Response to Keith's Roe v. Wade Column

by Gordon Cooper

Keith,
Hmmm… where do I begin? I guess I’ll start with the first premise and work my way through chronologically.

To begin with, I believe the issue is still a hot button issue with most conservatives and this was recently illustrated in the debates as the Republicans stressed their allegiance to the sanctity of life. And the Democrats recently bragged about their apparent disregard for the unborn and the dangers posed by abortion to the health of women.

I don’t know what you define as a ‘routine form of birth control’ but when over 1.5 million babies are denied life each year, I say that is indeed a form of birth control. The declining numbers are a blessing and I expect the trend to continue as technology catches up with the scriptures and more and more women recognize the truth of Psalm 139 and other passages that indicate that God knows the soul of the embryo from the point of conception.

I will allow Dee to explain her position regarding Rudy but I will defend my belief that the man behind the presidential seal can do little to prevent the expectant mother from killing her unborn child. That decision will be made regardless of whom sits in the oval office. To change that woman’s heart requires a change in hers and the public’s perception. I will re-state here that just as slavery became repulsive as we recognized the humanity of men and women like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, so to will abortion become repulsive when we quit telling ourselves it is only a bunch of cells and recognize the embryo as a unique, newly created person.

As far as referring to Rudy as Pro-War because he stands for a strong defense and then to claim that we conservatives advocate killing women and children in foreign lands is, quite honestly, both wrong and inflammatory. I think even you know that taking the argument down that path is poor logic and does little to advance your case.

Now, the idea that most women who opt for killing their child rather than facing up to the consequence of their poor choices are somehow ‘victims of rape or abuse’ is not supported by the facts. The number of conceptions which are a result of rape or incest is relatively small (less than 3%, by most liberal estimates) and even those conceptions could be carried to term and given up for adoption, rather than adding to the victim’s guilt and shame by exposing her to Post Abortion Syndrome (more on that later). A survey of the women who have abortions show that most ‘who are guilty only of a lapse in judgment’ (your words) do so because they feel a child would be disruptive to their life or ‘mental health’. I see that as a form of birth control, sorry.

Your statement that these women ‘have few options’ concerns me. I happen to believe that we all have options in life, but I also believe that when we make poor choices we limit our options and we must bear the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Once those women have made the choice to have unprotected sex, they have limited their options to either carry the baby to term and accept the responsibility of raising her or him to adulthood or seeking an adoptive parent to raise the child.

I also take umbrage with your contention that most would opt for those famous ‘back alley’ abortions. This is a feeble and unsupportable claim. I believe that it is a media-driven urban legend and even if factual, it is tantamount to following Holland’s model of legalizing shooting galleries for the heroin addicts, so they would have a safe place to destroy their bodies and souls.

Now, regarding the claim that most would choose suicide rather than carry the baby to term is interesting and I will address this as well as the contention in your next paragraph where you state that ‘this goes beyond freedom of choice to a woman’s emotional, psychological and physical health. I now refer to the aforementioned Post Abortion Syndrome – the very ‘real’ damage done to every woman who chooses abortion compared to the ‘potential’ damage of carrying a baby to full term. Several studies and surveys of women who have opted for abortion reveal a disturbing set of facts. Over 70% of women who completed the survey admitted a strong sense of remorse and guilt. Almost all experience severe depression and a majority turn to substance abuse and suicide. There is also an increased risk of breast cancer and the very real risk of permanent damage to the uterine wall and/or infection following an abortion.

I submit the following quote from Dr.Julius Fogel who admitted to performing over 20,000 abortions:

“Abortion is an impassioned subject.... Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. She destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force. It is totally beside the point whether or not you think a life is there. You cannot deny that something is being created and that this creation is physically happening.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy.”

Now, I do not think that carrying a baby to full term is an easy proposition, nor do I believe that it does not carry its own set of traumatic possibilities, however, I do believe that most pro-abortion adherents are reluctant to tell women the whole truth about this ‘easy’ way out.

Although most intelligent people who read your column would recognize your last two paragraphs as typical hate-speech against Bush and conservatives and should be able to overlook your misrepresentations and outright lies, I feel as though I should defend him and myself on a couple points. First of all, it is only EMBRYONIC stem cells that Bush is prohibiting from FEDERALLY FINANCED experimentation and a careful reading of the scientific evidence would show that adult stem cells are much more effective and less likely to be abused by over-zealous pro-abortionists. Also, the claim that conservatives who believe in capital punishment are somehow inconsistent in our beliefs about the sanctity of life can be explained away when you remember that the price paid by the perpetrator of the crime should reflect the value of the object he/she stole or destroyed. Hence, the value we place upon the victim of pre-meditated murder or the assassination of a police officer should be reflected in the sentence we impose upon the criminal. To do otherwise is to diminish the value of the former and to artificially raise the value of the latter.

While I admit that my response has been longer than your initial column and you may have trouble responding to all of my claims and facts, I would appreciate it if you would just honestly answer the two following questions:

1.) At what point did your children become living souls worthy of protection?
2.) At what point should a woman be held responsible for her personal choices?

I await your response.

Gordon