While I have little interest in engaging in a media debate with anyone, I feel the need to respond to Kevin R. Hill's response (Forum, July 24) to my earlier letter that was printed in the Deseret News. He read much more into it than what was intended and used it as a vehicle to express his own conservative point of view.
As is frequently the case with that point of view, once you cut through the fluff, pontificating and rhetoric, there is not much substance (and certainly no real tangible alternative solutions to the issues raised in my letter).Mr. Hill assumes that because I am not inclined to give the pro-life movement the moral high ground, I must be conceding it to the pro-choice people. That is certainly not the case. They have just as many problems with their point of view as do the pro-lifers.
My message was that if you support a pro-life position, you are then obligated to support programs, government or otherwise, to care for a child after it is born to assure at least some opportunities for a decent and productive life.
Absent some viable alternatives from pro-lifers, the government will pay for these unwanted children, either on the front end, with some form of subsidy for them and their frequently unwilling parents, or on the back end, with more money for the criminal justice system, including more and bigger prisons, juvenile institutions and mental hospitals.
I prefer the front end, where there is at least some hope of some Helen Kellers surfacing. Having worked for more than 30 years in corrections in California, I know that the back-end solutions do not work.
If Mr. Hill can show me meaningful options, I will certainly listen. Also, if he is personally adopting those problem children, providing foster care for unwanted babies (frequently from crack-addicted mothers) or even contributing to an organization that supports poor children in the world, I will give him the moral high ground and more.
But sermons and rhetoric with vague allusions to the "indomitable human spirit" just don't help much. (From my experiences working in the inner cities, for every Helen Keller there are three Charlie Mansons.)
If the pro-life movement would direct some of the millions of dollars they now are spending to produce and run those slick ads in the media to fund programs for the babies that they insist be born, they would have greater credibility, clearly the moral high ground and, certainly, my support.
Albert G. Smith
Pleasant Grove