To the editor:
Sometimes it seems very hard to defend the pro-life position in the abortion debate. Not because of lack of merit in the pro-life position. Rather it is because there is so little merit in the opposing point of view that arguing against it seems rather silly.How do you answer the transparently convenient argument that people are not alive before birth when the very act of abortion argues otherwise? If they were not alive, would an abortion be needed to kill them and stop their development?
How does one argue that the idea of killing someone simply because they are unwanted is immoral and criminally insensitive without feeling foolish at pointing out the obvious?
How can one say that the use of a society's funds in the defense of the very lives of its most vulnerable and innocent members is the most proper use of those funds without feeling baffled at some of the ostensibly better uses that are suggested?
I wonder how much money was expended in reversing the Supreme Court ruling that said in effect that people of African descent were less than human and had no rights. Was it too much? Would Ms. Parrish of the ACLU have objected to that expense?
David Young
Sandy