James Snyder complains that pro-lifers call abortion "slaughter."

We also call it homicide, murder and a human rights atrocity. That's abortion. This country "legalized" slaughtering 3,000-plus pre-born babies every day. In America, over 3,000 babies will die today.

Snyder should be embarrassed by his ignorance of the difference between the death penalty of abortion for pre-born babies and that same penalty for those who have committed the most heinous murders. Hint: one group is innocent.

Regarding guns, Snyder doesn't understand the difference between self-defense and murder. Would Snyder so vehemently oppose the Second Amendment if abortionists used guns, instead of knives, to assassinate their pre-born victims?

Did trampling the Constitution really do "the country a big favor" as Snyder claims? Roe v. Wade is a prime example of judges imposing their own ideology in place of the Constitution.

Even pro-abortion legal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that "the substantive judgment on which (Roe) rests is nowhere to be found."

The court just made it up. Leftists wanted legal baby-murder so they "legalized" it. That's Roe v. Wade.

When someone kills a defenseless baby because she's inconvenient, that's the ultimate cowardly cheap shot, a fatal cheap shot. That's abortion. — Jake Layer, Medford

There are several severe problems with John Grimm's statement: "The men of the U.S.A. are demanding "no abortion" from their women, without "… offering a solution for: rape, date rape, child abuse ..."

First, he recites the standard pro-abortion agitprop that pro-lifers are men. It's true that many men oppose murdering unborn babies. But he ignores the many women who would also like to see innocent babies protected by law.

Instead of dealing in truth, Grimm would rather score cheap propaganda points.

Second, Grimm suggests that to oppose the murder of unborn babies, pro-lifers must have solutions to a myriad of other problems.

It's like saying to the Red Cross, you can't provide disaster relief until you find a solution to homelessness. One can fight against a specific injustice, such as the cold-blooded murder of babies, without having an answer for every other imaginable injustice.

Third, Grimm assumes that abortion is a solution for the various problems he mentions. See, if you kill the kid through abortion, she won't get abused later. Murder fixes child abuse. Murder fixes rape. Murder fixes poverty and the environment.

Abortion is a cure-all. Rip that baby apart, so we won't be bothered with her. — Kathleen Watson, Medford

It's unfortunate that James Snyder (Letters, June 14) cannot differentiate capital punishment from abortion.

Capital punishment is imposed on a person found guilty of a crime. Abortion is the destruction of an innocent human being — the unborn child. If Mr. Snyder could only witness an abortion in action, he would cringe in horror at the barbaric procedure.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was once the darling of abortion providers. He ran what he fondly described as the "largest abortion clinic in the Western world," even bragging about the thousands of abortions he performed.

The introduction of ultrasound technology confronted him with the incontrovertible truth — the humanity of the unborn child. For once in his medical profession, he saw the "monster" he had become.

He subsequently withdrew his support for abortion. When he died at 84 in February this year, he was the giant of the pro-life movement.

I pray that people like James Snyder won't have to sacrifice another thousand abortions to discover that, if a woman is pregnant, what is in the womb isn't a kitten or a puppy but a human baby: a priceless gift of life to be treasured, never destroyed. — Terry Duran, Medford

Share This Story