Basic HTML Version
L
E
Abortion
"The Case Against Abortion"
(August/September
Plain Truth)
brought forth a great deal of
comment-both pro and con–
from our reatkrs. Here is a rep–
resentative sampling of the let–
ters we received.
Absolutely Agalnst Abortlon
1
read the interesting article "The Case
Against Abortion" and I'm writing to
say that
1
am absolutely against abor–
tion, and that the article in
The Plain
Truth
was timely and informative.
1
hope the message takes immediate ef–
fect up on women who are con–
templating abortion.... In my opinion,
there is a very important reason for the
continuance of human life. And though
1 do not know the reasons for the many
experiences we go through in this life,
1
do believe
someone
greater than any
mortal surely does, and therefore
human life should be protected.
Lila B. Komp,
Garden City, Michigan
Call to Actlon?
Thank you for your a rticle "The Case
Against Abortion."
It
was only unfortu–
nate that you didn't follow up the state–
ment that abortion is seriously wrong by
urging Christians to work as citizens
against this evil.
Douglas Hayman,
Reading, Massachusetts
What About Rape?
1
agree with you in saying abortion is
wrong aside from the fact the pregnancy
may endanger the life of the mother.
But what
I
would like to know is: Is that
the only circumstance in which we can
condone abortion? What
1
mean is,
would it be wrong for a woman to have
38
T
S
an abortion when she became pregnant
after being raped? Please answer.
Quality of Llfe
W.J.,
Brookshire, Texas
It
is perhaps fruitless to argue with
someone who has concluded that abor–
tion is murder and "to commit [murder]
would be a worse evil than enduring
even great amounts of suffering." What
the writer is saying in his article is that
the 14-year-old girl who is pregnant by
her father must go through with her
pregnancy, with all its attendant shame
and anxiety.
He is cavalierly saying to the 50-year–
old woman that she must undergo an–
other pregnancy
in
spite of evidence
that child-bearing in later life is a factor
in the incidence of cancer. He is in–
sensitive to the possibilities of broken
marriages and heartbreak if sorne un–
wanted pregnancies are allowed to go to
full-term.
He strains to interpret vague biblical
passages to prove that the fetus is "a
separate human being" from the
mother-a person, even before it draws
its first breath-and that to destroy this
fetus or person is to commi t murder.
Now, the writer can give the fetus any
definition he wants and may find from
these elusive passages in Scripture but–
tress for his argument, but the Supreme
Court, wishing to avoid the thicket of
theological argument, had to conclude
that the Constitution recognizes a
human being becomes a person at birth.
Genesis
2:7
would seem to underscore
that view: " ... then the Lord God
formed man out of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and he became a
living soul." There is no question that at
birth, when the infant draws its first
breath, there is in being a human per–
son and the Genesis account should suf–
fice. No responsible person counsels
infanticide, but Mr. Calkins, by pushing
his definitions to the breaking point, la–
beis abortion of the fetus as infanticide
E
R
S
and murder, an absolutist position!
One of the best answers I have seen
to this "logic" is supplied in
A Cal/ to
Concern,
issued by a group of religious
ethicists, which states in part: "The
most compeUing argument against the
inflexibility of the absolutist position is
its cost in human misery. The absolutist
position does nol concern itself about
the quality of the entire life cycle, lhe
health and well-being of the mother
and family, the question of emotional
and economic resources, the cases of
extreme deformity. Its total pre–
occupat ion with the status of the un–
boro renders it blind to the well-being
and freedom of choice of persons in the
community. We believe that abortion
may in sorne instances be the most lov–
ing act possible."
In life, choices must often be made
between evils. The decision lo have an
abortioo is a lragic decision, nol to be
made lightly. But the alternative lo the
evil of abortion may be a greater evil.
We would appreciate your publishing
this rebuttal on behalf of
25
national
religious organizations in tbe Religious
Coalition for Abortion Rights, which
share lhe belief thal a woman has a
constitutional right to a safe, legal abor–
lioo under guidelines established in the
Supreme Courl decisions of January
1973.
Robert
E.
Jones,
Associate Director,
Religious Coa liti on for Aborlion
Rights,
Washington, D.C.
Human Rlghts
1
believe you have failed to take into
account tbe most fundamental issue
concerning abortion: tbat of human
rights. Are the rights-the unalienable
legal control over ber own body-of a
pregnant woman, a human being, to be
sacrificed to questionable "rights" pos–
sessed by a "possible" legal human
being, the felus?
You state that "the burden of proor·
is on those who claim that a fetus is not
The
PLAIN TRUTH
December 1977