Pro-lifers face abuse, criticism

Dear editor: Being clever and possessing good writing skills are not productive talents when sound logic and moral clarity are absent. Vitriolic hyperbole and namecalling don’t do much to bolster an argument either. On the contrary, resorting to them are clear indications that sound arguments are lacking.

Such is the case with H. Herd’s letter to the editor castigating pro-lifers for using their mobile billboard to educate society on the humanity of the unborn, and possibly save some lives in the process.

First, what’s so “horrific” about a baby in the womb at 12 weeks’ gestation? They’re helpless, defenseless, innocent babies, the farthest thing from “horrific” one can imagine. I can understand using the word to describe the dismembering of these children with abortion, but not the living child shown on the truck.

Second, showing a picture of an unborn child is “bigoted harassment”. Please. Perhaps Herd ought to drive around in the truck with us for an afternoon, then he/she will get a taste of what real harassment is. Getting sworn at, spit at, threatened and called every name in the bad book are harassment, not showing a truth that might trigger someone’s guilt (which, by the way, is rooted in past choices they’ve made, not the message presented).

Third, Herd posits that pro-lifers should be held financially responsibility for the babies they save from abortion. Totally absurd.

Should he who saves the life of a child in a car accident be required to pay for their care after? Should she who finds a cure for childhood cancer be held financially responsible for all the children who would have otherwise died?

Honestly, the shallow thought process given to some of these pro-abortion claims is astonishing.

Finally, Herd rattles off a whole host of situations he/she deems sufficient reasons for ending the life of a child in the womb.They are all difficult circumstances, no doubt about it, but ask yourself this: would any of these make killing a newborn child excusable? I assume all of us, including Herd, would say no, of course not. So the question then becomes, are children in the womb of equal value as those newborns, i.e. are they “people” with the right to life?

Herein lies the most important challenge for abortion apologists: prove — don’t just assume — the pre-born are not persons. For if they are not human persons, no justification for abortion is necessary; but if they are, no justification is sufficient. Marlon Bartram Kelowna Right to Life Society