"Do abortion foes really care about a woman's life?" is the caption over Terri Hall's article in the Argus for June 12.

A loud clear "Yes" is the answer to Ms. Hall's question. An autonomous, largely volunteer, pro-life organization known as BIRTHRIGHT maintains a 24-hour hotline, 423-6666. The trained volunteers help distressed girls find shelter and a place to work. They provide clothing and furniture, legal, medical, and free confidential counseling service to those who desire to carry their children to term. In brief, they minister to the needs of the children and the mother.

A few comments may be helpful in understanding the thinking of prolifers. Individuals have the ability to make decisions. Some choices are good: others are not. Having made a choice, they are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. One of the foreseeable consequences of coital activity, whether with or without the use of contraceptives, is the fertilization of an ovum. Respectable biologists, fetologists, and nurses confirm that this fertilized ovum is a real honest-to-goodness baby, the decision of the Supreme Court notwithstanding. The baby does not of its own volition take up residence in the mother's womb. This unique child is placed in the mother's body by specific actions performed by her and her partner. Had the couple not performed these actions, they would not be faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

These babies being members of homo sapiens have an inalien able civil and moral right to their lives. Certainly the intrauterine children have committed no crime warranting the death penalty.

Had Patti, who was mentioned in Ms. Hall's article, read the label, she would have learned that taking birth control pills is no guarantee that fertilization will not take place. At present there is no absolutely safe contraceptive. There is little chance that an absolutely safe one will be perfected in the near future.

All who are sexually active, whether they use a contraceptive or not, must understand that they may be called upon to make arrangements to have their baby killed, to give him up for adoption, or to rear the child. In addition, they run the risk of contracting one of the rampant venereal diseases.

A sizable number of people consider abortion a heinous moral evil and a violation of the children's inalienable civil right to life. Do pro-abortionists consider it just to force these people to participate in paying for the killings.

In 1978 and 1979, Right-to-Lifers were roundly criticized for holding up the passage of the state budget over the question of whether Medicaid funds should be used to pay for abortions. That sense of outrage was strangely missing during the 1980 budget impasse. For political reasons not associated with abortion, spring borrowing was delayed two weeks; payments to localities was disrupted. No pro-abortionists seemed overly concerned. Why the hoopla in one instance and the deafening silence in the other?

Do the abortion advocates really believe that killing intrauterine human beings is an acceptable, humane, national social policy?