Hardin for example, who acknowledge that at the union of the ovum and the sperm a new, unique human being comes into existence. It follows, then, that those involved in deliberately killing this new human being have committed murder. In the practical order there are mitigating circumstances. Those who destroy the preborn with lesser degrees of willfulness commit manslaughter, homicide, etc. When human life begins is and always has been a non-issue.

It would be acre accurate to say that the value, one places on the life of the preborn child is an important, if not the central factor. Those who are pro-life hold that all human life, must be respected in all stages of its development. The lives of the retarded, the blind, the deformed, those afflicted with a genetic disease, the psychotic, etc. must be respected.

The Declaration of Independence is our basic civil document. Though it is a secular document, it acknowledges the reality of a transcendent power, the Creator, Who endows each one with an "unalienable" right to life.

'Unalienable" means that no human power, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has the right to deprive an individual of his life.

In telling women that they had the "right" to kill their children, the Supreme Court erred. The court was attempting to give a right which was not theirs to give. Norm  Zarky, the author of the brief for the Belous,case and one of the early ardent pro-abortionists, acknowledged the truth of this statement.

Until recently it was the common practice for individuals to come to the aid of strangers who had neon injured, or who had suffered, m y_# a heart attack, or who were trapped in a burning building, Since the preborn can't defend themselves, pro-lifers are defending them from the attacks of those who are deriving a financial gain from killing them and from those who are selfishly shirking their responsibility.

Ann Landers published a letter written by mother whose son had multiple handicaps. "Caring for such a child is not easy but where else can you get such an abundant return on a small investment of love.... Your child is a helpless, trusting, -unique individual who will require more care and attention than if he were 'normal', but he will make you a better person, a happier person, a giver instead of a taker, and the world can use more of these."

 

The secretary of the Yonkers Women's Task Force wrote as follows: [H-S- 5/9/79] "Rape is a violent, physical abuse and cannot be considered as anything less than an aggressive  assaultive act,... Rape is the ultimate assault on women and will continue asking all women potential victims as long as 'rape' crimes are being treated in such a cavalier fashion." Substituting "abortion" for rape" and "preborn" for "women" makes interesting reading.

The women have some advantages that the preborn do not possess.

The women are living, can run for treatment, and can use the appropriate "hotline" when the assault is over. During the assault they can yell. they can fight back. They may have invited the assault as was true in the case that evoked the letter under consideration. The preborn are unable to do any of these.

The letter of the secretary of the Women's Task Force is a strong plea that the "rights" of women be respected. At the same time she is a leader in the movement that demands that women be given a privilege not granted to others_# namely, that they be permitted to kill their own children, for any or no reason, from fertilization up to the expulsion of the child from their body. As though this was not evil enough, she wants the costs associated with the killing to be paid for out of the public treasury

Mr. Hoffman, please read Polly's letter [RD, 2/24/79 thoughtfully:

"But not a fertilized egg or embryo."

"the country is suffering moral decay because people don't want to accept responsibility for their actions, meaning that they aren't willing to have a baby just because they had sexual relations"

"having an abortion may show a real willingness to accept responsibility..." "the continual comparison of legal abortion with the Nazi slaughter is a cruel distortion of fact..."

PURE GIBBERISH !!!!-JPG

In admitting that he had been overlooking "the sanctity of life",

Shere, editor of The Journal Herald, Dayton, Ohio has taken a giant, but limited, step in the right direction. I say "limited" because he says "pro-lifers can be abrasive and arrogant, seemingly without empathy for those who feel they must seek an abortion." In Westchester a separate organization, pro-life in outlook, operating under the title Birthright,

stands ready to help those women who are in need of help. '.the Birthright ^/tom volunteers do possess the necessary "empathy". Volunteers are asked to work in only one of these organizations since, as Shere points out, different skills and temperament. are required. With this information, is Shere's charge that pro-lifers lack "empathy" justified?

If you would like to go Editor Shere one better, I suggest that you re-read "Manifesto I", 'Manifesto II", and "A Five Year Plan: 1976 - 1980 for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inn," It is my  personal belief that the many forms of disrespect for the human body and for human life (masturbation, fornication, adultery, abortion, pederasty, lesbianism, rape_s murder, assassination, terrorism, gangland killing, kidnapping, drug and alcohol abuse) are natural outcomes of secular humanism which, in truth, is the overriding issue.

In 1961 in the Torasco Case the Supreme Court recognized secular humanism as a religion. Those who want a strict separation of religious and civil matters should be insisting that purveyors of secular humanism, PP for instance, be barred from the public schools. The silence of ACLU is deafening!

Cordially

Patrick H. McHugh