To the editors:
Hey, you guys, I'm shocked!
Can it be that a relatively progressive paper such as the Reader would actually publish an article that does not discuss the Pro-Life movement in purely pejorative terms? Deanna Silberman's article on AUL (August 2) was quite a surprise. As a well-educated young female of no particular religious orientation I was pleased to see acknowledgement given to the fact that the Pro-Life movement does not consist of irrational male holy-rollers, as the Pro-Choice movement would have the public believe. Thank you for publishing that oft overlooked piece of information.
Also, more specifically, isn't it ironic that NARAL's Patricia L. Dougherty would take issue with the way late-term abortions are portrayed by abortion critics? She claims "only a tiny proportion--less than 1 percent" are over 20 weeks gestation. I would like to point out two things to her: (1) One percent of the approximately 1.5 million abortions performed annually in the U.S. does amount to a significant number. (2) If she would like to discuss problems with focusing on small percentages, how about the way pro-abortion forces love to hide behind the "rape or incest" justification for an abortion. In fact, rape or incest (and, by the way, when is incest not rape?) make up only a "tiny proportion" of reasons for an abortion. They are emotionally charged words that Pro-Choice people quite frequently fall back on.
Ultimately, the saddest part of the whole abortion issue is that non-abortive means of birth control do exist. It is the misuse or non-use of such methods that all too often leads to an abortion.