Pro-life perspective on choices

To the editor:

I remember back in the 1960s when a bunch of liberal white women heard about the Malthusian theory that stated the world would become so overpopulated that mankind would end. Their answer — free abortion on demand, especially those that they considered lesser than themselves. That way they and their offspring would not have to compete for scarce resources in order to survive.

The question has never really been pro choice. There has always been a lot of choices. When a woman drops her drawers to have sex with a man, that is a choice. When a woman has health coverage, public or private, she has the choice of taking birth control pills. She also has the choice of having her tubes tied to prevent pregnancies, and that can be reversed at a later date, if she wants to have children. When a woman doesn’t make sure her sex partner is wearing a condom during sex, that is a choice.

Has the liberal establishment convinced all American women that they are so weak minded that they can’t be trusted to make any of the above choices? That is a strong statement to make about the modern American woman who is fully capable of making the right choices for herself and her reproductive health.

Back in the old days when an unmarried woman became pregnant she had two choices, marry her partner or carry the baby to full term and give the child up for adoption. That would be the most loving choice a woman could make for a child that didn’t have any choice in its conception.

American married couples who have medical problems with conceiving children often have to adopt children from foreign countries because adoption rules in the US are costly and so time consuming that they turn to other strategies to express their desire to raise and love a child of their own. We are commanded to love the children, not kill them.

Larry Grieshop,