A child, not a choice

Dear Editor:Ms. Vasquez talked a lot about her life, her body and her rights. What about the life, body and rights of the baby in the womb? ("Defending a Woman's Right to Choose," 9/6/12) Taking the life of an innocent human being is wrong. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong. The abortion issue really comes down to answering the question, "What is it?" If it is just a blob of tissue, who cares what you do with it. Any reason is good for taking it's life. But if it is a human being, no reason is good enough. The baby in the womb differs from a toddler or an adult in four ways: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these disqualifies the baby in the womb from being a human being. For example, Kareem Abdul Jabbar is much bigger than most gymnasts. Are gymnasts any less human beings because they are smaller? A five year old girl is less developed than a 30-year-old woman. Is the five year old any less a human being? As far as environment goes am I any less a human being whether I am in a submarine or on dry land? Is a baby any less a human being because it is still in the womb? Of course the baby in the womb is very dependent on his or her mother for survival. Is a person in a coma or in an ICU hooked up to machines any less a human being because it is dependent on people or machines for survival? The baby in the womb is smaller, less developed, in the womb and more dependent. None of these disqualify it from being a human being. You can't just say it is an embryo or a fetus. Those aren't species, they are stages of development. It is an embryo or a fetus of what? A human being. Planned Parenthood does not want their clients seeing an ultrasound because they know it will show the mother the life that is in her. When did you become you? If you really want to identify somebody you use their DNA. When was your DNA formed? At conception! All of the programming necessary to make you what you are was there at conception. Aren't we glad that our mothers did not abort our embryos? Is it OK to kill our children when they get too expensive? Is it OK to take the life of a child for the sin of the father? Is it OK to take the life of a child to make Mommy feel better? Is it OK to beat our children as long as it is in the privacy of our own homes? So why is abortion OK when we can't afford another child? Why is abortion OK in the case of rape? Why is abortion OK because of a woman's right to privacy? As you can see the issue boils down to "What is it?" It is a child not a choice. Russ Johnson Downey

Dear Editor: Regarding the editorial not entitled "Defending a Baby's Right to Choose," Ms. Vasquez wrote, "A baby is a very young child, one that is newly or recently born." I dare you to tell that to a mother who has had a miscarriage. Just as she doesn't know the definition of a baby, she doesn't know the definition of a committed relationship, which is marriage. Don't ask me to pay for someone to have sex outside of marriage. If you don't want your baby or you don't want to raise your children, give them up for adoption. El Bee Downey

Dear Editor: Tina Vasquez was right in one of her sentences about the American political landscape scaring "many of us into choosing a side, even when that side stopped serving our best interests a long time ago." The side she got scared into choosing did stop serving our best interests, and that is the left side. The left's propaganda machine has convinced her that she is a victim just because she's a woman. How sad! Ms. Vasquez states she will make less than her male colleagues "just by virtue of being born female." If she means unequal pay for equal jobs she needs to research the facts that all of the states have laws against this, especially here in California. She also needs to research how many doctors, lawyers, judges, CEOs, professors, scientists, business owners, politicians, aviators, actresses, nurses, teachers, principals, etc. are prosperous, hard-working women. The real "war on women" is the Democratic party's obsessive drive to support - with our tax dollars - abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy. Ms. Vasquez's line "I don't respect the dissemination of opinion as fact" is quite astounding in light of her whole two-column opinion article. Some scientific facts about human beings were summed up by a genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris, Dr. Jerome LeJeune, who stated, "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...this is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Ms. Vasquez's entire fifth paragraph describing what a baby is not defies all logic and displays ignorance about the development of a human being. To quote Lennart Nilsson, intrauterine photographer and author of the famous book "A Child is Born," speaking of the life of a pre-born child at 45 days after conception: "though the embryo now weighs only 1/30 of an ounce, it has all the internal organs of the adult in various stages of development. It already has a little mouth with lips, an early tongue and buds for 20 milk teeth. Its sex and reproductive organs have begun to sprout." By eight weeks the hands and feet are clearly formed and by nine weeks "a child will bend fingers around an object placed in the palm. Fingernails are forming and the child is sucking her thumb. At nine weeks "the unborn responds to stimulus and may already be capable of feeling pain." Surgical abortion stops a beating heart and stops already measurable brain waves. Fact. But for those who don't care about taking an "unseen" human life, consider the many harmful side effects on the mother who has aborted her child. There are more and more post-abortive women speaking out about their problems which include depression, anxiety, nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, aversion to sex, loss of intimacy, unexpected guilt, extramarital affairs, grief response, child abuse and neglect, increase in alcohol and drug abuse, not to mention post-abortion miscarriages and infertility. If one needs more proof that abortion harms women, look up these post-abortion support and recovery groups online: Victims of Choice, Project Rachel, Women of Ramah, American Victims of Abortion, Former Women of Choice, Silent NO More Awareness and Abortion Recovery International, to name a few. All of the women, and men, like Ms. Vasquez who have bought the deception that abortion is good for women should research the facts. Half the humans being put to death in the womb (and there's been over 51 million since Roe vs. Wade) are females. Our society's slogans "right to choose," "freedom of choice," when linked with death and destruction are euphemisms from hell, intended to disguise the fact that abortion is truly the sneaky, ultimate weapon in the real "war on women." Patti Sharpe Director 40 Days for Life/Downey

Dear Editor: How strange that Tina Vasquez would choose to use labels to identify herself: liberal, Democrat, Latina and female. I choose not to see her through such labels but rather by whom she is, the choices she makes and how she presents herself to the world. She states so many disadvantages to being a female, where I see so many advantages. Many would argue women are the better sex; they can carry a life within themselves, what an amazing thing that is. No man gets to do that. I have spoken with a number of women who believe they are at a disadvantage and they want to be more like a man. Many become mothers and participate in raising our future generations. I do not see it as being saddled with a majority of domestic and caretaking responsibilities. I do believe you have a choice in what role you want to take in your life and what role you want to take in your own family if you decide to have one. In regards to abortion, it's a very divisive issue for many, even religious for some. Ms. Vasquez believes that life does not start until after birth and she states that the neocortex does not even form until after the third trimester. So based upon what she believes, when does life start? Is it her opinion life begins after the third trimester (starting the seventh month of pregnancy)? Some babies have survived premature births 4-5 weeks before this. I guess they were alive and a baby (not an embryo) at week 23. I don't pretend to know when life starts. I choose to side with the baby; they did not choose to get pregnant. Because I don't know when life starts, nor does anyone else, I choose after conception. Before that it's pretty obvious there is no life, after that it's not so clear. Ms. Vasquez speaks a lot about what is fair to her and how unfair it is that others (men) make decisions for you. How easy it is for her to make a choice about an unborn child. Now my belief is a little different than others. I do believe that in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life, a mother should be able to choose. I believe this because the mother had no choice. Having a child is an amazing thing, and too many people use abortion as failsafe birth control. I am a full believer in taking responsibility for your actions - having intercourse can produce a baby. If you are not prepared to be a parent, don't get pregnant. It is a choice and a risk depending on choices you make. The choice you want and advocate for, you already have, and it's the choice to engage or not engage in activities that can lead to pregnancy. What Ms. Vasquez really wants is no responsibility for her actions. Her choice would be to allow women to impose their will to kill a child before it is born because they don't want their lives inconvenienced. I agree with choice, but not the same choice she wants. Edwin Huber Downey

Dear Editor: I am amazed at people's capacity to rationalize even the gravest of sins. I have one burning question for Tina: is she glad she wasn't aborted? Kevin Myers Downey

Dear Editor: First, I would like to point out that I am a woman. I have the same reproductive parts as Tina Vasquez but a very different viewpoint about them. Vasquez stated that abortions do not "kill babies because medically speaking, we're not even talking about a human being." Medically speaking, we are talking about an entity with 46 chromosomes. Medically, speaking, we are talking about something with human DNA. Yes, this embryo cannot speak, cannot feel, cannot live outside of the mother's womb, and does not have the use of all of the organs - in other words, the embryo is not conscious, the embryo cannot feel you killing it. However, let's look at a person who is in a coma. She cannot speak, cannot live away from machines that prolong life, does not have the use of most organs, and is not conscious. Should we kill this comatose individual? The pain wouldn't be felt. Why not? She has the same symptoms as a human embryo that people kill because it is convenient for them; because they don't want to deal with another human being. The answer is that neither should be killed. They are both life. Why is an embryo life? I will tell you. The Mars rover landed a few weeks ago and is roaming around the planet taking samples and testing substances. Now if there were a single living cell on that entire planet there is no doubt in my mind that scientists would be screaming at the top of their lungs, "We found life!" Why is that not the same for human beings? I'm a Christian. I believe that life starts at conception. I believe in Jeremiah 1:5 where it says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." But Vasquez states that "religious beliefs should play no part in law." To this I say look at your country's laws. Look at the Constitution, at the Bill of Rights, at the Declaration of Independence. When our wise Founding Fathers wrote these documents, religion was the main foundation in our laws. Morality had to have come from somewhere. Without religion, what laws would we have? Great evidence exists on the importance of religion in our justice and governmental system but that's an argument for another time. Finally, Vasquez's statement of "unspeakable cruelty of forcing a woman to have a child that she not only doesn't want, but isn't prepared to care for financially, emotionally or otherwise" is the last point on my pro-life list. Cruelty? You're killing an innocent life. If you do not have the resources to care for the child then give her up for adoption. My older brother and older sister are adopted. Their parents could not care for them so they did the responsible and humane thing and gave them to a family that would. Had they been aborted I would not be planning a beautiful wedding for my older sister, and I would be without one protective older brother. They wouldn't be here. I don't think pro-choice individuals are looking at the big picture when they decide to abort a child. They don't look at the possibilities that are being scraped away. All anyone ever looks at is the convenience for the mother. Well you aren't the only human being concerned anymore. You should not have the right to kill a human whether it is in the outside world or inside you. This discussuion isn't about women's rights and men making decisions for them. This isn't about gender discrimination and how men make more money than women. This isn't about women's reproductive rights either. This is about human rights and the right to live. Heather Adamson Downey

********** Published: September 13, 2012 - Volume 11 - Issue 22