“Frightening” was my reaction to Chaleigh Craft's Sept. 17 column lamenting “Margaret Sanger's unhappy birthday.”
Since Roe v. Wade (1973) legalized abortion, the progressive, pro-choice movement has worked to prevent unborn children from obtaining legal standing. Abortion-rights advocates claim the unborn have no legal status.
Yet, there is no physiological difference between a pre-born and a newborn. Developmental differences, yes — physiological differences, no.
All of the biological components for a human exist in the unborn.
So why does a change in geography from inside the womb to outside the womb suddenly endow personhood?
In desensitizing ourselves to the death of the unborn, we desensitize ourselves to the deaths of the newborn. The recent trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of killing a woman and three newborns post-delivery during abortion procedures, demonstrates the slippery slope from abortion to infanticide and from infanticide to institutionalized genocide as a matter of public policy.
In the USA in 2010, there were more than 31,000 gun-related deaths but approximately 1.13 million abortions. And 55 percent of those abortions were performed on minorities. Yet, there are those that want to abolish citizens' Second Amendment rights with the justification “if only one life is saved.”
Margaret Sanger, who founded America's leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, would have agreed with Soviet dictator Joe Stalin: “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
David A. Scandrol
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.