A game of semantics

The “semantics game” continues. In his recent letter, Sam Emerson states that he is “pro-choice” but that doesn’t mean he is “pro-abortion.” What does it mean, then? What is the “choice” that is at stake in the meaning of “pro-choice”? Is it not the choice to abort a preborn human life for whatever reason the mother of the child wants—which is what currently is legal in our country? Is that not, in effect, promoting and advocating abortion? It certainly is not promoting or defending the life of the unborn child. Nor is it condemning abortion.

The words “pro-choice” have a seemingly palatable, friendly aura— almost with patriotic, goodwill overtones. But the words really translate as “pro-choice to kill the preborn child” or “Pro-abortion.” “Pro-choice” advocates view this position as a fundamental right of a pregnant woman to terminate the life within her and totally deny the inherent dignity and right to life of the preborn child.

No, Mr. Emerson, the paper’s editorial which incited your anger and caused you to label it as resembling “yellow journalism” spoke the objective truth. Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in America in 1973, over 60 million innocent unborn lives have been terminated in our country alone. The ramifications are profoundly sobering … morally, economically, demographically, socially and psychologically. MARY SPOND

Sherwood