Baby in womb has rights too, he contends

Published 11:18 pm Monday, April 10, 2006

In Jade Roberts’ letter (“Women should have pregnancy choices,” Tuesday, April 4), she has erroneously claimed that I am misleading people (“Abortion is not a ‘gray area’; it’s wrong,” Sunday, April 2).

I pointed out that abortion upon demand has led to the abominable murder of late-term babies, called partial-birth abortions. I did not claim or infer that such abortions are the majority.

Ms. Roberts simply did not tell the truth when she said that there are “few late-term abortions” and they “are usually done for medical reasons, involving the health and welfare of the mother.” Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on ABC’s “Nightline” in November 1995 that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. Another abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, in a tape-recorded interview with the American Medical Association’s American Medical News, said, “… and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range…” One abortionist admitted in 1995 to performing more than 2,000 partial-birth abortions. Does that sound like a few?

Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. surgeon general, stated: “… in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”

Ms, Roberts praises the morning-after pill as a cure-all and does not mention any of its side effects, which may last years.

She asks why should a woman give up nine months of her life to please advocates of life like myself. A woman should consider adoption because the child is as much a living being as she. It is not to please me. Adoption is not a “so-called choice.” It is a very good one if we respect life! Why should children be murdered in the womb?

Ms. Roberts writes, “Obviously since Mr. Smith is a man, he will never know the terror, violation and humiliation of being raped, thus it is easy for him to say that a woman should just be forced to endure carrying her rapist’s baby for nine months.” Is it not her baby too? Is a child less valuable and unworthy because his father is a rapist? And since Ms. Roberts has been born, she will never know the “terror and violation” these unborn babies undergo when their skulls are crushed and sucked out of the womb because her mother did not abort her.

Ms. Roberts is misleading the public when she implies that pro-life people do not work hard to get children out of the system awaiting adoption. First, as a lady shared with me, “It can take years to go through all the background checking and paperwork process, which inevitably decreases the number of available adoptive families and leaves many children waiting for parents in foster care and group homes.”

In addition to this, it seems that Ms. Roberts is implying that if mothers elect to give their children up for adoption, these children will end up on the Web site she shared. She should know that is not the case. The children on that Web site are there because of other circumstances. These children have no bearing on children given up for adoption to loving families by mothers who are a part of the adoptive process.

Ms. Roberts concludes that “the best choice for a civilized world is to allow women and their doctors to decide what is best for them without government interference.” Killing the unborn is hardly a “civilized” choice. In the end, this issue revolves around whether the child has any rights. Do children have rights within the womb?



Abraham Smith

Columbus