Friday, May 29, 2009

Another Response to Ms. Britner

Note: This is the letter to the editor of the Peoria Journal Star of May 27, 2009 that Dan Bohan and I and others are responding to.

Re. Cal Thomas' May 20 column, "Momentum gathering for abortion foes":

Mr. Thomas writes of the belief in the sacredness of all life held by the self-named "pro-life" groups. If all life is sacred to them, I would think they'd want to provide equal education and health care, at a minimum, to all children after they are born in honor of the sacredness of the lives of these children. This seems not to be the case.

A true "pro-life" position would also seem to include opposition to war and the death penalty. These beliefs are rarely correlated with a person's holding a "pro-life" position. Perhaps it is only a pro-fetus position, not truly a pro-life position.

Shari L. Britner, Ph.D.


Abortion Rights Propaganda

The propaganda war chest of the abortion rights crowd is stuffed with many refined irrationalities, emotionalisms and sentimentalities - all posing as high moral principles. This is understandable, for much babbling is needed to detract attention from the ever increasing number of victims of their movement, living as well as dead.

For example, consider the baseless assertion that a person must be pacifist in regard to war, opposed to all incidences of capital punishment, and committed to every social welfare program under the sun, in order to be concerned about the right to life of the unborn without being guilty of hypocrisy.

Even at face value, such an absurd statement hardly deserves a response. For the very opposite is actually the truth. There is no logical or ethical justification for protecting the guilty while ignoring the destruction of the innocent!

Just war, capital punishment, and social responsibility for the disenfranchised - these are all subjects of ongoing debate in the Pro-Life community. But they are being debated in the context of proper sentiment – i.e. the sanctity of each human life from conception to natural death. And it is possible to make a reasonable case for differing positions on these tangential issues from that fundamental ideal.

Absent this foundational principle, however, it is only irrational sentimentality that seeks to extend every protection and consideration to the criminals and terrorists and warmongers of the world - while at the same time allowing, or worse, promoting the treatment of the most innocent and helpless of the human family with gross brutality.