Who gets to define 'pro-life'?

For the Monitor

Last modified: 1/29/2012 12:00:00 AM

When did being 'pro-life' become equal to being anti-abortion? That is certainly what is implied by the headline in the Jan. 24 Monitor, 'Pro-Life: The next generation.'



Asking young people who have no idea about this topic, and have no recollection of a time when abortion was illegal and women died, to attend anti-abortion rallies and marches is inappropriate.



No one in favor of giving women the option of having a safe and legal abortion is anti-life. And that 'life' the pro-lifers say they are protecting does not end after the child is born.



Where are these 'pro-lifers' then? These children may need food, medical care and housing that their parents are not able to provide. But few people care about that, until these overburdened families request assistance. Then many pro-lifers complain about increased taxes.



Less than 100 years ago, women sought abortions because they couldn't manage having more children (and women are not the only parties responsible for pregnancy; they are just the ones responsible for the children after pregnancy occurs!), contraception was severely restricted and sometimes did not work - but abortions were illegal, and many women died. Is that 'pro-life'?



Margaret Sanger said, 'A woman's body belongs to her alone. It does not belong to the United States of America or any other government on the face of the earth. . . . Enforced motherhood is the most complete denial of a woman's right to life and liberty.'



There is also the problem of overpopulation. Humanity is stressing this planet to the max. If people choose not to add to this burden, do we fault them for that? Is overpopulation 'pro-life'?



It is a sad day when people are afraid that women cannot make their own best choices.



KENDEL CURRIER



Wilmot





