Reader asks columnist to consider all choices

To the Editor:

It is not my intention to start a pro-life/pro-choice debate in The Argus, but I could not let the Teen Talk column in the March 13 edition go unanswered. There are some facts you should consider. First of all, you say that “you would not want anyone making (choices) for me” and yet you go ahead and approve of making the choice for death for unborn babies who don’t get any say in the “choice.” The cliche is: It is a lot easier to be pro-choice after you have been born.

Secondly, you talk about a rape victim being forced to carry a child as if it is the child who is at fault. Only a very small percentage of abortions are performed on women or girls who were raped. The great majority of these procedures kill unborn babies because they are inconvenient; they are the wrong sex; the woman’s boyfriend (friend?) does not want to pay child support; or the mother is too young to raise a child (what about adoption) or to have her life “ruined.” (Apparently not too young to engage in sex, however.)

You say you are pro-choice but in all these latter instances the real choice was made when the couple decided to have sex with no thought for the possible consequences. Once that choice is made the other choice is merely to cover up the fact of a bad decision with another bad decision. Killing an innocent unborn child is an even more serious bad choice than the first one.

I would also like to comment on your calling the Arkansas law “extreme” because it bans abortions after “just 12 weeks of pregnancy.” By only six weeks of pregnancy any non-medical lay person could look at the fetus and tell it was a human baby and not, say, a calf or a puppy. Besides, at conception, at six weeks, at 12 weeks, 20 weeks or nine months this is still the same human person that he/she will be after birth.

I would like to ask that you stop thinking about you and what you would like and start considering what abortion really is – the killing of another human being.

Even “Roe” in Roe vs. wade has changed her mind about the rightness of abortion.

In another part of The Argus your managing editor laments the impending demise of Social Security because baby boomers are drawing out more than present wage earners are paying in. What if even half of the babies aborted since Roe vs. Wade were now wage-earning, job-generating consumers?

The economy would be better and the U.S. could support them if all of us already here were not trying to have it all. But, that is another topic.

I hope you will take time to consider my points and just throw this letter in the trash.



Victoria Palen

Milladore, Wis.

Formerly Caledonia, Minn.