Rhetoric in the Abortion Debate

This month's political issue attracted a great number of letters from our readers - mostly angry letters from anti-abortionists who believed that the article was unfairly biased against their group. In fact, Rhetoric in the Abortion Debate angered so many of you for this reason alone that it took us hours to sift through the dozens of letters we received explaining why abortion ought to be banned. Unfortunately, we could not publish all letters, but here is a sample among those relevant to the article.

Name: Chris
I live in:
Comments: In response to your abortion article, I offer this:

• Pro-life is a term that should only be applied to the issue of abortion.
• Pro-Life has been the term used since the beginning on the debate, such as Pro-Choice. People identify themselves & others by it & would rather keep it that way. Changing it to sound more realistic is non-liberal, & most Pro-Choice people are liberal.
• The unjustified killing through abortion decreases the value of all life, human & non-human.

Name: Donna
I live in: Arizona
Comments: I find it funny also that people who are pro-choice are usually into animal rights. They seem to think it more important to save the whales or bald eagle(even if it is still in the egg), then to protect unborn humans.

Name: Roxie
I live in: California
Comments: I have my own 'Soapbox' at Geocities and my response to your abortion debate can best be found there: http:www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8253/unborn.html

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that all pro-life people are out to kill off animals! That would be almost as bad as saying that all pro-choice people believe in every kind of abortion. That just isn't so. What I feel is that we (as a nation) are lessining the value on human life to the point that it has no value left what so ever. Most pro-life people would agree that if the life of the mother were at stake an abortion should be an option. But it should not be used as birth-control or paid for by tax dollars. People need to get back to being responsible for their actions. Sorry, didn't mean to run on. Drop by my site if you get a minute. R. Sewell

Name: Kurt
I live in: ON Earth
Comments: Since you took "Pro-Life" and extended it to include ALL life, it puzzles me as to why you did not do the same to "Pro-Choice" Is the "Pro Choice" movement for "Choice" in ALL things? If I CHOOSE to, can I stand naked in front of your children? Please allow the logic to be applied to both sides. The argument becomes hypocritical otherwise.

Name: Bran Holley
I live in: Utah, U.S.A.
Comments: One point that I wanted to make was that belief in capital punishment can still get the label Pro-Life. If one is truly for life he would support eliminating killers. Also, if pro-choice is so important, thaen where is our choice as to wether we want to wear a seat belt or not? Is it more important for a women to have a choice to destroy human life(wich she only co-created, by the way) than it is for me to have a choice as to wether or not I wear a seat-belt, or pay income taxes?

Name: J
I live in: Ottawa
Comments: You speak the truth.

Name: Tom Shepard
I live in: Houston, TX
Comments: It's what I've seen over & over from the "pro-choice" side of this debate. How ironic for the pro-abortion (& that's what they are) side to condemn the pro-life side for using the same word in its title. Let's understand this...there are 2 sides to this debate. Period! Pick a side & fight for it. Stick to it. Give it what you can. I think the term "pro-life" CAN be qualified because the issue is specifically about abortion of human life in the mother's womb. And this choice thing: the father has a choice just as much as the mother. The woman DOES NOT have the right to assume total control of this situation! Abortion is morally wrong. Thank you.

Referendum Day: October 30, 1995

Name: Ron
I live in: Winnipeg now
Comments: I DID NOT WANT TO LIVE IN QUEBEC ANYMORE!

Name: jcamden@tribune.com
I live in: Chicago, IL USA
Comments: Not being Canadian, I am not sure from reading your piece whether or not you are Federalists. Is that the right term? It seems as though you are. Is Preston Manning active on the Quebec issue or is he mainly oriented towards Western Canada? I hear Bill Gates is indirectly fostering separist sentiment in British Columbia by supporting the Cascadian Institute. I believe it is leading towards the concept that the western parts of Canada and the United States have more in common with each other than they do with the eastern portions of their respective countries. Any insights to these types of issues would be appreciated. Happy New Year.

The Cure for Divorce

Name: Maurice
I live in: Maryland
Comments: Love is not real any more. love is used for self gain.I do agree w/you mostly but if we rid the personal gain there would be less marriges to begin with.For example if everyone had a job it would keep people togatherlonger. I know that townwide jobs are hard much less nationwide. There are other ways too like higher penalty for divorce like loss of a hand or more extreme measurres(use your immagination).Ever read the book anthem its a great book with a few ideas about the children aspect if not life its self. my mind is full of ideas but w/o the power its usless.

Name: Cle3AD@aol.com
I live in: Dallas
Comments: Ideas about Divorces from a single man:

When one spouse wanted imagine power, one fights. When politicians perferred moneys, they use the spies to devide fortunes and to waste times of foreigners, to easy compete before and after divorces.

Name: Divorce courts mean big bucks!
I live in: Sin City USA
Comments: There is an answer and that answer is God. Marriage vows usually include "until DEATH do us part". It doesn't say until he doesn't work or pay the bills (as cruel as that may sound) or until she doesn't do the laundry or clean the house-------it says until DEATH do us part! Ann Landers recently congratulated a female for leaving her husband because he did "too" much for his mother! What book has she been reading? There is no God at home--which is where it should start--no God in the schools--and no God in business. Where does that leave us---in the divorce courts.